Classes in the APG

[Kaisoku]

You are clearly playing a different game than I am.

I like how you refer to "the average group", and yet I have never had the experience you speak of (purely damage focused or feeling useless). Why did people complain (and still do) that the Fighter doesn't have any real options outside of combat, if the game is "designed around combat. Period"?

A friend of mine is running an Eberron game that's based on pulp, gumshoe, investigation and detective material. The person he had a hard time finding ways to include them? The straight up fighter who can only kill things really well.

I'll agree to disagree then. Yes, the rogue must suck if you play the game the way you are. I guess I've just not been playing your way. For the last 10 years.

 

[Dark Mistress]

Completely agree Kaisoku, in fact one of the most talked about game sessions my group ever had was at a party. Where there was some political aspects to it and a lot of social interaction. For 7 hours hardly a dice was rolled and no combat took place. Yet it is still one of the all time great gaming session my group talks about years later.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

My experience is more similar to Kaisoku's one.

+1 to what he said about Rogues.

My only beef in PF is that designers should have given Hide in Plain Sight to the Rogue as rogue talent.. but is enough a dip in Shadowdancer for that.

 

[Celtavian]

re

You are clearly playing a different game than I am.

I like how you refer to "the average group", and yet I have never had the experience you speak of (purely damage focused or feeling useless). Why did people complain (and still do) that the Fighter doesn't have any real options outside of combat, if the game is "designed around combat. Period"?

Who complains? People in my group love the fighter now. The fighter is a power house with a lot of options.

A friend of mine is running an Eberron game that's based on pulp, gumshoe, investigation and detective material. The person he had a hard time finding ways to include them? The straight up fighter who can only kill things really well.

I'll agree to disagree then. Yes, the rogue must suck if you play the game the way you are. I guess I've just not been playing your way. For the last 10 years.

I'm running modules designed by Paizo games.

So how do you do xp if you don't kill stuff? Toss out the bestiary and not bother to use any monsters? Like I said before, you have to design special cases for such campaigns. I guess for the past 10 years your group has avoided combat altogether in favor of skill based games with tons of rogues I imagine. Is that what you're trying to imply?

The average Paizo Pathinder Adventure Path is designed with a lot of combat in mind. This is from the company that designed the game. This same company made the rogue vastly inferior in combat to every other melee class that deals damage solely with weapons. Same as 3.0 did.

As long as they keep believing the stories told by players like you rather than actually analyzing average play, the damage capacity of even average melee builds, and even analyzing their own module design, they will continue to try to sell a rogue that few will want to play as a single character in a long-term campaign.

Most people don't make it to very high level in this game. I understand that. So they probably don't notice the power drop off with the rogue as much as players like those in my group do since we often make it to high level play. And that is when the rogue truly starts to break down.

Up to about lvl 8 to 10 the rogue is fairly effective. He's usually only 2 points behind the others in BAB. The fighter hasn't yet obtained double specialization or crit feats. The paladin doesn't have five smite evils a day, immunity to most major attacks, and a strong weapon bond. The barbarian doesn't have his best rage powers or high DR.

Optimal builds start to come into power past lvl 10 or so. And rogues dont' have optimal builds unless you multi-class them. I would like to see the individual rogue brought up to snuff with the other melee classes rather than trapfinder guy that troubleshoots on occasion.

The majority of xp is gained through combat encounters save for I guess you're specially designed campaigns. Which is no the average design of companies like Paizo putting out modules and the like.

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

I gotta go with Kaisoku, Dark Mistress and Kaiyanwang on this one. I've been playing for about 30 years now, across a broad spectrum of groups. My experience has been that it's first and foremost a ROLE PLAYING game. Yes, combat is fun. Yes, I've been involved with a few groups that focused on nothing but killing stuff (I pretty quickly went and found myself some new people to play with).

I'm playing in about 10 different games and running two more (both Paizo APs). In every one of them we have encounters that require skills other than melee. Heck, not only is there a Rogue in my Legacy of Fire game, that Rogue refuses to deal other than non-lethal damage. And he's having a great time, because it's a role playing game, and he's found a great role to play.

D&D (and Pathfinder) are imperfectly balanced. The designers do what they can to give the different classes abilities that are combat effective when stacked up against each other, but the emphasis is on role play and on making the different classes different.

Combat is a part of the game, admittedly a big part. But it's not the single reason I (or most of the groups I've been involved with) play the game. If it was, we'd all go play something different, where every class was 'evenly balanced' (for combat) against every other class. It's the other stuff - the stuff besides "Go kill something, wash, rinse, repeat" - that makes the game great.

EDIT: Actually, in rethinking the above what makes the game great seems to be that it offers so many different experiences that it's attractive to such a wide variety of audiences. Some can play for the glory of the kill, some for the thrill of the chase, some for the intricate play of politics. Any given game can be made to suit it's audience. This seems well demonstrated to me just by the variety of discussions and the differing opinions on these boards.

 

[Kaisoku]

So how do you do xp if you don't kill stuff?

"Defeating an encounter" doesn't necessarily mean having to kill everything. Nor "deal the most damage possible". Sometimes it's a grapple and pin, sometimes it's sneaking past and setting off a trap at the right time, sometimes casting a charm person and then using diplomacy will win the day.

Note that a damage dealing Wizard is generally considered the least proficient use of the class' abilities. While there's save or die spells, a lot of the Wizard's "1st tier power" is considered their versatility in their utility magic. Having a spell for each situation (or at least the potential for a spell).

The Rogue has this as well. It's limited to fewer situations, but just like the fighter, it's something he can do "all day long". This makes him a viable character in my experience.

I guess for the past 10 years your group has avoided combat altogether in favor of skill based games with tons of rogues I imagine. Is that what you're trying to imply?

Oh hey, I can play this game too: My games aren't as one-dimensional as going from room to room killing everything in sight, like what you seem to be implying?

Enough with the snark. I'm saying that the Rogue can participate in combat, and has skillpoints and class abilities that give additional things to do outside of combat.

If you don't plan on playing much out of combat encounter stuff, or planning your approach to encounters with out of combat tactics, then the Rogue is going to fall behind proportionately. You'll probably find the Ranger a better fit (more combat focus, with some skills on the side).

I'm not deriding your play style. I was being truthful that if you play the game in a manner that precludes any potential for out-of-combat mechanics, then classes with abilities for out-of-combat stuff will rightly be considered inadequate.

I admit, I did call you on your "average group" comment, mainly because that's a pretty broad statement when you can only look at gaming from your own limited perspective.
Stating an opinion as fact is what I was attacking there.

 

[Kaisoku]

I do agree though that what the Rogue class can bring to the table is the easier to deal with when it's not there.

If you look at the roles as dealing with Killing Things, Troubleshooting and Healing, then it's harder to deal with a major lack in killing or healing, than with troubleshooting. Especially with what the Rogue can bring.

Scouting can give a major advantage to a group in gameplay. I'm currently in a game with no scouting, and no sneaking, so we are walking into every combat at best hoping to start normally (but usually with a surprise round against us).
Having the option to strike first when your opponent is off balance or unready is no small thing.
The Problem: animal companions, magic (spells and items), lots of classes, and the revamped skill system all make it so people can "fill in" on this role "well enough".

Troubleshooting can make dealing with some situations easier. Traps, trap-like spells and abilities, normally inaccessible passages or making them accessible causing way too much noise, etc.
Bypassing these can give benefits similar to scouting (allowing you to get an advantage over your enemy), and can even be used to turn them against an enemy (using a trap similar to using terrain against your attackers).
The Problem: These situations come up less often, such that when they do come up, it's not as critical that you deal with them as well as if you had a Rogue. Getting around them is often sufficient enough.

Starting to see a pattern here. The Rogue class' non-combat stuff primarily gives "a bonus" rather than "filling a critical role".
Trying to shore up a lack of healing, or lack of meatshield, is much harder to do (usually using a much more limited resource, like potions/wands or using summoned creatures).

This doesn't make the Rogue class useless or "not viable", because he is giving something to the group.
It does mean that if he's not there, it's not as difficult to change your tactics to accommodate the loss.

If you are playing in a game where everyone is using tactics that already ignores the Rogue's additional talents, then the Rogue is going to seem like a mediocre character.

If you are a player that wants to play a character that is always critical to the success of the group, then the Rogue might feel like wasted page space.

