| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This statement puzzles me. I would like to know what rogue talent really add a lot to out of combat.
What advanced rogue talent is (out of combat speaking) at the level of a high level spell (or extracts, or discoveries)?.
Then, how many rogue talents are dedicated to combat?
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
What the statement should say is, 'Without significant effort, the rogue shines primarily out of combat, and in combat fills a secondary role'.
Basically, regardless of what talents/advanced talents you take, the foundation of the rogue doesnt make for a primary combatant. Yes, there are lots of rogue talents related to combat. But that doesnt make them shine, because their fundamental math (bonus to hit, damage bonuses Armor class, and hit points) is not sufficient to be a primary combatant when compared to a fighter, paladin, or barbarian.
Its actually part of the problem, you look at all these things like sneak attack, and all these combat focused talents, archetypes and more, and think, this guy is really good at stabbing people. But when you actually examine the math, it doesnt line up.
A rogues best assets are his 8 skill points per level and his near universal class skill list. The rogue excells here. Those skills along with talents and class abilities that aid those skills allow the rogue to truly shine in situations where those skills are relavent, which for the most part is out of combat since it still lacks the fundamental numbers for in combat situations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's the skills really, and in the end it just is a poorly designed class, there are a couple out of combat rouge talents that are nice, like black market connections, but these are overshadowed by the abilities of other more viable class features of other more viable classes. In the end Paizo didn't really want anyone to play the rouge, and wanted to punish anyone who did, and that's why we ended up with what we did.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cue the complaints about the tone of the argument, anecdotes that "prove" the Rogue is fine, lamentation for the state of the boards, and accusations of being "rollplayers not roleplayers".
Who said it's not a combat class?
Who said it's not a combat class?
Well, it is basically ta main argument in every rogue thread.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
where a quote from that rogue thread spawns another rogue thread
where a quote from that rogue thread spawns another rogue thread
where a quote from that rogue thread spawns another rogue thread
where a quote from that rogue thread spawns another rogue thread
where a quote from that rogue thread spawns another rogue thread
and all work and no play makes jack a dull boy
It always surprises me how many people say that Rogues suck, or, on the other side of the coin that they are the greatest class of all time(though that's usually because they want to be a thief).
As Kolokotroni said, the Rogue is a skill class, quite possibly even more than the Bard.
I've seen players play their Rogue like a fighter and get torn to shreds, I've also seen a single Rogue single-handedly kill thirty elite guard at level 10. It really comes down to how well you know your class, your skills and your abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While we weren't playing a standard AP, so this is not being compared to any possible game, at least in our homebrew, we've run campaigns where every single player was a rogue (as part of a thieves guild). Spellcasters were only ally NPCs that weren't members of the party, rather people that could be accessed for help between encounters. The opponents weren't typical opponents for a standard adventure party, rather more urban and balanced for an all rogue party, but it played just fine.
I'm sure the standard mixed class parties that the players normally use would probably beat the rogue group more consistently, but all the players had fun.
If you have a specialized group of PCs with perhaps a suboptimal ability as complete adventuring party, if you build your opponents and stories balanced correctly, it still works.
We've also played entire parties as all clerics and all rangers for differing homebrew campaigns. I've never had a problem (as a GM) with any of them.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This statement puzzles me. I would like to know what rogue talent really add a lot to out of combat.
Out of combat talents?
Black Market Connections, Camouflage, Canny Observer, Charmer, Coax Information, Convincing Lie, Deft Palm, Esoteric Scholar, Expert Leaper, Face in the Crowd, False Friend, Fast Fingers, Fast Picks, Fast Stealth, Follow Clues, Guileful Polyglot, Hard to Fool, Hold Breath, Honeyed Words, Iron Guts, Last Ditch Effort, Ledge Walker...What advanced rogue talent is (out of combat speaking) at the level of a high level spell (or extracts, or discoveries)?.
Dispelling Attack, Feat, Improved Evasion, Redirect Attack, Slippery Mind...
Then, how many rogue talents are dedicated to combat?
Having talents dedicated to combat doesn't mean that the rogue is equal to a Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian in combat. These are generally viewed as combat classes.
