I agree it may not have been good writing. Gygax was a better game designer than writer. His novels, for example, were pretty lackluster, and his adventures weren't known for their great plotlines, but some of the individual monsters, traps, encounters, gaming concepts he created were brilliant. Buggy, in many cases, but still brilliant in conception. So in the end, I guess I do think any adventure I (and many others) remember fondly after 30 years was pretty darn good.
I can also see what you mean regarding encouragin player vs DM style, and ToH in the hands of a sadistic, powerhungry DM is a nightmare.
I see powergaming as something pretty distinct and independent of DM style. I think powergamers are born, not made. Some people naturally are just going to go down that path, regardless of what their DM is like.
There's one thing that they don't get until much later... the evasion to survive when those traps go off.
True; but they have a bigger hit die, better Fort saves, and ranger spells to compensate (Resist Energy, Delay Poison, and Detect Snares and Pits as 1st level spells are awfully nice for dealing with many kinds of traps, for example.)
I want to like the rogue but I really do feel like the urban ranger does most of the things the standard rogue does better, and then some. I'm hoping new/better rogue talents down the line even this out a bit.
Hate to say it, but that icon never made it into the DND world anyway. Most rangers have favored enemies Undead, humans, Evil Outsiders, and Abberations; and Underground as their first favored terrain. They also travel with a cat. The days of the wilderness ranger left for the most part in 2.0... now they are dungeon-crawling, slickarmoires or combatants ready to disable traps. In short, they do successfully now what rogues should do. And do 2 skill points honestly matter that
Much? Heck, if you give up favored class for skill they are only 1 behind and still get as many hp as the favored class hp rogue.And before the kits they were pretty bad; but the kits were a huge bump. They could do this with rogues too. For now, build a Skirmishing (better rogue tricks) Urban (trapfinding) Ranger (full BAB/better sneak) and call him "Rogue". :).
Ok I had to say something.
One the Tricks you get are limited you get 3 plus wisdom per day and you get them at fifth level.
Rogues get talents that usually work way more often and once advanced talents come around the rogue greatly bypasses any class in the skill area with skill mastery.
Rogues are better at skills than all other classes, period.
The Urban ranger doesnt even get close to the list the rogue does and a rogue can spread out and tap all his skills at 3rd level, and he gets a plus 3 on all of those for being a class skill. The ranger can tap any skill he wants, but his class list is no where near as vast as the rogue, even if he changes to an urban ranger. Also rogues very typically have a high int. Rangers never do due to the fact that they are very MAD (Strength, Dex, Con, Wisdom) and if you are going to be an Urban Ranger and claim the "face" as well you need CHA, which would make you even more mad. Where is your INT gonna get that boost to best those skills? Also as you pointed out rangers get to be good in combat. Very important, better than a rogue easily, but that means that they are most likely (especially being very MAD) going to spend that FC on a hitpoint or a boon to his animal companion or what have you. Rogues can take extra talents or skills.
Claiming all rangers are the same because thats how you have typically seen them does not make that the case. Games differ from person to person, dealing an extreme about how all adventures now consist of underground undead and aberration hunts is not true for everyone and they are not "playing wrong" if they do that. Heck they arent even playing stupid if they do that depending on the setting.
Lastly, you get NO and I repeat, NO face skills as class skills.
Claiming to be good at them eventually by stacking ranks in the skill when you wont have CHA or class proficiency isnt a good arguement since by the time you are even on the same playing field as the rogue (a rogue with a high CHA never) he could have skill mastery and various rogue talents.
Almost all of the ranger tricks do nothing for tedious skills. Climbing, Jumping, Swimming and few others do not constitute better skills.
I can cope with someone saying skills arent useful, because honestly in my campaigns and the ones I play in they are VERY useful. But thats the point, it varies from campaign to campaign. But if someone is going to say the Rogue can be outskilled by a Ranger? not true in my opinion, not at all.
just my thoughts.
I honestly think that a well constructed bard is better than rogues at skills at higher levels. But this is just an opinion. I understand that rogues get more skill points. But the ability to use one skill as two (which bards get with their performances) really levels the playing field.
I honestly think that a well constructed bard is better than rogues at skills at higher levels. But this is just an opinion. I understand that rogues get more skill points. But the ability to use one skill as two (which bards get with their performances) really levels the playing field.
A bard does, but a bard is almost always better off helping someone else do those skills better.
He might rival the rogues skills, but instead of trying to outshine him why not write a ballad on it and make the check even higher.
