|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because each thing I can do can also be done by someone else doesn't mean I'm not needed; there can be a unique value in having a broad skill set.
For instance, I can stand and fight on the front lines. If there's no fighter, I'm there. If there already is? Well, then either the squishies get a little extra protection, or I can shift to a different role.
Need to shoot at the enemy that took to the air or is attacking from across a gorge or atop a tower? I can do that too. Sure, maybe the archer is better at it, but do you really want to rely on one party member when you're in that situation?
The list goes on and on. Yes, it's great to have party members who each specialize in something. But when that something becomes the only viable tactic, suddenly you have a one-man party.
But a guy like me? I make sure that you always have two of what you need.
You can fill in the rogues skill with another class if that's what someone else wants to play. They'll probably be happier that way.
Just because each thing I can do can also be done by someone else doesn't mean I'm not needed; there can be a unique value in having a broad skill set.
For instance, I can stand and fight on the front lines. If there's no fighter, I'm there. If there already is? Well, then either the squishies get a little extra protection, or I can shift to a different role.
Need to shoot at the enemy that took to the air or is attacking from across a gorge or atop a tower? I can do that too. Sure, maybe the archer is better at it, but do you really want to rely on one party member when you're in that situation?
The list goes on and on. Yes, it's great to have party members who each specialize in something. But when that something becomes the only viable tactic, suddenly you have a one-man party.
But a guy like me? I make sure that you always have two of what you need.
I'm not going to disagree with what you've said here, but the fact is that the bard can fill all of the roles that you just named (and several others) while also having spells and buffs that the rogue can't match. And no, I don't mean that the bard fills one of those roles while neglecting the others. I mean ALL of them.
Secondary combatant, party face, dungeoneer, scout -- those are the roles that a rogue can fill, but without incredibly lucky stat rolls or an epic point buy allowance, you can only build any given rogue to fill 2 or 3 of those roles at best. The problem is that a bard can be built with the same stats that is as good or better at those roles than the rogue while still having other features that make it just plain better than the rogue AND accommodating the same sorts of concepts for character fluff.
The rogue is stuck now where the barbarian and monk were before the APG and Ultimates. Hopefully Paizo will give them something in the future to make them competitive again.
|
The rogue's primary role, in my experience? Sneak Attack. Hitting for an extra Xd6 against a target's flat-footed AC is nothing to sneeze at, especially when Improved Feint lets you do it reliably round after round.
The rogue is in a similar situation to the monk, as was mentioned before-- solid martial capability yet not the best choice for a purely martial class, and not really enough to back it up with. If you enjoy looking for ways to deny your opponent their Dex bonus and then dealing absurd amounts of damage to them, you'll like playing a rogue. It does sort of give melee combat a "thinking man's" edge, I must admit.
|
When it was announced by our GM that he was going to start a level 1 PF campaign after a long break I stated that I'll have a rogue if no one else wanted one - I didn't choose it for the skills, as 'the face' of the group, or the sneak attack,
The class fitted the character background.
This is a ROLE playing game not a ROLL playing game....I agree with some of the other threads about the rogue, I'm sure there's one saying that a rogue is OUTDAMAGED by the main core classes by level 5 - yeah Sneak Attack is great, but only if you get the chance to flank. In the current campaign my rogue, now level 3, has only had two or three chance to flank, by the time the 'melee members' of the party are in combat, the 'archery actioneers' and the 'wiz bangs' have taken them out...VERY frustrating. It sometimes feels that the rogue has been reduced to a 'two trick pony' - spotting traps and disabling devices.
Ultimate combat needed to address the rogue a bit more, as it is a secondary combat class
There's one thing most people overlook when they speak of the rogue....
ROGUE TALENTS!
These things have the capability of turning the rogue into a beast, if people would just give them a shot. Sure, a lot of them have out of combat uses... But let's look at a few I quite enjoy...
Normal Rogue Talents:
Bleeding Attack: Enemies hit by your sneak attack begin taking 1 point of bleed for each die of sneak attack you have. The bleed doesn't stack, but still, bleed is bleed, and bleed is nice.
Combat Trick: Get a combat feat for free, what's not to love?
Distracting Attack: Creature hit with a sneak attack becomes flatfooted to one creature of your choice until the beginning of your next turn. Certainly some lovely bonuses for melee combatants.
Fast Stealth: Move full speed while using the stealth skill without penalty... Need I say more?
Finesse Rogue: Weapon finesse as a bonus feat. Mmm.
Minor Magic: 0 lvl Sorc/Wiz spell 3 times a day as a spell like ability..... think about it.
Major Magic: like Minor Magic, but for 1st level spells... Enjoy.
Ninja Trick: You learn a Ninja Trick. I'll list a few I happen to like: Smoke Bomb, Choking Bomb, Poison Bomb, Deadly Range, Pressure Points (really good one), Undetected Sabotage, Wall Climber. This talent is selectable multiple times.
Snap Shot: Oh its a surprise round? My roll is an auto 20. Now, if you add in Improved Initiative, a high dex, and lets say you chose Reactionary as a trait... "I win surprise round initiative forever..."
Sniper's Eye: Ranged sneak attack still works on things with concealment within 30 feet.
Surprise Attack: It's the surprise round, and everyone is flatfooted to me. No Gary, I don't care if you've already acted, stop crying.
Swift Poison: Ok, so I like poisons. You can apply it as a move instead of a standard action here.
Underhanded: Ha! It's the surprise round, you didn't know about my weapon, so my sneak attack damage is auto-max. Damn it Gary I told you to stop crying!
Now for Advanced Talents.
Crippling Stike: Your sneak attack damage also does 2 points of strength damage... Now imagine stacking this with bleeding strike and ninja trick pressure points... Each and every sneak attack. The rogue can literally pick apart opponents, sneak attack by sneak attack.
Deadly Cocktail: No, I really really like poisons. You can apply two for two different effects, or two doses of the same one for increased frequency and DC... At the same time.
Hide In Plain Sight: So, you select a ranger's favored terrain each time you pick this... And you can use stealth to hide even while being observed... Nice. Yes, selectable multiple times.
Hunter's Surprise: If I understand this advanced talent correctly... Once per day something that can't be sneak attacked, either because of not being flat footed or flanked... I can now apply sneak Attack damage to all attacks made against the foe of choice next to me... Sweet.
Opportunist: Now, whats not to love about MORE AoOs? One of my favorite usages for this was a Rogue with Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip, and Greater Trip... Ah what fun.
Redirect Attack: About to die? This is the Advanced Talent for you. Once per day redirect any attack at you to ANY other adjacent creature. Then get the hell outta there.
Stealthy Sniper: When using Stealth to Snipe, you only take a -10, rather than the normal -20.
Unwitting Ally: So, you get to make a bluff check, which should be easy for you, you're a damn rogue... Succeed, and one enemy counts as an ally for purposes of flanking. Oh what fun.
Weapon Snatcher: Sleight of Hand check instead of CMB to disarm someone? Need I say more?
Those are some lovely little feats for melee and ranged sneak attackers alike... Things get really silly with the crippling sorts of talents when you've got two rogues in the party.
Alternatively! If you happen to use high-crit weapons, might I suggest Butterfly's Sting feats if anyone is using a weapon with higher damage? Any time you confirm a crit, you can forego the crit to grant a critical hit to the next ally to hit the target until the beginning of your next turn. You deal damage normal, and their attack automatically confirms the hit as a critical. When paired with a Cavalier with a Scythe things can get just plain wrong (if you two can stay flanking the same opponent).
I typically see the rogue, at least how I play him, as the thing that slowly disassembles the opponents and makes DMs cry. Applying poisons to his attacks, and using cheap Ninja Tricks and Sneak Attacks to inflict extra damage, 2pts of strength damage, bleed damage equal to his sneak attack dice, and if he chose pressure points 1pt of strength or dexterity... Surprise round with a poisoned throwing dagger or crossbow bolt/arrow would ruin anybody's day. That big ol' orc barbarian isn't so tough after a few pokes in the rump from the rogue.
Now, in terms of taking multiple Ninja Tricks and getting Poison Bomb... I am HIGHLY advising the usage of the Poisoner archetype! not only do you not risk poisoning yourself, but you can during downtime, change the type of poison. That is, you can make injury, ingested, or contact poisons into inhaled poisons, so that you may use them with Poison Bomb.... Just a thought.
|
There's one thing most people overlook when they speak of the rogue....
ROGUE TALENTS!
These things have the capability of turning the rogue into a beast, if people would just give them a shot. Sure, a lot of them have out of combat uses... But let's look at a few I quite enjoy...
Listing a bunch of rogue abilities is not enough to give the rogue a role.
Fast Stealth: Move full speed while using the stealth skill without penalty... Need I say more?
Yes you do need to say more. Telling me what the ability does is not enough to give the rogue a role. Have you ever been in a situation where moving half speed in stealth was not enough?
Minor Magic: 0 lvl Sorc/Wiz spell 3 times a day as a spell like ability..... think about it.
Okay. I don't like it. I could have taken a level of bard and done way better for myself.
It must have taken awhile to type this out, but I really don't understand what your point is, other than "The rogue has abilities which are useful sometimes." I'd still take a bard in my group given the choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but i'd love to play a rogue, just for the fluff around it and the numerous characters I can come up with. People shouldn't mind having their character outdamaged by others, simply because this is no wargame.
