We had this big (HUGE) blowup last year when it came down from on high that you couldn't flurry with a single weapon!
Jason reversed course on that and fixed a few problems at the time. Did it solve everything? No.
Yeah, not flurrying with a single weapon was a sad time. It was more than a year ago by a fair amount. I was right there with you, since my hire was only last year in June (I was just Rogue Eidolon then instead of my current Unfettered Eidolon avatar).
Yeah, not flurrying with a single weapon was a sad time. It was more than a year ago by a fair amount. I was right there with you, since my hire was only last year in June (I was just Rogue Eidolon then instead of my current Unfettered Eidolon avatar).We had this big (HUGE) blowup last year when it came down from on high that you couldn't flurry with a single weapon!
Jason reversed course on that and fixed a few problems at the time. Did it solve everything? No.
You are right. My god, has it really been three years since that little kerfuffle?
MA
He gave the monk more time and effort than any of the other classes (in order to do so, he assigned most of the outsider subtypes to me, as well as making a small number of new ki powers [I made ki visions, insightful wisdom, ki guardian, and qinggong power, for instance], and most of the rogue talents; and all the non-core rage powers to Logan).Removing Will saves was, hands down, the worst choice Jason could make when it came to weakening a saving throw. There is no good reasoning for making the Monk have a bad Will save.I can see where Jason was coming from on it, it's justa very saddening sort of logic.
He quite obviously was not embracing the Unchained spirit, because his logic for lowering Will was "Fort is an obvious one, Monks are tough", and then "I can't lower Reflex, that would make Evasion worse".
Therein lies his mistake. He chose which one to drop based on a class feature of the existing Monk that he was under no obligation to port over to the Unchained Monk, and used that to justify hacking the Will save off.
It was a forest for the trees scenario. "I can't lower Reflex because Evasion" only makes sense if you're tunnel visioning on making the Unchained Monk nigh identical to his Core counterpart with a few upgrades, instead of, well, Unchaining it and going for a full redesign.
It's obvious he spent a lot of time and effort on the new Summoner. A whole new spell list and something like 10-12 separate base forms, plus Evolutions.
He could have done something of that magnitude with the Monk, Rogue (to a slightly lesser extent), and Barbarian (to a much lesser extent), but alas, no.
I find that hard to believe. Not calling you a liar, but I honestly don't think it really reflects in the class itself.
The redesigned Monk's changes in full: Higher BaB, hit dice, and a lowered Will save (the work of 5 seconds), the making of many of his already extant abilities into Ki Powers (the work of 5 minutes), Style Strikes (probably the majority of his time spent working) and new Ki Powers (of which there are 15...and you designed all 4 of the wordiest ones besides Formless Mastery).
I don't mean to dump on Jason but if he truly did spend the most time and effort on the Monk, I can't imagine his heart was in the work at all.
Yeah, not flurrying with a single weapon was a sad time. It was more than a year ago by a fair amount. I was right there with you, since my hire was only last year in June (I was just Rogue Eidolon then instead of my current Unfettered Eidolon avatar).We had this big (HUGE) blowup last year when it came down from on high that you couldn't flurry with a single weapon!
Jason reversed course on that and fixed a few problems at the time. Did it solve everything? No.
You are right. My god, has it really been three years since that little kerfuffle?
MA
It sure has. There were other kerfluffles in between that we can use to count the time...or I suppose we could think on happier things and the all the cool stuff that came out since then, and the cool concepts we can enjoy now! But our minds are weird like that. We tend to bring the bad stuff as if it was closer to now in time and look back more fondly on that which is far enough in the past, as time blurs over the edges.
|
iron will, let me introduce you to greater iron will...
you don't like her you say? YOU THINK SHE'S... A WASTE?
aw well... i have heard of a certain... 'establishment' that can cater to your need for... 'instant gratification'... the establishment is a purveyor of morally dubious escorts providing PROTECTION FROM EVIL for the mere, low and base price of 50 gp... and they have been known to offer themselves in groups, hanging at a gentleman's belt by the half dozen...
iron will, let me introduce you to greater iron will...
you don't like her you say? YOU THINK SHE'S... A WASTE?
aw well... i have heard of a certain... 'establishment' that can cater to your need for... 'instant gratification'... the establishment is a purveyor of morally dubious escorts providing PROTECTION FROM EVIL for the mere, low and base price of 50 gp... and they have been known to offer themselves in groups, hanging at a gentleman's belt by the half dozen...
So I can protect myself from a small subset of all Will saves cast by one of 4 alignment types? And I can spend 2 Feats to re-roll a save once per day (that I wouldn't have failed if my Will save weren't bad anyway)? WOW!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
iron will, let me introduce you to greater iron will...
you don't like her you say? YOU THINK SHE'S... A WASTE?
aw well... i have heard of a certain... 'establishment' that can cater to your need for... 'instant gratification'... the establishment is a purveyor of morally dubious escorts providing PROTECTION FROM EVIL for the mere, low and base price of 50 gp... and they have been known to offer themselves in groups, hanging at a gentleman's belt by the half dozen...
