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!

What drew you to the rogue?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

51 to 100 of 289 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

TarkXT wrote:
Rangers, Alchemists, and Bards can all gain trapfinding sir.

CAN gain. For Rogues, it's built in...

and as I said, it's not the only reason I like them.


Regarding Gang up: The group I GM has a rogue (TWF daggers), Paladin (Greatsword), and a Cleric (with a Longspear). As a result the rogue usually has flanking from Gang Up.

- Gauss

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BltzKrg242 wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Rangers, Alchemists, and Bards can all gain trapfinding sir.
CAN gain. For Rogues, it's built in...

...and usually the first thing traded out.


Variziel wrote:
*Gasp!* Looks like the rogue just handed that fighter his ass on a silver platter. How's them apples for optimization?

It is a fine comparison (though I don't know how you are getting Lucern Hammer proficiency or having it deal 2d6 instead of 1d12, and you are forgetting Soft Cover in your tactics). However it should be noted that that Rogue is literally only dealing better damage at level 3. At level 2, the 1d6 Sneak Attack and lack of Bold Strike makes the Skulking Slayer's damage nearly identical to the Fighter's. At level 4, the Fighter can get Furious Focus and another +3 damage from Power Attack. At 5 the Fighter gets Weapon Training and is another +1 BaB over the Rogue, and it is pretty much straight down from there.

And, as always, a Vivisectionist could do it better. Mutagen would give higher attack and damage than the Skulking Slayer, even on a Charge.


Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
Variziel wrote:
*Gasp!* Looks like the rogue just handed that fighter his ass on a silver platter. How's them apples for optimization?

It is a fine comparison (though I don't know how you are getting Lucern Hammer proficiency or having it deal 2d6 instead of 1d12, and you are forgetting Soft Cover in your tactics). However it should be noted that that Rogue is literally only dealing better damage at level 3. At level 2, the 1d6 Sneak Attack and lack of Bold Strike makes the Skulking Slayer's damage nearly identical to the Fighter's. At level 4, the Fighter can get Furious Focus and another +3 damage from Power Attack. At 5 the Fighter gets Weapon Training and is another +1 BaB over the Rogue, and it is pretty much straight down from there.

And, as always, a Vivisectionist could do it better. Mutagen would give higher attack and damage than the Skulking Slayer, even on a Charge.

Woops on the damage. Still, there are other weapons that have reach and deal 2d6.

As for proficiency, there's a couple options. The rogue could conceivably have MWP just by feats. There's also the the Heirloom Weapon trait.

And with Soft Cover, you wouldn't necessarily have to be behind another ally to get the reach against your foe.

Admittedly, a fighter will outshine the rogue in higher levels. But that's because THE FIGHTER IS SUPPOSED TO. Rogues aren't meant to charge into combat; they're even less designed to stick it out. Rogues are tacticians when it comes to combat, striking when the opportunity to do amazing is there. That doesn't necessarily mean stealthing around until a sneak attack shows up; the charge I presented here also works well.

And while fighters will be good in general at combat, rogues have a lot of other things going for them. Sure, my example is optimized for combat, but he's probably also proficient in scouting, at least. He could even be a frontman, potentially.

Brief on the Vivisectionist: Why? I'd much rather blow things up than have to turn into a mutated maniac and sneak attack.

It seems to me the biggest problem with this whole argument is that we have people trying to optimize rogues into something they're not meant to do. If you want to play a combat class, play a combat class. Don't play a rogue pretending you can match fighters and barbarians in combat. And don't rag on rogues for not matching those classes.

Show me a straight fighter who can sneak past the guards, bypass the trap, unlock the door, pickpocket the target, walk the tightrope out of the castle, and then convince the target himself that he (the fighter) didn't swipe it. Then I might think rogues are outdone.

(P.S. Don't come back with the ninja or bard. They're similar to the rogue, meant to do similar things. But like the rogue, they're lacking in pure combat.)


Variziel wrote:
And while fighters will be good in general at combat, rogues have a lot of other things going for them. Sure, my example is optimized for combat, but he's probably also proficient in scouting, at least. He could even be a frontman, potentially.

