I've just been thinking that it doesn't make sense for a class without spellcasting to lack full BAB. With Unchained Monk released a while ago, Rogue, Ninja, and Stalker Vigilante are the only three classes in the game that lack spellcasting and suffer from this BAB reduction.
The question is, why? Sneak attack is clearly not worth the BAB reduction, neither are rogue talents. In comparison the Fighter has 1.5 as many feats, better armor, and a better chance to hit. The Ranger has 4th level spellcasting, better saves, and enemy specialization. Lastly the Slayer has better saves, half a rangers benefits, and half Sneak attack progression
I understand the old "Because thats how DnD did it," argument, but from a balance perspective I doubt full martial rogues would really break the game at all.
Does anyone know if they tried this during Playtesting and Rogues turned out to be OP, or is Sneak Attack just really valued that highly in terms of design cost?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sneak Attack and a pile of skills- like, a mountain of them. Rogues can be relevant in scenarios where combat ability is absolutely meaningless with minimal excess effort, while, say, a fighter? A fighter's going to struggle.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Congratulations! You have hit upon one of the primary reasons why Rogue is widely considered to be the worst class in the game.
Not to sound combative here, but I don't buy that as an explanation.
The Fighter is a good example where, sure, the Rogue out skills the fighter easily at least until Level 5 where Fighters can opt to grab Advanced Weapon Training and get bumped up to 4+Int skills per level. The recent options for the Fighter really help boost their skills, and the Fighter rocks at least 1.5 if not twice the feats of a Rogue.
Still, Skill ranks are just a bonus benefit. The only real jump that matters is from 2+Int to 4+Int, especially once you get past level 3 and suddenly you have a whole world of spells, potions, magic items, and wands available to boost your skill checks through the roof. A Rogue might be good before those skill boosters are available, but even then there are plenty of other classes that have more than enough skill points AND magic to boost those skills further. Alchemist, Investigator, Bard, and Mesmersist are all excellent skill monkeys that can do the Rogue's job. Especially since all of those classes have Magic meaning they have a better repertoire.
Also, I'm not sure Sneak attack is worth sacrificing BAB. The Slayer really proves this point, as it rocks Full BAB, better saves than the rogue, better feat selection, 1/2 Ranger favored enemy progression, and 1/2 Sneak Attack. Plenty of Archetypes gain 1/2 sneak attack progression and barely lose anything in the trade. Its clearly not worth a full BAB downgrade.
That just leaves the Rogue's defensive abilities, but Evasion and Uncanny dodge exist on multiple classes that have full BAB.
Just from a design space aspect, it really looks like the Rogue could use full BAB without breaking the game.
You’re ... a little late to this party. People’ve been complaining about rogues being underpowered for years, it’s why the unchained rogue is so much stronger. (Though, perhaps, not as strong as it should be.)
I’ve little doubt that rogues will be much stronger combatants in Pathfinder 2.0, which’ll be being playtested in a couple of weeks.
|
The unchained rogue with a full BAB would be better than most fighters and at least some rangers.
The Unchained rogue was a VERY significant upgrade from Chained and is a quite viable and competitive class as is.
It would also make a rogue an INSANELY good dip class. Free weapon finesse, class skills, sneak attack, saves. Free feat at level 2. Dex to damage at level 3.
Man, that would absolutely KILL the swashbuckler :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don’t get me twisted, I’m not saying the Unchained rogue needs full BAB! That would make them crazy strong.
And the Unchained rogue is plenty playable, if it fits your character concept. Still, I maintain that it could stand to be a tad stronger without adversely effecting class balance. In particular, it could use some sort of baked in increase to saves, like fighters get with armed bravery and I forget the name of the feat that lets you add your armor training to reflex. Or they coulda just given the unchained rogue a second strong save.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Comparing the Rogue with the Fighter is a bit disingenuous since the Fighter is also a bad class. You should at least make the comparison against the Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger; god forbid we include casters like the Inquisitor in the comparison.
Okay, I'm not sure how overpowered a full-BAB Rogue (Chained version) would be compared to a Fighter, but I see the merit in making it full-BAB. Yeah, the Rogue has more skills per level, and if he gets his iteratives off, his Sneak Attacks will be insane, but there are tradeoffs. A Fighter gets a lot more feats, and armour and weapon training, inherently making him a better combatant. Again, not sure if that's a fair tradeoff with the bunch of skills and class abilities the Rogue gets, but still.
If I were to design a D10 Rogue, I'd propose to start with the base Rogue class from the CRB, with the following changes:
- Slightly fewer skill points per level.
- If you get your sneak attack off across multiple attacks in one round, you get diminished returns. This fixes the full-BAB TWF Sneak Attack damage explosion. Say, a static -2 sneak attack dice on each subsequent hit (or make it scale to level somehow, not really thought about that). Fighters get inherent damage increases from Weapon Training and Weapon Specialisation, Rogues get this. Maybe looking at it, it doesn't really scale equally, but this is just a thing I made up on the spot. Playtesting needs to be done, obviously. Maybe also decrease the damage dice of Sneak Attack as well.
Anyway, there needs to be a tradeoff between Sneak Attack and full-BAB. Maybe start with 1d6 at level one, and then the same progression as the Slayer. Or something else, I don't know, I'm just spitballing here.
I like what they did with the Rogue in Pathfinder 2, where only certain weapons can cause Sneak Attack to happen. It makes sense, too. you can shove a dagger in someone's kidney, but whacking them with a greatsword wouldn't be as effective. Maybe let them pick up martial weapon proficiency (or proficiency in one or two certain weapons) as a Rogue trick with the same rider, so they can grab a longsword and start slashing away if Sneak Attack isn't an option.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, that would absolutely KILL the swashbuckler :-)
Swashbuckler is already dead. The last nail in the coffin was the Virtuous Bravo.
The unchained rogue with a full BAB would be better than most fighters and at least some rangers.
Fighter certainly has it's own problems, but with AWT (which includes the Warrior Spirit into Training trick) it's actually a pretty good class (for a martial).
It would also make a rogue an INSANELY good dip class. Free weapon finesse, class skills, sneak attack, saves.
Saves? SAVES??? Rogue has the worst base saves a PC class can possibly have!
Now, this is thinking outside of the box, but maybe Rogues aren't full BAB and d10 HP because they are suppose to be tricky, back stabbing, cunning, brains not brawn types?
Their main class feature, and their main source of damage, does "precision damage". Yet the class can't make precise attacks. You don't see a problem with that? "not brawns" only means they aren't strength based. "Brains over brawn" characters should be better at striking exactly where they can inflict damage. Your very own arguments supports Rogues having higher attack rolls than "dumb muscle" melee types. It wouldn't actually need to be full BAB, but then Rogue should add Int to attack rolls or something. As it is, Rogue is strictly physical based.
Also, you literally can't backstab someone in Pathfinder.From a game design view, a pure melee with medium BAB, no attack roll bonuses, no good defensive ability, and the worst possible saves is simply a pure failure. It shames me that the writer of unRogue didn't have the balls to fix that.
Lots of classes can do one thing rogues do, plus what the class does. None of them can do as much as a single rogue can do. That is the strength of the class.
Except Archaeologist Bard. And Investigator. And Slayer. And Alchemist with one of the four archetypes that grant Trapfinding. And Trapper/Urban Ranger.
If we're talking about houseruling things, then I would say just trade sneak attack dice progression for BAB, and see how that works out.
Just use the Slayer Sneak Attack progression and give the class full BAB. See how that works out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don’t get me twisted, I’m not saying the Unchained rogue needs full BAB!
I do. Every single martial class in the game should have d10 HD, full BAB, and two good saves. Because not being able to reshape matter with your thougts should have at least some benefits!
Edit: Well, it Rogue doesn't actually need full BAB, but then it would need a good attack roll bonus. Out of all medium BAB classes, every one except Rogue, Ninja and Mesmerist have a non-spell means to improve their attack roll.
That would make them crazy strong.
Well, you might want to nerf Debilitating Injury.
Because here's the thing: The average attack roll of a Rogue striking a target a bewildered target is on average throughout levels one to twenty exactly the same as a Fighters (including Weapon Training), always being being one above or below except at 4th level. That means you basically have the same hit chance, only only Rogue needs to land an attack first.Full BAB Rogue wouldn't need the Bewildered Debilityting Injury, at least not the increased penalty against the Rogue's attacks.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a game design view, a pure melee with medium BAB, no attack roll bonuses, no good defensive ability, and the worst possible saves is simply a pure failure. It shames me that the writer of unRogue didn't have the balls to fix that.
You must be playing a different game than I am. My unchained rogue is quite, quite competitive with the other "martial" classes (including Paladin, Ranger, Bloodrager, etc in that category).
It does a little less damage in many circumstances, more damage in some circumstances, and is generally a lot more flexible (including regularly imposing some fairly nice debuffs on enemies). That seems a fine tradeoff to me.
I agree that its saves are a weak point but EVERY class has (and should have) weak points. And those saves are partially offset by its ability to hide and not be attacked at all.
Now, obviously, it is far inferior to the full caster classes, even in its niches of doing damage and being flexible. But that is far more an indication that those classes are overpowered than that the rogue is under powered.
The rogue would be ok with 3/4 BAB if it had a way to boost it's attack bonus, and was better at utility.
Full BAB alone isn't the answer
With that being said, the core rogue is a subpar class. There's nothing wrong with admitting that. Just like the core monk is a subpar class.
From a game design view, a pure melee with medium BAB, no attack roll bonuses, no good defensive ability, and the worst possible saves is simply a pure failure. It shames me that the writer of unRogue didn't have the balls to fix that.
You must be playing a different game than I am. My unchained rogue is quite, quite competitive with the other "martial" classes (including Paladin, Ranger, Bloodrager, etc in that category).
It does a little less damage in many circumstances, more damage in some circumstances, and is generally a lot more flexible (including regularly imposing some fairly nice debuffs on enemies). That seems a fine tradeoff to me.
I agree that its saves are a weak point but EVERY class has (and should have) weak points. And those saves are partially offset by its ability to hide and not be attacked at all.
Now, obviously, it is far inferior to the full caster classes, even in its niches of doing damage and being flexible. But that is far more an indication that those classes are overpowered than that the rogue is under powered.
A rogue keeping up with a those classes whem their special abilities are off isn't significant since those classes don't shred things until they use things like smite or rage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, this is thinking outside of the box, but maybe Rogues aren't full BAB and d10 HP because they are suppose to be tricky, back stabbing, cunning, brains not brawn types?Their main class feature, and their main source of damage, does "precision damage". Yet the class can't make precise attacks. You don't see a problem with that? "not brawns" only means they aren't strength based. "Brains over brawn" characters should be better at striking exactly where they can inflict damage. Your very own arguments supports Rogues having higher attack rolls than "dumb muscle" melee types. It wouldn't actually need to be full BAB, but then Rogue should add Int to attack rolls or something. As it is, Rogue is strictly physical based.
Also, you literally can't backstab someone in Pathfinder.From a game design view, a pure melee with medium BAB, no attack roll bonuses, no good defensive ability, and the worst possible saves is simply a pure failure. It shames me that the writer of unRogue didn't have the balls to fix that.
Once again, think outside of the box. What you insist on is giving the stats to the rogue to make it a front line fighter that doesn't need to think and just wades into any situation depending on a full BAB and HP to get things done. What your envisioning is a fighter that gives up the bonus feats and armor for sneak attack and skills.
That isn't what a rogue is suppose to be. The image is the guy sneaking around, comes out of nowhere with a knife (or a club) strikes and slinks away.
I'm not necessarily saying your image of the Rogue is wrong, but I do want to stress it's your image of the Rogue, that might differ from mine or anyone else's image. This is just a disclaimer to justify what I'm trying to say isn't an attack on you, personally, but on the Rogue as a class, as I see it.
The image of the Rogue is what the designer wants it to be, not the player. The player just has to contend with whatever the designer does to the class. With all the archetypes, you can flavour the character any way you want, but there's still a mechanical core. The core of d10 classes is usually pure training (Paladin, Fighter, Ranger), or just extreme savagery (Barbarian). All the d8 classes have traded away some of that training for magical abilities, except the Rogue. And I can understand that, if the Rogue gets something in return. The Unchained Rogue does that perfectly, I think. The Rogue suddenly becomes a sort of combat-sapper. Usually sappers are associated with engineering (and the Archetype supports that), but you could stretch the analogy to melee combat as well. Sappers can literally sap enemy defenses, just like Debilitating Injury does. A few hits from an Un-Rogue and the enemy is nearly harmless.
Personally, my vision of a Rogue isn't a damage dealer, but an underminer, a debuffer. Let the d10 classes be the damage dealers and the d8 classes the supporters. That's not to say they can't or shouldn't be powerful, but it's sort of in line with what most of the classes are based on: Cleric and Bard smooth things out (I'm limiting myself to the Core classes here, because the point becomes muddier and muddier the more books I include), Wizard and Sorcerer give back-row support by either buffing or blowing stuff up. The Monk is a weird exception that operates on a high-risk-righ-reward system (no proficiencies in armour, but really good offensive capabilities), and the Druid is a weird thing in that it's powered down because you're playing two characters at once, but each individually can become a powerhouse if you focus on it. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, since the Rogue lacks both spell power and physical power, I'd love to see it fill a more unique role in a party, apart from just "the trapfinder," and incidental damage dealer if he gets his Sneak Attack off. The only real debuff-based class is the Mesmerist, and that class came like 8 years after the CRB. I'd like a more physical-based version of that, and the Rogue could fit that perfectly.
I'm not saying the Rogue necessarily needs to be reflavoured as a combat engineer, as a staple image of the Rogue is the "street urchin," which wouldn't fit the affinity for mechanical devices or the militaristic background, but as I said, a reworking of the Debilitating Injury could really help improve the Rogue's status.
---
Anyway, that all said, I've played a lot of RPGs that do not have a proficiency or BAB system, and while it's what makes Pathfinder unique, I think it's also its downfall. I personally find it needlessly fiddly. Yeah, the systems I referred to (Dungeon World and 13th Age, specifically) are less realistic and more improvisational, so maybe it's not a fair comparison, but I honestly think divorcing classes from combat ability is a great idea. Everyone is equally awesome, regardless of class. That frees up design space for other things, allowing classes to excel in different areas. So yeah, the Rogue is as likely to hit an enemy as the Fighter, but how he does so, and what happens after it is what makes it interesting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that its saves are a weak point but EVERY class has (and should have) weak points. And those saves are partially offset by its ability to hide and not be attacked at all.
The Rogue's Weakpoints:
3/4ths BAB as a martial class0 methods of boosting Attack Rolls
The Worst Saving Throws in the game
0 spell casting
Any character in the game can check 1 of those off the list and be a better character than the rogue. Not to say Rogues can't do well currently, or be fun classes to play. They certainly can, its just that other classes do it better and thats FRUSTRATING. The Ranger, The Alchemist, The Bard, The Investigator, and The Slayer should not all be better Rogues than the actual class NAMED ROGUE.
And the "but mah skills" argument isn't valid since all those classes check off 1 or more of the above boxes while having 6+Int skills (or in the Alchemist's case, literally having 4+Int and being an int based spellcaster). Additionally, skills are so inferior to having any kind of magic its not even funny. Why spend 20 levels learning how to move about unseen when you can cast Invisibility at level 4 and have the SAME bonus. Sure, a Rogue can use UMD to replicate magic or have his allies give him bonuses...but so can every other character in the game. A commoner with UMD can boost his skills the same way, and be boosted by party members too.
snip
Also, what world are you folks playing in where the Rogue can sneak around during combat? Did they get given Hide in Plain Sight at some point? The idea of a Rogue slipping into combat, stabbing a guy, and running off isn't a viable concept based on the way combat flows in this game. Who is handing you circumstance bonuses during combat? Its certainly not RAW to just get random bonuses. Are you using a specific method to land those sneak attacks, if so what methods are boosting your chance to hit with your sneak attacks? Is it something only the Rogue can do? I bet its not. Tripping, Intimidating, Feinting, and Flanking are things ANY martial character can be built to accomplish. None of these is the Rogue "being sneaky" because none of them are unique to the Rogue. The Rogue has no single unique mechanic to it that facilitates their sneak attacks landing, instead these are just hoops the Rogue has to jump through in order to land the same damage everyone else is already doing.
The reason the Rogue is paired with other classes similar to the Rogue is to demonstrate how they do things better than the Rogue, but I'm quite happy to dismantle your argument that Rogues aren't built for combat. Every class in Pathfinder is built for Combat, its a core part of the game design. Every single class in the game is built to handle itself in a combat situation, either through Magic, Arms, or a mix. Each of the Rogue substitutes is better than the Rogue in combat and in the field. The Rogue does not have a niche where it does better than another class that can't be better filled by someone else's shoes.
I'm not here to argue that Rogues shouldn't be played, nor am I here to argue that Rogues are not fun to play. I'm here to make an argument about Opportunity Cost. I'm here to argue that the Rogue as a class is a worse option than any other alternative you might take. Can you make the Rogue work? Sure thing! You can have fun and be a badass with the class, because Pathfinder is a high fantasy gaming system designed to provide you those moments of badassery. However, you would have an easier time accomplishing the task of being a Rogue if you chose a different class. That frustrates me because "Class identity" is something I care about.
If you gave the Rogue and the Ninja a good Will Save and the ability, "Rogues use their Level as their BAB when attacking targets that qualify for their sneak attack" would that really be so bad?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you gave the Rogue and the Ninja a good Will Save and the ability, "Rogues use their Level as their BAB when attacking targets that qualify for their sneak attack" would that really be so bad?
Not sure about tacking on an extra save (but yeah, every class should have two good saves and one bad, I feel), but I really like the idea of pseudo-full-BAB against sneak attackable creatures. That's in line with Unchained Monk and really fits the flavour.
---
Another thing that bothers me is most Rogues going TWF, on an already hampered chassis. You're lagging a few points behind on the Fighter, and then you lose another 2 because you're going TWF. People have explained to me often why they do so, so I don't need any convincing, but I still feel it's odd.
|
|
If you gave the Rogue and the Ninja a good Will Save and the ability, "Rogues use their Level as their BAB when attacking targets that qualify for their sneak attack" would that really be so bad?
Giving the rogue decent Will or Fortitude save (or some way to boost at least one of the saves) would be fine with me.
But giving them Full BAB when they qualify for sneak attack would be too strong. To get sneak attack they almost certainly either have flank or are hitting from cover (yes, there are other ways but those are by far the most common). In either case, they really don't need the extra to hit.
It occurs to me that one key problem the Rogue has is that they are more susceptible than other classes to party composition and/or GMs.
Most rogues more or less rely on a flank buddy. Those that rely on stealth rely to some extent on GMs interpretation of stealth rules (at least in PFS I've seen significant variation on how easy it is to get stealth).
I also think rogues (Dex based ones, at least) are weak until level 3 when they get Dex to damage. But at that point they really are a quite decent class. Natural weapon builds can be amongst the highest damaging characters assuming full attacks (I know, how much full attacks occur is very dependent on all sorts of factors)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Queue "Rogues are bad because my strength-based human rogue character died miserably while I wasn't having any fun, and I need to vent!" thread number 89,463,217....
Every class in Pathfinder is built for Combat, its a core part of the game design.
And every class in Pathfinder is also built for out-of-combat, it's a core part of the game design.
--And most classes flat suck at it.
When the cha-7 full-BAB meatwall blows his Diplomacy check and an unnecessary fight versus treasureless opponents breaks out that ends up costing the party several grand worth of wasted consumables, the crickets will .wav all day long before anyone complains that tanks don't pull their weight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because martials can't have nice things.
When the cha-7 full-BAB meatwall blows his Diplomacy check and an unnecessary fight versus treasureless opponents breaks out that ends up costing the party several grand worth of wasted consumables, the crickets will .wav all day long before anyone complains that tanks don't pull their weight.
That seems like a rare situation. It depends on (a) the enemy being intelligent and speaking your language, (b) the enemy being hostile and brave enough that they'll attack you if you fail a Diplomacy test, (c) the enemy being not so hostile that they'll attack you no matter what, (d) the enemy not being an actual enemy you need to defeat for plot reasons, (e) the enemy not having any treasure or needing any decent gear to fight that you can loot after, (f) the enemy being enough of a threat that you can't fight them without using vast amounts of consumables, and (g) the Cha-7 martial (such as a Rogue or Fighter) attempting to act as the party face in this critical situation.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The image is the guy sneaking around, comes out of nowhere with a knife (or a club) strikes and slinks away.
Then why doesn't the Rogue have a single class feature that makes him better at sneaking around?
That what you describe isn't supported by the Rogue's class features is exactly my beef with the class!The lower hit chance not only reflects the 'I'm not a front line fighter' image, but it also forces the player to think and come up with circumstance bonuses to get hits in.
So you're saying only a smart player should be able to play the "smart combatant" class? In other words, the very core concept of roleplaying should be destroyed?
Imagine that? Forcing a player to act like the image of the class. The nerve!
The image of a class (the traditional "rogue") is a loner. The actual class is the single most teamwork dependant class in the game.
The image of a class is someone who can get himself out of almost every situation. The reality is that magic users (even non-spellcaster ones) are way way better at that.The image of the class is that it's stealthy. The actually class doesn't have a single class feature for that, unlike many other classes.
The image of the class is a master of precice, deadly attacks. The actual class can't hit the broad side of the barn without a teammate standing on the other side of it.
And if you don't like it, then find ways to hit more reliably. Pick up a gun, or try touch attack spells, or find some way to make yourself unseen. Horn of Fog and Fog Cutting Lenses come to...
In other words, to be a proper rogue, do not use the Rogue class. Thank you for proving my point!
If you think other classes can do what rogue does better, then stop trying to 'fix rogue' and break the existing balance between classes. Just go play whatever you think does the job better and revile in your superiority and let the player who think they can make Rogue work do what they want to.
Dude, what the hell? I'd like to fix the Rogue exactly because I think other classes can do what Rogue does better.
Also, it's fun how you're all like "think outside the box" when you're apparently utterly unable to envision a full BAB martial that isn't a dumb brute.
As I was ninja'd by Derklord, an edit:
When the cha-7 full-BAB meatwall blows his Diplomacy check and an unnecessary fight versus treasureless opponents breaks out that ends up costing the party several grand worth of wasted consumables, the crickets will .wav all day long before anyone complains that tanks don't pull their weight.That seems like a rare situation. It depends on (a) the enemy being intelligent and speaking your language, (b) the enemy being hostile and brave enough that they'll attack you if you fail a Diplomacy test, (c) the enemy being not so hostile that they'll attack you no matter what, (d) the enemy not being an actual enemy you need to defeat for plot reasons, (e) the enemy not having any treasure or needing any decent gear to fight that you can loot after, (f) the enemy being enough of a threat that you can't fight them without using vast amounts of consumables, and (g) the Cha-7 martial (such as a Rogue or Fighter) attempting to act as the party face in this critical situation.
Eh, in an urban setting it's common enough. Not having loot at all seems a bit odd, but maybe run of the mill guard patrols or such can pop up at any level. At a certain point, those masterwork items won't even be worth noting down as loot.
But anyway, I've seen enough instances where the Fighter runs his mouth, or the Bard isn't available at the moment, or whatever, and suddenly the CHA 7 guy suddenly has to the talking. There's enough moments where people ask a question to a specific person and doesn't want others to jump in.
The difference between a d10 and d8 hit die isn't even that meaningful, since it's not your only source of hit points. If you're rolling for hitpoints, the d8 character will even end up having more hitpoints a fair amount of the time. The BAB difference isn't that noticeable until you hit iteratives or start dual wielding, but it does become a problem eventually
TWF
Rogues suffering from TWF is one of those great ironies of the current Rogue design, alongside others Dreklord has pointed out. Sneak attack gets its maximum damage from hitting with multiple attacks, and so Rogues try to maximize their number of attacks per round. However, as the only martial class in the game that lacks a bonus to their ability to hit (and BAB penalty) Rogues also suck at TWF and mainly use it to try and throw as many die rolls at the wall to see what sticks.
Assumptions
Nope, didn't play a Rogue recently. Currently GMing, doing some design work, and I gave Pathfinder Unchained another good look while designing encounters. The Unchained Monk is a darling babe of design work, whereas now that I'm no longer blinded by the newness of the Unchained Rogue I see that it could still use a little help.
Full BAB, Pseudo-full BAB, a second good save so that the Rogue has better base saves than your Druid's horse companion, d10 HP, but I'd really just any kind of unique mechanic that makes them function closer to their class ideal. Because Right now, playing a "Rogue" class is the worst way for you to fulfill your fantasy of playing a "Rogue".
Additionally, arguing that the Rogue is somehow an answer to diplomacy checks is absurd. Any class in the game can put ranks into a skill to become proficient at it, some even get Bonuses to specific skills. Sure, a Fighter that dumped Charisma is going to be bad at diplomacy....but so is a Rogue that dumped Charisma. Meanwhile, a Fighter with ranks in diplomacy and a positive charisma stat is going to do just about as well as a Rogue with Ranks in diplomacy and a positive charisma stat.
Any class in the game with Skill points (IE: All of them) can resolve a skill check if they invest into it. Some classes have fewer skill points than others, but Pathfinder is built to be a co-operative gaming experience. Someone in the party will have the skill necessary, or they won't, and the inclusion or exclusion of a Rogue isn't going to change that dynamic. Sure, a level 1 Rogue will be skilled in 2 more things than a Level 1 bard but the Bard gets Versatile Performance at level 2 giving them the same number of skills. Until they get their next level of versatile performance of course, where they get to double up on skill points again.
Skill checks are not a Rogue only class feature. Nor are other classes somehow magically worse than the rogue at skill checks, indeed some are much better thanks to specific class features. The only place this isn't true is for the Trap Finding class ability and even then other classes possess it as well. So its not even a Rogue only ability.
PS: Make sure the character representing the party during a skill check is trained at that skill. The 7Cha fighter without ranks in diplomacy can safely sit back and let the 18 Cha Bard do the talking.
An Argument?
See point G in that list you just posted, mate. In a tense diplomatic situation where one wrong move could lead to an initiative roll, the Rogue and the Bard accomplish the same task. That does not prove the Rogue is in a good spot.
Neither does "The Rogue can pick up the skill slack for the party" because the difference between 6+Int and 8+Int skill is not that much. Once again, take the bard. The bard has 6+Int skills, they can then make one of their skills (Perform) do the work of 3 skills effectively giving them 8+Int skills. The Bard also has nearly as many class skills as a Rogue, making them just as good at various tasks. Investigators not only have 6+Int skill levels, invest heavily in intelligence during character creation to be effective, but also get inspiration making all their skill checks better. They also get Trapfinding, and 6th level spell casting.
All of the things you're bringing up that the rogue can do are not unique to the class. Not just in a "well other archetyles get these abilities" way. Every point you have in the Rogues favor can be completely replicated by another class without needing archetypes or alternate class features from some obscure book.
Instead of going on about the Rogue's faults. Why not discuss what COULD be updated without "breaking" the Rogue. I already mentioned that Rogues being able to treat their BAB as their class level when attempting a sneak attack. Why not? Or, Why not give them better Will saves to represent their slippery mind? Or instead give them better Fortitude saves to prevent suffering from the dangers of poison and disease that fill the typical "roguish" environment? Why not give them d10 HP, the same as UC Monks and Swashbucklers?
Why NOT change the Rogue class for the better?
If you gave the Rogue (...) the ability, "Rogues use their Level as their BAB when attacking targets that qualify for their sneak attack" would that really be so bad?
In my opinion, yes. Over-reliance on Teamwork Attack, er, Sneak Attack, is already one of the classes biggest problems. It's also unessessary complex, and has problemativ interaction with the various "you can't be sneak attacked" abilities like uncanny dodge. Oh, and what happens if you attack two different targets in one round? You have to recalculate your attack roll, and you can use your iterative against one target but not the other?
But I see no reason, anyway - even with full BAB and d10 HD the Rogue would still have enough weaknesses (low fort save, low will save, no in-class flight, no in-class vision enhancements, high reliance on flanking/stealth).
- If you get your sneak attack off across multiple attacks in one round, you get diminished returns.
I do like the idea of focussing the Rogue on fewer, more accurate and more deadly attacks, but that would be a rather big rework.
With that being said, the core rogue is a class. There's nothing wrong with admitting that.
Fixed that for you.
Our group has in fact houseruled them not only to be d10/full BAB, but we also gave them an accuracy-boosting class feature.
At 3rd level, Rogues gain the following ability:
Opportunistic Striker (Ex): Starting at 3rd level, whenever a rogue would make an attack that qualifies to deal sneak attack damage, she gains a +1 bonus on the attack roll. At 6th level and every three levels thereafter, the bonus on attack rolls increases by 1.
Our table now actually has a meaningful reason to consider rogue versus vivisectionist alchemist (though in my opinion, the vivisectionist *still* walks away with the edge).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Queue "Rogues are bad because my strength-based human rogue character died miserably while I wasn't having any fun, and I need to vent!" thread number 89,463,217....Every class in Pathfinder is built for Combat, its a core part of the game design.And every class in Pathfinder is also built for out-of-combat, it's a core part of the game design.
--And most classes flat suck at it.
When the cha-7 full-BAB meatwall blows his Diplomacy check and an unnecessary fight versus treasureless opponents breaks out that ends up costing the party several grand worth of wasted consumables, the crickets will .wav all day long before anyone complains that tanks don't pull their weight.
Hi! You seem to be under the impression that nobody complains about a Fighter's inability to solve problems through methods other than "hit it with your weapon". How on earth do you think that's true?
Edit: On the subject of PF2 coming out, first impressions of the Rogue is that her problems are largely solved. She gets full BAB (because everyone has full BAB) and is legitimately better than any other class at skills due to having twice as much access to skill feats, and no amount of Intelligence-pumping can change that for the other classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To summarize:
1. Rogues have no inherent accuracy booster. They are the only class without accuracy boosters. This is especially dreadful as Sneak Attack synergizes with Two-Weapon Fighting.
2. Rogues are average at skills. They do not gain class features that make them more effective(Except Trapfinding) or versatile when using said skills. Every other skill based/Rogue replacement class in the game has features that boost their skill checks beyond what simple skill ranks can give.
3. Reflex only good save is painful as it is the saving throw least likely to instantly put your character out of commission.
4. More than 80% Rogue Talents are trash. =(
5. More than 80% Rogue Archetypes are trash. =( The only standout is the Eldritch Scoundrel and that is so sad because it trades away half of everything the rogue has for some spellcasting.
6. Most rogues have to spend the majority of their Wealth, Feats, and Class Features just trying to get access to reliable Sneak Attacks. It doesn't become completely solid until around 13th level.
As for why they aren't? Sacred cows mostly.
Depending on what you mean by accuracy booster, monks and brawlers don't have them either.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because they weren't designed that way.
Boy, some of these threads are hella easy to answer.
Depending on what you mean by accuracy booster, monks and brawlers don't have them either.
well, brawlers already get full BaB and monk's get full BaB when using flurry of blows. So, while they don't get accuracy boosters as such, they will still be more accurate then a straight rogue attempting to dual wield the same way.
But otherwise I agree, glancing over them I didn't see any class abilities that improve the accuracy of their attacks. Like fighters and their weapon training (on top of having full BaB).
4. More than 80% Rogue Talents are trash.
4. 80% of everything is crap. The problem is that the upper limit of what Rogue Talents are allowed to do is a bit too low compared to other class's selectable abilities (ki powers, rage powers, vigilante talents, ninja tricks etc.)!
Depending on what you mean by accuracy booster, monks and brawlers don't have them either.
Neither do Gunslinger, Cavalier, or Samurai. But since we're talking about Rogue, I presume he was talking about medium BAB classes.
For the record, medium BAB classes (ignoring full casters) and their accuracy increase class features; not counting spells: Bard has Inspire Courage, Inquisitor has Justice Judgemnt and Bane, Magus has Arcane Pool, Alchemist has Mutagen, Hunter has Animal Focus, Skald has Raging Song, Warpriest has Sacred Weapon, Investigator has Studied Combat, Occultist has Transmutation Implements's Physical Enhancement, Medium has Champion's Spirit Bonus, Vigilante has Avenger specialization, Kineticist has Elemental Overflow. Monk has unMonk. Summoner and Spiritualist have their buddy that does the fighting for them.
Missing from the list: Mesmerist, Rogue, Ninja.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Queue "Rogues are bad because my strength-based human rogue character died miserably while I wasn't having any fun, and I need to vent!" thread number 89,463,217....Hi! You seem to be under the impression that nobody complains about a Fighter's inability to solve problems through methods other than "hit it with your weapon". How on earth do you think that's true?Every class in Pathfinder is built for Combat, its a core part of the game design.And every class in Pathfinder is also built for out-of-combat, it's a core part of the game design.
--And most classes flat suck at it.
When the cha-7 full-BAB meatwall blows his Diplomacy check and an unnecessary fight versus treasureless opponents breaks out that ends up costing the party several grand worth of wasted consumables, the crickets will .wav all day long before anyone complains that tanks don't pull their weight.
Because exactly 100% of the time I hear such complaints at the table, they're addressed to the player of the BSF for making dumb choices, not critiques asserting suboptimality of his BSF class. But comes the strength-rogue marching into melee to get his head ripped off, then it's always the class getting blamed and not poor choices.
E.g., the title of this thread could be "Why Aren't Fighters / Barbarians Getting 8 Skills/Level and Sneak-Attack?", and the silliness is immediately apparent.
On the subject of PF2 coming out, first impressions of the Rogue is that her problems are largely solved. She gets full BAB (because everyone has full BAB) and is legitimately better than any other class at skills due to having twice as much access to skill feats, and no amount of Intelligence-pumping can change that for the other classes.
I haven't looked at it, yet. I hope not.
4. More than 80% Rogue Talents are trash.4. 80% of everything is crap. The problem is that the upper limit of what Rogue Talents are allowed to do is a bit too low compared to other class's selectable abilities (ki powers, rage powers, vigilante talents, ninja tricks etc.)!
Oh, I dunno 'bout that. Skill Mastery means you never fail the half-dozen chosen skills that you only worry about when rolling low, Opportunist gives you a free shot across the battlefield once per round an ally hits something, Hide in Plain Sight (taken twice for Urban and Underground) covers probably 75% of encounter locations, and Shrinewalk is a literal get-out-of-jail-or-death-free card (provided you're still conscious at that moment).
I'm pretty sure "why do Fighters suck so much" is the only question as commonly asked on this forum as "why do Rogues suck so much". You're only pretending otherwise because you like the Rogue and want to believe it's being unfairly bullied by people who just don't get it.
Though to be fair, I guess it's possible that the people you play with just aren't very smart and don't see the inherent deficiencies in the Fighter chassis while also being able to see the problems with the Rogue.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey core fighter might be bad, but with archetypes, advanced weapon training, combat stamina system, and other options you can make a hecka good fight boi.
That'll still be pretty much all their good at, but they do it really well.
I'm pretty sure "why do Fighters suck so much" is the only question as commonly asked on this forum as "why do Rogues suck so much".I'd need to see the messageboard statistical data before accepting that premise.
Though to be fair, I guess it's possible that the people you play with just aren't very smart
Well... <roll d20> I try to be more diplomatic about it.
What if rogue would get vital strike feat chain for free and those would multiply the sneak attack dice? That would give rogue a little bit of extra mobility and some accuracy problem.
I'd probably gift rogues with a bit of extra movement speed, rogue should be faster imo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be down with the Fighter having a second good save and 4+Int skills as a base chassis, though that would have been before Advanced Weapon/Advanced Armor training provided it.
While the current iteration of the Fighter is a bit on the patchwork side, its not in nearly as bad a spot as the Rogue. The Fighter Class is at least able to fulfill the fantasy of being a fighter, the Rogue Class though is not terribly good at being a rogue.
E.g., the title of this thread could be "Why Aren't Fighters / Barbarians Getting 8 Skills/Level and Sneak-Attack?", and the silliness is immediately apparent.
Well, Sneak Attack is a class feature and thus should not be possessed by every class, and why pure martials have so little skill ranks is indeed a very good question. Maybe not 8/level, because that's a one-of-a-kind thing like Barbarians d12 or cMonks three good saves, but why Fighters don't get 6 skill ranks per level is indeed a very good and not-at-all silly question. Why not Barbarians? Because they already have exceptional HD.
Skill Mastery means you never fail the half-dozen chosen skills that you only worry about when rolling low, Opportunist gives you a free shot across the battlefield once per round an ally hits something, Hide in Plain Sight (taken twice for Urban and Underground) covers probably 75% of encounter locations, and Shrinewalk is a literal get-out-of-jail-or-death-free card (provided you're still conscious at that moment).
All of these are Advanced Talents. That means they compete with infinite ki (leadign to free etherealness), free self-only Restoration, pounce, flight, Greater Invisibility, and the likes.
Skill Mastery doesn't really compete with such things.
Opportunitist is nice (and it's only 8 levels after Ninja's got the bonus attack), but more conditional attacks is not what Rogue needs.
Urban and Underground is certainly not 75% in my games (or the ones I've played in), plus that's four talents and at least 11th level. Meanwhile, Stalker Vigilante can select it without prereqs at 8th. Indeed, there are a bunch of Vigilante Talent that are things you'd expect Rogue to be best at: Blind Spot, Close the Gap, Cunning Feint, Hide in Plain Sight, Perfect Vulnerability, Pull into the Shadows, Silent Dispatch, Sniper, Up Close and Personal, Throat Jab, and Mighty Ambush. Rogue can get only one of those (and the last two not at all), and only as an advanced talent.
Shrinewalk is indeed the kind of stuff I'm talking about. More of that, especially stuff without 1/day limitations, is needed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the rule of thumb should purely be: the level of spells you get determines your BAB.
No spells? Full BAB.
Level 4, extremely limited list? Possibly full BAB.
Level 6 spells? 3/4 BAB
Level 9 spells? 1/2 BAB
I think the rule of thumb should purely be: the level of spells you get determines your BAB.
No spells? Full BAB.
Level 4, extremely limited list? Possibly full BAB.
Level 6 spells? 3/4 BAB
Level 9 spells? 1/2 BAB
Close, but I'd segment this just a little bit:
Full BAB: 0 spell casting and 4th level spellcasting
3/4ths BAB: 6th Level Spellcasting, SLA based classes, and 9th level divine spellcasting
1/2 BAB: 9th level Arcane/Psychic caster
Gotta account for our Clerics, Druids, Shaman, and Kineticist friends.