(The popular answer is "to tank," but I don't think most people enjoy standing around getting punched so someone else can play D&D)I would!
I've always liked to play tanky/supporting roles.
I like tanky bards. My current samurai does decent damage - but he's more about AC, resolve giving him the equivilent of decent saves, and shaking/antagonizing his foes.
My MMO characters are usually tanks (though it's been awhile). Heck - in LoL - my favorite champion is probably Taric. (for those of you who get the reference)
Some of us actually do LIKE to be the guy who doesn't get the killing blows/glory but is nonetheless the backbone of the party.
I am the same way, and sometimes when I just want to play, but I dont want to do any book keeping I just playing a character based on hitting things hard, and I don't consider it as "not playing D&D".
It is not like the RP'ing is somehow diminished so I dont know what that other poster was talking about.
Hitting things hard =/= standing around getting hit. I agree, smashing stuff is awesome! Barbarian is my second favorite character class.
We were talking about a hypothetical scenario in which the rogue was modified to have damage output greater than fighter-type characters "when played well." I was arguing that this doesn't seem good.
|
(The popular answer is "to tank," but I don't think most people enjoy standing around getting punched so someone else can play D&D)I would!
I've always liked to play tanky/supporting roles.
I like tanky bards. My current samurai does decent damage - but he's more about AC, resolve giving him the equivilent of decent saves, and shaking/antagonizing his foes.
My MMO characters are usually tanks (though it's been awhile). Heck - in LoL - my favorite champion is probably Taric. (for those of you who get the reference)
Some of us actually do LIKE to be the guy who doesn't get the killing blows/glory but is nonetheless the backbone of the party.
I am the same way, and sometimes when I just want to play, but I dont want to do any book keeping I just playing a character based on hitting things hard, and I don't consider it as "not playing D&D".
It is not like the RP'ing is somehow diminished so I dont know what that other poster was talking about.
I think you misunderstood my post entirely. It's not that I don't like to do manuvers etc - I actually prefer being hard to kill than to kill my foe faster. And I like doing so in such a way as to protect the rest of my party.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would it be overpowered if Rogues gained the following:
Considered as having Int 13 for combat maneuver feats
Combat Expertise as a bonus feat at level 1
No, and it would have little to no impact on them. Rogues are already so bad at combat maneuvers that it would just be a trap to encourage people who didn't know the game very well to try and build their rogues with the intent of using combat maneuvers as a tactic, only to be horrible disappointed later.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
(The popular answer is "to tank," but I don't think most people enjoy standing around getting punched so someone else can play D&D)I would!
I've always liked to play tanky/supporting roles.
I like tanky bards. My current samurai does decent damage - but he's more about AC, resolve giving him the equivilent of decent saves, and shaking/antagonizing his foes.
My MMO characters are usually tanks (though it's been awhile). Heck - in LoL - my favorite champion is probably Taric. (for those of you who get the reference)
Some of us actually do LIKE to be the guy who doesn't get the killing blows/glory but is nonetheless the backbone of the party.
I am the same way, and sometimes when I just want to play, but I dont want to do any book keeping I just playing a character based on hitting things hard, and I don't consider it as "not playing D&D".
It is not like the RP'ing is somehow diminished so I dont know what that other poster was talking about.Hitting things hard =/= standing around getting hit. I agree, smashing stuff is awesome! Barbarian is my second favorite character class.
We were talking about a hypothetical scenario in which the rogue was modified to have damage output greater than fighter-type characters "when played well." I was arguing that this doesn't seem good.
I'd like to take a moment to say that I actually agree with your post a few back where you talk about class design and make a few suggestions for how to improve the rogue (the sneak attack thing was similar in some ways, notably the accuracy boost that I've gone with in my rogue revision even). However...
Hitting things hard DOES EQUAL standing around and getting hit. That is the unfortunate reality of a rogue or anyone else that wants to get into melee to do their damage. If you aren't striking like a wet noodle you are generating "aggro". Not "My ability generates extra aggro vs the AI" aggro, but instead the "MURDER THAT HEALER NOW!" aggro that you see in PvP. It's the kind of "real aggro" that happens when you make yourself a high priority target.
Many rogues die every day because of sneak attack. It works like this.
1. Rogue moves up to engage an enemy, seeing an opportunity to flank. Rogue rolls decently and lands a hit for X + Y damage. The damage is decent, like a front-liner, making the creature aware of the rogue's threat.
