Why is see invis a valid way to disregard invisibility while Perception is not a valid way of disregarding the stealth skill?
I haven't done the research to see what degree this is or isn't still true in Pathfinder, but in 3.5 it was trivial for stealth to win the arms race -- getting +50 Hide by level 10 or so wasn't all that hard and there was no way you were getting the Perception to keep up.
Also, don't forget the range penalties.
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.Just wanted to comment on this. Honestly? It IS clever. Which would you rather do, if you were in a dangerous dungeon. Send an disposable advanced scout of some kind to trigger the traps and blow themselves up, or send one of your men in to try to find and disable the traps, and maybe blow himself up?
Which do you prefer? Risking one of your men to maybe pass safely, or passing safely without risking one of your men? (Incidentally, I remember reading about a party that used a log for this, propelled by the barbarian's strength, to forcibly activate traps ahead of the party. Fun story)
Figured I'd hit a nerve somewhere with that one. I gave my opinion, and stand by it. I don't think that was what the spell was intended for, and routinely using it that way is kind of cheesy, in my opinion. It also strikes me as very callous. Compelling other living (and sometimes sentient) creatures to injure or kill themselves while you stand back safely and watch just doesn't appeal to me as what heroes do. You can argue that summoning them to fight for you is much the same thing, but the difference to me is that you are fighting along with them, not sitting safely out of danger.
i think i can sum up why rogues are usefull in any party, with about two words
rogue talents.
These guys are so awsome its kinda hard to believe. If you wanted to do a damage dealer, (like jack b. nimble) then assuming you can sneak attack, and you really should be able to do that almost every time, consider these
Bleeding attack. (causes 1 dam bleed per sneak attack die)
Crippling strike (causes 2 str dam per sneak attack that hits)
i agree that the rogue might not outdamage the fighter, but with Jack B nimbles 4 attacks per round (5 if he were half orc with bite, and yes that would be very good for him), he would not only cause 5 bleed damage to the opponent he hits, but also about 5-6 str damage a turn. That is HUGE. hit a fighter in fullplate and in 2 rounds he cant move, hit a mage and he cant move (4 str left). Not only is there a chance that the person falls prone because of weight, but he will also recieve -2 dam, -2 hit, -2 CMB, -2 CMD. So basicly give the rogue 2 rounds to attack the BBEG and he will be so nerfed the rest of the party can go home.
I cant think of any class that can deliver ability damage, while having a fine damage output. He can also get Dispelling strike at lvl 12, and after one full attack bonus the BBEG will now also be dispelled from pretty much everything. (being affected by 2-3 dispels the turn), also a huge benefit.
on top of that the rogue gets skills, trapfinding, sneak, cast some spells (with talents: color spray or shocking grasp). So to claim he is useless is wrong, unless you define useless only as doing less damage than the fighter, and in that case you are right.
I gave my opinion, and stand by it. I don't think that was what the spell was intended for, and routinely using it that way is kind of cheesy, in my opinion. It also strikes me as very callous. Compelling other living (and sometimes sentient) creatures to injure or kill themselves while you stand back safely and watch just doesn't appeal to me as what heroes do. You can argue that summoning them to fight for you is much the same thing, but the difference to me is that you are fighting along with them, not sitting safely out of danger.
There's precedent back to the beginning, though: that's more or less how Robilar got through the Tomb of Horrors, with Gygax DMing. Robilar was a fighter with no "find traps" percentage, but with a sizable army of orc followers. He just sent hordes of orcs ahead of him, offering a magic item to any of them that found a trap and survived it, and cautioning the others to be less careless when one died. After losing about 50 or so followers, he'd found most of the traps. Callous? Gods, yes (Robilar was LE, IIRC). But effective.
Why is see invis a valid way to disregard invisibility while Perception is not a valid way of disregarding the stealth skill?
Because See Invisible defeats invisibility 100% of the time. A high perception beats a high stealth... 50% of the time. Often less. And stealth costs no resources to engage.
This.
Because See Invisible defeats invisibility 100% of the time. A high perception beats a high stealth... 50% of the time. Often less. And stealth costs no resources to engage.
Except EVERYONE in the party needs to succeed at a Stealth check, and only one person on the opposition needs to beat the lowest Stealth DC with his Perception roll. If the base rate is 50/50, then 2 people make it 25%/75%, and so on. A party of four, and stealth is essentially an auto-fail.
