Rogues at a glance look ok but in practice they are bad. They don't do well in combat compared fighters barbs etc they also don't disable device all that well compared to the groups ability to open doors and activate traps. Discuss plox
MMMM gotta love sorsor with permenant arcane sight to see the magic traps and dispel them and just ranks in DD for mundane traps and open lock
don't disable device all that well compared to the groups ability to open doors and activate traps. Discuss plox
So setting traps off on purpose is a good thing, or am I misunderstanding you?
Hmmm...I think I might know where this is going...
Plox? Sorsor? Those aren't typos, those are onomatopoeia!
I'd go into a longer deranged rant, but it's too late for that.
Plox? Sorsor? Those aren't typos, those are onomatopoeia!
I'd go into a longer deranged rant, but it's too late for that.
I get "sorsor", but what do you think is intended by "plox"?
I get "sorsor", but what do you think is intended by "plox"?Plox? Sorsor? Those aren't typos, those are onomatopoeia!
I'd go into a longer deranged rant, but it's too late for that.
I still have no idea what plox is/means.
I get "sorsor", but what do you think is intended by "plox"?Plox? Sorsor? Those aren't typos, those are onomatopoeia!
I'd go into a longer deranged rant, but it's too late for that.
I still have no idea what plox is/means.
Wow...that's intense.
|
Rogues outdamage fighters, and if you use the line in the thieves' ability to say nobody can see magic traps, even spells (what you can't see can't glow red), their trapfinding ability becomes a lot more useful. Also combat traps even if you want to argue Detect Magic works as the "ultimate trapfighter" (which few if any DMs would allow in practice).
As for combat, a rogue is going to damage output better than a fighter. I think the key most people miss is the primary stat for a rogue isn't dexterity, it's strength. With a good strength and two-weapon fighting, rogues can put out abusive numbers on damage with a good to-hit bonus. This naturally assumes flank (they aren't as straightforward as fighters). Using quickdraw lets you do the whole "shoot bow sneak attack round, drop bow, have spear ready. When they come in, attack of opportunity, drop spear, draw rapier/short sword" combo to avoid issues with closing in.
Rogues can be made right, but you are correct most are made wrong. Still, unlike Monks and Rangers I think they have their place in society :).
As for combat, a rogue is going to damage output better than a fighter. I think the key most people miss is the primary stat for a rogue isn't dexterity, it's strength. With a good strength and two-weapon fighting, rogues can put out abusive numbers on damage with a good to-hit bonus. This naturally assumes flank (they aren't as straightforward as fighters). Using quickdraw lets you do the whole "shoot bow sneak attack round, drop bow, have spear ready. When they come in, attack of opportunity, drop spear, draw rapier/short sword" combo to avoid issues with closing in.
Um, not to punch a bunch of holes in your argument, but *any* character who chooses to pursue TWF fully is going to invest a LOT into Dexterity. They'll need a natural dexterity of 19 by the mid teens to take full advantage of the feat line. Now, unless you're playing in a HIGH point buy game, a score of 19 is a heavy investment for something that's not even your primary ability score.
Also, your suggestion on weapon use means that the rogue is going to have to split their character wealth between 4 different weapons. Yikes.
|
i gave the rogue in my game an item that made him invisible to scent< blindsense<blindsight< and tremorsense so that he could do roguey things like hide from things.....stealthily is much to hard in 3.0 to pathfinder. its sad that i have to give a"artifact" to a low level character so he can attempt to do his job. (he still is terrified to scout and be stealthy, thanks wizards for making a enjoyable out of combat class into Flanks stabber and thats all.....) i dont blame paizo, just to much change to be worthwhile.
|
|
No They don't. We've done the math
While the rogue is built wrong in your scenario, I do see the math quandrum.
You are effectively (vs a fighter who is also Str 20 Dex 17) -5 to hit and -4 damage per hit. This is from BAB, Weapon specialization. In exchange, you get 5d6 (17.5 damage) per hit. Now generally people are willing to power attack, which trade 1 to hit for 2 damage; that means you are coming out ahead 7.5 damage per hit relative to "power attack" math; BUT, that assumes power attack was worth it in the first place (and especially to the point where you'd want to do it a great deal).
It's relatively hard to overcome the -5, the short answer is they are better vs lower than average AC and worse vs higher than average ACs. But, they are in the relative vicinity, and their powers and skills are not completly dismissable (though sadly not as powerful as they should be).
Eh, maybe rogues do suck; I guess that's why we use pallys for trapfinders these days :).
Eh, maybe rogues do suck; I guess that's why we use pallys for trapfinders these days :).
I hope this does not mean you just activate traps. There are some traps that mess the entire party up, and not just the rogue. The crushing wall/room traps come to mind.
Rogues outdamage fighters
No, they don't. Fighters wipe the floor with rogues when it comes to damage potential.
