I've gone through various builds and can't find a single thing that rogues do better than everyone else. I understand that flavor wise this might be a popular concept for a class, I just don't see it working out mechanically.(They do mediocre damage, wizards are sneakier past about level 5, rangers are a better mix of the two). More interesting to me, the barbarian was fixed in the APG. While the rogue got new talents they really didn't add anything that dramatic (like a tree chain such as the barbarian totems).
I'm just curious. Seriously, does anyone have a way to make rogues useful?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards are not sneakier past level 5. Wizards are capable of flying invisibly, sure, but they don't typically have any skill in stealth. Rogues are very stealthy.
Rogues are capable of using all magical devices with a UMD. So when the wizard casts 'Invisibility', the rogue can hide in the shadows and use a wand of 'Invisibility'. That +20 goes a lot farther when you've got a decent check.
Rogues do incredible damage when they sneak attack. This doesn't happen all the time, and requires some clever planning and good play, but some rogues can make it happen very, very often. Now that most enemies can be sneak attacked (including undead etc.), that's even better.
Rogues can disarm and detect traps. If your DM places traps that are more dangerous than the ones in the core rulebook (and many do!) this is important.
Rogues have skill points. Lots and lots of skill points. If there's a thing you need to do, chances are a rogue can do it.
I like rogues.
I like the concept of rogues as well.
My problem is that a wizard could take ranks in stealth as well (putting them -3 on stealth to a rogue), and while a rogue could maybe wear some armor with a stealth enhancement, wizards still have more options in this regard (silence, invis., fly, darkness, which gets even grosser as they progress in level).
As well, rolling copious amounts of d6 is the wizards forte, and they do it as an area of effect. Don't even get me started on how much better alchemists are at this (both the stealth and the damage).
As for UMD, all classes can get that, along with another skill and 2 languages with the feat Cosmopolitan.
I agree about the traps, but that is a very small and specific thing to base a character class around.
TWF rogue isn't a horrible damage dealer and is one of the better TWF options due to sneak attack supplementing damage and the ability to focus primarily on dexterity (twf feat access and to hit with weapon finesse).
But a lot of it has to do with how you value the skillmonkey role. Does having a ton of skill points balance with the higher damage dealing capacity of the fighter and the fighter's lesser access to skills.
Personally I've always found skill points and class skill list to be a mediocre balancing tool and would like fewer divisions between martial rogues and fighters but that's my personal preference.
I think boosting skill points of the 2 skill point per level classes is a common change. If you typically boost everyone to 4 SP/level then you should probably compensate the rogue with additional bonus feats/rogue tricks.
I'd be interested in seeing what a rogue with full BAB would look like but I don't really have time to run the numbers maybe others could indicate if boosting rogue BAB and fighter skill points would be a gamebreaking change.
Agreed Lyrax.
1. Invisibility is moot when you get past lvl 10 and every random encounter and his dog has either: See Invisibility; Blindsight; Tremorsense; True Seeing etc.
2. UMD is more than just using a wand. You can emulate a class. So the Rogue can use a Holy Avenger or Monk's Robe for example. Think about the implications there.
3. Swords don't kill people Rogues w/TWF flanking with Sneak Attack kill people. There's a reason TWF Rogues w/Pounce are known as blenders.
4. including magic traps that protect that Wizard while s/he's sleeping.
Tanis - how do rogues get pounce without massive multi-classing?
If it's mechanically sound that would be something that would boost rogues up into the more playable range that I was looking for.
Also, as I said everyone can get UMD in class with one feat (and they get other things to go along with it).
Two-handed fighters do much more damage and have a better chance of hitting. From my experience at least.
And though you can turn off a wizards spells, there is nothing from preventing them from still having a decent stealth bonus.
I like the concept of rogues as well.
My problem is that a wizard could take ranks in stealth as well (putting them -3 on stealth to a rogue), and while a rogue could maybe wear some armor with a stealth enhancement, wizards still have more options in this regard (silence, invis., fly, darkness, which gets even grosser as they progress in level).
As well, rolling copious amounts of d6 is the wizards forte, and they do it as an area of effect. Don't even get me started on how much better alchemists are at this (both the stealth and the damage).
