From now on I'll refer to the UC rogue as the rogue and the crb rogue as $@#!.
Some rogue math. Fighters get +11 total tohit compared to 3/4 bab with weapon training and full bab and gloves of dueling. Fighters also use power attack while a rogue will not, this reduces their lead to +5 (11-6). The rogues first attack will either have a plus 2 flanking or "invisible" bonus to hit. The gap is now +3. Once you hit you can start twf or do full ranged attacks with the stealth unlock, the gap is now -1. (An effective full attack of +36/36/31/31/26/26 for 11d6+15 damage ave 53.5)
Yay the rogue can surpass the fighter which is bare min for being decent at damage. Now you have to milk talents, unlocks, and skills to do decent utility to justify the hoops you'll jump through to do combat (get sniper goggles). A human rogue with 14 int will have 11-12 skill points to play with.
...
From a new player's perspective, something with the word 'rogue' on the tin will do what they want from a roguish character, this is the reason they pick it, because it is the class that due to the name of which should be capable of fulfilling the rogue like tropes that they want to emulate.
...
Is a rogue really what you want to give to a new player? Even UC rogues are fragile and filled with trap options and non-viable styles (or at least non-viable without dumpster-diving through splats). Does the newbie go for light weapon TWF, a counter-intuitive strength build or dumpster dive for finesse reach, feign or intimidate builds? Do they shore up the UC rogue's rather pathetic defenses with lots of AC boosting, a cloak of resistance and a minimum of decent scores in dex, con and wis? Do they make good choices with regards to their talents, and basically just pick up extra feats? Do they max the super useful skills for a rogue like perception and disable device, and not toss them in crap like Sleight of Hand or Escape Artist that is worthless unless you have a particular use in mind and optimize heavily (or even worse, stuff like Swim which is flat out weak). No to any of them...cool, I hope the new player enjoys sucking.
It's not like a Ranger, which [i]is[/] a newbie friendly class because the two CRB combat styles basically tell you what feats to get (and it's good advice) and the skill list is both fairly small and filled with good skills. After the newbie gets comfortable with the game, at level 4 there are spells and an animal companion from a small list. They get eased into it. This is not the case for either Rogue. You need to know what you are doing from the outset, and the only good thing the UC rogue does is suggest "Y'know, you should probably use dex to attack things with". Rogues have most of the skills (including most of the **** ones), and there isn't much direction given other than "you should be...roguish...".
Thinking about what made the rogue player in my first game suck, very little of it would have been fixed by using UC rogue.
- Using a ranged weapon(Crossbow) without an easy way of getting Sneak Attack.
- Having shocking mobility due to playing a halfling, which hurts when the fight is almost over by the time they can get near a target
- Having god-awful survivability
- Not wanting to go into melee, because of the above and their total lack of damage.
- Going for the Shadowdancer PRC
- Not wanting to use stealth or disable device when it would be useful due to the fear of easily dying.
Making them UC rogue would have helped them do a little more damage, but IIRC the rogue didn't have a great dex(16 or so) and didn't dump strength anyway - It wouldn't have made a huge difference.
The rogues AC effectively caps at 46 ac. Not aweful.
(There was no rogue in the crb. Just blank pages).
|
Is a rogue really what you want to give to a new player?
I never talked about giving it to a new player, I talked about how it looked from a new player's perspective. I even talked about how I have to tell new people about characters that do rogue things better. The perceptions of what the class SHOULD be are the allure, not the actual package. It's people who don't want to change their perceptions of the mechanics due to a lack of interest in the mechanics of the system or other reasons that keep them playing a rogue, since to them, it's all rogue concepts under one roof, it doesn't require looking at other sources.
Basically, people are hung up on class names.
Reeeeaally hung up on them.
Sorry, BBT, but I'm not clear what you're saying here, and I want to understand. Are you saying that class names don't matter? You can be a Magus and still play "the rogue"? If so, I agree. If not, then I'm not sure what you mean.
|
From now on I'll refer to the UC rogue as the rogue and the crb rogue as $@#!.
