| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for demonstrating my point for me. That you need to wait until 10th level to come up with something unique to the class is the problem with the class.
A 2009 core rogue might take no damage from an AoE spell at 2nd level. At 4th level, he will not be caught flat-footed and denied his dexterity bonus (which might be considerable) to AC at the beginning of combat. And he's the only class at that era and level that can deal with magical traps. (The "wait until 10th" argument is therefore dismissed.)
Of course these damage-mitigation abilities aren't DPR, and are hence invisible to the power-obsessed gamer calculating offensive output: Rogues have more defensive and OoC abilities, which is why they're 3/4ths BAB. --If all you do is play run-on smash-mouth square-room hack-n-slash under bright florescent lighting with no cover and where the GM never subjects the PCs to a barrage of blaster firepower to put the healers through their paces (because "modern" parties whine that it would spoil the fun if nobody wants to play a full-level cleric) -- then they're not going to stand toe-to-toe in melee and the smart ones don't try.
Also, yes, the fact that most combat feats are at the end of long chains is why most martial classes gain bonus feats as they progress. Fighters, indeed, gain quite a few feats which allow them to happily go down feat chains and pay "taxes" without issue. So can most other d10 classes."Most" is a number that keeps getting bigger, but <old man drawl> "back in the day...." Rangers and Paladins got garbage, and then the Cavaliers came out, and everybody complained that Teamwork feats were the worst weak-sauce thing ever. Oh, you should have heard them complain. But then the power-creep factor started dialing up, just as it did in 3rd edition, and the whiners are now mostly placated aside from grumbling over the fighter's 2 skills/level.
Now, its true that the Eldritch Scoundral does solve a lot of Rogue's problems...but that is because it gives Rogues spellcasting. Once you've given a class 6th level spellcasting, it can HAVE 3/4ths BAB without any issue.If would have saved my PFS Year 2 halfling rogue money (i.e., lower UMD costs), and that's about it.
Thats the whole point of the 3/4ths BAB catagory is to allow for classes built aroudn the concept of being a gish. If the core Rogue was built around being a spellcaster with sneak attack damage it would be ok to have d8 HP and 3/4ths BAB.And then they would have overpowered 2009 tables ("You're like an Arcane Trickster at 1st level!") in an era in which Magus didn't exist, and prudent bards and clerics hung back and buffed. (Speaking of Arcane Trickster, an Eldritch can jump right in at 5th.)
Also, just remembered, the Eldritch Scoundral rogue archetype gives up 4 skill ranks, half her sneak attack dice, half her rogue talents, and both Uncanny Dodges.
Which is a reasonable expectation for acquiring access to the whole wizard spell list, and if Intelligence is now an attribute being given attention, you'll have almost as many skillpoints per level as a regular rogue.
The Rogue would take half damage from those blasts most of the time anyway, because they are a dex based class with good Reflex saves. Indeed, Reflex is their only good save which is unfortunate because Reflex saves are the worst save to be good at. Yes, the Rogue can avoid blasts. Whoo. Blasts don't kill the party, blasts hurt the party. Fort saves kill the party, Will saves cause the party to kill itself. Reflex saves are not a good thing to specialize in to the exclusion of everything else.
Uncanny Dodge is better than Evasion since it helps protect the Rogue from something they do not already excel at, but even then its hardly worth being behind all the other martials in the game.
Also, neither of these abilities is unique to the Rogue. Monks gain Evasion at level 2, just the same as a Rogue. Barbarians gain Uncanny dodge at the same point as Rogues as well. Neither of these class features define the Rogue as a unique character as they are situational bonuses. Yes, the Rogue is the only class to get both of these but neither ability is good enough to define them as a character.
Moving on, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. Rangers can literally skip through entire feat pre-requisites because of their Combat Styles. Meanwhile, Paladins have the strongest class features in the game. Cavaliers also gain bonus feats over time in addition to the teamwork feats they can share. None of this argues the fact that Rogue Talents are a poor class feature.
The Eldritch Scoundrel literally gives you prepared spellcasting. Saying you can UMD just as well as being a spellcaster is kinda like arguing that you can be the party Wizard without spellcasting. UMD is a swiss army knife, Spellcasting is carrying around the entire toolbox.
As far as balance goes, yeah, no. Eldritch Scoundrel would have been playable day 1 as a base class without any issues. You're forgetting that the best classes in this game are all core classes. Stripping away half a Rogue's class features and giving them spellcasting would have been perfectly balanced.
Just because YOU do not like the idea of a Rogue being more powerful does not mean they are in a good spot. They lack defining class features, Rogue talents are poor in comparison to similar abilities from other classes, they lack accuracy, and the list goes on. It is totally possible to play a Rogue right now and have fun. You will contribute to the party, have a good time. You may even do well. However, you would have done a better job as another class and this is the problem. The Rogue lacks an identity brought on by poor design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Taking accomplished sneak attacker to get a eldritch scoundrel to qualify for Arcane trickster before its second sneak die at 7th level is identical to taking accomplished sneak attacker on a wizard 3/rogue 1, except you're locked into worse spell progression for the benefit of having evasion. Honestly, if you're building a sneaky caster type character, I'd avoid that prestige class entirely, but getting into it without full casting progression seems wasteful.
Which is the core rogue problem. If you have a specific character in mind, you can typically build a more efficient version of it with some other class. I'm not even talking about casting spells to avoid skill usage here, there just isn't much going on for the rogue that sets them apart due to an over valuation of sneak attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You've now claimed that their class features (benefits), and flaws (3/4 BAB) are in the Rogue's favor.No, that's not what I did.
Yes you did.
The whole point of being a rogue is to entertain yourself setting up situations to negate the BAB differential you have versus d10 class. (If that's not fun for you
You talk about the negative of their low BAB, and how overcoming that is a feature.
The rogue enjoys rewards other than DPR: he gets Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, Talent acquisition on pace with a Fighter's bonus feats, four to six more skills per level than most full-BAB classes, and more class skills than any of them.
Here you talk about the special abilities they get and how that is a feature.
You've claimed that both the weaknesses, and strengths are positive elements in favor of the class.
By your logic, we should make the Fighter 1/2 BAB, because overcoming that weakness will make the class more fun.
The Rogue would take half damage from those blasts most of the time anyway, because they are a dex based class with good Reflex saves. Indeed, Reflex is their only good save which is unfortunate because Reflex saves are the worst save to be good at. Yes, the Rogue can avoid blasts. Whoo. Blasts don't kill the party, blasts hurt the party.The hell they don't. Raw damage will kill you every time it drops you to negative con, and being clobbered by the goons after their boss softens you up is a common way to go down in PFS.
Fort saves kill the party,Fort saves are generally delivered by gas, rays, or as the result of poisonous bite. The first is ameliorated with equipment, the second a rogue's touch-AC is near best-in-game at avoiding (particularly if he's a small race synergistic to the class), and having some skill at avoiding an undesirable melee opponent helps with the third.
Will saves cause the party to kill itself.Will saves are usually a targeted spell effect, and a hidden opponent can't be targeted. (A rogue can also wear the same magic headgear that any other class worried about its will save can strap on.)
Monks gain Evasion at level 2, just the same as a Rogue. Barbarians gain Uncanny dodge at the same point as Rogues as well. Neither of these class features define the Rogue as a unique character as they are situational bonuses. Yes, the Rogue is the only class to get both of these but neither ability is good enough to define them as a character.No benefit examined in a vacuum "defines a character".
Moving on, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. Rangers can literally skip through entire feat pre-requisites because of their Combat Styles. Meanwhile, Paladins have the strongest class features in the game.And they're reined in by the GM deciding if they can play with their toys on any given day.
Just because YOU do not like the idea of a Rogue being more powerful does not mean they are in a good spot.
What I'm saying is, if you're unhappy with rogues as you are building them, that you're unlikely to be satisfied with another +5 to attack and +21 hitpoints at 20th level.
If that bonus is so small, why debate so hard against it?
You can't have it both ways. Giving them full BAB can't be unbalancing AND be too small of a bonus too matter.
How are you this bad at arguing?
Yes. Reflex saves are objectively the worst saves in the game. Reflex saving throws do not protect you from suffering instant death, stat loss, mind control, or the vast majority of negative conditions. Raw damage will kill the party but blaster wizards are the least dangerous wizards. Dragon breath, similarly, is usually preferable to eating a full attack to the face.
Mitigating poison and disease saves does not protect you from magical fortitude saves, the kind that flat out does stat damage or kills you. Additionally, Rogues have 0 things in their kit that improve their defense verses ray attacks or indeed their AC in general. Unless you have the habit of being caught flatfooted verses spellcasters. Not that, you know, the spellcaster can just shoot another ray at you next round. Indeed, Alchemists are better than Rogues at avoiding rays because they can use mutagen to boost their dexterity which provides them with an actual form of defense.
Rogues can certainly wear magical gear to boost their saving throws, but their base will and fort saves suck. Additionally, the Rogue has (once again) zero methods of hiding built into their kit. Rogues have no inherent bonus to stealth or access to invisibility. So, once again, this is not a valid point towards the Rogue having good defenses.
Also, counterpoint, yes there are specific class abilities that define characters. Usually there is a combination of these abilities that create a unique experience but the Rogue lacks unique features. Lay on Hands is unique to paladins and antipaladins, Flurry of Blows is unique to Monks. Alchemists have bombs. There are classes that have unique class features that help define them as characters. Yes, these should not be viewed in a vacuum but even putting the Rogue's class features together does not make it unique and provide it with an identity. It is just a mishmash of class features better utilized by other classes.
GMs can no-sale literally every class in the game. Its not a valid argument.
What I'm saying is that it does not matter HOW you build your Rogue, another class will do the job better. That does not mean Rogues shouldn't be played, or that you should feel attacked. Someone else can just always do their job better, its a shame, and I hope they are fixed in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do like the idea! It does make critical hits all but useless to Rogus, but I think carefully striking the enemy's most, well, vital point does make more sense class-flavor wise than trying to get lucky while wildly flailing at the target....
Someone noticed me :’)
On the flip side, simply increasing the sneak attack damage in exchange for making less attacks will never work from a math standpoint. Reducing the number of attacks you can do reduces your chance to hit significantly. Sure, hitting someone for 4x sneak attack damage with Greater Vital Strike would be awesome but you would have that ability from simply making 4 attacks. Additionally, you would have added chance to hit since you would get 4 attack rolls and each of them has a chance to hit. Going all or nothing does not work out nearly as well as simply taking multiple rolls each round.
Okay so I’ll try to defend my idea a bit here. Derklord already said pretty everything I had to say about the general benefits, but I would add the following:
-A x4 Vital strike rogue would make for a very deadly assassin! As you are limited to a standard action during surprise round, it would make rogues one of the best martial openers there is, which is honestly what I think he should be good at, rogues shouldn’t win with attrition, but with a well placed strike.
-To further boost the rogue I’d add ability or something that let him use spring attack with it’s vital strike and I’d give him some basic movement speed. That would make for an interesting & mobile gameplay. To boost the rogue ability to withstand the frontline would be an error imo, rogue should be squeashier than regular frontliner. Besides, it would just make the rogue a slayer or a ranger variant. What the class need is to feel distinct and unique in its own way and it need to be something that does not feel bad to play.
- So why not add some way for him to stealth after using a successful sneak attack? He could dash in using spring attack, then retreat back to the shadow with the rest of his movement.
- Why not make the rogue a better Dirty fighter by boosting the duration of Dirty trick maneuver, or by making it harder for it’s enemy to wipe out the effect?
I realise I’m just throwing some idea around here, but I really don’t think rogues should be full bba/1d10 class, that would just make them slayers, and at this point why even have the two?
...is this really even a relevant discussion anymore?
As much as your comment i guess :P
...Raw damage will kill you every time it drops you to negative con, and being clobbered by the goons after their boss softens you up is a common way to go down in PFS....How are you this bad at arguing?How are you this bad at reading? Rogue haters gonna hate, and they'll not change until rogues are fighters
(But yeah, what TOZ said. PF2 will shortly throw it all up in the air.)
Who's said they want Rogues to be more like Fighters? Lots of classes have d10 HD and full BAB. Not just the Fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I don't see Paizo releasing any updates to the rogue and ninja at this point. (Especially given they already updated the rogue.)
Oh yeah, of course not, but i still find it useful for homebrewing, and even if it's dead horse, i guess necromancy can have it's use :)
I use the Ranger, personally.
I prefer slayer for the overall generic feel it has. You can refluff much of it's ability to make some kind of smart fighter/urban rogue, I've even had a player make a Ronin Samurai using improved feint to gets it's sneak attack in a E6 game i did, it worked well.
I find ranger a tad bit too much nature focused for my taste. Still a pretty good class though.
Give rogues and ninjas good will saves so these weebs can quit reeeing.
Give swashbucklers good fort saves since the parent classes have good fort saves, and some sort of Cha times per day get an extra immediate action per round and some light downside for using it.
Case closed butters
Slayer really has become the replacement for ranger and rogue. If I wanted something closer to the normal ranger, I'd play a hunter. I do like some of the unchained rogue stuff, debilitating injury is cool, and free finesse/dex to damage helps a fair bit. Getting stuck with a single weapon till 11th level is a huge pain though and most of the cool rogue talents are once per day things when they really don't need to be. After four levels of rogue, I can't imagine sticking with it.
Slayer really has become the replacement for ranger and rogue.
For rogue, totally, but rangers is still pretty good, and arguably better than Slayer Imo has it has access to magic, animal companion and very powerful bonus to hit&damage when it matter once he gets access to instant enemy spell.
Honestly i feel like slayer has become replacement for fighter and rogue. Fighter has a slight edge in fighting capability, but slayer versatility and higher skill point makes for a more interesting character to play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do have to admit that I much prefer the Ranger being sub-divided into Slayer and Hunter. The Slayer works well as a distillation of the Ranger's "favored" style of combat, while the Hunter works really well as a pet focused Druid/fighter.
The Ranger's kit, while super fun when you're in a focused campaign, has always felt like a bit of a mish-mash to me. I feel like Hunter and Slayer do a better job by being more focused on the individual sides of the Ranger class abilities rather than trying to do everything all at once.
How are you this bad at arguing?
Your post led out with a pointed insult. My reply to it may or may not also have been just as snippy -- but not that anyone will know because it disappeared while yours got to stay.
So long as favoritism is involved among the moderating staff, there's nothing else to say on the subject of rogues.