Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Username17]

It's like they're trying to achieve the granularity of open multiclassing with single-class builds.

Well, yeah. Look, Open Multiclassing and Prestige Classing were popular concepts in 3e and were generally better than what came before. But they fail in important and unsolvable ways. You can't actually get rid of them without making a whole new edition, but moving forward you're going to want people to be able to scratch the itch those features scratch without actually having to use those broken mechanics.

If you were making a new edition, you'd want to provide a lot of classes that covered all the hybrid options and you'd want to provide a number of customizability options as characters grow including a prereq-free paragon class jump that allows players to undergo radical transformative advancement at some level or another. But within the context of maintaining the fiction of 3.5 compatibility, all you can do is provide a classplosion with enough archetypes and traits and feats and shit that people can play generally what they want without having to poke at the multiclassing or PrestigeClassing "rules."

Pathfinder is doing pretty much exactly what they have to do given their constraints. Including making all this shit pretty much stand alone - a constraint brought in by the fact that a lot of their writers are fuckups and they don't do any playtesting or editing. So if there was a lot of cross pollination of spells, archetypes, feats, traits, and whatever the fuck between different classes you'd have things collapse into 4e style charop shit right away.

-Username17

[OgreBattle]

It's like they're trying to achieve the granularity of open multiclassing with single-class builds.

I figure the main reason it's appealing to their fans is now they can write "INQUISITOR" on their character sheet and feel like a badass hardass burninator without having goody two shoes "Paladin" or "I have a reputation as a healbot" 'cleric' on their sheets.

And that goes a long long way in roleplaying identity for folks who are not too concerned at actual mechanical power and flexibility.

[Rawbeard]

I don't understand people who are not concerned about mechanical "power", but on the other hand can't divorce a class name from who and what their character is.

[Username17]

I don't understand people who are not concerned about mechanical "power", but on the other hand can't divorce a class name from who and what their character is.

Seriously? In Munchhausen you underline your name twice and don't write down your attack bonus at all. In the game of makebelieve from which D&D is derived, the class title is the only thing that really matters.

-Username17

[Aryxbez]

Seriously? In Munchhausen you underline your name twice and don't write down your attack bonus at all. In the game of makebelieve from which D&D is derived, the class title is the only thing that really matters.

So, you're saying that it's ok for people to be unable to divorce their concept from their class name? To play a Ninja without having a "Ninja" class, to be an Assassin without the Prc's, to be a "Barbarian" without a specific class, etc? In D&D and other games, the name could have very little bearing how much able to do the things the name would entail anyway.

I used to be among the terrible habit many years ago. I think its the idea you overly trust the designers to know what was best, that their judgment supercedes yours. Because you feel such great meaning and effort went into the description, name, and even the mechanics of the class/options you're playing. So to divorce from that, is to harm the meaning behind that option, and thusly bunch of emotional responses about nihilism cues forth (It has to matter, otherwise what's the point? type mentality).

I suppose that's excusable if you're some teenager, college students, and older? It's just silly/sad.

[Whipstitch]

So, you're saying that it's ok for people to be unable to divorce their concept from their class name?

No, he's saying that having a concept that's divorced from your class fluff and numbers is an ugly kludge. You know, because it is. The whole damn point of going with class and level based systems is so that you have some structure and common benchmarks to judge and build with. Open multi-class is a boon to build and concept diversity but in terms of clarity it's the pits, especially when compared to character classes that have a bunch of built-in setting specific fluff.

[Rawbeard]

So if i want to fight I have to play a Fighter?

[Username17]

So if i want to fight I have to play a Fighter?

More like, it is unimmersive and corrosive to the play experience that people who want to play Robin Hood ("Prince of Thieves") are told that the "Thief" is the badwrong class to play and they should play a "Ranger" instead. And anything more counterintuitive than that is a fucking red line for a lot of players. And they are not wrong.

-Username17

[Rawbeard]

Which Robin Hood? Kevin Costner, Errol Flynn, or maybe even Russel Crowe? Or maybe the one from Doctor Who? I don't know many Robin Hood stories, but I don't know anyone where he actually does "thief" stuff. Bandit, yeah, but thief? There probably are, but I doubt anyone will have the idea to play that version and assume everyone will know "Robin Hood the King of Thiefs is actually a thief".

As far as I am concerned a class' name should give a broad description of what it does, not who it is. The one thing I really like about 4e was that class meant mostly your combat style. It didn't DO that very well, but at least it probably didn't even try that and it's just a side effect of their failure that made me like the concept.

