Why the Rogue is Not Underpowered


Advice

1 to 50 of 658 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

12 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Is each level of sneak attack worth an extra feat?:

Fighters get an extra feat every other level. Rogues get +d6 sneak attack every other level.

To best compare these two class features, let's convert sneak attack into a feat called "Smack Attack." If a fighter would be benefitted by taking Smack Attack with his extra feats, then sneak attack is worth that class feature.

Smack Attack: You deal an extra 3.5 damage on all attacks when your target is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC or being flanked by you. This damage is not multiplied on a critical hit. You may take this feat multiple times, and its effects stack.

3.5 damage is a huge amount of damage when it comes to feat given bonuses. In my games at least, melee fighters are attacking with one of the Smack Attack conditions at least half the time. To give Rogues a disadvantage in this comparison, let's round it down to an even 50%. Thus, if they got the Smack Attack bonus half of the time, then Smack attack would add an average of 1.75 damage per swing.

A feat that does an average of 1.75 additional damage to every hit. Would I take that feat? Yes, yes I would. I'd take it till the cows come home.

Smack Attack deals an average of .75 more damage than Weapon Specialization.
Smack Attack activates more frequently than Precise Strike and isn't a teamwork feat.
Smack Attack deals just .25 less than Power Attack, but without the -1 penalty to attack.

Granted, with more feats fighters can make more flexible builds. But it usually doesn't take more than four or five interesting feats to make the a build concept. After that, I'd add on Smack Attacks any day.

Verdict: Tie at the very least, but my personal advantage goes to the Rogue. A feat that gives 3.5 damage to each hit when flanking? Give it to me.

Is a point of BAB and 4 health worth 24 skill points?:

By Level 20, Fighters get 5 more Bab and 20 more HP. Rogues get 120 more skill points.

Or, per level, is .25 BAB and 1 HP worth 6 skill points?

I'd gladly trade a single point of BAB and 4 HP for 24 skill points, and I'd be hard pressed to think of a fighter build that wouldn't be benefitted by doing this at least a couple of times. Skills are useful in combat - perception, acrobatics, climb, stealth, handle animal, even intimidate and bluff can all add significantly to the combat abilities of a melee character.

Consider all of those times you are deciding between 1 HP or 1 Skill Point for your favored class bonus. What if that were 1 HP and 1/4 BAB or 6 Skill Points?

Looked at another way, if 1 HP and 1 Skill Point are roughly equivalent (both potential favored class bonuses), then is .25 BAB worth 5 Skill Points?

Still not buying it? Over four levels, would you rather have +5% to hit and 4 HP OR a +5% to succeed at 24 different skills (or a +10% to succeed at 12 different skills, or a +20% to succeed at 6 different skills, or a +40% to succeed at 3 different skills)? That seems obvious.

As a cherry on top, Rogues have 22 class skills, while Fighters only have 10. That's a difference of 36 potential skill points, upping the total number of skill points to a 156 point difference.

Verdict: Tie for those who simply cannot figure out how to use skills in combat, and do not care about anything outside of combat. For everybody else the Rogue has a significant advantage.

Are the Rogue's miscellaneous features equal to the Fighter's miscellaneous features?:

Fighters get heavy armor and marital weapon proficiency, armor training, and weapon training. Rogues get 4 rogue talents, 6 advanced rogue talents, evasion and uncanny dodge.

Let's run through them. I'll convert them to an approximate value of feats based on similar existing feats if possible. Both classes have 2 weak saves so we don't need to go into that.

Heavy Armor Proficiency is great, but it can be taken as a feat. 1 Feat.

Martial Weapon Proficiency is good, but if you want to use a specific weapon you can take proficiency as a feat. 1 Feat.

Armor Training is good, but can usually only gain an additional AC or two given a normal Fighter Dexterity. 2 Feats (such as dodge)

Weapon Training is great, granting an additional +4 to attack and damage with your primary weapon by level 17. No arguing with that. 8 Feats (4 weapon focus, 4 weapon specialization)

That's about 12 Feats worth of bonuses for the Fighter, give or take a handful.

Rogue Talents are notably underwhelming, but remember that all four of them can be converted to feats that the rogue needs (Combat Trick, Finesse Rogue, Weapon Focus, and Ninja Trick>Combat Trick). If you don't like any talents, simply make them feats. This means that at level 10, rogues can have only one feat fewer than fighters. 4 Feats.

