Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Why so much Rogue Hate?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

51 to 100 of 182 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's probably been said, but this is already a long thread that I didn't feel like reading closely:

It's not Rogue Hate, it's Rogue Love. It's desperately hoping that if enough people realize how crappy they are, something will change--that they'll be fixed.

It's not just about DPR, either. Anything a Rogue can do, another class can do better. And before you say something like, "Oh, but the Rogue can do all of those things at once," let me point out that even that isn't a niche they own. Several classes can pull it off and do so better. Most notably the Bard, though really, even a straight Wizard can out-Rogue a Rogue.

Sneak Attack isn't great, but even if it were, the Vivisectionist Alchemist gets it and has a better chassis supporting it. The Ninja is kind of already their "stealth rogue fix," but then didn't include an Extra Rogue Talent equivalent for the Ninja, which still keeps them from being amazing.

Grand Lodge

Abraham spalding wrote:
Next question -- you climbed up while under attack? The entire time you were attacked? Would Feather Falling down be cheating?

Feather Falling wouldn't be cheating, but wouldn't work. The duration is 1 round/level (so 2 rounds in this challenge) and makes you fall 60ft/rd. So from your starting height of 150', you FF 120' and then freefall 30', taking 3d6 damage and falling prone, failing the challenge.

Or you could try to climb down 30' before casting, but unless you have something else going on as well, you're looking at 5' per successful climb check, two checks per round - and you have to make a climb check or fall each time you take damage from the harpies.

Quote:
Could we get the entire story?

*straightens up and smiles*

Why yes; yes you could!

I was traveling with a caravan through a canyon. All but one of us gets hypnotized by a harpy's song for a few rounds, after which the one who made his save informs us that a harpy swooped down, grabbed a servant boy from the caravan, and took him a couple of hundred feet up to a cave.

I grab the ranger's periscope and tell them I'll go up and take a peek all sneaky-like, then come back down and we can decide what to do. Except when I get 150' up, two harpies come out of their cave (fortunately, one had a sore throat and couldn't sing, and I'd already been affected by the other's song and therefore couldn't be again).

They start attacking, and I start climbing down (doing nothing but climb). I finish my climb in single-digit HP, but standing. The party engages the harpies, including me shooting with a shortbow from solid ground.

So your bard or ranger has to (with your bare hands, like me - no climber's kit) climb 150' feet up a rock face, then get to the bottom while being attacked by two harpies (they attack no one else, and no one else assists you) and land on your feet with HP left over.

At character level 2, in a non-race-dependent way.


Heck an internal cryptbreaker vivisectionist has trapfinding and sneak attack as well as being able to take trap spotter as a discovery... or trap sense. What's more he will also be immune to disease, poison and have uncanny dodge.


Atarlost wrote:


Maybe it's time to admit that Rogue is all fluff no crunch. Thieves and locksmiths and expert treasure hunters can be built just as easily as mechanically superior bard or ranger archetypes. All that's left is slapping rogue levels on enemies to make the PCs fear being flanked.

That's the thing - speaking personally, even if I could be a better "rogue" by choosing the right bard or ranger archetype, I'd be very reluctant to do so because I don't want to play a tweaked version of Aragorn or... (attempts to think of iconic fantasy bard and fails) ... I have always played a thief, and shall continue to do so no matter how (relatively) rubbish it appears to be, as that is the sort of character that appeals to me.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Heck an internal cryptbreaker vivisectionist has trapfinding and sneak attack as well as being able to take trap spotter as a discovery... or trap sense. What's more he will also be immune to disease, poison and have uncanny dodge.

And whats more, unless you know something I dont, its completely illegal as you Crypt Breaker replaces Bombs, as does Vivisectionist.

Did I miss something?


You're talking about soloing an APL+5 encounter. (2 CR 4 harpies = CR6 + 1 for unfavorable terrain (climbing vs flying enemies)) I'll believe it happened. I won't believe it happened with average rolls. You can do anything if your dice are hot and your GM's are cold.


Abraham spalding wrote:
J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:

In any case, show me the Ranger or Archaeologist who, at level 2, can bare-hand his way up a canyon wall to a height of 150' and then climb back down while being fly-by attacked by two morningstar-wielding harpies and get all the way to the bottom (conscious and not prone) with no help from anyone.

I AM HANGING ON TO MY SECOND-LEVEL GLORY DANGIT

Vanara -- anything.

Actual Climb speed -- moving 20 foot a round, his tail can carry an extra object to boot.

Sorry I really am but you asked for it.

Yeah The Vanara are my new favorite race.

1) Monkeys
2) Excellent Divine Casters
3) A natural monk +2 Dex, +2 Wis, -2 Cha Much much love here.

Grand Lodge

Atarlost wrote:
You're talking about soloing an APL+5 encounter.

Not exactly; my reaching the ground didn't defeat the harpies, after all.

Quote:
I'll believe it happened. I won't believe it happened with average rolls. You can do anything if your dice are hot and your GM's are cold.

