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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,351 to 1,387 of 1,387 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>

Shadow_of_death wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:


My argument isn't that the rogues can outdo everyone else. My argument is that the rogue can do more with skills than everyone else. If it takes 3-4 characters to come close to what one character can do, then the character is not useless.

I would play a rogue if I wanted to play a character that could rely more on his mundane abilities than his magical ones. I usually play fighters or wizards myself. I don't get to play often enough though.

I don't see any class as useless. I see every class has its niche and is more useful in some campaigns than others. Not every class is suited for every player. I hate playing clerics and druids. I can't stand playing either class to the point that I would walk from a game if I had to play one.

I just figure since your going to have 3-4 players anyway bringing a rogue is just skill overkill. Three classes fill a lot of skills and adding a rogue gives you more then you need. Instead it makes more mechanical sense to just have the fourth member be something with less skill based class features, that still fills in the missing skills.

You lose nothing and gain class features. While with the rogue you fill the skills and then dump the rest of your class features covering things other party members covered. (and they sacrificed nothing but skill points they already have to do it so I am not going to buy the argument that the rogue frees up resources for the other classes)

Why bring two arcane casters along when there will be class ability overlap? Why bring two clerics along or two druids? Honestly, the rogue does free up resources whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Sacrificing half or more of your skill points is a lot in my games. Skills are very important at my table.


Shadow_of_death wrote:

I just figure since your going to have 3-4 players anyway bringing a rogue is just skill overkill. Three classes fill a lot of skills and adding a rogue gives you more then you need. Instead it makes more mechanical sense to just have the fourth member be something with less skill based class features, that still fills in the missing skills.

You lose nothing and gain class features. While with the rogue you fill the skills and then dump the rest of your class features covering things other party members covered. (and they sacrificed nothing but skill points they already have to do it so I am not going to buy the argument that the rogue frees up resources for the other classes)

undoubtedly one person can not always do the job with the skill though. Having someone that can also do the skill always helps, if not a necessity.

If someone fails a knowledge check... dear lord bad news ahead (I understand this doesnt apply to you as you have explained already but it does in my games and ones I play in).

If someone fails the bluff check, or the diplomacy check there is no retry and the rogue might have to step in and be like "what he is trying to say is..." and get things back on track.

Use magic device means there is essentially another person casting spells. Give the rogue a cure light and suddenly the cleric can use his round to cast a bless spell on the fighter while you heal him and he doesnt go down (minor example and it can get deadly).

also a rogue makes a great distraction with his evasion (possibly improved evasion) against a dragon or AoE creature if the other people need some time, he can also use his bluff skill or diplomacy to goad him into a trap from the rest of the party.

There are many applications for rogues that can be merely un explored by a player just because the options arent presented (either in an adventure path or by the DM himself)

just my opinion though


Bob_Loblaw wrote:


Why bring two arcane casters along when there will be class ability overlap? Why bring two clerics along or two druids? Honestly, the rogue does free up resources whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Sacrificing half or more of your skill points is a lot in my games. Skills are very important at my table.

Skills are important, by sacrificing I meant spending them in needed skills. In other words the class gives up nothing.

Adding another caster as "overlap" is probably a bad example. It is like giving the first caster Double the spells, actions, Hp, etc. Not really overlap more like piled on top.

Quote:

If someone fails a knowledge check... dear lord bad news ahead (I understand this doesnt apply to you as you have explained already but it does in my games and ones I play in).

If someone fails the bluff check, or the diplomacy check there is no retry and the rogue might have to step in and be like "what he is trying to say is..." and get things back on track.

Use magic device means there is essentially another person casting spells. Give the rogue a cure light and suddenly the cleric can use his round to cast a bless spell on the fighter while you heal him and he doesnt go down (minor example and it can get deadly).

Good points on the bluff and diplomacy, except I don't know how you handle it but a failed check usually sends the DC way over what is legitimately possible for the other party members so it has never been useful for two people to try.

Use magic device is to easily circumvented by actually having another caster so I am iffy on that one


Shadow_of_death wrote:


Good points on the bluff and diplomacy, except I don't know how you handle it but a failed check usually sends the DC way over what is legitimately possible for the other party members so it has never been useful for two people to try.

Use magic device is to easily circumvented by actually having another caster so I am iffy on that one

is it better by having another caster?

I would say there are benefits but equal benefits for having a rogue instead. A team of casters could work, but so could a team of fighter types, as could a team of roguish types. Its all about the play style.

If a group of rogues worked together? that is a sight to behold in my opinion and I have seen it done a few times. Especially with the new archetype system everyone can play the same class and fill completely different niches (even fighters can vary on the feat selection and be very versatile). The game is limitless with combinations that can be worthwhile but first you must determine what has worth.

In your group having a caster might be better, but some people might prefer the spells and the skills and sneak attack that come with the rogue in place of the better casting.


I love being a rogue,maybe with disregard for fantasy and crunching numbers other classes can do things better than me.In all fairness I can do EVERYTHING almost as good as them with the resources..which being a rogue I have access to.Plus I open up a whole new outlet of info from the shady side of town..last time the bard went down there nobody trusted him because he was famous and the sorcerer got mugged.Working as a team I give the fighter someone to watch his back,a ranger someone to help scout and sometimes track,the bard to run is different circles to gather info,and pick up that wand of cure if the cleric suddenly drops..and countless other things like fencing goods,actual theft,and dealing with poisons..to many to name really....I tell the fighter not to wait up, I'll be in late


Midnightoker wrote:
Shadow_of_death wrote:


Good points on the bluff and diplomacy, except I don't know how you handle it but a failed check usually sends the DC way over what is legitimately possible for the other party members so it has never been useful for two people to try.