I used a Fighter for comparison because you used a Fighter for comparison. If one prefers the comparison can be made to the Inquisitor or Ranger, both of which will have the same number of skill points as a Skulking Slayer, often greater combat ability, and likely more out-of-combat utility. It would just be more complicated, and require a comparison on more fronts and levels.

Though, admittedly, in the specific case of the Skulking Slayer other class will probably be in a run for their money for substantially longer than a different type of Rogue. It is one of the strongest archetypes for a combat-leaning Rogue out there. If only it could get pounce and those Dwarf cleave feats...

Quote:
Brief on the Vivisectionist: Why? I'd much rather blow things up than have to turn into a mutated maniac and sneak attack.

I am saying, in this case, Vivisectionist > Rogue. You are saying Normal Alchemist > Vivisectionist. By the transitive property, you are saying Normal Alchemist > Rogue. I don't think that is the argument you are intending to make.

Quote:

It seems to me the biggest problem with this whole argument is that we have people trying to optimize rogues into something they're not meant to do. If you want to play a combat class, play a combat class. Don't play a rogue pretending you can match fighters and barbarians in combat. And don't rag on rogues for not matching those classes.

(P.S. Don't come back with the ninja or bard. They're similar to the rogue, meant to do similar things. But like the rogue, they're lacking in pure combat.)

Every character has to use their resources in some way. Your character used his resources to specialize in combat. He lost 2 skill points/level and Trapfinding to be a Skulking Slayer, used all his feats and talents towards combat, and likely built his stats towards that too. So we could compare to, say, a Ranger, or other character who could post similar out-of-combat utility with greater combat ability. If those resources had instead been used towards skill talents and feats, I would compare to a Bard or Ninja who can possibly do it better, with comparable combat utility.

This is the issue. It isn't that Rogues fight worse than Fighters, or are worse at skills/utility than Bards. It is that the whole package can be mimicked by another class, being equal or superior on both sides. What side the comparison comes from simply depends what kind of Rogue it is meant to compare to.


I agree that the Alchemist is better at combat than the rogue. Because the alchemist simply has better damage output on most rounds, with the same BAB. Add in the mutagens and buff infusions, and yeah. The alchy is gonna outshine the rogue any day.

In combat.

As for being outshone by other classes out-of-combat, I cannot agree. Alchemists don't have the same skill set as rogues, so they're out. I won't go into rangers, since they're obviously better at combat. That leaves bards and ninjas.

Bards, well. I agree that they're good at being skill monkeys. They are without any doubt the best social class in the game, at least to me. Charisma is basically THE bard ability, and all the social skills are class skills for them. They also have the whole Bardic Knowledge thing going, so they are people who can help you learn things. They know stuff.
However, despite having Stealth and Perception as class skills, along with the other movement skills like Acrobatics, Climb, and others, they just aren't great scouts and the like, at least not as good as rogues or ninjas.

Speaking of, the ninja. Slightly better at combat, perhaps. Gets all the rogue's talents, potentially. The ki pool helps with some skills and combat, and ninja tricks do the same. At least as good as the rogue at stealth and scouting, generally better. Basically the only thing these guys are missing is trapfinding.

Which is important: the ninja is an alternate class based on the rogue. Without the rogue, there would be no ninja. So the comparison is strange to make to begin with. Everyone who plays either class automatically has to look at the other to see which one they really want.

Grand Lodge

Mostly to play a dastardly character. The entire concept of a rogue in all of its incarnations just screams "Live life as you feel like it" to me. Thieves. Assassins. Poisoners. These are all rogues. Rules and restrictions matter naught to them. They can crawl up a dragon's back and stick a dagger into their eye socket. They can talk their way out of most situations, sneak down a corridor guarded by knights without anyone being the wiser, etc etc. In other words, they offer a lot of freedom.

But ideally, its because they're the only class that receives significant bonuses on Disable Device, thereby making them invaluable. Open treasure chests and disable traps. Suddenly the big bad dungeon isn't nearly so terrifying.


Variziel wrote:

I agree that the Alchemist is better at combat than the rogue. Because the alchemist simply has better damage output on most rounds, with the same BAB. Add in the mutagens and buff infusions, and yeah. The alchy is gonna outshine the rogue any day.

In combat.

As for being outshone by other classes out-of-combat, I cannot agree. Alchemists don't have the same skill set as rogues, so they're out. I won't go into rangers, since they're obviously better at combat. That leaves bards and ninjas.

Yeah, no. Sorry. Alchemists can generally get as many skill points as a rogue and have their skills backed up by extracts. My current Alchemists sports perception checks between around +13 to +23 depending on what I'm doing. Good stealth is an invisibility extract away. The only thing I really cannot pull off is being a decent face. But let's be honest here with so many other charisma based characters there's little to no need for it. And considering all the other stuff I get? That's a rather small price to pay I think.


Well, Tark got the Alchemists, so I'll cover Bards.

Variziel wrote:
However, despite having Stealth and Perception as class skills, along with the other movement skills like Acrobatics, Climb, and others, they just aren't great scouts and the like, at least not as good as rogues or ninjas.

While this should be true, it simply is not. The base Rogue has absolutely no abilities that make them a better scout than a Bard (unless you are counting the finding of traps as scouting, or Swim as a class skill as very important to it). The Rogue should be able to pull ahead with Talents, but frankly, most of the skill talents are lackluster at best. Even if one considers them sufficient to make the Rogue the superior choice, there is the Archaeologist. Access to Talents, has a naturally superior version of Trapfinding, and Luck to boost skills (or saves, or combat) when needed. Plus, of course, spells. If I was picking a scout, I think I would prefer the guy who is just as good, but can also detect magic, turn invisible, and then become gas and float away when things get too hairy, myself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Has it always been about who can do the most damage? What happen playing concepts that dealt with damage avoidance through wits. Imagination was the key point to tabletop rpgs not just walk up and roll some dice to see how fast we kill each encounter. If I wanted to do that I turn to the mindless clicking of keys in MMOs or button pressing on console games.

Lets get back to the main thing that makes table top RPGs so great.
That is using your imagination with the limitless choices you have before you.


I like the rogue as a concept... it just mechanically isn't good.
Trap spotting is replacing by more powerful class archetypes: Crypt Breaker, Urban Ranger, possibly others?
Sneak Attack is a flawed system to deal damage, but it is also better used by Ninjas and Vivisectionist alchemists, and Sandman Bards.
Rogue Talents are good, unique powers... but are better used by Archaeologist Bards.

Basically, Rogues are meant to be skilled characters that work as scouts and supporting melee. Sadly, Bards and Rangers easily fill this role, not even including archetypes.

The problem is that other classes have better tricks and tools to fulfill the mechanical advantages of "wit". Wit basically amounts to the creativity of the palyer behind the character, and thus any character can be witty, clever, or a strategist... And other classes provide more methods for a creative player to fulfill this. Rogues just lack those tools. Rogue Talents, skill points, and circumstantial damage just can't make up for, say, spells.

I am still waiting for an INT based Rogue-like caster, similar to a Magus: a blending of fighter a wizard. But for a rogue wizard. obviously. YOu know, do what the magus did to the Eldritch Knight, but instead for Arcane Trickster: make it largely obsolete, except for high levels of play.


For me, its always been about how I imagine my character. I see a man sneaking in the shadows, disabling traps, and sneak attacking at is leisure. Then their is the all the skills he gets as well, including being able to use any wand or scroll (assuming the use magic device roll is high enough). I first character in Advanced D&D was a rogue so there is that history there as well.

I know bards can do most of what a rogue can do, but its that whole singing lalalala image I can't shake. The only bard I ever made didn't sing. He carried around a cart, and on it was a huge gong. Fun times :-)

In all the campaigns I have ever played, the players always look to two people to get them out of a jam: clerics, and rogues. Its fun as a rogue to always have a place in every single situation that comes up. They are very versatile (despite that being disclaimed by another in a recent post) and that's probably what I like the most. No one expect your character to deal out crazy damage. What they do expect is that you'll save their rears when the harrow cards are on the table. And in my experience, that's what all my rogues have ever done.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DrkMagusX wrote:
Has it always been about who can do the most damage? What happen playing concepts that dealt with damage avoidance through wits.

Damage avoidance without damage dealing does not defeat deadly foes.