Here's another piece to the puzzle: I didn't roll any dice until I was on the ground, rolling attacks with my shortbow.


J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Next question -- you climbed up while under attack? The entire time you were attacked? Would Feather Falling down be cheating?

Feather Falling wouldn't be cheating, but wouldn't work. The duration is 1 round/level (so 2 rounds in this challenge) and makes you fall 60ft/rd. So from your starting height of 150', you FF 120' and then freefall 30', taking 3d6 damage and falling prone, failing the challenge.

Or you could try to climb down 30' before casting, but unless you have something else going on as well, you're looking at 5' per successful climb check, two checks per round - and you have to make a climb check or fall each time you take damage from the harpies.

Or I could simply cast it at the end of the second round reseting the duration -- it is an immediate action spell and I'll only fall the total of 60 feet in round two anyways.

J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:


Quote:
Could we get the entire story?

*straightens up and smiles*

Why yes; yes you could!

I was traveling with a caravan through a canyon. All but one of us gets hypnotized by a harpy's song for a few rounds, after which the one who made his save informs us that a harpy swooped down, grabbed a servant boy from the caravan, and took him a couple of hundred feet up to a cave.

I grab the ranger's periscope and tell them I'll go up and take a peek all sneaky-like, then come back down and we can decide what to do. Except when I get 150' up, two harpies come out of their cave (fortunately, one had a sore throat and couldn't sing, and I'd already been affected by the other's song and therefore couldn't be again).

They start attacking, and I start climbing down (doing nothing but climb). I finish my climb in single-digit HP, but standing. The party engages the harpies, including me shooting with a shortbow from solid ground.

So your bard or ranger has to (with your bare hands, like me - no climber's kit) climb 150' feet up a rock face, then get to the bottom while being attacked by two harpies (they attack no one else, and no one else assists you) and land on your feet with HP left over.

At character level 2, in a non-race-dependent way.

So I have to Not fall on the way up, and then get down without dying. The feather fall will definitely handle the getting down part (as I pointed out I can reset the duration in the rounds I'm "falling"). The only question is could I climb up.

Now -- what was the exact DC for you? It matters after all since I kind of doubt you had a +15 climb modifier at level 2.

I'm kind of thinking it would be fair to say I have at least a 14 strength, possibly even 16 (I personally prefer strength based bards instead of loading on dex and cha), I'm thinking a 14 Con 14 Cha 8 Wis and 12 Dex to go with that (please note I'm not setting racial adjusters yet).

2 ranks +3 strength + 3 class skill means I have a +8 modifier to start with, I would think going up taking 10 shouldn't be a problem (coming down it certainly would of course since I would be under attack), if the DC is higher I'd have to focus in a bit more of course, and consider new options.


Realmwalker wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:

In any case, show me the Ranger or Archaeologist who, at level 2, can bare-hand his way up a canyon wall to a height of 150' and then climb back down while being fly-by attacked by two morningstar-wielding harpies and get all the way to the bottom (conscious and not prone) with no help from anyone.

I AM HANGING ON TO MY SECOND-LEVEL GLORY DANGIT

Vanara -- anything.

Actual Climb speed -- moving 20 foot a round, his tail can carry an extra object to boot.

Sorry I really am but you asked for it.

Yeah The Vanara are my new favorite race.

1) Monkeys
2) Excellent Divine Casters
3) A natural monk +2 Dex, +2 Wis, -2 Cha Much much love here.

I want to see a Sorcerer or Wizard rogue replacement builds for a level 3 character. I hear these can be made, but I have not seen any good builds for one.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Heck an internal cryptbreaker vivisectionist has trapfinding and sneak attack as well as being able to take trap spotter as a discovery... or trap sense. What's more he will also be immune to disease, poison and have uncanny dodge.

And whats more, unless you know something I dont, its completely illegal as you Crypt Breaker replaces Bombs, as does Vivisectionist.

Did I miss something?

In my opinion yes:

Quote:
This ability otherwise functions as and replaces the standard alchemist bomb class feature.

It's still bombs and can be replaced like the bomb ability can be replaced just like the bomb ability can be since it functions just like bombs in all respects.


AdamMeyers wrote:
The combat rogue maxes dex, takes the whole two-weapon combat tree and two-weapon feint, along with another day, resiliency, defensive roll, offensive defense and crippling strike. He now can't be hit, when he is hit he negates the damage, and he feints with his first attack giving him 5 more attacks with sneak attack to debilitate his enemy with strength damage (after giving himself a +10 to ac with offensive defense.) That's a rogue tank and DPR right there.

Please, run an actual DPR calculation against a CR appropriate monster. An actual one, not a theoretical maximum. You will find 1) Most of those attacks aren't hitting, 2) They still have a good chance of hitting you, and 3) That you can use abilities to live through it just means you are going to have to live down the shame.

J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:

In any case, show me the Ranger or Archaeologist who, at level 2, can bare-hand his way up a canyon wall to a height of 150' and then climb back down while being fly-by attacked by two morningstar-wielding harpies and get all the way to the bottom (conscious and not prone) with no help from anyone.

