Do Rogues Really Need A Skill Bump?


General Discussion

51 to 57 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

BluLion wrote:
The skill monkey aspect is one of the main reasons why I like rogues, and the other is the idea of sneak attacks and the ability to debilitate their foes with them. With the way pathfinder and most tabletops like this are nowadays, I don't think the phantom thief type rogue would be very viable. Plus, damage output isn't all there is to fighting. It's not like a rogue can survive nearly as long as a fighter or paladin on the front-lines, not with their lack of heavy armor proficiency,their weaker hit-die, or their lesser survivability options.

This actually a good way of reducing the insane, unreasonable and unnecessary amount of skills and feats the rogue gets to actually enhance his play style in combat.

There's a lot of good opportunities for reactions both working before or after the rogue being damage, for example, there already is one reaction to enhance AC, but what if there was something similar to Uncanny Dodge from 5e? Your rogue is hit, but with this reaction you can reduce the damage and maybe even avoid critical effects?

You can also add a lot of mobility to the class by giving feats that would allow it to move outside its turn depending on some factors. Let's say, if an enemy misses a rogue, the next attack will be a sneak attack, or if with an AOE you can use some sort of legendary acrobatic reaction to move 10ft (or maybe even your movement) and get completely outside of someones AOE spell(this can be very powerful, so high level only). I would definitely love to have a different playstyle on this class if it meant that other martial classes can also benefit from out-of-combat utility and other skill monkeys aren't left behind because Paizo think that Rogues are supposed to be so skilled without any kind of formal training or even opportunity to do so, unlike actual MARTIAL characters or people that live for combat every day of their lives (Barbarians).

If any of you guys here played Starfinder, you'll know why I'm trying to do this. But if you don't, I just want to say that I'm trying to give my feedback because the Operatives in that game are really insane, beyond every other class and seems like Rogues are heading that direction on 2e. Remember guys, Skill feats may be s%&+ now, but in the future, rogues will just behave like humans and their extra feat, more content equals more power and synergies.


Mats Öhrman wrote:
Shady Stranger wrote:

Isn't the Rapier deadly d8? Did they change that? Is that something I've missed? Shouldn't it be 3d8?

The Fatal trait replaces the dice size and adds one die. The Deadly trait just adds one die.

So:
d6 weapon with Fatal d8 = 3d8 on crit.
d6 weapon with Deadly d8 = 2d6+d8 on crit.
(excluding precision damage and damage bonus)

I think having two so similar traits is just confusing, especially as only pick and great pick have the fatal trait.

It's more confusing than that, he was talking about a legendary rapier, which would add 3d8 deadly damage on a crit, in addition to doubling the base weapon (and sneak attack) damage. Deadly provides one die for normal/expert weapons, two dice for master weapons, and three dice for legendary weapons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:


It's more confusing than that, he was talking about a legendary rapier, which would add 3d8 deadly damage on a crit, in addition to doubling the base weapon (and sneak attack) damage. Deadly provides one die for normal/expert weapons, two dice for master weapons, and three dice for legendary weapons.

Sigh. By far too fiddly. Relatively common weapons should not have complexity hyperbolically approaching previous editions' grapple rules.


Mats Öhrman wrote:
Shady Stranger wrote:

Isn't the Rapier deadly d8? Did they change that? Is that something I've missed? Shouldn't it be 3d8?

The Fatal trait replaces the dice size and adds one die. The Deadly trait just adds one die.

So:
d6 weapon with Fatal d8 = 3d8 on crit.
d6 weapon with Deadly d8 = 2d6+d8 on crit.
(excluding precision damage and damage bonus)

I think having two so similar traits is just confusing, especially as only pick and great pick have the fatal trait.

But deadly d8 adds the listed die "deadly d8" on a crit. On a Master quality weapon, this becomes 2d8, and on Legendary this becomes 3d8, no?

So a +1 Legendary Rapier on a crit would be 4d6 + 3d8 + mods + sneak attack dice, or am I taking a walk in the forest right now?

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
"Sacred cow" is a racial slur used to insult Hindu culture. It's good that people don't use it.
I've got good news for you. No one in America using this term is thinking about Hindus or aware of the etymology when they say it.

However, it really doesn't matter what I think I mean when I speak, it matters how I will be interpreted by whoever hears what I say. For that reason, it's best to avoid saying things that could be interpreted with unintended connotations. So when I find out an idiom has a racist origin (there are a shockingly huge number of these), I find it best to just shuffle that off to the "find an alternative to that one".

I mean, the implication with "sacred cow" is always "this is a cherished tradition which should be reconsidered" and never "this is a cherished tradition which is just fine." If something needs to be reconsidered and there are actual reasons for it, we don't need to categorize it first.

Generally when a term comes up that most people on the boards might not recognize as offensive or insensitive I try to find a resource that outlines why or how the term is offensive or insensitive. I wasn't able to find a good one for "sacred cow" so if you know of one please email community at paizo.com. In the meantime, it wouldn't hurt to try to shift our language to "sacrosanct" or find another way to say what we mean. When someone brings up a point in a thread asking not to use a term or calling it insensitive or offensive, please don't argue with them about it in the thread, it only serves to negatively escalate the tension and atmosphere of the thread or forums.


I agree the PF2 playtest is sort of the "rogue edition" of d20. Never have rogues had it so good. But then again, rogues always sucked en every d20 game since 3E, and before that they only worked out because of the xp tables making them 2-3 levels higher than everybody except clerics.

The observations the Op makes seem to be at level 1, before armor or weapon proficiencies. And it takes a long time for sneak attack to get any better.

If the rogue is to be somehow nerfed, perhaps the sneak attack dice could come slower in the beginning and faster in the end, say 1d6 at level 3 and then every 3 levels thereafter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfox wrote:
I agree the PF2 playtest is sort of the "rogue edition" of d20. Never have rogues had it so good. But then again, rogues always sucked en every d20 game since 3E, and before that they only worked out because of the xp tables making them 2-3 levels higher than everybody except clerics.

Rogues were actually not that bad in 3.0 and 3.5 because of how exclusive Skills used to be, how you could allocate Skill Points, how strong Tumble used to be, and when Skill Tricks were introduced they got even more boons.

In 3.0/3.5 the only real "bad" part of the Rogue was the number of high level encounters that had SA immune targets, but in all honesty the only ones that relieved that were Undead and Constructs in Pathfinder (which was good).

Now, that isn't to say they were "the best", no one could touch the Druid/Cleric/Wizard in 3.0/3.5 in terms of strength (especially the old Druid), but they were fairly strong for a martial (especially because Rogue based prestige classes were quite good even in the DMG)

Pathfinder actually nerfed Rogues more than it helped them in the Core (really up until Unchained), because even though they revoked SA immunity from some creatures, they also gave out skills to everyone, removed the skill points bundle at level 1, gave out trained with Traits, nerfed Tumble considerably, etc.

This nerfed Rogues heavily by proxy, since now everyone could get the skills they wanted. Rogue Talents were also extremely weak by comparison to other abilities and everyone else got buffed.

Basically, the expression of "high tide raises all boats" was true for everyone except the Rogue in the Core version of Pathfinder.

Ninja was quite good, and UC Rogue was also quite good. Both competing near the top of the martial classes.

51 to 57 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Do Rogues Really Need A Skill Bump? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion