Where is this low power comment coming from? What power am i taking away from the rogue to be the best trapfinder in the game?
You're taking power away from your character by having your character be a rogue.
The rogue gets sneak attack, and a feat/talent every level. Why is he so horribly underpowered in combat?
You need the right circumstances to sneak attack. You need to either win initiative (not so hard) or be able to move into position and flank in the same round. What i've found, under far more than one DM, is often
-The rogue is a few feet short of movement to be able to move into position and attack. This is especially common with small/slow rogues, and when the rogue has to tumble if they don't want to be the Ogre's golf ball on an AoO.
-The target is in dim light, darkness, fog, invisible, or blurry
-Terrain prevents The rogue or more often, the fighter, from getting in place for a sneak sandwich. I'm very often torn on terrain. On the one hand it makes fights interesting, unique, and exciting. On the other hand it often exacerbates the power disparity between casters and melee even further.
-in 3.5 the target was nearly always immune to sneak attack. Pathfinder has done a great job of helping that.
-Wading out past the fighter would allow other things to flank the rogue if his target survives.
-The rogue gets into position to finish someone off. Finishing your opponent off is a good idea because under the D&D hitpoint system you're as effective with 1 hp as you are with 100. Unfortunately, more than one character has the same idea. If the cleric sees an ogre on its last legs He'll finish it off, leading to
-And this is a biggie, The rogue does a succesfull sneak attack on one target. But the positioning required for the fighter and rogue to move to flank another monster would leave the squishie open to attack.
Can he match the wizard in combat? No. A wizard trying to fill a rogues skill monkey role? In a single round, no. An entire day, they tend to come out about even. Hard to compare though, as they do very different things. The longer the day is, and the more combat there is, the more the wizard will fall behind.
But as the characters level this gets pushed further and further back.
But, we have already seen the rogue can beat the wizard in combat and skills for the first 5 levels of the game.
No, we haven't. The wizard is walking around with 3 fight ending SOS spells, and it wouldn't be out of line to drop the second alter self for another one if more trouble than sublety is expected.
In terms of skills if you mean "disable device" as the only skill to be compared sure. The wizard however has means of boosting his already better than the rogue's stealth with vanish, and can boost his already equal disguise skill up to +27 or so.
Thats 1/4 of the game. By 10 I bet they are getting close to even.
At level 10 its not a comparison. The wizard still needs roughly the same resources to copy the rogue but quadruples his spellpower.
I know I had a 16 in wisdom, and 14 in dex using 20pb and a half elf. The other stats are just guesses. The scout class gets a bonus to its fort save and I used the favored point to boost my hp. That offset the 12 con I had since I normally go with at least a 14.
What does this character DO in combat? Please put the standard response down. I am NOT a hack and slash player. I do realize that there are other aspects to the game. Conversely i recognize that combat is a large part of the game.
This reminds me of the "BARDS SUCK!!!!" thread over at Wizards when 3.0 first came out; though this one is more annoying as certain assertions seem to come and go as long as they're convinient to the poster and then ignored when they're not.
I'm as dubious of any claim that a class is worthless as I am of any claim that a class is a necessity.
I've never heard someone from a Con, PFS event or playing an AP complain that they failed because someone decided to bring a rogue to the party. Nor have I ever heard anyone complain that they couldn't believe no one brought an orc-blooded gnome arctic druid because that is "teh roxxor!" and how they would have cruised through the adventure if only someone had brought one.
IME, the best parties to play with are those that don't care who brings what because they'll find a way to make it work and laugh off the failure because they had a good time anyway. Apparently, that's not what it's about anymore. :/
SJ
Save or suck spells do not always work. Monsters save, and then the wizard has wasted another resource for no result. The wizard does not get that resource back till the next day. The rogue can still stab the next turn.
He can still stab but he might not be able to backstab. (sorry, sneak attack) Even a dumb animal knows that something in front of it and something behind it is a bad thing and will try to reposition accordingly.
It is not nearly as difficult as you describe to get sneak attack off.
Your experience may differ.
How are your wizards so very protected by the fighter?
Enlarge person on the meat shield: it makes a pretty deadly 30 foot area accross that mooks can't move through without taking (3d6 + 11) or so damage in addition to making the fighter into a solid 10 foot wall of meat.