I AM HANGING ON TO MY SECOND-LEVEL GLORY DANGIT

First, if this is a real story: Sweet.

Second, Wall Climber is a great talent (well, Ninja trick). No hidden restrictions or penalties, freely usable, and while circumstantial, very useful in the circumstance. The sort of thing I would want to see more of.

Third, my ranger takes out his Composite Longbow with Deadly Aim and Rapid Shot, kills the fliers, and then climbs up at his leisure. The Archaelogist will have to use a scroll of Spider Climb, or wait until level 4 and take "Wall Climber" himself.

It does make the point, though, that people should be more careful. There ARE things that Rogues are the best at. As you pointed out, super low-level climbing. Also, getting the most out of Charisma skills if you don't want to take a one level multiclass dip and have a terrible Charisma (a Ranger has few of these skills, and the Archaeologist would be silly without at least a passable CHA). But these simply aren't enough to hang a class on, or make it relevant.

Seriously, all we need more stuff on the level of some of Ninja tricks and some of the stronger talents, make Ki Pool a less terrible talent, and we can stop having these conversations.

voska66 wrote:
I'm guess the OP was thinking the rogue talent trap spotter. Come with 10 feet of a trap and you get an automatic perception check rolled in secret by the GM. A cool talent that I'd take as Ninja, spotting a trap means avoiding a trap.

That makes a bit more sense. I used to really like Trap Spotter, but the way perception works now makes it less useful. Since you no longer need to search square by square, you can just make constant perception checks while still moving at a normal speed. Not to mention that, as written, I think you just get an automatic check to find traps anyway.


Abraham spalding wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Heck an internal cryptbreaker vivisectionist has trapfinding and sneak attack as well as being able to take trap spotter as a discovery... or trap sense. What's more he will also be immune to disease, poison and have uncanny dodge.

And whats more, unless you know something I dont, its completely illegal as you Crypt Breaker replaces Bombs, as does Vivisectionist.

Did I miss something?

In my opinion yes:

Quote:
This ability otherwise functions as and replaces the standard alchemist bomb class feature.
It's still bombs and can be replaced like the bomb ability can be replaced just like the bomb ability can be since it functions just like bombs in all respects.

But it is diferent from the STANDAR bombs


Abraham spalding wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Heck an internal cryptbreaker vivisectionist has trapfinding and sneak attack as well as being able to take trap spotter as a discovery... or trap sense. What's more he will also be immune to disease, poison and have uncanny dodge.

And whats more, unless you know something I dont, its completely illegal as you Crypt Breaker replaces Bombs, as does Vivisectionist.

Did I miss something?

In my opinion yes:

Quote:
This ability otherwise functions as and replaces the standard alchemist bomb class feature.
It's still bombs and can be replaced like the bomb ability can be replaced just like the bomb ability can be since it functions just like bombs in all respects.

Sadly, it being modified at all is enough to prevent the archetypes from stacking :/

Grand Lodge

Abraham spalding wrote:
Or I could simply cast it at the end of the second round reseting the duration -- it is an immediate action spell and I'll only fall the total of 60 feet in round two anyways.

Ah, good point! So yeah, getting down via two level 1 spells will do it for the bard. Not bad! :)

Abraham Spalding wrote:
Now -- what was the exact DC for you? It matters after all since I kind of doubt you had a +15 climb modifier at level 2.

I never asked the exact DC (and I wouldn't expect the GM to tell me), but the CRB lists natural rock walls as DC 25.

Andoran

IMHO what Paizo should have done is to have increased the sneak attack damage die to d8's from d6's when they increased most other classes' hit die. Then they should have cut back on the number of other classes that got Trapfinding.

In terms of various rogue talents that could be taken, nobody has yet mentioned minor magic and major magic. Minor magic is not so great in and of itself (a cantrip as a spell like ability that can be used 3x per day), but major magic can be helpful (a 1st level wizard spell that can be used 2x per day as a spell like ability). Effective caster level for either is the rogue's level. Personally when I set up my rogues I have usually had the minor magic be "Mage Hand" and the major magic be "Shield". That really helps the problem with relatively low AC. If one wanted to focus more on damage output then "Magic Missile" might be a better choice for a first level spell that still retains some utility at higher levels. Good cases could also be made for "Expeditious Retreat", "Feather Fall", "Gravity Bow" and "Vanish".

Is that as much of a magic boost as some of the other classes get? No, but it is a boost that can help. It's also a magic boost that can be obtained simply by concentrating (standard action to activate spell like ability, no verbal, somatic or material component required, though one does have to continue concentrating to maintain Mage Hand) as long as the rogue is conscious.

One thing that I am not quite sure about is whether or not one could get a "sneak attack" with a spell. It seems to me that if that were the case something like "Acid Splash" or "Ray of Frost", which require ranged touch attacks to hit might then be a lot more useful as "minor magic" choices than I had originally thought.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Sadly, it being modified at all is enough to prevent the archetypes from stacking :/

Don't think that's the case and if it was then the archtype is lying when it says it functions as the bomb ability.


