Specialist Rogue

[Starfox]

At the very least, IMO every rogue variant should have search, use magical device, linguistics, perception, climb, sleight of hand, stealth, and disable device as class skills as a nod to the 'thief' roots of the class.

The one of these skills I removed was Use Magic Device, and most of the specializations get it back immediately. There is no Search skill in Pathfinder, it has been folded into Perception.

 

[Starfox]

Arguably, the strongest possible party in 3.X is "Everyone plays a different cleric."

Cleric is a strong class. Perhaps the strongest. No-one argues that. I feel it was made so to make people accept the burden of playing a buff bot (At least you are a very powerful bot), and the end result was the self-buffing CoDZilla.

The problem with getting people to play clerics around here has more to do with the god-fondling expressed in another thread - players here are simply not very interested in worshiping fantasy gods (or any gods).

 

[Starfox]

I blame the hard divide between martial and magical; a rogue with a few magical trick up her sleeves would be lovely.

Interesting. Perhaps a rogue with minor spellcasting then? Th3 3.5 assassin was like that, and in Pathfinder we have the Red Mantis Assassins. Both are basically NPC-only. Its kind of hard to balance a spellcasting rogue and the spell list would probably have to be built from scratch. But certainly doable.

 

[Tuft]

Interesting. Perhaps a rogue with minor spellcasting then? Th3 3.5 assassin was like that, and in Pathfinder we have the Red Mantis Assassins. Both are basically NPC-only. Its kind of hard to balance a spellcasting rogue and the spell list would probably have to be built from scratch. But certainly doable.

Well, it is why Bard kind of steals the show (pun intended!) when you are not interested in backstab...

 

[Ahnehnois]

That is not my experience. When DMing stock 3.5, I had lots of rogues. While DMing 3.0 with my house rules, I still get lots of rogues. Looking at Pathfinder, I see no reason not to play a rogue.

To me, the reason not to play a rogue is Sneak Attack. I've never liked the way the ability worked in any of the 3e iterations.

Arguably, the strongest possible party in 3.X is "Everyone plays a different cleric."

I could understand if these two classes weren't particularly popular in 2e, the 1e/2e rogue (or thief) was pretty miserable, but they went almost overboard correcting for that in 3.X.

If everyone plays a different cleric, it must be quite a challenge to get all those gods to get along!

I think it is pretty clear that the cleric was a misfire, and they put too much general mechanical stuff into it, and not enough cleric-y stuff. But regardless of what your character sheet says, you're playing with fire because you're beholden to some mystical force played by the DM. That's one reason people play rogues.

 

[Celebrim]

To me, the reason not to play a rogue is Sneak Attack. I've never liked the way the ability worked in any of the 3e iterations.

It's a significant improvement over backstab.

If everyone plays a different cleric, it must be quite a challenge to get all those gods to get along!

No more so than any other family. For example, in my game a party consisting of clerics of Jord, Sesstra, Aynwen, Arattay, Lado, and Aymira would probably get along like peas in a pod.

I think it is pretty clear that the cleric was a misfire, and they put too much general mechanical stuff into it, and not enough cleric-y stuff.

I don't feel that way. Aside from overcompensating for the general mediocrity of the 1e/2e cleric, the cleric is IMO one of the best designed classes in 3e. It can be subtly diversified by a very elegant mechanism. I see the need for very few changes.

But regardless of what your character sheet says, you're playing with fire because you're beholden to some mystical force played by the DM. That's one reason people play rogues.

I guess you should avoid playing with a jerk for a DM. Either that, or you should pick the sort of deity that you'd really want to serve so that you don't end up with a personality conflict between you and your boss - I often suggest a god of hearty good humor and drunken carousing to anyone I think isn't of a philosophical inclination. I could get really cynical here, but I'll refrain.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It's a significant improvement over backstab.

I don't think so. I'm not a fan of bonus damage dice, for a variety of reasons I know I've expounded upon recently. It devalues base damage, devalues critical hits, devalues the tactical setup, and creates some wonky damage math. This, I've fixed, by creating a variety of abilities that hybridize SA, backstab, and some other concepts.

I'm also not a fan of it being mandatory. From the start, the thief concept and backstab were only partially concordant. But the transition to rogue broadened the class's niche. Many rogues are not sneaky combatants. Indeed, many are neither of those things. And yet, even with its numerous archetypes, PF really doesn't touch SA at all; every rogue apparently has it. At the very least, there should be a sub for a few other ways of approaching combat, like Skirmish, but perhaps for other avenues of advancement as well.

Admittedly, I haven't fixed this issue. It's a big one.

No more so than any other family. For example, in my game a party consisting of clerics of Jord, Sesstra, Aynwen, Arattay, Lado, and Aymira would probably get along like peas in a pod.

It's certainly possible to have clerics of compatible deities get along. However, I would think that the specificity of their beliefs would cause more conflicts than a conventional party, and even more so if you start getting into deities of radically different alignments.

I don't feel that way. Aside from overcompensating for the general mediocrity of the 1e/2e cleric, the cleric is IMO one of the best designed classes in 3e. It can be subtly diversified by a very elegant mechanism. I see the need for very few changes.

The domain concept is good, but was never adequately implemented. Domain spells shouldn't be just one bonus slot a day, they should be a large part of the character's spellcasting. Domain abilities should be more substantive (even more than PF). And instead of the standard BAB/saves/skills/proficiencies/hp package, these parameters should vary by deity. A cleric of Kord maybe should be getting armor and weapon profs and good fort saves, but not good will. A cleric of Boccob really should be more like the cloistered cleric variant.

Moreover, there should be a clerical sorcerer. Preparation really is obsolete for divine casters. The favored soul was kind of dumb, and the oracle is nice but not quite on the mark for that purpose. Even 5e promised us a priest class and backed out.

I guess you should avoid playing with a jerk for a DM. Either that, or you should pick the sort of deity that you'd really want to serve so that you don't end up with a personality conflict between you and your boss - I often suggest a god of hearty good humor and drunken carousing to anyone I think isn't of a philosophical inclination. I could get really cynical here, but I'll refrain.

I don't think it takes much jerkiness from the DM to make it a very serious consideration. If you're not a cleric, you're your own boss. If you are, you're giving that up. To me, that's the real reason clerics weren't popular, not because they were too mechanically weak.