CoDzilla |
CoDzilla wrote:Well, how many attacks will the giants pull off? If I take average DPR of a character at this level as, say 40, then one giant falls every round. That's some 12 attacks (I'm counting with giats doing full-round melee), 6 at +18 bonus, and 6 at +13. If the trap goes off against a party, then it makes 3 attacks at +20 bonus agains flat-footed party members (if it catches, say thee characters, than it makes 9 attacks). I think that it roughly equals, despite all the deifferences of these encounters (regular combat vs. single assault).Zmar wrote:CoDzilla wrote:Level 10 characters are not impressed by 6d6 damage, or even 6d6 damage three times. And that assumes it isn't save for half or some other such thing. The entire party will survive, and easily heal it off.Just like a party after any other CR 12 encounter perhaps?
This is three +20 attacks agains flat-footed characters, no save for half. Healing off costs daily resources, which is calculated in party's expenditure.
No, not like a normal fight. A normal fight usually gets off more than a single attack.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/humanoids/giants/giant-tr ue/frost-giant
3 of them will do up to 18d6+78 damage, and this is every round until they die. Granted about only half of those will hit, but that's still 9d6+39 which is more than 18d6. Sure it only hits one target, but that's what you want to happen as the guy dealing the damage.
Round 1: All of the giants attack the same flat footed person, and do 9d6+39 (48-87 damage). It won't kill anyone, but it will come a lot closer than some spread out damage would.
The party counterattacks. I have no idea why they only do 40 damage a round each, but they only kill one giant.
Round 2: The other two both attack the same person. That person dies, and they get started on the second. They'll probably take off a third of the second guy's HP.
The three remaining PCs all attack the same giant. It isn't quite enough to kill them.
Round 3: The two giants attack PC 2 again, and kill them.
The two remaining PCs kill the second giant and get started on the third, getting him about half dead.
Round 4: The third giant counterattacks and half kills a PC, before finally being killed themselves.
The trap caused no significant loss of resources. The fight, thanks to the poor strategy and builds you proposed nearly cost a character per giant. Even if you assume more sensible tactics, and more effective builds (and you should!) it's clear that the combat encounter is more dangerous than the vaguely described trap. If you compare other combat encounters to traps you will find the same thing.
Traps just aren't as dangerous as fights.
sunshadow21 |
Traps that strictly do damage are probably not by themselves as dangerous as combats. However, most of the truly lethal traps either work in tandem with a ambush or with another trap, inflict status effects that can render some or all the party completely helpless, or do something like fling the victim out out the building 60 feet up in the air.
Thalin |
There are twofold problems.
First, even if the trap WAS as dangerous as the giants, it's not a fun. Giants, you do the combat, everyone goes into action, gets to do their thing. Party wins, heals up, everyone has fun.
Trap goes off, GM announces damage, party heals up. Nobody feels accomplished.
And say a rogue did decide to make himself good at it, like mine did. All this really requires is lens of detection and the auto-search rogue trick (we were in the trap-laden Shackled City). Gm announces trap, rogue rolls a die. Trap is probably disarmed or goes off. Nobody feels very accomplished.
Point is, traps became less common because they aren't fun. The only fun ones are mid-combat (covered pits / "bad squares"), where rogues can't search anyway.
So rogues really come down to being decent damage output and skill monkies. And often that's not viewed as good enough; except in the rare high RP campaign.
james maissen |
There are twofold problems.
Gm announces trap, rogue rolls a die. Trap is probably disarmed or goes off. Nobody feels very accomplished.
Point is, traps became less common because they aren't fun.
This is again both a player and a DM issue.
If disarming the trap rather than triggering it allows the party to approach the enemies while they are unprepared versus letting them buff up and try to ambush the party then disarming the trap is VERY satisfying.
The difference at mid+ levels in an encounter against a CR appropriate enemy unawares as opposed to the same enemy fully buffed and lying in wait is ENORMOUS!
There are many encounters where I would gladly fight twice as many unaware and unprepared enemies than prepared ones.
As a DM you can highlight this both in and out of character. In character the party dispatches the group while one of the enemy likely dies trying to sound an alarm. Out of character you as the DM bemoan the fact that the party found the trap as otherwise NPC X would have had an AC 8 higher and NPC Y would have been greater invisible, etc.
You can easily teach your players the value of stealth, scouting and not triggering traps as a DM.
-James
vuron |
For the most part pure damage traps begin to lose their luster pretty early on. Higher level traps should begin using status effects, debuffing, ability damage, level drain, etc. Traps that do direct damage should be used in conjunction with other threats, should continually reset the trigger (such as an crossbow trap that continues to shoot every round until it's disarmed), do ongoing damage to the party, and/or have such a large area of effect that the entire party including retinue is effectively target.
Otherwise there really is no effective decrease of party resources. Yes healing wands cost some money but unless you can kill or cripple a party member the cost becomes neglible at mid to high levels unless you really screw with the game's economy.
Further traps that isolate party members really only work after a certain point in time if there is an effective stopwatch that spells doom for the party unless they rescue the isolated party member. Segregating the party so that one or more PC is shunted into a combat encounter can be an effective design. Teleport traps or god forbid plane shift traps can be effective as well especially if the party's ability to reunite is limited but can also be a death sentence.
Rocks fall, everyone dies traps are really only appropriate in throwback games. Possibly fun as one-shots but shouldn't be incorporated into regular campaigns.
CoDzilla |
Aehm, the giants are not that likely to ambush the party as the trap? :)
Frost Giants can hide in snow. I was comparing apples to apples though by allowing them the first strike vs flat footed.
