| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think expectations from some posters for the remaster exceeds the amount of resources paizo had for the project.
The end result is not perfect because they were trying to fit all the changes in with limited resources.
Nobody expects perfection: that doesn't mean we shouldn't speak up if things seem off. Would the dying rules have gotten a day one errata if people had kept their mouths shut?
Most of us think what we got is fine
Citation please: I don't know that the majority of this thread thinks so and i have no idea about the user base at large. I don't see what harm there is in asking if it can be done better and if so, can it be errata'd: at the worst it's 'no' and at best, it might get a look at. The only way you can ensure that the issues you see don't attention is to stay silentand encourage others to just accept what they got and not mention things that seem off.
If you don't like the end solution, then make your own home brew rules
Well for a lot of people, that's not a satisfying solution whether it's because you are a player, you play PFS or you just would like to keep your houserules to a minimum [and PF2 already requires a pile with the amount of ask your DM 'rules']
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is not that it would not be an improvement, point is that it would be in line with what Thief can already do and it would not unbalance the game.
Ruffian is very good, but it is still behind Thief. Best niche it has currently IMO is going for Mauler and getting to Improved Knockdown to apply Sneak attack twice with The Harder They Fall and set up you and your group. All the weapons you posted here would matter little for this strat. Most relevant trait there is Deadly d8, which only really matters when you roll high on the deadly die anyway. Were the Deadly die higher I would agree with you, though (Deadly only really matters when it can make an enemy last fewer hits afterall), but as it is, yes, it would be fine if you exclude damage die reduction shenanigans for better weapons.
Also, with current rules the lance can be used at horseback, turning it into a one-handed pseudo d8 reach weapon with deadly d8 already. Why not take that as the new standard instead?
Ah, yes, because if the Ruffian is better at the Thief at some things (such as wielding a reach weapon), it breaks the game because it makes Thief unplayable. Said nobody ever, because Thief Rogue is running around with max Dexterity and still dealing the same amount of damage while not purposefully dumping their save attributes to account for needing a secondary attribute (Strength), and can also wield competent reach weapons now (whereas before it required significant investment). The whole "Ruffians wielding Glaives breaks the game" argument is so flimsy and baseless because it implies that adding a couple traits that only trigger in certain instances makes them overpowered compared to a subclass that entirely removes the need for an attribute for the entire game. Sorry, but at no point would I ever pick Ruffian over Thief, and at no point would I ever say Ruffian can outpace Thief in any category, and the Martial weapons boost exacerbates this even more, since now Thief can use the same playstyle as Ruffian, which was really the only actual benefit behind Ruffian.
Interesting feat combination. Though as you note later, it's easily outpaced by Thief when Precise Debilitations come online (which is actually earlier than Improved Knockdown, meaning straight out of the gate, Thief is utilizing this tactic better than Ruffian is). Of course, it does require burning at least 3 feats, 2 of which become useless feat taxes at the end.
The Lance is one example where the D8/D6 arbitration makes no sense, among several others. Battle Axe versus Hatchet, Quarterstaff versus Bo Staff (both two-handed), Longspear versus Glaive, etc. are all prime examples where the D8/D6 arbitration fall short and feel stupid. I'm fine with the flat D8 restriction because it's less arbitrary and more consistent with the ceiling that the feature initially presented. It's quite obvious a few traits aren't going to absolutely murder the Rogue ceiling, since the big traits (Reach, Deadly) were already available in the first place.
I think there was a missed opportunity to cap the Thief at sneak attacking with d6 weapons, honestly.
Like the Dueling Spear, Aldori Dueling Sword, and Elven Curve Blade seem more scoundrel weapons anyway.
Given that the only way the Thief deals D8 for Sneak is with 2h weapons, it's relatively balanced with having a free hand for either a basic shield or even an off-hand weapon if you're going Ranger dedication via Twin Takedown (since going Double Slice via DWW dedication limits your main source of class damage). They are otherwise capped at D6s normally based on traits for 1h weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If anything, this wasn't a resource problem but a time problem on Paizo's part because they certainly couldn't play taste some changes enough. Now feats like Armor Training and Weapon Training scale (though they are still useless for martials funnily enough) but something like Fighter Dedication doesn't. Literally we have class feats being worse than general feats and it's likely due to Paizo not having enough time to proof read everything.
I want to think Paizo is going to make an errata pass at some point to all of this (probably with Player Core 2?) so I want the community to point out all this inconsistencies in the system so Paizo can patch them faster.
Like the idea behind giving the rogue bespoke weapon proficiencies to begin with was "rogues should be using rogueish weapons". When that changed because bespoke proficiencies are pretty messy when it comes to things like archetypes, the whole "rogues should be using rogueish weapons" thing never changed.
Of the martial weapons, d6 and below contains relatively few weapons that are thematically inappropriate for a rogue, whereas d8+ contains a lot of weapons that are thematically inappropriate for a rogue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like the idea behind giving the rogue bespoke weapon proficiencies to begin with was "rogues should be using rogueish weapons".
You mean like wizards bespoke weapons were in place to it enforce wizard themes? Who doesn't recall stories of the mighty archmage with a crossbow or club in hand.
I think the bespoke weapons were a copy/paste from pathfinder 1, which was a copy/paste from d&d 3.5. I think that's as far as it went. I mean, it allows for the super sneaky/stealthy Flintlock Musket [and now Blunderbuss] sneak attacks. Between things like this AND ruffian being the 'use non-standard weapon rogue', I'm not sure 'it's not "thematically inappropriate for a rogue"' holds much weight here. If it's thematically ok for a thrown bomb, Wrecker [ranged], Dwarven Scattergun or Switchscythe [with a sweeping, axe-like blade or a hooked pick on a long rod of wood or metal], "thematically inappropriate for a rogue" doesn't mean what you think it does.
This discussion is kinda going on circles at this point.
For every single d8 martial or advanced weapon that would be "innapropiate for rogues" there's a very similar simple, martial, or advanced d6 or lower weapon that does or looks exactly the same as the d8 weapon, not to mention that like both MEATSHED and graystone said "innapropiate for rogues" doesn't really mean anything here because we are speaking about the ruffian who is supposed to be using non conventional rogue weapons here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like the idea behind giving the rogue bespoke weapon proficiencies to begin with was "rogues should be using rogueish weapons".You mean like wizards bespoke weapons were in place to it enforce wizard themes? Who doesn't recall stories of the mighty archmage with a crossbow or club in hand.
...
What I found really weird was that under the rules a high level wizard could pick up a fallen, misshapen tree branch and wield it as a club with expert proficiency, but if they then carved that branch into the more efficient and easier to maneuver form of club known as a mace they would suddenly be untrained with it. :)
At least thats's no longer an issue.
-----
I do still find it incongruous that the staff, the most iconic wizardy weapon, is strength based when the basic wizard chassis clearly favors a high-dex low-strength build.
The new armor proficiency general feat does make it easier to go high strength low dex by using armor, but I would really love a focus spell (or perhaps all stance) that let a wizard temporarily use Dex (or maybe Int) for melee strikes with a staff.
We already have a ranged version of this with hand of the apprentice, so I don't see a similar melee version would be unbalanced.
It isn't a power thing with me. If I wanted a powerful magic staff wielder I'd just play a twisted tree magus.
I just would like the flavor of a physically unimposing scholarly wizard who occasionally surprises people by forgoing his powerful magic to knock people around with his expensive spell storage device. ;)
|
Yeah trickster is just not that good mechanically. There are better ways to build "rogue who casts"Or they just want to encourage people to take the existing spellcasting archetypes, which are often better anyways. I see it as the removal of trap options.I'm a little sad to see that the Eldritch Trickster racket wasn't included and that even the Minor Magic and Magical Trickster feats are gone.I highly suspect they are probably are moving those feats into a hyphotetical eldritch trickster class archetype.
It broke my build for a party EMT rogue - field medic background skill monkey with minor magic to get Stabilize.
I can't think of a single system that has weapon proficiency work like thisYou're advocating for specific penalties to disarm and trip for not being proficient with one specific weapon? Absolutely NOT, yuck.Other systems do it just fine. Why can't Pathfinder handle it?
I was 100% correct. Riddle of Steel uses a system where you can buy schools, weapon proficiencies, maneuvers, and school skills all as separate options.
Ah, yes, because if the Ruffian is better at the Thief at some things (such as wielding a reach weapon), it breaks the game because it makes Thief unplayable. Said nobody ever, because Thief Rogue is running around with max Dexterity and still dealing the same amount of damage while not purposefully dumping their save attributes to account for needing a secondary attribute (Strength), and can also wield competent reach weapons now (whereas before it required significant investment). The whole "Ruffians wielding Glaives breaks the game" argument is so flimsy and baseless because it implies that adding a couple traits that only trigger in certain instances makes them overpowered compared to a subclass that entirely removes the need for an attribute for the entire game. Sorry, but at no point would I ever pick Ruffian over Thief, and at no point would I ever say Ruffian can outpace Thief in any category, and the Martial weapons boost exacerbates this even more, since now Thief can use the same playstyle as...The point is not that it would not be an improvement, point is that it would be in line with what Thief can already do and it would not unbalance the game.
Ruffian is very good, but it is still behind Thief. Best niche it has currently IMO is going for Mauler and getting to Improved Knockdown to apply Sneak attack twice with The Harder They Fall and set up you and your group. All the weapons you posted here would matter little for this strat. Most relevant trait there is Deadly d8, which only really matters when you roll high on the deadly die anyway. Were the Deadly die higher I would agree with you, though (Deadly only really matters when it can make an enemy last fewer hits afterall), but as it is, yes, it would be fine if you exclude damage die reduction shenanigans for better weapons.
Also, with current rules the lance can be used at horseback, turning it into a one-handed pseudo d8 reach weapon with deadly d8 already. Why not take that as the new standard instead?
Huh?
You do realize that I was trying to support the same thing you are advocating for, right?
Try to actually read what you are replying to, thank you very much.