Favorite Martial Base Classes and why?

[Iwasforger03]

I'm asking the playground which Pathfinder Martial Base Class is their favorite. Abilities, thematics, effectiveness, aesthetics, fluff, which one do you like best and why? For purposes of this dicussion ignore anything with 3/4ths casting or full casting, but keep Paladin, Ranger, Bloodrager on the list

I enjoy Paladin conceptually, the holy crusader, mighty warrior for good. It just feels fun and awesome and it is pretty effective.

I like Samurai because of their honor concept, their more foot based combat style, and their overall effectiveness as group buff and martial warrior. The whole package is just enjoyable to play for me and provides numerous options (even if those options all revolve around combat).

I lastly like Ranger because while they are effective in combat, the ranger shines because it can do so much outside of fights. Ranges are useful against all kinds of enemies both in role play and in combat, they can track, find, stealth, survive. They just have options and I enjoy those options.

I also love the flavor. Hunter from the woods, men on the range, those who live in nature, but are still allied with their own people (not always, but far more often than druids). Loners maybe, but respected, capable, and interesting. Admitedly, I'm also a fan of the original Ranger Concept, Aragorn.

[Anlashok]

Two of your favorite martials are partial spellcasters.

Also probably barbarians.

[Iwasforger03]

Two of your favorite martials are partial spellcasters.

Also probably barbarians.


For purposes of this dicussion ignore anything with 3/4ths casting or full casting, but keep Paladin, Ranger, Bloodrager on the list.



I'm leaving them on the list because while they have spell casting, that spell casting isn't OMG super amazing! It's decent, has some nice boosts, and is overall fairly limited. They get an incredibly small number of spells per day, and they are mostly designed around their combat abilities.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Uh...is a Synthesist Summoner who voluntarily nerfs himself to Paladin/Ranger spell progression an option? Because even with that nerf, I'd pick it over any other no-casting or 4-level casting class in 1st party Pathfinder, they're just so poor....

Barring that, I guess Barbarian. You get to be a badass that sunders spells, brutally counter attack anyone who dares to step up to melee with you, shrug off damage, and pull off huge strength surges for tripping and the like. Oh, and pounce. Of course, if the DM bans rage cycling (even though it's not broken and 100% RAW legal), Barbarian becomes much worse.
Ranger and Paladin are solid classes, too. But so boring to me. Paladin mostly boils down to not dying and auto-pwning evil boss solos. Ranger is an outdoorsy loner who gets to surf on a Roc while raining down arrows, but spamming full attack every turn gets dull quickly (and the TWF setup is made of fail; mounted is decent but lance charging is even more insipid than rapid shotting; fighting with a single shield in 2 hands or TWF with shields w/ "weapon and shield style" is decent I suppose for the free bull rushes).

3rd party, it gets a bit better. Psychic Warrior has too much "casting" by your definitions, but...Soulknife is still really cool with the Blade Skills and just the mind blade concept in general. Haven't seen Path of War, but presumably it has a bunch of martials who don't suck.

Thematically, I've always liked Rogue and Monk the best, but they're the worst classes in pathfinder, and most of the classes I replace them with for my concepts are 6-level casters (bard, alchemist, synthesist, inquisitor...)

[aethel27]

the paladin archetype of a dwarven stone lord of torag

Just the sheer insanity of it that and playing with a long hammer and power attacking enemies.

On a side note is doing 2d6+7 an attack op for lvl 1?

[squiggit]

but...Soulknife is still really cool with the Blade Skills and just the mind blade concept in general.

Whenever I look at the soul knife and their awesome list of blade skills (admittedly a few horrible ones in there but still) I get really sad because I want rogues to be my favorite class. I've been playing rogues for ages in damn near every game I play but... ugh.

The soul knife isn't perfect but man it feels weird to look at a class that actually has some fairly interesting options at its disposal after trying to make some of the other martials work for a while.

Other than Rogue I have a soft spot for barbarians because that's the first class I ever played in a game of D&D.... and I really like the concept behind gunslingers even if almost everything about the execution isn't quite there.

[JHShadon]

I think Fighters are my favourite, nothing fancy, it's just a guy that's good at fighting, that and running full speed in Full Plate is cool too.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Whenever I look at the soul knife and their awesome list of blade skills (admittedly a few horrible ones in there but still) I get really sad because I want rogues to be my favorite class. I've been playing rogues for ages in damn near every game I play but... ugh.

The soul knife isn't perfect but man it feels weird to look at a class that actually has some fairly interesting options at its disposal after trying to make some of the other martials work for a while.

Other than Rogue I have a soft spot for barbarians because that's the first class I ever played in a game of D&D.... and I really like the concept behind gunslingers even if almost everything about the execution isn't quite there.

The main problem for me with soulknife is how late so much of their stuff comes. A lot of the cooler blade skills are pushed back till level 8 or later, notably. I was looking to play one in a rare PF game where the DM allowed psionics, but it was starting level 2 and...I just had to pass on it. Really an issue with all martials in PF, stuff you could take at level 1 or so in 3E is a mid level or higher ability in PF. Soulknife also makes me weep that PF has gone out of its way to make exotic weapons all suck, since here you have a class who can avoid the issue of "yeah it's a cool weapon, but good luck ever finding a magical one in loot or shops" thanks to mind blade and emulate melee weapon. So much wasted potential... Double chain kama is sort of cool, but...TWF w/o a major source of bonus damage (psychic strike doesn't cut it)...bleh.

[malonkey1]

Well, from Dreamscarred Press, I am a big fan of their Soulknife. From Paizo? That's a toughie, buuuuuuuuut, I'd have to say Gunslinger. I don't care if PF firearms are weak. The class fluff is awesome as eff-star-star-star. You are rewarded for pulling crazy stunts that you'd never otherwise take.

DM: You encounter three ogres, each wielding trees torn fresh from the ground as massive clubs. The stench of rotting flesh and human blood spills out like a black cloud with every breath they take.
Me: Hmm...I'm low on Grit right now... Hey, I want to jump over the middle guy's head and shoot him in the back of the neck.
DM: Uh, what? Okay, roll for Acrobatics for the jump, and then to move through his square.
Me: 38, and, uh, 43.
DM: What? 43!?
Me: Do I succeed or not?
DM: (grumbling) Fine. You regain one grit. Roll to hit.
Me: *Rolls a 19* Threat. *Rolls again, confirms*
DM: (Sighs) There's another grit.

Best feeling ever.

[Yael]

ToB allowed?

Warblade, just love it as the evolution of the Fighter (maneuvers ftw!)

[Spore]

The Cavalier. Specifically the Dragon Order.

Being the superior chassis for uberchargers it also allows for superior tactical utility. Can't do anything? Give your friends a tactical edge. Like +8 to hit. Like a free movement to get off a free attack. Also it's a fighter with 4+Int and actually useful class skills.

Powerwise it's like a fighter should've been.

[Yanisa]

Hmmm... Between the two classes I played, Rogue and Monk... Monk would win. :smalltongue:

I mean my Rogue frustrated me to no end with his ineffectiveness and the fact every class ever did a better job. The Monk mostly annoys me due not being able to do a lot (especially roll a lot and hit barely anything), but I got a chuckle out of having high AC and the poor DM's struggles to hit me. And for a monk I feel like an important part of the group, which sounds odd, but the group dynamic works (Unlike my Rogue), even though that dynamic is me getting "hit" (more like missed) so the others can deal damage without worrying about hostile attacks.

As for classes I want to play... Paladin and Barbarian would be high, if they weren't played recently in parties I have been too. Syntheist doesn't count. Slayer sounds cool, a combat Rogue gone right. (and I general I look forward to most martial classes of the ACG.)

So I stick with Monk for the classes I played. Slayer for the class I want to play.

[Spore]

I mean my Rogue frustrated me to no end with his ineffectiveness

If there were a T6, I would place the rogue in it. At least the Expert has high Will saves...

[Feint's End]

So much wasted potential... Double chain kama is sort of cool, but...TWF w/o a major source of bonus damage (psychic strike doesn't cut it)...bleh.

Well to be fair there are numerous ways to fix damage issues on soul knifes even while TWF. For one get crystal focus items to pump them to +13 weapons preepic ... maybe only give them enhancement +1 if you can get someone to cast greater magic weapon. That would make them +17 preepic (gets even better with deadly fist ... They can get +18 with ease).
Dmg? Well either play nimble blade or get the deadly agility feat from pow. That's dex to dmg (with the deadly agility feat it doesn't even get halfed)
Make sure to get linked weapons, add collision + some other properties you like and you are quite easily at ~40-50 dmg per attack. 7x40 is enough to compete with the other melee classes. Oh and you should of course be gifted blade.

If you want even more bang for you buck dip one level in contemplative and go dark tempest for extra flexibility and power.

After looking into the class for a long time you will find there are multiple options for soul knifes to get extra damage and it's rarely a problem.

As for other classes I enjoy?

Aegis. It offers high flexibility through the suit and makes a strong melee at the same time. The biggest advantage is that essentially you don't have to care about most items other people are looking for and can spend them on more optional stuff. Your group will love you for it.

Paladin. I think the pf paladin has incredible design and like the aegis something I like to call a "smooth" progression (read a class that works from 1-20). Not much to say except for that. Paladins are awesome.

Barbarians. Also quite smooth and fun customization. get the rage going!

Gunslinger (mysterious stranger). Charisma based daring gunslinger? Yes please. Very fun to role play and play in general even though guns have that much issues.

Qinggong zen archer monk.
Qinggong hungry ghost monk.
both quite good monk builds which work in melee and ranged respectively better than most other straight martial classes (dmg wise that is)
Qinggong for cool stuff and to shuffle out the useless abilities.

Edit:

Oh and almost forgot about the marksman. Also a very effective ranged out of the book. Psionic powers to complement the weaknesses usually associated with ranged characters + a chassis to enable different styles of ranged combat = win

[KadTalon]

Although I very much enjoy melee-oriented characters I usually don't like pure martial classes (to me, it feels like there is something "missing", in terms of "flavor").

I know it's not on the list, but my favorite class to play is the Magus... something about that mix of melee and magic has a great flavor for me. Being able to slash the guts out of the guy in front of you and blasting another away with a fireball in the same turn is just awesome.

Anyway... as for pure martial classes, there is one that makes me have nostalgia feelings. My first RPG character was a classical Dwarf Fighter. Wearing heavy armor, wielding a axe in one hand and a heavy shield in the other seems to fit perfectly with the dwarves, it's a rock solid choice :smalltongue:

[Iwasforger03]

Why does everyone hate the rogue so much? I have never ever run into effectiveness problems with rogues in pathfinder, and I'm shocked to see so much hate for them when everything I know about them indicates pathfinder actually improved the rogue. rogue talents are awesome, sneak attack has plenty of ways to be useful, and with knife master and/or scout archetypes the rogue gets even better!

I get sneak attacks on charges, i get d8 sneak attack dice, i'm almost impossible to disarm totally (I always have a knife on me somewhere), I can stealth and run full speed, i can use magic, i can cause bleed, get extra feats, etc. Where is all this rogue hate coming from?

[grarrrg]

Why does everyone hate the rogue so much? I have never ever run into effectiveness problems with rogues in pathfinder, and I'm shocked to see so much hate for them when everything I know about them indicates pathfinder actually improved the rogue. rogue talents are awesome, sneak attack has plenty of ways to be useful, and with knife master and/or scout archetypes the rogue gets even better!

In a vacuum, just looking at the classes, the PF Rogue slaps the snot out of the 3.5 Rogue. No contest.
The problem is that the game changed around them.

