The humble Rogue


Playtest Reports

1 to 50 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Well in 3.0 & 3.5 the Rogue really became a character worth playing, and able to stand with his more combative & spellcasting peers.

Pathfinder has made some interesting modifications and balances to a number of classes making them more playable, however - the Rogue had no real need for much if any changes. The Rogue Talents, as we've been finding seriously unbalance this otherwise stable class, a Rogue with the ability to cast 'True Strike' before making his Sneak attacks anyone?? able to gain combat Feats every two levels etc

:(

Long time Rogue player but no longer keen on continuing such due to inbalance.


I believe it is stated that a rogue cannot take the same talent twice. Therefore he cannot take a combat feat but once (and Weapon Finesse with another talent).

Regards,

DW


Dreaming Warforged wrote:

I believe it is stated that a rogue cannot take the same talent twice. Therefore he cannot take a combat feat but once (and Weapon Finesse with another talent).

Regards,

DW

Still, the fact that we've seen several posters mess this rule up tells us that maybe the language should be rearranged to be more clear.

-Matt


Thanks for that correction, it helps a little, still the Rogue Talents seem unneccessary as the class was already able to hold its own and the increase in hit points and various rules clarifications are ample?

Sovereign Court

The biggest change is that sneak attack affects nearly everything, I would say, but that's a good thing and will hopefully be a part of a change so that criticals also affect nearly everything (thus re-establishing the sneak attack-criticals link). As for the spells thing, it's, what, once per day and getting True Strike costs two talents (should be one, in my opinion). Some people have expressed concern that 'bleed' is too powerful, although I couldn't say for sure as I haven't played it.

Liberty's Edge

I agree with the OP that the rogue was made too good. Rogue talents, improvements to sneak attack, increased HD, and the big hidden benefit of consolidated skills all combine to unbalance the rogue.

I believe that the rogue talents at 2nd, 6th, 12th, and 16th levels should be removed. (Seriously, Evasion at 2nd level isn't good enough?) I think it's possible that sneak attack may be limited somewhat in individual monster descriptions, but in general I believe that sneak attack damage should be halved against formerly immune creatures.

We have two rogues in two separate Pathfinder games, and they have both shot past the other characters in power level.

-- Jeff


It's like the pendulum has swung. I'm recalling an old Wizards.com poll which ranked the classes, and the results had Rogue as the second-worst class over Bard.

Mathematically, the Rogue was the most disadvantaged class in 3.5, but in Pathfinder...

Oh, well.

-Matt

Sovereign Court

I probably wasn't clear, but I greatly support the new Rogue version in PFRPG. If there's a problem, it's still with fighters (and monks and meleers in general)...


The changes to sneak attack are debateable, but don't intrinsically increase the power of rogues, just the versatility (important, but not quite the same).

I have two rogues in my games, one is quite powerful but has fairly high stats (18 strength to start), and the other is much lower level.

The 4 minor talents, and 1 additional major talents, however are pretty extreme in strength. I believe the only reason they were changed from every third level is to avoid "dead" levels around where sneak attack and the special abilities came together.

At least 3 of those minor talents can be feats (weapon focus, weapon finesse, and any combat feat). Those + bleeding attack are all very strong combat boosts, while the rest are more rogue-skill enhancers.

Perhaps at least trimming off Weapon Focus as an option, since that would be included under any combat feat. Importantly, this was not true under the Alpha rules when this Rogue Talent was introduced. Weapon Finesse could be trimmed as well, but I think it suits them well enough.


RustyHarlequin wrote:
a Rogue with the ability to cast 'True Strike' before making his Sneak attacks anyone??

1/day? Not me.

If it were at will, I'd agree. Or if it were a swift action.

But like this? Harmless.

Rogue talents are interesting. They don't turn the rogue into an unstoppable juggernaut of distruction.

The changes to sneak attack don't, either. They just mean that he's not useless in fights against COUPE monsters.

Scarab Sages

I think rogues are getting the treatment they deserve in Pathfinder. I'm playing one right now in the CotRT and he's been doing fairly decent in combat. I love the changes. I've played in a lot of different campaigns and adventures, published and otherwise, in which my rogue was next to useless. In several cases, he became the combat medic due to high ranks in tumble and UMD. Not so in this case. It's actually been fun to be in combat. As far as I'm concerned, they just need to clear up some language, but overall, no real changes from what are in the beta rules.


True strike twice a day.... One level Assassin dip.... Hope your saves are good, Jocko...

Sovereign Court

dthunder wrote:
True strike twice a day.... One level Assassin dip.... Hope your saves are good, Jocko...

You could otherwise get multiple uses with a level of sorceror. If it's a problem (I necessarily think it is, mind; three rounds studying the victim...), it's in the assassin class 'death attack' feature, not in Rogue spell use.


dthunder wrote:
True strike twice a day.... One level Assassin dip.... Hope your saves are good, Jocko...

Riiiiiight... Because the 3.5 assassin would wreck the game if he got access to true strike! Oh wait...

