Nerfed Rogues?

[Dr.Gara]

I've seen, recently in particular that Rogues in Pathfinder is much weaker then Rogues in 3.5. Looking at the classes, I'm not totally sure how I can see how. Rogues now have better hit die, sneak attack applies to a whole lot of things, and they get talents every other level. It really seems like a stronger class, overall, then the Rogue in 3.5. Tell me how I'm wrong, because I'm not seeing how at all.

[toapat]

it comes down to 2-3 things:

1: Penetrating Attack (Dungeonscape) is an Advanced rogue talent in PF (min lvl 11) where as in 3.5 it replaces trap sense. basically delaying a manditory errata by 8 levels

2: PF hurt mundanes for feats by splitting them in half

3: Fewer tricks for procing sneak attacks. In 3.5 a rogue can take a splash into ranger for Distracting Attack and then proc sneak attacks off their own non-spell build, where as in PF its basically all spells (WBL) or flanking (Leadership), neither of which rogue has options that allow them to do anything on their own.

[Pluto!]

Rogue didn't get worse in the ways its own features changed. It got worse in the ways the game around it changed.

[Techwarrior]

Also, while redoing the skills, Pathfinder made it much easier (and more Core) for a magic-user to just be better at the things a Rogue is supposed to do. Invisibility, which previously obviated only half the stealth skills, now makes it just about impossible for a Rogue to keep up until much later than level 3 or 4. Anyone is almost as good at the Rogue at any particular Rogue skill due to Class Skills only providing a +3 bonus. (Imagine a Rogue with Skill Focus and one without. This is the new difference in skill.) Further, Paizo has a supreme dislike for Rogue PrC's that don't suck terribly. Instead of getting a Rogue/Divine PrC, we get Inquisitor.

The down low is, a Rogue is somewhat better at skill use. However, everyone else gained so much from the skill changes that the Rogue doesn't matter, except for Trapfinding. Additionally, they nerfed a Rogue's combat abilities to oblivion. They took entire archetypes out of Pathfinder in Beta. I used to have a link to the Splash Weapon Beta thread that I would go read whenever I thought about going back to Pathfinder. It's worth a look, and not only explains how much the Paizo team dislikes Rogues that are not their imagined version of the Rogue, a stealth-bot that find traps for the Wizard, but how much they dislike mundanes as well.

A wizard did it: Pluto! said it much more succinctly than I.

[Dr.Gara]

But do the Rogue Talents give anything, at all, to making it less bad?

[grarrrg]

But do the Rogue Talents give anything, at all, to making it less bad?

The Rogue got better. It's just that everything else got better-er.
PF Rogue can slap the 3.5 Rogue silly, it's just that PF made Rogues somewhat obsolete. For an example, see below:


except for Trapfinding

lolnope.
Check the Dipping Guide, there's almost a dozen archetype of other classes that get Trapfinding, not to mention the handful of PrC's that grant it.
Oh, and don't forget the friggin TRAIT that gives Trapfinding to ANYONE.
Yeah...for reasons to actual play a Rogue, go see this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?344951-How-do-you-make-the-Rogue-work-Pathfinder) (spoiler: there isn't that much).

[Yanisa]

But do the Rogue Talents give anything, at all, to making it less bad?

Most rogue talents are bland, and don't add a lot. In the early levels you are replacing talents with feats and in later levels you don't get a lot of special goodies. I don't remember anything from the top of my head that stands out, but there are a couple of decent ones, I think... I hope...

And to be fair that also sums up the Rogue... meh, decent, okayish, but easily replaced and nothing outstanding. :smalltongue:

[toapat]

But do the Rogue Talents give anything, at all, to making it less bad?

everything is too little, to late in terms of those. Penetrating strike, an ACF you get at third level in 3.5 to help both yourself and the DM, is delayed in PF so long that you will have given up on the character. Skill focus is interesting but useless because PF doesnt have Autohypnosis, Iajustsu Focus, or whats that third splat skill that is actually useful in combat (not UPD)? sure you can take 10 on UMD but thats it.

The saving grace of third is that there was so much material published for it, that basically everything became useful somewhere except for Samurai (because Fear Fighter is still better), Ninja (just weak), and Monk (little relevant support for it without dragon, in which case you just remove druid and monk and give players Wild Monk). Yes, Truenamer doesnt WORK but there was still enough material published beforehand that you can fix it.

the main condemnation of PF is that, for what few measures it takes from the T1s, it takes much more in equivalency from everyone else. In equivlanecy, the 3.5 Paladin at base is T5 but can work its way into T3. the PF paladin is, relatively, T5 with only the ability to suck more from what they start with. Weapon Bond is not Sword of Celestia. PrCs are gone, and feats that in 3.5 are one thing are split up in PF. There are more good ones but there are essentially fewer featslots

[Anlashok]

Even the paizo forums are in on this: They have a rogue thread that essentially amounts to saying "When you want to play a rogue, play a slayer, investigator or bard and just pretend you're a rogue".

Trapfinding is trivially replaced by a trait. You can't do as many fun shenanigans with sneak attack, your skills are as easy as ever to replace and generally you're just in the 3.5 fighter's position where other classes do your job better while being able to do other things as well.

The ACG's slayer really feels like Paizo giving up on the rogue and making a new class, at least in the playtests I saw.

[Yanisa]

the main condemnation of PF is that, for what few measures it takes from the T1s, it takes much more in equivalency from everyone else. In equivlanecy, the 3.5 Paladin at base is T5 but can work its way into T3. the PF paladin is, relatively, T5 with only the ability to suck more from what they start with. Weapon Bond is not Sword of Celestia. PrCs are gone, and feats that in 3.5 are one thing are split up in PF. There are more good ones but there are essentially fewer featslots

Not that there is a official Pathfinder tier list, but aren't PF paladins regarded as tier 4? And rogues are also as tier 4, sometimes tier 5? Besides that for a mundane class PF Paladins rock.


Even the paizo forums are in on this: They have a rogue thread that essentially amounts to saying "When you want to play a rogue, play a slayer, investigator or bard and just pretend you're a rogue".

Before ACG it was all about the Ninja's. Paizo is even slowly making the alternate class replaceable. Just like the base class it was based on. :smalltongue:

[icefractal]

The Rogue got better, the rules about Sneak Attack got worse, especially at the start. Now with guns and all the things that add to SA dice, I'd say the PF Rogue is in a pretty good position. But for a while at the start of Pathfinder, they were quite nerfed.

The Main Nerfs:
1) Grease and Blink don't work with SA. Those were two of the main methods for getting full-round SA.
2) Acid Flashs don't work with SA. That was a simple and effective way to get touch attacks.
3) 3.x has a lot of things that add extra SA dice or damage - the ToB stance, there's some spells, the Craven feat - some other things too, I think. Until fairly recently, Pathfinder didn't.
4) 3.x had more ways to get extra attacks than PF, very important for Rogues.


Now as of lately, a lot of SA-boosting stuff has been added to Pathfinder, so I think the PF Rogue is in quite a good position.

For example, let's say you're a Rogue 9/Gunslinger 1. You have:
Feats: Sap Master, Sap Adept, TWF, ITWF, Rapid Shot, Rapid Reload
Items: Sniper Goggles, Merciful Double-Barrel Pistols
And someone cast Haste on you.

You're making six attacks - the same as in 3.5. Except, each of those attacks is actually two attacks, courtesy of double-barrel pistols. So that's twelve attacks, each of which does 10d6+40 Sneak Attack damage, from Sap Master + Sniper Goggles. 120d6+480 Sneak Attack damage? Not bad. :smallwink:

[toapat]

Not that there is a official Pathfinder tier list, but aren't PF paladins regarded as tier 4? And rogues are also as tier 4, sometimes tier 5? Besides that for a mundane class PF Paladins rock.

im relating them to the 3.5 list. If we completely disallow bleedover the difference in power between a 3.5 All material available paladin vs a PF all material Paladin (no bleedover) is a canyon. the PF paladin has a higher floor then the 3.5 Paladin. However, the 3.5 Paladin, with all material, can reach middle tier 3, where as throwing books at the PF paladin is frivolous at best because their options typically devalue them as opposed to strengthen them. I dont remember there being a Charging Smite ACF in PF, only either the Mount or Bonded weapons/armor/shield (all of which are worthless because the 3.5 Equivalent, Sword of Celestia, is the same thing but you get this little feat called Craft Wondrous Item).

Divine Spirit and Knight of the Underdark are both unrepresented despite being things they should have cloned in some manner.

Rhino Rush, Divine Sacrifice, Glory of the Martyr arent in PF.

Channel Energy feats are weaker then Divine feats in 3.5, and there is no DMM: Persist.

[Yanisa]

im relating them to the 3.5 list. If we completely disallow bleedover the difference in power between a 3.5 All material available paladin vs a PF all material Paladin (no bleedover) is a canyon. the PF paladin has a higher floor then the 3.5 Paladin. However, the 3.5 Paladin, with all material, can reach middle tier 3, where as throwing books at the PF paladin is frivolous at best because their options typically devalue them as opposed to strengthen them. I dont remember there being a Charging Smite ACF in PF, only either the Mount or Bonded weapons/armor/shield (all of which are worthless because the 3.5 Equivalent, Sword of Celestia, is the same thing but you get this little feat called Craft Wondrous Item).

Divine Spirit and Knight of the Underdark are both unrepresented despite being things they should have cloned in some manner.

