How useless is a skill monkey rogue?


Advice

101 to 150 of 1,376 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Lord Twig wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Make your first level feats Fast Learner and Skill Focus (Use Magic Device).
Fast Learner is pretty cool, I didn't know about that one. The thing is that it is really not much different than just taking the skill points from your favored class and then getting the Toughness feat. They would stack though, so there is that.

I mainly suggested Fast Learner because he didn't want to put a lot into Con and it allows him to get a bonus HP and a bonus skill rank every level. The follow-up feats are also amazing and allow a ninja to be almost as good at skill-monkeying around as a bard.

The follow-ups being Improvisation and Improved Improvisation.

I could see that tree doing a lot for a fighter. Those 4 feats and Dangerously Curious trait and the fighter gets out of combat function.

As for a skill monkey though I don't see the point. You won't be rolling many skills that you are untrained in.


Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Make your first level feats Fast Learner and Skill Focus (Use Magic Device).

Not much point in UMD at 1st level. I wouldn't even put any points into it until about 3rd-6th, depending on your Cha & treasure. After all, at 1st you haven't got any magic items to use and your chance of success is going to be pretty feeble anyway. But when you do use it, pump it for all it's worth.


OP, is there a reason you insist on Rogue despite Bard being better for the skill monkey role/theme you seem to seek out?

Is it just a matter of "names matter to me, and I want it to say ROGUE* on my character sheet!" stubbornness?

Most of us aren't even suggesting the (real) best option of being a spellcaster that replaces skills with spells** in favor of a class that's at least similar to the rogue out of politeness.

*Or alternatively, ROUGE

**Or that a synthesist summoner can take the Skilled evolution repeatedly for +8 on a ton of skills and can safely dumpstat physicals leaving room for Int 18 or 20 for adequate skill points.


*I don't understand what face make up has to do with anything...

If I play a Bard that refuses to cast spells or play music, who is weaker then the rogue or the bard.

The bard is an entirely different flavor of skill monkey. They are not the fast and smart types, they are the smart and charming types. Also, when I play a bard I have to ham it up. I am the party fop.

Bard is a sexy class, but they are not rogues and play entirely differently.

Now bards do set a standard for what a rogue has to be better than when skill monkeying.


It's a joke. A lot of people mispell the class as rouge, and seem to have a higher instance of doing so when typing in caps.

You are not required to play the class any particular way, and I'd dare say Bards are at least a little smart along w/ fast and charming.... they have Lore Master and Bardic Knowledge, afterall. You have to be at least a little smart to know a ton of stuff.

And speaking of how classes play... aside from the skill money role, the rogue's main theme is sneak attacking, which has nothing to do with what you want anyway. A bard with no spells or performances (even Inspire Competence? Really?) is still better than a rogue with no sneak attack. At least the spells and performs have some tie ins to skil use. One of the bard unique spells is Glibness, in fact, to be the best bluffer ever.


The bard can be smart, fast, and classy. Dervish dance is just sexy you know. They don't play that much differently unless you want to be obsessed with getting sneak attack off to do anything or really really hate spells and performance(you can get performances that aren't even performances like the archeaologist).

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am playing a Lorekeeper Dwarf Archivist Bard and I have to say, in every way, he is more of a skill monkey than any rogue and I am better at rogue-like stuff than a rogue. The only part missing is sneak attack. i also multiclassed into Horizon walker for some bonuses in certain terrains and such, but you could easily stay the path of bard and be even more of a skill monkey than my PC.
I have never seen anyone as good with skills as my current PC, especially a rogue. I suggest reading up on Archivist Bard and the Lorekeeper Dwarf to see what I mean. I also don't sing. I lecture...Perform:Oratory. I lecture the group on what the monsters can do to give them bonuses. I kinda go with a Ben Stein type of speaking when RPing him.


How big of a difference would it be if rogues got full BAB?


Regardless the build is a skill monkey rogue. Not a bard. The skill monkey rogue just has to be a better skill monkey than a non-skill focused bard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
How big of a difference would it be if rogues got full BAB?

Personally I think it would go a long ways towards fixing the class.

Sczarni

I say play whichever class best expresses, through the mechanics of its class abilities/features, the character concept you have in mind.

90 percent of my "Rogues" don't have any actual levels in the Rogue class.

I don't usually tell my table mates what "class" I am playing. I let them figure it out on their own. Keep them guessing.

I will say this. When playing in Society games I think there is a responsibility for each player to bring a character to the table that won't be a drain on other players resources. But beyond that it's a game - have fun with it and don't worry if your character isn't "optimal".


