Cross-class skills were fine.
It's their implementation that was dumb.Instead of that stupid, "every point gives you a half-rank" nonsense, they could have just said, "cross-class have a max of 1/2 class level."
Confusion solved - As a bonus, Rogues don't feel totally as useless.
Making an underpowered class seem better by nerfing everyone else is a horrible, horrible idea.
If skills are to compete with spells, they should get more utility and looser restrictions. It makes no sense that a character who is capable of fighting demigods is still restricted by what a real-world person could reasonably achieve.
Now, developers these days come up with elaborate or simple minigames so that the players actual skill comes into play.
What you described is attempting to produce the same satisfaction of completion through what amounts to an in-game movie cutscene free of any real player input.
Now that's an interesting point of view... you're basically saying that some of the mechanics should be based on the actual skill of the player? Not the skill points on the paper? Good luck with that, I would say. So long for all the introverted players playing an extraverted character by investing in skill points. Sure, we - DM's - give a +X discretionary bonus for a smart way of formulating what you want to achieve/say. But to disconnect the skills on paper from the skills in real life is for many a bridge too far...
But if that is the way you see it, why not step away from the CRB/character sheet / skills / feats / abilities altogether and go for true method acting. Describe all the time what you want to achieve and if it sounds plausible (read: if the player is smart) then the character succeeds...
Or did I misinterpret your statement?
Making an underpowered class seem better by nerfing everyone else is a horrible, horrible idea.
On the other hand, "Class skills give +3 but otherwise everyone is totally equal with skill choices" is absolutely boring.
At least in the past what skills you took were actual choices that needed to be weighed (and it was an area that was a Rogue strength - they had the most options, by far). Now it's all just everyone maxing the most useful skills (ie: perception) and ignoring the rest. Because why not? And no class gets to shine in being the "go-to" for certain skills any longer. Because, again, +3 is so minimal that it quickly becomes irrelevant.Whether spells make skills irrelevant is an entirely different argument.
Whether skills, in and of themselves, are good enough, is also an entirely different argument.
On fighters and heavy armour (sorry, can't get into every point, bit short on time atm), good luck moving around a treacherous and challenging environment like a dungeon, ruin, spire, cliff or volcano in all that armour. I am sure you won't fail any physical checks on those massive armour penalties and slip and fall to your character's death.
Fighters do not have that much skills, But I am pretty sure (witn 1 level of multiclass) I can build a fighter with acrobatics, stealth, perception, disable device and climb that can still do his job at combat.
But that is pointless. because what about the rogue replacement? pretty sure that if the rogue can do it the alchemist too, or the ranger or the bard, or the inquisitor.
I prefer the shocked look on the rogue's face when the barbarian gets bored, steps up, shoves the rogue aside and simply smashes the trap.Yeaaah, the trapped dungeons I run, that runs the risk of killing the entire party, including the barbarian, e.g. room is sealed and filled with acid; ceiling drops which crushing the party and prevents them from standing, then the oozes are released; an alchemists room of flammable objects exploding multiple times from differing sources; invisible spiked wall of immense size and weight falls on them.
If the dm took the time to put in lethal traps, brawn without caution can easily be death for all. Hp and a great fort only do so much.
Also below is a very fun link if you want to put some old edition flair of traps back into your game with humour:
http://trapaday.wordpress.com/
Trapfinding trait. Problem solved.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure why people keep arguing about traps. There are like 20 rogues repalcement for that.
Not sure why people keep arguing about traps. There are like 20 rogues repalcement for that.
Actually there aren't that many yet, the ways to get trapfinding are the following:
1) 1st level rogue (a bunch of archetypes give that up)
2) 3rd level urban ranger
3) 1st level trapper ranger
4) 1st level seeker oracle*
5) 1st level seeker sorcerer*
6) 1st level crypt breaker alchemist
7) 1st level trap breaker alchemist
8) 2nd level detective bard*
9) The 2nd level bard/alchemist/wizard spell Aram Zey's focus (too bad the duration is only 1 minute per level)
10) 2nd level archevist bard*
11) 6th level archeologist bard*
12) 1st level sandman bard*
13) 1st level pathfinder delver PrC*
14) The campaign trait trapfinder**
*those 7 get trapfinding in everything but the name
**gives you the ability to disable magical traps but doesn't give you a bonus for doing so
On the other hand, "Class skills give +3 but otherwise everyone is totally equal with skill choices" is absolutely boring.
That's true. I'd prefer an scaling bonus based on skill ranks, similar to Skill Focus.
Maybe an initial +2 that increases by another +2 every 5 ranks? That adds up to +10 at 20th level. Or just go with Skill Focus mechanics and grant an initial +3 that scale to +6 later on (and maybe +9 at some point).
At least in the past what skills you took were actual choices that needed to be weighed (and it was an area that was a Rogue strength - they had the most options, by far). Now it's all just everyone maxing the most useful skills (ie: perception) and ignoring the rest. Because why not? And no class gets to shine in being the "go-to" for certain skills any longer. Because, again, +3 is so minimal that it quickly becomes irrelevant.
I'd still much rather see everyone maxing Perception and whatnot than seeing everyone unable to be decent at anything other than class skills. IMO, the problem is not that Perception is too good, but the fact that most others skills are not good enough, due to quickly losing much of their usefulness.
Giving fantastic abilities based on skill ranks would be amazing. e.g.: With a high enough Spellcraft, you could get the ability to cast Read Magic and/or Detect Magic as SLA at will. Having high ranks in Climb/Swim could actually give you a Climb/Swim speed. 10 ranks in Acrobatics could make it so the DC for tumbling doesn't increase for moving your full speed. Many ranks in Disable Device and/or Spellcraft could give you the ability to disable magic traps, etc.
Having more skill ranks would be a greater advantage, even if your list of class skills wouldn't matter as much.
Making an underpowered class seem better by nerfing everyone else is a horrible, horrible idea.On the other hand, "Class skills give +3 but otherwise everyone is totally equal with skill choices" is absolutely boring.
At least in the past what skills you took were actual choices that needed to be weighed (and it was an area that was a Rogue strength - they had the most options, by far). Now it's all just everyone maxing the most useful skills (ie: perception) and ignoring the rest. Because why not? And no class gets to shine in being the "go-to" for certain skills any longer. Because, again, +3 is so minimal that it quickly becomes irrelevant.Whether spells make skills irrelevant is an entirely different argument.
Whether skills, in and of themselves, are good enough, is also an entirely different argument.
Well, that's entirely right here.
And he will never be able to do something awesome, because Pathfinder designers decided that skills should remain mundane, while every single other field in Pathfinder is at least Extraordinary (if not Supernatural or Magical).
Even the mundane Fighter does extraordinary things by sheer strength and stamina, not even accounting what he can do with his feats.
I don't think Rogues flat out suck. They suck at higher level(14-20).
At those levels the rest of the party has the skills they need now and what they don't have magic items will cover it. The rogue is pretty the only class that lacks a bonus to hit as class feature so by level 14 they +10 BAB. For any other 3/4 BAB class they have either class features and/or spells to boost their to hit bonus. This helps those classes keep up with rapid AC increase that occurs at high level. The rogue lacks this. Then on top of that you have more encounters that are immune to sneak attacks from spells, magic items, class features, and monster defenses. This means the rogue defenses which are base off sneak attack may not trigger.
Every other class I've seen in my games doesn't suffer from these problem at high levels.
Personally if I played a rogue I'd go multi-class after 10th-12th level depending on what I go into.
I find the fighter comparisons amusing. The fighter is leaps and bounds more competent than a rogue. I have to grab one feat (intimidating prowess) to have a noticeable out of combat presence. With the rogue, I have to build my entire character around combat to even be noticeable.
Does the fighter still have problems? Yes. Are they rogue level problems? Not a chance in hell.
"Wow! a endless war! if i enter here at level 1 maybe a can get out at level 20.."
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Stop trying to make the rogue fight, rogue isn´t a combatant class.
