Do Rogues just flat out suck?


Advice

251 to 300 of 1,118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

How is the bard suppose to pull off a quiet burglary? He's singing, playing an instrument, etc. to make his spells work. Hardly the clandestine effort of a rogue.

Shadow Lodge

Gwaithador wrote:
How is the bard suppose to pull off a quiet burglary?

Perform: Dance. Silent Spell.


Gwaithador wrote:
How is the bard suppose to pull off a quiet burglary? He's singing, playing an instrument, etc. to make his spells work. Hardly the clandestine effort of a rogue.

Ahh, but this is why all my bards have ranks in Perform: Mime!


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
A Rogue would never even see a simple first-level Alarm spell, and if it's of the silent variety, he would never even know he had set it off.
Then what is Trap-finding for? Seriously, why are you making him worse than he already is?

As far as I can tell, by RAW, the Alarm spell is not a trap on its own.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
A Rogue would never even see a simple first-level Alarm spell, and if it's of the silent variety, he would never even know he had set it off.
Then what is Trap-finding for? Seriously, why are you making him worse than he already is?

There is no DC to disarm Alarm or even a DC to find it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Athaleon wrote:
As far as I can tell, by RAW, the Alarm spell is not a trap on its own.

I will use this bit of text as my justification for allowing rogues to deal with alarm spells.

Quote:
Spell traps are simply spells that themselves function as traps. Creating a spell trap requires the services of a character who can cast the needed spell or spells, who is usually either the character creating the trap or an NPC spellcaster hired for that purpose.

Now, you could say that the caster is choosing to not create a trap when he casts the spell. I would also call you silly for saying it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Marthkus wrote:
There is no DC to disarm Alarm or even a DC to find it.

Not in the spell description, no.

Magic wrote:

Many spells can be used to create dangerous traps. Unless the spell or item description states otherwise, assume the following to be true.

A successful Perception check (DC 25 + spell level) detects a magic trap before it goes off.


Gwaithador wrote:
How is the bard suppose to pull off a quiet burglary? He's singing, playing an instrument, etc. to make his spells work. Hardly the clandestine effort of a rogue.

Or he uses none of that and just uses versatile performance. Which no, you aren't performing when you use those skills, you just use your perform check in place of those skills.


Marthkus wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
A Rogue would never even see a simple first-level Alarm spell, and if it's of the silent variety, he would never even know he had set it off.
Then what is Trap-finding for? Seriously, why are you making him worse than he already is?
There is no DC to disarm Alarm or even a DC to find it.

It would be 25 plus the spell level on both counts, but Alarm isn't mentioned anywhere as something that you could detect with Perception and disarm with Disable Device. It calls out a few specific spells such as Glyph of Warding and Explosive Runes, and those are effects where you actually have something visible to detect.

Alarm generates no visible effect, so if your character is blind to magic he would never see it. It generates no tangible effect, so even if your character knew the spell was there, how would he go about disabling it if he could not manipulate magic directly?

It didn't count as a trap in 3.5 and the same reasoning given in that ruling seems to apply to Pathfinder as well.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
There is no DC to disarm Alarm or even a DC to find it.

Not in the spell description, no.

Magic wrote:

Many spells can be used to create dangerous traps. Unless the spell or item description states otherwise, assume the following to be true.

A successful Perception check (DC 25 + spell level) detects a magic trap before it goes off.

Hmmm. Alarm probably doesn't count as a trap, because if it did the rogue might be able to do something, which the rules as a whole seem to be against :P

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Marthkus wrote:
Hmmm. Alarm probably doesn't count as a trap, because if it did the rogue might be able to do something, which the rules as a whole seem to be against :P

It counts as a trap in my games, because otherwise I would be sad.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Hmmm. Alarm probably doesn't count as a trap, because if it did the rogue might be able to do something, which the rules as a whole seem to be against :P
It counts as a trap in my games, because otherwise I would be sad.

It's perfectly reasonable to do so. I would rule that way myself, though I would nevertheless consider it a house rule.

Even then, those are some steep DCs. The Disable Device check would be impossible to meet with a Take 10 until level 4, and then only with Skill Focus. Perception is likely to be lower than that.

Silver Crusade

Marthkus wrote:
This is normally the part when someone argues that ninjas are rogues and that comparing archetypes to rogues without considering the ninja a rogue is unfair.

play a ninja, call it a rogue, done.


Best part, level 1 spell completely invisible to rogues, lasting hours per day, negates any form of plan and stealth they use to infiltrate a building.

Bards can see and get rid of it :P


I think there is a vast difference between being weaker (or even the weakest) mechanically, and "sucking".

You can have a great time playing a rogue, and contribute to a variety of situations, so the class isn't broken. It is just that the rogue falls victim to several problems that are hardly unique to the class.

The rogues main problem is that he is at his best when he is alone in the spotlight, sneaking ahead, picking a lock, or disabling a trap. However, since this is a cooperative game, most of the real-life table time will be spent in activities where everyone can contribute, mainly combats and social situations. Again, the rogue is OK in almost any situation, but participating is just not the same as kicking ass.

The other problems that rogues suffer from are common, especially among martial characters. A d6, or even several d6, are just not that much damage any more. So the rogue needs to get multiple sneak attacks by using a full attack action in melee. This means that he needs AC and HP which force him to need dex and con. Since he has bad will and fortitude saves, and several skills that operate off of charisma, he is now officially MAD. (Multiple Ability score Dependent)

Finally, the rogues Thing is that he is a skill monkey, but skills don't really ramp up in power in many cases. Often later in the game your climb, acrobatics, etc. won't even compare to the options a fly spell will give you, and many other mundane abilities are blown away by a few charges from a wand or something.

But these things are hardly specific to the rogue class, and most of this stuff won't make it so you can't have fun playing the class.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I want to roll a Sherlock Holmes-style rogue, but it just doesn't seem to work.

Fergie wrote:
Finally, the rogues Thing is that he is a skill monkey, but skills don't really ramp up in power in many cases. Often later in the game your climb, acrobatics, etc. won't even compare to the options a fly spell will give you, and many other mundane abilities are blown away by a few charges from a wand or something.

My rogue has one rank in Climb. Because Wall Climber nearly removes any need for a roll.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I want to roll a Sherlock Holmes-style rogue, but it just doesn't seem to work.

From what I've heard, the Investigator was shaping up to be the class the Rogue should have been, and exactly what you're looking for. Unfortunately, too many people whined that it was better than the Rogue, so it was nerfed hard. Hopefully it improves again before release.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Athaleon wrote:
From what I've heard, the Investigator was shaping up to be the class the Rogue should have been, and exactly what you're looking for. Unfortunately, too many people whined that it was better than the Rogue, so it was nerfed hard. Hopefully it improves again before release.

I just tested my Crypt-Breaker Alchemist today, and he's closer to what I want.


Fergie wrote:
You can have a great time playing a rogue, and contribute to a variety of situations, so the class isn't broken. It is just that the rogue falls victim to several problems that are hardly unique to the class.

Great point!

But while most classes count the situations they can't contribute to, rogues count the situations they can.

With a lot of optimization you can make a rogue that is a competent character. But you can also make competent commoners with all the race and feat combos available. That doesn't mean the commoner wouldn't be considered a broken class if judged as a PC class.


@Fergie : except that for other classes, skills aren't the only thing they can do, while the rogue only have that.

A rogue is often bad at combat as a group member (I'd say he is on par with the monk : he does more damage when flanking, but he is way more fragile), and combat is about 80 percent of in-game time.

Outside of combat, you're not even in the first part of "good" classes : out of the eleven classes from the CRB, I see six that are at least on par with the rogue, and some others can shine in specific situations.


Fergie wrote:
I think there is a vast difference between being weaker (or even the weakest) mechanically, and "sucking".

Having played two rogues in PFS, one all the way up to 19th, I can say that the rogue's power level is well-suited for PFS and Paizo's published content. You don't have to worry nearly as much about overpowering the material as you would if you played many other classes. Also, the GM for your Adventure Path has to put less preparation into modifying the encounters to suit your character than he would if you played something more powerful.

In other words, it's often a good idea to have a character whose power level is appropriate for the content.

-Matt


Arachnofiend wrote:
That "because" was supposed to be an "if". The cane sword/deadly duelist build I gave for an example was supposed to be me saying "look, this is something I'd gladly do even though it's kinda crappy in most situations just because it's awesome".

What is this "Deadly Duelist" feat you refer to? I can't find anything by that name in Archives of Nethys.

-Matt


Avh wrote:

@Fergie : except that for other classes, skills aren't the only thing they can do, while the rogue only have that.

...more...

Outside of combat, you're not even in the first part of "good" classes : out of the eleven classes from the CRB, I see six that are at least on par with the rogue, and some others can shine in specific situations.

I think rogues have more going for them then just the skills, by 10th level, they have 5 rogue talents, evasion, improved uncanny dodge, trap sense +3 (oohhhh) and a 5d6 sneak attack. With their 3/4 BAB, 8/level skill points and access to weapons and armor, they are absolutely in PC class power level. Is it equal to what a wizard has? Hell no.