Rhino Rush, Divine Sacrifice, Glory of the Martyr arent in PF.

Channel Energy feats are weaker then Divine feats in 3.5, and there is no DMM: Persist.

Isn't that just inherent to Pathfinder? Base classes got stronger, but there is compared to 3.5 less splash material build upon said base classes? Same applies to the Rogue here. That would make a straight PF paladin weaker in 3.5 setting with all books, but that is a odd case scenario.

[137beth]

Isn't that just inherent to Pathfinder? Base classes got stronger, but there is compared to 3.5 less splash material build upon said base classes? Same applies to the Rogue here. That would make a straight PF paladin weaker in 3.5 setting with all books, but that is a odd case scenario.

It's not just a matter of more or less splat material, it is the quality of the splat material.

The folks at Wizards made an effort to learn about the game they worked on. When the core rules came out, no one understood the game, because it was brand new. But in the time 3.5 was being produced, they learned. The latter supplements tended to have a higher optimization floor for everyone, a lower optimization ceiling for casters, and a higher optimization ceiling for martials. The paladin (along with other martials) benefit a LOT from the completes, the MiC, and taking martial study. On the other hand, Paizo not only hasn't learned anything in the last five years, they never learned the lessons Wizards learned in the first place. They have made an effort (and you can tell from developer posts on the forums) to make sure no option for martials exceeds the potency of anything in core. At the same time, they have done things WotC never did: release non-core options for full casters which are even more powerful than the core options.
In 3.5, there are hardly any ban-worthy spells in the Spell Compendium that I can think of. But there are a ton from core.
On the other hand, in pathfinder, a lot of the best spells are non-core. That isn't because they nerfed the core spells (they didn't), it is because they released other extremely powerful spells. On top of that, the caster-oriented feats in the Paizo splats tend to be very powerful, while of course the martial-oriented feats in Paizo supplements are consistently weak (with a few exceptions, such as Crane Wing, which get nerfed).

[Semi-off-topic comment on very little sleep]Ya know, Pathfinder gets a lot better when you just stop using Paizo stuff. Just focus on sourcebooks from Dreamscarred Press, Rite Publishing, Kobold Press, Red Goblin, Radiance House, and maybe Raging Swan Press or Rogue/Super Genius Games. DSP has the best rogue fix I've seen in Path of War (their pathfinderization of ToB, the Stalker base class is a rogue-like martial adept).[/semi-off-topic comment]

[Anlashok]

^ Keep in mind this is the company that had a designer spend five minutes trying to use a mouse cord to flip said mouse into the air and catch and then decided weapon cords needed to be nerfed because he wasn't very good at it.

[Yanisa]

^ Keep in mind this is the company that had a designer spend five minutes trying to use a mouse cord to flip said mouse into the air and catch and then decided weapon cords needed to be nerfed because he wasn't very good at it.

The same designer that said role play choices should nerf your character, like the Vows for Monk? Yeah Paizo has some mundane issues... And a lot of the stuff they bring out is indeed better for casters...But seriously I am going to be silent on this topic, I feel like I am poking a stick in a bees nest. These troubles are known and yeah mundanes suffer for it. This is a topic about Rogues and their "nerfbat".

And like siad before the core basic Rogue isn't nerfed and is i nfact stronger then its 3.5 brother. However his options are nerfed, other classes can engross easily on his specialities and the Rogue is now far easier to replace then ever before. Although the Rogue did loose some things from 3.5 -> PF, so even though he got better, he lost some goodies. (Compared to say a wizard, who only gained more. :smallsigh:)

In the end Pluto! said it best, so lets quote him one more time, for the truth.

Rogue didn't get worse in the ways its own features changed. It got worse in the ways the game around it changed.

[Person_Man]

Rogues can deal large amounts of damage with Sneak Attack + Sap Master/Sap Adept, assuming that you have allies that can consistently help you make enemies Flat Footed. And bonus damage is comparatively hard to come by in Pathfinder.

Other then that, the class continues to suck. Having a Skill as a class Skill only provides a minor benefit, and many Skills have been consolidated. Thus being a Skill Monkey is no longer a role for any class. Trapfinding is easy to come by. Rogue Talents generally provide very minor benefits. Combat Maneuvers are harder to pull off. Some important monsters are still immune to Sneak Attack.

[toapat]

And like siad before the core basic Rogue isn't nerfed and is i nfact stronger then its 3.5 brother.

i wouldnt call the rogue buffed in any way over 3.5. sure the base class has some new trick and there are more tricks in the system but its the same class. Same problems, same weaknesses, same issues.

[Karoht]

In a few ways, it became better to multiclass into, but as a standalone class it is less good IMO.
Trap builder archetype is kind of neat, if that's your thing, but very few DM's are willing to throw their mooks into your prepared meatgrinder, as their entire goal is to send you into the meatgrinder prepared by the bad guys.

I've got a Soundstriker Bard who has 3 levels in Ninja (Rogue Alternate Class), and using Weird Words (6 bolts at 6, 10 bolts at level 10, 1D8 + Charisma bonus per bolt) to deliver Sneak Attack damage, with spell support to provide the flat footed conditions, is not terrible.
Also, Rogue Talents can be used to take Ninja Tricks. Invisibility as a Swift action is incredibly nice. Pressure Points + Weird Words is awesome if you can deliver the Sneak Attacks. 10 STR or DEX damage per round in addition to the damage? Yes please.
Ninja Tricks on Pathfinder SRD dot com (http://www.pathfindersrd.com/classes/alternate-classes/ninja#TOC-Ninja-Tricks)

I was using Smoke Bomb + Fogcutting Lenses/Goz Mask to deliver the Sneak Attacks, now I use an Everlasting Smoke Bottle and a Wand of Fog Cloud. Not many things can see through mists/fogs/dust, even fewer things can see through Sleetstorm. To solve that I picked up a level of oracle, now I have snowsight.
Like I said, good to multiclass, not great standalone.

[Yanisa]

i wouldnt call the rogue buffed in any way over 3.5. sure the base class has some new trick and there are more tricks in the system but its the same class. Same problems, same weaknesses, same issues.

More feat is the big one, besides that a small victory with less sneak attacking immunity. It's not the biggest upgrade ever, but very view classes got that.

[137beth]

More feat is the big one, besides that a small victory with less sneak attacking immunity. It's not the biggest upgrade ever, but very view classes got that.

...and the one with the biggest upgrade is the sorcerer (and favored soul, if you count the oracle as a modified favored soul):smallsigh:

[Yanisa]

...and the one with the biggest upgrade is the sorcerer (and favored soul, if you count the oracle as a modified favored soul):smallsigh:

I saw my friend build a rogue-ish sorcerer which he dropped because it was better then my newbie friend who wanted a straight rogue.

[toapat]

More feat is the big one, besides that a small victory with less sneak attacking immunity. It's not the biggest upgrade ever, but very view classes got that.

more feats: Offset by the macro changes to feats

Sneak Attack: only fewer enemies in categories natively immune to it, not actually buffed in anyway. As i said you can still and need to get penetrating strike but its much later then in 3.5

[squiggit]

Also heard some people say something about ranged rogues being dead in pathfinder?

[Yanisa]

more feats: Offset by the macro changes to feats

Sneak Attack: only fewer enemies in categories natively immune to it, not actually buffed in anyway. As i said you can still and need to get penetrating strike but its much later then in 3.5

Pardon me for being a core player, you have to explain both of those.

I don't know which feats you refer too that are changed, the basics seem the same to me. And the only penetrating strike I can find seems to be a fighter feat?

Edit: I also saw some Rogue discussions prior making my PFS rogue, but both things weren't named, dunno if that was inherent to PFS (aka those problems appear more in normal games) or that is just swiped under the rogue like other stealth nerfs. (Those sneaky flasks stealth nerfs.)

[Karoht]

Also heard some people say something about ranged rogues being dead in pathfinder?Again, multiclassing it works. Gunslinger + Rogue/Ninja is quite fun to play with. I've only seen it done well, once or twice on this board. Well being a subjective term, naturally.
Dead? No. Almost unheard of? Absolutely. Viable? Totally, depending on your definition of viable.

[toapat]

Pardon me for being a core player, you have to explain both of those.

I don't know which feats you refer too that are changed, the basics seem the same to me. And the only penetrating strike I can find seems to be a fighter feat?

Edit: I also saw some Rogue discussions prior making my PFS rogue, but both things weren't named, dunno if that was inherent to PFS (aka those problems appear more in normal games) or that is just swiped under the rogue like other stealth nerfs. (Those sneaky flasks stealth nerfs.)

feat nerfs:

Improved Trip, Disarm, Feint, grapple, Bullrush, Overrun, and Sunder. are all split in half from their 3.5 versions into improved and greater versions.

Penetrating Strike: Is an ACF in Dungeonscape for 3.5 and named something different in one of the pazio books, i know its an advanced rogue talent (min lvl 11), which allows half precision attack dice against immune targets.

[Seerow]

Don't forget to mention how badly tumbling got nerfed. It's now opposed by the opponents CMD, which is a huge DC increase for the majority of enemies.

Also, in 3.5 when you fail a tumble check, you take your AoO as normal and keep moving. In Pathfinder, since it got combined with Balance, you get to deal with this fun line:


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.

Yeah, so not only are you more likely to fail, but when you do fail and take damage, you also are likely to trip yourself. It's ridiculous.



Basically feats are nerfed, tumbling is nerfed, things like blink that used to be 100% sneak attack granters no longer function... rogues are put into a position where they are incapable of fulfilling their role in combat. And their non-combat niche is even weaker than it was in 3.5. Just awful.

[Gnaeus]

I will go out on a limb and say that PF did not nerf rogues.

Now let me clarify. They nerfed rogues at high optimization. Since that is the level that the forums operate at, people on the forums think rogue got nerfed. If you are playing in a game where rogues need to have full attack sneak attack every round to contribute, rogues got nerfed because blink and grease got nerfed, and because they can't do full attack sneaks against touch AC with thrown flasks of oil. If you never had a problem sneak attacking in 3.5 because weapon crystals are cheap and you just bought them all and swapped them as needed, the fact that rogues can now sneak attack most monsters in the game was not much of a buff.

For a low op game, rogues are really much better. Low op, an extra hp/level matters (since rogues spend time in combat). Low op, the 3.5 rogue didn't have ways to attack about 1/3rd of the monsters in the game, and being able to sneak attack golems and undead matters. Low op, free weapon finesse and a free combat feat from talents to get you started on your TWF tree matters.

So it isn't as clear cut as the forums will lead you to believe. They have a lower optimization cealing and a higher optimization floor.

To put it another way, I play in a very, very low op game. I am strongly encouraging our monk 2 (no archetypes, pretty much base classes) to multiclass Rogue. It will give him a party niche not filled by the low op fighter and barbarian. It will be much easier to make him effective than with monk, and will be easier to explain to him than Archaeologist Bard or Alchemist, with a lot less resource management.

[toapat]

*snip*

correction: They inflicted one definitive nerf to rogue

Most of what hurt the Rogue is not itself directly intended to hurt the rogue though, it hurts everyone. the consolidation of the skillsystem hurt them because having alot of skillpoints is less important

they have more Feats but important feats were weakened.

Sneak attack was nerfed because the supports for it were removed, as opposed to itself being hurt at all.

[Anlashok]

Not sure I agree with Gnaeus' assessment, even low-op groups I play with realize that you can replace trapfinding trivially and that the rogue doesn't do much. Even Paizo's official forums (who consider monks a good class, pre-nerf Crane Wing to be "completely broken" and post-nerf to be "Well balanced", wizards "merely ok" and summoners Tier negative 1 broken) usually consider the rogue a joke class.


I mean sure, they work better in low op games but only because anything can work there, they still don't put anything on the table to contribute meaningfully even against more questionable choices.

[Karoht]

Penetrating Strike: Is an ACF in Dungeonscape for 3.5 and named something different in one of the pazio books, i know its an advanced rogue talent (min lvl 11), which allows half precision attack dice against immune targets.I've just had a quick look at Rogue Talents on pathfindersrd.com
and I can not find this feature. I'm going to assume that it doesn't exist in Pathfinder. I also looked among the 3rd party stuff, no luck. Rogue Talents Here! (http://www.pathfindersrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents)

[Gnaeus]

correction: They inflicted one definitive nerf to rogue

Most of what hurt the Rogue is not itself directly intended to hurt the rogue though, it hurts everyone. the consolidation of the skillsystem hurt them because having alot of skillpoints is less important

That is conventional wisdom, yes. OTOH, it is very hard for a rogue in 3.5 to max all the skills a sneaky guy will want. Search, Listen, Spot, Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, Open Locks, Disable Device, Tumble and you are done. The PF rogue with 10 int can get all those and still have 4 skill points left for some knowledge local, linguistics, bluff and UMD. Make him a human with 14 int and he also gets climb, appraise, and disguise. I am not convinced that this is a nerf.

Yes, other classes can duplicate the rogue more easily, but that doesn't mean that they will want to spend the resources to do that.



they have more Feats but important feats were weakened.

Feats that you consider important were weakened. Free weapon finesse? Yes please!


Sneak attack was nerfed because the supports for it were removed, as opposed to itself being hurt at all.


It was nerfed for me and you. I have never seen blink or grease used at a table. At a con, sure. With online players, yeah. At the level that I see in local games, those spells just arent used, or not by rogues. They don't bother dumpster diving to find the things that make sneak attack work. When the 2 ways to sneak attack are flanking and stealth, its kind of a wash. (flanking is marginally harder. stealth marginally easier because one roll instead of 2.) And the talents making sneak attacks deal debuffs at low levels is a straight up win for the low op rogue.

[Sartharina]

...and the one with the biggest upgrade is the sorcerer (and favored soul, if you count the oracle as a modified favored soul):smallsigh:To be fair, those classes needed the buff because they were so outclassed by the Wizard and Cleric. The boosts to spontaneous casters didn't change their actual power level, and merely made them actually fun to play. And, sorcerers also got a nerf - No Wings of Flurry/Cover, or draconic feats anymore.

Casters will always be more powerful than mundane characters, because they are Difficult but Awesome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DifficultButAwesome). I keep seeing it said that someone who makes Tier 4 characters overshadow a party of Tier 1s would be even more difficult to handle with a Tier 1, but I've found that not true in practice - Just because they know the ins and outs of a martial or any other Skill Gate Character (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SkillGateCharacters), which the lower tiers tend to be.

As it is, I'm glad D&D Next, from the playtest packets I've seen, have made rogues awesome by being incredibly slippery and far more reliable in dealing SA damage.

Something else to keep in mind - Sneak Attack damage isn't supposed to be a given. It's supposed to be a way to control enemies by forcing them to take actions that prevent them from being SA'd. Of course, immunity absolutely kills that.

[Terazul]

That is conventional wisdom, yes. OTOH, it is very hard for a rogue in 3.5 to max all the skills a sneaky guy will want. Search, Listen, Spot, Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, Open Locks, Disable Device, Tumble and you are done. The PF rogue with 10 int can get all those and still have 4 skill points left for some knowledge local, linguistics, bluff and UMD. Make him a human with 14 int and he also gets climb, appraise, and disguise. I am not convinced that this is a nerf.

Yes, other classes can duplicate the rogue more easily, but that doesn't mean that they will want to spend the resources to do that.


The difference is it takes a lot fewer resources to do that. In 3.5, if something wasn't a class skill for you, it cost you twice as many skill points to get a rank, and you had half the maximum ranks allowed compared to someone who did. So, in the case of the Rogue, it was a huge boon that he got all the skills he did; Anyone could put ranks into things like Hide and Move Silently, but while you would have, say, 4 at level 5, the Rogue was rocking 8, and it required significantly more opportunity cost on your part, and it only gets worse from there. You would never catch up in being anywhere near as good without magical assistance (which the Rogue could get as well). Now, with the consolidated skill system, there's less things to spread points around to, it costs you 1 skill point per rank and same maximum ranks regardless if it's on your list or not. Plus, if it is, all you get is a +3 bonus, which will become less significant the further up you go. Not to mention there's pretty much a trait for every skill to add it to your skill list if you really wanted that extra +3 (and usually a +1 or 2 bonus to it, as traits go). At the end of the day, your class skill list is far less significant than it was in 3.5.

Skill niches were pretty much destroyed, and that was one of the Rogue's primary strengths. But then there's all the other stuff on top of it. As has been pointed out, there's so many ways to get Trapfinding it's ridiculous. The darkstalker feat was rewritten but worse and with more prerequisites (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/dampen-presence) for some reason.

And then there's Sneak Attack of course, which while there's less widespread immunity, there's far less support (goodbye flasks, blinking, various other things) for it and it can be more difficult to trigger. Heck, there's a dwarf trait that just makes you never flat-footed. Ever. Not a dwarf? Take Adopted and get it for free anyway. Done in one, son.

[Yanisa]

feat nerfs:

Improved Trip, Disarm, Feint, grapple, Bullrush, Overrun, and Sunder. are all split in half from their 3.5 versions into improved and greater versions.

Penetrating Strike: Is an ACF in Dungeonscape for 3.5 and named something different in one of the pazio books, i know its an advanced rogue talent (min lvl 11), which allows half precision attack dice against immune targets.

Yeah I agree about combat maneuvers, but I never played or even heard about a Rogue focusing on those... That might be different experiences, groups, playstyles.

And yeah Penetrating Strike sounds awesome, but it is barely needed in pathfinder. What has immunity to sneak attacks? Oozes, Elementals and Incorporeals if you lack ghost touch... I can't remember anything else and quick search seems to agree (Swarms are also Rogue killers, but can be sneak attacked... There are some things with fortification, but general its smooth sailing). I don't feel you can call that Rogue nerf, they lost something they don't need anymore. (Okay barely, but what kind of DM lets you fight oozes and elementals all campaign?)

So let's agree to disagree, because I still fail to see how both points would make a PF Rogue weaker then a 3.5 Rogue...

[Gnaeus]

At the end of the day, your class skill list is far less significant than it was in 3.5.

Skill niches were pretty much destroyed, and that was one of the Rogue's primary strengths. But then there's all the other stuff on top of it. As has been pointed out, there's so many ways to get Trapfinding it's ridiculous.

I'm sorry, but I don't find this argument to be relevant at all. It basically relies on 2 points.

