VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.I must disagree. I have been haunting these boards for around 6 years, and I got the same exact impressions the OP listed.I wonder if you might be misunderstanding me.
Let's take the OP's comments about rogues as an example. Now, I think you and I (and the OP!) could all agree that there is a sentiment on the boards that "rogues are weak". So if the OP had listed something like "People say that rogues are underpowered and other classes can do the rogue's job(s) better than the rogue," then I wouldn't have made the post that I did. That sentiment is everywhere.
But the OP severely mischaracterized that sentiment.
He portrays the "rogues are weak" crowd as calling any players of rogues stupid. He says that the "rogues are weak" sentiment is based on a comparison to the combat ability of combat-only classes.
Those are false. Typically it's only the defenders of rogues that make it personal, with the "rogues are weak" criticisms just being about the class's mechanics. No name-calling.
Similarly, critiques of a rogue's combat effectiveness are based on how it compares to other 3/4 BAB, "not-just-combat" classes. You know, the kinds of classes it SHOULD be on par with. But then the OP lied...
Not misunderstanding. I think the OP meant that people implied it would be stupid to play a rogue.
This thread is a great example. Most people are commenting here that he is wrong in his interpretation of the board's general opinions on these subjects. Then many go on to list their opinions, nearly all of which say the rogue is weak, and ever since classes X, Y, and Z they can't really do anything as well as other classes...but we would never call you stupid.
Uh-huh...
Extreme viewpoints get noticed because they are extreme. That does not make them the majority. If I look into the first 5 threads on each topic and I actually count posters the ones with extreme points matching what the OP said will be the minority. I am sure of that.VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.I must disagree. I have been haunting these boards for around 6 years, and I got the same exact impressions the OP listed. No, I did not exhaustively research every topic and read thousands of posts to track down every differing opinion, so as to "fact check". Many of us cannot keep up with the sheer magnitude of post output on these boards. But, I have consistently seen the same or similar "absolutist" opinions that are being discussed, and I drew the same conclusion as to the prevailing attitude toward the subjects outlined by OP.
I think many of you are being very hard on the OP. In fact I have rarely seen so many well considered opinions posted on these varied topics in all my years here.
I don't fall into the trap of the absolute opinions, just as I don't go for all the "optimization", but I can easily see how someone could.
Agreed they are more noticeable because they are extreme. Sometimes they are also more numerous.
Couple years ago, I had a big long post with almost everyone acting like I was a complete moron because I was trying to help a friend build a combat healer. He was familiar with PF and wanted to try a combat healer and his party was ok with him making the attempt.Almost no matter what I posted or the couple of people trying to help me posted, there would be 1-5 posts...
It was TOZ, wasn't it?
It was TOZ, wasn't it?Probably.
I don't like to point fingers, but... I have seen a couple of threads where he looks like he's arguing with himself.
;)
and also, I totally took the bait, if this was all a troll
I want to play Thog. Thog sounds awesome. Diplomacy rolls made by T-Rex.
Oh yes.
:D
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not misunderstanding. I think the OP meant that people implied it would be stupid to play a rogue.
This thread is a great example. Most people are commenting here that he is wrong in his interpretation of the board's general opinions on these subjects. Then many go on to list their opinions, nearly all of which say the rogue is weak, and ever since classes X, Y, and Z they can't really do anything as well as other classes...but we would never call you stupid.
Uh-huh...
I'm trying to assume the best here, but I'm having trouble getting what you're saying. Please bear with me:
So the "Uh-huh..." implies you think the immediately-preceding assertion is false.
The assertion you seem to be saying you think is false is "The rogue is weak, but we wouldn't call you stupid."
So if you think that distinction is false, then that seems to imply that you think anyone calling the rogue weak is (effectively) calling someone stupid. That is, it seems to be your stance that calling the rogue weak and calling a person stupid are basically equivalent.
Does that mean you think someone truly can't say that two classes are unequal in power without essentially calling someone stupid? Or am I misunderstanding your post?
Anyway, I know the OP is probably trolling but on the other hand, these are appreciable points, trawled over as they are, and always worth examination for the sake of the system:
Disclaimer: This is mostly being done to whittle away a slow day (and it is fun)....
Well said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just say YES.
People come to the boards to complain about things, among other reasons. Other complainers jump on board if they're encountered similar hassles. I've certainly been there.
Some of us have a "Why not?" mindset and often challenge seemingly kneejerk or strangely arbitrary restrictions (I don't want no ninjas in my Western European game!" "You do realize that's just a name plastered atop a bundle of game mechanics, right?"). Some people seem to view things more along the lines of the Archie Bunker style of GMing. Naturally, there's conflict between the two mindsets.
