The Gaming Den

Man in Black: keep in mind that a lot of the people who criticize it don't really understand why, they're just repeating memes they read on the Internet. So while we can point to all these things that specifically weaken Rogues or that grant other classes "Being a Rogue, but better", a lot of people will just say "It screws Rogues" without knowing the particulars. Much like how a lot of people will call it Caster Edition (it totally is), and if you ask why, they might point to the non-casting class features that Wizards and Sorcerers get in the early levels (which, while better than the "fuck" and "all" they got in 3.5, are things like "You're a Sorcerer who now grows claws 1 round per day!" or "Int/day unleash a RTA for 1d6 + half-level damage!")

Phrases caught on, even if most people have no idea why the phrases might be true.

And Frank: but if they didn't punch the "you don't provoke" things in the nuts, why would people ever use such a great feat as Mobility?

A Man In Black wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:Actually it has a lot to do with flask rogues. [...] they went through the same game test rogues for 10th level and nerfed all of their equipment so that they don't benefit Rogues anymore.

That doesn't explain why people say Paizo hates rogues in places where the flask rogue is considered impractical CO faff, though. Most people were not playing flask rogues. I doubt many people are even aware of how PF changed Blink or splash weapons.

Because if someone is looking at say quick draw, they might ask: "why can't you quickdraw alchemical items anymore?"
Answer they get: "to nerf rogues"
Reply: "why would they nerf rogues when they are already struggling so much?"

For most people it is not what the changes do, but how they make them feel, and many nerfs all over the place makes rogues feel bad.

Of course shit to specifically nerf ranged rogues like: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9n87 doesn't help either.

So now the question is why does pathfinder have a hate-on for mundane classes?

Wiseman wrote:So now the question is why does pathfinder have a hate-on for mundane classes?

Because giving them nice things isn't -*-Realistic-*-.

Seerow wrote:The general meme is that Pathfinder hates rogues. This has become especially common since Trapfinder started being given away for free.

Again, nobody really gives a shit about disarming magical traps with Disable Device.

The real punch in the nuts for the Pathfinder Rogue is the Ninja class, as A Man In Black points out. It's like the Rogue, but better because it's Japanese (just like steel lamellar is superior Japanese chainmail and a nodachi is a superior Japanese falchion, for example).

Again, nobody really gives a shit about disarming magical traps with Disable Device.

I agree nobody should give a shit about it.

But 90% of the crying Ive seen the last few weeks has been "omg now the rogue has nothing left because they gave away trapfinding!". It's stupid, but it has brought about a resurgence of "Pathfinder hates rogues", which is what made me come ask.


Anyway, thanks for all of the responses. Sounds like the biggest issue is just not having any way to sneak attack at a range, and any possible way that comes up gets nerfed quickly. The other big issue is simple power creep where other classes do the rogue's thing better.

The magic traps thing is because as long as there's a thing that a class can do that other classes can't do, the DM can make that class equal in actual play by juicing the encounter and treasure selections. AD&D Fighters sucked balls at high level, but lots of people claimed they were balanced because of Hammers of Thunderbolts and Golems.

A triggered wail of the banshee has a pretty good chance of killing the whole party, but the DC to remove it is only 34 - well within the capabilities of a 10th level Rogue if he specializes and has some decent gear. If the DM throws a couple of those in the game from time to time, the Rogue can "save the party" as often as necessary to keep the Rogue player from feeling like a sucker.

So to an extent it really doesn't matter in the game of any sufficiently pro-active DM how extensive the combat nerfs to Rogues are. They could literally be the combat incapable Thieves that Mike Mearls is always ranting about and individual DMs could still correctly report that they were pulling their weight as long as Rogues have a monopoly on finding and removing traps and traps are potentially sufficiently deadly to make the players care about that if the DM throws in enough of them.

But when the Rogue's trapfinding was made non-exclusive, that excuse no longer washes. Now we're back to evaluating their combat effectiveness just like they were any other kind of character. So now the fact that Jason believes both that Rogues getting sneak attack at range and Rogues being able to reliable move into position to use sneak attack in melee is "cheesy" means that Rogues are found wanting.

It's exactly like the Cleric Archer demonstration. It isn't that Clerics and Wizards aren't better than fucking Fighters, it's that as long as Fighters could claim to be better at anything, no matter how narrow in scope, then people could attempt to present the game as balanced. As soon as it was shown that the Cleric could cover the very specific niche of having big numbers when hitting things in combat with weapons, the facade shattered. That's why, when I presented the Cleric of Ares on the RPGsite, Benoist said that he would physically attack a player (out of game!) who attempted to play such a character. Not because it's objectively better than just being a caster who specializes in summoning or blowing things up with fire, but because the moment you shit on the role protection you have a method of apples to apples comparison between character classes and the entire big lie that things are even remotely balanced turns to ashes in everyone's mouth.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:A triggered wail of the banshee has a pretty good chance of killing the whole party, but the DC to remove it is only 34 - well within the capabilities of a 10th level Rogue if he specializes and has some decent gear. If the DM throws a couple of those in the game from time to time, the Rogue can "save the party" as often as necessary to keep the Rogue player from feeling like a sucker.