2. The creature proceeds to full-attack the rogue. Due to the rogue's poor AC and mediocre HP, the rogue falls down bleeding, because even though 1d6 + 3d6 damage was nice, the trolls 1d8+3d6+22 was better.
Hitting things hard DOES EQUAL standing around and getting hit. That is the unfortunate reality of a rogue or anyone else that wants to get into melee to do their damage. If you aren't striking like a wet noodle you are generating "aggro"....
Ooh, agree. Sorry, wasn't precise.
Wanting to smash things is different than wanting to have lots of HP and a really high Armor Class. Some players like sitting behind a wall of steel and mettle ( ;p ) as their enemies clatter away at them. Most want to crush face and invest resources in defense only insofar as is necessary to keep on jamming. From a player motivation standpoint, DPS and Tank are not the same.
(I'm a little frustrated that was such a difficult idea to communicate. this is pretty well known, right? Maybe it was that I was quoted out of context and this obfuscated my meaning and derailed the discussion?)
You're also absolutely right that to deal damage is to invite damage, and often requires you to put yourself in a position to take damage. That's one of the core ideas I'm trying to get across to the MAD-TWF build camp. If the build doesn't account for incoming attacks, it's going to fail. If there isn't room to account for it, then it's not viable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both go hand in hand though. If you hit like a wet noodle but are built like a fortress, you are ignored. If you hit like a mac truck but are made of glass, you are dead. Neither is a desirable outcome for either a damage dealer (dead or CC'd means no damage) or a tank (if you're not drawing attacks, you need to be able to do something else besides survive longer).
You remarked that you don't seem to allow one to be a hybrid of the two. At least, this is what I gathered from your being okay with AM BARBARIANs but barring defensive options for them (which I think is about as back-asswards as it can get but to each their own), so I'm admittedly cautious from the get-go with most of what you're putting out there.
I also didn't pull your text out of context. You said hitting hard doesn't equal being able to take a hit, in regards to rogues being able to outdamage martials in a subset of situations. I'm calling BS on that because the two are intrinsically linked.
As it is, rogues don't hit harder but die easier. In fact they hit horribly and die easier unless you set up the ball to hit at a mediocre level while dying much easier. It's not rocket science to think that actually setting up your sneak attack should be worth it and as it is, it isn't. It just isn't worth it. >_>
I too am of the belief that rogues should be capable of dealing specialized high-burst damage as a tradeoff for all that they lose. They are a caster without spells who cannot contribute outside of being a martial without martial skill. There is a hive of bugs at the rogue's very core that are eating this class apart.
...
Most of that is wrong or doesn't pertain to what I am saying. Also, it was not you who quoted me out of context, but I believe that you're taking issue with something you read that was quoted out of context. Let me start over:
Regarding character roles and player's motivation for choosing them, some players want their characters to do lots of damage. Some want their character to be sneaky. Some want to be tough.
The desire to be hard to hit is not the same thing as the desire to do lots of damage.
That's it. There's nothing else that I said about this or its relationship to anything.
Someone rightly noted that the two functions (although not the player's desires) are related in that when you deal damage you become a target. I agreed, and pointed out that this disparity in what the player wants and what the player needs is a big part of why the rogue doesn't work the way players want it to.
*Just to clarify to, I mean that the desire to play a character that is tough and wanting to play a character that can hit hard are not the same thing. One may necessitate playing a character that can do the other, and they may be closely related, but the two are not interchangeable or equivalent. They are not literally the same thing, exactly equivalent to one another in all ways and absolutely and always co-occurring. If you want to argue about that, you can do so without me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough. Seems a misunderstanding. :)
I agreed, and pointed out that this disparity in what the player wants and what the player needs is a big part of why the rogue doesn't work the way players want it to.
That and that players want one thing, need another thing, and the rogue delivers neither.
Fair enough. Seems a misunderstanding. :)
I agreed, and pointed out that this disparity in what the player wants and what the player needs is a big part of why the rogue doesn't work the way players want it to.That and that players want one thing, need another thing, and the rogue delivers neither.
... and so is perhaps not the right class for them. Agree! They should probably play a duelist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... and so is perhaps not the right class for them. Agree! They should probably play a duelist.Fair enough. Seems a misunderstanding. :)
I agreed, and pointed out that this disparity in what the player wants and what the player needs is a big part of why the rogue doesn't work the way players want it to.That and that players want one thing, need another thing, and the rogue delivers neither.
Do you mean the bad prestige class? EDIT: The duelist is pretty much the same. It gives players neither what they want nor what they need. Good classes tend to give both.
Do you mean the bad prestige class?... and so is perhaps not the right class for them. Agree! They should probably play a duelist.Fair enough. Seems a misunderstanding. :)
I agreed, and pointed out that this disparity in what the player wants and what the player needs is a big part of why the rogue doesn't work the way players want it to.That and that players want one thing, need another thing, and the rogue delivers neither.
lol
I mean a character that approximates the archetypal duelist. Do you want to argue semantics, now?
Roguish Sneak Attack::
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she strikes more surely, and may target a vital spot for extra damage.
The rogue's attack gains a bonus to hit and deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. The bonus to hit is equal to one half the number of sneak attack die she would roll, minimum 1. This bonus applies to combat maneuvers, but combat maneuvers don't deal sneak attack damage unless they deal hit point damage. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
Roguish Sneak Attack is modified by feats or abilities that modify Sneak Attack and counts as Sneak Attack for meeting any requirements or prerequisites.
Rogue Talents::Athletic- A rogue with this talent may use Acrobatics in place of Climb and Swim for skill checks.
Blind Side- If a rogue with this talent would make a ranged attack or an attack with a reach weapon against a target who threatens an ally that grants the target partial cover, that rogue may choose to take a -2 penalty on all attacks for the round to treat that target as flanked.Canny- A rogue with this talent may use Perception in place of Heal and Survival for skill checks.
Greater Magic- A rogue with this talent gains the ability to cast a 2nd-level spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list once per day as a spell-like ability. The caster level for this ability is equal to the rogue's level. The save DC for this spell is 12 + the rogue's Intelligence modifier. A rogue must have Minor Magic, Major Magic, and an intelligence of as least 12 to take this talent.
*You may gain additional uses of this ability with the Elf alternate favored class bonus, but you can't gain more additional uses for Greater Magic than you have for Major Magic. You may use the Bookish Rogue feat to replace your spell known as with Minor Magic.
Pointed Defense- A rogue with this talent may, when taking the full defense action, make a single attack with a light melee weapon at a -4 penalty, applying only half his strength modifier to damage.
Savvy- A rogue with this talent may use Bluff in place of Disguise and Intimidate for skill checks (she must still use a disguise kit or take penalties for improvising equipment, as normal).
Tricky- A rogue with this talent may use Stealth in place of Escape Artist and Sleight of Hand for skill checks.
Worldly- A rogue with this talent may use Knowledge (local) in place of Knowledge (geography) and Knowledge (nobility and royalty) for skill checks, and may make those checks as if she were trained.
I'm really more interested to know if you think this adequately shores up the weaknesses you guys perceive in the class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well when we're commenting on class and told to play a different thing, one might assume we're talking about playing a different class. I can play a "duelist" with everything from a barbarian to a wizard, so I don't see how that means anything.
Now whether or not I'm actually worth having along on an adventure is drastically different. If I want to do roguish things, and I want to do well in game, the rogue class provides neither of these things. I see that as a major problem. As you noted, sometimes you just want to deal a lot of damage and sometimes you want to be a tank, but in both cases you need to be more than that. Unfortunately, again, if you want to do damage with a rogue you're a failure out of the gate and you also can't tank, which means it gives you neither what you want nor what you need.
In both cases you'd be better off as a ranger. I think you're already arguing semantics, I just can't for the life of me figure out why.
That's a difficult thing to quantify, and I don't think you've supported that claim sufficiently to make it as a side note.
It is not difficult to quantify, at all. What does the rogue have to make it good at skills? Lots of ranks. A +3 from class skills. Thats it. The bard effectively has more class skills, and the investigator has +3 from class skills and their floating d6.
It's not especially important, though. While I don't agree with your assertion, I can comfortably concede to it for the sake of argument. If there are two classes in the game that are better than this one, that doesn't mean this one is under-powered.
The rogue is barely better than other classes at skills. It doesn't have any class abilities that actually let it be good at skills. It's very easy for a druid, barbarian, or hell, even lore warden fighter to match most of the skills that a rogue is going to use.
That's a difficult thing to quantify, and I don't think you've supported that claim sufficiently to make it as a side note.It is not difficult to quantify, at all. What does the rogue have to make it good at skills? Lots of ranks. A +3 from class skills. Thats it. The bard effectively has more class skills, and the investigator has +3 from class skills and their floating d6.
