-2 in PF is nothing, as you yourself indirectly point out, overcomable just by shinier tools, or by a feat, or by a 2nd level spell or by just 2 ranks in a skill. Make it -10 and then you have a serious and probably more realistic penalty. Even then, it could be overcome in PF because of the near infinite number of ways to get bonuses.
-10 would be if i had polymorphed myself into a cow. That's worse than the penalty for trying to swim in a suit of full plate
Raccoons and squirrels (and I would add otters, mice and a few other rodents, and I'm sure some I haven't thought of) are indeed a tricky bunch, very dextrous as far as animals go, but not quite as good as monkeys and other primates. Great at emptying the birdfeeder. Not so much at using (or even holding) tools.
But is that because the brain isn't there or there's something about the hand?
-anyway, the druid was a related topic, this is waaaay afield of the original discussion.
Let me start by quibbling as you call it.. you don't have freedom of movement.Freedom of Movement
School abjuration; Level bard 4, cleric 4, druid 4 , ranger 4
That's nice and all, but since you don't have it memorized (having instead a pair of dispel magics and I forget what else, you don't have it.
-James
Whatever. Do you have any legitimate reasons for why the druid's escape ability is less than the presented rogues, or even bad?
I hate when my posts get ignored by the pro-rogue people... but on the topic of freedom of movement, considering it isn't an emergency spell, as long as the druid wasn't spotted (highly likely) he can turn around and tell the party that the spells needed for the job won't be available for a day. My party goes and waits a day all the time if we run into an obstacle that can be more easily solved by spell that will be available in 10 hours (assuming half the day has gone by) not a big deal. Not like your rogue ever has freedom of movement so your point is just a shot at the druid anyway
Even the other rogue admitted the druid has a better ability to disengage. I can't see your opinion being anything but horribly biased.
Other Rogue missed a couple of tricks you can do if that's your play style. Few of them open to anyone (spring attack, etc), but my personal favorite is the talent that allows you to sneak attack someone then make an immediate withdrawl action to get out of combat free.
Thing is, I like Druids, have played them more than any other class, so I'm not going to sit here and argue against them. However, I will happily state that every single good group I've adventured with had one thing in common.
A Rogue.
I think folks are making a mistake when judging the combat prowess of the rogue class and are making builds that emphasis dexterity and weapon finesse.
You don't see a lot of fighters build out that way and there is a good reason for it, you loose out on a lot of extra damage and potential attack value.
For dex you just want to hit the minimum necessary for TWF feats and then crank out as much strength as you can muster, ditch weapon finesse for a feat that adds damage or accuracy and focus on deviling multiple nasty blows including sneak attack damage.
Taking a fighter level is probably wise so you get better weapon and armor selection as well as an extra feat to amp damage with.
Skills... ya, whatever, just take what you have points for and don't sweat it. Even if you dump stat Int you are still have more skills than most warriors will.
To make build you really have to try and throw away preconceived notions about how classes are supposed to work and just look at their class abilities and think, what can I do to make that work for me? 1d6 sneak attack is like an extra 6-8pts of strength on a one handed weapon, what other class gets that every 2 levels?
For dex you just want to hit the minimum necessary for TWF feats and then crank out as much strength as you can muster, ditch weapon finesse for a feat that adds damage or accuracy and focus on deviling multiple nasty blows including sneak attack damage.
I've recently discovered Rogues with beefy strength and a big weapon - ie Half Orc with a Great Axe. I feel...dirty...and naughty...but I'm liking it.
Then you need to rethink your groups. Flanking is a MUST. In the 4 APs and the mods and the PFS scenarios, flanking has more often than not saved the party. All across the board, from low level to mid level to high level. Without the flanking there were several encounters that would have resulted in a TPK.Looking at combat, the rogue is very well off as well. He has sneak attack to boost his damage, which is a lot of power. You only need to flank somebody to get this bonus, meaning have some basic tactics in the group. Your base attack isn't bad either, I see too many people complaining about the rogue/priest base attack all over the forums.It might be different in other groups but I don't see flanking happening all that often in the ones I've been with.
Flanking is extremely necessary but you can't rely on something that requires action on someone else, as I said before, one of the major gripes with the rogue is dependence on others.
