|
A Wizard can cast Invisibility, however See Invisible/True Seeing/etc. is pretty common at high levels. None of these spells detect Sneak.
A Wizard has skill points, but Sneak is a Dex based skill - so, a Rogue who wants to will always have a higher Sneak than a Wizard of equal level.
That's not even mentioning the class skill bonus.
But the majority of the characters I create at least put something into sneak. Despite the fact that it apparently doesn't work (as proved by the fact that stealing Farmer John's chickens while he's staring directly at you, pointing a shotgun at you, and saying "don't steal my chickens" is a bad idea) it's one of the more useful abilities in the game that doesn't require a specific class, a feat tax, or the like. Anyone with an extra skill point or three can do it...perhaps not well, but they can at least do it.
However, a skill monkey does not have to be a thief, nor does a stealthy character automatically qualify as a thief (they could be an army scout like Buffalo Bill in the American west, stealthy, but fairly straight forward in combat).
Couldn't an army scout being covered by the Ranger class?
However, a skill monkey does not have to be a thief, nor does a stealthy character automatically qualify as a thief (they could be an army scout like Buffalo Bill in the American west, stealthy, but fairly straight forward in combat).Couldn't an army scout being covered by the Ranger class?
It could be, but there really isn't a good reason why rogue should be less of a option. Not all army scouts are going to be nature focused.
I've actually always thought that ranger and rogue could in many ways just be variants of each other, especially if you swap out the limitied spellcasting of the ranger for something else. Both rely on mundane solutions, especially their training, far more than magical ones to accomplish their goals.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks and barbarians past 5ish are worse than rogues.
Rogue sneak attack just takes a little prep; and does rely on party cooperation to make work. There are feats, for instance, that let you consider an enemy "flanked" if you have multiple allies adjacent. Furthermore, as an option to two-weaponing (which I generally consider overrated), you can replace your str bonus for hit and damage while wielding "just a scimitar". This gives you strength as a dump stat while upping your ability to really use class skills.
Their talents are truly top-notch, and only got better with the new book. They are on-level with feats; in fact, often they ARE feats. After 10 they are actually generally better.
Whew! For my APG-based rogue I think having a Scimitar/Bow "switch hitter, no strength" rogue is optimal. The scimitar setup doesn't require many feats, so at 5th you can switch to taking up bow feats to flesh yourself out.
But they really will be both more cool AND far more powerful than the standard monks or barbarians
Monks and barbarians past 5ish are worse than rogues.
I would have agreed with you on the barbarian, but, APG. Giving barbarians pounce (among other things) is a tremendous boost to their effective damage.
A lot of whether any particular class is more or less powered than any other depends on your playstyle and, of course, on the skill and imagination of the player playing them. In the case of the rogue if your game, like many games, is devoted almost entirely to combat, there really isn't much reason to play a rogue. If your game is heavily oriented toward intrigue, traps and puzzles, infiltration and trickery, then a rogue is absolutely essential. If your game is more balanced, the rogue will still have his opportunities to shine.
I have to say, I am getting very tired of hearing the argument that "a wizard can do anything x class can do better by x level". While it is true that a wizard can, due to the tremendous flexibility of magic, do just about anything at higher levels, including being an acceptable substitute for other classes, they can't do everything, and there is an opportunity cost in building your wizard to compensate for not having a rogue. The skills, feats and spells he dedicates to that can't be spent on things that might make him, you know, a better wizard, instead of an adequate rogue substitute. I mean, honestly, how many people build their wizards to optimize stealth?
I also find the tactic of summoning creatures and having them move through an area to set off any traps to be repulsive and munchkinlike, definitely out of touch with the spirit of the game. I'm sure the people that regularly use the spell that way think themselves clever. I think it's just annoying.
One other small rant. I dislike the fact that traditional rogue strengths have been deemphasized in PF/3.X. The large trap-filled dungeons in which rogues excelled have been deemphasized, and traps are almost never deadly now. Opportunities to use sleight of hand, stealth and lockpicking are also less common than they used to be. The focus has shifted more sharply to combat, leading many people to view sneak attack as the most useful ability of the rogue. Given that, it's not surprising some people view rogues as useless.
I also find the tactic of summoning creatures and having them move through an area to set off any traps to be repulsive and munchkinlike, definitely out of touch with the spirit of the game. I'm sure the people that regularly use the spell that way think themselves clever. I think it's just annoying.
I blame Gary Gygax.
Seriously, if you make a thief class that literally can't find a (magic) trap successfully even half the time even if it's 100th level, you shouldn't be too surprised when players end up thinking that "send the thief ahead to check" isn't Plan A when it comes to traps.
Why is the party you mentioned combining money to get the rogue scrolls when there is a wizard and a cleric.Who is the other fighter in that party? Whatever the various casters have decided to summon.
I was not clear. I meant combine money for wands. It is normal any many parties to give the UMD'er a wand of cure and a wand of a useful spell that the party can't normally use. I stopped posting around that time because I was getting tired, which normally leads to miscommunication
Also, a cleric with a bard in tow can be a servicable, though not necessarily effective combatant.It depends on how he is made, and if he is not then the party needs a 2nd combatant, so with the bard, and the cleric in tow one of them has to do it. I think the party is better off with the cleric doing it. He has nice self-buff spells, and better armor.
Bards can also do pretty well with a bow, and with their performance and arcane strike can do enough damage to exist.They eventually do well with a bow. Archery is feat intensive, and before they get all the feats the party is at the mercy of the DM.
Before I get any silly remarks such as "The party is always at the mercy of the DM", I was saying they depend on him to fudge most likely until the bard becomes a decent combatant.
Summons are not secondary combatants. They are not around enough to count. They turn off just like every other spell, and the option to turn them back on is not always there. They are good hit point fodder though. The caster also has to get the spell off. One round is a long time to be a sitting duck.
Any time the DM wants to kill off my animal companion instead of my character or another party members, i will accept it gladly. Two turns of me not dying.
It sounds like the rogue is in good company then since neither the bard or rogue will be targeted first most of the time.
I also find the tactic of summoning creatures and having them move through an area to set off any traps to be repulsive and munchkinlike, definitely out of touch with the spirit of the game. I'm sure the people that regularly use the spell that way think themselves clever. I think it's just annoying.
I blame Gary Gygax.
Seriously, if you make a thief class that literally can't find a (magic) trap successfully even half the time even if it's 100th level, you shouldn't be too surprised when players end up thinking that "send the thief ahead to check" isn't Plan A when it comes to traps.
I think we've had this conversation before. I think in my perfect world, a magical trap would be something the wizard and rogue had to collaborate on to deal with effectively, but something neither could do well on their own. As for non-magical traps, rogues should rule there, and I would support rule changes that made that more true at all levels.
I'm just curious. Seriously, does anyone have a way to make rogues useful?So basically the answers so far are; Hope no other players notice they can take UMD, no one plays an Alchemist or Ranger in your party, and your DM uses more magical traps than monsters in a campaign, or the rest of the party to be Monks.
Then a Rogue is useful!
Actually the answers are the rogue does decent damage, they can take UMD. Their ability to be versatile(which varies by build) is not shutdown by magic. They can get rid of magical traps.
I think in my perfect world, a magical trap would be something the wizard and rogue had to collaborate on to deal with effectively, but something neither could do well on their own. As for non-magical traps, rogues should rule there, and I would support rule changes that made that more true at all levels.
Me too, actually.
I really, really want to like the rogue. I played one as a living campaign character for most of the 3.X years. I just wish the game was set up in a way to make him better at his job / make his job more important.
Side note, I think rogues should either have a class ability or rogue talent that jacks up UMD -- something like add half class level to UMD rolls.
Pathfinder's change to the skill system makes it a lot more attractive to buy up a cross-class skill, which in turn makes having a "rare/useful" class skill like UMD less valuable. They fixed this for knowledge skills and the bard by giving them special abilities that put them ahead in the knowledge skill race, and this is fixed for the rogue by talents like Fast Stealth (although I still think Hide in Plain Sight ought to be a level 10+ rogue talent choice), so why not something for UMD that makes this still someplace the rogue can shine?
Here is the rogue from my Age of Worms campaign. You might notice that he has two levels of barbarian. That was just so he could have some fun with rages. Most of his abilities do not come from being a barbarian. Also, you may notice that he has about 59000gp worth of gear instead of the 82,000 recommended. He is one of the more useful characters in the group. They have not had to worry about a trap in a long time. Once he knows it's there it is pretty much disarmed. He likes to roll, but his disable device skill so high that Taking 10 nets him a 50. He can move at a speed of 45 while raging and stealthed with a Take 10 check of 33. He likes to use his Wand of Inflict Moderate Wounds with his sneak attack because it amuses him.
GRIVAS CR 10
Male Dwarf Barbarian 2 Rogue 9
CG Medium Humanoid (Dwarf)
Init +4; Senses Darkvision (60 feet); Perception +15
--------------------
DEFENSE
--------------------
AC 25, touch 16, flat-footed 20. . (+6 armor, +2 shield, +4 Dex, +1 natural, +1 deflection, +1 dodge)
hp 113 (2d12+9d8+44)
Fort +10, Ref +10, Will +4
Defensive Abilities Defensive Training, Evasion, Improved Uncanny Dodge (Lv >=15), Trap Sense +3
--------------------
OFFENSE
--------------------
Spd 45 ft.
Melee +2 Urgrosh, Dwarven +11/+6 (1d8+5/1d6+3/19-20/x3) and
. . Masterwork Maulaxe, Dwarven +12/+7 (1d6+3/20/x3) and
. . Unarmed Strike +11/+6 (1d3+3/20/x2)
Ranged Masterwork Crossbow, Heavy +9/+4 (1d10/19-20/x2)
Special Attacks Assault Leader (1/day), Sneak Attack +5d6
--------------------
STATISTICS
--------------------
Str 14/16, Dex 16/18, Con 16/18, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 8
Base Atk +8; CMB +11; CMD 27
Feats Combat Reflexes (5 AoO/round), Dodge, Improved Critical: Urgrosh, Dwarven, Improved Two-weapon Fighting, Rogue Weapon Proficiencies, Skill Focus: Disable Device, Two-weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus: Urgrosh, Dwarven
Traits Armor Expert, Vagabond Child (urban): Disable Device
Skills Acrobatics +23, Appraise +13, Bluff +7, Climb +8, Diplomacy +9, Disable Device +36, Intimidate +6, Knowledge: Dungeoneering +16, Perception +15, Sense Motive +10, Stealth +23, Survival +8, Swim +8, Use Magic Device +13
Languages Common, Draconic, Dwarven, Elven
SQ Fast Movement +10 (Ex), Fast Stealth (Ex), Greed, Hardy, Hatred, Rage (9 rounds/day) (Ex), Slow and Steady, Stability, Stonecunning +2, Swift Foot (Ex), Trap Spotter (Ex), Trapfinding +4
Combat Gear +2 Urgrosh, Dwarven, +1 Buckler, Masterwork Crossbow, Heavy, Bolts, Crossbow (20), Masterwork Maulaxe, Dwarven, +2 Mithral Chain Shirt; Other Gear Amulet of Natural Armor +1, Backpack, Masterwork (2 @ 0.5 lbs), Bedroll, Belt of Physical Perfection, +2, Boots of Striding and Springing, Caltrops, Chalk, 1 piece, Cloak of Elvenkind, Crowbar, Flint and steel, Goggles of Minute Seeing, Grappling bolt, Hammer, Handy Haversack (14 @ 35 lbs), Mirror, small steel, Periscope, Piton (10), Pouch, belt (empty), Ring of Protection, +1, Rope, Spider Silk (50'), Thieves' tools, masterwork, Wand of Cure Light Wounds, Wand of Inflict Moderate Wounds, Wand of Magic Missile, Waterskin, Whetstone
--------------------
TRACKED RESOURCES
--------------------
Assault Leader (1/day) (Ex) - 0/1
Bolts, Crossbow - 0/20
Masterwork Maulaxe, Dwarven - 0/1
Rage (9 rounds/day) (Ex) - 0/9
Wand of Cure Light Wounds - 0/50
Wand of Inflict Moderate Wounds - 0/32
Wand of Magic Missile - 0/6
--------------------
SPECIAL ABILITIES
--------------------
Armor Expert -1 Armor check penalty.
Assault Leader (1/day) (Ex) 1/day when you miss an attack, allow an ally also flanking that target an immediate attack.
Combat Reflexes (5 AoO/round) You may make up to 5 attacks of apportunity per round, and may make them while flat-footed.
Darkvision (60 feet) You can see in the dark (black and white vision only).
Defensive Training +4 dodge bonus to AC against monsters of the Giant type.
Evasion (Ex) If you succeed at a Reflex save for half damage, you take none instead.
Fast Movement +10 (Ex) +10 feet to speed, unless heavily loaded.
Fast Stealth (Ex) You may move at full speed while using the Stealth skill without penalty.
Greed +2 to Appraise checks to determine the price of nonmagical goods that contain precious metals or gemstones.
Hardy +2 racial bonus to Poison, Spells and Spell-Like effects.
Hatred +1 racial bonus to attacks against Orcs and Goblinoids.
Improved Uncanny Dodge (Lv >=15) (Ex) Retain DEX bonus to AC when flat-footed. You cannot be flanked unless the attacker is Level 15+.
Rage (9 rounds/day) (Ex) +4 Str, +4 Con, +2 to Will saves, -2 to AC when enraged.
Slow and Steady Your base speed is never modified by encumbrance.
Sneak Attack +5d6 +5d6 damage if you flank your target or your target is flat-footed.
Stability +4 to avoid being bull rushed or tripped while standing.
Stonecunning +2 +2 bonus to Perception vs unusual stonework. Free check within 10 feet.
Swift Foot (Ex) While raging, your Speed increases by 5'.
Trap Sense +3 (Ex) +3 bonus on reflex saves and AC against traps.
Trap Spotter (Ex) Whenever you come within 10' of a trap, the GM secretly rolls for you to find it.
Trapfinding +4 +4 to find or disable traps.
|
I've gone through various builds and can't find a single thing that rogues do better than everyone else. I understand that flavor wise this might be a popular concept for a class, I just don't see it working out mechanically.(They do mediocre damage, wizards are sneakier past about level 5, rangers are a better mix of the two). More interesting to me, the barbarian was fixed in the APG. While the rogue got new talents they really didn't add anything that dramatic (like a tree chain such as the barbarian totems).
I'm just curious. Seriously, does anyone have a way to make rogues useful?
Here's a question, how does it matter, If people play rogues and play them effectively in games (which is done constantly, if you had asked what "pathfinder rogue" have you had the most fun playing, you'd get hundreds of posts of people talking about their awesome rogues at all levels of play that they have no problems with in their games) then does it matter if it somehow can be outdone by some other class in hypothetical situations? Seriously what is gained by this thread, there's always going to be a worse class because there's no class balance, the best you're going to get is that instead of one worse class, you have three to four classes that are weaker then the others. So what need do you have to be proven that it's not weak, since anecdotal evidence won't count with you, what is to be gained? All that will happen is that some new class will be the one you say is the worst.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues have great combat damage (not on the fighter level; but still very solid). They have diverse skill sets (skills like the Cha set, perception, disable device are actually useful). I actually find trapfinding mostly a waste unless you take the talent that lets you auto-detect traps within 10 feet (this lets the party keep moving and has the big guys up front). But they are solid support characters; especially in home campaigns where UMD is far more useful (PFS sadly it's too expensive to be practical). The scimitar build also eliminates a lot of the SAD of rogues.
11 ranks +3 for class skill = 14
trapfinding = +4
Dex modifier = +4
Skill Focus = + 6
Masterwork Thieves kit = +2I got 30. Where is the other six coming from. I have a similar character[Scout(3.5)/Ranger], and
Skill Focus: Disable Device,
Where is the other 6 coming from? I am sure that even with the 30 you should be ok, but I am curious.
Here's a question, how does it matter, If people play rogues and play them effectively in games (which is done constantly, if you had asked what "pathfinder rogue" have you had the most fun playing, you'd get hundreds of posts of people talking about their awesome rogues at all levels of play that they have no problems with in their games) then does it matter if it somehow can be outdone by some other class in hypothetical situations? Seriously what is gained by this thread, there's always going to be a worse class because there's no class balance, the best you're going to get is that instead of one worse class, you have three to four classes that are weaker then the others. So what need do you have to be proven that it's not weak, since anecdotal evidence won't count with you, what is to be gained? All that will happen is that some new class will be the one you say is the worst.I've gone through various builds and can't find a single thing that rogues do better than everyone else. I understand that flavor wise this might be a popular concept for a class, I just don't see it working out mechanically.(They do mediocre damage, wizards are sneakier past about level 5, rangers are a better mix of the two). More interesting to me, the barbarian was fixed in the APG. While the rogue got new talents they really didn't add anything that dramatic (like a tree chain such as the barbarian totems).