1. It is easier to replace rogue as a skillmonkey/trapfinder in PF than 3.5 or to do without. Disagree. Beguiler was already rogue but better in 3.5. So was any artificer who cared to be. Or Kobold clerics. And in 3.5 you got all the love of trapfinding at level 1, so literally anyone could take a single level in anything that gave trapfinding and be golden. In PF, if you are taking a class for trapfinding, a one level dip isn't going to do much. I don't think that not requiring people who want to be trapfinders to take a single level of rogue speaks to the strength or weakness of the rogue class as more than a dip at all.

and

2. The existence of a mechanically stronger trapfinder somehow makes rogue bad, and means that they don't have a party niche. No. The fact that wizards exist, and fill the arcanist role better than sorcerers does not mean that sorcerers are a bad class, or that there will not be a niche for them to fill in the party. Unless you already had someone planning to play an Archaeologist or one of those variant Alchemists, their existence is not a nerf to rogues. Who cares if I could build a wizard who can open locks and trapfind? I'd rather have a rogue do it so that the wizard can spend his skill points on Knowledges and fly and spellcraft. In the typical 4 man party of beatstick, divine caster, arcane caster, skillmonkey, it is still worth it (or at least as worth it as it was to begin with, trapfinding was hardly necessary before) for your rogue to be disarming the traps instead of the wizard or the fighter or the cleric. Maybe my character concept looks more like Silk or Bilbo than like some wierd spellcasting Indiana Jones ripoff. It doesn't make rogue worse, it just gives options to the trapfinding pc who is tired of rogues.

[Terazul]

I'm sorry, but I don't find this argument to be relevant at all. It basically relies on 2 points.

1. It is easier to replace rogue as a skillmonkey/trapfinder in PF than 3.5 or to do without. Disagree. Beguiler was already rogue but better in 3.5. So was any artificer who cared to be. Or Kobold clerics. And in 3.5 you got all the love of trapfinding at level 1, so literally anyone could take a single level in anything that gave trapfinding and be golden. In PF, if you are taking a class for trapfinding, a one level dip isn't going to do much. I don't think that not requiring people who want to be trapfinders to take a single level of rogue speaks to the strength or weakness of the rogue class as more than a dip at all.

You literally just gave three examples of having to take a class level to do something you can do with a trait. Half a feat. That kinda does mean it's easier to do it.



2. The existence of a mechanically stronger trapfinder somehow makes rogue bad, and means that they don't have a party niche.

No, the existence mechanically stronger trapfinders (at incredibly low opportunity cost), lack of class skills/a dedicated skillmonkey class being important, weaker feat support, nerfs to sneak attacks, ways to trigger it, and (hilariously) easier ways to overcome it, is what killed it and makes them bad. What else does the Rogue actually have going for it?

Yeah, if you look at one thing I said instead of the whole thing, it really doesn't add up, no.

[toapat]

And yeah Penetrating Strike sounds awesome, but it is barely needed in pathfinder. What has immunity to sneak attacks? Oozes, Elementals and Incorporeals if you lack ghost touch... I can't remember anything else and quick search seems to agree (Swarms are also Rogue killers, but can be sneak attacked... There are some things with fortification, but general its smooth sailing). I don't feel you can call that Rogue nerf, they lost something they don't need anymore. (Okay barely, but what kind of DM lets you fight oozes and elementals all campaign?)

I just checked:

Undead, while not listed to have such, have no vital areas by definition, meaning that although the game does not Explicitly in the terms say it, that they all do have it still.

[Ssalarn]

I just checked:

Undead, while not listed to have such, have no vital areas by definition, meaning that although the game does not Explicitly in the terms say it, that they all do have it still.

Immunity to sneak attacks? No, undead can be affected by sneak attacks in Pathfinder. Just because they don't need their spleen doesn't mean that they don't have joints or some other weakness that can be targeted, and removing undead immunity to sneak attack was a specific goal of the Pathfinder design team back when they released the new system. Only the things specifically called out have immunity.

Only creature types with the following entry have immunity:

•Not subject to critical hits or flanking. Does not take additional damage from precision-based attacks, such as sneak attack (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/creatureTypes.html)

Pretty much only oozes, elementals, and swarms are immune to SA in Pathfinder.

[Dr.Gara]

So, last night, I pulled down the ACG playtest last night to see what exactly a "Investigator" and a "Slayer" is. And they really, really look like replacements. Good ones, too. You have a combat rogue in your Slayer, and a skilled rogue in your Investigator. They get a lot of overlap, too, looking at the class skills and the same skills per level (6+Int). They both can get special talents to help their cause.

That's not even to mention the Ninja, who is directly better at... literally everything. Skill bonuses, more class abilities that actually have value, better proficiency, (because Wakizashi are good things.) Ninjas end up being "Rogue 1.1", and it's looking like the Investigator and Slayer classes are going to be full and perfect replacements for the Rogue. You can't play a Rogue and be good, but you can play a rogue, and still be viable.

[Ssalarn]

So, last night, I pulled down the ACG playtest last night to see what exactly a "Investigator" and a "Slayer" is. And they really, really look like replacements. Good ones, too. You have a combat rogue in your Slayer, and a skilled rogue in your Investigator. They get a lot of overlap, too, looking at the class skills and the same skills per level (6+Int). They both can get special talents to help their cause.

That's not even to mention the Ninja, who is directly better at... literally everything. Skill bonuses, more class abilities that actually have value, better proficiency, (because Wakizashi are good things.) Ninjas end up being "Rogue 1.1", and it's looking like the Investigator and Slayer classes are going to be full and perfect replacements for the Rogue. You can't play a Rogue and be good, but you can play a rogue, and still be viable.

The first release of the Investigator actually got 7d6 Sneak Attack instead of Studied Strike, but when several posters on the Paizo forums asked why on earth they'd ever play a Rogue again the PF team couldn't think of an answer and decided to replace the sneak attack with something else.

Still not much of a reason to play a Rogue instead.

The problem with the Rogue is that Paizo was still very much bound by the OGL when they released it. There was only so much they could do to improve it, but now, because it exists, they kind of have to tip-toe around the things they create that are designed to actually do the things that are traditionally viewed as the Rogue's province. But yeah, for straight up find you and kill you action, Slayer trumps Rogue. For some of that Sherlock Holmes / Professor Moriarty skill/science/attention to detail style play, the Investigator slams it home while the Rogue is still trying to figure out what game everyone's playing. The Rogue occupies a nebulous middle ground between them where he can theoretically do a bit more of what the Slayer does than the Investigator and vice versa, but he ends up with 3.0 Bard syndrome where he just isn't good enough at anything to really be worth it when there's classes that are really good at one thing and can pick up enough of the slack in the other fields to get by.

[toapat]

Just because they don't need their spleen doesn't mean that they don't have joints or some other weakness that can be targeted

Vital's Definition is pretty clear, and Joints dont factor into that. IRL you dont suffer a Critical Existence Failure for taking an arrow to the knee. You do, however, suffer one for getting shot in any major artery. Undead do not have anatomy definable as Vital to their existence. even if the rules and design intended not to, the rules still say no.

[Ssalarn]

Vital's Definition is pretty clear, and Joints dont factor into that. IRL you dont suffer a Critical Existence Failure for taking an arrow to the knee. You do, however, suffer one for getting shot in any major artery. Undead do not have anatomy definable as Vital to their existence. even if the rules and design intended not to, the rules still say no.

You are making things up now and it's not helping your argument or your credibility. Vital spot is a very general term referencing any area where damage could be effectively maximized. Having actually had my knee violently injured during my time in the military, I can tell you that your joints are, in fact, extremely vital. That of course, is besides the point. You're making up rules and creating your own definitions to try and support your argument, and it's unnecessary.

There is no RAW support that says undead cannot be affected by sneak attacks and I can think of any number of ways they could have vital spots (vampires do have arteries in the Pathfinder lore and would be subject to many of the same weaknesses as a human, ghouls still have eyes, ears, and tongues, targeting the stitching or joints on certain types of undead could be debilitating, etc.). Moreover, removing their immunity to Sneak Attack was specifically the intent of the design team, and one of the reasons they left the terminology for vital deliberately vague and created very detailed monster type and subtype entries which specifically detail whether the corresponding creatures are subject to sneak attack.

[Gnaeus]

You literally just gave three examples of having to take a class level to do something you can do with a trait. Half a feat. That kinda does mean it's easier to do it.

Except that it doesn't.

1. Thats a campaign trait. The rules for campaign traits specify that they are for specific campaigns, that special rules are in play for campaigns that use them, and that DMs should create their own. Several campaign traits are at least as strong as feats.

2. It doesn't duplicate trapfinding. A wizard in 3.5 with a single level in rogue gets all the trapfinding a rogue gets. A wizard in PF with that trait only gets the ability to disarm magic traps, not the level nased bonus that you get from being a rogue.

3. It is actually nice for rogues too. Some rogue archetypes give up trapfinding. So something like a Knife Master could benefit from the trait and the large amounts of rogue skill points and the rogue talents that help in trapfinding and still fill this role, if not as well as a normal rogue, better than most characters.


No, the existence mechanically stronger trapfinders (at incredibly low opportunity cost)

Argument is meaningless. Warblade does not make fighter bad. Fighter makes fighter bad. Warblade gives a way to do run that role in higher op campaigns. Wizard does not make sorcerer bad. They were good already, and are still good. Rogues were decent before, and are still decent, and the existence of Archaeologist does not alter that at all.

Also, as previously mentioned, this is still not a change, because there were already mechanically stronger trapfinders at incredibly low opportunity cost (like a single domain, or just playing an Artificer and being awesome).


lack of class skills/a dedicated skillmonkey class being important,

Except that having a skillmonkey is still important.


weaker feat support,

Not really an issue for rogues. Fighters maybe. But as pointed out previously, most of the split feats weren't rogue things anyway.


nerfs to sneak attacks

Which are offset by buffs to sneak attacks.



