I have a rogue one of my players use in the adventure path that I am running who used his extremely high stealth skill to sneak up on an 11th level wizard, Eirdrinnier from Second Darkness, and gain sneak damage on him. On the first round of combat after the surprise round he gained the edge on Eirdrinnier again and gained sneak damage again effectively taking out an 11th level sorcerer in two rounds. He also uses the opportunist rogue talent to great effectiveness. That my friend is what makes a Rogue very ideal in my mind.
The REAL question is: Is Batman Chaotic Good or Lawful Neutral?
~laughter~ Smartass!
My halfling rogue I played last night says differently. Flank and stab, flank and stab, flank and stab. Stand right there, Pally. Flank, and stab. Dodge. Evade. Miss me, suckaz! Suck on my steel, biatches! This is not the gold purse you're looking for. Lick my boots for postmortem damage while you're at it.
Stealthily slinks out of the thread. "oooh, shiny!"
|
I have to agree with you to an extent on that one, but it is a fact that rogues are inferior combatants opposed to other classes like fighters and monks (which is ok im not saying they should be on par with them.)They are also inferior to disabling traps, most of the time you can get the guy who has disable device to pick a mechanical lock or the wizard to dispel magic on magical traps... If worst comes to worse buff your tank and send him into the room running all about the place, or perhaps just mage hand objects around the room into random things there are many ways to "safely" and i use the term loosely to disable traps without even using he disable device skill.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.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*
Fair enough. There are ways to get around pretty much any skill or class though. I played a cleric who made up for no fighter in the group by use of his buff spells. It meant he had less magic for other things though. You could use magic to bypass many of the things that a rouge does, but you burn up other resorces that could be used to other, if not better, effect elsewhere. That's my 2cp anyway. Truth be told I've played every class out there, and for what they do I feel they are all pretty much fun to play and a valuable member of any party I've been in.
Yeah that works at level 3.... come back at level 10 and up and find out what happens to rogues who engage in melee...My halfling rogue I played last night says differently. Flank and stab, flank and stab, flank and stab. Stand right there, Pally. Flank, and stab. Dodge. Evade. Miss me, suckaz! Suck on my steel, biatches! This is not the gold purse you're looking for. Lick my boots for postmortem damage while you're at it.
Stealthily slinks out of the thread. "oooh, shiny!"
Actually, at level 2 for the moment. But if you're standing face to face in melee at level 10 with the BBEG, then your rogue deserves to die for being stupid. In the meantime, I live to stab another day and kick the dogs. :P
They are also inferior to disabling traps.
Except they get +1/2 level to perc/disable vs. traps, and can disable magic traps, you can take the rogue talent trap-spotter, and you get trap sense at third level, and disable-device is a class skill. Even evasion and a high reflex helps against alot of traps.
most of the time you can get the guy who has disable device to pick a mechanical lock or the wizard to dispel magic on magical traps... If worst comes to worse buff your tank and send him into the room running all about the place, or perhaps just mage hand objects around the room into random things there are many ways to "safely" and i use the term loosely to disable traps without even using he disable device skill.
If you have a rogue in the party, you do not have to go through all this. They are excelent scouts, great in combat(mobility and sneakieness over damage), and excellent out of combat. Besides, they are really iconic and some people love to play them. At my tables, the rogue has always had an equal share of the spotlight, and often outshines.
I'd say the problem isn't the class.... it's the player.
*Gasp*
That's what she said.
Really, I don't get people. None of the classes outright suck. Sure the fighter sucks at being skilled, but he has gobs of feats to get around this, and with buffing from spellcasters, he dominates. Sure the monk has a hard time out-damaging the fighter, but with the highest touch AC ever, the best saves, and great mobility, he is a seek and destroy mage-killing missle.
Everyone acts like the the value of a class is only measured by how quickly you can wipe-out the big tough-guy monster, in an empty blank room, with all the time in the world to prepare for the fight. It seems people ignore party dynamic, role-playing, and all the little things that make-up D&D. It really is not a videogame, or a vacuum of theoretical situations, all the DPR calculations in the world simply dissolve in the face of actual play and story-telling. It's not a competition between classes, it's a group storytelling experience that is meant to be fun.
When you build a party, you try to compliment eachother's abilities, and compensate for eachother's strengths and weaknesses. If your wizard, or whatever, truly is the star of your team, then what happens when he goes-down? What happens when your ultimate, one-sided, one-hit kill, DPR machine can't do his schtick? The game ends, right? Game-over screen?
