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 ;-)
HaHa Nice! The player who is playing the rogue I mentioned isn't even a power gamer. I think the rogue is a nice class, and it seems a bit silly to compare the rogue to a fighter when as I have mentioned before they have two totally different roles in the party. A rogue going toe to toe with an enemy not a good idea. A rogue sneaking up on someone is the way to go.
Seriously guys... this thread looks like someone got bored and threw this thread here just to watch the arguments and flaming.
Well, the thread starter's name doesn't exactly help, either.
Haven't seen much flaming, though.
The player who is playing the rogue I mentioned isn't even a power gamer.
Well, it was just an arcanist, though. Maybe even one that had the old rules yet (i.e. d4 for HD), and a knife-ear to boot, meaning his HP weren't that much. And I there was some luck involved.
I think the rogue is a nice class
No argument there. Love the rogue! Nice multi-talent that doesn't need magic. One of my all-time favourite characters was a rogue (well, rogue/assassin, but still, skills were a huge part of his main abilities)
and it seems a bit silly to compare the rogue to a fighter when as I have mentioned before they have two totally different roles in the party.
It can seem silly. However, people keep saying that rogues. can do more damage than fighters, which just isn't true, especially with the Pathfinder fighter.
And if you are looking at the whole class, part of its abilities is related to combat (though I agree that it is not all of the class!)
A rogue going toe to toe with an enemy not a good idea. A rogue sneaking up on someone is the way to go.
Well, it's not as easy as that:
Rogues can work in a melee situation (provided they can flank, and know when it's time to retreat), and sneaking up to backstab someone is often a bad idea, as you need to kill your (sole) enemy before he can react. If he has buddies, or if he is allowed to act, you might be in trouble, unless your sneaks have given you enough of a head start to finish him in regular combat (since you probably won't sneak much again, unless you give up your move action, and extra attacks, to feint), can flee from him effectively and/or hold out until the party can catch up with you.
One huge point about rogues is that only a smart player can make the best of them in the fight. You need to utilise tactics in order to maximise your damage potential and minimise your chances of being creamed by some guy who figured that someone with better attack than defence makes a great preferred target.
This reminds me of one session where "unsmart" use of rogue nearly got the rogue killed.
There was a paladin who had a rogue cohort (as much for story reasons as for the support in our small group).
They were fighting an umbral dragon in a castle's courtyard (if anyone finds this suspiciously familiar: Yes, that cohort is a major NPC in a certain AP, but was originally a bard. However, there was already a bard in the group, so the character was turned into an rogue with artistic ambitions).
The paladin waded in, hitting the dragon (I think it had size huge), and then the rogue went into flanking position to beat the crap out of the dragon.
First round, the rogue only got one attack in, not that much of a thread, or so the dragon thought. But after she managed to do several hits with sneak attack, the dragon realised the danger this squishy target posed, and squished it. A dragon is good at dropping you to negative hit points. The party cleric moved in and healed her (I think with an actual heal).
And the player decides that it would be a good idea to keep the rogue in that position rather than move her out of the way.
The dragon didn't do his usual whirlwind of attacks on her after that - he big her, grabbed her in her mouth, and flew to the top of a tower.
Luck was with the party, since they could finish the critter off before he decided to unleash his breath weapon with her between his teeth (which makes evading its effect impossible) and then dropping her onto the courtyard something like 80 feet below them (she managed to hold onto the dragon's teeth without him putting up a fight).
If they hadn't won the fight there and then, that rogue would have been toast. I wouldn't have pulled any punches because the player should have realised that this rogue should get the heck out of there.
I was under the impression that it was meant to be a heavy single target damage dealer, and also a good scout/trap disabler. The problem with this is that in its two jobs it is not the superior choice in either, not even close really.
There are a number of problems with your assumption:
He can make a really good scout. He can make a really good trap springer.
But he can also be a good spy, swindler, cat-burgler, confidence man, thug, infiltrator, sentinel, assassin, pretender, cutpurse, picklock, diplomat, racketeer, tomb raider, and probably dozens of other things I'm not thinking of right now.
And the best thing is: He can be several of these things at once, even stuff that doesn't have much in common at all. Sure, it's easy to be both a scout and a sentinel, but he can be a scout, a sentinel, a diplomat and a thug all at once, and have the skills to be decent in all of it.
So what I wanted to know is if you had a party of four characters why would anyone ever want to choose rogue?
Because they're a lot of fun?