On fighters and heavy armour (sorry, can't get into every point, bit short on time atm), good luck moving around a treacherous and challenging environment like a dungeon, ruin, spire, cliff or volcano in all that armour. I am sure you won't fail any physical checks on those massive armour penalties and slip and fall to your character's death.
The ACP for fighter is a non issue. Full Plate is a -6. Fightets get Armor training. At 7th level a fighter could be in Full Plate and have no ACP with mitheral armor. At level 15 they don't even need to be mitheral anymore though I'd go mitheral for shields still.
Just take Armor Expert trait for -1, Masterwork -1, Armor Training for -2 and mitheral for -2. At 15 you have -4 for armor training and
Stop trying to make the rogue fight, rogue isn´t a combatant class.
This is what you sound like:
Stop trying to make the roguefightparticipate in a huge part of the game, rogueisn´t a combatantshouldn't be a PC class.
Besides, if the Rogue is not a combat class, neither are Alchemists, Bards or even Wizards... And yet, no one complains about those classes...
Stop trying to make the rogue fight, rogue isn´t a combatant class.Everyone has a duty in combat. The Witch isn't a martial character, for instance, but when it drops the DC 25 Slumber or Agony it is a combat contributor.
"The rogue isn't supposed to be a combat contributor. He is supposed to be the trap guy and face guy and we just whored that out to 20 different classes."
:/
I´m not saying that the rogue can´t contribute to the combat, it is just the class concept isn´t make to compare rogue vs monsters 1x1 at a open fight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stop trying to make the rogue fight, rogue isn´t a combatant class.
Well what DO you make it do? +3 to skill checks isn't exactly cutting it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I´m not saying that the rogue can´t contribute to the combat, it is just the class concept isn´t make to compare rogue vs monsters 1x1 at a open fight.
Fortunately, no one here is thinking of x1 battles.
I´m not saying that the rogue can´t contribute to the combat, it is just the class concept isn´t make to compare rogue vs monsters 1x1 at a open fight.Fortunately, no one here is thinking of x1 battles.
People complains because they choose a 8 skill point class in games that GMs make a poor use of skills and then try to make the rogue face monsters like barbarians do to compensate this fact.
People complains because they choose a 8 skill point class in games that GMs make a poor use of skills and then try to make the rogue face monsters like barbarians do to compensate this fact.I´m not saying that the rogue can´t contribute to the combat, it is just the class concept isn´t make to compare rogue vs monsters 1x1 at a open fight.Fortunately, no one here is thinking of x1 battles.
Are they? That's odd... I haven't seen those people complaining about Bards, Inquisitors or Rangers, and those classes only have 6 skill points per level. Maybe those posters have multiple personalities?
Or could it be... Maybe, just maybe... That we are not talking about 1x1 combat and Rogue is indeed a poorly designed and underpowered class.
Naaaah... Pathfinder is absolutely perfect! There is no way the system can have any flaw. Right? Right?
PS: Please, ask the next lottery numbers to the crystal ball you used to learn that all those guys are bad players with bad GMs. Or was that just condescending generalization?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the fighter comparisons amusing. The fighter is leaps and bounds more competent than a rogue. I have to grab one feat (intimidating prowess) to have a noticeable out of combat presence. With the rogue, I have to build my entire character around combat to even be noticeable.
Does the fighter still have problems? Yes. Are they rogue level problems? Not a chance in hell.
You do have to give the rogue one thing over the fighter though [other than being useful out-of combat without needing to burn feats]. If the rogue rolls a 1 on the Dominate save, you're fine because the party is what grants him a flank buddy. If the fighter rolls a 1 on the dominate save, someone is gonna die.
Right : )
If the problem is not the skills, is not 1x1 fights, and is not try make fight like barbarians so i don´t see any problem.
At level 10 an archer rogue easily begins the first round a can make a average damage of 120, that make, if the creature don´t die, at least rogue make their part at combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I´m not saying that the rogue can´t contribute to the combat, it is just the class concept isn´t make to compare rogue vs monsters 1x1 at a open fight.Stop trying to make the rogue fight, rogue isn´t a combatant class.Everyone has a duty in combat. The Witch isn't a martial character, for instance, but when it drops the DC 25 Slumber or Agony it is a combat contributor.
