Unlike the INT7 tank, you have the sky-high Acrobatics to get into flank and make that Greater Feint
I assume that plan involves something like items to jack up Acrobatics and/or Skill Focus: Acrobatics?
A high dex and max ranks alone isn't enough to make Acrobatics workable past around level 10. (I don't consider that much investment to hit around a 1 in 4 or so shot of tumbling around a lowly same-CR opponent workable.)
The "you have been under observation" bit is also metagamey. Did you give the party opposed perception rolls to spot the rogue hiding in the bushes? Did you give sense motives to notice the barmaid spying on them while serving drinks?I don't see why monsters can't adapt intelligently to PCs tactics rather than being simply reactive if they are intelligent. And, the PCs in turn will have a chance of noticing the rogue and barmaid of course.
What's amusing about the rogue class it they can be absolutely sickening enemies in the hands of a DM. As a DM you get to set up ideal circumstances for the rogue. Under ideal circumstances rogues can be nasty.
When the rogue is sent to assassinate a party member or steal something off them without having to get in a direct fight the party, they really are painful to deal with. Very few classes have a high enough perception or defenses capable of stopping a rogue from breaking into their domicile and killing them in their sleep with a coup de gras.
What's amusing about the rogue class it they can be absolutely sickening enemies in the hands of a DM. As a DM you get to set up ideal circumstances for the rogue. Under ideal circumstances rogues can be nasty.
When the rogue is sent to assassinate a party member or steal something off them without having to get in a direct fight the party, they really are painful to deal with. Very few classes have a high enough perception or defenses capable of stopping a rogue from breaking into their domicile and killing them in their sleep with a coup de gras.
(Side note: it's coup-de-grace. Silly french.)
I do think you are on the right track though. Most player's I've been playing with don't make preparations in inns to guard themselves. A rogue in this situation will shine!
Until the next time and the wizard has Alarm cast, the ranger has a bucket on the door frame that'll drop if opened from the inside, making a clattering noise, and the barbarian just angerly stares at the door all night while asleep, daring it to open and so help him Gorum, he will destroy the door and all the trees ever related to that door if it ever opens from the outside.
What's amusing about the rogue class it they can be absolutely sickening enemies in the hands of a DM. As a DM you get to set up ideal circumstances for the rogue. Under ideal circumstances rogues can be nasty.
When the rogue is sent to assassinate a party member or steal something off them without having to get in a direct fight the party, they really are painful to deal with. Very few classes have a high enough perception or defenses capable of stopping a rogue from breaking into their domicile and killing them in their sleep with a coup de gras.
really?
the alarm spell and hold portal aren't used in your games.
no one has immovable rods to reinforce doors?
ring of sustenance means the rogue has to guess which 2 hr block you are asleep out of each 24.
No elven, half elven, half orc, or halfling druids, inquisitors, monks or rangers with the enhanced keen senses feat (putting them +4 above the rogue of equal level assuming other factors are equal).
The situation you describe is not where a GM can make rogues (or rogues only more accurately the sneaky 2-hd style power attacking ranger or inquisitor with a scythe is probably going to get to death from massive damage far earlier in his career than the rogue and his DC's for the CDG will be higher on average) scary; the shadowdancer, arcane trickster, or maybe assassin sure. The straight rogues are scary when they use team tactics such as 2-3 with reach weapons setting up flanks and gang-up.
Edited now that I am not late for work:
An 18 point swing on the dice can really jack a rogue. She rolls a one the opposition rolls a 20 means the jig is up. This as a game design thing that does what is known as "breaking character fidelity". Because its not a matter of uber-perception vs uber-stealth... challenge accepted. Its a straight up the dice just F%^&#$ you moment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real issue with the rogue is they are lacking on the class features. Doesn't really matter if they combat or non combat oriented. They are a non caster and the only other classes that are like that are the fighter and Cavalier. Compare the rogue to the fighter and you see what's lacking.
Fighter gets
A feat every even level which is equivalent to rogue talents and the fighter gets 1 more feat than the rogue gets talents.
The fighter get Bravery which if you combine the extra feat is equivalent to trap finding and trap sense.
The fighter gets armor training which easily covers Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge and Evasion. I'd say the level 1-3 cover that. They still have level 4 AT and Armor Mastery.
The fighter get weapon training which is like to the offensive power of sneak attack though less in power but not much. 2D6 usable under certain condition that is precision damage which isn't applied to critical and some creatures are immune to it. The fighter get +1 to hit and damage every 4 levels starting 5th on weapon groups that is active all the time and multiplied on a critical where nothing is immune to it. At worst DR could be an issue but with enough damage it can be overcome. Combine this access to fighter only feats and it balances out evenly.
The fighter gets weapon mastery which matches master strike.
So the fighter gets 2 skill points and 10 class skills where the rogue gets 8 skill points and 21 class skills. The rogue clearly comes out ahead here but what do they give up? They get 3/4 BAB, D8 hit dice, limited weapon proficiency compared to all martial weapons and limited armor proficiency and the lose evasion if they wear anything heavier than light armor. As well the proficiency in all martial weapons is class feature, the rogue at best can spend a feat for single martial weapon if they can't get via a class list or racial feature.
So the fighter comes out ahead clearly. They get better weapons, better armor, more BAB, better hit dice, Armor training 4 and Armor mastery over the rogue.
Now I'm not sure what could be added to the rogue to make up for this. Maybe play up traps more. They did it for the Ranger which I found strange. It makes sense but really shouldn't the rogue have gotten that treatment first?
As it is the urban ranger in my opinion is better rogue than the rogue. The Ninja is better rogue than the rogue. The Inquisitor can be better rogue than the rogue. The Bard cab come quite close to being better depending on the archetype chosen.
Still in the end the rogues is a playable class and can be fun. You just need realize the class is lacking and certain builds can be done better with other classes or combination of multiclassing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why monsters can't adapt intelligently to PCs tactics rather than being simply reactive if they are intelligent
Did i say they couldn't? No.
Did i Imply they couldn't? No.
First off, you as the DM would have to rule that destroying the haversack destroys the contents. That's not raw, but its not anti raw, thats dms's call. That means that for purposes of the discussion you can't rely on the tactic working like that. the tactic is going to be even more ineffective if everything just spills out onto the ground- which is what would happen with a normal backpack.
Secondly, it requires a certain skill set, namely knowledge arcana or at least detect magic to recognize a handy haversack because it is called out specifically as ordinary looking. ( as opposed to most magic items which are all shiny and glowy)
Thirdly, evil is not one big happy family. If you spend a round destroying the wizards backpack thats one round that you're not squishing the wizard. That means one more round of him blasting you with lightning or trying to turn you into a newt: in other words, a bad idea for your individual survival. Presumably, bad guys want to LIVE through the encounter, not make life as difficult as possible for the PC's even if it means their own demise.
Fourth, it assumes that the wizard doesn't have useful spells in his head, or a few scrolls scattered about his person in a bat utility belt type fashion.
Fifth, the rules are a little iffy on spells damaging attended objects, and attended objects tend to do very well against damage because of how elemental damage and inanimate objects interact. Its usually easier to kill the wizard.
So its a very odd confluence of events that would make this a good idea. You need someone that can ID the pack for what it is (since for all you know the wizard has simply organized his scrolls back there), AND that person would need to be communal/have a hive mind, AND be betting on the wizard being otherwise out of ammo, AND have some ready means of sundering the backpack. Its a virtual celestial alignment of events, and makes me wonder if the allegedly "intelligently played" monster is really just a vehicle for the DM's frustrations.
Good stuff
Fourth, it assumes that the wizard doesn't have useful spells in his head, or a few scrolls scattered about his person in a bat utility belt type fashion.
At half a pound for a scroll case with up to 4 scrolls (so that its a move action to take one out) and say 4 spells per scroll. Yes safe to assume not all eggs will be in one basket due to the minimial weight to keep SIXTEEN 'Ohhh Shizzz' spells on your person not in the Haversack.
The Rogue became gimped since 3.0, when every other classes became more "roguish". Pathfinder only aggravated this situation with the new skill system. It's not a bad thing to allow a Fighter to hide in shadow (something impossible in D&D 2nd edition), but the Rogue didn't get enough in return for losing is signature abilities.
I say bring back the backstab multiplier! :P
Parties do not sleep together all the time. The rogue doesn't assassinate a party member while he's in the room with the other members.I'm talking about picking off an entire party while they're alone. I'm talking about doing stuff like stealing the fighter's sword, then killing him even if he wakes up. No one really close to help him.
You send an assassin team to kill a party, they don't take them when they are together and have the advantage of their numbers. They take them at an opportune time.
I assassinated one guy while he was asleep with his women during his off time.
I assassinated another while he was at the theater.
Had a rogue slip another player a trap the soul gem while they were wandering the streets doing their daily healing duties.
Alarm spells can be set off by paid low level commoners creating a false alarm situation to set up an attack.
Rogues can make some of the nastiest enemies a DM can throw at a party because of the way they work. They are the true secret operatives of the D&D world. If a Big Bad Evil Guy that a party has angered puts a bounty out on your head with a thieves guild, you can bet you're in a world of trouble.
Rogues don't make the best front line fighters. But if you were running a party of stealthy fighters, rogue would be a great class in such a group.
Unfortunately it follows that your haversack can be pretty vulnerable, so if its destroyed then your veritable library is gone.Ennemy (after sundering the haversack instead of the wizard): AHA! Now you've lost all your scrolls, you're at my mercy!
Wizard (shrug): Fesh to stone.I still don't see how they are better at those tasks than a bard. Especially for the trap the soul thing. (And anyway, as far as I remember, trap the soul isn't in the list of rogue's spells. It's not in the bard's list either).I assassinated one guy while he was asleep with his women during his off time.
I assassinated another while he was at the theater.
Had a rogue slip another player a trap the soul gem while they were wandering the streets doing their daily healing duties.
The rogue was working for someone else. The person they were working for made Trap the Soul gem and had the rogue deliver it. Bard could have pulled that one off too if focused on Bluff and Disguise.
I still like rogues as assassins best. The sneak attack can be very devastating when attacking someone unprepared with the a good set of rogue skills. I like the Trapfinding ability for bypassing traps and such made to impede them as well as poison use. With poison stacking now for the DC, you can make some nasty ingested poisons.
I'm not trying to argue the rogue doesn't need some help. Because if they are spotted, they are usually dead meat within a round or two. But the class isn't a bad one when used by the DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh please. The DM can make tribbles a lethal threat in the right situations.
That's a lot of the problem with the rogue. He requires a very specific environment and timing and he is in charge of neither.
What do we need from the rogue class anymore?
Burglar? Daredevil, or just about anyone with 4+ skills/level really
Pickpocket? Street Performer stands out, but commoners can manage this.
Locksmith? Urban Ranger or Magician or Detective or Archaeologist
Confidence Man? Bard.
Thug? Urban Barbarian, Brawler, Unarmed Fighter, or Cad.
Swashbuckler? Freehand Fighter, Cad, Arcane Duelist, Daredevil, or Urban Barbarian.
Assassin? Ninja
Scout? Ranger or Ninja or possibly BardHow many rogue archetypes are left that we need the rogue for?
Charlatan, really.
Early access to rumormonger is kicksmurf.
As I said:
Give the Ninja trapfinding and call it Rogue - case closed.
Spread a self-propagating rumor.
Isn't a rumor, by definition, self-propagating after the first impulse?
Nope. If I tell my roommate a rumor, it won't necessarily spread. With this, it would.
Nope. If I tell my roommate a rumor, it won't necessarily spread. With this, it would.
...because you knew that your roommate is a deadend and avoid him in favor for the real movers and shakers in spreading information.
In other words, rumormonging allows you to identifiy the persons you need to talk to to effectively spread informations and, at the same time, do it in a way that assures that the spin on the information you want to spread isn't changed too much during the process of spreading it.
Just start your rumor with something like:
"keep this between us...
"Only you and I can know this...
"DON'T TELL ANYONE ELSE but...
"I wasn't supposed to tell anyone, but I trust you...
Or just tell me, I gotsa network of gossip.
Greg
In most campaigns this will be mechanically inferior to other options.
Is that the answer you aimed for?
I suppose you could do other things with that week, since you just need to make one check, and it propagates through.
So you could do dungeon raids, thievery, wenches, keg stands, etc.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the rogue isn't as effective in combat as the fighter. He also isn't as effective a healer as the cleric. Fighters are built to fight: a rogue is best when he's finding alternatives to fighting, whether it's Stealth, Acrobatics or Bluff.
Some problems:
When it comes to stealth, often all that matters is the WORST stealth in the group. You cant sneak the group by the enemy with one party member making all kinds of noise.
The rogue works okay if he can talk his way out of a situation, but if thats all he's for, you may as well go bard.
The Rogue is (In my opinion) the weakest class in the game.
Everyone needs to be able to participate effectively in combat, and a rogue is simply not effective enough in combat situations.
He can't DPR.
He can't tank.
He can't defend or buff the other party members.
He can't heal others. (Yes, Yes, UMD. UMD is expensive, and youre better off with a bard again.)
He can't remove enemies from combat.
He can't battlefield control.
He can't debuff or disable enemies.
The rogue's only *real* capabilities are that he has 2 more skillpoints than a bard, and his ability to deal with traps. In a campaign that isn't focused on traps, the rogue is a crappier bard with 2 more skillpoints per level.
Rogue is a great dipping class, for either 2, or maybe even 4 levels, but I can't advocate taking it straight.
So, if the Rogue has issues in combat, as Mort says, how could it be fixed? What abilities would it need to be more useful?
It needs stuff it can do in combat.
DEX -> damage.
That's one approach.
Personally I wouldn't just give them straight DPR, I'd give them other stuff. If you just boost damage theyre just another fighter.
I'd give the rogue their intelligence bonus to AC/hit and the option of picking a good will or fort save.
I like this one. The rogue needs int for skills anyways. I dont like the Int to AC, but I like Int to hit, or Int to damage options.
How about Intelligence bonus to damage (cruel anatomist), Wisdom bonus to AC (danger sense) and Charisma bonus to saving throws (rogue's luck)? I like MAD classes. :P
All good suggestions.
> Either make Finesse a weapon property (like reach) and ditch the feat, or give it to rogues for free at level 1.
> Inherent dodge bonus to AC, like a monk.
> Int to Damage.
> "Flanking" doesn't matter anymore, just that the enemy is "flanked". Makes ranged builds a little more viable.
> Treat them as full bab for some combat maneuvers: Trip, Disarm, steal, feint.
> Maybe give them the improved versions of those maneuvers, as feats, for free, as part of the class, and worked in early.
> abilities to let them hinder or disable the enemy, such as blinding them with dirt, or whatever.
> Bleed.
> perhaps drop the typical sneak attack. Instead, let the rogue target the enemy's vitals, and deal Dex and Str Damage. Have the amount of Dex and Str Damage scale up. Perhaps int+numbers.
> Play up the skirmisher. Allow the rogue do these things with spring attack, or charge, or as part of a full attack, or as a standard attack. Don't require flanking for all those things. Maybe just the ability damage.
So Rogues can now dump Str. And they dont need as much Con.
G&* d~@n. thats basically a complete rewrite of the class.
I love how people think that because spellcasters can do everything, stepping on the toes of other classes, that's ok. But if the rogue can do a lot with his skills, that's not ok.
The rogue can be versatile outside of combat. With their skill points they really can be very versatile. They also can reduce the number of spells and magic items required to accomplish tasks. Sure, the wizard can levitate or fly up the cliff, but the rogue can just climb up there and secure the rope so that the party only needs a DC 5 climb check. Those spell slots are now better used for other purposes. The same thing with Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate. Now that Charm Person spell can be a more useful spell. To make things better, the Diplomacy won't wear off.
The rogue can get several of the things listed that they should need:
Bleed: It's a talent
Weapon Finesse: It's a talent
Flanking without being opposite an ally: a couple different options
Abilities to hinder the opponent: feats and talents
The rogue should not be the biggest damage dealer. That's not his shtick. He should be able to do a lot without magic, but then bring in magic when it's cool to do so. That's where a couple talents and the UMD skill come in handy.
If the campaign isn't going to be using traps, then the player should select an archetype that loses trap finding and trap sense. My view is that if a character has an ability, the GM should throw the player a bone every once in a while and make it useful. It is the GMs job to make sure the players are having fun. The adventures should be tailored a bit (not completely, but a bit) to the characters but there should always be more than one way to deal with a situation.
They also can reduce the number of spells and magic items required to accomplish tasks.
After all this time, you still don't understand opportunity cost.
The question is not can a rogue reduce the number of needed spells. The question is can a rogues reduction in the number of spells and magic items required to complete a days worth adventuring exceed the number of spells that a spell-caster can bring to the table? This is iffy at low levels, and a definite no after level 7.
At higher levels, the rogue is saying "Hey, i can get your car a 10% reduction in mileage for your trip to Indiana" and the casters are saying "Hey, i have a tanker truck filled with free gas!" Its a no brainer which one is going to help you get further.
I love how people think that because spellcasters can do everything, stepping on the toes of other classes, that's ok. But if the rogue can do a lot with his skills, that's not ok.
The rogue can be versatile outside of combat. With their skill points they really can be very versatile. They also can reduce the number of spells and magic items required to accomplish tasks. Sure, the wizard can levitate or fly up the cliff, but the rogue can just climb up there and secure the rope so that the party only needs a DC 5 climb check. Those spell slots are now better used for other purposes. The same thing with Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate. Now that Charm Person spell can be a more useful spell. To make things better, the Diplomacy won't wear off.
The rogue can get several of the things listed that they should need:
Bleed: It's a talent
Weapon Finesse: It's a talent
Flanking without being opposite an ally: a couple different options
Abilities to hinder the opponent: feats and talents
No what folks are saying is the other skill monkeys can do what the rogue does as well as he can and bring more to the combat section of the game.
As to your list of things all of those are available to anyone provided they have the prereq's for the feat there is even a bleeding critical to give others a bleed, none of those are unique to the rogue. Granted the rogue will get a bleed far earlier than other classes.
That's the problem: the class dosen't have enough to unique shine (perhaps a non visual metaphor would be better here but its all I could come up with) compared to his contemporaries. Except possibly the Monk who still isn't quite hitting on all cylinders either.
Except possibly the Monk who still isn't quite hitting on all cylinders either.
I think Ultimate Combat was the fuel injection they needed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how people think that because spellcasters can do everything, stepping on the toes of other classes, that's ok. But if the rogue can do a lot with his skills, that's not ok.
Nobody said that. We're saying the exact opposite. We're saying the rogue's versatility outside combat isn't enough to make up for how much he sucks in combat.
The rogue can get several of the things listed that they should need:
Bleed: It's a talent
Weapon Finesse: It's a talent
Flanking without being opposite an ally: a couple different options
Abilities to hinder the opponent: feats and talents
I'm sorry, you misunderstood me. I'm aware those are available, and nearly anyone can take them. I'm saying the rogue should be getting some of them for free.
The rogue should not be the biggest damage dealer. That's not his shtick. He should be able to do a lot without magic, but then bring in magic when it's cool to do so. That's where a couple talents and the UMD skill come in handy.
Agreed. But that's not enough. The rogue should be able to contribute meaningfully in combat, even if he's not the biggest damage dealer. I listed other things he could be doing in combat. In my opinion, he needs to be able to do at least one of those things, tied near the top, or a bunch of them competently - right now he does none of them competently.
If the campaign isn't going to be using traps, then the player should select an archetype that loses trap finding and trap sense. My view is that if a character has an ability, the GM should throw the player a bone every once in a while and make it useful. It is the GMs job to make sure the players are having fun. The adventures should be tailored a bit (not completely, but a bit) to the characters but there should always be more than one way to deal with a situation.
I'm assuming the campaign IS using traps. The rogue falls behind regardless.
I part solved the issue in my game by crossing out the word NINJA on the HeroLab printed PC sheet and put the word ROGUE instead.
And added TRAPFINDING in crayon...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I part solved the issue in my game by crossing out the word NINJA on the HeroLab printed PC sheet and put the word ROGUE instead.
And added TRAPFINDING in crayon...\
Clever Monkey.
Previously I just gave Weapon Finesse as a bonus...Rogues already had such a Feat Tax to make them playable not to do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except possibly the Monk who still isn't quite hitting on all cylinders either.I think Ultimate Combat was the fuel injection they needed.
Yea my big issue now is the MAD is still there for a lot of the tasty they gave the monk though it might be worth it. Whereas rogue... maybe a dip for a concept/ prestige that require sneak attack or evasion to enter; or to get the skill boosts for a fighter
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once a day, if they have particular spells memorized meaning they don't have other spells memorized.
Schrödinger Wizard strikes again...
You, sir, win. That very term, "Schrödinger Wizard", is one I happily steal and will use again and again.
A level 5 wizard will out rogue a rogue in almost any situation.
BUILD PLZ
SPELLLIST PLZ
@DH: I specifically gave them Int to AC, because they are forced into melee, unlike every other class.
Based on my very limited experience just dealing with traps isn't worth giving up a lot o other things. In pathfinder I've played a total of 6 sessions, all PFS modules. I can think of exactly two that had a trap. One was set late because the GM forgot about it and the other was and the other was disabled by the level 2 Paladin of all people. Fights happen 3-4 times a module and traps once every 3-4 modules. For that reason alone it isn't worth giving up much combat ability for traps unless your setting is quite different.