Use magic device is to easily circumvented by actually having another caster so I am iffy on that one

is it better by having another caster?

I would say there are benefits but equal benefits for having a rogue instead. A team of casters could work, but so could a team of fighter types, as could a team of roguish types. Its all about the play style.

If a group of rogues worked together? that is a sight to behold in my opinion and I have seen it done a few times. Especially with the new archetype system everyone can play the same class and fill completely different niches (even fighters can vary on the feat selection and be very versatile). The game is limitless with combination that can be worthwhile but first you must determine what has worth.

In your group having a caster might be better, but some people might prefer the spells and the skills and sneak attack that come with the rogue in place of the better casting.

I didn't say a team of casters, that could be effective but I like martial characters too much (there are times when strength is just handy).

Realistically the rogue will have 1st level wands, A better fix is any other class with a level in whatever magic class you want.

A team of rogues can work well if they use teamwork feats, those were almost made for a party of rogues, but we are taking about the class not 4x the class.

Mechanically the skills do not impress, combat is there but not a lot to focus on to really help the party, and trap finding just needs a way to be more party friendly.


ciretose wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:


I think making it impossible for a rogue to sneak attack (because in my games I have found it is not that difficult) is no different than throwing a bunch of SR undead against an Enchanter. Or throwing oozes against a crit specializing fighter. Making it impossible (when it definitely is much easier than it is made out to be, atleast in my games and in my experience and my groups experience) for any class to use a main ability is kind of a fiat. You shouldnt make it ridiculously easy, but it shouldn't be near impossible or a once thing.

If you never let the paladin smite because he only fights neutral creatures he will look bad too.

Sneak attack is made out to be this impossible ability that is a rare occurence like favored enemy, it isnt meant to be that rare (my interpretation) and people that play with DMs or dont find ways to pull that off obviously wont like the rogue as much. Sneak attack in my games and games I play in isn't impossible to get, its not easy but getting it more than twice or three times in an encounter is hardly a fiat.

You take the high dex because you are going to be tumbling for flanking position a lot.

Team up with another melee class (or animal companion, summoned thing, etc...) and you are both dividing an enemies attack, helping each others attack bonus, and generally doing enough damage to drop anything on level with you.

Teamwork=win

No, here's what actually happens:

Tumble was nerfed immensely, because skill users are not allowed to have nice things. You likely fail to Tumble, and get smacked anyways, while still moving at half speed. In any case, you attack once, and either miss or do some small amount of damage.

You're now in full attack range, and enemies' attack will most certainly not be divided. If they full attack you, and since Rogues have the worst defenses in the game there is some merit to that you drop dead. If it doesn't attack you, it attacks the other thing, and then everyone else kills the enemy.


CoDzilla wrote:

No, here's what actually happens:

Tumble was nerfed immensely, because skill users are not allowed to have nice things. You likely fail to Tumble, and get smacked anyways, while still moving at half speed. In any case, you attack once, and either miss or do some small amount of damage.

You're now in full attack range, and enemies' attack will most certainly not be divided. If they full attack you, and since Rogues have the worst defenses in the game there is some merit to that you drop dead. If it doesn't attack you, it attacks the other thing, and then everyone else kills the enemy.

This is beyond ridiculous. The whole "X can't have nice things" is such a poor argument that it really should be dropped. If you can't play a non-caster effectively, that's not our problem. They get nice things and get them often. Your play style is so far from the norm that your arguments carry less meaning the more you repeat them.

Acrobatics is actually very easy. I suggest you actually read up on how it works. The DC is the creature's CMD. A first level rogue can easily start with +8 (assuming 17 in Dex) without taking any feats to improve that. If the rogue wants to improve it, he can add +5 before level 10 and +10 by level 10. He can also take a talent that allows him to roll twice once per day. Shouldn't be an issue though. The rogue should be paying attention when he should tumble through a threatened area and when he shouldn't. Tumbling is not supposed to be the only tactical movement they use.

Tumbling is also not only used to get into a flanking position. It can be used to get out of a dangerous position or to get to a better position. If he knows he's getting into a dangerous position and won't have back up until the fighter can get up there, he should fight defensively which would improve his AC by 4 or 6 depending on how defensive he wants/needs to be. The rogue also has offensive and defensive talents. The rogue can use his single sneak attack for other effects as well. They get nice things if you know how to use them.

Instead of saying that "skill users can't have nice things" I suggest you actually play one with a focus on the skills and see what you can accomplish. You are creative, why not see what else you can do?

The rogue I posted earlier has +12 at level 5. What will he have problems with? Huge creatures (the huge water elemental has CMD 34) and some large (the hill giant has 24 CMD) but both of those are CR+2 so they should be harder anyway. Most medium creatures, especially the ones that are equal CR, aren't a problem. He probably should be played with a modicum of intelligence and he should think things through. Why tumble through a froghemoth's threatened area (when the rogue hits level 10 and the creature is CR+3)? That just looks like a bad thing to do even without having any successful knowledge checks. You'll notice that he does have a few knowledge skills so that should be able to let him know if it's a good idea anyway against many creatures. The ones that he doesn't know, I would hope that the party would let him know. That is why they took the knowledge skills in the first place.