As for UMD, all classes can get that, along with another skill and 2 languages with the feat Cosmopolitan.
I agree about the traps, but that is a very small and specific thing to base a character class around.
A wizard could take ranks in stealth, but he will not have the rogue's dex or the +3 from it being a class skill. Another point is what will the wizard do when he gets surrounded. The rogue can tumble away. The wizard can try to cast a spell, but that is not guaranteed to work. The wizard also wont have the perception to avoid many ambushes.
Wizards don't get silence. That is a cleric spell, and trying to UMD is hard at lower levels. The wizards copius d6's gets stopped be SR, elemental resistance, and then saves. A rogue gets copius D6 for every attack that hits. Rogues also handle traps, and they also have UMD(class skill). A wizard can emulate a rogue within limits(determined by spells), but if the spell is not prepped what do you do? At higher levels rogues can almost always stealth. Seeing invisible creatures becomes easier as you level up. How is an alchemist better at stealth? I will admit I don't know the class well.Wizards are the best class in the game, but that does not make a rogue useless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wraithstrike - My mistake about the silence.
Alchemists get light armor (so they get stealth enhancements to armor) with the mutagen and formula they can jack their dex way up. They also get invis and a couple of other good supplemental options via formula. And they also have UMD in class, and can do good to ridiculous damage depending on the way that they're made.
I meant that they are better than wizards at stealth, by they way, not wizards, sorry about any confusion. But a good wizard should be able to stay the hell away from being in the middle of the fight if they are made correctly, and can teleport or whatever at higher levels. And people keep forgetting that there is nothing preventing wizards from just being good at the skill Stealth.
I think my real point might be that most classes now have things that make them go "Holy crap I didn't multiclass and now I'm awesome" which is a feeling i just don't get from the rogues.
I'm appreciating the feedback, I would really enjoy it if rogues worked.
Mergy - Monks are hopeless, but the bow monk in the APG is ridiculously good.
Tanis - how do rogues get pounce without massive multi-classing?
3.5 Complete Champion - 1st lvl Barbarian Lion Totem Variant. Or Claws of the Leopard from MiC.
Also, as I said everyone can get UMD in class with one feat (and they get other things to go along with it).
Two-handed fighters do much more damage and have a better chance of hitting. From my experience at least.
And though you can turn off a wizards spells, there is nothing from preventing them from still having a decent stealth bonus.
More attacks = more sneak attack. Add the toothy 1/2 orc racial trait and you've got 3 attacks at 1st lvl. That's potentially 6d6 + whatever.
Wizards will *never* beat Rogues at Stealth.
wraithstrike - My mistake about the silence.
Alchemists get light armor (so they get stealth enhancements to armor) with the mutagen and formula they can jack their dex way up. They also get invis and a couple of other good supplemental options via formula. And they also have UMD in class, and can do good to ridiculous damage depending on the way that they're made.
I meant that they are better than wizards at stealth, by they way, not wizards, sorry about any confusion. But a good wizard should be able to stay the hell away from being in the middle of the fight if they are made correctly, and can teleport or whatever at higher levels. And people keep forgetting that there is nothing preventing wizards from just being good at the skill Stealth.
I think my real point might be that most classes now have things that make them go "Holy crap I didn't multiclass and now I'm awesome" which is a feeling i just don't get from the rogues.
I'm appreciating the feedback, I would really enjoy it if rogues worked.
Mergy - Monks are hopeless, but the bow monk in the APG is ridiculously good.
A wizard should be good at staying away, but that has nothing to do with a rogue.
A wizard can be decent at stealth, but he most likely will not be as good as the rogue for reasons already mentioned.What you expect the rogue to do, and style of play might have a lot to do with that(rogues and not multiclassing). Rogues are pretty good at damage, and good at skills(doing various things) without requiring magic. A wizard gains access to a lot of skills too, but most of them will probably go to knowledge skills, instead of making him more versatile. Trying ti disarm a magical trap unless the party is creative is a rogue's specialty. I really don't like the fact that the rogue is the only class that can disarm magical traps, but that is another thread for another day.
