Rogues have always been an awkward class in D&D and Pathfinder. In the original d&d the got the ability to "climb walls, pick pockets, hide, move silently, hear noises, find traps, read languages, and pick locks", something I famously remember hearing someone say "that before rogue came out, every character was trying to do" but became in some ways locked out from other characters. Of a game about exploring dungeons they were the class that was "good at dungeon-ing". Rogues got this power in some senses by giving up the ability to build strongholds.
Giving up an "aspect of play" for another "aspect of play" is a common trope that rears it's head in these kinds of play, but I don't think it's actually a good move to do. Often it's the kind of trade off that isn't really a trade-off (see trading off less used outside of dungeon abilities for dungeon abilities). On the other side you often see players become disengaged and distract able during the sections they're bad at to become overbearing in the sections they are good at. This is often going to happen regardless to some degree, but we don't need our rules systems enforcing this balance.
The three aspects of play, as defined by 5e, are often "exploration, social interaction, and combat". By that, it means that any given section of game-play is going to be about exploration, social interaction, or combat. Combat is generally governed by combat abilities which allow different classes to be effective in combat, while expressing themselves differently and interacting differently. Social interaction tends to be guided by player choice(and to a lesser degree by the "social skills"). Exploration tends to be driven by skill checks, or utility spells.
It seems as though in 3.5 and earlier editions, they were often given more skill points to deal with the fact that the skills they tend to specialize in are split into multiple categories (we can see this with bard as well, given their specialization on lore). Because of this, I think they have been given the reputation of being good at "skills". However this unbalances them in respect of exploration. Instead of choosing what to be good at, rogues just chose everything. Even spell casters, who often are given abilities rogues dream about, have to prepare for the specific encounter they run up against.
The rogue is just "good at everything", or "good at skills" in some ways doesn't even represent an archetype. Barbarians are tough, and fight in a reckless manner, we can see this represented in their combat style. It doesn't make them more powerful in the combat sphere then their peers, it just makes them interact in the combat sphere differently, but not only that but it represents something tangible in the world. Rogues being "good at skills" represents generally "being good at things", something that we see present in the game system(it's called being a higher level). Given the way skills are fungible, we can probably see some of the problems present in 5e as well(The tough and strong barbarian isn't the best class at athletics/grappling, that spot belongs to the bard/rogue due to expertise). Being good at skills doesn't advance rogues archetype of being sneaky or using subterfuge, if anything it actually dilutes the role of the rogue, making them a blank empty everything.
With the raising of power of the "trained" level, I think we're going to see rogues be considered more powerful in this sphere. Characters seem altogether more powerful(or more flat) in a lot of ways. In ability scores and skills you tend to chose 1/2-3/4 of things, usually it seems choosing the 1/4 of things you don't want. Already the numbers seem high, but as far as skills rogues don't chose, they just get everything. Sure, lores exist, but they seem vaguer and harder to use(almost like wises in mouseguard, like an entirely different system).
In some ways, due to historical reasons, rogue often feels like mechanics chasing a class/feeling rather then a feeling chasing mechanics. You have to get additional d6's on attacks occasionally because that's the way rogues have always worked. Why are rogues good at skills? either to be good at a specific set of skills, or to fill the "skill monkey role", something with dubious fluff, and mechanically off balancing effects. We can see this to some degree in the thurge. Was the thurge created because someone wanted to play a religious mage? No, wizards could always be religious, and clerics have always been mage-y to some degree. Was it to play a knowledgeable cleric? Well clerics have always had the ability to pick up knowledge skills and raise their knowledge(and they've often had a domain to deal with it). Nope, someone was bummed that they didn't have access to every spell in d&d and decided they wanted that mechanic with flimsy thematic reasons.
In summation. Please think carefully about the path going forward with rogues. Think about the fluff that rogue should fill, and try and base abilities on that more then what the specific implementation of those abilities have been in the past. Don't fall for trading pillars as a form of balance, or the trap of "just good at x pillar". Don't fall for the abilities that actually make a class more bland and flavorless.
edit: I apologize for any incoherence. I'm tired.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
What is it you want a rogue to do? So far, you've only listed what you want them to NOT do.
Starfox wrote: What is it you want a rogue to do? So far, you've only listed what you want them to NOT do. Well, despite the cheesy and awkward path of the rogue, I definitely think there is a solid archetype there.
Sneak attack is a solid ability as far as mechanics. I actually like it. It seems hard to balance in some ways, and I know some people were upset with the number of sneak attack dice changing, but you're going to have to ensure balance. I would easily imagine enhancing rogues flavor by upgrading sneak attack to have a variety of debuffs you can apply based on the body parts/features of an enemy(flavored a bit like called shots, but applied a lot like metamagic or paladin's mercies).
If they had more out of combat abilities, I'd have them flavored around
things like, knowing people, being able to forge things, being good with intricate machinery(such as locks), being good at sneaking. These are things rogues are about. And they should either be limited in scope or number of uses(tied to some sort of resource).
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I’ve always considered a legendary thief as someone who is both smart enough in book knowledge and physically capable to pull off insane heists. I think the mission impossible agent is someone who isn’t necessarily a soilder, or researcher, or support specialist. Instead they are physically and mentally tuned to accomplish complex feats in impossible situations that require using smarts and muscles in ways that ordinary folks do not.
Being “skilled” to me implies training, physical prowess, and knowledgeability of the art and science of a thing.
So how does that play out in table top role playing?