"Cross-class" skills aren't as big of an issue now, as they only cost a single point instead of double, and the point limit equals class level. All "in class" skills get you is a +3 bonus.

They condensed some of the skills, meaning you need fewer raw Skill Points to get the good ones.

They changed how some of the skills actually work. It's harder to acrobatics/tumble around the battlefield now. It's harder to get opponents to fail balance checks, etc...

Then there are classes like the Ninja and Vivisectionist Alchemist who have most of the Rogue goodies, but have more stuff overall.

About the only thing Straight class Rogue has going for it is Trapfinding at 1st level. But there are easily a half-dozen archetypes for OTHER classes that get Trapfinding, and there's even a freaking TRAIT for it.
So yes, while the PF Rogue is greatly improved vs. the 3.5 Rogue, the game has changed to conspire against them, and outside of a few specific builds that rely on archetype (ab)use there really isn't much reason to go Rogue.

[Forrestfire]

For me, I'm also going to say Synthesist Summoner. It's just a really neat class, and I've always loved power-up modes (I blame reading Dragonball Z when I was little). It's very versatile for building characters with, and the amount of "magic" you actually have/use is entirely dependent on what spells you pick. It's also very easily refluffed.

[FidgetySquirrel]

On a side note is doing 2d6+7 an attack op for lvl 1?Well, I had a LV 1 barb once who could deal 1d12+9 on each attack. That was 3.5, not PF, though. Not that there's much difference...

I would certainly say that even that wasn't near OP for most groups.

On topic: I like the fluff for the paladin, always have. The boost that smite got is pretty nice, too. It's far from the best class, mechanically speaking, but I just love playing pallys. Maximized LoH at LV 20 is also pretty cool. It can't compare to a cleric's healing spells, but it is a swift action on yourself, so it makes you a decent damage sink.

[The-Mage-King]

Warder. So much.

The class itself has a great chassis. The maneuvers available are nice, and its skill list is decent.

It fills in the "Tank" slot fairly well, too.

Basically, it's tanky melee with options.

[137beth]

Warder from path of war is my favorite by a substantial margin. Defensive abilities are usually among my favorites in RPGs, and pathfinder for the most part is sorely lacking in effective defense. The warder is the exception.

Following that would probably be the stalker, because it's everything I want from the rogue except for top-notch skillmokeying (and I have factotum for that).

After that my favorite would probably be the soulknife...or maybe Aegis. Followed by warlord.

[Talya]

Guys... note this is a Pathfinder thread. TOB is not PF.


Anyway, I love the PF paladin. It's a truly dangerous melee class with the way smite works now, and durable thanks to swift lay hands.

As for the rogue, I prefer the ninja. Anything that utilizes the charisma I will never be dumping on any character, ever.

[Yanisa]

Why does everyone hate the rogue so much? I have never ever run into effectiveness problems with rogues in pathfinder, and I'm shocked to see so much hate for them when everything I know about them indicates pathfinder actually improved the rogue. rogue talents are awesome, sneak attack has plenty of ways to be useful, and with knife master and/or scout archetypes the rogue gets even better!

I get sneak attacks on charges, i get d8 sneak attack dice, i'm almost impossible to disarm totally (I always have a knife on me somewhere), I can stealth and run full speed, i can use magic, i can cause bleed, get extra feats, etc. Where is all this rogue hate coming from?

Here is a long, semi rant, about my experience with rogue. Grrrarg sums up it more professional, but I wanted to show my personal side (mainly because I started the question).


The major problem for my Rogue was that she was for Pathfinder Society. Because most people didn't trust on having a rogue, and most adventures tend to have traps, everyone has mundane ways of dealing with traps, or even magical. Especially druids and clerics with high perception and detect magic outclassed my low level rogue easily. Even disarming was easier for barbarian (high HD) or any caster with summons, or some more creative mundane ways. So that was one part of my rogue totally overshadowed and ruined.

Secondly the groups and people I played with tended to be magic focused. Most other melee were one time players, or played spontaneously. I mostly ended up with a Cleric, Druid and Alchemist with one other wild chart, meaning I lacked often ways of getting flanking and I only sneak attacked one per combat, twice if lucky. Although half of my games I did play with a ninja. He was admittedly better build then me, but as a Rogue I was so jealous on his invisibility to get in flank, and extra attacks when he could deal sneak attack damage, two things I couldn't have even if I was better build. But without him I was a wannabe fighter that barely did damage unless the caster tossed crowd control around. Either way I felt outshined and useless.

Even skill points were a mess of fail, I had a lot of charisma based things, trying to be the smooth talker, but I lacked the charisma to back it up. My acrobatics barely beat any CMD, and that made getting flanking harder. And perception, disable device, yeah that again...

To be fair I didn't make the most focused rogue, it was both trap finding, combat focus and party social, something I felt I had enough room for to tinker with... And looking back with more knowledge I made some building mistakes and I died at level 5ish, so in game terms my rogue was young, I might missed out on long term potential. But I still believe no rogue could have functioned in those conditions. But I had still fun, the mechanics flaws beside I enjoyed the character, PFS and the people I met. But after my Rogue died I was kinda done with, I already felt most people would be Human/Tiefling/Aasimar Casters and yeah that overshadows most mundane classes, combined with the huge list of mundane items you were expected to have, it wasn't my environment.

And another point for the Rogue, I do believe they can function in a more consistent group, where the other players allow the rogue to be a rogue. Still they aren't needed for the adventuring group and when people want they are so easy to outshine. I saw it all.

[FidgetySquirrel]

Yeah, it's all about the group, in the end. In some groups, you should never run a rogue, because it will always be underpowered. In other groups, a reasonably well-played wizard will make everyone else look like trash. To a certain extent, DnD/PF is a game of adaptation. You adapt not only to the setting, and whatever general theme may exist in the campaign, but also to the people you happen to be playing with.

