Thoughts on Rogues


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 512 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Avh wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

Sorry, but it is specificly noted that you can't take 10 on UMD. Again, can not.

Skill Mastery does not let you take 10 in the selected skills. What Skill Mastery does is letting you take 10 in the selected skills if you otherwise could not because of stress and distractions that would normally prevent her from doing so.

UMD
Skill Mastery

Skill Mastery wrote:
The rogue becomes so confident in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions. Upon gaining this ability, she selects a number of skills equal to 3 + her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so.
The distraction part is a totally separate thing. It tells you to select a number of skills equal to 3 + Int mod. It says nothing about you may only select skills that allow you to take 10.
And it doesn't allow you do take 10 to skills that doesn't allow the "take 10" neither.

Aye, it needs to specifically include giving you the ability to take 10 with ones that don't in some manner. If it only lets you take them while under stress then it does nothing for UMD because it specifically doesn't allow taking 10.


Rub-Eta wrote:

Sorry, but it is specificly noted that you can't take 10 on UMD. Again, can not.

Skill Mastery does not let you take 10 in the selected skills. What Skill Mastery does is letting you take 10 in the selected skills if you otherwise could not because of stress and distractions that would normally prevent her from doing so.

UMD
Skill Mastery

Skill Mastery wrote:
The rogue becomes so confident in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions. Upon gaining this ability, she selects a number of skills equal to 3 + her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so.

"even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so"= flavor text.


DrDeth wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

Sorry, but it is specificly noted that you can't take 10 on UMD. Again, can not.

Skill Mastery does not let you take 10 in the selected skills. What Skill Mastery does is letting you take 10 in the selected skills if you otherwise could not because of stress and distractions that would normally prevent her from doing so.

UMD
Skill Mastery

Skill Mastery wrote:
The rogue becomes so confident in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions. Upon gaining this ability, she selects a number of skills equal to 3 + her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so.
"even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so"= flavor text.

Nope, it's not. Because it is the rule that forbid taking 10. Skill mastery allows you to bypass the rule about stress and distractions.

It doesn't allow you to take 10 with a skill that doesn't allow take 10.


DrDeth wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

Sorry, but it is specificly noted that you can't take 10 on UMD. Again, can not.

Skill Mastery does not let you take 10 in the selected skills. What Skill Mastery does is letting you take 10 in the selected skills if you otherwise could not because of stress and distractions that would normally prevent her from doing so.

UMD
Skill Mastery

Skill Mastery wrote:
The rogue becomes so confident in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions. Upon gaining this ability, she selects a number of skills equal to 3 + her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so.
"even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so"= flavor text.

Not true. That is a rule. Without that part of the line you couldn't take 10 on skills while there are stress or distractions.

Skill mastery only let's you take 10. That part of the sentence actually overrides the general rules. Without it, the only point of the ability would be to take 10 on UMD in non-stressful, non-distracting situations.


Avh wrote:
It doesn't allow you to take 10 with a skill that doesn't allow take 10.

Once again. False.

Misreading "even if" as "if and only if" does not make you correct.


MrSin wrote:
Aye, it needs to specifically include giving you the ability to take 10 with ones that don't in some manner. If it only lets you take them while under stress then it does nothing for UMD because it specifically doesn't allow taking 10.

"even if" != "if and only if"


Marthkus wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Aye, it needs to specifically include giving you the ability to take 10 with ones that don't in some manner. If it only lets you take them while under stress then it does nothing for UMD because it specifically doesn't allow taking 10.
"even if" != "if and only if"

Doesn't matter. The whole statement is that it allows you to use a skill even if under stress or distraction, the one time you can't take 10 normally with most skills. It doesn't say you may take 10 with those skills under any situation or even if you couldn't otherwise. It gives a specific exclusion in which you can take 10. That exclusion is not 'even if you could normally not' its 'even if under stress'. It also has no ',' separating the clause, but that's probably being pedantic.


There are certain conditions that must be meet for someone to take 10 in. You must be able to take 10 in that skill and you must not be in stess or destraction. Skill Mastery lets you do it despit being stressed or distrected.

Skill Mastery wrote:
The rogue becomes so confident in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions. Upon gaining this ability, she selects a number of skills equal to 3 + her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so.

There is NOTHING that says that Skill Mastery allows the rogue to take 10 in skill where it's normaly not allowed to take 10.

If that was the case, it would say: She may always take 10 in the selected skills, even if it normaly is not allowed or if stress and distractions would prevent her from doing so.


Indeed, I'd say otherwise they'd use the bard wording

Jack of all Trades wrote:

Jack of All Trades (Ex)

At 10th level, the bard can use any skill, even if the skill normally requires him to be trained. At 16th level, the bard considers all skills to be class skills. At 19th level, the bard can take 10 on any skill check, even if it is not normally allowed.

Not even remotely the same as skill mastery, instead of specifying the situation of stress and distraction it outright states unless it is not normally allowed. Clearly this cannot be an issue of different wordings coming from different books with different time frames. They're both core abilities.

They gave them different wordings because they do different things, and jack of all trades is clearly broader.

Liberty's Edge

Still waiting on someone to post a Rogue build they don't think can be made better by making it another class...

And on UMD: Even assuming Skill Mastery is needed and useful, Archaeologist Bards can get that at 12th level...so yeah, that still doesn't help the Rogue a lot.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Still waiting on someone to post a Rogue build they don't think can be made better by making it another class...

Wont solve anything. Say I post a Rogue who is great at traps, so you then post a Archaeologist Bard, and then simply state that "spells are better than sneak attack".

That's pure opinion.

I can make a Sorc or oracle that are better than many Wizard or Cleric builds- does that mean those classes are obsolete?


DrDeth wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Still waiting on someone to post a Rogue build they don't think can be made better by making it another class...

Wont solve anything. Say I post a Rogue who is great at traps, so you then post a Archaeologist Bard, and then simply state that "spells are better than sneak attack".

That's pure opinion.

I can make a Sorc or oracle that are better than many Wizard or Cleric builds- does that mean those classes are obsolete?

No, spells> sneak attack is not pure opinion. The amount of application they have, the amount of damage or control, and the ease with which they can be used makes it flat out, hands down, no questions asked better.

And yes, I was just redundant twice over, if only to express how blatant that argument was. It would be like arguing Power attack was the equivalent of 6 spell levels. Not on your life.


DrDeth wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

Sorry, but it is specificly noted that you can't take 10 on UMD. Again, can not.

Skill Mastery does not let you take 10 in the selected skills. What Skill Mastery does is letting you take 10 in the selected skills if you otherwise could not because of stress and distractions that would normally prevent her from doing so.

UMD
Skill Mastery

Skill Mastery wrote:
The rogue becomes so confident in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions. Upon gaining this ability, she selects a number of skills equal to 3 + her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so.
"even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so"= flavor text.

Sorry but this is incredibly hipocrite for someone that was arguing the importance of flavor text some pages ago. And it is not flavor text.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Still waiting on someone to post a Rogue build they don't think can be made better by making it another class...

I would have to say that it's impossible to do IF you count the ninja as a separate class. I don't see how a rogue could be better. The ninja tricks are supperior to the rogue talants and more avalable to a ninja than to a rogue (Ki-Pool issue).

If not, I'll look into making a build that will give a rogue as much juice as possible. It won't be supperior in any area but probably "above avarage" in a few different. Hopefully enough for it to be on par with adequate built characters, without using too much min-maxing. But again, a ninja would be better. I'll be done in a few years


BEsides, Even with 10 in UMD skill mastery reamins just a decent option . It is not a great option and certainly taking it twice before level 19 is not a strong option. As a DM I would allow taking 10 for UMD for rogues, and they still will be below the others.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:

I think the point of it being so good is that a natural 1 on UMD means you can't attempt with items like wands for 24 hours now.

Hmm, after checking it would seem that one must both roll a natural 1 and fail to activate the device. If we are talking about +19 on UMD versus a DC 20 wand then that isn't really a problem since a roll of 1 succeeds.


Nicos wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


"even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so"= flavor text.
Sorry but this is incredibly hipocrite for someone that was arguing the importance of flavor text some pages ago. And it is not flavor text.

