Is the Rogue the new Cleric?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 78 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Pendagast wrote:

Ive never seen an archeologist that was really impressive.

How is the bard any better at ranged combat than a rogue?

Inspire courage gives you a scaling bonus to hit and damage that is on when you need it, unlike sneak attack.

Pendagast wrote:

alchemists take a while to come online, by which time I see most players get bored with them.

Have never EVER seen a alchemist character take the trap finder route, usually for the aforementioned "there are other ways" reasoning.

I did it. Currently 8th level if I remember right, and loving every minute of him.

Pendagast wrote:

The trap thing is less or more of thing, depending on who you play with (DM)

I play with a certain DM who, if you don't have turn/channel and trap skills in the party you will do a lot of dying (he likes undead and elaborate dungeon traps…. curses too… everything is cursed)

however…d20 system in general can be described as how you describe trap finding… roll this roll that… the whole game is that.

That's playstyle more than rules.


Nicos wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

The player should be allowed to play what he wants.

Yes, of course.

Zhayne wrote:


Proper adventure design is the GM's responsibility.

THis have nothing to do with the rest. In PF you can deal with trap with every class, in multiple ways.

And, at least for me, part of the fun when playing is dealign with challenges.

Exactly.

"You guys didn't bring a trapfinder? Time to bust out all these awesome lethal traps!" is not a challenge. If the GM doesn't take the PC's abilities into account, it won't be a challenge. That's no different from '1st level PCs vs Balor' nonsense.

Silver Crusade

Pendagast wrote:

alchemists take a while to come online, by which time I see most players get bored with them.

Have never EVER seen a alchemist character take the trap finder route, usually for the aforementioned "there are other ways" reasoning.

I would SERIOUSLY question what a Rogue could do that an Alchemist couldn't aside from request healing that they themselves can't provide. I could go on for a while about the joys of the Alch (or the other points you made), but I feel like the responses made already cover the topic well enough.

And maybe the fact that they don't want to take that route shows that trap finding isn't really fun, and is a forced role, much like the OP was asking about.


I played an elven Archeologist, focused on archery, and I really put the poor Halfling rogue in the party to shame. The rogue was focused on melee and attacks with thrown daggers. I, OTOH was popping around with invisiblity and dimension doors, and misdirection spells finding a key situation in battle and when I did I would unleash with a volley of arrows,and when it looked like I would maybe get pinned down I would tumble out, or cast some spells again. The poor halfling rogue always got stuck or cornered, would get off a few sneaks, doing comparatively little compared to my bow volleys. I almost never took damage. I had heal spells, but never used them. I thought the Archeologist Bard ruled. I had by far the best skills of all the PCs. And my stats were comparable to the others. The trapfinding was great, and I could contribute in every way- except melee, which my PC avoided. He was built for archery, spells (charms/misdirection) and loremastery/scouting/stealth/trapfinding and that was what he did.

Liberty's Edge

Pendagast wrote:
which classes do you think are "more powerful" trap finder classes?

All of them. Particularly Investigator, who can use Inspiration on Perception and Disable Device and stack on extracts if he likes, making him the best in the game at this.

At a mere 5th level, a skill focused Empiricist Investigator with Int 18 can have a +14 Perception and Disable Device for traps, throw on their free Inspiration, and make that +17.5 each. Add Keen Senses and you can make that +27.5 Perception. Add on masterwork tools and Aram Zey's Focus and you can have a +24.5 on Disable Device with non-magical traps. +19.5 on magical ones. So...+17.5 Perception, +19.5 Disable Device all day, with bumps as necessary. And that only goes up from there.

And he can be good at lots of other things (including all the skills, since the build above involves Expanded Inspiration and Underworld Inspiration), and even at combat pretty readily.

Pendagast wrote:
Sure other classes can do it, but I thought the general point is that you really don't NEED trap finding at all, because…well magic.

True enough.

Pendagast wrote:
The trap finding classes like archeologist and alchemists are rather lack luster….

Archaeologist and Alchemist are excellent, actually.

Pendagast wrote:
slayers are certainly powerful especially when matched Mono e Mono… but their limited number of talents are just more…. attractive on options OTHER than trap finding.

Eh. Slayers have some solid choices, but not all that many. They can fit in Trapfinding by skipping a Feat or two.

And you're ignoring the existence of Investigator who are, once again, the best class in the game at this.

Pendagast wrote:
Rogue is still better at trap finding than other classes… just that magic is more resourceful and…how often do you NEED trap finding? about as often as a spell can do the job just as good.

Not than Investigator it isn't. You're right about the magic, though.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

Ive never seen an archeologist that was really impressive.

How is the bard any better at ranged combat than a rogue?

Inspire courage gives you a scaling bonus to hit and damage that is on when you need it, un.

I think my players would disagree with you about Rogues being not good at range combat. Last week in the jungle they ran into six drow which included two rogue snipers . The sniper used stealth to position themselves one on each flank and caught the party in a crossfire


Pendagast wrote:


Rogue is still better at trap finding than other classes… just that magic is more resourceful and…how often do you NEED trap finding? about as often as a spell can do the job just as good.

Any class with trapfinding or that has a bonus to perception equal to half its class level can at least do equally as well, if not better.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Degoon Squad wrote:
I think my players would disagree with you about Rogues being not good at range combat. Last week in the jungle they ran into six drow which included two rogue snipers . The sniper used stealth to position themselves one on each flank and caught the party in a crossfire

1. I didn't say Rogues were bad at ranged. I said that Bards were better. So your players wouldn't be disagreeing with me.

2. How are they flanking at range? Or do you just mean they shot from either side from surprise?


DominusMegadeus wrote:

Mathmuse, that's a nice story, but it doesn't really lend anything to the conversation. You specifically littered a hallway with traps for your Rogues, and the Ninja roleplayed a bad roll well.

Nothing you said changes the fact that Rogues can be easily replaced or mostly replicated with more powerful trapfinding classes.

I had hoped that my stories would respond to the original post, that no-one wants to play the trapfinder, especially a rogue trapfinder. Yet several of my players think that Dex-based characters are cool, and rogues are the classic Dex-based characters even for people who did not play 1st and 2nd edition D&D. Being swift (good initiative and Reflex save) and clever (skills without Intelligence) are storytelling archetypes that have popular appeal.

Yet I also agree that rogues are a weak class. Finding and disabling traps as class abilities replace other possible class abilities. Thus, being the trapfinder diminishes the character in other areas. It is an opportunity cost. Giving trapfinding to archetypes of other classes has the same cost to those classes.

My RotR party found a way to work with the strengths of rogues. For less resourceful players, the onus is on the GM.

Zhayne wrote:

The GM should design adventures around the party's capabilities, not the other way around. If the party has no trapfinder, then he shouldn't use traps often and shouldn't make them overly debilitating.

...
Proper adventure design is the GM's responsibility.
Nicos wrote:

This have nothing to do with the rest. In PF you can deal with trap with every class, in multiple ways.

And, at least for me, part of the fun when playing is dealing with challenges.

Zhayne wrote:

Exactly.

"You guys didn't bring a trapfinder? Time to bust out all these awesome lethal traps!" is not a challenge. If the GM doesn't take the PC's abilities into account, it won't be a challenge. That's no different from '1st level PCs vs Balor' nonsense.

I agree with Zhayne. If the party lacks a trapfinder, then I add traps when appropriate, but I give a warning. The ranger will notice that the kobolds' tracks never enter a particular corridor. The ancient tomb will have the bones of a adventurer who found the first trap the hard way. And the party will have a chance to back out and search for an alternative route.

But if the party does have a trapfinder, the trap-filled corridors will lead to an room deep in the enemy fortress past the largest group of guards. The booby-trapped chests will contain wonderful treasures. The oversized trap that the trapfinder effortlessly spotted will contain a catapult bolt that could have skewered the toughest martial character in the party. This is the trapfinder's chance to shine, and I want him or her to bask in that glory.

Verdant Wheel

N. Jolly wrote:

First of all, I didn't think still people proclaimed "Rogues are great, DPR morons! Steal from the group and party all night! *ELECTRIC GUITAR*"

But something I would like to touch on...

rainzax wrote:

walking into a known trap so that it "sets off" and taking a hit on the cure stick is... well, it's a little metagamey at worst, masochistic at best. and the summon squirrel trick is a little sadistic. not saying it's not effective (it is!), it's just a little silly/cheesy.

having a guy who can not only spot it but also disable it has more cool factor. simply put, some folks have slightly higher story demands (over raw mechanics/utilitarian demands) in order to maintain that immersive feeling, which is a legit concern.

Traps for me don't work in games for reasons like this. Like there's some gaming to the system that doesn't work well for verisimilitude, but at the same time, I always took traps to be intended as fatal (assuming a level 1-2 character), which is why they always just did damage, as a water trap/rolling bolder really requires a lot more space and set up to make and employ.

I almost feel like traps don't really work in the game anymore, since damage traps are just a healing charge away, and complex traps (things that require working parts and more interaction) can drive the game to a halt. In this way, I completely agree that the trapfinder role is easily a forced role. The trait is really the best thing to make traps work without forcing someone into something, and even that's pretty meh.

and never looking back


I find traps to be trivial to over come after first few level. That's probably why there aren't many traps in APs and the ones that are their typically have ways to avoid them entirely. When I run game I create I put traps in for the character who have the ability if there is no player with trap finding then I scaled traps back. They still exist but I give options to avoid the trap if the players are clever enough to find them.


All my GMs have had trouble comprehending that rogues can disable magical traps. So any of my rogues could only begrudgingly do something.

So yeah, there are plenty of GMs out there that will deprive the rogue the one thing they can actually do sort'of well.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
I think my players would disagree with you about Rogues being not good at range combat. Last week in the jungle they ran into six drow which included two rogue snipers . The sniper used stealth to position themselves one on each flank and caught the party in a crossfire

1. I didn't say Rogues were bad at ranged. I said that Bards were better. So your players wouldn't be disagreeing with me.

2. How are they flanking at range? Or do you just mean they shot from either side from surprise?

Simple one is to the party right the other is on the left and the rest of the drow( 2 rangers, a cleric, and a sorcerer) in front. Turn to face one sniper and your back is to the other. Might point out sniper have good stealth and bard spell are very noisy.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Degoon Squad wrote:
Simple one is to the party right the other is on the left and the rest of the drow( 2 rangers, a cleric, and a sorcerer) in front. Turn to face one sniper and your back is to the other. Might point out sniper have good stealth and bard spell are very noisy.

So they were using stealth, got it.

What does this have to do with anything again?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Degoon Squad wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
I think my players would disagree with you about Rogues being not good at range combat. Last week in the jungle they ran into six drow which included two rogue snipers . The sniper used stealth to position themselves one on each flank and caught the party in a crossfire

1. I didn't say Rogues were bad at ranged. I said that Bards were better. So your players wouldn't be disagreeing with me.

2. How are they flanking at range? Or do you just mean they shot from either side from surprise?

Simple one is to the party right the other is on the left and the rest of the drow( 2 rangers, a cleric, and a sorcerer) in front. Turn to face one sniper and your back is to the other. Might point out sniper have good stealth and bard spell are very noisy.

His point is that, mechanically, this is not flanking, and does not allow Sneak Attack. Nor are there facing rules in Pathfinder.

The surprise attacks do allow Sneak attack, but the crossfire? Not so much.

In short, if you allowed them more than a single round of Sneak Attacks, you're changing the rules to make Rogues more powerful. Which is cool, but doesn't make them any better for people who aren't changing the rules.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
I think my players would disagree with you about Rogues being not good at range combat. Last week in the jungle they ran into six drow which included two rogue snipers . The sniper used stealth to position themselves one on each flank and caught the party in a crossfire

1. I didn't say Rogues were bad at ranged. I said that Bards were better. So your players wouldn't be disagreeing with me.

2. How are they flanking at range? Or do you just mean they shot from either side from surprise?

Simple one is to the party right the other is on the left and the rest of the drow( 2 rangers, a cleric, and a sorcerer) in front. Turn to face one sniper and your back is to the other. Might point out sniper have good stealth and bard spell are very noisy.
His point is that, mechanically, this is not flanking, and does not allow Sneak Attack. Nor are there facing rules in Pathfinder.

Not to mention flanking only applies to melee weapons.

Liberty's Edge

Chengar Qordath wrote:
Not to mention flanking only applies to melee weapons.

That is sorta where I was going with that, yeah. :)

Shadow Lodge

Zhayne wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
The GM should design adventures around the party's capabilities, not the other way around. If the party has no trapfinder, then he shouldn't use traps often and shouldn't make them overly debilitating.
Or the player could fill their weakness with one of the several ways PF offer.
The player should be allowed to play what he wants. Proper adventure design is the GM's responsibility.