Although a half-orc Rogue with toothy and two levels of alchemist or barbarian (for feral mutagen or the beast totem) would actually solve a lot of problems. No penalties to any of the rogues three natural attacks, no need for a really high dex just for TWF, any flaws I am missing or could this actually work out? Sure you are no longer straight rogue, but the rogue just plain needs the help
I hate when my posts get ignored by the pro-rogue people... but on the topic of freedom of movement, considering it isn't an emergency spell, as long as the druid wasn't spotted (highly likely) he can turn around and tell the party that the spells needed for the job won't be available for a day. My party goes and waits a day all the time if we run into an obstacle that can be more easily solved by spell that will be available in 10 hours (assuming half the day has gone by) not a big deal. Not like your rogue ever has freedom of movement so your point is just a shot at the druid anyway
If you have 24 hours to prepare, then the information your scout has gathered is most likely out dated already. There are times when the information is still useful but the enemy isn't going to just wait to be slaughtered by a bunch of PCs.
Even the other rogue admitted the druid has a better ability to disengage. I can't see your opinion being anything but horribly biased.
Other Rogue missed a couple of tricks you can do if that's your play style. Few of them open to anyone (spring attack, etc), but my personal favorite is the talent that allows you to sneak attack someone then make an immediate withdrawl action to get out of combat free.
Thing is, I like Druids, have played them more than any other class, so I'm not going to sit here and argue against them. However, I will happily state that every single good group I've adventured with had one thing in common.
A Rogue.
I didn't miss the tricks. I could only do so much especially at level 5. The rogue I built does have his limitations. He would need to lay low and play smart to survive. I am making some adjustments so that he can be even more effective as a scout. He will be useful in the wilderness in any environment, underground, and even in cities. I don't have to address his combat ability at all to pull this off. It will be a day or so before I can post it because I'm working on a dozen other things that are more pressing.
If you have 24 hours to prepare, then the information your scout has gathered is most likely out dated already. There are times when the information is still useful but the enemy isn't going to just wait to be slaughtered by a bunch of PCs.
Usually the spell needed is more utility focused and being directed at the task at hand, like needing spider climb when near a mountain without a ground level entrance. The real point is the rogue will never have either of these abilities while the druid may have either at any given time, it may or may not be their when they need it but for the rogue it is a 100% chance it will not be.
Usually the spell needed is more utility focused and being directed at the task at hand, like needing spider climb when near a mountain without a ground level entrance. The real point is the rogue will never have either of these abilities while the druid may have either at any given time, it may or may not be their when they need it but for the rogue it is a 100% chance it will not be.
If you have 24 hours to prepare, then the information your scout has gathered is most likely out dated already. There are times when the information is still useful but the enemy isn't going to just wait to be slaughtered by a bunch of PCs.
Spider climb is good but if there is a way to climb without having to waste a spell? This is where the fighter, barbarian, monk, and rogue can be very useful. Using ropes, pitons, and Aid Another, they can certainly help the party get up that mountain while the druid, cleric, wizard, etc all have more useful spells prepared. No need to use resources that are already covered.
What about the times when the scout encounters creatures? Do you want to take the 24 hours to prep for them? The purpose of the scout is to do more than look for difficult terrain. If that's all he needed to do, then the flying familiars would be a far better choice.
Yeah considering a 120ft climb requires 4 climb checks minimum for everyone, failing one or two is almost definite and 120ft is low. That's killed more then one of my party members before. In my experience it saves the hassle of using even more spells to cure falling damage
The scout should always have creature preparations and forgoes utility until the scouting is finished (minus the utilities that keep you from being detected but I counted those in creature prep)
Edit: I feel it is also important to mention that the druid may or may not be prepared depending on strange circumstance the rogue either fares no better or worse. Which is the crux of this discussion because it is supposed to be what they are designed to do
Yeah considering a 120ft climb requires 4 climb checks minimum for everyone, failing one or two is almost definite and 120ft is low. That's killed more then one of my party members before. In my experience it saves the hassle of using even more spells to cure falling damage
The scout should always have creature preparations and forgoes utility until the scouting is finished (minus the utilities that keep you from being detected but I counted those in creature prep)
Edit: I feel it is also important to mention that the druid may or may not be prepared depending on strange circumstance the rogue either fares no better or worse. Which is the crux of this discussion because it is supposed to be what they are designed to do
Please explain what you are trying to climb that is going to require 120ft of climbing to be succesful in a scouting attempt and on top of that how high is the check? why isn't he using say a rope or a grappling hook?
spider climb might be nice but it certainly isnt necessary for scouting, I dont have to be 120 ft up in a tree to be out of melee range.
that was the point of the climbing.