Exactly my point, thank you. I quoted rules, they were dismissed as 'flavor text". Nowhere does the RAW state what is and is not 'flavor text" and whether or not it can be dismissed.

So, if other posters can dismiss entire paragraphs as 'flavor text", I can dismiss a few words.


Rub-Eta wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Still waiting on someone to post a Rogue build they don't think can be made better by making it another class...

I would have to say that it's impossible to do IF you count the ninja as a separate class. I don't see how a rogue could be better. The ninja tricks are supperior to the rogue talants and more avalable to a ninja than to a rogue (Ki-Pool issue).

For combat, yes, there a number of rogue archetypes which are superior- thug, sap-master, scout and ninja. The ninja is definitely a rogue archetype (JJ has positively stated so, FYI). But of course when the rogue haters are comparing the rogue to other classes, they feel free to compare it to say the archeogist while ignoring some of the better rogue archetypes.

The ninja is very cool, and is a rogue.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Still waiting on someone to post a Rogue build they don't think can be made better by making it another class...

At the end of the day, that´s a non-point.

What class and build is good and able to be worth it´s weight depends too much on the enviroment it is played in and the level of teamwork of the players.

The less control the players have on how their adventuring day(s) will work out, how many encounters, if and when to rest an regain ressources, the more the game does change and a class like the rogue, who only has one ressource to manage, hp, can shine whilst other classes simply have to conserve their ressources for when they count the most.

Webstore Gninja Minion

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Locking thread while I do some cleanup.
Edit: Unlocking thread—many posts and their replies removed. Telling other posters that their experiences and opinions are wrong is not the way to have discussions on our messageboards, nor are "popcorn" posts, nor are posts insulting other members of the forums. Healthy discussion and critique is good—we want that! But making it personal and about the other poster is not the way to do it.


As for my contribution to the "Can you Skill Mastery UMD?"

An argument can be made for both interpretations and it is probably decidedly unclear which it is.


Q/ can you skill mastery UMD?

A/ It doe snot matter, rogues are still subpar.

Liberty's Edge

DrDeth wrote:

Wont solve anything. Say I post a Rogue who is great at traps, so you then post a Archaeologist Bard, and then simply state that "spells are better than sneak attack".

That's pure opinion.

I can back it up with math (aka: better DPR, higher ranks in skills, etc.)

Math isn't generally opinion based. ;)

DrDeth wrote:
I can make a Sorc or oracle that are better than many Wizard or Cleric builds- does that mean those classes are obsolete?

No. But you can't make the offer I did where you say "Make me any Wizard build, I'll build a Sorcerer that does what they do only better."

That's what makes the class effectively obsolete, not one or two individual builds.

Rub-Eta wrote:

I would have to say that it's impossible to do IF you count the ninja as a separate class. I don't see how a rogue could be better. The ninja tricks are supperior to the rogue talants and more avalable to a ninja than to a rogue (Ki-Pool issue).

If not, I'll look into making a build that will give a rogue as much juice as possible. It won't be supperior in any area but probably "above avarage" in a few different. Hopefully enough for it to be on par with adequate built characters, without using too much min-maxing. But again, a ninja would be better. I'll be done in a few years

To be clear, I wouldn't use Ninja to 'make a better Rogue'...but don't promise I could make a better build than any Ninja ever. Ninjas are much better than pure Rogues are, and have a few tricks other people can't readily match. They're still not the strongest class ever by any means, but they're loads better.

Honestly, my House Ruled Rogue Fix is basically making the Ninja Trick and Rogue Talent lists transparent, letting Rogues get a full Ki Pool as a basic Talent and letting Ninjas get Evasion as a basic Trick.

And while they are technically a Rogue archetype, they change the class on a profound level (a good equivalent is the Stonelord Paladin) and saying Rogues are good because Ninjas are is like saying Paladins are good because they get the Defensive Stance power. It's true...but only for the archetype in question, not the Class as a whole (now, Paladins are legitimately good for other reasons, while Rogues are less so, but the example stands).

Taube wrote:

At the end of the day, that´s a non-point.

What class and build is good and able to be worth it´s weight depends too much on the enviroment it is played in and the level of teamwork of the players.

The less control the players have on how their adventuring day(s) will work out, how many encounters, if and when to rest an regain ressources, the more the game does change and a class like the rogue, who only has one ressource to manage, hp, can shine whilst other classes simply have to conserve their ressources for when they count the most.

HP run out way faster than spell slots if you lack healing. Nor is the fact that they don't run out of stuff relevant in party with people who do (say, Wizards or Clerics)...the combination of these two facts makes 'not running out of abilities' really just not that useful.


Marthkus wrote:
Gnomezrule wrote:

Rogues are great.

Some classes are about the meta narrative not the meta game.

Could you explain this?

What does meta narrative mean?

EDIT: Noticing an unfortunate need for rogue defenders to invent terms for what they are talking about. I much prefer this over "LtRP noobs" or "How to play a fun rogue: 1) create rogue 2) have fun playing it" or "I won't post builds, but rogues are great and have no problems..."

My point is that rogues fill a legacy role in rpgs that goes back to classics of fantasy. Bilbo, Han Solo, and other non warrior non magic figures who despite no magic or epic fighting prowess still show up and get in the mix. Look at the iconics of rpg derivative literature, Regis the halfling is hardly a contender alongside Drittzt or Wulfgar but he fits in the story. Tasselhof in Dragon Lance, R2D2 & so on. All of them are out of them out matched. That is the slot the rogue fills now I am sure game designers want a fully balaced class and all but some people pick characters based on more than if they are at the best at something.

Radiant Oath

But that's mixing up the name of the class with the roleplaying of the class. Bilbo and Han Solo didn't do a lot of flanking to set up sneak attacks- you can portray a roguish character with any class, regardless of the name of that class.


Gnomezrule wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Gnomezrule wrote:

Rogues are great.

Some classes are about the meta narrative not the meta game.

Could you explain this?

What does meta narrative mean?

EDIT: Noticing an unfortunate need for rogue defenders to invent terms for what they are talking about. I much prefer this over "LtRP noobs" or "How to play a fun rogue: 1) create rogue 2) have fun playing it" or "I won't post builds, but rogues are great and have no problems..."

My point is that rogues fill a legacy role in rpgs that goes back to classics of fantasy. Bilbo, Han Solo, and other non warrior non magic figures who despite no magic or epic fighting prowess still show up and get in the mix. Look at the iconics of rpg derivative literature, Regis the halfling is hardly a contender alongside Drittzt or Wulfgar but he fits in the story. Tasselhof in Dragon Lance, R2D2 & so on. All of them are out of them out matched. That is the slot the rogue fills now I am sure game designers want a fully balaced class and all but some people pick characters based on more than if they are at the best at something.

Indeed, as other posters have pointed out, rogues in cinema and story act or play in ways completely separate from rogues in d&d.

Han Solo's way of picking a lock? Trying to shoot the dang controls, he didn't have any skill whatsoever.

Han Solo's stealth roll? Running screaming through the death star, first at the enemy, then away.

If anything, han solo seems a lightly armored, ranged fighter, with points in profession: Smuggler.

Liberty's Edge

Nah, Han's clearly a Gunslinger (Pistolero). Maybe Mysterious Stranger...


Scavion wrote:

As for my contribution to the "Can you Skill Mastery UMD?"

An argument can be made for both interpretations and it is probably decidedly unclear which it is.

Ya agreed, looking at I'm actually genuinely uncertain what the RAW is here and can see an argument for both ways. Honestly, I'm inclined to let them have it, but by the time the Rogue gets it the consistency can be outweighed by ranks/items/charisma. And when you no longer need to take 10 to succeed it becomes useless.


The rogue doesn’t have to better than any other class, but it at least has to be good at something useful.

If the party needs a class that can kills things quick with a stick it is OK to play a fighter or a barbarian or a Paladin or whatever. It doesn’t matter if the fighter is better than the barbarian or not. Regardless of what you think of fighters they are very good at killing things. Maybe the Barbarian is better, but it doesn’t matter. The fighter can get the job done.
The problem with the rogue isn’t that she isn’t best. The problem isn’t that she isn’t unique or that she isn’t best at X or Y, the problem is that she often is a burden to the party when you reach a certain level in the game.