As a GM, I am comfortable with the role of being the Guy Who Occasionally Says No. That often leads to feelings of persecution. I try to review my decisions and reverse or modify them if they seem imbalanced or flat out wrong. That's hard to do, as everyone wants to be Right, and that probably leads to a lot of unnecessary squabbling.
I'd like to think that if dispassionate, logical arguments and math are put forth, both parties can reach an equitable agreement. I've not always found that to be the case, unfortunately.
I disagree. Most folks tend to ask why because they're curious and then offer a reason on why banning the option isn't helpful to the goal the GM stated. Banning Wizards for example could be a flavor of the setting or be because of legitimate balance concerns. House Rules that grant players an extra benefit aren't really questioned because there is nothing to question...the GM is simply amping the power level of their game. Banning say...Slayers because they make better Rogues is a really petty reason and I'd be happy to tell someone so.
To be fair, I think balanced related decisions are fair for discussion. If a GM bans ability X because he thinks it's unbalanced or overpowered or what have you, I think it's reasonable to want to discuss the GM's beliefs and motivations for doing so. It's certainly possible that after further consideration the GM may have erred due to a misunderstanding of rules or whatnot.
What I don't think can be argued are aesthetic or style choices/preferences. And I think this more than the other tends to cause problems because people generally want to think all decisions are based on reason or logic, and get uncomfortable when decisions seem arbitrary - which many aesthetic values are, fundamentally. I personally dislike anthropomorphic races and have determined they don't exist in my homebrew world. Because that's purely my personal aesthetic, trying to logic or reason me into changing my taste is just going to piss me off.
Where I think the anti-GM sentiment on these boards comes in is when you have a situation where the GM says, "I hate X and won't have fun if I'm forced to include it" while at the same time the player is saying, "I can't have fun if I can't play X." Instead of saying that maybe the player and GM just aren't a good fit, most people on this board will try to pressure the GM to giving into the player's wishes. To me that's anti-GM sentiment because people are telling the GM to sacrifice hir fun to accommodate the player.
"Gamers are strongly opinionated about their hobbies."
Wait...
ARE NOT!
:-)
Not misunderstanding. I think the OP meant that people implied it would be stupid to play a rogue.
This thread is a great example. Most people are commenting here that he is wrong in his interpretation of the board's general opinions on these subjects. Then many go on to list their opinions, nearly all of which say the rogue is weak, and ever since classes X, Y, and Z they can't really do anything as well as other classes...but we would never call you stupid.
Uh-huh...
I'm trying to assume the best here, but I'm having trouble getting what you're saying. Please bear with me:
So the "Uh-huh..." implies you think the immediately-preceding assertion is false.
The assertion you seem to be saying you think is false is "The rogue is weak, but we wouldn't call you stupid."
So if you think that distinction is false, then that seems to imply that you think anyone calling the rogue weak is (effectively) calling someone stupid. That is, it seems to be your stance that calling the rogue weak and calling a person stupid are basically equivalent.
Does that mean you think someone truly can't say that two classes are unequal in power without essentially calling someone stupid? Or am I misunderstanding your post?
You seem to be a very literal person.
What I am saying is that when people say something to the effect of "the rogue is weak, classes X, Y, and Z are better at everything the rogue wants to be. I personally would never play a rogue when class A with archetype B is clearly the winner in that category", they are implying that playing a rogue is dumb.
Of course we can point out a classes differences, and point people at other options to attain their goals. What I see is a lot of those points married to a definite opinion on the optimal choice. That's all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not misunderstanding. I think the OP meant that people implied it would be stupid to play a rogue.
This thread is a great example. Most people are commenting here that he is wrong in his interpretation of the board's general opinions on these subjects. Then many go on to list their opinions, nearly all of which say the rogue is weak, and ever since classes X, Y, and Z they can't really do anything as well as other classes...but we would never call you stupid.
Uh-huh...
I'm trying to assume the best here, but I'm having trouble getting what you're saying. Please bear with me:
So the "Uh-huh..." implies you think the immediately-preceding assertion is false.
The assertion you seem to be saying you think is false is "The rogue is weak, but we wouldn't call you stupid."
So if you think that distinction is false, then that seems to imply that you think anyone calling the rogue weak is (effectively) calling someone stupid. That is, it seems to be your stance that calling the rogue weak and calling a person stupid are basically equivalent.
Does that mean you think someone truly can't say that two classes are unequal in power without essentially calling someone stupid? Or am I misunderstanding your post?
You seem to be a very literal person.
What I am saying is that when people say something to the effect of "the rogue is weak, classes X, Y, and Z are better at everything the rogue wants to be. I personally would never play a rogue when class A with archetype B is clearly the winner in that category", they are implying that playing a rogue is dumb.
