Also, I am curious why concealment just doesnt go away while being observed then?
If you are "observing" me perfectly why is there a 20% miss chance? it has nothing to do with AC or you missing me because I dodge, so what is it by your definition?
I am just trying to flesh the whole concept since this means a big difference for me.
What exactly is the miss chance there for if you can observe me easily?
I don't know if you ever looked through someone eye glasses that were not made for you, but it can create an affect that makes things seems blurry, and sometimes more than one of the viewed object will appear. That is kind of what the spell does. The blurred person can try to duck down or take other actions but they are not hidden. It may however be hard to tell which target is the real one, and the exact location of the target.
Ok so if I couple that with an attempt to hide can I become not observed?
Edit: I guess what I am trying to say is what is actually using stealth? Stealth is finding a way not to be seen when normally you would be. If the person has blurry vision, or you are blurred couldnt you attempt to find a way to not be seen even though you have been observed?
Essentially 20% concealment doesn't aid a stealth check at all if you have been seen, not even a little, not even kind of. What if I were to couple 20% concealment and partial cover?
can you truly say you are observing me if there are flaws in your observations?
Also, I am curious why concealment just doesnt go away while being observed then?
If you are "observing" me perfectly why is there a 20% miss chance? it has nothing to do with AC or you missing me because I dodge, so what is it by your definition?
I am just trying to flesh the whole concept since this means a big difference for me.
What exactly is the miss chance there for if you can observe me easily?
I don't know if you ever looked through someone eye glasses that were not made for you, but it can create an affect that makes things seems blurry, and sometimes more than one of the viewed object will appear. That is kind of what the spell does. The blurred person can try to duck down or take other actions but they are not hidden. It may however be hard to tell which target is the real one, and the exact location of the target.
Ok so if I couple that with an attempt to hide can I become not observed?
Edit: I guess what I am trying to say is what is actually using stealth? Stealth is finding a way not to be seen when normally you would be. If the person has blurry vision, or you are blurred couldnt you attempt to find a way to not be seen even though you have been observed?
Essentially 20% concealment doesn't aid a stealth check at all if you have been seen, not even a little, not even kind of. What if I were to couple 20% concealment and partial cover?
can you truly say you are observing me if there are flaws in your observations?
I can not have sight of you in any manner if you want to use stealth. If I can see what you are doing then I can observe you. Both partial cover and concealment allow me to continue seeing you. My above quote using the smoke sticks can provide total concealment providing the opponent is more than 5 feet away though.
I can not have sight of you in any manner if you want to use stealth. If I can see what you are doing then I can observe you. Both partial cover and concealment allow me to continue seeing you. My above quote using the smoke sticks can provide total concealment providing the opponent is more than 5 feet away though.
Can you see what I am doing though? I am behind a tree and blurry, what about me seems visible? the fuzzy parts? if I were to move to another place of full cover or concealment and then instantly move out from behind it I essentially by the rules can stealth?
Blurring behind a tower shield allows me to make another stealth check? after all it grants me full cover, which blocks line of sight to me as the player, it says under the tower shield the only reason the spell hits is because it can hit the shield, your eyes still cant hit me.
Is the tower shield supposed to be the same as what a magician does with capes and trap doors?
If I put down a tower shield and fall down a trap door, if the tower shield doesnt provide cover it is apparent I went down the hole, yet people do similiar things to stealth away, without finding the trap door until searching around the disappearing area, yet all people can see and I dont even get a stealth check?
again just trying to flesh this out
Condescending talk again.
Nevermind, I will go find out from a paizo member or through reading and research, its not worth the arguement or being talked down to for any amount of information.
I am not trying to make you feel bad I just am tired of asking questions and being reprimanded for asking them. curiousity and confusion are obviously crimes.
Thank you james, sorry for all your trouble. I am an idiot. I will refrain from asking questions in the future.
I can not have sight of you in any manner if you want to use stealth. If I can see what you are doing then I can observe you. Both partial cover and concealment allow me to continue seeing you. My above quote using the smoke sticks can provide total concealment providing the opponent is more than 5 feet away though.Can you see what I am doing though? I am behind a tree and blurry, what about me seems visible? the fuzzy parts? if I were to move to another place of full cover or concealment and then instantly move out from behind it I essentially by the rules can stealth?
Blurring behind a tower shield allows me to make another stealth check? after all it grants me full cover, which blocks line of sight to me as the player, it says under the tower shield the only reason the spell hits is because it can hit the shield, your eyes still cant hit me.
Is the tower shield supposed to be the same as what a magician does with capes and trap doors?
again just trying to flesh this out
I understand what you are trying to do, but it all boils down to whether or not you can be seen(observed). If I can see you there is no stealth.
The tower shield only grants cover for the purposes of attacks. It does not block line of effect or sight. You will notice that it only grants cover for one edge. It is the only shield that uses any sort of facing.
Yeah! Get 'em!
Rather then try to discuss anything similar to the original question about how to make rogues better, we should watch random dudes flame each other about differences in a poorly worded section of PF. Hooray!
Yeah! Get 'em!
Rather then try to discuss anything similar to the original question about how to make rogues better, we should watch random dudes flame each other about differences in a poorly worded section of PF. Hooray!
How stealth works has a great amount of influence on the effectiveness of rogues so it is sorta related.
How stealth works has a great amount of influence on the effectiveness of rogues so it is sorta related.Yeah! Get 'em!
Rather then try to discuss anything similar to the original question about how to make rogues better, we should watch random dudes flame each other about differences in a poorly worded section of PF. Hooray!
Besides rogues are effective as they are.
Just don't try to play them as fighters.
Rather have them scout and finesse their way into places.
If your group is all about bashing down doors and fighting the enemy head on and you play that game with them, then why are you a rogue?
