|
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^^
IIRC from DC Heroes RPG, Batman's Alignment was "Seeks Justice." Green Arrow was "Thrill Seeker." I don't remember Superman's.
What 30 or so years of rouges/theives being a mainstay of the beloved game? And even the much debated killer of sacred cows 4e kept the rouge?
Sounds like a important and vital part of a "D&D" game to me.
Eric
I removed some offensive posts and the resulting fallout.
Seriously folks, when someone posts something you know is going to be removed, don't yell back, even to say 'flagged'. Just flag it and move on.
|
Seriously the Bard out damages the Rogue and Fighter. I have done the math. No need for anyone else to bother, because I have done it. It is a fact, the biggest DPR is the Bard. No reason to play anything else BUT a Bard.
Okay...
And Batman is CG
Bond is also
Two face is just nuts.
Mmmm nuts... some honey roasted peanuts sound good about now.
So which is better Honey roasted peanuts or plain peanuts? In the shell or already shelled?
Okay start debating.
Neither, because I hate the taste of peanuts :P
If I were going to participate in this conversation, my first question would be ....
What is 'useless' in a role-playing game? Is the 'use' of a character measured only by their damage output relative to other potential character builds?
Or are these characters characters in a story - a tale of heroism and villainy, squalor and wonder, mystery and peril, that you and your gaming group are telling cooperatively together?
And in the latter case, does it matter if one character does more damage than the other, if the tale you are telling is worth telling?
Thank you. I was hoping someone was going to post something other than the "my character can beat up your character" crap.
Play the character you'll have fun playing.
Oh, my rogue don't outdamages the party's fighter, no. But when said fighter needed his arse saved in a trial, who was able to find the right person to bribe, to forge documents in order to stall the execution, to learn by asking aound who was behind the false accusation, to learn about the private life of the Sob and to blackmail and intimidate him into dropping the charges?
Yes, the fighter went to knock on his door after being released. That's why you keep a fighter around - they can blow kneecaps better than you can. A mage can come in handy too, but you have to keep them busy with trinkets and books. Let the bard do the social talk and shine in front of everyone, drawing too much attention to himself - important people know better and will come talking to you in private anyway.
And that gold everyone is spending on spells and fancy magic weapons? Don't need that as much as they do: spend it on spies, so you know what everyone is talking about. Let them know you know. Let them know that with maxed out sense motive and some divination scrolls, they'd better not to try spying on you.
Later on, let the pally fight the dragon and give the treasure to the king - at that level of play, it's far more easy for you to control a king than to kill a dragon.
A rogue is not powerfull because he is able to win every fight, but because nobody in his right mind should ever want to fight with him. Hell, nobody in his right mind should ever want to talk about fighting with him.
And if they are crazy enough to fight you, the beauty is you can hold your ground.
Oh, almost forgot, yeah, you can also disarm traps and pick pockets - but again, there is this lame sorceror who spent his power on doing just that: just hire the guy, he'll feel so good about showing you how much of a better rogue he is than you...
I just love rogues.
Ok you guys win, Rogues are quite clearly superior combatants than all other classes and they are superior OOC characters also. Geez why ever would I think the Rogue class was sup bar boy what a fool I am.
I concur. Considering that your thread is basically titled 'Rogues are useless', did you really expect a chorus of "Yes and Amen".
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I would LOVE to DM alot of people here. Since when are mundane traps NOT a part of a dungeon. Those reliant on 'detect magic' even if the group voted for 'magic traps can be detected by detect magic' wouldn't make it into the 5th room of a cave complex run by kobolds who had lived there for years even if they were all 10th level mathematically damage superior builds.
Thats serious XP for kobolds !!
heh heh heh...
"Gronk smash Trap with Big Club deal Huge Damage... Where Trap? Gronk no see Trap..." *sound of Gronk's head bouncing along the floor*
|
|
I prefer honey roasted peanuts...
On Topic...
I SERIOUSLY do not understand topics like this. Every class has a role to fill. I have yet to see a topic that a Fighter is better at detecting traps than a Rogue, or that a Wizard can pick pockets better than a Rogue.
