Nice try, but you're wrong. I know how to play a rogue.
Apparently it must involve using loaded dice so you can still hit on all your attack rolls even when your attack bonus is terribly low.
Which, come to think of it, is the kind of thing a rogue would do.
Nice accusation, but nonsense.
Why is it that some people seem to think a rogue has to compete with the fighter, in combat? Why are you people so silly to believe that someone who has played for 35 years doesn't understand the basics of how a rogue is played?
Do you all play rogues as if they are fighters, just misnamed?
It doesn't matter how long you've played. You picked one of the very worst ways to build a rogue. No one expects a rogue to outdo a fighter in a stand-up fight. That would be ridiculous.
But, if you are trying to build rogues that hold up on the advice board, against other rogue builds, you have to meet a bare minimum standard for things like attack bonus, saving throws, AC and so on.
Rogues can use spears, they can pick chill touch twice a day for a touch attack that will last for an entire encounter, allowing you to sneak attack with much greater accuracy. Even just using a Rapier and buckler is better than two weapon fighting, because you can actually hit, Thanks to a lack of penalties and being able to get better weapon enhancement because you don't have to split your money between weapons.
|
Nice try, but you're wrong. I know how to play a rogue.
Apparently it must involve using loaded dice so you can still hit on all your attack rolls even when your attack bonus is terribly low.
Which, come to think of it, is the kind of thing a rogue would do.
Nice accusation, but nonsense.
Why is it that some people seem to think a rogue has to compete with the fighter, in combat? Why are you people so silly to believe that someone who has played for 35 years doesn't understand the basics of how a rogue is played?
Do you all play rogues as if they are fighters, just misnamed?
It doesn't matter how long you've played. You picked one of the very worst ways to build a rogue. No one expects a rogue to outdo a fighter in a stand-up fight. That would be ridiculous.
But, if you are trying to build rogues that hold up on the advice board, against other rogue builds, you have to meet a bare minimum standard for things like attack bonus, saving throws, AC and so on.
Rogues can use spears, they can pick chill touch twice a day for a touch attack that will last for an entire encounter, allowing you to sneak attack with much greater accuracy. Even just using a Rapier and buckler is better than two weapon fighting, because you can actually hit, Thanks to a lack of penalties and being able to get better weapon enhancement because you don't have to split your money between weapons.
...and if you think that character wouldn't be effective, you don't understand him. It's that simple.
|
|
*shrug*
Contend away. I'm not even arguing it. That character's primary job is scouting a dungeon...secondarily, once the fight is going on, and he's in the perfect position, he goes for the kill...or he watches the casters, and kills the flotsam and jetsam that bother them, so they don't get ambushed...or he takes out the mooks, or 1 or 2 of a 3-4 individual encounter.
It's not his job to get into something's face, and he avoids it as if he could stealthily walk on walls and ceilings, invisibly and stealthily...because he can.
1. To contend your last point first, no he can't. He's no better at any of those skills than anyone else of that level could be. He's not even all that extraordinary at them. If skills are going to be his primary concern then he should be at least relatively good at them. This is not the case.
2. As far as damage you've given a list of what he does
- Strikes at the opportune moment.
At what? He's not going to hit all that well against anyone heavily armored. Stealth doesn't work that well in combat and you're not that great at it anyways. Ranged will usually have higher AC's than melee's. Your reliance on full attacks and melee means you will also be terribly ineffective against casters.
- He kills enemies going after the casters
How? Generally the things that should be going after casters are the high damage full BAB. The exact people you don't want to annoy if you don't want to be dead.
- Kills mooks
Ok this I can get behind. Except the fighter that you're supposedly flanking with is attempting to kill enemy casters or trying to kill enemy beef. You're not flanking with him anymore. You're not going to have much sneak attack damage then.
I certainly could have ultra-specialized him in stealth...but he's also using invisibility...and walking on ceilings. He doesn't NEED to be ungodly stealthy.
You still don't get it, do you? Every fight is situational...no two are played out the same...but again, fighting is not his main job. It's secondary...maybe even tertiary...but he can contribute, if it seems like it's not going well...or he feels like it...
Rogues are not fighters. If the party has him along to fight, they made the mistake...not him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can make a really good Rogue, assuming that he dips 16-20 levels of Ranger.
|
|
I certainly could have ultra-specialized him in stealth...but he's also using invisibility...and walking on ceilings. He doesn't NEED to be ungodly stealthy.
You still don't get it, do you? Every fight is situational...no two are played out the same...but again, fighting is not his main job. It's secondary...maybe even tertiary...but he can contribute, if it seems like it's not going well...or he feels like it...
Rogues are not fighters. If the party has him along to fight, they made the mistake...not him.
Actually I'd say you're missing the point. You're not only worthless in a fight, you're bad at utility. You're not that great at skills.
YOU ARE LITERALLY SUBPAR AT YOUR MAIN JOB, SKILLS. I'm not talking just stealth. I"m talking everything. The whole enchilada. you have 8 or so skills that are in the low 20's. Aka you're a skillman that just stuck the points in skills and pretty much called it good. Anyone with a 20 in that stat and having it a class skill could pull off your so called main point.
You've missed the point, and that is that no party would ever have any reason to adventure with him over any other adventurer. Ever.
Right.
Why would you ever want the guy who can go in and figure the place out ahead of you, clearing out the traps and helping everybody formulate a good plan of attack?
|
|
Because it's a cooperative game and I don't want to show up to Pathfinder night and not get to play because the rogue is trying to scout someplace and then have to go in blind anyways because there's a 38 point swing on opposed skill checks and he'll not only die like the waste of space he is but alert those he's supposed to be scouting.
Why would you ever want the guy who can go in and figure the place out ahead of you, clearing out the traps and helping everybody formulate a good plan of attack?
I'm sorry that every rogue you've ever seen played was incompetent.
Feel free to make the assumption that nobody knows what they're doing.
Right.
Why would you ever want the guy who can go in and figure the place out ahead of you, clearing out the traps and helping everybody formulate a good plan of attack?
Rogues are not the only ones who can do that. They are also not the best at it. Hell! They are not even particularly good at it.
There are at least 4 other classes who can do it at least as well as a Rogue, and that's not counting Ninjas or full-casters.
Rogues are mediocre at their best, and a waste of space at their worst.
They can contribute, sure... But there's not one thing (or bunch of things) they can do that couldn't be done more effectively by at least 2~4 different classes.
|
|
Right.
Why would you ever want the guy who can go in and figure the place out ahead of you, clearing out the traps and helping everybody formulate a good plan of attack?
Rogues are not the only ones who can do that. They are also not the best at it. Hell! They are not even particularly good at it.
There are at least 4 other classes who can do it at least as well as a Rogue, and that's not counting Ninjas or full-casters.
Rogues are mediocre at their best, and a waste of space at their worst.
They can contribute, sure... But there's not one thing (or bunch of things) they can do that couldn't be done more effectively by at least 2~4 different classes.
...and you have to be absolutely efficient, or it blows the game for everyone, right? If you aren't the absolute best, you have no right to exist...is that it?
Again, I've seen too many rogues played and enjoyed throughout the years to believe it. Oh, and most were not as effective as him.
Sorry, that nonsense is old.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and you have to be absolutely efficient, or it blows the game for everyone, right? If you aren't the absolute best, you have no right to exist...is that it?
Again, I've seen too many rogues played and enjoyed throughout the years to believe it. Oh, and most were not as effective as him.
I never said Rogues can't be fun to play. Only that they're underpowered.
You can have fun playing a freaking commoner, that doesn't mean it's not a weak class.
Mechanically speaking, Rogues are ineffective. That's my whole point, no more, no less. Not once I mentioned the word "fun", that was just you.
Isn't this what this thread is about? How (in)effective Rogues are?
Sorry, that nonsense is old.
At least 35 years old, it seems...
Because it's a cooperative game and I don't want to show up to Pathfinder night and not get to play because the rogue is trying to scout someplace and then have to go in blind anyways because there's a 38 point swing on opposed skill checks and he'll not only die like the waste of space he is but alert those he's supposed to be scouting.
Why would you ever want the guy who can go in and figure the place out ahead of you, clearing out the traps and helping everybody formulate a good plan of attack?I'm sorry that every rogue you've ever seen played was incompetent.
Feel free to make the assumption that nobody knows what they're doing.
Well, you're the one who has a 15th level character scouting out a, presumably, level appropriate area by virtue of ... having a ring of invisibility and boots of spider climb (which just about any other class could benefit from just as much)?
At that level it's not exactly uncommon to run into things that have abilities like True Seeing or Tremorsense. And spell casters can easily fill the area with illusion spells and, you know, simple 1st level alarm spells.
I'm not sure how exactly that's a recipe for success for the Rogue.