CoDzilla wrote:


No, here's what actually happens:

Tumble was nerfed immensely, because skill users are not allowed to have nice things. You likely fail to Tumble, and get smacked anyways, while still moving at half speed. In any case, you attack once, and either miss or do some small amount of damage.

You're now in full attack range, and enemies' attack will most certainly not be divided. If they full attack you, and since Rogues have the worst defenses in the game there is some merit to that you drop dead. If it doesn't attack you, it attacks the other thing, and then everyone else kills the enemy.

Except you're wrong and what really really happens is that the rogue successfully tumbles into position, gets his flank attack, grants others a +2 for flanking, and helps down the enemy.

I hate to say it (ok, maybe I don't) but your group is not the gold standard by which the Pathfinder game is judged. Your group =/= my group. You've made it abundantly clear that you hate the rogue class. You've shown that you won't hear anything good said about the class. Because your group experience with rogue is negative then everyone else's must be as well. Sorry, that just isn't the case.


Simon Legrande wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:


No, here's what actually happens:

Tumble was nerfed immensely, because skill users are not allowed to have nice things. You likely fail to Tumble, and get smacked anyways, while still moving at half speed. In any case, you attack once, and either miss or do some small amount of damage.

You're now in full attack range, and enemies' attack will most certainly not be divided. If they full attack you, and since Rogues have the worst defenses in the game there is some merit to that you drop dead. If it doesn't attack you, it attacks the other thing, and then everyone else kills the enemy.

Except you're wrong and what really really happens is that the rogue successfully tumbles into position, gets his flank attack, grants others a +2 for flanking, and helps down the enemy.

I hate to say it (ok, maybe I don't) but your group is not the gold standard by which the Pathfinder game is judged. Your group =/= my group. You've made it abundantly clear that you hate the rogue class. You've shown that you won't hear anything good said about the class. Because your group experience with rogue is negative then everyone else's must be as well. Sorry, that just isn't the case.

CoDzilla does have a good point about a strong negative for the Rogue. Not the Acrobatics thing, I've seen no trouble with PF Acrobatics at all, but the statement of the Rogue's weak defenses. They often have excellent Touch AC, but more often then not, from what I've seen, their AC will be below that of a martial or divine type (from lack of heavier armor and spells), and not have the miss chances of an arcane caster (who has tricks like Mirror Image and Displacement). While the Rogue is by no means requried to hang out in melee reach during combat, he does have to spend a lot of focus on his defense to do so effectively. He also has bad progression in both Fortitude and Will saving throws, with little mechanical incentive past increasing Will save and a minor increase to Perception to put a good statistic in Wisdom. Fortitude and Will saves failed are a lot more often going to result in the death of a character than failed Reflex save.


Ringtail wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:


Except you're wrong and what really really happens is that the rogue successfully tumbles into position, gets his flank attack, grants others a +2 for flanking, and helps down the enemy.

I hate to say it (ok, maybe I don't) but your group is not the gold standard by which the Pathfinder game is judged. Your group =/= my group. You've made it abundantly clear that you hate the rogue class. You've shown that you won't hear anything good said about the class. Because your group experience with rogue is negative then everyone else's must be as well. Sorry, that just isn't the case.

CoDzilla does have a good point about a strong negative for the Rogue. Not the Acrobatics thing, I've seen no trouble with PF Acrobatics at all, but the statement of the Rogue's weak defenses. They often have excellent Touch AC, but more often then not, from what I've seen, their AC will be below that of a martial or divine type (from lack of heavier armor and spells), and not have the miss chances of an arcane caster (who has tricks like Mirror Image and Displacement). While the Rogue is by no means requried to hang out in melee reach during combat, he does have to spend a lot of focus on his defense to do so effectively. He also has bad progression in both Fortitude and Will saving throws, with little mechanical incentive past increasing Will save and a minor increase to Perception to put a good statistic in Wisdom. Fortitude and Will saves failed are a lot more often going to result in the death of a character than failed Reflex save.

And fighters and barbarians have low Will saves so let's call that point moot. Being in our out of melee combat has nothing to do with what saves are good. A fighter is probably more likely to fail his Will save because he has no reason to boost his Wis whatsoever and I'd be willing to bet most people dump theirs to 7.

As far as AC and miss chance go, give your rogue UMD and a wand of mirror image/blur/shield/displacement. Problem solved.


CMD by CR, Min/Median/Max

<1:2/10/15
1: 4/13/17
2: 6/16/20
3: 9/18/22
4: 10/20/26
5: 12/23/31
6: 14/24/29
7: 6/26/38
8: 22/28/32
9: 24/32/43
10: 24/32/40
11: 24/33/49
12: 25/35/43
13: 31/36/42
14: 32/37/45
15: 37/41/54
16: 39/43/45
17: 42/48/56
18: 44/50/57
19: 50/51/52
20+: 47/54/66

Anyone putting enough ranks in Acrobatics can hit those numbers. The sample rogue I posted has +12 at level 5, +18 at level 10, +23 at level 15, and +34 at level 20. He is 15 point buy and I didn't completely focus on Acrobatics, it could be higher.


Simon Legrande wrote:
And fighters and barbarians have low Will saves so let's call that point moot. Being in our out of melee combat has nothing to do with what saves are good. A fighter is probably more likely to fail his Will save because he has no reason to boost his Wis whatsoever and I'd be willing to bet most people dump theirs to 7.

I don't dump my fighter's Wisdom. That's asking for trouble. Unfortunately the stat that usually gets dumped for my fighters is Charisma. I may dump Intelligence or Dexterity if the concept calls for that but those are not my first choices.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
And fighters and barbarians have low Will saves so let's call that point moot. Being in our out of melee combat has nothing to do with what saves are good. A fighter is probably more likely to fail his Will save because he has no reason to boost his Wis whatsoever and I'd be willing to bet most people dump theirs to 7.
I don't dump my fighter's Wisdom. That's asking for trouble. Unfortunately the stat that usually gets dumped for my fighters is Charisma. I may dump Intelligence or Dexterity if the concept calls for that but those are not my first choices.

Maybe it was a bit inaccurate to say "most". Let's instead say those focused on "optimizing" or "powergaming". In such case all unneeded attributes will be dumped as low as they can to get the points for their prime stats.


Rogue is the only class in the Core Rulebook that have both a poor Fortitude and a poor Will save. The Fighter has enough feats to easily take Iron Will. Barbarians' Will increases with Rage and/or Superstition. At high levels there is a difference of 6 between good and poor saves, this leaves the Rogue lagging behind in 2 key areas. I'm not by any means saying it is an insurmountable obsticle with the class, but it is pretty large weakness.

UMD'ing wands of 2nd level and up spells are going to cost more in the long run than heavier armors and shields, so it is a monetary investment you have to be willing to put forth on expendible options. Like I said, you can shore up your defenses with a bit of focus, which also might end up being a bit more of your wealth or feats or skills spent that could have been used elsewhere.

That said, that is really the only thing I dislike about the Rogue. It has always been an attractive class to me due to its sheer number of skill points, especially since Dex is its only real important attribute so Int has a decent shot at being high as well, granting even more. Coupled with Human and Favored Class bonuses and you could be resting pretty easily at 12 a level or more.

Rogues versitility means that it doesn't fit cleanly into any certain niche, which is a good thing, and requires a lot more attention to detail when building and a bit of creativity when playing to truly shine. I've always enjoyed playing Rogues, and I've seen some wonderful ones by my players as a DM.

Liberty's Edge

Ringtail wrote:

Rogue is the only class in the Core Rulebook that have both a poor Fortitude and a poor Will save. The Fighter has enough feats to easily take Iron Will. Barbarians' Will increases with Rage and/or Superstition. At high levels there is a difference of 6 between good and poor saves, this leaves the Rogue lagging behind in 2 key areas. I'm not by any means saying it is an insurmountable obsticle with the class, but it is pretty large weakness.

There is slippery mind, but this is a fair point.

I also agree with the rest of your statement about the rogue working fine and being a fun class to play.

If your game is a railroad with a DM who can't handle skills well, YMMV.


Simon Legrande wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
And fighters and barbarians have low Will saves so let's call that point moot. Being in our out of melee combat has nothing to do with what saves are good. A fighter is probably more likely to fail his Will save because he has no reason to boost his Wis whatsoever and I'd be willing to bet most people dump theirs to 7.
I don't dump my fighter's Wisdom. That's asking for trouble. Unfortunately the stat that usually gets dumped for my fighters is Charisma. I may dump Intelligence or Dexterity if the concept calls for that but those are not my first choices.

Maybe it was a bit inaccurate to say "most". Let's instead say those focused on "optimizing" or "powergaming". In such case all unneeded attributes will be dumped as low as they can to get the points for their prime stats.

You may be right but then I question the player's ability to optimize. I'm not a fan of dump stats but I understand that they exist in general. Having more than 1 is poor optimization by my standards. I don't like to optimize to one trick. I like to build a character that is optimal to play for a campaign. One trick optimizations tend not to last long in my games. I don't target them. They just can't do much and my games are diverse.


Ringtail wrote:

Rogue is the only class in the Core Rulebook that have both a poor Fortitude and a poor Will save. The Fighter has enough feats to easily take Iron Will. Barbarians' Will increases with Rage and/or Superstition. At high levels there is a difference of 6 between good and poor saves, this leaves the Rogue lagging behind in 2 key areas. I'm not by any means saying it is an insurmountable obsticle with the class, but it is pretty large weakness.

If you look at the optimized fighter/barbarian with 7 Wisdom then all Iron Will or Rage gets them is back to 0. They are then no better off than the rogue with 14 Wisdom to help with Perception. If you have to use a feat to compensate for a low stat then you don't end up in a better position.


Simon Legrande wrote:
Ringtail wrote:

Rogue is the only class in the Core Rulebook that have both a poor Fortitude and a poor Will save. The Fighter has enough feats to easily take Iron Will. Barbarians' Will increases with Rage and/or Superstition. At high levels there is a difference of 6 between good and poor saves, this leaves the Rogue lagging behind in 2 key areas. I'm not by any means saying it is an insurmountable obsticle with the class, but it is pretty large weakness.

If you look at the optimized fighter/barbarian with 7 Wisdom then all Iron Will or Rage gets them is back to 0. They are then no better off than the rogue with 14 Wisdom to help with Perception. If you have to use a feat to compensate for a low stat then you don't end up in a better position.