-James
I agree.
How stealth works has a great amount of influence on the effectiveness of rogues so it is sorta related.Yeah! Get 'em!
Rather then try to discuss anything similar to the original question about how to make rogues better, we should watch random dudes flame each other about differences in a poorly worded section of PF. Hooray!
Besides rogues are effective as they are.
Just don't try to play them as fighters.
Rather have them scout and finesse their way into places.
If your group is all about bashing down doors and fighting the enemy head on and you play that game with them, then why are you a rogue?
-James
Now there we undoubtedly agree james :)
However, I'm not alone in believing that the rogue is at times mechanically lackluster. And for a brief moment in this post there were flashes where people were actually listing things (aside from stupid comments such as "LEARN TO RP!") that make rogues more efficient. I would like to see what else people are doing out there to make the rogue better.
However, I'm not alone in believing that the rogue is at times mechanically lackluster. And for a brief moment in this post there were flashes where people were actually listing things (aside from stupid comments such as "LEARN TO RP!") that make rogues more efficient. I would like to see what else people are doing out there to make the rogue better.
SpaceChomp my friend here is my two cents:
A rogue can be prepared for any situation through a set of skills which he can do well at. he can take ranks in anything, and essentially spread himself to include a multitude of talents that could apply to alot.
A rogue excels at being versatile and good in all situations. There is almost no situation a rogue says "I can't do anything"
A fighter might suck when things can fly, a wizard might suck against things with spell resistance, and enchanter would suck against undead and a barbarian would suck against if he couldnt use rage.
Sneak attack always works, talents almost always are effective, skills never run out, and uncanny dodge and evasion are always nice.
If you would like to be pretty good in all situations go ahead, if you want to be great at one time but lackluster at another (most other classes) then play another.
Lastly in close a rogue is a tool, some tools arent for some people. If you don't like a saw use a powersaw, but a power saw needs power and has a range, and has a certain way it needs to be used along with a sawhorse station. Sometimes a regular saw is just better for the situation, otherwise saws wouldnt exist at all.
If you get the metaphor :)
at least that is my final point of view on this matter
I just want all of the rogue fanboys to list some form of mechanic tool that is not always noticed. Specific things rather that purely subjective "they are fine", as if you read the forum there are people out there (myself included) that would like more information on things to make the rogue better mechanically.
This does not mean people should just post their rogue up and say "look!", or recite another treatise on the versatility of rogues, but simply post underrated abilities, or rogue standards that every rogue should have.
From my perspective everyone can stealth (rangers are even better at it than rogues in some situations, i don't see anything that makes rogues the end-all of stealth) everyone can use cover to attack, and everyone can flank. What tools are at the rogues disposal besides sneak attack and the ability to find/fix/dismantle traps?
Also, Midnightoker, why is a rogue better vs. opponents that fly? Everyone can take UMD with one feat, and a fighter has feats in spades.
I just want all of the rogue fanboys to list some form of mechanic tool that is not always noticed. Specific things rather that purely subjective "they are fine", as if you read the forum there are people out there (myself included) that would like more information on things to make the rogue better mechanically.
This does not mean people should just post their rogue up and say "look!", or recite another treatise on the versatility of rogues, but simply post underrated abilities, or rogue standards that every rogue should have.
From my perspective everyone can stealth (rangers are even better at it than rogues in some situations, i don't see anything that makes rogues the end-all of stealth) everyone can use cover to attack, and everyone can flank. What tools are at the rogues disposal besides sneak attack and the ability to find/fix/dismantle traps?
Also, Midnightoker, why is a rogue better vs. opponents that fly? Everyone can take UMD with one feat, and a fighter has feats in spades.
I like them because they can get a lot of things down without having to rely on magic. They are not powerhouses. If that is what a player is looking for then he should not play a rogue, but if he wants a balance between being able to RP, and fight a rogue is a good choice. Bards are close to this, but they don't fight as well, and I don't mean buffing, and they don't have the rogue's skills, even though they come close.
I think you are looking for a reason for you to play one mechanically, but there may not be an answer for you. I don't really care for playing clerics for example even if I know the value of having one.
|
I've played rogues from 1e through 4e, and in multiple non-D&D systems.
Although the Hit Die increase and the Rogue Talents help PF rogues, they still fall short as a primary class. Relying on "extra" skills to provide class "balance" doesn't work. Relying on sneak attack (conditionally dependent/no critical multiplier) to boost damage doesn't work. Relying on feat-heavy Finesse/TWF doesn't really help. And at higher levels even if you can sneak in past everything that can see invisible, you really don't want to send the rogue in ahead of everyone else since, especially at high level, the rogue isn't effective solo.
As others have pointed out, the concept of the Rogue is still too bound up in ideas of the "Thief" of old (D&D and/or Bilbo Baggins).
4e, Earthdawn and a few other systems have finally realized that the rogue really is a "striker" or light-fighter class, but D&D/PF always wants to pigeon-hole the Rogue into some form of niche role all its own (albeit one that can be suitably replaced by other classes).
For what it's worth, the Assassin PC is arguably worse than even the rogue, but as it's not a base class, we'll ignore it.
What would improve the rogue? Why not borrow from 4e's book (and Earthdawn, and others) and put the rogue's attack on the same level as the fighter (so +1BAB).
This does narrow the mechanical/combat gap between the Ranger and the Rogue, and some might say that oversteps the ranger's role, but since everyone's going on and on about how it's the "character" and not the class, it shouldn't matter, right?
Bumping the rogue up to +1 BAB isn't game-shattering, and I don't know why PF didn't do it--other than to stick to old sacred cows.
Run the numbers, try it in your game, nothing will be amazingly altered/ruined. Yet, despite its relatively minor impact on the game, the +1 BAB seems to suddenly give the illusion that the class is now much better than it was (even if it's not).
If you really want to go overboard, you can simply "re-skin" the Ranger as your new Rogue. Ditch the Companion Animal entirely, replace the Combat Style feats with Rogue Talents and toss the Ranger spell list and out the window.
Now you've got a d10 light fighter (probably Finesse TWF) with a situationally dependent Sneak Attack instead of Favored Enemies, 2 more skill points, and access to a few more skills.
Try it out and you'll see it's still a "rogue" even if it's not the (weak) Rogue you're used to.
I've run (though have yet to play since I'm always running) both the +1 BAB/d8 and the +1BAB/d10 "Rogue" and no game has ever been disastrously ruined or broken because of it.
GMing is all an illusion, so if you give the players some small bonus (ie +1 BAB) you can easily take measures to counter it--if you feel you must. But, really, running a +1BAB Rogue isn't any different than having two Rangers in the party (except in that oh-so-important RPing aspect) so you don't really have to re-configure even canned adventures.
Ultimately, it just doesn't really matter--do the math, it's not a *significant* change to anything, it just seems like it since everyone's used to the 3/4 BAB Rogue since they have to be "balanced" since they've got Sneak Attack...which looks more impressive than it is, especially at higher levels, against DR, against creatures immune to SA, etc.
Rogues, at least RaW ones, do kinda suck, but they don't have to in your game unless you let them.
Bumping the rogue up to +1 BAB isn't game-shattering, and I don't know why PF didn't do it--other than to stick to old sacred cows.
They would out damage the fighters, and the you would have to improve the fighters so they can have their job back. I think that if traps held mroe weight rogues would be more valuable. Players are not afraid of traps anymore, so that means the rogue's value goes down.
My issue with that is the party would be forced to have a rogue in the party though.
We are currently headed back in the right direction, but I'm looking more for things that are already in Pathfinder that can help the rogue. Although some of the options Valmar was providing would make great house rules, i'm just looking at playing one with what is available now.
Bumping the rogue up to +1 BAB isn't game-shattering, and I don't know why PF didn't do it--other than to stick to old sacred cows.
They would out damage the fighters, and the you would have to improve the fighters so they can have their job back. I think that if traps held mroe weight rogues would be more valuable. Players are not afraid of traps anymore, so that means the rogue's value goes down.
My issue with that is the party would be forced to have a rogue in the party though.
Traps don't force parties to have a rogue any more than other types of obstacles force a party to have any type of character. Undead don't force you to have a cleric or paladin, and most traps can be survived and countered without a rogue (even if it requires excessive heals on the other side). It's entirely possible to get past traps without a rogue, but a rogue makes that job far easier and more profitable (overcoming the trap without people injured, debuffed, etc, while still receiving XP and treasure is nice).
Traps don't force parties to have a rogue any more than other types of obstacles force a party to have any type of character. Undead don't force you to have a cleric or paladin, and most traps can be survived and countered without a rogue (even if it requires excessive heals on the other side). It's entirely possible to get past traps without a rogue, but a rogue makes that job far easier and more profitable (overcoming the trap without people injured, debuffed, etc, while still receiving XP and treasure is nice).Bumping the rogue up to +1 BAB isn't game-shattering, and I don't know why PF didn't do it--other than to stick to old sacred cows.
They would out damage the fighters, and the you would have to improve the fighters so they can have their job back. I think that if traps held more weight rogues would be more valuable. Players are not afraid of traps anymore, so that means the rogue's value goes down.
My issue with that is the party would be forced to have a rogue in the party though.
I was saying if traps were more deadly people would feel like they had to have a rogue. As it stands, they don't.
Sure, some people have pointed out the min-max ways of outdamaging rogues, especially in terms of power attacks and criticals, but rogues have their own reason to be in combat, and that is damage consistency.
On average, your sneak attack will add around the same amount of damage every time you use it. Sure, there will be good rolls and bad, but over time it all evens out. Bear in mind, you can (omitting specific example occasions) and should flank and sneak attack in every round of every fight. This is the prime difference between a Rogue and fighter or Monk. A Rogue can move and attack and still deals sneak attack damage if they are clever with their positioning, while the Monk and Fighter need additional feats and equipment to enable them to do their maximum damage potential while moving. Look at thew feat trees and Rogue talents and work on being able to flank all the time, and when able take those feats that enable you to render an opponent flat-footed (and thus able to be sneak attacked) such as Razor Sharp Chair Leg (a humerous must for anyone. Death by ceiling tile still my fav moment in a game!) and max out your Bluff skill.
A properly charismatic, stealthy and mobile Rogue can work out a sneak attack every round relatively easily.
I refuse to show builds, because for all I know you could be starting at level 1 with starting equipment and want to desperately play a Half-Orc, so while most would go for halfling (bonuses to ranged attacks and defences) or Human (bonus feat and skills) I do not know what you are intending. The above supposition also precludes the use of anything other than the Core PF rulebook (so no pouncing monk/barbarian/fighter builds).
The other core difference to bear in mind here is Rogues should work out their advantages based on surprise and being ignored/having combat advantage in 4e, so where a fighter or Barb (or Pally etc...) needs Power Attack to max out their damage, and can fall afoul of high AC opponents (believe it or not, people actually miss targets a fair amount of the time), the Rogue works the other way and reduces the AC of their opponent to hit more often (as a rule) and do pretty much the same amount of damage.
Thing is, you kinda need to tell US what you want your rogue to be doing. If its walk up to anything and insta-kill it, then what you are really looking for is a really sympathetic DM willing to start you at a high level with above average equipment value and the Book of Nine Flanges... or an Assassin played intelligently. (Death by gardening trowel...)
Stuart- I've simply been trying to isolate things that are rogue specific that help them do their job (aside from trapfinding). Things that the people who seem to love rogues and play so many of them refuse to share with the rest of the world. I'm well aware on how a rogue should work, and also what they should be doing. However I was more looking for things that would help them do that job efficiently and even more hopefully, find things that only rogues can do. The emphasis here is on specificity.
Not generalized statements, but real abilities, equipment, feats that help the rogue more than every other class that can do the majority of the same things. (i.e. things that help them hit more often <aside from flanking and weapon finesse which everyone can take> things that make them better at stealth than a ranger or other classes that have stealth in class, things that help them optimize their skills <since a bard has class abilities and spells that help with this> without relying solely on UMD, which every class can have)
If we're looking at level by level i normal look at a 10th level character, because by then everyone should be on a fairly level playing field, and also, because if you aren't good by then you never will be.
Thank you for not posting a build. That is not what i'm looking for here.
Stuart- I've simply been trying to isolate things that are rogue specific that help them do their job (aside from trapfinding). Things that the people who seem to love rogues and play so many of them refuse to share with the rest of the world. I'm well aware on how a rogue should work, and also what they should be doing. However I was more looking for things that would help them do that job efficiently and even more hopefully, find things that only rogues can do. The emphasis here is on specificity.
Not generalized statements, but real abilities, equipment, feats that help the rogue more than every other class that can do the majority of the same things. (i.e. things that help them hit more often <aside from flanking and weapon finesse which everyone can take> things that make them better at stealth than a ranger or other classes that have stealth in class, things that help them optimize their skills <since a bard has class abilities and spells that help with this> without relying solely on UMD, which every class can have)
If we're looking at level by level i normal look at a 10th level character, because by then everyone should be on a fairly level playing field, and also, because if you aren't good by then you never will be.
Thank you for not posting a build. That is not what i'm looking for here.
Hmm, in that case the question you pose is quite tough, and not for the reasons you might think.
Aside from Class Features, there is very little in the way of feats and equipment that are specific to one class. Skills also, can be freely taken by anyone. Thus it is less easy to show what makes Rogues so enjoyable to play.
I recently played an Assassin/Rogue for Runelords for no other reason than to show a newer player that even classes that everyone thinks suck can be quite good fun if played right, but I can't say there was a special way of doing it, just being honest with the rules and spotting what to improve and what to try out in terms of feats (Crossbow Sniper is awesome, if that's your cup of tea, for example).
A 10th level Rogue 'should', in my opinion, by as capable as possible at finding and disarming traps (and by extension, finding things generally - but a Ranger will have the same if not higher Perception), be able to hold their own in combat, maneouvre enough to get out of (and into) trouble and providing steady damage in support of the rest of the party.
So far, so much of a muchness.
However: Fast Stealth, Evasion, Bleeding Attack, Crippling Attack, Dispelling attack, Defensive Roll and of course, Sneak Attack and Uncanny Dodge.
Its tough, I admit, trying to come up with a reason to fit your criteria. Frankly, if you are not inspired by what the Class Features are, by the 8+Int skill ranks per level and the general flavour of a Rogue then no, I can't show you something to change your mind.
But a 10th lvl Rogue is one of the better support classes for any group, as it may not add anything so immediately obvious as Smite, Favoured enemy bonuses, auras or spells, but it just operates seemlessly with any other group make up. Sure, people have their favorites, and I know that, having just spent a good hour supporting Rogues in a few threads, I probably sound like a fanboy, but I grew up playing Druids and could argue the toss for them just as easily.
Perhaps that is their greatest strength. They are Jacks of All Trades, a class that isn't just for the combat encounters, there in the background, waiting for their chance to swan in and steal the limelight. If that is for you, you will have a blast. If it isn't, then, shucks, fair enough.
how can a rogue be used like anything other than a fighter in a typical party though?
sneaking ahead of the party and letting them know there's something ahead puts you so far ahead of the party that if they make their perception check, your rogue is heading alone into a fight meant to challenge the entire party.
sneaking ahead to get in a sneak attack usually gets the rogue 1-2 attacks, followed by being squashed.
taking the time to flank enemies usually results in a dead enemy by the time you're ready to full attack, if they let you flank at all.
D&D is largely strait up fights. If you spend time hiding and then reappearing to sneak attack while your teammates are fighting thats damage every round that you're not doing.
how can a rogue be used like anything other than a fighter in a typical party though?
sneaking ahead of the party and letting them know there's something ahead puts you so far ahead of the party that if they make their perception check, your rogue is heading alone into a fight meant to challenge the entire party.
sneaking ahead to get in a sneak attack usually gets the rogue 1-2 attacks, followed by being squashed.
taking the time to flank enemies usually results in a dead enemy by the time you're ready to full attack, if they let you flank at all.
D&D is largely strait up fights. If you spend time hiding and then reappearing to sneak attack while your teammates are fighting thats damage every round that you're not doing.
Again, its all about playing them intelligently and sensibly. I've had rogues sneak off and scout while the party spends time healing up/looting and appraising/reading the runes on the walls etc and warn about impending combat encounters without triggering them, it just depends how it goes. (Luck be a fickle mistress)
Likewise a well rounded rogue should be able to attack every turn, whether melee or ranged. Sneaking isn't necessary if you can flank, and if you can't flank and your opponent isn't a plant or undead, you can usually bluff them into letting you get a sneak attack in. For ranged attacks, sneaking is a must, but a rogue with fast stealth can move 30' (normal human rate), shoot from stealth (sneak attack) then on his next round move to flank the target that charged the fighter and sneak attack again. Most DnD battles take place in rooms approx 60x30' at most, or tighter corridors, so it isn't hard to get into range unless you are miles away for some reason.
Its a largely figurative argument, but from experience, most rogues (played by others as well as myself) don't tend to have any complaints about getting to fight every round in some way. Quick Draw is a blessing, but you can draw a weapon as part of a move action anyway, so sometimes it isn't strictly necessary depending on how you play them.
sneaking ahead of the party and letting them know there's something ahead puts you so far ahead of the party that if they make their perception check, your rogue is heading alone into a fight meant to challenge the entire party.
Many people disparage scouting, but they don't attempt to do scout seriously. They don't know what they're missing.. perhaps their DM isn't punishing its lack harshly enough.
At higher levels the advent of intelligence on the enemy is INSANELY powerful. Scouting is VERY important as it lets you have a chance to dictate terms of the encounter.
Party A:
Goes through the dungeon setting off traps and encountering monsters as they pop up. Perhaps they have a summoned creature ahead of them to spring the traps, perhaps they have someone less squishy than the wizard leading with a detect magic up.. but they trigger traps to get around them. Monsters are never surprised by them as the party's stealth is non-existent.Party B:
The rogue scouts ahead finding the traps, bypassing them for his team, and when he spots a group of monsters reports back to his party. The party then can attempt to buff before barging in, and perhaps even lead these monsters to 'chase' them into waiting traps. Only the traps don't go off for the party and aren't bypassed by their 'owners'.There is a world of difference between the two here that a rogue can bring to the table.
It's not listed as a class feature, nor is it a line on a character sheet, but it can be felt.
A rogue can find traps at full speed. If you campaign doesn't reward this then its not useful, just as much as if you always fought against neutrals you might think smite evil was lacking.
A rogue can disable magical traps. A take 10 on disable from an 8th level rogue can handle 9th level spells. A trap specialist can even bypass traps by that level which again is huge tactically.
A rogue can use stealth at full speed without penalty, this is more of a difference than between class and...
Seconded
how can a rogue be used like anything other than a fighter in a typical party though?
sneaking ahead of the party and letting them know there's something ahead puts you so far ahead of the party that if they make their perception check, your rogue is heading alone into a fight meant to challenge the entire party.
sneaking ahead to get in a sneak attack usually gets the rogue 1-2 attacks, followed by being squashed.
taking the time to flank enemies usually results in a dead enemy by the time you're ready to full attack, if they let you flank at all.
D&D is largely strait up fights. If you spend time hiding and then reappearing to sneak attack while your teammates are fighting thats damage every round that you're not doing.
Why does the rogue have to be spotted, and why can't he run away if he is spotted?
Is the rogue that is squashed trying to solo the encounter?
Getting a flank is not all that hard, nor does it take a long time.
I agree that it is difficult to quantify the power of a class and it is therefore difficult to "prove" rogues are useful. I personally think they are great and extremely balanced.
If you are looking for ideas on how to make rogues effective, try out the guide on pfsrd (this is without APG by the way and after APG, ranged rogues are ridiculously powerful)
Here is a link:
1 round. This is D&D. Yes, it is a long time.
:D :D :D
Battleground are dynamic. Team member can work actively or indirectly to put enemies between them and the rogues, or to put themselves in a place good to allow the rogue flank.
And 1 round can be a lot, but not in every battle.
None of which matters, at all because no matter what, if you are flanking you're in full attack range. Rogues have the worst defenses in the game. Splat!
1 round. This is D&D. Yes, it is a long time.:D :D :D
Battleground are dynamic. Team member can work actively or indirectly to put enemies between them and the rogues, or to put themselves in a place good to allow the rogue flank.
And 1 round can be a lot, but not in every battle.
My players manage to shift the "focus" on the rogue target. Rogues attacks land on the target that will die this turn. Sometimes is enough a summoned grappling creature too :)
Higher level Rogues have way to avoid blows like Redirect Attack and Not This Day. IF the party is heavy in debuff, stack a Befuddling strike COULD help.
A friend of mine points to inflict a condition like blind (dirty trick) and avoid being engaged, coming out only in when fighters and wizards managed to control the battlefield (walls, summons, stuns,trips, tentacles).
A miss chance by friendly caster or by UMD could be enough to survive at worst a lot of times. Not to trust because of demons, clerics and other "true seers".
Again, its all about playing them intelligently and sensibly.
this is mildly condescending, and problematic. You need to play the rogue well in order to keep up with someone playing another class badly.
Also what you consider sensible I'm going to call a recipe for a dead rogue.
I've had rogues sneak off and scout while the party spends time healing up/looting and appraising/reading the runes on the walls etc and warn about impending combat encounters without triggering them, it just depends how it goes. (Luck be a fickle mistress)
it only needs to go bad once. it will go bad once. Perceptive monsters are always a problem, but so are things like blindsight/sense, tremor sense, the ubiquitous scent, stretches of featureless cooridoors with someone with darkvision at the far end, a druid/wizard with a bat for an animal companion or familiar, mushroom monsters the rogue doesn't recognize as such, one missed trap...
i have played in groups where the rogue did this. one trick was having my dragon disciple gave the rogue his (45 hit point :)) weasel familiar as backup. when combat started the weasel would get worried, and the empathic link would let the dragon disciple know there was trouble. even with Intel, it was hard to get the entire party near enough to the next fight to get a surprise round.
if youre woried about scouting at higher levels, wizards and druids do it better. (even if you see a rat, do you bother it in a dungeon?)
Likewise a well rounded rogue should be able to attack every turn, whether melee or ranged. Sneaking isn't necessary if you can flank, and if you can't flank and your opponent isn't a plant or undead, you can usually bluff them into letting you get a sneak attack in.
so far the ideal rogue has fast trap detection, fast stealth, combat expertise, improved feint (otherwise its your action to bluff) quick draw ... so no 2 weapon fighting or weapon finesse for you.
the fighter is going to severely out damage them just with standing there and full attacks, much less the wizard and druid
this is mildly condescending, and problematic. You need to play the rogue well in order to keep up with someone playing another class badly.