Advanced Rogue Talents are much better. One is equivalent to a feat (Feat), several others are at least as strong as feats (Crippling Strike, Improved Evasion,), and many of the rest are about equivalent (Stand Up, Armor Mastery, Terrain Mastery, Trap Spotter). 6 Feats.

Evasion is fantastic, and has saved the skin of many a Rogue. 2 Feats.

Uncanny Dodge is super situational but worth mentioning. 1 Feats.

That's about 13 Feats worth of bonuses for the Rogue, give or take a handful.

Verdict: Tie (well the fighter is one down, but that is close enough). Weapon training is really floating the Fighter here, but it's hard to compete with all of the talents. Given that all four rogue talents can be converted directly into feats, and there are many excellent advanced rogue talents, I feel that the talents class feature gets an unnecessarily bad reputation.

Conclusion:

Overall we have a tie, although for each individual comparison I would favor the Rogue. I'd rather have Sneak Attack than the extra feats. I'd rather have 6 skill points per level than a quarter BAB and a single hit point. And I'd rather have 5 feats from rogue talents, 5 rogue talents, evasion and uncanny dodge than heavy armor proficient, martial weapon proficiency, armor training, and weapon training. If anything, I'd say the Rogue is more powerful than the melee fighter.

Thoughts? Does anybody disagree with any of these comparisons? Are there any class features I am missing?

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.

I'll likely update this post with more info here after I get some responses: Why the Rogue is Not Underpowered


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not buying it. In practice rogues seem awfully death prone - poor fort save, a sneak attack mechanic that encourages them to risk a lot to get into advantageous melee positioning, fewer hit points. This is to say nothing of the fact that a lot of their skills are easily replaced by spells.


Others will explan more. I will just say that, while you are a class that the main and possibly only thing that you are supposed to do in combat is damage (no access to spells), you have medium BAB with no way to boost it and your source of damage is situational too. The fact that you are frail (light armor, weak will and fort save, d8 hit dice) does not help too.

Fighters are not an exceptional case either. But they have the durability and the attack and damage bonus to hit heavy and consistently.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you want damage, fighters are still better numerically.

If you want skills, bards are still better numerically.

If you want both, rangers, inquisitors, and bards can probably do your job better than you can. And they have spells.

Fighters are usually considered bottom tier because of their lack of flexability. Rogues are because of their lack of being able to actually do anything well. See TarkXT gigantic rogue thread for more details.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find it funny that you count rogue talents as being just as valuable as feats when the general critisism for rogue talents is that the ones that don't outright grant feats are considerably weaker.

You're also ignoring that heavy armor proficiency requires medium armor proficiency which the fighter also has over the rogue. You would make a better argument that a Dex based fighter is similar to the rogue but then armor training wouldn't be so under valued in your analysis.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, I'm not buying it either.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that a whole bunch of individually strong choices made individually can still make a poor choice overall. Just as a simple example,.... let's give the Wizard a feat option called Smack Spell that basically enables her to sneak attack with touch spells. Hell, let's totally overpower it and make it equivalent to +5d6 damage. Is that a feat a wizard should take?

Let's see, I need to run up into the grill of the BBEG and cast a spell at him, with a 50/50 chance of missing completely. If I miss, he pulverizes me. I think this feat would shorten the life expectancy of any wizard that took it. Not enough BAB to use it properly, not enough hit points to survive using it improperly.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Broken Zenith wrote:

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

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

** spoiler omitted **...

I'll probably be the only one, but I agree with you. Rogues can be just as good as melee fighters if built and played well. I also feel the same about monks. But then again, I don't judge this based solely on their DPR... there are so many other things that a Rogue can do that a Fighter just cannot, period.


It is interesting you picked the fighter to stack up against since they are also generally seen as lacking (though they can do decent damage unlike a rogue).

Sneak attack is highly overrated. I've played with many a rogue and in my experience sneak attack doesn't go off nearly often enough to justify its reputation. Even if you are nice enough to grant a rogue a sneak attack all the time in a DPR calculation, they still fall well behind fighters.

Skills are all well and good, but they aren't great. Anyway, if you want a skill build make a ranger. You get nearly as much skills, but add in combat effectiveness instead.

While it is possible to show numerically that rogues don't hack it (DPR calculations, survivability, and other issues), I'll just go anecdotal. I've yet to sit at a table of PFS where I came away saying "damn, I'm glad we had that rogue there, or we'd have been hosed". I've said that for almost every other class at one time or another.