I'm speaking in Pathfinder terms, not janky "3.5 is broken" terms for making rogues useful. Just to clarify.
3 attacks at 1st level will be worthless as they will be at -75 to attack, who cares if the damage does 700 damage if it never hits.
And you can kill most magic traps by setting them off with a summoned monster.
As for the stealth thing, i'm not focusing just on wizards. How, aside from traps, is the rogue better than the ranger? They also get good skills, full BA, good damage, and a giant wolf or something else ridiculous to help them,oh...and spells.
Rogues can do damage, but if you put all of you effort into only dex and str (you need both for good melee damage) your character will be lacking everywhere else.
If i want a skill character why not a bard? Who are better at skills, and are amazing at making the rest of the party better.
I'm speaking in Pathfinder terms, not janky "3.5 is broken" terms for making rogues useful. Just to clarify.
3 attacks at 1st level will be worthless as they will be at -75 to attack, who cares if the damage does 700 damage if it never hits.
Just flank - that's +2. You're only suffering -2 for TWF. Breaks even.
Re: 3.5: Yeah, fair enough, the rest of my post stands tho.
Tanis - with the +0 BA you would have as a rogue and the low str. i'm sure you would have you're still talking about what kind of plus to hit?
I'm speaking in Pathfinder terms, not janky "3.5 is broken" terms for making rogues useful. Just to clarify.
3 attacks at 1st level will be worthless as they will be at -75 to attack, who cares if the damage does 700 damage if it never hits.
We always assume Pathfinder unless stated otherwise. Why can't a 3/4 BAB character hit. That is the BAB they use for determining the AC of the monsters.
A 10th level rogue can do about 56 points of damage per round to a CR 10 monster. A CR 10 monster should average about 130 hit points. 56/130=46% of the monster's HP. That is using 15 point buy. Of course it is a combat rogue as opposed to a skill based rogue.
I'm speaking in Pathfinder terms, not janky "3.5 is broken" terms for making rogues useful. Just to clarify.
3 attacks at 1st level will be worthless as they will be at -75 to attack, who cares if the damage does 700 damage if it never hits.
We always assume Pathfinder unless stated otherwise. Why can't a 3/4 BAB character hit. That is the BAB they use for determining the AC of the monsters.
A 10th level rogue can do about 56 points of damage per round to a CR 10 monster. A CR 10 monster should average about 130 hit points. 56/130=46% of the monster's HP. That is using 15 point buy. Of course it is a combat rogue as opposed to a skill based rogue.
Where are you getting that number? I thought Jack B Nimble's DPR was 47.
Edit - does Jack have a brother?
Tanis - with the +0 BA you would have as a rogue and the low str. i'm sure you would have you're still talking about what kind of plus to hit?
Rogues will typically invest in weapon finesse at chargen as it makes a massive difference. It's still and unnecessary feat tax on dex fighters but it's pretty much critical for dex focused TWF.
Eventually it's all about spamming fairly accurate twf attacks as good dex + weapon focus + weapon finesse can generally hit the AC of level appropriate foes. Add in some status effects and imp crit and the twf spam is a useful strategy.
The problem is that it's still inferior to the THF fighter builds in terms of raw DPR and the rogue is more vulnerable to counterattacks (arguably worse AC and lower HPs). What you are getting in return is much better skill usage.
In the hands of a good DM that sheer variety of things a rogue can do out of combat in comparison to the fighter is impressive. Comparing the rogue to a full caster especially a memorization caster like the wizard is bad because the Wizard is probably overpowered (or martial classes are underpowered) and the Wizard has a crazy amount of flexibility. Comparing the rogue to fighters or rangers or even bards is a better comparison of apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.
We assume this because we roll dice, and it matters when people are talking about making multiple attacks. (+3 at 10th level matters).
A fire giant (cr 10)which is the first melee type monster i found would be doing about 99 damage per turn if we are going to pretend that all of the attacks hit (their +to hit is far superior to the rogue and they should hit multiple times, and i'm assuming that's how you calculated the rogues damage). This vs. your rogue's HPs of 100 if you have 14 CON and maxed HPs means that you're character is 99% dead when they swing back because the rogue is meleeing the main boss.
In regards to Improved Critical, we realize that sneak attack damage is not multiplied on a critical correct?
Yet another reason that +15 damage is superior to +5d6 damage.
In comparing rogue to fighter and ranger both of these melee classes do more damage on the regular, and a greater chance of hitting. Also the ranger brings many other things to the table.
Bards, especially with some of their abilities are better at skills and more useful to the party in a fight. They also have the advantage of knowing that they don't have an exceptional AC or HPs and not standing next to the monster trying to eat them.
I'm speaking in Pathfinder terms, not janky "3.5 is broken" terms for making rogues useful. Just to clarify.
3 attacks at 1st level will be worthless as they will be at -75 to attack, who cares if the damage does 700 damage if it never hits.
We always assume Pathfinder unless stated otherwise. Why can't a 3/4 BAB character hit. That is the BAB they use for determining the AC of the monsters.
A 10th level rogue can do about 56 points of damage per round to a CR 10 monster. A CR 10 monster should average about 130 hit points. 56/130=46% of the monster's HP. That is using 15 point buy. Of course it is a combat rogue as opposed to a skill based rogue.
Where are you getting that number? I thought Jack B Nimble's DPR was 47.
Edit - does Jack have a brother?
The flanking pushed it to 46.
(Note that most sneak attacking rogues will also be flanking, and the +2 to hit from flanking increases their DPR to ~56.39.)
I'm speaking in Pathfinder terms, not janky "3.5 is broken" terms for making rogues useful. Just to clarify.
3 attacks at 1st level will be worthless as they will be at -75 to attack, who cares if the damage does 700 damage if it never hits.
We always assume Pathfinder unless stated otherwise. Why can't a 3/4 BAB character hit. That is the BAB they use for determining the AC of the monsters.
A 10th level rogue can do about 56 points of damage per round to a CR 10 monster. A CR 10 monster should average about 130 hit points. 56/130=46% of the monster's HP. That is using 15 point buy. Of course it is a combat rogue as opposed to a skill based rogue.
Where are you getting that number? I thought Jack B Nimble's DPR was 47.
Edit - does Jack have a brother?
The flanking pushed it to 46.
(Note that most sneak attacking rogues will also be flanking, and the +2 to hit from flanking increases their DPR to ~56.39.)
56, gotcha. Wow, that is a huge jump for a +2 to hit.
You still have the problem of - now the rogue is sitting in front of a giant monster he did not kill.
I'm speaking in Pathfinder terms, not janky "3.5 is broken" terms for making rogues useful. Just to clarify.
3 attacks at 1st level will be worthless as they will be at -75 to attack, who cares if the damage does 700 damage if it never hits.
And you can kill most magic traps by setting them off with a summoned monster.
As for the stealth thing, i'm not focusing just on wizards. How, aside from traps, is the rogue better than the ranger? They also get good skills, full BA, good damage, and a giant wolf or something else ridiculous to help them,oh...and spells.
Rogues can do damage, but if you put all of you effort into only dex and str (you need both for good melee damage) your character will be lacking everywhere else.
If i want a skill character why not a bard? Who are better at skills, and are amazing at making the rest of the party better.
Magic traps can jack up the entire party when setoff at times so setting them off is not always a good idea.
They don't all the skills a rogue gets. A rogue get about times and 1/2 the number of skills the ranger gets. If you move to a 20 point buy the rogue does not lose out on skills, and still does damage. The ranger if he has extra ability points will most likely put them into his wisdom score so he still won't match the rogue for skills.The ranger's animal companion is ok for a scout, but they still don't match the rogue. The ranger's spells are ok at best, and the good ones can be emulated by another class or UMD.
A bard might be better at knowledge checks due to bardic knowledge, but not all around skills. The bard can also be shutdown with a silence spell. Now he isn't buffing, and he is not doing a lot of fighting either.
You still have the problem of - now the rogue is sitting in front of a giant monster he did not kill.
The fighter who is still doing more damage will draw the attention. Round 2, the monster is dead.
Edit:The rogue also has an AC of 26. The monster can hit on an 8 or less, but not all the attacks will hit so the rogue will be ok,even if he someone gets targeted for all the attacks.
most magic traps are also self resetting. the summoned monster only gets you one pass. a rogue can also disable the trap's reset mechanism. which is something that a summoned monster cannot do.
why must Spacechomp insult rogues?
a rogue's purpose is thier skills, not combat.
a ranger's pet makes a good scout. but dies fast in combat and replacing it requires 24 hours of UNINTERRUPTED prayer. even taking a single 5 minute potty break denies them a new companion, just like it does a druid.
with no Int. modifier rangers get 6 skills which is more than enough. Their spells aren't amazing, but what do rogues get that compare?
Animal companions are often underrated as it conserves action economy and allows for one person to basically flank by himself. If you're going to tell me that rogues do more damage when taking into consideration combat styles, favored enemies, and full base attack, then you've never played a ranger.
Bards can be silenced, but it's no more effective then versus a wizard or other spell caster. And there are things to get around this, such as will saves.
Versatile performance is the game changer for bards, with that their skill economy improves drastically.
Also, 20 point buy is, in my mind, like playing a video game on easy mode.
I agree with the part about traps but that is such a little thing to be the only saving grace of a class.
That is a good point if magic traps reset themselves Nekogami, it's just sad that if your DM doesn't use a lot of magic traps your rogue is losing what appears to be his major selling point.
As said before, archer monks in the APG are beastly. Rogues, however, were given no exciting new options in that book.
3.P sneak attack is generally much more reliably than ranger favored enemies in terms of situational modifiers to DPR. Animal Companion is useful but the level -3 often means that it doesn't have the attack bonus to contribute in an extremely meaningful manner to party DPR unless heavily buffed.
Ranger probably out DPRs the rogue vs favored enemies but is pretty close to even vs other enemies. The Ranger is probably a better solo class though.
Rogues definitely outpace the Bard in terms of DPR although the bard's contribution to party DPR is by often larger if there are a certain number of martial character benefiting from inspire courage. Bardic spellcasting is generally pretty decent as well.
Overall I think the rogue is a pretty decent class and I wish more classes were balanced off of it and the fighter but I can also see why in a caster dominated party the rogue might feel less than needed.
with no Int. modifier rangers get 6 skills which is more than enough. Their spells aren't amazing, but what do rogues get that compare?
Animal companions are often underrated as it conserves action economy and allows for one person to basically flank by himself. If you're going to tell me that rogues do more damage when taking into consideration combat styles, favored enemies, and full base attack, then you've never played a ranger.
Bards can be silenced, but it's no more effective then versus a wizard or other spell caster. And there are things to get around this, such as will saves.
Versatile performance is the game changer for bards, with that their skill economy improves drastically.
Also, 20 point buy is, in my mind, like playing a video game on easy mode.
I agree with the part about traps but that is such a little thing to be the only saving grace of a class.
The favored enemy bonus is not all day long. I understand sneak attack is not either, but it comes up more than a favored enemy does. How is 6 enough when you said a rogue would be lacking other areas if he went into combat mode?
You dont have to cast silence on a bard. You can cast it on a baddy and have him stand next to a bard. That way the bard gets no save. Other casters are better able to get away than a bard can.Versatile performance is nice, but the rogue will still have more skills for its job than a bard will.
The value of disabling traps is campaign dependent, but I have never seen/DM'd an adventure where there were not a few that would make the party hate life. It is better to have and not need, than need and not have, and the rogue has.
Also, 20 point buy is, in my mind, like playing a video game on easy mode.
you consider playing 20 point buy to be playing a video game on easy mode? 20 points is the standard for which the pathfinder society is built upon. and thus all adventure paths and modules assume as well.
Animal companions are just bonus damage or a flanking buddy.
Having someone waste time to try and silence the bard rather than fireball the party is a fair trade in my mind. Technically, bards aren't only playing music anymore they are performing. If your bard can do a sexy dance that improves morale, it works as long as people can see him.
How is any other spell casting class better at getting away from a monster with silence cast on them by the way?
Being able to disable traps will come up no more often then the favored enemy, especially if you choose well. Still, having that be the foundation for a class is silly.
I get that rogues get UMD, but that costs money, and loot is something sacred when my party plays.
and being able to use a skill as two skills for a bard is very useful if you design it appropriately.
Again, Nekogami proves a point. I was thinking of the 25 point buy.
Animal companions are just bonus damage or a flanking buddy.
Having someone waste time to try and silence the bard rather than fireball the party is a fair trade in my mind. Technically, bards aren't only playing music anymore they are performing. If your bard can do a sexy dance that improves morale, it works as long as people can see him.
How is any other spell casting class better at getting away from a monster with silence cast on them by the way?
Being able to disable traps will come up no more often then the favored enemy, especially if you choose well. Still, having that be the foundation for a class is silly.
I get that rogues get UMD, but that costs money, and loot is something sacred when my party plays.
and being able to use a skill as two skills for a bard is very useful if you design it appropriately.
Again, Nekogami proves a point. I was thinking of the 25 point buy.
The cleric would be silencing, which means the wizard is free to fireball. Now I will admit I don't use my caster to do evocation spells though, but that is also another thread for another time.
You do have a point with the bardic performance, but if the party is Fight, Bard(replacing the rogue), Cleric, Wizard, who is helping the fighter fight? The cleric and wizard can buff/debuff, while the rogue and fighter kill things. Why do we need a bard again?Wizards and Sorcerers, not having to spend money on armor or weapon will have rod availible. The druid or cleric can fight their way out if they don't have the rods/feats to get away. A druid is mobile enough with wildshape to leave the radius of the area.
The UMD'er does not have have to get every scroll or wand. Only the few he thinks will matter, and many groups pool money to get wands because they benefit everyone. Versatile performace helps with the skills a bard normally uses, but it still does not allow him to replace a rogue, without giving up something. He would need a good cha, dex, con, and strength if he plans to fight.
The flank is nice, but if the ranger can't down it in two round the buddy might be offed in order to get rid of the flanking bonus. Then there is a 24 hour wait, IIRC.
Again, Nekogami proves a point. I was thinking of the 25 point buy.
25 point buy doesn't really alter challenges at all. at best, it means less stats are dumped to afford key attributes. and some classes really need those 25 points, such as monks.
and crafting requires money. and a wizard needs to buy scrolls to scribe into his spellbook before he/she can craft them.
Why is the party you mentioned combining money to get the rogue scrolls when there is a wizard and a cleric.
Also, a cleric with a bard in tow can be a servicable, though not necessarily effective combatant.
Bards can also do pretty well with a bow, and with their performance and arcane strike can do enough damage to exist.
Who is the other fighter in that party? Whatever the various casters have decided to summon.
Any time the DM wants to kill off my animal companion instead of my character or another party members, i will accept it gladly. Two turns of me not dying.
getting a new animal companion requires 24 hours of UNINTERRUPTED prayer. a single 5 minute potty break denies you a new pet. i bolded the key word. and not every party is willing to wait a day for your new pet.
You are correct, rogues are the trap for new players to die in. At best rogue is a 2 level class, or a class to be played in extremely low magic/ low stat games, or as a challenge.
I do enjoy Rogue 2 / Paladin 4 as a base for a melee build though...
|
I'm just curious. Seriously, does anyone have a way to make rogues useful?
So basically the answers so far are; Hope no other players notice they can take UMD, no one plays an Alchemist or Ranger in your party, and your DM uses more magical traps than monsters in a campaign, or the rest of the party to be Monks.
Then a Rogue is useful!
Rogues are already useful. If you want a useless character, you need to find a useless player first.
Or play an NPC class.
- Rogues has stealth as a class skill, GENERALLY has the associated ability very high, and has Rogue talents able to enhancee te use. Don't compare stealth and invisibility, because are different things, vulnerable or useful against different enemies, although are generally used for the same purpose.
- In PF, the number of enemies vulnerable to Sneak Attack has been raised. Other party member at high level can stun and disable a lot of enemies making them vulnerable to the rogue. If you want to play a rogue, you should be clever and opportunist, able to "catch the moment".
- As happened with barbarian, for wich there was "seomething missing" in the Core, APG did a great job for the rogue. There are several new talents that help to disengage or to increase the times you Sneak Attack. Take a look at feats too. If you combine the two things, the times you can SA raise dramatically.
- Party members, again. If the wizard summon monsters, is not stealing your job in disarming traps. He's putting in the battlefield yet another buddy that can be source of flanking. Same the fighter with Greater Feint. The Monk with stun.
- 8 skill matters. 6 skill/level is enough? Even 4 could be. But 8 and a likely int modifier means you cover a lot of corner in and out of combat. Laugh at the Fighter. And, remember the talent to take 10 to skills.
- You are not even forced to play rogues as TWF meat grinder. A friend of mine dipped in shadow dancer and focused on dirty tricks and hit and run tactics, and was quite fun. Nevertheless, even if some rogue build works better in solo and need a very clever and patient player, so I wouldn't recommend it for everybody. so, next
- Just take feats to flank regardless the position, to blind, to reposition and move, and look carefully at the battlemap. Nothing forbids you to tumble in position, dirty trick or use a similar maneuver on a foe, and, in the second round, use allies and summons (and, you know, they could take a little care of it, using battlefield control on this basis) to flank and dish out damage.
@DanMonster: not to be harsh, but your summary is unfair.
AND:
Bards can also do pretty well with a bow, and with their performance and arcane strike can do enough damage to exist.
Bards can "exist" regardless the amount of damage they can deal directly. On a combat (both damage and maneuver) heavy party, summoners, druids, conjurers included, bards can be scary AND have out of combat abilities.
I agree with the OP:
Rogues cannot Win at D&D:
Rogue=SUXXORS
/sarcasm
What makes a rogue useful? You, the player. Add a *whisper* Character to the numbers. I know, crazy talk and blasphemy.
GNOME
|
|
Having seem both a monk and rogue in action in 10+ games, I can say they do not deserve the treatment they get. A class is only as good as the player behind it. If you are just judging it based on how you can build it on paper, then you will have a very poor representation of the rogue.
There are several arguments which are making unfair comparisons that could be used against any class or things that are just not right. These are just some of them.
1: Not having to get close to the enemy. This could apply to anyone. This is what wizards do. This is what makes them one of the top classes at higher levels. don't bring that on to the table.
2: Anyone can take that skill. Yes, but few classes would devote the charisma or skill ranks to make it decent.
3: Invisibility is the end all for sneaky. Higher up, too many things see through it or have abilities that nullify it.
I see rogues as very deadly group members. When combines with teamwork feats like Outflank, two rouges would be brutal
Agreed Lyrax.
3. Swords don't kill people Rogues w/TWF flanking with Sneak Attack kill people. There's a reason TWF Rogues w/Pounce are known as blenders.
Don't forget the APG Feat "Gang up" and you always flank (sneak attack) a enemy if at least one ally is also in melee with him, regardless of where you are.
Level 10 TWF rogue:
+7/+2 BAB - four attacks = (4x weapon dmg) + 16d6
My biggest gripe with the rogue is that I personally hate sneak attack. Give me combat feats so that I can choose how I want to attack my enemies. Make sneak attack a combat feat so that anyone, from any class, can choose to go at their enemies either head on or, if they prefer, can use a more precise approach to dealing damage. Maybe if rogues weren't basically corraled into fighting styles that require heavy feat taxes to be effective in dealing damage, I wouldn't mind the sneak attack nearly as much. Otherwise, I really, really like the class. I enjoy the idea of a skill based character that doesn't automatically rely on magic; I just wish that the flexibility the class is allowed outside of combat could be extended to some extent to combat.
Edit: I think a lot of the problem with the rogue is that many of the class features are still locked into the "backstabbing thief" concept. In earlier edtions where the class was literally called "thief" such a skill set made sense. However, a skill monkey does not have to be a thief, nor does a stealthy character automatically qualify as a thief (they could be an army scout like Buffalo Bill in the American west, stealthy, but fairly straight forward in combat).