Likewise, see inviso is binary: either you have it or you don't. On the other hand, the bad guys can roll Perception vs. Stealth every time you need to make a new Stealth check (after moving, etc.). And you can't use Stealth at all while being observed: it's 0%.
There's precedent back to the beginning, though: that's more or less how Robilar got through the Tomb of Horrors, with Gygax DMing. Robilar was a fighter with no "find traps" percentage, but with a sizable army of orc followers. He just sent hordes of orcs ahead of him, offering a magic item to any of them that found a trap and survived it, and cautioning the others to be less careless when one died. After losing about 50 or so followers, he'd found most of the traps. Callous? Gods, yes (Robilar was LE, IIRC). But effective.I gave my opinion, and stand by it. I don't think that was what the spell was intended for, and routinely using it that way is kind of cheesy, in my opinion. It also strikes me as very callous. Compelling other living (and sometimes sentient) creatures to injure or kill themselves while you stand back safely and watch just doesn't appeal to me as what heroes do. You can argue that summoning them to fight for you is much the same thing, but the difference to me is that you are fighting along with them, not sitting safely out of danger.
Point taken. Robilar was a jerk. And I guess people wanting to roleplay jerks has always been with us. Not my cup of tea. I kind of like feeling heroic when I play, but I guess everyobody's different.
Robilar was a jerk. And I guess people wanting to roleplay jerks has always been with us.
To paraphrase Robert Parker: "Naturally, I assumed he was tough and ruthless -- that's not a profession in which candy-asses flourish." Some amount of being a "jerk" is often needed in high-risk, life-or-death undertakings.
I will point out that summoned creatures don't die or get real injuries. If a summon is destroyed the creature reappears unharmed in it's home plane.
And do they not feel fear or pain? Haven't convinced me yet.
I suspect these guys defending stealth are referring to the rogue sneaking off independently from the party (which, sadly, doesn't happen as often as it should, because that kind of scouting mission is awesome!)
We do it a lot at our table, with the understanding that I make one mass roll for all the bad guys' Perception (otherwise no one would ever do it).
Monsters have seriously high perception in Pathfinder, and so do many characters. (Look at dinosaurs, higher level aberrations, outsiders and dragons).
Also see invis is a limited ability, there not many people who can cast it, and fewer who can cast it one someone else (since you can't). If you're fighting an enemy spell caster that means that he is also using one of his spell slots to neutralize another 2nd level spell, which his minions get no benefit from.
By level 10 it's not too uncommon for a perception bonus for a character that is wisdom based to have a +18, +24 if skill focused. and then there are cheesy ways around this like magic items and the feather domain. (which all combined would be a +34 at 10th level, that's about as high as i know how to get it). Other classes such as the ranger also get bonii to perception. And stealth is still a skill roll, you could roll a 1 at any time, where this is not the case with case with a spell. As for the spell not being prepared who does that? If it's an option to cast invis on yourself why not always have that option available. If not there is always your arcane bond. i would consider taking vanish as a major magic talent for a rogue (consider), i find magic invis that useful.
Robilar was a jerk. And I guess people wanting to roleplay jerks has always been with us.To paraphrase Robert Parker: "Naturally, I assumed he was tough and ruthless -- that's not a profession in which candy-asses flourish." Some amount of being a "jerk" is often needed in high-risk, life-or-death undertakings.
I think there's a lot of wiggle room between being a "candy-ass" and being a ruthless jerk. Let your thief do what a thief is designed to do. He doesn't want to risk his life? Why is he an adventurer?
Skill Usage vs Combat Effectiveness is basically the crux of the problem.
In the 3.x design space in general in order to be good with skills you need to take a hit in terms of your combat effectiveness. The rogue is the primary skill monkey thus is needs to be inferior to the primary melee brute (fighter) in the fighter's area of expertise. By a similar token the fighter needs to be absolutely pants in terms of skills.
Reasons for this design choice basically are about preserving niche protection and the old school rogues suck in combat design.
Sneak Attack is a leveler but it's got all sorts of weird features attached to it that limit it's functionality (although Pathfinder has helped on that some).