Some rogue math. Fighters get +11 total tohit compared to 3/4 bab with weapon training and full bab and gloves of dueling. Fighters also use power attack while a rogue will not, this reduces their lead to +5 (11-6). The rogues first attack will either have a plus 2 flanking or "invisible" bonus to hit. The gap is now +3. Once you hit you can start twf or do full ranged attacks with the stealth unlock, the gap is now -1. (An effective full attack of +36/36/31/31/26/26 for 11d6+15 damage ave 53.5)
Yay the rogue can surpass the fighter which is bare min for being decent at damage. Now you have to milk talents, unlocks, and skills to do decent utility to justify the hoops you'll jump through to do combat (get sniper goggles). A human rogue with 14 int will have 11-12 skill points to play with.
The fighter still comes out on top at 20 thanks to Weapon Mastery. Auto-confirming crits is a huge increase in DPR. However, playing a fighter up to 20 is going to be terribly dull.
|
Sorry, BBT, but I'm not clear what you're saying here, and I want to understand. Are you saying that class names don't matter? You can be a Magus and still play "the rogue"? If so, I agree. If not, then I'm not sure what you mean.Basically, people are hung up on class names.
Reeeeaally hung up on them.
In a way, yes. Class names don't matter.
Basically, for many classes, the name brings forth merely a single concept, flavor, and/or role.
If you are a Rogue, you must be a sneaky, thieving, agile skill master, and if you want to play a sneaky, thieving, agile skill master, you must be a Rogue.
These, preconceptions, are very much not true.
I have seen this, more than I care to. Someone notes they are playing a Rogue, and suddenly, all PCs have to "keep an eye on that thief", regardless of build, concept, and/or flavor. Also, you have a PC behaving, functioning, and perhaps even excelling, at the "sneaky, thieving, agile skill master", and when they do something a Rogue cannot do(because they are not one), you have players saying "I thought you were a Rogue. They can't do that." despite being told many times the PC is not a Rogue.
This, fetish of class name defining PCs, is truly bothersome.
PCs don't know class names.
This continues with a number of other classes as well.
^Thanks, BBT.
This is partly why I prefer a "classless" system. Pathfinder uses names to try to capture a set of mechanics, sometimes evocative of a flavor, and so in that sense the class names do determine quite a bit.
I'm fine with anyone, of any class, playing the "rogue" flavor.
Just like the Fighter, the Rogue was the starting point for a ton of archetypes and new classes that supplanted the Rogue (class) while allowing a better expression of the Rogue (concept).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, considering my spite build mentioned earlier, and the discussion of the Rogue's place in a party, I think I may have a concept, that is actually well suited for the class.
Basically, all the goody two-shoes things mentioned earlier, but also a character that constantly struggles to be useful, and help out.
Always seeming to fail, or otherwise do poorly, he/she continues to try as hard as they can to help the team, with great enthusiasm.
If nothing else, they keep up morale. If this measly bugger can continue on, and always try to do their best, well so can I!
Mechanics meeting concept.
I have found a reason to play a Rogue.
The fighter still comes out on top at 20 thanks to Weapon Mastery. Auto-confirming crits is a huge increase in DPR. However, playing a fighter up to 20 is going to be terribly dull.From now on I'll refer to the UC rogue as the rogue and the crb rogue as $@#!.
Some rogue math. Fighters get +11 total tohit compared to 3/4 bab with weapon training and full bab and gloves of dueling. Fighters also use power attack while a rogue will not, this reduces their lead to +5 (11-6). The rogues first attack will either have a plus 2 flanking or "invisible" bonus to hit. The gap is now +3. Once you hit you can start twf or do full ranged attacks with the stealth unlock, the gap is now -1. (An effective full attack of +36/36/31/31/26/26 for 11d6+15 damage ave 53.5)
Yay the rogue can surpass the fighter which is bare min for being decent at damage. Now you have to milk talents, unlocks, and skills to do decent utility to justify the hoops you'll jump through to do combat (get sniper goggles). A human rogue with 14 int will have 11-12 skill points to play with.