But as I said, the point is that traps are less dangerous than fights. They're also less engaging - it doesn't matter what you actually roll, anything resolved by 1-2 rolls in its entirety is not engaging. Even curbstomp battles at least involve everyone rolling initiative, then all enemies rolling a save or two before getting chopped up.
4th edition also got it wrong, in that more rolls is not automatically better. There needs to be a point to those rolls, and not just 10 to do the job of 1.
kyrt-ryder |
For combat, he (Bob's Barbarian/Rogue) is also a great addition. With his four attacks per round, he is a competent damage dealer. No, he's not as good as the druid's tiger but that's ok. The tiger focuses on the biggest enemy while the rogue flanks whomever he wants.
You know, I'm actually on the side of liking the rogue and thinking he's roughly on par with most classes, but honestly, outdamaged by another class's pet WHILE getting sneak attack?
This does not speak well for rogues lol.
vuron |
4th edition also got it wrong, in that more rolls is not automatically better. There needs to be a point to those rolls, and not just 10 to do the job of 1.
Skill Challenges have definitely had their issues but I actually kinda like trap based skill challenges. It gives the other classes stuff to do in regards to the encounter (Arcana can help identify a trap and offer ways of disarming it, History might allow a PC to remember reading an important clue about the trap, athletics might allow the fighter to use brute force to disarm a trap, etc). 4e design feels that encounters where the bulk of the party are sitting around doing nothing are bad encounters.
While 3.x traps aren't quite as bad of a design as say decking was in Shadowrun in terms of leaving the bulk of the party bored and feeling useless mainly because trap encounters don't take much time to adjudicate, they aren't great unless you want to do the alternating spotlight style of play.
4e doesn't like alternating spotlight encounter design as thus developed the skill challenges rules (which are problematic in many ways) as a method to engage more players in noncombat encounters. It also has the benefit of allowing rogues to contribute more in combat because the spotlight balance doesn't have to be maintained.
Zmar |
Zmar wrote:Aehm, the giants are not that likely to ambush the party as the trap? :)Frost Giants can hide in snow. I was comparing apples to apples though by allowing them the first strike vs flat footed.
But as I said, the point is that traps are less dangerous than fights. They're also less engaging - it doesn't matter what you actually roll, anything resolved by 1-2 rolls in its entirety is not engaging. Even curbstomp battles at least involve everyone rolling initiative, then all enemies rolling a save or two before getting chopped up.
4th edition also got it wrong, in that more rolls is not automatically better. There needs to be a point to those rolls, and not just 10 to do the job of 1.
Well, not that I'm saying that traps are just as cool as the monsters. The traps are more like furniture (although as a part of a puzzle they can be quite engaging). I was trying to demonstrate that the traps aren't completely useless, as some people tried to imply. At least not anymore useless than regular monsters.
Thalin |
Biggest problem with stealth is it's a my-highest-vs-your-lowest issue. In short, enemies take their highest perception check to roll against your stealth; or against the lowest stealth of the party if many sneak. Never mind the large number of sense abilities that defeat sneak without dice.
Then there's the shadowrun "hacker" problem. This is to say, since there is only one GM, a rogue scouting ahead takes the GM's time and everyone else sits around doing nothing. This, not the danger, is the primary reason to never split the party.
In short, the scout aspect of the game isn't made to work properly, so usually goes waste-side.
vuron |
Biggest problem with stealth is it's a my-highest-vs-your-lowest issue. In short, enemies take their highest perception check to roll against your stealth; or against the lowest stealth of the party if many sneak. Never mind the large number of sense abilities that defeat sneak without dice.
Then there's the shadowrun "hacker" problem. This is to say, since there is only one GM, a rogue scouting ahead takes the GM's time and everyone else sits around doing nothing. This, not the danger, is the primary reason to never split the party.
In short, the scout aspect of the game isn't made to work properly, so usually goes waste-side.
Indeed scouting ahead along with various other issues with the average rogue player (including the oh so fun steal from other party members) were often a reason why rogues and rogue players got classified as "Does not play well with others" in many 1e-2e games.
Considering that combat utility for the 1e rogue was sketchy mechanically I think for many groups the rogue became the trap guy if he was team oriented and the Pickpocket guy if he was going to be the troublemaker.
I still try to incorporate the scouting ahead function for rogue players but I can definitely see why in a big group the break in the action for the ninja to operate can be just as disruptive as the face guy that is always dominating social encounters.
sunshadow21 |
Then there's the shadowrun "hacker" problem. This is to say, since there is only one GM, a rogue scouting ahead takes the GM's time and everyone else sits around doing nothing. This, not the danger, is the primary reason to never split the party.In short, the scout aspect of the game isn't made to work properly, so usually goes waste-side.
Best compromise I've seen here is that the scout (usually a rogue or ranger) is a bit ahead (usually about 30 to 50 feet or so) of everyone else. This way, there is still at least some warning and the stealth roll of the scout still matters, but everyone is still involved.
Thalin |
Pets are part of my issue with melée in general. I was looking at building a non-caster next to be different, but if my pretty much only shtick is fighting I want to have some competitive advantage over my Eidilon; much less the buffing "face" that travels with him and gets a separate action. Pallies and Zen Archers seem like cool alts; but the summoner does make a LOT of melees feel outdated.
SpaceChomp |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summoner can do more damage many times with his summon spells than he can with his eidolon. Eidolon's are useful and amazing for action economy but also are lacking in HPs when it comes to being a tank. With the APG stuff, a fighter will dominate any summon in damage (but i hear ya, there is less other stuff that he can do). That's why pound for pound, when it comes to melee combatants ranger is my favorite. They get the pet, get skills, buff spells, and the ability to do pretty good damage if you make them right. Oh, and they get two good saves which always helps.
At higher levels a spellcaster is always more appealing. But watching a paladin kill an uber powerful demon in one round never gets old.
You also can't just Dismiss a fighter or barbarian, and they get pretty rugged. Flesh out a fighter at higher levels and look at being able to do 150-200 damage in a turn at higher levels and realize that it turns the tide of many a battle (if they get lucky enough to be able to catch up with and see the monster they need to kill).
Thalin |
Ah, I (and most I believe?) take the diehard feat line so that by 3, the hp issue is no longer a problem (lifelink lets the Eidilon stay until I'm out of hp, and gives him a nice extra 12 to boot).
I agree on ranger, now that they have the new build options and "boon companion", they are top-tier non-casters (well, mostly non-casters).
doctor_wu |
Traps do not need to be free from interaction with other players. You could have a sneaky 1st level female rouge in a dungeon scream behind a door with a sleep or color spray trap and then trick the player into thinking they need to save someone run into the trap and then coup de grace them if they fail or get a sneak attack off. HEck even if the rouge is only first level its a cr 2 encounter.
this is even more fun with a paladin. Traps plus monsters can be dangerous.
Midnightoker |
I think the most important thing to note about rogues (My favorite class, with good reason in my opinion) is two things.
One is that a rogue has a lot of depth to it, its the glue, the gap filler. The guy you need in a pinch. He can try just about anything and is usually good at getting out of tight spots.
Really if you want to get down to it a wizard can do almost anything so using that as a counterpoint isn't really fair. They can't do the mundane, that is where rogues come in. Magic is detectable with detect magic... nice glowing invisibilty mister wizard, I am a level one rogue with the magical talent detect magic, you show up nicely.
Second point being if you dont like the talents, they are replaceable with feats. Yeah, feats. Which never, ever, suck.
hmmm repping feats like a fighter and have sneak attack with trapfinding and 8 + int skills... whose too good now?
Midnightoker |
Midnightoker wrote:Second point being if you dont like the talents, they are replaceable with feats. Yeah, feats. Which never, ever, suck.
Ah, no.
One talent is replaceable with one combat feat.
Then you've already got Combat Trick and can't pick it again.
Ah my apologies, I was under the impression it was takeable more than once.
with that said I dont find the talents useless, especially the advanced ones available at tenth level.
Midnightoker |
Midnightoker wrote:I think that'd be a pretty reasonable house rule, but sadly they specify only one pick per. That's why they have things like Finesse Rogue as separate talents even though Combat Trick can duplicate them.Ah my apologies, I was under the impression it was takeable more than once.
Too be honest I dont think I will house rule it. the talents are very good and giving them fighter bonus feats would be ridiculous in my opinion, much too good. You want a fighter play a fighter, you want a ranger or urban ranger play one. the whole "not nature oriented thing" is not a valid arguement for not playing a ranger as a rogue-type now that the APG gives many more options to do just that. It wouldnt be unreasonable to for a DM to allow some kind of leniency in that department especially with the adding of the skirmisher. (you basically get a rogue ranger that way.)
as for talents
even minor stuff like slow reactions is fierce. They don't get a save for sneak attack talents, and not having AOOs for a round can be staggering, especially with a rogue attempting a dirty trick, trip, or reposition.
I always like the magical talents, having those minor tricks can be fairly useful
Dragonspirit |
CoDzilla wrote:Well, not that I'm saying that traps are just as cool as the monsters. The traps are more like furniture (although as a part of a puzzle they can be quite engaging). I was trying to demonstrate that the traps aren't completely useless, as some people tried to imply. At least not anymore useless than regular monsters.Zmar wrote:Aehm, the giants are not that likely to ambush the party as the trap? :)Frost Giants can hide in snow. I was comparing apples to apples though by allowing them the first strike vs flat footed.
But as I said, the point is that traps are less dangerous than fights. They're also less engaging - it doesn't matter what you actually roll, anything resolved by 1-2 rolls in its entirety is not engaging. Even curbstomp battles at least involve everyone rolling initiative, then all enemies rolling a save or two before getting chopped up.
4th edition also got it wrong, in that more rolls is not automatically better. There needs to be a point to those rolls, and not just 10 to do the job of 1.
A combat is exciting because the monsters have some sort of viable even if exceptionally unlikely path to victory (ie defeating the party or killing a member). The problem for traps is that mostly it isnt there.
1) Poison is now slowed out over many rounds with NO initial effects. If you have anyone with even a simple delay poison spell, you laugh when the needle with poison pokes you in the finger. An expenditure of one spell, with no chance to fail, entirely negated 1/4th of your day's combats. Before, you got hit with same said needle and "oh crap I just lost 11 Con and... what is that white light... oh crap, I only had 10 Con, bubye now".
2) Damage is now healed so easily that it represents no significant tax to party resources. Say we got some level 3 party going through the dungeon and they just hit a trip wire. Here comes a CR 3 fireball trap. Oh noes! Three party members failed their save. 5d6 damage, and the DM rolled 21 points of damage. Cleric says "hmmm... ok, three channel energy (rolling a 7 each time), good job DM you taxed me all of one of my extra channeling feats, can we get going now?"
3) Even status effect traps mostly require that they be used in conjunction with a combat to have a serious threat of danger, otherwise they are again simply reduced to being a resource tax. And when you do that, by the rules you have to factor them into the CR of the encounter. Which means that someone trading some combat viability for trap proficiency would actually be more advantaged by, well, being more combat viable for this type of trap.
Now don't get me wrong. I thematically like the rogue class a lot. And I am not saying it is impossible to design a scary trap or that disarming traps is entirely worthless. But overall the chain reaction of nerfing lethal effects makes the rogue from being one of the Big Four to being a mediocre combat choice/good skill points choice.
snobi |
Ah my apologies, I was under the impression it was takeable more than once.
It is in my opinion. Rogue Talents are not Advanced Talents. Advanced Talents are not Rogue Talents. It says that individual talents can't be taken more than once in the Rogue Talent section, not the Advanced Talent section.
SpaceChomp |
It also says under trapfinding that a rogue adds half his level to disable device and perception checks to find traps. It never says their rogue/class level. So that would be another reason to just pop in and then right back out of the rogue class.
I would never read the rule that way because it's pretty easy to read between the lines there, the same is true of the talent situation.
Maveric28 |
One of the problems with this comparison is because you are comparing the rogue to the fighter, the ranger, the wizard, etc. The rogue is not a fighter, or a ranger, or a wizard or any of the other classes: they are rogues, and as such they are the best there is at what they do. They have more skills than any other class, no exceptions, and unlike the bard or ranger the rogue is not extremely-MAD dependent so is more likely to have a higher Int score than either of those two classes (assuming point buy). Which means that should the rogue desire, they become the skill-monkey supreme with Int bonuses meaning even more skills... most rogues I've played start with at least a 14 Int, so they get 10 skill points per level, 11 if human. This allows them a versatility that no other one class can equal. If going nuts with skills is your thing, Rogue gives you lots of options. You can max out the Dex-based skills and be an acrobat-scout-skirmisher supreme. You can max out the Charisma suite and be the group "Face", a charming, bluffing, diplomatic con-man. More than 75% of the skills available are Rogue class skills, which gives them tons of options.
It's folly to compare a Rogue with a Fighter's sheer potential damage output because a Fighter has access to more feats, weapon and armor training, heavier weapons, and a better BAB and HD as well. Obviously in toe-to-toe combat, most rogues cannot stand against a Fighter of similar level and point buy. That's not what they're designed for... but the rogue's sheer amount of skill points gives them a versatility range of subtlety that a Fighter can never match, at least not on paper.
Likewise, a Wizard may be able to duplicate many of a Rogue's abilities using his spells. But a Wizard still will not be able to consistently do what a Rogue can do because they must know the right spells, prepare the right spells and then cast the right spells. And when the spell runs out, it's gone... the Wizard can cast Invisibility that lasts one minute per level. But a Rogue can conceivably Stealth every minute of the day that he is awake. Invisibility is superior in some ways, but Stealth can be used pretty much at will... the Rogue doesn't expend his daily resources to do it. Likewise, you might conjure a monster or cast a divination to find or disarm a trap, but again that uses up some of the Wizard's daily resources. A Rogue can conceivably search, poke, prod, leap, tumble, dodge, detect, listen, climb, sneak, and otherwise use his skills effectively all day, every day, every round if he wants to. He is infinitely more versatile in those areas because it costs him no amount of limited daily resources to do so.
The OP calls the Rogue the worst class in Pathfinder, or at least infers it. "Worst" is a highly subjective term. Rogues may not be able to keep up with a Fighter's damage, a Ranger's accuracy, or a Wizard's magical prowess, but they are the very best class for what they do well... skill monkey. I have three players in my group of seven active players who prefer the Rogue above all other classes, so there must be some appeal to that.
Lyrax |
It also says under trapfinding that a rogue adds half his level to disable device and perception checks to find traps. It never says their rogue/class level. So that would be another reason to just pop in and then right back out of the rogue class.
Except that every time it says 'level' in a class description, or description of a class power, it's shorthand for 'levels in this class'. Otherwise you could put down one level of Draconic Sorcerer on your 14th level fighter and gain claws, energy resistance, a breath weapon, natural armor +4, and wings. That's a nice 1-level dip!
Yeah, to say it means 'character level' when it says 'level' and not 'levels in this class' is a delve into madness.
SpaceChomp |
First of all let me clarify by reiterating that i would never read the rogue that way.
Your bloodline example doesn't work, because abilities are specifically given out based on the level of your sorcerer, i double checked to make sure. (it says it in the description of bloodlines).
You could argue that the level doesn't specify with each ability, so that since you get the 1st bloodline ability at level 1 sorcerer, you get claws so a level 11 guy with one level of draconic sorcerer would get the 1d6+1d6 claws (THIS IS NOT HOW I READ IT. In caps just to make sure that people read the whole statement this time).
If the line of thinking is correct that allows you to take rogue talents multiple times using advanced talents let me know. That would change the class dramatically for me, in the right direction as you could now have fists full of feats and 1st level spells on your higher level rogue to keep things interesting.
You did however prove my point that simply because something isn't directly listed in the description, sometimes common sense should prevail.
Maverick28 - while i agree with what you are saying, rogues big ability appears to be the ability to be unfocused. While many might perceive this to be a good thing, to me it's a mechanics trap. There should be something that gives rogues a class related bonus to stealth (which rangers have in their favored terrain) or something that makes them good at all of the skills they've dabbled in (which bards have with jack of all trades and lore master).
