"So, the rogue is not a combat class."


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 197 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

For a bardic knowledge monkey, all you need is pageant of the peacock. Boom, your one dance skill just became ALL the knowledges.

I'm, too sexy for this library....

Or your acting skill.

"I played a scholar in a play once. It'll be fine..."


Deadmanwalking wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

For a bardic knowledge monkey, all you need is pageant of the peacock. Boom, your one dance skill just became ALL the knowledges.

I'm, too sexy for this library....

Or your acting skill.

"I played a scholar in a play once. It'll be fine..."

Ok that makes more sense actually.

"I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV."


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Monks are a little trickier.

Simple monk fix is to have their scaling monk bonus to AC and CMD also apply to attack rolls, damage rolls, and CMB.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Monks are a little trickier.
Simple monk fix is to have their scaling monk bonus to AC and CMD also apply to attack rolls, damage rolls, and CMB.

Yeah, but that's easy and makes sense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Monks are a little trickier.
Simple monk fix is to have their scaling monk bonus to AC and CMD also apply to attack rolls, damage rolls, and CMB.

And give them real Full BAB

(Which makes no impact in raw combat except when not making a Full Attack Action... which will be many rounds for non-zen archers, but simplifies the monk class and lets them qualify for combat feats on time.)

Shadow Lodge

Karl Hammarhand wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Monks are a little trickier.
Simple monk fix is to have their scaling monk bonus to AC and CMD also apply to attack rolls, damage rolls, and CMB.
Yeah, but that's easy and makes sense.

BLASPHEMY!! ;)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Monks are a little trickier.
Simple monk fix is to have their scaling monk bonus to AC and CMD also apply to attack rolls, damage rolls, and CMB.

That winds up...a little complicated, actually, at least IMO.

I actually make them a full BAB class, drop their unarmed damage progression slightly, let them add Wisdom to damage unarmed or with Monk weapons (on top of whatever else they add), and let them move 10 feet + Monk Bonus Speed as a Swift Action for 1 Ki, giving them a pseudo-pounce. And do a few other small things.

But that, too, is complicated.


LazarX wrote:
Renegadeshepherd wrote:

My two cents:

The rogue is a perfectly viable class in and out battle if it were not for one thing, and one thing only... Bards. Bardic knowledge over 20 levels is the equivilant of 100 skill points worth of gain. That is 12.5 base rogue levels of base skill points. When considering the bard only gave up 2 skill points per level (40 over 20 levels). Then the archeologist can do trap related feature like a rogue, has bardic knowledge, it is easily the top 2 of all archetypes/classes in 3/4 BAB range. Their is no feature for the rogue to call upon really that one class or another can't do better, in or out of battle. As a generalist play it if it makes u happy but Paizo messed this one up.

All that negative aside, the rogue is still the standard by which I compare my skill monkeys and I enjoy playing them in games where optimizing is not so important. PFS I'm looking at u.

The Bard may be the knowledge monkey, but the Rouge has bucco skill points in other more Face/Rougey areas, Bluff, Diplomacy,Intimidate, Appaise, Sleight of Hand, Acrobatics, etc. A Human bard with even a 12 intelligence becomes a Skill Monkey as opposed to the Bardic Knowledge Owl.

A Bard and a Rouge do make a good complementary team.

I don't understand this. I've been worki g on as monkey guide so let me share a piece of it. The rogue has 2 skills the base bard does not, disable device and swim. The bard has more class skills (each worth a +3). Some bards add bonuses to skills based on their level or can replace some with versatile performance.

For comparison, an archeologist over 20 levels has bardic knowledge (100 skill points), base skill points (120), clever explorer (+20), bard has 8 skills in class rogue does not but rogue has 2 bard does not for 6 more (+18) and trap sense. Neglecting the class skill differences, the archeologist has 240 skill points or its equivilancies. That is THIRTY levels of rogue at base INT. and as I said we have class skill advantages as well. To make matters even worse, archeologist luck can on a limited basis offer bonuses to skills. Though the base bard is not as good without effort as archeologist, with skill focus feats and versatile performance it COULD be better by skill point count. Finally, the bard has spell casting to supplement all of the skills; as such the arguement of spells over skills has some validity. Conclusion, bard is the skill king.

Now that Ive sadly smashed the poor rogue out of battle, how does the same bard compare in battle....

Archeologist pros...

2 good saves + archeologist luck bonus of X to all
Bonus to hit and damage of X from all circumstances
Better weapon proficiencies

Rogue Pro

Sneak attack
Faster progression of rogue talent which means combat feats

Objectively the archeologist is safer and only if sneak attack can be done consistently can the two even be compared. And the base bard is even safer as he just sits back and sings to boost all the other legit combatants. So again ill take bard.

Sneak attack is all rogue has over bard that I can c. Rogue is playable but among power gamers the bard should take the skill monkey spot.


The first rule is don't talk about rogue thread.
The second rule is don't talk about rogue thread.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
blahpers wrote:


Except, as mentioned, they are played, and many people like them, do not think they suck, and do not need them to be fixed.

And, as mentioned before, "I like and play this" is very different from "This is balanced".

blahpers wrote:
Besides, if nobody were playing it, what difference would it make whether they needed to be fixed? If commoner was a PC class, would people be posting thousand-post threads clamoring to "balance" it

YES.

Because if it's presented as a PC class that implies it is meant to be a balanced option that brings something to the table.

The Commoner does not. Neither does the Rogue.

Balance is not implied at all.

Balance is not implied. It is out right emphatically stated in the CR rules. A level 5 human rogue is meant to be as challenging to the player characters as a level 5 human wizard or a level 5 human cleric.


Atarlost wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
blahpers wrote:


Except, as mentioned, they are played, and many people like them, do not think they suck, and do not need them to be fixed.

And, as mentioned before, "I like and play this" is very different from "This is balanced".

blahpers wrote:
Besides, if nobody were playing it, what difference would it make whether they needed to be fixed? If commoner was a PC class, would people be posting thousand-post threads clamoring to "balance" it

YES.

Because if it's presented as a PC class that implies it is meant to be a balanced option that brings something to the table.

The Commoner does not. Neither does the Rogue.

Balance is not implied at all.
Balance is not implied. It is out right emphatically stated in the CR rules. A level 5 human rogue is meant to be as challenging to the player characters as a level 5 human wizard or a level 5 human cleric.

sadly that is the funniest thing I have heard xD.


K177Y C47 wrote:
sadly that is the funniest thing I have heard xD.

Really? To me it's just plain sad.


Rynjin wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
blahpers wrote:


Except, as mentioned, they are played, and many people like them, do not think they suck, and do not need them to be fixed.

And, as mentioned before, "I like and play this" is very different from "This is balanced".

blahpers wrote:
Besides, if nobody were playing it, what difference would it make whether they needed to be fixed? If commoner was a PC class, would people be posting thousand-post threads clamoring to "balance" it

YES.

Because if it's presented as a PC class that implies it is meant to be a balanced option that brings something to the table.

The Commoner does not. Neither does the Rogue.

Balance is not implied at all.
It is if you want to call yourself a good game designer.

Well-designed games do not require balance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
blahpers wrote:


Except, as mentioned, they are played, and many people like them, do not think they suck, and do not need them to be fixed.

And, as mentioned before, "I like and play this" is very different from "This is balanced".

blahpers wrote:
Besides, if nobody were playing it, what difference would it make whether they needed to be fixed? If commoner was a PC class, would people be posting thousand-post threads clamoring to "balance" it

YES.

Because if it's presented as a PC class that implies it is meant to be a balanced option that brings something to the table.

The Commoner does not. Neither does the Rogue.

Balance is not implied at all.
It is if you want to call yourself a good game designer.
Well-designed games do not require balance.

head asplodes


A game is not well designed if it is not balanced. That's the hard part of a designer's job, is making sure all the stuff they put in is balanced with the other things.

Choosing not to do so is just lazy.

I can't think of a single exception to this rule. Most games that aren't quickly abandoned by the majority are balanced in some manner, whether it be by having each class have a concrete niche the other can't intrude on, by allowing each one to occupy any niche, but in different ways, by having all characters be the same bar their loadout of weaponry and player skill (in this case the weapons need to be balanced with each other though), or some other way.