The Rogue compensates for this by having a great breadth of utility outside of combat. Social, stealth, exploration, trap management...they have a huge portion of adventuring in which they specialize and are much better than the aforementioned combat classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having talents dedicated to combat doesn't mean that the rogue is equal to a Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian in combat. These are generally viewed as combat classes.The Rogue compensates for this by having a great breadth of utility outside of combat. Social, stealth, exploration, trap management...they have a huge portion of adventuring in which they specialize and are much better than the aforementioned combat classes.
Problem is, most skills are supplanted by spells beyond the low levels. Bards and Alchemists can potentially have more skill ranks than the Rogue (Bards have Versatile Performance, Alchemists are Int-focused), and spells on top of it.
This statement puzzles me. I would like to know what rogue talent really add a lot to out of combat.Out of combat talents?
Black Market Connections, Camouflage, Canny Observer, Charmer, Coax Information, Convincing Lie, Deft Palm, Esoteric Scholar, Expert Leaper, Face in the Crowd, False Friend, Fast Fingers, Fast Picks, Fast Stealth, Follow Clues, Guileful Polyglot, Hard to Fool, Hold Breath, Honeyed Words, Iron Guts, Last Ditch Effort, Ledge Walker...What advanced rogue talent is (out of combat speaking) at the level of a high level spell (or extracts, or discoveries)?.Dispelling Attack, Feat, Improved Evasion, Redirect Attack, Slippery Mind...
Then, how many rogue talents are dedicated to combat?Having talents dedicated to combat doesn't mean that the rogue is equal to a Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian in combat. These are generally viewed as combat classes.
The Rogue compensates for this by having a great breadth of utility outside of combat. Social, stealth, exploration, trap management...they have a huge portion of adventuring in which they specialize and are much better than the aforementioned combat classes.
1) note that I asked for out of combat advance talent and you give only combat only talents
2) How many of the listed out of combat talent are really worthy? Hold breath?
3) Now, what is the proportion in combat/out of combat talents?
The Rogue compensates for this by having a great breadth of utility outside of combat. Social, stealth, exploration, trap management...they have a huge portion of adventuring in which they specialize and are much better than the aforementioned combat classes.
What about rangers, inquisitors, alchemist, bards? Do the rogue have more out of combat than those classes?
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What the statement should say is, 'Without significant effort, the rogue shines primarily out of combat, and in combat fills a secondary role'.
Basically, regardless of what talents/advanced talents you take, the foundation of the rogue doesnt make for a primary combatant. Yes, there are lots of rogue talents related to combat. But that doesnt make them shine, because their fundamental math (bonus to hit, damage bonuses Armor class, and hit points) is not sufficient to be a primary combatant when compared to a fighter, paladin, or barbarian.
Its actually part of the problem, you look at all these things like sneak attack, and all these combat focused talents, archetypes and more, and think, this guy is really good at stabbing people. But when you actually examine the math, it doesnt line up.
A rogues best assets are his 8 skill points per level and his near universal class skill list. The rogue excells here. Those skills along with talents and class abilities that aid those skills allow the rogue to truly shine in situations where those skills are relavent, which for the most part is out of combat since it still lacks the fundamental numbers for in combat situations.
Word yo. The Rogue is a class that can definitely be fun to play, but the underlying architecture of the class is weird. It makes you think you've got a combat class, when you've really got non or pseudo magical skill monkey with a few cool combat tricks. He can do some cool damage, but all those d6's are misleading. He's got a terrible to hit, sneak attack is largely situational, and even when it does connect it's only worth 35 extra damage on average. If you look at another situational ability that's likely to trigger about as often, like the Cavalier's charge, you can blow that extra damage out of the water. A charging Cavalier's challenge at the levels where the Rogue gets 10d6 sneak attack can account for over 100 extra damage in a single hit, and that hit is going to have a way higher chance to connect than the Rogue's absolute best attack.
The Rogue looks like he's mean in combat. Anecdotally, he can be very mean, because even in a campaign where he performed under par the entire time, the moments people are going to remember are those highlight reels, like that one time he got a TWF full attack in on that flat-footed antipaladin and hit him for 5 sneak attacks. It makes it easier to forget the fact that the same guy has missed literally 60% of his totall attacks taken during the course fo the game when it feels like he came in as the pinch hitter in that crucial moment (even if he wasn't there a few other times when it mattered).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is, most skills are supplanted by spells beyond the low levels. Bards and Alchemists can potentially have more skill ranks than the Rogue (Bards have Versatile Performance, Alchemists are Int-focused), and spells on top of it.