I was not aware that it was the Rogue's role to be the DPS of a party. I thought that the Rogue's role was to be the skill monkey (hence all the skill points) and can function as a secondary DPS. But I was not aware that his primary role was DPS. Is that new since Pathfinder?
|
Classes are OK if they can provide gaming entertainment appropriate to player expectations.
In other words - if a player wants to play a sneaky skilled class with OK combat abilities and lots of cool little things, then Pathfinder Rogue is just great and will provide such player with much entertainment.
If the player is looking for a damage powerhouse who can kill things better than a Fighter, well that's not a class for him
But, since the first reason is why most people play Rogues, my call is that Rogue is a well designed class that meets the usual expectations.
I was not aware that it was the Rogue's role to be the DPS of a party. I thought that the Rogue's role was to be the skill monkey (hence all the skill points) and can function as a secondary DPS. But I was not aware that his primary role was DPS. Is that new since Pathfinder?
I believe it's only new since this long and inflammatory thread started.
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?
My post was in response to the Bard being as good as the Rogue at all those roles mentioned previously (spy, swindler, cat-burgler, confidence man, thug, infiltrator, sentinel, assassin, pretender, cutpurse, picklock, diplomat, racketeer, tomb raider). The point was the Rogue has the skillpoints, Int, and rogue talents to make him great at many of those roles at once.
The Bard can do a couple of those roles, plus "scholar" pretty well. Remember, we are talking about the Bard replacing the Rogue in what he does.
Knowledge skills only take you so far. And quite frankly.. Knowledge (History) or (Nobility) or (Engineering) have some VERY limited uses, so it begs the question of the value of the Bard's skills.
.
But yeah.. the Bard is awesome. Not taking anything away from the bard. Most of my response was set in tone to match the poster's.
But yeah.. the Bard is awesome. Not taking anything away from the bard. Most of my response was set in tone to match the poster's.
I agree with your points regarding role and specialization.
I guess I just figure there is a significant difference between "The rogue is better at the skills for his defined role than a Bard", and "The rogue is more skilled than a Bard."
Glad you agree ;)
Rangers, monks, and bards are sneaky like a rogue and can also contribute much to the parties combat abilitiy
Are you suggesting that all these classes are superior in ability to fight to the Rogue, or are you just pointing out that there are other classes that can fill the same role and still contribute to combat as well?
No They don't. We've done the mathWhile 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.
Which is the specific reason I allow anyone to take the Greater Weapon Focus/Spec feats, Fighters already have a HUGE advantage with their GROUPs of weapons, no need to compound it.
Are you suggesting that all these classes are superior in ability to fight to the Rogue, or are you just pointing out that there are other classes that can fill the same role and still contribute to combat as well?
Im pointing out that other classes can do what a rogue is supposed to do while being able to contribute more to the party than the rogue can. When was the last time you saw a rogue playing a lute to inspire his teammates to do extraordinary things? or counterspell that fireball that was going to make your cleric cry?
Rogues may very well have their place, and they very well may not. I forgot for a bit that this game is incredibly subjective as are all Tabletop RPGs. From my experience and my own beliefs of what a party should be comprised of a rogue is simply a choice that hinders your party or four that needs the bare essentials. The reason for this being is because the rogue has no synergy within the group. The bard makes the wizard better and in turn makes the bard better, or the cleric healing the fighter makes the cleric better. When you buff a rogue you don't get crap. You don't get anything in return, and anything a rogue is meant to do another class in your party can likely do. Now speaking of the rogue as a complimentary class hell yeah the rogues are quite nice to have. I still would not pick a rogue over a monk or ranger or druid or paladin or barbarian or sorcerer or oh wait I've run out of other classes...
Mods please lock this thread, as it has been raped of any meaning that it originally was intended to relay.
I think you are insane mate. As far as I know a rogue is the only one that can sneak. The only one that can easily disarm most traps, can use pretty much any item even if not intented for him. And they can get, if they wish, a feat EVERY level.
I don't know what your experience has been before, but I'm sorry to hear that a class that can mostly do everything on it's own in any condition is considered "useless" to you. And as for RP purposes, well any party without a rogue has a hard time on EVERYTHING really.I think you should take a better look at the class, cause a class that gets, sneak, trapfinding, uncanny dodge, 8 skill point, d8 mediumk BAB AND may CHOOSE a feat everylevel is even a little overpowered to me, and everybody else besides you it seems.