~m


The change to sneak attack isnt really a power increase. It merely makes the rogue stop being entirely useless in fights against undead, constructs and such.

the true strike casting isn't all that amazing either. He'd sacrifice a round for the spell in which he could attack. So in case he's flanking for example the rogue should rather sneak attack right away, he's got a better chance of doing a lot of damage with 2 sneak attacks than with a true strike spell and a sneak attack.
Hit chances should be good enough, considering your enemy will be flat footed and/or you get a bonus for flanking.
And even if the math says true strike + sneak attack is better than 2x sneak attack (which even then won't be too much), for a certain hit once a day I wouldn't waste a whole talent.

Mattastrophic wrote:
Dreaming Warforged wrote:

I believe it is stated that a rogue cannot take the same talent twice. Therefore he cannot take a combat feat but once (and Weapon Finesse with another talent).

Regards,

DW

Still, the fact that we've seen several posters mess this rule up tells us that maybe the language should be rearranged to be more clear.

-Matt

I think that is already going to be adressed to. Jason somewhere already said that he would rephrase that part to make it more obvious that you cannot combat-feat your way all the way through the class.

@\/ Making it even worse (though the first talent at least gives you a potentially useful cantrip)

Sovereign Court

Two talents to get to the 1st level spells...


An nearly auto-hit for sneak attack is kinda cool, actually. Kinda spoils the fun when you rogue, just about to stab some one (completely unaware of the rogue)in the back...misses. This is a partial fix for a lower level "assassin", and maybe be able to actual kill some one in one shot.


To be honest there is actually an easier way of balancing out the Rogue, Talents and all.

Simply put they have to make a Stealth roll vs the sneak attack victims Perception roll, rather than automatically allowing the Rogue to sneak attack a flanked opponent - in most cases the Rogues stealth will be enough that they will still make the attempt however in the flow of battle it still gives an opponent who is constantly moving and looking around to avoid being flanked to catch a glimpse of such sneaky characters (sneaking around in melee is very difficult with all the movement occuring and the chance of a friend catching a glimpse of a figure sneaking at the edge of their line of vision striking out etc).

PetRock wrote:
An nearly auto-hit for sneak attack is kinda cool, actually. Kinda spoils the fun when you rogue, just about to stab some one (completely unaware of the rogue)in the back...misses. This is a partial fix for a lower level "assassin", and maybe be able to actual kill some one in one shot.

Sovereign Court

If there's a threatening enemy on either side of you, you're flanked, which just means you can't devote all your attention to one of the opponents, which is why you get Sneak Attack. I don't want to introduce stealth rolls to it...


Bagpuss wrote:
If there's a threatening enemy on either side of you, you're flanked, which just means you can't devote all your attention to one of the opponents, which is why you get Sneak Attack. I don't want to introduce stealth rolls to it...

Neither do I.

You are flanked. That means the enemies have you by the scrotum.

I would welcome a rule that lets you completely ignore one flanker. The one I have seen somewhere (from GITP?) let you ignore one flanker, but you were flat-footed against him and he also got an AoO. But you weren't flanked any more.

Would make sense.


KaeYoss wrote:
Bagpuss wrote:
If there's a threatening enemy on either side of you, you're flanked, which just means you can't devote all your attention to one of the opponents, which is why you get Sneak Attack. I don't want to introduce stealth rolls to it...

Neither do I.

You are flanked. That means the enemies have you by the scrotum.

I would welcome a rule that lets you completely ignore one flanker. The one I have seen somewhere (from GITP?) let you ignore one flanker, but you were flat-footed against him and he also got an AoO. But you weren't flanked any more.

Would make sense.

It would give rogues a really hard time though. And looked at realistically, it would be certain death to completely ignore one of two enemies a character should already by instincte be forced to split their attention to both enemies.

Sovereign Court

Yeah, you'd have to be more than merely flat-footed, in my opinion. If you turn your back on me and ignore me I'm going to be able to take my time, line it up and do something really nasty to you, not just make a normal attack (albeit one more likely to hit); my damage potential should get significantly larger, like an autocrit with max damage or something (but stopping somewhere short of coup de gras death potential). Something horrible enough that you'd almost never do it.


Bagpuss wrote:
Yeah, you'd have to be more than merely flat-footed, in my opinion. If you turn your back on me and ignore me I'm going to be able to take my time, line it up and do something really nasty to you, not just make a normal attack (albeit one more likely to hit); my damage potential should get significantly larger, like an autocrit with max damage or something (but stopping somewhere short of coup de gras death potential). Something horrible enough that you'd almost never do it.

Yeah, it would easily do for a coup de grace situation.


Threeshades wrote:
And looked at realistically, it would be certain death to completely ignore one of two enemies a character should already by instincte be forced to split their attention to both enemies.

Maybe, but then again, falling off a cliff for 1000 feet would be certain death. Letting someone sneak up on you and give him a free shot at your throat would be certain death. Being hit by a piece of solid metal heavier than you and moving faster than a cheetah would be certain death.

Certain death didn't make the cut in D&D.


KaeYoss wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
And looked at realistically, it would be certain death to completely ignore one of two enemies a character should already by instincte be forced to split their attention to both enemies.

Maybe, but then again, falling off a cliff for 1000 feet would be certain death. Letting someone sneak up on you and give him a free shot at your throat would be certain death. Being hit by a piece of solid metal heavier than you and moving faster than a cheetah would be certain death.

