Poll: What are the changes the Rogue class needs?


Homebrew and House Rules

251 to 300 of 384 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Arachnofiend wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Oh, I have a very clear idea of how to fix Rogues without giving them spell casting.

- Free Shadow Strike.
- Free Trap Spotter.
- Free Improved Evasion.
- Ability to add any 2 skills to their list of class skills.
- Slightly better weapon selection.

And, of course, the most important change:

Rogue Talents That Are actually Worth a Damn!

Rogues don't need a better weapon selection. Being limited to certain weapons is part of the rogues flavour.

Rogues were never meant to be a combat heavy class. They were designed to get that hit in every now amd then that really hurts, and does.

Their trapspotting skills are perfectly fine as is. They need "Hide in Plain Sight" definitely. Better rogue talents is probably 95% of the problem.

One last thing. I think there are a lot of people who really miss the point classes and their design. Classes are not designed with maximum numbers in mind, they are designed with a concept. Also, people choose classes based on an idea they have and not just because they get high numbers. I know strolling through the door and using Charm Person would be easier, but some people like to sneak into that window and rob someone blind using Stealth.

If we left class design up to some of you the game would quickly become boring as hell because you could reach level 20 in just a few hours. Encounters would only last about a round.

He literally just added whips and bucklers. Neither of these things are outside the scope of the Rogue archetype.

If Rogues aren't meant to be a combat heavy class that could be problematic as this is certainly a combat heavy game. I certainly don't think Rogues should be competing with Barbarians on straight damage (which is why my Rogue revision changes their role entirely to maneuver-based debuffs) but they need to do...

I see the number 1 problem within seconds of reading your response. You seem to think Pathfinder is a combat heavy game and therefore classes should he designed with that in mind. Pathfinder is not a combat heavy game, Pathfinder is a DM sets the level of combat game. There are many games that rarely see combat and there are other games that see combat every 15 steps.

Sczarni

Blakmane wrote:
Concealment isn't actually defined in the core rule book at all (totally DM purview what 'counts as' concealment), except to say squares are what contain 'concealment'. However, on the next line it states a target can have total concealment against 'you', not 'your attack' so you have no precedent for your continued extrapolation.... unless you are trying to argue 'concealment' and 'total concealment' are not relatable terms?

And if I gain concealment, does my square have concealment in it? Yep.

And I quote, directly from the CONCEALMENT section again:
Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.

Does it say "concealment against xyz"? Nope. It does not. Any and all forms of concealment allow a stealth check. Unless it specifically says it doesn't. Since Wind Stance doesn't specifically say "no stealth checks allowed! GO HOME!" it allows a stealth check. Again, all RAW points to allowing it.


Arachnofiend wrote:
I think what you're missing is that Pathfinder is a very math intensive game. You can write a class for a role, but if the math doesn't back it up then that class does not work as advertised and does not actually fill that role.

This is a major point, and one that a lot of people seem strangely resistant to. When every single opposed or challenging action in the game is ultimately dictated by numbers, it's a bit weird to say that the numbers don't matter. No matter how well the rogue's player roleplays out his sneaking, he will eventually have to roll a stealth check.

A rogue with a +10 to stealth is no sneakier than any other class with a +10 to stealth. In fact, the rogue has less in the way of stealth options, since magic has a whole suite of abilities that help support a sneaky character. Not just the invisibility spell either; spells like silence, ghost sound, silent image, mage hand, and open/close could all be very useful in a stealth scenario. The rogue just has the same +10 to stealth that any other class in the game could get.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Forever Slayer wrote:
see the number 1 problem within seconds of reading your response. You seem to think Pathfinder is a combat heavy game and therefore classes should he designed with that in mind. Pathfinder is not a combat heavy game, Pathfinder is a DM sets the level of combat game. There are many games that rarely see combat and there are other games that see combat every 15 steps.

And why, exactly, should players who see a lot of combat not get a Rogue that can contribute? The Rogue doesn't lose anything in skill-based encounters by becoming better in combat. It just becomes a class that is more attractive to use in general. By the same logic I think Fighters should have more skill points and abilities that contribute outside of combat because sitting and waiting for the next fight before you can do anything worthwhile is not very fun.

Silver Crusade

Forever Slayer wrote:
I see the number 1 problem within seconds of reading your response. You seem to think Pathfinder is a combat heavy game and therefore classes should he designed with that in mind. Pathfinder is not a combat heavy game, Pathfinder is a DM sets the level of combat game. There are many games that rarely see combat and there are other games that see combat every 15 steps.

Basically half of the book is dedicated to combat. While certain games may not be combat heavy, the game itself includes a good deal of combat, as can be proven by looking at the APs, the way the developers see the game being played.

I'm not much of a "the devs say it, so it must be law" person, but the game requires every class to be competent at combat in their own way. Whether that be spells, blades, or support, they still need to be able to contribute. Sneak Attack is also a (large) feature of the Rogue's to say "Hey, I should be in combat." If the Rogue didn't have sneak attack, I might agree with you, but its most prominent ability, as well as the focus of quite a few Rogue Talents, is sneak attack, meaning it's a combat class, even if it's not good at it.

This after I saw someone else calling the Rogue "Not a skill class, but a secondary melee class." No one seems to know what a Rogue is supposed to be, which leads to these arguments over what it should be doing.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
maouse wrote:
Blakmane wrote:
Concealment isn't actually defined in the core rule book at all (totally DM purview what 'counts as' concealment), except to say squares are what contain 'concealment'. However, on the next line it states a target can have total concealment against 'you', not 'your attack' so you have no precedent for your continued extrapolation.... unless you are trying to argue 'concealment' and 'total concealment' are not relatable terms?

And if I gain concealment, does my square have concealment in it? Yep.

And I quote, directly from the CONCEALMENT section again:
Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.

Does it say "concealment against xyz"? Nope. It does not. Any and all forms of concealment allow a stealth check. Unless it specifically says it doesn't. Since Wind Stance doesn't specifically say "no stealth checks allowed! GO HOME!" it allows a stealth check. Again, all RAW points to allowing it.

and as i explained, you can make stealth checks against ranged attacks, not people...

Bandw2 wrote:

once again, we're heading off course, concealment or not, is still only applied to ranged attacks.

if it read that: "If you move more than 5 feet this turn, you gain 20% concealment for 1 round against dragons."
you'd only be concealed against dragons.
if it read that: "If you move more than 5 feet this turn, you gain +3 to your AC for 1 round against ranged attacks."
you'd still only be gaining that AC against ranged attacks.
as i have said before, I honestly don't care what concealment does, i care what wind stance does.

Sczarni

Arachnofiend wrote:
And why, exactly, should players who see a lot of combat not get a Rogue that can contribute? The Rogue doesn't lose anything in skill-based encounters by becoming better in combat. It just becomes a class that is more attractive to use in general. By the same logic I think Fighters should have more skill points and abilities that contribute outside of combat because sitting and waiting for the next fight before you can do anything worthwhile is not very fun.

I think the addition of the "retraining" section actually helps round out "downtime" training and gives folks who have some extra cash and time a decent boost without simply "buying that magical item" instead. It also allows higher level players a re-write of their character to fix any flaws that might have developed in play. Or completely change their mind based on a some psychotic dream to become a level X something completely different. Or, of course, they could just roll up new characters and start again. :)

Sczarni

Bandw2 wrote:
and as i explained, you can make stealth checks against ranged attacks, not people...

You admit I get a stealth check? OK. Against anything? Doesn't matter to me.

Spoiler:
RAW: "Your Stealth check (you finally admitted I do get one, right?) is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you."

Then it applies to what? Oh, let's consult the skill. "anyone who might notice you" So while it is allowed against one thing,

Spoiler:
I don't get a roll because people are present: I can be in an area where nobody is and nobody can see you, for instance, to start it off - or moving to cover OR concealment - or moving to someplace when people were distracted with Bluff, even though they might be able to still see you

per the skill it now applies against "anyone who might notice you".

Well, you just allowed it to apply against everyone. So bully for you! That you can roll a stealth (at all) and it applies against everyone (who might notice you) with Wind Stance. Per RAW. You are more generous than me. I would have only allowed it to apply against ranged attackers, not everyone. But there you go. RAW, the stealth roll applies against anyone who might look your way. Ranged or melee. RAW.

Spoiler:
PS. I know I am "cherry picking" the parts of the skill, concealment rules and feats that say exactly what I want to prove my point. Just like you guys have been harping for the last few hours on "against ranged attacks" as only part of the feat you want to focus on. Good for the geese, good for the gander.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
maouse wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
and as i explained, you can make stealth checks against ranged attacks, not people...

You admit I get a stealth check? OK. Against anything? Doesn't matter to me.

** spoiler omitted **

Then it applies to what? Oh, let's consult the skill. "anyone who might notice you" So while it is allowed against one thing, ** spoiler omitted **, per the skill it now applies against "anyone who might notice you".

Well, you just allowed it to apply against everyone. So bully for you! That you can roll a stealth (at all) and it applies against everyone (who might notice you) with Wind Stance. Per RAW. You are more generous than me. I would have only allowed it to apply against ranged attackers, not everyone. But there you go. RAW, the stealth roll applies against anyone who might look your way. Ranged or melee. RAW.

stealth wrote:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.

if we're going by actuality, then even if the "To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square." you have concealment but if someone else can see you, then you can't sneak.

Hence, you could stealth if a trap made a ranged attack against you, but if a person is watching you, then you couldn't. We've found our first instance of someone having concealment but not being able to do a stealth check.

it seems to be if anyone can see you you can't roll a stealth check unless you do what it says in the stealth section.

Stealth wrote:
Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

and once again, the people attacking you do not have concealment from/to you. so, yes you can stealth against a ranged attack as per this feat, and make a roll as per normal, but as per normal if someone is watching you, you can't stealth.

so under the rules if:
A = rogue
B = an Enemy
C = an Enemy
D = squares with concealment.

BDA C

A and B have concealment from each other, C and A do not. A cannot stealth roll as C can see A. B is still aware of A for some reason.

thanks for reminding me that stealth HAS to apply to all near by targets and cannot work on individuals.


maouse wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
and as i explained, you can make stealth checks against ranged attacks, not people...

You admit I get a stealth check? OK. Against anything? Doesn't matter to me.

** spoiler omitted **

Then it applies to what? Oh, let's consult the skill. "anyone who might notice you" So while it is allowed against one thing,

** spoiler omitted **

per the skill it now applies against "anyone who might notice you".

Well, you just allowed it to apply against everyone. So bully for you! That you can roll a stealth (at all) and it applies against everyone (who might notice you) with Wind Stance. Per RAW. You are more generous than me. I would have only allowed it to apply against ranged attackers, not everyone. But there you go. RAW, the stealth roll applies against anyone who might look your way. Ranged or melee. RAW.

You only get a stealth check under the revised stealth rules that I don't think were ever made official because they couldn't be made to fit into the CRB's pagination limits. Under those rules you cannot use stealth against everyone.

Under the rules as printed you only get a stealth check if no one can observe you. You can use stealth against everyone because you're only allowed to make a stealth check when you could use stealth against everyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Guys who are arguing about the concealment and stealth thing: Please make a new thread. This has gone on long enough. The last 3 pages have been this argument.

Sczarni

Atarlost wrote:

You only get a stealth check under the revised stealth rules that I don't think were ever made official because they couldn't be made to fit into the CRB's pagination limits. Under those rules you cannot use stealth against everyone.

Under the rules as printed you only get a stealth check if no one can observe you. You can use stealth against everyone because you're only allowed to make a stealth check when you could use stealth against everyone.

Don't know about any unpublished stealth rules... but as far as not getting a stealth roll versus people who observe you: If you move to cover or concealment you are allowed a roll. Even if observed. Read the rules. The very next statement after the "can't use stealth" states when you CAN get a roll... and guess what, finding concealment lets you roll.

Backed up again in the Concealment section where it says "concealment allows a stealth roll."

I mean, the argument is that concealment isn't concealment. I disagree. As does RAW.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
maouse wrote:
PS. I know I am "cherry picking" the parts of the skill, concealment rules and feats that say exactly what I want to prove my point. Just like you guys have been harping for the last few hours on "against ranged attacks" as only part of the feat you want to focus on. Good for the geese, good for the gander.

that's because it's the part of the feat your ignoring, like it doesn't exist. the only reason you've come to your conclusion is because you believe this part has no inclination in what the feat does.

you read the feat as if it were "If you move more than 5 feet this turn, you gain 20% concealment for 1 round".


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
maouse wrote:
Don't know about any unpublished stealth rules... but as far as not getting a stealth roll versus people who observe you: If you move to cover or concealment you are allowed a roll. Even if observed. Read the rules. The very next statement after the "can't use stealth" states when you CAN get a roll... and guess what, finding concealment lets you roll.

you can only get a stealth roll if no one observes you, concealment allows you to be unobserved, but not by everyone. If anyone can still observe you, you are still being seen and not permitted a stealth roll.

look at my example with the letters.

Sczarni

Bandw2 wrote:
you read the feat as if it were "If you move more than 5 feet this turn, you gain 20% concealment for 1 round".

Nope. I read it as "Your erratic movements make it difficult for enemies to pinpoint your location." AND "If you move more than 5 feet this turn, you gain 20% concealment for 1 round against ranged attacks."

I interpret it as :

The first part, the description basically says "nobody sees where you went." The second part says you get concealment (thus can make a stealth roll, per all quoted RAW), it is only partial, it only lasts for one round, and it only applies against ranged attacks (which are made by ranged attackers). Since ranged attacks are made by ranged attackers, they are subject to the stealth roll you get (they are someone who might notice you).

I also extrapolated that if I get a stealth roll at all, per RAW it applies against anyone who might observe me. You simply don't understand stealth if you think simply looking in the right direction means someone automatically sees you. I agree that people making melee attacks are directly observing you with this skill. I think it is pretty reasonable to presume that anyone at range is no longer able to "pinpoint your location."


maouse wrote:
Atarlost wrote:

You only get a stealth check under the revised stealth rules that I don't think were ever made official because they couldn't be made to fit into the CRB's pagination limits. Under those rules you cannot use stealth against everyone.