So I'm thinking the Druid is a great and diverse class, maybe we can make a Fighter Breaker or Ranger Breaker out of it too?
Then we could have two more 'worst class' threads :p
Yeah considering a 120ft climb requires 4 climb checks minimum for everyone, failing one or two is almost definite and 120ft is low. That's killed more then one of my party members before. In my experience it saves the hassle of using even more spells to cure falling damage
The scout should always have creature preparations and forgoes utility until the scouting is finished (minus the utilities that keep you from being detected but I counted those in creature prep)
Edit: I feel it is also important to mention that the druid may or may not be prepared depending on strange circumstance the rogue either fares no better or worse. Which is the crux of this discussion because it is supposed to be what they are designed to do
DC 15: Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands. Or Make Your Own Handholds and Footholds: You can make your own handholds and footholds by pounding pitons into a wall. Doing so takes 1 minute per piton, and one piton is needed per 5 feet of distance. As with any surface that offers handholds and footholds, a wall with pitons in it has a DC of 15. In the same way, a climber with a handaxe or similar implement can cut handholds in an ice wall.
Characters that have decent Strength scores should already be able to handle that. Monks, rogues, rangers, fighters, barbarians, all have climb as class skills. If they put 5 ranks in Climb and have a Strength of 14, they start with a +5 (base) +3 (class skill) +2 (Strength) +2 (climbing kit containing pitons) = +12. They can take 10 on the check but even if not, they still have a 90% chance of success for each check.
What about the ones without any ranks in Climb? Base 10 Strength = +0. Two characters use Aid Another = +4. Climbing Kit = +2 more. That gives a total of +6 to the check. By Taking 10, they will auto succeed. No magic needed. Only two characters with Climbing kits, a few ranks, and the desire to Aid their companions.
As for who is prepared and who isn't, that's what the job of the scout is all about. It's to help the party be prepared. The scout gives information back to the party. The ranger, druid, cleric, or wizard figures out what they are up against and assess the resources. The fighter, barbarian, paladin, and ranger come up with tactics and strategies to overcome the potential battle. Sometimes you don't have what's needed. That's where getting creative helps. "If only I had a holocaust cloak..."
So I'm thinking the Druid is a great and diverse class, maybe we can make a Fighter Breaker or Ranger Breaker out of it too?
Then we could have two more 'worst class' threads :p
Crank it!
have missletoe will travel.
So I'm thinking the Druid is a great and diverse class, maybe we can make a Fighter Breaker or Ranger Breaker out of it too?
Then we could have two more 'worst class' threads :p
This thread has not deteriorated like many of the others. I don't think we need another one of those right now.
I do think the druid is a great and diverse class. I just don't think that any class can take on the role of another completely and remain versatile. For every ability/spell a character takes to be a better fighter, scout, archer, etc, it's something they aren't taking to be better at what they should be better at in the first place. They are trying to take on too many roles. The druid can fill in as a scout but I think his strengths lie elsewhere. He is taking on a secondary role when he could take on a primary role and fill it better.
So I'm thinking the Druid is a great and diverse class, maybe we can make a Fighter Breaker or Ranger Breaker out of it too?
Then we could have two more 'worst class' threads :p
No other class will have armor training and 20 feats and no class will have favored enemies and terrains or skip any pre-reqs the ranger can for a diverse amount of styles, so no they can't be replaced
The rogue lacks class abilities that allow it to stand out and that is what this thread was originally about. I believe Bob_Loblaw is doing a good job of civilly arguing his points and comments like yours can drag a thread down. please no trolling whether intentional or not
...