Certain death didn't make the cut in D&D.

good point. Still i think it would be too hampering for the rogue.


RustyHarlequin wrote:
Long time Rogue player but no longer keen on continuing such due to inbalance.

I think the rouge is way better now but not over balanced. Infact, to get the build I wanted I had to muilti-class. If it was over balanced then I would have stayed pure.

Sneak attack: Perfect and makes sense. Now not completely screwed against undead and gollums, most of which have weak spots like joints.

Talents: They are handy but none are that are over balanced. Infact after weapon finsess its kind of hard to make the call which to take.

HD: Rouges are often on the front line with much lower AC later in the game than the tanks, in 3.5 you would get nailed very fast if your oponents target you and not the figthers. An extra 2-3Hp per level is not that much.

Keep it as is except the wording


Miserenz wrote:
RustyHarlequin wrote:
Long time Rogue player but no longer keen on continuing such due to inbalance.

I think the rouge is way better now but not over balanced. Infact, to get the build I wanted I had to muilti-class. If it was over balanced then I would have stayed pure.

Sneak attack: Perfect and makes sense. Now not completely screwed against undead and gollums, most of which have weak spots like joints.

Talents: They are handy but none are that are over balanced. Infact after weapon finsess its kind of hard to make the call which to take.

HD: Rouges are often on the front line with much lower AC later in the game than the tanks, in 3.5 you would get nailed very fast if your oponents target you and not the figthers. An extra 2-3Hp per level is not that much.

Keep it as is except the wording

actually on average it's just 1 more hit-point per level (2 on first level)

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Bagpuss wrote:
Yeah, you'd have to be more than merely flat-footed, in my opinion. If you turn your back on me and ignore me I'm going to be able to take my time, line it up and do something really nasty to you, not just make a normal attack (albeit one more likely to hit); my damage potential should get significantly larger, like an autocrit with max damage or something (but stopping somewhere short of coup de gras death potential). Something horrible enough that you'd almost never do it.

Intentionally ignoring an opponent places a combatant in almost exactly the same situation as being attacked by surprise by an invisible foe, Bagpuss. If a 2nd-Level cleric sneaks up on your 10th-Level monk invisibly, imagine what he could do. Automatically score a critical with maximum damage? Really?

Then imagine your monk flanked with a dangerous 10th-Level rogue on one side and that same 2nd-Level cleric on the other side. The monk decides to keep her eyes on the rogue, who is obviously the larger threat. The monk still knows the cleric is there, but you don't want her to drop her guard against the rogue. That situation seems similar enough to the invisible surprise attack to me.

But I'm not king of the world.

Sovereign Court

Well, I think that you are somewhat more distracted than if you have an invisible opponent -- in both cases you are effectively at the mercy of your opponent but when concentrating on one opponent you can't even react to suggestions of an attack from that opponent or use perception, etc -- but in any case, I also think that the rules for being attacked by an invisible opponent are too feeble (but then they sort-of have to be, because otherwise invisibility breaks the game; invisibility is too easy and cheap, in my opinion but then, it long has been).


I think the Hit dice boost is too much for rogues, or arcane casters for that matter.

Although dependng on the TYPE of rogue you went for, I wouldnt be against a feat that allowed better hit die or burning a talent even.

There is a more "thug" type rogue which is essentially a stealthy fighter (and would bridge a gap between ranger and fighter that neighter really fill) and there is the typical "stealthy trap/lock pick" rogue.

and honestly with all these talents and stuff there are so many other types too, really making the rogue what it should be (ie just about anything).

Kinda like a jack of any trade, without being the best at anything (unless its trap finding and sneak attacking) It makes for a world were if you meet a rogue type, you really dont know WHAT to expect (instead of assuming a sneak attacking lock picker) which essentially is what a rogue has ALWAYS been, it just has been given the ability to BE that now.

Shadow Lodge

I agree with the HD increase. Low HP was not only a halmark of those classes, but it also unbalances all classes as a whole and well it just irks me. It takes away to much risk for going into combat for those calsses.

I also dislike the idea that rogues can sneak attack nearly anything. I have not had personal experience with it so far outside of a wounds and vitality D&D game,(which is fairly similar), but it hurts othe classes who are somewhat specialized with fighting/protecting those creatures. Specifically in the case of undead. I think Constructs would be fine, (but not objects) for sneak attack. Undead however should not.

A party without a Cleric and/or Paladin should have a little more trouble with a horde of undead, or else why even have different creature types. I can see maybe a sneak attack does +1 damage to undead for each +1d6 it normally has, but anything else just robs other classes of their flair.

Additionally, it makes it harder to use other genres with ease. Horror comes to mind, but others might be just as applicable.


I think the power level of the Rogue is spot-on right now. This is a class that has always been marked by tremendous damage output in certain situations only. You have to play smart to be a good rogue. Without Sneak Attack, her damage output drops significantly. The fun and challenge of a Rogue is maneuvering yourself into beneficial positions (and that's not limited to combat!).

Letting sneak attack affect constructs and undead allows the Rogue to play smart instead of forcing her into standby mode.