(hilariously) easier ways to overcome it, is what killed it and makes them bad.

Are you still talking about that rediculous dwarf trait thing? OK, So I can sneak attack undead and constructs, but enemies who were ADOPTED By DWARVES may be immune? I'm going to call that a clear win for team Rogue. I've fought a lot of golems and undead, but I have never ever once had a battle in a dwarf orphanage.


Yeah, if you look at one thing I said instead of the whole thing, it really doesn't add up, no.

0+0+0+0+0=0 Adds up fine.

And remember, when I say that rogue was not nerfed, I am talking about low op tables. High op, I concede that changes to things like flasks and blink and other issues addressed may be an issue, and some DM may have a lame dungeon where all the monsters were adopted by dwarves. None of those things change the fact that in the hands of a casual player in a casual group, PF rogue is at least as strong in play.

[Dr.Gara]

Vital's Definition is pretty clear, and Joints dont factor into that. IRL you dont suffer a Critical Existence Failure for taking an arrow to the knee. You do, however, suffer one for getting shot in any major artery. Undead do not have anatomy definable as Vital to their existence. even if the rules and design intended not to, the rules still say no.

By that logic, basic zombies should be nigh unkillable death machines that you must cut into shreds. Fireball? Hah, I work with charred flesh. Tear me in half? I don't need anything down there! I lack blood! Until you get to a head to crush into dust or you disintegrate it, it's unstoppable.

Beyond that, there is no Vital, there is a "vital spot", (emphasis mine.), and we can thus assume it's not a mechanical definition. The fact that it doesn't go into what exactly defines a vital point strengthens the point. Vital has no mechanical definition.

[Ssalarn]

Are you still talking about that rediculous dwarf trait thing? OK, So I can sneak attack undead and constructs, but enemies who were ADOPTED By DWARVES may be immune? I'm going to call that a clear win for team Rogue. I've fought a lot of golems and undead, but I have never ever once had a battle in a dwarf orphanage.

I laughed so hard when I read this. Both because I agreed with the sentiment of this particular statement, and because I actually have played in a campaign that involved an extended fight in a dwarf orphanage.

[Kraken]

Trapfinding, like the rogue's skill monkey role, also got an indirect nerf in spite of looking like it got buffed on the surface, due to at-will cantrips in PF, and perception being much more accessible as a skill - you can even make it as class skill with a trait (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/regional-traits/valashmai-veteran-the-valashmai-jungle). Perception is the one of the most important skills in the game regardless of traps, and so between detect magic and having someone with good perception in the party, spotting traps shouldn't be difficult without trapfinding, as its bonus to perception doesn't become significant until many levels into a game, but by then it might not matter. You're left with the remaining benefit of being able to disable magical traps via disable device, which also has several alternatives. Most glaringly, Paizo decided that wizards weren't versatile enough, and gave them another way to do it (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/aram-zey-s-focus), so you could even make a trapfinder wizard if you wanted. Though I'm not sure that there's a trait that grants disable device as a class skill, other than wisdom in the flesh (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/religion-traits/wisdom-in-the-flesh-god-of-perfection). Edit: here's a disable device trait (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/religion-traits/nimble-fingers-keen-mind-brigh).

[Terazul]

Yeah, a skillmonkey is still important. The problem is, a skillmonkey can be covered by literally everything not a rogue. You can keep saying points are irrelevant, but that doesn't make them so. There are tons of examples in this thread of how rogue is simply vastly behind what it should be capable of, with new classes doing it's exact thing too. No, Warblade doesn't make fighter bad. Fighter is just damn bad by itself, and a warblade is an example of it doing the same job well. You can keep saying "I only care about low op tables", and ignore half the problem, but even again (in this thread, even) there are people at low op tables who can recognize the issues with the rogue. I still don't see how "You can sneak attack more monsters" makes up for the fact that they removed most of the ways to get multiple sneak attacks per round to begin with, and how it's nearly impossible to do any ranged sneak attacking for more than like, 2 rounds. Or are archer rogues "hi-op" now?

But I'm just going to let myself out anyway.

[Sayt]

Given how easy it is to block detect magic (Thin sheet of lead, or an inch common metal, or a foot of stone), I really wouldn't consider detect magic a reliable way of hiding magical traps.

And yeah, a wizard can do it, a limited number of times per day, or spend money on a wand while he could be saving up for his +6 hat. I wouldn't call it an effective use of the Wizard's spell slots, especially if there is a rogue around who hasn't traded out trapfinding.

[Prime32]

So, last night, I pulled down the ACG playtest last night to see what exactly a "Investigator" and a "Slayer" is. And they really, really look like replacements. Good ones, too. You have a combat rogue in your Slayer, and a skilled rogue in your Investigator. They get a lot of overlap, too, looking at the class skills and the same skills per level (6+Int). They both can get special talents to help their cause.

That's not even to mention the Ninja, who is directly better at... literally everything. Skill bonuses, more class abilities that actually have value, better proficiency, (because Wakizashi are good things.) Ninjas end up being "Rogue 1.1", and it's looking like the Investigator and Slayer classes are going to be full and perfect replacements for the Rogue. You can't play a Rogue and be good, but you can play a rogue, and still be viable.There's also Archaeologist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/archaeologist). Or even the regular bard with its Bardic Knowledge, Versatile Performance, Lore Master and Jack of All Trades.

Since so many classes get to add half their level to certain skill checks, couldn't you at least have let rogue do that with all of them? :smallsigh:

[Kraken]

Given how easy it is to block detect magic (Thin sheet of lead, or an inch common metal, or a foot of stone), I really wouldn't consider detect magic a reliable way of hiding magical traps.

And yeah, a wizard can do it, a limited number of times per day, or spend money on a wand while he could be saving up for his +6 hat. I wouldn't call it an effective use of the Wizard's spell slots, especially if there is a rogue around who hasn't traded out trapfinding.

You can block detect magic from working, but you're dramatically limiting your trigger options in doing so. That's still a pretty big win. Spotting isn't even really the issue, now that it's much easier for the entire party to be decent at perception. Disabling or bypassing is the only significant issue I've come across with traps in PF. Given how often traps come up, the spell is I mentioned is a scroll candidate (150 GP and 2 hours to create), not a wand candidate - edit: and to be clear, the spell, and even trapfinding itself, is a last resort for disabling a trap anyway, I'd much rather find a 100% effective solution than leave things up to a skill check which could potentially set the trap off while I'm in proximity (regardless of whether I'm a rogue or some other class). And as I said, that spell is merely one of many ways to disable a trap beyond disable device. Once it's spotted, which, it bears repeating, is the easiest part, no trap is a match for player creativity.

[Snowbluff]

Given how easy it is to block detect magic (Thin sheet of lead, or an inch common metal, or a foot of stone), I really wouldn't consider detect magic a reliable way of hiding magical traps. It looks like to me that a rogue would have a hard time seeing a Glyph of Warding that has been covered in lead. :l

[StreamOfTheSky]

Rogue didn't get worse in the ways its own features changed. It got worse in the ways the game around it changed.

This, basically.

- The biggest nerf was to how class skills work. It's only a +3 difference now. You used to have to pay double *and* be hard-capped at half the ranks. It was legitimately painful to keep up on cross-class learning. As the skill monkey class, this badly hurt rogues, and they got nothing to make up for it. Even the rogue talents lack bonuses to skills, even the Skill Focus feat as an option. Let's put this in perspective: In D&D 4E, which is widely panned for classes being "homogenous" and skills all scale at the same flat rate, the difference between a trained class skill and untrained is 5. In Pathfinder, it's three.
- As if that weren't bad enough, you can just dip rogue 1 level and reap 100% of what little edge they have in class skills. And there's now a TON of traits to add a skill as a class skill (there's at least one option for each skill, often more) that *also* give a +1 bonus on top of that.
- Tumble is now suicidal, so melee rogue can't survive.
- On the other hand, grease and blink no longer work to get full attack SA, so ranged SA past round 1 is very hard to get.
- Sneak attack no longer works with splash weapons.
- On top of everyone having Perception and being awesome at it (b/c it's the best skill) and thus having great Search modifiers, PF removed a lot of trap niche protection. Anyone can find any trap now, and can disarm all non-magical ones. Infinite cantrips also means casters are better at finding magical traps (detect magic) than rogues are. And then there's the 8+ archetypes that have trapfinding, and the new Mummy's Mask trait that flat out gives trapfinding to anyone.
- Tenuous as PF has made the skill monkey role, Rogue doesn't even have the most skills anymore. Thanks to Versatile Performance...Bard does. And he got take 10 (and a few/day take 20) on knowledges. And he gets to take 10 on all skills eventually, not just 3 + int of them. This is on top of the skill-boosting spells and performances they had already, like Glibness.
- They created this abomination (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/flanking-foil-combat).
Let's break this down. First, I'll go by the *intended* way it works. It's a level 1 no pre-req feat that gives you Improved Uncanny Dodge, a level 8 class feature, w/o the +4 rogue levels escape clause. Full stop. But then there's the RAW reading.... hitting someone in melee shuts down their ability to sneak attack you by any means, NOT JUST BY FLANKING! If you thought suicidal tumble didn't quite make melee rogue unplayable, just pray your DM never sees this feat.

TL;DR: Rogue sucks in PF b/c:
1. The general system nerfed how their SA and "skills supremacy" work, they were basically all stealth nerfs, not immediately obvious
2. PF stripped away basically all of the rogue's niche protection
3. There's now many other classes who do the rogue's job better than rogue does

Rogue talents are almost all universally horrible, aside from the ones that let you get a bonus feat (that you want) and a rare few others like Slow Reactions.

[Renegade Paladin]

Don't forget to mention how badly tumbling got nerfed. It's now opposed by the opponents CMD, which is a huge DC increase for the majority of enemies.

Also, in 3.5 when you fail a tumble check, you take your AoO as normal and keep moving. In Pathfinder, since it got combined with Balance, you get to deal with this fun line:


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.

Yeah, so not only are you more likely to fail, but when you do fail and take damage, you also are likely to trip yourself. It's ridiculous.
Read it again. That line is under the heading of balancing, not moving through threatened squares or the general definition of the skill. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/acrobatics) "First, you can use Acrobatics to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling... 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." It then goes on to talk about moving through threatened squares in a different section and does not repeat the line, nor does it repeat it in the section about jumping. The consequences for failing an Acrobatics check to move through an enemy's square are in fact clearly defined: You lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity. It does not say you fall prone, which it seems to me would be a fairly important consequence worth covering.

[Yanisa]

I just checked:

Undead, while not listed to have such, have no vital areas by definition, meaning that although the game does not Explicitly in the terms say it, that they all do have it still.

Straight from James Jacob himself (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2k1ia?Sneak-and-critical-damage-on-undead-constucts#3)

Incorporeal creatures can't be sneak attacked or critically hit either.
But yeah, everything else (physical undead and constructs included) can be sneak attacked or critically hit unless they have special abilities that specifically protect them.

That was in 2009, they later errata incorporeal and included this line I believe:

Incorporeal Subtype: An incorporeal creature has no physical body. An incorporeal creature is immune to critical hits and precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) unless the attacks are made using a weapon with the ghost touch special weapon quality. In addition, creatures with the incorporeal subtype gain the incorporeal special quality.

Also vital strike, despite its name, does not need a vital area to strike. It is not precision damage, and works on every creature in the game.
Heck even a Called Shot works on undead and I don't feel stabbing a undead in the heart is more effective then its leg, but here you go.


Immunity to sneak attacks? No, undead can be affected by sneak attacks in Pathfinder. Just because they don't need their spleen doesn't mean that they don't have joints or some other weakness that can be targeted, and removing undead immunity to sneak attack was a specific goal of the Pathfinder design team back when they released the new system. Only the things specifically called out have immunity.

Only creature types with the following entry have immunity:

•Not subject to critical hits or flanking. Does not take additional damage from precision-based attacks, such as sneak attack (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/creatureTypes.html)

Pretty much only oozes, elementals, and swarms are immune to SA in Pathfinder.

Technically you could sneak attack a swarm, but they are immune to flanking and often immune to weapon damage or have high damage reduction. Its pretty hard but you can sneak attack a swarm.

The sidebar on the PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue#TOC-Evasion-Ex-) sums it up rather nicely.

[Seerow]

Read it again. That line is under the heading of balancing, not moving through threatened squares or the general definition of the skill. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/acrobatics) "First, you can use Acrobatics to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling... 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." It then goes on to talk about moving through threatened squares in a different section and does not repeat the line, nor does it repeat it in the section about jumping. The consequences for failing an Acrobatics check to move through an enemy's square are in fact clearly defined: You lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity. It does not say you fall prone, which it seems to me would be a fairly important consequence worth covering.

I was going by the Paizo SRD (http://paizo.com/prd/skills/acrobatics.html) where there are no different headings. That said, headings and formatting don't have any real basis in the RAW. While yes, the limitation is mentioned in the context of balancing, that ultimately doesn't matter. The RAW does not state that it applies "when making an acrobatics check to balance...". It says "when using acrobatics...", which tumble is undeniably doing.

Here's the whole context of the quote:

You can use Acrobatics to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling. A successful check allows you to move at half speed across such surfaces—only one check is needed per round. Use the following table to determine the base DC, which is then modified by the Acrobatics skill modifiers noted below. While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any). 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.


Note: The first part of the drawback, being flat footed and losing dex bonus to AC is explicitly being tied to using acrobatics to balance. Then the next sentence has no reference whatsoever to that, and just says if you take damage while using Acrobatics. If it said "while using Acrobatics this way" or "while using Acrobatics while balancing" or anything of the sort, you'd be right. But it doesn't.

It may be a dumb piece of RAW, but it is factually one that exists, and does screw rogues harder than just about anyone else given how much they rely on tumble for their positioning.

[Anlashok]

It may be a dumb piece of RAW, but it is factually one that exists
The real fun part is that knowing how Paizo feels about classes that don't cast it isn't even necessarily in the "Stupid RAW but obviously not intended" category. I can just see a twitter message explaining how it's more "realistic" to fall flat on your face while trying to roll forward and messing up.

[Shinken]

everything is too little, to late in terms of those. Penetrating strike, an ACF you get at third level in 3.5 to help both yourself and the DM, is delayed in PF so long that you will have given up on the character.
This is very deceptive. You don't need penetrating strike as much in PF, a lot less is immune to sneak attacks. There are plenty of valid reasons why Rogues are weak in PF. Let's not invent others. :smallwink:


Skill focus is interesting but useless because PF doesnt have Autohypnosis, Iajustsu Focus, or whats that third splat skill that is actually useful in combat (not UPD)? sure you can take 10 on UMD but thats it.
Erm, what? (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/skills/autohypnosis-wis-trained-only)


the main condemnation of PF is that, for what few measures it takes from the T1s, it takes much more in equivalency from everyone else. In equivlanecy, the 3.5 Paladin at base is T5 but can work its way into T3. the PF paladin is, relatively, T5 with only the ability to suck more from what they start with. Weapon Bond is not Sword of Celestia. PrCs are gone, and feats that in 3.5 are one thing are split up in PF. There are more good ones but there are essentially fewer featslots
You are very very wrong, my friend. PF Paladins are very, very good for several reasons, such as not needing Wis anymore, having Smite Evil more powerful, lasting the whole encounter and being usable from rage, lay on hands scaling better and adding mercies as well and several archetypes (one that lands them firmly in T2 territory, even). The Paladin in my party works as ranged damage dealer, party face and party medic (he doesn't just heal hp, he heals conditions). A 3.5 Paladin could only be a party face (maybe a ranged damage dealer if he was an elf - no, not even then, archery sucked in 3.5) and that is it.

[Ssalarn]

You are very very wrong, my friend. PF Paladins are very, very good for several reasons, such as not needing Wis anymore, having Smite Evil more powerful, lasting the whole encounter and being usable from rage, lay on hands scaling better and adding mercies as well and several archetypes (one that lands them firmly in T2 territory, even). The Paladin in my party works as ranged damage dealer, party face and party medic (he doesn't just heal hp, he heals conditions). A 3.5 Paladin could only be a party face (maybe a ranged damage dealer if he was an elf - no, not even then, archery sucked in 3.5) and that is it.

I'd thought about making this observation as well. PF Paladins have much better stat consolidation (You can make a very effective one while only putting points in STR and CHA), and the base class itself already kind of borders on Tier 3 depending on build. With the various archetypes available PF Paladin goes from bordering to solidly in Tier 3. I've seen Hospitaler Paladins effectively doing double duty as primary tank and heals with enough class resources left over to be a competent party face.

[Snowbluff]

Erm, what? (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/skills/autohypnosis-wis-trained-only)


Open the page, and scroll down to the bottom. Proceed to laugh at yourself for me.

The best part about PF is that the wiki marks the sources for material very well.

[andreww]

2. It doesn't duplicate trapfinding. A wizard in 3.5 with a single level in rogue gets all the trapfinding a rogue gets. A wizard in PF with that trait only gets the ability to disarm magic traps, not the level nased bonus that you get from being a rogue.
Or you know they could just cast Aram Zeys Focus which just gives them trapfinding.

For Oracles and Sorcerers the Seeker archetype gives up very little and gains trapfinding. The Sage Sorcerer is an Int based full caster with trapfinding who can happily outclass the rogue in pretty much every aspect of what they do.

[Gemini476]

I'd thought about making this observation as well. PF Paladins have much better stat consolidation (You can make a very effective one while only putting points in STR and CHA), and the base class itself already kind of borders on Tier 3 depending on build. With the various archetypes available PF Paladin goes from bordering to solidly in Tier 3. I've seen Hospitaler Paladins effectively doing double duty as primary tank and heals with enough class resources left over to be a competent party face.

The op-ceiling for 3.5's Paladin is highly complicated, but includes stuff like Ubercharging (on a mount!), free Quicken for all spells, all Wizard spells from levels 1-4 on the spell list, Earthglide, and more.
The op-floor is so low that it's a Tier 5 class, though. And without Sword of the Arcane Order it's still lacking in out-of-combat utility.

I'd argue that the only archetype that manages to push the Pathfinder Paladin into Tier 3 is Sacred Servant, but that's just because Sacred Servant is just crazy good. And that's mostly ignoring the 16th level ability to get what is effectively a Cleric 16 cohort. Domains are awesome.

Remember, the difference between Tier 4 and Tier 3 is not power: it's versatility. Tier 6->5->4 and Tier 3->2 is about power, but Tier 4->3 and Tier 2->1 is all about being able to do a variety of things in a single build.