Under the rules as printed you only get a stealth check if no one can observe you. You can use stealth against everyone because you're only allowed to make a stealth check when you could use stealth against everyone.

Don't know about any unpublished stealth rules... but as far as not getting a stealth roll versus people who observe you: If you move to cover or concealment you are allowed a roll. Even if observed. Read the rules. The very next statement after the "can't use stealth" states when you CAN get a roll... and guess what, finding concealment lets you roll.

Backed up again in the Concealment section where it says "concealment allows a stealth roll."

I mean, the argument is that concealment isn't concealment. I disagree. As does RAW.

Bandw2 wrote:
maouse wrote:
Don't know about any unpublished stealth rules... but as far as not getting a stealth roll versus people who observe you: If you move to cover or concealment you are allowed a roll. Even if observed. Read the rules. The very next statement after the "can't use stealth" states when you CAN get a roll... and guess what, finding concealment lets you roll.

you can only get a stealth roll if no one observes you, concealment allows you to be unobserved, but not by everyone. If anyone can still observe you, you are still being seen and not permitted a stealth roll.

look at my example with the letters.

Please guys. Can you take this to a new thread? Its been 3 pages.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
maouse wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
you read the feat as if it were "If you move more than 5 feet this turn, you gain 20% concealment for 1 round".

Nope. I read it as "Your erratic movements make it difficult for enemies to pinpoint your location." AND "If you move more than 5 feet this turn, you gain 20% concealment for 1 round against ranged attacks."

I interpret it as :

The first part, the description basically says "nobody sees where you went." The second part says you get concealment (thus can make a stealth roll, per all quoted RAW), it is only partial, it only lasts for one round, and it only applies against ranged attacks (which are made by ranged attackers). Since ranged attacks are made by ranged attackers, they are subject to the stealth roll you get (they are someone who might notice you).

unable to pinpoint your location = unable to tell your exact location

you're not moving at super human speeds nor ducking behind things, people have a hard time figuring out where to aim their arrows/guns/rocks

also, as said, you can't partial a stealth roll, everyone has to have lost sight of you. meaning since someone can still easily see you if they didn't make a ranged attack, you can't stealth roll unless somehow everyone ranged attacked you at once. and this is just following your logic.

as has been explained, being able to make a ranged attack does not make you under the effects of the concealment, a guy with a sword right next to you could throw his sword at you. suddenly he has no idea where you are?

Occam's razor: this only applies during attack rolls.

anyway, if they can't see you, then they can't make a ranged attack against you, meaning they're no longer under the effects of the ranged attack thing, meaning they see you again.

also, this would apparently, under your rules, give the tile your on concealment, meaning any enemy you ranged attack will have 20% concealment.

seriously, Occam's Razoring this. Your explanation fails the common sense rule on several counts, on those grounds alone it shouldn't work. :/

bandw2 wrote:

so under the rules if:

A = rogue
B = an Enemy
C = an Enemy
D = squares with concealment.

BDA C

A and B have concealment from each other, C and A do not. A cannot stealth roll as C can see A. B is still aware of A for some reason.

you still haven't explained this and how it related to stealth and concealment.

Sczarni

Adam B. 135 wrote:
Please guys. Can you take this to a new thread? Its been 3 pages.

Well, if I ever play a rogue, I don't want him nerfed because someone decided to house rule that concealment doesn't allow a stealth check. So it is kind of connected to the whole "what do rogues need to be better." They need a clear ruling on whether or not any kind of concealment allows a stealth roll, and against whom and what. So that someone who built their 8th level rogue around hoping to be able to use this feat don't find themselves having to scramble for "other concealment" (like a dark corner) to start a stealth round robin of sneak attacks.

Presumably if it lasts one round, it ends at the start of your next round, before you make any attacks anyway... The whole problem people see is using it to start combat, rolling stealth, sneak attacking someone at range without flanking or invisibility or sniping negatives... I guess. But that would end stealth when you attacked... And instead you could just have the mage cast greater invisibility (4th level spell requiring... dun dun dun... 8th level mage!) on you and get 50% instead of 20% with sneak attacks... I mean, I really don't see why these folks are "defending the Alamo" regarding this. All RAW shows you get a roll. All RAW says the roll then applies against everyone (though I would rule it only worked against ranged attackers). All RAW says it lasts a whapping 1 round. Best "spell" ever? Not even close.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
maouse wrote:
All RAW says it lasts a whapping 1 round. B

actually all RAW says is it gives concealment against ranged attacks. We've explained clearly how this does not apply to people, and I've explained how your "people making ranged attacks must have concealment" thing makes no sense, because if they don;t ranged attack they aren't effected, and how are you making a stealth check before anyone's turn (and thus able to ranged attack) when they can already see you.

basically, at the time you're too make the roll for stealth, no one has ranged attacked you yet, and thus has no connection at all to the feat.

Sczarni

Bandw2 wrote:
also, as said, you can't partial a stealth roll, everyone has to have lost sight of you.

WRONG! On so many levels. Haven't you ever seen the movie where the little girl sees the sneaking person and they "shush" her, she keeps walking, and they sneak through the gate/area/whatever?

Of course you can be partially successful against people. If people are directly observing you (the little girl) she isn't fooled by your sneaking. But that doesn't mean that all the guards in the castle/dungeon suddenly see you. Wrong, wrong, wrong...

Moving to a place of cover or concealment ALLOWS A ROLL. Its in the rules. RAW. It means "you went somewhere and they didn't exactly see where." Perhaps read the "pinpoint location" under invisibility? I know it is not in the actual "effects" of the feat, but it helps describe what the feat is trying to do. It is saying "you effectively disappear from sight, kind of like Bluff, and get concealment (which bluff doesn't even need, but then Bluff allows a roll!). Concealment allows a roll. Take it!"

Sczarni

Bandw2 wrote:
maouse wrote:
All RAW says it lasts a whapping 1 round. B

actually all RAW says is it gives concealment against ranged attacks. We've explained clearly how this does not apply to people, and I've explained how your "people making ranged attacks must have concealment" thing makes no sense, because if they don;t ranged attack they aren't effected, and how are you making a stealth check before anyone's turn (and thus able to ranged attack) when they can already see you.

basically, at the time you're too make the roll for stealth, no one has ranged attacked you yet, and thus has no connection at all to the feat.

A range attacker for one round would need to roll a perception to see where you went in order to attack (with a 20% miss chance). Why is this not easy to understand? This is all the feat allows you to do with stealth? Anyone not standing in melee range loses sight of you because of your fast movements. How is this that far removed from a simple BLUFF check? I don't understand why you guys are so animated against the concept that you get to "hide" when you move really fast. If you simply shouted "Look over there!" and they turn their heads and you moved behind them (unobserved location WITHOUT cover or concealment) you could then roll stealth. Why is this feat worse than that? I don't get why you are trying to intentionally sabotage it by harping on "against ranged attacks"... you gain concealment... concealment allows a stealth roll... stealth check is opposed by anyone who might observe you... now it is on them to "might observe" you... and roll the opposed check...

ps. and I have also explained why no concealment ever applies to "people" per RAW. it only applies to attacks, per the section on concealment.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
maouse wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
also, as said, you can't partial a stealth roll, everyone has to have lost sight of you.

WRONG! On so many levels. Haven't you ever seen the movie where the little girl sees the sneaking person and they "shush" her, she keeps walking, and they sneak through the gate/area/whatever?

Of course you can be partially successful against people. If people are directly observing you (the little girl) she isn't fooled by your sneaking. But that doesn't mean that all the guards in the castle/dungeon suddenly see you. Wrong, wrong, wrong...

Moving to a place of cover or concealment ALLOWS A ROLL. Its in the rules. RAW. It means "you went somewhere and they didn't exactly see where." Perhaps read the "pinpoint location" under invisibility? I know it is not in the actual "effects" of the feat, but it helps describe what the feat is trying to do. It is saying "you effectively disappear from sight, kind of like Bluff, and get concealment (which bluff doesn't even need, but then Bluff allows a roll!). Concealment allows a roll. Take it!"

stealth specifically states you must not be observed to make a stealth check. This can easily be whisked away IC wise as someone alerting allies to your movements.

also with the pinpoint thing, I've already said that it describes it to me as Mugen from Samurai Champloo. who basically moves constantly in erratic patterns making him hard to track in both melee and ranged. he probably uses lightning style.

once again though, I DO NOT CARE ABOUT CONCEALMENT'S RULES, we get it concealment allows stealth, but wind style only works on ranged attacks, which almost always don't have any senses.

bandw2 wrote:


so under the rules if:
A = rogue
B = an Enemy
C = an Enemy
D = squares with concealment.
BDA C
A and B have concealment from each other, C and A do not. A cannot stealth roll as C can see A. B is still aware of A for some reason.

please just explain this, if you want to continue with the concealment stuff though.

Sczarni

Bandw2 wrote:

once again though, I DO NOT CARE ABOUT CONCEALMENT'S RULES, we get it concealment allows stealth, but wind style only works on ranged attacks, which almost always don't have any senses.

And you can roll stealth when nobody is observing you, which almost always means no senses are watching you. What is the point of that statement? To prove MY point?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
maouse wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

once again though, I DO NOT CARE ABOUT CONCEALMENT'S RULES, we get it concealment allows stealth, but wind style only works on ranged attacks, which almost always don't have any senses.

And you can roll stealth when nobody is observing you, which almost always means no senses are watching you. What is the point of that statement? To prove MY point?

no, they'd fail the roll instantly, so a roll would likely be futile/ a waste of time. you probably wouldn't even try to stealth from a ranged attack, say created by a trap.

as i have said, if someone else is observing you, you cannot stealth.

bandw2 wrote:


so under the rules if:
A = rogue
B = an Enemy
C = an Enemy
D = squares with concealment.
BDA C
A and B have concealment from each other, C and A do not. A cannot stealth roll as C can see A. B is still aware of A for some reason.

please just explain this, if you want to continue with the concealment stuff though.

Sczarni

bandw2 wrote:


so under the rules if:
A = rogue
B = an Enemy
C = an Enemy
D = squares with concealment.
BDA C
A and B have concealment from each other, C and A do not. A cannot stealth roll as C can see A. B is still aware of A for some reason.

A is invisible. B is also. C has see invisible, and is not invisible. C is telling his partner B where A is.

A moves to partial cover or concealment (of any type that is not "invisible" - ie Wind/Lightning Stance) and rolls stealth. Done deal. B and C are now both hosed. Despite C being able to see invisible, he can't see "hidden" and therefore has to make an opposed perception roll. B has no idea what square A's in, but might be able to pinpoint that with a 20 perception if within 30 feet. Then he can roll a perception check to see if he can even attack him. Then he has a 50% miss chance due to the invisibility. A meanwhile can attack C freely, or make the 20 perception for the square (and if not hiding, take the 50% miss chance) of B.

How much of an explanation do you want?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
maouse wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
Please guys. Can you take this to a new thread? Its been 3 pages.

Well, if I ever play a rogue, I don't want him nerfed because someone decided to house rule that concealment doesn't allow a stealth check. So it is kind of connected to the whole "what do rogues need to be better." They need a clear ruling on whether or not any kind of concealment allows a stealth roll, and against whom and what. So that someone who built their 8th level rogue around hoping to be able to use this feat don't find themselves having to scramble for "other concealment" (like a dark corner) to start a stealth round robin of sneak attacks.

Presumably if it lasts one round, it ends at the start of your next round, before you make any attacks anyway... The whole problem people see is using it to start combat, rolling stealth, sneak attacking someone at range without flanking or invisibility or sniping negatives... I guess. But that would end stealth when you attacked... And instead you could just have the mage cast greater invisibility (4th level spell requiring... dun dun dun... 8th level mage!) on you and get 50% instead of 20% with sneak attacks... I mean, I really don't see why these folks are "defending the Alamo" regarding this. All RAW shows you get a roll. All RAW says the roll then applies against everyone (though I would rule it only worked against ranged attackers). All RAW says it lasts a whapping 1 round. Best "spell" ever? Not even close.

It has still been 3 pages of this discussion. If what you want is official word on this issue, how about you make a new thread, and mark it for FAQ? I will also mark it for FAQ, and I bet a lot of other people would be willing to as well.

Do you know what this thread looks like to someone hoping to come in and talk about rogues? He sees people going back and forth for pages and pages discussing this concealment issue. I doubt that inspires anyway to want to start posting.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
maouse wrote:
bandw2 wrote:


so under the rules if:
A = rogue
B = an Enemy
C = an Enemy
D = squares with concealment.
BDA C
A and B have concealment from each other, C and A do not. A cannot stealth roll as C can see A. B is still aware of A for some reason.

A is invisible. B is also. C has see invisible, and is not invisible. C is telling his partner B where A is.

A moves to partial cover or concealment (of any type that is not "invisible" - ie Wind/Lightning Stance) and rolls stealth. Done deal. B and C are now both hosed. Despite C being able to see invisible, he can't see "hidden" and therefore has to make an opposed perception roll. B has no idea what square A's in, but might be able to pinpoint that with a 20 perception if within 30 feet. Then he can roll a perception check to see if he can even attack him. Then he has a 50% miss chance due to the invisibility. A meanwhile can attack C freely, or make the 20 perception for the square (and if not hiding, take the 50% miss chance) of B.

How much of an explanation do you want?

mmmm, they're not allowed to move(outside of their square) or attack each other, or perform any other action other than rotating or rolling for things like stealth or perception. redo explanation. none of them are invisible, something happened that made A want to hide from B and C. there is no explicit hostility.

Sczarni

Bandw2 wrote:
mmmm, they're not allowed to move(outside of their square) or attack each other, or perform any other action other than rotating or rolling for things like stealth or perception. redo explanation. none of them are invisible, something happened that made A want to hide from B and C. there is no explicit hostility.