Also the bard greatly outshines the rogue in the face category and the face category only (if he were to choose that, personally in games I am in Knowledge is way more important). The rogue is still the only one that gets skill mastery which makes them easily, hands down, the best skill users in the game since they can almost NEVER fail once this is achieved.
In PF, that is a very excellent question. The designers are clearly uninterested in making any other classes viable. I guess the other eight exist to reward players for learning that they suck. Well, it's actually more like seven, since Sorcerers are good too but aside from that...Your strawmen aside, two thirds of the classes are completely pointless in PF. Way too many nerfs to even be playable.
Thank you for your shining example of a post. I have seen enough of this snarky foolishness from you over enough other threads to take anything you say with a shaker of salt. I am glad the folks at Paizo didn't consult with you before putting Pathfinder together. Next time my GM lets me read the adventure before participating in it I'll be sure to create my 50 point buy wizard and go to town.
Look at kits Urban Ranger; and the bard Archivist and Detective. All have the ability to detect magic traps; that is what I was saying. One of the best rogue tricks do make rogues the absolute best at it (since they don't have to slow the party or even announce they look); but generally the bard and ranger can now do this iconic duty.
And this stuff, IMO, is why archetypes should never have been introduced into the game. It's basically a list of options to make one class behave like some other class. Stuff like:
I don't want to be a monk, I'd rather be a brutal pugilist
I don't want to be a rogue, I'd rather be a detective
I don't want to be a bard, I'd rather be an urban druid
I didn't read this thread, and I'm not going to, but I think that this thread that I just started might contain some relevant information about rogues, and how they work REALLY well if you use the vision and light rules to the letter (which no one does, or could even do if they tried). That's all!
I didn't read this thread, and I'm not going to, but I think that this thread that I just started might contain some relevant information about rogues, and how they work REALLY well if you use the vision and light rules to the letter (which no one does, or could even do if they tried). That's all!
+9000
I didn't read this thread, and I'm not going to, but I think that this thread that I just started might contain some relevant information about rogues, and how they work REALLY well if you use the vision and light rules to the letter (which no one does, or could even do if they tried). That's all!
Not bad. Maybe this will help alleviate the theory that if you aren't behind something anyone can see you.
Not bad. Maybe this will help alleviate the theory that if you aren't behind something anyone can see you.
Partly, I guess. If you're not behind something and standing in an area of bright light, anyone can see you. Otherwise you have concealment, right?
The thing is, I understand why these rules go unused at a lot of tables. The experience of using them in MapTool is an experience of being constantly reminded of things you would have otherwise forgotten. Constantly. Knowing the rules alone does not help me as a GM.
But more often than not, if it is night, or you are inside, a rogue can get right up on you. If all you have is a candle to see by (a common nighttime situation) or perhaps you are indoors and there is only light from a closed window, then a rogue can in fact be right at your throat without your knowing it.
Lighting also benefits ranged rogues a LOT. A sniper rogue can get right up to you with your torch (up to 20' away), get a ranged sneak attack, and then probably rehide if they make the check. As a GM, the idea of NPCs pulling this off makes me crack a smile, I admit. One more reason to go for Darkvision.
*wonders what the record for number of posts to a single thread is on an at least originally legitimate thread*
I just sorted the list by post count. Highest showing right now is sitting at 1488. Anyone want to drag this out another 380 posts?
*checks thread to see if it's going anywhere, or if people have realized some basic truths yet such as replacing the Rogue with a caster with 10 spells, and using 5 of them means +5 spells, not -5 spells only to find that it hasn't, and they have not*
Perhaps in another thousand posts.
Considering the other spells in his repertoire are likely to include Shield and Mage Armour purely to compensate for the fact he is a guy in a dress, you mean you only get +3 spells surely? ;)
Not bad. Maybe this will help alleviate the theory that if you aren't behind something anyone can see you.Partly, I guess. If you're not behind something and standing in an area of bright light, anyone can see you. Otherwise you have concealment, right?
The thing is, I understand why these rules go unused at a lot of tables. The experience of using them in MapTool is an experience of being constantly reminded of things you would have otherwise forgotten. Constantly. Knowing the rules alone does not help me as a GM.
But more often than not, if it is night, or you are inside, a rogue can get right up on you. If all you have is a candle to see by (a common nighttime situation) or perhaps you are indoors and there is only light from a closed window, then a rogue can in fact be right at your throat without your knowing it.
Lighting also benefits ranged rogues a LOT. A sniper rogue can get right up to you with your torch (up to 20' away), get a ranged sneak attack, and then probably rehide if they make the check. As a GM, the idea of NPCs pulling this off makes me crack a smile, I admit. One more reason to go for Darkvision.