Pathfinder does a decent job of this in many cases. The Rogue is one of its prominent failings.


blahpers wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
blahpers wrote:


Except, as mentioned, they are played, and many people like them, do not think they suck, and do not need them to be fixed.

And, as mentioned before, "I like and play this" is very different from "This is balanced".

blahpers wrote:
Besides, if nobody were playing it, what difference would it make whether they needed to be fixed? If commoner was a PC class, would people be posting thousand-post threads clamoring to "balance" it

YES.

Because if it's presented as a PC class that implies it is meant to be a balanced option that brings something to the table.

The Commoner does not. Neither does the Rogue.

Balance is not implied at all.
It is if you want to call yourself a good game designer.
Well-designed games do not require balance.

Well, at least that is you being honest. A shame the CRB is not honest then.


Atarlost wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
blahpers wrote:


Except, as mentioned, they are played, and many people like them, do not think they suck, and do not need them to be fixed.

And, as mentioned before, "I like and play this" is very different from "This is balanced".

blahpers wrote:
Besides, if nobody were playing it, what difference would it make whether they needed to be fixed? If commoner was a PC class, would people be posting thousand-post threads clamoring to "balance" it

YES.

Because if it's presented as a PC class that implies it is meant to be a balanced option that brings something to the table.

The Commoner does not. Neither does the Rogue.

Balance is not implied at all.
Balance is not implied. It is out right emphatically stated in the CR rules. A level 5 human rogue is meant to be as challenging to the player characters as a level 5 human wizard or a level 5 human cleric.

Read the rules again. CR is intended to be adjusted to match the actual threat level to the party. A level 20 wizard who only knows heightened prestidigitation and blew all of his gold on handy haversacks is not a CR 20 encounter. If you feel the rogue as written is little threat, adjust its CR to match using the guidelines.

That said, this is apples and oranges. The discussion was about the rogue as a player class, not a threat to the party. For another example of how CR and (equivalent) ally level are not equivalent, see monstrous cohorts.

And that said, it's still irrelevant. Don't play a rogue if you don't like it. If it's your game, buff the rogue. You complain and complain about something you already have the power to solve. Solve it.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
blahpers wrote:


Except, as mentioned, they are played, and many people like them, do not think they suck, and do not need them to be fixed.

And, as mentioned before, "I like and play this" is very different from "This is balanced".

blahpers wrote:
Besides, if nobody were playing it, what difference would it make whether they needed to be fixed? If commoner was a PC class, would people be posting thousand-post threads clamoring to "balance" it

YES.

Because if it's presented as a PC class that implies it is meant to be a balanced option that brings something to the table.

The Commoner does not. Neither does the Rogue.

Balance is not implied at all.
It is if you want to call yourself a good game designer.
Well-designed games do not require balance.
Well, at least that is you being honest. A shame the CRB is not honest.¿ then.

How so? Where does the CRB state that a rogue is balanced with other classes as a player class?

Ugh, never mind. Nobody is going to convince anyone here. Enjoy your Two Minutes Hate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Houseruling things does not solve the problem. It masks the problem.

It's akin to the Unofficial Patches for Elder Scrolls games.

Does it technically fix the problems? Yes.

Does it still reflect poorly on Bethesda that the community has to step in and do their job for them? Yeah, just a bit.


blahpers wrote:

How so? Where does the CRB state that a rogue is balanced with other classes as a player class?

Ugh, never mind. Nobody is going to convince anyone here. Enjoy your Two Minutes Hate.

So superior from your part.


blahpers wrote:


Well-designed games do not require balance.

Can you clarify this for me?

I am not sure what you are saying. It seems to me that you are saying that balance is inherent to well designed games, and if you design your game poorly, you have to do extra work on balance issues?


Rynjin wrote:

Houseruling things does not solve the problem. It masks the problem.

It's akin to the Unofficial Patches for Elder Scrolls games.

Does it technically fix the problems? Yes.

Does it still reflect poorly on Bethesda that the community has to step in and do their job for them? Yeah, just a bit.

Hey! You leave the elderscrolls games out of this.

Those games are nothing short than mana from dropped from heaven. I'm ashamed to admit that I ONLY have almost 300 hours on the most recent one.


You can literally run a Ranger with the Trapper and Battle Scout archetypes to get most of the "roguey" things in the game. Can't use social skills unless the PC takes a trait.

An Archaeologist bard can disable magical traps at 6th level, and play the "Gray Mouser" magical rogue better. He will also get rogue talents.

Rogues also get few big bonuses to the skills they use, while classes like cavaliers can get half their level to important social skills, inquisitors can get half their level to sense motive, intimidate, and with the right inquisitions, to the stealth skill.

Having 2 more skill ranks a level than other classes that are great at skills is not worth losing all combat power. Inquisitors, Rangers, Wizards, Oracles, Alchemists, Witches, and Cavaliers are all great at skills while still being useable in combat. Soon, we will have Slayers, Investigators and Swashbucklers to compete with the Rogue. And by compete I mean to finish lynching the Rogue.


Rynjin wrote:

Houseruling things does not solve the problem. It masks the problem.

It's akin to the Unofficial Patches for Elder Scrolls games.

Does it technically fix the problems? Yes.

Does it still reflect poorly on Bethesda that the community has to step in and do their job for them? Yeah, just a bit.

I agree with this in part. The difference though is that Bethesda admits that their content isn't going to be perfectly balanced they jus wanted to make a game that would be reasonably close and that people would buy. They smartly included the mod kit so that anyone that wasn't happy with the product they can make themselves happy with not too much effort.

Edit: and with a difficulty meter attached, anything is playable just change the meter.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Well-designed games do not require balance.

No, a well run game does not require balance (because the GM compensates). A well designed game generally does (since it should be done in such a way as to reduce the difficulty and necessity of such compensation).

It does depend somewhat on the nature of the game and how one defines 'balance'...but in a combat-focused game like D&D/Pathfinder being roughly equally handy in combat is an important aspect of that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We thread about Rogues because we love Rogues and want them to be better than what they are.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's funny that people say that rogue isn't a combat oriented class, but per the game rules, almost ANYONE can be a decent combatant. Remember, the point is not to be amazing; it's to be viable, and combat viability is an absurdly easy goal. It only requires one thing: Power Attack. If you take Power Attack, you can be combat viable: Period.

Now, can you make builds that are ideal combatants? Absolutely. Can you make builds that are ideal non-combatants? Sure. I think, however, most of us have forgotten something fundamental to play: creating a concept. If I want to play a non-magically oriented scoundrel, what's the best class for me to play? Ranger could work, but it has a lot of naturally-oriented abilities and favored enemy stuff which doesn't make sense with every concept... and that's really about it. The rogue does what it's supposed to do: be a non-magical skill-focused guy that helps out the group in interesting ways that don't have limits beyond basic necessities and his own natural skill.

Also, I'll leave this extra credits video here to add to the balance conversation. Perfect Imbalance


Simon Legrande wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
We thread about Rogues because we love Rogues and want them to be better than what they are.
No you don't. You want rogues to be something other than what rogues have always been. With all of the options that are provided in every "rogues suck" thread you would think people would leave off trying to make the rogue be something it isn't and settle on one of the other options.

I have to ask... do you come from a pre-3.0 D&D background? Because if that's the case, you might be confusing what a Rogue should be with what a Thief was.

A rogue should be a qualified and competent adventurer, able to stand abreast with Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers, Druids, Wizards, and Clerics.

He should be very good at what he chooses to pursue, whether that be sniping, backstabbing, swashbuckling, smuggling, scouting, dungeon delving, castle robbing, or anything else you can think of.

He should not be outdone by the Bard, or the Alchemist, or the Wizard, or the Ranger (who might be almost as useful as a Rogue inside the Ranger's Favored Terrain.)


Simon Legrande wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
We thread about Rogues because we love Rogues and want them to be better than what they are.
No you don't. You want rogues to be something other than what rogues have always been. With all of the options that are provided in every "rogues suck" thread you would think people would leave off trying to make the rogue be something it isn't and settle on one of the other options.

Ah yes, because sub-par skillmonkey or NPC is exactly what everyone wants from the mundane skill/speed class.

I wounder why people can't be satisfied with that?

It's not like people would want to play a rogue that was like Altair, Dr. Who, Sherlock Homes, Han Solo, James Bond, The Dread Pirate Roberts, Sinbad, or anything crazy like that. Obviously we all just want to shoehorn alchemist, bard, and ranger into those roles. Clearly no one complaining about rogues sees their thematic value and only hopes that one day the mechanics will reflect that to some degree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
N. Jolly wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Most Bards I run into, swap out Versatile Performance through the Arcane Duellist archetype.
Most (good) Rogue archetypes trade out trapfinding and you still find people clamoring that it's one of the Rogue's main niches.
A ranger and a bard have more skills, combat, and magic than a fighter and a rogue even if the bard is an arcane duelist.

I have discussed this topic at length and have had my fill of rogue vs. everyone else in threads like this. I'm not going through that song and dance routine again.

You don't like playing rogues.. I've got a radical idea... don't play them.

I've got an idea if you don't like rogue threads don't post in them or even read them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Davor wrote:
I think it's funny that people say that rogue isn't a combat oriented class, but per the game rules, almost ANYONE can be a decent combatant. Remember, the point is not to be amazing; it's to be viable, and combat viability is an absurdly easy goal. It only requires one thing: Power Attack. If you take Power Attack, you can be combat viable: Period.

3/4 BaB class with no way to boost to-hit dropping their already meager attack bonus with Power Attack does not instantly make them combat viable.

If you have a good attack bonus, Power Attack is a force multiplier.

Same if you have a poor attack bonus, but in this case the multiplier is x0, as in you won't hit jack.

Davor wrote:


Also, I'll leave this extra credits video here to add to the balance conversation. Perfect Imbalance

Extra Credits is often, bafflingly, plopped down as some end-all be-all discussion ender, and I have no idea why. Especially in the context of a game like this, which is as far from the minds of the creator as anything could be, and especially far from the topic in this particular video (which is mostly focused on multiplayer gaming).

I've seen this particular one before, and the issue with it is that "perfect imbalance" is not universally applicable.

"Perfect imbalance" is only really applicable to a competitive multiplayer game, like Halo or other FPSes, RTSes, and other such primarily competitive games.

The reason being that strategy ----> counter-strategy leads to very boring gameplay in a perfectly balanced game. Every now and then, you've got to let somebody get the Scorpion and wipe out the stalemate.

This is not the case for a largely cooperative game like Pathfinder, whose balance is based around the concept of "What do I bring to the GROUP? What role do I fill that another cannot?".

All options need to be roughly balanced with one another to avoid the answer being either "Nothing" or "Everything".

In a class based game, classes are balanced based on their roles. Each class needs to either have a unique role, to be just as effective as another class comparatively in a role, or fill multiple roles, sacrificing effectiveness in others to increase versatility.

Take the Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin. All 3 are very well balanced with one another. The Barbarian is the offensive beast of the three, able to dish out more damage more consistently than any other class, while also being able to take a licking and keep on ticking.

The Paladin, by contrast, also fills the combat role, but has a much more defensive bent to him, with great saves, a ton of immunities, and the ability to heal himself. He is the defensive master of the three classes, able to stay on his feet a lot longer by default than any of the other classes, even the Invulnerable Rager Barbarian. But neither is he offense devoid, he is as good at combat as any full BaB class, and can situationally, a limited number of times a day, increase his offensive output to match or even exceed the Barbarian.

The Ranger is the middle ground. He is as offensively strong as the Paladin normally, but against certain enemies his damage creeps ahead. Never quite matching the Barbarian in most cases, or the Paladin's bursts of high output, but not limited in his number of usages, so a well built one can often perform admirably. As well, he's not as defensively oriented as the paladin or even the Barbarian, but performs decently there as well.

What he lacks in some amount of combat capability, he makes up for in out of combat utility. He has more skills than any of the others, and is more capable of initiating a stealth attack than they are. In addition, in certain terrains he increases both his combat capability (less output, but able to go first and disrupt enemy attack patterns with the Favored Terrain Initiative boost), and use his Animal Companion or Hunter's Bond to support the party in some small way.