Every class is fun to play, and every class is good at what it does. You pick what you like, try to build something fun that works, and roleplay. I'm not against optimizing, but I do not think the overpowered/underpowered arguments ever really get to a conclusion.
D&D is a game that is open to many interpretations, the mechanics can be looked at from many angles, and this gets people arguing, but you know what?, a valid point can be made for each stance, and even supported with hard evidence. So, in a sense, no one is wrong or right, we all play differently, and that is OK.
Just don't forget to have fun, and enjoy the experience for what it is. Build a party that works together to overcome obstacles, build an awesomely powerful character, just build something that makes sense. And when you want to beat a game, play a video game...
[/end rant]
(this was in no way directed as an attack on the OP, or anyone else.)
People just find it easier to piss and moan with less inhibitions behind an avatar or an alias. I blame Al Gore and his Internet.
I have a rogue one of my players use in the adventure path that I am running who used his extremely high stealth skill to sneak up on an 11th level wizard, Eirdrinnier from Second Darkness, and gain sneak damage on him. On the first round of combat after the surprise round he gained the edge on Eirdrinnier again and gained sneak damage again effectively taking out an 11th level sorcerer in two rounds. He also uses the opportunist rogue talent to great effectiveness. That my friend is what makes a Rogue very ideal in my mind.Could you at least please state the context in which this "battle" took place? because if the wizard was at a bar getting S*** faced and was totally off his rocker I could understand a rogue sneak attacking him otherwise it is hard to imagine... Without the context in which it took place.
Actually to be fair the rogue was invisible, which obviously gave him a huge advantage to his stealth check. But, the point I was trying to make is the rogue is setup, imo,for tactics such as this. The Wizard was tending to some alchemy equipment at the time.But I have also found the opportunist rogue talent to be quite effective as well. It should be mentioned that the rogue in question is 11th level so his sneak damage is adding up.
I woke up this morning and happened upon this thread and noticed people comparing the fighter to the rogue. They are two different classes with two totally different roles if used correctly. That is why I decided to throw my 2 cents in.
As mentioned previously (and the math was done) a TWF rogue who is sneak attacking does comparable damage to a full melee fighter.
The Rogue in question was built on Dex and had an AC comparable to a fighter as well (so it's not like the rogue sacrificed defense).
What the fighter didn't have was crippling effect with his strikes, which the rogue did, so in a fight where sneak attack was possible, the rogue would probably be the more effective combatant.
That of course was just a snapshot, but I think the "rogues aren't good in combat" statement going around this thread is pretty odd.
"Rogues have lousy saves" I would agree with, or "Rogues aren't good in combats where they can't sneak attack", or "Rogues are inconsistant in combat"
However, in the lion's share of combats - Rogues are a pretty effective melee class, with some handy tricks.
I don't think a rogue is a "must have" in a party - but I think well made, they are an effective contributer except against sneak attack immune critters.
<teasing sarcasm> What really gets me is how useless Paladins are in my all stealth and burglary campaign! </teasing sarcasm>
+1
If your DM will let you, add Blurstrike (3rd party, but still pretty nifty) to your Rogue's weapon...
...get Sneak Attack every single hit, flanking or not.
Rogue: "Pardon me, good sir. I'd like to let you know that I'm about to Sneak Attack you".
Unfortunate Target: "Uh, wait... how can you warn me and still sneak attack"?
Rogue: "SNEAK ATTACK"!
UT: "Urk"!
No, they don't. Fighters wipe the floor with rogues when it comes to damage potential.No, they don't, unless they're archers.
Seriously, guys? I did the math. You don't have to make gut calls any more.
I did the math, too, and it showed that rogues lose that one.
I think it's sad that some people think the only thing that matters is the average per round damage output of a class.
Who does that here? I'll yell at him!
Doesn't mean it's trivial, either. Sliding scale, man, sliding scale.
Ftang Ftang Ole biskut barel
We shall enjoy feasting on your soul.
Rogues are bad at combat... what?
I sneak attack your teeth!
You don't want to know.
Paizo 25 point build
9 Rogue
1 Fighter
Telling that you need fighter levels ;-P
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
Those seem off. Well, they'e okay until you say something about "stat points for level in str for 20". You only get two of those, and you already put them in str and dex.
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 5D6Well 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?
Now, what you need to consider is statistical average damage:
The attacks are +13 (1d10+7/x3 plus 5d6) + 8 (1d10+7/x3 plus 5d6) +13 (1d6+7/3 plus 5d6) + +8 (1d6+7/3 plus 5d6)
Average AC for CR 10 is 24, so let's go with that:
First Attack
First attack hits at 11+, meaning 50% to hit.
Does 1d10+7 plus 5d6 damage, which is 30 on average.
Statistical average damage is therefore 50% of 30, or 15.
There's also a 5% chance of a crit. If you roll 20 followed by 11+, you'll get another 2d10+14 damage. Average is 25. It's 50% likely that you hit, so the crit has a statistical extra damage of 12.5. Since there's only a 5% chance that this will be the case, you get 5% of 12.5, or 0,625.
Statistical average: 15,625
Second Attack
Hits at 16+, 25%
25% of 30 is 7,5
Crit: 5% of 25% of 25 points, or 0,3125
Statistical average: 7,8125
Third Attack
50% of 1d6+7+5d6 (28) = 14
Crit: 5% of 50% of 2d6+14 (21) = 0,525
Statistical average: 14,525
Fourth Attack
25% of 28 = 7
Crit: 5% of 25% of 21 = 0,2625
Statistical average: 7,2625
Total: 45,225 per round.
And now for my contender:
Human Fighter 10
Str 20
Dex
Bronn the Slayer, Fighter 10
Str 20
Dex 16
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 10
Cha 10
(Human: +2 Str; Level bonuses for 4 and 8 to strength, too)
I'll have a +4 belt, too, to even things out, and since he's only going to get one weapon, we'll take a +3 one (everything on pure enhancement.
Feats:
Weapon Focus (Falchion)
Greater Weapon Focus (Falchion)
Improved Critical (Falchion)
Power Attack
Weapon Specialisation (Falchion)
Critical Focus
6 others that aren't really relevant here. Lots of nice fighter stuff going on there.
Attack:
BAB: 10
Weapon Focus: 2
Weapon Training: 2
Weapon: 3
Strength: 7
Total: 24/19 (+4 for crits)
Damage:
Weapon: 2d4
Weapon Specialisation: 2
Weapon Training: 2
Weapon: 3
Strength: 10
Total: 2d4+17(15-20/x2), average of 22
Again, we assume AC 24, average for CR 10
Attack 1
Since natural 1s still suck, there's only a 95% chance of that one hitting.
95% of 22 is 20,9
Critical: There's a 30% of a crit, which will do 95% of 22, too (since all the damage a fighter deals is multiplied). So 39% of 95% of 22, meaning an extra 6,27
Statistical average: 27,17
Attack 2
19 hits 24 80% of the time, so 80% of 22 or 17,6
Critical: Again, 30% of a crit, which do to critical focus will hit 95% of the time. 30% of 95% of 22 = 6,27
Statistical average: 23,87
Total: 51,04
And now for Power Attack: At BAB +10, you can take -3. This will net you +9 damage for a two-handed weapon, so:
Attacks: 21/16 for 2d4+26 (31 on average)
Attack 1
90% of hitting, 90% of 31 is 27,9
Crit: 30% of 95% of 31 or 8,835
Statistical average: 36,735
Attack 2
65% of hitting, 65% of 31 is 20,15
Crit: 30% of 85% of 31 is 7,905
Statistical average: 28,055
Total: 64,79
The technical stuff out of the way, I want to note that the fighter can afford those stats a lot more easily than the rogue his (which didn't even make sense). He can also afford to lose a flanking bonus, he will have the better AC, more hit points, is harder to grapple, can easily afford feats like step up, and generally won't give up as much as the rogue for favouring strength like that.
And yes, I assumed AC 24. You are free to look up other numbers, but unless you go quite low, things will stay similar - and the higher you go, the more the fighter will increase his lead. The fighter has the advantage that he can effectively use power attack (the rogue would need foes with really low AC for that)
Smurf.
Move along please.
ooh. It's pappa smurf too.
If I were going to participate in this conversation, my first question would be ....
What is 'useless' in a role-playing game?
I'd say "has no abilities that allow him to contribute" or maybe even "doesn't do its job at all".
A part of this discussion has been sidetracked by the age old "rogues are better fighters than fighters" fallacy.
A rogue won't outperform a fighter (provided both are equally optimised for combat - but frankly, if you put as much combat focus into your rogue as you'd a fighter, you're probably not playing the best class for what you want to accomplish), but he's not that bad on the battlefield.
And he has other abilities.
All in all, I say he does his job reasonably well, and thus is far from useless.
