Rogues and underpoweredness

I have to wonder if some of these people get upset when Consumer Reports says that Car A is better than Car B in a given class.

Look, it's pretty clear. Nobody is saying you can't play a rogue. Go ahead and knock yourself out. However it doesn't hurt you to be aware that the class has shortcomings and that could possibly get more out of a different class with an archetype.

Well but how much do I have to get out in order to pass?

Well but how much do I have to get out in order to pass?

How much does the life your character mean to you?

Hmmmm it's pretty valuable so I guess I'm going to have to score really high.

OK I admit I didn't read the 8 pages of txt here however I am really at a loss of how people think the rouge can't dish out massive damage at higher lvl.

Before I even read the rest of your post, I'm going to assume you are mesmerized by the lure of tons of d6s and probably assuming dual wielding without actually factoring in the chance to hit enemies and you probably assume the enemy will be denied Dex, even though that's practically impossible at high levels, rather than just flanking, which isn't easy either.

At lvl 20 they are adding 10D6 damage to EVERY attack that qualifies for sneak attack.

Yep.

So a two weapon fighting rouge at lvl 20 should have 6 attacks +1 for speed weapon so 7 attacks. And flat footed AC gives pretty decent chance to hit.

How are you getting high level enemies flat-footed? They all have crazy magic senses. You might flank them, but there's no way your denying them Dex without magic.

If all attacks hit and they chose talents right this would deal 70D6 damage that are parented to do a minimal of 3 damage per dice.

I guess I'm not familiar enough with Rogues to see how you're getting a minimum of 3 per die. If that's the case, then each Sneak attack die is averaging 4.5 damage, instead of 3.5. 10d6 would then average 45 damage.

so 1D2 (small dagger) + 10d6 (sneak attack) + 3 (reasonable str or int bonus depending on build) +1D6 (enchantment assuming your not loading up to much on acidic ect enchants) and we will just use this damage light calculation.

Isn't a small dagger 1d3? Also, why are you small? And you should probably have an Agile weapon so you can deal Dex damage, so you're hitting harder than you think. However, the extra d6 from weapon enchants is unlikely--energy resistance is crazy common at high levels.

So thats effectively averaged at 1+ 50+ 3 +4 = 58 x7 = 406 average damage.

If you hit with every attack, that is. What is your attack bonus here? You've got a 15 base, maybe a Dex of what, +7? A +5 weapon, I hope, maybe Weapon finesse? And you'll have to be flanking and getting a +2 or you're not getting sneak attack.

That's just about +29? Then -2 for dual wielding, so +27/+27/+27/+22/+22/+17/+17. Right? I might be missing something--use this as a template if you think I'm missing bonuses.

I'm looking through CR 20 monsters, and they seem to mostly have an AC around AC 38--without any magic buffs from the spells 90% of them can cast. I'll assume buffs you get from your party and their magic defensive buffs cancel out--why not?

That means you're only going to hit 50% of the time on your first three swings, 25% on your next two, and you only hit on a 20 with your last 2. Does that still sound awesome to you?

That keeps me thinking (as I have for a long time,) that the rogue should get the +1 BAB, and some stronger rogue talents.

It would differentiate it from the ninja, and make it the tough, sneaky, streetwise character I think of when I imagine a rogue.

The full BAB classes achieve massive damage through various situational tricks. There's no reason I can see that would make the rogue OP if it just had the same base to hit.

Dunno how well an optimized rogue should work, should they be dmg dealers, stealthers, hagglers, trapfinders, merchants, thugs?

Should they have high str or dex? Max out int?

I mean they are good at certain situations but seriously undermined when it comes to combat! I havent see my party rogue shine in any way other than his obnoxious back story, which is fun. But other than that he is doing nothing. Maybe its just the player and his complete lack of interest for optimizing his character correctly (he did dumped charisma and has wisdom 16 and int of 11, dont ask me why?) :S

Writing from being an old hand at D&D and tabletop gaming in general, I rather like Rogues as a GM, but not as a player. That's simply because they aren't my style; I prefer something a bit more challenging like the ethics of a Paladin or pulling rabbits out of my hat as a Wizard.

That said, Rogues do not really need pumping, imo. I agree with outright banning of Summoners, as I don't want an NPC to outshine the PC warrior. To me, Rogues are simply skill monkeys, and as such are just too damned versatile to ignore.

For example, right now I have a group of 2nd level PC's, an orc fighter, a goblin rogue, an aasimar cleric (specialized in healing and staying in one piece), and an ifrit fire elemental bloodline sorcerer. Our current Rogue has a horribly bad Charisma, a Strength and Con score with no bonuses, but has a 14 Wisdom, a 22 Dexterity, and 17 Intelligence. He's Small, so he just uses a measly M dagger, but has the Knife Master archetype so he's good at backstab. We plan on him and the Fighter getting the Outflank feat later on, so they can both get some bonuses to hit and the Rogue can backstab. They already do flank whenever possible, and indeed the Rogue does almost as much damage as the Fighter. Thanks to the Finesse Rogue option, he has a to hit that's almost as good as the Fighter, as well.

