|
whenever another character can fill the same role you do, your impact on the group is diminished. I've had a character stop trying to do his "schtick" because another character at the table, not specifically built to do it, but was mechanically better at it, did it anyway. No one likes to have their character marginalized.
I think this is the case (in their perspective) for rogue and monk. The rogue is a weaker warrior than most martial classes and not quite the skill monkey they might have been in older additions when compared to bards, rangers, & wizards. So, the main thing they have to fall back on is traps. In CORE they are essentially the only ones that can disable magical traps. Granted there aren't a lot of them in PFS, but it is what it is. Many players feel that a rogue is more effective in CORE not because they can do more, but because others can do less.
|
whenever another character can fill the same role you do, your impact on the group is diminished. I've had a character stop trying to do his "schtick" because another character at the table, not specifically built to do it, but was mechanically better at it, did it anyway. No one likes to have their character marginalized.
I think this is the case (in their perspective) for rogue and monk. The rogue is a weaker warrior than most martial classes and not quite the skill monkey they might have been in older additions when compared to bards, rangers, & wizards. So, the main thing they have to fall back on is traps. In CORE they are essentially the only ones that can disable magical traps. Granted there aren't a lot of them in PFS, but it is what it is. Many players feel that a rogue is more effective in CORE not because they can do more, but because others can do less.
This is the result of poor communication between players. You always run the risk of having other characters at the table who are better than you at your own game. But this isn't a competitive game, it is a cooperative game. If someone sits at the same table as me and says that they want to play their rogue, I'm not going to take out a more-rogue-than-rogue character to play. I'm likewise not going to take out my expertly-built-rogue for Core play when another player wants to play their Merisiel clone.
Players have an obligation, in my opinion, to allow other players at the table to have a moment of glory for their characters. It is ok to say to yourself "even though my more-rogue-than-rogue character can also disarm magical traps, I'll let the guy who built his character around that purpose do the job he wants to do." At the start of the scenario, when I'm playing my charming bard, I tell the barbarian's player "I'll buff you during the combats, making you more effective at smashing faces. All I ask in return is that if there is even one encounter that we can possible avoid diplomatically that you at least give me an opportunity to try and do so." It usually works well. Talking to people.
|
Fighters, Clerics, and Rogues again become playable classes again. I am just wondering if I will still see groups still consisting of no dedicated tank, arcane or divine casters.I still don't understand this. What makes rogues, fighters, and monks playable in core when they're not playable out of it?
If they were bad options before then they're worse options now. I literally cannot possibly comprehend how fewer options for weak classes translates to the classes becoming playable.
I've only run three tables of core, but they have all included a cleric and a rogue, minimum. there are really no other options for dedicated healing or dealing with traps outside of these. that makes them playable, because they fill a niche.
my halfling rogue is no longer outclassed by an alchemist archetype or an investigator. my cleric doesn't look nearly so pad without a life oracle or oradin in the party.
it means "weaker" classes can be played and feel useful.
now monks? they're still screwed.
|
|
How the heck did the Six Degrees of Bash the Rogue fad make it into this thread? I must have been away from the game for quite some time. Did Paizo nerf Sneak Attack while I was gone or something?
I can see the craze infecting threads about Easy Mode PFS, but bashing the Rogue in Core-only? Whaaaaaaaa?
-Matt
|
|
No, but like... surely it's understood that it's harder to sneak attack in Core? Like all the random crazy hoops people jump through to sneak attack more consistently aren't available. Even if there was a Fighter that got Sneak Attack (like they had in 3.5) he'd have increased to-hit but would still have difficulty actually proccing the ability.
But... you can disarm magic traps! Although I guess technically wizards are still better at it since they can Dispel Magic from a safe distance? And there aren't gonna be enough magical traps in a day to justify your unlimited usage of trap disarming... alas.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A cleric with the healing domain, a phylactery of positive channeling and a couple of channel feats does a fine job of in-combat healing. As long as your allies are making some effort to keep their Armor Classes competitive, you will rarely find your healing out-classed. At least, that is what I've seen over the career of my now 10th-level mostly core cleric.
|
|
No. The cleric in core only is physically incapable of dedicated healing past level 1-2. Damage will come in faster than healing goes out especially without fae foundling.
by this logic, there is NO viable healing in core then? who would you propose pick up that niche? I have essentially a core cleric that's level 10 and has done fine. he's not a super healer, but he's managed to keep all but one of his party members alive through ten levels, and that one death occurred in thornkeep before he had breath of life.
Please don't perpetuate that the rogue becomes usable in Core only. It's just dishonest to new players.
some people judge a character based on things other than damage output. some people LIKE playing rogues. who are you to tell them they're playing the game wrong?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone's saying that they're playing the game wrong, I think they're merely saying that rogues are still mathematically inferior to all the other classes and that combat healing is mathematically inferior to disabling/killing the enemy, even in Core. You can get by with rogues/combat healing (and occasionally combat healing is necessary, crits happen), but that doesn't make it a good choice.
The thing I'm happy to not see in core is me. I bought a bunch of books from Paizo, I bought the data files from HeroLab. I'm damn well going to use them. If other people want to play Core, whatever, no problem here. I'll be over in the main campaign playing how I like to play.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So far I've been glad not to deal with any real rules debates at the table during Core games. The only question that wasn't answered with a quick flip through the CRB was if half-elves were susceptible to ghoul paralysis. The GM ended up Googling it, finding a comment by JJ, and running with that.
This is a huge plus for Core campaign--in the dozen plus games I have participated in there have been virtually zero rules debates. This means zero play time eaten away by complicated or controversial questions. All of our table time is just for playing, which is a refreshing change. By removing all those hundreds of pages of material that is legal in PFS, the amount of common rules problems is significantly diminished.
I foresee Core convention play being a lot quicker than PFS, which is a great thing, especially for GMs that are new at running at conventions. I will be recommending people interested in GMing to start with Core and then move into PFS, it's less prone to inducing headaches from everything I've seen thus far.
|
|
There is no viable in combat healing in core besides the Heal spell. It's been discussed to death. Pathfinder doesn't support a true healy type in core.
This is flat out false. You can build a quite viable Core only healer.
My definition of viable : not one character has died on my watch ( character currently level 10). Admittedly had the non core channeled revival feat to cover level 7 through 8.
On another note, one reason that rogues, monks, etc become more viable is likely to be that Core scenarios will be easier due to a combination of picking earlier scenarios and GMs playing a little less hard ball
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never agreed with the "damage outpaces healing" argument. On a point for point basis, sure, damage will likely come in faster than healing can cure it, but we don't have to cure it all immediately. All the healing has to do is delay the time it takes a character to drop long enough for the PC's damage to take out the enemy (who rarely has effective healing options). By combining healing with an advantage in action economy, the PCs have a huge advantage over their enemies.
If an enemy requires say 2-3 successful hits to drop a PC, and the healer can extend than to 4, 5, or more hits with the use of healing, that is a win. Any reduction in the effective DPR of the baddies is a win. Sure, its not 100% effective (bad player rolls vs. good GM rolls) but nothing is. I would never poo-poo a dedicated healer in my party whether it was CORE or not.
IMHO, the argument against healing because damage outpaces it is a weak one taken from a perspective (blinders on) lacking the entire picture.
As far as rogues, I've never seen one played that was a burden on the rest of the party. They can be quite effective out of combat with plenty of skill options and trap spotter is super effective unless you are the type of mechanical player that never takes a step without performing yet another in a long and game-slowing string of perception (search) checks. They may not be on par with straight martial classes for DPR, but if played tactically, they can be just as effective as a TWF ranger, or a sword and board paladin. If you're comparing a rogue's combat effectiveness to that of a barbarian or fighter, you're unreasonable. That's like comparing a traditional bard's DPR to a sorcerer(blaster). Its obvious who will generally win, but given good gameplay by the player, there is no reason the PC cannot be just as effective.
If you judge the game simply by the math and the mechanical aspects, then I am sad because the game is a lot more than just numbers on a page and dice rolling. For many of us, the game is ultimately fun even without uber-opto-min/max characters and we do not have to curb-stomp every encounter whether combat or otherwise in hopes of "winning" a game without any winners or losers.
Never forget the "hidden" fourth tenet of PFS...
Explore! Report! Cooperate! HAVE FUN!
|
|
By this definition the core barbarian is an extremely potent healer since no one dies if he kills them first.
This is flat out false. You can build a quite viable Core only healer.My definition of viable : not one character has died on my watch ( character currently level 10). Admittedly had the non core channeled revival feat to cover level 7 through 8.
So, you don't like my definition. You claim core healers aren't viable. What is your definition of viable?
I can't help notice that all the people defending dedicated healers are basing their claims on multilevel experience but nobody saying they aren't viable are actually supporting their position with evidence.