About the climbing I wasn't referring to any climbing related to scouting (the druid can fly, what use could that possibly be?) it was more a general example of something that was a little off topic. As for the climbing gear I have never bothered to take the time required to use those things so never purchase them, sitting on a wall is not somewhere I want my enemies to find me.
Back on topic, I am glad you brought up that the scouting is being used as a secondary role for the druid when he could have a better primary role, because due to lack of any special abilities on the rogues part the druid can fill the primary role of the rogue as good as a rogue and it isn't even his strength. If scouting and hiding really are what make a rogue useful then being as good as another classes secondary role does not really cut it.
Especially if compared to a ranger which has a plethora of other abilities plus everything the rogue gets. All the rogue seems to have is trapfinding that makes them unique. The original poster was trying to figure out if this was really the case (albeit horrible word choice for a thread title). Being good at skills is something any class can do if they focus on it and the rogue is a class who is good at skills and has to focus to be good at anything else
No other class will have armor training and 20 featsAt the risk of mentioning wacky 3.5 stuff, the UA rogue gave up sneak attacks for the fighter's FBF. If you take feats as advanced talents, that brings the total to 26.
8 skill points, decent base attack, evasion, improved uncanny dodge, plus a plethora of left over talents and 26 feats?
versus a fighters (less feats) weapon training, armor training, 2 skill points, little better BAB, and on average 1 more hitpoint...
not a fair trade in my opinion but I could see otherwise for some people
I do think the druid is a great and diverse class. I just don't think that any class can take on the role of another completely and remain versatile.
The druid can scout at least as well as your character (which was the point), is only slightly worse with traps, has decent combat potential on his own, better saves, and on top of that comes with an animal companion with more DPR, hit points, and better saves than the rogue.
In order to get your character up to those levels, you had to burn talents and feats. When you were done you had very few options and abilities to turn to combat, because with a rogue you truley are picking one or the other. Rouges NEED to burn their feats in combat abilities in order to be effective.
yes, i had to burn more feats to reach those levels... but the point isn't what you SPEND. The point is what you have left. Even spending or giving away every optional ability offered to every character (except 1 feat that went to wild shape) the abilities that just fall into a druids lap (wildshaping, spells, animal companion) are more than enough to do the job if you know what you're doing with them.
The entire point is that the druid starts with so much more that they can afford to blow feats left and right on things outside their normal sphere of influence to match a rouge in one area and STILL have enough left over to contribute in other areas. He's a first rate scout, different but on par with yours: He's also a second rate spell caster, second rate healer, first rate utility specialist, and comes with a first rate DPR tank as the cherry on top.
So no.. i don't think the problem is that my group is unusual, or that i just don't get the game, or that I'm not playing the rogue intelligently enough.
For every ability/spell a character takes to be a better fighter, scout, archer, etc, it's something they aren't taking to be better at what they should be better at in the first place. They are trying to take on too many roles.
What the character should be good at is what the player wants to play. If the player wants a scout then they should take the character thats the best all around scout that they can, but should realize that they have to make concessions for the fact that in this game eventually you need to fight, you need to survive those fights, and that at some point the dice will turn on you.
The argument that players are "Wasting" spells is ridiculous. Those spells wouldn't be there in the first place if the person had decided to play a rogue. The spells aren't being wasted, they're being used in pursuit of the player goals, and that's what they're for. Just because the player is reaching that goal in a manner that isn't consistent with stereotypical paradigms about class roles does not mean that they're doing it wrong. If a druid gets 10 spells and uses 5 to emulate a rogue perfectly the party (and the player) is still UP 5 spells, NOT down 5 spells.
The druid can fill in as a scout but I think his strengths lie elsewhere. He is taking on a secondary role when he could take on a primary role and fill it better.
The problem isn't what role "the druid" is filling. The problem is how well "Steve" or "John" or "Mary" are fulfilling their role. I think I've shown that they could be playing a first class scout AND still bring a heap of other abilities to table and do it without gimping their saving throws.
...About the climbing I wasn't referring to any climbing related to scouting (the druid can fly, what use could that possibly be?) it was more a general example of something that was a little off topic. As for the climbing gear I have never bothered to take the time required to use those things so never purchase them, sitting on a wall is not somewhere I want my enemies to find me.