I've really only ever played, and DM'd players who wanted to play, a specific character concept. In other words... "I feel like playing an Indiana Jones style of character" or "Conan" or "a Mind Controller" or "a follower of THIS god", etc.
When looking at making your character from this perspective, the Rogue often does come up as a valid option.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Yeah. He should. Or he is a waste of a character slot. The game is designed around combat. Period. If you are not an effective combatant, you are some guy that watches everyone else be effective while you wait for the next lock or trap.

Agreed. Rogue shouldn't be a stand by.

This role doesn't matter in modules. You can live completely without a character of this type through modules, adventures, and any standard game and not miss a beat. Unless every module is the Tomb of Horrors the rogue is obsolete.

Can maybe, but not all players have mastered the game yet: most still fall in traps like Mystic Thuerge (sounds cool), etc.
You should remember some players haven't evolved past new in some ways. They now understand their own class, but not always beyond that.

Decent means not fun to play for the majority of players. Why play a "decent 2nd tier combatant" when you can play a great second tier combatant like a fighter with a couple of rogue levels to find traps.

Majority of your players. Because you haven't met majority of all players.
Still a couple rogue levels? No one said full rogue levels: he never said without multiclassing.

Does it a cost a standard action to use? All it takes is one or two rounds for a well-designed fighter, paladin, or barbarian to make mince meat of just about anything they face. Toss in an arcane caster opening up right from the get go. And that rogue casting vanish just wasted his spell-like ability.

By time that it gets that high a level: the rogue can just buy a UMD able object like a wand. He meant for low levels.

So you take the time to pull off dirty trick to set up your sneak attack, and I repeat again that the fighter has already destroyed the mob by the time you set it up more than likely. High level fighter dish out insane damage and hit far, far, far more often the rogues. So do paladins and barbarians.

No, they deal damage when Rogue is sneak attacking. Now remember unless you are all focusing on same target who cares if Pally destroyed other mobs he is killing his.

And Dirty Trick matters not much at all once the fighters start picking up critical feats that can blind, stun, stagger, deafen, and exhaust what they are fighting with a crit (which is pretty often with Improved Crit and four or give attacks a round) while doing insane damage with any crit as well.

If you Crit the enemy: some enemies can't be Crit, but can still be dirty tricked.

I have not seen one campaign where it was a necessity to have a class with more than a few levels of rogue. I haven't had a single player since 3.0 came out play a rogue past lvl 4. Just isn't worth it. Still not worth it in Pathfinder. The rogue is a poorly designed class that isn't worth playing unless you have a DM that goes out of his way to create scenarios where the rogue shines.

I've never seen one campaign where it was neccsary to have more than a few Fighter levels. I have seen a Rogue one before though.

But the natural style of play in most groups I've played in is fairly straighforward. And the majority of players want to be effective combatants or at the very least provide highly visible utility like healing or magical buffing.

Agreed.

The rogue does neither. He doesn't even have a defining talent that makes you go "Wow, that is awsome" like say a barbarian with Come and Get It and Fiend Totem. Or anything of the kind.

In your groups. In 3.5, I've seen many effective rogues. Rings of Blink for example used to be amazingly effective (always get sneak attack). But no longer works in PF due to Blink was changed sadly.

 

[Mark Chance]

All in all a poorly designed class which all my players avoid like the plague. Some guys have tried a few rogues, then they get past 5th level and start feeling like chumps. Not enough feats, not enough cool abilities, not enough opportunities to shine in a game oriented almost solely around combat.

Not all classes fit all campaigns or play-styles. That's not necessarily a design flaw. Your choice to run "a game oriented almost solely around combat" doesn't make the rogue poorly designed per se. In another type of game, the rogue will shine just fine, as the rogue did in my current campaign, in which the game is oriented around the PCs rather than around combat.

 

[Shazman]

I've seen a cavalier played through 6th level, and he was pretty awesome. He did plenty of damage, and his mount was better than most PC's at that level. I've seen an oracle played for one session, and he wasn't too impressive, but almost no one is at 1st level, especially with bad rolls. I like the flavor of the inquisitor the most, but don't know how well it will stack up mechanically. I'd like to give it a try. The summoner seems interesting. Customizing the eidolon seems like it would be kind of fun. It's a good class for players that want to play monstrous PC's. You can build the eidolon to mimic a monster you want to play, like a minotaur, demon, troll, giant, etc. At high enough level, you could even have the eidolon substitute for a dragon. Most of the classes seemed kind of "meh" to me at first, but the more I look at them, the more I can see how they could be fun to play in their own way.