Being able to memorize Knock once or twice a day does not entirely replace a rogue's skill in disabling devices. Hey genius wizard, what if the dungeon has more than two or three locked doors? And, because people seem to forget: Knock still requires a roll to see if it works. If not, you just blew a second level spell that could have saved your ass in battle, but I guess that doesn't matter because you didn't make it through the door anyway.
Having invisibility, even as a spontaneous spell, still can only be used for a certain amount of time. So you went invisible and got a great attack off against an unwitting guard. What are you going to use to get the jump on the next guard? And the one after that?
Just because your caster knows Disguise Self doesn't mean he has all of the other skills required to really pull off a convincing long-term alternate identity.
The point here is: Rogues can do this kind of thing all day, every day. The dungeon has twenty locked doors? No problem. The castle has a sniper in each of a dozen towers? Child's play. Someone needs to hide under the bridge all day and wait for the villain's caravan to pass? The rogue's got this.
And to those people who insist that an Int-based wizard, alchemist, magus, or whatever could end up with more skill points than a rogue, why do you always assume that the rogue has average intelligence? If you're comparing skill monkey characters, wouldn't it be safe to assume a skill-based rogue is going to opt for a high intelligence as well?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is, most skills are supplanted by spells beyond the low levels. Bards and Alchemists can potentially have more skill ranks than the Rogue (Bards have Versatile Performance, Alchemists are Int-focused), and spells on top of it.Being able to memorize Knock once or twice a day does not entirely replace a rogue's skill in disabling devices. Hey genius wizard, what if the dungeon has more than two or three locked doors? And, because people seem to forget: Knock still requires a roll to see if it works. If not, you just blew a second level spell that could have saved your ass in battle, but I guess that doesn't matter because you didn't make it through the door anyway.
Having invisibility, even as a spontaneous spell, still can only be used for a certain amount of time. So you went invisible and got a great attack off against an unwitting guard. What are you going to use to get the jump on the next guard? And the one after that?
Just because your caster knows Disguise Self doesn't mean he has all of the other skills required to really pull off a convincing long-term alternate identity.
The point here is: Rogues can do this kind of thing all day, every day. The dungeon has twenty locked doors? No problem. The castle has a sniper in each of a dozen towers? Child's play. Someone needs to hide under the bridge all day and wait for the villain's caravan to pass? The rogue's got this.
Bards.
This statement puzzles me. I would like to know what rogue talent really add a lot to out of combat.Out of combat talents?
Black Market Connections, Camouflage, Canny Observer, Charmer, Coax Information, Convincing Lie, Deft Palm, Esoteric Scholar, Expert Leaper, Face in the Crowd, False Friend, Fast Fingers, Fast Picks, Fast Stealth, Follow Clues, Guileful Polyglot, Hard to Fool, Hold Breath, Honeyed Words, Iron Guts, Last Ditch Effort, Ledge Walker...What advanced rogue talent is (out of combat speaking) at the level of a high level spell (or extracts, or discoveries)?.Dispelling Attack, Feat, Improved Evasion, Redirect Attack, Slippery Mind...
Then, how many rogue talents are dedicated to combat?Having talents dedicated to combat doesn't mean that the rogue is equal to a Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian in combat. These are generally viewed as combat classes.
The Rogue compensates for this by having a great breadth of utility outside of combat. Social, stealth, exploration, trap management...they have a huge portion of adventuring in which they specialize and are much better than the aforementioned combat classes.
1) note that I asked for out of combat advance talent and you give only combat only talents
2) How many of the listed out of combat talent are really worthy? Hold breath?
3) Now, what is the proportion in combat/out of combat talents?
First you asked for talents. Then you asked for advanced talents. This is why I listed both talents and advance talents.
The presence of combat talents doesn't make the rogue on par with the combat classes, no matter how many of them there are.
As I said it is the out-of-combat utility that makes the rogue shine in that arena. And it is why it is viewed as a great class for many non-combat situations.
This statement puzzles me. I would like to know what rogue talent really add a lot to out of combat.Out of combat talents?