Play a dwarf with 1 level of fighter. Ignore any dex based skills and be a perception and trap disabler. Wear Full plate and backstab with a greataxe.
PFS 20 point build

Str 14
Dex 13
Con 16 (14 +2 race)
Int 14
Wis 14 (12 +2 Race)
Chan 10 (12 -1 race)

Go the Dodge / mobility Route so you can get into postion for your backstab easier. It is viable playstyle it just flies in the face of the conventional wisdom of maxing out Dex.
Hell Just go skill focus in whatever Dex based skill you feel you must have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Props for recommending a lvl of fighter as a skill monkey. That is easily the ballsiest post I have seen so far.


There are basically two ways to make sneak attack good: mix the scout archetype with something that gets you pounce and lots of natural attacks or mix the scout archetype with a lance and spirited charge and get a decent mount by some means. (The most reliable is 4 levels of cavalier and horse master, but a ridable druid or synthesist cohort or a friendly druid with an animal companion he or she is happy to let you ride will work as well and in some campaigns under some GMs maxing the handle animal skill may let you train yourself a series of exotic mounts as you level up.)

If you're not doing one of those you probably won't get enough out of sneak attack to justify going rogue rather than archaeologist bard.

Archaeologists are so much better at skills than the rogue that it's not even funny. 2 fewer points per level not counting bardic knowledge (but 13+int per level with it), but the inspiration spells give a substantial effective skill boost for everything not done under stealth while the invisibility line and silence boost stealth to an absurd degree. And as a bonus arcane strike makes you an archer that isn't a joke.

Oh, and just to rub it in archaeologist bards get their half level bonus to all perception checks, not just those to find traps.


Yeah well we're not looking at skill monkey focused bards here. Even if we were, I would like to point out that no kind of bard can disable magical traps. I don't know how you can call yourself a rogue skill monkey without the ability to handle dangerous traps.


Marthkus wrote:
Yeah well we're not looking at skill monkey focused bards here. Even if we were, I would like to point out that no kind of bard can disable magical traps. I don't know how you can call yourself a rogue skill monkey without the ability to handle dangerous traps.

One of the key features of Archeologist is disabling traps like a rogue does . Even magic ones. Ranger and oracle get the Exact same class feature, but the Archeologist has Trapfinding on Steroids. Just saying.


I always thought the idea that you need trapfinding to deal with magical traps was just there to keep them relevant. Taking something everyone should have just to make someone look good is terrible balance, as I've said. There is a bard that does trapfinding. Bards also happen to have dispel magic on their spell list.


"and can disarm magical traps." ah missed that phrase there. Still couldn't play a bard without performance and without versatile performance the bard can't compare to the rogue as a skill monkey.

ArchAeologist appears to be a rogue with less skill points and no sneak attack, but hey they get lore master, bardic knowledge and spells. Not that a skill monkey wouldn't still be out shined by a wizard or sage sorcerer in all of those aspects.

The Exchange

Archivist Bard gets trapfinding just like a rogue. and as I pointed out earlier, is leaps and bound better at being a skill monkey than any rogue I have seen. The only thing they can't do that a rogue can is sneak attack but they can do everything else better.


Marthkus wrote:
Still couldn't play a bard without performance and without versatile performance the bard can't compare to the rogue as a skill monkey.

I think your just being picky now...

You can if you remember they can function with more intellence, can gain a familiar because they didn't dump cha, and can cast spells that make them better. They also have Archeaologist luck.


I'm sorry, the rogue was my favorite class too. I always loved the thiefy assassin type classes, and when I started in 3.0 it seemed like the thing for me. But after playing the class five separate times and griping about how bad it was I finally realized the truth: Rogues don't work the way I think when I hear the word "Rogue" in my head. It's sad, and it pains me, especially for someone whose loves playing the mundane thief. My goal here isn't to diss on rogues, as I still love the class. I'm warning you so you don't face the same heart-wrenching disappointment I felt when I played my rogue and learned they pretty much utterly suck. Even with sneak attack. Terrible ability to hit, foes who are outright immune to your only damage mechanic half the time, and the fact magic is greater than skills 9 times out of ten are all contributing factors. Just here me out man: don't set yourself up for disappointment. Play the class if you want, so long as you know ahead of time what to expect because 7 times out of ten that's what you'll get.


MrSin wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Still couldn't play a bard without performance and without versatile performance the bard can't compare to the rogue as a skill monkey.

I think your just being picky now...

You can if you remember they can function with more intellence, can gain a familiar because they didn't dump cha, and can cast spells that make them better. They also have Archeaologist luck.

