The rogue talents are also pretty good. They are varied to do anything and they also mesh well together in combinations.
Their lack of strength is a main problem with the class. Less than half of them are really useful.
I've only played a TWF Halfling Rogue for a short time and I love playing her...as long as it's out of combat. In combat I feel useless compared to the other party members. I take so much time positioning myself that by the time I can sneak attack combat is basically over. On top of that I'm the only one that can't beat DR magic. (By way of doing a bunch of damage in one hit or using a magic attack.)
The campaign's on hold but next time we get there I'm gonna try to convince my GM to let me retrain her into a bard so I can actually be useful, because that character is too fun to put away just because I made a huge mistake in character creation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Their lack of strength is a main problem with the class. Less than half of them are really useful.
The rogue talents are also pretty good. They are varied to do anything and they also mesh well together in combinations.
You're a very generous person. I'd probably say less then 1/4th myself. And I'd say over 1/2 of them are wastes of page space.
I can't believe I almost got sucked into another one of these threads. I am going to sit on the sidelines. :)
They should just update the rules that flanking is a condition. The only time I had fun as a rogue was when I played a Varisiani Fighter/Rogue, which was basically a dirty fighter, I used the CMB rules pretty much to ensure the party was usually fighting something that was on its back. Even then I wasn't really effective at fighting so much as screwing up the attacks and defense of enemies, which could be done more effectively with a bard song.
The important question is how would you improve the rogue:
Weapon finesse, and dex CMB as class features instead of burning feats?
TWF Feats like a ranger for free? Your feats should be able to be taken to enhance your character, not just make it "not suck"
Flanked as a condition?
Full BAB?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, so many replies.
Before i say everything let me thank all of you for the answers.
For what i can tell by now we are at risk in falling out oof the topic starting a classic "Rogue sucks" thread.
About what i collect by now i can tell that:
1) Going for a single weapon is better than going whit TWF due to hit penalties. Not a great news but still an important factor.
2) If you play in a high optimized contest or with a strict DM, you'll have an hard life with the rogue even having great system mastery.
3) For a Rogue it is mandatory have the party work togheter. It is important for every class but even more for the Rogue.
4) Out of Combat despite not being the best at skills we could be usefull specializing in those skills in wich the other members lack.
5) In combat we shoul have other option than flanking-damage.
What about other ways to be of some use in combat like for istance Intimidate, Disarm, Dirty Tricks, ...? Maybe someone has tried a Disarm/Trip/Dirty Tricks build? How does it scale against CMD?
I played a rogue from 1-15. And I had a lousy time. Not right away though. At level one, I had the best AC in the group.
Then the fighters bought armor.
I became steadily worse in combat as the levels went on. From "not as good" to "I'm not helping" to "I will die if I step up".
Skills were disappointing as well. By 5th level, the spellcasters could sometimes outperform me, with a levitate spell surpassing anything I could do with Climb. By 10th level, I was only good at Disable Device, Stealth, and Perception. And Stealth didn't work more than 2/3 of the time, despite becoming a shadowdancer.
Too many enemies at high levels had tremorsense, or scent, or something that made me too easy to spot.
Every once in a while I got in a sneak attack from flanking, which usually killed whatever it was. But other times they had Dr or hardness 10, and I couldn't do enough damage to get through.
The last straw was when I was grappled by a huge creature, and realized that there was literally nothing I could do to escape. Even rolling a 20 on my substantial escape artist skill wouldn't get me out, and I couldn't do enough damage to kill it before I died, because you can't TWF in a grapple.
I was rescued by the bard, who by this point could dimension door. He was more mobile than a rogue who was built to be mobile, taking the spring attack chain of feats and investing heavily into acrobatics.
So, if you're interested in playing a rogue, my advice is: don't. Many other classes are better rogues than rogues are. Sad, but true.
Wow, so many replies.
Before i say everything let me thank all of you for the answers.For what i can tell by now we are at risk in falling out oof the topic starting a classic "Rogue sucks" thread.
About what i collect by now i can tell that:
1) Going for a single weapon is better than going whit TWF due to hit penalties. Not a great news but still an important factor.
2) If you play in a high optimized contest or with a strict DM, you'll have an hard life with the rogue even having great system mastery.
3) For a Rogue it is mandatory have the party work togheter. It is important for every class but even more for the Rogue.
4) Out of Combat despite not being the best at skills we could be usefull specializing in those skills in wich the other members lack.
5) In combat we shoul have other option than flanking-damage.
What about other ways to be of some use in combat like for istance Intimidate, Disarm, Dirty Tricks, ...? Maybe someone has tried a Disarm/Trip/Dirty Tricks build? How does it scale against CMD?
This was my plan for my fighter rogue, problem is, you're still hampered by having to burn feats and a crummy BAB.
It's a team game, Anzyr. People using buff spells on each other is how it's actually supposed to be played.
Not if one person isn't contributing anything and is just leeching resources. Then it's carrying someone and that's a pain.
By that logic you might as well just play an Expert to be a skill monkey and rely on everyone else for buffs so you contribute.
Experts don't start throwing nonmagical daggers for 1d4+8d6+19 (I'm leaving out any other buffs) after throwing a single spell on them. Seriously, sniper goggles are awesome, and I recommend them as must-have to any character who (a) has sneak attack and (b) plays with people who are willing to work with them.
After the various party buffs were factored in, my rogue routinely outdamaged the magus, who was a monster in his own right.
I will politely disagree that my rogue who was routinely killing 2 to 4 enemies a round was a useless leech who didn't contribute in fights.
Though I'll cheerfully concede that a vivisectionist with my set up could've done the same. I don't disagree that lots of classes are straight up better than rogue, and I agree that the rogue needs improvement; I just disagree with people claiming that rogues are worthless parasites. As I find rogues to be very useful "parasites." Feed the rogue a handful of spells (some of which you're already hitting the entire party with anyways!), and watch your enemies melt =P
(Also: Completely agreed that most rogue talents are awful. If Serpent's Skull had gone past killing the big bad, I would've spent Krom's remaining advanced talents on getting Hide in Plain Sight in other terrains, because very little else was remotely worth taking.)
|
Every once in a while I got in a sneak attack from flanking, which usually killed whatever it was. But other times they had Dr or hardness 10, and I couldn't do enough damage to get through.Sneak Attack damage is tallied BEFORE you subtract DR, you don't have to "get through" DR first.
After the various party buffs were factored in, my rogue routinely outdamaged the magus, who was a monster in his own right.I have a hard time believing this, I'm not saying you are wrong or lying, but I know when I played magus (with all stats at 16) I was the second most damaging member of the group, just trailing behind our Barbarian.
If the magus was stingy with spells or was a frostbite debuff build, I could see a lucky and fully optimized rogue outdamaging a poorly played magus, assuming sneak attack was active via house rules.
It's also possible for a dwarf wizard with 20 con to have more hitpoints than an elven barbarian with a 5 con. That doesn't mean that a wizard has more hitpoints than a barbarian. :)
@ kikid - I couldn't have outdamaged him without the sniper goggles. Getting +2 per sneak die on every single hit is HUGE.
To prevent possible confusion - I could outdo his single target damage, but I'd assume he outdamaged me on rounds where he was aoeing lots of guys.
Something we started doing in big fights in books 5 and 6 was having him AoE the hell out of the place, and then I'd start harvesting the survivors.
Edit: Also, since this apparently needs to be pointed out for some damn reason, getting sneak attack from having full concealment is not a house rule.
I'm feel like I'm being accused of being either a liar or a cheater, and I'm pretty damn annoyed at that. My apologies if I'm misconstruing Kikid's and Imbicatus's remarks.
I'm a Lemmy's revised Rogue and my experiences are as follows.
More or less, Skills are pretty much auto success and Ive had more than a few shining moments in the game. Combat-wise, I still feel somewhat lackluster. If we're fighting mostly brutes I have trouble keeping up but otherwise I busy myself with bothering the enemy spellcasters. I can retcon some specific gear as a neat trick.
In the end, high level play just simply makes it difficult to play an inherently mundane class, exasperated by the extreme things you do at that level like Plane hopping like crazy.
Well... to be fair, we only had 2 combats so far... And one of them was a Dimensional Door extravaganza, so we simply left... :P
Mixed to say the least, coming from an AD&D /3.x Background. Currently playing in a RotRL campaign (Started Book 6) and its fun and all but then you get to areas where you just can't Sneak Attack anything, or die instantly in one hit, or are unable to survive a save, or your DM underestimates what 'Mundane' non-magic skills can do (seriously a 70+ Stealth and a 50+ Acrobatics does do stupid things people, get over it!), or you realize that Detect Magic being infinite completely makes you kind of sad, or Charms, or Invisibility... or.... I have shifted to a backseat as a Scroll and Wands user after our Cleric left, now being the only person who can reliably cast True Resurrection, Miracle and other fun Divine Spells via Scrolls, but the massive gold cost keeps my WBL down and keeps spiraling more and more to a healbot status.
(Was) Running a TWF / Hide In Plain Sight Rogue 15 with a fairly competent to-hit ratio all things considering (Abusing Headband of Ninjitsu and Greater Sniper's Goggles), but low AC, high enemy CMD and poor saves limit how much front / back / side lining I can actually do. Now must rely on wands of Acid Arrow to output damage and debuffs at 200 feet.
Homegame. That and its a point of pride that its legitimately one of the few things I have left that is strictly mine. Nearing the end of the game so most of my 'must-haves' are already bought, its just leftover junk and whatever divine scrolls that are found by enemy drops.
Playing in Kingmaker I have a half Orc Rogue using a falchion. Highest stat is strength. Uses Improved feint. So far I have been the most consistent damage dealer. Has been a real glass cannon. It is often a race to see who fall over first (something I have lost on numerous occasions)
I like having the skill out of combat. While spells can replace skills they either have to be carried at the right time or resources (i.e. money) spent on scroll/wands/potions. Skills cost nothing.
Agreed with the OP further up. Two weapon fighting is a serious trap. But then it is for most classes apart from fighters.
Every once in a while I got in a sneak attack from flanking, which usually killed whatever it was. But other times they had Dr or hardness 10, and I couldn't do enough damage to get through.Sneak Attack damage is tallied BEFORE you subtract DR, you don't have to "get through" DR first.
Yes, that's how the math works, UNLESS you're up against something like an elemental where there's nothing to add and DR as well. D6 + 4 doesn't do well against DR 10.
The rogue's strong suit is non-combat encounters. They can do OK in combat, but the class is neither intended nor designed to be a powerhouse in combat. If your game is going to be all combat, all the time, then don't play a rogue.
I played a rogue for about a year in a Core-only, urban-based home game with an emphasis on infiltration and subterfuge. She was a BLAST to play in this game. (The PCs had to take down a corrupt organization, and we decided to do it from within.) Honestly, in this game, the strongest characters were the rogue and the bard. We could go three or four sessions without a fight, and when we did fight, our opponents were almost always other people.
Of course, when things went pear-shaped and we had to fight, that's when the fighter and sorcerer shone! But Ilsa was able to hold her own, with liberal use of smokesticks for concealment, a high Bluff for distraction, and Improved Feint to get Sneak Attacks in when she could neither ambush nor flank. She also had a +1 rapier of wounding.
In the right kind of game, especially where the GM is writing an adventure to make sure everyone can shine, rogues can be a whole lot of fun. In the wrong kind of game, they're terrible.
@TriOmegaZero: Cloud Sight won't work with Smokesticks, you would need the Ifrit's Firesight.
|
A cloud of smoke doesn't count? Ah well. Since it is treated as a fog cloud spell it works in my games. (I did mean Cloud Gazer, to clarify.)
You could just use potions or a wand of obscuring mist.
That would screw over my companions, and Cloud Gazer only triples the distance you can see through magic.
Rogues.
The one class where you can wreathe yourself in glory for the monumental achievement of being a somewhat competent adventurer.
That was my experience. Immense joy when I was somewhat relevant. Frustration every other moment.
The rogue's strong suit is non-combat encounters. They can do OK in combat, but the class is neither intended nor designed to be a powerhouse in combat. If your game is going to be all combat, all the time, then don't play a rogue.
The problem is that classes like the Investigator, Inquisitor, and Bard can meet or beat the rogue's out-of-combat contributions while still being highly competent combatants as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rogue's strong suit is non-combat encounters. They can do OK in combat, but the class is neither intended nor designed to be a powerhouse in combat. If your game is going to be all combat, all the time, then don't play a rogue.The problem is that classes like the Investigator, Inquisitor, and Bard can meet or beat the rogue's out-of-combat contributions while still being highly competent combatants as well.
This is correct but it's more a of a "Solution".
|
I once played alongside a rogue, 11th level, who had invested in Improved Two-Weapon Feint and so forth. As long as he rolled well on the feint, he could do enough damage to keep an enemy's attention. My cleric performed similarly but with reliance on fewer d20 rolls. We also fought a deadly, CON-draining ooze. The rogue was basically worthless (can't do any real damage without Sneak Attack), whereas I just plane shifted it. We also fought a demon. Guess who was the only one to fail their save against chaos hammer? The player jumped through a lot of hoops and connected a lot of dots, and the result was that his rogue was at least able to reasonably contribute a good portion of the time. Meanwhile, everyone else was able to contribute more consistently and more easily.
I was that rogue. Couldn't have been Chaos Hammer, 'cause I am CG.
I have had a lot of fun out there. Sure, when I cannot sneak attack, I M not nearly as potent. However, my skills came into play more than once (ok, I missed that one save at the shrine, but bad rolls happen, right?)
Yes, but failing saves as a rogue is unforgivable, you monster =P
The rogue's strong suit is non-combat encounters. They can do OK in combat, but the class is neither intended nor designed to be a powerhouse in combat. If your game is going to be all combat, all the time, then don't play a rogue.The problem is that classes like the Investigator, Inquisitor, and Bard can meet or beat the rogue's out-of-combat contributions while still being highly competent combatants as well.