Sneak attack isn’t a good ability if you want to be a damage dealer

Skills are cool, but good not enough at higher levels

Being the trap expert isn’t enough to justify a whole class.

The game is not only about killing stuff, but the game is a lot about killing stuff, especially at higher levels. If you are not good at killing stuff, you need to bring utility to the party, be it buffs, divination or whatever. At higher levels just relying on skills isn’t enough.


Zark wrote:
The rogue doesn’t have to better than any other class, The game is not only about killing stuff, but the game is a lot about killing stuff, especially at higher levels. If you are not good at killing stuff, you need to bring utility to the party, be it buffs, divination or whatever. At higher levels just relying on skills isn’t enough.

IMHO the rogue works best as a preventive class. Disarming a nasty trap right before combat starts or during combat? Rounding out those skills no-one else wanted to invest in but are campaign specific (happens a lot in adventure paths nowadays)? Help flank and finish of a monster before the monster can dish out the pain?

Anti magic field oder mage´s disjunction traps right before or actually in combat shouldn´t be so scarce, especially not around players who try to kill other players´ fun by trying to occupy their niche.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So what if the rogue is the worst class? Doesn't some class have to be subpar to others? If the rogue didn't exist anymore which class would be the next in line to be bashed? Are all classes equal? Does each class excel at something specific that other classes can't match?

I find rogues to be great. Fun to play and effective if you know what you're doing. I played in an all rogue campaign once upon a time and it was one of the best playing I've seen in my group. Can't just bash your way through. Can't blast your way through with spells. Required some out of the box thinking, but was great as it unfolded. Rumormonger is also devastating in the right circumstances.

Can other classes do the things a rogue can do and better? Sure. Why does it matter? Can you not be a functional member of a party if you're not the best in the party? Again someone has to be the worst.

I've been sharpening this pitchfork for hours though and need something to poke that's not a rogue. I think this horse has been beaten enough.


Khrysaor wrote:
Can other classes do the things a rogue can do and better? Sure. Why does it matter? Can you not be a functional member of a party if you're not the best in the party? Again someone has to be the worst.

I think there´re two different things at work here:

1) Too much Meta-Thinking w/o context. Talking about stuff like Tiers doesn´t take into account what actually happens at the game table.
2) Lack of respect for ones co-players. If someone wants to have fun with a class, the gm should provide the appropiate challenges and the other players should respect the niche of that class.

To be honest, when a wizard player would start using a wand of knock, I´d politelly ask him to refrain from the if the rogue player is present, at the second infringement on the rogues niche I´d kick tha wizard player out.

Therefore: There can never be a "weakest" class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taube wrote:


I think there´re two different things at work here:
1) Too much Meta-Thinking w/o context. Talking about stuff like Tiers doesn´t take into account what actually happens at the game table.
2) Lack of respect for ones co-players. If someone wants to have fun with a class, the gm should provide the appropiate challenges and the other players should respect the niche of that class.

To be honest, when a wizard player would start using a wand of knock, I´d politelly ask him to refrain from the if the rogue player is present, at the second infringement on the rogues niche I´d kick tha wizard player out.

Therefore: There can never be a "weakest" class.

The Rogue is dangerously close to

"Why play a Warrior when you can play a Fighter?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taube wrote:

I think there´re two different things at work here:
1) Too much Meta-Thinking w/o context. Talking about stuff like Tiers doesn´t take into account what actually happens at the game table.
2) Lack of respect for ones co-players. If someone wants to have fun with a class, the gm should provide the appropiate challenges and the other players should respect the niche of that class.

To be honest, when a wizard player would start using a wand of knock, I´d politelly ask him to refrain from the if the rogue player is present, at the second infringement on the rogues niche I´d kick tha wizard player out.

Therefore: There can never be a "weakest" class.

There can never be a weakest class because I'll ban hammer anyone who infringes on the weaklings roles! Sounds like some quality DMing.


gnomersy wrote:
There can never be a weakest class because I'll ban hammer anyone who infringes on the weaklings roles! Sounds like some quality DMing.

Let me ask you a simple question: If I ask you to not bring any non-kosher food to my place when gaming, would you comply to my request or not?