In summation, rogues will often suck, but in low-power groups, they're a versatile class that can cover quite a few bases.

[StreamOfTheSky]

My experience with PF Rogue basically involved begging other players to stay away from "rogue skills" and trap finding abilities (even stuff like using detect magic - which is at will - to find traps) so I didn't feel obsolete because each other person could do several of the typical rogue functions better than I could. Not all of them, but enough that between all the other PCs, I really wouldn't be needed if they hadn't gone out of their way specifically to not make me feel useless.

That and doing less damage under ideal conditions than the warrior types did every single round, and being the squishiest person in the party. Moderate HD, 3/4 BAB, low AC, MAD, worst base saves in the game, no spells to get concealment (hell, concealment stuff usually meant I was about to get hosed out of sneak attack!) or mirror image and such.... great combo for a class that's supposed to wade into melee. Because god help you trying to ranged sneak attack in Pathfinder. And I do mean wade into; tumble is suicide. Even if you had equal attack and defense as the foe (protip: you don't), giving him 1.5 attacks for every one of yours because you insist on "doing that cool hit-and-run skirmishing tactics stuff rogue's supposed to be all about" will not end well.

That was my experience.

[FidgetySquirrel]

PF acrobatics(i.e tumbling) works pretty well... against humanoids. Gods forbid you try to tumble into flank against anything big and scary, though. You know, the things you really want to use it against, since flanking a fighter is usually pretty darn easy.

[StreamOfTheSky]

PF acrobatics(i.e tumbling) works pretty well... against humanoids. Gods forbid you try to tumble into flank against anything big and scary, though. You know, the things you really want to use it against, since flanking a fighter is usually pretty darn easy.

People always defend BAB-based tumble defense mechanics as "martial skill should matter!" So it's always sad/funny when they're implemented and tumbling around the veteran Fighter is still not that hard but tumbling around the giant mindless shambling mound of HD that's too dumb to know how to scratch its own butt is impossible.

I was in a high level game where the rogue (not me, someone else) actually took skill focus, got the boots that add +5, maxed ranks, maxed out dex, got other obscure / houseruled bonuses.... invested as you possibly can be. We were level 16. She rolled well and got like a 50 tumble result. And still failed, because it was on some gargantuan super strong animal with probably 30 HD or more.

Of course, the casters had any number of low level spell options to move w/o provoking at all (some based on teleporting, some not), which made it all the more horrible.

[FidgetySquirrel]

People always defend BAB-based tumble defense mechanics as "martial skill should matter!" So it's always sad/funny when they're implemented and tumbling around the veteran Fighter is still not that hard but tumbling around the giant mindless shambling mound of HD that's too dumb to know how to scratch its own butt is impossible.
That said, since I'll be DMing a PF game in the near future, do you think it would be reasonable to just use the combat tumbling rules from 3.5, because I hate the CMD based tumble system.

[Pex]

Paladin

Pathfinder gave the class a lot of love. Reading through the archetypes and variants of all the classes, in the hypothetical I was forced to choose one, there are many I could have fun with and not mind giving up stuff of the original class. Not all the archetypes, but a lot of them. There is not one Paladin archetype I'd want to play. Maybe one or two Oaths are ok, but really I'd rather just stick with the original Paladin.

Smite Evil worth the name and awesome. You can eventually share with everyone in the party. Swift action Lay On Hands on self is excellent for action economy and endurance. Add in Hero's Defiance spell for added toughness. Bonded weapon is terrific. Don't lose a class feature when adventuring in the mountains, swamp, or dungeon. Choose the magic weapon you need or want that stacks with the magic weapon you have.

[StreamOfTheSky]

That said, since I'll be DMing a PF game in the near future, do you think it would be reasonable to just use the combat tumbling rules from 3.5, because I hate the CMD based tumble system.

It is reasonable, the only problem is that everyone can invest 1-for-1 in tumble and get the same max ranks now, so all classed enemies and some monsters will be able to easily avoid AoOs. If you don't want to mess with the skill system, it might be easier to just give rogues (and ninjas) and monks the ability to just auto-succeed at tumble around level 3-5 as a bonus class feature...early enough to not have to wait long for it, late enough to make it pricy as a dip for someone else. It sounds crazy, but seriously...there are so many options to move w/o any chance of provoking for the spellcasters in PF, and rogue and monk really need the help.
Or just give rogue/ninja/monk obscenely high bonuses on it, like 2 x level or so, but I think giving them auto-success is just better. Later on you can improve it to be auto-success and still move at full speed.

[FidgetySquirrel]

It is reasonable, the only problem is that everyone can invest 1-for-1 in tumble and get the same max ranks now, so all classed enemies and some monsters will be able to easily avoid AoOs. If you don't want to mess with the skill system, it might be easier to just give rogues (and ninjas) and monks the ability to just auto-succeed at tumble around level 3-5 as a bonus class feature...early enough to not have to wait long for it, late enough to make it pricy as a dip for someone else. It sounds crazy, but seriously...there are so many options to move w/o any chance of provoking for the spellcasters in PF, and rogue and monk really need the help.
Or just give rogue/ninja/monk obscenely high bonuses on it, like 2 x level or so, but I think giving them auto-success is just better. Later on you can improve it to be auto-success and still move at full speed.That's a good idea. I'll have to put some thought into how exactly to implement it. Rogue talent, perhaps? Scrub that, it'd just be a 2 level dip.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Just add it as a class feature. They need the help, and way more than that, honestly.

No need to make it a feat tax.

[FidgetySquirrel]

Just add it as a class feature. They need the help, and way more than that, honestly.

No need to make it a feat tax.That's true. I certainly wasn't thinking feat, that's for sure. Probably a LV 5 feature for the rogue, since all they get there is SA, anyway.

[Svata]

Why does everyone hate the rogue so much? I have never ever run into effectiveness problems with rogues in pathfinder, and I'm shocked to see so much hate for them when everything I know about them indicates pathfinder actually improved the rogue. rogue talents are awesome, sneak attack has plenty of ways to be useful, and with knife master and/or scout archetypes the rogue gets even better!

I get sneak attacks on charges, i get d8 sneak attack dice, i'm almost impossible to disarm totally (I always have a knife on me somewhere), I can stealth and run full speed, i can use magic, i can cause bleed, get extra feats, etc. Where is all this rogue hate coming from?

Because while the PF rogue is better in many ways than the 3.5 one, the game around it changed so much as to make it worse relative to the game around it.

[Pex]

The rogue player in my group has not been having any problems tumbling around the enemies to flank, including monsters. He is bothered by his perceived inability to hit. I can see he doesn't hit almost all the time, but I find he does hit more often than he thinks he does. He would agree a rogue archer doesn't work. He tried that, but it was so much work for little gain.

[squiggit]

That's a good idea. I'll have to put some thought into how exactly to implement it. Rogue talent, perhaps? Scrub that, it'd just be a 2 level dip.

Diving all rogue talents into advanced and regular kinda ticks me off too. They get this whole "every regular talent must suck so people don't dip" (because apparently dipping is evil) mentality so you get very few non advanced talents that actually feel awesome. Y'know, instead of jsut making it like, a level 6 or higher talent or something.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Or even level 4. There's rage powers and discoveries that require level 4, 6, 8... pretty much any even level above 2 (for such "choose from a list" features that are every even level....most tend to be) is fair game. There is no good reason for rogue talents to be either available off the bat or level 10+ with no in-between (or options that require above level 10, either). That said, even for ones that are balanced on being available at level 2... most are horrible other than the bonus feat options.

[Iwasforger03]

I have a new question regarding one of my own favorites. I noted that I enjoy the Samurai, but I have a minor quibble: his sword. He gets wakizashi and Katana for free, which is awesome... if you are going one handed or two weapon fighting. Problem is that his weapon specialty ability only lets him choose one of four weapons, and only for the chosen weapon can he get fighter feats. Except while the Katana is an awesome one handed sword, especially since you get it for free in terms of proficiency... he can't take the slightly bigger and better Nodachi instead for two handing. I mean, he can use it, but his class features don't give him the option of specializing in it.

[grarrrg]

Or even level 4. There's rage powers and discoveries that require level 4, 6, 8... pretty much any even level above 2 (for such "choose from a list" features that are every even level....most tend to be) is fair game. There is no good reason for rogue talents to be either available off the bat or level 10+ with no in-between (or options that require above level 10, either).

Some, not many but some, Rogue Talents have pre-reqs. Most are along the lines of "must have a Skill Rank in Ride", and a couple have "must have this other Rogue Talent first", so there is some area for making it a 'basic' Rogue Talent that is not available at level 2.
A thematic requirement would be best, but even just saying "must have 2d6 Sneak Attack" would work well enough to keep away (most of) the 2 level dippers.

We could also just tie it to an existing Rogue Talent (like must have Peerless Maneuver (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/paizo---rogue-talents/peerless-maneuver-ex)), but probably best if it's not a strict A >then> B type thing.


Fun fact: There is _ONE_ Rogue Talent (counting BOTH Basic and Advanced) that has a Class Feature as a requirement. Sacrifice Self (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/paizo---rogue-talents/sacrifice-self-ex) from Champions of Purity requires Evasion AND Improved Evasion.
Evasion is readily available at Rogue 2 and the Improved version is an Advanced Talent.
Yet, for some reason, Sacrifice Self is a 'Basic' Talent that requires an Advanced Talent to take...The ONLY way this makes sense is with Multiclassing.

Another fun fact: A Rogue can take Improved Evasion withOUT having basic Evasion first. Sadly, there are only 2 archetypes that trade away Evasion. Neither is all that great.

[FidgetySquirrel]

Thanks for all the input on the tumbling thing. I talked it over with my players, and they seemed most receptive to the idea of it being a standard class feature, as opposed to a rogue talent, so I think I'll go with that, unforeseen silliness notwithstanding.

[Jigawatts]

Add me as another one who loves the Warder from Path of War, specifically the Zweihander Sentinel archetype. For base PF, definitely either the Paladin or Ranger, though the new Slayer does look particularly tasty. If I were to throw in AD&D as well, it would be Ranger (being that Fighter/Mage, my all time favorite 2E class(es), doesn't fit this criteria). The 1E Ranger was just a really fun class.

[Iwasforger03]

Ive not read the completed path of war and I generally dreamscarred press, most of what i hear for them that isn't worship of how they are "so much better than paizo" is that their stuff is tends to be the stronger than anything and everything that should be of comparable power. It may not be true, but it IS what I hear.

Would two handing an oversized Katana work for a samurai?

[Oazard]

Ive not read the completed path of war and I generally dreamscarred press, most of what i hear for them that isn't worship of how they are "so much better than paizo" is that their stuff is tends to be the stronger than anything and everything that should be of comparable power. It may not be true, but it IS what I hear.


Only because they compare the Dreamscarred Press stuff with the weak Paizo stuff like the fighter versus any class from Path of War.

[upho]

Only because they compare the Dreamscarred Press stuff with the weak Paizo stuff like the fighter versus any class from Path of War.This. The PoW classes are pretty much middle T3, comparable to say the magus IME. Which naturally means they do blow Paizo martials out of the water, especially when it comes to flexibility, while they're still considerably less powerful than full casters and the summoner.

As for favorite martial classes, I think the warder comes out on top for me as well, closely followed by the warlord. Both are interesting tactically, have good well-balanced mechanics designed for teamwork, and great flavor IMO.

[facelessminion]

Ive not read the completed path of war and I generally dreamscarred press, most of what i hear for them that isn't worship of how they are "so much better than paizo" is that their stuff is tends to be the stronger than anything and everything that should be of comparable power. It may not be true, but it IS what I hear.

Would two handing an oversized Katana work for a samurai?

Here's the issue with what you hear:

Nothing should be of comparable power to the fighter, rogue, or monk, because nothing should be as comparatively weak.

[vasilidor]

Recently had a fighter archer build I used to awesome effect. Most devastating character, most of the time, in that game.

[Yondu]

The Fighter, yes, the humble fighter, because with one class, you can have a lot of viable options.
You can make from a fighter a great Archer, a formidable Two Handed Damage dealer, a efficient two-hander with a shield or another weapon, and a good brawler using an archetype or not, it was not the case in 3.5 but it can be in PF.

I'm not speaking of the versatility of the fighter but the fact that with one class, you have quite a lot of options, for me it is less true with the barbarian...

PF give me pleasure to use a Fighter in the game, the main isssue for me is still the lack of skill points and the lack of class skills really in accordance of a versatile fighter... but anyway, still love this class since ADD1...

[Psyren]

3.5: Totemist is probably my favorite martial.
PF: Ninja, Bard or Alchemist (Hyde.)


My experience with PF Rogue basically involved begging other players to stay away from "rogue skills" and trap finding abilities (even stuff like using detect magic - which is at will - to find traps) so I didn't feel obsolete because each other person could do several of the typical rogue functions better than I could.

There are plenty of dangerous nonmagical traps, and also, recasting detect magic involves a verbal component when the party is trying to be stealthy. Not saying rogues can't be made obsolete, but totally removing all of their functionality takes more resources than many folks are willing to commit.

[StreamOfTheSky]

3.There are plenty of dangerous nonmagical traps, and also, recasting detect magic involves a verbal component when the party is trying to be stealthy. Not saying rogues can't be made obsolete, but totally removing all of their functionality takes more resources than many folks are willing to commit.

I didn't even bother mentioning non-magical traps because that's even worse. Anyone can find those via skill check now, and it uses Perception. The skill EVERYONE maxes and that uses one of the MAD rogue's least important ability modifiers: wisdom. Trapfinding bonus helps, but other classes get perception bonuses, too (except better, since it applies to all perception). Druid or Cleric with Feather domain; Archaeologist Bard; Ranger in a favored terrain (or all the time once he can cast Terrain Bond); etc... And of course a wisdom caster's base 20 in the stat alone goes a long way.

[Psyren]

I didn't even bother mentioning non-magical traps because that's even worse. Anyone can find those via skill check now, and it uses Perception. The skill EVERYONE maxes and that uses one of the MAD rogue's least important ability modifiers: wisdom. Trapfinding bonus helps, but other classes get perception bonuses, too (except better, since it applies to all perception).[/ Druid or Cleric with Feather domain; Archaeologist Bard; Ranger in a favored terrain (or all the time once he can cast Terrain Bond); etc... And of course a wisdom caster's base 20 in the stat alone goes a long way.

All true, but just because the entire party is rolling on something doesn't mean you won't be the one to find it. And since you are the stealthy one, you have better odds of taking point undetected (and therefore suffering less distance penalties.)

[StreamOfTheSky]

How is rogue the "stealthy one" beyond just having stealth as a class skill and often (but not always; the least sucky PF rogue builds seem to be the "Str Rogue" types) having high dex? Lots of other classes can and do field those same attributes or easily can with a trait. Many classes are better, such as having shapeshifting abilities and/or spells to buff their stealthiness or gain invisibility and so forth.

[squiggit]

At least they can actually get HiPS in this version.

Even if it is the worst version of HiPS in pathfinder (which kind of just reinforces your point when the 'stealthy class' gets the worst version of the stealth feature).

[Psyren]

How is rogue the "stealthy one" beyond just having stealth as a class skill and often (but not always; the least sucky PF rogue builds seem to be the "Str Rogue" types) having high dex?

Other classes are worse at it (clerics and fighters for instance tend to wear medium to heavy armor, which both limits their dex bonus and carries penalties on top of that.) Rogues also have talents like Fast Stealth, Trap Spotter and Canny Observer. For traps with attack rolls or reflex saves, you have both trap sense and uncanny dodge as well.

I'm not saying they're the best at it - nor even ninjas - but I do think there is a certain amount of exaggeration that goes into filing them away as gimped into uselessness.

[Lord_Gareth]

Ive not read the completed path of war and I generally dreamscarred press, most of what i hear for them that isn't worship of how they are "so much better than paizo" is that their stuff is tends to be the stronger than anything and everything that should be of comparable power. It may not be true, but it IS what I hear.

Psion & Wilder tend to be weaker overall than Wizard/Sorcerer/Cleric/Druid. Vitalist's closest comparison point is Cleric or Alchemist; it tends to be on the power level of the latter. Dread & Cryptic are both fairly weak (compare to Bard and Rogue, respectively), with Dread being weaker than its equivalent and Cryptic being slightly stronger through manifesting. Psychic Warrior is about on the level of Paladin or Magus, while Tactician is about on the level of Bard. Soulknife compares favorably to Fighter but lags behind Barbarian in the same niche. Aegis is roughly equal to Magus.

[137beth]

Other classes are worse at it (clerics and fighters for instance tend to wear medium to heavy armor, which both limits their dex bonus and carries penalties on top of that.) Rogues also have talents like Fast Stealth, Trap Spotter and Canny Observer. For traps with attack rolls or reflex saves, you have both trap sense and uncanny dodge as well.

I'm not saying they're the best at it - nor even ninjas - but I do think there is a certain amount of exaggeration that goes into filing them away as gimped into uselessness.

....so you think not having proficiency in heavy armor is an advantage?
Fighters can take off their heavy armor, or not wear it in the first place, if they think stealth is more important than the AC advantage. Rogues don't have that option without spending feats, because they aren't proficient.
Now, if a lightly-armored rogue actually had an advantage over a lightly-armored fighter or cleric as far as stealth was concerned, you'd have a point. But they don't. They have the disadvantage of not being able to choose to wear heavy armor without penalty...and that's it. They don't have a monk-style bonus for not wearing armor (however bad that is, at least the monk is given something). There are no classes which "must" wear heavy armor. There are some which have the option of wearing heavy armor, but that doesn't mean they are worse at stealth. That would be like saying wizards who ban transmutation and conjuration are somehow better at blasting because they have fewer non-blasting options.

[Psyren]

....so you think not having proficiency in heavy armor is an advantage?

No, that's not what I said at all. Rather, Rogues are not expected to have heavy armor as an option.

Sure you can build a dex fighter or even dex cleric in light armor (for whatever reason.) Without a bonus damage mechanic the former will most likely suffer however, while the latter - well, it's a T1 class so there's really no contest if the player cares to optimize enough to fill such an unconventional role.



Now, if a lightly-armored rogue actually had an advantage over a lightly-armored fighter or cleric as far as stealth was concerned, you'd have a point. But they don't.

They have several advantages over a fighter actually - rogue talents/advanced talents, skill mastery, FCB bonuses for certain races (e.g. Dhampir and Fetchling), more skill points to let them get by with a lower Int, bonus damage to let them get by with a lower Str, etc. As for a cleric - yeah, a well-built cleric can beat them, but what does that prove besides having players who don't care about anything below T1?


There are no classes which "must" wear heavy armor. There are some which have the option of wearing heavy armor, but that doesn't mean they are worse at stealth.

You're right, the proficiencies don't make them worse at stealth - it's the lack of other supporting class features that do that.

[magwaaf]

Why does everyone hate the rogue so much? I have never ever run into effectiveness problems with rogues in pathfinder, and I'm shocked to see so much hate for them when everything I know about them indicates pathfinder actually improved the rogue. rogue talents are awesome, sneak attack has plenty of ways to be useful, and with knife master and/or scout archetypes the rogue gets even better!

I get sneak attacks on charges, i get d8 sneak attack dice, i'm almost impossible to disarm totally (I always have a knife on me somewhere), I can stealth and run full speed, i can use magic, i can cause bleed, get extra feats, etc. Where is all this rogue hate coming from?

agreed, pathfinder rogues are fantastic dual wielding damage machines that have a ridiculously high amount of skills to make them be able to handle anything. at character creation i rolled an 18 and a 16 and i really hadto force myself to ake sure the 18 went to dex as much as i would love to be able to have and make all the skill checks. rogues are a force to be reckoned with in PF. they aren't the top 2 tiers by far but i would wedge em into 3rd or 4th without question

[ArqArturo]

The top list goes for the Paladin, because he's insanely good. Combine that with Cavalier and you have a monster (A former DM let a player combine the levels for the mount, that was... Interesting to watch).

Then there's the cavalier and the fighter, battling for my respect. And finally, the gunslinger, mostly because -as it was said above- it rewards stunts.

Although barbarians and rangers are good, they're not my sort of warrior, even if I started playing D&D as a ranger, and still find the class awesome.

[Firechanter]

Since this thread has an explicite Pathfinder tag:

The Barbarian, never played one yet but it's the class that intrigues me the most.
Why: it's a mundane class that can not only dish out pain, it also gets tools and defenses against magic, and at least a little out of combat utility by way of skills.
I'd roll one in our current game, but it wouldn't really fit for story/roleplaying reasons.

Runner-up: a tie between Ranger and Paladin.
Paladin: Really greatly upgraded compared to the 3.5 Core version. Less MAD, much better Smite, reasonable class features, interesting archetypes.
Downsides: lack of skills; one of your class features is the ability to lose all of your class features with a single action.

Ranger: can be very satisfying to play as a Switch Hitter. In both Melee and Ranged, you are _almost_ as good as a Fighter specialized in either style, AND you've got a pile of skills that make for excellent out of combat utility (at least at low levels, before skills get replaced by magic).

If 3.5 classes are a thing, then scratch everything I said above, then the Warblade is the undisputed King of the Hill. Hail to the King!

[magwaaf]

I have a new question regarding one of my own favorites. I noted that I enjoy the Samurai, but I have a minor quibble: his sword. He gets wakizashi and Katana for free, which is awesome... if you are going one handed or two weapon fighting. Problem is that his weapon specialty ability only lets him choose one of four weapons, and only for the chosen weapon can he get fighter feats. Except while the Katana is an awesome one handed sword, especially since you get it for free in terms of proficiency... he can't take the slightly bigger and better Nodachi instead for two handing. I mean, he can use it, but his class features don't give him the option of specializing in it.

which samurai?

[Spore]

agreed, pathfinder rogues are fantastic dual wielding damage machines that have a ridiculously high amount of skills to make them be able to handle anything. at character creation i rolled an 18 and a 16 and i really hadto force myself to ake sure the 18 went to dex as much as i would love to be able to have and make all the skill checks. rogues are a force to be reckoned with in PF. they aren't the top 2 tiers by far but i would wedge em into 3rd or 4th without question

Uhm the WORST playing experiences I had were with a misplayed and badly built rogue. Why? Oh let me give you examples.

Starting Dex was 20, leaving me with Con 16 and NOTHING else. 10s across the board. I nearly died about 3-5 times due to lacking Wis (to disable a trap you must first see it). I did NO damage with Str 12 or 10 and my puny short sword as my DM started off with Skeletons which had DR/Bludgeoning. Then we got masses of enemies to quick to be flanked, then a DR/Good outsider, later on shadows and more undead. Finally a Hamatula made me quit because I dealt nearly as much damage to myself WITH MY OWN ATTACKs.