It's not especially important, though. While I don't agree with your assertion, I can comfortably concede to it for the sake of argument. If there are two classes in the game that are better than this one, that doesn't mean this one is under-powered.The rogue is barely better than other classes at skills. It doesn't have any class abilities that actually let it be good at skills. It's very easy for a druid, barbarian, or hell, even lore warden fighter to match most of the skills that a rogue is going to use.
... and you don't think there is any value to having a wide range of skills? What about abilities that, while not directly increasing your success rate with skills make you more effective at overcoming challenges pertaining to those skills (I'm looking specifically at evasion and trapsense, here, and I'm assuming we're ignoring trapfinding because trap DCs are so low that I usually take 10, and not because ignoring it is convenient for your argument).
You can't look at skill modifiers in a vacuum. You've gotta' consider the criteria for success an the synergy between skills and abilities. You don't need a +4 bonus from your class if you already make the DC when you roll a 1. At that point, you need more skill points so you can get more trained skills with that +3 class bonus.
But before we get too much further into this, what do you mean by "good at skills?"
I'll uncharacteristically offer my own opinion on what "good at skills" ought to mean. I think it means you have the skills to frequently succeed at overcoming obstacles while minimizing expended resources by means of making skill checks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Short answer: No.
Long Answer: ... *inhales*
As I noted in a previous post, I agree with some of the direction you're going with the SA revision. Unfortunately I cannot get on board with it completely because it doesn't do enough. It still has most of the drawbacks that a rogue normally does but it still doesn't meet the power of a real martial. Martials in Pathfinder have a lot more than just their BAB when it comes to hitting stuff. The best you're doing here is giving them an unmodified attack routine without the benefit of extra attacks and then only when they're using Sneak Attack, whereas a rival such as a Ranger is wrecking everything 100% of the time, hitting more often as well (because every core martial has in-house methods of going above and beyond a 1:1 BAB).
Most of the talents you posted are either useless, aren't worth expending a class level-based resource (talents), or actively work against the rogue's only advantage (reducing the value of its skill points) and in some cases don't work, such as with Pointed Defense (doesn't work, you don't threaten). The magic talents are bad and should feel bad (only being worthwhile insofar as being able to qualify for item creation feats).
Blind-side was cool though. Props. Unfortunately the wording needs to be cleaned up because "flanked" is not a condition, and the rogue is not "flanking" (or does the rogue actually get no modifier since they take a -2 for using blind side but a +2 from flanking?). I like the idea though. Unfortunately it still doesn't actually help the rogue be a rogue so much as it makes them a better phalanx fighter (it's pretty harsh for archery rogues since its a -2 on top of the -4 for firing into melee and +4 to the AC for the soft cover, which means you need to have Improved Precise Shot for it to be anywhere in the realm of reliable hitting).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But before we get too much further into this, what do you mean by "good at skills?"
Some examples.
The Ranger gets +1/2 level to Survival checks to track. This means that the Ranger never actually needs to invest in Survival to be good at it, and if he does, he's going to be amazing at it (being +50% more successful to it than someone with similar investments).
Bards get +1/2 level to all Knowledge skills and can make checks untrained, which means they can be competent without ever investing points into those skills at all, and if they do, the amount of investment needed to be great is minimal, and if they actually bother to invest strongly in them, they are at the top of their class.
Bards get to substitute skills for other skills and it doesn't cost them any major resources. I think this is what you were going for with the rogue talents like Canny but bards just get better at it (as opposed to repeatedly spending resources on skills that diminish in value). It's a minor feature of the bard, whereas the talent-path you were paving was going to end up being a major investment for a "skill rogue".
Bards have in-class methods of improving and supporting their skills beyond ranks and such (spells). A bard can hide in the open desert with blur, while a Ranger cannot be tracked due pass without trace.
Bards also get the ability to make all kinds of checks untrained, be trained in everything, and evetually get "Skill Mastery [Everything]".
All rogues have going for them is +2 skill points / level. Yet the funny thing about skills is they have diminishing returns. Due to the way most skills scale, you definitely want a few skills topped off (Bluff, Perception, Sense Motive, and Stealth spring to mind, and probably Spellcraft) but beyond that excess skill points are just filler tossed into rarely used things (most of which can be replaced with any +2 Int item).
...** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Short answer: No.