Scarab Sages

And I wouldn't rank evasion as worth two feats. It's really nice to have, but you can get it with a ring. Also, it isn't useful in practice because it it making you stronger at something you were already good at (reflex saves) while doing absolutely nothing for your weaknesses (fort and will).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Compared to the fighter... Is that really fair?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see rogues to be "dead meat". In practice in all the groups where there were rogues (most of them), they pulled their own and were valuable.
Particularly when you either don't want a "magic" character or you want features that are always "on" (skills, talents, ...)

@Broken Zenith: Nice writeup :-) A particularly vocal group will disagree with you, but well - I find there to be unwarrented bad rep for the rogue on the boards here anyway.
Though rogues are probably not the most powerful of all classes, they do have their place :-)


I can make a fighter that is tolerable in combat. Mind you they aren't worth didly outside of it, and still can be made into a puppet pretty easily, but the damage is at least respectable unlike a rogue. Let's be honest, most campaigns are decided by the combats, so at least being useful there is tolerable if you still aren't the creme de la creme of classes.


Sangalor wrote:
I don't see rogues to be "dead meat". In practice in all the groups where there were rogues (most of them), they pulled their own and were valuable.

Dead Meat? Those are your words.


I love the rogue because I like to do things out of combat, or do more interesting things in combat, or I want a character class which is quite versatile in their role. The fighter doesn't have the same versatility in their role, though they certainly have versatility in how they do it.

Unfortunately for the rogue, Traits can give the fighter a lot of versatility, and I'll even take the feat Additional Traits to create a more rounded character. As a fighter I also enjoy being able to reliably dish out damage, soak up some damage, and say to the other characters, "That's how you crush an Orc."

The fighter can also create a more rounded character through their stats. Most will have high Str but the rest is optional. Con and Dex are good combat options but high AC can be bought through gear or feats. The Pathfinder iconic fighter has high Cha. You can choose to have a very high Wis or Int or Cha next to your high Str.

On the other hand, the rogue wants high Dex and/or Int and/or Wis and/or Cha and/or Str, and probably Con too. These other stats can't be bought with gear or feats so easily. That being said, these other abilities are wanted to be high to help boost skills or combat, and the rogue does get plenty of skill points. I tends to build rogues with high Int, so that I get more skill points to help plug up any perceived holes in the rogues abilities (which only come from the rogue class enabling many different builds: skill monkey, party face, sneak, pick pocket, assassin). If I really want to boost combat I might dip into fighter for a level or two.

I'd also argue that Armour Prof Heavy is worth two or three feats, as you need Armour Prof Medium first, and Armour Prof Light before that.

Ultimately it comes down to character concept, not mechanics for what is fun for me. Or the usefulness of a class comes down to the usefulness of the player.

I'm also sick of hearing how the rogue is underpowered. It assumes the devs made a huge mistake that they haven't bothered to rectify in the years since it was released.


Humphrey Boggard wrote:
I'm not buying it. In practice rogues seem awfully death prone - poor fort save, a sneak attack mechanic that encourages them to risk a lot to get into advantageous melee positioning, fewer hit points. This is to say nothing of the fact that a lot of their skills are easily replaced by spells.

This. Back when I was DMing 3rd Edition, rogues died so often, and not to traps.

They died while scouting. (Even one round away from the rest of the PCs can kill you, and no amount of Stealth will save you if your opponent has tremorsense.)

They died to full round attacks. They draw a lot of heat but can't take it. I saw rogues tumble into a flanking position, stab something hard once, then get killed by the enemy's full-round attack on their turn.

They died to having two low saves (poor Fort and poor Will; failing a Will save doesn't usually kill you but being frozen in place by Hold Monster is boring, and after a CdG you're making a new character or getting raised).

Fighters enjoy a higher attack bonus. With Power Attack (especially the unbalanced 3.5 version) outdamaging the rogue was easy, but the fighter had the hit points to take the heat.


Frankly sneak attack is not worth a feat. I would say you're more likely to get access to it maybe 1/4 of the time unless you invest feats and other things like items into it and/or your DM just gives you flanks for no reason. If you gave me the option to buy levels of sneak attack for a feat chances are really good I'd opt out.

As for Rogue talents it's worth noting that every other class with a feat equivalent feature like Barbarians or Oracles will almost always trade feats for those features the Rogue is the only class I know of that will almost always trade those features for Feats that's definitely saying something about their value.