LazarX wrote:
Wildonion wrote:
Not to mention that a one level dip into Rogue means you can snag a whole heck of a lot of skill points and class skills, along with their coveted Trapfinding.
The bonus you get for Trapfinding is tied directly to your rogue class levels. Dipping for one isn't going to get you that much. And the fighter snagging evasion is doing so at the cost of armor.

The bonuses are tied to it, but not the core reason for getting Trapfinding: To deal with magical traps. Perception and Disable Device can both be inflated in other ways, such as the skill focus feats and through magical devices like the eyes of the eagle. Heck, having a crafting wizard in the party (or just taking Leadership at level 7 and getting one as a companion) really just makes the scaling bonuses from trapfinding gravy.

Grand Lodge

Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
First, if this is a real story: Sweet.

In PFS, no less. :D

Quote:
It does make the point, though, that people should be more careful. There ARE things that Rogues are the best at. As you pointed out, super low-level climbing. Also, getting the most out of Charisma skills if you don't want to take a one level multiclass dip and have a terrible Charisma (a Ranger has few of these skills, and the Archaeologist would be silly without at least a passable CHA). But these simply aren't enough to hang a class on, or make it relevant.

With the exception of the "or make it relevant" bit at the end, this is all I've really been trying to say. Rogues are at the weaker end of the spectrum; they're just not as abysmal as people seem to think. With careful building, a rogue can be very effective - maybe not as effective as an equally-skillfully-built character of another class, but they're "good enough". I'm doing as well with my rogue as the average player does with their non-rogues.


J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:
With the exception of the "or make it relevant" bit at the end, this is all I've really been trying to say. Rogues are at the weaker end of the spectrum; they're just not as abysmal as people seem to think. With careful building, a rogue can be very effective - maybe not as effective as an equally-skillfully-built character of another class, but they're "good enough". I'm doing as well with my rogue as the average player does with their non-rogues.

I guess "make it relevant" was a bit harsh. We could go on forever on what qualifies as "good enough" or "very effective," but there wouldn't be much point. Rogues are bit weak, they could use some nice toys, and some of us are just grumblier about it than others.

And consensus was reached, with much rejoicing across the land.


J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Or I could simply cast it at the end of the second round reseting the duration -- it is an immediate action spell and I'll only fall the total of 60 feet in round two anyways.

Ah, good point! So yeah, getting down via two level 1 spells will do it for the bard. Not bad! :)

Abraham Spalding wrote:
Now -- what was the exact DC for you? It matters after all since I kind of doubt you had a +15 climb modifier at level 2.

I never asked the exact DC (and I wouldn't expect the GM to tell me), but the CRB lists natural rock walls as DC 25.

However it also lists 15 for "Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands."

and "An uneven surface with some narrow handholds and footholds, such as a typical wall in a dungeon."

I'm kind of having a hard time seeing something without any handholds or footholds in a level 2 adventure.

Now assuming similar traits and equipment (fair I think) and a feat taken in the direction of climbing (half elf skill focus(Climb) also seems fair considering you've grabbed for yourself a climb speed), means a +11 so I could do either of the above on a take 10. Trait for a +1 on climbing means +12 and with daredevil archetype for a +1 puts us to +13. At this point to hit the +25 I would be reduced to spending another feat (which is a bit much I agree) for athletic, or being a halfling and adjusting the stats some to keep the 16 strength (which there is room enough for).

SO Conclusion -- just possible, but highly improbable -- of course you did take wall climber which is also rather improbable too so ::Shrug:: call it a draw?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber

I hope 3.5 Loyalist finds this thread promptly. So much wrought...

Grand Lodge

Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
Now finish the harpy story!

Once I got to the bottom, combat was pretty straightforward: those with ranged options used them, while others repeatedly readied actions to attack during the fly-by's. Afterwards, I climbed back up the wall and rescued the boy from the cave.


Abraham spalding wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Sadly, it being modified at all is enough to prevent the archetypes from stacking :/
Don't think that's the case and if it was then the archtype is lying when it says it functions as the bomb ability.

It doesn't matter if it functions as the bomb ability--if it alters the bomb ability in any way, it can't be used with another archetype that alters the bomb ability in any way.

Grand Lodge

Abraham spalding wrote:

However it also lists 15 for "Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands."

and "An uneven surface with some narrow handholds and footholds, such as a typical wall in a dungeon."

I'm kind of having a hard time seeing something without any handholds or footholds in a level 2 adventure.

Well, since we don't know, I guess we'll have to leave that part ambiguous.

Quote:
Now assuming similar traits and equipment (fair I think)

Note that I used no climbing equipment whatsoever.

Quote:
and a feat taken in the direction of climbing (half elf skill focus(Climb) also seems fair considering you've grabbed for yourself a climb speed)

But I grabbed the climb speed via a rogue class feature - which is the whole point. You don't get extra lenience just because I used my class features well. And besides, I'm a half-elf and didn't get Skill Focus:Climb, so your bard should be able to do without as well. Like I said before: nothing race-dependent.

Quote:
, means a +11 so I could do either of the above on a take 10. Trait for a +1 on climbing means +12 and with daredevil archetype for a +1 puts us to +13. At this point to hit the +25 I would be reduced to spending another feat (which is a bit much I agree) for athletic, or being a halfling and adjusting the stats some to keep the 16 strength (which there is room enough for).

If I don't let you spend a racial bonus feat on Skill Focus, you can't afford both that and Athletic.

Quote:
SO Conclusion -- just possible, but highly improbable -- of course you did take wall climber which is also rather improbable too so ::Shrug:: call it a draw?

Except you still used racial stuff, and didn't do anything with the ranger. Looks like I'm still winning. ;)


mplindustries wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Sadly, it being modified at all is enough to prevent the archetypes from stacking :/
Don't think that's the case and if it was then the archtype is lying when it says it functions as the bomb ability.
It doesn't matter if it functions as the bomb ability--if it alters the bomb ability in any way, it can't be used with another archetype that alters the bomb ability in any way.
Quote:
A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature.

Alright.


Cutlass wrote:


One thing that I am not quite sure about is whether or not one could get a "sneak attack" with a spell. It seems to me that if that were the case something like "Acid Splash" or "Ray of Frost", which require ranged touch attacks to hit might then be a lot more useful as "minor magic" choices than I had originally thought.

Anything with an attack role can be sneak attacked. :) Area of effect spells and such are arcane trickster only, though.


AdamMeyers wrote:
Cutlass wrote:


One thing that I am not quite sure about is whether or not one could get a "sneak attack" with a spell. It seems to me that if that were the case something like "Acid Splash" or "Ray of Frost", which require ranged touch attacks to hit might then be a lot more useful as "minor magic" choices than I had originally thought.
Anything with an attack role can be sneak attacked. :) Area of effect spells and such are arcane trickster only, though.

EXCEPTION! Alchemical items can not be used to make a sneak attack.


Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:
With the exception of the "or make it relevant" bit at the end, this is all I've really been trying to say. Rogues are at the weaker end of the spectrum; they're just not as abysmal as people seem to think. With careful building, a rogue can be very effective - maybe not as effective as an equally-skillfully-built character of another class, but they're "good enough". I'm doing as well with my rogue as the average player does with their non-rogues.

I guess "make it relevant" was a bit harsh. We could go on forever on what qualifies as "good enough" or "very effective," but there wouldn't be much point. Rogues are bit weak, they could use some nice toys, and some of us are just grumblier about it than others.

And consensus was reached, with much rejoicing across the land.

I agree make some useful rogue talents that only the rogue can take, give him some cool toys and I think it would work. The class itself does not need to be retooled he just need some useful toys that only he can use.

Sczarni

My biggest reason for disliking rogues is that the rest of my playgroup loves them to pieces. We ALWAYS have at least one rogue in the party, and they're usually annoying as hell.

Usually, the rogue spends a good third of the combat trying to reposition themselves without exposing themselves to an AoO, which ends up backfiring as most enemies tend to move around a bit during the fight. They probably spend another third of the fight missing, but when they do get to SA they just laugh and laugh at all those wonderful D6's they get to roll, marveling that they did all that damage with a dagger and 12 STR.

Out of combat, they usually start channeling Kender and stealing anything that isn't nailed down. Occasionally they'll roleplay a diplomatic situation, but they're usually letting the Charisma caster do that while they hang out near the back and steal the drapes when nobody's looking.

I understand that this is more a complaint about playgroup than about a class, but I think that the biggest problem is that in 3.X Rogues were about stealth, reconnaisance, and trickery, and Pathfinder just doesn't have the mechanics for that sort of play style. If you want to sneak attack, the best way to do it, counter-intuitively, is to get up in your enemy's face and either flank or feint. And when you insist on stealing everything in sight, WBL gets broken to pieces.


well WBL never includes stealing. That's why I don't like WBL. But a good DM has intelligent guards, and that kind of rogue finds himself in jail.


Silent Saturn wrote:

My biggest reason for disliking rogues is that the rest of my playgroup loves them to pieces. We ALWAYS have at least one rogue in the party, and they're usually annoying as hell.

Usually, the rogue spends a good third of the combat trying to reposition themselves without exposing themselves to an AoO, which ends up backfiring as most enemies tend to move around a bit during the fight. They probably spend another third of the fight missing, but when they do get to SA they just laugh and laugh at all those wonderful D6's they get to roll, marveling that they did all that damage with a dagger and 12 STR.

Out of combat, they usually start channeling Kender and stealing anything that isn't nailed down. Occasionally they'll roleplay a diplomatic situation, but they're usually letting the Charisma caster do that while they hang out near the back and steal the drapes when nobody's looking.