And as for skills, rogues are probably the best in social situations except for bards and maybe inquisitors. Again, bards and maybe inquisitors aside, there is something to be said for having a whole bunch of maxed out skills, especially skills like UMD and perception.

EDIT: Opps, left of trapfinding, which is pretty good. Too bad trap sense didn't follow the same mechanic (+1 per 2 rogue levels).
Also noticed that rogues get NOTHING new from level 10 - 20. <-- maybe that is part of the problem?


Mattastrophic wrote:
Fergie wrote:
I think there is a vast difference between being weaker (or even the weakest) mechanically, and "sucking".

Having played two rogues in PFS, one all the way up to 19th, I can say that the rogue's power level is well-suited for PFS and Paizo's published content. You don't have to worry nearly as much about overpowering the material as you would if you played many other classes. Also, the GM for your Adventure Path has to put less preparation into modifying the encounters to suit your character than he would if you played something more powerful.

-Matt

PFS tends to bunch parties up in tight spaces. There, rogues can contribute. On more open battlefields, they're just not good.


Well that and pfs basically is for admittedly much lower power games. Its not hard to shine there and is quite difficult to suck.


Mattastrophic wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
That "because" was supposed to be an "if". The cane sword/deadly duelist build I gave for an example was supposed to be me saying "look, this is something I'd gladly do even though it's kinda crappy in most situations just because it's awesome".

What is this "Deadly Duelist" feat you refer to? I can't find anything by that name in Archives of Nethys.

-Matt

Ack, my mistake, the feat is actually called Deadly Dealer. It lets you apply Arcane Strike to playing cards and treat them like darts that nobody will read as weapons if they haven't seen you use them before. It's the Gambit feat, basically.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Ack, my mistake, the feat is actually called Deadly Dealer. It lets you apply Arcane Strike to playing cards and treat them like darts that nobody will read as weapons if they haven't seen you use them before. It's the Gambit feat, basically.

I see. I did the same sort of thing with my now-19th-level character. She used her ladies' fan.

-Matt

Grand Lodge

Avh wrote:
combat is about 80 percent of in-game time

Where does this figure come from? Your local game? It sure isn't PFS modules or adventure paths, at least not in my experience. Sometimes it feels like we spend 90% of the night chatting with NPCs and traveling, then only have one short fight.

I'm not saying you're wrong or that that's not how Pathfinder should be run. What I'm saying is that, if your local game is 80% combat, that's probably not a good game to play a rogue in if you're looking for combat effectiveness.

As for out-of-combat stuff, let me just say this: Some classes might be better at certain skills than a rogue, but I don't think every class has easy access to all of them. Anything you do to a bard, wizard, ranger, or another class to try to emulate a rogue comes at the sacrifice of one or more of that class's core abilities.

So, just as I was saying that the best way to play a rogue is to stop trying to be other classes, the best way to be other classes is to stop trying to be a rogue. :)


And we're saying the best way to be a rogue is to be another class. Even if you sacrifice other class features (in the Wizard's case you only sacrifice gold), they're still better, as has been amply demonstrated in this thread.

Grand Lodge

Fergie wrote:
rogues get NOTHING new from level 10 - 20

Except advanced rogue talents.

On a related note, most of the advanced rogue talents are really, really good.


Headfirst wrote:
Fergie wrote:
rogues get NOTHING new from level 10 - 20

Except advanced rogue talents.

On a related note, most of the advanced rogue talents are really, really good.

Okay, so which ones? And why? Under what context?

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh snap everyone, Tark has arrived!

Grand Lodge

Athaleon wrote:
in the Wizard's case you only sacrifice gold

Wizard: "Hey guys, I successfully broke into that nobleman's house and stole his prize jewels! We can sell these for an easy 1,000 gold! Who's the rogue now?"

Party: "Nice! How'd you do it?"

Wizard: "Nine scrolls, two wands, four potions, and the cost of a replacement familiar to get a better bonus skill. About 1,500 gold total."

Party: [facepalms]

Wizard: "Whatever, let's get on with the adventure now."

Party: "Fine, but first we need you to craft us some arms and armor, then use your knowledge skills to decipher some clues. Also, we're fleeing some thugs right now; could you cast magic missile or web to help us out?"

Wizard: "Uhh, sorry. I spent all my spare feats and traits on skill stuff. Yeah, then I had to put points into those skills, so I don't have any knowledges. Also, I had to memorize knock, rope trick, and a bunch of other breaking and entering stuff to get that job done, so I'm out of spells."

