|
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.
What about the social skills? You'll need to eat up slots with Charm Person or Dominate as well. Then you'll need to cover the recon role the base rogue could fulfill, so get ready with Invisibility and possibly Silence and spend some cash on Eyes of the Eagle or something. BTW, you'll need more than one spell prepped for each of those because the rogue can do it all day long.
Sure, you still have some spells left, but your number of slots is limited and someone has to watch you while you sleep the entire night.
|
|
What about the social skills? You'll need to eat up slots with Charm Person or Dominate as well. Then you'll need to cover the recon role the base rogue could fulfill, so get ready with Invisibility and possibly Silence and spend some cash on Eyes of the Eagle or something. BTW, you'll need more than one spell prepped for each of those because the rogue can do it all day long.
Sure, you still have some spells left, but your number of slots is limited and someone has to watch you while you sleep the entire night.
Why can't the wizard just max out some skills? Eventually wizards gets more skill points than a rogue because int is his casting stats. Than you don't need spells to cover everything the rogue offers, because you can use skillz.
Also your rogue is crazy MAD (scout high dex and good wis, face high charisma, and you don't want to be useless in combat good con and decent strength) unless you have like a 40 point buy, however with 40 PB a wizard doesn't need to dump charisma, and can have just as many skill points per level as the rogue.
At most only 3 points behind a rogue, that is if the wizard character is not using traits to pick up rogue's class skills.
MAD isn't that much of a problem, a good skill monkey just needs to avoid getting penalties as the stat bonus doesn't make much of a difference compared to the class skill bonus and ranks. I'll grant you that a wizard can cover some of the gap by dumping his skills, but then he's got not much left for the typical wizard skills.
Also, not to be confrontational, but the wizard is still limited by the number of spells per day, the need to rest a full 8 hours to regain those slots and they don't have any of the talents.
I would like to see someone create a wizard that can do everything the base thief class can do. I've tried it before and always came up wanting.
|
|
A wizard can't do all of it on the same day, not easily. But each individual rogue ability can be done somehow, and if you have an inkling what to expect beforehand, and a few stealthy skills, you can come a long way. And how often do you use all the different rogue skills in a single day?
There's quite a few spells that replace multiple rogue abilities; like Dimension Door to bypass a whole lot of sneaking and lockpicking. A tiny familiar gets Stealth as a class skill, with high Dex, and a +8 for size. Add some skill ranks in Stealth (since you probably want Dex for AC anyway yourself), and the familiar can scout out the terrain to Dimension Door into. Familiars may be able to fly. Some have SLAs of their own, many have Darksight. They're also light enough that most traps won't trigger off them. Perception is a class skill for animal familiars (and you did take Perception, didn't you?)
Mage Hand, Detect Magic, Prestidigitation and Unseen Servant are very versatile for dealing with traps.
Charm spells are the heavy-handed way to magic social stuff. A few creative illusions may work much better. Alter Self grants a significant disguise bonus (as does a Hat of Disguise). Invisibility gives a +20 to Stealth.
Familiars may have Scent or Blindsense; they'll tell you the general area of a hidden creature, followed by Glitterdust which breaks Invisibility and gives a -40(!) to Stealth.
And so on. I WANT rogues to be the best at it, but I think they get trumped with very general-purpose spells that I'd be comfortable preparing every day.
|
|
First build your rogue. I can't build a wizard to match a shroedinger rogue. Do it first and I'll try and match it with a mix of skills and spells.Also, not to be confrontational, but the wizard is still limited by the number of spells per day, the need to rest a full 8 hours to regain those slots and they don't have any of the talents.
I would like to see someone create a wizard that can do everything the base thief class can do. I've tried it before and always came up wanting.
I wasn't aiming to make it a contest, just wanted to see an example of what a wizard-rogue would look like, and not just skills and spells, but what feats and gear you would take.
|
|
And so on. I WANT rogues to be the best at it, but I think they get trumped with very general-purpose spells that I'd be comfortable preparing every day.