[Ssalarn]

The op-ceiling for 3.5's Paladin is highly complicated, but includes stuff like Ubercharging (on a mount!), free Quicken for all spells, all Wizard spells from levels 1-4 on the spell list, Earthglide, and more.
The op-floor is so low that it's a Tier 5 class, though. And without Sword of the Arcane Order it's still lacking in out-of-combat utility.

I'd argue that the only archetype that manages to push the Pathfinder Paladin into Tier 3 is Sacred Servant, but that's just because Sacred Servant is just crazy good. And that's mostly ignoring the 16th level ability to get what is effectively a Cleric 16 cohort. Domains are awesome.

Remember, the difference between Tier 4 and Tier 3 is not power: it's versatility. Tier 6->5->4 and Tier 3->2 is about power, but Tier 4->3 and Tier 2->1 is all about being able to do a variety of things in a single build.


PF Paladin can stomp face on a mounted charge in a way that 3.5 Pally used to dream about. Litany of Righteousness + Smite + Spirited Charge = dead target. PF Paladin expanded spell list is very solid, procs off CHA instead of WIS, and Mercies plus other goodies make him way more versatile and competent as a healer (not to mention the potential benefits of Ultimate Mercy). Unsanctioned Knowledge is great for opening up the Paladin spell list with a few carefully selected choices.

It's easy for a PF Paladin to have great versatility in a single build, easily enough to qualify for Tier 3. As I mentioned Hospitaler can still be a very effective tank, perform solid dpr, be the main healer, perform as an effective party face, and provide a few solid buffs to party members. Sacred Servant is of course another good one, Divine Defender loses a chunk of the dpr to enhance the buffing aspect, and the various Oaths provide a huge amount of versatility that can be incorporated into a build.

All of that is pretty far off the topic of how the Rogue was nerfed of course, other than to point out that there is a very big difference in the perception of some of the changes and the reality, particularly the reality that impacts the bulk of players. The baseline CRB only Paladin in PF can provide reasonable healing, tank, party face, and solid dpr, all in one build. He has great advantages for mounted combat, and the removal of the melee restriction on Smite and a few select spells makes him a spectacular archer. When you take in the rest of the core Paizo product line, he only improves.

With the exception of some of the whacky divine metamagic stuff from 3.5, the Paladin got an all around huge boost in PF. The Rogue... I still hesitate to call what he got a nerf. I personally thought DC 15 Tumble checks to avoid any attack of opportunity was stupid, and I pointed out to someone a little earlier in one of these threads that it is very possible for someone who wants to consistently make the acrobatics checks to avoid AoO's to do so with a very high rate of success. They just don't automatically get to do it, they need to spend either class or consumable resources.

I do, however, think it's a little silly that size bonuses are added universally to monster CMD. They probably should be specific to the few maneuvers where they actually make sense (Bull Rush, Overrun, perhaps Drag and Reposition). That's of course where all of the issues with CMD scaling come from, and it definitely was a bit of a mistake.

The Rogue wasn't terribly great in 3.5 though, and suffered from most of the problems he still suffers from in 3.5. Some of the issues were removed or heavily mitigated when they opened up the valid options for Sneak Attack, and a few more popped up regarding CMD scaling. I don't think "other people can do some of the same things with archetypes or campaign specific traits" really counts as a nerf. If I have a sword, and I give someone else a sword, it doesn't mean my sword is now less of a sword because someone else has one too.

[Shinken]

Open the page, and scroll down to the bottom. Proceed to laugh at yourself for me.

The best part about PF is that the wiki marks the sources for material very well.

Not being published by Paizo means it's not Pathfinder? You're objectively wrong, sorry. Please try to be less offensive next time, as well.

[Dr.Gara]

Not being published by Paizo means it's not Pathfinder? You're objectively wrong, sorry. Please try to be less offensive next time, as well.
Weeeelll. There's a lot of things that are Pathfinder 3pp and are absolutely stupid. Dreamscarred Press, while some of the highest of quality I've ever seen, calling it full Pathfinder isn't fair. I mean, look at this gem from Tripod Machine. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/tripod-machine/bounty-hunter) Look! Awesome! Full BaB, d10s, bonus feats, full sneak attack!

[Snowbluff]

Not being published by Paizo means it's not Pathfinder? You're objectively wrong, sorry. Please try to be less offensive next time, as well.

By that standard, you could have homebrewed autohypnosis into the system and be "right." Judging by what you just posted, you would do it, too. For that, I reserve the right to maintain my stance.

[Kudaku]

Not being published by Paizo means it's not Pathfinder? You're objectively wrong, sorry. Please try to be less offensive next time, as well.

While I agree that Snowbluff could have worded that more politely, I think representing 3rd party content as "pathfinder content" is misleading.

Using the same logic you could also argue that Pathfinder is actually 3.5 D&D content.

@On Topic

I think the Pathfinder rogue got some nice improvements over the 3.5 class. Rogue talents are a neat idea and making sneak attack work on most targets is a great improvement in game where undead are rampant. That said, the rogue is troubled.

The majority of the "big rogue tricks" have been passed out to other classes (Vivisectionist, Archaeologists) who arguably do them better. Acrobatics is significantly harder to pull off than it was, which makes flanking a risky venture at best. The skill consolidation makes having lots of skill ranks less attractive than it once was, and the addition of traits (which I overall think are awesome) made class skills rather less useful than they once were.

It's much easier to make a "rogue replacement" than it was in 3.5, and the fairly hefty improvements to the bard and ranger as well as the inclusion of the alchemist (and soon the investigator and the slayer) increases the gap between the rogue and his compatriots. In most cases I find that a party will benefit more from having a different class covering the traditional rogue tasks rather than taking a rogue. If that isn't a call for help then I don't know what is.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Weeeelll. There's a lot of things that are Pathfinder 3pp and are absolutely stupid. Dreamscarred Press, while some of the highest of quality I've ever seen, calling it full Pathfinder isn't fair. I mean, look at this gem from Tripod Machine. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/tripod-machine/bounty-hunter) Look! Awesome! Full BaB, d10s, bonus feats, full sneak attack!

That isn't even remotely overpowered... The summoner class, newly created by Paizo, is far more of a "gem."

[Snowbluff]

I think representing 3rd party content as "pathfinder content" is misleading.

misleading.
Hence my bluntness.

That isn't even remotely overpowered... The summoner class, newly created by Paizo, is far more of a "gem."
Mmm... gemmerific! :smallbiggrin:

[Dr.Gara]

That isn't even remotely overpowered... The summoner class, newly created by Paizo, is far more of a "gem."

Yes, but it illustrates my point. Pointing out Paizo isn't good at balance is beating a dead horse.

[Kudaku]

Hence my bluntness.

I'd say there is a difference between being blunt and being rude. "Proceed to laugh at yourself for me" strikes me as an example of the latter.

Like I said, I agree with your point but I find the phrasing unfortunate.

[Snowbluff]

I'd say there is a difference between being blunt and being rude. "Proceed to laugh at yourself for me" strikes me as an example of the latter.

Like I said, I agree with your point but I find the phrasing unfortunate.

Okay, I get it. I'll chill for you, bro. :smallsmile:

[grarrrg]

For Oracles and Sorcerers the Seeker archetype gives up very little and gains trapfinding. The Sage Sorcerer is an Int based full caster with trapfinding who can happily outclass the rogue in pretty much every aspect of what they do.

Sages do not get Trapfinding.
They will have more Skill Points than your typical Sorcerer though.

For the sake of completeness, Dipping Guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?230500-Pathfinder-Dipping-for-Fun-and-Profit-%28mostly-Profit%29&p=12613046&viewfull=1#post12613046) > Trapfinding
Alchemist 1A (Crypt Breaker)
Alchemist 2A (Trap Breaker)
Bard 1A (Sandman)
Bard 2A (multiple archetypes)
Oracle 1A (Seeker)
Ranger 1A (Trapper), or 3A (Urban Ranger)
Rogue 1
Sorcerer 1A (Seeker)

Aspis Agent 1
Balanced Scale of Abadar 1, only Temporarily disables Magic traps
Brother of the Seal 2
Cyphermage 1?, Can only detect "writing" based traps, can detect them with Perception or Knowledge (Arcana), can disable them with Disable Device or Spellcraft
Field Agent 1, optional (can also be taken at 3, 6 or 9)
Pathfinder Delver 1

And for the sake of completeness, you don't even NEED to dip for "disarm magical traps", as you can get that through a Trait. "Trap Finder" gives a +1 bonus to Disable Device, and makes it always a class skill as well [Pathfinder Player Companion: People of the Sands]

[Ravens_cry]

Colour me confused, but what exactly is meant by calling Summoner a 'gem'?

[Snowbluff]

Colour me confused, but what exactly is meant by calling Summoner a 'gem'?
It conflicts with the PF design philosophy and the rules are weird. Not to mention it's another freaking strong caster. :smalltongue:

[squiggit]

Weeeelll. There's a lot of things that are Pathfinder 3pp and are absolutely stupid. Dreamscarred Press, while some of the highest of quality I've ever seen, calling it full Pathfinder isn't fair. I mean, look at this gem from Tripod Machine. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/tripod-machine/bounty-hunter) Look! Awesome! Full BaB, d10s, bonus feats, full sneak attack!

Tripod has a horrible tendency to create martials that don't suck and causes everyone to freak out over them because of that. Not sure I'd point to it as proof of third party insanity though because it's still not a wizard.

