Thoughts on Rogues


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 512 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

WWWW wrote:
Now now, I am sure that some DMs do include an unexplained precipitous drop in the difficulty of their encounters that just so happens to coincide with the spellcasters running low. That way the party can go all day without being TPKed as they normally would be with the heavy hitters out of action. The whole thing does kind of strain suspension of disbelief a very little bit though.

In all of my time playing RPGs I'd never seen the world stop for the PCs to catch a breath. NEVER.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
who cares if you can take 10 when the alchemist has a +20?

So does the rogue... if not more.

Those opposed checks tend to scale past 20.

the alchemist has a +20 on top of the rogue from his greater invis. extract.

Which you have two of at level 10.


Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Now now, I am sure that some DMs do include an unexplained precipitous drop in the difficulty of their encounters that just so happens to coincide with the spellcasters running low. That way the party can go all day without being TPKed as they normally would be with the heavy hitters out of action. The whole thing does kind of strain suspension of disbelief a very little bit though.
In all of my time playing RPGs I'd never seen the world stop for the PCs to catch a breath. NEVER.

I don't really see that either, but the can go all day with half the party out of spells thing has to come from somewhere.

Edit: Well unless you mean that your groups can never regain spell slots because they never are able to carve out a sufficiently long time for the spellcasters. But I don't really see that either.


I don't really consider going all day a rogue advantage either.

I was just pointed out how the alchemist had to burn resources to keep up, which is a different play style.


Marthkus wrote:

I don't really consider going all day a rogue advantage either.

I was just pointed out how the alchemist had to burn resources to keep up, which is a different play style.

Rogues have daily resources though...

I guess we can ignore all those x/day because their horrible though.


MrSin wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

I don't really consider going all day a rogue advantage either.

I was just pointed out how the alchemist had to burn resources to keep up, which is a different play style.

Rogues have daily resources though...

I guess we can ignore all those x/day because their horrible though.

I know I do.


MrSin wrote:
I guess we can ignore all those x/day because their horrible though.

And are an incredibly wast of space. Do they need to be separeted by skill? one for acrobatics, one for swim etc...


Nicos wrote:
MrSin wrote:
I guess we can ignore all those x/day because their horrible though.
And are an incredibly wast of space. Do they need to be separeted by skill? one for acrobatics, one for swim etc...

If they costed two skill points, they might be worth it.


Marthkus wrote:
Nicos wrote:
MrSin wrote:
I guess we can ignore all those x/day because their horrible though.
And are an incredibly wast of space. Do they need to be separeted by skill? one for acrobatics, one for swim etc...

If they costed two skill points, they might be worth it.

I dunno, if they were free some of them still wouldn't, imo.


Marthkus wrote:

I don't really consider going all day a rogue advantage either.

I was just pointed out how the alchemist had to burn resources to keep up, which is a different play style.

Oh, you mean that you are talking about a different playstyle then the previous example of a rogue using consumable items. Sorry, I was assuming that you were talking about one single playstyle and not several mutually exclusive ones.


WWWW wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

I don't really consider going all day a rogue advantage either.

I was just pointed out how the alchemist had to burn resources to keep up, which is a different play style.

Oh, you mean that you are talking about a different playstyle then the previous example of a rogue using consumable items. Sorry, I was assuming that you were talking about one single playstyle and not several mutually exclusive ones.

I am talking about the same play style. There is a difference between being able to use resources and needing to.


Marthkus wrote:
I am talking about the same play style. There is a difference between being able to use resources and needing to.

Ah, so you mean you actually didn't need to use any of those consumables at all in your previous example. In that case you really should have been more specific about the fact that it was just pointless wasting of gold and so forth.


WWWW wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
I am talking about the same play style. There is a difference between being able to use resources and needing to.
Ah, so you mean you actually didn't need to use any of those consumables at all in your previous example. In that case you really should have been more specific about the fact that it was just pointless wasting of gold.

The difficulties of encounters fluctuate.

I don't think you are arguing in good faith.


Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
I am talking about the same play style. There is a difference between being able to use resources and needing to.
Ah, so you mean you actually didn't need to use any of those consumables at all in your previous example. In that case you really should have been more specific about the fact that it was just pointless wasting of gold.

The difficulties of encounters fluctuate.

I don't think you are arguing in good faith.

I am not really sure what that has to do with anything. Either you do need to use resources or you don't. If that is the strict divide between playstyles then that detail is kind of super important since it, you know, actually allows for the two playstyles to be differentiated.


