Perhaps its time to retire the rogue, the paladin and other subclasses


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
The Exchange

I really think that niche classes like the rogue and paladin are wearing thin since the arguments for their evolution stray quite a bit from their original conception. Part of this is because the game has evolved to an extent which really lessens the contributions of these classes.

For example, rogues used to have abilities no one else could get. Want to move stealthily without a spell? You need to be a rogue. Same goes for opening locks, finding traps, scaling walls without aid, etc. Now any class can gain many of these abilities through appropriate choices of backgrounds and class skills. Rogues as up front damage dealers? That was never the case until D&D 3.0 & that change was justified because backstab was too arbitrary.
Paladins were the fighter/cleric mix and they got to use the best weapons and cast a few spells. They were never temple defenders or champions of their gods. That was the role of the cleric. Now clerics are only limited by imagination as Domains allow a huge versatility of function unavailable to any other class. Fighting ability? Check. Stealth? Check. Arcane spells? Check. Variety of weapon proficiencies? Check. There is very little that clerics cannot do. The justification for a paladin has always been the shining beacon of good. Lawful Good is a demanding alignment to play & people need charismatic examples so that people continue to tow the line. Why would other deities care? Evil does not often want a focus on itself. After all, screaming "I AM THE CHAMPION of Evil!" tends to draw adventurers and opportunists towards you which is not good. Chaotic alignments would not want a Champion as it would create a hierarchy and any kind of order is anathema to a chaotic individual so concrete examples of someone being better just by dint of her class would be frowned upon. A neutral character might have a TEMPORARY champion but a permanent champion would lean too much towards Lawful territory and could risk alignment changes if said champions were the rule rather than the exception


7 people marked this as a favorite.

So back to fighting man, holy man, magic user, elf, dwarf, halfling?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

we can get rid of halfling too. A subclass of elf with "small" template would work.

Liberty's Edge

18 people marked this as a favorite.

Rogue hasn't been anything approaching a sub-class for a very, very, long time. It also epitomizes a fantasy archetype no other Class really works for very well. Removing it would be a really bad idea from a game design perspective.

Paladin is much easier to justify the removal of from a game design perspective, since it overlaps so much with Cleric thematically.

However, from a marketing perspective, removing either is an utterly awful idea. People enjoy both Classes immensely and will react with great anger at their removal. The popularity of the game will take a steep nosedive if two of the 10 most popular Classes are removed.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Talek & Luna wrote:
Evil does not often want a focus on itself. After all, screaming "I AM THE CHAMPION of Evil!" tends to draw adventurers and opportunists towards you which is not good. Chaotic alignments would not want a Champion as it would create a hierarchy and any kind of order is anathema to a chaotic individual so concrete examples of someone being better just by dint of her class would be frowned upon. A neutral character might have a TEMPORARY champion but a permanent champion would lean too much towards Lawful territory and could risk alignment changes if said champions were the rule rather than the exception

Not true. You are viewing the alignments as 2D paper cutouts and not as the vibrant, living things that all belief systems naturally are. I would argue that most evil aligned characters look in the mirror every morning and think that they are living a more "enlightened life" than others are. Look at Ayn Rand. She was a spokesperson for what I would classify as "CE" philosophy. She certainly didn't mind being a champion for her cause. Chaotic types don't usually disagree with a hierarchy based on merit and free choice. They do usually oppose a hierarchy based on tradition or on the force of law.

This website (https://www.defectivebydesign.org) is devoted to opposing DRM, another good example of modern people with a "chaotic" outlook. I would be willing to bet that website still has a leadership structure of some sort. They were even organizing (gasp!) a rally for free exchange.

Evil would also want its own champions, especially because most people who genuinely believe in an "evil" religion or philosophy hold to a belief that their way of seeing the world is genuinely better than the "good" way of seeing the world. Maybe natural selection is good for humanity, and we ought to be speeding it along with eugenics programs and gladiatorial combat. That system of thought would most definitely welcome a spokesperson.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe its time to do away with combat too?


Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Maybe its time to do away with combat too?

Arcane spellcasting tbh.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

"This is definitely my favorite thread on the Citadel."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tsk tsk, dont you know? The true "core" 4 are rogue, fighter, wizard and cleric. You cant go around removing one of them :P.

Now for real OP, removing core classes is a HUGE bad idea. I mean adding goblin and alchemist is a thing, cause in general people like more stuff, on the other hand losing stuff? Yeah not something people deal with well.

