Is the rogue / ranger dead?

[Zolanoteph]

With the advent of the slayer class is there still a reason to make a rogue/ranger multiclass?

[Kalindlara]

As long as the parent classes still offer unique features, there will always be an opportunity. Slayer lacks a lot of the specific elements of ranger and rogue, so someone who wants those specific elements will still need to go to the source. And that's before getting into the numerous archetypes that the parent classes possess.

So... dead? Hardly. ^_^

[Tammy the Lich]

Tammy's a ranger, so yes.

Of course dead and obsolete are completely different, so.

[Kalindlara]

Added note: before the replies pile up too far, I believe Zolanoteph is specifically referring to characters with levels in both ranger and rogue. ^_^

[Kalindlara]

Tammy the Lich wrote:

Tammy's a ranger, so yes.

Of course dead and obsolete are completely different, so.

Maybe "some specific rangers are dead", then? ^_^

[Bruunwald]

Here's another version of the same question: doesn't everybody replace core with splat?

No.
And no.

Most people I know don't know what a slayer is and don't care.

[My Self]

Kalindlara wrote:

Tammy the Lich wrote:

Tammy's a ranger, so yes.

Of course dead and obsolete are completely different, so.

Maybe "some specific rangers are dead", then? ^_^

There is no Rogue/Ranger Iconic, so we can't say "the" Rogue/Ranger is dead. And no, Tammy is not "the" Rogue/Ranger.

Rogue/Ranger as a multiclass is about as dead as Eldritch Knight and Duelist. Their hybrid counterparts (Magus and Swashbuckler) are definitely better to start with, but there are still a few reasons to be a Rogue/Ranger.

[Kalindlara]

As a lich, though, I'm fairly certain that she's dead. ^_^

[My Self]

Kalindlara wrote:

As a lich, though, I'm fairly certain that she's dead. ^_^

Is lichdom death, or another state of existence beside life and death? Consider that negative energy makes undead more animate, for lack of a better term, while it makes (most) living creatures closer to death. Positive energy makes undead less animate, while it makes living creatures more alive. So is death some neutral balanced state between life and undeath?

Or is undeath a more animated state of being dead?

[David knott 242]

Kalindlara wrote:

Added note: before the replies pile up too far, I believe Zolanoteph is specifically referring to characters with levels in both ranger and rogue. ^_^

So that leaves out the option of taking one of these classes as a normal class and VMCing into the other?

Anyway, I could see some potential in taking three levels of Unchained Rogue (to get Dex to damage with one finessable weapon) and all remaining levels as a Ranger. The main problem with this build is that you won't be doing much damage at low levels.

However, maybe you could start out as a Human Fighter or Swashbuckler so that you can qualify for a Dex to damage feat at 1st level. Then take a level of Unchained Rogue and retrain your initial Fighter or Swashbuckler level for a Ranger or Rogue level, losing the now unneeded Weapon Finesse feat as you do so. Once you have three or four Unchained Rogue levels, you can take your remaining levels in Ranger.

Zolanoteph - Is this the sort of idea you are looking for?

[Bob Bob Bob]

Was Rogue/Ranger ever a thing? I mean, what does Rogue actually offer the Ranger? Urban Ranger gave trapfinding, and that was the freaking APG (like, second hardcover?). 2 more skill points a level? Worse BAB and Fort? Sneak Attack instead of FE? Rogue Talents instead of @#$%ing spells?

[Deadmanwalking]

Zolanoteph wrote:

With the advent of the slayer class is there still a reason to make a rogue/ranger multiclass?

I'm a little unclear on why that combination was ever a thing? What features do you want that are only accomplished that way?

I mean, with an Unchained Rogue, Rogue 3/Ranger 2 can give you an entirely Dex-based character with Power Attack and Evasion...but Slayer predates Unchained Rogue making that clearly not what you're talking about (and means that Rogue 3/Slayer 2 is a better option to achieve that result).

[Squiggit]

I have to agree with Bobx3, Rogue/Ranger sort of has the duelist problem where it's not necessarily dead so much as there was never really much reason to bother with it in the first place. Only worse because at least duelist is a thing in a book.

[Kalindlara]

Maybe you want your ranger to have a d6 of sneak attack, extra class skills/skill points, and the option to roll twice on gather information checks. (Plus free Weapon Finesse, if you're unchained.)

[thorin001]

Tammy the Lich wrote:

Tammy's a ranger, so yes.

Of course dead and obsolete are completely different, so.