Using that example, though, a few things stand out.

1) I'm not even talking about optimizing characters. I'm just talking about the classes themselves.

2) Optimized, to me, is never means having a bad save, let alone a bad Will save; "dumping" Wisdom will to 7 will do that. Having a negative in a save before feats kind of makes "optimized" seem sub-optimal in my opinion. We'd have to agree on what makes an "optimized" character to effectively argue that.

And 3) Fighters and Barbarians, while in that instance would have just as poor or worse Will save than the Rogue, would likely have a much greater Fortitude, since Con matters a lot to martial types and they have a good save to begin with. So while they have to worry about a bad Will, they don't simaltaineously have to worry about shoring a poor Fortitude.


In all this discussion, I don't recall anyone looking up what the rogue should be able to do according to Paizo. Here is what the Core Rulebook has to say about rogues:

Quote:

Life is an endless adventure for those who live by their wits. Ever just one step ahead of danger, rogues bank on their cunning, skill, and charm to bend fate to their favor. Never knowing what to expect, they prepare for everything, becoming masters of a wide variety of skills, training themselves to be adept manipulators, agile acrobats, shadowy stalkers, or masters of any of dozens of other professions or talents. Thieves and gamblers, fast talkers and diplomats, bandits and bounty hunters, and explorers and investigators all might be considered rogues, as well as countless other professions that rely upon wits, prowess, or luck. Although many rogues favor cities and the innumerable opportunities of civilization, some embrace lives on the road, journeying far, meeting exotic people, and facing fantastic danger in pursuit of equally fantastic riches. In the end, any who desire to shape their fates and live life on their own terms might come to be called rogues.

Role: Rogues excel at moving about unseen and catching foes unaware, and tend to avoid head-to-head combat. Their varied skills and abilities allow them to be highly versatile, with great variations in expertise existing between different rogues. Most, however, excel in overcoming hindrances of all types, from unlocking doors and disarming traps to outwitting magical hazards and conning dull-witted opponents.

So the question is: Can rogues accomplish this against appropriate challenges? Do the rogue's skills and class abilities allow for this in a meaningful way?


Bob_Loblaw wrote:

In all this discussion, I don't recall anyone looking up what the rogue should be able to do according to Paizo. Here is what the Core Rulebook has to say about rogues:

Quote:

Life is an endless adventure for those who live by their wits. Ever just one step ahead of danger, rogues bank on their cunning, skill, and charm to bend fate to their favor. Never knowing what to expect, they prepare for everything, becoming masters of a wide variety of skills, training themselves to be adept manipulators, agile acrobats, shadowy stalkers, or masters of any of dozens of other professions or talents. Thieves and gamblers, fast talkers and diplomats, bandits and bounty hunters, and explorers and investigators all might be considered rogues, as well as countless other professions that rely upon wits, prowess, or luck. Although many rogues favor cities and the innumerable opportunities of civilization, some embrace lives on the road, journeying far, meeting exotic people, and facing fantastic danger in pursuit of equally fantastic riches. In the end, any who desire to shape their fates and live life on their own terms might come to be called rogues.

Role: Rogues excel at moving about unseen and catching foes unaware, and tend to avoid head-to-head combat. Their varied skills and abilities allow them to be highly versatile, with great variations in expertise existing between different rogues. Most, however, excel in overcoming hindrances of all types, from unlocking doors and disarming traps to outwitting magical hazards and conning dull-witted opponents.

So the question is: Can rogues accomplish this against appropriate challenges? Do the rogue's skills and class abilities allow for this in a meaningful way?

*Bolding mine*

Absolutely, and then some. The more creative the player the better adept the Rogue is in filling this role. Whether or not he can replaced by something else is inconsequential. The Rogue can handle combat, traps, scouting, social situations and more, in their own special ways, without the use of expendable resources that casters would need to invest or the extra spread of feats and skills that martials would need to invest.

While some people complain that they aren't specialized enough and don't obviously excell above all others in too many important areas, right above it states that one of the key values of the class is versitility, and they embody it well.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:

CMD by CR, Min/Median/Max

5: 12/23/31
10: 24/32/40
15: 37/41/54
20+: 47/54/66

Anyone putting enough ranks in Acrobatics can hit those numbers. The sample rogue I posted has +12 at level 5, +18 at level 10, +23 at level 15, and +34 at level 20. He is 15 point buy and I didn't completely focus on Acrobatics, it could be higher.

First let me set what I consider a reasonable investment in a skill. This is a skill that you max in ranks and is likely a class skill (either via class or trait). Imho if you invest in feats for a skill you should be able to exceed in it rather than just tread water, YMMV.

Now using your numbers for the rogue, let's see what rolls that they would need to make against a median creature with a CR = level.

At 5th you're asking for an 11. A 50-50 shot.
Then at 10th it's up to a 14.

By 15th you need an 18, and at 20th you need a natural 20.

You would need to pick up two feats in order to by 20th have a 50-50 shot!

This seems as if it needs a bit more to it, and that indeed it does lose ground as you are leveling.

Now that said, I think your numbers are a little off here in terms of what the bonus should be. Let me come up with a reasonable score for a rogue investing in acrobatics.