The larger point that, even if successful, the fact that the Rogue's "niche" is basically demanding that a large part of the session be spent on a solo scouting mission while the rest of the party sits around waiting for them outside isn't exactly going to represent good times for the rest of the players.
I think the point everybody is trying to make to EldonG is that everything his character does, an archaeologist bard can do better.
Or even can be done better by other, Better built Rogues. Rogues are underpowered, and his Rogue is underpowered compared to other Rogue builds.
|
|
...and you have to be absolutely efficient, or it blows the game for everyone, right? If you aren't the absolute best, you have no right to exist...is that it?
Again, I've seen too many rogues played and enjoyed throughout the years to believe it. Oh, and most were not as effective as him.
I never said Rogues can't be fun to play. Only that they're underpowered.
You can have fun playing a freaking commoner, that doesn't mean it's not a weak class.
Mechanically speaking, Rogues are ineffective. That's my whole point, no more, no less. Not once I mentioned the word "fun", that was just you.
Isn't this what this thread is about? How (in)effective Rogues are?
Sorry, that nonsense is old.At least 35 years old, it seems...
But they aren't that ineffective. Seriously, they can still do what they were designed to do, no matter how much others can do it too, now.
That's what irks me on this thread. I don't care that others can do it. Rogues can...and they do it well, by default.
What's more, you don't have to have a cookie-cutter rogue, either...which is why the first rogue I posted was a mad scientist version of McGuyver. I play to have fun, not to have the most ungodly, 'I can do ANYTHING you can do, but better' character...and yes, I can play either one very effectively.
|
|
Because it's a cooperative game and I don't want to show up to Pathfinder night and not get to play because the rogue is trying to scout someplace and then have to go in blind anyways because there's a 38 point swing on opposed skill checks and he'll not only die like the waste of space he is but alert those he's supposed to be scouting.
Why would you ever want the guy who can go in and figure the place out ahead of you, clearing out the traps and helping everybody formulate a good plan of attack?I'm sorry that every rogue you've ever seen played was incompetent.
Feel free to make the assumption that nobody knows what they're doing.
Well, you're the one who has a 15th level character scouting out a, presumably, level appropriate area by virtue of ... having a ring of invisibility and boots of spider climb (which just about any other class could benefit from just as much)?
At that level it's not exactly uncommon to run into things that have abilities like True Seeing or Tremorsense. And spell casters can easily fill the area with illusion spells and, you know, simple 1st level alarm spells.
I'm not sure how exactly that's a recipe for success for the Rogue.
The larger point that, even if successful, the fact that the Rogue's "niche" is basically demanding that a large part of the session be spent on a solo scouting mission while the rest of the party sits around waiting for them outside isn't exactly going to represent good times for the rest of the players.
Usually, the way scouting is run in the groups I've played with...when we use it...is the rogue goes ahead a distance...not scouting out the whole thing and then reporting back. Heck...things can change in a matter of seconds. Minutes are begging for it.
But they aren't that ineffective. Seriously, they can still do what they were designed to do, no matter how much others can do it too, now.
They can do it. But not very well. When you're mediocre at your main job, or slightly above average at it, but terrible at all the rest, that's ineffective for me. Not useless, but ineffective.
Of course, if you define "effective" as "mediocre at best", then I suppose you can say Rogues are indeed effective.That's what irks me on this thread. I don't care that others can do it. Rogues can...and they do it well, by default.
By default? What does that mean? That just because someone wrote "this guy is good at doing X!" in the class description, then this automatically makes the class good at doing X? I highly doubt that.
I play to have fun, not to have the most ungodly, 'I can do ANYTHING you can do, but better' character...
So do I. What's your point? Fun is the main objective of the game, of course. And as long as you and your friends are having fun, you're doing it right.
That still doesn't make Rogues more effective. Like I said, you can have fun playing a commoner, but that doesn't mean commoners are effective.
and yes, I can play either one very effectively.
Then share your secret. Tell us how exactly you make Rogues so effective. I'd like nothing more than be proven wrong here. I actually like the class.
|
|
But they aren't that ineffective. Seriously, they can still do what they were designed to do, no matter how much others can do it too, now.They can do it. But not very well. When you're mediocre at your main job, or slightly above average at it, but terrible at all the rest, that's ineffective for me. Not useless, but ineffective.
Of course, if you define "effective" as "mediocre at best", then I suppose you can say Rogues are indeed effective.That's what irks me on this thread. I don't care that others can do it. Rogues can...and they do it well, by default.By default? What does that mean? That just because someone wrote "this guy is good at doing X!" in the class description, then this automatically makes the class good at doing X? I highly doubt that.