In exchange, you get 5d6 (17.5 damage) per hit. Now generally people are willing to power attack, which trade 1 to hit for 2 damage; that means you are coming out ahead 7.5 damage per hit relative to "power attack" math; BUT, that assumes power attack was worth it in the first place (and especially to the point where you'd want to do it a great deal).
You can't consider stuff like damage per hit all by itself. You need to consider the chances that you'll hit something. Basically, if you do 1d10 +5 damage (10.5) per hit and are 50% likely to hit with that attack, the statistical average for that hit is 5.25. Add all statistical average damages for your attacks and you've come up with statistical damage.
Fighters have a much higher chance to hit, meaning their damage numbers get a much higher percentage.
And it gets more complicated, as you need to figure crits into the formula. Fighters get to multiply all their damage for a crit, while rogues only get the non-sneak attack part (which is negligible). This heavily favours the fighter again.
And power attack works a bit differently, too: -1/+2, with another -1/+2 for every 4 BAB. But off-hand attacks are only -1/+1, while two-handed attacks are at -1/+3. Offensive fighters usually use a two-handed weapon (though two-weapon fighting isn't bad for them, either).
Eh, maybe rogues do suck
Nah. They're not as good at fighting as a fighter (which makes sense, as they're no warriors), but they don't exactly fail at combat - and they have other abilities.
I think the key most people miss is the primary stat for a rogue isn't dexterity, it's strength. With a good strength and two-weapon fighting, rogues can put out abusive numbers on damage with a good to-hit bonus.
Dexterity is still the primary stat for the rogue, especially if he wants to go the two-weapon fighting route: You need a high dex score to get those feats. Plus, with only light armour proficiency, a rogue with a low dex score will have a bad AC, making them more vulnerable (which, in a way, affects the total damage output, because you'll drop or have to retreat sooner).
If you use strength as prime stat, you'll still have to increase dex enough to get the feats.
On the other hand, you can get weapon finesse, forget about strength, accept the slightly lower damage output per actual hit and buff dex for better AC and the best to hit percentages a rogue can manage.
A fighter, on the other hand, can boost strength - though some dex can be very useful, too, since they can wear the heaviest armour and still get a half-decent dex bonus.
This naturally assumes flank (they aren't as straightforward as fighters).
Huge assumption. You can't guarantee a flanking position. And without flanking, the rogue is reduced to single-digit damage values, while all the fighter loses is 10% on his to hit values (and the associated slight decrease in statistical damage).
Using quickdraw lets you do the whole "shoot bow sneak attack round, drop bow, have spear ready. When they come in, attack of opportunity, drop spear, draw rapier/short sword" combo to avoid issues with closing in.
And now you have 4 weapons you need to maintain to have the best attack/damage bonuses. The fighter already needs just the one - his trusty big hitter (usually a falchion)
Rogues can be made right, but you are correct most are made wrong.
They still cannot outdamage a fighter that is also made right.
Still, unlike Monks and Rangers I think they have their place in society :).
Hey, rangers, while not having a place in society (being the outdoors loner type), can be devastating archers - and with built-in bodyguards (animal companion) to boot! Rangers get Improved Precise Shot a lot earlier than everyone else, and those are two kick-ass feats!
I do kinda agree with monks, though. The class has several key design weaknesses, and they cannot compete with real warriors in one of their main foci (using martial artsy combat manoeuvres). And to be able to compete even remotely, they need to add another ability score to their already overtaxed dependancy on lots of ability scores. Plus, I had to find out that monks are the new rogues: Facing undead, a lot of their nice toys become useless.
The REAL question is: Is Batman Chaotic Good or Lawful Neutral?
Please don't bring that thread back, lol.
Creative Director
|
The REAL question is: Is Batman Chaotic Good or Lawful Neutral?Please don't bring that thread back, lol.
And James Bond! He's CLEARLY Lawful Evil.
Han Solo's Chaotic Neutral, too.
FIGHT!
(AKA: Arguments about which class can do more damage than the other are as endless and as prone to multiple right answers as the Batman Alignment Debate.)
|
The REAL question is: Is Batman Chaotic Good or Lawful Neutral?
Now what about Two-Face's alignment?
Yarr...
I think it's sad that some people think the only thing that matters is the average per round damage output of a class. There's more to RPing than that. To say that not being able to dish out as much damage as a fighter (whose main purpose IS to take and dish out damage) makes the small child in me cry.
(I know that many involved in these arguments do not believe this and simply enjoy arguing and testing their number-crunching skills and still know that each class is good to play for other reasons than to deal damage... but still. seriously?)
Just my thoughts on the matter.
*shakes head and walks away*
Now what about Two-Face's alignment?Oh dammitall do not link that site.