- Smart strikes, hitting someone hard where it hurts the most
- environmental awareness, mastery of physical terrain
- optimizing for paths of least resistance
- outsmarting inanimate devices and automatons
- able foil the plans of those who consider themselves smarter, richer, more noble or famous.
I think pf2e gets some of this pretty close, and other parts of it seem way off. But then the alleyway mugger isn’t going to match the stereotype I want to play and until 1.3 wasn’t fully supported either.
My hope is that they don’t silo the rogue techniques so you can only go down one path because that seems to prevent styling your character like XXX or hardcore Henry or other smart but thuggish or “face” from the A-team who can fight smartly enough to hold his own against the much stronger and stupider opponents.
Zamfield wrote: My hope is that they don’t silo the rogue techniques so you can only go down one path because that seems to prevent styling your character like XXX or hardcore Henry or other smart but thuggish or “face” from the A-team who can fight smartly enough to hold his own against the much stronger and stupider opponents.
I think we've seen some instilling flavor in other classes without crippling their ability to chose what's important with regards to skills. There are all sorts of different kinds of other classes, which arguably a lot of the justification around rogue could be said about as well. In fact a lot of the justification around certain things just sounds like things that a pathfinder hero is.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The problem the PF2 rogue still has, that it inherited from 3E, is MAD (multi-attribute dependency). As the skill monkey, they need good bonuses in all attributes. This problem is actually worse in PF2, since there are no longer escalating costs for higher attributes. Together with the too high standard DCs, this means that rogue is now a "master of none", as real skill ability requires that you are skilled AND have a high ability bonus.
This gets a little better at level 5, where the lower ability scores rise.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Starfox wrote: The problem the PF2 rogue still has, that it inherited from 3E, is MAD (multi-attribute dependency). As the skill monkey, they need good bonuses in all attributes. This problem is actually worse in PF2, since there are no longer escalating costs for higher attributes. Together with the too high standard DCs, this means that rogue is now a "master of none", as real skill ability requires that you are skilled AND have a high ability bonus.
This gets a little better at level 5, where the lower ability scores rise.
Most will probably have Con as one of the four attributes you raise when you get that option. That means you raise three skill-carrying attributes, and two skill-carrying attributes will be left behind. Hopefully you don't care for any skills attached to those two attributes.
Also, besides being skilled and having a high attribute bonus you are also expected to acquire the appropriate magic item(s), such as e.g. Boots of Elvenkind or Healer's Gloves, to keep up with the increasing DCs.
So, as a skill monkey, how many of your skills can you afford to keep up-to-date as you level up?
Why is skill monkey still considered a legitimate role though? There has been rolling back of casters being "just better at everything in and out of combat", why is "Can just do everything out of combat better" still considered a role for a party?
Ben F 194 wrote: Why is skill monkey still considered a legitimate role though? Agreed. It seems to me that the removal of Signature Skills and the increase in trained skills that went with it freed up most parties to share the Skills workload. Rogues are still ace at it...but that doesn't seem as important.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Starfox wrote: The problem the PF2 rogue still has, that it inherited from 3E, is MAD (multi-attribute dependency). As the skill monkey, they need good bonuses in all attributes. This problem is actually worse in PF2, since there are no longer escalating costs for higher attributes. Together with the too high standard DCs, this means that rogue is now a "master of none", as real skill ability requires that you are skilled AND have a high ability bonus.
This gets a little better at level 5, where the lower ability scores rise.
I mean, looking at the skills 1 is based on strength, 0 on constitution, 3 on dexterity, 5 on Intelligence, 4 on Wisdom, and 4 on charisma. Since you can "only" make 6 skills legendary as a rogue, all you basically need is a high dex and a high score in one of Int/Cha/Wis and you can be world class in six things.
I guess you can't be supremely agile, charming, brilliant, and wise as a rogue but you can't do that with any other class either.
Yeah the classes don't hold up to close scrutiny. Even in P1E they don't hold up lol. Just enjoy it for what it is.
I don't buy this "MAD becuz they need to be good/best at all skill but can't blahblah".
I don't see problem with them being top notch at certain skills and somewhat less than top notch at others.
Which they can skill use Skill Feats to negate Crit Fail chances and such, removing disincentive to "try" certain skills.
They can have Skill Feats that really enhance their effectiveness at sub-Level/low-Difficulty/Objective DCs.
It's hard to even claim they are intended as skill monkeys in same 3.x/P1E sense, because they only get 2x of limited 2 proficiency boosts.
Nobody can expect the actual intent is full max proficiency in every single skill, and if they focus solely on maxing skills,
some of those 4 will EASILY overlap in stat, to the extent only worrying about one non-physical stat for skills is very plausible.
MAD is not so much a problem at high level as at low levels. With stat increases, you can get most ability scores to decent (but not to Incredible difficulties). But at low level some of your ability scores will likely suck. The PF2 generation system rewards extreme ability scores. There are no escalating costs for ability scores.
Looking at Rogues, the obvious dump stat is Strength. You don't use Str for damage, so its really only 2 things; encumbrance and Athletics. Problem is, Athletics is a Climbing, one of the first abilities rogues had back when they were theives! So the natural rogue build ends up incompetent at a core aspect of being a rogue. :o
It is pretty rare to see a "PF2 rogues are underpowered thread," or at least I would think it is.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dumping in PF2 is just not using a boost in the attribute. At worst, the penalty is -1 for normal play.
Yes, you can take a Flaw but that isn’t something encouraged by the rules.
Still, their assumptions with the skill DC table don’t seem to take into account that characters can’t be legendary at all skills nor have very high scores in all six attributes. Even at high levels, I expect many will still have attributes of 10.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion
|