Not every GM has the time to custom-build every adventure that his group takes on. Nor does every GM have the time to go through every pre-made adventure that he purchases to tweak it to exactly his group's strenghts and weaknesses.

Now, if nobody has the ability to deal with traps, you're pretty safe with almost everything Paizo has published, as they don't seem to care for traps, and especially seem to have a hatred for effective traps.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
I think my players would disagree with you about Rogues being not good at range combat. Last week in the jungle they ran into six drow which included two rogue snipers . The sniper used stealth to position themselves one on each flank and caught the party in a crossfire

1. I didn't say Rogues were bad at ranged. I said that Bards were better. So your players wouldn't be disagreeing with me.

2. How are they flanking at range? Or do you just mean they shot from either side from surprise?

Simple one is to the party right the other is on the left and the rest of the drow( 2 rangers, a cleric, and a sorcerer) in front. Turn to face one sniper and your back is to the other. Might point out sniper have good stealth and bard spell are very noisy.

His point is that, mechanically, this is not flanking, and does not allow Sneak Attack. Nor are there facing rules in Pathfinder.

The surprise attacks do allow Sneak attack, but the crossfire? Not so much.

In short, if you allowed them more than a single round of Sneak Attacks, you're changing the rules to make Rogues more powerful. Which is cool, but doesn't make them any better for people who aren't changing the rules.

I think they were using the sniping rules wich allow one sneak attack per turn.

I would say that a full attack+inspire courage would have been more devastating.


Nicos wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
I think my players would disagree with you about Rogues being not good at range combat. Last week in the jungle they ran into six drow which included two rogue snipers . The sniper used stealth to position themselves one on each flank and caught the party in a crossfire

1. I didn't say Rogues were bad at ranged. I said that Bards were better. So your players wouldn't be disagreeing with me.

2. How are they flanking at range? Or do you just mean they shot from either side from surprise?

Simple one is to the party right the other is on the left and the rest of the drow( 2 rangers, a cleric, and a sorcerer) in front. Turn to face one sniper and your back is to the other. Might point out sniper have good stealth and bard spell are very noisy.

His point is that, mechanically, this is not flanking, and does not allow Sneak Attack. Nor are there facing rules in Pathfinder.

The surprise attacks do allow Sneak attack, but the crossfire? Not so much.

In short, if you allowed them more than a single round of Sneak Attacks, you're changing the rules to make Rogues more powerful. Which is cool, but doesn't make them any better for people who aren't changing the rules.

I think they were using the sniping rules wich allow one sneak attack per turn.

I would say that a full attack+inspire courage would have been more devastating.

Also those stealth checks are pretty hard. -20 base and I think a talent to reduce it to -10. They'd only be effective if they keep beating the perception checks.

Even so I agree a Bard would do more. A level 11 Bard Archer does something like 2d6+42 on his Multishot and 1d6+21 on every shot after that when full attacking with a shortbow (assumes inspire courage, good hope, and alter self which are all long duration buffs that Bards can cast/do)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
I think my players would disagree with you about Rogues being not good at range combat. Last week in the jungle they ran into six drow which included two rogue snipers . The sniper used stealth to position themselves one on each flank and caught the party in a crossfire

1. I didn't say Rogues were bad at ranged. I said that Bards were better. So your players wouldn't be disagreeing with me.

2. How are they flanking at range? Or do you just mean they shot from either side from surprise?

Simple one is to the party right the other is on the left and the rest of the drow( 2 rangers, a cleric, and a sorcerer) in front. Turn to face one sniper and your back is to the other. Might point out sniper have good stealth and bard spell are very noisy.

His point is that, mechanically, this is not flanking, and does not allow Sneak Attack. Nor are there facing rules in Pathfinder.

The surprise attacks do allow Sneak attack, but the crossfire? Not so much.

In short, if you allowed them more than a single round of Sneak Attacks, you're changing the rules to make Rogues more powerful. Which is cool, but doesn't make them any better for people who aren't changing the rules.

Yes I forgot despite Pathfinder being close to 600 pages there no faceing. My bad .But I dont give people dex bonus from attacks coming from behind. How do you dodge an attack you cannot see it coming? But then I use common sense when the rule dont cover something

Liberty's Edge

Degoon Squad wrote:
Only rule for rogue makeing sneak attacks with ranged weapon is they have to be within 30 feet(And snipers increase this range every 3 level by10 feet) otherwise a rogue using a range weapon sneak attacks as if using a melee weapon, which means if they have you flanked they can do sneak attack damage.check page 68 in the rule book. So if a rogue sniper has flanked you he can do sneak attack damage.

Uh...read the flanking rules. They explicitly note that you can only flank with melee weapons. Nothing about being a Rogue changes that. Threaten also has a very specific meaning in the rules, and is not usually something bows can do.

There are ways you can threaten with a bow...but there are none that make it a melee attack. Both are needed to flank. So...no, this doesn't work.


Degoon Squad wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
I think my players would disagree with you about Rogues being not good at range combat. Last week in the jungle they ran into six drow which included two rogue snipers . The sniper used stealth to position themselves one on each flank and caught the party in a crossfire

1. I didn't say Rogues were bad at ranged. I said that Bards were better. So your players wouldn't be disagreeing with me.

2. How are they flanking at range? Or do you just mean they shot from either side from surprise?

Simple one is to the party right the other is on the left and the rest of the drow( 2 rangers, a cleric, and a sorcerer) in front. Turn to face one sniper and your back is to the other. Might point out sniper have good stealth and bard spell are very noisy.

His point is that, mechanically, this is not flanking, and does not allow Sneak Attack. Nor are there facing rules in Pathfinder.

The surprise attacks do allow Sneak attack, but the crossfire? Not so much.

In short, if you allowed them more than a single round of Sneak Attacks, you're changing the rules to make Rogues more powerful. Which is cool, but doesn't make them any better for people who aren't changing the rules.

Yes I forgot despite Pathfinder being close to 600 pages there no faceing. My bad .But I dont give people dex bonus from attacks coming from behind. How do you dodge an attack you cannot see it coming? But then I use common sense when the rule dont cover something

Thats fine, your ruling help making sneak attacks easier. Surely you will agree that without it rogues have a much harder time sneak attacking at range.


The flow of this thread amuses me.

Trapfinding, to cleric, to rogue, to sneak attack XD

I wish you there were feats to count as flanking on ranged ~_~ I'd love my throwing rogue. (as it stands it has to be done with that throwing Style, and scout archetype so yo ucan move and full attack)

Closest I know are those ones that allow you to threaten. but that doesn't give you flanking--but I think since you threaten you can give others flanking you just don't get it.


Rogue is a class that tries to have it all without spell slot limits.

Thus they are systematically punished.

The rogue got worse because the game got better.


I won't try and defend the base rogue; I stepped out of that position a long time ago. But the scout archetype is pretty consistently able to get off sneak attacks...almost every round in my experience. I'm not saying it makes him stand even with the barbarian, but it sure makes him contribute pretty heavily to combat.

True, they rarely get full attacks with those sneak attacks, but honestly, I almost never get a full attack off with any of my martials, regardless of class. In my experience, badguys with even animalistic intelligence tend to move around when they realize you can hit them seven times if they don't.

Liberty's Edge

thegreenteagamer wrote:
I won't try and defend the base rogue; I stepped out of that position a long time ago. But the scout archetype is pretty consistently able to get off sneak attacks...almost every round in my experience. I'm not saying it makes him stand even with the barbarian, but it sure makes him contribute pretty heavily to combat.

Scout's definitely an improvement, but losing out on Full Attacks hurts. As do the terrible saves and being only 'pretty good' at skills. Scout's viable, but why be merely viable when you can be actively good with another Class?

thegreenteagamer wrote:
True, they rarely get full attacks with those sneak attacks, but honestly, I almost never get a full attack off with any of my martials, regardless of class. In my experience, badguys with even animalistic intelligence tend to move around when they realize you can hit them seven times if they don't.

Only if they lack a decent full attack routine themselves, at least IME. So...some of the time this is true, some of the time it isn't.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed a couple abusive/baiting posts. Please remember that everyone games differently, and that's OK. There's no need to turn this into a negative personal dissection other people's preferences and experiences.

51 to 78 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is the Rogue the new Cleric? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion