Why the Rogue is Not Underpowered


Advice

251 to 300 of 658 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Keep in mind, UMD is the back-up plan not the primary (flank) or even the secondary tactic (feint).
Goz mask, sniper goggles, obscuring mist.
You mean Goz mask, sniper goggles, smoke stick?
Smoke sticks have too small an area.

It has a 10ft cube. All you need is 5+


Raskolnikov wrote:

The rogue in my party is always yelling at us while fighting - "PLEASE GO THERE! FLANK THAT ONE!". For a long time we wasted our actions for him, so he could land a sneak attack.

At his turn, when he rolls his attacks (with 2 weap) he misses 75% of the time. Then he looks at us with a smile while he grabs all these D6s. Woooo... All that for 30-40dmg, and a little amount of bleeding.
Then it's the ennemy's turn, who full attacks our poor rogue for about 90% of his hit points.
Then it's our wizard's turn - everyone is already hasted, so he casts create pit or something else, whatever, and disables three opponents in his turn.
Then it's our ranger's turn; he kills the ennemy who was treatening the rogue with a few arrows, and even delivers some others to a second ennemy. Total damage: about 100.

In battles, we just waste our actions to help the rogue to delivers his sneak attacks, and they are not very effective most of the time.
After the fight, we waste our ressources to heal the rogue, because he was wrapped between two ennemies; he needed to flank... but he wears only a light armor and he doesn't have high HP. So he's always dying.
In a way he was useful. One more meatshield is always welcome.

Out of combat, I must admit, he shines a bit more. He is our front, he's good at bargaining, arguing, collecting informations, solving mysteries, etc. But to be honest it's not because he's a rogue; it's because the player is good at playing front characters. For what I know he could as well play a fighter. And of course, he finds and disables traps. We let him assume this rogue's typical role; but otherwise we could find other solutions against traps - easily.

It's exactly this reason that you should NEVER build a rogue that is completely dependent on flanking.

You would be surprised at all the names I was called for daring to suggest that you can't assume flanking in a rogue build thread of mine.


The Beard wrote:
Scavion wrote:
The Beard wrote:


B.) the ninja cannot disarm magical traps, a rogue can;
Yes he can.
Annnnddd rogue is now officially useless.

Trap finding was never a good reason to play a rogue. Most APs are light on traps and most home games don't even have traps unless there is a rogue in the party.

IMHO traps are boring.

Dark Archive

Marthkus wrote:
Trap finding was never a good reason to play a rogue.

What would be a good reason to play a rogue?


I guess a dead horse if worth another whack.

You play a rouge in a campain that you expect is gonna have emphasis on sneaky stuff and non-combat.

You can do anything a rouge can do with a spell some people would say, but that spell is not gonna be up all the time.

If im supposed to kill a dragon, loot dungeons, or stop an ork invasion I wouldnt be convinced to play a rouge for all the sneak attack boosting items in the game (perhaps only to give them all to the other players and then roll-up a new character with extra gold from selling them).

If im supposed to steal the kings crown, assassinate the leader of the knightly order, steal the scroll of doom from the bad mage, fool the dragon into attacking a rival town instead idd for sure play a rouge.

Thats that and theres nothing to it.


Jadeite wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Trap finding was never a good reason to play a rogue.
What would be a good reason to play a rogue?

Sheer skill points, a rogue with 14 int is hard to beat (wizard will overtake her eventually).

Great class skill list

Skill mastery (This talent is like the primary reason to play a rogue)

Sneak attack
=============================================================
The rogues issue is that you have to build around 3 critical problems

Situational damage
Weak Saves
Poor range attack

=============================================================
If you can eliminate or mitigate those weaknesses with a good build you have a functional character.


The thing the rogue has over other 3/4 casses to achieve that is... 2 skill points, tops.

Dark Archive

I'm pretty sure that bards are better at skills than rogues. They might not get as much skill points as rogues but they use the ones to get (only 2 less per level) much more efficiently.
Even without spellcasting, a bard would probably be better than a rogue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jadeite wrote:


Even without spellcasting, a bard would probably be better than a rogue.

There's no probably about it. A bard is flat up better at skills because of the ability to use versatile performance to get 2 for 1 skill point expenditure, and all of those skills track to a single stat (charisma).

Then once combat starts, even without spells a bard is a great force multiplier, which let's be honest is extremely powerful. You don't add a smidgen of damage to one target (which is all sneak attack amounts to), but you make everyone in the party increase their DPR enough to make that sneak attack worth forgetting.

Take the right archetype or now a trait, and the bard can do the trap business as well. Hence you end up with a rogue being a class taken for one of two reasons:
A) a lack of sufficient system mastery to understand the deficiencies if you are shooting for the best option (if you don't care about optimization, then rogues are peachy, but when you lag, it is what it is)
B) Picked because you fall for the trap of it being called a rogue.

There is pretty much nothing a rogue can do that another class/AT combo cannot duplicate and excel at.


If anyone here isnt against homebrew rules. The quickest fix I can offer to rouge wannaplayers is:

1st level ability I grant to rouges in my campains.
Accurate sneak attack.
When flanking or striking targets who are denied their dex bonus to ac (generally just whenever you may sneak attack), your [u]Bab[/u] improves to equal to your rouge level (+ the bab from whatever other classes you may possess).

This rule means the rouge strikes as a full bab class on sneak attacks.

other than small fixes like this the rouge and all of his talents really needs a rework.
I vote that all sneak attack (and their variants) should get a system that makes them only procable once per round, that way TWF is not the only weapon style of choice for sneak attackers and making it easier to balance. That of course means that the class and every class/archetype with sneak attack needs some rebalance too.


Actually in my home game rogues get full BAB, and 2 good saves. That fixes a fair amount of the mess.


Trapfinding would be garbage even if magical traps were a thing. Oh, good, at first level I can disarm magical traps. But the weakest magical traps are DC26 to spot and DC26 to disarm, and go off in your face if you fail the disarm check by 5 or more. Good luck getting that +16 bonus to Disable Device at first level if you want to try disarming magical traps without being just as likely to set them off on you as you are to actually disarm them.

Yeah, at higher levels it's actually physically possible to use because the DC's scale up very slowly, but long before then you have better options, like Dispel Magic, Spell Sunder, Summon Monster I to set it off harmlessly, or "TOG SMASH PUNY TRAP".

Silver Crusade

Honestly I think they do get a bad rep for fairly silly reasons. It has to do with combat and the fact they are a little soft around the edges and have situational damage no one wants to consider when designing a character. I'm attempting to play a rogue now that disproves all the bad hype but we will see. I may subcome to the rogues are crap camp. Especially if the rogue eats dirt right off the bat. I've had three other experienced players/GMs help me bounce aroub ideas on build, ability stats, combat tactics, items and gear, etc. I'm convinced I have a fully functional and quality character but have yet been able to play him. I won't get a chance for close to a month me thinks. At least three weeks.


This entire thread is a testament to the efficiency of reverse psychology.

Personally my only problem with the rogue is that the Ninja is too much of an upgraded copy.

I also do not get all the hate on the monk, I have played multiple monks that are a monster to deal with, and if you include archetypes the Zen Archer monk is one of the best class/archtypes out there.


It is my supposition that the dev that make the bard really cared about that class, really liked the class and really wanted them to shine. He take his time to improve the 3.5 bard. The same with later books, there is continuos effort to make bard really great class with tons of options.

When the rogue was updated to PF it seems to me that nobody really cared, nobody cared comparing it to the other classes. In later books, besides a couple of option, I It seems that nobody cared for the class. At least not in the way the barbarian get a lot of improvement in the APG.

Or perhaps is that the rogue is hard to work with, because everything coudl be seen as power creep.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now again we get exposed to the illogical claim that to demonstrate something is deficient, is to hate it.

Repeatedly and continually people do two things, they demonstrate they rogues are mechanically sub par, and request that they be brought up to snuff. Now how this amounts to hate boggles my mind. If they hated rogues, why would they ask for them to be helped? If I hated something, I'd just as soon it wallowed in misery. Of course since a rogue is merely a class in a game I play, it's pretty hard to muster actual hate for them. Perhaps I'm lacking in sufficient emotion. Truth be told, what I don't like playing is casters, and I fully accept that they are demonstrably superior in power.