Lord Twig's build managed to have High int and still be very functional. If your casting spells to replace your skills, why were you a skill monkey in the first place?


Marthkus wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Still couldn't play a bard without performance and without versatile performance the bard can't compare to the rogue as a skill monkey.

I think your just being picky now...

You can if you remember they can function with more intellence, can gain a familiar because they didn't dump cha, and can cast spells that make them better. They also have Archeaologist luck.

Lord Twig's build managed to have High int and still be very functional. If your casting spells to replace your skills, why were you a skill monkey in the first place?

Casting spells does not replace skills. Unless your talking about fly or invisiblity or touch of the sea, in which case it makes those skills pretty close to useless so who cares if you had the skill in the first place. You use them to get bonuses, you were already good in the first place if your a bard, or likely are because you get a crazy number of skill points and likely have versatily performance to make it ever better while looking fantastic becuase its all charisma based, which also happens to be what your performance and spellcasting, which again is great for everything!


Yeah, but I would never play a bard as a skill monkey. He's got better bard related things to do. The skills are just there for added fun.


... I don't think you understand the bard.

The bard is a versatile character who can fulfill several roles. Jack of all trades master of none gig, but very much as skillmonkey. It just so happens he excels as a skillmonkey, more so than anyone else with his skill related bard features. Versatile Performance, Performance itself, Spellcasting, bardic Knowledge, Lore master, Jack of All Trades. They all add to his skills.

What exactly is a bard thing? The names of classes are only labels. How you play them and what you do with them is up to you. You could play a diabolical assassin and be a bard. You could be a charming cortesean, you could be a Secretary or Indiana Jones. None of these are out of reach for the bard.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You have shoehorned the Bard into a singing spellcaster and ignored everything that people are trying to tell you....and you choose to ignore that if you want a lockpicking, trapfinding skill monkey character, there are some bard archetypes that far outdo any rogue builds that do the same.
Stick with rogue if you want, but don't doubt for a moment that there is a bard out there that out-rogues you rogue all day long.

Contributor

Sort Answer: As useful as your GM lets you be.

Long Answer:

There are PLENTY of skills that can be used in combat; some of them are quite potent, actually. Feinting in combat with Bluff can be very effective if you invest into the feats; if you're willing to only attempt to attack with your iterative attacks, you can use feint to sneak attack without a buddy. There have been plenty of combats where the shaken condition has been the difference between life and death for me, so I find that Intimidate is also a worthwile combat skill. Acrobatics is key if you plan on doing any amount of moving across the battlefield and Escape Artist is nifty for escaping grapples.

But as I mentioned before, only as useful as your GM lets you be. Feinting isn't very effective against non-humanoids and demoralizing won't work at all. You're probably not going to be anyone's first grapple target either, which leaves Acrobatics as the one very useful combat skill.

Its like anything in this game; invest too heavily in anything and you'll suffer everywhere else. Refuse to specialize someone, and you'll probably stink at everything you generalize in. It is a wicked cycle, alas.


Of course there is a bard that can out skillmonkey every rogue out there. That does not mean I can play that kind of bard.

A bard is the king of all buffmancers. The bard is also the best party face in the game without even trying. Those two roles outweigh whatever sort of skillmonkying he can do. A skill monkey bard outshines himself. You can't play him as a skill monkey because that is never his most prominent role. Sure he can do skill monkey things and role the occasional check once in awhile, but he does not live or die by this mechanic. It's like if I said the best melee martial is a druid or a cleric, sure they can be a beast in melee, but that does not define them. Its a secondary element to their play styles. Magus is a better example, a gish is not melee martial like the fighter or barbarian. He can fill the same role and even dish out the same or greater damage, but no one plays a Magus because he is a better fighter, when they wanted to play a fighter.


So... The bard isn't a skillmonkey? Is rogue the only one? Or do wizards, inquisitors, and rangers count?

For ranger or inquisitor it might be a secondary roll. For a Wizard its an unintended role I've always thought, but I wouldn't say a bard isn't a skillmonkey.

Marthkus wrote:
A bard is the king of all buffmancers. The bard is also the best party face in the game without even trying. Those two roles outweigh whatever sort of skillmonkying he can do. A skill monkey bard outshines himself. You can't play him as a skill monkey because that is never his most prominent role. Sure he can do skill monkey things and role the occasional check once in awhile, but he does not live or die by this mechanic.

Wait, does that mean your asking for someone who's a skillmonkey and gimped at everything else?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

"I may suck at my job when I could have been good at it instead, but by god I swear I will have the right word written at the top of my character sheet!"