In the same vain, if I ask you to not ruin another players fun, why should that be any different?

See, where I come from, there´s a term in common use by gamers: "Barbie Gaming". That means: You can think about your characters options, play through riddles and solutions, fantasize about what could be possible.
And then leave all that garbade at home when you head to the gaming table and respect what the guys there want to play and how to play it.


Taube wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
There can never be a weakest class because I'll ban hammer anyone who infringes on the weaklings roles! Sounds like some quality DMing.

Let me ask you a simple question: If I ask you to not bring any non-kosher food to my place when gaming, would you comply to my request or not?

In the same vain, if I ask you to not ruin another players fun, why should that be any different?

See, where I come from, there´s a term in common use by gamers: "Barbie Gaming". That means: You can think about your characters options, play through riddles and solutions, fantasize about what could be possible.
And then leave all that garbade at home when you head to the gaming table and respect what the guys there want to play and how to play it.

This is great and all but it has nothing to do with the discussion.

The issue is that the Rogue doesn't bring anything more to the table than equivalent classes barring a very generous reading of UMD.

"Why play a Warrior when you can play a Fighter?"

Liberty's Edge

Taube wrote:
Let me ask you a simple question: If I ask you to not bring any non-kosher food to my place when gaming, would you comply to my request or not?

Sure. But don't expect there to be only kosher food if you come to mine.

Taube wrote:
In the same vain, if I ask you to not ruin another players fun, why should that be any different?

Whose fun is being ruined here? The Wizard who wants to actually be able to utilize his class skill list, or the Rogue who requires you to do this to be functional?

Does it matter if the Wizard's been doing this the whole game and the Rogue's new or vice versa?

And all that's beside the point. This is the "But you can House Rule it!" argument in a different form. Sure, a good GM can fix such problems, but the fact that he needs to means that they are in fact problems, and the game would be better if the GM didn't have to put work in doing so.

Taube wrote:

See, where I come from, there´s a term in common use by gamers: "Barbie Gaming". That means: You can think about your characters options, play through riddles and solutions, fantasize about what could be possible.

And then leave all that garbade at home when you head to the gaming table and respect what the guys there want to play and how to play it.

Honestly? That sounds really restrictive, as well as dismissive of play styles other than your own. Not a good attitude.

And what if the people in question enjoy exploring options like that? My group certainly enjoy exploring options and doing cool stuff, rules-wise.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there might be a bit of miscommunication going on here. Most people who argue that the alchemist/bard/ranger/wizard/Inquisitor/Seeker Sage Sorcerer/whatever can do the rogue's job better than the rogue aren't suggest someone play one of those, then show up the rogue player and ruin his fun. Rather, they argue that the Rogue as a character concept is better served by using one of the other classes to fulfill the concept, instead of relying on the relatively weak collection of mechanics known as the Rogue class.

Liberty's Edge

Chengar Qordath wrote:
I think there might be a bit of miscommunication going on here. Most people who argue that the alchemist/bard/ranger/wizard/Inquisitor/Seeker Sage Sorcerer/whatever can do the rogue's job better than the rogue aren't suggest someone play one of those, then show up the rogue player and ruin his fun. Rather, they argue that the Rogue as a character concept is better served by using one of the other classes to fulfill the concept, instead of relying on the relatively weak collection of mechanics known as the Rogue class.

This is absolutely true and worth noting. I'd never argue for stealing another player's role when making a character, that's just a dick move, and niche protection is a thing (though, in relation to my previous post, one I'd argue is less class based and more role based...and best handled during character creation, not by restricting what characters are allowed to do thereafter). But...a lot of other character classes are better choices for basically anyone who's thinking of playing a Rogue, no matter what kind.


Taube wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
There can never be a weakest class because I'll ban hammer anyone who infringes on the weaklings roles! Sounds like some quality DMing.

Let me ask you a simple question: If I ask you to not bring any non-kosher food to my place when gaming, would you comply to my request or not?

In the same vain, if I ask you to not ruin another players fun, why should that be any different?

See, where I come from, there´s a term in common use by gamers: "Barbie Gaming". That means: You can think about your characters options, play through riddles and solutions, fantasize about what could be possible.
And then leave all that garbade at home when you head to the gaming table and respect what the guys there want to play and how to play it.

Honestly, this is really more of an argument against the rogue class being perfectly fine then anything. If a class is so weak that by its very existence it leads to ruining people's fun, rogue players or otherwise, that sounds like a problem.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
I think there might be a bit of miscommunication going on here. Most people who argue that the alchemist/bard/ranger/wizard/Inquisitor/Seeker Sage Sorcerer/whatever can do the rogue's job better than the rogue aren't suggest someone play one of those, then show up the rogue player and ruin his fun. Rather, they argue that the Rogue as a character concept is better served by using one of the other classes to fulfill the concept, instead of relying on the relatively weak collection of mechanics known as the Rogue class.

You're right.

Putting it another way :

In a group of 4 people, when you have a combattant, a divine caster, an arcane caster and a roguish character, who can you have ?

Combattant : Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, Cavalier (and samurai), Gunslinger, Magus or even a summoner.

Divine caster : Cleric, Druid or Oracle.

Arcane caster : Wizard, Witch, Sorcerer or even a summoner or bard to some extent.

Roguish character : Rogue (and Ninja), Bard, Inquisitor, Alchemist, and possibly Ranger or summoner.

I'd rather have a Paladin/Cleric/Wizard/Inquisitor team than a Paladin/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue team.

It's not about taking the role from the rogue in the team, but about what class should that character be.


Avh wrote:

Putting it another way :

In a group of 4 people, when you have a combattant, a divine caster, an arcane caster and a roguish character, who can you have ?

Combattant : Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, Cavalier (and samurai), Gunslinger, Magus or even a summoner.

Divine caster : Cleric, Druid or Oracle.

Arcane caster : Wizard, Witch, Sorcerer or even a summoner or bard to some extent.

Roguish character : Rogue (and Ninja), Bard, Inquisitor, Alchemist, and possibly Ranger or summoner.

I think you are looking too narrowly at the classes. The combatant role can just as easily be filled by the druid, cleric or oracle. The rogue role can very easily be filled by any Int primary caster. I wouldn't have divine caster as a role but I would have buffer/condition removal as they are pretty crucial.

Personally I would take a group of druid/cleric/oracle, sorcerer/wizard, paladin/ranger/magus and alchemist/inquisitor/bard/summoner quite happily.


andreww wrote:
Avh wrote:

Putting it another way :

In a group of 4 people, when you have a combattant, a divine caster, an arcane caster and a roguish character, who can you have ?

Combattant : Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, Cavalier (and samurai), Gunslinger, Magus or even a summoner.

Divine caster : Cleric, Druid or Oracle.

Arcane caster : Wizard, Witch, Sorcerer or even a summoner or bard to some extent.

Roguish character : Rogue (and Ninja), Bard, Inquisitor, Alchemist, and possibly Ranger or summoner.

I think you are looking too narrowly at the classes. The combatant role can just as easily be filled by the druid, cleric or oracle. The rogue role can very easily be filled by any Int primary caster. I wouldn't have divine caster as a role but I would have buffer/condition removal as they are pretty crucial.

Personally I would take a group of druid/cleric/oracle, sorcerer/wizard, paladin/ranger/magus and alchemist/inquisitor/bard/summoner quite happily.

His point was that the rogue was not chosen at the job that was designed for him.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

rogues are definitely under the "must be optimized to be good" category and honestly, I feel like the rogue hasn't been improved because of an identity crisis. Which basically is, they want to be both good at stabbing things, and then every skill possible.

so I'm all for the rogue being broken up partially to make it useful.

though if i was to say what it should need to be useful in combat I'd give it full BAB and probably the assassin's Death Strike. The Assassin prestige class, in fact if anything is just around because of how it was back in adnd(a subset of the rogue limited to evil alignment), I'd make an assassin Archetype for the rogue that uses full BAB but possibly drops the magical trap ability, and i do mean only possibly, assassins need to get past traps to stab people just as much as the next guy, if not more.(like seriously though, why does someone that kills for a living not have full BAB)

also, !expletive! rogue talents and give them better passives than random bags of occasional goodies.

if i was going to go the skill route, I would suggest giving them the ability to surpass the normal skill rank limits, and giving them free skill focus feats. This would effectively make him the best at anything and allow him to actually stack and make use of tons of skill points.

the problem there, is then you get a problem of either too many skill points being worthless or needing a rogue to effectively surmount some high DC thing. which i believe is another reason they suck, to stop this theoretical bloat.


wraithstrike wrote:
andreww wrote:
Avh wrote:

Putting it another way :

In a group of 4 people, when you have a combattant, a divine caster, an arcane caster and a roguish character, who can you have ?