Long Answer: ... *inhales*
As I noted in a previous post, I agree with some of the direction you're going with the SA revision. Unfortunately I cannot get on board with it completely because it doesn't do enough. It still has most of the drawbacks that a rogue normally does but it still doesn't meet the power of a real martial. Martials in Pathfinder have a lot more than just their BAB when it comes to hitting stuff. The best you're doing here is giving them an unmodified attack routine without the benefit of extra attacks and then only when they're using Sneak Attack, whereas a rival such as a Ranger is wrecking everything 100% of the time, hitting more often as well (because every core martial has in-house methods of going above and beyond a 1:1 BAB).
Most of the talents you posted are either useless, aren't worth expending a class level-based resource (talents), or actively work against the rogue's only advantage (reducing the value of its skill points) and in some cases don't work, such as with Pointed Defense (doesn't work, you don't threaten). The magic talents are bad and should feel bad (only being worthwhile insofar as being able to qualify for item creation feats).
Blind-side was cool though. Props. Unfortunately the wording needs to be cleaned up because "flanked" is not a condition, and the rogue is not "flanking" (or does the rogue actually get no modifier since they take a -2 for using blind side but a +2 from flanking?). I like the idea though. Unfortunately it still doesn't actually help the rogue be a rogue so much as it makes them a better phalanx fighter (it's pretty harsh for archery rogues since its a -2 on top of the -4 for firing into melee and +4 to the AC for the soft cover, which means you need to have Improved Precise Shot for it to be anywhere in the realm of reliable hitting).
Thanks for the notes, I'll make those changes in the future. Aside from quibbles over wording:
A rogue isn't a martial character. He shouldn't be as good at fighting as a character that gets proficiency with all martial weapons. That's not a problem with the class.
I take it you aren't in the "bards are better because versatile performance" camp?
(Magical talents are _mostly_ bad! vanish is basically the same as major magic, and getting a ranged touch attack against a flat-footed opponent can be pretty funny, but I agree, mostly bad. I'm just confused as to why they stop at level 1 spells when the template is so easy and so many players like the ability.)
Archery rogues have precise shot, and the penalty is negated by the bonus, and roguish sneak attack lets them fire away at full BAB. It might be that the penalty is too high. I'm not sure what the appropriate trade-off would be without some play-testing. In my experienced, archery-rogues with good initiative are pretty scary on rounds 0-1, so I'm reluctant to lump on the perks here, too much.
... and you don't think there is any value to having a wide range of skills?
There is some value but its definitely diminishing returns.
What about abilities that, while not directly increasing your success rate with skills make you more effective at overcoming challenges pertaining to those skills (I'm looking specifically at evasion and trapsense, here)
Trap sense can be replaced by, at best, moving at half speed and looking. (An even more lenient interpretation it can be replaced by the player wearing a sign around their neck that says "I am looking for traps) . Evasion as far as traps goes can be replaced by a 750 gp wand of CLW.
and I'm assuming we're ignoring trapfinding because trap DCs are so low that I usually take 10, and not because ignoring it is convenient for your argument).
Trapfinding is just a very minor bonus to the skill. The traps with high DC's to spot have a big glowing "I AM HERE" sign painted onto them thanks to detect magic. You can get a better version of trapfinding than a 10th level rogue for 2,500 gp by buying eyes of the eagle (because it also spots ambushes)
You can't look at skill modifiers in a vacuum.
I can because it IS a vacuum. A vast, deep, empty well of nothingness where the rogues alleged depth and ability should be.
At that point, you need more skill points so you can get more trained skills with that +3 class bonus.
Which you can do a level or two later with any class with ok skill points.
Instead of a rogue going all out to be decent at combat but good at skills, you can take another class and put more resources into skills than normal. You wind up with something as good as the rogue at skills but much, much better in combat.
It runs into diminishing returns that I mentioned earlier. You are going to roll a lot more perception checks than knowledge: nobility checks. Disable device gets used more than profession basket weaving. If you have 1 skill point per level, you pick the best skill in the game. If you have 4 skill points per level, you pick your 4 favorite. If you have 8 skill points per level you have to pick the 8th best.
I'll uncharacteristically offer my own opinion on what "good at skills" ought to mean. I think it means you have the skills to frequently succeed...
I'm fine with that definition.
|
|
Actually, the Rogue is a martial character on the basis that the game does not have a third category for things that are not casters.
The rogue has no spell list, and it is expected to fight with weapons. One of its primary class features is based around the ability to do extra damage in melee combat. Ipso facto, Rogues are martials, and immediately it becomes clear they are not keeping up with their peers in that regard.
This. Being a skill monkey is not a primary role in Pathfinder - it is a secondary one.
It's fine for rogues to be somewhat squishy for a martial. And it's fine if they're situational. (sneak attack) But to compensate for those two things - when they're in their optimal situation - their attacks should be head and shoulders better than other martials' attacks. Perhaps not through raw damage/accuracy - but through debuffing etc.
Evasion as far as traps goes can be replaced by a 750 gp wand of CLW.
Sometimes I wish I were dumb so I could say things like, "I'm not going to validate that argument with a response."
I can because it IS a vacuum. A vast, deep, empty well of nothingness where the rogues alleged depth and ability should be.
:p
I should probably have said that the results of an analysis made in a vacuum are likely to overlook a number of important factors that will manifest when you leave the vacuum (you know, for the food, warmth and companionship that you can't find in that dark and lonely place you live).
If you're fine with my explanation for "good at skills" and familiar with the concept of diminishing returns, then it's probable the only point of contention remaining is that you want the rogue to hit harder and die less. Is that accurate?
Actually, the Rogue is a martial character on the basis that the game does not have a third category for things that are not casters.
Are we sure about that? Is this referenced in source material somewhere? Is this widely held to be the meaning of the word in common vernacular? It might well be I should not use martial like I did, though.
It doesn't seem to me that the entire game can be summed up in this dichotomy, or that the party roles are adequately described in this way.
Support =/= Healing =/= Blasting =/= Tanking =/= DPS
... but I'm to believe those are the only two kinds of characters? 5 doesn't equal 2, and that's only looking at combat!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the Rogue's role is supposed to be "good at skills," then I want skills to be actually good and worth having for the whole game, instead of being essentially replaced by spells halfway through for the purpose of solving non-combat obstacles.
Every one of those options involves either using a weapon or casting spels.Support =/= Healing =/= Blasting =/= Tanking =/= DPS
... but I'm to believe those are the only two kinds of characters? 5 doesn't equal 2. :)
*Hand-waves*
sure-sure, but like, does "using a weapon" or "casting" adequately describe and sufficiently distinguish all the roles up there?
If the Rogue's role is supposed to be "good at skills," then I want skills to be actually good and worth having for the whole game, instead of being essentially replaced by spells halfway through for the purpose of solving non-combat obstacles.
That's valid. I got no criticism or objection. If that's happening in your game, that sucks and is a problem and might be intrinsic to the system.
sure-sure, but like, does "using a weapon" or "casting" adequately describe and sufficiently distinguish all the roles up there?When you say "martial" and "caster", yes.
So if I said "I've got a party of two martial characters and a caster, make a character to fill in the gap," you'd be all like, "Sure, no problem!"
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I'm going to be a bit rude here, but the last 40 posts have boiled down to "1 person's anecdotal evidence vs 20 people's anecdotal evidence."
Certain classes need help, mostly because the hybrids that they helped create have far out-stripped the classes they are supposed to be a mere fraction of. It's widely recognized that the rogue is one of these classes and to argue otherwise goes against the vastly popular consensus on these boards as well as a few independent mathematical/statistical analyses.
Rogues may very well be powerful in your game, but until you can prove your game is just like everyone else's, we'll just have to keep arguing here.
|
|
So if I said "I've got a party of two martial characters and a caster, make a character to fill in the gap," you'd be all like, "Sure, no problem!"
What's the existing caster? If it's arcane I'd probably make an Oracle or Cleric. If it was divine, I'd probably make an Arcanist or Bard (depending on the martial character).
I almost certainly wouldn't make a rogue unless I had planned on going Arcane Trickster, and the only way I'd do that is if I could get early entry via tiefling or aasimar.
So if I said "I've got a party of two martial characters and a caster, make a character to fill in the gap," you'd be all like, "Sure, no problem!"Sure.
Ok, then, I guess you're right. I'll leave you alone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I'm going to be a bit rude here, but the last 40 posts have boiled down to "1 person's anecdotal evidence vs 20 people's anecdotal evidence."
Certain classes need help, mostly because the hybrids that they helped create have far out-stripped the classes they are supposed to be a mere fraction of. It's widely recognized that the rogue is one of these classes and to argue otherwise goes against the vastly popular consensus on these boards as well as a few independent mathematical/statistical analyses.
Rogues may very well be powerful in your game, but until you can prove your game is just like everyone else's, we'll just have to keep arguing here.
That wasn't rude at all. Blunt and direct, yes, but that can be a good thing when done right.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if I said "I've got a party of two martial characters and a caster, make a character to fill in the gap," you'd be all like, "Sure, no problem!"sure-sure, but like, does "using a weapon" or "casting" adequately describe and sufficiently distinguish all the roles up there?When you say "martial" and "caster", yes.
For me the distinction as to what they are is unimportant.
What matters to me is What they do and how they do it.
In that context the rogue is left wanting.
Let's start with the most important thing to have in combat: positioning.
Rogues have to have a superior position. They have to be flanking, and in order to not take damage they have to be flanking a target that won't in turn end up with them getting flanked. Even without numerical bonuses flanked is not a good position to be in as it's two people that can wail on you.
Yet, the rogue has no means to get into that position reliably. Every other class has some form of ability os spell that increases their mobility in some fashion. Rogues have next to nothing.
So what about actions?
Most classes have some means to have efficient actions. Rogues and often fighters are lacking in good options. They have no means of generating extra actions and few ways to efficiently use the actions they have. Fighters at the very least have decent means to ruin the actions of others through good combat maneuver usage. Rogues, sadly, are not good at combat maneuvers. At higher levels they can get familiars. But, that's a sad bone to be thrown when the lords of action economy (maguses, summoners, druids, and cavaliers on occasion) got their pets in the first few levels.
So, lastly we have numbers.
Rogues aren't so bad off in terms of numbers. The problem is these numbers don't come into effect except in highly specific situations. Trapfinding, trap sense, and a number of rogue talents are only useful in the context of dealing with traps. They have fair damage in situations where they can win initiative and manage a flank, but this is countered by the fact that they tend to have the durability of sheets of soggy newspaper, bad saves, and no means to boost their attack and damage outside of these specific situations.
And that is all just combat.
Now if you optimize a great deal and try things outside of the box you can get some interesting builds that do a lot to make up for these faults. Cat-Folk rogues with claw pounce and familiar based carnivalist rogues can get decent action economy. Touch based elf rogues use roundabout ways to improve numbers. There are even some builds that simply dip a martial class for a level or two to get that armor they need.
The trick to all of these is that they sometimes require heavy archetyping, specific race choices, or just flat out multiclassing.
Evasion as far as traps goes can be replaced by a 750 gp wand of CLW.Sometimes I wish I were dumb so I could say things like, "I'm not going to validate that argument with a response."
Not responding validates it. It means you don't have a meaninful counter to the argument.
I should probably have said that the results of an analysis made in a vacuum are likely to overlook a number of important factors that will manifest when you leave the vacuum
You claim that there is something else there to the rogue. I ask you, like i have asked dozens of rogue supporters.. WHAT?
If you're fine with my explanation for "good at skills" and familiar with the concept of diminishing returns, then it's probable the only point of contention remaining is that you want the rogue to hit harder and die less. Is that accurate?
Not really. More whack and less GERK! would be A solution but probably my least favorite.
the question to me is "Should my character be a rogue". What does the mechanical concept of a class do to help my character do what I think he should be able to do.
The rogue is worse at combat. The trade off is that they're supposed to be better at skills... but they're not. Ideally
The rogue would actually be able to stick and move in combat and still do meaningful damage.
A Sneak attack pounce would make them deadly when acting from surprise.
increased movement speed would actually make them mobile like they're supposed to be. Some ability to stick and move would be nice: say you can move your feet in sneak attack damage dealt
Debuffing/status effects would make them feel/seem sneaky and underhanded in combat without the bone crunching damage of its over 9 thousand!
Meaningfully better at skills. Being able to roll twice, take 10 before the campaign is over (though if you believe some folks you can almost always take 10 anyway) or flat bonuses would all do the trick.
Well, I do see several more rogues being made with the new core-only PFS. By making the campaign CRB only, the rogue is needed again by default.
It still doesn't make it good.
My Druid experimenting as a faux rogue still works in core only. Its very, very easy to replace a rogue even under those conditions.
My Druid experimenting as a faux rogue still works in core only. Its very, very easy to replace a rogue even under those conditions.Well, I do see several more rogues being made with the new core-only PFS. By making the campaign CRB only, the rogue is needed again by default.
It still doesn't make it good.
Wizard takes wand of knock
Druid/ranger/cleric has perceptionWand of summons or spont summons or 10ft pole
Dispel magic for higher traps.
There rogue covered in core only
I have another story about a ninja, which is a better rogue but still. Ninja is lv8 and TWF.
We get into a fight with some slayers and the ninja gets some sneak attack off while flanking, two hits for lets say 20 damage each. we get flanked by some huge fire elementals and the ninja is dropped. Cleric heals him and he turns invisible, crawls away, and drinks a cure serious potion. Then he comes back in and does between 4-8 damage to the elementals a hit since they are immune to sneak attack and have DR, but he was missing a good amount of his attacks. Fortunately he was a ninja so he could turn invisible every round to avoid being hit again and deny their dex for his first attack.
While the bloodrager would hit for ~25 damage a hit, all the time, taking a lot more hits before needing to go down. And able to do his few skills about as good as the rogue.
Skill wise, the ninja could make a roll on a lot of rolls, but was often "tied" for how good a bonus he had in most the skills. So it was nice have two people trying, but it was all covered without him.
My Druid experimenting as a faux rogue still works in core only. Its very, very easy to replace a rogue even under those conditions.Well, I do see several more rogues being made with the new core-only PFS. By making the campaign CRB only, the rogue is needed again by default.
It still doesn't make it good.
Wizard takes wand of knock
Druid/ranger/cleric has perception
Wand of summons or spont summons or 10ft pole
Dispel magic for higher traps.There rogue covered in core only
Druid takes skill focus disable device skill focus stealth. Make it a dwarf and you almost have trapspotting.
Str 7 Dex 14 Con 16 Int 14 Wis 19 Chr 5
Leaves the social stuff to the sorcerer.
|
When a game is heavily about combat, a character's combat contribution cannot drop much in comparison to other characters even if they are better outside of combat to compensate. To do otherwise would be to allow a character to be bored for most of the session just so everyone else can be bored for the last 10-20%. Even if the game was 50/50 combat and "Other", that would still mean you shouldn't because then at least one party member would be bored for a full half the session.
It's a bit late for pathfinder to balance around the paradigm, but by coincidence *most* characters are fine in the above regard. Rogues and Fighters are not. The former is too focused on out-of-combat, while the latter is too focused on in-combat. With effort, fighter can compensate well enough to have fun since combat is 50-90% of the game (depending on group), but even with effort a rogue cannot fully compensate for the suckitude in combat. You can see a shift towards this idea of "don't sacrifice combat for non-combat utility" in the ACG with investigator, which has LOADS of skill utility but is still decent in combat at levels 4+.
My experience with rogue was playing one for 2 levels without contributing much, then multiclassing Barbarian.
PS: IMO, traps are an antiquated thing. They should be removed from being a "here's a CR and a skill roll" type of thing and changed into a plot point with a few paragraphs of guidance and few (if any) solid rules. They are reminiscent of the Gygaxian "gotcha" era of auto-winning or auto-losing on the basis of a single bad choice/roll, which is never fun.
|
My latest rogue, a tiefling, szarni booned exchange member who brings a host of alchemical tools and a bec de corbin.
F1, R1 at the time. The table was martial heavy and I became the lone healer via wand of clw. Strangely with all the odd character choices I was the main bluff, diplomacy, perception, and appraiser.
Sneak attacks landed on each surprise round. I use an arrow launcher if I cant charge effectively. Backup ranged weapons are cestus, darts, and alchemical lightning.
loads of fun as usual
I think you misunderstood my post entirely. It's not that I don't like to do manuvers etc - I actually prefer being hard to kill than to kill my foe faster. And I like doing so in such a way as to protect the rest of my party.(The popular answer is "to tank," but I don't think most people enjoy standing around getting punched so someone else can play D&D)I would!
I've always liked to play tanky/supporting roles.
I like tanky bards. My current samurai does decent damage - but he's more about AC, resolve giving him the equivilent of decent saves, and shaking/antagonizing his foes.
My MMO characters are usually tanks (though it's been awhile). Heck - in LoL - my favorite champion is probably Taric. (for those of you who get the reference)
Some of us actually do LIKE to be the guy who doesn't get the killing blows/glory but is nonetheless the backbone of the party.
I am the same way, and sometimes when I just want to play, but I dont want to do any book keeping I just playing a character based on hitting things hard, and I don't consider it as "not playing D&D".
It is not like the RP'ing is somehow diminished so I dont know what that other poster was talking about.
I was not disagreeing with you. I was just using your post. I may be disagreeing with medium object but he says I misread him so I will read his post again later.