Isn't that even more immersion-breaking than having a useless class, though? It makes things feel like an episode of Knightboat, especially if in another session with no rogue the lethality of traps goes way down -- which they necessarily have to, which is a problem with narrow niche specialization.

I'd personally rather be told that my character was in gestalt useless or underpowered than have the DM pity and baby my character with plot contrivances. Some people might find shit like DM-crafted tiger transformation amulets empowering, but I'd be mortified to get one. Even back during my monk phase.

Most people aren't you, Lago. If they think getting the tiger belt or having the timebomb trap just for them to show off is a part of the game, they will be happy. It's giving each character time in the spotlight; as long as that happens, 30-odd years of garbage unbalanced mechanics have bred TTRPG players into being satisfied with anything.

FrankTrollman wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

TiaC wrote:Tumble no longer works,

How so? Or do you mean "is not piss-poor easy anymore"?

The Pathfinder DC is the CMD of each opponent passed +2 for each additional opponent. So the DC of moving past a Troll is 22. To move through the threatened areas of three Ogres, you need to make three tests at DC 18, 20, and 32. And that's if you want to move at half speed. If you want to move more than 15 feet (like, for example you want to move behind the Troll so you get a flanking bonus), the DC goes up by 10. That is a DC 32 check to move into a flanking position on a troll. Kord help you if you're on gravel or a boat trying to do this shit. These are fifth level encounters. And the DC 32 isn't to win, it's to be allowed to use your fucking character attack shtick without taking an attack of opportunity.

A character with max ranks and a dex of 20 needs to roll a natural 19+ to flank a fucking level appropriate Giant. Which means that tumbling doesn't work. It is equivalent to a very tiny bonus to your AC against attacks of opportunity. Fuck that.

-Username17

It's worse than that, in combining Balance and Tumble into Acrobatics they fucked up. In the section on balancing there is the line:

Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook wrote:If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone.

This should read "while balancing", but it does not, and so attempting to tumble around that giant will lead to your rogue being prone in melee reach of the giant. Tumbling therefore causes you to eat two AOOs instead of one.

Mask_De_H wrote:Most people aren't you, Lago. If they think getting the tiger belt or having the timebomb trap just for them to show off is a part of the game, they will be happy. It's giving each character time in the spotlight; as long as that happens, 30-odd years of garbage unbalanced mechanics have bred TTRPG players into being satisfied with anything.

They aren't satisfied with 'anything' they are only satisfied with what they believe is right. For instance a little while ago in a FB group a friend invited me to I made mention that PF added a diplomacy thing that allowed diplomancers to get people to do stuff. I had to first convince people that the rule existed, then convince them that the DC was meant to get people to do stuff instead of it being a DC to be able to make a given request (yes that was a part of it), then it devolved into a circular argument about Diplo =/= mind control with me being unable to point out that convincing people to do minor things (IE: let me sneak in this place no one will know) is not mind control. People set expectations and they want those to be met. I know at least one guy from therpgsite didn't like 3e rogues because it was even possible for them to be competent combatants at all. That was seriously what he didn't like about them. The mere 'possibility' that they could fight so offended him.

FrankTrollman wrote:A triggered wail of the banshee has a pretty good chance of killing the whole party, but the DC to remove it is only 34 - well within the capabilities of a 10th level Rogue if he specializes and has some decent gear. If the DM throws a couple of those in the game from time to time, the Rogue can "save the party" as often as necessary to keep the Rogue player from feeling like a sucker.

Except it doesn't work that way. If a rogue finds a trap, he has no idea what the DC is to remove it. So generally the party's options boil down to:
(a) let the rogue try to disarm it, with an unknown probability of success, or
(b) find some way to trigger the trap with 100% probability of success (usually), with a summoned monster or something, or
(c) just walk around the trap, again usually with 100% probability of success.
No rogue required or even particularly helpful.

I think we're talking as much about perception as reality here Hogarth. Many groups thought trapfinding was valuable in large part because they were also browbeating the cleric into saving all his spells for Cure Moderate Wounds. But once everyone and their brother can spot traps at no personal cost then even that flimsy faux role protection starts to look like a bad joke.

Role-Protection is a bad joke. It's really not that big of a deal if classes have abilities that overlap with those of other classes.

TiaC wrote:It's worse than that, in combining Balance and Tumble into Acrobatics they fucked up. In the section on balancing there is the line:

Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook wrote:If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone.