The Rogue Talents don't overpower the class, based on my group's experience. They allow the Rogue to stand tall next to some pretty hefty abilities that other classes start receiving as their levels go up. All a Rogue used to see was more Sneak Attack dice and more skill points. Now they get cool little tricks that further add to their versatility. You can always come up with worst-case-scenario type characters that have an overpowering combination of abilities. But most players don't do that. Most players will find much more versatile and useful spells than True Strike, because the whole game isn't a combat encounter.

All the Talents in the book will never let a Rogue tank a big boss, or mow down swathes of baddies with a fireball, or disable foes nearly as well as a simple Hold Monster spell. But added together, they make her a pretty intimidating foe in her own right.


Sneak attacks dont make sense on contructs and undead because the sneak attack is attacking vital areas that are otherwise protected in upfront combat.

Real fighters (martial artists or roman soldiers it doesnt matter) are taught early on to protect your vitals. The rogues talent is sneaking up unawares and sticking a knife into their ribs of the victim hitting his vitals.

Constructs dont have vitals and undead although they once had them no longer affect them.

Not to mention a skeleton that doesnt have any at all!!

I always house rule,also, that a rouge cannot sneak attack with certain weapons in certain situations for example:

You cant sneak attack a medium creature with a greatsword, because the sneak attack is not massive damage or a good hit, like a critical is, it is a precision strike on a small normally protected area.

Most of the rogues in my games sneak attack with daggers and for that I give them an additional +2 to hit. (above normal rules bonuses)

Now if you want to spider climb up a wall and wait in the shadows with your great sword waiting to backstab the dragon as he passes by and you want to use a greatsword to do that (because of the size of the greature involved) then actually I encourage rogues to do use that weapon (if they have it and they can)
On giants too (the bigger weapon makes sense because they can actually REACH vitals.. instead of a really nasty attack on the giants ankle)

I simply wont allow sneak attacks on undead or constructs in any of my games.
ITs part of the feature of that particular monster that makes it challenging, and intersting.

Sovereign Court Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder

I'm playing a rogue under the beta rules. I love the changes.

Sneak attack TO ME is not about hitting vitals...it's about targeting the weak points to do the most damage. Undead are shambling messes of animated flesh. Some zombies are decaying badly enough...why is it not possible to flank a zombie, and pop it in the joint, causing it to begin to fall apart?

Why can't a rogue target the spine of a skeleton? Doing that causes serious damage to its structural integrity.

See, I was very frustrated to be the rogue in an adventure THICK with undead. No sneak attacks. No critical hits. No fun. Same with constructs.

Pathfinder rules now give the rogue the ability to "hit 'em where it hurts" to creatures that actually have places to hit where it would hurt. And I appreciate that.

As for the talents, my 6th level rogue picked up Finesse Rogue (because nearly every rogue blows a feat to get Weapon Finesse anyway), Bleeding Attack, and Fast Stealth. Bleeding Attack can be quite devastating, true, but only if you can connect with a sneak attack. That requires some strategic manuevering (flanking) to do so, and flanking is NEVER a given. I've spent half a combat encounter just trying to get into a flanking position, so by the time I do give a little sneak attack with bleed, the battle is well underway, if not nearing its end. Plus, the GM often makes the enemy fully aware of flanking attempts, and never makes them easy to achieve.

The Exchange

I like the rogue, but im a bit tired that they are kill-stealers and as much (if not more) of a damage dealer than Fighter types. (looks too much like 4th ed to me!) the rogue is undervalued if SKILLS are undervalued (same as a fighter in a game with next to no combat) What is the idea that everyone must be equal to fighters in combat? if the game is a roleplaying and not a roll-playing game, the balance of skills should balance out character spotlight time.

they can seem like parasites some time and make me want to break a flank. (no slade, I GOT THIS GUY. *a full round of two weapon fighting flank later* I hate you slade!)


IF a rogue isnt that effective in combat, they can spend more time looting the treasure when everyone is busy!

The best roleplaying expereince I had playing a rogue was in 1st ED AD&D.

The DM used 3d6 and nothing more for stats.

My rogue was as followed S 12 I 8 W 14 D 9 C 10 Ch 14
My those standards in those days (states were EVERYthing) I was a horrible character, especially since a rogue with that dex had HORRIBLE rogue skills which were given negative percentile rolls with a dex that low back then.
I actually had a negativein some rogue areas. (theif on those days)
I spent MOST of my time being fat, lazy, not helping out and being an opportunist almost all the time.
I never opponed a chest or unlocked a door, but seemingly the treausre ended up in my hands because well, I couldnt do anything else, so i wandered through the goodies while the rest of them were battling it out.

Who says the rogue has to fight?


Pendagast wrote:


There is a more "thug" type rogue which is essentially a stealthy fighter (and would bridge a gap between ranger and fighter that neighter really fill) and there is the typical "stealthy trap/lock pick" rogue.

Yeah, the d8 fits the thuggish type more (though it certainly doesn't hurt the less combat oriented types).

But I don't mind. After all, d8s don't fit many cleric concepts, either.

And many kinds of sorcerers would make more sense with more HP and better BAB.

And do archers need as many HP as melee types?

I could fill threads with details that don't fit perfectly, but in the end, those things won't go away, as long as you have classes. D&D will always have classes, so those things won't go away ever.

Bagpuss wrote:
Well, I think that you are somewhat more distracted than if you have an invisible opponent -- in both cases you are effectively at the mercy of your opponent but when concentrating on one opponent you can't even react to suggestions of an attack from that opponent or use perception, etc

Whether you ignore someone or fail to notice him, the end result is the same: you have no idea what he's doing, or when he's doing it. If the result is the same, the mechanical consequences should be the same, too.

We could argue about flat-footed being broken (but not here), but the point is, the situations are (virtually) the same, so the game should treat them (virtually) the same.

Beckett wrote:
I agree with the HD increase. Low HP was not only a halmark of those classes

I always considered rogue/priest HDs to be a hallmark of the things that make no sense in the game.

Priests are full-time casters, and evoke in me the image of a guy in robes standing back and working wonders. Rogues, on the other hand, are guys who have to depend on their brawn and expertise, and often their luck to stay out of trouble, or get back out.

Sure, there are roguish types who aren't warriors at all, and priests who are very much warriors, but why assume the more warlike aspect for one class and the less warlike one in the other?

And if it is done, I think it makes more sense if rogues have the better BAB and HD. HD is not just about toughness, but also about rolling with the blows. I think that rogues have a slight advantage in toughness, and a big one in rolling.

Beckett wrote:


, but it also unbalances all classes as a whole and well it just irks me. It takes away to much risk for going into combat for those calsses.

Again, rogues aren't the biggest problem classes, so giving them more staying power doesn't break the game.

Incidentally, both priestly classes are usually cited as problem classes, on account of them being too powerful, so taking away HP from them would be more effective than not giving roguish classes more.

Beckett wrote:


I also dislike the idea that rogues can sneak attack nearly anything. I have not had personal experience with it so far outside of a wounds and vitality D&D game,(which is fairly similar), but it hurts othe classes who are somewhat specialized with fighting/protecting those creatures. Specifically in the case of undead. I think Constructs would be fine, (but not objects) for sneak attack. Undead however should not.

I really like that part, actually. It means that if the GM wants to put a high emphasis on COUPE monsters, players who want to play rogues aren't condemned to being useless in combat.

Beckett wrote:


A party without a Cleric and/or Paladin should have a little more trouble with a horde of undead, or else why even have different creature types.

Different types aren't there to force players to play rock/paper/scissors, they are there because creatures are different.

Plus, there's a huge difference with a party without cleric or paladin having a bit more trouble with the undead and rogues being unable to make any contribution to those fights.

Beckett wrote:


I can see maybe a sneak attack does +1 damage to undead for each +1d6 it normally has, but anything else just robs other classes of their flair.

Additionally, it makes it harder to use other genres with ease. Horror comes to mind, but others might be just as applicable.

It actually makes it easier to use other genres, since the genres won't just eliminate several class choices completely.


Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
I like the rogue, but im a bit tired that they are kill-stealers

This isn't WoW or Counter-Strike.

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:


and as much (if not more) of a damage dealer than Fighter types.

Your fighter players suck. You can tell them I said that. ;-P

I found that if done right, the fighter will outperform the rogue - his better attack bonus, loads of combat feats, weapon training, and, to a certain degree, better ability arrangement (can use heavy armour, so doesn't need dexterity as much, doesn't need much int or cha for his other abilities, so it will go mostly to str and con, and str increases both attacks and damage) will make him hit more reliably, and have a very similar damage output compared to a sneaking rogue (if you take into consideration that he hits more often).

And of course, all the fighter loses if he doesn't get the right conditions is some to hit percentages (because he doesn't catch the sucker flat-footed or get his +2 flanking bonus).

If the rogue cannot set up sneak attack, his damage output virtually disappears. 1d6+7 at level 20? Woohoo, big deal. The fighter probably has something like 2d6+24, if not more.

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:


What is the idea that everyone must be equal to fighters in combat?

I don't know, but I cannot say I witnessed it in in the game, unless the fighter players weren't doing their job as well as the other players.

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:


if the game is a roleplaying and not a roll-playing game

3e is a combat-oriented role-playing game. It isn't WoW on a table, but neither is it drama class.

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:


they can seem like parasites some time and make me want to break a flank. (no slade, I GOT THIS GUY. *a full round of two weapon fighting flank later* I hate you slade!)

Yeah, those team-working bastards, they always ruin my damage output statistics, too.

Pendagast wrote:
IF a rogue isnt that effective in combat, they can spend more time looting the treasure when everyone is busy!

Yeah! And those clerics should do more healing, so drop their HD to d3, nullify their BAB and eliminate all spells that don't cure or heal, so they don't waste time doing anythinb but that.

Pendagast wrote:


Who says the rogue has to fight?

No one. But people here keep saying that they shouldn't be allowed to.

Pendagast wrote:

Sneak attacks dont make sense on contructs and undead because the sneak attack is attacking vital areas that are otherwise protected in upfront combat.

SA is definetly about attacking vital areas, like a human's lung, heart or throat, or an undead's main negative energy node, or a construct's animation nexus.

Pendagast wrote:


Real fighters (martial artists or roman soldiers it doesnt matter) are taught early on to protect your vitals. The rogues talent is sneaking up unawares and sticking a knife into their ribs of the victim hitting his vitals.

And real rogues never go against undead, because undead do not exist. Let's not drag reality into our make-belief world.

Pendagast wrote:


You cant sneak attack a medium creature with a greatsword, because the sneak attack is not massive damage or a good hit, like a critical is, it is a precision strike on a small normally protected area.

Would you please lay down and close your eyes while I hack at your neck with this five-foot-plowshare of a sword? It's to prove a point.

Pendagast wrote:


ITs part of the feature of that particular monster that makes it challenging, and intersting.

It's part of the feature of that particular monster that makes undead difficult, and very boring, if you're a rogue, since your whole MO is unusable. Almost everyone else can go and keep going on as usual - only the rogue has lost his only way of using his main combat ability.


Pendagast wrote:
IF a rogue isnt that effective in combat, they can spend...

I have lost my post TWICE trying to get this in (almost finished BOTH times!!!)

So I sum up.

I think Rogues with as much HD as Clerics is fine, but not almost as much as fighters.

If rogues get d8, then fighters should get d12 (and pally and rangers stay at d10) I never felt the barb deserved more Hps than the fighter anyway, and the pally and the ranger shouldnt have as much as the fighter.

I like your concept of why rogues can sneak attak non standard monsters (animation nexus, cool!) But I dont feel every 1st level flunky in the theives guild should have that knowledge or have been exposed to those adversaries.

So I say make it a feat like: Sneak attack Special I (undead) and Sneak attack Special II (constructs etc)

I also feel rogue crawl and "stand" should be class features and not burn up talents. Young rogues would either self learn this stuff, or would have been trained on it in the theives guild academy (depending on how your character became a rogue).

This would also allow there to be NPC rogues in the game that did not know how to automatically demolish your PC's Shield guardian, or the acolyte 1st level theives of the local guild wouldnt know how to bakstab your Pc's undead minions.


On another note, the rogue can do so many things outside of combat, their always should be (and in games ive been in always have been) some other activity to distract the rogue.

"gee should I help in the fight? or raid the treasure chest?" hmmm tempting.

At the very least if the rogue isnt very effective in combat he has something else just as fun to do, and/or something to get distracted by as he manuvers to get in that sneak attack.

Rogues are normally unassuming and less menacing looking ( bilbo baggins) and most enemies are trying to cut down gandalf and thorin oakenshield, leaving their flank open to bilbo who had really nothing to do but stand there to be "offered" the sneak attack.

But the 6' tall black garbed "ninja" with an 18 str weilding two short swords (as most of the recent rogues Ive seen in games end up) will atract just as much attention as the main fighter in the group.
"Hey dude don't let CONAN over there sneak up behind you!"

As a rogue I usually enter AFTER the rest of my party, hanging back, hoping they are already IN combat by the time I stick my head in the room, and even some times trot down the hall to see if there is another door leading into the room so I can pop up unexpectantly, which about 50% of the time puts me running into a radom hallway monster, in which case I run back to the party (expecting them to take care of it) and make sure they aren't bored!

Anyway, there ARE other ways to have fun with a rogue. He's usually the only character than can be spared to DO other things than fight when a fight happens, if the fighter went wandering around and let the cleric and the mage to duke it out with the zombies there would be words to be had later.
If the rogue does it, well, he's almost expected to!
"Well Mr. Baggins, exactly where did YOU get off to?"
"Well, I err, ummm, you see there was this door...and I er umm HEY look at this Gold cup I found!"

Generally I think rogues are more fun!


it just occured to me, wouldn't most undead (except the intelligent ones) and constructs be "auto-sneak-attackable"?

I mean they aren't really going to differentiate between one "target" or another and both types are less likely to notice a rogue and just beat on the closest thing (which if the rogue is smart is never going to be him).

So all he would have to do is out flank or come up behind a group of zombies, hang back within 30 and nail them with a bow and sneak attack one after the other in sequence without even having to remanuver from attack to attack as zombies or other unintelligent undead wouldnt percieve "hey my buddy just dropped with an arrow in his back" they are going to attack what is in front of them.

This allows a 3rd level rogue to dish out 3d6 at will to the zombies backside wihout even being in danger (from them, assuming s straight up confrontation) and a 5th level rogue to hammer out 4d6 on them (assuming a short bow is used) round after round, with only the first one being used to out flank them.

This makes them easily as effective (if not more than) the party fighter. (against this certain type of enemy, same would be true for constructs unless commanded by a spell caster who created them)

Now here comes one question:

Normally, a rogue can only sneak attack for his first action, but what keeps a rogue in this situation, with multiple attacks (lets say an 8th level rogue) from doing two sneak attacks against unwitting zombies with a short bow from 25 feet away. He would deal out 5d6 per arrow, probably droping zombies like flies and his zombie breatheren wouldnt be "aware" of this manuver.
So shouldn't his second arrow in that round also be allowed to be a sneak attack (in THIS case)?

Liberty's Edge

Pendagast wrote:
So I say make it a feat like: Sneak attack Special I (undead) and Sneak attack Special II (constructs etc)

Or as rogue talents.