Black Market Connections, Camouflage, Canny Observer, Charmer, Coax Information, Convincing Lie, Deft Palm, Esoteric Scholar, Expert Leaper, Face in the Crowd, False Friend, Fast Fingers, Fast Picks, Fast Stealth, Follow Clues, Guileful Polyglot, Hard to Fool, Hold Breath, Honeyed Words, Iron Guts, Last Ditch Effort, Ledge Walker...What advanced rogue talent is (out of combat speaking) at the level of a high level spell (or extracts, or discoveries)?.Dispelling Attack, Feat, Improved Evasion, Redirect Attack, Slippery Mind...
Then, how many rogue talents are dedicated to combat?Having talents dedicated to combat doesn't mean that the rogue is equal to a Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian in combat. These are generally viewed as combat classes.
The Rogue compensates for this by having a great breadth of utility outside of combat. Social, stealth, exploration, trap management...they have a huge portion of adventuring in which they specialize and are much better than the aforementioned combat classes.
1) note that I asked for out of combat advance talent and you give only combat only talents
2) How many of the listed out of combat talent are really worthy? Hold breath?
3) Now, what is the proportion in combat/out of combat talents?
First you asked for talents. Then you asked for advanced talents. This is why I listed both talents and advance talents.
The presence of combat talents doesn't make the rogue on par with the combat classes, no matter how many of them there are.
As I said it is the out-of-combat utility that makes the rogue shine in that arena. And it is why it is viewed as a great class for many non-combat situations.
I said
What advanced rogue talent is (out of combat speaking) at the level of a high level spell (or extracts, or discoveries)?.
Wich no example have been given so far (I think).
I know that the combat talent doe snot put him on part with other classes, this is why I am asking what rogue feature give him the edge otu of combat. We know the rogue have 8 skill, he have trapfinding, so I am asking about out of combat talents.
What of the out of combat talents give more than the spell of the bard or inquisitor? what give more than thediscoveries and extract of the alchemist?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being able to memorize Knock once or twice a day does not entirely replace a rogue's skill in disabling devices. Hey genius wizard, what if the dungeon has more than two or three locked doors? And, because people seem to forget: Knock still requires a roll to see if it works. If not, you just blew a second level spell that could have saved your ass in battle, but I guess that doesn't matter because you didn't make it through the door anyway.
Who says they're doing it with Knock? Knock works, but most of these classes have the ability to pump just as many ranks into disable device, AND have Knock as well. Or you just bust down the door since it's a door and adamantine weapons exist. Doors are not a suitable role for a Rogue, nor is their handling.
Having invisibility, even as a spontaneous spell, still can only be used for a certain amount of time. So you went invisible and got a great attack off against an unwitting guard. What are you going to use to get the jump on the next guard? And the one after that?
Again, not hard for a Bard to have Invisibility AND a rocking stealth score. Bard gets a bad roll, they can invis out while a Rogue wonders if their will was too ambiguously worded. Same for any of the other listed classes.
Just because your caster knows Disguise Self doesn't mean he has all of the other skills required to really pull off a convincing long-term alternate identity.
Not sure what other skills you're talking about, since your Disguise skill only affects the appearance. Knowledges might help fake your way past too, but most of these classes are pretty knowledge heavy.
The point here is: Rogues can do this kind of thing all day, every day. The dungeon has twenty locked doors? No problem. The castle has a sniper in each of a dozen towers? Child's play. Someone needs to hide under the bridge all day and wait for the villain's caravan to pass? The rogue's got this.
And to those people who insist that an Int-based wizard, alchemist, magus, or whatever could end up with more skill points than a rogue, why do you always assume that the rogue has average intelligence? If you're comparing skill monkey characters, wouldn't it be safe to assume a skill-based rogue is going to opt for a high intelligence as well?
I've never been in a dungeon with 20 locked doors. That would get boring and fast. That's a terrible niche to have, and an even worse one to protect. Doing something all day is overrated, especially in a game like this. I can't think of many things I WOULD want to do all day (crafting aside), so having no resource to burn out of isn't a strength, it's a weakness.
And as for the Intelligence argument, most Rogues are MAD as hell when you look at what people expect of them. Str at least decent so they don't take damage penalties/can carry things, Dex is iconic, Con so they don't die to a stiff wind, Wis to make up for their terrible Will save, and Cha so they can manage the tons of social skills they're supposed to have. Where do you fit Int into that build without a 30 point buy?