I tried to point this out a long while ago in this thread, that basically you can sneak attack whenever an enemy is unable to use their dex bonus against you, and you lose your dex bonus against an enemy you can't see.
Got shot down through erroneous assumptions about Flat-footedness and over-use of darkvision and/or scent (which still doesn't allow you to 'see' someone hiding)
Still, thanks for posting that, I can attest to how difficult monitoring light levels in games can be. If it becomes absolutely critical in a combat situation, we usually end up shading our wipe-clean maps to show areas of good and dim light.
*checks thread to see if it's going anywhere, or if people have realized some basic truths yet such as replacing the Rogue with a caster with 10 spells, and using 5 of them means +5 spells, not -5 spells only to find that it hasn't, and they have not*
Perhaps in another thousand posts.
Considering the other spells in his repertoire are likely to include Shield and Mage Armour purely to compensate for the fact he is a guy in a dress, you mean you only get +3 spells surely? ;)
I don't think he bothers with those. In his games he runs a party of wizards loaded with SoD/SoS spells and is guaranteed that the opponents will be completely disabled in round 1. Of course, there's never been a clear answer as to what happens after the enemy is disabled. I think at that point the GM just hand-waves them being dead.
Rogue is better. I go on first and clean the hair. Wizard is better. I leave the hair silky and smooth. Oh, really, fool? Really.
Stop looking at me, druid wildshaped as a swan.
Rogue is better. I go on first and clean the hair. Wizard is better. I leave the hair silky and smooth. Oh, really, fool? Really.
Stop looking at me, druid wildshaped as a swan.
...You failed a knowledge: Nature check when iding mushrooms again didn't you?
Not bad. Maybe this will help alleviate the theory that if you aren't behind something anyone can see you.Partly, I guess. If you're not behind something and standing in an area of bright light, anyone can see you. Otherwise you have concealment, right?
The thing is, I understand why these rules go unused at a lot of tables. The experience of using them in MapTool is an experience of being constantly reminded of things you would have otherwise forgotten. Constantly. Knowing the rules alone does not help me as a GM.
But more often than not, if it is night, or you are inside, a rogue can get right up on you. If all you have is a candle to see by (a common nighttime situation) or perhaps you are indoors and there is only light from a closed window, then a rogue can in fact be right at your throat without your knowing it.
Lighting also benefits ranged rogues a LOT. A sniper rogue can get right up to you with your torch (up to 20' away), get a ranged sneak attack, and then probably rehide if they make the check. As a GM, the idea of NPCs pulling this off makes me crack a smile, I admit. One more reason to go for Darkvision.
Hiding was never an issue, that's pretty much the tactic of a ranged rogue, even though it still only works on the first shot because you can be located as soon as you attack and lose all concealment (unless sniping), so the first attack (whether ranged or CC) would be sneak attack, then your opponent has dex, therefore the rest are regular attacks.
|
Supposedly that's how it was actually done when Gygax ran Tomb of Horrors in his campaign, too. Except with mook orc followers rather than actual sheep.
Tomb of Horrors has too many "You look at the wrong thing and die" and "You do not look at the right thing and die" style traps to make any PC class a viable trapfinder. Instead, your only option is to be a Shepherd, as in someone who herds sheep at low levels and at mid and high levels to excavate your way through the dungeon.
Ah, yes, good old Robilar. Now there was a thinking man's LE fighter!
Rogue is better. I go on first and clean the hair. Wizard is better. I leave the hair silky and smooth. Oh, really, fool? Really.
Stop looking at me, druid wildshaped as a swan.
I declare you to have won this thread.
Ah, yes, good old Robilar. Now there was a thinking man's LE fighter!
I've heard conflicting reports on the actual alignment of Robilar in actual play. Yes he's become kinda a LE thinking man's fighter but there have been some implications that is the result of an effect (or possibly long term mind control).
The man has after all pissed off a huge number of dieties and other powerful entities during his long illustrious career.
Now mercenary as hell? Yeah I'd agree with that.
Hiding was never an issue, that's pretty much the tactic of a ranged rogue, even though it still only works on the first shot because you can be located as soon as you attack and lose all concealment (unless sniping), so the first attack (whether ranged or CC) would be sneak attack, then your opponent has dex, therefore the rest are regular attacks.
Stealth still helps though. If the target is unaware of your attack then he is flat-footed. This would be the surprise round. Then you roll initiative and the rogue is most likely going to have a higher Initiative result due to Dex alone but if he is focused on his sneak attacks, he should grab Improved Initiative and Reactionary for another +6. By going first, he can then have a full round of attacks against the flat footed foe because the foe still hasn't gone yet. After that, all he needs to do is either Stealth again (difficult but not impossible) or flank. Using sneak attack is often as simple as that. As he gains levels he can even have access to Improved Invisibility.
Besides, Rogues are the only class that can TWF effectively.
My Fighter would like to have some words with this assumption. ;)
We're playing Serpent Skull, where I play a Paladin, two of my friends play a Cleric and a Ranger, and my wife plays a Rogue. And when she is not being pushed around by just about anything that can fight and failing all her crappy saves, she is able to do next to nothing that is supposed to be the rogue's forte, since stealth is for NPCs and monsters, and never works for her, even if she is built for it. And 90% of the encounters are favorable for the opposition. So she is basically frustrated and bored, starting to not care about anything in that campain.
She is basically telling me that if she dies, she wants to make something that doesn't suck and leave her bored.
Guess rogues do suck. Moreso now that archetypes for bards and rangers can do their schtick even better.
Or, serpent skull just sucks for rogues.
Or, serpent skull just sucks for rogues.
Strangely I've heard the opposite: that rogues disproportionately shine in SS because it's trap heavy.
Ah, yes, good old Robilar. Now there was a thinking man's LE fighter!I've heard conflicting reports on the actual alignment of Robilar in actual play. Yes he's become kinda a LE thinking man's fighter but there have been some implications that is the result of an effect (or possibly long term mind control).
The man has after all pissed off a huge number of dieties and other powerful entities during his long illustrious career.
Now mercenary as hell? Yeah I'd agree with that.
I cant remember which one but one the two that betrayed the council of eight was actually an evil twin and not the real one.
We're playing Serpent Skull, where I play a Paladin, two of my friends play a Cleric and a Ranger, and my wife plays a Rogue. And when she is not being pushed around by just about anything that can fight and failing all her crappy saves, she is able to do next to nothing that is supposed to be the rogue's forte, since stealth is for NPCs and monsters, and never works for her, even if she is built for it. And 90% of the encounters are favorable for the opposition. So she is basically frustrated and bored, starting to not care about anything in that campain.
She is basically telling me that if she dies, she wants to make something that doesn't suck and leave her bored.
Guess rogues do suck. Moreso now that archetypes for bards and rangers can do their schtick even better.
Or, serpent skull just sucks for rogues.
Ah yes the assumption that the entire class is broken just because one player isnt having fun playing the rogue in your world.
Strangely I've heard the opposite: that rogues disproportionately shine in SS because it's trap heavy.
Or, serpent skull just sucks for rogues.
Maybe later on. Now, she just auto-fail everything she tries, her maxed perception can't spot anything since everything has Stealth of at least 30, and it's a full-round move to move 3 squares.
@Midnightoker: I said rogue player was bored because jungle rules makes her not able to do anything, and the adventure path targets her weak saves 20 times more than her good one. Sure, if she didn't care to make a _character_ and just optimized, she would kick ass, but we have this strange tendency to roleplay. We kinda suck because of it, I'll admit. My paladin is like 5 behind optimal on AC, damage and whatnot since I made him interesting as a person. Paladins are still f*+%ing awesome as a class.
It's like claiming that the fighter is broken because Bob Fighter isn't carrying a bow and the enemy is often flying and casting lightning bolts.
Might petition the GM to allow her to change her flavor feat for something more optimized, just to remedy her situation.
@Midnightoker: I said rogue player was bored because jungle rules makes her not able to do anything, and the adventure path targets her weak saves 20 times more than her good one. Sure, if she didn't care to make a _character_ and just optimized, she would kick ass, but we have this strange tendency to roleplay. We kinda suck because of it, I'll admit. My paladin is like 5 behind optimal on AC, damage and whatnot since I made him interesting as a person. Paladins are still f!%%ing awesome as a class.
I really hope you are not accusing me of being a non-role player and a person that always optimizes.. that is not the case.
Your words were "I guess the rogue does suck"
based on one campaign your running, one. And one player in that campaign.
"or I guess serpent skull sucks for rogues" is also absolute dealt based on one example that one player is having a problem with and no one knows her build so you determine that all rogues either suck in this campaign or in general.
I apologize for being snarky but coming onto a thread and just saying I guess rogues suck on a thread this long with this many people talking about it? Then you state a one example absolute, it just irked me the wrong way.
Your one example does not mean all rogues, all rogues in serpent skull, rogues that dont optimize, and rogues that dont optimize in serpent skull "suck". That is based on one example, that we know no details about other than her saves are all bad and that she cant stealth (for some reason in a jungle).
Just my thoughts.
@Midnightoker: I said rogue player was bored because jungle rules makes her not able to do anything, and the adventure path targets her weak saves 20 times more than her good one. Sure, if she didn't care to make a _character_ and just optimized, she would kick ass, but we have this strange tendency to roleplay. We kinda suck because of it, I'll admit. My paladin is like 5 behind optimal on AC, damage and whatnot since I made him interesting as a person. Paladins are still f!%%ing awesome as a class.
I really hope you are not accusing me of being a non-role player and a person that always optimizes.. that is not the case.
Your words were "I guess the rogue does suck"
based on one campaign your running, one. And one player in that campaign.
"or I guess serpent skull sucks for rogues" is also absolute dealt based on one example that one player is having a problem with and no one knows her build so you determine that all rogues either suck in this campaign or in general.
I apologize for being snarky but coming onto a thread and just saying I guess rogues suck on a thread this long with this many people talking about it? Then you state a one example absolute, it just irked me the wrong way.
Your one example does not mean all rogues, all rogues in serpent skull, rogues that dont optimize, and rogues that dont optimize in serpent skull "suck". That is based on one example, that we know no details about other than her saves are all bad and that she cant stealth (for some reason in a jungle).
Just my thoughts.
A combination of frustration from ending up with a character that is neither fun nor effective, and not able to contribute to the party even in her strong suits is enough to make me annoyed by proxy, which I guess is what shone through. Not meant to antagonize, more a distaste for "X is stronger/weaker than Y" threads, since they are more or less the antithesis of roleplaying and working together with a party. Which is the main reasons we like pathfinder to begin with.
I am, however, saying that rogues, moreso than many other classes, need to be aware of their builds and focus a lot. A wizard is powerful with one stat, and can do pretty much whatever it wants as long as it has the right spells. My paladin has Power Attack, Furious Focus, Deadly Aim and Quickdraw, as I made him with a samurai type in mind. He works on both close combat and ranged fronts. Sure, I never make perception, consistently lose initiative, and I am usually half dead when combat starts, but some lay on hands and whatnot, and I still work at pretty decent efficiency.
By all means, have your words. It's a PF martial character, and a TWFer who isn't a Rogue. It's lunchmeat.Besides, Rogues are the only class that can TWF effectively.My Fighter would like to have some words with this assumption. ;)
Please excuse my ignorance. What makes rogues the ultimate in effective TWF?
By all means, have your words. It's a PF martial character, and a TWFer who isn't a Rogue. It's lunchmeat.Besides, Rogues are the only class that can TWF effectively.My Fighter would like to have some words with this assumption. ;)
CoDzilla, can you break the TWF fighter v. TWF rogue camparison down for us?
Are you staking the claim solely on sneak attack damage or are there other factors?
Edit: Ninja'd. Never mind.
TWF is ONLY effective with large amounts of bonus damage. Rogues are the only class that gets large amounts of bonus damage. Every other class is better off using a two handed weapon = same or more damage, for less gold/stats/feats, making it superior in every possible way. The only reason this is so is because large amounts of bonus damage means all you really need is a lot of attacks.
Paladins?
Please excuse my ignorance. What makes rogues the ultimate in effective TWF?
In my experience it often depends on a very specific interpretation of the Combat Trick rogue talent. For some people they interpret this to mean that the combat trick talent allows them to bypass normal feat prerequisites. Typically this results in the low level rogue getting something like the epic feat perfect two-weapon fighting ;)
Sometimes you even get something like flask rogue nonsense D:<
You kidding me?
Uh, no? Smite bonus closes the gap on to-hit AND gives as much bonus damage as Sneak Attack. How is that bad?
Uh, no? Smite bonus closes the gap on to-hit AND gives as much bonus damage as Sneak Attack. How is that bad?
The problem, I think, is that a TWF paladin would be crazy MAD, assuming you were wanting the whole TWF tree.
Archer paladin generally seems like a more workable angle to me.
The problem, I think, is that a TWF paladin would be crazy MAD, assuming you were wanting the whole TWF tree.
Archer paladin generally seems like a more workable angle to me.
Str, Dex, Con, and Cha. Not the worst I've seen. You could make it work fine on 20 points, I feel. If this is the kind of discussion where I'm gonna get castrated for suggesting that, then hell, I'm out.