Each class has a different answer to the "What do I bring to the table that others don't?" question.

The Rogue, sadly, does not. His combat capability is poor, due to low BaB and to-hit, coupled with atrocious saves and low HP.

Which would be fine if he was the master of out of combat utility, but he's not. All he gains are skills. 8+Int of them, which is a large number, but not overwhemingly large enough to offset the advantages 6+Int classes have over him in other areas, and certainly not large enough to offset the fact that skills are underwhelming in general in most cases.

Compared to his peer classes (the Bard, Alchemist, and Inquisitor), he is lackluster, and this is an issue.

This is an imbalance, and not a "perfect" one by any means. There is no upside to the Rogue being imbalanced, so even if perfect imbalance was applicable to this game, it wouldn't be applicable to this scenario at all.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

I have to ask... do you come from a pre-3.0 D&D background? Because if that's the case, you might be confusing what a Rogue should be with what a Thief was.

A rogue should be a qualified and competent adventurer, able to stand abreast with Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers, Druids, Wizards, and Clerics.

He should be very good at what he chooses to pursue, whether that be sniping, backstabbing, swashbuckling, smuggling, scouting, dungeon delving, castle robbing, or anything else you can think of.

He should not be outdone by the Bard, or the Alchemist, or the Wizard, or the Ranger (who might be almost as useful as a Rogue inside the Ranger's Favored Terrain.)

Is a rogue built for scouting better than a bard that isn't?

Is a rogue built for castle robbing better than an alchemist that isn't?
Is a rogue built for smuggling better than a ranger that isn't?
Is a rogue built for dungeon delving better than a wizard that isn't?

I'm quite sure a fair number of people are so determined that the rogue is absolutely horrible to the point that the class should just be removed that they will answer "no" to all of those questions.

If you're going to refer to a class as a "trap" class, don't play it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
"I hate rogues and I won't be happy until everyone else hates rogues too."
A sstatement that can not be proved, not like your build that do sucks. Sorry dude, you can fight facs.

Can you point to where I posted a build that sucks please? I'd like to have a look at it. Thanks.

Marthkus wrote:

Ah yes, because sub-par skillmonkey or NPC is exactly what everyone wants from the mundane skill/speed class.

I wounder why people can't be satisfied with that?

It's not like people would want to play a rogue that was like Altair, Dr. Who, Sherlock Homes, Han Solo, James Bond, The Dread Pirate Roberts, Sinbad, or anything crazy like that. Obviously we all just want to shoehorn alchemist, bard, and ranger into those roles. Clearly no one complaining about rogues sees their thematic value and only hopes that one day the mechanics will reflect that to some degree.

So you've named a bunch of TV/movie/video game slightly roguish characters. What is it that those characters did that a rogue needs to be able to do absolutely better than anyone else?

What was Dr Who without his omni-tool?
What made Sherlock Holmes a rogue?
What was Han Solo without the Millenium Falcon?
What was James Bond without Q?
What was the Dread Pirate Roberts without his mask? Awesome
What was Sinbad without his ship and crew? Still Awesome

I'll tell you what they all had in common, they were all the main character in a story.

And what is so wrong with wanting to be a main character? That's the point of a D&D party. EVERYONE can be the main character.

If the rogue can't be a main character then it's not the PC class it is suppose to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

I have to ask... do you come from a pre-3.0 D&D background? Because if that's the case, you might be confusing what a Rogue should be with what a Thief was.

A rogue should be a qualified and competent adventurer, able to stand abreast with Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers, Druids, Wizards, and Clerics.

He should be very good at what he chooses to pursue, whether that be sniping, backstabbing, swashbuckling, smuggling, scouting, dungeon delving, castle robbing, or anything else you can think of.

He should not be outdone by the Bard, or the Alchemist, or the Wizard, or the Ranger (who might be almost as useful as a Rogue inside the Ranger's Favored Terrain.)

Is a rogue built for scouting better than a bard that isn't?

Is a rogue built for castle robbing better than an alchemist that isn't?
Is a rogue built for smuggling better than a ranger that isn't?
Is a rogue built for dungeon delving better than a wizard that isn't?