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about rangers, inquisitors, alchemist, bards? Do the rogue have more out of combat than those classes?
The Rogue compensates for this by having a great breadth of utility outside of combat. Social, stealth, exploration, trap management...they have a huge portion of adventuring in which they specialize and are much better than the aforementioned combat classes.
Not really more than the Bard, no, though he does have a little more fine control over where he invests his resources (the Bard's mastery of Knowledge skills really closes any gap between their skill points per level). The fact that there are Bard archetypes with Trapfinding is kind of a slap in the face to the Rogue though. Rangers and Inquisitors are very situational; they have equal out of combat utility to the Rogue, but only in very focused areas. The Alchemist.... it depends. The Alchemist's OOCU is magically enhanced, which introduces a lot of variables. The Alchemist can be as good a skill monkey as the Rogue, even better, but it relies more on system mastery.
To the point though, every one of those classes has way more backing them in combat than the Rogue.
The Bard gets combat buff spells like Allegro or Haste, and kick-ass bard songs like Inspire Courage and Inspire Greatness, his to-hit scales way higher than the Rogues, and more reliable extra attacks often negates any advantage Sneak Attack might bring to the table.
The Ranger gets 5 more points of BAB, backs it with his Favored Enemy ability and Combat Styles, and gets a spell list that includes abilities like Gravity Bow and Lead Blades to boost his damage per hit, leaving the Rogue way behind. He also has better defenses.
The Alchemist gets mutagens and infusions, allowing him to boost his attack and damage capabilities, can target touch AC at range with his bombs, and deal splash damage. Again, he destroys the Rogue's combat capabilities.
The Inquisitor gets better proficiencies, swift action Judgements that can boost his attack/damage/AC as needed, divine spells which can further buff his combat capabilities, Bane, and Domains/Inquisitions. Oh, and he can potentially stack on additional bonuses through his Teamwork feats that work without additional party investment. So again, no contest in what an Inquisitor can do in combat vs. a Rogue.
I've always found that examining play goes a lot further than examining math. Filling in for a PFS scenario, I cranked out Merisel 4th level. She was fun and effective to play. And she held her own quite nicely.
Its actually part of the problem, you look at all these things like sneak attack, and all these combat focused talents, archetypes and more, and think, this guy is really good at stabbing people. But when you actually examine the math, it doesnt line up.
Fun and effective are subjective factors. I would never someone could not have fun as a rogue, or meaningfully contribute to combat. Obviously that is false. I've seen it with my own eyes at my own table.
That is different from saying it is a combat class (at least to me). What combat class is to me, is someone who truly shines in combat. Someone who stands out in an average party in the heat of battle. If you compare the rogue to a raging barbarian, a charaging cavalier, the smiting paladin(combat classes)...the rogue isnt going to shine if similar amounts of effort and resources are put into each character.
Where the rogue shines is when he is using his skills. Neaking, disabling things, finding things out, scouting, the rogue is really good at these things, and unless theres also an archeologist bard in the party or something, will shine in those moments more then any other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I said
What advanced rogue talent is (out of combat speaking) at the level of a high level spell (or extracts, or discoveries)?.
Wich no example have been given so far (I think).
I know that the combat talent doe snot put him on part with other classes, this is why I am asking what rogue feature give him the edge otu of combat. We know the rogue have 8 skill, he have trapfinding, so I am asking about out of combat talents.
What of the out of combat talents give more than the spell of the bard or inquisitor? what give more than thediscoveries and extract of the alchemist?
This isnt the same as your original questions. The issue you are highlighting is the inherent inbalance between magic and not magic. Magic is almost always hands down better then not magic. Spells and supernatural abilities (like the some of the alchemists discoveries) are better then skills. Period, end of story. That doesnt mean the rogue isnt an out of combat class, it just means spells and magic are better then not spells and magic.
This statement puzzles me. I would like to know what rogue talent really add a lot to out of combat.Out of combat talents?
Black Market Connections, Camouflage, Canny Observer, Charmer, Coax Information, Convincing Lie, Deft Palm, Esoteric Scholar, Expert Leaper, Face in the Crowd, False Friend, Fast Fingers, Fast Picks, Fast Stealth, Follow Clues, Guileful Polyglot, Hard to Fool, Hold Breath, Honeyed Words, Iron Guts, Last Ditch Effort, Ledge Walker...What advanced rogue talent is (out of combat speaking) at the level of a high level spell (or extracts, or discoveries)?.Dispelling Attack, Feat, Improved Evasion, Redirect Attack, Slippery Mind...
Then, how many rogue talents are dedicated to combat?Having talents dedicated to combat doesn't mean that the rogue is equal to a Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian in combat. These are generally viewed as combat classes.
The Rogue compensates for this by having a great breadth of utility outside of combat. Social, stealth, exploration, trap management...they have a huge portion of adventuring in which they specialize and are much better than the aforementioned combat classes.
1) note that I asked for out of combat advance talent and you give only combat only talents
2) How many of the listed out of combat talent are really worthy? Hold breath?
3) Now, what is the proportion in combat/out of combat talents?
First you asked for talents. Then you asked for advanced talents. This is why I listed both talents and advance talents.
The presence of combat talents doesn't make the rogue on par with the combat classes, no matter how many of them there are.
As I said it is the out-of-combat utility that makes the rogue shine in that arena. And it is why it is viewed as a great class for many non-combat situations.
I said
What advanced rogue talent is...
I quoted what you said.
"This statement puzzles me. I would like to know what rogue talent really add a lot to out of combat."
And I answered it. This statement said nothing about advanced talents or spells.
None of which changes the fact that the Rogue talents keep them from being specialists in out-of-combat situations.
If you are still puzzled by the statement "the Rogue is not a combat class" then I'm not sure how you can be helped.
Being able to memorize Knock once or twice a day does not entirely replace a rogue's skill in disabling devices.
Taking a trait to make disable device a class skill does.
Hey genius wizard, what if the dungeon has more than two or three locked doors? And, because people seem to forget: Knock still requires a roll to see if it works. If not, you just blew a second level spell that could have saved your ass in battle, but I guess that doesn't matter because you didn't make it through the door anyway.
Thats what dwarven lockpicks are for.
What are you going to use to get the jump on the next guard? And the one after that?
The stealth skill with a sleep spell in the surprise round.
Just because your caster knows Disguise Self doesn't mean he has all of the other skills required to really pull off a convincing long-term alternate identity.
And what is the rest of the table doing while you're setting up shop as orc number 46?
The point here is: Rogues can do this kind of thing all day, every day. The dungeon has twenty locked doors? No problem. The castle has a sniper in each of a dozen towers? Child's play. Someone needs to hide under the bridge all day and wait for the villain's caravan to pass? The rogue's got this.
And so does anyone else that wants the skill.
You're thinking in the last edition. (or the one before that). The rogue is note remotely unique or even GOOD at what you're listing.And to those people who insist that an Int-based wizard, alchemist, magus, or whatever could end up with more skill points than a rogue, why do you always assume that the rogue has average intelligence? If you're comparing skill monkey characters, wouldn't it be safe to assume a skill-based rogue is going to opt for a high intelligence as well?
You cannot get close to what a bard can.
There is little need to put all of the skills on the same character.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I guess the question here is if the Rogue isn't a combat class, is there any other class that isn't a combat class?
Barbarian: Freaking duh
Bard: Easily shines in combat
Cleric: Not hard to shine in combat
Druid: And comes with a friend to shine too
Fighter: Here and literally nowhere else do you shine
Monk: Got a contender in the 'non combat class'
Paladin: They shine, and how!
Ranger: For that natural shine
Sorcerer: When doesn't magic shine?
Wizard: And with skill points too!
That's just core, or should we check the others for other 'non combat classes' in this system?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're not even done with the last anti-rogue thread yet...
It's like a self-perpetuating reaction, man. If someone figured out how to harness it they could power a small city!
|
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I guess the question here is if the Rogue isn't a combat class, is there any other class that isn't a combat class?
Barbarian: Freaking duh
Bard: Easily shines in combat
Cleric: Not hard to shine in combat
Druid: And comes with a friend to shine too
Fighter: Here and literally nowhere else do you shine
Monk: Got a contender in the 'non combat class'
Paladin: They shine, and how!
Ranger: For that natural shine
Sorcerer: When doesn't magic shine?