Dark Archive

Nox Aeterna wrote:
Tsk tsk, dont you know? The true "core" 4 are rogue, fighter, wizard and cleric. You cant go around removing one of them :P.

Rogue/thief didn't exist in the original edition of D&D until it was added in a supplement.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

We must go back to Hero Quest.


I'd like to see Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and one of Sorcerer or Wizard dropped or perhaps more accurately, folded back into 2e-style sub-classes.

I feel that such an arrangement would make the game easier to learn and play and would facilitate a greater flexibility in terms of character design.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:
We must go back to Hero Quest.

Braawwdsword!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx8sl2uC46A&feature=youtu.be&t=333


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dread Moores wrote:
"This is definitely my favorite thread on the Citadel."

Mine too.


Ah, this again, we could break it down to 2 classes: Fighting-Person, and Magic-User, or just 1 class: Hero.

The Cleric and Rogue are Johnny Come Lately; the Cleric was some weird Van Helsing deal, designed to take care of the original Vampire problem.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Kosh wrote:
Rogue/thief didn't exist in the original edition of D&D until it was added in a supplement.

Regardless, "rogue/thief" has become a lot more core to fantasy archetypes than even the cleric, as it often features in arguably the most "core" holy trinity of fantasy archetypes: warrior, mage, rogue.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a much easier and quicker solution: Don't play rogues or paladins (or clerics or aardvarks or breakfast cereals or whatever).

If that doesn't work for you, perhaps consider retiring yourself from playing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If anything, I'd say that the concepts of bard, rogue, and swashbuckler all could fit into a similar class chassis. Honestly, if PF2e had implemented the idea of casting via feats, the number of class chassis could be dropped very precipitously. Really could have gone to a more character-by-design concept instead of character-by-template.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
knightnday wrote:
So back to fighting man, holy man, magic user, elf, dwarf, halfling?

Do I have to be an Elf to play Elf or can I be a Human? Can I take levels in Elf and then multiclass into Dwarf?


Rysky wrote:
knightnday wrote:
So back to fighting man, holy man, magic user, elf, dwarf, halfling?
Do I have to be an Elf to play Elf or can I be a Human? Can I take levels in Elf and then multiclass into Dwarf?

I think if you want to do that you should play a more flexible system...

I've never played Gurps, so idk how it is, but I've heard good and bad things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't want to remove Paladins from the game. I do want to remove them from core. They have no reason to be in core as they are an incredibly niche class (unless blackguard, tyrant, and avenger [or whatever names] are also available).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
knightnday wrote:
So back to fighting man, holy man, magic user, elf, dwarf, halfling?
Do I have to be an Elf to play Elf or can I be a Human? Can I take levels in Elf and then multiclass into Dwarf?

Only if you take the Super Munchkin feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think there is precedence for multiclassing elf and human. Orc and human too. Everything else, ask your GM


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
If anything, I'd say that the concepts of bard, rogue, and swashbuckler all could fit into a similar class chassis. Honestly, if PF2e had implemented the idea of casting via feats, the number of class chassis could be dropped very precipitously. Really could have gone to a more character-by-design concept instead of character-by-template.

yeah, there would be less base classes...but they would all be generic and bland and not a single one would have anything related around casting without putting a ton of recources in it

thanks, but...no thanks


This thread...again.

Just stop.


If you don't like it, skip it
there is literally an option to grey out threads on the forum so you don't have to look at them


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:

If you don't like it, skip it

there is literally an option to grey out threads on the forum so you don't have to look at them

Sure.

Thanks, but this thread just keeps on giving.

Case in point, stop asking for classes that have been a part of the D&D rules to be taken out in favor of bland, generic, DIY point buy everyman classes.

Yet here you are telling me to stop.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
If anything, I'd say that the concepts of bard, rogue, and swashbuckler all could fit into a similar class chassis. Honestly, if PF2e had implemented the idea of casting via feats, the number of class chassis could be dropped very precipitously. Really could have gone to a more character-by-design concept instead of character-by-template.

Well, if you don't mind going a smidge more rules light than PF, you could look at Shadow of the Demon Lord and get your fix there. I like that game.

Really, that answer kind of applies to OP as well.


Derp?

Derp.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Perhaps it's time to return to the hunter-gathering system......


I would retire the fighter if anything. Rogue has a niche, just needs to be done properly and its features not given out to 50 gp scrolls at game start.

Also, I'd like to retire myself too, please Paizo.


Malthraz wrote:
Envall wrote:
We must go back to Hero Quest.

Braawwdsword!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx8sl2uC46A&feature=youtu.be&t=333

Hey people that know Hero Quest! I'm not alone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Rogue hasn't been anything approaching a sub-class for a very, very, long time. It also epitomizes a fantasy archetype no other Class really works for very well. Removing it would be a really bad idea from a game design perspective.

Paladin is much easier to justify the removal of from a game design perspective, since it overlaps so much with Cleric thematically.

However, from a marketing perspective, removing either is an utterly awful idea. People enjoy both Classes immensely and will react with great anger at their removal. The popularity of the game will take a steep nosedive if two of the 10 most popular Classes are removed.

The idea that removing the paladins is bad from a marketing perspective hinges on the idea that there is no class replacing the paladin could create enough anticipation/happiness to offset the anger the removal causes.

2E is effectively removing 27 or so classes from the game. Each has players that enjoy them and will be angry at their removal. I find it very unlikely that, among the players familiar with these class, the paladin is more popular than every one of them. If the Inquisitor was in 2E core book, by the time the 3E playtest comes around it would just be assumed that the Inquisitor would be in it. Sometimes players don't know what they want until the get it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

They should have ditched some core classes and replace them with strong new classes they designed for PF1. Slayer beats Rogue everyday of the week. Or Inquisitor. Or Mesmerist. Make the Hellknight à base class. Embrace Pathfinder and throw aways the old skin. Give us Bloodrager and Magus instead of Barbarian and fighty mage.

Because so far 5E got the monopoly of nostalgia and does it way better than Pathfinder. What PF does have on the other hands is an emblematic setting, a very good class design experience and lots of choices in builds.

So far I find that they don’t emphasize their strengths enough. But that is just my opinion.


SteelGuts wrote:

They should have ditched some core classes and replace them with strong new classes they designed for PF1. Slayer beats Rogue everyday of the week. Or Inquisitor. Or Mesmerist. Make the Hellknight à base class. Embrace Pathfinder and throw aways the old skin. Give us Bloodrager and Magus instead of Barbarian and fighty mage.

Because so far 5E got the monopoly of nostalgia and does it way better than Pathfinder. What PF does have on the other hands is an emblematic setting, a very good class design experience and lots of choices in builds.

So far I find that they don’t emphasize their strengths enough. But that is just my opinion.

In my heart, I agree with you but in my mind I know that a large chunk of the PF1E crowd only plays core and will die immediately if the core classes aren't preserved. I mean it. They will die on the spot and there will be nothing else any of us can do.

That said, I hope we see an advanced player's handbook pretty soon after the game's core release that gets some of the weirder stuff back in there ASAP.


No, it's not.

The Exchange

The rogue as portrayed in PF1 does not meet any of my definitions of a fantasy archetypal rogues. He doesn't mimic Conan, Tasslehoff, Jack the Giant Slayer, Frodo or Bilbo Baggins or other archetypes that I can think of. When I think of rogues I think of the following core concepts.

1) Morally ambiguous
2) Trickster, deceiver, thinker. Rogues use their brains not their brawn to overcome situations.
3) Not great combatants (Conan is the exception but he is more towards a fighter or a bandit than a pickpocket rogue as is the stereotype of D&D)
4) Looks for non-combat ways to overcome challenges. A rogue doesn't want you to know she is around. Hence the emphasis on pick pockets and stealth.

Rogue combat powers in PF1 do nothing to play a classical rogue as there is nothing granted to them that offers misdirection, deception & trickery in combat. Sneak attack is lame. Why should a rogue do more damage on a single swing with a dagger than a knight with a greatsword? It just defies belief. Backstab was a much better thematically but it had issues in implementation so we got sneak attack instead.

Also, giving non rogue martials skill feats really hones in on the rogues traditional turf. Who cares if rogues get the most skill feats if everyone just cherry picks the best ones. Its the same arguement made against fighters having the most feats in PF1. If everyone can get access to a feat that allows you to jump 30 feet in the air at will in heavy armor then why an I still running around with candy wrapper armor for monsters? Tradition?
Even the rogues signature defensive ability evasion is up for grabs now that anyone can pump a high dex to make reflex saves and ignore damage on a critcal success. The rogue seems like its losing its identity, skills for everyone!, signature defensive abilities up for grabs for anyone that can super stat up. What, besides sneak attack, is going to be kept for the rogue? What makes her unique? Not much I am afraid. So just fold her into the fighter and make it possible to be a guerilla fighter in light armor by selecting various feats because you are taking the heart out of the class.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:

If you don't like it, skip it

there is literally an option to grey out threads on the forum so you don't have to look at them

But that doesn't work when people keep creating new paladin-related threads to cut loose with and repeatedly rehash their entrenched ideas on paladins. When "Goblins in core" was announced, the same damn thing happened, and ignoring single goblin threads was pointless. And all this grar and negativity and antagonizing each other spills over into other non-paladin threads, and the rest of the forums. I would guess it also is very likely damping down enthusiasm from many other people who would like to participate in the playtest discussions but don't feel it is worth it when they'll get their heads (figuratively) bit off for trying.

I get that people are passionate about what they like and don't like, and everyone is at least a little bit anxious about the mostly unrevealed changes on the way. But trying to slug it out and wear other posters down isn't going to convert any other posters to your side.

Make your points as clearly and persuasively as possible, sure, but also know when to step back and allow your position/point(s) stand without trying to bludgeon others with it. Recognize that others want their positions & concerns to be heard too. And when a thread goes off the rails and gets locked, don't create another new thread about how you are being silenced.

I'm gonna go eat my way through a pint of Cherry Garcia now. Although I'm pretty sure someone will think I'm doing that wrong too.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

To be quite honest, I love me some rogues and other "sub" classes, so do what you want in your campaigns and I'll do the same in mine.


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Seisho wrote:

If you don't like it, skip it

there is literally an option to grey out threads on the forum so you don't have to look at them

But that doesn't work when people keep creating new paladin-related threads to cut loose with and repeatedly rehash their entrenched ideas on paladins. When "Goblins in core" was announced, the same damn thing happened, and ignoring single goblin threads was pointless. And all this grar and negativity and antagonizing each other spills over into other non-paladin threads, and the rest of the forums. I would guess it also is very likely damping down enthusiasm from many other people who would like to participate in the playtest discussions but don't feel it is worth it when they'll get their heads (figuratively) bit off for trying.

I get that people are passionate about what they like and don't like, and everyone is at least a little bit anxious about the mostly unrevealed changes on the way. But trying to slug it out and wear other posters down isn't going to convert any other posters to your side.

Make your points as clearly and persuasively as possible, sure, but also know when to step back and allow your position/point(s) stand without trying to bludgeon others with it. Recognize that others want their positions & concerns to be heard too. And when a thread goes off the rails and gets locked, don't create another new thread about how you are being silenced.

I'm gonna go eat my way through a pint of Cherry Garcia now. Although I'm pretty sure someone will think I'm doing that wrong too.

I meant that 'skip it' about this thread, because he specifically said 'this thread again'

All I wanted to say is that if someone does not like a certain (kind of) thread(s) just skip it
(like I skipped th AC math thread)

I never intended to insult anyone, step on any toes or stop people from discussing the topics
I also never intended to wear other people down, well I try to sway maybe some with my arguments but that is part of the discussion isnt it?

Sorry if I got anyone in a wrong way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talek & Luna wrote:

The rogue as portrayed in PF1 does not meet any of my definitions of a fantasy archetypal rogues. He doesn't mimic Conan, Tasslehoff, Jack the Giant Slayer, Frodo or Bilbo Baggins or other archetypes that I can think of. When I think of rogues I think of the following core concepts.

1) Morally ambiguous
2) Trickster, deceiver, thinker. Rogues use their brains not their brawn to overcome situations.
3) Not great combatants (Conan is the exception but he is more towards a fighter or a bandit than a pickpocket rogue as is the stereotype of D&D)
4) Looks for non-combat ways to overcome challenges. A rogue doesn't want you to know she is around. Hence the emphasis on pick pockets and stealth.

You don't even acknowledge the possibility that Conan the Barbarian, inspiration (along with Kothar and Fafhrd) for the Barbarian class, might be a Barbarian?

Is any class less than 40 years old just a fad to you?

Talek & Luna wrote:
Why should a rogue do more damage on a single swing with a dagger than a knight with a greatsword?

Because of where the dagger went. Literally anyone in the world can be killed with a single blow of a dagger; it's just a question of hitting the throat, heart, etc. It defies belief that being stabbed with a dagger wouldn't be potentially deadly.

A good Rogue design should have the following features:
(1) Is probably better off not wearing medium or heavy armor.
(2) At least as good at physical skills (climbing, stealth, etc.) as casters are when using magic (Spider-Climb, Invisibility, etc.), and good at social skills too.
(3) Can fight effectively using daggers, rapiers, etc.
(4) Should be good at trickster-style combat abilities; sneak attack, feint, trip, poison, disappear into the shadows...
(5) Not reliant on having enormous strength for these abilities.
(6) Good at dodging things (Evasion, etc.)
(7) Can pick up some minor magical powers (scroll use or whatever) without much effort.

This seems different from the archetypal heavily armored Fighter.

The PF1 core rogue didn't do this very well (there really weren't any good dump stats if you wanted to be as clever and good at bluffing as the theme suggests), but maybe PF2 will do better.


Talek & Luna wrote:

The rogue as portrayed in PF1 does not meet any of my definitions of a fantasy archetypal rogues. He doesn't mimic Conan, Tasslehoff, Jack the Giant Slayer, Frodo or Bilbo Baggins or other archetypes that I can think of. When I think of rogues I think of the following core concepts.

1) Morally ambiguous
2) Trickster, deceiver, thinker. Rogues use their brains not their brawn to overcome situations.
3) Not great combatants (Conan is the exception but he is more towards a fighter or a bandit than a pickpocket rogue as is the stereotype of D&D)
4) Looks for non-combat ways to overcome challenges. A rogue doesn't want you to know she is around. Hence the emphasis on pick pockets and stealth.

Rogue combat powers in PF1 do nothing to play a classical rogue as there is nothing granted to them that offers misdirection, deception & trickery in combat. Sneak attack is lame. Why should a rogue do more damage on a single swing with a dagger than a knight with a greatsword? It just defies belief. Backstab was a much better thematically but it had issues in implementation so we got sneak attack instead.

Also, giving non rogue martials skill feats really hones in on the rogues traditional turf. Who cares if rogues get the most skill feats if everyone just cherry picks the best ones. Its the same arguement made against fighters having the most feats in PF1. If everyone can get access to a feat that allows you to jump 30 feet in the air at will in heavy armor then why an I still running around with candy wrapper armor for monsters? Tradition?
Even the rogues signature defensive ability evasion is up for grabs now that anyone can pump a high dex to make reflex saves and ignore damage on a critcal success. The rogue seems like its losing its identity, skills for everyone!, signature defensive abilities up for grabs for anyone that can super stat up. What, besides sneak attack, is going to be kept for the rogue? What makes her unique? Not much I am afraid. So just fold her into the fighter and make it possible to...

I agree with you on this. Folks dont like multi-classing to build out concepts so they want everybody to be able to eat the rogue and fighters lunch. I dont want the fighter, rogue, and pally to go away but they are slowly being designed away.

The Exchange

Matthew Downie wrote:
Talek & Luna wrote:

The rogue as portrayed in PF1 does not meet any of my definitions of a fantasy archetypal rogues. He doesn't mimic Conan, Tasslehoff, Jack the Giant Slayer, Frodo or Bilbo Baggins or other archetypes that I can think of. When I think of rogues I think of the following core concepts.

1) Morally ambiguous
2) Trickster, deceiver, thinker. Rogues use their brains not their brawn to overcome situations.
3) Not great combatants (Conan is the exception but he is more towards a fighter or a bandit than a pickpocket rogue as is the stereotype of D&D)
4) Looks for non-combat ways to overcome challenges. A rogue doesn't want you to know she is around. Hence the emphasis on pick pockets and stealth.

You don't even acknowledge the possibility that Conan the Barbarian, inspiration (along with Kothar and Fafhrd) for the Barbarian class, might be a Barbarian?

Is any class less than 40 years old just a fad to you?

Talek & Luna wrote:
Why should a rogue do more damage on a single swing with a dagger than a knight with a greatsword?

Because of where the dagger went. Literally anyone in the world can be killed with a single blow of a dagger; it's just a question of hitting the throat, heart, etc. It defies belief that being stabbed with a dagger wouldn't be potentially deadly.

A good Rogue design should have the following features:
(1) Is probably better off not wearing medium or heavy armor.
(2) At least as good at physical skills (climbing, stealth, etc.) as casters are when using magic (Spider-Climb, Invisibility, etc.), and good at social skills too.
(3) Can fight effectively using daggers, rapiers, etc.
(4) Should be good at trickster-style combat abilities; sneak attack, feint, trip, poison, disappear into the shadows...
(5) Not reliant on having enormous strength for these abilities.
(6) Good at dodging things (Evasion, etc.)
(7) Can pick up some minor magical powers (scroll use or whatever) without much effort.

This seems different from the...

1) I was acknowledging the description of Conan as a thief since he is acknowledged as a barbarian, thief, conqueror, raider, etc. He does not fall into any PF class alone as he rarely "rages" when he fights. He has the unbelievable speed and strength often attributed to a wild animal but he is rarely out of control as the rage power often suggests. He would more easily be described as a multiclass barbarian/rogue/fighter than straight single class.

2) Yes any weapon can kill. The likelihood of that in a combat when compared to use vs another weapon in combat is the reason for the range in damage dice. You never saw armies of dagger wielders in any professional ancient or medieval army, mercenary company as preferred weapons. Its always a backup weapon or an assassin/thug weapon. There is a reason why blades get longer as metallurgy techniques improve and harder metals can be mixed and forged. To say that a rogue is going to sneak attack a knight and find gaps in the armor while the knight is on his feet is beyond ridiculous. Try it while sparing in a SECA event and you will get your butt handed to you.

3rd
1a) Light armor should never be equal to heavy armor unless you have mythic dexterity and even then it should not compare to mythic heavy armor
2a) Agreed but now everyone can take skills at legendary so that is no longer a rogue only thing.
3a) Fighters can do that too and would be much better because umm.. they are fighters.Not a unique rogue trait.
4a) Sneak attack is not a trickster fighting ability unless it is mixed in with feints. Any fighter worth her salt would see this coming a mile away. They are trained to fight after all.
5a) No, rogues should be reliant on their wits over any physical means. Rogues are thinkers. They don't want to do an honest toil. Work is for suckers.
6) Agreed but now anyone gets evasion with a high enough reflex save.
7) Agreed as this has been iconic with high level rogues since D&D

The Exchange

Thank you Planpanther! That was exactly the point of my thread. It wasn't to troll people and get click bait. While I am enthused for PF2 some of the design decisions have me concerned because it seems like they are blurring the distinctions between classes, especially fighter, rogue, cleric & paladin. Its no coincidence that these have been the only classes previewed outside of the alchemist. I don't think it is being a troll to point these concerns out to players and designers.
I am not trying to take away your class(es). I just want them to be unique and distinct since this is a cooperative game and it is more fun when everyone can bring something unique to the table. I am leery of classless or modular systems as there can be potential to find the "best" build and you end up with four very similar if not identical characters in the group and I don't want PF2 to head down that rabbit hole.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talek & Luna wrote:
I am leery of classless or modular systems as there can be potential to find the "best" build and you end up with four very similar if not identical characters in the group and I don't want PF2 to head down that rabbit hole.

Isn't that kind of the exact rabbit hole that fills up huge amounts of space here on the PF1 forums?

Grand Lodge

I couldn't agree more that we need to go back to the original way! PF2 should clearly just be Chainmail in a new box.

Wait, scratch that. Better make it an old box.


Maybe Paladin should just be a Prestige class out of Cavalier/Fighter/Cleric?


Talek & Luna wrote:


I am not trying to take away your class(es). I just want them to be unique and distinct since this is a cooperative game and it is more fun when everyone can bring something unique to the table.

Then why the heck were you talking about Paladin and Rogue being 'sub' classes and REMOVING them from the game?

How about instead making constructive comments to make them unique classes.

I mean, how are Rogues are even a 'sub' or niche class?

They are an archetypical element of almost any rpg today in one way or another.


Seisho wrote:
Talek & Luna wrote:


I am not trying to take away your class(es). I just want them to be unique and distinct since this is a cooperative game and it is more fun when everyone can bring something unique to the table.

Then why the heck were you talking about Paladin and Rogue being 'sub' classes and REMOVING them from the game?

How about instead making constructive comments to make them unique classes.

I mean, how are Rogues are even a 'sub' or niche class?

They are an archetypical element of almost any rpg today in one way or another.

My take is that the Rogue is differentiated largely by what they do out of combat - the subterfuge, thievery, deception and so on - more than they are by how they behave in combat. It's not as if the warrior archetype doesn't include swashbucklers, gladiators, dervishes and others who use light armour, mobility, precision and trickery in combat. T&L seems to be suggesting that one class, with sufficient customisation, would allow most non-casters to be built without needing a Rogue class separate from the Fighter, so you could build anyone from 'Bilboa Bagginses' or 'Coninny the Barbarian' (to avoid stepping on the toes of the originals) without needing to multiclass to do it.

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Perhaps its time to retire the rogue, the paladin and other subclasses All Messageboards