Rogues looking for DPR optimization kinda get pigeonholed into a limited number of builds. It's always melee (ranged sneak attacks are way too sketchy outside of some niche builds) and typically the TWF short sword/kukri or occasionally the half-orc THF Falchion build.
Other builds can increase non combat utility but typically come at the cost of decreasing combat utility. For some games with a high percentage of combat focused encounters this makes the rogue a suboptimal class. In other games where skill use and social interaction make up a large percentage of encounters then the rogue really shines.
I think from a design perspective it would be good to have both fighters and rogues excel in martial combat as well as non-combat scenarios but backwards compatibility limits the ability to redesign the core classes.
You are correct, rogues are the trap for new players to die in. At best rogue is a 2 level class, or a class to be played in extremely low magic/ low stat games, or as a challenge.
I do enjoy Rogue 2 / Paladin 4 as a base for a melee build though...
Good build. Like many people, I tend to base as Rogue for the first couple of multi-class levels for skills/Ref save/Evasion and then concentrate on the core class concept.
However, I absolutely LOVED my pure PF Rogue, and was gutted when I lost his character sheet during a campaign break doing Rise of the Runelords. Its the versatility of roleplay options, abilities and skills that appealed and still do today.
It is a shame that so many people want to break everything down to just numbers. Sure, you can out damage a Rogue with pretty much any other class on an average basis, but a high damage sneak attack is still going to hurt (not to mention poisons, sniping from hiding with a crossbow, sneak-attacking with a ceiling tile using Razor Sharp Chair Leg and a bunch of other rogueish things) and satisfying in the extreme.
But its the versatility. You are the party jack of all trades without having to work on it, that is your core concept. Stealth, trap finding, picking pockets, forging documents and the like are all part and parcel unless you actually choose to ignore them. Unlike a Wizard who may be better off looking at Knowledge skills to sink their points into rather than stealth, or Rangers who can sneak as well but need to specialise to be trap-finders, Rogues just can by default.
I don't agree that playing a rogue as a new player (or an experienced one) will get you killed. Call it providence, but quite often it is the tank that goes first (face it, you don't have THAT many hit points at lvl 2 even as a fighter unless you are ridiculously min-maxed or over-equipped your con bonus beyond realms of reasonable probability) or the healer who gets unlucky while diving to make that save, or the cloth-caster who stood in the wrong place at the wrong time. I dunno, I just guess in my experience bringing new players into D&D (and PF) the Rogues just got lucky... but then, isn't that just what a Rogue is in the first place?
That, and your average power-gamer Rogue player maxes out their dex... so that sneak attack was delivered by bow shot anyway.
As said before, archer monks in the APG are beastly. Rogues, however, were given no exciting new options in that book.
I disagree I love my Gnome Rogue/Investigator he may not be a blender but he is good representation of a good Intelligence Built Rogue. Combat weak maybe but can solve problems and gather information better than most.
Where is the other 6 coming from? I am sure that even with the 30 you should be ok, but I am curious.
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,
We use Hero Lab. It took us a few minutes the last session to figure it out. I do wish that Hero Lab would break it all down.
Ranks: 11
Class Skill: 3
Dex: 4
Skill Focus: 6
MW Thieve's Tools: 2
Vagabond Child Trait: 1
Trap Finding: 4
Goggle of Minute Seeing: 5
Total: 36
I think you missed the trait and the goggles.
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?
Those all use up resources that the rogue doesn't have to worry about. Disabling the trap simply means no spells or damage are required to deal with the trap. The rogue allows the casters to use their spells more judiciously.
How about they're useful because they're fun to play. I've played many rogues in my time and I don't play them because I think they out DPS the Fighters or Wizards. I play them because I like being sneaky, I like moving around in fights and setting up the perfect flank, I like being the guy the party depends on to get the traps disabled or locks picked, I like the flavor of rogues, and there are other reasons.
If the only thing you're worried about is dealing the most damage or who's better at what when specialized, then no you won't like the rogue. I've never played D&D for the combat and, as important as it is, it's not what the game is all about.
I'll kindly note that the sword of subtlety is Core PF, and any rogue with one of those hits as well as most FIghters and barbs when Sneak Attacking. Those things can make your DPR take right off.