5 foot steps.
Use Acrobatics and move away from the the attacker. (i don't know why the default assumptions haven't moved to the casters having this skill)
When the fighter fails, hide behind the cleric.
When i build a fighter, i find some way of getting reach and trip if i can.
Casting 1 expeditious retreat, spider climb, or fly can often be worth more than any AC boosting spell.
In games I've played in the past, the wizard is usually spending half his time casting defensive spells to save his own life. Enemies use tactics too, and they don't ignore wizards, like all the wizard lovers seem to believe.
Enemies don't ignore a rogue at their back either. The thing is that the rogue has to go next to them to do any damage.
Your level 5 wizard had ONE cast of ONE save or suck spell per day. Glitterdust. This might get one creature to be blinded. Wow.
Area: creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread
-thats up to 12 creatures. It probably isn't 12, but it won't be 1 unless its the bad guy at the end of dungeon.
There's also charm person.
And seriously, if you don't like the spell list it can be moved around. Harping on a maleable resource like this is ridiculous.
And thanks to the pathfinder rules, the blind is no longer permanent. Knocking a creature on its butt has about the same effect at level 5. (-4 to attack rolls, probably about 50% of their bonus. Stand up to remove, take an attack.)
Ermm.. no. The main problem with blind is that you can't target things normally. That includes non aoe spells and attacks.
I just work with what you have given me. In any sort of combat situation, charm automatically fails.
1) No. Its a +5 to the save. Most monsters have REAAALY bad will saves.
2) This is where you synergize. Sneak up on the guard. Surprise round. Charm "hey you can let your friend through here right?"
Regardless of how you move the spells around, you still have a limited amount. You get enlarge person for one combat, though it is a good spell for that one combat. What about the other 4 in the average day?
Other three in a day. The game is built around an assumption of 4 encounters per day. But given the occasional random encounter taking up time for an evening even that's pushing it for what you'll have to go through
The fist of air can be used to sneak attack and is usable 8 times per day. A 1d4+2+1d6 attack does less damage than the rogue but is more likely to hit.
The rogue can also do damage at range with ranged weapons.
But can't sneak attack with them except for round 1.
You can't rely on your fighter having natural reach, and weapon reach brings its own problems.
Easily mitigated by spiked armor, a spiked gauntlet, or improved unarmed strike.
Most fighter builds don't have it. I agree, one fight you can give it to your fighter with enlarge person. The fighter is still doing most of the work. The rogue stabbing things in the back helps the fighter get his job done faster as well.
The wizard isn't exposing himself to danger though. The rogue needs to be in a less than advantageous location to do his job.
This will be my last post till this evening, most likely. I enjoy the debate, but nothing has been said to even make me wonder if a wizard is capable of filling the same role as a rogue with a degree of success required by the standard adventuring party.
At 5th level you either have a reasonable rogue combatant OR a real bonus on disable device. But not both. I don't see whats so odd about relying on a +13 disable device for most of the night.
Did you post a rogue? Again, the problem here is dealing with what i think the rogue needs to be able to do, rather than what you think the rogue needs to be able to do. If i made a rogue you would probably say that it was not filling the role of your rogue.
Do you need to have a rogue in a party nowdays? = No.
Does that make the rogue obsolete? = No.
The game doesn't demand you to have a rogue in a party no more than it demands you to have a fighter in a group. Traps are a problem, but not a big problem. You don't NEED a rogue to deal with them. We playd a campaign from level 1 to 14 We didn't have a rogue. No problem what so ever. We had a monk and a druid., Both with high perception. Once we found them (somethimes we didn't) we dealt with them in various ways. Set them of, bypassed them, dispeled them, etc.
If the group needs a tank, doesn it have to have a fighter? No, it can use a Cavalier, Paladin, Barbarian or even a Cleric. That doesn't make the fighter obsolete, does it?
Does the rogue outdamage a fighter? = No. (chech out the old DPR thread, fighters rule, rogus doesn't even when they sneak attack)
Does that mean the rogue suck = No, unless you think the rogue is a DPR class.