That's not even counting the havoc he wreaks with his Burn! Burn! Burn! feat and alchemist's fire flasks. He spends most of his time making skill checks, because the rest of the party doesn't have his skills. We even shifted where skill points are put, simply to have more range as a party, each of them filling out where other's aren't good.

I'm running them through Dungeon Crawl Classics, various modules, and traps abound. So I don't see what all the fuss is about. The Rogue gets plenty of action, if anything, the Cleric is the least used while the Sorcerer gets pounded on a lot for attempting to deal distance damage.

Ultimately, there are lots of ways to customize the Rogue, simply with where one's best stats are placed. Most that I know of go the high Dexterity and high Intelligence route, to create a sort of assassin type. One thing is for sure, it's absolutely critical for the Rogue to have darkvision so he doesn't have to carry along a lantern while sneaking ahead, ESPECIALLY when dungeon crawling!

The only thing I don't like about the Rogue is that his AC isn't all that great. I managed to get him a buckler, and while he isn't proficient in it, he's got Armor Expert trait so it doesn't matter. Got a 20 AC at the moment, but his hit points kinda suck so he hasn't much endurance.

One thing I did notice is that a straight up human using the Toughness feat and that one that allows humans to have both the +1 hp and skill point per favored class level is that it results in a very potent Rogue, especially if you put your +2 attribute bonus into Intelligence. Too bad they can't see in the dark, which means dungeon crawls aren't going to be fun. Best to keep that sort aboveground.

To me, Rogues are simply skill monkeys, and as such are just too damned versatile to ignore.

Rogues are not the best skill monkeys, though. Bards are flat out better at it--Bardic Knowledge and Versatile Performance increases their skills significantly. There is also a Bard archetype with trapfinding (in addition to a level 1 spell that gives Trapfinding). Not only are they better at skills, Bards also contribute major group buffs which easily outdamage the contribution Sneak Attack can make.

Rangers are only 2 skill points per level behind the Rogue, can get Trapfinding, and have their own special skill contributions the Rogues can't match. They also contribute a lot more in combat thanks to a higher BAB and bonus feats (even some that grant early entry). And that's ignoring Favored Enemy, which is a nasty awesome bonus.

I wonder sometimes if the obsolete Rogue deniers even read the rest of the posts or just see "Rogues are weak" and enter defensive mode.

To me that's pretty damm good damage.

You have overly simplified the math, and you haven't actually compared it to the alternatives.

I've read a lot of it and a few similar to it, and I just think it is rubbish by and large. Like I've said, they usually do not take into account everything pertinent, are biased to certain types of playstyles, and present things as if they are the one true way.

SeaBiscuit01 wrote:

Dunno how well an optimized rogue should work, should they be dmg dealers, stealthers, hagglers, trapfinders, merchants, thugs?

Should they have high str or dex? Max out int?

I mean they are good at certain situations but seriously undermined when it comes to combat! I havent see my party rogue shine in any way other than his obnoxious back story, which is fun. But other than that he is doing nothing. Maybe its just the player and his complete lack of interest for optimizing his character correctly (he did dumped charisma and has wisdom 16 and int of 11, dont ask me why?) :S

Writing from being an old hand at D&D and tabletop gaming in general, I rather like Rogues as a GM, but not as a player. That's simply because they aren't my style; I prefer something a bit more challenging like the ethics of a Paladin or pulling rabbits out of my hat as a Wizard.

That said, Rogues do not really need pumping, imo. I agree with outright banning of Summoners, as I don't want an NPC to outshine the PC warrior. To me, Rogues are simply skill monkeys, and as such are just too damned versatile to ignore.

For example, right now I have a group of 2nd level PC's, an orc fighter, a goblin rogue, an aasimar cleric (specialized in healing and staying in one piece), and an ifrit fire elemental bloodline sorcerer. Our current Rogue has a horribly bad Charisma, a Strength and Con score with no bonuses, but has a 14 Wisdom, a 22 Dexterity, and 17 Intelligence. He's Small, so he just uses a measly M dagger, but has the Knife Master archetype so he's good at backstab. We plan on him and the Fighter getting the Outflank feat later on, so they can both get some bonuses to hit and the Rogue can backstab. They already do flank whenever possible, and indeed the Rogue does almost as much damage as the Fighter. Thanks to the Finesse Rogue option, he has a to hit that's almost as good as the Fighter, as well.

That's not even counting the havoc he wreaks with his Burn! Burn! Burn! feat and...

Just looking at it, it doesn't look like anyone in your party is well optimized, which allows the rogue to do well. Fire elemental bloodline sorcerer sounds like he is trying to be a blaster sorcerer, which is a weak way to play arcane caster. Especially fire damage, which is the most resisted type of damage in the game. Orc Fighter will do little outside of combat and have some serious in combat vulnerabilities. This group is fine to have a rogue in. Nobody is well optimized so everyone will be able to shine.

However, if you replaced the sorcerer with a wizard, the fighter with a ranger and the rogue with a bard, your party would be much better at skill challenges and stronger in combat. More damage, versatility and survivability.

Firstly, this is a dungeon crawling group, so a Ranger is hosed over. So are Druids, for that matter. This is why nobody takes them. No wilderness environment, and no room so AC is important.