I understand that this is more a complaint about playgroup than about a class, but I think that the biggest problem is that in 3.X Rogues were about stealth, reconnaisance, and trickery, and Pathfinder just doesn't have the mechanics for that sort of play style. If you want to sneak attack, the best way to do it, counter-intuitively, is to get up in your enemy's face and either flank or feint. And when you insist on stealing everything in sight, WBL gets broken to pieces.

The mechanics in Pathfinder are just the same used in 3.X, the same for getting SA, and WBL has been here since 3rd Edition.

But I would agree on something: They take too much time to move around foes because Pathfinder is (IMHO too) harsh with Acrobatics, or at least more harsh than 3.X at med/high levels. The rogues my friends play do 5' steps or use Invisibility to get into SA position or perform SAs (if using Improved Invisibility at high levels), they only use Acrobatics against lesser foes or in desperate situations.

Anyway, glad to hear that at least someone gets fun playing Rogues and there's people kind enough to explain in detail what they don't like about them, the "Boost most classes, specially Rogue" Lobby is strong here.


@ J.J. How did you get climb speed as a rogue? I see two rogue talents. One lets you take 10 on climb as long as you use rope and the other lets you reroll when making all climb checks


I've been considering houseruling the rogue class to have the Legend rogue's class tree Esoterica Radica as a freebie, and then adding in the talent trees from the same game as archetypes that remove 1/2 of the rogue talents gained.


J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:
You don't get extra lenience just because I used my class features well.

You didn't use your class features well. You chose something circumstantial and lucked out on the circumstances turning up. You invested a feat equivalent in climbing. In most situations that feat equivalent is completely wasted. It's only useful when climbing more than 50' under fire and only until magic supersedes it. Congratulations. You're one level from the first classes getting Spider Climb.

But it's worse than that. Climb Speed at level 2 is a unique ability, which means no scenario will be constructed that requires it. Climb speed could be required at level 4 when several classes have had the opportunity to get it with a spell, but not when only a single class can get it using a feat equivalent. There is guaranteed to be a solution to the puzzle that doesn't require a climb speed, probably one involving killing the harpies before climbing rather than after, or diplomacy.

Shadow Lodge

Nice change of avatars Ice Titan.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just to add my something:

WAYS TO GET TRAPFINDING

1) 1st level rogue (a bunch of archetypes give that up)
2) 3rd level urban ranger
3) 1st level trapper ranger
4) 1st level seeker oracle*
5) 1st level seeker sorcerer*
6) 1st level crypt breaker alchemist
7) 2nd level detective bard*
8) The 2nd level bard/alchemist/wizard spell Aram Zey's focus (too bad the duration is only 1 minute per level)
9) 2nd level archevist bard*
10) 6th level archeologist bard*
11) 1st level sandman bard*

*those 6 get trapfinding in everything but the name


Atarlost wrote:
J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:
You don't get extra lenience just because I used my class features well.

You didn't use your class features well. You chose something circumstantial and lucked out on the circumstances turning up. You invested a feat equivalent in climbing. In most situations that feat equivalent is completely wasted. It's only useful when climbing more than 50' under fire and only until magic supersedes it. Congratulations. You're one level from the first classes getting Spider Climb.

But it's worse than that. Climb Speed at level 2 is a unique ability, which means no scenario will be constructed that requires it. Climb speed could be required at level 4 when several classes have had the opportunity to get it with a spell, but not when only a single class can get it using a feat equivalent. There is guaranteed to be a solution to the puzzle that doesn't require a climb speed, probably one involving killing the harpies before climbing rather than after, or diplomacy.

I think you've got it a bit wrong. A good DM says to himself "I have a rogue who can climb and no one else can. I should craft an encounter so he gets a chance to use that while it's unique to him."

A better DM just tells himself "This encounter is at a cliff. Next one's in a lake. They'll figure something out."


Because other classes overshadow the rogue.

Grand Lodge

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
@ J.J. How did you get climb speed as a rogue? I see two rogue talents. One lets you take 10 on climb as long as you use rope and the other lets you reroll when making all climb checks

The key Rogue Talent is called "Ninja Trick". You can take it any number of times, and it lets you take (you guessed it) a Ninja Trick. The Trick in question, then, is Wall Climber. Wall Climber grants you (without the use or presence of ki) a 20ft climb speed for vertical surfaces.

Atarlost wrote:
You didn't use your class features well. You chose something circumstantial and lucked out on the circumstances turning up.

For one thing, my "I used them well" comment was in the context of the climbing challenge. That is, for the purposes of comparing two classes' climbing ability, my having chosen a very good climbing option does not entitle the opposing class to extra feats. That's all I was saying with that statement; the debate of whether that option is worthwhile over the life of the character is a separate issue entirely.

Atarlost wrote:
It's only useful when climbing more than 50' under fire

Having a climb speed does more than you seem to realize:

• Can always take 10 (this one you know)
• +8 racial bonus to climb checks (making my T10 into a 26 instead of an 18 - that's two whole tiers of DCs that I can auto-succeed on that I would otherwise need above-average rolls for)
• Don't lose DEX bonus to AC while climbing - kind of came in handy against the harpies, don't you think?
• Can move 20ft per move action instead of 5ft per move action - how is that not a big deal?

