The question is "Can the rogue class be functional without archetypes?".
Goal posts:
1) Do noticeable damage. Monsters shouldn't able to ignore you.
2) Be a decent skill monkey
3) The goal is not to make a rogue that is the best at something. The goal is to make a functional character that is rarely useless in fight.
Restrictions:
1) No strength build rogues
2) You can't assume flanking
3) Must have a viable range attack option
4) 20 point buy
Bonus:
1) Use feats and talents in the PRD
2) Use a race from the CRB
CN Half-Elf Rogue
str 10, dex 18, con 14, int 14, wis 10, cha 10
Feats:
Combat Expertise, Skill Focus(Bluff), Deceitful, Skill Focus(UMD), Arcane Strike, Greater Feint, Extra Rogue Talent(Familiar), Extra Rogue Talent(Crippling Strike), Combat Reflexes, Extra Rogue Talent(Stealthy Sniper), Extra Rogue Talent(Unwitting Ally)
Rogue Talents:
Finesse Rogue,Combat Trick(Improved Feint), Minor Magic(Prestidigitation), Major Magic(Silent Image), Skill Mastery(Bluff, UMD, Stealth, Disable Device, Acrobatics), Feat[Improved Familiar(Small Air Elemental)], Opportunist, Dispelling Attack, Hard to Fool, Skill Mastery
Tactics:
Melee: Feint or Flank
Range: UMD or Snipping (Normally UMD)
Damage at 20 with a +5 keen agile rapier is 11d6 + 20
Feinting plus opportunist is 2 sneak attacks for 22d6+40 damage
Flanking plus haste plus opportunist is 3 sneak attacks for 33d6+60 with two other sneak attacks at a lower chance to hit.
Please post builds, explain why builds won't work, or explain why builds will work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can't assume flanking? I've never understood anyone who says both that the rogue is useless, and that you can't assume flanking. Flanking helps everyone hit better, is nearly always a preferable tactic, and should always be possible. You're taking something that any melee build should aspire to and specifically disallowing it to make the rogue look bad.
/rant
Can't assume flanking? I've never understood anyone who says both that the rogue is useless, and that you can't assume flanking. Flanking helps everyone hit better, is nearly always a preferable tactic, and should always be possible. You're taking something that any melee build should aspire to and specifically disallowing it to make the rogue look bad.
/rant
I make this assumption from personal experience in campaign modules.
Dungeons are cramped. Sometimes flanking is impossible(corners and walls), other times flanking is suicidal (party - monster - you - 6 other monsters). My GM also tends to run intelligent mobs such that they try to avoid being flanked (like taking a 5ft step into a corner and then attacking) because like you said flanking is good for all melee not just the rogue.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why no Strength builds?
If we have gang-up, can we assume flanking?
Do you need a viable melee option, or can you be an archer?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thread title hits a slight nerve for me. I 100% understand that there are a lot of new classes and archetypes stepping all over rogues toes but the class is certainly still functional.
@ArmouredMonk13
I already know you can make decent rogues based around strength. I'm sick of seeing those builds.
If you have a mechanic that forces flanking somehow, then yes. You just can't assume that you and a party member will be standing on opposite sides of a monster.
Played a TWF Dex rogue. I felt non-functional and was useless for many fights. This may just be a difference between how my GM play monsters and how you play monsters.
Thread title hits a slight nerve for me. I 100% understand that there are a lot of new classes and archetypes stepping all over rogues toes but the class is certainly still functional.
Then please post builds.
Maybe we just mean different things by functional.
why no strength build rogues?
the rogue you mention depends on a weapon enchantment from Pathfinder's Softcover line of Pamphlets. specifically a 64 page pamphlet designed specifically for a specific setting and organization. a property to not make it to the core line rulebooks.
yes, it's on D20 PFSRD
but it is a property from the setting line that is less likely to be allowed than the half-orc strength rogue due to the fact it is part of a monthly short printed release that is known for having the following facets, extreme rarity, extreme levels of digging, is known for including a lot of fixer material, and is generally looked at with as much fear and superstition, as Dervish Dance and Pirahna Strike
how about you show what the rogue in the OP can do without a property from a relatively rare softcover.
please tell us the attack bonuses of those sneak attacks, not just the damage on a successful hit. and please look at the rogue at a level besides 20. such as i don't know, somewhere between 7 and 13. i suggest looking at what that rogue does from levels 1-4 as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe we just mean different things by functional.
If you require a party member standing across the monster from you to be more effective than a commoner, then the class is non-functional.
This is why I'm saying you can't assume that and must have a range option.
Does the build have to be 100% rogue?
|
Maybe we just mean different things by functional.If you require a party member standing across the monster from you to be more effective than a commoner, then the class is non-functional.
This is why I'm saying you can't assume that and must have a range option.
Flanking is part of the class feature that counts as the primary tent pole of the Rogue class. Flanking = more damage, which accounts for much of what people argue about under the guise of "functionality." To remove flanking from the equation is akin to having a greats word Fighter fight without his weapon, or a wizard without access to spell components.
-Skeld
how about you show what the rogue in the OP can do without a property from a relatively rare softcover.
please tell us the attack bonuses of those sneak attacks, not just the damage on a successful hit. and please look at the rogue at a level besides 20. such as i don't know, somewhere between 7 and 13. i suggest looking at what that rogue does from levels 1-4 as well.
It's rough math, but assuming no agile that's just 10 less points of damage. Assuming 30 dex as well.
Feint + opportunist yields a sneak attack doing 11d6+10 damage against no dex bonus AC at +30 to hit
Flanking + haste + opportunist is 3 sneak attacks doing 11d6+10 damage at +33 to hit. With two other sneak attacks at +28 and +23
at 7 with a +1 rapier assume 21 dex
Feint for a sneak attack doing 5d6+3 damage at +11 to hit against AC without dex bonus. Bluff check has a bonus of +15
Flanking for a sneak attack doing 5d6+3 damage at +13 to hit
UMD is at +13 or 70% chance to activate a wand.
At 1-4 base weapon damage is noticeable damage, so I am unconcerned about those levels for functionality (besides grabbing weapon finesse)
Well I think you can assume flanking if you get the rogue a familiar and animal companion. Animal Ally, and the Familiar talent work well, you can also purchase a mount, and if you are allowed leadership theres that. Get a wand of DD and have your familiar plop you and your AC into flanking position for a full attack. As for ranged obscuring mist and sniper goggles should make for a viable ranged attack.
What level are we talking for builds here?
Maybe we just mean different things by functional.If you require a party member standing across the monster from you to be more effective than a commoner, then the class is non-functional.
This is why I'm saying you can't assume that and must have a range option.
Flanking is part of the class feature that counts as the primary tent pole of the Rogue class. Flanking = more damage, which accounts for much of what people argue about under the guise of "functionality." To remove flanking from the equation is akin to having a greats word Fighter fight without his weapon, or a wizard without access to spell components.
Fighters do not lose their weapon when the monster is standing in a corner.
Fighters can also pull out a composite bow and deal decent range damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does the build have to be 100% rogue?
1 rogue/wiz 19. I'm an awesome rogue.
Well I think you can assume flanking if you get the rogue a familiar and animal companion. Animal Ally, and the Familiar talent work well, you can also purchase a mount, and if you are allowed leadership theres that. Get a wand of DD and have your familiar plop you and your AC into flanking position for a full attack. As for ranged obscuring mist and sniper goggles should make for a viable ranged attack.
What level are we talking for builds here?
I'd like to see a progression (out to 20) or at least feats and talents listed in the order they are acquired.
A familiar helps with flanking, but cannot guarantee it.
Sniper goggles are expensive(20k) for when bow damage(1d6) stops being significant (level 5-7)
Does the build have to be 100% rogue?
That would be nice.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The class is already functional. Just isn't worth taking over any other class since they can do the job better and do other stuff too.
In a party of 4, can it handle CR appropriate encounters? Sure. That to me is the definition of functional.
Tha islike saying that a bard that focus on buffin others is non functional cause you need others party members.Maybe we just mean different things by functional.If you require a party member standing across the monster from you to be more effective than a commoner, then the class is non-functional.
A bard can buff party members when a monster does something as mundane as standing in a corner.
If you are not flanking and you are not using an agile weapon you are in a lot of trouble in combat if the goal is to affective in combat. Well I guess you could go with the intimidation build that makes people flat-footed against you..
But that might require you to boost charisma at the expense of intelligence or wisdom, and rogues already have poor will saves.
What is the problem with STR Rogues being viable? That is the preferred stat for any melee build, regardless of class.
DEX and Ranged Combat are of course rather tightly linked.
Just like Barbarians or whoever else, many characters may 'accept' being mediocre at ranged while being strong at melee (or vice versa).
Flatly ruling out Flanking from consideration is a joke. Flanking happens.
Why not rule out Crit damage since some creatures are Immune to Crits?
More realistic is saying that Flanking applies X% of the time.
Likewise you could say that Full Attacks happen Y% of the time, and Charges Z%.
Although it should also be allowed to 'convert' a non-Flanking Full Attack to a Flanking Standard Attack, for example.
(but use that damage for Full Attack DPR calc)
I don't necessarily think anybody will always be thrilled with Rogues by these measures, but it certainly seems 'functional' if not great.
At least if you are a good player, it is generally "functional" to play a Rogue in a game whose CR system is skewed in PCs favor.
The class is already functional.
Not in the games I have played. Hence, this thread.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we make the Fighter base class functional?
Restrictions:
Must take Endurance and the Vital Strike line.
Can't assume you'll get to use combat feats.
Have to have a high Will save.
Seriously though, the only time I've ever seen a decently played Rogue not be a fully functional and effective member of the group is when everyone else is über optimized. Most often Rogues are made less effective by GM's de-emphasizing and role play. The rogue we had in SnS absolutely rocked and had some of the campaigns coolest moments by far.
EDIT: reading the posts and responses so far, I get the impression that this is an 'I hate rogues' thread where any build - even ones that meet the absurd requirements - will just be picked apart by the OP. Functional and ultra optimized are two very different things.
The class is already functional.Not in the games I have played. Hence, this thread.
What games were they? At what level? What was the average greater cr of encounters?
The rogue we had in SnS absolutely rocked and had some of the campaigns coolest moments by far.
Any character can have great moments. Was it the character, or the class though? I know a guy who'll make anything he plays awesome if only because he's fun to be around. On the other hand, he doesn't really need the class as a platform.
While I disagree with some of the assumptions made, I would like to present a character that is both unique and I believe, under the definitions given, "functional".
Keldan Arroweye
Elf Rogue
Str 14
Dex 18
Con 12
Int 14
Wis 12
Cha 7
Put leveling and magic bonuses into Dex.
1st: Combat Expertise
2nd: Combat Trick: Improved Disarm
3rd: Catch Off-Guard
4th: Finesse Rogue
5th: Two Weapon Fighting
6th:
7th: Throw Anything
8th:
9th: Greater Disarm
10th:
11th: Improved Two Weapon Fighting
That's as far as I've built it, and the open even levels can be used for anything. To consistently get sneak attack without flank, disarm your opponent of any weapon they're carrying and use a pair of durable arrows (of various special materials) as improvised weapons. Prior to level 3 stay ranged with a longbow.
What is the problem with STR Rogues being viable? That is the preferred stat for any melee build, regardless of class.
DEX and Ranged Combat are of course rather tightly linked.
Just like Barbarians or whoever else, many characters may 'accept' being mediocre at ranged while being strong at melee (or vice versa).
Flatly ruling out Flanking from consideration is a joke. Flanking happens.
1. Tired of seeing strength rogues. I have no desire to play one.
2. 1d6+'enhancement bonus' is not mediocre damage it's embarrassing.3. Flanking happens, but being unable to flank shouldn't be as effective in neutralizing your character as failing a saving throw.
The rogue we had in SnS absolutely rocked and had some of the campaigns coolest moments by far.Any character can have great moments. Was it the character, or the class though? I know a guy who'll make anything he plays awesome if only because he's fun to be around. On the other hand, he doesn't really need the class as a platform.
I think it was a combination of the player being awesome and the AP / GM rewarding skills and the creative use of them. The rest of the party included and optimized Barbarian, and optimized Master Summoner and a solidly built Sea Singer.