Combattant : Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, Cavalier (and samurai), Gunslinger, Magus or even a summoner.

Divine caster : Cleric, Druid or Oracle.

Arcane caster : Wizard, Witch, Sorcerer or even a summoner or bard to some extent.

Roguish character : Rogue (and Ninja), Bard, Inquisitor, Alchemist, and possibly Ranger or summoner.

I think you are looking too narrowly at the classes. The combatant role can just as easily be filled by the druid, cleric or oracle. The rogue role can very easily be filled by any Int primary caster. I wouldn't have divine caster as a role but I would have buffer/condition removal as they are pretty crucial.

Personally I would take a group of druid/cleric/oracle, sorcerer/wizard, paladin/ranger/magus and alchemist/inquisitor/bard/summoner quite happily.

His point was that the rogue was not chosen at the job that was designed for him.

Yeah. It's more about covering basic party roles than which specific classes you use. As long as you have good coverage on the all the needed skills, any classes will do. You don't even have to have all the rogue skills concentrated in a single character; you could easily have a ranger for scouting, an alchemist for traps, and a Sorcerer for the party face.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
His point was that the rogue was not chosen at the job that was designed for him.

I think that's what everyone is missing here. There is NO job designed for the rogue. It's the same reason the fighter has issues as well. There is a conflict between mechanics and flavor that is irreconcilable in the PF rogue.

Just about every other class in PF has a synergy between its flavor and mechanics that is lacking in the rogue. The mechanics of most classes are designed to implement the flavor in game. A barbarian's flavor (uncivilized brute that perseveres through hardships by force of strength and will) is supported by the mechanics (rage raising str and lowering AC, high hps, etc.). But a "rogue" has no flavor.

Look at the original thief class. What do you think of when you read "thief" (though I would argue that it would be better termed sneak-thief, but I understand why TSR didn't go with a compound word)? Someone who hides in the shadows and accomplishes his goals through stealth and trickery, and who will aviod a straight-up fight and fight dirty). And the D&D mechanics fit that flavor.

But what is a "rogue"? It's certainly not limited to a sneak-thief. Despite what the "flavor" text in the CRB says, the rogue flavor does not fit its mechanics at all (with sneak attack being a poor representation of even a sneak-thief's abilities). When I read Marthkus' defense of the rogue, it is built around the idea that his rogue "plays like" a rogue... which is a mechanical issue. But how can a class play like a rogue, when a rogue isn't anything itself? (The same issue arises with fighters. There are many ways someone can "fight," including with magic, but the fighter has no real solid flavor to ground its mechanics).

Combine this with the fact that, as the game has evolved, the sneak-thief's utility has declined, and you get the present problem. Many of the sneak-thief's skills are now open to everyone, and trap-finding is a joke in PF. Either a trap simply burns charges on your CLW wand before the next room, or it kills you outright (which is a good way to infuriate your players... so rocks fell and I died, huh?). In one scenario I played in PFS, the BBEG was on another level from the party as we entered, so we started to run up the stairs. The rogue was first, and the stairs were trapped to collapse and cause damage. Well, the rogue just ran up, as the damage was negligible in comparison to the BBEG's output, and you burn too much time removing the traps. When even a rogue is saying "I'll run right through the trap; it's too much trouble to disable it," you know you have a problem...

The only way to "fix" the rogue is to narrow him to a concept and flavor that is realizable within the mechanics (why is Ninja so much more successful that the generic rogue? It knows what it wants to do and then does it). Which would require a complete rewrite, which is why I'm not holding my breath...

451 to 500 of 512 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Thoughts on Rogues All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.