Can anyone show me how Rogues are not the worst class in Pathfinder?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

551 to 600 of 1,387 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

SpaceChomp wrote:

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?

Not exactly, but it does point back to trapsense and some of the Rogue Talents, though I know you have already mentioned you are looking for things besides trapsense all the time.

Specific to the example you refer, Rogue would be better than a Bard at sneaking past the guards unnoticed, picking locks and finding and bypassing traps so they wouldn't be noticed as being activated. the Bard would have to resort to magic to augment himself to the same degree, and thus stands a greater chance of being detected either during or afterwards. As information gatherers the Bard has the edge, and both are very good at bribing, bluffing and threatening to get information/aid/guards to look the other way.

Dark Archive

The bard might get less skill point, but he's able to use them more efficiently.
Bards are awesome.


Jadeite wrote:

The bard might get less skill point, but he's able to use them more efficiently.

Bards are awesome.

not dissing Bards here, just making the comparison between how each class works its feature bonuses out.


arrrgh... lostpost, keyboard needs repair, cliff notes version

1) you can't stealth something with blind sight or blindsense. It doesn't happen. It sucks for the rogue, but thats the rules.

2) killing the rogue of the wizard means less damage taken before the entire party is dead. the wizard can deal death from a distance...the rogue cannot. if killing the fighter would take 10 rounds and killing the rogue 5 , and both do equal damage, killing the warrior then the rogue is 25 rounds of damage , killing the rogue then the warrior is 20

3) breaking in to rob a safe is something a rogue can do ALONE .. they can't do it with group. thats the problem. Sneaking and sniping is fine... if everyone is doing it or youre solo. as a group activity it just doesn't work.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

arrrgh... lostpost, keyboard needs repair, cliff notes version

1) you can't stealth something with blind sight or blindsense. It doesn't happen. It sucks for the rogue, but thats the rules.

2) killing the rogue of the wizard means less damage taken before the entire party is dead. the wizard can deal death from a distance...the rogue cannot. if killing the fighter would take 10 rounds and killing the rogue 5 , and both do equal damage, killing the warrior then the rogue is 25 rounds of damage , killing the rogue then the warrior is 20

3) breaking in to rob a safe is something a rogue can do ALONE .. they can't do it with group. thats the problem. Sneaking and sniping is fine... if everyone is doing it or youre solo. as a group activity it just doesn't work.

1. Not quite true.

Blindsense will let the creature pinpoint the square of the sneaky rogue, but unless he can see them he still is unseen. You only automatically make perception checks to find the square the stealthy character is in..

Blindsight can be defeated by somethings depending on how the blindsight is working. If its sound based then a silence spell can do so, etc.

2. Not sure what you're trying to say here. Normally PCs (and NPCs) don't have class signs on their heads. The rogue typically looks less armored than the fighter, but that doesn't mean much. In 3.x the heavy armor PCs in the mid to high levels would many times have the worst ACs. It goes down to perception (not the skill). That said I love the spell veil for that kind of misdirection (and at low levels I suggest that every wizard carry sais or kamas cause who bothers to attack the finesse based monk?).

3. Make it work. Try. Rather than give up on things like scouting as you have been.. try to make it work. I dare you.

People give up on things. Many say that you can't use mounted combat as a medium PC. It's not true, you just have to work hard at it and be stubborn. Spells like reduce animal (or a medium sized mount) then reducing yourself (starting with reduce person then later to poly any other into a small race) handle this for dungeon crawls without trouble.

-James


BigNorseWolf wrote:

arrrgh... lostpost, keyboard needs repair, cliff notes version

1) you can't stealth something with blind sight or blindsense. It doesn't happen. It sucks for the rogue, but thats the rules.

You can (feats and items allow you to, still hard though), but these would be what I was referring to about the ones designed not to be snuck up upon and flummox stealth users. Likewise, Golems are resistant/reflect/absorb magic - they are an example of a monster designed to flummox the spellcasters. Unless you have a DM using them almost exclusively, such exotic abilities are only found on pretty rare monsters. Nothing in PF is designed to be able to beat everything every time, especially easily (though lord knows people keep trying!). Thems the breaks.

Quote:
2) killing the rogue of the wizard means less damage taken before the entire party is dead. the wizard can deal death from a distance...the rogue cannot. if killing the fighter would take 10 rounds and killing the rogue 5 , and both do equal damage, killing the warrior then the rogue is 25 rounds of damage , killing the rogue then the warrior is 20

Ranged Rogues are fairly capable of doing a lot of damage at a mid-distance. Sure, it isn't 100ft plus, but it is still a range where monsters will have to move away from melee fighters to get to them. You can re-stealth if the target isn't observing you keenly, and combat is generally regarded as being highly distracting, so ranged sneak attacks are doable often, and there are numerous ways of making a target flat footed from range. Teamwork at this point is a bonus and makes it a darn sight easier, admittedly.

Quote:
3) breaking in to rob a safe is something a rogue can do ALONE .. they can't do it with group. thats the problem. Sneaking and sniping is fine... if everyone is doing it or youre solo. as a group activity it just doesn't work.

Agree with the first part, but thats part of the point. Its the Rogue's job, let him do it. You don't send the Frenzied Beserker to diplome a room for the night at the local temple of Obad-Hai, so why should Rogues be forced to act with everyone else 100% of the time. However, sneaking and sniping actually work BEST in a combat when everyone else is making as much of a melee distraction as possible so I disagree that everyone has to be doing it for it to work. If you are trying to silently take out all the guards without alerting anyone then I have a Gnome Paladin who would beg to differ that only the Rogues can do that, but you have to agree they have a better than most other classes of pulling it off.

You pick your fights so you are fighting with the best of your abilities. If you don't 'need' to be in the thick of it, don't be. I know plenty of Rangers who fit into that category also.

But the problem at the start is we are being asked to define a Rogue's abilities in such a way that precludes skills and Trapfinding, and to an increasingly larger part, stealth, but given that Rogues are 'the skill class', its incredibly hard to do so. Like talking about the sea without being able to use the words 'water', 'wet', 'salty', 'sand', 'blue', 'green', 'ocean' 'sky' and 'fish'.

We can post examples of good use of Rogues, where rogues have been fantastic or where rogues have outdone other classes at certain things, but apparently thats not what SpaceChomp is after.


Stuart- can you provide a way for ranged rogues to work on a regular basis? This is something that i would find very interesting. I saw the goggles in APG that gave +2 dmg per sneak attack die, but looking at it i can't find a reliable way to get ranged sneak attack damage in a full attack.

I understand that you can use things like smoke bombs and darkness, but there is a good chance that you just screwed your melee fighter in the process, making the rogue now liable for the damage.

A scout rogue can do the move first thing, leaving opponents flatfooted for one attack per round. Which is neat, however, the power of a ranged fighter/monk/ranger/inquisitor is the ability to full attack on the regular from almost any position. How do you make a rogue compete (not better than, just on a reasonable playing field).


SpaceChomp wrote:

Stuart- can you provide a way for ranged rogues to work on a regular basis? This is something that i would find very interesting. I saw the goggles in APG that gave +2 dmg per sneak attack die, but looking at it i can't find a reliable way to get ranged sneak attack damage in a full attack.

I understand that you can use things like smoke bombs and darkness, but there is a good chance that you just screwed your melee fighter in the process, making the rogue now liable for the damage.

A scout rogue can do the move first thing, leaving opponents flatfooted for one attack per round. Which is neat, however, the power of a ranged fighter/monk/ranger/inquisitor is the ability to full attack on the regular from almost any position. How do you make a rogue compete (not better than, just on a reasonable playing field).

So you want a build now then? ;)

Np, I'm off to the pub right now but I'll knock up a simple few case suggestions when I get back.


It's just as easy to say "this is the tactic a ranged rogue works effectively" and be done with it. Please do not get people to start posting builds when all they need to do is mention an ability and the way it would work.

Also, when you say

"But the problem at the start is we are being asked to define a Rogue's abilities in such a way that precludes skills and Trapfinding, and to an increasingly larger part, stealth, but given that Rogues are 'the skill class', its incredibly hard to do so. Like talking about the sea without being able to use the words 'water', 'wet', 'salty', 'sand', 'blue', 'green', 'ocean' 'sky' and 'fish'."

you're not paying full attention. Yes, i do believe that trapfinding is limited in use to certain campaigns and not a viable reason for a class to exist. Yes, i do believe that people put too much emphasis on the amount of skills that a rogue gets. they get 8, not 12, and how many skill points do you need anyway? With the ability to be a human, and to use your favored class bonus for skps, most of the non-2 point classes will have enough skills to play a fulfilling character skill wise.

I encourage people to tell me about rogue stealth, provided they can show something that only a rogue can do, or something that is profoundly better for a rogue.


Golems are among the easiest things for casters to defeat.

Magic resistant, indeed.

Liberty's Edge

A rogue can specialize in lots of skills without needing high intelligence, human bonus, or favored class bonuses to skills. A rogue with all those things can specialize in many, many skills. Most classes can specialize in 1-4 skills. Rogues can easily do 6.

A rogue can specialize in stealth without giving up... anything, really. Most other PC's who want to specialize in stealth must give up effectiveness in another area (fewer HP, no dark- or low-light vision, fewer ranks in other skills).

A fighter CAN specialize in stealth completely. It's viable. They just have to give up one of the skills that they might normally be expected to have, such as Intimidate, Ride, Handle Animal, or Profession (soldier). Or Perception.

With the collapse of skills, a rogue has lots more skill points to play with. In 3.5, a rogue needed to have the following skills to really rock the house:
Tumble
Spot
Search
Hide
Move Silently
Balance
Climb
Disable Device
Open Lock
Use Magic Device

In PF, that list has shrunk significantly. Instead of 10 skills, a rogue really only needs 6, and not all of them need specialization.
Acrobatics
Perception
Stealth
Climb
Disable Device
Use Magic Device

Assuming a rogue specializes in ALL of the above, and has no bonuses to skill points at all, he STILL has 2 points left over every level for fun stuff.

A rogue does not stealth much better than a stealth specialist of another class. A rogue does specialize better in any given skill than another class, and is more likely to be a stealth specialist.


SpaceChomp wrote:

Stuart- can you provide a way for ranged rogues to work on a regular basis? This is something that i would find very interesting. I saw the goggles in APG that gave +2 dmg per sneak attack die, but looking at it i can't find a reliable way to get ranged sneak attack damage in a full attack.

Tiny hut and no range limitation on ranged sneak attacks makes for a great combination.

Tiny hut is an evocation so things like true seeing and the like won't matter to it.

The drawback is that its fixed, but that shouldn't be an issue either if you don't need to be within 30' for the sneak attack. The typical response of area fx into the area won't matter as much to the rogue who is likely the only person in there.

-James


I like it.

There are some problems with it though:

1. It's a third level spell, and basing functionality off a third level spell for a non-casting class is kind of rough (financially and logistically). Though there is total concealment it would leave you vulnerable to area of effect spells if people notice where the fireworks are coming from.Though, the long duration is a bonus because it would help it setting up ambushes.

2. Sneak attack very specifically can't work beyond 30ft. So i'm not really sure where you are getting the limitless range from. I'm sure there are some abilities that increase this range, but they should be included with future combos.

We are officially on the right track.

More like this please. Thanks.


Quote:


1. Not quite true.

Blindsense will let the creature pinpoint the square of the sneaky rogue, but unless he can see them he still is unseen. You only automatically make perception checks to find the square the stealthy character is in..

Quote:

and you can attack into the square with a 50% miss chance, the rogue can't run away (that would break the stealth) .. and most critters have more than 30 feet of movement.

Quote:
Blindsight can be defeated by somethings depending on how the blindsight is working. If its sound based then a silence spell can do so, etc.

a bat will notice a giant area of silence the same way a human will notice a giant ball of darkness on a sunlit day: it is conspicuously obvious by its non existance. Most blindsights are aren't listed, so are assumed to be a combination of senses

2. Not sure what you're trying to say here.

wolf bites fighter (misses due to armor) OW .. that does not taste good. Wolf bites rogue "mmmm! chew toy...."

Quote:
3. Make it work. Try. Rather than give up on things like scouting as you have been.. try to make it work. I dare you.

who am i going to beleive, you or my own eyes?

why use reduce person and not just play a halfling? Technically a pony is listed as a viable mount for a dwarf , despite the size similarities.

Dark Archive

Like, the talents don't really do too much for the rogue; they're fine, but the Urban Ranger Skirmisher just does everything the rogue does, less 2 skill points (or really 4 because of a probable disperity of intelligence, but still). Their abilities are on par with the rogue's, and often more useable.

Sneaking ahead really does just have game issues. Rogues would be way more fun in solo play, but generally Pathfinder is more fun if the group stays together. There is only 1 GM, so it makes it easier for everyone to participate.

I do think the d10 hp, straight BAB rogue would be balanced without any rewrites... especially now that the Urban Ranger has made him all but useless as an "existant class". I am glad they've at least made it easier for a melee rogue to do damage, but it's lacking in every other department.


Quote:
You can (feats and items allow you to, still hard though)

feats and items such as....?

this hypothetical rogue you're building is dumping to much into being a decent rogue that the druids pet tiger is going to do more damage, (never mind the druid...)

Quote:
but these would be what I was referring to about the ones designed not to be snuck up upon and flummox stealth users. Likewise, Golems are resistant/reflect/absorb magic - they are an example of a monster designed to flummox the spellcasters.

golems are one monster. lots of things have blindssese or tremorsense. scent is almost ubiquitous. Also wizards CAN deal with golems: grease and summon monster work wonders, and a small festival of lantern archons can slice him to peices... not to mention indirect methods such as haste and enlarge person on the barbarian

Quote:
Unless you have a DM using them almost exclusively, such exotic abilities are only found on pretty rare monsters. Nothing in PF is designed to be able to beat everything every time, especially easily (though lord knows people keep trying!). Thems the breaks.

its not exclusively, just often enough that the rogue wandering off alone is a bad, bad idea.

Quote:
Ranged Rogues are fairly capable of doing a lot of damage at a mid-distance. Sure, it isn't 100ft plus, but it is still a range where monsters will have to move away from melee fighters to get to them. You can re-stealth if the target isn't observing you keenly,

no. NO changing the rules to make your point. This is about the game as it is, NOT about the game you want it to be. I wouldn't be against changing the game to work like that, but currently it does not. You do NOT have to observe the rouge KEENLY to keep them from re stealthing. The rogue needs to not be observed (usually with sight) Keenly. is. not. there. The rogue needs cover or concealment, and the rogue cannot sneak attack people after the first round of combat under his own power. Your foe is not flat footed even if they can't see you unless you're invisible or have been sniping from the start.

Quote:
and combat is generally regarded as being highly distracting, so ranged sneak attacks are doable often, and there are numerous ways of making a target flat footed from range.

name 2. A monk with stunning fist and....

Quote:
Teamwork at this point is a bonus and makes it a darn sight easier, admittedly.

a rogue with good teamwork is ok. Most other classes with good teamwork can be amazing.

Quote:
Agree with the first part, but thats part of the point. Its the Rogue's job, let him do it.

while everyone else sits and does nothing... thats bad for play.


SpaceChomp wrote:

I like it.

There are some problems with it though:

1. It's a third level spell, and basing functionality off a third level spell for a non-casting class is kind of rough (financially and logistically). Though there is total concealment it would leave you vulnerable to area of effect spells if people notice where the fireworks are coming from.Though, the long duration is a bonus because it would help it setting up ambushes.

2. Sneak attack very specifically can't work beyond 30ft. So i'm not really sure where you are getting the limitless range from. I'm sure there are some abilities that increase this range, but they should be included with future combos.

We are officially on the right track.

More like this please. Thanks.

Umm I'll start with #2... read the item from the APG that YOU were talking about. That's why I didn't mention it!

[b wrote:

Sniper Goggles[/b] from the APG]The leather strap attached to these bulbous lenses allows their wearer to fit them to his head. The wearer of these goggles can make ranged sneak attacks from any distance instead of the normal 30 feet. When making ranged sneak attacks within 30 feet, the wearer gains a +2 circumstance bonus on each sneak

attack damage die.

(bolding mine)

As to #1, it depends upon level. I mentioned a way that would work against true seeing so I'm certainly talking a higher level here where a 3rd level spell is not an issue. Specifically I would suggest an intelligent item that would drop it for you.

At lower levels there are all forms of concealment starting with those you find, to a smokestick (either you directly or done by an unseen servant), horn of fog, obscuring mist spell, etc.

There are many options for a rogue to do here, but again you need to come at it with an attitude that it can be done.

-James


the problem with smoke sticks is that the rogue has the same miss chance, and when the rogue has a miss chance he can't sneak attack...

a rouge sounds playable until you get into the details... that's where the rouge killing demon lives.


James - i had a dotard moment.

and though i pointed out problems i can see with the scenario, i still would like people to contribute more things like this. So that the rogue can have more of a fighting chance vs. non-believers like myself.

Bignorsewolf - not to get completely tangent'd but an animal companion does good damage, until it fights anything that has DR. Then a tiger companion is a bag of dicks, where a real character can just buy a magic/adamantine weapon.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

the problem with smoke sticks is that the rogue has the same miss chance, and when the rogue has a miss chance he can't sneak attack...

a rouge sounds playable until you get into the details... that's where the rouge killing demon lives.

There is a feat that overrides concealment (not total) for sneak attack so that isn't true. Shadow Strike.

Sit in the smoke, hide, when something comes withing five feet of you you still remain stealthed because you have 20% concealment.

Stab (most likely hit due to being flatfooted, only 20% miss chance. Which can be overrided through various means, even blind-fight would be awesome) for sneak attack damage, five foot step, stealth again.

That is a pretty simple thing you can do at second level using your Rogue Combat Talent.

Also this overrides scent as smoke constitutes as a powerful smell, so while you are in it you are as good as hiddent.

also if you pack a few thuderstones and some ear plugs for yourself, you can make casters less of a threat, reduce enemy perception, and thwart most other senses of creature (if it cant smell me, hear me, or see me what is it doing? feeling or tasting me? not likely unless tremorsense which isn't nearly as common as blindsight or sense)

provided they fail the foritude save against the thunderstone.

How is that for some viable rogue options at level 2?


Lyrax wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
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.

I was expecting a very specific build. I was familiar with that already.

In the end though, I don't think it invalidates anything I said since that is only one type of caster. It's a great choice if you are going to specialize though. I also agree that the diviner needed a boost. The only thing that made it worth specializing in before was that you only lost one school instead of two.

My point was that rogues generally go first and can deal some significant damage and/or effects because of that. I was picking on one specific type of "practically optimized" wizard that I have seen thrown around by a few people in other threads.


Midnightoker wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

the problem with smoke sticks is that the rogue has the same miss chance, and when the rogue has a miss chance he can't sneak attack...

a rouge sounds playable until you get into the details... that's where the rouge killing demon lives.

There is a feat that overrides concealment (not total) for sneak attack so that isn't true. Shadow Strike.

Sit in the smoke, hide, when something comes withing five feet of you you still remain stealthed because you have 20% concealment.

Stab (most likely hit due to being flatfooted, only 20% miss chance. Which can be overrided through various means, even blind-fight would be awesome) for sneak attack damage, five foot step, stealth again.

That is a pretty simple thing you can do at second level using your Rogue Combat Talent.

Also this overrides scent as smoke constitutes as a powerful smell, so while you are in it you are as good as hiddent.

also if you pack a few thuderstones and some ear plugs for yourself, you can make casters less of a threat, reduce enemy perception, and thwart most other senses of creature (if it cant smell me, hear me, or see me what is it doing? feeling or tasting me? not likely unless tremorsense which isn't nearly as common as blindsight or sense)

provided they fail the foritude save against the thunderstone.

How is that for some viable rogue options at level 2?

I'm not really that impressed by it. Looks like money attack to me. Spending a bunch of money to do on average 3 more damage. Money makes all characters better.


Every time someone tells me "the is the intelligent rogue talent you're not using it runs smack into a problem with the rules.

Quote:
There is a feat that overrides concealment (not total) for sneak attack so that isn't true. Shadow Strike.

With all the feats and talents the rogue needs you should have a viable character around level 16

Quote:
Sit in the smoke, hide, when something comes withing five feet of you you still remain stealthed because you have 20% concealment.

you need to 5 foot step away from them to stealth. they can 5 foot step away from you and hold an action and whack you when you whack them. Since you have to move 10 feet and then attacked you're out of actions. Then their action is set before yours and they full attack you, and you can't sneak attack them.

Quote:
Also this overrides scent as smoke constitutes as a powerful smell,

citation?

also if you pack a few thuderstones and some ear plugs for yourself, you can make casters less of a threat, reduce enemy perception, and thwart most other senses of creature (if it cant smell me, hear me, or see me what is it doing? feeling or tasting me? not likely unless tremorsense which isn't nearly as common as blindsight or sense)

provided they fail the foritude save against the thunderstone.

How is that for some viable rogue options at level 2?

horrible. your tricks and dancing around take longer than the fight.

r 1 thunderstone

r 2 smoke bomb

r 3 backstab and move

r 4 move, get whack, and backstab

r5 get full attacked, normal attack.

that's two effective rounds.

by the time you're ready to start backstabbing the wizard will have color sprayed everything and the fighter finished them off.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

the problem with smoke sticks is that the rogue has the same miss chance, and when the rogue has a miss chance he can't sneak attack...

While it's true if the rogue attacks something with concealment he can't normally sneak attack (though APG allows some exceptions to this), concealment is relative so its not always the same chance.

If you are at the edge of an obscuring mist then attacks against you enter into areas of the mist in order to hit all 4 corners of your square.

Meanwhile if you make a ranged attack to someone not in the mist you pick a corner of your square and draw a line from there. If the target is away from the mist then this line will go through no squares of the obscuring mist and hence get no concealment miss chance.

-James


Quote:


While it's true if the rogue attacks something with concealment he can't normally sneak attack (though APG allows some exceptions to this), concealment is relative so its not always the same chance.

If you are at the edge of an obscuring mist then attacks against you enter into areas of the mist in order to hit all 4 corners of your square.

Meanwhile if you make a ranged attack to someone not in the mist you pick a corner of your square and draw a line from there. If the target is away from the mist then this line will go through no squares of the obscuring mist and hence get no concealment miss chance.

if you are in the mist any corner you pick is going to be in the mist.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


if you are in the mist any corner you pick is going to be in the mist.

But the line you draw from it isn't going to go through any squares of the mist.. no concealment.

-James


james maissen wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


if you are in the mist any corner you pick is going to be in the mist.