I personally like Wizards better than Sorcerers, but since nobody in the group has a decent Charisma and Cha based skills, the Sorcerer was needed.

Seriously guys, the Rogue is the single best class suited to dungeon crawls. I haven't found one yet that didn't shine in such conditions.

As for the Sorcerer, she's got a Crystal Hand, an odd object from an adventure they went through that gives her some additional spells per day, and as such is just fine. It was something she inadvertently got, and seems to enjoy. Quite a high Charisma and Dexterity too.

The Fighter and Rogue work well together, flanking frequently and backing each other up. The Fighter used to be a Barbarian, but his Dexterity was too low, so we convinced him to switch over. Works pretty well now. Got into 2 handed archetype, and the 2 handed sword.

It will take a few levels before they come into their own, really. By 6th, they should be a well oiled machine, having taken Outflank for the Rogue and Fighter, Selective Channeling and Hvy Armor Prof for the Cleric, Weapon Focus and Dodge for the Rogue, Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes for the Fighter.

Seriously, I can't figure out your guys' problem with the Rogue. If you are worried about AC, take the Armor Expert trait, a mithral Breastplate and a mithral Heavy Shield. You get 4 points more of AC, and the armor can handle up to a 20 Dexterity score.

Worried about backstab not doing enough damage? Grab Outflank with the warrior in your group, take the Knife Master archetype, and start using poison. Throw in Weapon Finesse and Weapon Focus using those Rogue traits, and you should be quite good. Base damage die for your weapon doesn't really matter in the long run, so daggers work just fine.

I don't see what the major malfunction is. Haven't found a Rogue yet that didn't kick butt in most dungeon crawls, and that's one lethal gaming environment to be playing in.

I think the main problem is that the rogue is subpar until it can always sneak attack, which is level 8 or 9 with Dazzling display and Shatter Defenses, level 10 with invisible blade, or with enforcer. The think is that the class is built around sneak attack, not any trap finding BS. The Sap Master line is not overpowered, it's pretty much the only thing the rogue has to do more damage.

Butterfly Sting being a +4 BAB prereq makes me a sad panda. :(

Firstly, this is a dungeon crawling group, so a Ranger is hosed over. So are Druids, for that matter. This is why nobody takes them. No wilderness environment, and no room so AC is important.

The Ranger does more without his animal companion than the Rogue does. And underground is a valid favored terrain, is it not? Nobody is better at skills in a dungeon than a Ranger. A couple different archetypes give Trapfinding, too.

Oh, and there are medium animal companions, so it's kind of no contest.

Seriously, I can't figure out your guys' problem with the Rogue. If you are worried about AC, take the Armor Expert trait, a mithral Breastplate and a mithral Heavy Shield. You get 4 points more of AC, and the armor can handle up to a 20 Dexterity score.

Worried about backstab not doing enough damage? Grab Outflank with the warrior in your group, take the Knife Master archetype, and start using poison. Throw in Weapon Finesse and Weapon Focus using those Rogue traits, and you should be quite good. Base damage die for your weapon doesn't really matter in the long run, so daggers work just fine.

I don't see what the major malfunction is. Haven't found a Rogue yet that didn't kick butt in most dungeon crawls, and that's one lethal gaming environment to be playing in.

Honestly no he doesn't kick butt in dungeons. Also every Rogue's solution to having a mechanical problem seems to be "Throw extra money at it it fixes everything!" No wonder half of the people who play Rogues compulsively steal from their own party.

Knife Master loses you trapfinding which is the only halfway useful thing the Rogue does so that's pretty much a bad choice, and the Rogue has no special skill to apply poison so if you're okay with poisoning yourself that works just as well on any other character in the game(many with superior fort saves).

As for Outflank again yes if your Fighter goes out of his way to pick up crap that he doesn't want or need and then does things which lower his damage like taking move actions to net you a flank instead of taking his own full attacks, then Rogues can totally look sweet but if your DM isn't playing his monsters as brainless zombie hordes you're never going to have more than one turn of flanking without requiring a move and the Rogues damage does not keep up with the full martial's who's actions he is wasting.

Piccolo wrote:

Firstly, this is a dungeon crawling group, so a Ranger is hosed over. So are Druids, for that matter. This is why nobody takes them. No wilderness environment, and no room so AC is important.

The Ranger does more without his animal companion than the Rogue does. And underground is a valid favored terrain, is it not? Nobody is better at skills in a dungeon than a Ranger. A couple different archetypes give Trapfinding, too.

Oh, and there are medium animal companions, so it's kind of no contest.

Sorry, just don't see it. Ranger spells suck, many of the skill bennies can't be used in urban or underground environments (even if you go into those types of terrains), animal companions can't fight worth a damn compared to the rest of the group (and nobody wants to heal up a damned critter anyway), their armor is subpar for dungeon crawls since there are lots of opponents and no real estate to work with. Two weapons paired with medium armor just doesn't grant the needed AC, and bows etc are pointless in the limited space of a dungeon.

Rangers are simply better in natural areas with lots of room to maneuver. They can't disarm nor spot traps as well as a Rogue, they don't get the useful class skills that the Rogue gets, etc.

In a dungeon crawl, you have to be good immediately, with as few weaknesses as possible. Going for pure offense is going to get you and your teammates killed. Better to be durable and versatile, and not to need to rely on distance damage because there's no frickin room to maneuver.

In the group currently being ran by me, the Fighter simply didn't have the uber stats necessary to be an effective Barbarian (horrible negative Cha, great Strength and Constitution, average Dexterity, Int and Wis didn't even have a bonus). So we switched him over to a Fighter, and he's happy. Being an Orc gave him darkvision and +4 Strength, plus access to some interesting feats and traits (Ironhide, Grudge Fighter, and Mindlessly Cruel, not to mention the lengthened Power Attack tree and the future healing from a flaming weapon and Fire God's Blessing).

Ultimately, the Rogue is doing very well, as is the Fighter. The Sorcerer seems to be into screwing up her opponents more than just dishing out damage, and the Cleric is into personal durability, healing, and stealth. Actually the whole group can sneak far better than most, what with things like Armor Expert and Highlander being common among them. That's part of their theme, that and fire.

mplindustries wrote:

Piccolo wrote:

Firstly, this is a dungeon crawling group, so a Ranger is hosed over. So are Druids, for that matter. This is why nobody takes them. No wilderness environment, and no room so AC is important.

The Ranger does more without his animal companion than the Rogue does. And underground is a valid favored terrain, is it not? Nobody is better at skills in a dungeon than a Ranger. A couple different archetypes give Trapfinding, too.

Oh, and there are medium animal companions, so it's kind of no contest.

Sorry, just don't see it. Ranger spells suck, many of the skill bennies can't be used in urban or underground environments (even if you go into those types of terrains), animal companions can't fight worth a damn compared to the rest of the group (and nobody wants to heal up a damned critter anyway), their armor is subpar for dungeon crawls since there are lots of opponents and no real estate to work with. Two weapons paired with medium armor just doesn't grant the needed AC, and bows etc are pointless in the limited space of a dungeon.

Rangers are simply better in natural areas with lots of room to maneuver. They can't disarm nor spot traps as well as a Rogue, they don't get the useful class skills that the Rogue gets, etc.

In a dungeon crawl, you have to be good immediately, with as few weaknesses as possible. Going for pure offense is going to get you and your teammates killed. Better to be durable and versatile, and not to need to rely on distance damage because there's no frickin room to maneuver.

Let's do it this way: show me your Rogue and I will show you a Ranger that is better utilizing the same stats/point buy and wealth, etc.

Honestly no he doesn't kick butt in dungeons. Also every Rogue's solution to having a mechanical problem seems to be "Throw extra money at it it fixes everything!" No wonder half of the people who play Rogues compulsively steal from their own party.

Knife Master loses you trapfinding which is the only halfway useful thing the Rogue does so that's pretty much a bad choice, and the Rogue has no special skill to apply poison so if you're okay with poisoning yourself that works just as well on any other character in the game(many with superior fort saves).

As for Outflank again yes if your Fighter goes out of his way to pick up crap that he doesn't want or need and then does things which lower his damage like taking move actions to net you a flank instead of taking his own full attacks, then Rogues can totally look sweet but if your DM isn't playing his monsters as brainless zombie hordes you're never going to have more than one turn of flanking without requiring a move and the Rogues damage does not keep up with the full martial's who's actions he is wasting.

S'funny, but that doesn't back up how the game is going. This particular Rogue is only interested in blowing stuff up, backstabbing, and cracking up the other players.

As for traps, he seems to do pretty well minus the measly +1 to Disable Device and Perception that trapfinding grants. As for the poison, it works well with backstab, and nobody ever said goblins were into self preservation anyway. Great Fortitude and the Cleric should work well to compensate for the 5% chance he has of poisoning himself. Pretty good odds, imo, that he is just fine with the whole poison thing.

As for the Fighter, he rather LIKES the idea of getting some additional bonuses to attack, rather than the constant buffs for damage. All the damage potential in the world doesn't mean much if you can't hit your target dependably. Plus, the Rogue regularly hauls him out of jams, so he doesn't mind taking a feat out to aid the little guy.

As for the GM, I tend to use flanking on them as often as possible, and to kick them when they are down if possible, since I'm running villains and that's true to character. I am anything BUT gentle in a fight; indeed I have a lethal reputation.

Rangers are simply better in natural areas with lots of room to maneuver. They can't disarm nor spot traps as well as a Rogue, they don't get the useful class skills that the Rogue gets, etc.

I think you are unfamiliar with all the rules that exist beyond the core rules. With archetypes a ranger can be just as good at disarming traps, and only slightly worse (well a mix since they will be better given terrain bonuses, but they won't have the auto-spot rogue talent). I have no idea why you think the ranger needs room to maneuver. They don't have to be ranged, and they don't have to be 2 weapon anymore either. A 2 handed build is quite valid.

Honestly the comments you make in the last paragraph about a fighter having inadequate stats to be a barbarian make no sense whatsoever (except the dex I guess). You can even make a heavily armored barbarian these days (armored hulk) so the dex is moot. Mental stats on barbarians are not primary concerns. This leads me to wonder how well you know the system overall.

Let's do it this way: show me your Rogue and I will show you a Ranger that is better utilizing the same stats/point buy and wealth, etc.

I actually have 3 (1 str rogue, 1 dex rogue, 1 Urban Ranger) written up for level 5 if you'd like to touch up the Ranger(my Ranger mastery is pretty poor) and run the DPR numbers for them I'd be glad to put them up here for you.

It's possible, but remember that Barbs actually NEED skill points, they get some decent class skills over the other warriors.

The Fighter was initially taken because of the ability the class has of negating armor check penalties, since sneaking is a priority of this group.

As for Rangers, having things like the auto spot Rogue talent is one of the things that blew them out of the water for us. They just aren't good enough in the dungeon. One needs a very good AC, and a very low armor check penalty to survive. Their skills are okay, but nothing to write home about, and their spells suck rocks. Until the Rogue can finish pumping his AC with Dodge and attack with Outflank and Weapon Focus, he won't grab the auto spot Rogue talent, as he wants to help the Fighter. Meanwhile the Fighter wants to ensure the little guy gets a mithral Heavy Shield. Again, the two work well together.

Now, we don't have the Ultimate Combat or Ultimate Magic books. Monks are banned, as are any Eastern classes simply because they don't fit the mileu (can't seem to spell that right for this program).

We've got a bunch of old 3.5 Forgotten Realms books, the 3 Pathfinder Bestiaries, the core Pathfinder book, the Pathfinder GM book, the APG, the ARG, and the Orcs, Goblins, Aasimar, and Tiefling books. Me, I'm planning on the Ultimate Equipment book being bought next month by yours truly. I think we're doing fairly well on being up on game rules, so far.

Oops, forgot to add that besides being able to sneak, and the whole fire thing, the group as a whole insists on darkvision, so that way they don't give themselves away. That's part of why the Fighter chose Orc for his race. I personally would have rather had a different race for the Rogue, but he sneaks like no other (+18 Stealth at 2nd level will do that for you) and prefers the comedy inherent in the race, so I don't mind much.

mplindustries wrote:

Piccolo wrote:

Firstly, this is a dungeon crawling group, so a Ranger is hosed over. So are Druids, for that matter. This is why nobody takes them. No wilderness environment, and no room so AC is important.

The Ranger does more without his animal companion than the Rogue does. And underground is a valid favored terrain, is it not? Nobody is better at skills in a dungeon than a Ranger. A couple different archetypes give Trapfinding, too.

Oh, and there are medium animal companions, so it's kind of no contest.

Sorry, just don't see it. Ranger spells suck, many of the skill bennies can't be used in urban or underground environments (even if you go into those types of terrains), animal companions can't fight worth a damn compared to the rest of the group (and nobody wants to heal up a damned critter anyway), their armor is subpar for dungeon crawls since there are lots of opponents and no real estate to work with. Two weapons paired with medium armor just doesn't grant the needed AC, and bows etc are pointless in the limited space of a dungeon.

Rangers are simply better in natural areas with lots of room to maneuver. They can't disarm nor spot traps as well as a Rogue, they don't get the useful class skills that the Rogue gets, etc.

In a dungeon crawl, you have to be good immediately, with as few weaknesses as possible. Going for pure offense is going to get you and your teammates killed. Better to be durable and versatile, and not to need to rely on distance damage because there's no frickin room to maneuver.

Are you running a 3.5 game, or something?

Nope, a mix of Pathfinder and 3.5. The 3.5 shows when we run the DCC modules and the gameworld map for Forgotten Realms.

EDIT: I admit the Str based Rogue fares up much better than I thought he would really showing just how much of a trap choice Dex is which is saddening but good I guess. I also didn't include ACP on these since it would be a hassle to look up and because it doesn't affect your ability to locate the traps(aka the important part), if it's that important to you, just trade out the breastplate for a mithril chain shirt and drop the Ranger AC by 2.

Nope, a mix of Pathfinder and 3.5. The 3.5 shows when we run the DCC modules and the gameworld map for Forgotten Realms.

Okay, then do you only allow the 3.5 Core Only Ranger? Because nothing you're saying is an accurate reflection of the PF Ranger.

STARGAZER_DRAGON wrote:

To me that's pretty damm good damage.

You have overly simplified the math, and you haven't actually compared it to the alternatives.

I might take some time and do up the math since i'm curious. It will take a little while to do it right.

OK, here's a rough comparison between a two weapon rogue and a guide/trapper ranger. I will not claim these are perfectly optimized (for either one to be honest), but they are fairly well optimized. They are 20 point buys with standard 20th WBL.

Rogue

Ranger

Of course the rogue is a touch ahead on skills, but not on the trap relevant ones. While the rogue does have a bit more disable device (47 vs. 42), the favored terrain bonus will likely put that back as a win or close for the ranger (+6 underground, +4 urban). Stealth is in the same boat. The ranger is up on perception (though I could have done skill mastery on the rogue, but it would have likely cost something useful. Again favored terrain would give this to the ranger in a lot of cases even if the feats were equal. The ranger doesn't have any social feats, so the rogue is definitely better there.

But lets look at damage in combat (target is a Pit Fiend).

Here's a few different cases for each.

Rogue with a full attack doing sneak:

DPR 267

Rogue with full attack, no sneak

137

Rogue on single attack.

30

Ranger in full attack using ranger focus:(he's got 7 a day, might as well use them)

367

Ranger in full attack, no focus (bah, just a pit fiend, so I'll take 2 rounds)

196

Ranger on a single shot

61

So we have a skill monkey which isn't quite a wide in skill selection, but covers the dungeon crawling job pretty much as well. When it comes to combat, the ranger will simply bury the rogue. Now there are better ways to build the rogue, but I was going with what the poster assumed was optimal.

Sorry, just don't see it. Ranger spells suck, many of the skill bennies can't be used in urban or underground environments (even if you go into those types of terrains), animal companions can't fight worth a damn compared to the rest of the group (and nobody wants to heal up a damned critter anyway), their armor is subpar for dungeon crawls since there are lots of opponents and no real estate to work with. Two weapons paired with medium armor just doesn't grant the needed AC, and bows etc are pointless in the limited space of a dungeon.

In a dungeon crawl, you have to be good immediately, with as few weaknesses as possible. Going for pure offense is going to get you and your teammates killed. Better to be durable and versatile, and not to need to rely on distance damage because there's no frickin room to maneuver.

Rangers can wield 2 handed weapons, 1 handed weapons + shield, and do archery (which the claim that archery is useless in dungeon crawls is questionable), since if you actually have the +hit and appropriate feats/enhances, you can fire with relative impunity.

Rangers have great spells. Their first level spells are excellent. They even get stuff like freedom of movement later on. Their spells are exceptionally good in dungeons. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

In all cases, everything you mentioned (AC, defenses, offense, etc) is all better than rogues. I'm confused as to what you're arguing.

mplindustries wrote:

Piccolo wrote:

Firstly, this is a dungeon crawling group, so a Ranger is hosed over. So are Druids, for that matter. This is why nobody takes them. No wilderness environment, and no room so AC is important.

The Ranger does more without his animal companion than the Rogue does. And underground is a valid favored terrain, is it not? Nobody is better at skills in a dungeon than a Ranger. A couple different archetypes give Trapfinding, too.

Oh, and there are medium animal companions, so it's kind of no contest.

Sorry, just don't see it. Ranger spells suck, many of the skill bennies can't be used in urban or underground environments (even if you go into those types of terrains), animal companions can't fight worth a damn compared to the rest of the group (and nobody wants to heal up a damned critter anyway), their armor is subpar for dungeon crawls since there are lots of opponents and no real estate to work with. Two weapons paired with medium armor just doesn't grant the needed AC, and bows etc are pointless in the limited space of a dungeon.

Rangers are simply better in natural areas with lots of room to maneuver. They can't disarm nor spot traps as well as a Rogue, they don't get the useful class skills that the Rogue gets, etc.

In a dungeon crawl, you have to be good immediately, with as few weaknesses as possible. Going for pure offense is going to get you and your teammates killed. Better to be durable and versatile, and not to need to rely on distance damage because there's no frickin room to maneuver.

None so blind as those who refuse to see.

A ranger in a dungeon is still full BAB. He has proficiency in all martial weapons, not just bows. But if he does focus on bows he can get improved precise shot at 6th level and hit just fine with his bow while not having to jockey for space at the front in the narrow corridors you seem to like.

He has spells like Lead Blades and Gravity Bow and Longstrider and Resist Energy as first level and stuff like Aspect of the Bear, Stone Call, and Versatile Weapon as second. Just because there's a lot of crap on their list doesn't mean you can't fill their slots with useful spells. And if you don't like the spells be a Trapper. Hello Disable Device and the ability to make things not want to chase you if you get in over your head.

If his first favored terrain is underground he has +2 per 5 levels to initiative, stealth, and perception. And some skills you have decided are useless because they're not on the rogue list. The trapper is going to find traps significantly better than a rogue and the normal ranger nearly as well.

A ranger's animal companion is like having a summoned monster already out. And it has scent. At level 7 (4 with boon companion) the animal companion can take a point in linguistics and learn a language. If the ranger also does so they can communicate. Not freely because the vocal variety in the human audible range is limited, but well enough to get useful advantage from the animal companion's senses. It also has the ranger's favored terrain bonuses.

Of course you think fighter has lower stat requirements than barbarian and think using a race with a wisdom penalty on a fighter with already lackluster wisdom is a good idea. I shouldn't be surprised you can't imagine a well built ranger.

Guys I'm going to need a way to explain to my wife that we are both playing and enjoying the wrong class and need to give up our rogues.

I'm really sorry this happened, we didn't know the rules.

Guys I'm going to need a way to explain to my wife that we are both playing and enjoying the wrong class and need to give up our rogues.

I'm really sorry this happened, we didn't know the rules.

Be sure to use as much sarcasm as possible. It does seem to be your strong suit.

Guys I'm going to need a way to explain to my wife that we are both playing and enjoying the wrong class and need to give up our rogues.

I'm really sorry this happened, we didn't know the rules.

It's okay there's a 50% chance she won't divorce you over it, and for Rogue players that's pretty good odds.

Sidenote: Why don't these boards have a flag for trolling option?

Guys I'm going to need a way to explain to my wife that we are both playing and enjoying the wrong class and need to give up our rogues.

I'm really sorry this happened, we didn't know the rules.

the thing you need to understand about the people who comment on these boards, they come from a theory crafting POV.

yes i understand that you are being facetious for the sake of self entertainment, but they still dont get that this game is designed to mold to the group of players.

video games are programmed for a general population, while that is fine it is NOT D&D/Pathfinder, your gm should be changing things for every person to have fun on an equal footing, regardless if you chose to play a commoner or a synthesist summoner. a good gm lets a bad rogue be good in their games.

/end thread

Guys I'm going to need a way to explain to my wife that we are both playing and enjoying the wrong class and need to give up our rogues.

I'm really sorry this happened, we didn't know the rules.

That's okay. It'll give you practice for when you have to explain to her that you don't read either.

Lamontius wrote:

Guys I'm going to need a way to explain to my wife that we are both playing and enjoying the wrong class and need to give up our rogues.

I'm really sorry this happened, we didn't know the rules.

the thing you need to understand about the people who comment on these boards, come from a theory crafting POV.

yes i understand that you are being factious for the sake of self entertainment, but they still dont get that this game is designed to mold to the group of players.

video games are programmed for a general population, while that is fine it is NOT D&D/Pathfinder, your gm should be changing things for every person to have fun on an equal footing regardless if you chose to play a commoner or a synthesist summoner. a good gm lets bad rogue be good in their games.

/end thread

That doesn't make Rogues good it means that GM's can do whatever they want because they are God in the game.

TheSideKick wrote:

Lamontius wrote:

Guys I'm going to need a way to explain to my wife that we are both playing and enjoying the wrong class and need to give up our rogues.

I'm really sorry this happened, we didn't know the rules.

the thing you need to understand about the people who comment on these boards, come from a theory crafting POV.

yes i understand that you are being factious for the sake of self entertainment, but they still dont get that this game is designed to mold to the group of players.

video games are programmed for a general population, while that is fine it is NOT D&D/Pathfinder, your gm should be changing things for every person to have fun on an equal footing regardless if you chose to play a commoner or a synthesist summoner. a good gm lets bad rogue be good in their games.

/end thread

That doesn't make Rogues good it means that GM's can do whatever they want because they are God in the game.

im glad you finally get it.

Lamontius wrote:

Guys I'm going to need a way to explain to my wife that we are both playing and enjoying the wrong class and need to give up our rogues.

I'm really sorry this happened, we didn't know the rules.

the thing you need to understand about the people who comment on these boards, come from a theory crafting POV.

yes i understand that you are being factious for the sake of self entertainment, but they still dont get that this game is designed to mold to the group of players.

video games are programmed for a general population, while that is fine it is NOT D&D/Pathfinder, your gm should be changing things for every person to have fun on an equal footing regardless if you chose to play a commoner or a synthesist summoner. a good gm lets bad rogue be good in their games.

/end thread

Oh, so everyone who actually does numerical analysis to demonstrate that a class is unbalanced is a mere video game jock who doesn't get it. I see. Thanks, I never realized that in my 30+ years of gaming.

Lamontius wrote:

Guys I'm going to need a way to explain to my wife that we are both playing and enjoying the wrong class and need to give up our rogues.

I'm really sorry this happened, we didn't know the rules.

That's okay. It'll give you practice for when you have to explain to her that you don't read either.

Oh true

gnomersy wrote:

That doesn't make Rogues good it means that GM's can do whatever they want because they are God in the game.

im glad you finally get it.

I'm glad you intentionally don't understand that in such a game you aren't playing pathfinder anymore and that as a result it has absolutely no bearing in a discussion board about Pathfinder.

Feel free to move your suggestion of Rogues are fine because of GM fiat, to the houserules section.

TheSideKick wrote:

Lamontius wrote:

Guys I'm going to need a way to explain to my wife that we are both playing and enjoying the wrong class and need to give up our rogues.

I'm really sorry this happened, we didn't know the rules.

the thing you need to understand about the people who comment on these boards, come from a theory crafting POV.

yes i understand that you are being factious for the sake of self entertainment, but they still dont get that this game is designed to mold to the group of players.

video games are programmed for a general population, while that is fine it is NOT D&D/Pathfinder, your gm should be changing things for every person to have fun on an equal footing regardless if you chose to play a commoner or a synthesist summoner. a good gm lets bad rogue be good in their games.

/end thread

Oh, so everyone who actually does numerical analysis to demonstrate that a class is unbalanced is a mere video game jock who doesn't get it. I see. Thanks, I never realized that in my 30+ years of gaming.

a video game is not controlled by an individual, it is controlled by a matrix. a cold unfeeling, preset, unable to be modified easily, matrix.

my gm can go with the flow and bend when he needs to.

that was my statement.

theory craftin is just the format you people choose to use for your debates. i never said you were a videogame jocky. so now that you do get it, drop it.

video games are programmed for a general population, while that is fine it is NOT D&D/Pathfinder, your gm should be changing things for every person to have fun on an equal footing, regardless if you chose to play a commoner or a synthesist summoner. a good gm lets a bad rogue be good in their games.