And all that talk about the rogue being sub par is just nonsense. He lends a huge dose of versatility to the party as he can be adapted to many situations. He'll support the fighter (and maybe cleric) in melee, he'll be unparalleled at dealing with traps (and do it all day, and without slowing the group down by actively spending actions looking for traps all the time), he'll also deal with locks (quickly, quietly, and without resorting to a limited resource like spells)....
The game is about far more than just walking into a dungeon and killing everything you find as quickly as possible (and taking their loot). If you just play it that way, have a good time (though I wouldn't), but understand that the game supports a lot more play stiles than yours, and the rogue isn't a class made with hack'n'slash campaigns in mind.
|
And to whomever asked, yeah, generally you trapfind by taking the traps. Few traps hit the parties; you get a meatshield with good hp and AC to take it.
The reality is in Pathfinder Society, I have yet to meet a rogue in ANY game that I've played. And they do lay traps. But there are usually good (often magical) ways to avoid such things (mage hand, invisible servants, etc); but often they are set up where someone has to expect to "take it". Or the party is forced to fight an extra encounter of summons. You really shouldn't FORCE a party to take a rogue either; and with nobody else able to gain the ability to find magical traps, and it being an argument never brought up about magical traps and their ability to be found by DM, "Taking it" is the other alternative.
Obviously if you have enough traps around a rogue can eventually gain his weight. I think the (general) issue is that skills are simply not powerful enough. Most can be circumvented (better) with magic, and those few that do not (Charisma based and Perception) many other classes take.
We'll see; I was initially impressed, even wanting to experiment with a roguey-build, but the numbers do add up to them not being as good even in their best scenario for combat. Any class can roleplay (hell, I can have my ranger be robin hood and steal too); so that's not a "rogue" thing.
Dunno, I like being good in combat, out of combat roleplaying will be taken care of regardless of what class I play. So where does that leave us with the rogue, given the math doesn't allow him to be a great combatant even in his best scenario?
The OP is really just a close relative of mine. Nothing to worry about.
|
I don't get the rogue hate. I have ran groups where every member had at least 1 level in rogue, none of them were forced to do that. And not a one of them regreted it either. Any class can be replaced by another, I ran a wizard that was the groups primary fighter, with the Swordmage PrC. If you don't like the class then don't play it, doesn't mean it's broken, just means it's not your style of play. I don't expect my current PC, a Rog/Rngr to deal as much damage as the groups fighter, his other talents and skills more than make him one of the most valuable members of the group. Yes if the spellcasters wanted to they could do some of what he does, sometimes better. But it would be at the cost of burning those oh so valuable spells of theirs, where Rory can do it all day long.
KaeYoss agreed with me? I think a peice of my soul just died. ;D
Sooner or later KaeYoss agrees with everyone. 'Tis part o' his charm.
|
|
I don't get the rogue hate. I have ran groups where every member had at least 1 level in rogue, none of them were forced to do that. And not a one of them regreted it either. Any class can be replaced by another, I ran a wizard that was the groups primary fighter, with the Swordmage PrC. If you don't like the class then don't play it, doesn't mean it's broken, just means it's not your style of play. I don't expect my current PC, a Rog/Rngr to deal as much damage as the groups fighter, his other talents and skills more than make him one of the most valuable members of the group. Yes if the spellcasters wanted to they could do some of what he does, sometimes better. But it would be at the cost of burning those oh so valuable spells of theirs, where Rory can do it all day long.Bard.
Not quite the same. Bards I have also played and enjoyed, but a Bard once again cannot do everything a Rogue can. Just as a rogue cannot do everything a bard can.
*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.
It has more than a faint smell of troll to me. In fact it smells like the trolls had a bad night on goblin goober ale and a really spicy curried otyugh, then developed a serious case of explosive diarrhoea.
KaeYoss agreed with me? I think a peice of my soul just died. ;D
So I got something out of it, too. Yay!
I can feed the my Unspeakable Associates with the rotting carcass of that piece of your soul.
KaeYoss agreed with me? I think a peice of my soul just died. ;DSo I got something out of it, too. Yay!
I can feed the my Unspeakable Associates with the rotting carcass of that piece of your soul.
Yum yum yum!
*Dons his cloak of fire resistance.* Bard.
If he can shut up for a second...
The rogue is a much better at stealth than a bard. He can get an ability to sneak with full speed without penalty. If there are traps along the way, he will automatically spot them, without a conscious effort or even slowing down.
If you think you can afford the -5 for full speed stealth, remember how easy it is for anyone now to be perceptive.
*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.