I just feel like there is a piece missing to the class somewhere.
Maveric28 |
- You are not even forced to play rogues as TWF meat grinder. A friend of mine dipped in shadow dancer and focused on dirty tricks and hit and run tactics, and was quite fun.
+1. Personally, Just my opinion, I think that the TWF Rogue is a really bad idea that gets killed waaaaaaayyy too easily. To do a full attack you need to start your round close enough to the enemy to attack many times... this means that the enemy is close enough to either a.) hit you back, or b.) hit you first. A rogue has neither the AC nor the HD to stand toe-to-toe and duke it out with CR equivalent critters. In my experience, a TWF Rogue is a dead rogue... or at the very least a drain on the party's healing resources.
The most effective Rogue I have played personally in PFRPG is a "Face"... high Dex and Charisma, good Int and better than average Str n' Con. He's maxed out in most Cha-based skills, including Bluff, Disguise and Use Magic Device, and his role in the party is the gatherer of information, the diplomat, the negotiator, the scout, the undercover agent, and while carrying a quiver of spare wands, he even helps with healing and battlefield-control somewhat. In combat, he moves to help others, makes assist rolls when can't flank someone, and using Improved Feint he bluffs his way into effective Sneak Attacks. He rarely gets more than one attack per round, but as a mobile combatant, he wouldn't get multiple attacks anyway. He doesn't get as many attacks as the party Fighter but his dagger strikes just as hard when he gets a feint attack. And every round I can use my wits to find something new to do and adapt to the situation at hand. Definitely not a fun concept for a newer player, perhaps, but makes for a fun character for a strategist.
Zmar |
...
A combat is exciting because the monsters have some sort of viable even if exceptionally unlikely path to victory (ie defeating the party or killing a member). The problem for traps is that mostly it isnt there.
Well, as I tried to show with the giants - the damage output is about the same and the trap can kill with a good roll. It's not likely, but possible.
1) Poison is now slowed out over many rounds with NO initial effects. If you have anyone with even a simple delay poison spell, you laugh when the needle with poison pokes you in the finger. An expenditure of one spell, with no chance to fail, entirely negated 1/4th of your day's combats. Before, you got hit with same said needle and "oh crap I just lost 11 Con and... what is that white light... oh crap, I only had 10 Con, bubye now".
No initial effects? You're talking about poisons with onset right? Injury and inhaled poisons mostly don't have any onset and start to act immediately. Not that they are MEANT to kill immediately. There isn't much fun with traps that work like: A: I open the door! DM: Ur dead! Save or die got nerfed overall, not just in spells.
Onset poisons simply start to act 10 minutes after the PC came into contact with the poison. Not that the DM is meant to tell the rogue that after touching the door handle he's ben poisoned. After 10 minutes he simply tells him that suddenly he doesn't feel well at all (roll save, ability damage aaand next round nothing. Party starts searching for the source...).
2) Damage is now healed so easily that it represents no significant tax to party resources. Say we got some level 3 party going through the dungeon and they just hit a trip wire. Here comes a CR 3 fireball trap. Oh noes! Three party members failed their save. 5d6 damage, and the DM rolled 21 points of damage. Cleric says "hmmm... ok, three channel energy (rolling a 7 each time), good job DM you taxed me all of one of my extra channeling feats, can we get going now?"
Just like after any combat, right? Mostly the combat resulted in damage to the party, the cleric expends his channels and the party can get going after being taxed. CR appropriate combats are not expected to kill anyone either. The fact that the monster is able to kill the fighter if it happens to roll three criticals in a row doesn't make it anymore deadly than a trap that could do about the same if it happens to roll two crits. Yeah, the monster *can* be more dangerous, provided that the fighter jut stands and waits to be clubbed to death, but that's rather a strange thing to do just to prove that the traps are less dangerous.
3) Even status effect traps mostly require that they be used in conjunction with a combat to have a serious threat of danger, otherwise they are again simply reduced to being a resource tax. And when you do that, by the rules you have to factor them into the CR of the encounter. Which means that someone trading some combat viability for trap proficiency would actually be more advantaged by, well, being more combat viable for this type of trap.
Well, everything is just a resource tax from the encounter design point of view. The traps can, just like creatures, be used to do more than just hp damage. Pits and teleportations can effectively split the party (making part of the floor ethereal for one round is quite effective to trap someone below) for example.
What's important is, that the trap is about right to it's CR, because that's the the thing which should be a guide to how challenging the encounter is. If a trap of CR equal to the APL of the party costed them about 20 % of their resources, than it's simply CR system working as intended.
Then we get to overall crappiness of the class. If the party with a rogue is in fight with a trap and the rogue allows the party to avoid it, or the party happens to activate the trap and hve extra healing afterwards should be the same as long as both parties spend about the same amount of resources to keep going. If there was no trap in the fight than we just have to look whether the situation was the same (I mean resource expenditure). It should be roughly equal.
Zmar |
Biggest problem with stealth is it's a my-highest-vs-your-lowest issue. In short, enemies take their highest perception check to roll against your stealth; or against the lowest stealth of the party if many sneak. Never mind the large number of sense abilities that defeat sneak without dice.
...
The rogue should't be kilometer away, mr. Clanksalot (full plate dwarf) being one round's run away is 60 ft away, that's -6 perception to notice him which effectively negates the armour penalty. Then add the distance on which the rogue can detect the enemy and the scouting can suddenly become more viable (note that the dwarf doesn't alert anyone to the rogue sneaking nearby, the enemies may react to him, but the rogue can either run back or just attempt to ambush the enemy from behind after it comes to investigate the rest of the party, which the rogue could inform silently about the danger (visual signals, telepatic bond, ...)).