Atarlost wrote:
There is guaranteed to be a solution to the puzzle that doesn't require a climb speed, probably one involving killing the harpies before climbing rather than after, or diplomacy.

Every puzzle has more than one solution. I picked a solution that doesn't drain my tightly-controlled money, doesn't take an action to activate (or an additional action to retrieve a scroll for), doesn't provoke an AoO or require a concentration check to initiate, functions in antimagic zones, and quickly and efficiently answers situations that come up with reasonable frequency. I'd hardly call that a waste.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Nice change of avatars Ice Titan.

He's not the only one. But I don't like this one anywhere near as much as the old one :)


J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

However it also lists 15 for "Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands."

and "An uneven surface with some narrow handholds and footholds, such as a typical wall in a dungeon."

I'm kind of having a hard time seeing something without any handholds or footholds in a level 2 adventure.

Well, since we don't know, I guess we'll have to leave that part ambiguous.

Quote:
Now assuming similar traits and equipment (fair I think)

Note that I used no climbing equipment whatsoever.

Quote:
and a feat taken in the direction of climbing (half elf skill focus(Climb) also seems fair considering you've grabbed for yourself a climb speed)

But I grabbed the climb speed via a rogue class feature - which is the whole point. You don't get extra lenience just because I used my class features well. And besides, I'm a half-elf and didn't get Skill Focus:Climb, so your bard should be able to do without as well. Like I said before: nothing race-dependent.

Quote:
, means a +11 so I could do either of the above on a take 10. Trait for a +1 on climbing means +12 and with daredevil archetype for a +1 puts us to +13. At this point to hit the +25 I would be reduced to spending another feat (which is a bit much I agree) for athletic, or being a halfling and adjusting the stats some to keep the 16 strength (which there is room enough for).

If I don't let you spend a racial bonus feat on Skill Focus, you can't afford both that and Athletic.

Quote:
SO Conclusion -- just possible, but highly improbable -- of course you did take wall climber which is also rather improbable too so ::Shrug:: call it a draw?
Except you still used racial stuff, and didn't do anything with the ranger. Looks like I'm still winning. ;)

Seriously? Oh wow, I didn't realize you were that insecure. I wouldn't have bothered, moved the goal posts when you were proven wrong and then can't stand it when someone can still manage it -- here's the thing -- Halfling bard, summon monster 1 to summon a creature (preferably with a fly speed) to carry me and then feather fall down.

I didn't even need anything else I just wanted to play nice.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It was a friendly and casual challenge, Abraham. I already said that I know rogues are weak - I was just having some fun with my climbing story. I don't understand why you took it so seriously that, after having trouble grasping a rule as simple as "nothing race-based" and therefore failing, you felt your only recourse was to start with the name-calling and accusations.

It was just for fun, Abe. Calm down. There's no call for put-downs, and I'm not even sure what goalposts you think I moved or what I did that came across as "can't stand it" (pointing out that you didn't follow the race rule, maybe?) but if it's going to get you that flustered, then I'm sorry I brought it up. Take a chill pill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mostly, 'cause all the cool kids are doing it.

In seriousness, I think there are some legitimate concerns about the rogue--namely in that there's nothing unique to the rogue class except for sneak attack (and even some other PrCs and archetypes get that to a limited degree) and certain rogue tricks. And the value of a given rogue trick varies (some are definitely more useful in a wider variety of situations than others).

A friend of mine pointed out that some people don't like that the rogue relies to a degree on flanking to use his signature combat ability (sneak attack). Although this has always been the case since older editions of AD&D (and remember when facing and stealth had to be exactly so to get it to work...?). I don't think this is a bad thing, but some people judge characters on how they play well with others, and others judge based on their ability to perform solo. Some, in fairness, take both into account.

And I am sure in a 1 on 1 PVP arena style game where there is only combat and only DPS matters, the rogue probably wouldn't win. I have never played any such game in Pathfinder however, so personally that doesn't concern me.

I think the rogue has a certain combination of abilities that is hard to get as a package any other way except as playing a rogue.

But I do get the issue that---basically, the rogue's greatest virtue was versatility. Archetypes, by their nature of adding versatility to other classes, has made the rogue shine less. I think part of the issue is flavor--a lot of rogue flavor has been added to many archetypes, but the rogue hasn't been given a lot of additional flavor as a tradeoff. A lot of times people go sour on classes that don't have strong flavor (for example, people often rail on the fighter for being "bland"--because you can make such a wide variety of concept it--as opposed to a much more specifically flavored warrior like a paladin).

Honestly, I think the rogue is just fine. Practically speaking, I've seen rogues be MVP often precisely because of versatility and sneak attack and their oh so many skill points.