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.
I had a campaign being dominated by a bard - and I mean the was the most serious damage dealer out there. But that's not because bards are better warriors than paladins, it's because the bard's player is a min/maxing prodigy, and the paladin's player is less experienced in it and also doesn't put as much energy into (and places as much importance on) combat optimisation.
It's all about how the characters are built, how well they're played, i.e. how good their combat tactics were - and, of course, actual performance will always rely on luck of the dice, since actual play doesn't care about statistical averages: If you built the most optimised fighter in the multiverse but roll 20 natural 1s for your attack rolls, your actual damage output in that round was still 0, even though the statistical average might be something like 112977,448.
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.Rogues aren't useful in combat or out of combat...
As much as I hate to do it (;-P), I have to agree with Moorluck here.
Ignore damage for a minute. If it is just skills that the rogue is being picked for is there any reason not to just roll a Bard who is skillmaster and crowd controller?
Yeah. You might want to be the crowd controller, and prefer the skill selection, amount of skill points and skill-supporting abilities the rogue gets to be more to your liking.
Anyone can disable mundane traps, so a Sorcerer that has knock, ranks in disable, dispel magic, and permanent arcane eyes.
Well, the rogue can keep on going long after the sorcerer has run out of dispels.
And it's not a given that the sorcerer has permanent arcane sight, unless he gets both permanency and arcane sight as spells or manages to get scrolls. And even then, you'll have to wait until level 11 to pull that one off - long after you were killed by some magical trap you didn't notice ;-P
Not to mention a caster CAN do more damage.
"CAN do". Not "ALWAYS do.
My personal experience is that if you go against a single enemy, weapons are the way to go for damage output - the casters do shine when they attack groups of people at once (and, of course, they have other abilities that are usually beyond the warrior's power).
effectively taking out an 11th level sorcerer in two rounds.
In a campaign of mine, the resident min-maxing prodigy played an archer (3 levels of rogue filled up with fighter levels). He often killed or almost killed powerful enemies, especially those that were low on HP.
Of course, that stuff gains attention: In the final fight, the BBEG hit him with an energy drain spell (and managed to roll 2 4s for damage). Boy was he pissed ;-)
Oh, you were serious? You thought monks outperformed rogues in combat?
Monk is the new rogue.
They eat colour.
Smurf.
Move along please.
ooh. It's pappa smurf too.
A.k.a. pimp smurf. Peddling all the smurf man-flesh... to each other.
I sneak attack your teeth!
Haha, he's got fortification braces!
Optimally built Rogues can out damage the crap out of Fighters and Barbarians. The thing they lack is the ability to stand there and tank. In one of the games we played a few weeks back the rogue couldn't make it to the game so the DM let me bring in my backup rogue and play both characters. We were a party of level 5 adventurers and we were up against 2 CR 7 Hydras guarding an entrance to a ruin.
I told the others to chill, the rogue had this. Stealthing up in the night like a mad man (even past the Hydras insane perception) I get up to the first Hydra and stab it with a +1 Spell-Storing Shortsword, catching it flat-footed, and dealing 1d6 Weapon+3d6 Sneak+5d6 Electricity+1 damage to it. Well the fight is on. Initiative time, Rogue has +8 Initiative so I easily get the priority. The Hydra still flat-footed to me get hit twice with both shortswords (the other one still charged with a spell), double sneak attack damage, dishing a total of 2d6 Weapon+6d6 Sneak+5d6 Electricity+2 damage, effectively killing it outright. Sure I got attacked by the other Hydra, but with 22 AC I was able to avoid half of them and the rest of the party rushed forward and began to pull aggro for me while I recharged my swords with a wand of Shocking Grasp using the Rogues 'Use Magic Device' ready to jump back into the fray or outright kill anything new that might show up in the fight.
You just need to design your rogue from the ground up to be able to take full advantage of the skills and class abilities given to it.
to be fair, i think it was more in response to some of the people early on that used "rogues outdamage fighters" as a reason why rogues aren't useless. there are plenty of reasons why rogues aren't useless, but outdamaging the fighter isn't one of them....snip...
That of course was just a snapshot, but I think the "rogues aren't good in combat" statement going around this thread is pretty odd....snip...
Wouldn't the correct response be "No they don't, in fact, a TWF rogue sneak attacking at flank can expect to do similar damage to a melee based fighter with an offensive concentration. The rogue may contribute more than damage though through his rogue tricks."