Yeah, it will Ruin your life
James Bond LN
Batman NG
Han Solo CN
two face CN
ermm.. right what did I want to write about again >>
rogues are made of pure awesome, they can in the right situation outdamage a fighter and have more options available anyway, more importantly they can work very well WITH a fighter.
rogues basically are challenging but very effective if played well, just dont expect you are going to outdamage the fighter in frontline combat most of the time. that kinda is the fighters thing.
skills are one of your mainthing though if you cant use them dont become a rogue.
(AKA: Arguments about which class can do more damage than the other are as endless and as prone to multiple right answers as the Batman Alignment Debate.)
I don't suppose we can use this excuse to get this thread closed, locked, thrown into a deep chasm, and never mentioned again, can we?
Seriously, way too many electrons are getting used up for no good reason. Won't someone please think of the physics?
lol sure we can, anyway, I pulled alignments randomly from my hat kinda even D&D cant agree on alignments from splat to splatbook alignment is reinvented, so yea pointless ^^
*CLOSES THREAD, LOCKS IT AND THROWS IT IN A DEEP CHASM*
The REAL question is: Is Batman Chaotic Good or Lawful Neutral?Now what about Two-Face's alignment?
Insanity has no alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*THROWS ABRAHAM IN THE CHASM AS WELL*
Insanity has no alignment.The REAL question is: Is Batman Chaotic Good or Lawful Neutral?Now what about Two-Face's alignment?
Insanity is neutral with an extremely low wisdom score.
lol sure we can, anyway, I pulled alignments randomly from my hat kinda even D&D cant agree on alignments from splat to splatbook alignment is reinvented, so yea pointless ^^
*CLOSES THREAD, LOCKS IT AND THROWS IT IN A DEEP CHASM*
Nazis
I invoke Godwin's law|
|
Paizo 25 point build
9 Rogue
1 Fighter
Dwarf
base level
Str 16 + 1 = 17 all other stat points for level in str for 20
Dex 16 + 1 = 17
Con 16
Int 12
Wis 10
Cha 9
Feats
Two Weapon Fighting
Improved Two Weapon Fighting
Double Slice
Weapon Focus Dwarven Axe
Weapon Focus Hand Axe
Rogue Talents
Fast Stealth
Surprise Attack
Bleeding Attack
Slow reactions
BAB +7
To hit melee with Dwarven Axe + 11 + 6
To hit with Two Weapon Fighting
Dwarven Axe + 9 + 4
Hand Axe +9 +4
Damage Dwarven Axe 1D10+3 Hand Axe 1D6+3 crit 20 mutiplyer x3
Sneak attack 5D6
If we add a few magic items like + 4Str belt and +2 weapons. Easy enough for a level 10 to get.
To hit with Dwarven Axe +15 +10
To hit with Two Weapon Fighting
Dwarven Axe +13 +8
Hand Axe +13 +8
Damage Dwarven Axe 1D10 +7 Hand Axe 1D6+7 sneak attack 5D6
Well thats my dps Rogue. I might not be good at making fighter's. My fighter cant do that kind of damage. And if you start a DPS rogue with a 14 Str. Is that realy the start of a dps or a finess rogue?
For comparison purposes, a 20 point build is the norm.
For comparison purposes, a 20 point build is the norm.
Really, I thought that a 15 point build was the Norm (as that is what was used for all the iconics and for all major NPCs in Golarion).
So, why is 20pts the "norm"?
This whole thread is an attempt at humor no? It can't be serious yes?
For comparison purposes, a 20 point build is the norm.Really, I thought that a 15 point build was the Norm (as that is what was used for all the iconics and for all major NPCs in Golarion).
So, why is 20pts the "norm"?
I don't know about the iconics and NPC's (Are they really 15pts?) I meant the characters that are built in the comparison and optimization threads, those are usually built on a 20 pt buy... aren't they? I could be wrong, I only read those threads and don't usually take part in them.
|
|
For comparison purposes, a 20 point build is the norm.Really, I thought that a 15 point build was the Norm (as that is what was used for all the iconics and for all major NPCs in Golarion).
So, why is 20pts the "norm"?
I use 20 points as the base in my campaign because it as the arbitrary base used in th Pathfinder Society.
Are we really discussing how a plumber is a better plumber than an electrician? Or am I lost again?
Just to answer the OP's original stament, in my curent pbp the rogue has clearly out performed the fighter in terms of kills and damage inficted.
|
|
Rogues aren't useful in combat or out of combat...Yarr...
I think it's sad that some people think the only thing that matters is the average per round damage output of a class. There's more to RPing than that. To say that not being able to dish out as much damage as a fighter (whose main purpose IS to take and dish out damage) makes the small child in me cry.
(I know that many involved in these arguments do not believe this and simply enjoy arguing and testing their number-crunching skills and still know that each class is good to play for other reasons than to deal damage... but still. seriously?)
Just my thoughts on the matter.
*shakes head and walks away*
Considering that I have played and DM'd rouges that formed the cornerstone of a party, both in and out of combat, I'd say the problem isn't the class.... it's the player.