This should read "while balancing", but it does not, and so attempting to tumble around that giant will lead to your rogue being prone in melee reach of the giant. Tumbling therefore causes you to eat two AOOs instead of one.

Oh Jesus Fuck I am never running it that way, Run As Written be damned.

While we're on the subject of Pathfinder fapping to simple tactics and nerfing more involved ones, what the fuck is with their love of those retarded '1d6 + INT and/or half-level' ranged blasts that can only be used as a standard action

For crying out loud, those shitty things are shitty pieces of babyfucking shit, yet there are probably at least 20 different write-ups of those kinds of powers. What the fuck, Pathfinder?

Longes wrote: Harvest easily mutates into hunting, which is done with the bow.

No, not really. Hunting is associated with criminals, warriors, and royalty. It's Hunters are dependent on "the wild," either because as kings they have the resources to confront it or because as outcasts they stand apart from "civilization." The hunt is also an occasion for heroics, achievement, and glory.

The harvest is a communal activity associated with slaves, serfs, and freeholders. It's a task that calls for planning and diligence. It signifies more or less the opposite of the hunt in almost every regard.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:While we're on the subject of Pathfinder fapping to simple tactics and nerfing more involved ones, what the fuck is with their love of those retarded '1d6 + INT and/or half-level' ranged blasts that can only be used as a standard action

For crying out loud, those shitty things are shitty pieces of babyfucking shit, yet there are probably at least 20 different write-ups of those kinds of powers. What the fuck, Pathfinder?

Mages with crossbows aren't aesthetically pleasing. Paizo loves giving every class 17 million stupid options that are nothing other than bullshit character sheet (and page) filler.

A Man In Black wrote:

Lago PARANOIA wrote:[..] what the fuck is with their love of those retarded '1d6 + INT and/or half-level' ranged blasts that can only be used as a standard action

For crying out loud, those shitty things are shitty pieces of babyfucking shit, yet there are probably at least 20 different write-ups of those kinds of powers.

Mages with crossbows aren't aesthetically pleasing.

I agree that a wizard who can spam a pew-pew-laser ability is more aesthetically pleasing that a wizard who has to be stingy with magic.

The reason there are 20+ different variations on the same thing is to differentiate one low-level mage from another low-level mage (just like the reason there are 20+ different types of melee weapons is to differentiate one low-level warrior from another low-level warrior). If you have little or no interest in playing low-level characters, it's not surprising that you would have little or no interest in low-level abilities.

But why bother adding them as xbow replacements if they're not going to be at-wills? Or for that matter, why not just buff Acid Splash, Ray of Frost, Disrupt Undead et al into doing 1d6+Int damage?

Or even add some sort of Pathfinder version of Reserve Feats, those were actually kind of fun even if they were generally underpowered.

sake wrote:But why bother adding them as xbow replacements if they're not going to be at-wills?

Because they chickened out.

sake wrote:Or for that matter, why not just buff Acid Splash, Ray of Frost, Disrupt Undead et al into doing 1d6+Int damage?

You just listed 3 things, one of which works only on undead. That's not really much differentiation.

If you're suggesting that they could have added 20+ pew-pew-laser cantrips to the wizard/cleric/etc. spell lists instead, I agree. They would still be "shitty pieces of babyfucking shit" and "bullshit character sheet (and page) filler", of course.

People seriously think spammable pew-pew lasers are more aesthetically appealing than having low-level wizards fall back on simple weapons and hold their magic in reserve?

Wow. I feel the exact opposite way. Magic Missile, Scorching Ray, Acid Arrow -heck, even Enervation- all that pew-pew stuff is bullshit in my opinion, and it makes magic feel stupid and comic-booky. I prefer spells that actually do things in the world when you cast them.

Well, if it's still true that the majority of all games takes place between 1st and 5th level, I can imagine that the Paizo fanbase actually likes 20 versions of 1d6+X rays.

So I picked up my copy of Wrath of the Righteous book 5 today. It's not often I set down a pathfinder book feeling genuinely offended rather than simply amused, but this was pretty far out there.

I did a quick google, and there's a discussion on the official forums already. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qngl?Book- ... ILERS-AHOY

I'll just elaborate that the first question is a piece of trivia, where the god the PCs are helping out is checking if they memorized her biography and can spout factoids about how cool she is on demand. It feels like Gilderoy Lockhart from Harry Potter played completely straight-faced.

Man, James Jacobs is an ass.

From what I can see this is an adventure for 15th level PCs with high Mythic ranks -on the order of 6-7. What explanation does he provide for the design of this encounter?

It's basically a slap on the wrist to high level mythic characters is what it is. A "heads-up, pay attention" type thing.

15th-level characters do not receive "slaps on the wrist"!