I play to have fun, not to have the most ungodly, 'I can do ANYTHING you can do, but better' character...So do I. What's your point? Fun is the main objective of the game, of course. And as long as you and your friends are having fun, you're doing it right.
That still doesn't make Rogues more effective. Like I said, you can have fun playing a commoner, but that doesn't mean commoners are effective.
and yes, I can play either one very effectively.Then share your secret. Tell us how exactly you make Rogues so effective. I'd like nothing more than be proven wrong here. I actually like the class.
Ugh. Every situation is different. Seriously. There's no way I can package up everything I've learned about playing effective rogues in less than a week...and I'm not even going to get paid for it. Seriously...I'm not the only one I've seen play them effectively, either...and others have even come into this very thread, and others, and said it. They have fun...and they actually have a list of accomplishments that MEAN something.
I'm playing a bard right now...and OMG...he can't disable traps. He's not a dungeon expert. He doesn't do what rogues are famous for doing. He won't be half the combat character that Sherwood is...and still, good money says that if he survives...he'll be a great...and effective character...and NOT do what rogues rock at.
There's no way I can package up everything I've learned about playing effective rogues in less than a week...and I'm not even going to get paid for it. Seriously
So your current position is that you'll only bother to actually make an effective argument if somebody pays you? Wow. Just ... wow.
One of the most fun characters I ever played in 3.5 was a level 1 Gnome Expert who had invested in craft Alchemy and had a bag full of alchemical items and a lot of skills for picking locks and sneaking.
That doesn't make me think that the Expert is a good class, it makes me think that I had fun playing a character who was weak and, thus, had to survive based on guile and cunning.
In fact, I had fun playing the class, in large part, because it was a weak class.
You guys are having too much fun ripping on EldonG's rogue and my poor Featherhammer rogue is growing lonely sitting there waiting for you to turn your scrutiny upon him. If you have a spare moment, check him out. Tell me where I went wrong, and what I could do to improve. I promise not to defend him too strongly.
I'm playing a bard right now...and OMG...he can't disable traps. He's not a dungeon expert. He doesn't do what rogues are famous for doing. He won't be half the combat character that Sherwood is...and still, good money says that if he survives...he'll be a great...and effective character...and NOT do what rogues rock at.
1. Cross class ranks in disable device, make it a class skill for the price of a trait, or take the archaeoloigist archetype. your bard can now disable traps. plus use of dispel magic and a wand of mount, can deal with most traps too in your Typical AP. the only exception is if your DM uses an automatic reset magical trap that resets every round and has a ludicrously high caster level for its CR
2. they get knowledge (Dungeoneering) as a class skill, Intellegence as a possible secondary stat, and bardic knowledge
3. the bard could specialize in archery and after buffing with performance, do more damage through a combination of archery, the benefit of ranged attacks from over 100 feet away, and the damage of buffed allies, outdamaging your rogue. plus they have battlefield control options the rogue lacks
if i had a rogue and a bard competing for the skill monkey slot, Experience dictates i would take the Bard.
so when are you holding the tryouts
I won't bother posting the whole build because plenty of folks have done the knifemaster/scout route before -- including in this thread, but I think mine is fun to play without being gimped:
Lv.1 (R1): TWF/Weapon Finesse
Lv.2 (R2): Weapon Focus: Dagger
Lv.3 (R3): Shadow Strike
Lv.4 (R4): Offensive Defense
Lv.5 (F1): Combat Expertise/Gang Up
Lv.6 (F2): Agile Maneuvers
Lv.7 (R5): Improved Dirty Trick
Lv.8 (R6): Pressure Points/Underhanded
Lv.9 (R7): Greater Dirty Trick
The fighter dip is pretty obvious for keeping that BAB up, getting feats and helping with maneuvers. Weapon Finesse can be dropped too, for a brute build -- which actually helps circumvent the DR problem with daggers.
I thought of doing a Close Quarters Thrower/False Opening thing too, maybe someday.
Anyway, not terribly different than other builds, but the dirty tricks keep it fresh as long you're creative.