Is sneak attack great? Sometimes, but a lot of the times no. Even when using sneak attack a rogue can't outdamage a fighter or Paladin (when using his smite and/or spells).
Is the wizard a better rogue than the rogue? No.
Is the wizard more powerful than a rogue? Yes, at higher levels the wizard is more powerful (depending on what you mean by powerful).
Does that make the wizard a more fun class? No. Not if you like rogues.
Me, I don't like rogue. I used to like them, but I don't anymore. I rather play a Bard or a dex fighter with some rogue levels. To me, the rohue and monk are the to most weak classes in the game. Does that make the rogue obsolete? No.
I really like the flavor of the rogue and the idea of the class in general, but too many classes step too hard on the rogue's toes now. Worse still, those classes that do the job that you were considering a rogue for (dungeoneering, social, damage) tend to make greater contributions to the success of the party than the rogue.
That's a consequence of making all of the other classes more versatile, I guess. The skill monkey becomes less necessary and thus less desirable.
If the Rogue even had two good base saves, it might be enough to make them more viable in my eyes. As it is, their only good base save is the least useful save (Reflex), while characters like Clerics, Rangers, Alchemists, and Magii have two good base saves.
The Rogue Talents introduced in Pathfinder were a step in the right direction, but that doesn't diminish the fact that:
-Rogues get crushed in straight-up combat by any spellcasting class or martial class. It's not a matter of "Well, their primary role isn't to be in combat, etc." They have less survivability than a Wizard, because...
-Their class abilities force them to place themselves in disadvantageous situations. A Fighter does best in a monster's face. A Wizard does best from far away. A Rogue does best when he's running away.
-The class abilities of the Rogue are comparatively weak. Sneak attack is nice and flavourful, but really not that great in terms of damage output. By 9th level, many Sorcerers have a random bonus ability (outside of their normal spells) that lets them do double what a Rogue's sneak attack damage would be at that level. Admittedly, it has a limited number of uses per day, but it's not like the Rogue will be sneak attacking all the time anyway.
-Their most important abilities rely on Dexterity, which forces them to wear bad armour AND have a feat tax in Weapon Finesse.
-They have little versatility in combat situations. OK, so you're up against a monster immune to sneak attack. Have fun.
-They have bad attack progression, which matters because they're the only class (other than Monk, which at least can survive) which relies fully on physical combat to deal damage that has bad BAB.
-Rogues shine a bit more in settings that have a high reliance on skills, but then why play a Rogue when you can just play a Ranger and be actually useful and tough, with good saves, at a cost of 2 skill points a level less?
The only argument for the Rogue being good at this point is traps, and if you're playing in an adventure that doesn't use many traps, well, there it is.
Personally, I love Rogues. I just wish they had a good Will save, or SOMEthing to make them stack up a little better next to other classes. And it's not just Rogues, it's their whole archetype. The Rogue-based Prestige Classes (Assassin, Shadowdancer) are just outright bad.
If the Rogue even had two good base saves, it might be enough to make them more viable in my eyes. As it is, their only good base save is the least useful save (Reflex), while characters like Clerics, Rangers, Alchemists, and Magii have two good base saves.
The Rogue Talents introduced in Pathfinder were a step in the right direction, but that doesn't diminish the fact that:
-Rogues get crushed in straight-up combat by any spellcasting class or martial class. It's not a matter of "Well, their primary role isn't to be in combat, etc." They have less survivability than a Wizard, because...
-Their class abilities force them to place themselves in disadvantageous situations. A Fighter does best in a monster's face. A Wizard does best from far away. A Rogue does best when he's running away.
-The class abilities of the Rogue are comparatively weak. Sneak attack is nice and flavourful, but really not that great in terms of damage output. By 9th level, many Sorcerers have a random bonus ability (outside of their normal spells) that lets them do double what a Rogue's sneak attack damage would be at that level. Admittedly, it has a limited number of uses per day, but it's not like the Rogue will be sneak attacking all the time anyway.
-Their most important abilities rely on Dexterity, which forces them to wear bad armour AND have a feat tax in Weapon Finesse.
-They have little versatility in combat situations. OK, so you're up against a monster immune to sneak attack. Have fun.
-They have bad attack progression, which matters because they're the only class (other than Monk, which at least can survive) which relies fully on physical combat to deal damage that has bad BAB.
-Rogues shine a bit more in settings that have a high reliance on skills, but then why play a Rogue when you can just play a Ranger and be actually useful and tough, with good saves, at a cost of 2 skill points a level less?
The only argument for the Rogue being good at this point is traps, and if you're playing in an...
1) They aren't tanks, they're basically designed as secondary melee combatants
2) Rogues do great with Mobility and Spring Attack. That's hardly running away3) Rogues don't sneak attack all the time? Max skills in Acrobatics plus Mobility basically means they are sneak attacking all the time.
4) Mithral Armor isn't bad and Weapon Finesse is hardly a tax when it makes the Rogue hit just as well as anything else (minus Weapon Spec)
5) The Rogue pulls out a bow. Every class has issues with certain monsters.
6) The difference of generally 1 or 2 points shouldn't break the back of a Rogue player
7) You should probably reread all the class features a Rogue has
...If the Rogue even had two good base saves, it might be enough to make them more viable in my eyes. As it is, their only good base save is the least useful save (Reflex), while characters like Clerics, Rangers, Alchemists, and Magii have two good base saves.
The Rogue Talents introduced in Pathfinder were a step in the right direction, but that doesn't diminish the fact that:
-Rogues get crushed in straight-up combat by any spellcasting class or martial class. It's not a matter of "Well, their primary role isn't to be in combat, etc." They have less survivability than a Wizard, because...
-Their class abilities force them to place themselves in disadvantageous situations. A Fighter does best in a monster's face. A Wizard does best from far away. A Rogue does best when he's running away.
-The class abilities of the Rogue are comparatively weak. Sneak attack is nice and flavourful, but really not that great in terms of damage output. By 9th level, many Sorcerers have a random bonus ability (outside of their normal spells) that lets them do double what a Rogue's sneak attack damage would be at that level. Admittedly, it has a limited number of uses per day, but it's not like the Rogue will be sneak attacking all the time anyway.
-Their most important abilities rely on Dexterity, which forces them to wear bad armour AND have a feat tax in Weapon Finesse.
-They have little versatility in combat situations. OK, so you're up against a monster immune to sneak attack. Have fun.
-They have bad attack progression, which matters because they're the only class (other than Monk, which at least can survive) which relies fully on physical combat to deal damage that has bad BAB.
-Rogues shine a bit more in settings that have a high reliance on skills, but then why play a Rogue when you can just play a Ranger and be actually useful and tough, with good saves, at a cost of 2 skill points a level less?
The only argument for the Rogue being good at this point is traps, and if
The main problem I have with the rogue is how they stack up at high level. I think a rogue is very viable as a class until you reach level 11 plus or so.
Once the casters and creatures start using spells like Finger of Death or Dominate Person or the like, monsters have fear auras and powerful spell-like abilities, and all of them have some kind of defense like mirror image or invsibility, the rogue really starts to look like a chump.
You think the fighter has it bad with a bad will save. Imagine what life is like for the rogue with a bad will and fort, the two more dangerous types of spells.
And their best combat ability is defeated by so many different easy to acquire items, easy to use spells, innate class abilities, and innate creature qualities. A rogue that can't sneak attack is the most useless person in a fight. I wouldn't be surprised if a levled warrior, expert, or aristocrat were equally useful to a high level party as a rogue when the rogue can't sneak attack. When a PC class becomes a bigger liability at high level than an NPC class because their main class ability is made useless, that class has a problem.
It would be an easy fix if Paizo would make it happen. They took a slight step towards that fix in Pathfinder. But if Paioz redesigned sneak attack aka dirty fighting into a combat style that worked like a fighters or rangers or paladins combat style worked without need of strange situational stuff like flanking or is made useless by making yourself immune to crits, they would not only make the rogue easier to balance, but also make it a viable class at all levels.
I would personally use the Inquisitor model to design Sneak Attack. Some lesser, variable bonuses that fit with a dirty fighting style. And maybe toss in a limited use abilty as a talent or something to do big damage like the old sneak attack every once in a while. I think sneak attack is a poorly designed mechanic and needs a revamp to make the rogue and every sneak attack class more viable from level 1 to level 20.