"The rogue isn't supposed to be a combat contributor. He is supposed to be the trap guy and face guy and we just whored that out to 20 different classes."
:/
Then how does he contribute in the fight, when he is with the group ?
Sneak attack ? You don't hit reliably, and sneak attack damage aren't even impressive (just average damage). And when you try to position yourself to be able to actually do a sneak attack, you are a liability because you're in front line with low HP and low AC.
You don't have spells, you don't have group buff (like auras or bardic powers), you don't have ennemy debuff, you can't heal your mates (channel, lay on hands). You can use stealth if you're alone with the rest of the group 300 meters afar, but if you're caught, you're dead. You can use stealth in combat, but you reduce even more your potential for damage (because of action economy). Same goes for Bluff.
And skills is something everyone have. Yes, even fighters, barbarians, wizards or clerics. You don't even need trapfinding or disable device to deal with traps and doors (actually, not even close).
I like the rogue concept, really. But the rogue class is just plain underpowered compared to any other class in the game, at a level close to the monk class honestly : they have a concept, but are mechanically flawed from their core design.
You do have to give the rogue one thing over the fighter though [other than being useful out-of combat without needing to burn feats]. If the rogue rolls a 1 on the Dominate save, you're fine because the party is what grants him a flank buddy. If the fighter rolls a 1 on the dominate save, someone is gonna die.
Most of the GM's in my area (including me) would rule that the Rogue gets sneak attack from the surprise factor of suddenly turning against her teammates.
Right : )
If the problem is not the skills, is not 1x1 fights, and is not try make fight like barbarians so i don´t see any problem.
At level 10 an archer rogue easily begins the first round a can make a average damage of 120, that make, if the creature don´t die, at least rogue make their part at combat.
I'm confused. I thought "Rogues are not a combat class". But, okay...
Rogues are terrible in combat. Period. Not 1x1 combat. Not 4x4 Combat. Just Combat, in general.
Your archer Rogue? He gets an "average damage of 120" if (and that's a damn big "if", he lands all his attacks. Which is not very likely... Given that they are the one and only class in the game with no means of buffing their own attacks.
And, then, of course... To survive their enemy's counter attack, Rogues have to rely on their... bad-to-mediocre AC and HP, low CMD and awful saves...
Also, Rogues don't have particularly good Initiative... (Ever notice how raising Dex is not a Rogue-exclusive feature?). Rogues are a joke in combat, and not particularly impressive out of combat either... Unless you're comparing them to Fighters, but that's like playing tennis without the net.
Right : )
If the problem is not the skills, is not 1x1 fights, and is not try make fight like barbarians so i don´t see any problem.
At level 10 an archer rogue easily begins the first round a can make a average damage of 120, that make, if the creature don´t die, at least rogue make their part at combat.
I guess that many people would know how to do that against an appropriate level creature.
Do you have at least a skeleton build ? (just a few ideas on feats, ability scores and eventually skill ranks you need, not a full build).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stop trying to make the rogue fight, rogue isn´t a combatant class.
Stop trying? It is a combat class. Look at the class features. Sneak attack, only usable in combat. Look at the rogue talents. 11 out 15 are combat oriented or usable in combat and 6 out 8 for advanced talents. Uncanny Dodge and Evasion are both combat oriented. The Cap stone is 100% combat oriented. All this and we shouldn't try to make rogue fight? Fighting is what rogue do good at least until high level.
Fighting is what rogue do good at least until high level.
What? I found my TWF rogue to be unplayable by level 7.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the GM's in my area (including me) would rule that the Rogue gets sneak attack from the surprise factor of suddenly turning against her teammates.Yet the rogue's lack of accuracy will finally benefit the party. How often have you seen a rogue hit a dedicated tank? Because my guess would be about 5% of the time.
Also, Rogues don't have particularly good Initiative... (Ever notice how raising Dex is not a Rogue-exclusive feature?). Rogues are a joke in combat, and not particularly impressive out of combat either... Unless you're comparing them to Fighters, but that's like playing tennis without the net.
That is a tad harsh. Now, they may be worse then bards/alchemist/ninjas/inquistors/any other 3/4BAB class that isn't monk/possibly monk/etc., but they can still work in combat. Now, it takes usually at least the Scout archetype, a two-handed weapon, high-strength, no power attack [or at least, furious focus], and a lot of system mastery, but it still can work.
Right : )
If the problem is not the skills, is not 1x1 fights, and is not try make fight like barbarians so i don´t see any problem.
At level 10 an archer rogue easily begins the first round a can make a average damage of 120, that make, if the creature don´t die, at least rogue make their part at combat.
I'm confused. I thought "Rogues are not a combat class". But, okay...
Rogues are terrible in combat. Period. Not 1x1 combat. Not 4x4 Combat. Just Combat, in general.
Your archer Rogue? He gets an "average damage of 120" if (and that's a damn big "if", he lands all his attacks. Which is not very likely... Given that they are the one and only class in the game with no means of buffing their own attacks.
And, then, of course... To survive their enemy's counter attack, Rogues have to rely on their... bad-to-mediocre AC and HP, low CMD and awful saves...
Also, Rogues don't have particularly good Initiative... (Ever notice how raising Dex is not a Rogue-exclusive feature?). Rogues are a joke in combat, and not particularly impressive out of combat either... Unless you're comparing them to Fighters, but that's like playing tennis without the net.
Isnt IF all attacks land....is on DPR calculator.
and the rogue dont need to be so worry about the enemy´s counter, he is at range..and the rest of the group will still act.
You do have to give the rogue one thing over the fighter though [other than being useful out-of combat without needing to burn feats]. If the rogue rolls a 1 on the Dominate save, you're fine because the party is what grants him a flank buddy. If the fighter rolls a 1 on the dominate save, someone is gonna die.I find the fighter comparisons amusing. The fighter is leaps and bounds more competent than a rogue. I have to grab one feat (intimidating prowess) to have a noticeable out of combat presence. With the rogue, I have to build my entire character around combat to even be noticeable.
Does the fighter still have problems? Yes. Are they rogue level problems? Not a chance in hell.
I don't think this is a point for the rogue.
The party not caring if you get dominated because you are just that useless is not a selling point.
Not that a well built fighter can ever get dominated effectively enough to kill a party member. (between having a decent will save and the rerolls built into the spell)
Most of the GM's in my area (including me) would rule that the Rogue gets sneak attack from the surprise factor of suddenly turning against her teammates.Yet the rogue's lack of accuracy will finally benefit the party. How often have you seen a rogue hit a dedicated tank? Because my guess would be about 5% of the time.Also, Rogues don't have particularly good Initiative... (Ever notice how raising Dex is not a Rogue-exclusive feature?). Rogues are a joke in combat, and not particularly impressive out of combat either... Unless you're comparing them to Fighters, but that's like playing tennis without the net.That is a tad harsh. Now, they may be worse then bards/alchemist/ninjas/inquistors/any other 3/4BAB class that isn't monk/possibly monk/etc., but they can still work in combat. Now, it takes usually at least the Scout archetype, a two-handed weapon, high-strength, no power attack [or at least, furious focus], and a lot of system mastery, but it still can work.
Full BAB rogue in Plate!
Isnt IF all attacks land....is on DPR calculator.
Which is an interesting tool, but makes some things (like weapon Focus) seem better than they are... That Rogue is likely to deal 120 damage after 3 rounds of missed attacks... Maybe. And by then, every other class already did something better.
and the rogue dont need to be so worry about the enemy´s counter, he is at range..and the rest of the group will still act.
Because Rogues are so good with ranged combat, right? I mean, their proficiency with longbows, full BAB, bonus archery feats, spells... And are you really going for the "Rogue doesn't have to worry about his sucky defenses because he is friends with characters that belong to other classes" argument? Even if that made a valid point, it still proves that Rogues are a huge drain on the party's resources. And guess what... Your enemy will occasionally act before you and your allies. and even if he doesn't act before everyone, chances are at least one enemy will live long enough to throw something nasty in your direction. Let's hope it doesn't target, AC, CMD, Fort or Will...