Spoiler:While I disagree with some of the assumptions made, I would like to present a character that is both unique and I believe, under the definitions given, "functional".Keldan Arroweye
Elf Rogue
Str 14
Dex 18
Con 12
Int 14
Wis 12
Cha 7Put leveling and magic bonuses into Dex.
1st: Combat Expertise
2nd: Combat Trick: Improved Disarm
3rd: Catch Off-Guard
4th: Finesse Rogue
5th: Two Weapon Fighting
6th:
7th: Throw Anything
8th:
9th: Greater Disarm
10th:
11th: Improved Two Weapon FightingThat's as far as I've built it, and the open even levels can be used for anything. To consistently get sneak attack without flank, disarm your opponent of any weapon they're carrying and use a pair of durable arrows (of various special materials) as improvised weapons. Prior to level 3 stay ranged with a longbow.
Can you give a damage estimate at lvl 7 so I can compare it to the build I made? I'm not looking to prove the rogue is a bad class, I'm trying to find a build under these restrictions, that I find functional.
Level 7... lets see...
Attack bonus (arrow): +7/+7
Damage: 1d4+4d6+3/1d4+4d6+2 (wand of Magic Weapon is easily acquired at this level, or if you've got a Wizard or even Sorcerer make it Greater Magic Weapon for a better boost)
Ranged is weaker, but still comes out to 1d8+2+4d6 if you can get a sneak attack off via sniping.
Those estimates are without magic items, except for a wand of Magic Weapon which is cheap.
I think it was a combination of the player being awesome and the AP / GM rewarding skills and the creative use of them.The rogue we had in SnS absolutely rocked and had some of the campaigns coolest moments by far.Any character can have great moments. Was it the character, or the class though? I know a guy who'll make anything he plays awesome if only because he's fun to be around. On the other hand, he doesn't really need the class as a platform.
That's my favorite part of playing a rogue. What I have problems with are the "less cool" moments that are routine combat. The high frequency of fights where my TWF rogue was basically useless made playing the rogue a desperate and frustrating affair.
Level 7... lets see...
Attack bonus (arrow): +7/+7
Damage: 1d4+4d6+3/1d4+4d6+2 (wand of Magic Weapon is easily acquired at this level, or if you've got a Wizard or even Sorcerer make it Greater Magic Weapon for a better boost)Ranged is weaker, but still comes out to 1d8+2+4d6 if you can get a sneak attack off via sniping.
So I take it that your damage without flanking is 1d4+3/1d4+2? Or is there something else you are doing?
Actually, I have an idea.
Step one: build a dex to the wall dual kukri ratfolk rogue with butterfly sting
Step two: make friends with a ratfolk magus.
Ratfolk can share a square and get flanking benefits for doing so. The rogue's job is to get critical threats and pass them to the magus with butterfly sting so he in turn can know he has a crit coming before he casts shocking grasp.
Sure rogue's nothing special for this, but the bar in this thread is merely functional, not worth having over some other class.
Our group use to have a ratfolk magus (died killing a mythic quasit).
This is something that works provided that you also have some sort of idea for range combat.
Do to the party dynamic requirements, I don't think I'll be able to pull off this combo, but still a good idea.
Level 7... lets see...
Attack bonus (arrow): +7/+7
Damage: 1d4+4d6+3/1d4+4d6+2 (wand of Magic Weapon is easily acquired at this level, or if you've got a Wizard or even Sorcerer make it Greater Magic Weapon for a better boost)Ranged is weaker, but still comes out to 1d8+2+4d6 if you can get a sneak attack off via sniping.
So I take it that your damage without flanking is 1d4+3/1d4+2? Or is there something else you are doing?
Flanking is entirely unneeded for this build, as per the request. Catch Off-Guard makes an unarmed opponent (achieved through Disarm) flat-footed when using improvised weapons (durable arrows used as melee weapons)
|
|
@ArmouredMonk13
I already know you can make decent rogues based around strength. I'm sick of seeing those builds.
If you have a mechanic that forces flanking somehow, then yes. You just can't assume that you and a party member will be standing on opposite sides of a monster.
Played a TWF Dex rogue. I felt non-functional and was useless for many fights. This may just be a difference between how my GM play monsters and how you play monsters.
Well, as long as you acknowledge that some of the best combat rogue builds will be excluded, then thats fine. Any reason you are excluding archetypes?
Str14
Dex20(16+2Levels+2Enchantment)
Con14
Int10
Wis14
Cha10
Feats:
1H:Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Elven Curve Blade)
1:Weapon Finesse
3:Power Attack
5:Toughness
7:Furious Focus
9:Skill Focus(Diplomacy)
Rogue Talents:
2Trap Spotter
4Fast Stealth
6Stand Up
8Weapon Training (Elven Curve Blade)
10Slippery Mind
Class Features:
Sneak Attack +5d6
Evasion
Improved Uncanny Dodge
AC=24
Touch=18
CMB=+9
CMD=27
Will+9
Fort+8
Ref+15
HP=92
Initiative+7
Traits:
Indomitable Faith
Reactionary
Skills:
Perception+17(+22 v. Traps)
Diplomacy+22
Disable Device+23
Stealth+28
Slight of Hand+18
Acrobatics+23
Knowledge (Local or Dungeoneering, depending on campaign)+13
Gear:
+3Studded Leather
+3Ring of Protection
Ring of Chameleon Power
+2Agile Elven Curve Blade
+3Cloak of Resistance
+2Belt of Incredible Dexterity
Boots of Elvenkind
Circlet of Persuasion
10 Daggers
+2 Composite Shortbow and 100 arrows
5050GP that could be used on other gear, depending on campaign, and/or is used in adventuring gear.
Melee Options:
+2 Agile Elven Curve Blade +15/+8 (1d10+13)
+2 Agile Elven Curve Blade+Flank +17/+10 (1d10+5d6+13)
Dagger +12/+7 (1d4+2)
Dagger+Flank +14/+9 (1d4+5d6+2)
Ranged Options:
+2 Composite Shortbow +12/+7 (1d6+2)
Dagger +12 (1d4+2)
Tactics:In combat, Joe does his best to flank with (insert melee combatant here) each round before he attacks, and always power attacks if he is using his Elven Curve Blade, but not if he has to use his daggers. He never enters combat first, and instead waits for (insert melee combatant here) to enter so he can get a flank. He doesn't draw his daggers unless he can't use his elven curve blades, or suspects it would be wiser to use daggers (like if he knows the enemy is good a grappling). He does his best to not kill enemies, and only to get them unconscious, and never attacks an enemy who is already unconscious or incapable of defending himself. He is willing to do nonlethal damage with his weapons, and will elect not to sneak attack if the enemy is close to falling unconscious.
Out of Combat, Joe tries to talk out problems, and never initiates a fight. He does his best to stop violence before it happens, and to make friends, not enemies. He is happy to scout forward with his high stealth and perception, and is willing to be in the front line when exploring dungeons to increase his chance of finding traps.
Flanking is entirely unneeded for this build, as per the request. Catch Off-Guard makes an unarmed opponent (achieved through Disarm) flat-footed when using improvised weapons (durable arrows used as melee weapons)Level 7... lets see...
Attack bonus (arrow): +7/+7
Damage: 1d4+4d6+3/1d4+4d6+2 (wand of Magic Weapon is easily acquired at this level, or if you've got a Wizard or even Sorcerer make it Greater Magic Weapon for a better boost)Ranged is weaker, but still comes out to 1d8+2+4d6 if you can get a sneak attack off via sniping.
So I take it that your damage without flanking is 1d4+3/1d4+2? Or is there something else you are doing?
Ah! very good then. Now all that is required is being able to disarm. Any ideas on how to apply a large bonus to this? CMDs at higher levels get ridiculous.