MrSin wrote:

So... The bard isn't a skillmonkey? Is rogue the only one? Or do wizards, inquisitors, and rangers count?

For ranger or inquisitor it might be a secondary roll. For a Wizard its an unintended role I've always thought, but I wouldn't say a bard isn't a skillmonkey.

Marthkus wrote:
A bard is the king of all buffmancers. The bard is also the best party face in the game without even trying. Those two roles outweigh whatever sort of skillmonkying he can do. A skill monkey bard outshines himself. You can't play him as a skill monkey because that is never his most prominent role. Sure he can do skill monkey things and role the occasional check once in awhile, but he does not live or die by this mechanic.
Wait, does that mean your asking for someone who's a skillmonkey and gimped at everything else?

Well, I did suggest Scholar . . .


I used to think Bards weren't skill monkeys either...until I played 1 with a 14 intelligence and ended up having 19 skills.
To break that down for you:
-4 of my skills were: Ride, Perception, Stealth and Use Magic Device(I Maxed all of these).
-3 of my skills were Perform: Comedy, Dance, and Oratory. Each of these performs however, were versatile performances, so because of comedy, I had Bluff and Intimidate, because of Dance, I had Acrobatics and Fly, and because of Oratory, I had Diplomacy and Sense motive. So for maxing out 3 skills, I actually maxed out 9 skills.
- 6 of my skills went into the knowledge: Arcana, Dungeoneering, Local, Nature, Planes and Religion. I technically only had these skills at 5 ranks each, but because of Bardic Knowledge, the bonuses amounted to max ranks(since half my bad level adds to knowledge skills, putting 1 rank every other level in a knowledge skill roughly equals max ranks).
To summarize, I had a know-it-all character who had every social skill covered(I let the fighter "handle" the animals, since I didn't know how to talk to the beasts), could sneak into and out of almost any situation with ease, could use magic items no problem-o, and could find and avoid traps if needed. The only thing I couldn't do was disable said traps, but that's something a headband of INT can easily fix.
So how's your Rogue with its 13 skills looking now?

Silver Crusade

Marthkus wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Lord Twig wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Make your first level feats Fast Learner and Skill Focus (Use Magic Device).
Fast Learner is pretty cool, I didn't know about that one. The thing is that it is really not much different than just taking the skill points from your favored class and then getting the Toughness feat. They would stack though, so there is that.

I mainly suggested Fast Learner because he didn't want to put a lot into Con and it allows him to get a bonus HP and a bonus skill rank every level. The follow-up feats are also amazing and allow a ninja to be almost as good at skill-monkeying around as a bard.

The follow-ups being Improvisation and Improved Improvisation.

I could see that tree doing a lot for a fighter. Those 4 feats and Dangerously Curious trait and the fighter gets out of combat function.

As for a skill monkey though I don't see the point. You won't be rolling many skills that you are untrained in.

I disagree. Rogues only get knowledges in dungeoneering and local. The other 4 knowledges you could roll untrained are very important.


Well apparently I am asking for something that doesn't exist. Rogues are the only skill monkey because both rogues and skills suck. Everyone else has better things they could be doing. Skills flesh out a character, but can't define him unless he just sucks at everything else. I tried skillmonkey in 3.5 and ran into the same problems as what everyone else has pointed out. Lord Twig came the closest to a viable skill monkey rogue, but even then its use is relative to the lack of skills in the rest of the party.

System mechanics are against this concept a good DM and campaign can mitigate that, but that is situational. I role-play and roll-play when I make a character. If a character isn't likely to function well, I either refine the concept or pick something else. Hence, the point of this whole thread to preemptively see if this could work.


A pure skillmonkey isn't very good in 3.X. The game is combat heavy. Your likely to run into combat and many things are built around combat. If you want to do something unrelated to combat in everyway you may want to look into another game.


I feel your pain T_T


Marthkus wrote:

Well apparently I am asking for something that doesn't exist. Rogues are the only skill monkey because both rogues and skills suck. Everyone else has better things they could be doing. Skills flesh out a character, but can't define him unless he just sucks at everything else. I tried skillmonkey in 3.5 and ran into the same problems as what everyone else has pointed out. Lord Twig came the closest to a viable skill monkey rogue, but even then its use is relative to the lack of skills in the rest of the party.

System mechanics are against this concept a good DM and campaign can mitigate that, but that is situational. I role-play and roll-play when I make a character. If a character isn't likely to function well, I either refine the concept or pick something else. Hence, the point of this whole thread to preemptively see if this could work.