Wizard: And with skill points too!That's just core, or should we check the others for other 'non combat classes' in this system?
Well, there's the, uh, the Aristocrat, and uhm, the Commoner...
Pretty sure I've seen a couple non-combat prestige classes...
...
Hey, everyone's always saying the Rogue doesn't have a niche, right? I think the only non-combat PC class in the game deserves an apology.
Probably got an issue here with everyone having different definitions for what constitutes "combat class" and "not a combat class".
There exists a definition of "not a combat class" where the Rogue qualifies to fit within it. People who abide by this definition are correct when they say (as in the title and OP) "So, the rogue is not a combat class".
If you have a different definition for what this means you will, of course, disagree. But surely we are all intelligent enough to not be puzzled by the statement, even if we disagree with it.
Problem is, most skills are supplanted by spells beyond the low levels. Bards and Alchemists can potentially have more skill ranks than the Rogue (Bards have Versatile Performance, Alchemists are Int-focused), and spells on top of it.
While that CAN be true, the smart caster lets the Rogue do his thing and saves his spells for everything else. Why waste a spell per day (a limite resrouces) when the rogue can do it at will?
Rogue are not primary combatants but played smart they are deadly support fire.
At least in the games I have played.
If your looking to be the solo melee death machine, don't play a rogue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here we go again.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogue isn't a reliable combat class, given.
And for 4 levels or so (1st-4th), they're hands-down the best out-of-combat class.
What I quibble with is why the class is only 4 levels long, though.
I quoted what you said.
"This statement puzzles me. I would like to know what rogue talent really add a lot to out of combat."
And I answered it. This statement said nothing about advanced talents or spells.
None of which changes the fact that the Rogue talents keep them from being specialists in out-of-combat situations.
If you are still puzzled by the statement "the Rogue is not a combat class" then I'm not sure how you can be helped.
What I am getting is that rogeus are intended as a non combat class (weird taking into account, sneak attack, evasion, uncanny dodge and the lots of rogue talents dedicated to combat.
Fine, but they are supposed to really shine in out of combat, and that is the part I am not seeing. Sure, you have 2 kill points above the bard, a shame the bard have versatile performance and a big bonus in all knowledged skills. To bad the bard have spells to help his skills. To bad you have to take UMD to use the magic the bard can use for free.
Where is the rogue really, really shining out of combat above everyone else?
because the bard totally have not sacrifice in combat utility for his out of combat utility?
You give a list of out of combat rogue talents, that is a good start. Now, what of those out of combat rogue talent are really worth to sacrifice in combat prowes? wich of those is better than what the other classes get?
========
By the way, do not that in the OP I did ask for out of combat advanced rogue talents.
Most players that play rogues tend to really like the flavor of rogue and their specific niche at least in literary works and movies. They like the concept and the roleplaying opportunities. Most likely they'd prefer a rogue to be more optimal in the game, but for all intents and purposes they don't care if its a suboptimal choice - its what they want to play.
Unless a GM is relegated to a published module with a general expectation of optimization in order to survive the mission - for most homebrewed games, the balance of the opposition may be skewed towards being slightly under powered, and a doable campaign still works fine. It takes some tweaking by the GM, but its not an impossible task.
I'd rather play a game where all the players strengths and weaknesses are accounted for in design of encounters and opposition. I generally avoid scenarios with an expectation of optimized PCs as the only way to survive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.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.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.
Not playing them doesn't make them suck any less.
It just makes them not played, so people don't see how badly they suck, and the issues never get fixed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At least it has company with Fighter's 5 levels?Rogue isn't a reliable combat class, given.
And for 4 levels or so (1st-4th), they're hands-down the best out-of-combat class.
What I quibble with is why the class is only 4 levels long, though.
I'm rolling a fighter/rogue just to spite you both.
|
Design Manager
|
I'm rolling a fighter/rogue just to spite you both.At least it has company with Fighter's 5 levels?Rogue isn't a reliable combat class, given.
And for 4 levels or so (1st-4th), they're hands-down the best out-of-combat class.
What I quibble with is why the class is only 4 levels long, though.
Except it's hard to spite someone with a multi-class combo that somehow turns the two ineffective base classes into a well rounded character. It kind of backs the assertion we always see in these threads that Rogue + Fighter = valid class.