Why don't you explain it, since you apparently know exactly what stipulations you want to put on the encounter. And aren't going to tell me "until I am wrong 10 times." I dunno, maybe they are playing hide and go seek and one guy (C) is cheating when A is counting to 100?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
maouse wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
mmmm, they're not allowed to move(outside of their square) or attack each other, or perform any other action other than rotating or rolling for things like stealth or perception. redo explanation. none of them are invisible, something happened that made A want to hide from B and C. there is no explicit hostility.
Why don't you explain it, since you apparently know exactly what stipulations you want to put on the encounter. And aren't going to tell me "until I am wrong 10 times." I dunno, maybe they are playing hide and go seek and one guy (C) is cheating when A is counting to 100?

well as far as i am aware under the rules, A can't stealth because C can see her, even though she wants to hide from C. B while having concealment between herself and A are both aware of each other.

B could Sneak and hide from both A and C however.

reply with what you feel is wrong, also i pose another question. can someone use wind stance to stealth if he is visible at the start of it?

also, i still don't quite understand how you can stealth prior to people making ranged attacks at you.


Frankly I think they need to be full BAB. Not a popular opinion, but I just don't picture many examples of the hero rogue in media who throws the knives or shoots the bow and misses horribly like they do in the game.

People say they aren't meant for combat... but there are so many examples that ARE... and the mechanics really don't reflect that. There should be some kind of mechanic involved that makes them the 'nimble' fighters as opposed to the 'strong' fighters... but in a fight, they should still hold their own.

Fighters get their feats, Rangers get their favored Enemies, Paladins have... a lot ;)

Giving them full BaB for their occasional sneak attack wouldn't unbalance them. Especailly since to be efficient, they need to be up close and personal and flanking the monsters before it even works....


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
phantom1592 wrote:

Frankly I think they need to be full BAB. Not a popular opinion, but I just don't picture many examples of the hero rogue in media who throws the knives or shoots the bow and misses horribly like they do in the game.

People say they aren't meant for combat... but there are so many examples that ARE... and the mechanics really don't reflect that. There should be some kind of mechanic involved that makes them the 'nimble' fighters as opposed to the 'strong' fighters... but in a fight, they should still hold their own.

Fighters get their feats, Rangers get their favored Enemies, Paladins have... a lot ;)

Giving them full BaB for their occasional sneak attack wouldn't unbalance them. Especailly since to be efficient, they need to be up close and personal and flanking the monsters before it even works....

I sort of feel that's what the slayer did... Rogues are gonna be having it rough after the new classes come out.


N. Jolly wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
I see the number 1 problem within seconds of reading your response. You seem to think Pathfinder is a combat heavy game and therefore classes should he designed with that in mind. Pathfinder is not a combat heavy game, Pathfinder is a DM sets the level of combat game. There are many games that rarely see combat and there are other games that see combat every 15 steps.

Basically half of the book is dedicated to combat. While certain games may not be combat heavy, the game itself includes a good deal of combat, as can be proven by looking at the APs, the way the developers see the game being played.

I'm not much of a "the devs say it, so it must be law" person, but the game requires every class to be competent at combat in their own way. Whether that be spells, blades, or support, they still need to be able to contribute. Sneak Attack is also a (large) feature of the Rogue's to say "Hey, I should be in combat." If the Rogue didn't have sneak attack, I might agree with you, but its most prominent ability, as well as the focus of quite a few Rogue Talents, is sneak attack, meaning it's a combat class, even if it's not good at it.

This after I saw someone else calling the Rogue "Not a skill class, but a secondary melee class." No one seems to know what a Rogue is supposed to be, which leads to these arguments over what it should be doing.

That's because combat requires the most mechanics therefore requires more of a page count. That doean't mean the game is combat heavy. 4th esition D&D was a combat heavy game with role playing tacked on. It was like playing Monopoly but adding some role playing into the mix.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
see the number 1 problem within seconds of reading your response. You seem to think Pathfinder is a combat heavy game and therefore classes should he designed with that in mind. Pathfinder is not a combat heavy game, Pathfinder is a DM sets the level of combat game. There are many games that rarely see combat and there are other games that see combat every 15 steps.
And why, exactly, should players who see a lot of combat not get a Rogue that can contribute? The Rogue doesn't lose anything in skill-based encounters by becoming better in combat. It just becomes a class that is more attractive to use in general. By the same logic I think Fighters should have more skill points and abilities that contribute outside of combat because sitting and waiting for the next fight before you can do anything worthwhile is not very fun.

Rogues do contribute in combat. They are not martial frontrunners and if that is what you are looking for then I would recommend Ranger. That would be like me saying the Wizard needs to he changed because I want a robe wearing Wizard who casts divine spells. If I want that then I should just play a cleric. A rogue is someone who has enough to do his job but isn't the king of it.

A perfectly well built rogue has no problem in combat. All you have to do is search these boards and you can find plenty. Sounds like people jumping on the hate wagon just for the sake of it.

Rogue talents are the problem, not anything else.

Silver Crusade

Forever Slayer wrote:
That's because combat requires the most mechanics therefore requires more of a page count. That doesn't mean the game is combat heavy. 4th edition D&D was a combat heavy game with role playing tacked on. It was like playing Monopoly but adding some role playing into the mix.

I guess the question I'd ask then is how do you level up? The game assumes XP, and by rules aside from GM Fiat, you gain XP for defeating monsters and traps. So unless the Rogue's just going around breaking traps, the game assumes combat. You can level up without needing combat, but that's outside of the base assumption of the game.

And no other class in the game isn't considered a combat class. Let's run through the core classes, shall we? Note this is just a rehashing of the second time I've had to say this.

N. Jolly wrote:


Barbarian: Freaking duh, and can shine out of combat due to decent skills and skill points
Bard: Easily shines in combat, and helps others shine too
Cleric: Not hard to shine in combat due to tons of spells
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' even with a lot of class features geared towards it
Paladin: They shine, and how! Even against non evil they shine, but against undead and such, they giga shine!
Ranger: For that natural shine with nearly as many skill points as a Rogue and bonus feats as a fighter
Sorcerer: When doesn't magic shine? The answer is never
Wizard: Kind of hard for them NOT to shine, really

That's just core, or should we check the others for other 'non combat classes' in this system?

Why do people assume that the Rogue is the only non combat class in the game? Why do people think there'd be a non combat class in a game that involves a leveling system highly tied into defeat others in combat?

You can level through social situations (I let parties do it all the time if it's a good situation), but it's not the default assumption of the game, and that's not something that can be refuted. Unless you think you can use diplomacy and good roleplaying on a skeleton to rethink its existence as a skeleton.


For a starter: one way to make the Rogue stronger is to improve the skills. Even if he is not the ''most skilled character'', the Rogue is one of the class who should use skills mechanics the more (no spell. more skills versatility than most of the class, etc...).

What I'm thinking of it's something that I've seen somewhere else here: let skills to do some surnatural thing. Like: go out of a Dimensional Prison with a good Escape Artist, let Stealth be use anytime, with a huge minus if your are watched and so on. If the Bard and the Ranger would gain from those new rules, they will not get more utility from that than a Rogue (and even some talent, like the one to hide stealth, should be Stealth DC instead...)