Starting with a 15 (adjusted by race to 17) DEX score, bumping DEX at each opportunity, investing in DEX boosters, and picking up skill boosters along the way I would see the bonuses as:

5th +13 (5ranks+3class+4NatDEX+1DEX item)
10th +24 (10ranks+3class+4NatDEX+2DEX item+5skill booster)
15th +36 (15ranks+3class+5NatDEX+3DEX item+10skill booster)
20th +45 (20ranks+3class+6NatDEX+3DEX item+10skill booster+3generic)

This would have you needing at
5th a die roll of 10
10th a die roll of 8
15th a die roll of 5 (10 if the skill booster wasn't upgraded yet)
20th a die roll of 9 (upto 12 depending on things like luckstones, etc)

Which seems more reasonable to me than your figures.

-James


james maissen wrote:
First let me set what I consider a reasonable investment in a skill. This is a skill that you max in ranks and is likely a class skill (either via class or trait). Imho if you invest in feats for a skill you should be able to exceed in it rather than just tread water, YMMV.

I only invested ranks and 1 feat into the skill. It wasn't his primary focus. As a scout (that was his build), he was not really meant to be in the fray until the rest of the party arrived. I also assume that there are plenty of encounters with a challenge rating less than the character but still of an equivalent encounter level. Most encounters shouldn't be equal (or even higher as one person assumes).

Quote:

Now using your numbers for the rogue, let's see what rolls that they would need to make against a median creature with a CR = level.

At 5th you're asking for an 11. A 50-50 shot.
Then at 10th it's up to a 14.

By 15th you need an 18, and at 20th you need a natural 20.

You would need to pick up two feats in order to by 20th have a 50-50 shot!

This seems as if it needs a bit more to it, and that indeed it does lose ground as you are leveling.

I agree with your assessment. Like I said, I didn't focus on the skill as much as I could have and there are plenty of things that could be done to improve it. I also don't think that the rogue (or any character) should be using Acrobatics at all times. There is a time and a place for it. Those higher CR monsters are huge or bigger with high strength and dexterity which makes some things more difficult. Like I said in an earlier post, I think the rogue should think it through a bit and decide if he wants to be tumbling around a dragon.

Quote:

Now that said, I think your numbers are a little off here in terms of what the bonus should be. Let me come up with a reasonable score for a rogue investing in acrobatics.

Starting with a 15 (adjusted by race to 17) DEX score, bumping DEX at each opportunity, investing in DEX boosters, and picking up skill boosters along the way I would see the bonuses as:

5th +13 (5ranks+3class+4NatDEX+1DEX item)
10th +24 (10ranks+3class+4NatDEX+2DEX item+5skill booster)
15th +36 (15ranks+3class+5NatDEX+3DEX item+10skill booster)
20th +45 (20ranks+3class+6NatDEX+3DEX item+10skill booster+3generic)

This would have you needing at
5th a die roll of 10
10th a die roll of 8
15th a die roll of 5 (10 if the skill booster wasn't upgraded yet)
20th a die roll of 9 (upto 12 depending on things like luckstones, etc)

Which seems more reasonable to me than your figures.

-James

You are right if that was my character's focus. I was also looking over the character and I realized that I didn't give him all his gear for level 15 and 20. At both levels he has the gear of a level 10 character.

At level 15, if I give him a better belt (+2 more Dex), ioun stone, wand of heroism, and boots of elven kind, he's at +32.

At level 20, give him a luckstone and a manual of Dexterity +5 and his Acrobatics check rises to +41.

A wand of empowered gallant inspiration can also improve those numbers by up to +7 more (+3 to +12 competence bonus with an average of +7.5).


Here are a few snippets from your post:

Bob_Loblaw wrote:


I only invested ranks and 1 feat into the skill. It wasn't his primary focus.

I also don't think that the rogue (or any character) should be using Acrobatics at all times.

You are right if that was my character's focus.

Well to me investing a feat is a permanent investment and something that imho is much stronger than say investing up to 15k gold by 20th (the +10 skill booster on top of some other item enchantment or on armor).

My investments and theory behind are as follows:

You've invested a full skill into something- it should pay off when only moderately supported. One shouldn't need to invest feats for this in order to tread water, rather feat investment should allow one to excel.

I invested a +5 then a +10 skill boost item at reasonable levels (10th and somewhere around 15/20th respectively), while the other investments were things that would be taken anyway (boosting DEX and generically boosting skills in the end game).

To me this is a moderate investment commensurate with electing to keep a skill at max ranks. A specialty (or focus as you call it) would involve skill boosters showing at a much earlier level as well as a feat/class investment in them along the line.

Now I certainly agree with you that PF has made tumbling something that is not automatic against all creatures, and thus it should not be seen as a mindless tactic. That can be lost in board discussions so I wanted to highlight it by responding to it directly.

Likewise there are spell boosts available to augment these numbers, but I figure that is balanced out by outliers or facing higher CR opponents.

-James


james maissen wrote:
Now I certainly agree with you that PF has made tumbling something that is not automatic against all creatures, and thus it should not be seen as a mindless tactic. That can be lost in board discussions so I wanted to highlight it by responding to it directly.

I think this is one of the things I like best about Pathfinder and the way they handled skills. For most skills there is a reason to continue to invest since most don't have a maximum DC they are trying to hit.

I think we are pretty much in agreement, if you want to do well with Acrobatics (or any skill for that matter) you need to put a little work into it but it can be done. It won't gimp your character in other areas. It is not auto fail as is assumed by one poster.