I'm just curious. Seriously, does anyone have a way to make rogues useful?
Good point.
@ the OP: As long as the rogue is pulling his weight I think that automatically makes it "not a bad class". Now if the rogue is not pulling it's weight in your group maybe we can discuss that and try to find a solution.
|
From experience, my first rogue won initiative, tumble through a jungle of web, and cuts down the enemy wizard before he could caste a single spell. The battle was a rout from that point on.
I had great fun with that rogue. Sure I have also enjoyed other classes that could have done more dmg or be more stealthy, but my rogue time was still great. That's why I never understand the need to objectively criticize a class as "useless." You can certainly criticize a mechanic, but you can't make the same conclusion on real life experience. So have fun with everything!
|
|
I'm just curious. Seriously, does anyone have a way to make rogues useful?
The use of Rogues, like many classes, often varies greatly by campagian. Tons of sneak attacks when your facing constructs and things like gibbering mouthers is less useful then against a hoard of orcs.
In some games having a lot of skills is darn useful, in others meaningless. Some DM's put in a lot of traps, others none.
Key skills:
Acrobatics--gets you where you want to be in combat.
Trapfinding-- Depending on the game.
Social skills-- Important depending on the game.
Key word is, dependant on the game.
|
|
To point out the obvious
A Wizard can cast Invisibility, however See Invisible/True Seeing/etc. is pretty common at high levels. None of these spells detect Sneak.
VERY important distinction here. That and every slot used to memorize Invisibility or Spider Climb is a spell slot NOT being used on doing the wizard thing, i.e. damage or battlefield control.
Remember kiddies, that rapier never runs out of charges!
I'm personally a fan of the rogue capstone ability at level 20. I just mention it because someone asked why a player would continue as a rogue instead of multiclassing.
The level 20 capstone ability is cool but really useless. Games typically don't even get to level 20 let alone going past level 20. Most games tend to end around 17th from what I've seen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well i appreciate the discussion so far, one of the things that has been brought to my attention is that rogues sound like they would be more useful in a smaller party (our campaign is HUGE, typically 5-9 players on a regular basis).
I've never said that i don' like the concept of a rogue, I do, I just don't like any time people have to say "there is more to a character than mechanics", because that is true of all characters. There is nothing preventing someone from making a flavorful fighter or anything else for that matter.
I feel like they dropped the ball when it came to updating the rogue in the APG, they got a lot of abilities that they can use once per day, nothing that makes them substantially better at stealth, and a bunch of builds that for the most part take away trapfinding (which it sounds like is a major part of their class). While most of the other classes got at least something that made me want to read on a little further, I was instead seeing what I could salvage from what was added to the rogue.
I understand that people view rogues as a class that takes preparation to play effectively, that is true of half of the classes in Pathfinder.
The concept that barbarians are worse than rogues past level 5 is ludicrous, as melee fighters with full BA, random bonii and massive HPs are always useful and only get nastier with time (unless you compare them to spellcasters), couple this with things that were introduced in the APG - such as the ability to have DR/half your level, pounce, etc. and some of the other abilities they already had (like superstitous), they can be flat out gross.
Monks are an anomaly. While the average monk is just a ball of unrelated crap, I've said at least twice in this post that the archer version of the monk is incredible. While this is only one version of the monk, that's basically what I'm looking for as an answer for the rogues.
Apparently I've learned in this thread:
- trapfinding is useful because everything is trapped.
- rogues always hit and therefore do massive theoretical damage (though the multiple attacks people keep referring to from TWF will be at diminished bonus to attack, do jack for damage on criticals, and apparently always do their sneak attack damage which don't roll 1's).
- the best way to play a rogue is to be 'hopeful' - hope the monster attacks someone else, hope they don't have a high perception check (yes perception checks exist and quite often work on most of the same monsters that have tremor sense and see invis.), hope there is a buddy to flank with (so that you can do some damage since most people are suggesting builds that dumps str.), hope that there are traps to find (so that you didn't waste a major quality of your character), and hope that your DM gives you enough loot to make UMD useful (also hope that you roll high enough to make it matter).