EDIT: @ Oberron - Just because the devs exist and work at Paizo doesn't mean they are infallible and it doesn't mean that they are interested in fixing all the balance issues. To a large margin they won't do extensive reworks on broken old things because it isn't worth money so they can't justify it if they want to keep their business running. I think I saw SKR say something about that a while back but I've lost the post.


Why play a Rogue when you can be a Trapper Ranger right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The central problem with the rogue is this:

Very few GMs are willing to let success/failure/whether and adventure happens at all ride on a skill check. And, of those that are, very few don't consider the skills that the party actually HAS in setting the DC. Thus if you're incredibly tricked out for high DCs as a rogue, well, those challenges will either be optional and/or set to not feel trivial given your skills. These metagame issues seriously hammer the rogue in anything but a hardcore simulationist game (where, for instance, the DC for gather information about plot X is Y, no matter what level you are or what your party composition is because its the DC that is set by plot X's spymaster's skills and the quality of his counterintelligence network).
A lot of Gms even formalize this into things like the 'Three Clue Rule'---where there are at least 3 avenues to get from point A to B in an adventure. This is grand from a gamist point of view, but in my view, if a rogue who is really skilled isn't getting you more adventuring opportunities AND better ones (i.e with a better risk-reward calculus), he's not really doing his job, or more likely, being allowed by the GM and the metagame to do his job.

Scarab Sages

Scavion wrote:
Why play a Rogue when you can be a Trapper Ranger right?

Trapper Ranger

Urban Ranger
Archeologist Bard
Archivist Bard
Detective Bard
Sandman Bard
Seeker Sorcerer
Seeker Oracle
Oracle with wrecker curse

All of these are better at the rogues job (Combat, Traps, and Skills) than the rogue.


Scavion wrote:
Why play a Rogue when you can be a Trapper Ranger right?

One have to wonder what aws the thought behind

"lets make rangers better than rogues at traps"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Why play a Rogue when you can be a Trapper Ranger right?

One have to wonder what aws the thought behind

"lets make rangers better than rogues at traps"

Related to it, does nobody had a probem with

"lets make bard better with skills than rogues. And let them have spells a better saves too."

Shadow Lodge

Thanks for the posts guys! I'll respond to people who actually addressed the points in the post instead of bringing up general points.

@bfobar: Let's keep the comparison between melee fighters and rogues.

@Captain Netz: The every single non-advanced rogue talent can become a feat. I'm pretty sure that makes them as powerful as feats. Right? Excellent point about Heavy armor proficiency, I have changed that to two feats in my post.

@Orfamy: Let's keep the comparison between melee fighters and rogues.

@Imbicatus: Good point about getting Evasion through a Ring, but for a 25,000gp and a ring slot that's pretty pricy. Given that you can get most feats for much cheaper (a +1 dagger will net you Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization equivalent), I think I'm going to keep it at two feats for now. I'd love to hear other input on this though.

@Pupsocket: Again, lets just keep the comparison between Fighters and Rogues, regardless of fighter tier. How often would you say Rogues get sneak attack off? It would have to go all the way down to 25% to be worse than weapon specialization, and if you are only sneak attacking a quarter of the time something is wrong. I believe that Weapon Training kicks in once at 5th, once at 9th, once at 13, once at 17th. That's +4 for the first group, unless I'm mistaken.

@Oberon Viking: Excellent point about Heavy armor proficiency, I have changed that to two feats in my post. Three feats would be a bit much, as Rogues would need to pay two feats to get it.

@Kimera: Regarding weak saves, the comparison we are making is between Fighters and Rogues. Both have 2 weak saves, so there is no reason to factor it in.

@Gnomersy: In my experience it's possible to get sneak attack over 50% of the time. Obviously if you don't have any melee buddies, then you shouldn't play a rogue. Was this the situation you were thinking of?


Broken Zenith wrote:


@Gnomersy: In my experience it's possible to get sneak attack over 50% of the time. Obviously if you don't have any melee buddies, then you shouldn't play a rogue. Was this the situation you were thinking of?

With all the splat material you can play a bard, inquisitor, ranger, barbarian, cleric, wizard, druids,...etc, without caring what the others are playing. Even fighter can do that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Broken Zenith wrote:

@bfobar: Let's keep the comparison between melee fighters and rogues.