My group just finished "Last Baron" and are moving on to "Chimera Cove", and we are LOVING our party rogue. MY fighter goes out of his way to set up flanking opportunities for her, and between her TWF and 4d6* Sneak attack (not to mention bleed), we end melee heavy combats rather quickly, with little consumption of our wizard's spells (he can save them for tougher opponents) and our healing resources (limited to potions, atm, as the guy who's going to play the cleric hasn't been able to play as of yet...).

No one thinks of her as a "kill stealer" or a "glory hog" or whatever, we think of her as our "secret weapon". Furthermore, with her flanking with me, I'm more apt to go full power attack, as the +2 bonus allows me to offset the penalty a bit and do some serious damage.

Personally, I think the new rogue is better equipped to keep pace when we reach high levels. I'm just hoping the fighter get some love like that in
August...

*EDIT: we just leveled up, sorry...

Second Edit: I've noticed some 3.5 adventures handle the Beta changes well, and some do not. RotRL is fine, for instance, but "Last Baron" was a cakewalk with all the new goodies. YMMV, I suppose, but it seems like the DM should look over the published 3.5 stuff and make adjustments if needed.


houstonderek wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
So I say make it a feat like: Sneak attack Special I (undead) and Sneak attack Special II (constructs etc)

Or as rogue talents.

sorry, I MEANT rogue talents,not feats, TALENTS (make crawl and stand class features and sneak attack special a talent(s))


houstonderek wrote:


Personally, I think the new rogue is better equipped to keep pace when we reach high levels. I'm just hoping the fighter get some love like that in
August...

*EDIT: we just leveled up, sorry...

Second Edit: I've noticed some 3.5 adventures handle the Beta changes well, and some do not. RotRL is fine, for instance, but "Last Baron" was a cakewalk with all the new goodies. YMMV, I suppose, but it seems like the DM should look over the published 3.5 stuff and make adjustments if needed.

I liked the module just fine. I'm a little annoyed by how fast I can run out of spells as a wizard, but it's just having to manage my power. haha. So, I have to spend my share of loot on making my wands and scribing scrolls, while the melee have to spend on getting magic weapons and armor and such. It balances out in my opinion.

The Rogue seems to be doing an excellent job, and we looking at boosting the rogue with the addition of greater invisibility. We were thrown some nasty stuff at us, so when we were running around without a healer and have a rogue in the party, we were needing the extra damage.


It came up in play tonight (and it makes excellent sense) that the rogue talents of minor and major magic should be able to stack (ie taking major magic again lets you have one second level spell and one more time lets you have one third level spell) Thus allowing an 8th level rogue to qualify for the arcane trickser PrC, without having to multiclass with a full on arcane class. It doesnt let you get to arcane trickster any faster as you would be at least 8th level rogue, but wouldallow farther advancement in rogue and allot for other ways to get to the PrC and have different outcomes/variants.

edit: oh I forgot,and the +1 existing spell casting class would either a) allow the new arcane trickster (that got to be one this way)their first level is sorceror (with the arcane bloodline via their rogue talents) Which because the rogue was never a ture sorceror to begin with, would get no powers or feats and would need to use materials (unless bought the eschew materials feat on his own)

Or b) the levels would just stack with his current rogue talents, which would make his current spells more powerful, and useable more times per day, yet he would not gain any more spells, or get acess to higher level spells, because he was never a true sorceror (basically he "cheated his way to the PrC" anyway just a thought for characters who wanted to be more rogue/arcane trickster with less spells, and not blowing lots of levels on spell chucking just to get the character they want.


hahaha my player just suggested ditching arcane trickster as a PrC, making ranged ledgerdemain a rogue talent (with minor and major magic prerequisties)and making impromptu sneak attack a feat (with prerequistes of sneak attack ablility, and a BAB of +6) and the abilty to take the feat mor than once (if you want to do it more than one time per day).

Makes a nice addition to the rogue (and gives more reason to use the minor and major magic talents) without wasting time with a weak PrC just to get it's cool rogue tricks.

I'm kinda in favor of this change.

Any more votes?

Liberty's Edge

I'm all for anything that takes some of the shine away from prestige classes, frankly. I hate seeing "x1/y2/z4/g2/s3" builds...


I was thinking about my above statement about the impromptu sneak attack feat, it should be used once a day at +6, twice a day at +9 and three times a day at +11 BAB. This way it doesn't destroy the rogues ability to use it more often because they dont get enough feats and wouldn't be a way for fighters to take one level of rogue and then snag this feat a few times, thereby taking something thats mainly meant for a rogue and making it work better for a fighter.

Also, the suprise attacks rogue talent should be a prerequsite for this feat, meaning fighters have to more than dip to get this feat.

This would work perfect AND eliminate the useless and hard to qualify for and under rewarding PrC of arcane trickster.

add this to rogue, with some knife throwing talents like I previously posted and you would have managed to make nearly unlimited rogue builds without needing to take any other classes AND without taking away from any classes. (except arcane trickster which should be tanked anyway)

Edit: better yeat, we could make the impromptu sneak attack an advanced rogue talent (there by cant get it until 10th level) and only useable by rogues.