Flight is great and should never be overlooked in these discussions. Once the druid can fly, it is much easier to scout without being spotted because he doesn't even need to stealth anymore. Just looking like a blue bird can be enough to get you close to the enemy or around the areas quickly. Flight has huge advantages that can't be overcome with skill checks. Yes, I can sneak around and even get pretty close. There are places I can't go at the same rate the druid can. Wild shape isn't just more forms of movement, it's also a near perfect disguise too.
Back on topic, I am glad you brought up that the scouting is being used as a secondary role for the druid when he could have a better primary role, because due to lack of any special abilities on the rogues part the druid can fill the primary role of the rogue as good as a rogue and it isn't even his strength. If scouting and hiding really are what make a rogue useful then being as good as another classes secondary role does not really cut it.
Keep in mind that I'm not saying scouting is a secondary role. Scouting for the druid is a secondary role. I think that this conversation would work better if we defined what we think a scout should be able to accomplish.
Especially if compared to a ranger which has a plethora of other abilities plus everything the rogue gets. All the rogue seems to have is trapfinding that makes them unique. The original poster was trying to figure out if this was really the case (albeit horrible word choice for a thread title). Being good at skills is something any class can do if they focus on it and the rogue is a class who is good at skills and has to focus to be good at anything else
The ranger makes a great scout and in many circumstances will be a better scout than the rogue especially when his favored enemy is around. The rogue makes a great scout but is limited in many ways. The rogue is a very good scout overall and can maintain his combat advantages against most enemies. The ranger can outshine him in his favored terrain and against his favored enemies. The ranger can use his animal companion or his skill bonuses to help the party more than the rogue can.
The rogue does well when he needs to be sneaky. Scouting is a sneaky job. That's why people assume the rogue would be a good scout. The rogue can make a good scout in a wider variety of locations. He can also work with other scouts to form a very lethal scouting team.
Flight is great and should never be overlooked in these discussions. Once the druid can fly, it is much easier to scout without being spotted because he doesn't even need to stealth anymore. Just looking like a blue bird can be enough to get you close to the enemy or around the areas quickly. Flight has huge advantages that can't be overcome with skill checks. Yes, I can sneak around and even get pretty close. There are places I can't go at the same rate the druid can. Wild shape isn't just more forms of movement, it's also a near perfect disguise too.The ranger makes a great scout and in many circumstances will be a better scout than the rogue especially when his favored enemy is around. The rogue makes a great scout but is limited in many ways. The rogue is a very good scout overall and can maintain his combat advantages against most enemies. The ranger can outshine him in his favored terrain and against his favored enemies. The ranger can use his animal companion or his skill bonuses to help the party more than the rogue can.
The rogue does well when he needs to be sneaky. Scouting is a sneaky job. That's why people assume the rogue would be a good scout. The rogue can make a good scout in a wider variety of locations. He can also work with other scouts to form a very lethal scouting team.
Read this (you wrote it, I know, I am not trying to be snide about it, sorry in advance if it reads that way) now tell me what it is that makes a rogue worth taking over a ranger or druid? what does it bring to the table that is unique?
The rogue lacks class abilities that allow it to stand out and that is what this thread was originally about. I believe Bob_Loblaw is doing a good job of civilly arguing his points and comments like yours can drag a thread down. please no trolling whether intentional or not
Oh I see, as long as you believe you are in the right, then its a 'sensible debate', but if someone has a contra point of view, then they are 'trolling'.
Sorry, but I've already been in the constructive part of this debate, and was not (in the end) satisfied that the Rogue could be readily replaced.
Yes I believe that BNW has put up a valiant and quite meritous case for how a Druid can also cover being a scout/trapspotter in some settings, however I'm just not convinced its as universally as good as a dedicated rogue.
The point being that between a Druid and its pet, we can bend the Druid class to fill ametric payload of roles, and some of those they do even better than they do as a 'default rogue'.
The rogue will work out of the box from L1, rogue replacements wont be ready for some time into your campaign... kida important to consider.
Are you sure you aren't a paladin fan? You appear to be on a very high horse...