1. I missed all the time. With TWFing 2/3 BAB and no other bonusses other than flanking I missed ALL the time.
2. I was nearly killed about 12 times in combat alone. Meleeing is dangerous.
3. Above mentioned traps. I would've disarmed them easily but I missed them all the time. I disabled 1 of 10+ traps my character experienced.
4. I failed to assign my skills correctly. Even maxed Perception got me pretty poor results. Single dips into Diplomacy to convince ladies to come to my room resulted in 4s. I pickpocketed a large guy once successfully but all the other times my DM made clear that a failure would mean massive problems for me.
5. My DM cut off two fingers and gave me a Mark of Justice after I tried and failed to steal a magical bow.
6. My greed knew no limits. Instead of stealing some gold I took it all until I got discovered.

The character was a failure in combat in social situations and in utility. I know people can make the rogue work but I am simply unable to. (Also two years of experience playing the game probably would've given me the edge needed to conjure up a fitting build. A Rogue x/Fighter x+1 would've probably been better for my upfront playstyle).

[Psyren]

Uhm the WORST playing experiences I had were with a misplayed and badly built rogue.

To quote Adam Savage: "Well, there's your problem." :smalltongue:

[Firechanter]

It's funny; in many threads in several different forums, time and again, I have read that Rogues in PF are a contender for the _worst_ class, even worse than the Monk. Personally I can't tell because I've never played one, and the only ones I have seen in actual play were not built or played intelligently.

But from what I've gathered from the aforementioned discussions, the Rogue chassis did get upgraded in PF, but not as much as all the other physical-combat classes, so relative to them the Rogue loses out. What I know is that in PF, most combat classes get more attack bonuses piled on them than you can shake a stick at, be it Inquisitor, Magus, Ranger, Fighter, Monk or Paladin. Only the Rogue gets nothing. And they also seem to suffer a lot from the Tumble nerf, the new Acrobatics/Tumble mechanic being not only incredibly "meta", but also numerically unfavourable for the Tumbler.

[Iwasforger03]

The Rogue is far from worse than the Monk. My belief is that people saying that are looking for attention, exaggerating, trolling, uncomprehending, or have interesting experiences with monks/rogues that are the exception and not the norm.

The overall rogue, line by line, level by level, is vastly superior to the 3.5 Rogue. The game changed around it, however, and it isn't quite what it used to be. That said, the Rogue is still one of the strongest classes in the game, even with pure pathfinder options, and I believe it still stands above cavalier, samurai, ranger, paladin, fighter, monk, and gunslinger in terms of effectiveness and versatility. It just takes a bit more work, perhaps, than the 3.5 rogue did, for a fantastic reward.

Also note that i'm only speaking of base rogue. Get into Archetypes and the rogue can turn into several kinds of awesome combat monster. Knifemaster and Scout are only for rogues focusing on combat, but they are excellent for that and more than a little fun.

[ArqArturo]

Speaking of which... Is the Gun Tank Archetype worth it?.

[Spore]

To quote Adam Savage: "Well, there's your problem." :smalltongue:

To be fair: No one in my groups ever made a rogue playable. Our villains are rogues here and there but they prefer their minions to take over because the group has shown to kick in their teeth when forced into open combat. The rogue is awesome but the class incentivises splitting up from the group. This is not only dangerous (hence the infamous "we should split the group" trope known from horror movies) but also time consuming and not always possible during play.

For a rogue to be effective is to get the heck away from Sir Clanks-alot, the frothing Dwarf Berserker and the giggling Fey Sorcerer imbecile. I know I can't play rogues for the life of me. But no one has shown to do so effectively.


The Rogue is far from worse than the Monk. My belief is that people saying that are looking for attention, exaggerating, trolling, uncomprehending, or have interesting experiences with monks/rogues that are the exception and not the norm.

Somehow my monks are mostly pretty awesome. Yes I feel the limitation of the class in combat. But I feel I can do so much more with a class that can jump, climb, grapple, make unarmed and armed combat on its own than with a class that has to rely on flanking or tactical sneak attacking without any means to hide one easily after the first stabbing.

I played a ninja with the 'greater invisibility' trick quite effectively (to the point where he didn't take a single point of damage while the whole group got nearly torn to shreds) but then the DM had to stop my fun with a True Seeing + Disintegrate. Did I mention that I find Save-or-Die effects just lame? There's no tension, no build-up, no fun involved imho. You just die or live depending on a single roll.


Speaking of which... Is the Gun Tank Archetype worth it?.

This class feels terrible starting off. You can't really use your heavy armors well due to the fact that you rely on Dex for hit and damage. I feel like the archetype NEEDS Mithral armor to be effective and the smartest choice would be a Mithral Tatami-Do from the main series books costing 10k for an unenchanted version.

[Hruken]

Well, Gun Tanks don't really lose anything vital (dex to damage, quick clear, that sort of stuff), But I wouldn't really say they gain anything really worth it. The shield proficiencies are not too useful (still need two hands to use/reload), the heavier armors probably are not going to come in handy as you are going to be pumping dex.

All that being said, I have a build sitting around for a dwarven Gun Tank/Pistolero with a single level of White Haired Witch. Because the image of a dwarf in full plate with a double barreled pistol and tower shield, using his beard to help reload his gun is just too hard to pass up.

[AvatarVecna]

I'm asking the playground which Pathfinder Martial Base Class is their favorite. Abilities, thematics, effectiveness, aesthetics, fluff, which one do you like best and why? For purposes of this dicussion ignore anything with 3/4ths casting or full casting, but keep Paladin, Ranger, Bloodrager on the list


Barbarian for sure. You can build an interesting role to play, a DPR monster, or just a wacky character.

Heck, do all three! Build around the Body Bludgeon rage power and wield gnome-chucks. Use Leadership to get a gnome caster as a cohort. Have him buff the two of you, including Stoneskin on himself, then pick him up and wield him. Instant fun!