This is, of course, somewhat dependent on your GM to really be fun, but for a true dirty fighting scoundrel it can be super entertaining.
|
|
I'm playing a bard right now...and OMG...he can't disable traps. He's not a dungeon expert. He doesn't do what rogues are famous for doing. He won't be half the combat character that Sherwood is...and still, good money says that if he survives...he'll be a great...and effective character...and NOT do what rogues rock at.1. Cross class ranks in disable device, make it a class skill for the price of a trait, or take the archaeoloigist archetype. your bard can now disable traps. plus use of dispel magic and a wand of mount, can deal with most traps too in your Typical AP. the only exception is if your DM uses an automatic reset magical trap that resets every round and has a ludicrously high caster level for its CR
2. they get knowledge (Dungeoneering) as a class skill, Intellegence as a possible secondary stat, and bardic knowledge
3. the bard could specialize in archery and after buffing with performance, do more damage through a combination of archery, the benefit of ranged attacks from over 100 feet away, and the damage of buffed allies, outdamaging your rogue. plus they have battlefield control options the rogue lacks
if i had a rogue and a bard competing for the skill monkey slot, Experience dictates i would take the Bard.
He does what I want him to do. People do get that it's not 'I have the super-character, I WIN"...don't they?
In keeping with Cheapy's request for comparisons though, I have to admit that my Ratfolk natural attacking vivisectionist eats the Dirty Trick build for lunch in pure DPR.
Because it's a cooperative game and I don't want to show up to Pathfinder night and not get to play because the rogue is trying to scout someplace and then have to go in blind anyways because there's a 38 point swing on opposed skill checks and he'll not only die like the waste of space he is but alert those he's supposed to be scouting.
Why would you ever want the guy who can go in and figure the place out ahead of you, clearing out the traps and helping everybody formulate a good plan of attack?I'm sorry that every rogue you've ever seen played was incompetent.
Feel free to make the assumption that nobody knows what they're doing.
Well, you're the one who has a 15th level character scouting out a, presumably, level appropriate area by virtue of ... having a ring of invisibility and boots of spider climb (which just about any other class could benefit from just as much)?
At that level it's not exactly uncommon to run into things that have abilities like True Seeing or Tremorsense. And spell casters can easily fill the area with illusion spells and, you know, simple 1st level alarm spells.
I'm not sure how exactly that's a recipe for success for the Rogue.
The larger point that, even if successful, the fact that the Rogue's "niche" is basically demanding that a large part of the session be spent on a solo scouting mission while the rest of the party sits around waiting for them outside isn't exactly going to represent good times for the rest of the players.
I agree. In fact a lot of the problem seems to be that much of what a Rogue does, he does solo (scouting, trapfinding, disable traps), which means that either the GM has the rest of the party sitting around twiddling their thumbs while the Rogue does his thang or he doesn't put much of them in, effectively nerfing the rogue. That plus the fact that the Rogue is not necessarily the best at doing those things any more means he needs a rethink and overhaul.
Either the rest of the party needs to be involved in supporting a rogue while he does what he does (ranging from "Here, you hold this rope while I undo this mechanism. Don't let go or the trap will go off in our faces" (Combines nicely with an unexpected attack while in the midst of disabling) to "You cause a distraction while I nip in the back way and pull the lever"), or the Rogue needs to be able to do other things. The other things they do need to be roguish - which means they need to used with thought, and are only circumstantially damage dealing (like sneak attack). Abilities that confuse or disorientate an opponent are very roguish (especially non-spellcasting ones). Feints and tricks, ability to maneouvre in difficult terrain, while climbing or balancing can all be used to great effect by a thoughtful rogue. Moving the fight onto an area of thin ice will help against heavier opponents, fighting while avoiding huge mechanisms would favour the rogue, fighting on top of thin walls or while scrambling over rooftops should favour the rogue, etc. The rogue needs to choose his ground to be effective, and abilities that enhance that, should be added. Rogues (in literature) are famous for luring an opponent into a trap...how often does that happen in PF? some ability to do that would be welcomed. Some simple traps can be made quickly from Rope and a handy bit of masonry...or just rope. Give the rogue some ability to set these up then lure opponents into them. Fun to roleplay, helpful and flavourful. If they do get into combat, expanded feint capabilities and some dirty tricks (sand/dust in the face, etc.) would be helpful and flavourful. Give them maneouvre capabilities (trip and disarm are helpful and flavourful), some form of flashy weapon finesse capability (think of all those literary rogues who are masters with the rapier. Not a damaging weapon, so not a fighter favoutite, but perfect for a swashbuckling rogue). Any or all of these would add to the class in terms of flavour, fun and balance. Some of these can be role-played, but making up rules for them on the fly would be a nightmare for GM.
@PapaZorro - Nice!