After that: the Rogue talent. It's really sad that some class abilities is use to get ''standard feat''. I've seen some good RT idea here and it should really be add to the list (dot on the one to give him better save). Some RT that give half level in a choice of ''INT'' Skills could be a good addition too, and give back to the Rogue what the Ranger stole with the Urban Ranger.

Instead of trying to make the Rogue fight with the other class on the ''standard battleground'', they should give him the capacity of using skills in combat with more ease and more efficacity than other class.

Just an example of what I'm thinking:

Weak presence (Sur): The Rogue may do a stealth check against an opponent in close quarter combat with -5. If it suceed, the opponent loose his DEX bonus to AC against the rogue untile the end of the next turn and can't take attack of opportunity against him.


N. Jolly wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
That's because combat requires the most mechanics therefore requires more of a page count. That doesn't mean the game is combat heavy. 4th edition D&D was a combat heavy game with role playing tacked on. It was like playing Monopoly but adding some role playing into the mix.
I guess the question I'd ask then is how do you level up? The game assumes XP, and by rules aside from GM Fiat, you gain XP for defeating monsters and traps. So unless the Rogue's just going around breaking traps, the game assumes combat. You can level up without needing combat, but that's outside of the base assumption of the game.

To be fair, you can also get xp by talking your way through encounters or by avoiding them altogether.

Both of which should be classic rogue approaches.

Quote:


You can level through social situations (I let parties do it all the time if it's a good situation), but it's not the default assumption of the game, and that's not something that can be refuted. Unless you think you can use diplomacy and good roleplaying on a skeleton to rethink its existence as a skeleton.

No, but I should be able to get past the skeletons. (As mindless undead, skeletons have no perception ranks, and typically a Wisdom modifier of +10. I should be able to sneak past them wearing a one-man-band suit and carrying a torch.)

The problem -- and this is has been an issue since before there was AD&D -- is that I can't effectively rub my stealth skill all over Boris the Strong and Fair (aka BSF) in his semi-mobile soup can. So while I might have the ability to get myself past the skeletons, it's much harder for me to get him past, while of course if he can defeat the skeletons in combat, then that allows me to pass easily.

And, of course, the bard can turn him invisible and silent, use gaseous form to get BSF past, root them to the spot with shadow anchor so we can stroll past,.... or even buff BSF's Stealth skill via class abilities,... but the fact that this is yet another encounter that is nigh-impossible for a rogue but trivial for a bard doesn't say anything about how much weaker the rogue is than a bard, does it?


These are my house rules pertaining to the rogue.

Full attacks - In addition to a 5-foot step, you may move an additional 5 feet for each iterative attack you have in the same turn you full round attack. Treat this as a withdraw action for the purposes of triggering attacks of opportunity (only the first 5 feet moved ignores AoO’s)

Rogue/Ninja - Sneak attack dice are multiplied on critical hits.

Rogue - Whenever a rogue would be granted sneak attack dice, she gains an untyped +1 bonus to attack rolls. This bonus increases by +1 at level 5 and every 4 levels after

Weapon Finesse - All characters with 13 Dex automatically obtain the feat Weapon Finesse


Forever Slayer wrote:
They are not martial frontrunners. [...] A rogue is someone who has enough to do his job but isn't the king of it.

I've been seeing this a lot on this thread from the rogue defenders.

People are quick to say "oh, that's not the rogue's job," and then tell me that the rogue has what he needs, "enough to do his job," but I've not seen anyone tell me what the rogue's job actually entails.

Is it combat? No, any of the full BAB classes are more suited to that job.
Is it specifically skirmish-combat? No, that's more suited to the ranger in particular.
Is it mastery of the appropriate skills? No, that's something the vanilla bard is more suited for.
Is it stealth and assassination via high-damage sneak attacks? No, that's something the vivisectionist alchemist is better at. Or, for that matter, the ninja.
Is it social manipulation? No, that's something you want a bard for.
Is it trapfinding and disabling? No, that's something better left to someone like an appropriate bard or ranger archetype.

Is it standing there in the middle of the battlemat taking up space, like someone's annoying little brother who had to be brought into the dungeon, 'cause otherwise Mom and Dad would be mad?
At this point, I'm not seeing a lot of other options.

Liberty's Edge

Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
And then you, and others, started saying the Rogue didn't need to be fixed, in a thread about fixing the Rogue (how's that on-topic?)
It is on topic. There is an option for "rouges are fine" and people that belives that are welcome to vote for it and express their belief.

Alright, that's fair enough. Sorry about that everyone, I was a little annoyed and acerbic when I posted that...

Vod Canockers wrote:
From looking through this, it seems that people want the Rogue to be able to fight like a Fighter, be able to be a burglar (breaking and entering), a mugger, a bank job expert (disable device), the world's greatest detective, an assassin, pickpocket, and a conman all at the same time. While no one expects a Fighter to be a knight, archer, two weapon fighter, two handed fighter, unarmed expert, etc.

That's not what we want at all. I, at least, want Rogues to be actually good at the skills they have, rather than just having a lot of them and actually useful in a fight (like everyone else is). I'd be perfectly content if they got significant bonuses to, say, 4 skills of their choice, specializing them significantly more...I just want them to actually be good at something as opposed to the low end of mediocre at almost everything. Combat bonuses would also be needed, but again, I'd be fine with those being specialized at making them very good at a particular aspect of combat, not the whole thing.

Vod Canockers wrote:
The Rogue is a fine class, I play them all the time. Do I do as much damage as the fighter, no but I don't expect to. I also don't expect the fighter to disable the trap, or open the lock or sneak around. Can a spell caster do those things, sure, but if he is, then he is giving up his offensive spells to do it.

Which would be why we're not comparing Rogue to primarily offensive spellcasters, but to 6-level casters like Bard or Alchemist who don't have all that many offensive spells and are clearly intended to use their spells for self-buffs and utility.

And the Bard's better than the Rogue at skills even without using spells at all.

Forever Slayer wrote:
I see the number 1 problem within seconds of reading your response. You seem to think Pathfinder is a combat heavy game and therefore classes should he designed with that in mind. Pathfinder is not a combat heavy game, Pathfinder is a DM sets the level of combat game. There are many games that rarely see combat and there are other games that see combat every 15 steps.

Actually...Pathfinder is predicated on 4-6 encounters a day. Primarily combat encounters. The GM can certainly change that, but it's the formula the system (and things like amount of expendable resources) are based on. If a class is not very useful in the game's 'default mode' well, there's a problem. Now, as Orfamay Quest notes, you can get by encounters without combat...except the Rogue isn't very good at that either. Heck, even on social encounters, anyone who gets actual, non-skill, benefits from Charisma is probably better. And certainly the Bard is with Glibness.

Also, the Rogue is often cited as being better than spellcasters because it doesn't run out of spells...but the lower the number of dangerous encounters per day, the less that's true, and the worse the Rogue looks. I'd expect a game with one combat encounter a day to make the Rogue look even worse than one with several since spellcasters can 'nova' and the Rogue simply can't.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Nothing, Start enjoying being subpar like every good roleplayer. (pun option, but who knows)

This would be my vote. My reasoning is you can't really fix the rogue with out a new edition as the rogue is core book class and the APG/UC books didn't do the jobs to fix the rogue. Now with new Class coming this summer you have options to take other than the rogue.