[MGuy]

As far as I am concerned a class' name should give a broad description of what it does, not who it is. The one thing I really like about 4e was that class meant mostly your combat style. It didn't DO that very well, but at least it probably didn't even try that and it's just a side effect of their failure that made me like the concept.

I'm pretty sure that the point of choosing a class is to choose what your character can do. That's the point they are making. The point being that if the class tells you that you're supposed to be good at something you should be, and if it doesn't deliver on it then it is bad. So with your fighter thing. If the class fluff tells you that you should be super good at fighting things and goes from levels 1 to 20 then doesn't deliver on that promise then it is bad. If, in this hypothetical game, you wanted to fight well and instead had to choose the Pacifista class (which doesn't describe you as being a mighty fighting dude) to do that, then the game is actively lying to you and that is counter-intuitive.

[tussock]

Hell, I'm one of the grognards who thinks Sleep spells should put things to sleep, and Charm Person should, you know, charm a person. So along with that, dropping a Fighter into a fight where they do some fighting should be a thing that works, and your Necromancer should also be good in a fight but not so that the Fighter is comparatively bad.


It's not particularly class names, it's that the game should do what it says on the tin. Even if not initially, that's the direction any patching should aim. Rather than making it so Sleep only makes you a bit drowsy, make it so being asleep isn't so devastating, as a generally good idea in case the PCs are ever caught asleep.

[Whipstitch]

As far as I am concerned a class' name should give a broad description of what it does, not who it is.

Open multi-class schemes are pretty bad at even that unambitious goal, especially since there's plenty of builds where you end up grabbing classes solely to meet prerequisites and never bother actually using all that BAB or Use Rope ranks. Having Robin's sheet read as "Bandit->Master Archer->Legendary trickster" as he hits various prestige tiers is just going to make more sense to people than looking at a sheet which says Rogue 1/Ranger 2/Fighter 2/Cary Elwes 3.

[Rawbeard]

I'm pretty sure that the point of choosing a class is to choose what your character can do. That's the point they are making. The point being that if the class tells you that you're supposed to be good at something you should be, and if it doesn't deliver on it then it is bad.

That is exactly my point, I have no idea where you are going and why.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

So, why do rogues suck in Pathfinder, and what are easy ways to correct that?

I am aware of two issues:

-Tumbling is much, much harder to the point where it's pointless to try

-Flask weapons (i.e., acid, alchemist fire, etc) don't deal sneak attack damage anymore.

Those are easy fixes, make tumbling easy again and let them sneak attack with flask weapons again. Would doing those make rogues viable again, or would it just stealth-buff alchemists?

[name_here]

They've also been cutting out various ways to get sneak attack. For instance, in 3.5 Blink explicitly denies enemies dex to AC and in Pathfinder it explicitly doesn't.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Great. Any others I should be aware of?

[ishy]

Paizo basically printed 3 rogue classes. The rogue in the phb. The alternate rogue class: the ninja (which removes some stuff and gains more than it loses).
And they rewrote the rogue slightly in the unchained book (unchained rogue). The unchained rogue has slightly better ninja talents, but can't take some of the good ones, gets dex to damage for free in melee and can apply a debuff (- armour class or -hit mostly) if they can land a sneak attack.

For the core rogue:
If you take damage while using acrobatics (tumble) you have to make another check or fall prone + it is a lot harder to do.

Jason threw a hissy fit when Frank talked about the flask rogue, so every way it used to get sneak attack was removed (even stuff like grease only allows sneaks with readied attacks). Also removed alchemical items from quick draw etc.

Monsters and other martial characters tend to have slightly increased numbers, meaning the rogue has trouble hitting stuff.

Rogue armour class and saves ain't great (other than reflex).

Other classes do similar damage, yet don't have to deal with sneak attack immune enemies. And they usually get better other stuff as well.

The skill system change means everyone can pick up all skills now, which means wizards are usually better at skill stuff than rogues are.

Rogues can choose some rogue talents. Some of these are some utility stuff and others improve your rogueish stuff (which you need). Thus many talents are wasted space.

You have to spend some narrative bullshit points to get your DM to agree to a method to always sneak attack.

You are not proficient with Shuriken.

[Ice9]

They took a bunch of stuff away and then added it back in.
For example, they specifically removed Sneak Attack with alchemical items. Except then later, they added firearms, so touch-attack Sneak Attack is back.

Another example, they removed Blink as a Rogue tactic (spell still exists, just doesn't grant Sneak Attack). But then they added a ton of ways to see through smoke.