I mean if you have kids, and you point out that they need to bring up their grades and make suggestions to that effect, are you hating them or trying to have them succeed because you love them?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad Trap Finding was made into a trait! I'm usually against obsoleting classes, but Rogues are so horrible that their presence does nothing but hold down other classes.

Case in point: The investigator. Got a serious nerf because it's better than Rogues.

Well... Everything is better than Rogue! It shouldn't be used as a baseline to balance classes around.

Paizo has to either buff Rogues once and for all, or simply forget about it when it comes to creating new classes. One horrible class is enough, we don't need more.


Lemmy wrote:

I'm glad Trap Finding was made into a trait! I'm usually against obsoleting classes, but Rogues are so horrible that their presence does nothing but hold down other classes.

Case in point: The investigator. Got a serious nerf because it's better than Rogues.

Well... Everything is better than Rogue! It shouldn't be used as a baseline to balance classes around.

Paizo has to either buff Rogues once and for all, or simply forget about it when it comes to creating new classes. One horrible class is enough, we don't need more.

If their basis for nerving a different class is because it is close to a rogue but better how did the Ninja, ever make print?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Whisperknives wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

I'm glad Trap Finding was made into a trait! I'm usually against obsoleting classes, but Rogues are so horrible that their presence does nothing but hold down other classes.

Case in point: The investigator. Got a serious nerf because it's better than Rogues.

Well... Everything is better than Rogue! It shouldn't be used as a baseline to balance classes around.

Paizo has to either buff Rogues once and for all, or simply forget about it when it comes to creating new classes. One horrible class is enough, we don't need more.

If their basis for nerving a different class is because it is close to a rogue but better how did the Ninja, ever make print?

They did nerf the playtest version... Of course, Rogues are so awful that Ninja still ended up being a better class anyway, just like the Investigator did.

Rogue does nothing but harm other classes these days...

Scarab Sages

Whisperknives wrote:


If their basis for nerving a different class is because it is close to a rogue but better how did the Ninja, ever make print?

The Ninja is still a rogue. Alternate classes are really just archetypes that have been written out with a full 1-20 progression done for you.


Whisperknives wrote:


If their basis for nerving a different class is because it is close to a rogue but better how did the Ninja, ever make print?

Because the ninja IS a rogue. If you replace the base rogue with the ninja archetype its still technically a rogue.


But then you have the alchemist. Vivisectionist or not, it's basically everything that was good about the 3.5 rogue and more.

Shadow Lodge

I'll just put this here.

Broken Zenith wrote:
Ideally, responses in this thread will take up one of the three questions posed above, or explain why a class feature comparison is not a viable way of comparing classes. That will help frame the discussion and should make this a more specific and organized conversation.

and

Broken Zenith wrote:
Let's keep the comparison between melee fighters and rogues.


You points have been addressed. In fact it's been several times now. What else do you want?

I get the idea that you want control of where the topic is going, but let's be honest that isn't going to happen.


Broken Zenith wrote:

I'll just put this here.

Broken Zenith wrote:
Ideally, responses in this thread will take up one of the three questions posed above, or explain why a class feature comparison is not a viable way of comparing classes. That will help frame the discussion and should make this a more specific and organized conversation.

and

Broken Zenith wrote:
Let's keep the comparison between melee fighters and rogues.

Your optimism does you credit broken zenith, but as I stated before, you arent going to get the concensus you're looking for, much less a consistently constructive discussion. This type of thread (be it about rogues, monks or another hot-button issue) pops up once every month, burns like wildfire, then dissapears, with many simply too exhausted to bother with such threads again. I'll admit, this one has been relatively civil (only a few removed posts. Yay!?), but it has been so wildly off-topic that I dont expect much more useful data from it.

Now, this might be more interesting without the anonimity the internet affords, but that presents it's own complications.

Shadow Lodge

@I'm just not interested in a stream-of-conciousness discussion of the rogue. That's been done to death on the forums, and there's no resolution without guidelines. I'd love it if people would respond to the original post instead of posting their own broader thoughts, but, you are right, that likely isn't going to happen.

But, for those who are interested in the discussion I'm trying to have, I'm reminding you of what this thread was created to do.

