Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="StreamOfTheSky" data-source="post: 5680480" data-attributes="member: 35909">Well, basically, &quot;class skills&quot; used to really mean something, it was actually sort of a class feature in its own right.&nbsp; Now it's just a +3, and any schmuck that multiclasses just 1 level can snag all of those bonuses and never look back.&nbsp; The extremely punitive cross class skill rules in 3E that everyone (but me) seemed to hate were a massive form of niche protection.&nbsp; &quot;Yeah, your sorcerer has 10 points higher charisma than me, but with half the max ranks allowed and basically having to spend all your skill points just on that one skill, you're not terribly incentivized to jump on Use Magic Device [or Intimidate, or Diplomacy; basically pick any class and skill based on its primary stat that it didn't have as a class skill], now are you?&nbsp; And even if you did, I'm still going to end up better at it.&nbsp; Nya!&quot;That's all gone now.&nbsp; The rogue might still be the best at dex-based skills, only, but Ranger and some others can give him a run towards the obsolete bin on those, too.&nbsp; So again, rogue can't even come close to the most damage, can't outshine the other classes at any skill except maybe disable device, is squishy/weak/MAD as hell, instead of being good party support is actually one of the most party-dependent (with the sneak attack nerfs, I'd say even more so than monk; for ranged SA you're basically begging for Greater Invis or sucking), oh and maneuvering into flanking just so you can do not completely worthless damage is now super deadly.&nbsp; Have fun!Unless your party is super unbalanced in representation (lots of warriors or mages, and most would argue the latter can handle anything anyway), I can't really justify ever needing the rogue in a party with characters all of different types.EDIT: And yeah, good for you.&nbsp; I think I've decided that just as &quot;no D&amp;D is better than 4E D&amp;D&quot; for me, so too is &quot;No D&amp;D/PF better than D&amp;D/PF with the PF gun rules.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="StreamOfTheSky, post: 5680480, member: 35909"] Well, basically, "class skills" used to really mean something, it was actually sort of a class feature in its own right. Now it's just a +3, and any schmuck that multiclasses just 1 level can snag all of those bonuses and never look back. The extremely punitive cross class skill rules in 3E that everyone (but me) seemed to hate were a massive form of niche protection. "Yeah, your sorcerer has 10 points higher charisma than me, but with half the max ranks allowed and basically having to spend all your skill points just on that one skill, you're not terribly incentivized to jump on Use Magic Device [or Intimidate, or Diplomacy; basically pick any class and skill based on its primary stat that it didn't have as a class skill], now are you? And even if you did, I'm still going to end up better at it. Nya!" That's all gone now. The rogue [i]might[/i] still be the best at dex-based skills, only, but Ranger and some others can give him a run towards the obsolete bin on those, too. So again, rogue can't even come close to the most damage, can't outshine the other classes at any skill except maybe disable device, is squishy/weak/MAD as hell, instead of being good party support is actually one of the most party-dependent (with the sneak attack nerfs, I'd say even more so than monk; for ranged SA you're basically begging for Greater Invis or sucking), oh and maneuvering into flanking just so you can do not completely worthless damage is now super deadly. Have fun! Unless your party is super unbalanced in representation (lots of warriors or mages, and most would argue the latter can handle anything anyway), I can't really justify ever needing the rogue in a party with characters all of different types. EDIT: And yeah, good for you. I think I've decided that just as "no D&D is better than 4E D&D" for me, so too is "No D&D/PF better than D&D/PF with the PF gun rules." [/QUOTE]

Verification