Party: "So, what you're saying is that, instead of a great wizard, we ended up with an expensive rogue and a gimped wizard?"

Wizard: "..."


Headfirst wrote:
Avh wrote:
combat is about 80 percent of in-game time

Where does this figure come from? Your local game? It sure isn't PFS modules or adventure paths, at least not in my experience. Sometimes it feels like we spend 90% of the night chatting with NPCs and traveling, then only have one short fight.

I'm not saying you're wrong or that that's not how Pathfinder should be run. What I'm saying is that, if your local game is 80% combat, that's probably not a good game to play a rogue in if you're looking for combat effectiveness.

As for out-of-combat stuff, let me just say this: Some classes might be better at certain skills than a rogue, but I don't think every class has easy access to all of them. Anything you do to a bard, wizard, ranger, or another class to try to emulate a rogue comes at the sacrifice of one or more of that class's core abilities.

So, just as I was saying that the best way to play a rogue is to stop trying to be other classes, the best way to be other classes is to stop trying to be a rogue. :)

Except that other classes can do what the rogue can do IN ADDITION to what that other class normally do.

Bards, Wizards, Sorcerers, Summoners, Rangers can all do what a rogue do, and do more.

It's not something like A > B in skills, but can be A=B in skills if A sacrifices everything.

It's more like : A = B + C, with A being a class and B the rogue in entirety.
For example, a bard is a rogue, with in addition spells and bard music.
Ranger is a rogue with good combat utility.
Wizard is a rogue with spells and versatility, and may have a pocket rogue.
Summoner have spells and summoned monsters, and a pocket rogue (and/or pocket fighter all-in-one).
Druid is a rogue with spells and combat utility, and may have a pocket fighter.

And I didn't even start to take archetypes in the equation...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Headfirst wrote:

Wizard: "Hey guys, I successfully broke into that nobleman's house and stole his prize jewels! We can sell these for an easy 1,000 gold! Who's the rogue now?"

Party: "Nice! How'd you do it?"

Wizard:"I spent 2~4 spell slots of low level spells."

Party: "Cool, but first we need you to craft us some arms and armor, then use your knowledge skills to decipher some clues. Also, we're fleeing some thugs right now; could you cast magic missile or web to help us out?"

Wizard: "Sure! I still have all my mid/high level spells. And I spent my skill ranks in knowledge skills and my feats on whatever I want, because I need nothing but a few low-level spell slots to do the whole job of a Rogue."

Party: "I'm so glad we don't have a Rogue!"

Wizard: "Right?"

Fixed it for you...

Grand Lodge

TarkXT wrote:
Headfirst wrote:
Fergie wrote:
rogues get NOTHING new from level 10 - 20

Except advanced rogue talents.

On a related note, most of the advanced rogue talents are really, really good.

Okay, so which ones? And why? Under what context?

I'm not writing you a book report on why advanced rogue talents are good, but here are some highlights:

Improved Evasion, Opportunist, Skill Mastery, Stealthy Sniper, Weapon Snatcher

If you don't immediately recognize how good those are, nothing I can say here will convince you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Headfirst wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
in the Wizard's case you only sacrifice gold

Wizard: "Hey guys, I successfully broke into that nobleman's house and stole his prize jewels! We can sell these for an easy 1,000 gold! Who's the rogue now?"

Party: "Nice! How'd you do it?"

Wizard: "Nine scrolls, two wands, four potions, and the cost of a replacement familiar to get a better bonus skill. About 1,500 gold total."

Party: [facepalms]

Wizard: "Whatever, let's get on with the adventure now."

Party: "Fine, but first we need you to craft us some arms and armor, then use your knowledge skills to decipher some clues. Also, we're fleeing some thugs right now; could you cast magic missile or web to help us out?"

Wizard: "Uhh, sorry. I spent all my spare feats and traits on skill stuff. Yeah, then I had to put points into those skills, so I don't have any knowledges. Also, I had to memorize knock, rope trick, and a bunch of other breaking and entering stuff to get that job done, so I'm out of spells."

Party: "So, what you're saying is that, instead of a great wizard, we ended up with an expensive rogue and a gimped wizard?"

Wizard: "..."

More like:

Wizard: "Hey guys I bound an earth elemental and had him bring me 10,000 gold worth of uncut jews and raw ore."

Party: "Cool, while you were doing that, the rogue tripped an alarm spell at a noblemen's house and got himself killed. You get any diamond dust? We could use that to resurrect him."