But Tammy is a lich, so her ranger could still be dead and walking around.

[Java Man]

In 3.5 I recall this being a thing for rogues who wanted to add more combat ability, it was preferred to fighter for,the higher skill points, and for the compatible class skill list, due to the way multiclassing and class skills worked.

[TriOmegaZero]

I had a wonderful Ranger/Rogue villian in 3.5, but it was admittedly better thanks to homebrewing a multiclass feat that stacked levels for sneak attack and favored enemy.

[lemeres]

Rangers have spells, animal companions, and their class feature works extremely well in a focused campaign (ie: go to an undead campaign, go with favored enemy (undead))

Rogues.... are an odd issue. There are like....4 diferent replacements to varying degrees for the core rogue. Slayers, ninjas, unchained rogues, eldritch scoundrels, etc. So if it is dead, then someone keeps on digging it back up in order to make body doubles to replace it.

[My Self]

lemeres wrote:

Rangers have spells, animal companions, and their class feature works extremely well in a focused campaign (ie: go to an undead campaign, go with favored enemy (undead))

Rogues.... are an odd issue. There are like....4 diferent replacements to varying degrees for the core rogue. Slayers, ninjas, unchained rogues, eldritch scoundrels, etc. So if it is dead, then someone keeps on digging it back up in order to make body doubles to replace it.

The rogue concept is a well-loved fantasy staple, but the execution has always been sub-par. Part of it is that it's still tied so closely to the 3.5 Rogue, inheriting all the weaknesses and nearly none of the strengths, including the special Trapfinding niche.

As for Rogue/Ranger, I see very little reason to dip into Rogue at this point. Not no reason, but Snakebite Striker Brawler is a full BAB replacement with better saves, class features, and HD. Dipping into Ranger is alright if you're only there for the Favored Enemy and/or first combat style. The extra Sneak Attack and/or Favored Enemy boost starts to wear thin quickly once it stops scaling.

Honestly, I didn't really think Rogue/Ranger was much of a thing before the Slayer class.

[Wheldrake]

Back in DD3.5 I often liked to take my first level in rogue, since the skill points were very front loaded. It allowed you to have tons of skills at 1st level, then take subsequent levels in fighter or ranger, say.

Now, it seems like the only real reasons to take a few rogue levels would be the sneak attack dice, the weapon finesse (for unchained rogues) and the trapfinding ability. There are other ways to get most of those now. IMHO, rogue levels are now more for the flavor, since they tend to be sub-optimal.

[Zolanoteph]

ThanKS for the replies. Some of you asked me what I was going for with this combination. The idea was a more skilly, offensive and underhanded matrial character that can cast basic buffing and utility spells, sneak attack people decently, Scout, have a bonus feat or two and reap some of the benefits of favored enemy/favored terrain.

I made something like this in Neverwinter nights, which was admittedly a very imperfect interpretation of 3.0. But it seemed quite potent at the time.

[SheepishEidolon]

As a ranger, you can dip Core rogue for sneak attack - and build on it via Accomplished Sneak Attacker, if you have a few feats to spare. Thanks to some combat styles a ranger can get feint feats without Int 13 and Combat Expertise which fits very well.

For a rogue, dipping ranger can also be helpful. More available weapons and better saves (+2 reflex has synergy with evasion) are nice. Further, being able to influence animals and getting favored enemy vs. something (usually) sneak attack immune helps to cover rogue's weak spots. If you take 2 levels, you can pick up some feint feat - or claws.

I don't see the point of a relatively balanced ranger + rogue build, though. Both classes have a good spot around level 10 (3rd combat style feat + advanced rogue talent) - but you'd have to get to character level 20 to profit from both. Quarry needs ranger 11, too - given a limit of 20 it conflicts with advanced rogue talent.

Finally, there is VMC. I wouldn't take ranger as secondary class, progression is slow and a rogue needs their feats urgently. Rogue as secondary class starts off ok (trapfinding, scaling sneak attack), but becomes weaker later on. Ranger already gets a slightly better version of evasion (works also for medium armor), anyway. If your campaign will end at relatively low level, it might worth a shot.

[Bob Bob Bob]

"I made this in Neverwinter Nights" See, there's your problem right there. Builds that work in NWN are absolutely not builds that work in general. They might be (a broken clock is right twice a day), but NWN is an entirely different beast than both regular tabletop games (it has a very specific set of fixed encounters) and Pathfinder (being at least two systems removed).