-magic stealth is dumb because every spell has a counter that completely neutralizes magic stealth, making real stealth the manly alternative (even though the wizard/sorcerer has devoted approximately 1% of their character to magic stealth which will still work about as often as the skill).
I would also like to point out that the only sound comparison that has been made for the rogue is to the monk. Which is not a good category to be in.
What does a rogue do about invisible flying monsters? Cry? Hope that someone can make the fighter and the rogue both flying and able to see invis so that they can get their sneak attack off via flanking?
Ok, now this is getting rediculous.
Did you expect James and Jacob to go through every monster or possible scenario and design rogues to combat each and every one?
I seriously don't understand where the rogue QQ is coming from.
They do a few thigns extraordinarily well. Just like every other freaking class in the book. If you're not happy with the rogue, ask your GM to play a multi-gestalted Rogue/Wizard/Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin/Monk/Druid/Cleric so he has every situation covered.
Serioulsy?!
This thread should be titled "Can anyone show me how I'm not the whiniest player in Pathfinder?"
/end rant.
The question actually came from a discussion from our entire party, that were all wondering the same thing.
Most of the people I play with have been playing various forms of D&D for more than a decade. Most of us agree that Pathfinder is mechanically superior to the majority of alternatives, however we all kept coming across the same problem with rogues.
Mutli-classing hurts the vast majority of classes in Pathfinder but this is not the case with rogues from what I can tell, who seem to get better if they multiclass with something else.
Their position in the hierarchy reminds me of the same position that Fighters were in, in 3.0.
Apparently I've learned in this thread:
- trapfinding is useful because everything is trapped.
Not everything is trapped, but when there are traps the rogue is filling a niche that cannot be easily duplicated.
- rogues always hit and therefore do massive theoretical damage (though the multiple attacks people keep referring to from TWF will be at diminished bonus to attack, do jack for damage on criticals, and apparently always do their sneak attack damage which don't roll 1's).
No rogues do not always hit, rogues position themselves in ideal conditions to have a greater chance to hit with their attacks. ie. by flanking.
- the best way to play a rogue is to be 'hopeful' - hope the monster attacks someone else, hope they don't have a high perception check (yes perception checks exist and quite often work on most of the same monsters that have tremor sense and see invis.), hope there is a buddy to flank with (so that you can do some damage since most people are suggesting builds that dumps str.), hope that there are traps to find (so that you didn't waste a major quality of your character), and hope that your DM gives you enough loot to make UMD useful (also hope that you roll high enough to make it matter).
Playing any class requires you to use tactics. By your definition, every wizard must be "hopeful" that a creatures SR isn't too high, that they are far enough that the enemy cannot simply bash in their skulls (or worse!), not provoke an attack of opportunity, have the right spell memorized, not have someone with a high Will, Fortitude or Reflex save or worst case scenario be immune to magic!
Again, tactics...
My point is, you are arguing the rogue is weak in a role the class is not designed for. A rogue would not stand toe to toe with a big angry troll, he let's the fighter provoke the troll and then strikes at the opportune moment. The rogue has multiple tricks and feats to choose from which optimize the character towards filling an even more specific role. ie, dealing more damage with sneak attack, sneaking better or faster etc.
"Can anyone show me how I'm not the whiniest player in Pathfinder?"
**Applauds Kryzbyn**
Honestly, rogues are amazing...period. They can cast a few spells now, WITHOUT multiclassing, sneak attack is almost always useful (especially when you can cast colourspray =D), and traps (from my experience) are a persistent concern from lvls 1-20.
IMO, Paizo will probably put out more talents as more books come out and all these people who dont like playing rogues "b/c their bad" will turn around and hate them b/c "now their too powerful".
If your sole requirement for what makes a class valuable is DPS, then rogue may not be your favorite class. Although an optimized flanking build with TWF who is good at getting sneak attack whenever possible makes it still a decent contender.
If you like versatility, mobility, and good defenses (e.g., evasion gained at 2nd level), while still being moderately good at combat (3/4 BAB), then the rogue is an excellent class.
Best way to appreciate what the rogue can do for a party is play through a well designed dungeon crawl without one. All the things you wish you had? Will largely be something the rogue can do, I'll bet.
|
|
What do you always do about flying-invismonster? You have someone do some magic-y thing to make it appear. Lacking that, at least my rogue has the 50-50 on shooting and the dex to hit. If he is acting as an invisi-flying summoner, well I'd curse my idiocy for not bringing a magic type along and not having a potion / wand of see invis and run, hoping the fighter can hold them off.
Yes, you can make scenarios magic is necessary to counter the magic. I can give you a build that generally comes "close enough" on damage while having survivability. In fact, I will:
Dwarven rogue.
Str: 13 (feats)
Int: 10
Wis: 14
Dex: 18
Con: 14
Chr: 5
At 2nd level will take Combat trick, and swing a scimitar for to hit/damage from Dex, then switch gears and become a bow expert. He'll stop off briefly to make the dwarven bonus +4 to magic-based saves, because he can. At 4th level he'll make it so traps will just "reveal themselves" and by then should have a lens of detection.
So good damage, diverse, solid saves, and able to fight well with scimitar or bow.
I thought it should be MENTIONED that the Feat everybody is implicating for using Scimitar while dumping STR in favor of DEX is for QADIRAN (Arabian flavor) characters, and is from Paizo´s Companion to Qadira. It gives you DEX to attack and damage while wielding Scimitar in one hand and nothing in the other - so no 2WF, Shields, etc. (I believe you need Wpn Finesse for the attack bonus part)
I just find it irritating for something like this to be ENTIRELY reduced to pure crunch that apparently ANY PC could/should consider taking, when it`s place in the game is clearly tied to Arabian Nights inspired swashbucklers. If that`s isn`t a character´s background, it isn`t appropriate for them. Or at least that`s what Paizo thought about it. It`s certainly valid to MENTION this Feat, but to EXCLUDE it`s context doesn`t sit well with me.
That would explain why I had no idea what this scimitar business was about.
Also in regards to saves, Rogues have one.
I mention the Rogue for DPS or standing toe-to-toe because that is how it was presented in here (see almost everything wraithstrike posted).
As for rogues using bows.....seriously? Because ranged sneak attack is very very limiting. Look up the mechanics on sniping if you don't believe me.
Basically my beef is that they should have more things to accentuate the non-combat aspects of the rogue which are the appeal for the class to me. They gave them several abilities that let you roll twice on a skill check, which are mostly useable once per day. While they had the opportunity I feel like it was squandered.
As for rogues using bows.....seriously? Because ranged sneak attack is very very limiting. Look up the mechanics on sniping if you don't believe me.
It's just like being a melee rogue: you pretty much need a teammate to throw your damage. It's just that for the ranged rogue it's more like "someone to blind my target" or "someone to greater invis me" than "someone to flank with me."
(I mean, sure, UMD of greater invis scrolls, etc., but... )
To me, SpaceChomp, your arguments reads like a classic reading-vs-experience argument. Let me show you what I mean.
- The rogue might not read all that useful, but in experience is quite useful. Yea, a wizard with invisibility is much more sneaky than a rogue, but experience tells us that a rogue is sneakier. Why? A rogue can use stealth an unlimited number of times per day. A wizard will be able to do it 1-2 time per day, if they remember to take the spell at all. Plus there is See Invisibility, a 2nd level spell. There is no See Sneak spell. Becomes alot more useful.
- Yea, rogues can sneak attack under certain conditions only, but experience tells you that a rogue is likely to spend quite a bit of their time increasing the likelihood of sneak attacking. Feinting, flanking, hiding, getting a massive init to go first. When all is said and done, a rogue will probably be using sneak attack 15ish times in a day given 3-5 combats. Sure a single fireball is going to do more damage than a sneak attack, but no wizard has 15 fireballs.
- A wizard can DimDoor around a battlefield easily, but they're only going to be doing that 2-3 times per day, if the wizard took the spell that day at all. And after reading, it will probably sound like it would be rather easy for the Wizard to stay out of harm's way for much of the fight. But experience also tells us that wizards tend to be prime targets, especially for ranged attackers. But an arrow doesn't do much damage you say? How about a rogue sneak attacking from a hidden position fired right before the wizard's spell goes off. So that's a caster level check vs 15 + spell level plus the 20-30 damage you just inflicted. Their powerful spell of uberkilling doesn't go off. So the rogue caused damage and saved the party from damage.
To me, SpaceChomp, your arguments reads like a classic reading-vs-experience argument. Let me show you what I mean.
I don't think you're doing it intentionally, but your post reads like the same kind of thing from the other side: you're assuming the wizard doesn't play very well. Which, sure, if the best player at your table plays a rogue and the worst player at your table (mechanically) plays a wizard, the rogue looks great.
I have to say that the value of the rogue has diminished as the value of traps has diminished (in result to the ease of healing now available).
Fundamentally, why does the most important niche of the rogue matter (trap disabling) if you can just take the trap damage and use a couple channel energy or neutralize poison uses to mop it up?
I think it is still pretty good for damage output with Sneak Attack + Two Weapon Fighting, but ultimately, it is no longer one of the Big 4 (Warrior, Rogue, Healer, Mage).
One thing I am doing to make it a little more important is to apply the optional "massive damage" rules to damage dealt from traps (if you take 50+ damage from a trap you have to make a Fort save or die).
|
I agree that rogues ought to have some better range options, but they are a very strong class.
You know what rogues do better than all the other classes? Having tons and tons of skill ranks. Bards can compete with rogues, but even versatile performance is no substitute for having ranks in tons of skills. A rogue can have lots of skills from level 1, even with a modest or no intelligence modifier. Only rangers and bards can even try compete with rogues for skills. And rangers don't usually have high intelligence.
Some of the advanced rogue talents are extremely abilities, especially skill mastery. The ability to take 10 on stealth, perception, and disable device? Yes, please! Or maybe you prefer diplomacy, bluff, and sense motive. No problem!
And I think they can use it for UMD as well, which would be awesome. But I'm not completely sure.
I don't think you're doing it intentionally, but your post reads like the same kind of thing from the other side: you're assuming the wizard doesn't play very well.
Actually, I love wizards. They're my favorite class. A wizard trying to be a rogue doesn't play very well. A wizard being a wizard plays exceptionally well. If you want a sneaky wizard, it can be done and it can be done well. But a sneaky rogue is going to be sneakier than a sneaky wizard. Its just the way they're built.
A wizard is best at controlling the battlefield and versatility. Lots of small bad guys: fireball. big dumb fighter doing lots of damage to your group: ray of enfeeblement. outsiders: dismissal. For every situation, there is a wizard spell for it. But a wizard that takes 5-10 dismissals in a single day is going to be screwed if he doesn't encounter a single outsider. 10 fireballs are useless if they all have fire resistance (or invulnerability).
In the same way, a wizard that takes 5 invisibilities is not well played. A rogue can attack from a hidden location and then rehides can sneak attack every round. A wizard that attacks from invisibility is no longer invisible. If they take another round to recast hide and then attack again the round thereafter, that's 2 invisibilities that have been used in 4 rounds. You've cut your effectiveness in half. Compare that with the wizard that cast ray of enfeeblement, fireball, charm person and dismissal in those same 4 rounds. That wizard took out a big dumb fighter, brought an enemy to your side, got rid of an outsider and damaged everyone else. Very effective. But not every sneaky.
|
|
The problem with using summoned creatures to trigger traps is that some traps will reset before you can pass them (so you wasted a summon), others will catch you in the area of effect (so it backfired), and a select few will do both.
EDIT: Yes, snobi, he did. That barbarian had a MASSIVE chip on his shoulder.
Why is see invis a valid way to disregard invisibility while Perception is not a valid way of disregarding the stealth skill?
If you look at the beastiary, a huge chunk of monsters ridiculous perception checks because it seems that if they didn't know where to put a monsters skill points that's where they went.
The problem with using summoned creatures to trigger traps is that some traps will reset before you can pass them (so you wasted a summon), others will catch you in the area of effect (so it backfired), and a select few will do both.
Incidentally, I'm all for the bag of tricks trap suicide brigade, and I'm also all for kinds of traps like the above that make it not smart.
The easiest one of these is a trap that's not so much a trap as an alarm system.
I mean, in the real world a trap that kills whoever walks into it is great, but in D&Dland it's getting beat by a level one sorcerer. It seems logical to me that in at least some cases, trapmaking strategy is going to adjust -- but I think adventures that take this mindset are in the minority.