Greg Wasson |
I've gone through various builds and can't find a single thing that rogues do better than everyone else. I understand that flavor wise this might be a popular concept for a class, I just don't see it working out mechanically.(They do mediocre damage, wizards are sneakier past about level 5, rangers are a better mix of the two). More interesting to me, the barbarian was fixed in the APG. While the rogue got new talents they really didn't add anything that dramatic (like a tree chain such as the barbarian totems).
I'm just curious. Seriously, does anyone have a way to make rogues useful?
In responce to the thread title,
"Can anyone show me how Rogues are not the worst class in Pathfinder?" : Probably not. However, it is my favorite class to play. I hate playing fighters and druids. So for me, it is the BEST class to play. But that is a subjective opinion.Now, as to the body of your post, I cannot even fathom how to respond. My group doesn't do "builds". We have lots of poorly made characters. You know the type, wizards that start with a fourteen intelligence or fighters with sixteen in charisma. For the most part, most of the group doesn't even read the boards or have a clue what "DPR" is could even mean. Our current gaming group consists of a Rogue, Wizard, Paladin, and Barbarian. Our combats run anywhere from five to fifteen rounds. Oft times we have more than five combat encounters in a game day. Oh, and the barbarian is a halfling.
Ooooh! So maybe I can answer the post! In games where one is not concerned about doing "DPR" or "Optimizing" the rogue is the BEST character to play. Well, unless your favorite character is a Wizard, or Paladin, or Halfling Barbarian.
Dang it. That subjective thing reared again!
wraithstrike |
.... And with most traps simply not doing more than "Reflex Save ___ or X damage" all it is is a comparitive resource drain on OOC healing.
If we use the AP traps as the standard you will be lucky to just come away with that. My traps don't do that either. If they only did that then I would agree the rogue's usefulness is not all that high. I would say take the hit from the trap and keep moving.
wraithstrike |
The party that I am running through Age of Worms consists of a Barbarian/Rogue (already posted), wizard, druid, fighter, ranger/sorcerer/shadow scout, and inquisitor (the party is all level 11). The casters don't bother wasting time with spells to handle the traps or their outcomes. They simply let the rogue do his job.
Many of the traps don't do any hit point damage at all. Some damage your stats. Did you dump a stat to 7 to get those extra points? Bad idea if the rogue can't find that trap. There are traps in there that put your character in stasis. There are traps in there that flood rooms and dump you out over cliffs into water 10 feet deep where you are ambushed. There are traps in there that drop you deep into a room of silence with an illusion of a floor that you pass through. Besides the ones at the beginning of the campaign, none of the traps are meant to eliminate the PCs. They are meant to be a drain on resources, slow the party, or hinder them in some other way.
The point is that the rogue is extremely useful and has been since the beginning. I don't know how useful he will be later with the traps. I haven't finished reading the campaign. For now, the party is very grateful to have him there.
For combat, he is also a great addition. With his four attacks per round, he is a competent damage dealer. No, he's not as good as the druid's tiger but that's ok. The tiger focuses on the biggest enemy while the rogue flanks whomever he wants.
The party has invested in several wands of cure X spells. Each person who can use the wand has one. This includes the rogue. When someone is in a bind, and it happens, the rogue can get there and help out quickly.
Something to keep in mind. My players don't try to build the most uber characters they can. They build characters that are fun to play. That means that I will never see many of the unkillable wizards or druids that I have heard about for years. My players enjoy encounters that last a few rounds. Our average combat lasts 5 rounds. Yeah, the love the...
That campaign, makes me proud and I dare a rogueless party to try to go through it. Bad things are almost guaranteed to happen.
wraithstrike |
There are twofold problems.
First, even if the trap WAS as dangerous as the giants, it's not a fun. Giants, you do the combat, everyone goes into action, gets to do their thing. Party wins, heals up, everyone has fun.
Trap goes off, GM announces damage, party heals up. Nobody feels accomplished.
And say a rogue did decide to make himself good at it, like mine did. All this really requires is lens of detection and the auto-search rogue trick (we were in the trap-laden Shackled City). Gm announces trap, rogue rolls a die. Trap is probably disarmed or goes off. Nobody feels very accomplished.
Point is, traps became less common because they aren't fun. The only fun ones are mid-combat (covered pits / "bad squares"), where rogues can't search anyway.
So rogues really come down to being decent damage output and skill monkies. And often that's not viewed as good enough; except in the rare high RP campaign.
The talent is supposed to make the DM roll behind the screen. I think a player is happy when the rogue saves him. My players were happy when a baleful polymorph trap did not get set off.
wraithstrike |
The reason i completely disregard the thought that monks are a worse class than rogues is simply because of the Bow Spec in the APG, if you haven't looked at it do so, it is the most viable option that the class has. The ability to flurry as a ranged attack, as well as getting ridiculous things to improve it makes the class, at least in combat more useful. add this to the same list of skills that rogue would have with better saves, and some random things that are also useful for a stealth minded character and honestly i would play one of these over a rogue any day of the week.
The monk does not have the rogue's skills, nor the skill points to use enough of them to matter if he did have access to all of them.
wraithstrike |
Summoner can do more damage many times with his summon spells than he can with his eidolon. Eidolon's are useful and amazing for action economy but also are lacking in HPs when it comes to being a tank. With the APG stuff, a fighter will dominate any summon in damage (but i hear ya, there is less other stuff that he can do). That's why pound for pound, when it comes to melee combatants ranger is my favorite. They get the pet, get skills, buff spells, and the ability to do pretty good damage if you make them right. Oh, and they get two good saves which always helps.
At higher levels a spellcaster is always more appealing. But watching a paladin kill an uber powerful demon in one round never gets old.
You also can't just Dismiss a fighter or barbarian, and they get pretty rugged. Flesh out a fighter at higher levels and look at being able to do 150-200 damage in a turn at higher levels and realize that it turns the tide of many a battle (if they get lucky enough to be able to catch up with and see the monster they need to kill).
Summons still do unbelievable damage. They just do less damage per attack which means DR hurts them more unless the correct counter is available.
wraithstrike |
Traps do not need to be free from interaction with other players. You could have a sneaky 1st level female rouge in a dungeon scream behind a door with a sleep or color spray trap and then trick the player into thinking they need to save someone run into the trap and then coup de grace them if they fail or get a sneak attack off. HEck even if the rouge is only first level its a cr 2 encounter.
this is even more fun with a paladin. Traps plus monsters can be dangerous.
How is the coup de grace taking place?
Bob_Loblaw |
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
For combat, he (Bob's Barbarian/Rogue) is also a great addition. With his four attacks per round, he is a competent damage dealer. No, he's not as good as the druid's tiger but that's ok. The tiger focuses on the biggest enemy while the rogue flanks whomever he wants.You know, I'm actually on the side of liking the rogue and thinking he's roughly on par with most classes, but honestly, outdamaged by another class's pet WHILE getting sneak attack?
This does not speak well for rogues lol.
He's not built for a ton of damage. He's using an urgosh and several of the recent enemies cannot be flanked or are immune to sneak attacks. It's either that or he has to move more than 5 feet. The tiger can pounce and was built as the party tank. The rogue was built to be useful but not be a primary damage dealer.
kyrt-ryder |
kyrt-ryder wrote:He's not built for a ton of damage. He's using an urgosh and several of the recent enemies cannot be flanked or are immune to sneak attacks. It's either that or he has to move more than 5 feet. The tiger can pounce and was built as the party tank. The rogue was built to be useful but not be a primary damage dealer.Bob_Loblaw wrote:
For combat, he (Bob's Barbarian/Rogue) is also a great addition. With his four attacks per round, he is a competent damage dealer. No, he's not as good as the druid's tiger but that's ok. The tiger focuses on the biggest enemy while the rogue flanks whomever he wants.You know, I'm actually on the side of liking the rogue and thinking he's roughly on par with most classes, but honestly, outdamaged by another class's pet WHILE getting sneak attack?
This does not speak well for rogues lol.
Ohhh, so the rogue was not getting sneak attack while being out-damaged by the tiger. That's good news lol.
Glaciator |
Poison Dart Trap (CR 1):
Perception DC: 20
Disable Device DC: 20
Effect: Atk +10 Ranged
Trigger: Touch Automatic Reset (CR +1)
Poison: Shadow Essence (CR +3)
A CR 5 trap that is +10 to hit, with a DC 17 Fort save or take 1 Str drain and a DC 17 Fort save every round for 6 rounds or take 1d2 Str damage for each failed save.
I would say it can put the hurt on a party of 4 level 5 characters. Send a minion in first? Trap resets behind it. Delay Poison? Doesn't cure the Str drain and uses up your casters highest level spell slots. Restoration? Not available yet.
Yeah its a low level example. I haven't gone into the trap section in depth yet and this is what I came up with on short notice. Higher levels, just mean more creative ways to add CR to the trap. At least from what I've gathered so far.
I personally like my rogue, she has been a great asset to the party. In our last encounter, her first attack was to crit with a shuriken. We use the crit hit deck and the result was "dazed for 1 round". I did a decent amount of damage to it and shut it down before its turn. The party was extremely grateful the lich couldn't cast for that round, as we proceeded to kill it before its next turn.
kyrt-ryder |
Question: Does anyone have house rules that buff the rogue?
I have some house rules of my own that provide some buffs to other classes but I can't think of any good ones for rogues.
Yes. I have made skills far, far, FAR better than they were before.
For example, the hide skill has DC modifiers built in for beating special senses (such as blindsense, tremorsense, scent, blindsight, etc) and my rules do allow sneaking across open ground, although the further it is the more difficult of course.
Athletics (Climb+Swim) and Acrobatics are both capable of Wuxia level effects
the list goes on.
Ashiel |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few things to note is that rogues are exceptionally good skirmisher type characters. Generally you have to rely on full-attacks to really get your damage flowing, and individual hits usually aren't that impressive, but a rogue can very early on gain what amounts to hide in plain sight, even if you're not a shadowdancer.
Anytime you have Cover or Concealment, you may make a Stealth check. This means a rogue with fast stealth and either a blur spell or a minor cloak of displacement can literally strike and vanish on the battlefield. Now if you're an archery based rogue, this is pretty nice as you effectively vanish, shoot (or full-attack if it's a good option) and then get then go vanish again. This can also make getting into melee easier for those TWF rogues.
Rogues also make solid anti-casters. Rogues only need on attack to deal a fairly solid amount of damage (10d6 = 35 average damage, for example) and thus skulking about the battlefield with your minor cloak of displacement means you'll be right there to shoot that flat-footed wizard in the backside for 1d6+10-60 points of damage - eat that Concentration!
Rogues can also sneak attack with rays and touch attacks. A rogue can easily use spells like acid splash, ray of fire, ray of frost, touch of fatigue, or disrupt undead to deal a wide variety of different energy types of damage as touch attacks or rays (if your opponent doesn't know where you are, this means their AC is probably horrible).
Also, a rogue with Bleeding Attack can be annoying as sin using these strike/vanish tactics. Not optimal, but it's a lot of fun and can be highly annoying to certain types of enemies (especially since if they stop to heal the bleed damage, you just pop 'em again).
Now, the problem with Sneak Attack is it's easy to ignore. Honestly, gaining a tiny bit of concealment of your own will stop it. A minor cloak of displacement gives 100% immunity to sneak attacks, as does being inside a cloud. So we need something to fall back on.
So we grab use Magic Device and resume our strike-vanish nonsense, only this time we're tossing spells like sleet storm and black tentacles around instead of sneak attack. Or we could use spells like enervation since your accuracy with that ranged touch is pretty nice, and if they aren't immune to sneak attack then you get to deal negative energy damage to them in addition to the negative levels.
Meanwhile, outside of combat we've got a lot of skills are good in lots of noncombat situations. Even with improvised tools (say a toothpick and a spoon) you can pick most locks without knock. You're good at outright ignoring difficult terrain or narrow surfaces (acrobatics + ledge walker), you're good with NPCs (even with a 7 Charisma you can begin at +2 to Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate, and it only goes up from there), and so on and so forth.
Rogues can do a little of everything, so it's hard to really pin down their best tricks. But I figured I'd toss out a few ideas here for ya.
EDIT: Also, using these tricks means the rogue actually is able to sustain a pretty solid damage per round. Single sneak attacks (possibly combined with the vital strike feats) against a flat-footed foe with a bow can be pretty damaging, and can be done round-to-round. So you can maintain a pretty solid damage per round with single attacks.
Likewise, the -20 penalty is for remaining hidden when you fire. We don't have to worry about that because we attack at the beginning of our turn (standard action) and then get a new Stealth as part of our move action, so we shoot, and move-vanish.
Ardenup |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP, not sure if you've tried it yet. But if DPR is your problem with rogues sucking? Build a 2handed brute rogue. Human is better for the extra talents favored class.
Take power attack, Conrugan Smash (cheliax book), shatter defenses and intimidating prowess or skill focus:intimidate.
Basically you get a free check to demoralized whoever you hit. Shatter defences let's you auto sneak attack any demoralized targets. AUTO SA with no flank needed.
If you use scout Varient from APG first your charges then moves 10ft or more are auto SA.
Basically all full attacks and allstandard
attacks become SA. DPR issue solved.
Layering on Crippling Strike rocks too.
ASubtle weapon (core book) adds +4 to hit on all SA. Missing is not a problem.
Is there any other thing REALLY, beside DPR you don't like them mechanically?
SpaceChomp |
Honestly, DPR is my least worry with rogue. If they were better at everything else that they did i would be perfectly OK with it. However, DPR is used as a mitigating factor for my original question and that's why it's been brought up so much in here. As i've said before a couple of times here, aside from traps there is nothing that rogues are the best at. Which was my initial problem.
Lathiira |
As i've said before a couple of times here, aside from traps there is nothing that rogues are the best at. Which was my initial problem.
How about the sheer breadth of their skills? A rogue starts with 8 points per level. Wizards, often touted as skill monkeys, start at 2; bards start at 6. Rogues have the greatest number of skills available to them of all classes, the bard right up there with them. Combining these two gets you the character with the greatest versatility in design from a skills-base. You can build a party face/diplomancer, a trapfinder, a combat rogue, a loremaster, whatever. A bard can operate in a similar manner due to versatile performance, but in the end, he's still using Perform to duplicate a variety of skills.
Also, why does the rogue have to be the best at anything? Barbarians have the best hp, sorcerers have the best spells per day, wizards can have the best spells known-after that, you have to go through the DPR Olympics for most hp damage dealt per round and really dig for the best AC. Where does that leave the other classes, like clerics and druids (who are generally regarded with wizards as most powerful), or paladins, fighters, and rangers?
CoDzilla |
SpaceChomp wrote:As i've said before a couple of times here, aside from traps there is nothing that rogues are the best at. Which was my initial problem.How about the sheer breadth of their skills? A rogue starts with 8 points per level. Wizards, often touted as skill monkeys, start at 2; bards start at 6. Rogues have the greatest number of skills available to them of all classes, the bard right up there with them. Combining these two gets you the character with the greatest versatility in design from a skills-base. You can build a party face/diplomancer, a trapfinder, a combat rogue, a loremaster, whatever. A bard can operate in a similar manner due to versatile performance, but in the end, he's still using Perform to duplicate a variety of skills.
Also, why does the rogue have to be the best at anything? Barbarians have the best hp, sorcerers have the best spells per day, wizards can have the best spells known-after that, you have to go through the DPR Olympics for most hp damage dealt per round and really dig for the best AC. Where does that leave the other classes, like clerics and druids (who are generally regarded with wizards as most powerful), or paladins, fighters, and rangers?
Being the best at something that is not that good isn't something to brag about. Most skills are either weak period, or stop being useful after level 5 or so. And of the handful that were good, two out of three got nerfed hard. Diplomacy and Tumbling, I'm looking at you. That just leaves UMD, which is certainly nice and all, but so is being an actual spellcaster. The fusing skills together thing helped some, but not enough.