Also, thank you for painting so many people with such a broad brush. Imagination is still a key point in tabletop gaming. There is nothing to 'get back to'.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Damage avoidance without damage dealing does not defeat deadly foes.

Two words: Roleplaying XP. Maybe in PFS organized play it doesn't fly, and in that case, sure, don't play a rogue. But if you convince the BBEG to not kill the party and give up his scheme, all without getting hurt, I'd say that's an even bigger success than flying into combat and getting the party pummeled, even if you succeed at the end.

I definitely believe that imagination is still a huge part of the game-- why would we be playing without it? But it's a sad fact that especially with the popularity of organized group play, it has in many ways become an every-man-for-himself free-for-all where you have to race to optimize your character with the best stats, feats, traits, skills, EVERYTHING to get the BEST damage output and HIGHEST survivability and all that other stuff that's pure mechanics and has nothing to do with roleplaying.

Don't get me wrong, I love watching the GM's eyes widen at my damage roll as much as anybody else, and I love watching the BBEG's attacks bounce off my character ineffectively. But that's not why I play the game.


The rogue has lots of skill points, he's good at stealth, has awesome class features (trap sense, evasion etc.) and is decent in a fight even though he should have backup for the flanking bonus. I would almost like the ranger better (and did so in 3.5) but now I don't really get warm with his class features and the capstone ability anymore, however now the inquisitor is slowly replacing the rogue for me. Not as dependent on friends and sweet divine spellcasting. :D

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Variziel wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Damage avoidance without damage dealing does not defeat deadly foes.
Two words: Roleplaying XP.

I don't need a rogue to earn that. My paladin can convince the BBEG to give up his evil ways just as well as the rogue.


The Drunken Dragon wrote:

Mostly to play a dastardly character. The entire concept of a rogue in all of its incarnations just screams "Live life as you feel like it" to me. Thieves. Assassins. Poisoners. These are all rogues. Rules and restrictions matter naught to them. They can crawl up a dragon's back and stick a dagger into their eye socket. They can talk their way out of most situations, sneak down a corridor guarded by knights without anyone being the wiser, etc etc. In other words, they offer a lot of freedom.

But ideally, its because they're the only class that receives significant bonuses on Disable Device, thereby making them invaluable. Open treasure chests and disable traps. Suddenly the big bad dungeon isn't nearly so terrifying.

And arsonists...don't forget the arsonists. Brox has lit a place up to make good his escape. TWICE!

I see a lot of people coming down on rogues. They don't much like us. They think other classes can do what we do even better.

(queue violin music)

You wanna hurt me? Go right ahead if it makes you feel any better. I'm an easy target. Yeah, you're right, I talk too much. I also listen too much. I could be a cold-hearted cynic like you... but I don't like to hurt people's feelings. Well, you think what you want about me; I'm not changing. I like... I like me. My wife likes me. My customers like me. 'Cause I'm the real article. What you see is what you get. (NOTE TO D.D.: This part after the violin music is not directed at you :D)

Cheers to any and all who get that!

signed,
Del...err..I mean BROX!


I have to say I do find rogues a bit disappointing in power level. I mean, they weren't going to outfight the fighter, and I wasn't expecting that. But there's a lot of rogue special attacks that are just a bit too hard to actually get to work.

Now, the way I see it, the point of the rogue wasn't to be a damage-dealer character that stabs the boss monsters to bits while the fighter tanks it. A rogue should be doing assisting stuff and preparing stuff; scouting out the enemy position so the party can plot out a strategy for combat and prepare the right buffs before storming in. Or quietly disabling guards so that the party can get into a stronghold without general alarms getting sounded.

Rogues can still do those things, but they're not as great at them as they perhaps deserve to be. I think the abilities are a bit too conservative and un-fantastic. I like the ninja a whole lot better, I think with some non-oriental reskinning it'd be a good replacement.

Unorthodox tactics should be a rogue's job. Luring enemies out of position with distracting noises or disinformation; breaking into the enemy stronghold to foment rebellion among the underpaid guards or poison the food, releasing the slaves to rebel in the streets, distracting the city guard so that the rest of the party can zoom in on the BBEG without his whole army helping him.