Edit @Williamoak: Oh I'm certainly not looking for a concensus. I'm more interested on peoples' thoughts as per the guidelines I stated in the original post. Disagreement is great, but I'd prefer it be to the class feature comparison I laid out.

Again, most people will probably ignore that, but I figure I can get a few more good responses by reminding people of what the thread's about.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

People are responding to the thread title. If you wanted people to discuss 'Are rogues worse than melee fighters?' you should have called it that.


Lemmy wrote:
I'm glad Trap Finding was made into a trait!

Me too! I really dislike the idea that some classes are mandatory.

Perhaps the rogue can get some better basic and advance rogue talents. Compare Hard to foll with slippery mind. The devs have already started introducing options that are just clearly better but still succumb to the idea that rogue talents should be shit.

Shadow Lodge

Matthew Downie wrote:
People are responding to the thread title. If you wanted people to discuss 'Are rogues worse than melee fighters?' you should have called it that.

You are right, I should have. If I could edit it, I would. In any case, I'm hoping people will read the first post instead of just the thread title before responding.


Broken Zenith wrote:

@I'm just not interested in a stream-of-conciousness discussion of the rogue. That's been done to death on the forums, and there's no resolution without guidelines. I'd love it if people would respond to the original post instead of posting their own broader thoughts, but, you are right, that likely isn't going to happen.

But, for those who are interested in the discussion I'm trying to have, I'm reminding you of what this thread was created to do.

Edit @Williamoak: Oh I'm certainly not looking for a concensus. I'm more interested on peoples' thoughts as per the guidelines I stated in the original post. Disagreement is great, but I'd prefer it be to the class feature comparison I laid out.

Again, most people will probably ignore that, but I figure I can get a few more good responses by reminding people of what the thread's about.

Personally I thought this thread was about how comparing individual class features is a fallacious way to compare classes.

As much as I defend rogues, they have several glaring holes in their construction that they have to fill via a good build to be viable. Something you cannot notice comparing bonus feats to sneak attack.


Broken Zenith wrote:

I'll just put this here.

Broken Zenith wrote:
Ideally, responses in this thread will take up one of the three questions posed above, or explain why a class feature comparison is not a viable way of comparing classes. That will help frame the discussion and should make this a more specific and organized conversation.

and

Broken Zenith wrote:
Let's keep the comparison between melee fighters and rogues.

Since we are limiting the class comparison to just fighters, lets also limit the enemy type to just Iron Golems.

How valuable is Sneak Attack then? Who is more likely to get past the DR, a Rogue with a light weapon or a Fighter with a Greatsword?


Broken Zenith wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
People are responding to the thread title. If you wanted people to discuss 'Are rogues worse than melee fighters?' you should have called it that.
You are right, I should have. If I could edit it, I would. In any case, I'm hoping people will read the first post instead of just the thread title before responding.

The problem though is your original post ALSO makes the same mistake your title does.

Quote:


I don't understand why rogues get such a bad reputation.

Let's compare Rogues to melee Fighters. I'll be breaking each class down into roughly equivalent class features and directly comparing them.

Fighters have nearly the same bad reputation as rogues. Its not as severe because they are really good at the one thing, but its still there. The rogue and the fighter suffer from the same problem, their narrative power was stripped and their 'specialness' fade as other classes are able to do things similar to or completely overlapping their specialty. So your first 2 sentances of your post create the problem that you are facing in addition to your thread title.


Broken Zenith wrote:

@I'm just not interested in a stream-of-conciousness discussion of the rogue. That's been done to death on the forums, and there's no resolution without guidelines. I'd love it if people would respond to the original post instead of posting their own broader thoughts, but, you are right, that likely isn't going to happen.

But, for those who are interested in the discussion I'm trying to have, I'm reminding you of what this thread was created to do.

Fair enough.

1) Is each level of sneak attack worth an extra feat? No. It's a highly situational bonus that almost requires you to be in a dangerous position to use and I would rate the entire scaling sneak attack chain to be worth maybe 3 bonus feats at the most.