Then the comparision will be faulty from the begining. Use a ranger, a trapper ranger serves better.


Nicos wrote:
Broken Zenith wrote:

@bfobar: Let's keep the comparison between melee fighters and rogues.

Then the comparision will be faulty from the begining. Use a ranger, a trapper ranger serves better.

Or compare them to a barbarian. Rage power every level instead of a feat every level.

Edit: Or a bard. Its another skill monkey. Just... not monk or fighter.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@MrSin & Nicos: Great! I'd love to see what you guys come up with in another thread. This thread's about comparing a fighter to a rogue though.


Broken Zenith wrote:
@Kimera: Regarding weak saves, the comparison we are making is between Fighters and Rogues. Both have 2 weak saves, so there is no reason to factor it in.

I disagree. I find Fortitude to be much more important than Reflex. Direct damage is rarely optimal; if you fail a Reflex save, you might get bottled up by Resilient Sphere (which actually keeps you safe) or blinded by Sunburst, but it probably won't instantly kill your PC like being hit by Finger of Death would.

Quote:
@Gnomersy: In my experience it's possible to get sneak attack over 50% of the time.

This has been my experience as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Broken Zenith wrote:
@MrSin & Nicos: Great! I'd love to see what you guys come up with in another thread. This thread's about comparing a fighter to a rogue though.

Like nicos, said, its flawed from the beginning then. "Why the rogue is not underpowered" is a bit of a misnomer if your just going to compare it to another class that's known for underperforming, though in another way.


Broken Zenith wrote:


@Kimera: Regarding weak saves, the comparison we are making is between Fighters and Rogues. Both have 2 weak saves, so there is no reason to factor it in.

@Gnomersy: In my experience it's possible to get sneak attack over 50% of the time. Obviously if you don't have any melee buddies, then you shouldn't play a...

Let me address these two points:

1) Not all saves are equal Will and Fort tend to be the ones which will cause attribute damage instant death or knock you out of the fight. Ref saves tend to result in HP damage with some exclusions so this can be relevant and shouldn't be ignored.

2) I suppose it's very dependent on how many people you play with in our groups we tend to have between 4 and 6 people of which we have one or two primary melee characters 1 Divine caster who may have secondary melee capacity, and 1 arcane caster, then if we add extras it's often 1 ranged damage source, and a support character like say a bard. This means that generally we have no more than 3 people in the scuffle in hand to hand at any given time.

Often times there's quite simply no time to bother with flanking because after the primary melees full attack the enemy just outright dies if it's a mook. If it isn't a mook frankly the Rogue doesn't want to be anywhere near the guy because he'll just full attack the Rogue and kill him. As far as my estimation of 25% of the time in my experience it's either full attack or sneak attack 75% of the time and if you can't full attack your damage is going to be lacking with or without sneak attacks outside of the first few levels.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The new People of Sands book puts the ability to disable magic traps in the form of a trait.

Mostly, this thread will end being Rogue fans stomping their foot, and saying "Nuh uh, Rogue is like, ta super kewl strong man".

Then, someone will provide numerical evidence to show the underpowered nature of of the Rogue.

Later, someone will say something snarky, and hurtful to Rogue fans.

Posts will be deleted.

Thread will be locked.

We can still have fun in the meantime though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Broken Zenith wrote:
@MrSin & Nicos: Great! I'd love to see what you guys come up with in another thread. This thread's about comparing a fighter to a rogue though.

Alright. A Fighter can consolidate his stats easier. A Rogue has the worst to-hit in the game for people who care about hitting.

A Weak Fort and Will save will kill you about a thousand times over than a failed Reflex will.

Flanking puts you in a disadvantage position, Acrobatics doesn't help you because CMD scales so outrageously. Moving to get the Flank can be incredibly difficult when you factor in difficult terrain, flying, and creatures with reach.

Basically your analysis tries to put the Rogue in the best possible light by comparing the worst class in the game comparatively to another very poor class.

A fair analysis would compare the Rogue to other folks in a similar niche.


A large part of the conflict over certain classes is there are a wide variety of expectations on how to play the game. Some classes require less player experience than others to play at the top level. Somewhere along the way people have become convince you need to be a super optermiser. You can survive a paisley al as a rogue with no issues if your rogue is planned with your groups playsttle in mind.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

The new People of Sands book puts the ability to disable magic traps in the form of a trait.