Regardless rogues can do tons of damage now. +8 to hit and +10 damage fixes many problems. Not all but enough to make a real working character. Not nearly the disruptive npc class of yore.
|
I dont stick on the name. And I've stated in the past there are easier classes to play. Must everyone play a zen archer, blast sorc/wizard, mind mage/bard, summoner/sloth wizard, cave druid, posession sorc, etc. What a boring game when every character one shots every encounter at your APL.
I choose to play rogues. I like certain advance talents which are not available to the plethora of non rogues. I enjoy my Thug, my Knifemaster, my Arcane Trickster, my maneuver "paladin" rogue, and my Ninja Gunslinger. Still working on my rake and half orc skulking slayer (rogue arch not hybrid)
I played a Bard investigator / Indiana Jones (died at level 3) wrong mod with wrong group. Too bad he never made it to dragon disciple. Oddly none of my rogues have died beyond a snake eyes d20 roll. Bonus doesnt matter dual 1's fail.
I dmed a few vivesectionists, inquisitors, and rangers. They are fine if that's what you want to play. I consider many of these hybrids as paizo catering to these (rogue impossible) posts. We need X... so here's a slayer. We want Y...so here is the investigator.
The more "rogues, monks, fighters cant do anything" comments I see, the more I want play them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How was his sports example dead-on?
The sports example was dead-on because if everyone is having fun and no one is whining about the rogue/Little League player, then you're not playing in the World Series anyway. And that's actually best, if that's what you're going for. When I was in Little League, we all had a ton of fun. But my friend's team didn't have Reggie Jackson playing right field, either, which was a pretty important consideration when they were up to bat against us.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But my point was that if anybody wants to play something that is inherently sub-par, they probably don't really care about being the most effective. And people shouldn't bash down on them and say BADWRONGFUN, they're not doing this to be an ass and to drag the party down.
It depends on the game. There are all levels of difficulty and there are different play styles, and it pays to have everyone agree up front on what they want to play. Just like you don't bring a catgirl space marine to a LOTR game (because the flavor is incompatible), you don't bring a core rogue to an Age of Worms campaign (because the mechanics don't stand up).
(Nor are those the only three options; they're just three points across a spectrum.)
Why this matters:
Paizo, as a company, has repeated any number of times, in any number of places, that no one style is inherently "correct," and no one play style is "badwrongfun." This implies a commitment to a rule set that accommodates the whole spectrum of various styles. Unfortunately, nowhere in the rules is it spelled out that a summoner wizard really isn't appropriate for a low-optimization, casual game, or that a rogue really isn't appropriate for an Age of Worms-type apocalyptic campaign. But while to some extent you can "dumb down" the wizard sufficiently to still play in a casual game, there's nothing you can do with the rogue to be able to participate in APL+5 games without killing the whole party. That represents an unfortunate failure to deliver on their commitment.
What people seem to want is for Paizo to either (a) come right out and admit that the core rogue is really an NPC class; or else (b) buff the rogue to the point where it can play across the whole spectrum of play styles. Not the baby steps in Unchained, but the full treatment.
How was his sports example dead-on?The sports example was dead-on because if everyone is having fun and no one is whining about the rogue/Little League player, then you're not playing in the World Series anyway. And that's actually best, if that's what you're going for. When I was in Little League, we all had a ton of fun. But my friend's team didn't have Reggie Jackson playing right field, either, which was a pretty important consideration when they were up to bat against us.
I think Kirth makes a good point... I think. He used a baseball analogy so I can't be sure.
XD
|
|
The unchained rogue is a solid non-magical melee debuffer and an adequate combatant, while providing out of combat utility via skills and skill unlocks. It also has the best support for finesse fighting in the game.
Is it still outclassed in various roles by other similar classes? Yes, but not as bad as the CRB rogue by a long shot.
|
How was his sports example dead-on?The sports example was dead-on because if everyone is having fun and no one is whining about the rogue/Little League player, then you're not playing in the World Series anyway. And that's actually best, if that's what you're going for. When I was in Little League, we all had a ton of fun. But my friend's team didn't have Reggie Jackson playing right field, either, which was a pretty important consideration when they were up to bat against us.