Uh... when was the last time you saw a badly played wizard? It's... pretty pathetic.
Exactly. ANY class played badly is a class played badly.
However, playing a rogue sensibly means not getting yourself into a stupid situation where you get squished. The great thing about sneaking is you still need to actively spot them, and tremorsense, blindsense and the rest don't automatically negate stealth. Remember, part of being stealthy includes treading carefully, and quietly, and keeping calm enough so your heart doesn't race, hiding behind natural cover, staying off the floor on occasion, all of which means tremorsensors etc. still have to roll to spot you.
Problem is, BigNorseWolf, you are a Wizard expert. You could probably find a way to have a party of four Wizards and nothing else work fine in most cases.
However, since I have neither discredited Wizards, nor in any way attempted to insinuate that ONLY Rogues can do the sneaky stuff, I find your sudden insinuation that MY idea of playing a rogue sensibly equates to someone elses idea of playing another class badly rather condescending itself.
My comment was merely to say that sure, you can play a rogue badly, as you can play any class badly and get them driven into the ground by the next monster they come across, but if played well (and it isn't as hard as say, a spellcaster, to play a Rogue well... you don't run out of skills or choose the wrong talents at the beginning of the day for example, a pitfall a lot of newer or less experienced players may face. Heck, even I occasionally look at my Wizzie's spell list and think 'crap, should have mem'd that one instead today') a Rogue can be a great deal of fun and one of the survivalists in the party.
Also, I missed the rule that states a monster will automatically turn around and bash the rogue into the ground the moment it gets flanked, or are you actually saying that the Rogue WILL in fact be the one causing the most damage every turn and thus cause the monster to target him? Admittedly, it only takes the fighter to screw up and miss and the monster might feasibly consider him a weak and feeble target not worth bothering about and instead turn around and smack the lightly armoured dagger-boy behind him... but in the same token he might instead decide to charge into the guy wearing the gaudy robes who last round disintigrated him in the face just as equally.
We are, of course, talking complete conjecture and DM making a judgement call here. If your DM has it in for Rogues so badly that every monster mysteriously targets them for destruction, then you might want to have words.
Also, why do you always suppose the Rogue will fail? He's got as good, if not better chance than any other class at succeeding in whatever it was he sets out to do, and more abilities than any other class at avoiding damage outright.
I'm not saying a Wizard can't do what a Rogue can do, I'm just pointing to resource management as a reason why you should have a Rogue along as well. Less spells wasted on dungeon exploration and trap setting off means more used to succeed (or avoid) combat. Also, as an aside, if your DM is allowing your familiar to get trepidation about a situation or room it is about to enter and NOT allowing the Rogue to have the same information (or a chance to pick up the same information), he is a bad DM and you should probably give him some lessons in fairness. (same goes for any situation. We have skills like Perception for a reason, and it shouldn't always be player driven. Hairs on the back of the neck, whiff of a foul odour, sudden small gust of wind, whisper of movement, whatever clue you decide on gives the players a chance to stop, assess and then decide if they go forwards, or hold back).
Exactly. ANY class played badly is a class played badly.
there's a lot of misunderstandings here , i'll try to clear them up as i go.
However, playing a rogue sensibly means not getting yourself into a stupid situation where you get squished. The great thing about sneaking is you still need to actively spot them
no amount of intelligence or ability is going to help you avoid these sorts of situations. The entire reason for scouting is finding out whats ahead because you don't know whats there
and tremorsense, blindsense and the rest don't automatically negate stealth. Remember, part of being stealthy includes treading carefully, and quietly, and keeping calm enough so your heart doesn't race, hiding behind natural cover, staying off the floor on occasion, all of which means tremorsensors etc. still have to roll to spot you.
Some creatures possess blindsight, the extraordinary ability to use a nonvisual sense (or a combination senses) to operate effectively without vision. Such senses may include sensitivity to vibrations, acute scent, keen hearing, or echolocation. This makes invisibility and concealment (even magical darkness) irrelevant to the creature
concealment is irrelevant. your rogue is hosed.
-Blindsense: Other creatures have blindsense, a lesser ability that lets the creature notice things it cannot see, but without the precision of blindsight. The creature with blindsense usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice and locate creatures within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature.
something with blindsense does NOT need to actively look for you or even make a check. If it has line of effect to you it knows someone is there and what square you're in. its usually a pretty simple matter of attacking the square with either an aoe or attempt to grapple in order to draw the rogue out.
Problem is, BigNorseWolf, you are a Wizard expert. You could probably find a way to have a party of four Wizards and nothing else work fine in most cases.
ad hom. Kindly address the points, not my alleged areas of non expertise. Most of my characters tend to specialize in "wtf" factor. As in if i don't do something that makes the dm or another players jaw drop once per session i'm doing something wrong. This can be something as weird as buying a bag of holding and a 40 by 40 foot carpet and summoning in a monster to animate it to transforming the entire party into gnolls (including the ranger with species enemy: gnoll)so we can sneak into camp, or casting spider climb on my druids animal companion so i can charge into combat along the wall.
This, sadly, lends me to avoid the rogue class. despite the flavor of the class as versatile and capable of acting outside the box, i find them incredibly constrained. Their only real versatility comes from acting like another class through UMD
i do however, have to know the classes since i'm usually relied on for build and tactical advice for my group.
However, since I have neither discredited Wizards, nor in any way attempted to insinuate that ONLY Rogues can do the sneaky stuff, I find your sudden insinuation that MY idea of playing a rogue sensibly equates to someone elses idea of playing another class badly rather condescending itself.
if the rogue played well is equivalent or worse than a wizard being played badly then its not a reflection on anyone's ability its a reflection on the class. So yes, i'm being condescending, but its towards a mechanical concept within a game, not anyone disagreeing with me.
My impression of someone's idea that unless i had the rogue scouting ahead, alone, i wasn't doing so intelligently is that its bunk. I'll state it again. Don't split the party, you're gonna die.
My comment was merely to say that sure, you can play a rogue badly, as you can play any class badly and get them driven into the ground by the next monster they come across
and that if i wasn't scouting i was doing it badly, or that being taken out by a monster meant you were doing it badly
Also, I missed the rule that states a monster will automatically turn around and bash the rogue into the ground the moment it gets flanked, or are you actually saying that the Rogue WILL in fact be the one causing the most damage every turn and thus cause the monster to target him? Admittedly, it only takes the fighter to screw up and miss and the monster might feasibly consider him a weak...
that rule is the monsters intelligence score. While the rogue's doing less damage he's easier to kill than sir clanks a lot. squishy the wizard is, hopefully, somehow hiding behind sir clanks a lot.
even something as dumb as an animal doesn't like people getting behind it and will act accordingly. chances are the rogue is flanking with sir clanks alot. what would a monster rather bite, hard steel or soft unprotected rogue in its own leather toco?
Also, why do you always suppose the Rogue will fail? He's got as good, if not better chance than any other class at succeeding in whatever it was he sets out to do, and more abilities than any other class at avoiding damage outright.
law of averages. the rogue will fail at some point. when he rest of the party fails, the rest of the party is there to help them through it. a solo rogue scouting does not.
I'm not saying a Wizard can't do what a Rogue can do, I'm just pointing to resource management as a reason why you should have a Rogue along as well. Less spells wasted on dungeon exploration and trap setting off means more used to succeed (or avoid) combat
there's an opportunity cost involved in having the rogue in the party, so swapping the rogue out and putting the wizard in , then having the wizard loose half his spells scouting... which still leaves him with half a spell list. at low levels this is problematic, at high levels its not.
Also, as an aside, if your DM is allowing your familiar to get trepidation about a situation or room it is about to enter and NOT allowing the Rogue to have the same information (or a chance to pick up the same information), he is a bad DM and you should probably give him some lessons in fairness
The familiar doesn't get spidey sense(although scent was occasionally handy) The familiar gets nervous, or scared as hell at the same time as the rogue. The familiar would then send that emotion back to the dragon disciple through empathic link, and the party would know to start running quickly... if say the rogue was swallowed whole by a snake. The weasel was a silent alarm spell with a range of 1 mile.
Less bickering, more talk about things like the combat patrol scenario.
That is something that only the rogues could do, is mildly entertaining, and in the right party is downright ridiculous. This is the type of thing i'm trying to find. Things that the rogue can take in conjunction with rogue only business that adds a new level to the gameplay.
Here are some things that I think make the rogue an interesting character option in Pathfinder:
1) Skill points. He can not only be relied on for a wider variety of skills than most characters, he can also have small investments in many skills so that he can use Aid Another actions more often than most to help the other characters. I know that in my games the players like to spread out their skills and having someone help out once in a while is a huge boost.
2) Skill Mastery. This is another great Talent that is overlooked in these discussions. The ability to Take 10 even when under stress is something that should be seriously looked at. Simple actions, like Climbing and Acrobatics become even more useful. Disabling devices in a stressful situation can also be very handy.
3) Sneak attack. The rogue probably has a high Dexterity. Even at level 1 with the Elite Array he can start with a 17 Dex. Add in the Reactionary Trait and Improved Initiative and he is at +9 Initiative. Odds are in his favor to go first and get that sneak attack off. As he levels, if he is built for combat, he can get some serious damage off before the surprise round is over.
4) Minor and Major Magic. These talents give him spell-like abilities. Sure, they are level 0 and level 1 spells but that doesn't mean those spells are going to be useless.
5) Crippling Strike. Strength Drain can be a great way to either wipe out an opponent (did that wizard start with a 7 Strength just so he can have a 20 starting Intelligence?). Just two hits will probably put the wizard at heavy encumbrance. Worse, if the rogue can get 4 sneak attacks before that "practically optimized" wizard can do anything, the wizard is down. That is actually not too difficult. Even a level 1 rogue can pull it off but he needs to be level 10 to use this ability. So he can probably get 1 for the surprise round and, since he will probably win initiative, get 4 more, that's 10 strength drain if they all hit. That's one heck of a round for the rogue. That is in addition to 20d6 additional damage. Combine that with Opportunist and you can see an additional 2 Strength and 5d6 damage.
6) Two rogues with certain Teamwork Feats would be lethal.
Give me any level and I can show you an interesting rogue that is effective both in and out of combat. One that is truly a team player and can still hold his own.
Even a level 1 rogue can pull it off but he needs to be level 10 to use this ability. So he can probably get 1 for the surprise round and, since he will probably win initiative, get 4 more, that's 10 strength drain if they all hit. That's one heck of a round for the rogue.
Just for the record, we are aware that there's a kind of wizard that gets to act in the surprise round no matter what and will tend to win initiative, right?
Even a level 1 rogue can pull it off but he needs to be level 10 to use this ability. So he can probably get 1 for the surprise round and, since he will probably win initiative, get 4 more, that's 10 strength drain if they all hit. That's one heck of a round for the rogue.Just for the record, we are aware that there's a kind of wizard that gets to act in the surprise round no matter what and will tend to win initiative, right?
There is always a build that can counter something. The majority of opponents aren't going to be that one wizard. I also don't think the majority of wizards are actually going to be running around with a 7 Strength (along with 2 more 7s) unless the game is about only playing by the numbers. Most games are far more casual than that.