WWWW wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
I am talking about the same play style. There is a difference between being able to use resources and needing to.
Ah, so you mean you actually didn't need to use any of those consumables at all in your previous example. In that case you really should have been more specific about the fact that it was just pointless wasting of gold.

The difficulties of encounters fluctuate.

I don't think you are arguing in good faith.

I am not really sure what that has to do with anything. Either you do need to use consumables or you don't. If that is the strict divide between playstyles then that detail is kind of super important since it, you know, actually allows for the two playstyles to be differentiated.

What my rogue normally does doesn't require resources. He can use resources for special occasions.

The alchemist requires resources for normal operation.

That's a big difference. The alchemist without their resources is worse than the rogue without their resources. Therefore a different play style. The alchmist has to use resources to keep up or surpass the rogue. That kind of resource management creates a different play style at the most basic level.

Notice I didn't say anything about "going all day" being some sort of advantage. It just plays differently.


Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Now now, I am sure that some DMs do include an unexplained precipitous drop in the difficulty of their encounters that just so happens to coincide with the spellcasters running low. That way the party can go all day without being TPKed as they normally would be with the heavy hitters out of action. The whole thing does kind of strain suspension of disbelief a very little bit though.
In all of my time playing RPGs I'd never seen the world stop for the PCs to catch a breath. NEVER.

The lack of spell support is enough of a nerf to martials that any sensible party will be looking for a place to rest.

I mean yeah sure, if your casters are nova'ing every combat and expect to be able to snooze in the middle of the day then it's quite justified for a GM to punish them for that. But in all of my time playing RPGs, I've learned that going into a boss fight with all of your party members nearly out of SP is a very good way to end up being very dead.


Marthkus wrote:

What my rogue normally does doesn't require resources. He can use resources for special occasions.

The alchemist requires resources for normal operation.

That's a big difference. The alchemist without their resources is worse than the rogue without their resources. Therefore a different play style. The alchmist has to use resources to keep up or surpass the rogue. That kind of resource management creates a different play style at the most basic level.

Could this be true? I am not seeing why.


Use Magic Device wrote:
This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class.

This is the only issue I have with your character build as posted Marthkus.

I don't believe it's reading or twisting the rules against the Rogue to say that using UMD to emulate Caster Level which specifically says that it doesn't actually allow you to use an emulated feature, to determine the effects of a staff which is a normal use of Caster Level.

But I'll respectfully bow out at this point. I have a feeling this thread is coming to a close.

I'll also point out that Staves do not require a minimum ability score to activate.


Nicos wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

What my rogue normally does doesn't require resources. He can use resources for special occasions.

The alchemist requires resources for normal operation.

That's a big difference. The alchemist without their resources is worse than the rogue without their resources. Therefore a different play style. The alchmist has to use resources to keep up or surpass the rogue. That kind of resource management creates a different play style at the most basic level.

Could this be true? I am not seeing why.

It was in that long discussion about skill mastery.

Without resources the bonuses to skills are comparable, but the chance for failure is higher with the multiple rolls required to play the same way as my rogue. Without resources that alchemist would do the same things with less chance of success. Hence different play style, because who would try to play a rogue-?


Normally stealth isn't broken by a perception vs stealth roll, its broken by a lack of cover/concealment, scent, blindsight/sense. scent, tremor sense, scent, life-sense, or the ubiquitous scent.


WWWW wrote:
Sorry, but despite my rereading I still do not understand the specifics of one style versus the other. I am afraid that my questions must remain the same, as I can not really discuss the differences between two things when I do not actually know how they are different.

I'll try to draw an analogy that doesn't completely apply.

Picture a fighter. Weapon training doesn't require resources to use.
Now picture a Paladin. Paladin has to use smite or spells to keep up with the fighter and his weapon training with gloves of dueling.

The paladin uses lay on hands to heal.
The fighter uses potions to heal.

They both play differently.


Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Sorry, but despite my rereading I still do not understand the specifics of one style versus the other. I am afraid that my questions must remain the same, as I can not really discuss the differences between two things when I do not actually know how they are different.

I'll try to draw an analogy that doesn't completely apply.

Picture a fighter. Weapon training doesn't require resources to use.
Now picture a Paladin. Paladin has to use smite or spells to keep up with the fighter and his weapon training with gloves of dueling.

The paladin uses lay on hands to heal.
The fighter uses potions to heal.

They both play differently.

Right, so before I start considering your analogy, in what way does it not apply so that I know what parts to ignore.

For example I could take that analogy to mean that the difference is between daily refreshing resources and burning gold on consumables, which would match the previous examples of extracts versus burning gold on consumables. However that may not be what you meant.


WWWW wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Sorry, but despite my rereading I still do not understand the specifics of one style versus the other. I am afraid that my questions must remain the same, as I can not really discuss the differences between two things when I do not actually know how they are different.

I'll try to draw an analogy that doesn't completely apply.

Picture a fighter. Weapon training doesn't require resources to use.
Now picture a Paladin. Paladin has to use smite or spells to keep up with the fighter and his weapon training with gloves of dueling.

The paladin uses lay on hands to heal.
The fighter uses potions to heal.

They both play differently.

Right, so before I start considering your analogy, in what way does it not apply so that I know what parts to ignore.

For example I could take that analogy to mean that the difference is between daily refreshing resources and burning gold on consumables, which would match the previous examples of extracts versus burning gold on consumables. However that may not be what you meant.

Yes so for that the UMD comes with other advantages that isn't always wasting gold.

For example using the wizards staves for him doesn't burn any gold, since staves are renewable. Using the items that drop that no one else can use doesn't explicitly use up resources either. It allow the party to use those resources when they couldn't.

The analogy doesn't completely apply because it is too simple to fully express everything, but should outline the fundamental difference in play.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Sorry, but despite my rereading I still do not understand the specifics of one style versus the other. I am afraid that my questions must remain the same, as I can not really discuss the differences between two things when I do not actually know how they are different.

I'll try to draw an analogy that doesn't completely apply.

Picture a fighter. Weapon training doesn't require resources to use.
Now picture a Paladin. Paladin has to use smite or spells to keep up with the fighter and his weapon training with gloves of dueling.

The paladin uses lay on hands to heal.
The fighter uses potions to heal.

They both play differently.

If we're really being honest here, it's

The paladin uses lay on hands to heal.
The fighter gets another party member to heal them.

The investment on consumables is hard to validate aside from your basic wand of CLW and some rainy day scrolls.

In the same sense, it doesn't work for the Rogue/Vivi comparison because aside from skills, there is no way in which the Vivi is outclassed by the Rogue.

Still getting mutagen, the Vivi wins out in accuracy, damage, and armor class. And Rogue Talents are laughable compared to discoveries. Even without extracts, I would play a Vivisectionist over a Rogue, especially if we bumped them up to 6+int skill ranks and a few added skills. I mean, it's hard to argue with a class that regardless of race can end up with 3 natural attacks with the same investment the Rogue gets with Skill Mastery (and 8 levels sooner, too.)


Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

I'll try to draw an analogy that doesn't completely apply.

Picture a fighter. Weapon training doesn't require resources to use.
Now picture a Paladin. Paladin has to use smite or spells to keep up with the fighter and his weapon training with gloves of dueling.

The paladin uses lay on hands to heal.
The fighter uses potions to heal.

They both play differently.

Right, so before I start considering your analogy, in what way does it not apply so that I know what parts to ignore.

For example I could take that analogy to mean that the difference is between daily refreshing resources and burning gold on consumables, which would match the previous examples of extracts versus burning gold on consumables. However that may not be what you meant.

Yes so for that the UMD comes with other advantages that isn't always wasting gold.

For example using the wizards staves for him doesn't burn any gold, since staves are renewable. Using the items that drop that no one else can use doesn't explicitly use up resources either. It allow the party to use those resources when they couldn't.

The analogy doesn't completely apply because it is too simple to fully express everything, but should outline the fundamental difference in play.

Eh, it really doesn't outline the difference in play that well to me. All I've got is that the rogue can burn not refreshing gold in cases where other characters can use refreshing resources.

Well, now that I think about it, there is one other possible thing that occurs. That the fighter, and thus the rogue by analogy, is also matched or out performed by the paladin, and thus the other classes by analogy, due to the fact that they use daily resources. Normally I would assume that this would supposedly be balanced out by the fact that the fighter, and thus the rogue by analogy, can go all day long, but you seemed to dismiss the all day factor earlier. However that second point does not seem like a point in favor of fighters, and thus the rogue by analogy, so I am not sure if that is what you mean.

Silver Crusade

Just so we are clear.

"Any" and "all" classes that have some kind of healing are designed with healing others in mind as well as healing themselves.

Also, resources are a part of the game and are a design point of the game. Whether you heal yourself or you heal another party member is an expected part of the game.

The "having to expend resources" excuse is a really weak one.


WWWW wrote:

Eh, it really doesn't outline the difference in play that well to me. All I've got is that the rogue can burn not refreshing gold in cases where other characters can use refreshing resources.

Well, now that I think about it, there is one other possible thing that occurs. That the fighter, and thus the rogue by analogy, is also matched or out performed by the paladin, and thus the other classes by analogy, due to the fact that they use daily resources. Normally I would assume that this would supposedly be balanced out by the fact that the fighter, and thus the rogue by analogy, can go all day long, but you seemed to dismiss the all day factor earlier. However that second point does not seem like a point in favor of fighters, and thus the rogue by analogy, so I am not sure if that is what you mean.

If you really don't get what I am saying, then you are stating that you think Paladins and fighters play the same way, but the paladin just does it better.

Silver Crusade

shallowsoul wrote:

Just so we are clear.

"Any" and "all" classes that have some kind of healing are designed with healing others in mind as well as healing themselves.

Also, resources are a part of the game and are a design point of the game. Whether you heal yourself or you heal another party member is an expected part of the game.

The "having to expend resources" excuse is a really weak one.

Actually, this is untrue. The Alchemist by design is unable to heal others at base, despite having the ability to heal themselves. It must take an extraneous resource (the Infusion discovery) to do so, and was referred to as a "selfish buffer" by James Jacobs (I reference that quote so often, I need to find the source.).

I can admit that the Vivisectionist was poorly designed in the respect that it straight up stole everything that made the Rogue special aside from trapfinding.

But it's well designed that it brings the Rogue's style of play to par with the rest of the party. I don't see a problem with a Vivi drinking an extract and a Rogue downing a potion besides that the Vivi can do the same thing the next day without paying a non refreshing resource (gold) to do so.


Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:

Eh, it really doesn't outline the difference in play that well to me. All I've got is that the rogue can burn not refreshing gold in cases where other characters can use refreshing resources.

Well, now that I think about it, there is one other possible thing that occurs. That the fighter, and thus the rogue by analogy, is also matched or out performed by the paladin, and thus the other classes by analogy, due to the fact that they use daily resources. Normally I would assume that this would supposedly be balanced out by the fact that the fighter, and thus the rogue by analogy, can go all day long, but you seemed to dismiss the all day factor earlier. However that second point does not seem like a point in favor of fighters, and thus the rogue by analogy, so I am not sure if that is what you mean.

If you really don't get what I am saying, then you are stating that you think Paladins and fighters play the same way, but the paladin just does it better.

No, of course paladins and fighters don't play the same way. Paladins and fighters differ in many specifics, such as the bonuses they get to saves. However since the paladin and fighter are not the focus of the discussion I am ignoring the specifics of the classes and trying to find those more broad parts of the analogy that are transferable to the classes being discussed.

The three things that stand out to me as analogous are that one can go all day while the other can not, that one can burn not refreshing gold while the other burns daily refreshing resources, and that one can not use resources in certain areas while the other can use daily refreshing resources to meet or exceed the other in those areas. The first point I have dismissed due to previous statements you made but I can add it back into the consideration if you want.

If there is anything else that you mean by the analogy I'm not catching onto it so you're probably going to have to point it out to me.


WWWW wrote:
If there is anything else that you mean by the analogy I'm not catching onto it so you're probably going to have to point it out to me.

If you understand how those two classes play differently then you know why these two classes play differently.


Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
If there is anything else that you mean by the analogy I'm not catching onto it so you're probably going to have to point it out to me.
If you understand how those two classes play differently then you know why these two classes play differently.

Are we still ignoring the all day factor? If we are then is it just that rogues take less bookkeeping? It looks to me like it boils down to that from the transferable points of the analogy I outlined but perhaps there is some other factor I am missing.


WWWW wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
If there is anything else that you mean by the analogy I'm not catching onto it so you're probably going to have to point it out to me.
If you understand how those two classes play differently then you know why these two classes play differently.
Are we still ignoring the all day factor? If we are then is it just that rogues take less bookkeeping? It looks to me like it boils down to that from the transferable points of the analogy I outlined but perhaps there is some other factor I am missing.

The all day factor is important to play style, but is of less important to effectiveness.


A tool that you don't use doesn't affect your playstyle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
A tool that you don't use doesn't affect your playstyle.

Cool, but if you don't use those tools you are a rogue-.


You're already a rogue- if you're running around doing rogue things without party support.


Marthkus wrote:
The all day factor is important to play style, but is of less important to effectiveness.

Hmm, so how does the all day factor playstyle take into account the other party members. Are we considering a party that will fight all day all day, will go through as may encounters as the wizard has relevant spells, or some other measure.

And then, once we know what the all day factor is, the all day factor can be important to effectiveness. It will determine whether or not we have to consider changes in effectiveness for those characters using daily refreshing resources versus those that expend no resources in some cases and use not refreshing gold in others depending on the number and difficulty of the encounters.


MrSin wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
they can't take 10 on disarming those magical traps - or even unlocking a door during combat, so that the party can escape from a fight they're losing.
"Well guys, this looks like a pretty scary dungeon and the dragon is right in front of us and he's looking at least CR5. Lets lock the door!"

GM: "Just as the last of you enters the room, the door suddenly slides shut with a loud bang and water starts flooding in through the grate on the floor. There's a loud grinding noise as the four closest statues come to life and begin moving toward you. Roll for initiative."

Quote:

More seriously, rogue doesn't even get skill mastery until he takes the advanced rogue talent for it. You don't touch the fact niche protection is the only reason its good(you literally have to take the ability away from everyone else to make him feel special?), and trapper ranger can definitely sink the skill points into things, as can the alchemist, alchemist has the added bonus of having ways other than mundane means to deal with problems.

Class skill also only adds a +3. It doesn't make a class inherently good at something and not having it won't make them bad. There are classes who's bonus from modifier are going to almost inevitably going surpass another classes bonus from having one in class.

Every one of the other classes has some tasks they're not as good at as a rogue. The rogue is a generalist class, with the ability to do a lot of different things. So many that in almost any adventuring party there will be some things the rogue does better than anybody else in the group. Frequently (but not always), finding and removing traps will be among those. Getting into highly inaccessible places (using Acrobatics, Climb, and/or Escape Artist) is also a likely candidate. If nobody is playing a bard, negotiating with NPCs is yet another task where a rogue can easily shine.

Arachnofiend wrote:

The difference is, the Paladin, Cleric, and Sorcerer skills will always come up eventually, even if the GM isn't specifically trying to use them.

A GM has to deliberately avoid evil encounters to not have them, especially at higher levels where the majority of your "boss characters" are likely going to be evil outsiders or other supernatural beings.

Nothing eventually comes up in an adventure without the GM specifically putting it there. Enemies are hand-picked, especially the "boss" characters. I could very easily run an entire campaign without a single a single evil outsider or supernatural being even making an appearance. I'd just have the focus be on the royal court: politics, espionage, and secret plots. Combat of any kind would be rare, and when it occurred it would be against high level NPCs, not monsters.

At the other end of the social spectrum, an entire campaign could also be based around the thieves' guild of a major city. This would probably involve a lot more combat than the royal court, but again the opponents would be humans, elves, halflings, etc. rather than monsters.

With the right group of players, either of these campaigns could be a lot of fun. Others, of course, would find them dreadfully boring.

(Honestly, I have to shake my head in disbelief at the idea that having a rogue in the group means the GM has to add more - or more challenging - traps. The correct phrase for every GM I've ever known - and I've been playing RPGs for a long time now - isn't "has to" but "gets to.")


proftobe wrote:
So in other words for your rogue to work it requires two fairly important 'grey areas." I wont say you're wrong on the CL and UMD. I will say that everyone I've ever played with disagrees(as well as a number of people posting on this forum). So just to humor us how would your rogue+ comparison operate IF we were right?

Nothing particularly changes. The UMD is a side thing. The bread and butter is skill mastery which other classes have to use resources to compensate for the lack of. They aren't playing like that rogue then. They still aren't a rogue with more options. Without their resources they are a rogue-. They have to use them to be as effective or more effective attempting the same play style. But since they are managing those resources, they don't have the same play style.

I still probably would not play a rogue where such a thing did not work. The rogue builds I have come with a running list of potential "grey area" as in "GM ruling" things to talk about. Any one of those working a different way (like if people can take 10 on stealth when sneaking past guards while not having skill mastery), then rogue is not in a decent enough place in that campaign to be worth playing in my eyes. My biggest complaint with the rogue is that you can just barely get them to work at a satisfactory level. Which is a shame, since their play style is fairly fun.

251 to 300 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.