You can't turn that into a feat or an ability. It takes a lot of player creativity, and you need to figure out tricks to pull based on the situation/plot/terrain, you can't put that in a handbook. Also, you need a DM who's willing to go along and support your attempts. And it's a Splitting the Party thing, because you need to do a lot of solo stealthing.

However, you're gonna need a whole lot of things in your toolbox to pull this off; stealth and social skills of course, and skill to take down individual NPC obstacles (NOT fight battles; take down sentries). Rogues have a lot of this, although ninjas are cooler at it. This is fantasy; it's not outrageous for the master thief to have spooky, unnatural-seeming infiltration skills.

I suppose what rogues could use a bit more of would be Failsafe abilities. When you're gonna do the kind of shenanigans I suggested above, you're gonna be making a LOT of checks, and you don't want to mess up halfway, because you'll be surrounded by enemies and alone. So some sort of Plot Point/Reroll style abilities to cover for bad luck or an oversight during planning would be nice.

---

TL;DR - the true strength of rogues is beyond-the-book tactics, stuff you can't put down into class powers. The player needs to come up with ideas. Rogues have the kind of skills to pull most of this off, although there's room for improvement.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Variziel wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Damage avoidance without damage dealing does not defeat deadly foes.
Two words: Roleplaying XP.
I don't need a rogue to earn that. My paladin can convince the BBEG to give up his evil ways just as well as the rogue.

Not if you need to lie.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My cleric can do that just as well.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
My cleric can do that just as well.

Sacrificing half of his skills.


Nicos wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
My cleric can do that just as well.
Sacrificing half of his skills.

just say your bard.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That was coming up next. But in any case, the rogue does not have something unique in 'being the face'. People think they do, because that's the trope. But the mechanics don't back it up.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
That was coming up next. But in any case, the rogue does not have something unique in 'being the face'. People think they do, because that's the trope. But the mechanics don't back it up.

True. I still believe the problem with the rogue are not his combat abilities but the skill. I hate that the bard is the master of skills.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Agreed. I don't think the combat ability is all that great, but I won't argue further.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Agreed. I don't think the combat ability is all that great, but I won't argue further.

but but but the to argue is fun


Not trying to start another argument, but as Ascalaphus said earlier, the rogue's combat ability doesn't need to be great, as it's not his job. His job is sneaking in and taking out one enemy at a time, during prime moments to strike.

If, playing a rogue, you're caught in a big battle against multiple enemies, you're doing it wrong.


I think the combat abilities are sufficient, the skills have been kind of "left behind" by the other classes. It's hard enough competing against spellcasters. Which is also why I think the ninja's vaguely mystical powers fit in; the idea of a wholly nonmagical master thief is just weird in such a magical world.


Ascalaphus wrote:
the idea of a wholly nonmagical master thief is just weird in such a magical world.

That is the what i find interesting about the rogue style. I want my rogue to be primarily a non magic, non mistycal power class.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

...

I don't need a rogue to earn that. My paladin can convince the BBEG to give up his evil ways just as well as the rogue.

Yeah but can your paladin get the BBEG to give him a piece of the action instead?! ;-)

I like rogues. I love the skills. I love the "live by your wits" feel of the class. I love the fact that no one expects me to seriously contribute in straight up combat, so when I do score with a backstab (pardon my long yellow teeth) it's a major event. (And if I sometimes feel inferior in combat, well that's the trade I made.)

*** Full disclosure *** Someday I'd like to try a ninja or a caster built to be a 'rogue'.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Variziel wrote:
If, playing a rogue, you're caught in a big battle against multiple enemies, you're doing it wrong.

I wish I could do it otherwise, but my fellow Pathfinders tend towards the 'kick in the door and hit it with an axe' types.


Nicos wrote:
That is the what i find interesting about the rogue style. I want my rogue to be primarily a non magic, non mistycal power class.

Actually right now, for an upcoming campaign that I'm working on, I'm going to develop a variant of the ninja (which, I know, is a variant class already) that doesn't use the ki pool system, but is still different from the rogue. It'll also be reflavored to non-Eastern, and I'm running with the name of Assassin just 'cause I'm not sure what else to use.