In NWN it made sense to dip Rogue because (I'm half remembering this) UMD was an exclusive skill that only certain classes could put ranks into (Rogue being one). So if you wanted to use all the wands or scrolls, you had to dip Rogue. You also wanted to dip to cover any weaknesses, as you were basically running solo. Thus it made sense to multiclass like that. Pathfinder is specifically designed to reward single-classing. In addition, archetypes have given a lot of classes access to parts of other classes. There is no niche protection. Thus, like I said before, minus the sneak attack everything you describe is covered by Urban Ranger.

[Zolanoteph]

SheepishEidolon wrote:

As a ranger, you can dip Core rogue for sneak attack - and build on it via Accomplished Sneak Attacker

Not as well as you think. A feat can only be selected once unless specified otherwise. A week ago every build I dreamed up selected ASA at least five times. But then I learned the sad truth.

And BobBobBob I see your point. : (

[Imbicatus]

If you want a rouge/ranger, try an archeologist bard with the sense vitals spell. You have better spell casting than the ranger, archeologists luck is a very good stand in for favored enemy, you have trapfinfing and perception bonuses, and sense vitals gives you sneak attack.

[SheepishEidolon]

Zolanoteph wrote:

SheepishEidolon wrote:

As a ranger, you can dip Core rogue for sneak attack - and build on it via Accomplished Sneak Attacker

Not as well as you think. A feat can only be selected once unless specified otherwise. A week ago every build I dreamed up selected ASA at least five times. But then I learned the sad truth.

Hmm, you are right. But actually the first damage increase by +x is the most valueable, because it shortens the time to win more than the next +x increase. To go with an extreme example: What's the point of 1001d6 sneak attack, if you already oneshot your foe with 1000d6?

So 2d6 for a class level and a feat is not too shabby. If you want more, there is the VMC rogue and the same feat. Or well, the slayer and the feat...

[Squiggit]

Zolanoteph wrote:

ThanKS for the replies. Some of you asked me what I was going for with this combination. The idea was a more skilly, offensive and underhanded matrial character that can cast basic buffing and utility spells, sneak attack people decently, Scout, have a bonus feat or two and reap some of the benefits of favored enemy/favored terrain.

I made something like this in Neverwinter nights, which was admittedly a very imperfect interpretation of 3.0. But it seemed quite potent at the time.

What does rogue do for you though? Everything you described seems like it's accomplished pretty well by the ranger alone.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Zolanoteph wrote:

With the advent of the slayer class is there still a reason to make a rogue/ranger multiclass?

There hardly was one to start with. The ranger already has most of the rogue abilities he'd want, a decent skill package, including stealth.

The rogue on the other hand doesn't really need that much from the ranger side.

Ranger/rogues are far better as two person partners, than one person multi-class.

[Rub-Eta]

I can tell you right now that the Slayer did not make the Rogue obsolete.

[666bender]

Ranger / rogue have many options skaters can't obtain.
Rogue need to be of the following archtypes :
Skulking slayer - sneak = free dirty trick which is amzibg .
Rake- each attack = intimidate , very strong .
Or thug. 1 level = each enforcer attack will make for flee. 3 add shaken and sicken together .

Thug can be 1 -3 levels, rest 1 is enough.
Urban ranger add the trapfinding back....

[Kolokotroni]

If you are the kind of person that likes multiclassing I could see a ranger/unchained rogue making for some pretty interesting combinations.

Personally I prefer to find a class that just fits my theme/concept myself.

[Atarlost]

Rub-Eta wrote:

I can tell you right now that the Slayer did not make the Rogue obsolete.

Of course not. The change to class skills in Pathfinder, the ability of anyone to detect magic traps and of most people to cast dispel magic on them, the change to blink (it no longer denies opponents their dexterity bonus to AC, thus preventing it from enabling sneak attacks), and the ineligibility of splash weapons for sneak attacks made the rogue obsolete.

Unchained brought back some sort of niche, but that's the first good rogue that actually says rogue on it character sheet in Pathfinder.

[Huma4President]

Zolanoteph wrote:

SheepishEidolon wrote:

As a ranger, you can dip Core rogue for sneak attack - and build on it via Accomplished Sneak Attacker

Not as well as you think. A feat can only be selected once unless specified otherwise. A week ago every build I dreamed up selected ASA at least five times. But then I learned the sad truth.

And BobBobBob I see your point. : (

Where is it stated that the feat must state it can only be selected once? I've been arguing the point with a player.

[TriOmegaZero]

Feats can be selected more than once, if there is no wording otherwise, but it does not help most feats.