Wow, great design philosophy represented right here.
Feats are a bandaid, not a solution. It's way too obvious that some people here are capable of rationalizing anything that Paizo does as a good thing. Making the Monk have a bad Will save was a fundamental failure on the part of the Design team and that's the last I'm going to say on this matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He gave the monk more time and effort than any of the other classes (in order to do so, he assigned most of the outsider subtypes to me, as well as making a small number of new ki powers [I made ki visions, insightful wisdom, ki guardian, and qinggong power, for instance], and most of the rogue talents; and all the non-core rage powers to Logan).Removing Will saves was, hands down, the worst choice Jason could make when it came to weakening a saving throw. There is no good reasoning for making the Monk have a bad Will save.I can see where Jason was coming from on it, it's justa very saddening sort of logic.
He quite obviously was not embracing the Unchained spirit, because his logic for lowering Will was "Fort is an obvious one, Monks are tough", and then "I can't lower Reflex, that would make Evasion worse".
Therein lies his mistake. He chose which one to drop based on a class feature of the existing Monk that he was under no obligation to port over to the Unchained Monk, and used that to justify hacking the Will save off.
It was a forest for the trees scenario. "I can't lower Reflex because Evasion" only makes sense if you're tunnel visioning on making the Unchained Monk nigh identical to his Core counterpart with a few upgrades, instead of, well, Unchaining it and going for a full redesign.
It's obvious he spent a lot of time and effort on the new Summoner. A whole new spell list and something like 10-12 separate base forms, plus Evolutions.
He could have done something of that magnitude with the Monk, Rogue (to a slightly lesser extent), and Barbarian (to a much lesser extent), but alas, no.
I find that hard to believe. Not calling you a liar, but I honestly don't think it really reflects in the class itself.
The redesigned Monk's changes in full: Higher BaB, hit dice, and a lowered Will save (the work of 5 seconds), the making of many of his already extant abilities into Ki Powers (the work of 5...
One of the wisest things my advisor at MIT told me is that simple and trivial are not the same, and that often when you come up with something so perfect it seems simple afterwards, that means it's an even greater discovery, even though sometimes other people will look at it, say "Oh that seems so obvious; it must have been easy," and dismiss the importance, or the amount of work.
While he was talking about AI, the same can apply to a lot of things in life, and the fact that he is good at coming up with those sorts of ideas is both one of Jason's gifts and something I'm sure has also come from his years of experience (as opposed to me; I occasionally find something that turns out simple and seems obvious, but not as often, but my strengths are in mathematical calculations and overall speed). I can assure you that plenty of effort went into getting us to the current position, through many iterations, playtest, and math. The first iteration especially was both far less elegant and just mechanically worse than the final version in every way (you haven't seen it, but trust me). That Jason both added so many cool things and made it all work so elegantly that it seems like it was effortless looking at it now is a testament to his skills.
|
|
'trust me, iron will monk... you're in the big boys club now... a s$$@ty Will save is the measure of true men, and the use of 50gp concubines is par for the course... you have spent years staring at blank walls and eating a single leaf per day... come and enjoy wine and the pleasures of the flesh! yes, you can haz that 12 oz. steak too!'
So I can protect myself from a small subset of all Will saves cast by one of 4 alignment types? And I can spend 2 Feats to re-roll a save once per day (that I wouldn't have failed if my Will save weren't bad anyway)? WOW!iron will, let me introduce you to greater iron will...
you don't like her you say? YOU THINK SHE'S... A WASTE?
aw well... i have heard of a certain... 'establishment' that can cater to your need for... 'instant gratification'... the establishment is a purveyor of morally dubious escorts providing PROTECTION FROM EVIL for the mere, low and base price of 50 gp... and they have been known to offer themselves in groups, hanging at a gentleman's belt by the half dozen...
I think for the most part you really only need Protection from Evil. Law/Chaos come up too, Chaos more than Law in my experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards can be considered a legacy thing. I do agree that bard is a class that have received incredibly amounts of love, a perplexing thing when in the same books the rogue was marginalized. EDIT: Not that the the bard thing was bad, the result is a pretty solid class with solid archetypes (except pageant of the peacock, one of the sillies abilities ever)Wait, which of the four of us is in love with the bard and the barbarian? This is actually the first time I've heard of that. I thought the general wisdom was that we were in love with the wizard and the arcanist?
Y'know, I know the Unchained Rogue is actually pretty badass, but saying that the Rogue got "marginalized" is pretty much BS at its finest.
I made lots of Rogues in 3.5, took one look at the PF Rogue when the Beta came out, and absolutely had kittens.
Rogue Talents starting at lv2 (vs Special Abilities, which only STARTED at lv10 in 3.5) and doing things like granting you Bonus Feats, giving you SLAs, however limited, giving you tricks with your Sneak Attacks, etc. ON TOP of retaining ALL the original abilities of the 3.5 Rogue was just BONKERS.
The Rogue got LOTS of love in Pathfinder compared to its 3.5 version. The major problems it had were that Sneak Attack was given a stealth nerf that had farther-reaching consequences than intended, and the devs didn't realize just how little people care about party cooperation in a cooperative game (shocking, I know) - the biggest complaint about people have had about Sneak Attack is "You need someone else flanking with you!". I know, right - GOD, how DARE people assume that you might actually have to POSITION your precious character so that someone else can get a bonus from it, right... what are we, COMMIES!?
The Bard DID get a lot of help in Pathfidner, mostly because the 3.5 Bard was so godawful that it almost always elicited a communal groan from everyone at the table, including the DM, when someone took levels in Bard.
The biggest help the Bard got was allowing it to actually DO SOMETHING while Performing.
Bardic Music in 3.5 was a Standard Action to start, and had an upkeep cost of 1 Standard Action every round, and you couldn't do ANYTHING else like cast Spells ('cause, y'know - who needs to cast spells when you're a spellcasting class...), or use Items besides Potions, and if your concentration was broken, your Music ended.
Bardic Performance ALONE made the Pathfinder Bard infinitely better than the 3.5 Bard. Giving it extra abilities so that it no longer had dead levels was just icing on the cake.
The Rogue already had almost no dead levels in 3.5, and the addition of "1 Talent every Even Level" at the time seemed like a solid enough investment. However, again, the Devs underestimated how little people (at least according to the forums) actually cared about Trapfinding & Trap Sense.
So, it's not that they marginalized the Rogue - it's that they honestly thought it was one of the more-solid classes once they upped the Hit Dice to d8 and gave it Talents & Advanced Talents so that you had a see-saw effect of Feat-Talent-Feat-Talent whenever players leveled.
I can assure you that plenty of effort went into getting us to the current position, through many iterations, playtest, and math. The first iteration especially was both far less elegant and just mechanically worse than the final version in every way (you haven't seen it, but trust me). That Jason both added so many cool things and made it all work so elegantly that it seems like it was effortless looking at it now is a testament to his skills.
I know you're trying to reassure everyone that a lot of careful thought went into the monk, but my nasty cynical side can't help but read this as "Jason wanted to make the monk suck, and we had to work really hard to convince him to make it better."
Chb, you pretty much have the right idea as to why the rogue wound up needing unchaining: It was raised pretty far from before, so the playtesters at the time were all thinking of what they used to have, but it turned out that it needed to be raised even more than that.
...the monk is now so good, in fact, that it's going to be very hard from now on for any martial character (fighter, paladin, ranger, rogue, etc.) to not take a one level dip into that class for the extra attack it gives you (the only detractor would be that you have to use this with unarmed strike or a monk weapon... but a fighter specialized in a monk weapon would have no reason not to take a one level dip...)
I mean by the gods: 1st level gives you one extra attack and 3 bonus feats!!!
What 3 bonus feats? They might be 3 feats that don't matter to most builds.
I am guessing improved unarmed strike, stunning fist, and two weapon fighting.
Barring certain builds those do not constitute a dip from any class as a whole.
However I may have guess incorrectly at the feats that are free.
Yet no other class has all three good saves! Perhaps a PrC somewhere but no other class had such. Seems a lot are getting very bent out of shape, I mean Monk have a high Wisdom normally anyway so it doesn't hurt as much as for other classes.
Again though, what I would probably consider for a home game is the idea that a monk has an ability similar to Divine Grace where all saves get a bonus based on Wis bonus... that was an interesting idea.
It is not just about a save being dropped, it is about the specific save being dropped. It is also the one save that one would identify with a monk since their strong minds are part of the flavor of the class.
I can assure you that plenty of effort went into getting us to the current position, through many iterations, playtest, and math. The first iteration especially was both far less elegant and just mechanically worse than the final version in every way (you haven't seen it, but trust me). That Jason both added so many cool things and made it all work so elegantly that it seems like it was effortless looking at it now is a testament to his skills.I know you're trying to reassure everyone that a lot of careful thought went into the monk, but my nasty cynical side can't help but read this as "Jason wanted to make the monk suck, and we had to work really hard to convince him to make it better."
Trust me, the closest that any of the four designers ever come to actively wanting to weaken something is probably me when looking at the top-tier most disruptive caster options. We all want to produce products full of awesome stuff that help you and your group enjoy telling stories and battling monsters together. I think that the Unchained monk is a big success in that regard, as some of the new abilities have really excited a lot of the people who read it, and if the Will save is a sticking point for your group, just put it back in (or use one of the options I suggested a few posts back to do so in a way that discourages dips).
The Rogue got LOTS of love in Pathfinder compared to its 3.5 version. The major problems it had were that Sneak Attack was given a stealth nerf that had farther-reaching consequences than intended, and the devs didn't realize just how little people care about party cooperation in a cooperative game (shocking, I know) - the biggest complaint about people have had about Sneak Attack is "You need someone else flanking with you!". I know, right - GOD, how DARE people assume that you might actually have to POSITION your precious character so that someone else can get a bonus from it, right... what are we, COMMIES!?
I can tell you're the person who played Rogues and not the person who got stuck playing with the person playing Rogues. Rogue players seem to have this idea in their head that their precious flanking is paramount above all other things, to the point where I've been yelled at for not stepping into a situation that would get my character killed because it was the only way for the Rogue to get flanking.
|
|
What 3 bonus feats? They might be 3 feats that don't matter to most builds.I am guessing improved unarmed strike, stunning fist, and two weapon fighting.
why are you guessing? if you don't have the book why argue here? if you have the book, look at the class features for a level 1 monk (you're close, but I'll give you a hint: TWF is not one of the 3 feats you get at level 1)
One of the wisest things my advisor at MIT told me is that simple and trivial are not the same, and that often when you come up with something so perfect it seems simple afterwards, that means it's an even greater discovery, even though sometimes other people will look at it, say "Oh that seems so obvious; it must have been easy," and dismiss the importance, or the amount of work.
While he was talking about AI, the same can apply to a lot of things in life, and the fact that he is good at coming up with those sorts of ideas is both one of Jason's gifts and something I'm sure has also come from his years of experience (as opposed to me; I occasionally find something that turns out simple and seems obvious, but not as often, but my strengths are in mathematical calculations and overall speed). I can assure you that plenty of effort went into getting us to the current position, through many iterations, playtest, and math. The first iteration especially was both far less elegant and just mechanically worse than the final version in every way (you haven't seen it, but trust me). That Jason both added so many cool things and made it all work so elegantly that it seems like it was effortless looking at it now is a testament to his skills.
Simple and trivial may not ALWAYS be the same, but they're often pretty intrinsically linked.
In this case, I imagine I would be appalled to see the rough draft version, because the Unchained Monk is anything but elegant.
It's a definite improvement, but it (like the Core Monk) throws a whole lot of things at the wall in the hopes that some of it will stick and (by your own admission) was in part designed around making sure essentially irrelevant abilities weren't marginalized by the overall MUCH more important mechanical changes.
I think one final iteration would not have been uncalled for.
The Rogue got LOTS of love in Pathfinder compared to its 3.5 version. The major problems it had were that Sneak Attack was given a stealth nerf that had farther-reaching consequences than intended, and the devs didn't realize just how little people care about party cooperation in a cooperative game (shocking, I know) - the biggest complaint about people have had about Sneak Attack is "You need someone else flanking with you!". I know, right - GOD, how DARE people assume that you might actually have to POSITION your precious character so that someone else can get a bonus from it, right... what are we, COMMIES!?I can tell you're the person who played Rogues and not the person who got stuck playing with the person playing Rogues. Rogue players seem to have this idea in their head that their precious flanking is paramount above all other things, to the point where I've been yelled at for not stepping into a situation that would get my character killed because it was the only way for the Rogue to get flanking.
I don't think he was suggesting anyone take AoO's to help a rogue get sneak attack. I think he was just talking about the games where players don't work together as a team. In most groups I have played in we go for the flank, and being a rogue is not a factor. Now due to how combat works, sometimes the fight ended before that flank was set up, but at least the attempt was made.
PS: If he was suggesting someone take an AoO, then I am not supporting that idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And a minor, unrelated gripe, I love your enthusiasm about the whole thing Mark but the repeated statements that boil down to "Just houserule it!" kinda miss the mark.
I love tinkering as much as the next guy, but the problem is if I'm joining a game, 9 times out of 10 the answer to the question "Can we use my revamped version of a class/these houserules I made" is going to be "No".
As I love PLAYING Monks, and none of my players share this enthusiasm, "The Unchained spirit is to make things like you like 'em!" doesn't really help me much. =(
The Rogue got LOTS of love in Pathfinder compared to its 3.5 version. The major problems it had were that Sneak Attack was given a stealth nerf that had farther-reaching consequences than intended, and the devs didn't realize just how little people care about party cooperation in a cooperative game (shocking, I know) - the biggest complaint about people have had about Sneak Attack is "You need someone else flanking with you!". I know, right - GOD, how DARE people assume that you might actually have to POSITION your precious character so that someone else can get a bonus from it, right... what are we, COMMIES!?I can tell you're the person who played Rogues and not the person who got stuck playing with the person playing Rogues. Rogue players seem to have this idea in their head that their precious flanking is paramount above all other things, to the point where I've been yelled at for not stepping into a situation that would get my character killed because it was the only way for the Rogue to get flanking.
Considering my group generally cooperated, and playing both the rogue and playing WITH the rogue, that wasn't the case in the slightest.
When I played the Rogue, I was right up there with other martials in the fray; I made sure to have a strong enough Dex, Con, wore very good armor to defend myself, and would just back up if I got hit hard enough to warrant retreat.
When my friends played Rogues, often I was also a Martial. We even once had a fun setup where I was a Barbarian, and my friend was a Rogue wearing magical Fullplate that the DM rolled in random treasure... we called him the Fullmetal Rogue, and it was GLORIOUS.
Our Caster would cast Web, our Tank and Rogue who were both wearing Boots of Spider Climb would position themselves around the strongest enemy (the Tank would have Fleet of Foot so that they could make a Turn while Charging in order to get into Flanking position when the Rogue Charged, in order to fire off Sneak Attack) and proceed to wail on his arse, the Ranged martial would fire at him, and the supporter would do whatever was necessary at that point.
I understand that PFS is a game of "it's all about me" but my group has never had a problem with working as a cohesive unit and helping one another.
One of the wisest things my advisor at MIT told me is that simple and trivial are not the same, and that often when you come up with something so perfect it seems simple afterwards, that means it's an even greater discovery, even though sometimes other people will look at it, say "Oh that seems so obvious; it must have been easy," and dismiss the importance, or the amount of work.
While he was talking about AI, the same can apply to a lot of things in life, and the fact that he is good at coming up with those sorts of ideas is both one of Jason's gifts and something I'm sure has also come from his years of experience (as opposed to me; I occasionally find something that turns out simple and seems obvious, but not as often, but my strengths are in mathematical calculations and overall speed). I can assure you that plenty of effort went into getting us to the current position, through many iterations, playtest, and math. The first iteration especially was both far less elegant and just mechanically worse than the final version in every way (you haven't seen it, but trust me). That Jason both added so many cool things and made it all work so elegantly that it seems like it was effortless looking at it now is a testament to his skills.
Simple and trivial may not ALWAYS be the same, but they're often pretty intrinsically linked.
In this case, I imagine I would be appalled to see the rough draft version, because the Unchained Monk is anything but elegant.
It's a definite improvement, but it (like the Core Monk) throws a whole lot of things at the wall in the hopes that some of it will stick and (by your own admission) was in part designed around making sure essentially irrelevant abilities weren't marginalized by the overall MUCH more important mechanical changes.
I think one final iteration would not have been uncalled for.
Obviously, we can't go back in time and test it, but I highly doubt that, for instance, the reception would have been any better for having a weak Reflex save and removing evasion, while having a strong Will save (also a reasonable way to run with it if your group prefers).
We're wired to be risk averse and to focus on anything that we feel that we've lost when balancing a decision for losses and gains, as seen in many common effects, like the fact that if you offer a price scheme like "This product costs $20, but if you do thing X, it's $5 off" people are OK with it, but they'll get mad if you say "This product costs $15, but if you don't do thing X, we'll charge you $5 more."
And a minor, unrelated gripe, I love your enthusiasm about the whole thing Mark but the repeated statements that boil down to "Just houserule it!" kinda miss the mark.
I love tinkering as much as the next guy, but the problem is if I'm joining a game, 9 times out of 10 the answer to the question "Can we use my revamped version of a class/these houserules I made" is going to be "No".
As I love PLAYING Monks, and none of my players share this enthusiasm, "The Unchained spirit is to make things like you like 'em!" doesn't really help me much. =(
Normally, I'm with you, but this is the big book o' variant rules, so it's a little different. If your groups don't like houserules, I bet they won't use Unchained. If they do use Unchained, then hopefully they should be willing to consider at least some of the ideas I posted in this thread (like making Still Mind work for all mind-affecting and moving Flawless Mind to 10th) since as a suggested variant by a designer, it's similar to the ones we printed (just not in a book, is all).
@Playing monks: Yeah, I think I'm the only one in my home group that plays monks too (other than dips in master of many styles or sohei)...After thinking, I really am, and I hadn't even realized it until you got me to think about it.
|
Well, I think a lot of people would have been happier with keep your d8 hit die and your good will save than the hit die buffed to d10 but with a poor will save. And if necessary keep the 3/4 BAB with pseudo full BAB during a (new) flurry, but make flying kick and automatic bonus style strike to allow mobility.
We're wired to be risk averse and to focus on anything that we feel that we've lost when balancing a decision for losses and gains, as seen in many common effects, like the fact that if you offer a price scheme like "This product costs $20, but if you do thing X, it's $5 off" people are OK with it, but they'll get mad if you say "This product costs $15, but if you don't do thing X, we'll charge you $5 more."
You'd make a horrible CEO for a video game company.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Rogue got LOTS of love in Pathfinder compared to its 3.5 version. The major problems it had were that Sneak Attack was given a stealth nerf that had farther-reaching consequences than intended, and the devs didn't realize just how little people care about party cooperation in a cooperative game (shocking, I know) - the biggest complaint about people have had about Sneak Attack is "You need someone else flanking with you!". I know, right - GOD, how DARE people assume that you might actually have to POSITION your precious character so that someone else can get a bonus from it, right... what are we, COMMIES!?I can tell you're the person who played Rogues and not the person who got stuck playing with the person playing Rogues. Rogue players seem to have this idea in their head that their precious flanking is paramount above all other things, to the point where I've been yelled at for not stepping into a situation that would get my character killed because it was the only way for the Rogue to get flanking.Considering my group generally cooperated, and playing both the rogue and playing WITH the rogue, that wasn't the case in the slightest.
When I played the Rogue, I was right up there with other martials in the fray; I made sure to have a strong enough Dex, Con, wore very good armor to defend myself, and would just back up if I got hit hard enough to warrant retreat.
When my friends played Rogues, often I was also a Martial. We even once had a fun setup where I was a Barbarian, and my friend was a Rogue wearing magical Fullplate that the DM rolled in random treasure... we called him the Fullmetal Rogue, and it was GLORIOUS.
Our Caster would cast Web, our Tank and Rogue who were both wearing Boots of Spider Climb would position themselves around the strongest enemy (the Tank would have Fleet of Foot so that they could make a Turn while Charging in order to get into Flanking position when the Rogue Charged, in order to fire off Sneak...
The problem being that the core Rogue REQUIRES "working as a cohesive unit" to be anything more than dead weight, and even then is piss-poor at his job, while basically every other class in the game does NOT require that, and are competent alone, so are merely ENHANCED by doing so.
The core Rogue is a very selfish class. They take and take and take in the form of buffs, and requiring the table to formulate all their tactics around them, and it gives nothing any other class can't do in combat with far less effort in return.
The Unchained Rogue, thankfully, actually brings something to the table that benefits the whole group besides piddling damage with his Sneak Attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're wired to be risk averse and to focus on anything that we feel that we've lost when balancing a decision for losses and gains, as seen in many common effects, like the fact that if you offer a price scheme like "This product costs $20, but if you do thing X, it's $5 off" people are OK with it, but they'll get mad if you say "This product costs $15, but if you don't do thing X, we'll charge you $5 more."You'd make a horrible CEO for a video game company.
Yeah, lots of marketing and sales are about exploiting those kinds of biases that we have built into our minds to lower the barriers against a sale and make the transaction. It's actually fascinating psychology, but I would never have the stomach for it; you're right. To me, the essence of what I want to do is to create stuff that makes people happy and lets them enjoy telling awesome stories together. That's why I love that we have the PRD and the OGL. It's not all about sales; everyone has access to it, and we can all play the game we love together!
Yeah, lots of marketing and sales are about exploiting those kinds of biases that we have built into our minds to lower the barriers against a sale and make the transaction. It's actually fascinating psychology, but I would never have the stomach for it; you're right. To me, the essence of what I want to do is to create stuff that makes people happy and lets them enjoy telling awesome stories together. That's why I love that we have the PRD and the OGL. It's not all about sales; everyone has access to it, and we can all play the game we love together!We're wired to be risk averse and to focus on anything that we feel that we've lost when balancing a decision for losses and gains, as seen in many common effects, like the fact that if you offer a price scheme like "This product costs $20, but if you do thing X, it's $5 off" people are OK with it, but they'll get mad if you say "This product costs $15, but if you don't do thing X, we'll charge you $5 more."You'd make a horrible CEO for a video game company.
Sales are pretty nice for keeping a company afloat though; I will say that I have spent a lot more money on Pathfinder than I would have if the PRD didn't exist. I feel much more comfortable voting with my dollars when I know exactly what I'm buying and already know it's good.
good night! when the west coasters go to bed before me, it's bad news for me on the next day at the office! (i.e. such a day requires lots of "meditating" at my desk... ;) )
Has, "I'm not sleeping, I'm meditating!" ever worked on your boss before?
Sales are pretty nice for keeping a company afloat though; I will say that I have spent a lot more money on Pathfinder than I would have if the PRD didn't exist. I feel much more comfortable voting with my dollars when I know exactly what I'm buying and already know it's good.Yeah, lots of marketing and sales are about exploiting those kinds of biases that we have built into our minds to lower the barriers against a sale and make the transaction. It's actually fascinating psychology, but I would never have the stomach for it; you're right. To me, the essence of what I want to do is to create stuff that makes people happy and lets them enjoy telling awesome stories together. That's why I love that we have the PRD and the OGL. It's not all about sales; everyone has access to it, and we can all play the game we love together!We're wired to be risk averse and to focus on anything that we feel that we've lost when balancing a decision for losses and gains, as seen in many common effects, like the fact that if you offer a price scheme like "This product costs $20, but if you do thing X, it's $5 off" people are OK with it, but they'll get mad if you say "This product costs $15, but if you don't do thing X, we'll charge you $5 more."You'd make a horrible CEO for a video game company.
You're not wrong! And if it doesn't stay afloat, then we don't get to keep making awesome stuff for everyone, so I'm certainly not saying I don't greatly appreciate it when you guys buy our products; I definitely do! And I'll keep working hard to try to make each future product not just up to the standards of the ones before, but better. This may be my first book, but I'm already looking forward to when you guys get your hands on Occult!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem being that the core Rogue REQUIRES "working as a cohesive unit" to be anything more than dead weight,
And, again, right there, is my biggest annoyance with PFS and the mentality a lot of people seem to have in it:
"How DARE you assume that we should actually COOPERATE in a cooperative game! The very NOTION is nothing short of DETESTABLE! My character should be the star and solo everything!"
And "the rogue gives nothing back"? Flanking doesn't just activate Sneak Attack, it also gives +2 to hit, meaning the person on the other side is also gaining greater accuracy on their turn.
The Rogue may also be drawing fire from the enemy, and yet actually be able to dodge a fair amount of it due to having a very good Dex and AC (Mithral Breastplate, baby), meaning the Rogue can suck up attacks that would otherwise be aimed at the Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, or Fighter.
I really don't see how the Rogue is "the most selfish" when the Fighter gives nothing back to the Party, and probably eats up charges of Cure Light, as well as cast instances of Bull's Strength and/or Enlarge Person.
The same goes for the Barbarian (potentially even MORESO, given its penchant for sucking in attacks like a Black Hole), and even the Monk.
Depending on how the Ranger goes, it can either be providing fire from afar (which helps), or going up-close and being in the same spot as the Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk.
The Paladin gives something back by providing Auras, Lay on Hands, etc.
So, no, I don't buy into the idea of the Rogue being "the most selfish" and "giving nothing back" since it's no really worse off than other Martials.
---
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that the Rogue is getting sexy tricks in the form of the Unchained Rogue and losing NOTHING for it, but half of the "issues" the Rogue has had is simply that players are unwilling to play a team-based game cooperatively.
I like playing with other people who work together; sorry if I'm not a fan of everybody trying to keep track of their individual body count.
Putting yourself in danger so that the Rogue can have his day isn't playing cooperatively, it's neutering your ability to contribute so that the ineffectual NPC class can feel slightly good about himself.
Putting yourself in danger so that the Rogue can have his day isn't playing cooperatively, it's neutering your ability to contribute so that the ineffectual NPC class can feel slightly good about himself.
Again, never had that problem in the slightest with Rogues - playing AS them or playing WITH them.
If ANYTHING, the BARBARIANS of our group typically got more dismayed looks due to their penchant for charging headlong into a fight and beating face, even IF the enemy was all-but guaranteed to go down the following round.
I'm not sure what magical fantasyland you play in where the Rogue is conveniently able to position for sneak attack in every round, but it's sure not the one I play in nor the one I GM in.
The problem being that the core Rogue REQUIRES "working as a cohesive unit" to be anything more than dead weight,And, again, right there, is my biggest annoyance with PFS and the mentality a lot of people seem to have in it:
"How DARE you assume that we should actually COOPERATE in a cooperative game! The very NOTION is nothing short of DETESTABLE! My character should be the star and solo everything!"
This might be a valid statement had I not specifically said cooperating with your team is good, and that the main problem with the Rogue is that he requires you to hold his widdle baby hands to get anything done, while using teamwork with any other class results in both being better for it.
And "the rogue gives nothing back"? Flanking doesn't just activate Sneak Attack, it also gives +2 to hit, meaning the person on the other side is also gaining greater accuracy on their turn.
Likewise, this might be valid if the Rogue were the only class that could flank. As this is not the case, this point is irrelevant.
The Rogue may also be drawing fire from the enemy, and yet actually be able to dodge a fair amount of it due to having a very good Dex and AC (Mithral Breastplate, baby), meaning the Rogue can suck up attacks that would otherwise be aimed at the Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, or Fighter.
Your Rogues spend a Feat on Medium armor?
More to the point, why would I want someone whose only purpose in combat is to draw fire? Why would I not rather have TWO guys who can take a beating and give one back?
I really don't see how the Rogue is "the most selfish" when the Fighter gives nothing back to the Party, and probably eats up charges of Cure Light, as well as cast instances of Bull's Strength and/or Enlarge Person.
The Fighter assuredly takes second place as "most selfish" but at least he doesn't need a flank buddy to swing his sword properly.
The same goes for the Barbarian (potentially even MORESO, given its penchant for sucking in attacks like a Black Hole), and even the Monk.
You mean the class that provides its own buffs and can kill an enemy that dares to attack him by literally going "Come At Me Bro", and the only pure martial class who can, potentially, provide buffs and status removal to the party with Qinggong powers?
And neither of which, again, require a flank buddy plus buffs to be competent?
The problem being that the core Rogue REQUIRES "working as a cohesive unit" to be anything more than dead weight,And, again, right there, is my biggest annoyance with PFS and the mentality a lot of people seem to have in it:
"How DARE you assume that we should actually COOPERATE in a cooperative game! The very NOTION is nothing short of DETESTABLE! My character should be the star and solo everything!"
I don't think Rynjin was saying cooperation is bad. He is saying the rogue class relies on cooperation, while other classes do not. That statement is not about trying to solo anything, but the idea of a class not being able to do its job without another character stepping over is the is the issue.
And "the rogue gives nothing back"? Flanking doesn't just activate Sneak Attack, it also gives +2 to hit, meaning the person on the other side is also gaining greater accuracy on their turn.
Every class gives +2 when flanking. Basically, you should set up the flank if it is feasible. Whether or not someone is playing a rogue should not be a factor.
The Rogue may also be drawing fire from the enemy, and yet actually be able to dodge a fair amount of it due to having a very good Dex and AC (Mithral Breastplate, baby), meaning the Rogue can suck up attacks that would otherwise be aimed at the Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, or Fighter.
They are more likely to be able to take those attacks or not get hit in most cases if another one of them is one the opposite side.
I really don't see how the Rogue is "the most selfish" when the Fighter gives nothing back to the Party, and probably eats up charges of Cure Light, as well as cast instances of Bull's Strength and/or Enlarge Person.
The monk might be the most selfish, but that depend on the GM.
The same goes for the Barbarian (potentially even MORESO, given its penchant for sucking in attacks like a Black Hole), and even the Monk.
The barbarian can have good AC and DR. He is not going to be taking the same damage as a rogue most of the time.
Depending on how the Ranger goes, it can either be providing fire from afar (which helps), or going up-close and being in the same spot as the Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk.The Paladin gives something back by providing Auras, Lay on Hands, etc.
The ranger can also have better AC than a rogue and kill enemies fast enough not to take a lot as much damage so the rogue is worse off than the other martials, even in a game when the party does cooperate.
|
|
The problem being that the core Rogue REQUIRES "working as a cohesive unit" to be anything more than dead weight,And, again, right there, is my biggest annoyance with PFS and the mentality a lot of people seem to have in it:
"How DARE you assume that we should actually COOPERATE in a cooperative game! The very NOTION is nothing short of DETESTABLE! My character should be the star and solo everything!"
I've not really found this when I play PFS. The vast majority of the people have been extremely pleasant, open to both giving and receiving build help and rules advice. I do think sometimes playing at a con gets a bit exhausting though (mostly due to con stresses and playing 3 sessions a day for a couple days a recipe which isn't good times).
Putting yourself in danger so that the Rogue can have his day isn't playing cooperatively, it's neutering your ability to contribute so that the ineffectual NPC class can feel slightly good about himself.Again, never had that problem in the slightest with Rogues - playing AS them or playing WITH them.
If ANYTHING, the BARBARIANS of our group typically got more dismayed looks due to their penchant for charging headlong into a fight and beating face, even IF the enemy was all-but guaranteed to go down the following round.
That is a player problem, not a class problem. I have had those players(using various classes) as a GM, and fellow player also. They either ended up dead or learned to be more tactical.
|
|
why are you guessing? if you don't have the book why argue here? if you have the book, look at the class features for a level 1 monk (you're close, but I'll give you a hint: TWF is not one of the 3 feats you get at level 1)
What 3 bonus feats? They might be 3 feats that don't matter to most builds.I am guessing improved unarmed strike, stunning fist, and two weapon fighting.
Is this another feat in addition to the Level 1 Bonus Feat?
why are you guessing? if you don't have the book why argue here? if you have the book, look at the class features for a level 1 monk (you're close, but I'll give you a hint: TWF is not one of the 3 feats you get at level 1)
What 3 bonus feats? They might be 3 feats that don't matter to most builds.I am guessing improved unarmed strike, stunning fist, and two weapon fighting.
You made a blanket statement that I doubted so I chose to question it. Assuming 2 out of my 3 guesses was correct we may have to disagree on that being enough for a dip for almost any classes unless you specifically have certain builds in mind.
|
Every class gives +2 when flanking. Basically, you should set up the flank if it is feasible. Whether or not someone is playing a rogue should not be a factor.
The fact that four of the six PCs in my CotCT game (all the melee characters) just grabbed Outflank as their level 7 Feat (and were happy to do so) tends to bear this out, yeah.