Of course we can point out a classes differences, and point people at other options to attain their goals. What I see is a lot of those points married to a definite opinion on the optimal choice. That's all.
You shouldn't imagine people saying mean things to you that they didn't actually say. This skill will help in other places in life (away from the message boards) too.
This thread is a great example. Most people are commenting here that he is wrong in his interpretation of the board's general opinions on these subjects. Then many go on to list their opinions, nearly all of which say the rogue is weak, and ever since classes X, Y, and Z they can't really do anything as well as other classes...but we would never call you stupid.
He's not picking up on half the reason WHY people say the rogue is weak.
Its not JUST his lack of ability in combat, its also his lack of ability in skills and versatility. The idea that the rogue trades combat effectiveness for skill supremacy and versatility and thats ok doesn't pan out, not because its nots ok but because it simply isn't true.
Combat effectiveness are traded out for Rogue talents are that are objectively horrible and extra skill points that can diversify your skill set but do little if anything to improve a wide range of skills that the rogue will, at best, be mediocre with.
There is somewhere between little an no reason why the same party member needs to climb the cliff, pick the lock, swim under the water, put a knife to the cooks throat and tell them to be silent, sneak past the kennels, lie to the guard about the shift change and talk to the princess about the value of her royal jewelry.
When other classes, particularly spellcasters, trade power for versatility they loose a little power and gain a lot of versatility. The rogue loses a lot for very little.
How many times does that actually happen? Most of the time, it's a player saying "my GM won't allow X", and the GM is not a part of the conversation.
I'm not going to defend anyone telling the GM that he should sacrifice his fun for the sake of a player's fun, but how often does the GM actually come out and say "this desired game element will make me have less fun"? It seems more often he says something along the lines of "I'm concerned X is unbalanced", or "Y will not mesh well with the party".
Further, GMs have complete control over the game world. If a player can't be his favorite race (let's say werezebra), he's denied that forever, but if a GM hates werezebras he can always just never have the party encounter a werezebra outside that one PC. If a GM really has a strong vision for his world (let's say low magic, fading gods, rising tide of undead slowly eating up all civilization) I can see elements that clash with that making the game less fun for him. But in the event that we're just talking about a regular game for some people who want to play Pathfinder, how does one player's desired race/class/feat ruin the GM's fun?
I dunno. If people expect GMs to be game-slaves, I can see calling that anti-GM bias, but I think about 95% of what people call anti-GM bias is a lot of straw.
Its not JUST his lack of ability in combat, its also his lack of ability in skills and versatility. The idea that the rogue trades combat effectiveness for skill supremacy and versatility and thats ok doesn't pan out, not because its nots ok but because it simply isn't true.
Yeah, this.
And while there are cases where you can make A-MAZING combat rogues, it takes, as someone else said earlier, a heck of a lot of system mastery. In comparison, it's easy to slap Power Attack, Weapon Focus and a couple more damage-oriented feats on a Barbarian and be proud of your high damage numbers. Out of combat, Rogues might find a place, but it's easier to take a Bard and tweak your Perform skills to have more skill points per level than a Rogue, or to take an Investigator (especially Empiricist Investigator, so I'm told) and be the absolute skill GOD. This is without mentioning how a Wizard with the right spells cane take over either role.
There is somewhere between little an no reason why the same party member needs to climb the cliff, pick the lock, swim under the water, put a knife to the cooks throat and tell them to be silent, sneak past the kennels, lie to the guard about the shift change and talk to the princess about the value of her royal jewelry.
Yeah, I've only found this to REALLY work out in small games (1-3 player games) using Gestalt. Fighter//Rogue worked pretty well for combat and out of combat purposes. I've been wanting to try a Fighter//Trick Blade from that homebrew set of classes (these classes).
I've noticed that TriOmegaZero and TOZ usually have very different viewpoints.It was TOZ, wasn't it?Probably.I don't like to point fingers, but... I have seen a couple of threads where he looks like he's arguing with himself.
;)
I am often confused by this as well, once I made the connection that they were in fact the same person.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, it does seem to me that there's a presumption on the boards that in player v. GM dispute, the GM is always at fault, and that a GM who ever tells his player's "no, I'm not allowing that" (or a GM who actually enforces restrictions) is horrible.
The boards have a number of extremely vocal minorities with axes to grind. =P
@ Jaunt: Eh, I can see a GM who's trying to run a campaign balking at what's probably going to be a joke or otherwise disruptive character. (Seriously, I don't have high hopes for a character whose concept starts at "I'm a werezebra!" =P) And I can see that GM being lambasted on the boards from trying to keep a disruptive character concept out of his game because he's daring to impose restrictions on a player.