Instead of
"Fighters wipe the floor with rogues when it comes to damage potential."
Which is an overstatement of equal proportion to the one it was responding to.
Rogues overall are pretty good melee combatants. Probably equal to fighters overall, though that's more complex than comparing DPR of course. The TWF especially so, since it relies more heavily on sneak attack, SA tricks and full attack status.
I prefer a fighter's consistancy in combat overall though. A TWF Rogue cannot be relied on for consistant damage output. Some battles a Rogue can't hope to sneak attack at all, and in those cases, he's got much less to contribute. Probably why I liked your 2H rogue build - it means a bit of extra punch when SA isn't happening.
Outside of combat, I think it's safe to say that by the rogue has far more mechanical potential to contribute than fighters for certain.
|
|
The REAL question is: Is Batman Chaotic Good or Lawful Neutral?
nope< in my opinion hes Lawful Good, hes got a personal code that he STRICTLY adheres to but has everyones best interest at heart ( even if he keeps his emotions tucked away) Superman is Lawful stupid (but when your that powerful you can afford to be soooo lawful stupid)
excellent sidetrack James^^
Chief Technical Officer
|
I'm convinced by the mathematics—we've made a horrific mistake by offering more than one class to play. In the next printing, we'll remove everything that's not a fighter, as well as the races that aren't built for in-your-face combat, any weapons and items that aren't all about getting the most possible damage per round, and any other pointless rules that no longer apply (like the entire spells chapter, since there will no longer be anyone to cast them).
In fact, we'll just go ahead and pre-fill the character sheet with the optimal stats for the one character everyone should play. Don't worry, though, you can still decide what his name is, and what color outfit he should wear*.
|
I'm convinced by the mathematics—we've made a horrific mistake by offering more than one class to play. In the next printing, we'll remove everything that's not a fighter, as well as the races that aren't built for in-your-face combat, any weapons and items that aren't all about getting the most possible damage per round, and any other pointless rules that no longer apply (like the entire spells chapter, since there will no longer be anyone to cast them).
In fact, we'll just go ahead and pre-fill the character sheet with the optimal stats for the one character everyone should play. Don't worry, though, you can still decide what his name is, and what color outfit he should wear*.
** spoiler omitted **
Also why would anyone name their character anything but Gygax the Destroyer?
Gygax the Destroyer is the most optimal name ever. I've done the math.
Burn.
Besides, Type O Negative did say Black is No 1.
Optimally built Rogues can out damage the crap out of Fighters and Barbarians.
Not equally optimally built fighters. Fighters' attack bonuses are so much better (just because of better BAB, class abilities and feat selection), which means they're a lot more likely to hit (which makes them deal more damage statistically).
And on top of that, their damage bonuses aren't to be sneezed at, either. And they always kick in, including when they're not flanking or otherwise surprising foes and when they are calculating extra damage from a critical.
My personal experience has spoken. And not only that, the numbers have spoken, too.
I told the others to chill, the rogue had this. Stealthing up in the night like a mad man (even past the Hydras insane perception) I get up to the first Hydra and stab it with a +1 Spell-Storing Shortsword, catching it flat-footed, and dealing 1d6 Weapon+3d6 Sneak+5d6 Electricity+1 damage to it.
So we're talking about level 5, yes? Your rogue did 1d6+1 plus 3d6 plus 5d6 electricity, for an average of 15 plus 17,5 electricity.
The fighter and his +1 Spell-Storing Falchion would have power attacked the critter for 2d4 (falchion) +1 (weapon enhancement) +6 (strength) +2 (feat) +1 (weapon training) +6 (power attack), for a total of 2d4+16 plus 5d6 electricity, for an average of 21 plus 17,5 electricity. Or 15+24 without power attack. Or 30+24 for a crit (without power attack) and 42+24 for a crit (with power attack).
Well the fight is on. Initiative time, Rogue has +8 Initiative so I easily get the priority. The Hydra still flat-footed to me get hit twice with both shortswords (the other one still charged with a spell)
What do you mean, the other one? You have two +1 spell-storing shortswords at level 5? Or are you heavily multiclassing?
In any case, make that a +2 spell storing falchion, or maybe a +1 keen spell storing falchion, in my case.
I would really like to see a rogue/thief/whatever that is near useless in a fight
There you have your new character concept.
Tell me how it worked out. :P
*blames 4E for this whole argument*
Seriously guys... this thread looks like someone got bored and threw this thread here just to watch the arguments and flaming.