Yeah, my experience has been that trapfinding is really not necessary. I have been in multiple groups now that have no class with trapfinding.
- Anyone with high perception can spot any trap
- Anyone with high disable device can disable non-magical traps.
I hated the days of 3.0 where only rogues could spot traps with a DC higher than 20, but in PF trapfinding is a niche ability that can safely be traded for something else via archtypes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is funny, but it seems like the bard and the rogue have basically traded places in PF.
In 3.0/3.5, the bard was a 5th wheel character, but for the most part they lacked any focus or specific niche. Now the bard is a solid buffer/backup healer/secondary damage dealer while the rogue struggles to have a niche.
Take a standard party with a fighter, cleric, and wizard. A bard is generally a much better compliment to the party than a rogue. The bard is almost as good at the face/scout/skill monkey game, while bringing hard to replace buffs and secondary damage.
The current game I'm in, we run into traps about as often as combats, and the module is based on a video game. to make things worse they are becoming magical. I've been forced to become a ranger with the trapper archetype because of it. Which I don't mind entirely, I've been wanting better armor and weapon proficiencies
A level 5 wizard will out rogue a rogue in almost any situation.BUILD PLZ
SPELLLIST PLZ
We're assuming optimal. As in theoretical. We don't need a build for that.
But hey, I don't have time for a full build, but suffice to say:
Int of at least 18.
Dex of 14.
Trait that gives Stealth as a Class Skill, and Disable Device as a class skill. (Conspiracy Hunter / Vagabond Child)
Put full ranks into those skills.
Stealth: 2 (dex) + 5 (ranks) +4 (class skill + trait) = +11. Which is maybe -1 or two below what a rogue would have, if he was focusing on dex for some reason. Assuming the rogue is suicidal and chooses 18 Dex, that would be +4 (dex) +5 ranks +3 class skill, for +12.
Disable Device: 4 (int) + 5 (ranks) + 4 (class skill + trait) = +13, which is probably what the rogue has as well. +2 from Int, +5 ranks, +3 class skill, and +2 from Trapfinding. Well, I guess that's only +12 for the rogue. Let's give them both MW thieves tools. So that's another +2 to both, for +15 (wizard), and +14 (rogue).
So they're pretty much equal in those regards.
Did I mention that the wizard has Invisibility (3 times per day, for +20 to stealth while moving, for 5 full minutes)? And Knock (1d20+5(CL)+10(spell))? Not that he really needs Knock, since he can do as well as that anyways without using a spell slot.
Acrobatics? Wizard will have about +6 to it. Compare that to the rogues +12. Well here's one place the wizard can't do as good or better. Jump, a level 1 spell, will give a +20 bonus to jumping, which could be pretty useful.
Climb? +5 ranks for the wizard. Probably won't have any other bonuses. Rogue will probably be +1 (str), +5 (ranks) +3 (class skill), for +9. Maybe +10. But hey, that's what Animate Rope is for. Or Levitate. Or fly.
And since we're assuming optimality here, the wizard will have quite a few scrolls on hand of various utility spells. Especially 1st level ones.
His Arcane Bond will allow for a lot of versatility.
And he can cast Haste, Create Pit, or any other awesome spell. Maybe he'd summon some monsters to give flanking to the rogue, so he can contribute as well. Who knows.
Stealth: 2 (dex) + 5 (ranks) +4 (class skill + trait) = +11. Which is maybe -1 or two below what a rogue would have, if he was focusing on dex for some reason. Assuming the rogue is suicidal and chooses 18 Dex, that would be +4 (dex) +5 ranks +3 class skill, for +12.
Did I mention that the wizard has Invisibility (3 times per day, for +20 to stealth while moving, for 5 full minutes)?
This is where I have a huge issue with invisibility.
I don't mind a wizard who has actually invested ranks and traits in stealth out sneaking a rogue, here is my problem.
Level 10 rogue with 22 dex, 10 ranks stealth, +3 class skill, +6 dexterity -> +19 to stealth.
Level 3 wizard with 14 dex, +20 invisibility, +2 dexterity -> +22 to stealth.
A level 3 wizard is no investment in stealth can out sneak a level 10 rogue. That is not factoring in that invisibility also gives you concealment so that you can always make hide checks.