Honestly I'd say classes like that are more damning of Paizo than Tripod, given that you can put together an "abomination" like that, give it everything every other martial has at the same time... and it'd still only be middle of the road when you put it next to real eyebrow raisers like the Wizard.


Not to mention it's another freaking strong caster.
Strong, yes, but it fits nicely as a pathfinder continuation of what WotC started with DN/Beguiler/Warmage. Summoner is honestly probably the second least questionable Pathfinder original behind the Magus.

[Snowbluff]

Strong, yes, but it fits nicely as a pathfinder continuation of what WotC started with DN/Beguiler/Warmage. Summoner is honestly probably the second least questionable Pathfinder original behind the Magus.

I think Beguiler would be pretty disruptive in a PF game. Huge number of skills points plus good casting.

As for not being questionable, the Summoner does not fit that description.

[squiggit]

I think Beguiler would be pretty disruptive in a PF game. Huge number of skills points plus good casting.

As for not being questionable, the Summoner does not fit that description.

Well, I did say least questionable. Not nonquestionable.

Personally I think the class is incredibly hyped in how terrifying and bad and awful it supposedly is.

[Ravens_cry]

It conflicts with the PF design philosophy and the rules are weird. Not to mention it's another freaking strong caster. :smalltongue:
Still, it allows you to play a kind of character that the game didn't allow you to play before. I hope they add evolutions to support a more construct like Eidolon, like they did undead.

[Yanisa]

Weeeelll. There's a lot of things that are Pathfinder 3pp and are absolutely stupid. Dreamscarred Press, while some of the highest of quality I've ever seen, calling it full Pathfinder isn't fair. I mean, look at this gem from Tripod Machine. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/tripod-machine/bounty-hunter) Look! Awesome! Full BaB, d10s, bonus feats, full sneak attack!

If you scroll down, there is a comment section. Have a couple of the top ones:


Seems a bit powerful. Full BAB and full Sneak Attack progression? I thought 3/4ths BAB was the balancing factor of full BAB.


this sounds more like a prestige class.


This is almost strictly better than a rogue.


"Strictly better"? It doesn't get rogue talents, Trapfinding or Use Magic Device. The difference between full and medium BAB isn't really that big, especially if you're attacking flat-footed enemies anyway.


Full BaB is definitely too much for a melee class with full sneak attack progression. Either the BaB needs to be 3/4 or the sneak attack needs to be toned down.
d10, full BAB, and sneak atack. Yeah, too powerful


Its the important bonuses of a ranger, flexed a bit so that it is more broadly applicable... With a full bab/sneak attack/uncanny dodge/bonus feats... yeah... WAY too much


Overpowered

So that proves that Rogues aren't nerfed, but in fact are a great balanced class.

[Kudaku]

Okay, I get it. I'll chill for you, bro. :smallsmile:

Cheers :smallsmile:

@Summoner

I think the problem is partially that a lot of people mess up how evolution points work, partially that if you stack your evolution points right you can make a terrifying eidolon, partially that eidolon solve a lot of the basic melee problems (such as lack of Pounce) with evolutions, and finally that the synthesist summoner is a throwback to the 3.5 druid in that the class doesn't really need physical ability scores.

It's also a complete table-stopper if the player running it hasn't done his homework on summoning spells, but that's true of any class that can cast Summon X really.

@Bounty Hunter comments
In all fairness, if you put the rogue/fighter and the bounty hunter side by side the bounty hunter is clearly significantly better - if you treat the rogue as your balancing point for a "rogueish" character then they are making legitimate complaints. The problem is that you really, really shouldn't use the rogue as your balancing point :smalltongue:

While I think Yanisa captured the general opinion of the class quite well, the comments are not entirely negative:


Overpowered? Not in the least.


Strictly better than the rogue' is not a high bar to jump.


This class is weaker than the wizard, sorcerer, oracle, cleric, druid, alchemist, summoner and magus (that is, all the casters). It can only do two things (fight and track) and one of them is pretty much useless. And in a fight, it doesn't have any kind of versatility, only damage and only targetting AC.


Too strong compared with other classes that focus on melee, but still inferior to casters, of course...


General public needs to learn to stop balancing things off Fighter. It is a horrible class no veteran D&D player takes past Lv. 2 unless they're trying to relive their 2e days in which case...go play 2e.


A *very* important thing to keep in mind that an explicit goal of the product this class is from is to increase the power of non-magic classes relative to magic using classes.

[Yanisa]

Smart people tend to get drowned out in a sea of idiocy... Especially tainting is the first 10 comments or so are all negative bashing without any context. If, like later commenters, people said it was horribly strong for melee, but still weak and unflexible compared to all classes it would be less hilarious. Now I just looked at the comment section and decided to roll of the floor due high amounts of laughter and only when I regained myself and scrolled down I found smarter people with better comments. :smalltongue:

I do love the dude that implies Rogues are better then (or equal to) Bounty Hunters due Trap Finding, Rogue Talents and Use Magic Device. <3

I also love that a lot of dislike comes form the mashing from classes... Guess what the Advanced Class Guide does... Guess what the effects are on Rogues and Fighters...

In the end it is hard to make good melee classes due the inherent flaws of the system and expectations of how melee classes work in the eyes of the general public. In its tier the Bounty Hunter is probably a strong class that deals more damage then its buddies, but then you realize that tier is probably 4ish and still the bottom of the barrel in terms of versatility.

[Shinken]

While I agree that Snowbluff could have worded that more politely, I think representing 3rd party content as "pathfinder content" is misleading.
I understand your point, it's just that I've seen the same thought process applied to 3.5 D&D in these forums quite frequently. If someone says "there is no 3.5 Ravenloft" the answer is "yes, there is, it's just 3rd party". Dragon Magazine was not published by Wizards, but its indubitably 3.5 content (and even official, at that). But yeah, I understand your point. Thanks for adressing me as an actual human being.

[Vedhin]

If someone says "there is no 3.5 Ravenloft" the answer is "yes, there is, it's just 3rd party".

And you'd be wrong. The Ravenloft fan site (http://www.kargatane.com) was designated an official website by WotC, giving it effective 1st party status. At least, while it was still actively maintained.

Not very wrong, but still not quite right.

[Renegade Paladin]

I was going by the Paizo SRD (http://paizo.com/prd/skills/acrobatics.html) where there are no different headings. That said, headings and formatting don't have any real basis in the RAW. While yes, the limitation is mentioned in the context of balancing, that ultimately doesn't matter. The RAW does not state that it applies "when making an acrobatics check to balance...". It says "when using acrobatics...", which tumble is undeniably doing.

Here's the whole context of the quote:


Note: The first part of the drawback, being flat footed and losing dex bonus to AC is explicitly being tied to using acrobatics to balance. Then the next sentence has no reference whatsoever to that, and just says if you take damage while using Acrobatics. If it said "while using Acrobatics this way" or "while using Acrobatics while balancing" or anything of the sort, you'd be right. But it doesn't.

It may be a dumb piece of RAW, but it is factually one that exists, and does screw rogues harder than just about anyone else given how much they rely on tumble for their positioning.
That is not the whole context of the quote. The fact that the next paragraph begins with "in addition," after the bit about falling prone and after balancing, means that it's going on to describe another use that behaves differently.

[Seerow]

That is not the whole context of the quote. The fact that the next paragraph begins with "in addition," after the bit about falling prone and after balancing, means that it's going on to describe another use that behaves differently.

Yes, it describes another use (tumbling) that behaves differently (because tumbling is not balancing), but at no point does it say anything that contradicts it being an acrobatics check; which is all that it needs to be to fall under the general rule of "If you take damage, you make another check to avoid falling prone". I'm sorry for not quoting the entire page, I guess?

[Renegade Paladin]

Yes, it describes another use (tumbling) that behaves differently (because tumbling is not balancing), but at no point does it say anything that contradicts it being an acrobatics check; which is all that it needs to be to fall under the general rule of "If you take damage, you make another check to avoid falling prone". I'm sorry for not quoting the entire page, I guess?
You're still objectively incorrect. They changed subjects; the previous language does not apply. If that was supposed to be a general-case clause covering every use of Acrobatics, it would go in the general description of the skill, not the specific description for one of many uses.

[Anlashok]

You're still objectively incorrect. They changed subjects; the previous language does not apply. If that was supposed to be a general-case clause covering every use of Acrobatics, it would go in the general description of the skill, not the specific description for one of many uses.

On the other hand, if it was meant to be a specific case clause, why is it worded as a general clause? Making it a separate sentence and wording it in the way they did only serves to make it more general. You're probably right, but to suggest he's just completely dumb in the way you are given how Paizo feels about martials and the wording in question is disingenuous.

[Shinken]

And you'd be wrong. The Ravenloft fan site (http://www.kargatane.com) was designated an official website by WotC, giving it effective 1st party status. At least, while it was still actively maintained.

Not very wrong, but still not quite right.

Didn't even know there was a Ravenloft fansite, I was going by White Wolf's Ravenloft. But I guess that was 3.0.

[Vortenger]

I understand your point, it's just that I've seen the same thought process applied to 3.5 D&D in these forums quite frequently. If someone says "there is no 3.5 Ravenloft" the answer is "yes, there is, it's just 3rd party". Dragon Magazine was not published by Wizards, but its indubitably 3.5 content (and even official, at that). But yeah, I understand your point. Thanks for adressing me as an actual human being.

Its amazing how often I feel this way when a constructive answer is given. They get more and more rare. And don't sweat Snowbluff, he comes off like that often, but his info is usually good.