By the way, what does a monk contribute that a rogue doesn't exactly?
Are we really discussing how a plumber is a better plumber than an electrician? Or am I lost again?
Nah, they're saying the plumber is useless because the electrician knows more about wiring, since plumbing is obviously pointless. Just call the Cable guy, he has good saves verses plumbing.
I suppose you also think that a class that has D12 hit die, full bab, jacked will and fort save,trap sense, damage reduction, a bite attack, uncanny dodge, fast movement, the ability to panic everyone within 30yds, and the ability to opportunity attack someone just for the lols AND other miscellaneous abilities is underpowered?I think you should take a better look at the class, cause a class that gets, sneak, trapfinding, uncanny dodge, 8 skill point, d8 mediumk BAB AND may CHOOSE a feat everylevel is even a little overpowered to me, and everybody else besides you it seems.
Actually I think the barbarians are underpowered, yes.
But your argument is false. You said EVERY class adds more to a party than the rogue, and I fail to see that. Really do. Even in your "combat only" scenario.
I don't think the rogue is detrimental or gimping your party. Lack of rogue probably is in some manner but most DMs ignore the lack of rogue if one isn't there. If a rogue exist it opens different doors in the game. Personally though I don't much care for rogues, never have. I like how the Alchemist might fit the role though.
If you don't like the rogue don't play one. Simple as that, at least that's how I do it when I play. I don't put anyone else down for playing a rogue. Mind you a rogue has caused problems in games where we have Lawful characters.
No, no, no, I am attempting to explain that the electrician is a better electrician than the handyman and the plumber is a better plumber than the handyman. So therefore if you only need wiring and plumbing done why the hell would you want a handyman who is clearly inferior to both in their respective specialties.Are we really discussing how a plumber is a better plumber than an electrician? Or am I lost again?Nah, they're saying the plumber is useless because the electrician knows more about wiring, since plumbing is obviously pointless.
So therefore are you saying that rather than have your character be a Handyman (rogue) you should have two PC's a plumber (ie. Bard) & a electrician (ie. Barbarian) ?
And if you have only one PC to do the job?
And [the rogue] can get, if they wish, a feat EVERY level.
How on earth does one manage that?
By the way, what does a monk contribute that a rogue doesn't exactly?
I would also like an answer to this question.
And [the rogue] can get, if they wish, a feat EVERY level.How on earth does one manage that?
Take a combat feat for every single rogue talent.
Take a combat feat for every single rogue talent.And [the rogue] can get, if they wish, a feat EVERY level.How on earth does one manage that?
Each talent unless stated otherwise can only be taken once.
Each talent unless stated otherwise can only be taken once.Take a combat feat for every single rogue talent.And [the rogue] can get, if they wish, a feat EVERY level.How on earth does one manage that?
Well... Xum was wrong then.
I would love to agree and say, "Play what you will."
As a matter of fact I do.
However the poster of this thread made this to prove to the group that rogue was useless so they would ban me from playing one.
Then the DM has something to fear from you.....
and anyway I consider rogues essential to the games I run, mind you I have a copy of Grimtooth's Traps on my shelf for players who fell that they can go with out a rogue... or should decide to play the lets set every trap off with magic at range.
Each talent unless stated otherwise can only be taken once.Take a combat feat for every single rogue talent.And [the rogue] can get, if they wish, a feat EVERY level.How on earth does one manage that?
Level 2-Finesse Rogue. You get Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat, this is a combat feat.
Level 4-Weapon Training. You get Weapon Focus as a bonus feat, this is a combat feat.Level 6-Combat Trick. Any Combat Feat as a bonus feat.
Level 10-Feat. Any feat, including combat feats.
So not every other level, but out of 10 Talents you can choose 4 bonus feats. Some of the abilities you can choose are strictly better than most combat feats as far as relative power level goes, like Crippling Strike and Opportunist and Bleeding Attack.
Just clarifying. It was clear hyperbole that you can get a feat every level, but if you multiclass and take, say, 8 levels of rogue and 12 fighter you get a decent tradeoff for 2 BAB.