Oh, and I don't know the build you are referring to but I don't think it changes anything I said. I would like to see it though.
|
Oh, and I don't know the build you are referring to but I don't think it changes anything I said. I would like to see it though.
The diviner wizard (scroll down to the divination school). It's popular on the boards because of its enormous initiative bonuses and ability to always act in a surprise round. It's less popular in real play because the divination class is not all that popular. Especially at the lower levels. I like diviners, myself, and I'm glad to see they're more powerful in PF than they were in 3.5.
Even more troubling is that the particular build of wizard they're talking about gets a sizable bonus to initiative in addition to being able to attack during surprise rounds.
However, the crippling attack mode would still be occasionally useful, especially against other rogues (since many of the builds people have spoken of on here tend to dump str.). This could be coupled with major magic taking ray of enfeeblement, or the magic axe from APG that casts maximized ray of enfeeblement once per day.
While i was aware of this scenario before, again, this is moving further into the right direction of specificity in depictions of the rogue being effective.
Oh, and I don't know the build you are referring to but I don't think it changes anything I said. I would like to see it though.The diviner wizard (scroll down to the divination school). It's popular on the boards because of its enormous initiative bonuses and ability to always act in a surprise round. It's less popular in real play because the divination class is not all that popular. Especially at the lower levels. I like diviners, myself, and I'm glad to see they're more powerful in PF than they were in 3.5.
Yeah, I'm a little sad because I really liked playing diviners in 3.X and now it feels a bit like a cheesemonkey choice. I always can find something great to do with that extra divination spell slot of each level.
Quickly referring back to the tremosense/blindsense argument, despite the loss of concealment, Stealth is not a form of concealment in and of itself (sure, being behind a wall helps). Sneaking past a sleeping dragon has more to do with keeping the noise down than necessarily flitting from cover to cover and sticking to shadows, and likewise, Stealth will always enable you to reduce attention. If a blind/temorsensing creature was actively looking for you, then sure, you are highly likely to be spotted as you do not get a lot of the usual bonuses, but they still have to roll, and thus still have a chance to fail (this is ignoring the Deep Stalker feat from 3.5). Rogues have Know(Dung.) as a class skill and other Know skills for the very good reason of being able to identify that Destrachen or Tendriculous early enough to know to grab solid cover, or get off the ground (immovable rods and chin up practice...) to avoid being detected. There are also some magic items that add to stealth by deadening footsteps and/or bodyheat, which enables the bonuses to work against special detection sense creatures. Bear in mind, there are creatures deliberately designed to be unable to snuck up to, cookie crumbles.
Forward scouting is not something that has to occur miles from the rest of the party, indeed the ideal is to go no further than two rooms away.
As for Rogues getting hit in preference, yes, it is dependant on what you are fighting, and again you should be factoring that in. The advantage of a high initiative score is the ability to hold your action for as long as you need to. A low-intelligence Animal or Magical Beast will act on instincts, and 'should' hit out at the last thing to hit it, so make sure you are coming in either before a teammate or after the monster. Again, sneak attack works at range and take advantage of it. Also, just because a foe is intelligent, doesn't mean they know you are a Rogue until you suddenly hit them for massive damage. Depending on the canny-ness (fairness, evilness, aptness etc.) of your DM you can even fool an intelligent foe into believing you pose less of a threat than one of your comrades. Bluff is a fantastic skill, after all, with many applications. What I was basically trying to say is there is no reason for ANY monster to attack the Rogue in preference JUST BECAUSE he is a Rogue. Sure, I'll agree with your point about not wanting your back to anyone, but turning around to whomp the Rogue just puts your back to the bigger, harder, meaner fighter who was originally in front of you, and he gets to full-attack next round, so the logic doesn't work.
On the familiar use, as a contingency I don't disagree with its use, it was the way you wrote it initially made it sound like you didn't trust your Rogue enough for him to get his job done on his own and had to go along as well in some way. Personally, at higher levels, I make sure I have a Telepathic Bond up between Rogue and Wizard, purely so I can sit and observe unnoticed rather than having to scoot back to the party and tell them physically. That said, we also use our part-time wizard as nothing more than a med-evac at the moment so its not like I can claim its a fair partnership either...
Back to topic.
Rogues are Dungeon Lurkers and Urbanites at their base intent. Any campaign with a large amount of time in towns or in dungeons will benefit from a Rogue, much like any game set largely above ground or in woods benefit enourmously from Druids and Rangers. The skill-set and class features fit these places, so, in addition to the combat patrol scenario, or the knife-in-the-dark role, Rogues are excellent tour-guides and faces. Thievery skills are more useful in an Urban environment, and the Rogue is likely to be one of the few members of the party not to get pick-pocketed.
Their usefulness varies with the competance and forward planning ability of your DM. A town fully mapped out with intrigues and numerous little sub-plots and politics is a fantastic playground for a Rogue much more than any other character. Only a Rogue can get into a locked vault, steal a priceless artifact and leave the scene otherwise untouched and leave no trace. Any Wizard or Sorceror with the right spells CAN do the same... but anyone rich and powerful enough to do such a thing is going to have magic-sensitive traps and defences up, or if not, is highly likely to scour the area with detection magic... and pick up the residual auras of your spells used to get in.
Yes, something like an Urban Ranger is also twinked out to do that kind of thing, especially if it involves tracking people down, and a Dungeon delving Ranger can be more attuned to being underground, but those are specialisation options, not a base character trait, and even then are not as versatile as a Rogue, coming at the sacrifice of other features equally useful.
This seems like, yet again, more simple conjecture on what a rogue is supposed to do rather than on how it should be doing it.
What can a rogue do that would make it better than a bard in the above scenario. Or more simply, what is this rogue doing that every other character can't do? Or is this another brief argument that the 8 skill points makes that big of a difference?