Like I said, Rogues are not supposed to be particularly strong combatants. They are supposed to be able to dish out a lot of damage occasionally, in small bursts, in the right situation. If you play a rogue as if it were a warrior-type, you'll be disappointed. My philosophy is that if you ever have a rogue take a full attack action, you're probably doing something wrong: they should be repositioning just about every round.
IMO, the problem you cite is really power creep with the non-OGL core classes, combined with the PFRPG original design philosophy (for the Core Rulebook) to keep as much back-compatibility with 3.5 as possible. The new base classes took many of the many Rogue's distinctive toys and gave them to other classed which had better combat options. This made for fun new classes, but fundamentally weakened the original Rogue concept, at least in comparison.
I am hoping that the Rogue redesign in the upcomming Pathfinder Unchained will give rogues the shot in the arm they need. The other OGL classes have been siginficantly beefed up, while the Rogue is pretty much identical to its 3.5 origin, and is a bit less powerful than the other classes.
The rogue's strong suit is non-combat encounters. They can do OK in combat, but the class is neither intended nor designed to be a powerhouse in combat. If your game is going to be all combat, all the time, then don't play a rogue.The problem is that classes like the Investigator, Inquisitor, and Bard can meet or beat the rogue's out-of-combat contributions while still being highly competent combatants as well.Like I said, Rogues are not supposed to be particularly strong combatants. They are supposed to be able to dish out a lot of damage occasionally, in small bursts, in the right situation. If you play a rogue as if it were a warrior-type, you'll be disappointed. My philosophy is that if you ever have a rogue take a full attack action, you're probably doing something wrong: they should be repositioning just about every round.
IMO, the problem you cite is really power creep with the non-OGL core classes, combined with the PFRPG original design philosophy (for the Core Rulebook) to keep as much back-compatibility with 3.5 as possible. The new base classes took many of the many Rogue's distinctive toys and gave them to other classed which had better combat options. This made for fun new classes, but fundamentally weakened the original Rogue concept, at least in comparison.
I am hoping that the Rogue redesign in the upcomming Pathfinder Unchained will give rogues the shot in the arm they need. The other OGL classes have been siginficantly beefed up, while the Rogue is pretty much identical to its 3.5 origin, and is a bit less powerful than the other classes.
Oh yes, those dastardly non-OGL Bards and Rangers...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The last straw was when I was grappled by a huge creature, and realized that there was literally nothing I could do to escape. Even rolling a 20 on my substantial escape artist skill wouldn't get me out, and I couldn't do enough damage to kill it before I died, because you can't TWF in a grapple.
I was rescued by the bard, who by this point could dimension door.
Huge creature? Other than a few odd spellcaster variants, there's nothing anyone could do to escape.
That bard with DD would be trapped as surely as you were.
|
My rogues gallery
1) Righty the impersonator rogue 3 / magus 5 / at 4 - Impersonating enemies and taking their leaders out prior to combat.
2) Scaramanga the assassin gunslinger 1 / ninja 6 - personally soloed the bbeg as the party refused to go after him. Was an impromptu party face as the Andoran inquisitors didnt have the skillset for diplomacy. My embellished translation from infernal to Taldane stopped play for half an hour via mirth.
3) bo atlas rogue thug 4 monk maneuver master 2 - snake eyes d20ed a paralysis and was ghoul chow, a commoner, paladin, barbarian (non elf) with dual 1's is also ghoul chow. Otherwide cmb mastery makes the foes sick, prone, blind, and very vulnerable to sneak attack.
Twf - really hasn't hurt Bo or Righty.
High Ac - if you cant hit, get a gun, or a ray, or a bottle of lightning.
Saves - avoid the ones you can. Take precautions (alchemy is awesome) if you can.
Damage - I expect scaramanga gunslinger/ninja to be nuts at lv 7-11 with the sapmaster feat line. He does ranged full attack sneak attacks via darkness at low level, greater invis at 11. I tend to use the extra attack option rather than vanish.
Huge creature? Other than a few odd spellcaster variants, there's nothing anyone could do to escape.
That bard with DD would be trapped as surely as you were.
So, two points of frustration with the rogue class.
I have a good dexterity, and I've been putting skill points into escape artist, the skill that allows you to, well, escape. And I didn't even have a possibility of getting out. It wasn't 'roll high and you can do it', it was 'mathematically impossible'.
This doesn't happen to fighters, who generally focus on fighting. They usually have at least a 1/3 chance of hitting a CR appropriate enemy, and also always hit on a 20. So, the class who's big thing is skill points, not really doing the job.
Meanwhile, the cleric with full plate and a 10 dex? Just cast Freedom of Movement. So, clerics are better at escaping things than rogues are.
And the bard? Dimension Door is a verbal only spell. Since this was a while ago, the concentration check was a lot easier to make, and he just vanished.
So, in that game, the bard was also better at escaping than the rogue.
And i learned that the spellcasting system is just better than the skill system at higher levels, even when trying to perform a skill.