Also, Rogues don't have particularly good Initiative... (Ever notice how raising Dex is not a Rogue-exclusive feature?). Rogues are a joke in combat, and not particularly impressive out of combat either... Unless you're comparing them to Fighters, but that's like playing tennis without the net.That is a tad harsh. Now, they may be worse then bards/alchemist/ninjas/inquistors/any other 3/4BAB class that isn't monk/possibly monk/etc., but they can still work in combat. Now, it takes usually at least the Scout archetype, a two-handed weapon, high-strength, no power attack [or at least, furious focus], and a lot of system mastery, but it still can work.
Can Rogues work in combat? Sure. But so can Warriors and Adepts. And yet, I don't think any of us considers those classes to be effective, despite one of them having Full BAB and the other having spells.
Stop trying to make the rogue fight, rogue isn´t a combatant class.
The bard fight, the inquisitor fight, the alchemist fight, the ranger fight, the magus fight. They all give more in out of combat than the rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stop trying to make the rogue fight, rogue isn´t a combatant class.Stop trying? It is a combat class. Look at the class features. Sneak attack, only usable in combat. Look at the rogue talents. 11 out 15 are combat oriented or usable in combat and 6 out 8 for advanced talents. Uncanny Dodge and Evasion are both combat oriented. The Cap stone is 100% combat oriented. All this and we shouldn't try to make rogue fight? Fighting is what rogue do good at least until high level.
He uses the exact same argument the one arguing the monk is not underpowered use : "Don't try to make him fight, it's not his role !"
But when you ask what IS his role, then you don't have anyone to answer.
People complains because they choose a 8 skill point class in games that GMs make a poor use of skills and then try to make the rogue face monsters like barbarians do to compensate this fact.I´m not saying that the rogue can´t contribute to the combat, it is just the class concept isn´t make to compare rogue vs monsters 1x1 at a open fight.Fortunately, no one here is thinking of x1 battles.
We need a big cementery for the lots of strawmen deads in this thread.
You do have to give the rogue one thing over the fighter though [other than being useful out-of combat without needing to burn feats]. If the rogue rolls a 1 on the Dominate save, you're fine because the party is what grants him a flank buddy. If the fighter rolls a 1 on the dominate save, someone is gonna die.I find the fighter comparisons amusing. The fighter is leaps and bounds more competent than a rogue. I have to grab one feat (intimidating prowess) to have a noticeable out of combat presence. With the rogue, I have to build my entire character around combat to even be noticeable.
Does the fighter still have problems? Yes. Are they rogue level problems? Not a chance in hell.
If the fighter fails a save against a blind effect he still have like 50/50 chances of doing good damge. If the rogeu fails, well, he can just walk away from the fight, nobody will miss him.
At level 10 an archer rogue easily begins the first round a can make a average damage of 120, that make, if the creature don´t die, at least rogue make their part at combat.
Build?
He uses the exact same argument the one arguing the monk is not underpowered use : "Don't try to make him fight, it's not his role !"
But when you ask what IS his role, then you don't have anyone to answer.
Don't be mean, AvH. They did tell us in what kind of situation Rogues can shine: When the party is inside a huge AMF with no visible enemies or any other threat anywhere to be seen, except for the low Perception DC magic traps that are inexplicably immune to AMF.
If the fighter fails a save against a blind effect he still have like 50/50 chances of doing good damge. If the rogeu fails, well, he can just walk away from the fight, nobody will miss him.
It also takes more than a Smoke Stick to nullify a Fighter.
Don't be mean, AvH. They did tell us in what kind of situation Rogues can shine: When the party is inside a huge AMF with no visible enemies or any other threat anywhere to be seen, except for the low Perception DC magic traps that are inexplicably immune to AMF.He uses the exact same argument the one arguing the monk is not underpowered use : "Don't try to make him fight, it's not his role !"
But when you ask what IS his role, then you don't have anyone to answer.
Sorry new to the game, AMF?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People complains because they choose a 8 skill point class in games that GMs make a poor use of skills and then try to make the rogue face monsters like barbarians do to compensate this fact.I´m not saying that the rogue can´t contribute to the combat, it is just the class concept isn´t make to compare rogue vs monsters 1x1 at a open fight.Fortunately, no one here is thinking of x1 battles.
Stop calling people bad at the game because you don't agree with them. Its as insulting as it is disingenuous. It doesn't promote or even allow for discussion, it simply sidesteps it with the ridiculous ad hom that other people are doing it wrong.
The problem is NOT that dms are not using skills- or at least the problem is not JUST that. The fact is that the rogue is supposed to make up for a lack of combat power with skills, but he's actually not that great at skills. Many other characters can, with a minimal investment, meet or exceed the rogue at the rogues job at skills through the use of traits, feats, and a little more investment in intelligence.
A rogue needs to use all of their feats to be relevant in combat. Another class can use their feats less than optimally to up their skills without losing all that much.
But doesn't that make you a worse barbarian/druid/wizard/ ?
Yes. But I'm not making a character to compete with another wizard. I;m making a character to fulfill a role in the party: scout trap finder... or in short a rogue. A less than optimal druid or wizaard is still very powerful compared to the rogue. The point is not to get the best Druid or the best fighter the point is to get the best CHARACTER.
But why compete against the rogue for the rogues job?
You don't compete with anyone for a job, the classes compete with each other to be YOUR character, which one fits your ideas best mechanically. A class is a mechanical construct, YOU, the player, provide the thematics.
But you have to use half your spells to do that?
So what? If i was playing a rogue i wouldn't have any spells. If you're a rogue +1/2 of a wizard you came out ahead picking your character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry new to the game, AMF?Don't be mean, AvH. They did tell us in what kind of situation Rogues can shine: When the party is inside a huge AMF with no visible enemies or any other threat anywhere to be seen, except for the low Perception DC magic traps that are inexplicably immune to AMF.He uses the exact same argument the one arguing the monk is not underpowered use : "Don't try to make him fight, it's not his role !"
But when you ask what IS his role, then you don't have anyone to answer.
Antimagic field.
But at least we have a testeable statement. The archer rogue does 120 DPR. The last statement (the 11th level rogue does 300DPR) failed totally, but perhaps this last one is true.
If the fighter fails a save against a blind effect he still have like 50/50 chances of doing good damge. If the rogeu fails, well, he can just walk away from the fight, nobody will miss him.You do have to give the rogue one thing over the fighter though [other than being useful out-of combat without needing to burn feats]. If the rogue rolls a 1 on the Dominate save, you're fine because the party is what grants him a flank buddy. If the fighter rolls a 1 on the dominate save, someone is gonna die.I find the fighter comparisons amusing. The fighter is leaps and bounds more competent than a rogue. I have to grab one feat (intimidating prowess) to have a noticeable out of combat presence. With the rogue, I have to build my entire character around combat to even be noticeable.
Does the fighter still have problems? Yes. Are they rogue level problems? Not a chance in hell.
It's even worse than that : as everybody have a total concealment against the rogue attacks, they are totally immune to sneak attack.
Horray ! When you DO hit your ennemy, you deals it less than 10 damage, before applying DR.
Right : )
If the problem is not the skills, is not 1x1 fights, and is not try make fight like barbarians so i don´t see any problem.
At level 10 an archer rogue easily begins the first round a can make a average damage of 120, that make, if the creature don´t die, at least rogue make their part at combat.
I guess that many people would know how to do that against an appropriate level creature.
Do you have at least a skeleton build ? (just a few ideas on feats, ability scores and eventually skill ranks you need, not a full build).
It's not so much the build, just do a basic archery build and situation. If you are with in 30' and you beat your opponents initiative on the 1st round, easily done with some rogue talents like surprise attack or snapshot. Then the rogue get their sneak attack on a surprise round if any and the 1st round of combat. It works but is situational. I rarely find you are 30' from a target when combat begins. Now if there is way to extend that 30' range for sneak attacks then this could get very deadly. I think I saw something that extended it by 5' but I can't think what it was.