So what your saying is that....
If theres group out there that has a rogue in it and everyone is having fun their not playing Pathfinder because you cant have a rogue in a group and have fun in a Pathfinder game.
So what your saying is that....
If theres group out there that has a rogue in it and everyone is having fun their not playing Pathfinder because you cant have a rogue in a group and have fun in a Pathfinder game.
Nope. Not at all what I'm saying.
You might try reading the longer post above.
Or, TL:DR -- Paizo is vocally committed to supporting the entire range of playstyles/challenge ratings. The rogue works best at one end of that range, OK in the middle, and not at all at the other end. Contrast that with other classes that work across the entire range. All of those ranges are still Pathfinder -- no one gets to declare that some of them "don't count." I'm certainly not. What I'm doing is pointing out that the rogue does not support the entire range of playstyles, and in that respect, represents a failure to live up to a stated commitment, in contrast to the barbarian and inquisitor and bard and paladin and so, which can be largely successful in that regard.
You're the only one declaring stuff about "not Pathfinder."
Also, since we're correcting slipshod reading, the contraction for "you are" is "you're," not "your."
|
|
So what your saying is that....
If theres group out there that has a rogue in it and everyone is having fun their not playing Pathfinder because you cant have a rogue in a group and have fun in a Pathfinder game.
Nope. Not at all what I'm saying.
You might try reading the longer post above.
Or, TL:DR -- Paizo is vocally committed to supporting the entire range of playstyles/challenge ratings. The rogue works best at one end of that range, OK in the middle, and not at all at the other end. Contrast that with other classes that work across the entire range. All of those ranges are still Pathfinder -- no one gets to declare that some of them "don't count." I'm certainly not. What I'm doing is pointing out that the rogue does not support the entire range of playstyles, and in that respect, represents a failure to live up to a stated commitment, in contrast to the barbarian and inquisitor and bard and paladin and so, which can be largely successful in that regard.
You're the only one declaring stuff about "not Pathfinder."
So you're 'not playing in the world series' is just you telling people their not playing a high power level game because theres a rogue in their game.
Also, since we're correcting slipshod reading, the contraction for "you are" is "you're," not "your."
Your gonna stop telling me I'm doing it wrong or making BADWRONGPOSTS, okay?
So you're 'not playing in the world series' is just you telling people their not playing a high power level game because theres a rogue in their game.
More or less correct. I use Age of Worms as an example for a reason. It's an AP written for 4 PCs in which many encounters, if played to their potential, are more or less guaranteed TPKs unless every one of the four is fully optimized AND the party cooperative tactics are flawless. There's no wiggle room at all in some of those encounters. Much like, to win the World Series, you can't be giving away runs all season.
Most people don't want to play like that all the time. I enjoy it on occasion, but occasionally I need a break from it, too. That's why I mentioned that I enjoyed Little League -- there was plenty of room for error there, which allowed us to learn and grow.
I like the whole spectrum of gaming.
I quibble with the rogue because it supports only one end of that spectrum.
|
|
So you're 'not playing in the world series' is just you telling people their not playing a high power level game because theres a rogue in their game.More or less correct. I use Age of Worms as an example for a reason. It's an AP written for 4 PCs in which many encounters, if played to their potential, are more or less guaranteed TPKs unless every one of the four is fully optimized AND the party cooperative tactics are flawless. There's no wiggle room at all in some of those encounters. Much like, to win the World Series, you can't be giving away runs all season.
Most people don't want to play like that all the time. I enjoy it on occasion, but occasionally I need a break from it, too. That's why I mentioned that I enjoyed Little League -- there was plenty of room for error there, which allowed us to learn and grow.
I like the whole spectrum of gaming.
I quibble with the rogue because it supports only one end of that spectrum.
Ok I agree with what your for the most part. Probably, I havent encounter the problem some have with the rogue, because I havent been in groups that were considered high powered.
Rogue/Ninja is a trap class unchained or not.