Does the Catch Off-Guard trick work for foes with natural weapons?
|
rogue: lvl 11
Str: 14
Dex: 18
Con: 12
Int: 14
Wis: 10
Cha: 7
1st level: weapon finesse, improved initiative
2nd: rogue talent weapon training (shortswords)
3rd: combat expertise
4th: Rogue talent combat trick (improved Feint)
5th: TWF
6th: (if allowing other books for rogue talents offensive defense) otherwise fast stealth
7th: Dodge
8th: rogue talent Resiliency
9th: Greater Feint
10th: Rogue Talent Crippling strike
11th: Improved TWF
not the most damage there is. but can effectivly give himself sneak attack even without flanking. Added to that he does 2str damage each time his sneak attack hits. If you take offensive defense you can give yourself an AC bonus= sneak attack dice. when flanking he gets all his sneak attacks + str damage each hit.
Unfortunately I don't believe the Catch Off-Guard trick works for those foes, one of the weaknesses of the build. However, as an elf he does have a composite longbow to fall back on as well as the chance of flanking if it does arise. The disarm bonus will come from Dex (I believe that being unarmed and using that arm to disarm should allow Weapon Finesse to apply, if not then finding an opening for Agile Maneuvers is needed. I know all about the high CMDs out there, and I will admit this build has not been field-tested yet.
Well, as long as you acknowledge that some of the best combat rogue builds will be excluded, then thats fine. Any reason you are excluding archetypes?
This is just a rough 10th level half-elf rogue. He isn't really optimized for combat, as he is trying to fulfill the skill monkey rogue, not the DPS fighter. Instead, he is focused for utility so that the rest of the party can focus on their area without worrying about needing a bunch of skills. Lots of parties I play with regularly would enjoy seeing this.
I'd like to think that the rogue was the best rogue before all the archetypes. That and archetypes is not something I'm going to be able to apply to my rogue with retraining rules.
As for that build. Range options is 1d6+2? I can't accept that. You might as well not even bother attacking at range (at least that has been my experience at lower levels than 10). Aside from that it was a decent build.
Unfortunately I don't believe the Catch Off-Guard trick works for those foes, one of the weaknesses of the build. However, as an elf he does have a composite longbow to fall back on as well as the chance of flanking if it does arise. The disarm bonus will come from Dex (I believe that being unarmed and using that arm to disarm should allow Weapon Finesse to apply, if not then finding an opening for Agile Maneuvers is needed. I know all about the high CMDs out there, and I will admit this build has not been field-tested yet.
Well that is a problem then. Too many foes don't depend on weapons.
|
|
As for that build. Range options is 1d6+2? I can't accept that. You might as well not even bother attacking at range (at least that has been my experience at lower levels than 10).
Well, yeah. Most melee-focused builds don't have really outstanding ranged options, unless they are switch-hitters. You could upgrade the bow by getting rid of some of the skill-boosters I suppose, but you should try to be in melee or getting there most of the time anyway. This is before most combats are airborn, so its not that hard. Still, YMMV.
EDIT:Figured I'd mentioned that the party probably has someone else taking care of ranged combat as a priority, so you don't need to focus as much on it. Pathfinder should be a teamwork game, not just a solo game.
your not gonna be good at both shooting and melee (bar fighters) because you don't have the feats for it. again, rangers and fighters can due to so many feats floating around.
You don't have to be good, but you do need to outpace base weapon damage.
Every other class has viable range options without feat investment. I'm not asking that for the rogue, but he must still have viable range options.
NOTE: Even a barbars/monks can throw weapons for decent damage. A fighter with their second weapon training bows and composite longbow does even better without investment. Casters have spells. Every other class has almost effortless viable range attacks
EDIT: ditto to ArmouredMonk13. There are many situations where you need to be able to at least contribute to range combat. Being functional requires having very few combats where a commoner-who-rolls-high could contribute as much.
Well, as long as you acknowledge that some of the best combat rogue builds will be excluded, then thats fine. Any reason you are excluding archetypes?I'd like to think that the rogue was the best rogue before all the archetypes. That and archetypes is not something I'm going to be able to apply to my rogue with retraining rules.
Wouldn't any build also require retraining rules to apply to an existing character?
Wouldn't being open to archetypes be just as open to rogue builds which can fulfill your 'preferred belief',
while also being open to other ones which may be able to fulfill your metric for functionality even if the vanilla Rogue may not?
Whether archetype Rogues can fulfill that metric has no bearing on whether vanilla Rogues can or cannot,
so allowing or disallowing archetypes has no bearing on whether your "like" is fulfilled or not.