Yes I believe that BNW has put up a valiant and quite meritous case for how a Druid can also cover being a scout/trapspotter
Danke. Most of the reason i had to raid Jurassic park was to keep up the requirement with not slowing the party down. Most rogues don't end up taking the talents that let them do that, which for comparison shopping would let the druid work elsewhere.
I'd like to see a strength built rogue go head to head against old lace in dpr. Would be interesting.
in some settings, however I'm just not convinced its as universally as good as a dedicated rogue.
Its not like i was relying on any of the druids advantages in terrain. The mechanics for stealth are the same in the forest, urban, or cavern environment, and someone seeing a mouse in a building (given medival building conditions) would say "Ahhhh! a mouse! get the broom!" not "aaaahhh! adventurers! get the guards!"
I'm sort of at a disadvantage trying to build 1 druid against EVERYONE's concept of the perfect rogue. Some people value more combat, some people need fast trap finding and fast stealth, some people need just one or the other. I think the druid, while farm from optimized, is still playable AND he's keeping up with a rogue who is too specialized to survive very long.
The rogue will work out of the box from L1, rogue replacements wont be ready for some time into your campaign... kida important to consider.
The rogue doesn't get any better at starting traps till level 2 at the earliest. Its not that long till level 4 when the druid can pick up the pace. Even then, the druid can probably play polish mine detector, walk into the traps, and heal himself of the damage.
The circumstances where the rogue is better is when you have a lit area with lots of traps that are either very lethal or alert dangerous foes AND you need to move quickly. I just can't see that confluence of events being common enough to throw any advantage to the rogue.
It seems like the rogue people are advocating for is "fighting the last war" instead of this one: its focus is on lots and lots of lethal traps that will kill you all dead!... those traps haven't existed since 2e.
Just as well??? How many and what spells is Mr. Wizard going to burn in order to do so? Because outside of spells, no standard magic item can replace what the rogue does in trapfinding and disarming. And even the spells themselves are limited in what they can accomplish.
Detect Magic, Unseen Servant up to Summon Monster and you're fine.
And if you actually look up the Damage that CR appropiate Traps do, you will notice that they are more a nuisance than a threat.
But, of course, if you got a GM who is bend on killing the party with CR inappropiate traps that are a staple in each and every corridor of a dungeon and hard as hell to detect you might need a Rogue - or you can leave such an a**-hat GM to his own devices.
People haven't really had decent experiences with either decent rogues or DMs that use traps as more than wandering monsters. Thus they form bad impressions as to each of their places in a campaign.
A "decent" rogue is something played by a "decent" player which could most likely also play a "decent" Wizard/Druid or whatnot - thus helping the party about 100% more because the Rogue class is mechanically weak.
Using traps more than monsters may be a certain GMs style, but notice that I said "unless you have an GM who...".
Still, I think that the Wizard/Druid can usually outperform the Rogue so much, that even in an environment with plenty of CR-appropiate traps, noone is going to miss a Rogue.
its focus is on lots and lots of lethal traps that will kill you all dead!... those traps haven't existed since 2e.
Mate if you aren't playing with traps that will leave you a pile of smoking ash then you just aren't playing with traps :)
Don't people set up Glyphs of Warding and other such treats with regularity anymore!??
My 2 cents, I have always loved rogues. I also like Jarlaxle from Salvatores books. I kinda dislike the idea of people arguing DPR. It is kinda sad perhaps some backlash of WoW. I think a good encounter involves more than a combat, terrain obstacles and hazards and visibility, each of these can sure complicate DPR.
My opinion a rogue shouldn't be the highest DPR but should be a mobile character, steath is key they should engage and disengage. Interestingly I also think the same of monks, but at this point they have the advantage.
I think a rogues main weakness is feats, followed by BAB.
So when I picked up the players guide I saw one rogue talent that I had to try out. Out of all the classes, one ability said I must use this. Dispelling Attack, so first my complaint is it's an advance rogue talent. So I need two talents to pick it up as well as tenth level, and I cannot pick up one level of wizard to replace the two, no arcane trickster as well as the talent has a built in balancing factor... So it is a costly advanced rogue talent. But arguably I think it is worth it.
So my idea was to try and make a rogue to build around this one talent.
So I made a Str based rogue, that is an elf. Str 18 Dex was second at 15.
So feat and RT's
1two weapon fighting
2RT minor magic (detect magic),
3quick draw
4RT Major magic (expiditious retreat) +1 dex APG Scout charge
5Arcane strike
6RT Bleed
7APGShadow Strike
8RT Combat trick Double Slice +1 dex APG Skirmisher
9Improved two weapon fighting
10Dispelling attack
So this is my PFS character who will take awhile to level. I also know that I likely will have 5+ party, as well as a friend playing a druid with a wolf who has done an excellent job setting up flanks. I have surprised parties and gms with damage.
As far as traps, a moderate DC15 acrobatics (balance) trap can really disrupt a party, such as a pivoting floor.
I almost roasted an 17th level group with a trap like this. Well a beholder and a pit of acid helped. The rogue saved the party. The point being sometimes none deadly traps can be more dangerous rather than damaging traps.
I presented the outline of a level 12 PFS PC which if needed I can flesh out. But seeing as the level 10 druid isn't done I didn't think I needed to put in that amount of time.
I'd be curious to see what that would look like independent of the debate, FWIW.
(I do think for most purposes druid > rogue, even in rogue's niches -- but, I do also think that gap got narrowed a lot from 3.5 to Pathfinder and that's pretty good for one pass at a revision.)
Flight is great and should never be overlooked in these discussions. Once the druid can fly, it is much easier to scout without being spotted because he doesn't even need to stealth anymore. Just looking like a blue bird can be enough to get you close to the enemy or around the areas quickly. Flight has huge advantages that can't be overcome with skill checks. Yes, I can sneak around and even get pretty close. There are places I can't go at the same rate the druid can. Wild shape isn't just more forms of movement, it's also a near perfect disguise too.The ranger makes a great scout and in many circumstances will be a better scout than the rogue especially when his favored enemy is around. The rogue makes a great scout but is limited in many ways. The rogue is a very good scout overall and can maintain his combat advantages against most enemies. The ranger can outshine him in his favored terrain and against his favored enemies. The ranger can use his animal companion or his skill bonuses to help the party more than the rogue can.
The rogue does well when he needs to be sneaky. Scouting is a sneaky job. That's why people assume the rogue would be a good scout. The rogue can make a good scout in a wider variety of locations. He can also work with other scouts to form a very lethal scouting team.
Read this (you wrote it, I know, I am not trying to be snide about it, sorry in advance if it reads that way) now tell me what it is that makes a rogue worth taking over a ranger or druid? what does it bring to the table that is unique?
For myself, I would play a rogue over the druid because I find the druid to be boring. I really hate the spell list and I am not a fan having an animal companion that is at least as good as another party member. Even the guy playing the druid in my current campaign feels like he is ready to multiclass out because the spell list is kinda boring, even if the spells themselves are useful.
I would choose a rogue over a ranger if I wanted to have sneak attack instead of favored enemies. I would choose the rogue over the ranger if the campaign is going to spend a lot of time in cities as well as the wilderness.
My choice to play a rogue doesn't stop the others in the party from playing a druid or ranger. Having several characters that can act as scouts can increase the amount of information you gain as well as provide additional combat support if that is needed to.
Since no class can do everything on demand, the party should be build by having certain roles filled instead of classes. If someone wants to play the scout there are options for every class to fill that role. Some will do a better job than others but they all can pull it off. I think that the rogue can do that well and not sacrifice his combat ability. He won't have a ton of combat options but he will still be able to deal a bunch of damage.
This thread has some of the most antagonistic behavior I've seen in the threads in quite some time. So people don't agree that rogues are bad... some people feel they are bad, some people don't. I'm perplexed as to why folks are arguing so vehemently about it. There's no winning. When folks try to change another's argument through debate, the only thing that happens is the other person gets more firmly locked into position. Because for many, it's psychologically upsetting to "lose" a debate, it affects their ego and they can't handle that. So, many aren't motivated to find middle ground. My suggestion... let it go.
I like the community here... but also realize that this statement may fall on deaf ears. If you're having fun arguing, by all means continue. But if you're frustrated trying to change the mind of another... why bother. I'm seeing a lot of venom in some of these posts...
I think we've done a pretty good job of not being very antagonistic. The reason why I enter these debates is so that people who are lurking can still gain useful information. I have no intention on proving anyone wrong. I want those who are trying to learn the game to see that there is more than one way to play and that the various classes can fill their roles.
I have also learned from these discussions. Sometimes things don't work the way I thought and sometimes I learn about things I never thought about. That's why I enter the discussions.
You're of the opinion that traps can only be nuisances. That's the fundamental disconnect here.
Its integral to the game. Which cr 10 to 14 trap would be a real problem for the druid? Even IF it alerts something, it would also alert the party.
If you set off traps then you warn everything around them to your presence. Now this might not be an issue to your party. You might be used to getting ambushed and recovering from it.
False dichotomy. A loud trap isn't going to allow your party to be ambushed. The two options aren't they ambush you or you ambush them. There's also every possibility that both sides know a fight is coming,b roll initiative and have at it.
As to my point about Freedom of Movement, if you want it for your druid then you need to memorize it. Since you've elected to load up on a lot of dispel magics to be a poor man's disable (likely less than a 50-50 vs a 100% chance) you have less room for these 'advantages'. Is it an advantage that you could have memorized Freedom of Movement, or is it an advantage that you can cast it? You're confusing the two.
If the DM throws something at me i can't escape one way or another I'd start memorizing it. It went off the list largely because it wasn't needed.
Now don't get me wrong, there are many ways that a druid can work as a makeshift scout. Some ways that are in fact awesome. You haven't really hit upon many of those though, and the lacking part about them all is that the party has to follow you.
Enough baseless, vague, banal insults. I am sick up to here with hand-waving about how much better you are than I am about everything with NOTHING to show for it. You critique the druid as poor without saying why, and now this? Come off it. You are not gods gift to role playing. This is nothing but an insult unless you want to DEMONSTRATE something.
BNW's druid is (best that I can get from him) scouting only a few feet ahead of the dim light, meaning that anyone with low light vision is going to have a chance to spot him (and automatically see his animal companion)
No. The Druid is at 60 the Dino is at 50. Thats dim light for everyone.
while everyone with darkvision will as well.
Blatant, inane double standard.
If darkvision lets someone autospot the druid, it will let them autospot ANY stealther, including the rogue.
Depending upon the noise that the party can make he's less of a scout and more of an advance of the party. Considering that he was harping on abilities like blindsense, tremorsense and scent before I think he's failed miserably.
See what i mean about trying to appeal to everyone, and against every hypothetical rogue build, evah?
There are some people in this thread who need to take a deep breath and think before posting.
|
Druids make better scouts. Urban skirmisher rangers make better... everything. They have the animal companion (which will be boomed), trapfinding (if we're arguing that matters), higher damage ratios, and similar stunts for making their stealth awesome. They even get hide in plain sight. All for the cost of 2 skill points (which, after 6 or 7, do you really need more skills?)
APG made rangers awesome, made monks playable, gave fighters and pallies more powers, a few neat alts. Wiz and Sorc got little, but needed little. Druids got the cat Druid, I haven't seen anything else recently. But rogues? Mostly tricks nobody will use, and kits that take away one of their only advantages for mediocre feats.
Rogues and barbs were both pretty bad to begin with, but at least Barbs are great till 6th. Face it everyone, we all WANT good rogues, we always have... half the cool icons in fantasy are rogues. It just never happened :(.
Please close this thread Ross :). For the lurkers it gives little constructive views for the game as people just keep arguing their own points with counter arguments in a vicious cycle instead of "yes I can see how that would work in your game"
Just my personal opinion, but I have seen most arguments on here just get re-argued over and over again.
The thread has surpassed its usefulness in my opinion. It now only hurts the views of paizo customers if not only on the forums but on the game itself aswell.
Please close this thread Ross :). For the lurkers it gives little constructive views for the game as people just keep arguing their own points with counter arguments in a vicious cycle instead of "yes I can see how that would work in your game"
Just my personal opinion, but I have seen most arguments on here just get re-argued over and over again.
The thread has surpassed its usefulness in my opinion. It now only hurts the views of paizo customers if not only on the forums but on the game itself aswell.
Seconded.