==Aelryinth
|
Tanis - how do rogues get pounce without massive multi-classing?3.5 Complete Champion - 1st lvl Barbarian Lion Totem Variant. Or Claws of the Leopard from MiC.
Also, as I said everyone can get UMD in class with one feat (and they get other things to go along with it).
Two-handed fighters do much more damage and have a better chance of hitting. From my experience at least.
And though you can turn off a wizards spells, there is nothing from preventing them from still having a decent stealth bonus.
More attacks = more sneak attack. Add the toothy 1/2 orc racial trait and you've got 3 attacks at 1st lvl. That's potentially 6d6 + whatever.
Wizards will *never* beat Rogues at Stealth.
"never say never" at high level a wizard cast mind blank at the beginning of the day and cast invisibility when time to be stealthy!
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.
That does not make it useless. It makes it useless for certain groups.
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?
nobody said everything was trapped.
All of your points are based on lies or misinterpretation. Maybe you are trying to be humorous. I can't tell. The deal is this, not everyone plays the same game so we can only tell you what we think is most likely to happen, and the fact that people defend the rogue, and monk(sighs) should tell you that.PS:People should flank rogue or not.
Those all use up resources that the rogue doesn't have to worry about. Disabling the trap simply means no spells or damage are required to deal with the trap. The rogue allows the casters to use their spells more judiciously.
The problem with that argument is that it basically requires more trap damage to be avoided by having the rogue in the party each day, than an equal level cleric could cure in a day. Otherwise, the party's still ahead limited resources by swapping their rogue for a cleric.
I love the rogue class probably more than can be mechanically justified, but I still feel compelled to insist on honest arguments in favor of it -- and trapfinding just hasn't been a very good one in any edition of the game. Unfortunately.
Those all use up resources that the rogue doesn't have to worry about. Disabling the trap simply means no spells or damage are required to deal with the trap. The rogue allows the casters to use their spells more judiciously.The problem with that argument is that it basically requires more trap damage to be avoided by having the rogue in the party each day, than an equal level cleric could cure in a day. Otherwise, the party's still ahead limited resources by swapping their rogue for a cleric.
I love the rogue class probably more than can be mechanically justified, but I still feel compelled to insist on honest arguments in favor of it -- and trapfinding just hasn't been a very good one in any edition of the game. Unfortunately.
You are assuming the traps do hit point damage. I think if a DM is just going to do hit point damage then he is better of just using a monster. Traps should be used to inflict status affects inconvenience the party in another manner*. If the party has the means to overcome the status the they have used up resources, but if they don't they have to decide between continuing on in a weakened state, or returning to town. A limit on time may make that a bad option. Having two clerics, or might increase the chance that one of them can take care of the issue, but it is better just to avoid the issue altogether.
*I once had a game where if the trap got set off they got teleported back to the beginning of the dungeon. The baddies also knew you were there so now they have time to regroup.
Another trap was a pit trap in the room with a boss level fight. When you charge you don't get a perception check to see the trap so now the party is down one party member in an important fight.
PRD:Covered pits are much more dangerous. They can be detected with a DC 20 Perception check, but only if the character is taking the time to carefully examine the area before walking across it. A character who fails to detect a covered pit is still entitled to a DC 20 Reflex save to avoid falling into it. If she was running or moving recklessly at the time, however, she gets no saving throw and falls automatically.
Those all use up resources that the rogue doesn't have to worry about. Disabling the trap simply means no spells or damage are required to deal with the trap. The rogue allows the casters to use their spells more judiciously.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?
The question becomes is the rogue saving enough resource expenditure in disarming enough to compensate for what another class would have brought to the table overall? If it isn't, then it is not good enough.
I would say that it most certainly is not and it use to be in previous editions. Even if you were to face one trap every four combats (your standard expected daily amount of encounters) and your party makes their saves at the expected amount, you aren't going to make up the difference.
Your generic party of Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue is going to be less than Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and say Cleric/Bard/Druid even if the Rogue is always successful in finding and disarming the trap in terms of resource expenditure. And with most traps simply not doing more than "Reflex Save ___ or X damage" all it is is a comparitive resource drain on OOC healing.
I think it is important to realize that these classes do not exist in a vacuum.