2) Is a point of BAB and 4 hit points worth 24 skill ranks? For a front line melee combatant yes, for a secondary melee character maybe. First, there is a law of diminishing returns for skill ranks. Second, it's a bit ridiculous to ignore other classes like the bard and ranger in this comparison.

3) Are the rogue's miscellaneous class features equal to the fighter's miscellaneous class features? Maybe? You're comparing apples to oranges and the idea of using feats as a metric is a bad one since all feats are not created equal. The fighter class features are boring but provide solid mechanical bonuses. The rogue class features are flashy and oftentimes situational.

Conclusion: Misses the point. The fighter and the rogue fill different roles in a party. Really this whole analysis is asking "Is a [skill-based character that can act as a skirmisher in combat] equivalent to a [frontline melee specialist that doesn't emphasize skills]?" Really you should be comparing the rogue to other classes that fill the same role in an adventuring party, like the bard.

Shadow Lodge

@Humphrey: Thanks for the post. Yes it seems that most people don't think sneak attack is worth a feat, independent of the rogue's other issues. Perhaps I'll offer it to my players next campaign and see if they jump at it. I've always considered it to be worth a feat, but I could be wrong.


That depends... Do you get full progression Sneak Attack for a feat? Then it's worth it. Half progression? It may be worth it. +1d6 per feat? That's a pretty awful deal.


Broken Zenith wrote:
@Humphrey: Thanks for the post. Yes it seems that most people don't think sneak attack is worth a feat, independent of the rogue's other issues. Perhaps I'll offer it to my players next campaign and see if they jump at it. I've always considered it to be worth a feat, but I could be wrong.

Well, I could take sneak attack as a feat from time to time depending of the build, it can be certainly worth a feat, It certainly will increase a lot the DPR of fighters afther weapon training, power attack, furious focus. It does less for rogues with lower to hit.


Thac20 wrote:

Since we are limiting the class comparison to just fighters, lets also limit the enemy type to just Iron Golems.

How valuable is Sneak Attack then? Who is more likely to get past the DR, a Rogue with a light weapon or a Fighter with a Greatsword?

Golems can be sneak attacked, and sneak attack damage is capable of overcoming DR.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Thac20 wrote:

Since we are limiting the class comparison to just fighters, lets also limit the enemy type to just Iron Golems.

How valuable is Sneak Attack then? Who is more likely to get past the DR, a Rogue with a light weapon or a Fighter with a Greatsword?

Golems can be sneak attacked, and sneak attack damage is capable of overcoming DR.

Is that so? I'm under the impression that SA only applies if the attack can deal normal damage first.

Sovereign Court

A rogue can sneak attack a golem indeed but how likely it is to overcome the dr? not by much, compared to the power attacking fighter. Even worst if you are one of the two weapon fighting rogues...dr on each hit yeah.

Shadow Lodge

@Lemmy: So you would consider the following a feat that "may be worth it"?

Super Smack Attack wrote:
When your target is flatfooted or flanked by you, you deal an extra 5d6 (17.5) damage on all hits. You may take this feat twice, and its effects stack.


Broken Zenith wrote:

@Lemmy: So you would consider the following a feat that "may be worth it"?

Super Smack Attack wrote:
When your target is flatfooted or flanked by you, you deal an extra 5d6 (17.5) damage on all hits. You may take this feat twice, and its effects stack.

That depends. At what level can I get it? Does my character have reliable means of landing his attacks? What are my class features?

The problem with SA is not that it's weak (it's isn't great, but it's okay), the problem is that it's not good enough in a class with medium BAB, no means of self-buffing, and not enough AC/HP/CMD to survive a full attack from a reasonably dangerous opponent.

Sneak attack is a good secondary ability, but it's not good enough to be the character's one and only offensive tool.

Shadow Lodge

@Lemmy: Let's say you are a fighter, and it requires BAB +9 to get. Do you think you would incorporate Super Smack Attack into your build?


Lemmy wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Thac20 wrote:

Since we are limiting the class comparison to just fighters, lets also limit the enemy type to just Iron Golems.

How valuable is Sneak Attack then? Who is more likely to get past the DR, a Rogue with a light weapon or a Fighter with a Greatsword?

Golems can be sneak attacked, and sneak attack damage is capable of overcoming DR.
Is that so? I'm under the impression that SA only applies if the attack can deal normal damage first.