Taldor

I like the rogue because it is more than the sum of its parts. Sure, other classes and take on the skills, tricks, and SA damage, but rogue gets it all in one. I'm playing an assassin rogue (swashbuckler archetype) with aims of becoming a spymaster in the future and moving up the ranks to be the spymaster/fixer for a large organization (the campaign is very intrigue/politically oriented with faction points and whatnot).

Sure I could have gone ranger or some martial class to fulfill the early role of enforcer/hired blade. Or I could have gone with the bard to do the bluff/intimidate and eventual role of the spymaster. But rogue lets me do both roles without sacrificing too much on other areas.

Rogue is a viable class if you look at it as a complete package. If you don't want to do a little bit of everything, then don't play a rogue.


Maybe the rogue is actually a more ambitious class to play than generally assumed? If you look as Sneak Attack, you might start thinking about being a Striker in combat, but I think that the ability is actually best used to knock down sentries with a blackjack so that they can't raise the alarm.

The problem is playing a character not meant for direct confrontation with a party that is.

When you're doing direct confrontation, you're just a second tier character. If there's no Self-Destruct button to sneak up on while the party's fighting the BBEG, you're not contributing nearly as much as the fighter (hitting) or the wizard (battlefield control). And not playing a full role in the final confrontation of an adventure is sad. So for the rogue to work either the DM must allow other solutions than attrition-battle to the death as a story finale. There's lots of ways to do that as a DM, but it some forethought about it matters a lot. I think MacGuffin adventures do better in this aspect than just facing the enemy in his lair for a fight.

On the other hand, if you're doing the indirect confrontation thing, the fighter types don't have a lot to do. If this is done poorly, the other players spend a lot of time while you do solo adventures.

Casters and rogues is a very different issue. They compete with the rogue for the Unorthodox Tactics spot; wizards with Scry and Teleport can leave an infiltration rogue feeling rather redundant. I think for that reason it would be okay if rogues' non-combat abilities were a lot more over the top at levels 10+ than they are now. Maybe even skills to increase the rest of the party's stealthiness, so that the rogue can lead them secretly into the enemy fortress, rather than the wizard.

The other issue with casters is that there's a risk of magic trumping skill. It's pretty hard to infiltrate a wizard's castle if you lack magical skills yourself. What I would like is that rogues be a lot better at slipping under the radar of magic. Not so much by being very magical themselves, but more by being hard to catch with it. I want class features, right into the rogue class, not a prestige class, to foil alignment and lie detection spells.

That way, we're on our way to Class Rock Paper Scizzors: the fighter can beat up the rogue, the rogue can sneak up on the wizard, and the wizard can turn the fighter's life to hell with battlefield control spells.


Rogues can take hard to fool to give them some resistance to mind-affecting effects. That said, they do have some built in resistance to going unseen. It's called stealth. It can't be forcefully revealed through magic such as glitterdust can to invisibility. Stealth also scales faster and higher than perception as a skill.

I see no reason why a rogue, who has UMD as a class skill, can't get some wands or scrolls to put things like mind blank on themselves. The only thing that rogues are screwed for are things like scent and tremorsense. Then again, for tremorsense, you can get boots of levitation and float passed the creature. With scent there is a smoke that clings to you for a round that can get you by a creature.

So, there are ways to deal with things. Keep in mind rogues are also thematically very prepared adventurers. They typically have a counter to every trick out there so these are things a properly leveled rogue *should* be able to deal with.


Buri wrote:

Rogues can take hard to fool to give them some resistance to mind-affecting effects. That said, they do have some built in resistance to going unseen. It's called stealth. It can't be forcefully revealed through magic such as glitterdust can to invisibility. Stealth also scales faster and higher than perception as a skill.

I see no reason why a rogue, who has UMD as a class skill, can't get some wands or scrolls to put things like mind blank on themselves. The only thing that rogues are screwed for are things like scent and tremorsense. Then again, for tremorsense, you can get boots of levitation and float passed the creature. With scent there is a smoke that clings to you for a round that can get you by a creature.

So, there are ways to deal with things. Keep in mind rogues are also thematically very prepared adventurers. They typically have a counter to every trick out there so these are things a properly leveled rogue *should* be able to deal with.

but there is nothing preventing a Fighter (for example) from being as prepared as the rogue, and fits in thematically as an always prepared veteran. Or any class, for that matter. UMD isn't as hard to get anymore, unlike 3.5, and any class can buy items, mundane or otherwise. Rogues (sadly) are not really any more equipped/better than any other class for such things.