Wizard: "Why I think I have just enough. While you're resurrecting him, I'll bind another elemental to dig up more jewels for me."

Grand Lodge

Lemmy wrote:
Fixed it for you...

Yikes, I thought were were talking about a challenge that was scaled to the level of the party.

Yeah, if a high-level wizard just needs to get through a house full of a bunch of 1st level warrior guards and low DC locks, sure, his low-level spells will work just fine.

Fun fact: Knock doesn't automatically open locked doors; you still have to make a roll. Roll low and guess what? You just blew your one chance to unlock one door. Hope you had more knock spells memorized and I hope the nobleman's house only had that one door...

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Headfirst wrote:

Improved Evasion, Opportunist, Skill Mastery, Stealthy Sniper, Weapon Snatcher

If you don't immediately recognize how good those are, nothing I can say here will convince you.

Improved Evasion: Handy, but entirely passive.

Opportunist: So you get an AoO. Not seeing how special this is, considering you say the rogue isn't supposed to be a combat guy and this is a melee thing.
Skill Mastery: Handy, but also involves using skills, which has been pointed out as diminishing returns.
Stealthy Sniper: It's just a reduction in the sniping penalty. So you're getting one shot a round and hoping they don't have one of the many ways to negate Stealth.
Weapon Snatcher: Helps overcome the rogue's poor CMB but really not all that, especially against high level monsters that don't use weapons, have insane CMDs, or both.

So yeah, not convincing after all.


Headfirst wrote:


If you don't immediately recognize how good those are, nothing I can say here will convince you.

Then what are you doing here?

Grand Lodge

Marthkus wrote:
Wizard: "Hey guys I bound an earth elemental and had him bring me 10,000 gold worth of uncut jews and raw ore."

Wouldn't it be awesome to play in a game where the DM let you get away with that? Also, in a game where the DM wasn't at all familiar with the limitations of the Summon Monster spell? :)

Grand Lodge

TarkXT wrote:
Headfirst wrote:


If you don't immediately recognize how good those are, nothing I can say here will convince you.

Then what are you doing here?

You know what? That might be the smartest thing anyone has said so far in this thread.

Later.


Headfirst wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Headfirst wrote:
Fergie wrote:
rogues get NOTHING new from level 10 - 20

Except advanced rogue talents.

On a related note, most of the advanced rogue talents are really, really good.

Okay, so which ones? And why? Under what context?

I'm not writing you a book report on why advanced rogue talents are good, but here are some highlights:

Improved Evasion, Opportunist, Skill Mastery, Stealthy Sniper, Weapon Snatcher

If you don't immediately recognize how good those are, nothing I can say here will convince you.

Three of the first 4 are clearly positives, even if Stealthy Sniper is probably overly focused. Improved Evasion I'm not sure about. If you're boosting dexterity, you're probably going to make most of your saves anyway. I'll admit to having completely forgotten about skill mastery. It's definitely very nice.

I need to look at weapon snatcher closer because something about it seems off to me, and it's focusing in one of the weakest combat maneuvers. Upon first reading it reaks of a trap.


Headfirst wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Headfirst wrote:
Fergie wrote:
rogues get NOTHING new from level 10 - 20

Except advanced rogue talents.

On a related note, most of the advanced rogue talents are really, really good.

Okay, so which ones? And why? Under what context?

I'm not writing you a book report on why advanced rogue talents are good, but here are some highlights:

Improved Evasion, Opportunist, Skill Mastery, Stealthy Sniper, Weapon Snatcher

If you don't immediately recognize how good those are, nothing I can say here will convince you.

2/5 not bad.

Opportunist is invaluable to the rogue and skill mastery is like the ONLY thing he actually has over other classes (although not if you ask the rules forum).

Improved Evasion: The earliest you will get this is 14. Are you failing reflex saves on a 2 or higher? I thought so.

Weapon snatcher: You still generate AOOs! I hope you grabbed improved disarm.

Stealthy sniper: Yay! one sneak attack every round. Provided you are within 30ft or have sniper goggles, and a place to hide. Oh and you still take a -10 penalty on that check.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Headfirst wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Wizard: "Hey guys I bound an earth elemental and had him bring me 10,000 gold worth of uncut jews and raw ore."
Wouldn't it be awesome to play in a game where the DM let you get away with that? Also, in a game where the DM wasn't at all familiar with the limitations of the Summon Monster spell? :)

Bro do you even planar binding.

251 to 300 of 1,118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Do Rogues just flat out suck? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.