Even so, I can think of a few ways to improve the rogue -

- Create archetypes that swap out sneak attack for something else. Yes, I know, I'm crazy! But maybe replace it for something like a tactician style person who adds Int to attack and damage (pulling duelist abilities to the rogue) or inflicts conditions instead of HP damage. Or for a non combat rogue type, self-buffs or quasi mystical abilities. Or a defensive ability(ies) that scales up with level instead.

- People like to think of the rogue as a finesse character. Dexterity is good for a classic rogue, of course, because so many rogue class skills require it, although it's actually not necessary outside of keeping Dexterity high. I'd say go one of two routes--do all you can to banish the idea of making Dexterity important for the rogue (and give the rogue the option of medium armor proficiency or at least shield proficiency) OR work on making the rogue THE Dexterity class. Give the rogue abilities/tricks/an archetype/something that basically gives them Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers for free (okay there's the free bonus feat talents but it needs to be better than that). Give them something that allows them to boost their AC in a notable and much less circumstantial way than stuff like "bonus to AC after they sneak attack."

Hmm, apparently I have some archetype ideas. Maybe I ought to go work on them...

Grand Lodge

DeathQuaker wrote:
give the rogue the option of medium armor proficiency or at least shield proficiency

Fun facts:

1. The only penalty for nonproficiency with armor/shield is that the ACP gets applied to your attack rolls.

2. A masterwork buckler or light shield has an ACP of 0, allowing the rogue to use it without penalty.

3. A mithral breastplate has an ACP of -1. The Armor Expert trait reduces a character's ACP by 1. Thus, an Armor Expert rogue can use a mithral breastplate with no penalty (it even counts as light for his Evasion).


J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:

It was a friendly and casual challenge, Abraham. I already said that I know rogues are weak - I was just having some fun with my climbing story. I don't understand why you took it so seriously that, after having trouble grasping a rule as simple as "nothing race-based" and therefore failing, you felt your only recourse was to start with the name-calling and accusations.

It was just for fun, Abe. Calm down. There's no call for put-downs, and I'm not even sure what goalposts you think I moved or what I did that came across as "can't stand it" (pointing out that you didn't follow the race rule, maybe?) but if it's going to get you that flustered, then I'm sorry I brought it up. Take a chill pill.

So wait the answer is to pull a trick off of the "new and improved rogue" and claim that makes the old rogue better? why wouldn't you just take ninja anyways and take the climb wall trick?

Grand Lodge

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
So wait the answer is to pull a trick off of the "new and improved rogue" and claim that makes the old rogue better? why wouldn't you just take ninja anyways and take the climb wall trick?

Because you wanted a rogue archetype? Because you wanted to dump CHA? Because you had no interest in poison?

And yes, having access to Ninja Tricks does make the old rogue better than it used to be. Or did you mean better than a ranger or a bard? Because I wasn't making that claim.


DeathQuaker wrote:


And I am sure in a 1 on 1 PVP arena style game where there is only combat and only DPS matters, the rogue probably wouldn't win. I have never played any such game in Pathfinder however, so personally that doesn't concern me.

Actually, in another post about whether a rogue can kill a barbarian, we kind of concluded that a well-build rogue would win. Hard. Look up the thread.

It's just that Pathfinder is built on small-group tactics, and while Rogues should do well they get overshadowed because the PCs and DMs just think in terms of DPR.


AdamMeyers wrote:
Actually, in another post about whether a rogue can kill a barbarian, we kind of concluded that a well-build rogue would win. Hard. Look up the thread.

Uh... I don't think the thread concluded anything of the sort. People put up a bunch of ideas, but nobody but Asurendra actually ran any numbers. Besides the fact the fact it worked on a questionable interpretation of Deadly Cocktail, it also cost like 20k in poison, and he didn't even determine if the Rogue would survive a counterattack. Not really a clear "win," and certainly not a "hard" one.

While I don't argue that a Rogue wouldn't benefit from a sneaky, guerilla play style, so would many others (Rangers, Druids, and Monks come to mind). Heck, any class can take a trait and max out Stealth if they want, and be as good as a standard Rogue at sneaking and ambushes. While changing the environment of the game to one in which Rogues are better would be helpful, it by no means solves the issues with the class.

And trying to lay the blame for the Rogue's overall weakness players and GMs who "just think in terms of DPR" is really rather insulting, especially after a whole thread explaining the problems and concerns with the class.


AdamMeyers wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:


And I am sure in a 1 on 1 PVP arena style game where there is only combat and only DPS matters, the rogue probably wouldn't win. I have never played any such game in Pathfinder however, so personally that doesn't concern me.

Actually, in another post about whether a rogue can kill a barbarian, we kind of concluded that a well-build rogue would win. Hard. Look up the thread.

It's just that Pathfinder is built on small-group tactics, and while Rogues should do well they get overshadowed because the PCs and DMs just think in terms of DPR.

If I recall the thread correctly it wasn't a well built rogue. It was a rogue built for no other purpose than being a barbarian killing machine and even then it was a really iffy call that took several days worth of collaboration in order for them to get something.

51 to 100 of 182 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Why so much Rogue Hate? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.