Mostly, this thread will end being Rogue fans stomping their foot, and saying "Nuh uh, Rogue is like, ta super kewl strong man".

Then, someone will provide numerical evidence to show the underpowered nature of of the Rogue.

Later, someone will say something snarky, and hurtful to Rogue fans.

Posts will be deleted.

Thread will be locked.

We can still have fun in the meantime though.

Wow really? What trait is that?


@ Broken Zenith: OK let us compare fighters to rogues. In fact, let us figure out what we can and cant compare. Are we going core book only? Expansion Pathfinder only? All Paizo pathfinder expansions and all the Golarion splat? PFS legal? 15 point buy AP assumption, 20 point PFS, or a heroic stat block? Dungeon crawl or political intrigue campaign? If you want to qualify your comparison, qualify it.

Anyway, I'll assume that since you chose the fighter, you're looking at a balance of in combat punch and out of combat utility. The rogue beats the fighter on out of combat utility unless you dump everything to make a two weapon scout / knife master build with dumped intelligence. Then its on par with a loremaster tripper with a polearm (he'll have some skills).

How about combat? Easy. Fighter wins. The dps is always greater unless maybe in the above face off above. But a loremaster tripper can control the battlefield, while a rogue that went all in for sneak attack damage can only damage and only if they can get their sneaks going. A fighter can even take some archer feats and have a respectable ranged attack, so no, I don't see the rogue keeping up there.

As to your specific comparison, A fighter with a big sword taking the vital strike chain is a decent comparison... better than smack attack. Here it is, "whenver you take only a standard action as a melee attack, you can do more damage." It is also a situational damage enhancer, like sneak attack and it exists.. Now a fighter with a greatsword adds 7 damage average ( 3.5 is huge according to your smack attack) for this situational case. Now a rogue can get a bunch of sneak attacks to this one vital strike, but a fighter can get an impact sword and a suit of armor that can enlarge them (and wizard friends), and a large bastard sword. Now that vital strike is adding 4d8 = 18 more damage. Thats on par with a 5d6 sneak attack from 1 feat, and it has a much higher chance of hitting. Now at high level, the fighter can add improved and greater vital strike to be doing +54 damage average, all for 3 feats.

Actually, it would be an interesting comparison to check a vital striker at level 16 doing a vital strike against a twf rogue makeing a full sneak attack. I think it would still come out even as a guess.

Then the fighter can full attack and do more damage than a vital strike the next round.

Lastly, I tend to disagree with your feat alottment. Heavy armor is 3 feats while light armor is 1. Also, I don't see evasion as 2 feats worth of goodness, since rogues classically have high dex and good refex saves, and half damage isn't in the same league as getting dominated or turned to stone for danger.

So in conclusion, if you want to compare fighter to rogue only, the rogue is better out of combat than the fighter. The fighter is better in combat than the rogue. We won't mention the classes that are better than both in both categories.


Why are we only comparing rogues and melee fighters? Rogues are meant to do more than just combat, and not all power is combat. They get their skillmonkey stuff.

Which bards and wizards instantly win at, because rogues are indeed underpowered.

Edit: And so are melee fighters.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Wow really? What trait is that?

From Pathfinder Player Companion: People of the Sands:

Trap Finder:
Trap Finder: Forgotten dungeons and ancient tombs have always held an appeal for you, and you’ve never been able
to resist the urge to delve into these lost sites in search of
knowledge, treasure, or both. You may not have received any
formal training in the roguish arts, but you’ve nonetheless
become skilled at spotting and disabling hidden traps. The
tombs of Wati’s necropolis, just opened for exploration,
seem like the perfect place to put your skills to the test. You
gain a +1 trait bonus on Disable Device checks, and that
skill is always a class skill for you. In addition, you can use
Disable Device to disarm magic traps, like a rogue.

Shadow Lodge

Broken Zenith wrote:
This thread's about comparing a fighter to a rogue though.

Whelp nothing to do here. *zooooooom*

blackbloodtroll wrote:

From Pathfinder Player Companion: People of the Sands:

** spoiler omitted **

....aaaaaaand there goes any reason to not be a Ninja.

Contributor

Scavion wrote:
Why play a Rogue when you can be a Trapper Ranger right?

Because rolling 10d6 is more fun than adding +5 against specific opponents.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a post. Please revisit the messageboard rules.

1 to 50 of 658 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Why the Rogue is Not Underpowered All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.