It has more than a faint smell of troll to me. In fact it smells like the trolls had a bad night on goblin goober ale and a really spicy curried otyugh, then developed a serious case of explosive diarrhoea.
You sure paint a picture.
|
|
*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.
It has more than a faint smell of troll to me. In fact it smells like the trolls had a bad night on goblin goober ale and a really spicy curried otyugh, then developed a serious case of explosive diarrhoea.
Starting to look that way to me as well.
|
|
KaeYoss agreed with me? I think a peice of my soul just died. ;DSo I got something out of it, too. Yay!
I can feed the my Unspeakable Associates with the rotting carcass of that piece of your soul.
Yeah yeah. As long as it was fufilling for you then I guess it was worth it. I mean who really needs a soul, and I think I might have sold mine to get my wife anyway. :P
Anyway, the removal of the rogue's unique ability to detect traps with DCs above 20 removed the dependance on the class, but it didn't take away from Rogue's unique place or usefulness. Thanks to his trapfindinding ability the rogue can beat DCs, which the others can't hope to easily match on the same level.
Bard.
1. I don't want to have to be singing or dancing or prancing to do half my stuff?
2. The Bard has less skillpoints, and less reason to have Int (for more skillpoints), as they need Cha for their casting stat.
So, despite having similar skill sets, the Rogue has more skills at his disposal.
3. Disable Device is a Rogue class skill. +3 bonus. They have +1 per two levels to perception and disable device.. once again, making them better at trapfinding. Have you looked at trap DCs vs their CR? CR 10... DC 34! A Bard would be hard pressed to have better than 50% chance at beating that... while the Rogue has 8 points higher simply because he is a rogue.
Oh, and Trap Spotter and Quick Disable... how exactly are Bards even equivocal here?
4. Magical traps can't be discovered with detect magic. It would somewhat defeat the purpose of making it a TRAP if anyone with a cantrip can find it that easily. Seriously.. it's more than just about making Rogues useful, it's about not letting just any old adept with a cantrip be capable of trivially finding a Symbol of Death.
So.. gotta be a rogue.
5. "Just set it off" has far too many drawbacks. Nevermind unnecessary damage on a location trap, but there's a number of bad situations. Alarms alerting everyone in the vicinity of your presence. Traps that create obstacles (such as walling off doors, etc). Area-wide negative level traps. Never miss traps. Etc.
6. Fast Stealth. Ledge Walker. Skill Mastery.
How are rogues not simply better at skills than others? It's not just about the pluses.. it's about the better functionality.
.
Does that help some?
|
Can you give me some particulars as to what useful things a rogue can do that a bard cannot?
Plz don't think I'm arguing I genuinely think I'm missing the magic thing a rogue does that prevents him from being obsolete.
I will answer this in the same style I think it was asked.
Rogues are better because rogue has five letters and bard has four. End of story.
I sneak attack your teeth!Haha, he's got fortification braces!
Oh well, hohahahahaha. I geuss I just have to drill deep enough to leave him with a persistent tooth ache, hehehehehehe.
Any rules on whether cure spells fix broken teeth, or just flesh, hahahahahaha.
For the record, I think Rogues are an effective class with several reasons to be picked, but this post needed debunked.
Bard.1. I don't want to have to be singing or dancing or prancing to do half my stuff?
No problem a Bard doesn't need to do either of those things either.
2. The Bard has less skillpoints,
Correct.
and less reason to have Int (for more skillpoints), as they need Cha for their casting stat.
Correct.
So, despite having similar skill sets, the Rogue has more skills at his disposal.
Painfully false.
A high level Bard will indeed only have 6+Int skills maxed out.
However, he will be an expert in all 10 knowledges - superior to someone with "maxed out" levels, for the cost of 1 skill point for each.
In addition he will be able to use Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, handle animal, Acrobatics, Fly, Disguise and Intimidate all as if they were maxed out CHA based class skills.
So that's effectively 25 maxed out skills for a high level Int 10 human bard. (assuming you are not using your Favored Class bonus towards skills)
Just how many is the Rogue getting?
3. Disable Device is a Rogue class skill.
I agree most with the rest of your post. Bards aren't Rogue replacements. I just about did a spit-take with the "Rogues get more skills than Bards" stuff.
6. ...Skill Mastery.
How are rogues not simply better at skills than others?
Bards will eventually consider every skill in the game a class skill. In addition, Bards will eventually get the equalent of Skill Mastery with every skill in the game.
Rogues are good at skills - and clearly superior in detecting traps. However, Bards have skill versatility beyond rogues. Not even close.
Bards aren't useless?