But the line you draw from it isn't going to go through any squares of the mist.. no concealment.

-James

If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.

A line from your misty square passes through the border of the the square you're standing in, which is misty, hence there is concealment.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.

A line from your misty square passes through the border of the the square you're standing in, which is misty, hence there is concealment.

But it doesn't pass through any border which provides concealment. It might originate on a corner of a square that does but the line does not pass through such a square nor does the line pass through the border of such a square. Your mileage evidently varies.

-James


BigNorseWolf wrote:


With all the feats and talents the rogue needs you should have a viable character around level 16

Congratulations now I dont take you seriously because instead of admitting you missed something in the APG that describes a feat that does exactly what you said a rogue couldn't do (and it only requires a BAB of +1 so you could just as easily take it at level 3) you make a blatant remark with no backing that is very general bland and insulting to most players of the game.

Quote:


you need to 5 foot step away from them to stealth. they can 5 foot step away from you and hold an action and whack you when you whack them. Since you have to move 10 feet and then attacked you're out of actions. Then their action is set before yours and they full attack you, and you can't sneak attack them.

Unless of course they step forward to find you first and you attack when they pass by you? why on earth would I move closer to them when I could just as easily let them stay there and do something else? like move next to them stealthily and then attack next round and move back into concealment? I am so confused as to where you are making an argument.

Not to mention the factor of a surprise round (because they no longer have line of sight to me so thus if I am aware of them, and they not of me it goes to a surprise round) which means I attack, I attack again if I win initiative (good possibility) and then I swing.

Lastly casters are effectively useless in this scenario at that level because they dont have spells to get rid of the smoke yet and even so thats a wasted spell (which they most likely wouldnt have prepared) and I could drop another one in a second.

Quote:

citation?

This extraordinary ability lets a creature detect approaching enemies, sniff out hidden foes, and track by sense of smell.

A creature with the scent ability can detect opponents by sense of smell, generally within 30 feet. If the opponent is upwind, the range is 60 feet. If it is downwind, the range is 15 feet. Strong scents, such as smoke or rotting garbage, can be detected at twice the ranges noted above. Overpowering scents, such as skunk musk or troglodyte stench, can be detected at three times these ranges.

The creature detects another creature’s presence but not its specific location. Noting the direction of the scent is a move action. If the creature moves within 5 feet (1 square) of the scent’s source, the creature can pinpoint that source.

You are right it doesn't say that smoke overrides scent, but it says they use sense of smell. How is it logical to say that in a cloud of smoke they can smell anything other than the smoke?

You want to rule that fine, I wouldn't. Many DM's wouldn't.

Even so, I guess scent is just unstoppable. If not even smoke, you know a cloud of smoke, could stop scent from tracking you, even though dogs (with scent) cannot pin point anything within thirty feet with overpowering odors (I am not talking about tracking which requires a survival check, thus dogs trained to track can override this) but they cannot immediately pin point my location.

But if that is your logical argument, based on the rules, it doesnt say. The rest is viable against opponents without scent.

Quote:


horrible. your tricks and dancing around take longer than the fight.

r 1 thunderstone

r 2 smoke bomb

r 3 backstab and move

r 4 move, get whack, and backstab

r5 get full attacked, normal attack.

that's two effective rounds.

by the time you're ready to start backstabbing the wizard will have color sprayed everything and the fighter finished them off.

You said scouting doesn't work? well here is an instance when scouting could suck less, or give you a few rounds to mess with the guys while your fighters and wizards come over the hill readied, prepared, and full on to blow away whats left, taking minimal damage, using minimal resources, and being more effective.

So your argument of why a rogue is not going to be effective in these actions is because it leaves the other fighters, wizards, druids, and whatever nonesense with the ability to remain with less damage taken, forcing them into the smoke, and because the wizard will use his precious spells when you could just as easily defeat them with just a little help or disable them severly?

Sounds like you are just shooting down ideas with no real backing now man.

as for money factor, it costs 20 gp for a smoke stick, 20. an alchemist can make them for basically nothing, and even the rogue (with craft alchemy because hey he has all those damn skill points) could make them himself.

saying money makes everyone better isn't fair, where would a fighter be at 10th level without any money? where would a wizard be without stat boosters to up his spell saves and the like? and you are going to say my very cheap, makeable, homely smokesticks are "too expensive to be viable options"

Hardly considerable.


Under the track section for using scent. It is a stand alone sentence that is attached to the scent section.

If you want to interpret that as ONLY track that is your prerogative, but I think it should go without saying that it applies to scent in general. Especially because that statement doesn't specify anything other than POWERFUL ODORS (smoke) can EASILY mask other scents.

False, powerful odors can easily mask other scents.

YMMV


Midnightoker wrote:

Under the track section for using scent. It is a stand alone sentence that is attached to the scent section.

If you want to interpret that as ONLY track that is your prerogative, but I think it should go without saying that it applies to scent in general. Especially because that statement doesn't specify anything other than POWERFUL ODORS (smoke) can EASILY mask other scents.

False, powerful odors can easily mask other scents.

YMMV

Best case scent only pinpoints the square (and that's normally only when within 5') and there's a feat that makes you invisible to scent in the APG.

-James


james maissen wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.

A line from your misty square passes through the border of the the square you're standing in, which is misty, hence there is concealment.

But it doesn't pass through any border which provides concealment. It might originate on a corner of a square that does but the line does not pass through such a square nor does the line pass through the border of such a square. Your mileage evidently varies.

-James

Midnighttoker

its on the boarder. it has to pass through the border to go somewhere.

Quote:
Congratulations now I dont take you seriously

seriously, you're going to complain that I was rude to you, and then a few days later try THIS bunk? Come off it. You want respect try giving it.

So far i have people telling me that a par rouge can fast locate traps, quickly move in stealth, and now can see through concealment... you don't have any feats to let you HIT anything.

Quote:
like move next to them stealthily and then attack next round and move back into concealment?

because you can't. You fundamentally don't understand how stealth and movement work, and you're assuming that MANY dm calls are going to go your way, and that the rogue can be played intelligently but that the fighter and the monster can't. You cannot stealth right next to someone after attacking them with only 20% concealement. They can still see you. Secondly, once you attack someone they are no longer flat footed and not denied their dex.. you can't re sneak attack them just because you hid.

Quote:
How is it logical to say that in a cloud of smoke they can smell anything other than the smoke?

1)it depends on what the smoke is made out of 2) a canines sense of smell is absolutely amazing, and they actually LIKE strong odors like gasoline, cigarettes, and hiker that hasn't seen a shower in a week.I agree this is entirely dm's call but you can't rely on that for a raw discussion. Mechanically, if something doesn't say that it stops scent from working, it doesn;t.

the problem is that as soon as something scents you there is no surprise round. Its roll initiative.

Quote:
Sounds like you are just shooting down ideas with no real backing now man.

listen, i'm psyco, not psycic. I've argued against scouting and i;ve argued against the viability of a rogue working in a party. If you're presenting an argument and don't know what its for, don't insult me because i answer one and not the other.

The problem with scouting there should be obvious. You cannot do what you're suggesting against many opponents or multiple opponents. You do not automatically get a surprise round and you don't get initiative.

first of all, what is your second level rogue out scouting using for light? Doesn't matter how well you stealth you can't do it with a torch.

These are the cr 2 monsters

aurochs perception +9 ... about as high as your rogues stealth

bat swarm blind sense..., immune to sneak attacks... you're completely hosed

boar: scent

Bogard: hey, something you can kill

Bugbear scent, good perception... and hides as well as you do

cave fisher; nasty, nasty critter to get caught by alone.

cheeta: scent and trip. it will see your rogue comming knock him on his rear and dine on him.

choker: hides better than you do, but will probably pass right by you without being seen. if it grabs you, you can't call for help

constrictor snake: +12 perception (probably a little better than your stealth) , its stealth is as good as yours and it has constrict.

crocodile: grab, sprint, and a +8 perception.

dark creeper: casts darkness and then sees in it.

dire bat: blind sense.

... i don't think i'm unfounded here in thinking that a rogue scouting out ahead has a good chance of getting bushwacked.

Liberty's Edge

Have you people never heard of masking your scent? It's not that hard, and should fall under the purview of either stealth. Oh, look! We're already making stealth rolls! How handy is that?

Problem solved. Scent is not an "auto-succeed on a Perception check" ability. Nowhere in the description of Scent does it say that these creatures auto-succeed on Perception checks. It just says they have an alternate method of finding characters that would otherwise be unseen.

Same with Darkvision, Blindsight, Blindsense, Tremorsense, and other supernatural detection abilities. They can all be foiled by good stealth rolls. Many of them exist to foil invisibility, and they do that with varying degrees of effectiveness, but to my knowledge there is no ability that says "this creature automatically succeeds all Perception checks" at all. At least, not in Pathfinder.


Lyrax wrote:
Have you people never heard of masking your scent?

making yourself smell like something else is easy. making yourself smell like nothing is hard.

Quote:
It's not that hard, and should fall under the purview of either stealth. Oh, look! We're already making stealth rolls! How handy is that?

It does not do that by the raw.

Quote:
Problem solved. Scent is not an "auto-succeed on a Perception check" ability.

The creature detects another creature's presence but not its specific location. Noting the direction of the scent is a move action. If the creature moves within 5 feet (1 square) of the scent's source, the creature can pinpoint the area that the source occupies, even if it cannot be seen.

There is no roll. It detects the other creatures presence.

Quote:
Nowhere in the description of Scent does it say that these creatures auto-succeed on Perception checks.

nowhere in the description does it say if can be foiled with stealth, or that it requires a roll. the creature detects another creatures presence... no roll required.

Quote:
Same with Darkvision,

you need cover to hide. If your opponent has darkvision there are going to be times where you'd really like to stealth, but you can't because there's no cover.

Quote:
Blindsight, Blindsense, Tremorsense, and other supernatural detection abilities.

specifically say that they don't need to make perception checks to locate the creature, they in fact call the creature pinpointed.

Quote:
They can all be foiled by good stealth rolls.

no. they cannot. if you need to change the rules (and that is what you're doing) to make rogues usable its an indication that the rogue is not usable with the game as it is.

Quote:
Many of them exist to foil invisibility, and they do that with varying degrees of effectiveness, but to my knowledge there is no ability that says "this creature automatically succeeds all Perception checks" at all. At least, not in Pathfinder.

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.

-it doesn't need to make the check, it notices you.

This makes invisibility and concealment (even magical darkness) irrelevant to the creature
if you can't hide from the thing while invisible how on earth are you hiding from it?


BigNorseWolf wrote:


its on the boarder. it has to pass through the border to go somewhere.

No, it doesn't. It does not enter the border and travel along it, thus it doesn't pass through it.

What the line does is intersect the corner of a square with concealment which is a different thing. Its close to the other but not the same.

Pass through means has at least one point in the interior, not the end points.

You may consider my reading wrong, but at least its more consistent with the difference between ranged and adjacent melee attacks this way. If the rogue were on the edge of the obscuring mist making a melee attack out of it you have to admit that there would be no concealment. It makes sense that line of sight would not have concealment from there on as its certainly unobstructed after there. Given the choice between two readings I'll go with what's consistent. To each their own,

-James


.
..
...
....
.....

*raises an iron fist from a pile of marking*

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lyrax wrote:
Have you people never heard of masking your scent?
making yourself smell like something else is easy. making yourself smell like nothing is hard.

LIES! Not hard* (Negate Aroma)

Spoiler:
*for a given value of 'hard'...

*shakes overworked fist*

Liberty's Edge

Lyrax wrote:

Have you people never heard of masking your scent? It's not that hard, and should fall under the purview of either stealth. Oh, look! We're already making stealth rolls! How handy is that?

Problem solved. Scent is not an "auto-succeed on a Perception check" ability. Nowhere in the description of Scent does it say that these creatures auto-succeed on Perception checks. It just says they have an alternate method of finding characters that would otherwise be unseen.

Same with Darkvision, Blindsight, Blindsense, Tremorsense, and other supernatural detection abilities. They can all be foiled by good stealth rolls. Many of them exist to foil invisibility, and they do that with varying degrees of effectiveness, but to my knowledge there is no ability that says "this creature automatically succeeds all Perception checks" at all. At least, not in Pathfinder.

They actually had "covering your scent" on Mythbusters. They were not able to stop a Bloodhound from finding them.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
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

You have said a lot of sensible things but that is not one of them.

A smart scout does not go close unless he has a reasonably safe escape route, such that even if he is spotted he won't be squished.
If the situation is such that you have to get close before you can see what is there then you should use a class better suited for blundering in, such as a barbarian.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

We probably could have saved a lot of time and grief if the first response to the OP had been simply...

"No."

If you come in with the mindset that the Rogue is a fail class, it's going to be a waste of time to try to argue otherwise. Because to many people "Fail" is coming in at #2 at whatever race they're fixated on.

Liberty's Edge

The thread title itself is inflammatory. It like the "what are the worst things in pathfinder", just begging for bitter arguments. If someone's goal is to find the worst things in something, then that is all they will find. a very negative approach.


More or less this began as a troll vs. possibility of being proven wrong post. I knew it was "inflammatory", but thought that perhaps given the number of fanboys someone would be able to show rogues as a working class. There has been some productivity in that direction. But there has also been a lot of useless bickering, mostly about crap that doesn't really matter, or about people who think they are the king of RP, insisting that if you simply believe a class is good it will be.

I am much happier about people who have brought to light things like the hut + goggles, the sword of subtlety, and gang up. Though these were things that i had run across, i never took the time to fully examine them until people posted them here. Hopefully, people have a few more tricks that use rogue specific items and abilities to explain the functionality of a class that is under par in terms of the pathfinder scale.


SpaceChomp wrote:

Hopefully, people have a few more tricks that use rogue specific items and abilities to explain the functionality of a class that is under par in terms of the pathfinder scale.

I disagree with this evaluation.

Many people want rogues to be fighters, and they are not.

Many groups neither present moments for the rogue to shine (such as if your traps are inconsequential as opposed to more reasonably done) nor allow for a rogue to realize their potential (use of subtlety, allowing smart scouting, etc).

It would be akin to playing a face in a game where the PCs never talked to the NPCs and then claiming that taking face skills was a trap.

It's not the rogue class that people really have the problem with, but rather the rogue mentality doesn't fit their style of play.

If you don't believe in skirmishing then classes designed to do so aren't going to seem right to you.

-James


BenignFacist wrote:

.

..
...
....
.....

*raises an iron fist from a pile of marking*

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lyrax wrote:
Have you people never heard of masking your scent?
making yourself smell like something else is easy. making yourself smell like nothing is hard.

LIES! Not hard* (Negate Aroma)

** spoiler omitted **

*shakes overworked fist*

Nice. :)


james maissen wrote:
SpaceChomp wrote:

Hopefully, people have a few more tricks that use rogue specific items and abilities to explain the functionality of a class that is under par in terms of the pathfinder scale.

I disagree with this evaluation.

Many people want rogues to be fighters, and they are not.

Many groups neither present moments for the rogue to shine (such as if your traps are inconsequential as opposed to more reasonably done) nor allow for a rogue to realize their potential (use of subtlety, allowing smart scouting, etc).

It would be akin to playing a face in a game where the PCs never talked to the NPCs and then claiming that taking face skills was a trap.

It's not the rogue class that people really have the problem with, but rather the rogue mentality doesn't fit their style of play.

If you don't believe in skirmishing then classes designed to do so aren't going to seem right to you.

-James

I'm going to have to disagree with you. I don't need my rogue to be a fighter, i argue with the people here because that's the way that they like to present them. My real problem is that rogue's don't have anything unique that makes them better at doing the things you're talking about them being able to do. Rogues have nothing that let them outshine a bard in skills, while bards have the same BA but also have spells and songs which make them the best support in the game. Rangers are a better class at doing scouting missions. Rogues just don't really have a place to shine, unless your campaigns are full of 75% traps for each encounter.


SpaceChomp wrote:
Rangers are a better class at doing scouting missions. Rogues just don't really have a place to shine, unless your campaigns are full of 75% traps for each encounter.

How is a ranger a better class at scouting?

The campaign doesn't need a ton of traps in each encounter, rather it just needs reasonable enemies that can make use of traps.

-James


SpaceChomp wrote:
james maissen wrote:
SpaceChomp wrote:

Hopefully, people have a few more tricks that use rogue specific items and abilities to explain the functionality of a class that is under par in terms of the pathfinder scale.

I disagree with this evaluation.

Many people want rogues to be fighters, and they are not.

Many groups neither present moments for the rogue to shine (such as if your traps are inconsequential as opposed to more reasonably done) nor allow for a rogue to realize their potential (use of subtlety, allowing smart scouting, etc).

It would be akin to playing a face in a game where the PCs never talked to the NPCs and then claiming that taking face skills was a trap.

It's not the rogue class that people really have the problem with, but rather the rogue mentality doesn't fit their style of play.

If you don't believe in skirmishing then classes designed to do so aren't going to seem right to you.

-James

Rogues have nothing that let them outshine a bard in skills, while bards have the same BA but also have spells and songs which make them the best support in the game. Rangers are a better class at doing scouting missions. Rogues just don't really have a place to shine, unless your campaigns are full of 75% traps for each encounter.

Why do you need to be the best at something. They are good scouts, good at skills, decent at combat. It not like they don't contribute.

They can easily be the 2nd best damage dealer*, normally the best with skills(depending on build), good at scouting, traps of course.

So you have a guy that does good damage, and can handle a variety of situations without needing magic. The ranger has a decent skill set, but it is mostly limited to natural settings. The bard's are mostly social.

*Normally the 2nd best damage dealer is no slouch. YMMV
PS:They might be the best damage dealer in some parties.


I'm going to agree with what was said a few hundred posts ago. The change in how cross-class skills work really stole the rogue's thunder.

I like the PF skill system better, but it makes the rogue less special, since Sir Clanks-a-lot can now disable devices and use magic devices fairly well, if he wants to.

In 3.5, there were lots of skills that you would never consider cross-classing, and most characters didn't do it very often. 1/2 a point per level made it too costly. It was only worth it if you were trying to qualify for a prestige class (and lots of people were).

The rogue was cool because there were few, if any, skills he would ever want to cross-class, and skill synergies just sweetened the deal.

Now, taking a rank in stealth gets you a full point to both hide and move silently. A rank in perception lets you spot and listen. The rogue just isn't as needed because even the cleric can spot the baddies fairly well, compared to 3.5.

The PF rogue is the best rogue yet, and the streamlined skills give him more options, but he's just not as exceptional as he used to be, since he doesn't have a lock on all the skills nobody else could ever be good at.


Benicio Del Espada wrote:

I'm going to agree with what was said a few hundred posts ago. The change in how cross-class skills work really stole the rogue's thunder.

I like the PF skill system better, but it makes the rogue less special, since Sir Clanks-a-lot can now disable devices and use magic devices fairly well, if he wants to.

In 3.5, there were lots of skills that you would never consider cross-classing, and most characters didn't do it very often. 1/2 a point per level made it too costly. It was only worth it if you were trying to qualify for a prestige class (and lots of people were).

The rogue was cool because there were few, if any, skills he would ever want to cross-class, and skill synergies just sweetened the deal.

......

True, the skills system does allow other classes to invade the rogue's territory. I think they should have gotten something to compensate, but I don't think anyone really noticed it during beta testing.


james maissen wrote:
SpaceChomp wrote:
Rangers are a better class at doing scouting missions. Rogues just don't really have a place to shine, unless your campaigns are full of 75% traps for each encounter.

How is a ranger a better class at scouting?

The campaign doesn't need a ton of traps in each encounter, rather it just needs reasonable enemies that can make use of traps.

-James

They are just as good at stealth, and even better at stealth than rogues at higher levels. They get favored terrains which can be sweeping catagories like "urban" or "forests" which give them further bonii to skills to identify, elude and evaluate potential enemies (also favored enemy helps in this). They get full BA which means by nature they are better archers, and as well can get archer feats for free if you choose that path.

I refer to scouts as archers because there are three types of scouts, those that run away, those that shoot from a distance and dead ones.

Add to this that they can have with them a wolf of jaguar that can also be good at stealth/perception and do a decent amount of damage and you have what is the ultimate scout. Unless you're going to bring up stealthing at full speed (which any ranger can do for the low low cost of 2 rogue levels) there are literally no advantages for a rogue over a ranger in the scouting department. Did i also mention that rangers get spells that help to facilitate the situation for free? Not things that they have to hope a wizard has prepared to sell/steal? Do you see what i'm talking about yet?

I agree that the PF rogue is better than the traditional 3.0 rogue, but while most of the other classes were streamlined into something that is potentially useful (debatable about the monk) for 20 levels, rogues are to me the new 3.0 fighter. Meaning that there is no reason to not multiclass out of it.


SpaceChomp wrote:
james maissen wrote:
SpaceChomp wrote:
Rangers are a better class at doing scouting missions. Rogues just don't really have a place to shine, unless your campaigns are full of 75% traps for each encounter.

How is a ranger a better class at scouting?

The campaign doesn't need a ton of traps in each encounter, rather it just needs reasonable enemies that can make use of traps.

-James

They are just as good at stealth, and even better at stealth than rogues at higher levels. They get favored terrains which can be sweeping catagories like "urban" or "forests" which give them further bonii to skills to identify, elude and evaluate potential enemies (also favored enemy helps in this). They get full BA which means by nature they are better archers, and as well can get archer feats for free if you choose that path.

I refer to scouts as archers because there are three types of scouts, those that run away, those that shoot from a distance and dead ones.

Add to this that they can have with them a wolf of jaguar that can also be good at stealth/perception and do a decent amount of damage and you have what is the ultimate scout. Unless you're going to bring up stealthing at full speed (which any ranger can do for the low low cost of 2 rogue levels) there are literally no advantages for a rogue over a ranger in the scouting department. Did i also mention that rangers get spells that help to facilitate the situation for free? Not things that they have to hope a wizard has prepared to sell/steal? Do you see what i'm talking about yet?

I agree that the PF rogue is better than the traditional 3.0 rogue, but while most of the other classes were streamlined into something that is potentially useful (debatable about the monk) for 20 levels, rogues are to me the new 3.0 fighter. Meaning that there is no reason to not multiclass out of it.

If the ranger is going to multiclass into rogue then it kind of muddies the water, unless the rogue is going to MC into another class to get advantages also. That animal companion is not going to be competing with any serious scouter. Maybe if it is a flying animal in certain situations, but only because nobody pay attention to flying animals without serious metagaming going on.

551 to 600 of 1,387 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Can anyone show me how Rogues are not the worst class in Pathfinder? All Messageboards