I have yet in over 4 years of playing regularly to see one able to carry around their own weight. I have seen all sorts of rogue builds, super good with skills, combat focused, I even saw somebody play an amateur gunslinger rogue! I even foolishly brought an optimized one to the table , at level 6 the druid pet was better in combat than me hahaha! 4 month of research and preparation time to build a character that could not even compete with ONE class feature!
None of their class feature is exclusive if you are playing the chained version of the class. Most of the unchained rogue class features and bonuses can be replaced by Boots of the burglar and any other class ability to debilitate a target. In most cases throwing a tangle foot bag to a target is more debilitating to a target than the unchained rogue debilitating strike.
Honestly the Rogue need a true overhaul.
-Full BAB
-Gain the ability to deal sneak attack using a mechanic similar to vital strike. (Strike once for incredible damage)
-Gain something like Divine Grace based on INT at level 4.
-Full overhaul of the rogue talent, no more trap/bad options.
-Be able to use poison by default like the ninja.
This is the bare minimum I see to make to rogue kind of work.
Other classes get so many goodies and no one bat an eye at them.
Cleric have 3/4 BAB and get 9 spell levels, same for druids.
Paladin and ranger have 4 spell levels.
Like the rogue need to completely remove itself from it's 3.5 base to evolve, especially after the advance class guide release.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Laiho,
I don't think focusing on combat alone is the way to go. Certainly the status effects in Unchained are fairly weak and could stand to be beefed up a bit -- but that said, it's the other stuff I worry about. The fact that skill unlocks still lack the breath, number, and power of spells that simply supersede skills altogether -- that's one aspect that, for me, screams for correction. If I play a rogue, I want to be BETTER at climbing walls and remaining hidden than the sorcerer, not trying to play catch-up with him/her. Aside from that, some unique abilities that reinforce his role in the game would be nice; I posted some (slightly) over-the-top suggestions HERE
Rogue/Ninja is a trap class unchained or not.
I have yet in over 4 years of playing regularly to see one able to carry around their own weight.
The unchained rogue just came out. Give it some time. How many of them could you have seen?
I have an unchained rogue/mouser swashbuckler/urban barbarian Foxform fighter thats getting pretty nasty: Vexing dodger archetype and the new dirty trick manuvers mean that after he hits the bad guy a few times they're at -6 to hit his friends and -4 to hit his not inconsiderable ac, and can get three dirty trick maneuvers applied in a round.
Rogues weapon finesse +elven branched spear makes you deal damage like a two handed fighter, with lots of aoos for a round. Surprise attack + combat reflexes means that ambushing you becomes a nightmare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Laiho,
I don't think focusing on combat alone is the way to go. Certainly the status effects in Unchained are fairly weak and could stand to be beefed up a bit -- but that said, it's the other stuff I worry about. The fact that skill unlocks still lack the breath, number, and power of spells that simply supersede skills altogether -- that's one aspect that, for me, screams for correction. If I play a rogue, I want to be BETTER at climbing walls and remaining hidden than the sorcerer, not trying to play catch-up with him/her. Aside from that, some unique abilities that reinforce his role in the game would be nice; I posted some (slightly) over-the-top suggestions HERE
I fully agree with your point.
I like your suggestions and I agree that mine are bit too focused on combat. Please do note that these where only a handful of things that came to my mind as I wrote this. I think we both understand how the Rogue every abilities in combat or other situations are lackluster and/or can be copied by most classes to a better effect.Uber Rogue rant time
I am personally tired of warning new players to not go for the rogue and explain to them that a ranger is a sneaky if not more and also better in most situation. Only to have that new player pick the rogue/ninja/chained/unchained get to level 8-ish and then being like: How is it that I feel so useless? How come do I not get any kills?
I have the nightmare scenario going on right now, I have a Rogue AND a Ninja in a 6 man party. You would think a Ninja can rush in and pull some Naruto awesome assassin ninja moves right? No they cannot, not even with Ki. You would think a Rogue would be awesome and be able to kick butts once in a while in combat through guile and subterfuge? No they do not. I am not even optimized and my Wizard, the party Paladin, the party Barbarian and the party Druid of 90% of the job because Ninjas and Rogue are useless despite their best effort to do cool stuff. The last memorable kill from our so called Ninja was a noble that was sleeping, we are level 10.
We event gave up some of our resources to get them above average gear and they still have a hard time doing 1/10 of what the rest of the party do. The Rogue as a +1 Holy, Shock bow and still manage to maybe hit something once per 3 rounds and trust me by then they don't get a sneak attack. My fairy dragon familiar is a better scout than both of them. While smithing our tank paladin has more AC than both of their combined. He also has better reflex saves. The Barbarian while raging does more damage in one round average than if both the Rogue and the Ninja would to be critically hit. The Paladin beat any and all of their diplomacy and intimidate check, the has better perception check than both of them, the wizard as better knowledge check than both of them. I disarmed more traps with my wand of summon monster 2 than both of them combined, it's quicker and funnier.
They are a niche class made for people that play too much Assassin Creed, Deus Ex and Thief. Being good with skills is the niche one class: the expert. I will play a full campaign with an Adept before I ever play any rogue class or their variations ever again. They are a bad class and should be avoided, now there will be a bunch of people that will say: but I played a good rogue once upon a time in X/Y/Z situation! I say to them, you probably got help from your GM or the party had to carry you and your dream to be a sneaky awesome dude [insert fantasy trope roguish character] wannabe. Boosting their UMD and having them use a wand/scrolls/staffs is a better options then having them try their hand at combat and that is truly sad in a game where 80% of the published material is about fighting stuff. They are a class that depends on other classes to survive and strive, by all standards, they are a parasite in a party.
End of rant
Rogues are cool and fun in literature, not so much in pathfinder as they fail to emulate the awesomeness of their other media counter part to any degree. Efficient surpass the rule of cool as the system current configuration.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As Pathfinder currently stands I don't think there's any validity in a non-casting skill class unless you count alchemy as not being casting. The stealth/perception rules just don't work if you aren't at least concealed by blur, social skills will always be the domain of charisma casters or int casters who can shift the stat they use, and knowledge will always be the domain of int casters and people with bardic knowledge.
I always thought the skill-superseding spells and the skill system itself should have been designed with reference to each other. For example, imagine if Stealth said this:
The invisibility spell would then be rewritten as follows:
Likewise, what is currently the spider climb spell would become a function of Climb. What is currently the charm person spell would become a function of Diplomacy. What is currently the freedom of movement spell would become a function of Escape Artist. Locate creature and find the path would functions of Survival. Etc.
Sadly, that's a much bigger change than just to the rogue!
Just one caveat: the rogue isn't all that good at skills. They have breadth but no depth, and thats a BAD thing in a party based game
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just one caveat: the rogue isn't all that good at skills. They have breadth but no depth, and thats a BAD thing in a party based game
Yeah, instead of being the master of skills, the rogue ends up as the guy who's mediocre at everything.
level 11 invisibility via stealth is horribly broken.
Then level 3 invisibility via spell is even more broken -- in fact, almost 4x as broken!
making it class skill dependent makes it bad for party dynamics because if one party member lacks it as a class skill the group can't use stealth no matter how many points they invest
Not true; they can still use it, just not to actually be invisible. Unless, of course, someone casts invisibility on them...
Mechanics that mandate solo play while the rest of the group twiddles their thumbs are bad.
Agree, but I also feel that mechanics that mandate that only certain classes can overcome most of the challenges in the game are equally bad, and that's exactly what we've got now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who the heck cares what the level 20 ones do? you're not going to get a campaign that high and if you do its soon over.
Who the heck cares what the level 20 ones do? you're not going to get a campaign that high and if you do its soon over.Mostly from the discussion about a rogue as a BBEG - some of the level 20 skill unlocks come into play then if you are designing an enemy whom a party that is say level 16-17 will face at the end of a campaign. But many of the skill unlocks like the heal one will have an impact far earlier as well - not least because they are reusable many times over in the course of a day).
A big bad guy has a combat life thats going to put most man made atoms to shame. What you can do all day is pretty irrelevant.
As Pathfinder currently stands I don't think there's any validity in a non-casting skill class unless you count alchemy as not being casting. The stealth/perception rules just don't work if you aren't at least concealed by blur, social skills will always be the domain of charisma casters or int casters who can shift the stat they use, and knowledge will always be the domain of int casters and people with bardic knowledge.I always thought the skill-superseding spells and the skill system itself should have been designed with reference to each other. For example, imagine if Stealth said this:
** spoiler omitted **
The invisibility spell would then be rewritten as follows: ** spoiler omitted **Likewise, what is currently the spider climb spell would become a function of Climb. What is currently the charm person spell would become a function of Diplomacy. What is currently the freedom of movement spell would become a function of Escape Artist. Locate creature...
Wanders by, "borrows" this for playtesting.
I don't think I would suggest a rogue as an archer (to be an effective archer takes a LOT of feats) - and a rogue in combat should be ALL about getting sneak attacks as often as possible. [...]
Well that person invested all her feats into archery no coming back on that. Fact is the Rogue and Ninja and whatever their freaking archetype are, fails to be baseline good. You need to dip in other classes, have a level of system mastery that is incredible and that a lot of newer players would not have to make them into something that is relatively useful compared to default class setups and kits.
Setting sneak attacks is complicated for a lot of players, I know on paper it sounds simple but when enemies start flying around it's more complicated than one might think.
See that is my problem, the rogue need a round or 2 to setup their position/stupid sneak attack restrictions. You know what most classes can do with ONE round? Then what you end up in melee with a character with low CMD, low HP, low AC, low saves. Maybe just maybe you will hit with one of these two daggers (personally 2 keen scimitar are more my style) and maybe you will manage to get 1d6+ 6 + 5d6 or if the mighty d20 be praised might hit twice for a grand total of 2d6 + 9 + 10d6. You spent 2 round setting that up my friend. Wait no that is not possible unless you are the effect of greater invisibility. So you need to flank, sound super cool on paper but once again that means you have to move around, not provoke any attack of opportunity.
While you are dancing around an opponent trying to get one or two sneak attack per round here is what is happening:
The Barbarian charged and dealt 2d6+24 something damage, wait until it get pounce! Better the druid charged and got pounce and had 3 attacks + rake at this point. The wizard can just cast 1 spell and completely destroy one or more opponent, the paladin can smite + charge and annihilate most bad guys. They also all get a second round after that one, you spent 2 move moving around trying to get the drop one ONE enemy and if you fail you better hope they don't hit you back with all their might or you are dead.
It's always the same argument, yeah but sneak attack should be used like X and Y. Well most of the time it's situational at best, if that fails you lost 2 to 3 turn trying to be cool and sneaky while the rest of your party did actual work and at worst you will just miss most of your attacks because of bad BAB, penalties from 2 weapon fighting combined with horrendous defenses, then the rest of the party has to rush to your rescue because you are in the negatives.
I know some people make the rogue work, but so far I have yet to see one in an actual pathfinder games. Will try to build a baseline useful unchained one again to make something maybe as strong as a core rulebook paladin.
|
|
I must say, I am pretty dang serious about the name business.
It doesn't matter what the hell you PC does, looks like, or acts, you will have whole player groups(including DMs) that will not give a sh*t, and your class says Rogue, and you are a goddamn sneaky, thieving, untrustworthy scoundrel, and they will damn well treat you like one.
Goes with other classes too. You are a Cleric? You're a f**king healer motherf**ker, so start healing.
|
|
Played a Tengu Rogue, Swordmaster archetype, Mythic in Wrath of the Righteous.
Our party had no "tank".
I one shotted demon lords.
Granted, the really really cheese puff stuff rolled right out of Mythic...
BUT....
The core of the build was still a very, very solid build.
Rogues rock.
This emphasis on having to kill everything in one hit is stupid.
A mythic commoner can one shot demon lords, is not a fair comparison