You can play the sneaky pickpocket, the smooth-talker, the scout, a charlatan, the ladies man, a coward who avoids direct combat and only kills weak enemies, etc. For me, that's what counts. Okay, other classes can do the same, but so what? What's really important is how memorable that guy will be!
That's me, though.
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but i'd love to play a rogue, just for the fluff around it and the numerous characters I can come up with. People shouldn't mind having their character outdamaged by others, simply because this is no wargame.
You can play the sneaky pickpocket, the smooth-talker, the scout, a charlatan, the ladies man, a coward who avoids direct combat and only kills weak enemies, etc. For me, that's what counts. Okay, other classes can do the same, but so what? What's really important is how memorable that guy will be!
That's me, though.
I totally agree with Devilstrider's comment. I feel the same way.
Ultradan
I also agree, on a technical level no a rogue isn't "Needed", if the style/personality fits the type of character you want to play, it is viable enough to be fully playable assuming being the top DPR isn't what is needed to make the game fun. Rogue is not a class that is needed to "bite the bullet and suck it up for the team because someone needs to play it" any longer. Well unless the DM disallows archetypes of other classes that grant trap finding, and puts truly deadly traps in their games.
Myself as a DM, when I have someone who wants to play rogue, or a class with trap-finding, I tend to ramp up the deadliness of traps. But I will never throw in deadly traps at a party that isn't equipped to handle them, or force someone to play a class they don't want just to make sure the "roles" are filled.
|
|
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but i'd love to play a rogue, just for the fluff around it and the numerous characters I can come up with. People shouldn't mind having their character outdamaged by others, simply because this is no wargame.
You can play the sneaky pickpocket, the smooth-talker, the scout, a charlatan, the ladies man, a coward who avoids direct combat and only kills weak enemies, etc. For me, that's what counts. Okay, other classes can do the same, but so what? What's really important is how memorable that guy will be!
That's me, though.
The trouble I have is when I look at a bard or ranger (or an archetype of these). Playing the smooth-talker, the scout, the charlatan are mostly roleplaying, with just a minor splash of skills. When I look at the Sandman and the Archeologist, as well as the Urban Ranger and the Trapper, I can't help feeling like the rogue class shouldn't exist at all.
Of course you can still be a rogue, or a roguish character. Remember that your character can call himself whatever he likes, and he can be whatever you like.
"That man with the longbow and that mangy wolf? A rogue if I ever saw one. "
The trouble I have is when I look at a bard or ranger (or an archetype of these). Playing the smooth-talker, the scout, the charlatan are mostly roleplaying, with just a minor splash of skills. When I look at the Sandman and the Archeologist, as well as the Urban Ranger and the Trapper, I can't help feeling like the rogue class shouldn't exist at all.
Of course you can still be a rogue, or a roguish character. Remember that your character can call himself whatever he likes, and he can be whatever you like.
"That man with the longbow and that mangy wolf? A rogue if I ever saw one. "
I absolutely understand what you'e saying, and I'd like Paizo to make archetypes so that they're not "invasive" to other classes' fluff.
That said, even though you can play a huge number of "rogue types", you should have always in mind that the character is, above all, a rogue. So if he's a charmer, he's kissing and, at the same time, reaching for the lady's purse. If he's a scout, he may catch the enemies' sleeping and steal their stuff, poison their food or plant a trap on their camp. Per say, whichever "rogue" you're playing, he should be doing things a rogue would do, not a ranger or a bard. I see a bard singing a "sleep" song to steal from the lady, but not lifting her stuff :)
I dunno, thinking like that I feel like the character is unique and memorable!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Secondary combatant, party face, dungeoneer, scout -- those are the roles that a rogue can fill, but without incredibly lucky stat rolls or an epic point buy allowance, you can only build any given rogue to fill 2 or 3 of those roles at best. The problem is that a bard can be built with the same stats that is as good or better at those roles than the rogue while still having other features that make it just plain better than the rogue AND accommodating the same sorts of concepts for character fluff.
The rogue is stuck now where the barbarian and monk were before the APG and Ultimates. Hopefully Paizo will give them something in the future to make them competitive again.
Keep in mind that it makes a big difference which of the possible roles you try to fill. If one rogue chooses to be a secondary tank, a secondary archer, a scout and a dungeoneer; and another chooses to be a secondary tank, a scout, a face and a UMD monkey; then even though they both picked four roles to fill, the first rogue is going to be miles ahead of the second.
Why? Because the first rogue roles all rely on similar abilities (STR, DEX, etc) while the second needs those same abilities PLUS some extra CHA and probably Skill Focus: UMD.
J.J. is a Pathfinder Society character of mine, currently level 2. He's usually got the highest or second-highest AC in the party, deals respectable damage even without sneak attack, has plenty of skills (and can currently climb a brick wall 20ft at a time with his bare hands while being shot at, without fail - I'd like to see a level 2 bard do that). He's successful because he chose roles that utilized the same stats instead of trying to straddle two fundamentally different skillsets.
So if you're talking about a CHA rogue, then yes, a bard will do better. A bard basically IS a CHA rogue, but with spells. But get the "rogues must use CHA" paradigm out of your head and you can get something that a bard can't really imitate.
Keep in mind that it makes a big difference which of the possible roles you try to fill. If one rogue chooses to be a secondary tank, a secondary archer, a scout and a dungeoneer; and another chooses to be a secondary tank, a scout, a face and a UMD monkey; then even though they both picked four roles to fill, the first rogue is going to be miles ahead of the second.
You've missed the point. Whatever set of roles you choose to fill can be filled by a bard (with the same race and stats) as well as the rogue or better while bringing other options to the table that the rogue doesn't.
That first hypothetical rogue you mentioned? A bard would be better for that. And the second? Yeah, a bard would be better for that, too.
J.J. is a Pathfinder Society character of mine, currently level 2. He's usually got the highest or second-highest AC in the party, deals respectable damage even without sneak attack, has plenty of skills (and can currently climb a brick wall 20ft at a time with his bare hands while being shot at, without fail - I'd like to see a level 2 bard do that). He's successful because he chose roles that utilized the same stats instead of trying to straddle two fundamentally different skillsets.
You do realize that levels 1-5 are where the rogue shines (or comes the closest to shining), right?
So if you're talking about a CHA rogue, then yes, a bard will do better. A bard basically IS a CHA rogue, but with spells. But get the "rogues must use CHA" paradigm out of your head and you can get something that a bard can't really imitate.
A bard doesn't need anything more than a moderate CHA unless he's playing the party face role. He can stick with spells that don't provoke saves (like buffs), and simply leveling up his class will give him more than enough performance rounds to cover a normal day's adventuring by level 6 or 7.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
To clarify: the type of rogue I'm talking about? One like J.J.? A bard with his stats wouldn't be able to cast spells at all.
STR 16
DEX 16
CON 15
INT 12
WIS 10
CHA 7
A bard could take those stats. But he couldn't cast spells, and he'd only have 2 rounds of bardic performance per level (and would fail at those performances that required checks, since unless he burns a feat he'd have a +3 to Perform). And compared to a rogue, he'll have fewer skills, no sneak attack, no Rogue Talents, etc.
So if J.J., with his stats, had been a bard instead of a rogue, he'd trade in:
• Sneak attack
• 2 skill points/level
• Rogue talents
• Evasion
• (a few miscellaneous minor class features)
And receive in return:
• 4 rounds of Inspire Courage
• (a few miscellaneous minor class features)
Do you still think a bard is better in this instance? If you stat a rogue as a bard, then yeah, a bard would be better. But not every viable rogue build would be viable as a bard.
Do you still think a bard is better in this instance? If you stat a rogue as a bard, then yeah, a bard would be better. But not every viable rogue build would be viable as a bard.
I would not take a bard in this instance. I'd take a Ranger. Maybe Urban, maybe with a trait for Disable Device. But I agree with your point, that there are circumstance in which a very specific ability set can be created by a rogue that other classes can't replicate.
The sad bit is that that ability set has gotten so small. If you had an even middling Charisma, an Archaelogist bard would be superior. A Rogue that puts everything into combat options is going to still be behind a Ranger, but one that concentrates on unique, interesting Rogue talents is going to be left in the dust by his martial compatriots. That the most viable option is a strength based, low charisma rogue (often with a barbarian dip) is unfortunate, given the much wider variety of rogues theoretically should be able to play.
Honestly, they just seriously need some love. Like how UC has brought Monks up to snuff. Super strong talents that are based on Rogue level would really help. A talent that gives the entire TWF tree (based on rogue level), or +Cha to damage, or other powerful options would go a long way to bringing the Rogue into viability in the roles it is supposed to be able to play.
Oh, and make their ki pool not suck. No extra attack option? Seriously?
To clarify: the type of rogue I'm talking about? One like J.J.? A bard with his stats wouldn't be able to cast spells at all.
STR 16
DEX 16
CON 15
INT 12
WIS 10
CHA 7A bard could take those stats. But he couldn't cast spells, and he'd only have 2 rounds of bardic performance per level (and would fail at those performances that required checks, since unless he burns a feat he'd have a +3 to Perform). And compared to a rogue, he'll have fewer skills, no sneak attack, no Rogue Talents, etc.
So if J.J., with his stats, had been a bard instead of a rogue, he'd trade in:
• Sneak attack
• 2 skill points/level
• Rogue talents
• Evasion
• (a few miscellaneous minor class features)And receive in return:
• 4 rounds of Inspire Courage
• (a few miscellaneous minor class features)Do you still think a bard is better in this instance? If you stat a rogue as a bard, then yeah, a bard would be better. But not every viable rogue build would be viable as a bard.
First, same as with spells, you avoid abilities that allow saves. Evasion isn't much of a loss. Two skill points is not much of anything when you consider the bonuses to skills that bards get. Inspire Courage +1 is better than an average 3.5 damage on a couple hits per fight (especially if you have multiple martials or a party of more than 4). Also, since you're comparing the characters at a whopping level 2, you would only be giving up a single rogue talent for the performance rounds. Budgeting those would be tough, but again, you're talking about level 2. By level 7, that problem ceases to exist.
Losing spells hurts, but very minor changes to the point-buy given would fix that. Dropping CON by 1 and INT to 10 puts you back at 10 CHA. Dropping DEX by 1 puts your CHA to 13. This gains you spells like Feather Step and Expeditious Retreat at level 1, which improve your fighting ability more than what you gave up. It also gets you Vanish for scouting. At level 4 you get Allegro, which gives you a personal version of Haste, meaning that you're making 2 attacks a round at a net +3 over what a TWFing rogue is doing while doing more damage per hit (since you can 2-hand both swings).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do people use traps? Is it just a feeling they should be there?
Or do they actually enjoy them? Even if you've got a character with trapfinding, so you can throw in traps to make them useful, it's just a couple of rolls with no real decision making.
Where does the fun come from?
As a DM half my traps are far more interactive than this. More the Indiana Jones rolling boulder than the 3 arrows that shoot out of the wall. Make traps more of an encounter for the whole party and get creative with avenues of escape and Rogues can really shine. In my game a Rogue maybe have to scale a difficult wall, squirm through a small tunnel and make a disable check and a knowledge engineering to stop the clockwork mass of gears, while the party powerlessly attempts to dodge the whirling blades down on the floor below. Sure someone else in the party could try to fill the Rogues rolls here...but what are the odds he could do all 4 tasks with the same level of competence? I assert you would really have to try to make a Rogue analog to replace him, so why not just have one in the party to begin with? I think as a DM its incumbent on you to find ways for characters to have spotlight moments. If Rogues do not have a roll at your table, some of that is on you. If every encounter is high SR low AC the Warriors will shine, if every puzzle and situation can only be solved by spells the wizard will.
|
|
The trouble I have is when I look at a bard or ranger (or an archetype of these). Playing the smooth-talker, the scout, the charlatan are mostly roleplaying, with just a minor splash of skills. When I look at the Sandman and the Archeologist, as well as the Urban Ranger and the Trapper, I can't help feeling like the rogue class shouldn't exist at all.
Of course you can still be a rogue, or a roguish character. Remember that your character can call himself whatever he likes, and he can be whatever you like.
"That man with the longbow and that mangy wolf? A rogue if I ever saw one. "
I absolutely understand what you'e saying, and I'd like Paizo to make archetypes so that they're not "invasive" to other classes' fluff.
That said, even though you can play a huge number of "rogue types", you should have always in mind that the character is, above all, a rogue. So if he's a charmer, he's kissing and, at the same time, reaching for the lady's purse. If he's a scout, he may catch the enemies' sleeping and steal their stuff, poison their food or plant a trap on their camp. Per say, whichever "rogue" you're playing, he should be doing things a rogue would do, not a ranger or a bard. I see a bard singing a "sleep" song to steal from the lady, but not lifting her stuff :)
I dunno, thinking like that I feel like the character is unique and memorable!
I don't feel that you understand what I'm saying. You seem to be saying that only a rogue can steal? What I say is that if I want to build a master thief I'll probably use the Archeologist. If I want a charmer, lady-killer, purse-lifter, I'll use the Sandman. There is currently no reason I can think of to play the rogue class, short of needing the word 'rogue' on my character sheet.
And that's a pretty bad reason.
Why do people use traps? Is it just a feeling they should be there?
Or do they actually enjoy them? Even if you've got a character with trapfinding, so you can throw in traps to make them useful, it's just a couple of rolls with no real decision making.
Where does the fun come from?
The exact same thing can be said about monsters, NPC's, or any other part of the game. Of course there is decision making, on when/where to look for traps, on how to deal with traps, and how to deal with the situation should the trap activate. No, you don't need heavy decisions for a basic arrow trap - neither do you need it for encountering a kobold.
Traps are like monsters, they don't do well single but can be very useful in groups.
Sure someone else in the party could try to fill the Rogues rolls here...but what are the odds he could do all 4 tasks with the same level of competence? I assert you would really have to try to make a Rogue analog to replace him, so why not just have one in the party to begin with? I think as a DM its incumbent on you to find ways for characters to have spotlight moments. If Rogues do not have a roll at your table, some of that is on you. If every encounter is high SR low AC the Warriors will shine, if every puzzle and situation can only be solved by spells the wizard will.
An Archaelogist bard would not only be able to do these things, but do them far better. They get Climb and Escape Artist, and Knowledge(Engineering) is a class skill for them (unlike Rogues) and they get a level based bonus to it (unlike Rogues). They do miss Disable Device, but they can use luck or buffs or traits to bring their skill up the +3 to equal a Rogue. Plus, they automatically can take 10 on that Disable Device and do it as a standard action, unlike a Rogue.
Even if they don't have these skills, they are better. Who needs Escape Artist when you can cast "Grease" on yourself and get a +10 on the check? Or fire off Timely or Gallant Inspirations to make up for a slightly missed roll? You can make much of the task trivial with "Gaseous Form." These aren't even esoteric spells... most bards are going to have them.
This is the problem. This SHOULD be the area a character with levels in the "Rogue" class would be ideal. But a roguish Bard does it all the same or better. When you ask "Why make a Rogue analog?" I would answer "because he makes a better Rogue." It is not "on us" that they aren't the best at anything, it is their own fault for letting others classes steal their thunder instead of stabbing them in their sleep like PROPER rogues.
When I played my rogue character, his main area was dealing lots of damage. I consistantly out DPR'ed the Fighter (though he was a chain-tripper build) while also being a great scout and party "Face". It's not that they don't have any role to play OR that other classes out perform them in their role. Rogues tend to be a jack of all trades, yet master of none. Bards, while being exceptionally good party Faces, minor-healers, and buff givers they tend to sorely lack in the damage dealing department. Fighters are good in the DPR dept. yet not so good on the party face and have NO ability to dole out buffs or utility power. Neither class (bard or fighter) are as good as covert, scouting operations as the scout when you add in their Rogue talents, espically in higher level campagins where Spell Resistance and Zones of Anti-magic are functioning.
Personally, I feel the Rogue is best when flanking with his fighter buddy or possibly fighting in darkness while the rogue has darkvision and dealing out those nice Xd6 sneak attack damage in addition to disabling traps. Sure, the Bard has some spells but I've not seen any credit given to Use Magic Device ALL rogues should be Maxing out to gain the same benefits from wands, scrolls, and the like.
Sure someone else in the party could try to fill the Rogues rolls here...but what are the odds he could do all 4 tasks with the same level of competence? I assert you would really have to try to make a Rogue analog to replace him, so why not just have one in the party to begin with? I think as a DM its incumbent on you to find ways for characters to have spotlight moments. If Rogues do not have a roll at your table, some of that is on you. If every encounter is high SR low AC the Warriors will shine, if every puzzle and situation can only be solved by spells the wizard will.An Archaelogist bard would not only be able to do these things, but do them far better. They get Climb and Escape Artist, and Knowledge(Engineering) is a class skill for them (unlike Rogues) and they get a level based bonus to it (unlike Rogues). They do miss Disable Device, but they can use luck or buffs or traits to bring their skill up the +3 to equal a Rogue. Plus, they automatically can take 10 on that Disable Device and do it as a standard action, unlike a Rogue.
Even if they don't have these skills, they are better. Who needs Escape Artist when you can cast "Grease" on yourself and get a +10 on the check? Or fire off Timely or Gallant Inspirations to make up for a slightly missed roll? You can make much of the task trivial with "Gaseous Form." These aren't even esoteric spells... most bards are going to have them.
This is the problem. This SHOULD be the area a character with levels in the "Rogue" class would be ideal. But a roguish Bard does it all the same or better. When you ask "Why make a Rogue analog?" I would answer "because he makes a better Rogue." It is not "on us" that they aren't the best at anything, it is their own fault for letting others classes steal their thunder instead of stabbing them in their sleep like PROPER rogues.
I wasnt really responding to you or trying to get invovled in your arguement but what the hey. I would say you really are still using limited resources to emulate a class that can do these things naturally at will for starters. Also lets not forget the other options your have to give up to emulate a rougue with your bard. I count three or four spells you could have used for more useful things than bypassing a single trap, thats a lot of resources for one encounter. Then you sight Buffs and traits that you could have used for other things that might benefit the party more had a rogue been present to do the deed. You state that the bard is better as if thats fact...I would assert that going nova with your spells to bypass one trap would make you better that round...but the rogue can do these things again and again if needed.
Why do people use traps? Is it just a feeling they should be there?
Or do they actually enjoy them? Even if you've got a character with trapfinding, so you can throw in traps to make them useful, it's just a couple of rolls with no real decision making.
Where does the fun come from?The exact same thing can be said about monsters, NPC's, or any other part of the game. Of course there is decision making, on when/where to look for traps, on how to deal with traps, and how to deal with the situation should the trap activate. No, you don't need heavy decisions for a basic arrow trap - neither do you need it for encountering a kobold.