/end thread

I've never been more proud of being considered a bad GM.

im going to say this and people are going to moan and groan, but it needs to be said...

rogues need a Shadow Step similar to World of Warcraft. if they were given a ki pool for free, then they had the option for a ki pool ability "shadow step" that would allow rogues to dimension door to a location on the map. give it a short range like 30 feet, and remove the "your turn ends after uing this ability" bs that DD has.

this would make rogues soooo much more capable in combat.

do you know how annoying it is to hear rogues go "i cant find a flank, so im useless right now"

Mobility feat, tanglefoot bags, and some testicular fortitude on the player's part should give you all the flanking/sneak attack you will ever need. Seriously people, is it all that fashionable to rip on the Rogue class? Have your players no courage or creativity?!

TheSideKick wrote:

gnomersy wrote:

That doesn't make Rogues good it means that GM's can do whatever they want because they are God in the game.

im glad you finally get it.

I'm glad you intentionally don't understand that in such a game you aren't playing pathfinder anymore and that as a result it has absolutely no bearing in a discussion board about Pathfinder.

Feel free to move your suggestion of Rogues are fine because of GM fiat, to the houserules section.

im very confused as to how a gm choosing to open a flank for a rogue, or let the rogue scout forward is gm fiat? where is this rule that GMs MUST KILL ALL PLAYERS MUHAHAHA,

what page is that? 35? 67? 551? common give me a page...

wait you cant? wait your gm can choose to play a creature how ever he chooses? he can set up the board how ever he chooses and pick the monster you fight how ever he chooses?

REMEMBER PEOPLE level one of a video game has rules and a predetermined path, while in pathfinder the gm can do it how ever he chooses.

as i said before a good gm will allow all players at his table to have fun.

/end thread

Ashiel wrote:

Lamontius wrote:

Guys I'm going to need a way to explain to my wife that we are both playing and enjoying the wrong class and need to give up our rogues.

I'm really sorry this happened, we didn't know the rules.

That's okay. It'll give you practice for when you have to explain to her that you don't read either.

Oh true

Wait I just totally read that Oh man thanks that really helped I think I've got the whole rogue issue solved now too.

We're here to help.

a video game is not controlled by an individual, it is controlled by a matrix. a cold unfeeling, preset, unable to be modified easily, matrix.

my gm can go with the flow and bend when he needs to.

that was my statement.

theory craftin is just the format you people choose to use for your debates. i never said you were a videogame jocky. so now that you do get it, drop it.

If you weren't accusing people of being video game jocks why did you bring it up? Numbers are numbers, they don't only exist in video games. They have been an integral part of D&D since I started playing.

But I will state that your basic premise is inane. Basically you're stating that because the rules can be bent, modified, or ignored they don't matter. That really amounts to a pretty pathetic straw man. "Because I don't actually use the rules, your arguments about the rules are irrelevant." Yes, a GM can accomodate every class no matter how sub par. That still has no bearing on whether or not the class, as written, is sub par or not.

Try playing that card in a PFS game as see how far it goes.

Wait to help with what, I got the rogue thing figured out on my own once I realized to stop worrying about it.

Wait to help with what, I got the rogue thing figured out on my own once I realized to stop worrying about it.

What a relief.

im very confused as to how a gm choosing to open a flank for a rogue, or let the rogue scout forward is gm fiat? where is this rule that GMs MUST KILL ALL PLAYERS MUHAHAHA,

what page is that? 35? 67? 551? common give me a page...

wait you cant? wait your gm can choose to play a creature how ever he chooses? he can set up the board how ever he chooses and pick the monster you fight how ever he chooses?

REMEMBER PEOPLE level one of a video game has rules and a predetermined path, while in pathfinder the gm can do it how ever he chooses.

as i said before a good gm will allow all players at his table to have fun.

/end thread

Have you ever played a video game where the ai was too stupid to live? Where you run up to the enemy while they spin in circles and shoot at the ground while you kill them with rusty spoons? After killing the guy did you ever feel a sense of accomplishment? No. Why? Because you didn't accomplish anything the game was such a pile of donkey dung that it gave you everything on a silver platter.

No GM I have ever seen or played with will do that to his players because it completely invalidates the idea of playing the game.

A GM is also perfectly capable of skipping the entire dungeon saying the monsters aren't there they're off having tea and crumpets and just handing you a fat pile of loot but that doesn't make the game any better.

If you don't understand this I encourage you to play with some different DMs and figure out how the game normally works.

Guys I'm going to need a way to explain to my wife that we are both playing and enjoying the wrong class and need to give up our rogues.

I'm really sorry this happened, we didn't know the rules.

Hmm, I'll try.

"Honey"
"Yes, Lamontius"
"You know that PF game we played when we were both rogues?"
"Yeah, that was fun."
"But it was wrong. We need to change our characters."
"Alas, was it something I did (she starts crying)"
"No, it isn't you."
"Don't lie to me. Whaaaa. (runs off)"
"That went better than I thought".

Was an okay explaination?

Don't forget to mention, there are better rogues out there named Bards (archelogist gets rogue talents, better trapfinding), Rangers (Urban or Trapper), etc.