You add all the damage and then substract the DR.


Lemmy wrote:
Sneak attack is a good secondary ability, but it's not good enough to be the character's one and only offensive tool.

Agreed. Sneak attack is a fairly awful mechanic. That doesn't mean you can't milk it.

Let's look at a lvl 20 rogue (since I already posted a lvl 11 comparison) with a +5 agile keen rapier with 30 dex.

Feint + arcane strike + opportunist yield 2 sneak attacks at +30 to-hit for 11d6+20 damage per hit (58.5 ave). Attacking flat footed AC may help the rogue hit.

Now a full attack with arcane strike + opportunist + flanking + haste = +33/+33/+33/+28/+23 for 11d6+20 damage

You can do decent damage.

Digital Products Assistant

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Went back and removed some popcorn-style posts, their responses, and personal insults. These aren't helpful in any discussion. If you see a post that concerns you, please flag and move on.


Broken Zenith wrote:
@Lemmy: Let's say you are a fighter, and it requires BAB +9 to get. Do you think you would incorporate Super Smack Attack into your build?

For 1 feat? Probably. Having full BAB and Weapon Training means I don't need it to be functional, but it's a nice extra. Especially since I can afford to stand still and take a few hits.

Like I said, it's not that Sneak Attack is a horrible class feature. It's just not good enough to be your main offensive tool. It's simply not even close to being good enough to make up for the other problems with the Rogue class.

Nicos wrote:
You add all the damage and then substract the DR.

IIRC, there was a rule somewhere saying that secondary effects (such as SA) only take place if the initial hit deals at least 1 point of damage.

So if your Rogue deal 4 damage with his attack +5d6 SA, but the opponent has DR 5/-, he doesn't take SA damage because the attack itself failed to cause damage.


Lemmy wrote:
Is that so? I'm under the impression that SA only applies if the attack can deal normal damage first.

James Jacobs on the subject


Matthew Downie wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Is that so? I'm under the impression that SA only applies if the attack can deal normal damage first.
James Jacobs on the subject

Do people not play like that?


Marthkus wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Sneak attack is a good secondary ability, but it's not good enough to be the character's one and only offensive tool.

Agreed. Sneak attack is a fairly awful mechanic. That doesn't mean you can't milk it.

Let's look at a lvl 20 rogue (since I already posted a lvl 11 comparison) with a +5 agile keen rapier with 30 dex.

Feint + arcane strike + opportunist yield 2 sneak attacks at +30 to-hit for 11d6+20 damage per hit (58.5 ave). Attacking flat footed AC may help the rogue hit.

Now a full attack with arcane strike + opportunist + flanking + haste = +33/+33/+33/+28/+23 for 11d6+20 damage

You can do decent damage.

I don't think that's exactly true, though... First, I still think the "SLA count as spells for prerequisites" is a horrible ruling, as it creates far too many unseen consequences, so I'm mostly inclined to ignore it, but that's me.

Sticking to RAW, though, a Rogue -5 to hit hurts really bad at high levels... But that's not even his main problem. His AC and saves are pathetic, so it's unlikely that the Rogue will be able to Sneak Attack anything for long...

Matthew Downie wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Is that so? I'm under the impression that SA only applies if the attack can deal normal damage first.
James Jacobs on the subject

And that's all nice and dandy, but as much as I like JJ, at least AFAIK, he is not part of the rules-design team. I may be mistaken, though.

EDIT: Ah, it seems Jason agrees with JJ, so it's probably official. Doesn't seem to match RAW if you ask me, but I'm not complaining. Rogues need all the help they can get.


Lemmy wrote:


Nicos wrote:
You add all the damage and then substract the DR.

IIRC, there was a rule somewhere saying that secondary effects (such as SA) only take place if the initial hit deals at least 1 point of damage.

So if your Rogue deal 4 damage with his attack +5d6 SA, but the opponent has DR 5/-, he doesn't take SA damage because the attack itself failed to cause damage.

Yes, secondary effects like bleeding, poison or dazing assault. SA just add damage.

251 to 300 of 658 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Why the Rogue is Not Underpowered All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.