Traps are like monsters, they don't do well single but can be very useful in groups.
Well, I guess deciding to search matters, but doesn't "how to deal with traps" come down to making a single roll?
Even for a kobold, once you've detected it, you don't just have your combat guy roll his combat skill to see if you beat it.It just seems far more complicated to make anything interesting out of the trap mechanics. At 1st level, 4-5 kobolds make an interesting fight. You can't just put 4-5 traps in a room and have it be anything more than a few perception and disable rolls.
Maybe it's just that it's so much more of a binary thing?Even Lazurin Arborlon's complicated disarming situation above seems a little odd to me. The rules assume you can disable any trap at the trigger point. If you can put the spot you have to get to to disable it elsewhere why put it anywhere accessible: Master control room in the center of the complex, a dozen room away with plenty of guards in between.
If that was assuming they'd already had and missed a chance to spot and not trigger the trap, that makes more sense. Using the rogue skills to get a second chance. But it still would have been just a Perception->Disarm if you'd made it.
I have never seen anywhere that implicitly states that a disarm has to be made at the sight of the trigger. I think that assumption is yours. If your looking for logic to explain away why there is no control room I would sight limited resources. Making the mechanism local but hard to reach is much more feasable that running wires and gears and pulleys hundreds of yards through mazes of tubes and coridors to a central area serving an entire dungeon. As for the spot, to not trigger the trap, some traps arent just one floor tile to step over. They can be whole rooms that are much more tough to bypass, or the mechanism to triger may be invisible.
I am not trying to nock on your play style, just enourage some out of the box thinking. It seems your game is limited to the single arrow triggered by an open door style trap and I am saying if you find the rogue boring a few enounters that play to his strengths and a little imaginiation can go a long way to helping him shine now and then.
Well, I guess deciding to search matters, but doesn't "how to deal with traps" come down to making a single roll?
Only if it's just a single trap with a single, simple deactivation mechanism. Several intertwined traps can have effects if disabled in a bad way, or activating the trap can be part of how to solve it. In some cases, like a concealed pit, you cannot effectively disable it with a single roll and it comes down to balance, jump and climb checks.
A combination of monsters and traps can be even more complex.
I agree that most of the core traps are pretty bland, but for example, combinations of pit traps, falling ceiling traps, and gelatinous cubes can make for interesting encounters.
If a kobold attacks, you roll initiative, if a ranged guy wins, he attacks, the kobold dies. Only difference is the initiative. If they spot the kobold first, sneak attack, it's dead.
The rules assume you can disable any trap at the trigger point.
To some degree, I think the rules assume you rule 0 when they don't make sense. I agree it's not a useful argument in a rules discussion, but when discussing design, it makes sense not to let an open chasm be disabled with a roll.
I agree that traps are MUCH more limited than monsters, but they're not all that bad, and sometimes they can be used to great effect. One good thing with traps is that they can be dramatic due to their rarity.
Traps that separate the party, calls monsters, sets a time limit to something, and generally does STUFF (that isn't damage) can be very useful. Those that just do damage/random status effect aren't that interesting, unless they are combined in elaborate patterns (spiked trap combined with bull rushing monsters, for example).
The rogue's role is Skill Monkey. This doesn't mean that the skill monkey role can only be filled by the Rogue class. Lots of other classes can fill this role to varying degrees. The debate is do you really need a rogue class anymore. You want sneak attack, pick an alchemist since they sneak attack better than rogues with the Vivisectionist archetype combined with mutagens. Sneaking, pick a ranger they sneak just as good a rogue outside their favored terrain, I argue fast stealth here though. Traps can be done by an Urban Ranger or Detective bard. Some valid arguments here but this what gets people debating the issue sometimes less civil than others.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I guess one thing you have to consider is how good a rogue has to be at Task X to be considered viable/competent.
If he needs to be the best at something, he's probably not worth looking into. He's not a hyper-specialist like a fighter or wizard can be.
If he needs to be a jack of all trades, then the exact mix may lead you to a bard, or a ranger, or something else. But it might lead you to a rogue.
The number of concepts/builds where the rogue is the "best choice" is smaller than I'd like. But I think they do exist (I don't think J.J. as a bard or ranger would've given me what I wanted).
Also, random aside: the ninja trick "Wall Climber" in UC (which rogues can take as well, due to the "Ninja Trick" rogue talent) gives you a climb speed of 20ft. A freaking climb speed. That means +8 racial bonus and the ability to take 10 even while threatened/distracted. That means J.J. can climb anything with a DC of 26 or less (a brick wall or natural rock wall is DC 25) without even rolling. So... AWESOME... /)^3^(\
Sorry, just needed to gush a little on that.
I wasnt really responding to you or trying to get invovled in your arguement but what the hey. I would say you really are still using limited resources to emulate a class that can do these things naturally at will for starters.
You don't need to use those limited resources. In the example you described, the difference between characters with Rogue level and Bard levels is that Rogues have Disable Device as a class skill, while Bards get Knowledge(Engineering), Bardic Knowledge to increase it, and the ability to take 10 and the equivalent of the "Fast Picks" and "Quick Disable" talents for free. That they can use limited resources to be way, way better at this instead of the same is just an additional way in which they are superior.
Also lets not forget the other options your have to give up to emulate a rougue with your bard. I count three or four spells you could have used for more useful things than bypassing a single trap, thats a lot of resources for one encounter. Then you sight Buffs and traits that you could have used for other things that might benefit the party more had a rogue been present to do the deed. You state that the bard is better as if thats fact...I would assert that going nova with your spells to bypass one trap would make you better that round...but the rogue can do these things again and again if needed.
Again, without spells, an Archeologist bard is an EQUAL skill-monkey. There are slight differences, in that a Rogue gets 2 more skill points. But the Archeologist has better perception (since his 1/2 level bonus applies to everything, not just finding traps), far better knowledges (with class skills, Bardic Knowledge and Lore Master), and a Trapfinding ability with two built in talents (meaning the Rogue isn't even ahead in talents until level 10). The bard is as able to do these things all day as a Rogue.
The difference is that the Archaeologist bard also has the option of using some of his limited resources to be far, far better than a Rogue. He can climb the shaft as well as the Rogue, or choose to float up it in Gaseous Form. He can try to squeeze through a space exactly as well as a rogue, or use grease and make it a trivial check. Or he can save them to buff his party, or help in combat, or bypass an enemy. That the Rogue lacks even the option to increase his abilities is not a point in his favor.
The point I am trying to make is that the situation you presented was something in which a "Rogue" should absolutely be the best. That another character class is as good, if not better in this scenario is lame. It isn't even some super complicated, focused build. A generic Archaeologist, with the same choices as a rogue, is just going to do that job better. As well as doing a bunch of things the rogue can't even begin to emulate. This holds for most of the niches a Rogue could try to carve for himself. They SHOULD be a versatile class, but in practice 10 talents and 20 skillpoints doesn't make up for the piles of goodies other classes get. That some archetypes take it further and take even the few unique Rogue features (trapfinding and talents) just adds insult to injury.
I assert you would really have to try to make a Rogue analog to replace him, so why not just have one in the party to begin with?
Its getting easier and easier.
The answer is that when you replace him you get something between Better than the rogue at the rogues job to slightly worse (so it doesn't matter) AND you get something much more effective in combat.
You are far more likely to die from a combat encounter, so it makes sense to put more of your resources into that .
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And for the record, I also play a Cleric (who other posters have labeled useless), a Bard (that other posters have labeled a "cheating, druid hating bigot"), and a Alchemist (that other posters have ... wait, no one said anything bad about him yet. hmmmmm....).
"Alchemists can die in a fire and never sully my precious canon again."
There, now you have a complete set. ;)
Why a rogue?
While I could aggre with the mechanical and "munch" arguments that the Rogue's niche is filled by other classes I must, on the other hand, disagree.
1) From the mechanical point of view I would say that the Rogues Role is to be useful in every aspect of the game from subtly bypassing traps and locks to weakening foes or even the odd lucky try on that cool ancient magic artifact. From the sole point of view of combat, the rogue unique's mechanics is the sneak attack. So I would guess that the rogue chararcter's player's role should be to try to make those sneak attacks land as often as possible an be as crippling as possible. If your GM is not saddistic you should have your share of foes vulnerable to sneak attack with good timing and positioning.
2) From the fluff pont of view, and despite all archetypes you may want to throw at me, the average Joe has normally somethin in his mind when building a rogue that pretty much more or less only fits in a Rogue. Examples:
- Kheldar of Drasnia (Chronicles of Belgarath asf) is no bard
- Tasselhof Burfoot (Dragonlance) only fits in a Rogue
- Even Thom Merrilin (the Wheel of Time) fits better in a Rogue with perform skills than in a bard's skin.
- In the latter series you could also "build" Mat Cauthon with a rogue character.
- Arya Stark (A song of...) has the feeling o a rogue
- So has Varys the spider and Littlefinger
All these characters have something in common: they are pretty damn memorable. The "rogue role" is usually one of the most popular in fantasy series.
I don't usually copy characters from fantasy when building a PC, but it's true that some inspiration derives from literature, graphic art, films asf and IMHO in the very root of Roleplaying (hence the name) lies the act of giving life to somebody of your imagination.
Excuse the length but I'm not able to express myself in english more concisely...