Your concept might work if the campaign is primarily an urban adventure, but as far as most pathfinder adventures go, you're gonna be fighting things that aren't as easy to overcome as the challenges humanoids are going to offer you. especially if you're playing a stealthy character. Lots of monsters can perceive you without having to roll perception checks against your stealth checks. It's a great idea, one that works really well in an all humanoid setting...but monsters are a very dangerous foe, and were I playing the same character as you, I'd be afraid to leave the city without the assistance of some very brave(and expendable) meatbags. I mean Fighters. Same thing, really.


I would really like to see a class or archetype that revolves around using skills in combat to be effective.


Marthkus wrote:
I would really like to see a class or archetype that revolves around using skills in combat to be effective.

One problem is skills are easy to raise to sky high levels. +5 competance, +2 circumstance, maxed ranks, 5 from attribute are all easy to reach.

Some other game systems, less vancian, are likely to have what you want.


I should say that its not wrong to want to play a skillmonkey, and what most people suggest isn't just "no don't play", but rather compromise and create something in the system that can still be useful in combat and still have a focus on skills. Bards can acheeve this easily. A bit of compromise really can go a long way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Little things like making the steal maneuver use sleight of hand, or a combination of bluff and stealth to deal more damage to an opponent by catching them of-guard. Using perception and knowledge skills to penetrate an enemies AC. Maybe acrobatics and escape artist for better AC and combat maneuverability. These don't have to be universal things, they could just be for that one class or archetype and you could have a functional skill monkey.


Marthkus wrote:
I would really like to see a class or archetype that revolves around using skills in combat to be effective.

You're gonna have to be specific as to which skills you're referring, because the bard I was talking about uses most of his skills in combat...to know about his enemies, he uses his knowledge, to make use of wands and such, he uses UMD. to see the fight coming beforehand, he uses perception to not be caught unawares. to not get smacked when he needs to get away from someone, he uses acrobatics. To fluster his enemies, he uses either Diplomacy or Intimidate to Antagonize them, or just to make them shaken. He also uses ride to control his phantom steed, Stealth to hide while blurred if he really needs to, and perform if for some reason he has to distract, countersong or fascinate. none of the bards skills really go to waste, and almost all of them are used in combat.


Argh again with the bard. He has a lot of synergy with all of his abilities but he is not a skill monkey, skill make up 1/3 to 1/4 what a bard does, depending on how much of their feats are spent on melee or ranged combat.


Also going to point out that I almost never had to worry about dealing damage myself to be effective. I only ever used a whip or a net as weapons, and the only attack rolls I used were for combat maneuvers to trip, disarm or grapple.


I would love to see them create a rogue talent that let you roll Acrobatics checks to increase miss chance like a scaling displacement effect that stacked with your other miss chance effects. Or be able to incorporate stealth into combat by making your opponent oppose it with a perception, and if you beat it you get to do sneak damage, even if you are not flanking or have them flat footed.

Hell, just make them class abilities, don't bother making them rogue talents, but then again people do want better rogue talents...


Just what is your definition of Skill Monkey, then?


Marthkus wrote:
Argh again with the bard. He has a lot of synergy with all of his abilities but he is not a skill monkey, skill make up 1/3 to 1/4 what a bard does, depending on how much of their feats are spent on melee or ranged combat.

Bards are skillmonkeys. Stop saying they are not.

Silver Crusade

Marthkus wrote:
Yeah well we're not looking at skill monkey focused bards here. Even if we were, I would like to point out that no kind of bard can disable magical traps. I don't know how you can call yourself a rogue skill monkey without the ability to handle dangerous traps.

All bards can disable magic traps. My PFSP Bard is better at disable device then a Rogue of the same level. We started at the same time and it is a very sore spot for him that my bard is better at it. We work very well as a team because I try and get him flank when ever I can. So even if he wins initiative he will delay. Knowing if I can ill set him up for sneak attacks.

Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Pathfinder Society Field Guide wrote:

Aram Zey's Focus

School divination;
Level bard 2
Duration 1 minute/level
Description
Aram Zey created this spell for use by his students, both to increase their confidence in their skills and to ensure more of them survived encounters with deadly traps. If you don't have the trapfinding class ability, this spell grants you the trapfinding ability of a rogue of half your character level.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I gotta say, my rogue feels pretty useless most of the time.

Grand Lodge

Guide/Trapper Ranger.

Now, you are a better Rogue.

Trap Breaker/Vivisectionist Alchemist.

Another better Rogue.

101 to 150 of 1,376 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / How useless is a skill monkey rogue? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.