At best you can house rule the rogue into better class. I give the rogue two good saves, reflex and players choice of will or fort set at character creation. I give a +1 to hit on sneak attacks at ever even sneak attack die, so if you 6D6 sneak attack you +3 to hit on sneak attacks.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
I, at least, want Rogues to be actually good at the skills they have, rather than just having a lot of them and actually useful in a fight (like everyone else is). I'd be perfectly content if they got significant bonuses to, say, 4 skills of their choice, specializing them significantly more...I just want them to actually be good at something as opposed to the low end of mediocre at almost everything.

I think that's a good description, and I would like to expand on it below.

Quote:

Which would be why we're not comparing Rogue to primarily offensive spellcasters, but to 6-level casters like Bard or Alchemist who don't have all that many offensive spells and are clearly intended to use their spells for self-buffs and utility.

And the Bard's better than the Rogue at skills even without using spells at all.

If the rogue is at "the low end of mediocre at almost everything," which I think it is, the bard, by contrast, seems to be at the high end of mediocre at almost everything, with the notable exception of face skills and party buffing, at which she's the best (or nearly so) in the game. So the bard has two significant core strengths and no substantial weaknesses.

I'm not sure I'd be willing to say that the rogue has no substantial weaknesses. The fact that the rogue has no way of increasing combat accuracy, for example, is (in my view) a major weakness, one that the bard doesn't have. The fact that the rogue has no way of increasing skill effectiveness ditto, So while the fighter is clearly skill-deficient, the rogue is also skill-deficient, just less clearly so.

But more damningly, what's the rogue's "core strength"? Not damage output, as sneak attack is too situational. Not skills. Not stealth, as she can't compete with a second level spell. Not mobility. Not social situations.

What's left? Telling knock-knock jokes to keep morale up? (Whups, that's the bard's department -- Peform (comedy).)

So if the bard has no weaknesses and a few real strengths, the rogue has no real strengths and a few weaknesses.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just want to point out that I dislike the "trapfinding is a trait now" argument, since it's a campaign trait. Which means it's really only supposed to be available for Mummy's Mask, or a homebrew campaign where the GM deems it appropriate.

Really if you're going to allow any campaign traits all the time, there are many more better ones. The one that gives you a free hp and skill point every level, in addition to your favored class bonus, for example.

I also want to point out there is that new rogue archetype in the harrow book - the one that can add half his rogue level to his attack rolls, skill checks, and saves provided he wins a coin flip. (I don't have the book in front of me, and I don't think it's up on pfsrd yet, so I may be misremembering the mechanics - but you choose two courses of action, flip a coin, and get the bonus on the one chosen by the coin toss. Bonus lasts like a minute or so.)

Sorry to interrupt. Please return to your discussion of wind stance and stealth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
voska66 wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Nothing, Start enjoying being subpar like every good roleplayer. (pun option, but who knows)
This would be my vote. My reasoning is you can't really fix the rogue with out a new edition as the rogue is core book class and the APG/UC books didn't do the jobs to fix the rogue. Now with new Class coming this summer you have options to take other than the rogue.

As I've said several times, including on this thread (IIRC), I think an expanded list of rogue talents that don't suck would go a long way towards rescuing the rogue. And that could easily be published as a splatbook.

Liberty's Edge

Orfamay Quest wrote:
I think that's a good description, and I would like to expand on it below.

Thanks. :)

Orfamay Quest wrote:
If the rogue is at "the low end of mediocre at almost everything," which I think it is, the bard, by contrast, seems to be at the high end of mediocre at almost everything, with the notable exception of face skills and party buffing, at which she's the best (or nearly so) in the game. So the bard has two significant core strengths and no substantial weaknesses.

I think that's more-or-less a fair assessment, though I'd say they're actually strong at skills in general given Bardic Knowledge and the ability to use Versatile Performance on non-face skills.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
I'm not sure I'd be willing to say that the rogue has no substantial weaknesses. The fact that the rogue has no way of increasing combat accuracy, for example, is (in my view) a major weakness, one that the bard doesn't have.

Agreed. When everyone else has a thing and you don't...that's a weakness.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
The fact that the rogue has no way of increasing skill effectiveness ditto, So while the fighter is clearly skill-deficient, the rogue is also skill-deficient, just less clearly so.

Here I disagree. Most classes don't get skill bonuses of the sort we're talking about, making this not a weakness, IMO. It's just also not a strength, yet people keep talking like it is.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
But more damningly, what's the rogue's "core strength"? Not damage output, as sneak attack is too situational. Not skills. Not stealth, as she can't compete with a second level spell. Not mobility. Not social situations.

Agreed. And the heart of the problem, IMO.

Orfamay Quest wrote:

What's left? Telling knock-knock jokes to keep morale up? (Whups, that's the bard's department -- Peform (comedy).)

So if the bard has no weaknesses and a few real strengths, the rogue has no real strengths and a few weaknesses.

Yup, agreed completely. I'd list Saves as one of them, on top of those you list, for example.

ryric wrote:

Just want to point out that I dislike the "trapfinding is a trait now" argument, since it's a campaign trait. Which means it's really only supposed to be available for Mummy's Mask, or a homebrew campaign where the GM deems it appropriate.

Really if you're going to allow any campaign traits all the time, there are many more better ones. The one that gives you a free hp and skill point every level, in addition to your favored class bonus, for example.

I actually agree with you entirely, here. Heck, even in Mummy's Mask, Blood of the Pharaohs gives the equivalent of two normal Traits. And you'll note I've never tried to use this as an argument against Rogues being good, instead referencing things like Investigator or Archaeologist Bard.

I just don't think not using that Trait helps the Rogue notably given that so many Archetypes or other classes also grant Trapfinding.

ryric wrote:
I also want to point out there is that new rogue archetype in the harrow book - the one that can add half his rogue level to his attack rolls, skill checks, and saves provided he wins a coin flip. (I don't have the book in front of me, and I don't think it's up on pfsrd yet, so I may be misremembering the mechanics - but you choose two courses of action, flip a coin, and get the bonus on the one chosen by the coin toss. Bonus lasts like a minute or so.)

Yeah, Sczarni Swindler looks surprisingly good. Unfortunately, even it is only good half the time given the categories you need to pick between. I mean, I guess if you can get by the encounter by either talking or fighting it's solid, but when it comes to a straight fight (which definitely happens)...they only have a 1/2 chance of a bonus.

ryric wrote:
Sorry to interrupt. Please return to your discussion of wind stance and stealth.

Okay, I chuckled a little at this.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

People might not like this but... disarming magical traps is a complete gimmick and there should be a trait for it.

The ability to disarm magical traps plays two (with a slight third) ways in my mind.

1) Your GM sees that you have someone in the party who is able to disarm magical traps and decided to place some throughout the campaign. The party will take some hits from them, but it's a way to justify having the Rogue/Trap Breaker/Archaeologist/Seeker's commitment to disarming magical traps.

2) You're running a pre-written module, adventure path, or GM created dungeon that has magical traps in it. If you have a Trapfinder, great. He can do some stuff. Let's say your party doesn't have any, though. Upon realizing your party has no real way to deal with the trap other then sending summoned monsters through it or avoiding it, the GM has to think about what to do. He can remove it or add ways around it to avoid unavoidable damage. He can also buff it because he knows you have no way around it and would like to see you all suffer and die. Death to all those who refuse to bring Rogues! Jokes aside, if he doesn't remove it, then the party triggers it, takes a small amount of damage, and then laughs about it. In fact, a party who replaced the Rogue with the Cleric can in most cases have said Cleric channel energy a couple times or cast a spell and remove the downsides of the trap after-the-fact.

3) You are running some great content and traps are actually interesting. Triggering them will do more than damage or conditions. Still, see 1) and 2) as either they were put there because you had a way to deal with them or they were going to be there and if you have no trapfinder your GM is probably going to change it up a little or allow you to bypass it in other ways.

Traps in general are often boring to me. As I mentioned in 2, traps outside major encounters end up just soaking a channel energy, wand charge, and maybe a lesser restoration scroll. In combat, they will probably feel like gimmicks and just make players frustrated. Something like "What do you mean we TPK'd because there was a Hold Mass Person trap magical trigger?" Not even a great example, but it feels bland and doesn't add much. If the trap is incredibly strong then either you have a Rogue with the talent to auto-detect it and he detects/disarms it or it triggers and does something horrendous to the party. A weak trap will just make the Rogue feel like he's wasting his time disarming it in combat or triggers and does nothing.

Well-made traps are often best as alarms or encounter changers (change terrain, move party to different encounter, etc). And even then I think they are best improvised and provoked by the player. Something like the party Archaeologist saying "Hm, we're breaking into the Lich's tower. He probably has magical alarms and warding. I detect magic looking for them? Can I disarm anything from here?" and going from there.

Again, YMMV. This is just how I feel about them and how my games usually play.

Silver Crusade

Orfamay Quest wrote:

To be fair, you can also get xp by talking your way through encounters or by avoiding them altogether.

Both of which should be classic rogue approaches.

I can cede this, although I still feel like the base assumption is still true that the game has more of a focus on combat than most other things.

A game with 0 combat is more an exception than the rule given the set up of the game in my opinion though.


Honestly with the whole rogue vs concealment argument... by that train of logic, simply having a guy between you and an Archer lets you roll stealth... since (most people tend to forget this), having anything between you and your target (like a person), grants the target a 20% miss chance due to concealment.

Oh! And you know WHY things like that and Wind Stance say CONCEALMENT instead of just a flat miss chance? BECAUSE IT NERFS ROGUES. CONCEALMENT STOPS SNEAK ATTACK....


N. Jolly wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

To be fair, you can also get xp by talking your way through encounters or by avoiding them altogether.

Both of which should be classic rogue approaches.

I can cede this, although I still feel like the base assumption is still true that the game has more of a focus on combat than most other things.

A game with 0 combat is more an exception than the rule given the set up of the game in my opinion though.

True, there will be combat. But not as much as some may think. I am DMing RotR now and many encounter in the first 4 chapters could have been avoided by diplomatie (maybe 33%?). unfortunatily for my group, they have a Paladin who auto-smite all evil monster so it didn't happen that much...


N. Jolly wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

To be fair, you can also get xp by talking your way through encounters or by avoiding them altogether.

Both of which should be classic rogue approaches.

I can cede this, although I still feel like the base assumption is still true that the game has more of a focus on combat than most other things.

Shrug. In every published AP I've seen, they are quite explicit that every combat can in theory be bypassed for full xp. Some combats are harder than others, of course, but there's always the possibility of a save-or-suck spell and then just walking away while the bad guy is laying there blinded, paralyzed, stunned, and smelling of garlic. There's also always the possibility of distracting it with an illusion or something, while you move past it. If you decide in your hombrew that there is no way to get past this hydra without combat, please don't blame the rules or "the basic assumption."

That said, yes, most groups go for combat solutions quickly instead of as a final resort, and the game rules offer more options in support of combat and limit non-combat options. I can almost always hit something with a piece of sharp metal and hurt it, but I can't use Bluff unless it speaks a common language with me.

I don't think this should stop you from playing a pacifist who tries to solve all problems with her voice instead of her dagger. But -- and this gets back to the central theme of this thread -- you'd be better off building that pacifist on a bard chassis than a rogue one.


Forever Slayer wrote:
Rogues don't need a better weapon selection. Being limited to certain weapons is part of the rogues flavour.

Slightly better weapon selection. All I gave them is proficiency with whips, longswords and bucklers... But I guess these ain't Rogue wepaons for you... I mean, who ever heard of Rogues using whips, right?

Forever Slayer wrote:
Rogues were never meant to be a combat heavy class. They were designed to get that hit in every now amd then that really hurts, and does.

Not being "combat heavy" doesn't mean they should suck in combat. Bards, Alchemists, Wizards ain't any more "combat heavy" than Rogues, they are just more capable (which isn't saying much, as Rogues suck in combat). Rogues are not just worse than Barbarians in battle, they are worse than any PC class should ever be!

Like it or not, combat is a big part of this game. It takes most space and more rules than anything else in the CRB. Being awful at it means you're losing a big piece of game time (and probably being a burden to the party).

No one is asking for Rogues to be just as powerful as an optimized Barbarian in combat, not even close! We just want them to be at least as useful as a Bard or Inquisitor is, although in a different way. We want Rogues to be able to face level-appropriate threats without the need of GM mercy.

Forever Slayer wrote:

One last thing. I think there are a lot of people who really miss the point classes and their design. Classes are not designed with maximum numbers in mind, they are designed with a concept. Also, people choose classes based on an idea they have and not just because they get high numbers. I know strolling through the door and using Charm Person would be easier, but some people like to sneak into that window and rob someone blind using Stealth.

If we left class design up to some of you the game would quickly become boring as hell because you could reach level 20 in just a few hours. Encounters would only last about a round.

Get off your high horse, will you?

We all care about character concept. And here is the thing: class is not concept, concept is not class.

Having the word "Rogue" written on your character sheet is not necessary (or even helpful) to role playing a sniveling scoundrel, con man, cat burglar or any other character archetype you can come up with.

Most people complaining about Rogues' mechanics are not haters or powergaming munchkins. We are fans of the class who want it to be able to meaningfully contribute to the party without being quickly overshadowed at his own job by a Bard/Inquisitor/Alchemist/Slayer/Investigator/Ninja/Whatever who is not even trying.

I want Rogues to be better because I want them to be able to excel at roles typically associated with the class, and I want them to do it effectively without being a burden for the party to carry around.

And honestly, in any game where the GM isn't using kid gloves, Rogues are either a burden or a casualty by 9th level. Their saves alone are basically a death sentence by then.

251 to 300 of 384 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Poll: What are the changes the Rogue class needs? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.