Yes, a wizard has decent skill points thanks to his high Int (but not from his class) but wizards have much more appealing skills to spend their points in than stealth. If a wizard wants to be stealthy, he memorizes spells. He doesn't spend ranks in stealth, unless he is multiclassed with a stealthier class.
Yes, a wizard can cast invisibility, but he isn't silent. An invisible wizard sneaking past guards is undoubtedly sweating bullets. They may not *see* him, but that doesn't mean he goes unnoticed. Stealth is more effective in this regard, being able to prevent others from noticing you at all.
Climbing? Spider climb is nice, but duration is a problem. If you climb a wall, chances are you are going to have to climb it again later when you make your exit. The same with fly. You can fly to your goal, but how will you get back?
Yes, a wizard can do these things, but they cost resources. Resources that a wizard would probably rather spend on things that they can do well. In short, rogues are free. Wizards have their hands full.
Rogues aren't as tough as other fighters, but their defenses are nothing to turn your nose up at. Dex and light armor is just as valid a means of getting to a high AC as heavy armor and a stout shield. Plus, they have a reflex save to die for, and evasion to go along with it. When the rest of the party is biting their knuckles from the pain of that last enemy fireball, the rogue just shrugs, brushes the ash from his shoulders, and gets back to stabbing the wizard in the back with pointy objects.
And if things do get dicey for the rogue (and things get dicey for any character no matter what hat they wear) they have the most ability to get back out of it. In my experience, when a wizard is in trouble, it's because he lacks whatever spell it is that he would ordinarily need for the situation. (whoops. I guess I should have prepared feather fall today. Darn.) Whereas rogues have all the versatility they need to escape that pickle they have gotten themselves into. A wizard caught in the grasp of some tentacled beast is probably moments from death. Rogues take escape artist just for this reason. Don't think of this as a quality to make up for how "bad" the class is. This is an extra layer of defense that the rogue has that many other classes do not. If there is a skill that will get them out of trouble, and save their bacon (or the party's!) chances are good that the rogue has it.
Personally, I don't even know why this discussion is even necessary. Sure, rogues have their problem moments, and usually it involves foes that cannot be sneak attacked. But I don't think I have ever sat down to a game and thought to myself that rogues were sub-par as a class. They are one of the classic four roles of an adventuring party, and they fill out their role well. I think that speaks well enough on its own.
I think it is important to realize that these classes do not exist in a vacuum.
Yes, a wizard has decent skill points thanks to his high Int (but not from his class) but wizards have much more appealing skills to spend their points in than stealth. If a wizard wants to be stealthy, he memorizes spells. He doesn't spend ranks in stealth, unless he is multiclassed with a stealthier class.
Yes, a wizard can cast invisibility, but he isn't silent. An invisible wizard sneaking past guards is undoubtedly sweating bullets. They may not *see* him, but that doesn't mean he goes unnoticed. Stealth is more effective in this regard, being able to prevent others from noticing you at all.
Climbing? Spider climb is nice, but duration is a problem. If you climb a wall, chances are you are going to have to climb it again later when you make your exit. The same with fly. You can fly to your goal, but how will you get back?
Yes, a wizard can do these things, but they cost resources. Resources that a wizard would probably rather spend on things that they can do well. In short, rogues are free. Wizards have their hands full.
Rogues aren't as tough as other fighters, but their defenses are nothing to turn your nose up at. Dex and light armor is just as valid a means of getting to a high AC as heavy armor and a stout shield. Plus, they have a reflex save to die for, and evasion to go along with it. When the rest of the party is biting their knuckles from the pain of that last enemy fireball, the rogue just shrugs, brushes the ash from his shoulders, and gets back to stabbing the wizard in the back with pointy objects.
And if things do get dicey for the rogue (and things get dicey for any character no matter what hat they wear) they have the most ability to get back out of it. In my experience, when a wizard is in trouble, it's because he lacks whatever spell it is that he would ordinarily need for the situation. (whoops. I guess I should have prepared feather fall today. Darn.) Whereas rogues...
* Fair point on skills. The wizard is probably not going to spend his points on stealth.
* A wizard would usually dimension door to get to the other side of some guards. Or a multitude of other spells. The only time he would really need to facilitate "sneaking" is to scout, and for that he has divination spells or a familiar. Barring severe anti-magic conditions, he beats the rogue hands down in this regard.
* You get there, you can probably get back unless circumstances have drastically changed. If you need to sneak into an area, the wizard is your man not the rogue.
* Fair point on AC and reflex save damage in combat.
* Things can go ill for anyone, true. And skills are valuable, again true. But in most potentially lethal situations the rogue actually has one of the worst situations. They don't have the magic to counter the effect (freedom of movement, dimension door, delay poison), nor do they have the high CMD of their full BAB melee pals.
* I agree that classically they were one of the "Big Four". But that was in the days were we need to find and disarm that symbol of death or 2d6 immediate poison gas constitution damage trap, etc etc. But traps are now so much "Take some generic damage" effects or slow acting poisons. Like you said yourself, nothing exists in a vacuum. Rogues counter traps, traps use to be carriers for lethal effects, they nerfed lethal effects, thus rogues have a proportional decline in value from that. It isn't so much that rogues changed, it is that the environment has.
Traps not deadly enough?
Hard trap vs. group of lvl 10 characters is CR 12.
For 19200 XP budget you can have exactly three CR 9 traps, that’s 3x +20 ranged attack against anything withing 4 sq line for 6d6 damage each. If fighter types can survive, but I’m not that sure about the rest of the group. If this happens to befall on whole group…
Please mind that the trap is not meant to kill everyone, that’s what a CR 14+ trap would be meant for.
The traps, just like everything are meant to be used with CR, and they work fine within the cofines of this mechanic IMO.
Not to digress too much, I am suddenly reminded of DDO, where the cap on Rogue truly is level 2. In that environment the players *consistently* run through traps, eat the damage and let rogue, if they brought one, hang back to get the bonus xp for disabling the traps... Also, the developers of DDO seemed to consistently put in "You must kill the Boss to get the Loot" making the Rogue a pretty pathetic Solo Class, too. Sorry about the digression!
Has anyone built a DPR Rogue based on STR, not DEX? How does the Greatsword wielding rogue compare to a fighter and his greatsword? (Swashbuckler gets the Martial weapon required to be big-base-damage weapon and access to a additional iteration of Combat Trick.) Specifically, if you kept your DPR Fighter's *exact* stat line, how would a Rogue with that stat line compare... Nothing says a Rogue cannot be Strong Like Thogg :)
Just wondering...
GNOME
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?
+1
For 19200 XP budget you can have exactly three CR 9 traps, that’s 3x +20 ranged attack against anything withing 4 sq line for 6d6 damage each. If fighter types can survive, but I’m not that sure about the rest of the group. If this happens to befall on whole group…
But since even the wizards and sorcerers in Pathfinder should average a minimum of high-60s HP at level 10, that trap probably isn't going to kill anyone, much less everyone.
Can anyone show me how Rogues are not the worst class in Pathfinder?*checks rulebooks*
Monks are still there. Your argument is invalid.
Sad to say, this is the case. You can make a monk that is a useful contributing member of the party, but you will have to min-max to hell to do it. A rogue is very playable as is- it's not a combat machine like a fighter, but it is good enough at combat to hold his own, and a rogue is a lot more helpful outside of combat than a fighter is.
Level 10 characters are not impressed by 6d6 damage, or even 6d6 damage three times. And that assumes it isn't save for half or some other such thing. The entire party will survive, and easily heal it off.
Just like a party after any other CR 12 encounter perhaps?
This is three +20 attacks agains flat-footed characters, no save for half. Healing off costs daily resources, which is calculated in party's expenditure.
But since even the wizards and sorcerers in Pathfinder should average a minimum of high-60s HP at level 10, that trap probably isn't going to kill anyone, much less everyone.For 19200 XP budget you can have exactly three CR 9 traps, that’s 3x +20 ranged attack against anything withing 4 sq line for 6d6 damage each. If fighter types can survive, but I’m not that sure about the rest of the group. If this happens to befall on whole group…
Well, not that the rolls can be less favourable to the PCs. It could easily be 72 or more.
Note that CR 12 trap should still be surviveable for a 10th level party.
Needles to say that the PCs are not exactly always in their full hp and their defenses aren’t up for the situation all day long. This is just one of about 5 regular encounters you are expedted to have in the average adventuring day.
The party that I am running through Age of Worms consists of a Barbarian/Rogue (already posted), wizard, druid, fighter, ranger/sorcerer/shadow scout, and inquisitor (the party is all level 11). The casters don't bother wasting time with spells to handle the traps or their outcomes. They simply let the rogue do his job.
Many of the traps don't do any hit point damage at all. Some damage your stats. Did you dump a stat to 7 to get those extra points? Bad idea if the rogue can't find that trap. There are traps in there that put your character in stasis. There are traps in there that flood rooms and dump you out over cliffs into water 10 feet deep where you are ambushed. There are traps in there that drop you deep into a room of silence with an illusion of a floor that you pass through. Besides the ones at the beginning of the campaign, none of the traps are meant to eliminate the PCs. They are meant to be a drain on resources, slow the party, or hinder them in some other way.
The point is that the rogue is extremely useful and has been since the beginning. I don't know how useful he will be later with the traps. I haven't finished reading the campaign. For now, the party is very grateful to have him there.
For combat, he is also a great addition. With his four attacks per round, he is a competent damage dealer. No, he's not as good as the druid's tiger but that's ok. The tiger focuses on the biggest enemy while the rogue flanks whomever he wants.
The party has invested in several wands of cure X spells. Each person who can use the wand has one. This includes the rogue. When someone is in a bind, and it happens, the rogue can get there and help out quickly.
Something to keep in mind. My players don't try to build the most uber characters they can. They build characters that are fun to play. That means that I will never see many of the unkillable wizards or druids that I have heard about for years. My players enjoy encounters that last a few rounds. Our average combat lasts 5 rounds. Yeah, the love the 1 round combats once in a while too. The problem with 1 round combats is that not everyone gets a chance to play and have fun.
The reason i completely disregard the thought that monks are a worse class than rogues is simply because of the Bow Spec in the APG, if you haven't looked at it do so, it is the most viable option that the class has. The ability to flurry as a ranged attack, as well as getting ridiculous things to improve it makes the class, at least in combat more useful. add this to the same list of skills that rogue would have with better saves, and some random things that are also useful for a stealth minded character and honestly i would play one of these over a rogue any day of the week.
|
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.
Your arguement would seem to indicate that there's no reason for any class to have abilities at level 20.
I understand that most players will not reach level 20 with a character, or simply prefer a lower level range. There are some players that do play to 20 and beyond, however, which makes those capstones a really nice addition for those PCs.
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.Your arguement would seem to indicate that there's no reason for any class to have abilities at level 20.
I understand that most players will not reach level 20 with a character, or simply prefer a lower level range. There are some players that do play to 20 and beyond, however, which makes those capstones a really nice addition for those PCs.
I want to hit 20th in every game I play. Doesn't always happen, but it's great when it does. Love those high-powered characters and enemies!
Level 10 characters are not impressed by 6d6 damage, or even 6d6 damage three times. And that assumes it isn't save for half or some other such thing. The entire party will survive, and easily heal it off.Just like a party after any other CR 12 encounter perhaps?
This is three +20 attacks agains flat-footed characters, no save for half. Healing off costs daily resources, which is calculated in party's expenditure.
No, not like a normal fight. A normal fight usually gets off more than a single attack.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/humanoids/giants/giant-tr ue/frost-giant
3 of them will do up to 18d6+78 damage, and this is every round until they die. Granted about only half of those will hit, but that's still 9d6+39 which is more than 18d6. Sure it only hits one target, but that's what you want to happen as the guy dealing the damage.
Well, how many attacks will the giants pull off? If I take average DPR of a character at this level as, say 40, then one giant falls every round. That's some 12 attacks (I'm counting with giats doing full-round melee), 6 at +18 bonus, and 6 at +13. If the trap goes off against a party, then it makes 3 attacks at +20 bonus agains flat-footed party members (if it catches, say thee characters, than it makes 9 attacks). I think that it roughly equals, despite all the deifferences of these encounters (regular combat vs. single assault).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I read the rules correctly a Rouge get a sneak attack everytime a target is flat footed.
Combat Feats to help:
Improved fient
Greater Fient
Improver Trip
Greater Trip
Combat Reflexes
all other attack of opportunities feats
Skills:
Bluff
Sense Motive
Intimidate
Stleath
sleight of hand
These are the things you need to build a combat rouge