One guy shows up and everything gets flipped upside down. Anyway if rogues really had a mechanic to con dull witted opponents (ya know, monsters) that would be awesome, bluff may count but that doesn't have a big enough effect. If rogues could move that to a swift action it could be a pretty big jump for them. Seriously let them use their skills more productively.

So with that and adding more de-buffing sneak attacks I would be happy.

It does seem pretty lackluster that they had to include traps twice in what the rogue is good at both magical and non-magical, they use the word hazards but that is obviously referring to traps.


Shadow_of_death wrote:

One guy shows up and everything gets flipped upside down. Anyway if rogues really had a mechanic to con dull witted opponents (ya know, monsters) that would be awesome, bluff may count but that doesn't have a big enough effect. If rogues could move that to a swift action it could be a pretty big jump for them. Seriously let them use their skills more productively.

So with that and adding more de-buffing sneak attacks I would be happy.

It does seem pretty lackluster that they had to include traps twice in what the rogue is good at both magical and non-magical, they use the word hazards but that is obviously referring to traps.

They do have a mechanic to con dull witted opponents (not necessarily monsters). They can use Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate along with still putting points in several other skills.

With the addition of the APG, they have talents like Coax Information which helps them even more because now they can spend their skill points on other things instead of all those skills. With Charmer, he can roll twice increasing his odds of success. Plus some of the archetypes give more options for those social skills.

With a high enough Bluff check, a rogue can convince someone that they can hold their breath under water for an hour. Sure, it's at -20 but with enough ranks and focus on being a liar, he can pull it off. Most people don't put much into their Sense Motive skill.

With a high enough Diplomacy, a rogue can convince the queen that she should give the rogue access to the armory. Again, not an easy task by any means but it is possible.

With a high enough Intimidate, you can convince the enemy to drop their weapons. Imagine a rogue convincing a medusa to drop her weapons and leave, thereby saving the party time and resources. The DC is 10 + 8 + 1, which is only 19. Heck, even a 1st level rogue could pull that off with a 70% chance of success (1 rank +3 class skill +2 modifier +3 skill focus +2 half-orc +1 trait). No, I don't think he should be going up against the medusa at level 1. Yes, he actually has a decent chance if he's built that way. Of course he's going to need at least 1 minute but with a decent enough bluff check (1 rank +3 class +2 modifier +1 trait +10 if he can provide "proof" of some sort).

The trick with rogues is using everything available. The rogue player should be working every angle he can do get the most from his skills. While other characters can do this too, it's part of playing a rogue.

I do think there should be a feat or talent that would help them reduce the time it takes to use these skills. Even if it only reduced the time by 50%, that would be a boost. I think it would be fine to have a talent that allowed them to reduce the time to use the skill with a -1 penalty per round down to a full-round action at -10.

I would love for you to be able to join me at my table for a session or two so you can see how much fun your current DM is depriving you by not allowing you to use skills often. I'm not trying to insult him or his style. It's just a difference in play styles.

Liberty's Edge

james maissen wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:

CMD by CR, Min/Median/Max

5: 12/23/31
10: 24/32/40
15: 37/41/54
20+: 47/54/66

Anyone putting enough ranks in Acrobatics can hit those numbers. The sample rogue I posted has +12 at level 5, +18 at level 10, +23 at level 15, and +34 at level 20. He is 15 point buy and I didn't completely focus on Acrobatics, it could be higher.

First let me set what I consider a reasonable investment in a skill. This is a skill that you max in ranks and is likely a class skill (either via class or trait). Imho if you invest in feats for a skill you should be able to exceed in it rather than just tread water, YMMV.

Now using your numbers for the rogue, let's see what rolls that they would need to make against a median creature with a CR = level.

At 5th you're asking for an 11. A 50-50 shot.
Then at 10th it's up to a 14.

By 15th you need an 18, and at 20th you need a natural 20.

You would need to pick up two feats in order to by 20th have a 50-50 shot!

This seems as if it needs a bit more to it, and that indeed it does lose ground as you are leveling.

Now that said, I think your numbers are a little off here in terms of what the bonus should be. Let me come up with a reasonable score for a rogue investing in acrobatics.

Starting with a 15 (adjusted by race to 17) DEX score, bumping DEX at each opportunity, investing in DEX boosters, and picking up skill boosters along the way I would see the bonuses as:

5th +13 (5ranks+3class+4NatDEX+1DEX item)
10th +24 (10ranks+3class+4NatDEX+2DEX item+5skill booster)
15th +36 (15ranks+3class+5NatDEX+3DEX item+10skill booster)
20th +45 (20ranks+3class+6NatDEX+3DEX item+10skill booster+3generic)

This would have you needing at
5th a die roll of 10
10th a die roll of 8
15th a die roll of 5 (10 if the skill booster wasn't upgraded yet)
20th a die roll of 9 (upto 12 depending on things like luckstones, etc)

Which seems more reasonable to me than your figures.

-James

Just throwing up a spreadsheet. I assumed minimums of Dex and only adding skill focus, so obviously very lowball numbers.

Tumble Numbers

The Exchange

Lythe Featherblade wrote:
When the action is hard, is when the rogue is needed most for additional damage, not for hiding and watching his teammates get slaughtered.

Hey, it takes a lot of skill to not laugh and maintain Stealth checks while teammates are slaughtered. And who ensures that any fallen teammate gear/loot the baddies didn't want ends up in good homes, via fair market prices?


Ringtail wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:


No, here's what actually happens:

Tumble was nerfed immensely, because skill users are not allowed to have nice things. You likely fail to Tumble, and get smacked anyways, while still moving at half speed. In any case, you attack once, and either miss or do some small amount of damage.

You're now in full attack range, and enemies' attack will most certainly not be divided. If they full attack you, and since Rogues have the worst defenses in the game there is some merit to that you drop dead. If it doesn't attack you, it attacks the other thing, and then everyone else kills the enemy.

Except you're wrong and what really really happens is that the rogue successfully tumbles into position, gets his flank attack, grants others a +2 for flanking, and helps down the enemy.

I hate to say it (ok, maybe I don't) but your group is not the gold standard by which the Pathfinder game is judged. Your group =/= my group. You've made it abundantly clear that you hate the rogue class. You've shown that you won't hear anything good said about the class. Because your group experience with rogue is negative then everyone else's must be as well. Sorry, that just isn't the case.

CoDzilla does have a good point about a strong negative for the Rogue. Not the Acrobatics thing, I've seen no trouble with PF Acrobatics at all, but the statement of the Rogue's weak defenses. They often have excellent Touch AC, but more often then not, from what I've seen, their AC will be below that of a martial or divine type (from lack of heavier armor and spells), and not have the miss chances of an arcane caster (who has tricks like Mirror Image and Displacement). While the Rogue is by no means requried to hang out in melee reach during combat, he does have to spend a lot of focus on his defense to do so effectively. He also has bad progression in both Fortitude and Will saving throws, with little mechanical incentive past increasing Will save and a minor increase to...

The AC isn't a big deal, as everyone will get auto hit anyways. What is a problem is their HP and saves. The saves because they are very weak to all save or loses due to bad base progression + nothing to compensate. The HP because MAD and no crafting means they have the lowest HP in the party, even if a Wizard is there. Difference is, Wizard isn't dancing in full attack range.

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

CMD by CR, Min/Median/Max

<1:2/10/15
1: 4/13/17
2: 6/16/20
3: 9/18/22
4: 10/20/26
5: 12/23/31
6: 14/24/29
7: 6/26/38
8: 22/28/32
9: 24/32/43
10: 24/32/40
11: 24/33/49
12: 25/35/43
13: 31/36/42
14: 32/37/45
15: 37/41/54
16: 39/43/45
17: 42/48/56
18: 44/50/57
19: 50/51/52
20+: 47/54/66

Anyone putting enough ranks in Acrobatics can hit those numbers. The sample rogue I posted has +12 at level 5, +18 at level 10, +23 at level 15, and +34 at level 20. He is 15 point buy and I didn't completely focus on Acrobatics, it could be higher.

By your own words:

Level 5: Auto pass vs the lowest ones (probably not the ones you want to flip past), only 50/50 for the average ones, 10% chance for the highest ones.
Level 10: 75% chance vs the lowest ones, 35% chance vs the average ones, auto fail vs the highest ones.
Level 15: 35% chance vs the lowest ones, 10% chance vs the average ones, auto fail vs the highest ones.
Level 20: 40% chance vs the lowest ones, 5% chance vs the average ones, auto fail vs anything higher.

Therefore, as you yourself have proven not only do skills fail to perform their intended functions, but you actually get worse at them over time. Because they are foiled by the exact same thing that makes maneuvers a complete waste of time.

And that's just the routine, at level enemies. If you ever fight anything even a little higher level, you start failing even more.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
And fighters and barbarians have low Will saves so let's call that point moot. Being in our out of melee combat has nothing to do with what saves are good. A fighter is probably more likely to fail his Will save because he has no reason to boost his Wis whatsoever and I'd be willing to bet most people dump theirs to 7.
I don't dump my fighter's Wisdom. That's asking for trouble. Unfortunately the stat that usually gets dumped for my fighters is Charisma. I may dump Intelligence or Dexterity if the concept calls for that but those are not my first choices.

Maybe it was a bit inaccurate to say "most". Let's instead say those focused on "optimizing" or "powergaming". In such case all unneeded attributes will be dumped as low as they can to get the points for their prime stats.

You may be right but then I question the player's ability to optimize. I'm not a fan of dump stats but I understand that they exist in general. Having more than 1 is poor optimization by my standards. I don't like to optimize to one trick. I like to build a character that is optimal to play for a campaign. One trick optimizations tend not to last long in my games. I don't target them. They just can't do much and my games are diverse.

Well, of course one trick ponies can't do much. The alternative is a no trick pony. Still worth it.

Ringtail wrote:
And 3) Fighters and Barbarians, while in that instance would have just as poor or worse Will save than the Rogue, would likely have a much greater Fortitude, since Con matters a lot to martial types and they have a good save to begin with. So while they have to worry about a bad Will, they don't simaltaineously have to worry about shoring a poor Fortitude.

Everyone has min 14 Con.


Once your illusion of choice has been broken, let me know what dumpster you use.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post and the replies to it. Civil debate is welcome, uncivil debate is just a yelling match and will not be tolerated.

I'm also locking this thread, since it hasn't been about Rogues for pages and pages, and instead is just the same argument being pursued in several other threads. If you really want to continue the discussion, take it to one of those.

1,351 to 1,387 of 1,387 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Can anyone show me how Rogues are not the worst class in Pathfinder? All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion