Pathfinder 1E What project would you like Paizo to tacke next for Pathfinder?

[Hunter In Darkness]

Celtavian, from your post I get you want the rogue to do more damage then the fighter , have better save and hit more often.

The fact is the rogue is not all about combat, and the medium BAB works fine with hitting folks flat footed. You should not be the main damage dealer, good at it yes, but that is not the rogues main area.

Really if your aim is to be king of melee damage, your playing the wrong class. Rogues are fine in combat. I am not gonna cruch numbers but you seem to want

Full BAB which comes with a d10 HD, all good saves, sneak attack, 8 skill points per level and all the goodies rogues gain.

I would never allow such a broken critter at any table I run.

 

[dmccoy1693]

[1] Vehicle Rules (i.e. ships, airships, carriages, etc.)
[2] Mass Combat/Command Rules (Sieges, open-battle, season-long campaigns)
[3] Social Combat Rules

This. All of thee above. Definitely and wholeheartedly.

I hope we have some options for making another class a trapfinder.

This as well. My alchemist has disable device cracked out, but he still cannot do anything about magical traps. To do that, I'll have to multiclass into rogue or we're going to take the hit from the magical trap everytime.

Every class gets some exclusive bonus to them that no other class gets. Rangers get a bonus against their favored enemy. Paladins get to deal additional damage with a smite. Wizards get to specialize in a single school of magic. Sorcerers get to cast more spells per day. But the rogue doesn't get an exclusive bonus; it gets an exclusive ability. There is nothing else in the game that allows anyone to do anything about a magical trap, but the rogue (except possibly counterspelling the trap, but that's it, no way to do it with the skill).

 

[Votan]

Take your average fighter: Let's say 16 str to start.

At lvl 20 he'll have the following: +20 BAB + 5 str bonus (4 pt in str from advancement) + 4 weapon training + 2 greater weapon focus = 31 to hit

And he'll do an average of +5 str + 4 weapon training + 4 double spec = +13 damage to hit.

At lvl 20 a rogue: 16 dex 14 str

+15 BAB + +5 dex mod (4 pts dex) + weapon focus +1 atk = +21 to hit

for +2 damage and sneak attack when he gets it.

A DM designs an encounter where the fighter hits on around a 8 to 10 the rogue will need an 18 to 20 to hit that creature. This doesn't include all the feats the fighter gets for ripping through DR and the crit feats, something the rogue has less access to.

These arguments are difficult without context. If the rogue is routinely getting sneak attack damage then that is an average of +35 to damage.

To get your number, the creature has an AC in the range of 39 to 41. How does this stack up? There are 4 monsters in the PF SRD at CR 20:

Balor AC 36
Ancient Gold Dragon AC 39
Pit Fiend AC 38
Tarn Linnorm AC 36

Of course, a 20th level rogue should have a +5 weapon (now needs a 13 to hit the Gold Dragon), has master strike, and flanking gives a +2 bonus (and she should be able to arrange that about 75% of the time with tumbles). Sneak attack damage cuts through DR if the party doesn't have the right weapon. Tumbling makes flanking easy.

I am not saying that the skill based class is better than the combat class but you seem to dismiss a lot of the abilities of the rogue.

Now this can happen for several reasons. If nobody knows how to construct or play a rogue it may feel suboptimal. House rules (the little variations we all make to the game) can matter too.

For example, I had a DM who interpreted sneak attack as needing to be set up like a 2E backstab (only woks from behind on a completely unaware opponent). Needless to say, that game saw no pure class rogues.

But I do think that the class, as per the rules as written, is better than you are giving it credit for.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Additionally, if a rogue has improved feint or are hiding, they're generally attacking someone that is flat footed. If they're flanking, there's a bonus. Plus there are lots of other ways a rogue can get a bonus here and a bonus there.

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

You mean like Crypt of the Everflame / Masks of the Living God / City of Golden Death?

No; those modules are very loosely connected. Older modules such as U1-U3, G1-3, Elemental Evil etc. all have much tighter links and an overall plot arc. I especially love U1-3 in that there is a "sandbox" element as well as as an overarching plot. Another wonderful example of this is the Illithiad/Overmind series designed once upon a time by Bruce Cordell (too bad he doesn't design the adventures for 4E).

I believe James did a wonderful job similar to this with "Howl of the Carrion King," however, I dont think the "sandbox" element can be maintained when designing a six adventure AP (and rightly so, since there would be way too many loose elements to account for) and the current AP's tend to fall off from their highs as they move towards the final adventures.

 

[Celtavian]

Celtavian, from your post I get you want the rogue to do more damage then the fighter , have better save and hit more often.

The fact is the rogue is not all about combat, and the medium BAB works fine with hitting folks flat footed. You should not be the main damage dealer, good at it yes, but that is not the rogues main area.

Really if your aim is to be king of melee damage, your playing the wrong class. Rogues are fine in combat. I am not gonna cruch numbers but you seem to want

Full BAB which comes with a d10 HD, all good saves, sneak attack, 8 skill points per level and all the goodies rogues gain.

I would never allow such a broken critter at any table I run.

Why would you think I want that? I pointed out weaknesses, I didn't say the rogue needed all of that.

What I think they need is an abiliity to boost hit at the cost of some sneak attack. I already mentioned that earlier that if hit was boosted, sneak attack should be reduced.

What I want is a class that can be more involved in combat. Most of D&D revolves around combat. Combat is the primary means of leveling in this game. And due to a rogue's BAB, they are often minor players in the biggest encounters in a module. Their brightest moments come against cannon fodder and when disarming traps. But often they are either taken out due to low fort and will saves or a non-factor in the biggest battles in a given module or adventure. I don't see how a player would enjoy that. I know the people I play with don't. I doubt they are different than the average group.

What I'd like to see is something like Paizo did with the monk. They knew monk BAB was severely lacking for a primiary melee combat class. So what do they do? They give more BAB with flurry and full BAB with special maneuvers. Now the monk has a real nice feel to it and is very effective in combat.

Why didn't they think to make the rogue better at flanking or sneak attacking? It seems they would get more of a bonus with flanking than a standard class since they do it most often. A boost to hit would make a solo rogue alot more attractive. They'll never be on par with the +20 BAB classes, but a slight boost so they can hit the BBEG easier would go along way to make them more playable as a solo class.

 

[Celtavian]

These arguments are difficult without context. If the rogue is routinely getting sneak attack damage then that is an average of +35 to damage.

To get your number, the creature has an AC in the range of 39 to 41. How does this stack up? There are 4 monsters in the PF SRD at CR 20:

Balor AC 36
Ancient Gold Dragon AC 39
Pit Fiend AC 38
Tarn Linnorm AC 36

Of course, a 20th level rogue should have a +5 weapon (now needs a 13 to hit the Gold Dragon), has master strike, and flanking gives a +2 bonus (and she should be able to arrange that about 75% of the time with tumbles). Sneak attack damage cuts through DR if the party doesn't have the right weapon. Tumbling makes flanking easy.

I am not saying that the skill based class is better than the combat class but you seem to dismiss a lot of the abilities of the rogue.

Now this can happen for several reasons. If nobody knows how to construct or play a rogue it may feel suboptimal. House rules (the little variations we all make to the game) can matter too.

For example, I had a DM who interpreted sneak attack as needing to be set up like a 2E backstab (only woks from behind on a completely unaware opponent). Needless to say, that game saw no pure class rogues.

But I do think that the class, as per the rules as written, is better than you are giving it credit for.

Does your DM pull stuff straight out of the book? Maybe most DMs.

Our DM designs our encounters around the capabilities of the characters. Which means he uses the BAB and abilities of our toughest melee fighter as his barometer for the enemy's AC. For example, if we were fighting that Ancient Gold dragon it would cast Mage Armor and Shield boosting its AC to 47. He would give the Balor armor or Bracers of armor +6 and a ring of protection +4 boosting its AC to 46. Possibly toss in an evil priest to buff it.

I assumed this is how other DMs designed encounters so their players don't walk over an encounter. That's why I listed only BABs. Creature doesn't matter very much if the DM is designing encounters based on the highest BAB and damage capacity in the group. And the +20 BAB classes are often going to have a much higher BAB and be able to boost it even higher than the rogue.

They get the same flanking bonus as the rogue.

No. I don't ignore all the rogues other abilities. And they occasionally come up when the DM wants to let the rogue shine a little. But most modules aren't written to make a rogue shine. They don't include a series of encounters that require rogue skills, just traps now and then.

And I don't even know if a rogue would make it a dragon with that high will save against fear. That would offset his flanking bonus right there. Then the balor aura would burn him up and the gods help the rogue if the Balor decides to implode him. He's target number one along with the arcane caster and both are probably going to go boom.

Over the years playing 3E and now Pathfinder the Rogue has had the same problem: you can get the most bang out of a multilclass rogue. Single class rogue leaves you with too many commonly exploited weaknesses such as fear, hold, death spells, and spells that do damage based on fort saves like Horrid Wilting. And it creates problems for the DM designing encounters to challenge his characters. If he makes a creature tough for a +20 BAB class to hit, its going to be nearly impossible for a rogue to hit.

I think they should have lowered sneak attack damage and boosted BAB for the rogue, at least when doing what they do best.

Have you experienced how much Pathfinder powered up the archer?

Have you experienced the joy of being a DM when a paladin smites evil?

Have you seen a fighter weilding two medium sized weapons without needing feats because of weapon training?

Alot of classes got boosted hit abilities except the rogue. Makes encounter design difficult. If you design a class low enough for the rogue to get a few hits on, the +20 BAB classes are going to have a field day. If you design an encounter for a +20 BAB class to have problems hitting, the rogue is going to rarely hit.

Better to take less sneak attack and hit more often by multiclassing. It's no big deal. Our group can continue multiclassing. But I would sure love to see a straight class rogue that was playable to 20 without making encounter design hard or making a player feel useless in the most important encounters in an adventure.

 

[Walking Dad]

...

I keep thinking of the dull Maztica stuff from FR though (did anyone even buy this and use it beyond the FR completionists?). While an aztec/inca/mayan temple might make a good adventure site, I find the mythology abit boring. Asian, Norse, and Egyptian based books would be excellent on the other hand, ymmv.

What do you know about their history and religion? Especially their religion is very interesting and also highly usable for RP.

...

about 75% of the time with tumbles). Sneak attack damage cuts through DR if the party doesn't have the right weapon. Tumbling makes flanking easy.

...

The thing is rather big, so you need to tumble through many squares. Also, what do you do if it flies? Ignoring it's capabilities to fly and access to armor boosting items and spells.

 

[Derulbaskul]

Can you guys please fork the rogue debate? This is a really good thread otherwise.


I'm loving the amount of detail being given to the world of Golarion.

I can't wait to see the Kingmaker adventure path and the one involving serpents that follows. I'm happy if Paizo just keeps producing adventures, adventure paths and Companions/Chronicles for Golarion.

But most of all I really want to see a character and monster builder for Pathfinder. I DM 4E and, while I like it, I really only do it because of the computer support. If I had something nearly as good as that for Pathfinder I would swap rulesets in a heartbeat. In the meantime I am buying everything that Paizo publishes.

 

[Celtavian]

re

The rogue debate is tied to what I would like to see from Pathfinder. As in a better rogue that is attractive to play to 20 or more options for trapfinding classes that are attractive to play to 20 like the Scout. James Jacobs seems to think the class is fine, but I just can't get how that is the case unless most DMs are not designing encounters to challenge Paladins, Rangers, Fighters, and Barbarians. All their hit rolls far exceed the rogue as does their base damage, especially the fighter and paladin...even the ranger against favored enemies when most take dragons and evil outsiders as their top favored enemies. And barbarians with power attack are damage beasts when raging.

Need more trapfinder options for campaigns that run like ours as in campaigns that aim to challenge the top heavy hitters in the group. I'm not sure why any new rogue type classes weren't included in the Advanced Player's Guide. Our group can't be the only one looking for better trapfinding class options.