Either way works pretty good, one limits it until 10th lvl, the other way makes it available earlier in the game.

either way it would come into play somewhere between 8-10th level. Depends if we want to make it a feat (and thereby available to other classes) or an advanced talent, thereby making it only for rogues of that level or more.


Pendagast wrote:

On another note, the rogue can do so many things outside of combat, their always should be (and in games ive been in always have been) some other activity to distract the rogue.

During a fight? No way. Being jumped in the woods is not the time to look for acorns. If a bunch of enemies wants to eat you, you don't leave the fighting to others to calmly leave through the newspaper.

Pendagast wrote:


Rogues are normally unassuming and less menacing looking

That's quite an oversimplification.

Pendagast wrote:


( bilbo baggins) and most enemies are trying to cut down gandalf and thorin oakenshield, leaving their flank open to bilbo who had really nothing to do but stand there to be "offered" the sneak attack.

Or, they have lived in a world that has rogues and know that those unassuming types with leater armour and light weapons are deadly when left alone, because they can be devastating if allowed to move into positions. Genre blindness is not a good trait in your average D&D world.

Pendagast wrote:


Anyway, there ARE other ways to have fun with a rogue.

Of course. But the game should not force them upon the rogue. If the rogue wants to fight, let him.

Pendagast wrote:


He's usually the only character than can be spared to DO other things than fight when a fight happens, if the fighter went wandering around and let the cleric and the mage to duke it out with the zombies there would be words to be had later.

Your argument for making the rogue a weak combatant is that if he is useless in combat, no one will be mad at him if the forces the GM to split his attention between the party and the guy who insists on doing his own thing again.

No. If you want to be the spotlight hog, play an expert. The rest of us who like teamplay rogues that are an asset to the group in all situations, including combat, and not a burden and potential death of the group (because he turns an appropriate to hard encounter into a deadly one), prefers our rogues to be effective in the kind of situation the game places such emphasis on.

Pendagast wrote:


I think Rogues with as much HD as Clerics is fine, but not almost as much as fighters.

What about clerics being close to fighters? Anyway, that's not a rogue problem, but more a cleric and fighter problem.

Pendagast wrote:


I like your concept of why rogues can sneak attak non standard monsters (animation nexus, cool!) But I dont feel every 1st level flunky in the theives guild should have that knowledge or have been exposed to those adversaries.

And yet you have no problem with every 1st-level flunky in the thieves' guild having intimate knowledge about the weak spots of humans, elves, orcs, goblins, minotaurs, centaurs, medusae, cows, mind flayers, beholders, dragons, gibbering mouthers, demons, devils, angels, genies...

Pendagast wrote:


So I say make it a feat like: Sneak attack Special I (undead) and Sneak attack Special II (constructs etc)

No half-measures: Either there's a feat for every monster type (and they get the one for their own type, and maybe a one more at levels 1,5,10,15,20), or we just let them sneak everyone.

Pendagast wrote:


I also feel rogue crawl and "stand" should be class features and not burn up talents.

I don't. Not every rogue is an acrobat. Why would a con man know how to do that? Plus, if everything's a class feature, why use talents at all?

If anything, I'd put more class features into talents.

Pendagast wrote:
Young rogues would either self learn this stuff, or would have been trained on it in the theives guild academy (depending on how your character became a rogue).

Not all rogues are in a guild. Not all rogues steal. Not all rogues are criminal.

Scarab Sages

Chris Mortika wrote:
Bagpuss wrote:
Yeah, you'd have to be more than merely flat-footed, in my opinion. If you turn your back on me and ignore me I'm going to be able to take my time, line it up and do something really nasty to you, not just make a normal attack (albeit one more likely to hit); my damage potential should get significantly larger, like an autocrit with max damage or something (but stopping somewhere short of coup de gras death potential). Something horrible enough that you'd almost never do it.

Intentionally ignoring an opponent places a combatant in almost exactly the same situation as being attacked by surprise by an invisible foe, Bagpuss. If a 2nd-Level cleric sneaks up on your 10th-Level monk invisibly, imagine what he could do. Automatically score a critical with maximum damage? Really?

Then imagine your monk flanked with a dangerous 10th-Level rogue on one side and that same 2nd-Level cleric on the other side. The monk decides to keep her eyes on the rogue, who is obviously the larger threat. The monk still knows the cleric is there, but you don't want her to drop her guard against the rogue. That situation seems similar enough to the invisible surprise attack to me.

But I'm not king of the world.

And how does said character know that one is 10th level and one is 2nd level? Meta-gaming? Not a strong argument...Sorry you would need to have some sort of check to appraise the fighting prowess of those 2...

Ok, so This lean tough Asian guy and this short fat African-American guy flank you...which the the grandmaster of the American Gojo Ryu style?

Y'know Bilbo Baggins wasn't the only rogue in novels...The Grey Mouser was an excellent example of a far different rogue.

The Thieve's World novels are FULL of non-Bilbo rogues...Bilbo never delivered a sneak attack...

Jack of Shadows...now THERE'S A ROGUE!

1 to 50 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Playtest Reports / The humble Rogue All Messageboards