Feats wrote:

Benefit: What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

I assume that Accomplished Sneak Attacker does not mention stacking. Edit: Confirmed, it does not say it stacks with itself, so you only ever increase sneak attack by 1d6 regardless of how many times you take the feat.

[Derklord]

There are feats that say they can be selected multiple times. Those feats are the exception that makes the rule.

@SheepishEidolon: Sneak Attack is the single most overrated class feature in all of Pathfinder.It is nothing more then very conditional bonus damage. For instance, for a level dip and a feat, you could dip into Barbarian and get +3 on attack and damage, plus +10ft movement. How do 2d6 you get like a quarter of the time compete with that?

lemeres wrote:

Rogues.... are an odd issue. There are like....4 diferent replacements to varying degrees for the core rogue. Slayers, ninjas, unchained rogues, eldritch scoundrels, etc.

Don't forget the Stalker Vigilante! So many stuff that a Rogue should have (like hide in plain sight, free tumbling, dragging enemies into the shadows, fighting extra quite, preventing an enemy from calling for help, making the enemy unconsious with a single attack, or making one extra precise strike).

[johnlocke90]

Atarlost wrote:

Rub-Eta wrote:

I can tell you right now that the Slayer did not make the Rogue obsolete.

Of course not. The change to class skills in Pathfinder, the ability of anyone to detect magic traps and of most people to cast dispel magic on them, the change to blink (it no longer denies opponents their dexterity bonus to AC, thus preventing it from enabling sneak attacks), and the ineligibility of splash weapons for sneak attacks made the rogue obsolete.

Unchained brought back some sort of niche, but that's the first good rogue that actually says rogue on it character sheet in Pathfinder.

You are forgetting about sap master thug rogue. He gets to frighten an enemy every round with no save. Its pretty good.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Ranger? Naw, he has spellcasting, Favored Enemy/Terrain, Quarry, Evasion, and some interesting archetypes (Divine Marksmen, Witchguard, and so on).

UCRogue? Naw, he has Dex to Attack and Damage, good Talent options, and Debilitating Injuries, and has 100% archetype compatibility.

Chained Rogue? Oh god yes. But to be fair, that's been dead ever since the release of the APG and archetypes, since most everything poached from the Rogue's biggest features, and did the same thing the Rogue could do, except better.

Rogue/Ranger? Probably. But primarily because I have no idea why you would go this route. There's no point. Rogues have zero Sneak Attack unless they get levels. Rangers don't get Spells, Favored Enemy/Terrain, and so on, unless they get levels too. VMC is plausible, but that again poses the question: Why? There are better dips (or to be more accurate, multiclasses) than Ranger/Rogue. Ranger/Barbarian, for example.

So, the Slayer didn't really change anything. It just further cemented what has already been present. If the Slayer class wasn't ever released, my above statements would not change, even in the slightest.

[Charon's Little Helper]

The last time Ranger/Rogue was good was in 3.0 - but that was mostly because a 1 level dip in Ranger was about the only way to make TWF viable (since it gave both feats needed) and it was a solid 1 level dip besides (2 good saves/favored enemy/Track feat/wand usage). 3.5 spread out the Ranger's starter goodies over 2 levels for a reason, plus the game removed the Ambidextrous feat.

[Derklord]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Chained Rogue? Oh god yes. But to be fair, that's been dead ever since the release of the APG and archetypes, since most everything poached from the Rogue's biggest features, and did the same thing the Rogue could do, except better.

In my opinion, this is false. I'd say the cRogue was obsolete when the CRB was released! What could the Rogue do what other classes couldn't do better already? Skills? Bard is better at that. Trap Finding? High Wis char and/or Detect Magic are better. Damage? Every full BAB class is better. Sneakiness? Every arcane caster is better. Disarming Traps? Dispel Magic, or just circumventing them with spells, do that better.

[Rub-Eta]

I'd say that disarming (magical) traps was the only thing unique to the rogue. But that's situational by adventure design (so much so that Dispel Magic isn't worth to prepare for it, making disarming traps still unique to the rogue). So I don't think that Dispel Magic or other classes getting trapfinding made the rogue more obsolete than it already was.

[SheepishEidolon]

Derklord wrote:

@SheepishEidolon: Sneak Attack is the single most overrated class feature in all of Pathfinder.It is nothing more then very conditional bonus damage. For instance, for a level dip and a feat, you could dip into Barbarian and get +3 on attack and damage, plus +10ft movement. How do 2d6 you get like a quarter of the time compete with that?

If you want (mostly) unconditional damage and straightforward battle style, then stick with barbarian. Rage has its own drawbacks, but I don't see a point to dive into that right now.

Sneak attack is more complicated - you can make it work quite often, but it's not a highly reliable damage source. Which is fine in my book, since mostly reliable +1d6 damage per 2 levels (compatible with any attack) would simply be broken.

Some people hate the rogue class with a passion I can only explain with unfulfilled high expectations. It's not the killer class supposed to wreck encounters or bosses alone, while doing party face, scouting and trapfinding in its free time. It's a class where the player is expected to develop an entire toolbox of tactics, and shouldn't cling to a favourite one. Different ways to sneak attack are part of this toolbox, but not everything - sometimes there are better options than attacking.

Finally, you could dip in both barbarian and rogue. The synergy is very limited, but they complement each other quite well.

[Snowlilly]

My Self wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

As a lich, though, I'm fairly certain that she's dead. ^_^

Is lichdom death, or another state of existence beside life and death? Consider that negative energy makes undead more animate, for lack of a better term, while it makes (most) living creatures closer to death. Positive energy makes undead less animate, while it makes living creatures more alive. So is death some neutral balanced state between life and undeath?

Or is undeath a more animated state of being dead?

Or is 'undeath' really just death with benefits?

[The Sideromancer]

Snowlilly wrote:

My Self wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

As a lich, though, I'm fairly certain that she's dead. ^_^

Is lichdom death, or another state of existence beside life and death? Consider that negative energy makes undead more animate, for lack of a better term, while it makes (most) living creatures closer to death. Positive energy makes undead less animate, while it makes living creatures more alive. So is death some neutral balanced state between life and undeath?

Or is undeath a more animated state of being dead?

Or is 'undeath' really just death with benefits?

For some reason this made me think of the following:

Assuming the "challenge death with a game for your soul" thing is true, if many people die in the same place at the same time, does death ever take the more efficient route and play against all of them at once? And if so, does he get teammates? Maybe that's what he uses the souls he's claimed for...

[Kalindlara]

Hey, multiple people can play Twister. It's efficient! ^_^

[d'Eon]

Trapfinding was a stupid niche for the rogue anyways. Traps are dumb in PF and rarely any fun to play with. If only the rogue can see them and misses it someone takes damage for nothing that they did. If they spot it everything grinds to a halt as the rogue fiddles with it while everyone watches because niche protection demands only the rogue disable traps. Then you add in the joy of listening to the rogue roll Perception every ten steps and ask, "is there a trap?"

The Unchained Rogue took a good step by giving out free Weapon Finesse and Dex to damage, making the rogue the graceful, dextrous combatant in contrast to the fighter

[Rosc]

Back when ACG and its hybrid goodness was still in the pre release speculation, I entertained the idea of an archer Ranger who dipped two levels into Rogue for Trapfinding, Diplomacy as a class skill, and the free-action-stand-from-prone rogue talent. The idea is that I fire from cover and pop back in, like in all the military shooter video games you see these days.

By the time I had a slot to spare, the Aether Kineticist was already released. And I always did prefer the flashier options.

It's still a thing I'd consider if I was forced to play PFS Core, though. Well, second after a fast running Desna Cleric/Barbarian. And maybe a Druid because it's a decent stand in for my two favorite classes. So a distant third, then.

[Derklord]

Snowlilly wrote:

death with benefits

THat sounds like a crappy emo band!

[Snowlilly]

d'Eon wrote:

Trapfinding was a stupid niche for the rogue anyways. Traps are dumb in PF and rarely any fun to play with. If only the rogue can see them and misses it someone takes damage for nothing that they did. If they spot it everything grinds to a halt as the rogue fiddles with it while everyone watches because niche protection demands only the rogue disable traps. Then you add in the joy of listening to the rogue roll Perception every ten steps and ask, "is there a trap?"

The Unchained Rogue took a good step by giving out free Weapon Finesse and Dex to damage, making the rogue the graceful, dextrous combatant in contrast to the fighter

Anyone can spot a trap.

Anyone can disable non-magical traps (and magical traps if you take the right trait).

My magus, for example, handles traps in the Rappan Athuk campaign I play in.

As for rolling every 10 feet, take 10 rules get rid of that nonsense.

[Kalindlara]

If my GM let me take campaign traits, I think Finding Haleen would be a much better use of my time. ^_^

[Tacticslion]

Or send a summon and a few barrels down a passage first.