@ Jiggy: It's more that if someone asks for advice on a rogue, they get an avalanche of responses telling them that they (along with everyone else who has ever played a rogue) are playing the game wrong. The posts are usually incredibly condescending at best. (Disclaimer: I don't dispute at all that rogues are underpowered. I merely dispute the various posters who claim rogues are unplayable. And yes, they exist, and there's always at least one or two in each rogue thread.)
Couple years ago, I had a big long post with almost everyone acting like I was a complete moron because I was trying to help a friend build a combat healer. He was familiar with PF and wanted to try a combat healer and his party was ok with him making the attempt.
Almost no matter what I posted or the couple of people trying to help me posted, there would be 1-5 posts declaiming it as an awful idea. They were very clear on the NEVER heal in combat over-and-over-again.
After a few pages of that I actually checked the posters aliases.Turned out there were actually only 2 guys using multiple aliases just to make sure they massively shouted down everyone else. I sometimes look for that now.
Don't know how often it actually happens, but I have seen a least a few instances of a small number of people actively working to seem like a large number of people to promote some absolutist extreme point of view.
It's one of the reasons I really wish these boards had an 'ignore' function.
Requoting because it definitely pays to check aliases, though some of these guys make puppet accounts, also.
Another thing to do is check tone and style, as well as how quickly the posts occur. If these three elements match up, it may be a puppet account.
For the more extreme views on anything, there tend to be a smaller number who are very, very loud. That is true about most anything.
But I don't think most of do that very often. I certainly don't usually do that. It is very easy to get swayed by the large number of very extreme absolutist posts.
In my previous group, one of the new guys came to the boards for help with his low level cleric. He was very clear that when he hit them, they fey usually went down but he (as well as the rest of the group) was having a hard time hitting the fast little buggers. Almost 2/3 of the replies he got told him to take power attack. So he spent gold to retrain his weapon focus: long spear into power attack. Yes, those rare...
Howdy. Not trying to imply that they do. I'm actually agreeing--with more extreme views, it tends to be a very small number.
Probably folks who use alias-inflation, too: small numbers.
...but the loudness and aliasing can make things seem bigger than they actually are.
Your story is a very good reminder that sometimes it's good to step back, and take a closer look.
Eh, it does seem to me that there's a presumption on the boards that in player v. GM dispute, the GM is always at fault, and that a GM who ever tells his player's "no, I'm not allowing that" (or a GM who actually enforces restrictions) is horrible.
The boards have a number of extremely vocal minorities with axes to grind. =P
@ Jaunt: Eh, I can see a GM who's trying to run a campaign balking at what's probably going to be a joke or otherwise disruptive character. (Seriously, I don't have high hopes for a character whose concept starts at "I'm a werezebra!" =P) And I can see that GM being lambasted on the boards from trying to keep a disruptive character concept out of his game because he's daring to impose restrictions on a player
I think, from observation in a number of these threads, some people had bad past experiences with a GM who didn't allow them to play something or made poor calls or were otherwise abusive. So you get a very visceral reaction from them at the hint of a GM doing something similar.
And some of it seems to be a standard on the Internet of "no one tells me what to do EVER!" I hope it is more something people say on boards rather than a real reaction.
|
Fighter//Rogue worked pretty well for combat and out of combat purposes.
I've thought about this some lately. It's a good gestalt that covers a lot of fictional characters better than a pure fighter or a pure rogue. I'd probably enhance it a bit more as well:
Add an advanced rogue talent that allows the gestalt to select a ninja master trick as an advanced talent.
All good saves (yes, even the f!#$ing Will save).
Up the skill points to 10 or even 12 + INT bonus per level. If the guy is supposed to be the skill master, REALLY let him shine.
Free expertise feat at 1st level. Because all frontline warriors should get AT LEAST this.
Fighter//Rogue worked pretty well for combat and out of combat purposes.I've thought about this some lately. It's a good gestalt that covers a lot of fictional characters better than a pure fighter or a pure rogue. I'd probably enhance it a bit more as well:
Add an advanced rogue talent that allows the gestalt to select a ninja master trick as an advanced talent.
All good saves (yes, even the f+!~ing Will save).
Up the skill points to 10 or even 12 + INT bonus per level. If the guy is supposed to be the skill master, REALLY let him shine.
Free expertise feat at 1st level. Because all frontline warriors should get AT LEAST this.
If a player sat down and asked for some of these things in a gestalt game, I'd probably allow most of that. Good Will save, check. Ninja stuff... I'd have to look them over, but my gut says "Sure, why not?" Skill point increase, yeah.
I wouldn't allow the free expertise feat, but that's because if you really want it you can grab Lore Warden.
One thing I've been tempted to do for my home games is to allow Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec and similar feats apply to whole weapon groups rather than just one weapon. That would probably make a Fighter//Rogue a lot more lovable.
Fighter//Rogue worked pretty well for combat and out of combat purposes.I've thought about this some lately. It's a good gestalt that covers a lot of fictional characters better than a pure fighter or a pure rogue. I'd probably enhance it a bit more as well:
Add an advanced rogue talent that allows the gestalt to select a ninja master trick as an advanced talent.
All good saves (yes, even the f+!~ing Will save).
Up the skill points to 10 or even 12 + INT bonus per level. If the guy is supposed to be the skill master, REALLY let him shine.
Free expertise feat at 1st level. Because all frontline warriors should get AT LEAST this.
If a player sat down and asked for some of these things in a gestalt game, I'd probably allow most of that. Good Will save, check. Ninja stuff... I'd have to look them over, but my gut says "Sure, why not?" Skill point increase, yeah.
I wouldn't allow the free expertise feat, but that's because if you really want it you can grab Lore Warden.
One thing I've been tempted to do for my home games is to allow Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec and similar feats apply to whole weapon groups rather than just one weapon. That would probably make a Fighter//Rogue a lot more lovable.
honestly, i just use little red goblin games adventurer class in this scenario
The trait is a campaign trait from Mummy's Mask so that one's not too hard to keep out.
Trapfinding is available to the Archeologist Bard, any Slayer (though they don't get the full effect until 6th or so)....
Actually they get the full affect when they take a talent that gives trapfinding and trapsense. It can be taken as early as level 2.
This is why I said earlier that based on Vamp's posting history, he's unlikely to apologize to anyone for "misunderstanding" what's been said on the forums.Given that there are several comments about healing on this very thread that are wrong, and many of them favorited several times, I think he is dead on about the general attitude towards healing.
I addressed it here:
Healing myth busted
and here:
Whole thread about healing in combat
(with posts by James Jacobs and Evil Lincoln)
and here:
And you barely break a sweat healing
** spoiler omitted **
So you are saying the majority opinion is to not EVER heal in battle no matter what?
This only requires a simple yes or no.If you say yes I can show that you are wrong. I actually made a thread on the of people taking the idea way out of context and only a few posters said "let the person die".
If you say no then his general point is wrong because his general stance was that most of are promoting never ever heal. If he general stance was more in the middle which it is not then it would be correct.
If you somehow think he is in the middle then you need to reread his opening statement.
|
On #3 - Power Attack - much depends upon your game.
1. For two-handers it's very solid mathamatically - at least until very high levels.
2. Much depends upon your game. If you go by the monster build's AC - PA is usually good for full BAB character. If your GM actually builds your opponents to not be morons :P (wear armor - actually use some of their treasure for gear etc) PA becomes FAR less valuable as the accuracy penalty hurts far more.
3. I think that part of the disagreement on Power Attack is people talking past each-other. If your monsters are always naked - PA is awesome. If your monsters are well built - PA is only situational. (same for two-handing for that matter)
Not misunderstanding. I think the OP meant that people implied it would be stupid to play a rogue.
This thread is a great example. Most people are commenting here that he is wrong in his interpretation of the board's general opinions on these subjects. Then many go on to list their opinions, nearly all of which say the rogue is weak, and ever since classes X, Y, and Z they can't really do anything as well as other classes...but we would never call you stupid.
Uh-huh...
There is a BIG difference between this not is a good idea, and saying someone is stupid if they do so anyway.
By that logic just disagreeing with someone makes them stupid in the other person's eyes on any topic.
If he really did any research he would know that being clear when you write here is important because people can only read what you write, and considering how far the took the power attack example out of context I really can't give him the benefit of the doubt.
Not misunderstanding. I think the OP meant that people implied it would be stupid to play a rogue.
This thread is a great example. Most people are commenting here that he is wrong in his interpretation of the board's general opinions on these subjects. Then many go on to list their opinions, nearly all of which say the rogue is weak, and ever since classes X, Y, and Z they can't really do anything as well as other classes...but we would never call you stupid.
Uh-huh...
I'm trying to assume the best here, but I'm having trouble getting what you're saying. Please bear with me:
So the "Uh-huh..." implies you think the immediately-preceding assertion is false.
The assertion you seem to be saying you think is false is "The rogue is weak, but we wouldn't call you stupid."
So if you think that distinction is false, then that seems to imply that you think anyone calling the rogue weak is (effectively) calling someone stupid. That is, it seems to be your stance that calling the rogue weak and calling a person stupid are basically equivalent.
Does that mean you think someone truly can't say that two classes are unequal in power without essentially calling someone stupid? Or am I misunderstanding your post?
You seem to be a very literal person.
What I am saying is that when people say something to the effect of "the rogue is weak, classes X, Y, and Z are better at everything the rogue wants to be. I personally would never play a rogue when class A with archetype B is clearly the winner in that category", they are implying that playing a rogue is dumb.
Of course we can point out a classes differences, and point people at other options to attain their goals. What I see is a lot of those points married to a definite opinion on the optimal choice. That's all.
Disagreements do not mean that you(general statement) think someone is dumb, so I still disagree.
|
Thank you, good sir, for making my point for me. Man, I was worreid with all the people saying posters on the forum aren't absolutists, but you sure proved them wrong! Thank you for validating my post.
5) Yes, rogues are terrible and you should not play them. Playing rogues is like buying SPAM for immediate use when premium sirloin is on sale cheaper per pound. You should stop making yourself miserable. I would use the term pointlessly stubborn rather than stupid, though.
Yup, they are NEVER useful. Not that spy-archetype rogue that my friend plays in PFS that regularly gets self-perpetuating bluff up to 40 at level 4. Nope, he hasn't saved the party's butt ever. Or that pirate/scout in my skull and shackles game who can charge in any line she wants for sneak attack damage. Never useful ever, nope.
Point is not that they are overpowered, or even good, but they can be viable. I'm not saying you have to play a rogue. I'm saying don't piss on everyone else who decides to.
4) All wizards are not equal. They're all wizards, but they're not equal. Universalists are the least equal. Except the archetypes that get no specialization school while eating three opposition schools to be able to do something pointless like use a firearm. Still, playing a universalist or necromancer or abjurer is playing under a handicap and people don't search the internet for advice forums to learn how to build weaker characters.
Okay, good. Good to know that my utility wizard is pointless and hasn't saved the party's butt on numerous occasions because he's smart and preps the spells he needs ahead of time, like hold undead, or heroism, or whathaveyou. Weird, I thought that existed, and that I DIDN'T blow through all my spells every day so that the extra-spell a day thing would have been nice, but not required. Good thing you set me strait (eyeroll)
3) If power attack is not your best feat choice you do not have enough accuracy to be worthwhile in melee. Your two weapon fighting rogue example is not proof that you are right about power attack being bad. It's proof that you're wrong about rogues not being bad. Also, two weapon fighting is penalizing your accuracy for far less gain than power attack. Yes, even on a rogue.
Characters that don't have power attack that are still good in battle that I personally play:
-Swashbuckler with 7 Str, fencing grace, weapon spc, level to damage, etc.-Tengu Slayer with TWF and TW Feint, sneak attack, etc.
-Shield-bashing tank slayer with improved shield bash, shield slam, etc. I don't do a lot of damage, but I make sure people don't get near the squishies by bashing them away.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And while there are cases where you can make A-MAZING combat rogues, it takes, as someone else said earlier, a heck of a lot of system mastery. In comparison, it's easy to slap Power Attack, Weapon Focus and a couple more damage-oriented feats on a Barbarian and be proud of your high damage numbers.
I feel like pointing out that if you applied that system mastery to the barbarian instead you end up with AM BARBARIAN.
Optimizing the heck out of a rogue can result in a decent character. That amount of optimizing gets you
-Full martials that beat face and take names, while laughing off most attacks
-Divine full casters that do the above but better, while being full casters
-Incredibly flexible and highly competent 2/3 casters that can handle almost any situation
-Schrodinger wizards (or Razmiran half-elf sorcerers with emergency reattunement, but you get the idea)
-Rogues that do about average non-optimized full martial damage when circumstances don't wreck their schtick, while being ok at skills (but not great).
One of these is not like the others.
Eh, it does seem to me that there's a presumption on the boards that in player v. GM dispute, the GM is always at fault, and that a GM who ever tells his player's "no, I'm not allowing that" (or a GM who actually enforces restrictions) is horrible.
The boards have a number of extremely vocal minorities with axes to grind. =P
@ Jaunt: Eh, I can see a GM who's trying to run a campaign balking at what's probably going to be a joke or otherwise disruptive character. (Seriously, I don't have high hopes for a character whose concept starts at "I'm a werezebra!" =P) And I can see that GM being lambasted on the boards from trying to keep a disruptive character concept out of his game because he's daring to impose restrictions on a player.
@ Jiggy: It's more that if someone asks for advice on a rogue, they get an avalanche of responses telling them that they (along with everyone else who has ever played a rogue) are playing the game wrong. The posts are usually incredibly condescending at best. (Disclaimer: I don't dispute at all that rogues are underpowered. I merely dispute the various posters who claim rogues are unplayable. And yes, they exist, and there's always at least one or two in each rogue thread.)
I don't see this, and I GM a lot.
Most of the time when I see people complain about GM's treated unfairly it is the same people who have directly or indirectly said "players should just shutup and play and not question the GM". Some of them will also quote Gygax or go to "players are too entitled now..back in my day..".
Now of course they can run their games however they want as long as their players accept it, but that attitude is not really popular here.
Optimizing the heck out of a rogue can result in a decent character. That amount of optimizing gets you
-Full martials that beat face and take names, while laughing off most attacks
-Divine full casters that do the above but better, while being full casters
-Incredibly flexible and highly competent 2/3 casters that can handle almost any situation
-Schrodinger wizards (or Razmiran half-elf sorcerers with emergency reattunement, but you get the idea)
-Rogues that do about average non-optimized full martial damage when circumstances don't wreck their schtick, while being ok at skills (but not great).One of these is not like the others.
Sure thing smart guy, but can those other classes look as cool as a rogue when they're doing what they do? Didn't think so.
Looking cool > everything else
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Optimizing the heck out of a rogue can result in a decent character. That amount of optimizing gets you
-Full martials that beat face and take names, while laughing off most attacks
-Divine full casters that do the above but better, while being full casters
-Incredibly flexible and highly competent 2/3 casters that can handle almost any situation
-Schrodinger wizards (or Razmiran half-elf sorcerers with emergency reattunement, but you get the idea)
-Rogues that do about average non-optimized full martial damage when circumstances don't wreck their schtick, while being ok at skills (but not great).One of these is not like the others.
Sure thing smart guy, but can those other classes look as cool as a rogue when they're doing what they do? Didn't think so.
Looking cool > everything else
I spend all my feats on looking stylish. Improved Beard, Greater Beard, Beard Mastery, Beard of Legend, etc.
Nothing jerks me out of suspension of disbelief more than the meta-gaming all-too-generic Wand of CLW. Easy fix. No divine healing is available for simple purchase. Makes sense to me anyway - what deity would allow his divine power to be bottled and sold to highest bidder, to be used to who knows what purpose?
hank you, good sir, for making my point for me. Man, I was worreid with all the people saying posters on the forum aren't absolutists, but you sure proved them wrong! Thank you for validating my post.
5) Yes, rogues are terrible and you should not play them. Playing rogues is like buying SPAM for immediate use when premium sirloin is on sale cheaper per pound. You should stop making yourself miserable. I would use the term pointlessly stubborn rather than stupid, though.Yup, they are NEVER useful. Not that spy-archetype rogue that my friend plays in PFS that regularly gets self-perpetuating bluff up to 40 at level 4. Nope, he hasn't saved the party's butt ever. Or that pirate/scout in my skull and shackles game who can charge in any line she wants for sneak attack damage. Never useful ever, nope.
Point is not that they are overpowered, or even good, but they can be viable. I'm not saying you have to play a rogue. I'm saying don't piss on everyone else who decides to.
Could you share how that lv4 rogue is getting a 40 bluff. Also depending on how it's done, couldn't someone, say investigator, do the same but achieve higher results or be better outside of just bluffing? And The Forums aren't saying that Rogues aren't "viable" just that there's usually not a reason to play the Rogue class. I believe you could play a "viable" commoner if you were fine not doing much most of the time.
Okay, good. Good to know that my utility wizard is pointless and hasn't saved the party's butt on numerous occasions because he's smart and preps the spells he needs ahead of time, like hold undead, or heroism, or whathaveyou. Weird, I thought that existed, and that I DIDN'T blow through all my spells every day so that the extra-spell a day thing would have been nice, but not required. Good thing you set me strait (eyeroll)
4) All wizards are not equal. They're all wizards, but they're not equal. Universalists are the least equal. Except the archetypes that get no specialization school while eating three opposition schools to be able to do something pointless like use a firearm. Still, playing a universalist or necromancer or abjurer is playing under a handicap and people don't search the internet for advice forums to learn how to build weaker characters.
Wow, you really know how to misinterpret what people are saying and exaggerate from there. He says that ALL wizards are good, but that Universalists are less good since they have less spells a day. And less useful school abilities. And I bet if you looked at the spells your Wizards knows/prepares most of the time that there is a school or two that you don't pull from. And wizard have a thing that lets them remove 1 of their 2 bad schools.
3) If power attack is not your best feat choice you do not have enough accuracy to be worthwhile in melee. Your two weapon fighting rogue example is not proof that you are right about power attack being bad. It's proof that you're wrong about rogues not being bad. Also, two weapon fighting is penalizing your accuracy for far less gain than power attack. Yes, even on a rogue.Characters that don't have power attack that are still good in battle that I personally play:
-Swashbuckler with 7 Str, fencing grace, weapon spc, level to damage, etc.
-Tengu Slayer with TWF and TW Feint, sneak attack, etc.
-Shield-bashing tank slayer with improved shield bash, shield slam, etc. I don't do a lot of damage, but I make sure people don't get near the squishies by bashing them away.
Um... You say you don't do a lot of damage. Adding power attack would make you do damage. I think you just countered yourself there. Also with the swash if you had power attck your DPR would probably go up, as you have lots of ways to get hitting bonuses. As the slayer you also could probably take Power Attack and be doing more damage. And The shield can be used 2handed for the better power attack bonuses. Like nothing in your examples deals with the issue that power attack is the damage feat.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to be a very literal person.
No, just giving you room to speak for yourself, rather than risk strawmanning you. :)
What I am saying is that when people say something to the effect of "the rogue is weak, classes X, Y, and Z are better at everything the rogue wants to be. I personally would never play a rogue when class A with archetype B is clearly the winner in that category", they are implying that playing a rogue is dumb.
Okay, so you're saying that if someone declares that the rogue is weak and something else is better, they're telling the player that they're stupid. Got it.
Of course we can point out a classes differences, and point people at other options to attain their goals. What I see is a lot of those points married to a definite opinion on the optimal choice. That's all.
Okay, this seems self-contradictory.
First you said that claiming X was stronger/weaker than Y meant implying that the player was dumb.
Then you said that it's okay to point out the differences between X and Y.
How do those two statements work together? Are you saying that it's okay (for example) to say that the rogue has a "different" attack bonus than the bard, but not to say that it has a "lower" one?
If that's what you're saying, well, that seems pretty ridiculous. If that's not what you're saying, then I need some clarification on how to read your post differently.
|
|
Um... You say you don't do a lot of damage. Adding power attack would make you do damage. I think you just countered yourself there. Also with the swash if you had power attck your DPR would probably go up, as you have lots of ways to get hitting bonuses. As the slayer you also could probably take Power Attack and be doing more damage. And The shield can be used 2handed for the better power attack bonuses. Like nothing in your examples deals with the issue that power attack is the damage feat.
3) If power attack is not your best feat choice you do not have enough accuracy to be worthwhile in melee. Your two weapon fighting rogue example is not proof that you are right about power attack being bad. It's proof that you're wrong about rogues not being bad. Also, two weapon fighting is penalizing your accuracy for far less gain than power attack. Yes, even on a rogue.
Characters that don't have power attack that are still good in battle that I personally play:
-Swashbuckler with 7 Str, fencing grace, weapon spc, level to damage, etc.
-Tengu Slayer with TWF and TW Feint, sneak attack, etc.
-Shield-bashing tank slayer with improved shield bash, shield slam, etc. I don't do a lot of damage, but I make sure people don't get near the squishies by bashing them away.
First of all, did you miss both times when I said my swashbuckler had 7 str? Because she does. I wanted to put those character build points into other things like dex, con, int, and chr (she's an inspired blade.) 4 extra damage for a -2 to hit isn't worth the 2 extra damage and 2 extra to hit if she had just put it into strength. At least that's my opinion.
Second of all, sure, the other guys would do well with power attack, IF THEY HAD FREE FEATS. If I could get power attack on an item or something, I'd go for it, but as it stands, the Tengu does well enough without power attack, and he's using his other feats for Two-weapon fighting, Combat expertise, two-weapon feint, etc.
The tank? same deal. He's got two-weapon fighting, improved shield bash, shield slam, blablabla. If he had free feats, I'd go for power attack if I had infinite feats, but I don't NEED it on the character, he's doing fine with out it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Jiggy: It's more that if someone asks for advice on a rogue, they get an avalanche of responses telling them that they (along with everyone else who has ever played a rogue) are playing the game wrong. The posts are usually incredibly condescending at best.
What I keep seeing in those threads is this:
OP: "I want to make a rogue."Respondent: "What do you want to do with your rogue?"
OP: "I want to be good at X, Y and Z."
Respondent: "The rogue class isn't actually good at those things. For that combination of abilities, you'd be better off playing this or that other class instead."
That's the vast majority of what I see happening with "rogue hate" in Advice threads. Do you call that "telling everyone who has ever played a rogue that they're playing the game wrong"? Because I sure don't.
Or do you think that's not how it usually goes down?
Tell you what: whenever you see someone actually talking down to people in the manner you're claiming, you PM me a link to the post. And then for every instance you come up with, I'll show you three instances of the opposite, and we'll see who runs out first.
What do you say?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