And they removed (or didn't add, more precisely) a number of things from 3E that boosted Sneak Attack. But then they added Sap Master, Sniper's Goggles, etc.

So the blinking flask master Rogue is now a pistol-shooting smoke cloud Rogue, but it's once again fairly effective. However, while this was happening, they added a couple other classes (Ninja and Vivisectionist Alchemist) that are Rogue+.

And then they did a half-assed fix in Unchained. Not sure if that changes matters much.

[vagrant]

Smoke-cloud pistol rogue sounds awesome, actually, but does it stack up against vivi alchemist or ninja? (In that can I enjoy the concept and contribute, or sit around staring wistfully at my concept as I feel the crushing guilt of not making an actually effective character?)

[Slade]

Seeing as alchemist can get a third hand for reloading, letting you dual wield pistols, the alchemist is even better at "Smoke-cloud pistol " thing.

[Ice9]

The Rogue will do plenty of damage, so if you just want killing stuff + skills, which is enough in many campaigns, then you're fine.

The thing with the Vivisectionist is that they also have damage + skills, and spells. So it's not that the Rogue can't contribute (currently anyway, there was a period where they had trouble doing so), it's just that the Alchemist will always be contributing more. Also doing it much better in a low-wealth game, since they don't need external items as much.

[erik]

So basically the best rogue tricks have been given to other classes who have so much more, and the remaining expectation of flanking mcfuckenhuge monsters to deal sneak attack damage is put on ice since tumble is shit.

There's a few ways left to get ranged SA with rogues until they are taken away also since the design intent for rogue ranged SA is 1/round.

[Orca]

Dual pistol rogues in fog clouds is amazing at their sweet spot but trails off rapidly under non-ideal conditions.

First, if you were wanting to target touch AC you need to be within one range increment; PF's version of far shot won't help. This means 20' range max, and if you don't want to be within 5'step/face smash you may want to be at least 15' away. That's a narrow and fiddly band to stay in. If you're not targeting touch AC the penalties for TWF without light weapons, and range, will add up quickly.

If your friends can't see thru fog you may get asked to put the fog somewhere away from the enemies and so be forced to be more than 20' away too.

If the environment or the particular enemy stops fog being an issue you'll find PF isn't kind to ranged rogues.

Reloading two pistols takes an extra limb, which is possible but requires you to either be non-human (and dual pistols is feat-hungry) or to be, um, an alchemist or bard.

Misfires will frequently make you miss (10-15% chance per attack) and debuff you from that point on.

I'm not at all sure pistol/fog rogues are a great idea.

[TiaC]

Seeing as alchemist can get a third hand for reloading, letting you dual wield pistols, the alchemist is even better at "Smoke-cloud pistol " thing.

In addition, they can get a familiar that can create the smoke for them.

So, I was looking at unchained (I don't know why I thought this was a good idea) and I came across this feat:

Signature Skill (General)
Your ability with a particular skill is the stuff of legends, and you can do things with that skill that others cannot.
Prerequisite: 5 ranks in the chosen skill.
Benefit: Choose one skill. You gain the ability listed in that skill’s 5 Ranks entry. As you gain more ranks in the chosen skill, you gain additional abilities. If you have 10 or more ranks in the chosen skill, you gain the appropriate abilities immediately. If your chosen skill is Craft, Knowledge, Perform, or Profession, you gain the listed powers only for one category of that skill, such as Craft (bows). This feat can be taken only once, but it stacks with the rogue’s edge ability and the cutting edge rogue talent.

They took Tome scaling feats and proceeded to shit on the idea. The bonuses are now up on d20pfsrd if you want to rubberneck. I suppose some of them might be decent if you don't have anything better to do. Intimidate can be a sort of budget sleep hex. Stealth might allow full-attack sneak attack at 15th level if you have a way of hiding. That's about as good as they get.

Perform has shitmuffin's stupid rule:"5 Ranks: Whenever you attempt a Bluff, Diplomacy, Handle Animal, or Intimidate check, you can attempt a DC 20 Perform check to gain a +2 circumstance bonus on the check."

Is there anything pathfinder does that someone else didn't do better a decade ago?

[ishy]

Your ability with a particular skill is the stuff of legends, and you can do things with that skill that others cannot.

While I understand why you unlock stuff based on how many ranks you put in the skill, it is weird from an in-world perspective.

The player with a total skill bonus of +3 is the stuff of legends and the player with a +32 is not.