Also please note that a healer does a LOT more than just heal hit points. Condition removal is also an important part of their job.
|
|
This is flat out false. You can build a quite viable Core only healer.What people consider viable varies by individual and by experience. I have run a fair few 7-11's recently and looking through them I am just not seeing how 6d6 or even 8d6 channel was likely to have kept anyone up in a fight.
At level 9+ breath of life alone makes a cleric extremely viable. Sure, a combat cleric can have one as well but the healing cleric probably has at least 1 more memorized or available.
At level 7 or 8 6d6 isn't to be sneezed at, especially against enemy AoEs. Its not just the front liners that you are keeping up.
I agree that the cure x wounds spell aren't great but even those sometimes save lives
|
|
Also please note that a healer does a LOT more than just heal hit points. Condition removal is also an important part of their job.I think this is probably where the disconnect arises. I would expect most clerics, even those focused on debuffs, control, summoning or melee, to have a range of condition removal spells available because they are so useful. Similarly with something like Breath of Life. I have multiple oracles, none of them are healers, all of them eventually pick up Remove Fear/Sickness/Paralysis and depending on available spells known Blindness, Disease and/or Curse. With the spirit guide archetype they all can gain access to restoration, neutralise poison and breath of life if I think they will be needed. None of them is a healer, one of them even has the inflict line to underscore the point (and to use the Lunar touch of madness ability).
Fair enough. I've seen and played clerics who almost never cast condition removal spells in battle because they are so combat focussed (conceptually, they're basically warpriests).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having healing for a party member equal to or greater than the DPR of the opposing side.
So, you don't like my definition. You claim core healers aren't viable. What is your definition of viable?
By that definition, I agree that healers aren't viable.
Needless to say, I find that definition absurd. I don't have to stop ALL damage, just enough damage so my side can defeat the other side
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
killing the threat instead of healing will consume less resources and be more effective
That's not the the only way to play the game.
They're not capable of performing a unique or important role in the party
And I strongly disagree. This seems to be a very narrow way to view the game. You seem to indicate either your character can do something that no one else can, or can do it better than everyone else, or they are not effective.
In what way does having 2 additional skills make them better EVER at skills? Skills are equal for all classes except the rogue has a whopping 2 more in exchange for being garbage in combat.
First, I never said the were necessarily better at skills. With generally more skills than other classes, they tend to be more versatile being proficient with a wider range of skills as opposed to say a martial who may be good at 2-3 things and such at the rest. Versatility in a game with a very wide range of skill challenges has great value. Many of PFS combat has been avoided through skills and I have seen plenty of scenarios where no combat broke out at all. That would seem to indicate skills are much more valuable then you indicate.
Just because you don't like the challenge of playing a rogue tactically to maximize their DPR through effective use of sneak attack, stealth, etc. does not make them garbage.
This is neither true nor is SnB a benchmark to shoot for.
Oh, so sword and board is "BadWrongFun" now too? I guess the only "acceptable" form of martial combat is a THW with power attack, weapon focus, and specialization. *sigh*
They're extremely far behind TWF ranger.
I completely disagree. I have seen plenty of rogues, especially ones with TWF easily out DPR a ranger.
Other stuff
All of your arguments regarding healers, rogues, etc. all boil down to one glaring issue...you evaluate the effectiveness of a character strictly from their optimization. Sorry, but there are plenty of players who play these types of characters quite effectively and have plenty of fun doing it, all without burdening the other players at the table. It is clear YOU don't like to play these characters, but that is a far cry from them being "garbage" or "bad"
|
As a still very much new player, I will be happy to not see classes that are in books I don't own.
I own two books, the core rulebook and the advanced players guide.
Also, I think that bringing a lot of books will be bad for your back.
Might just want to bring something else, like a fuzzy kitten or a puppy.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we take the acronym "DPR" out of this conversation? I don't care if it's that important to you as a stat, please try to rephrase it. It makes us sound like a bunch of insufferable cheeto stained neck beards making spreadsheets in our dark basement corners when we are trying to mathematically tweak a game where situation will trump raw numbers most of the time.
If people want to play it as a numbers game fine. I don't have to play with them, and neither does anyone have to play with anyone they find playing something "inferior."
As for me, I think Core is an awesome challenge, and creating a character who can squeak by on his wit and skin of his teeth is far more enjoyable than creating the damage machine monster or invincible guy.
If you're into numbers, try it sometime. Try to be as "bad" as you can be and still get by. I bet it's a lot harder than just trying to add numbers up to crush the enemy.