| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, Fighter need even more books, from even more product lines?What happened to Fighter being the worst PC class?Weapon Master's Handbook happened. Skill Monkey Fighters are a thing now. Hell hath frozen over.
I use more books from more product lines on my magus than I use on my fighters.
And if you remove those only needed for spells?I use more books from more product lines on my magus than I use on my fighters.So, Fighter need even more books, from even more product lines?What happened to Fighter being the worst PC class?Weapon Master's Handbook happened. Skill Monkey Fighters are a thing now. Hell hath frozen over.
All of them.
Most of the spells I use are core.
Mage Armor, Shield, Reduce Person, Mirror Image, Alter Self, Glitterdust, Haste, Fly, Dimension Door, Greater Invisibility, etc. Most of best spells in the game are in the core rule book. The only non-core spell I regularly memorize is Bladed Dash.
A magus that doesn't immediately list Shocking Grasp, the punner in me won't let me say it's Shocking, but it's certainly surprising.
On a more on-topic note, as much as I love the Rogue, I also remember doing most of Curse of the Crimson Throne with a Core Rogue. I was easily the weakest member of the party, and that actually didn't change *that* much when Unchained came out.
Sounds so far like a general consensus on the core Rogue and Monk.
The Core Monk can be strong with system mastery and archetypes (Zen Archer, Sohei, Tetori, the Nornkith, and some stacked archetype builds can all be strong.) It's just that these don't necessarily represent the fantasy of the monk and can be tricky to build, hence the UMonk.
The Core Rogue, I think, was only made decent pre-Unchained via the alternate version of the class.
Hmmm idk, rogues can archetype for 6th level wizard casting now (eldritch scoundrel). Meanwhile I think the best fighter's can get is 4th casting and I can't remember that archetype name.
Chained monks can be optimized to be even better than unchained monks, its just hard.
Fighters never really got a proper face lift but they can plug a lot of holes, eventually...
I would say ninja is the hardest to optimize. All the chained rogue baggage, but no spellcasting, and once true-sight or blindsight comes into effect, you are basically screwed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerer, look at how many have 5 STR. More so than even wizard because more STR-penalty races have charisma bumps.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
commoner
Commoners are only week if you view the game as a competition to see who can do the most damage like an MMO. In a REAL LIFE Pathfinder game, the GM can just arrange things so that the commoner can shine. If you are finding commoners are overshadowed then you're just a bad GM.
Besides, I was playing a commoner the other day and I rolled TWO critical hits in a row! Seriously, that's how awesome commoners are. No one else was that powerful.
|
Hmmm idk, rogues can archetype for 6th level wizard casting now (eldritch scoundrel). Meanwhile I think the best fighter's can get is 4th casting and I can't remember that archetype name.
This is a super weird comparison, like saying a paladin is worse than a bard because it only has 4 levels of spells. That's not really the point of the class, those 4 levels of spells are just gravy on top of all the other things it can do.
I'll admit that eldritch scoundrel is actually a pretty good archetype, while Child of Acavna and Amaznen is pretty bad. But I also don't know anyone who would take fighter to be a spellcaster over the other options, like playing a bloodrager. You are right though, rogues do make better spellcasters.
Sounds so far like a general consensus on the core Rogue and Monk.
This does indeed seem to be the consensus, while among the more recent classes, Swashbuckler is rather weak (not as bad as a Core Rogue, but maybe as bad as a Core Monk), and Medium has potential to do interesting things but also potential to be really unreliable due to the location dependency for channeling Spirits.
This does indeed seem to be the consensus, while among the more recent classes, Swashbuckler is rather weak (not as bad as a Core Rogue, but maybe as bad as a Core Monk), and Medium has potential to do interesting things but also potential to be really unreliable due to the location dependency for channeling Spirits.
You could probably break it down as the weakest class of each category:
IMO-
Core: Rogue
Base: Gunslinger (Cavalier?)
Hybrid: Swashbuckler
Occult: Medium
So wait fighters using books = bad
Spell casters using books for spells = acceptable?Pathfinder releases books. You buy the books and use them. If that makes you better, good. Saying one can use it for one thing but a fighter class can't for another is goal post moving.
Fighters are enjoying a renewed life. Good for them. They earned it.
In my current campaign, I invited a friend who never roleplayed before to join us. I was in favor of letting him chose his class, which probably would have been wizard due to his tendency to overplan and powergame (evident in non-roleplaying activities). However, the other players talked him into playing a fighter, because it was a good class for beginners.
He had several bad newbie ideas, such as wanting one of every weapon so that he could Quick Draw to the best weapon for each combat. I directed him to some Fighter Guides on the Internet, and thus, he discovered Advanced Armor Training and Advanced Weapon Training. Those are some of the most complex rules for class abilities in Pathfinder. He acted like he had found the secret fighter cheat codes. I had to explain in several rounds of email before he was clear on the costs and benefits of those options.
Thus, "fighter using books" converts the fighter from a good beginner class to a beginner nightmare. I would have preferred an Unchained Fighter class, instead. Still would like it, in fact.
It's sort of counter-intuitive that the fighter is among the most complex classes in Pathfinder, but I will say that this is not the first D20 game where this has been the case.
There's nothing wrong with there being a range of complexity for classes in different categories, so something has to be the most complicated martial, but perhaps there should be some disclaiming pushing new players towards Barbarians and away from Fighters.
Fighters were always perfectly fine at dealing damage (even if they didn't deal the most damage).
Now fighters have options that let them do an array of things, including being skilled, and even ways to give themselves SLAs.
Fighter is now one of the better classes you can play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind my characters being weak as long as they're not boring.
Sorcerer, look at how many have 5 STR. More so than even wizard because more STR-penalty races have charisma bumps.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Core rogue isn't even that good of a skill monkey. The average Investigator has as many skill ranks as a rogue...Investigators get 6/lvl; rogues get 8.
...along with extracts and inspiration.
Which, in order to receive, they must forfeit sneak-attack, evasion, and all those Talents. (Studied Strike is quasi-similar to Sneak Attack, but is a PITA to bean-count, takes longer to get, is weaker, and can't exploit all the feats, items, and PrCs that trigger off SA -- and you'll never be able to "nova" like a full-attacking rogue pasting a flat-footed opponent.) The investigator's will saves are better, at the trade-off of eating more damage from AoE.
Core rogue isn't even that good of a skill monkey. The average Investigator has as many skill ranks as a rogue...Investigators get 6/lvl; rogues get 8....along with extracts and inspiration.Which, in order to receive, they must forfeit sneak-attack, evasion, and all those Talents. (Studied Strike is quasi-similar to Sneak Attack, but is a PITA to bean-count, takes longer to get, is weaker, and can't exploit all the feats, items, and PrCs that trigger off SA -- and you'll never be able to "nova" like a full-attacking rogue pasting a flat-footed opponent.) The investigator's will saves are better, at the trade-off of eating more damage from AoE.
You've messed up that quote.
|
|
core rogue is not really a good skill monkey if you want to be good at skills you gata take something like the true professional archetype with that favored class bonuses human and the 2 feats that give skill ranks every level you get 14+int skill ranks per level
I'd rather be a halfling with much better bonuses on slightly fewer skills and keep my sneak attack dice (which True Professional forfeits).
Human?
-- That is what makes a rogue "weak".
AC? -2 relative to halfling (assuming human melee rogue race-bumped STR as routinely wont). Attack (finesse)? -2 relative to halfling. Perception? -2 relative to halfling. Stealth? -5 relative to halfling (and that's before armor-check penalties). Saves? All -1 relative to halfling.
No wonder they just die like mice in PFS.
Core rogue isn't even that good of a skill monkey. The average Investigator has as many skill ranks as a rogue...Investigators get 6/lvl; rogues get 8....along with extracts and inspiration.Which, in order to receive, they must forfeit sneak-attack, evasion, and all those Talents. (Studied Strike is quasi-similar to Sneak Attack, but is a PITA to bean-count, takes longer to get, is weaker, and can't exploit all the feats, items, and PrCs that trigger off SA -- and you'll never be able to "nova" like a full-attacking rogue pasting a flat-footed opponent.) The investigator's will saves are better, at the trade-off of eating more damage from AoE.
Yes, but after you factor in the higher Intelligence that an Alchemist or Investigator will need for making extracts, the Alchemist or Investigator comes out even or ahead; often the Rogue won't be able to afford to put as many points in Intelligence, due to needing them not only for Dexterity, but also for Wisdom (the Rogue has a bad Will Save, where as the Investigator has a good Will Save), and it will get worse at higher levels when the Alchemist or Investigator can and likely will put most of the level-up points into Intelligence and the Rogue for all practical purposes HAS to put them somewhere else. For the same reason, but to an even greater extreme, Rogues come out only moderately ahead of Wizards in number of skill ranks per level, and the gap narrows as the levels go up.
As for nova on a flat-footed opponent, that's often not possible (or at least not practical) to set up reliably.
And by the way, some Investigator Talents are pretty good.
Commoner with the dead template.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Commoner with the dead template.
Yay I'm better then something. I only have the chicken-bound and peasant hat flaws!
*Swats chicken*
|
|
Rogue ain't a bad skill monkey, it is just that there are better classes for the role, and to add insult to injury those classes are also better otherwise.
Of the neearing-a-(what?)-hundred classes in games, there are maybe three that are slightly better skill monkeys that rogues?
And none of them get Skill Mastery (if not a rogue archetype) or Sneak Attack (or at least not in the same capacity). I.e., if you take the rogue and turn him into one of those other guys, he gets weaker (at fighting and succeed-or-die sorts of skill-checks like Acrobatics).
"Weak" being the OP thread topic.
Rogue ain't a bad skill monkey, it is just that there are better classes for the role, and to add insult to injury those classes are also better otherwise.Of the neearing-a-(what?)-hundred classes in games, there are maybe three that are slightly better skill monkeys that rogues?
And none of them get Skill Mastery (if not a rogue archetype) or Sneak Attack (or at least not in the same capacity). I.e., if you take the rogue and turn him into one of those other guys, he gets weaker (at fighting and succeed-or-die sorts of skill-checks like Acrobatics).
"Weak" being the OP thread topic.
Besides slight bonus on trapfinding, rogue does NOT get bonuses to skills (unlike bard, investigator, inquisitor or even ranger and alchemist). When he finally gets skill mastery most skills are made obsolete by magic (especially since most of skill monkey classes then get 4th lvl spells). Sneak attack is crap. Yes if you go two weapon fighting route you can nova on a victim that somehow remains in your full attack range but it's not reliable not even in effect (you can roll alot of 1s and 2s). And your accuracy is horrible as you are an only 3/4 BAB "fighting" class that hasn't got any means at all to boost your attack (unlike other skill monkeys who have both a class ability AND spells).
You're over stating the value of sneak attack.
Rogues have no practical way to make feinting a useful and realiable endeavour so they basically need a flanking buddy. Having your only damage boost be dependant on others is a real weakness of the class and damages their self reliance on a class that is supposed to be able to operate independently according to flavour.
It also encourages two weapon fighting which especially when just core was released meant rogue damage was sneak attack or nothing at all due to the focus on Dex. That's why unchained gave them Dex to damage.
As for their skills they get a lot of skill ranks true, although not as many as an Alchemist or investigator and they will likely be overtaken by Occultists, Psychics, Witches and Wizards. And that inquisitor archetype that makes them int based.
But quantity of skill ranks isn't the only quality which defines a skill monkey, things that can allow you to boost skills outside of ranks and also having complimentary ability score requirements. Or make them useful in other ways like the unchained rogue got with skill unlocks.
For instance if your looking for a skill monkey and a face, as is often the case, a bard, Mesmerist or inquisitor with the conversion inquisition will beat out a rogue nine times out of ten.
If you're looking for a knowledge skill monkey then bards, inquisitors, alchemists, Occultists and investigator are all stronger candidates.
Honestly investigators and alchemists don't really leave rogues with any niche at all so far as skills go and you can find whatever niche you need there will be another class besides those two which probably does it better in the face department. And most of them get spells too, which make rogue talents look rather poultry.
The only niche rogues really have is disable device. Which really isn't that hard to get around with a little bit of creativity.
You know, the rogue at least has some useful abilities, even if they are outclassed by others.
You cannot really say the same thing about the Fighter.
I'm so sorry, but... what does the fighter have that other classes don't?
The Fighter has redundant and worthless abilities...
- Bravery? Yeah, that's really gonna save you with that weak Will save.
- Weapon Training? Since when you're gonna use 4 different weapons?
- Skills? 2+Int mod... and STILL no Perception as a class skill... yeah because Knowledge is gonna save you...
- Fighter-exclusive feats? Still pretty lacking...
The bonus feats get a pass with the weapon tricks and so does armor training, but the rest is pretty lacking. Dude, the archetypes fix a MAJOR problem with the fighter: no specialization. You almost wish that you could have an archetype IN ADDITION of the Core Fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weapon and armour mastery handbook gave them some pseudo casting through gear I believe. Which while in my opinion is totally off theme does give them a niche. Go back to core and you are right but fighters have been given a lot of patchwork over the years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues are as weak as the party that fails to support them and each other, chained or otherwise.
The party getting better by replacing the rogue with a slayer/barbarian/etc shows that the party is not the source of weakness.
UMD.Which is still more than we can say about the rogue. A rogue would suffer just as much from random loot, while being less effective in combat than a fighter.Good at fighting until high levels play. Random loot is also one of the worst nightmare of this class.What happened to Fighter being the worst PC class?It was never the worst pc class. Even in the CRB it's good at fighting, it just can't do anything else.
UMD almost never comes into play. Generally you have a divine or arcane caster when it matters, and in other cases the character can already use the items. The rogue is still in last place if the GM is playing high enough on hard mode that the fighter is not doing well.
Rogues are as weak as the party that fails to support them and each other, chained or otherwise.The party getting better by replacing the rogue with a slayer/barbarian/etc shows that the party is not the source of weakness.
Not in my direct table experience it isn't. Rogues that are not supported by the other characters are much less effective.
Sneak attack most certainly isn't something special.
That so?
Given that sneak attack immune targets are far less common in PF than they were in 3.5, I disagree.
Slayer hits maybe 1-in-10 more often, packs half the sneak attack dice. At 7th-8th rogue is adding without any help 28-42 more damage per round to his base damage output to one target. Slayer adds half of that plus 2 points against a studied target. All the rogue needs is either initiative or flanking. Both are easy to arrange.
Sneak attack most certainly isn't something special.That so?
Given that sneak attack immune targets are far less common in PF than they were in 3.5, I disagree.
Slayer hits maybe 1-in-10 more often, packs half the sneak attack dice. At 7th-8th rogue is adding without any help 28-42 more damage per round to his base damage output to one target. Slayer adds half of that plus 2 points against a studied target. All the rogue needs is either initiative or flanking. Both are easy to arrange.
You're missing the fact (as a mentioned in my previous post), rogue is a 3/4 BAB class with no boosts to attack. Slayer has full BAB and study target to increase his attack even more.