Favorite Martial Base Classes and why?

[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."

[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."

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!