I agree, you don't use all skills every day, but one benefit rogues get is that they have the option to make the most of their skills at any given time. The rogue tricks are also icing on the cake.
Any wizard worth his salt will have wands and scrolls, just like a UMD rogue. However, the rogue has to buy then at full price, whereas the wizard is probably paying half price to craft them. So a wizard "running out of spells" isn't a real issue.
Once I again, I like rogues and wish they worked properly. In an even mildly optimised game, a rogue can be easily replaced. That's reality. I'm not saying its the way it should be, but it's the way it is presently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any wizard worth his salt will have wands and scrolls, just like a UMD rogue. However, the rogue has to buy then at full price, whereas the wizard is probably paying half price to craft them. So a wizard "running out of spells" isn't a real issue.
Once I again, I like rogues and wish they worked properly. In an even mildly optimised game, a rogue can be easily replaced. That's reality. I'm not saying its the way it should be, but it's the way it is presently.
Rogues get their wands and scrolls for free!!! Skill Focus--Sleight of Hand! ;-)
|
|
I think rogues could stand to get a few more toys to play with, for example;
* Solo Tactics; it just fits the idea of fighting smart and having adaptive tactics.
* Alignment/Lie hiding; developing gradual immunity to magic that detects them, or the ability to smoothly fool that sort of magic.
* Retry-abilities. If you're deep into enemy stronghold and you roll badly, you need some ways to retry that Stealth check. Maybe a pool of Second Chance points for skill checks per day.
* Increasingly powerful ability to stealth even past creatures with exotic dark/blind sensing abilities.
* Ability to operate in total darkness yourself without a lot of fuss
* Sneak attacking at range without dipping into other classes or using cross-class magic items. (At higher levels.)
* Ability to bypass magic that keeps people out.
* Really generous jumping/acrobatics to compensate for not getting any way to fly in-class. Wall-running shouldn't be too much to ask for at level 10+.
* Flank people by tumbling through their space.
* Accelerated movement speed. Seriously, why do Barbarians get this and rogues not?
* Ability to fake being affected by spells, lulling spellcasters into a false sense of security that the rogue has been Dominated or something.
* If you survive some blast cast on your area, use it as a distraction to engage Stealth. So that if the wizard Fireballs you, he doesn't know where you are after the smoke clears.
* Tumble through someone's square and then full attack from the other side.
* Tumble through combat without sacrificing a lot of speed, so that you can combine it with Spring Attack and the flank-tumble mentioned above to assassinate enemy wizards standing in the middle of a formation.
* Redirect monster attacks on you against adjacent monsters; bonus points if you can get them angry at each other.
I think giving rogues the 3.5 binder's Pact Augmentation might help. At levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20, they get a cumulative floating +1 bonus they can apply to attack rolls, saving throws, 5 feet of speed, +2 to initiative, etc.
I also like the luck re-roll idea.
Maybe an archetype that replaces Trap Sense with Teamwork feats and Solo Tactics.
Maybe another archetype that replaces Trap Sense with luck re-rolls?
(Can you tell I'm not a big fan of Trap Sense?)
It does seem the primary complaints about the rogue are mostly about how they do nothing that isn't instantly trumped by magic or by someone who can fake points in the skill (bards) or who simply fight way better and have spells (rangers).
I can fix the fighting easily. Cheapy's already done half the work for me on that point. Even if it did spawn from a similar brainwave we had. :D
The nice thigns I can still make the rewrite functionally the same as many of these can be made into talents. The permanent stuff I'd want to keep mostly combat and defensive since I want people to choose whether or not they're the quintessential trapsmiths, con men, or dirty alley way brawlers. The trick is to make them worth taking.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
My formative gaming years were played with brutal GMs. Whenever I hear players assume there will be level-appropriate encounters, available magic (or non-magic) items, or an adventuring day of less than 24 hours, I smile a little at their naivete. (Even though 99% of the time they are right.)
I build characters so that they will have a chance to survive the twentieth encounter of the day, in the wilderness, without any gear, against something who has watched how they handled the previous nineteen. I want the polar opposite of a one-trick pony -- I want the Emergency Backup character.
That is what draws me to Rogues -- they should be the class that fills that role the best. Whether or not they do in actuality...I leave that to others to decide.
A HUGE flaw in having a wizard double as the rogue is the vast majority of spells have verbal and somatic components. If guard A sees you casting a spell on guard B and notices B acting weird all of a sudden he's going to know something's up even if he's not a caster himself. The rogue can bypass all of that by using mundane means. A rogue's mundane disguises can't be dispelled either yet a wizard's will be. So, a rogue can come up to a warded area and talk his way past the guards all the while looking like a prince whereas the wizard would be screwed.
In terms of raw power, of course the wizard has the rogue beat in potential. But, there is something to be said for not relying on magic when there are so many abjuration spells out there and any place 'worth being' is likely to be so protected. The rogue can bypass these defenses far easier than a wizard. If you take away his spells, the wizard is just a guy with weak attacks and a few skills. At least the rogue has sneak attack and feats to let him land killing blows especially when he's stealthing around and can choose upon whom and when to strike.
A rogue can quietly smooth talk someone, silently pick a lock and disable a trap while the wizard has to wave his arms around and speaking in that 'strong' voice. That's not inconspicuous at all. If he metamagics all his spells then he's losing a lot of high powered slots which means he has less "oh crap" abilities if his primary plans fail. The rogue can keep rolling non stop but the wizard has to stop after half a dozen or so spells per slot to rest 8 hours before he can try again.
A HUGE flaw in having a wizard double as the rogue is the vast majority of spells have verbal and somatic components. If guard A sees you casting a spell on guard B and notices B acting weird all of a sudden he's going to know something's up even if he's not a caster himself. The rogue can bypass all of that by using mundane means. A rogue's mundane disguises can't be dispelled either yet a wizard's will be. So, a rogue can come up to a warded area and talk his way past the guards all the while looking like a prince whereas the wizard would be screwed.
Rod of Silent Metamagic?
Wands?
Staves?
Granted against antimagic or magical wards it can get tricky and a bit costly.
But then no one said the Wizard had to do everything either did we?
Which brings us back to bards and rangers.
Consider this: If the wizard deals with traps with summons. The bard deals with all the faceness and the ranger deals with the scouting/being stealthy. Where does that leave the rogue? The fact that he can do it all at once isn't really an advantage when the rest of the characters mentioned are probably going to be doing those jobs adequately without any help.
What rogues need to be is at least somewhat irreplaceable in some or all of these things at a time. Failing that he at least needs to contribute in being a dirty opportunistic fighter that isn't afraid to throw sand in the eyes, or kick the robed wizard in the groinal region.
The rogue is the jack of all trades. This is in the flavor text. The specialist will always be better in a certain area.
QUOTE="Buri"] The rogue is the jack of all trades. This is in the flavor text. The specialist will always be better in a certain area.
And that's kind of the problem isn't it?
Adequacy in everything is trumped by a group of 4 or 5 specialists. Throw in some smart purchases and some clever spellcasting and you can eliminate the need to have certain classes altogether.
"Jacks of all trades" make for decent solo adventuring and great npc's. But terrible in groups of players.
I don't agree. My rogue has been scout, infiltrator and assassin all the while supporting team tactics in the current campaign I'm playing.
Rod of Silent Metamagic?
Wands?
Staves?
It's still obvious that something weird is going on if you're waving a wand or staff and things 'just happen' or people change. Rods still have to be wielded as well.
|
|
The rogue is the jack of all trades. This is in the flavor text. The specialist will always be better in a certain area.And that's kind of the problem isn't it?
Adequacy in everything is trumped by a group of 4 or 5 specialists. Throw in some smart purchases and some clever spellcasting and you can eliminate the need to have certain classes altogether.
"Jacks of all trades" make for decent solo adventuring and great npc's. But terrible in groups of players.
I *completely* disagree. In a group of 5 or 6 there is always a place for a character who is the 3rd best character at everything. Lots of encounters boil down to matchups, and having that swingman (or, if you prefer, utility infielder) can be invaluable.
Specialists shine when you have perfect information about your situation. Generalists thrive when you have no idea what to expect. In most real games you need some of each, though the exact ratio will depend on your GM and your game.
Now lots of players don't enjoy playing the sort of support character who always has something useful to do, but never shines. But that's different than saying they're terrible.
It's still obvious that something weird is going on if you're waving a wand or staff and things 'just happen' or people change. Rods still have to be wielded as well.Rod of Silent Metamagic?
Wands?
Staves?
There is "waving" requirement? Csan't find one. Are you sure you must hold a metamagic rod? In 3.5, you didn't (but could only use one at a time)
PF still doesn't have text that you do: https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/magic-items/rods
But have you actually properly applied the rules while doing all this?
For example I've been allowed to assassinate people by CDG them with my rogue from stealth but I know the rules do not allow it. I've snuck into well lit rooms but the rules say that if someone is paying attention and I don't have cover I shouldn't be able to do that.
Generally speaking all the cool stuff rogues -should- be able to do aren't completely rules legal. Now if they added hide in plain sight, safe poison use(and creation), and maybe the assassin's deathblow thing as rogue talents I might have a different opinion but they haven't.
I'm not saying my group applies 100% of the rules every time we play but my GM enforces ACs, stealth vs perception checks, fort saves on coup de grace attacks and only getting those attacks when the enemy is helpless, whether or not I get my sneak attacks based on the enemies dex to AC situation, etc.
I can't see a situation where my character has been 'given' anything out of hand. I have a +26 stealth mod and can easily roll into the 30's and often roll into the 40's even if I don't ninja invis or ki bump it. That and I often audit my character sheets. I erased a +3 on DD a couple levels ago simply because I couldn't account for it.
I've never tried to stealth in plain view, however.
There is "waving" requirement? Csan't find one. Are you sure you must hold a metamagic rod? In 3.5, you didn't (but could only use one at a time)
PF still doesn't have text that you do: https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/magic-items/rods
There is a wielding/holding/pointing one. If you point a stick at someone and they suddenly change their behavior or other effects 'just happen' then something fishy is going on even to the layman.
Activation: Details relating to rod use vary from item to item. Unless noted otherwise, you must be holding a rod to use its abilities. See the individual descriptions for specifics.
Activation: Staves use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a staff is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast has a longer casting time than 1 standard action, however, it takes that long to cast the spell from a staff.) To activate a staff, a character must hold it forth in at least one hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures).
Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast has a longer casting time than 1 action, however, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.) To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.
It's a bit odd you claim you don't know if you even have to hold a rod in order to use it when you link a site that tells you that you do in a clearly bolded section called 'Activation.' I'm starting to smell troll.
In 3E, you did not have to hold a metamagic rod to use it. PF added the general note for all rods, but left in a different bit of rules for meta rods specifically that *heavily* implies such is true, thus leaving the issue muddy without any clear resolution. Did they intentionally put in the general disclaimer about needing a rod in hand to remove that functionality and just missed the other text? Did some sort of "save on page space" / "different guys wrote general rod rules and metamagic rules" mishap occur? Who knows!
PF rules:
"Activation: Details relating to rod use vary from item to item. Unless noted otherwise, you must be holding a rod to use its abilities. See the individual descriptions for specifics."
"Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat, allowing the user to apply metamagic effects to spells (but not spell-like abilities) as they are cast. This does not change the spell slot of the altered spell. All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity). A caster may only use one metamagic rod on any given spell, but it is permissible to combine a rod with metamagic feats possessed by the rod's wielder. In this case, only the feats possessed by the wielder adjust the spell slot of the spell being cast.
Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day. A sorcerer still must take a full-round action when using a metamagic rod, just as if using a metamagic feat he possesses (except for quicken metamagic rods, which can be used as a swift action)."
Notice the last bolded sentence saying that possessing the rod = 3/day using it, not *holding* the rod? Is this the "specifics" the first bolded item was talking about?
3E rules, much clearer:
"Activation
Details relating to rod use vary from item to item. See the individual descriptions for specifics."
(notice in 3E there was no blanket "must be in hands" restriction)
"Metamagic Rods
Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat but do not change the spell slot of the altered spell. All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity). A caster may only use one metamagic rod on any given spell, but it is permissible to combine a rod with metamagic feats possessed by the rod’s wielder. In this case, only the feats possessed by the wielder adjust the spell slot of the spell being cast.
Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day. A sorcerer still must take a full-round action when using a metamagic rod, just as if using a metamagic feat he possesses."
(notice that the text is unchanged here, other than the quicken spell note, to reflect PF's change making the feat available to spont. casters)
So...
1) Blanket statement intended to nerf meta rods?
2) Identical text from 3E about possession meant to exempt meta rods from the blanket statement?
3) Different guys wrote the activation and meta rods section and had really poor communication?
4) Paizo is incompetent?
5) Something else?
Stream, I don't see how the bolded text in the metamagic rod could change the fact that you need to hold it. Its simply saying you don't actually have the feat it lets you use. Therefore, you can't do things like taking other things that require a feat a rod lets you use if you don't normally possess the feat apart from the rod.
as to the original question...
my thoughts concerning the rouge in all it elogence;
Its a rogue. Why the heck would I want to play a rogue? Seeing the rogue in games like WOW, or Maple Story, wtf is this? It runs from combat, sneaks around, and generally avoids the big scrap in the middle of the room! Sneaking sniviling little gits...
Then I saw this!
The knockout sniper:
Goblin Sniper Rogue 10
20 Point Buy:
10 STR
22 Dex (28 mod)
11 Con
10 Int
10 Wiz
10 CharFeats:
Skill Focus: Stealth
Stealthy
Point Blank Shot
Sap Adept
Sap MasterTalents:
Weapon Training: Shortbow
Bleeding Attack
Combat Trick: Rapid Shot
Combat trick: Bludgeoner
Stealthy SniperRelevant skills: 10 in stealth for a +42 standard bonus (10 ranks + 3 class skill + 4 goblin + 4 small + 5 cloak + 9 dex + 3 focus + 4 stealthy)
Alternate favored class option: +1 to first sneak attack/level
Equipment: Shortbow +2, Sniper Goggles, Dex gloves +4, blunted arrows, cloak of elvenkind
Basically here we use our bludgeoner feat to give our arrows nonlethal damage, and use the sap tree to steroid that single attack. Sap Adept adds 2 to each sneak attack dice, sap mastery doubles the number of dice, and sniper goggles add a further 2 to each.
A snipe attack at 30 ft. with this build will be at +20 to hit, doing 1d3+10d6+20(goggles)+20(adept)+10(favored)+2(enhc)+1+10(bleed) for a total of 1d3+10d6+53+10(bleed) nonlethal damage on a single arrow. This is a min of 64 and max of 116, plus 10 per round of lethal bleed. At level 10, this lets us 1-shot most mooks and some minibosses into unconsciousness, who then bleed out over the next few rounds. Our goblin then makes a stealth check at a +32 (-10 for sniping) to remain stealthed.
If we want to go full-attack with rapid shot, it becomes +18/+18/+13 for 3d4+30d6+159+10bleed, a 189 min and 348 max if all hit, enough to toast any level-appropriate BBEG that can take nonlethal damage.
Oh... Wow... That actually looks fun! Hmm ok lets check this out, but only as a corner case (literally as he would be sitting in the corner sniping). Ok now we have to see what we can make.
Ya thats how I found the rogue. I have yet to get further than that tho :P
The rogue is the jack of all trades. This is in the flavor text. The specialist will always be better in a certain area.And that's kind of the problem isn't it?
Adequacy in everything is trumped by a group of 4 or 5 specialists. Throw in some smart purchases and some clever spellcasting and you can eliminate the need to have certain classes altogether.
"Jacks of all trades" make for decent solo adventuring and great npc's. But terrible in groups of players.
I *completely* disagree. In a group of 5 or 6 there is always a place for a character who is the 3rd best character at everything. Lots of encounters boil down to matchups, and having that swingman (or, if you prefer, utility infielder) can be invaluable.
Specialists shine when you have perfect information about your situation. Generalists thrive when you have no idea what to expect. In most real games you need some of each, though the exact ratio will depend on your GM and your game.
Now lots of players don't enjoy playing the sort of support character who always has something useful to do, but never shines. But that's different than saying they're terrible.
Fnny thing about that. Swingmen are in those specialists too.
For example nothign stops, say, a wizard cleric or druid, from filling up empty slots with encessary spells once the ranger comes back with information on what's ahead.
And even in this if you really wanted a generalist the best people for that are the aforementioned prepared spellcasters, alchemists, or bards.
O grate. 'nother "X CLASS IS BORKED" thread.
its lulzy for sure.
monks and rogues, both the unloved red-headed step-children of the PF world.
And your post is necessary?
Believe it or not the reason I asked these questions was not to sit here and argue mechanics but to see how they could be improved to fit peopls desires better.They're obviously a fun and flavorful concept much deserving of a better treatment than the one it's been given. I'm just curious to see what people want to see how it can be given.
If I try to correct what I feel are misconceptions about how the current mechanics operate it's simply that and nothing more.
|
|
I don't think rogues should have full BAB, because I don't think the emphasis for rogues should be on combat. They should be good enough at it that they're not hopelessly bored when it happens, but they should be doing scouting, infiltration, assassination, espionage, subversion, sniping, distraction, sabotaging, stealing and so forth as their main activities.
I find the idea of rogues as a "Striker" class abhorrent. An abomination imported from MMORPGs where the whole point of a rogue has been narrowed down into being just a different kind of fighter.
What a fascinating thread.
Tark, have you been tallying up responses? :)
Atarlost, we've had vastly different play experiences. At no time when I've done something on my rogue 'alone' has the rest of the party been sitting idly by. They're either doing something as well and I take my turn the same as everyone else or it's summed up really well by the GM according to my stealth and perception rolls.
Also, there's nothing illegal about using stealth. There's no reason why using the stealth skill *has* to attract the attention of lawmen. There's a lot more to than the iconic picture of someone crouching in the shadows looking shady. There are techniques on how to walk completely upright yet make little to no noise with your steps.
The rogue has tons of distraction capabilities and things to boost bluff and diplomacy. That's a particular thing the class is specifically well suited for.
The same can be said with subversion. The rogue has several abilities and archetypes that boost disguise and, as I already said, bluff.
The only pattern I see is you seem to be set to look at the more narrow spectrum of what the rogue can't do. I see the possibilities of what it can and can't find fault with it.
The main item that drew me to the rogue as a class was playing an "underdog". I play a no-archetype rogue in a very min/max testosterone-heavy party group that consists of zen archer dwarf monk/wizards, chaotic evil druids, hybrid meat shields, master summoners etc. etc.
When I joined this particular game, it was pretty adversarial, with the min/max players and the GM at odds. The players were continually trying to come up with better and better characters, while the GM was continually coming up with more and more fiendish ways to murder them. It was a real meatgrinder, with a play session rarely ending without at least one party death. Sometimes, this was even the players killing each other over loot, slights, or just for food. (Or as food.)
While role-playing a cocky confidence and smug arrogance as the "greatest swordsman who ever lived", I generally wind up displaying a very healthy streak of caution and self-preservation in actual combat. Some of the other players have even mistaken my character's war cries for high-pitched screams of utter pants-wetting terror, but I've assured them while changing my pants that this is simply not the case.
My character provides humor for the player group, a different style of play for the GM to respond to and oddly, I always seem to be in the right place at the right time for a tide-turning sneak attack or dirty trick.
The group has responded, coming up with more interesting, more well-rounded characters as their min/max'ers have died off. We're playing more and more each session as a party, and the GM is responding with more detailed, better-fleshed-out campaigns, rather than pure meatgrinding combat.
In other words, it's fun, it's different and on the whole, makes for a great all-around tabletop roleplaying experience. Sometimes it just takes a rogue to bring out the fun in a well-rounded game.
Or a bard I guess, but lol bards.
Honestly it seems at this point like Rogue and Bard should be merged (pretty sure they were once upon a time) with archetypes deciding if you go magic, song, or burglary.
Actually, I kind of like this idea.
The reason why the rogue is superior though is that in a lot of situations to do the same thing a caster simply looks out of place. A lot of times a GM will hand wave the fact casting a spell takes moving around and speaking a weird language in a strong voice and simply let people cast a spell with almost no ramifications. This is the biggest flaw in how spell casting systems are played especially when you're trying to charm someone using magic right in their face.
Even though the target may not know exactly what spell is cast or that a spell is even being cast they can clearly observe and tell that something weird is going on and will likely question why. The logical conclusion is to connect the weirdness to the person doing weird things.
The rogue works entirely off mundane means and appears more natural than a caster saying a bunch of weird words and suddenly getting their way somehow. What a rogue does can't be despelled, carries no magical auras and is almost impossible to detect while in progress whereas the caster can be detected several different ways depending on who may be watching.
(The caster has the same options as the rogue does, especially bards, alchemists, and inquisitors. He has the tools that the rogue does, and has more too. "Skills" and "Magic" aren't mutually exclusive.)
A lot of them, yes. There are some skill unique to the rogue. Well, to rogue talents. Some archetypes do get access to those. The two that come to mind right away are:
Convincing Lie (Ex): When a rogue with this talent lies, she creates fabrications so convincing that others treat them as truth. When a rogue with this talent successfully uses the Bluff skill to convince someone that what she is saying is true, if that individual is questioned later about the statement or story, that person uses the rogue's Bluff skill modifier to convince the questioner, rather than his own. If his Bluff skill modifier is better than the rogue's, the individual can use his own modifier and gain a +2 bonus on any check to convince others of the lie. This effect lasts for a number of days equal to 1/2 the rogue's level + the rogue's Charisma modifier.
and
Black Market Connections (Ex): A rogue with this talent gains better access to magic items from black market connections. She treats every settlement as one size greater for the purpose of determining the gp limit of the base value of items for sale, as well as the number of minor, medium, and major magic items for sale in the settlement. If the settlement is already a metropolis, all minor and medium magic items are for sale, as well as 3d8 major magic items. With a successful Diplomacy check, the rogue can treat the settlement as two sizes larger. If the settlement is already a metropolis and she succeeds at the check, all magic items are for sale. If the settlement is already a large city and she succeeds at the check, all minor and medium magic items are for sale, as well as 3d8 major magic items. With a successful check, the rogue can also sell stolen items on the black market. If the check fails by 5 or more, the rogue does something to spook the market, and treats the city as normal for 1 week. Furthermore, those in control of the black market may alert the authorities to the rogue's presence in an act of reprisal for spooking the market or to divert attention away from their illicit activities. The DCs of the checks are by settlement size and are given in the table below.
Of course. But at the same time, give me the ability to cast spells over Convincing Lie any day.