While I would say the answer to most of those is no, that isn't even the question you should be asking. You should be asking whether or not a rogue built for those tasks is better than X class built for said task, in which case the answer is a resounding no for every item you list.

Quote:

I'm quite sure a fair number of people are so determined that the rogue is absolutely horrible to the point that the class should just be removed that they will answer "no" to all of those questions.

If you're going to refer to a class as a "trap" class, don't play it.

It's not that the class should be removed, its that it should be changed.

That's why rather than play the Rogue, I aggressively houserule it so my players can play Rogues without forcing me to do extra work as a GM to make sure they get their moment in the spotlight.

I just wish Rogues were more useful as-written.


Marthkus wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:

So you've named a bunch of TV/movie/video game slightly roguish characters. What is it that those characters did that a rogue needs to be able to do absolutely better than anyone else?

What was Dr Who without his omni-tool?
What made Sherlock Holmes a rogue?
What was Han Solo without the Millenium Falcon?
What was James Bond without Q?
What was the Dread Pirate Roberts without his mask? Awesome
What was Sinbad without his ship and crew? Still Awesome

I'll tell you what they all had in common, they were all the main character in a story.

And what is so wrong with wanting to be a main character? That's the point of a D&D party. EVERYONE can be the main character.

If the rogue can't be a main character then it's not the PC class it is suppose to be.

Why can't the rogue be the main character? If the GM is the story creator, why can't he make a story that makes the rogue awesome? In all of those stories you provided, the main character was "awesome" simply by the literary form of GM fiat. If it's good for the books why can't it be good for the game?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
If it's good for the books why can't it be good for the game?

Two different kinds of media. They have different fundamental qualities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

I have to ask... do you come from a pre-3.0 D&D background? Because if that's the case, you might be confusing what a Rogue should be with what a Thief was.

A rogue should be a qualified and competent adventurer, able to stand abreast with Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers, Druids, Wizards, and Clerics.

He should be very good at what he chooses to pursue, whether that be sniping, backstabbing, swashbuckling, smuggling, scouting, dungeon delving, castle robbing, or anything else you can think of.

He should not be outdone by the Bard, or the Alchemist, or the Wizard, or the Ranger (who might be almost as useful as a Rogue inside the Ranger's Favored Terrain.)

Is a rogue built for scouting better than a bard that isn't?

Is a rogue built for castle robbing better than an alchemist that isn't?
Is a rogue built for smuggling better than a ranger that isn't?
Is a rogue built for dungeon delving better than a wizard that isn't?

I'm quite sure a fair number of people are so determined that the rogue is absolutely horrible to the point that the class should just be removed that they will answer "no" to all of those questions.

If you're going to refer to a class as a "trap" class, don't play it.

Is it really so hard to grasp the fact that someone might actually want to play a rogue AND contribute to the party equally? When you are in a group and between the other 3-4 players you are 2nd or 3rd choice for every single scenario that is frustrating.

"OK, well, I guess we can let the rogue check for traps. I detect magic and detect for traps anyway."

"OK, well, I guess we can let the rogue use acrobatics to reach that switch on the ceiling. I get out my scroll of spider climb anyway."

"OK, well, I guess we can let the rogue scout ahead, but send the monk too because his wisdom doesn't suck and he's faster."

"OK, well, I guess we can let the rogue help in the fight, he he, thats teh cutes."

"OK, well, I guess we can let the rogue talk to the barkeep. But have the bard cast glibness on him."

Dude, it SUCKS to be that player. Yea, I want to play a rogue, but I don't want to feel like the system is raking me across the coals at every conceivable angle.


I noticed that few people are defending the Rogue's combat ability. Instead, they're arguing that the Rogue is the best skillmonkey.

Let's say for a moment that's true. Would that make it okay for them to be subpar in combat? Even the Rogue's staunchest defenders generally don't try to argue that Alchemists, Bards, Wizards, or Rangers suck outside of combat. If they can be good in and out of combat, why not the Rogue?

101 to 150 of 197 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / "So, the rogue is not a combat class." All Messageboards