Where ever did they get that reputation then?
No one seems to ever want to play one.
Bards aren't useless?
Where ever did they get that reputation then?
No one seems to ever want to play one.
Blame 3.5. That, and no one wants to be the guy who stands in the back singing during a fight.
|
With the caveat of not having played prior to 3rd edition (and very little prior to 3.5), I think it kind of came from the fact, in core, you were a singing/prancing ninny who was most effective at buffing others and otherwise doing any given 'role' somewhat poorly. (How true that is I dunno because I never saw a 3.5 bard).
Outside the pen-and-paper hobby there is also Edward of Final Fantasy 4 (2 in the U.S.) fame whose premier ability was to hide from the enemy. Amongst newer players (like my own group) that might have predispositioned them to disliking the bard.
Discuss ploxDon't know. I think we have to settle that whole "Elminster" Vrs "Rastlin" thing first.
Since Raistlin killed everyone else and then consumed himself including all the other gods we will include Elminster as "someone who is part of everyone" and close the books on this one.
Since Raistlin killed everyone else and then consumed himself including all the other gods we will include Elminster as "someone who is part of everyone" and close the books on this one.Discuss ploxDon't know. I think we have to settle that whole "Elminster" Vrs "Rastlin" thing first.
NO, you fell into the trap! cyrusduane is really Raistlin is disguise!
Heh, the main difference between the rogue and the bard is, that when it comes to skills, the rogue is a master in a chosen field, while bard is a generalist.
Name another class that is pretty close to useless in combat when the encounter isn't tailor made for them. Meaning of course that in order to be fairly useful in combat a rogue MUST be able to sneak attack. Do any other classes have a mechanic like that? Where they can be utterly prevented from using a core class mechanic in A LOT of situations.
ranger favored enemy pops to mind the quickest.
|
|
Name another class that is pretty close to useless in combat when the encounter isn't tailor made for them. Meaning of course that in order to be fairly useful in combat a rogue MUST be able to sneak attack. Do any other classes have a mechanic like that? Where they can be utterly prevented from using a core class mechanic in A LOT of situations.
In order to be useful in combat a Sorcerer or Wizard MUST be able to cast! They are so useless. A paladin only really adds up to Fighter when he can smite, so he is useless. A barberian must be able to rage to gain the upper hand on the same Fighter, he too is useless.
Dude, just play a fighter if thats what you want. As for me, I'm out.
Name another class that is pretty close to useless in combat when the encounter isn't tailor made for them. Meaning of course that in order to be fairly useful in combat a rogue MUST be able to sneak attack. Do any other classes have a mechanic like that? Where they can be utterly prevented from using a core class mechanic in A LOT of situations.
Somebody doesn't know what he's talking about! The Rogue in pathfinder can sneak attack just about everything. The only exceptions now are elementals, oozes and incorporeals... not really a long list...
In addition in pathfinder they also have their talents making them capable of gaining extra feats (much like the fighter) moving better, bleeding opponent's out, and making perception checks for traps without stopping and actively looking for them.
Include the increase to HD and they become quite the alternative to the fighter in the damage department, while not quite up to the fighter's possible standards in the AC or hp department.
Yes they won't quite hit the upper damage marks that a fighter can, but at the same time, they won't be sitting around soaking up fireballs like the fighter will and can still out maneuver the fighter easily, especially with having more skills.
Even a troll knows that sneak attacking is not only conditional to flanking.
Even a troll knows that sneak attacking is not only conditional to flanking.I never said it was did i? and the only other way to get a sneak attack (lets leave out arcane trickster and a few other rare occasions.) is to be able to have the target denied her dex bonus to ac.
True... which is rather easy to do unless all your BBEGs are rogues or barbarians.
*doesn't point out the ease of using concealing spells to block sneak attack...
Even a troll knows that sneak attacking is not only conditional to flanking.I never said it was did i? and the only other way to get a sneak attack (lets leave out arcane trickster and a few other rare occasions.) is to be able to have the target denied her dex bonus to ac.
Yeah, like feinting. You show me a melee-based rogue without Improved Feint for when he can't get flanking, and I'll show you a rogue who isn't a high enough level.
This is ignoring the fact that the rogue isn't a pure melee class and that spell-casters can often be denied the ability to cast, whether in part or in full.
This is ignoring the fact that the rogue isn't a pure melee class and that spell-casters can often be denied the ability to cast, whether in part or in full.
OOH OOH don't forget to add in flying opponents for all those melee build fighters too. Cause Fighters Don't Get Nice Things!