I love rogues, and I spent years trying to optimize them. Sure, they are fine in a one on one, surprise situation. Sadly, most of D&D/Pathfinder is not that. You have a whole party with you.
The sad fact is that there are several classes/archetypes that can do as well as the rogue when it comes to skills, but who also have better class features, better damage, or spells. This, plus giving away most of the rogues roguish class features to various archetypes puts the final nail in the coffin of the rogue.

I reiterate: I love the rogue, and I often come back to it for a concept, or when I can't decide what to play. I have given up trying to mechanically optimize them though. The sad truth of it is that the rogue is largely overshadowed by mechanically better classes.

The truth of this has nothing to do with creativity, cleverness, or wit. The fact is, rogues suck, and do not have as many tools as other classes to fulfill the creative needs of a clever player. A Wizard can have every item a rogue has, and will still have 9th level spells. This power lends itself better to versatility and creativity than anything the rogue has.

And that's the inconvenient truth about rogues, guys.

Taldor

Kat Tenser wrote:
A Wizard can have every item a rogue has, and will still have 9th level spells.

But, how much does the wizard have to give up in order to be just like a rogue? As I said in my post further up, yes many classes can copy aspects of the rogue, but not all of them. and they often have to give up a not-insignificant portion of their own class features/specializations in order to do so.


Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Kat Tenser wrote:
A Wizard can have every item a rogue has, and will still have 9th level spells.
But, how much does the wizard have to give up in order to be just like a rogue? As I said in my post further up, yes many classes can copy aspects of the rogue, but not all of them. and they often have to give up a not-insignificant portion of their own class features/specializations in order to do so.

It's not a question of what they give up, it's what they have left.

A wizard, having invested every single non-specialist first and third level slot in knock or dispel magic, is still a better combat wizard than the rogue is a fighter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Kat Tenser wrote:
A Wizard can have every item a rogue has, and will still have 9th level spells.
But, how much does the wizard have to give up in order to be just like a rogue? As I said in my post further up, yes many classes can copy aspects of the rogue, but not all of them. and they often have to give up a not-insignificant portion of their own class features/specializations in order to do so.

None. Cause wizard.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I played a pathfinderized 3.5 ninja (from Complete Adventurer, not the UC ninja), and it had Sudden Strike (a non-flanking version of sneak attack). He was a whisper gnome with the dark creature template, so he had some extra bonuses to stealth (+4 size, +7 racial), so he was able to move from shadow to shadow, sneak attacking as he Spring Attacked or Shot on the Run. He may not have been a heavy hitter every round, but he could hit hard every other round pretty consistently.

So I imagine a rogue with good stealth and flanking sneak attacks can be a heavy hitter prety consistently.

And once you have evasion or better yet, improved evasion, your buddies can splash areas of effect all over you, and you can (hopefully) ignore that damage.

Shadow Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
That was coming up next. But in any case, the rogue does not have something unique in 'being the face'. People think they do, because that's the trope. But the mechanics don't back it up.

1) the bard is likely to have a higher charisma (small bonus)

2) the bard can cast Glibness. "You are a yellow footed rock wallaby" HUGE bonus

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rogues just have enough skill points to be several kinds of face at the same time: liar, friend, enemy, confessor. And they can also be good at other things, like mobility, sneaking, scouting, mechanics, etc.

Other characters must select only a few specializations, where the rogue can have many specializations.


Not really true. If one of those specializations is face bards can use versatile performance to get just as many effective skill points as a rogue. A rogue spends 4 skill points per level maxing sense motive, diplomacy, bluff and intimidate. A bard spends 2. 4-2=(8+int)-(6+int). No advantage to the rogue there. The bard is also getting half his level for free in all knowledges.

There's no advantage to the face being the sneak any more than there's an advantage to the healer being the sneak or the face being the archer or whatever.


Lando Calrissian


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:

Just a few questions for the rogue players out there.

Mainly what drew you to playing and enjoying the rogue class?

Does the rogue satisfy those needs?

Do you think the rogue is better or worse than relatively equivalent classes in terms of role (alchemist/ninja/bard)?

Whether yes or no why did you not play one of those classes?

What do you think could be done to improve the class in achieving the flavor you desire?

There are secret motives behind these questions and I feel this will inevitably turn into a "rogues are crap/fine" thread which is all well and good as long as there's some actual logic and discussion behind it.

I like acrobatic combatants that somersault and tumble around, avoiding damage with skillful dodges rather than heavy armor and delivering well placed strikes and flashy (usually spinning and/or leaping) assaults. Out of combat, it's also nice to be the MacGuyver, or the Michael Westen, more specifically. Quick witted, and able to troubleshoot most any problem. Self sufficient, and focused on doing what works, rather than appealing to some god or fighting for a cause, or any of that crap.

Does rogue scratch that itch? In 3E, especially with splat books, absolutely. My favorite class, bar none. In PF? Not a chance. The MASSIVE nerf to tumbling alone basically destroyed my favorite style of combat, skirmishing. Unless I want to play a Magus, or Paladin, or any other class (almost any caster class) w/ access to spells to move w/o provoking, because apparently they're meant to be better at that than rogues and monks. Then the stealth nerfs to rogue itself, especially in how you can obtain sneak attack, just cripples the class entirely. For an extra kick to the nuts, class skill is practically meaningless now, it's just a measly +3 and can be gained from a dip or traits. Boy, my skill master rogue feels special now... Oh, and now anyone can find any trap and disable any non-magical trap and detect magic is infinite cast, too, so even that narrow niche got a whole lot narrower. Rogue's poor saves (worst in the game) and multiple-ability dependency basically guarantee mediocrity at almost anything, compared to a more specialized class at a given skill.

So what do I do to get the sort of character i want? Preferably, don't play PF, as skirmishers don't work in PF. Barring that, I just salvage what I can and play a Viv. Alchemist or some sort of Bard (Archaeologist being the best bard archetype for obsoleting the rogue). At least they have casting and other useful class features, and can generate their own sneak attack opportunities (greater invisibility, if nothing else). I have a goblin beastmorph viv. alchemist now, dex-based w/ an agile amulet of mighty fists. He's fairly fun. I never really try to tumble into a flank, but I do sometimes walk around to set one up. Once I hit 10 and get pounce and greater invis, I should be doing pretty well.
I have another character I'll be playing briefly, an NPC the DM is giving me to run and tweak the build of. She has the (wonderful) 3E Elusive Target feat but is chained to PF's awful tumble rules, so I'm not even going to bother tumbling with her; just cranking up her AoO AC and miss chance as high as possible and using that cause overreach tactic.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Atarlost wrote:

Not really true. If one of those specializations is face bards can use versatile performance to get just as many effective skill points as a rogue. A rogue spends 4 skill points per level maxing sense motive, diplomacy, bluff and intimidate. A bard spends 2. 4-2=(8+int)-(6+int). No advantage to the rogue there. The bard is also getting half his level for free in all knowledges.

There's no advantage to the face being the sneak any more than there's an advantage to the healer being the sneak or the face being the archer or whatever.

Good point.

But I just like sneak attack, too. It's fun! It's one of the few classes that really benefit from tactical movement.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SmiloDan wrote:
Other characters must select only a few specializations, where the rogue can have many specializations.

Not true. You can spread your points around and nab class skill bonuses and still be effective. You'll only be a few points behind the rogue.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

TriOmegaZero wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:
Other characters must select only a few specializations, where the rogue can have many specializations.
Not true. You can spread your points around and nab class skill bonuses and still be effective. You'll only be a few points behind the rogue.

I guess I consider maxed ranks in class skills specializing (especially if you invest in Skill Focus and/or a corresponding +2/+2 feat) and less than maxed ranks and/or cross-class ranks dabbling. But YMMV.

I played a dark whisper gnome ninja (3.5->PF, not UC ninja) and my friend played a catfolk ranger, and we used to have "Stealth-offs." I had a +4 size bonus and +7 racial bonus, but she had a ring of the chameleon, so that kept things interesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is it me or would an ability like Solo Tactics (from the Inquisitor) make a lot more sense on a rogue?

51 to 100 of 289 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / What drew you to the rogue? 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.