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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 1,387 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Obvious Troll wrote:
I challenge you to a children's card game.

Go Fish.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Taziki, I have to point out. Under usual adventuring conditions in the games I play, the wizards would have multiple spell slots left open and prepare them when the grease trap was revealed, and the whole party would fly across the gap. (I trust neither of them banned transmutation, that's one of the two most important schools of magic there are to wizzies...)

But that aside, cool story :)

It can still be done in Pathfinder, but leaving too many slots open can put the wizard at a huge disadvantage. Remember that filling those slots takes 15 minutes of uninterrupted study. That isn't always an option. I also use a wide variety of traps and often many of them.

I do think this is something that many wizards should do more often but it's a skill that the player needs to master to do correctly.


Zoddy, none of the three classes you mentioned gain anywhere near the combat bonuses Rogues do from flanking.


Obvious Troll Is Obvious wrote:
Obvious Troll wrote:
I challenge you to a children's card game.
Go Fish.

Wrong children's card game.

Scarab Sages

this is a little digression away from OP's question, but i'd like to bring this up as no one has truly touched on it. saying the wizard past X level can emulate the rogue, but what about levels 1 through (x-1)? that same wizard in the rogueless party is useless (as a replacement rogue), and because there's no rogue in the party it could have resulted in a TPK long before reaching the proper level.

Spoiler:
This reminds me of a (horribly broken) mod for the Living Greyhawk campaign for RPGA 3.5; last door before the finial battle there was a spiked chain trap *behind* the door. it swept people (doing damage) into a 20 foot pit that everyone just crossed. rogue couldn't find it because it was on the other side of the door, but it wouldn't matter where it was if there was no rogues looking for traps

the trap alone was responsible for most first and 2nd level deaths at the convention (there was like 10 that weekend, including 2 of mine, they were saying i was cursed to stay 1st level -.-) and no one in the first tier managed to complete that particular module.

point is, no character just suddenly finds himself at 5th level. the *players* might roll up 5th level characters but in game things have actually happened.

Spoiler:

like other people have said, these classes aren't made in a vacuum. the rogue is roguish because of his life choices. if your character likes fuddling around with mechanisms, being sneaky and doing anything to survive, congratulation you have a rogue. if your character spends hours and hours studying tombs, memorizing facts and figures about everything, finds the arcane the answer to everything, then congratulations its a wizard.

when you start having the wiz emulate the rogue, what type of role playing would account for that? i really doubt the squishy wizard is going to risk himself by becoming the scout, but i bet damn sure he'll cast the same spells ON THE ROGUE to ensure the scouting mission is a success. typically, the rogue is daring and the wizard is precautions.
if i were to make a wizard that emulates the rogue, i'd have it actually have a level or 2 of rogue, from a role playing perspective

spoiler tags to try and help the wall o' text :P

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Taziki, I have to point out. Under usual adventuring conditions in the games I play, the wizards would have multiple spell slots left open and prepare them when the grease trap was revealed, and the whole party would fly across the gap. (I trust neither of them banned transmutation, that's one of the two most important schools of magic there are to wizzies...)

But that aside, cool story :)

In a lot of the games that I play, leaving spell slots open can have it's downsides. Frequently Pathfinder society missions are either time related or situation related in that you can't spend a quarter hour or more standing around rifling through your spell book while you're in the middle of infiltrating something that's an active base as opposed to a semi-abandoned dungeon.

Leaving spell slots open has it's ups....and it's downs.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Zoddy, none of the three classes you mentioned gain anywhere near the combat bonuses Rogues do from flanking.

Are you referring to sneak attack, or some form of bonus to attack that no other class gets?

I also agree with the idea that the rogue is a front loaded class, only leading me to further wonder what there is (aside from more possible d6 damage) that would be a good reason to remain in the class.


Obvious Troll wrote:
Obvious Troll Is Obvious wrote:
Obvious Troll wrote:
I challenge you to a children's card game.
Go Fish.
Wrong children's card game.

I assure you, it wasn't.

Really. Go Fish.


Obvious Troll Is Obvious wrote:
Obvious Troll wrote:
Obvious Troll Is Obvious wrote:
Obvious Troll wrote:
I challenge you to a children's card game.
Go Fish.
Wrong children's card game.

I assure you, it wasn't.

Really. Go Fish.

*Telekinetically hurls Mr. Fishy at OtiO*

Screw the rules, I have money!


SpaceChomp wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Zoddy, none of the three classes you mentioned gain anywhere near the combat bonuses Rogues do from flanking.

Are you referring to sneak attack, or some form of bonus to attack that no other class gets?

I also agree with the idea that the rogue is a front loaded class, only leading me to further wonder what there is (aside from more possible d6 damage) that would be a good reason to remain in the class.

Is the new topic why stay in the class? I ask because that is different than the class not staying viable(useful) across 20 levels.


How is that any different? If there is no reason to stay in a class then it is at it's core saying that class isn't viable across 20 levels. One of my major concerns that has been brought up several times in this forum is this very topic. Mostly, because the class lacks a certain zazz.


SpaceChomp wrote:
How is that any different? If there is no reason to stay in a class then it is at it's core saying that class isn't viable across 20 levels. One of my major concerns that has been brought up several times in this forum is this very topic. Mostly, because the class lacks a certain zazz.

They are two different things.

For example in 3.5 Barbarian was a 2 level class (if you wanted uncanny dodge cause it rocks) and then you took Extra Rage along with your other full BAB levels in other classes.

But those 2 levels of Barbarian were viable in your build.

So there are two questions here:

1. Is taking rogue levels a waste of space in any build?

2. Is talking only rogue levels viable?

The 2nd is a much stronger statement than the first.

For example for PFS I have contemplated a monk10/rogue2 zen archer. He gives up 1BAB, trades 1FORT/WILL for 2REF picks up evasion, but most of all can disable magical traps and can find them without having to search square by square. The monk abilities for levels 11/12 were not all that impressive and the ki on this PC with such a high WIS should be fine with the little hit.

Now a pure rogue would easily be able to handle traps by 8th level, and in fact be bypassing them for his party. Though if I were to make a rogue for PFS with it's 12 level cap I would be taking 3 levels of shadowdancer to pick up hide in plain sight (and then other stuff after I've paid the entrance fee).

-James


since were on the whole "the wizard can do anything the rogue can do" kick im going to throw this out there- a rogue can do anything a wizard can do AND cast any spell a other class can cast as well! i rogue that doesn't max out UMD is just silly.

the rogue in the party i run has an arsenal of wands and a few scrolls. he also has a base 16 str and 18 dex. while he scouts ahead stealthy and detects enemies he often hides and buffs up right before a combat. he has wands of giant strength, shield, and cats grace. a 20 strength,22 dex, and 26 ac is not too shaby for a 4th level rogue with a +2 scimitar.

there's also another thing rogues are good at-STEALING! the rogue i GM for has sleight of handed a couple gems and wands without the party knowing. he also has really good diplomacy and bluff skills and has often ante'd up quest rewards and take an extra cut. on top of that the players love him as there unawar he's taking anextra cut as they just think he talked the guy into giving more tressure to all of them.

example-"hey guy i talked jarn into giving us 200 gold a peace instead of 180!" party-"wow your awesome. how do you always manage to get more reards for us?!" pc-"it's my silver tong vlad your just lucky im so gernous!" PC rogue is in a hurry to complete the quest so he can get his 400 gold reward lol.

he has also somehow managed to talked the party into giving him most of the gear, talking up how "WEAK" he is lol. he has the magic scimitar, talked them out of the only magic armor they have found so far, AND has the magic boots. also as i mentioned earlier he is 1 level ahead of the party from all the traps he found.


RunebladeX wrote:


he has also somehow managed to talked the party into giving him most of the gear, talking up how "WEAK" he is lol. he has the magic scimitar, talked them out of the only magic armor they have found so far, AND has the magic boots. also as i mentioned earlier he is 1 level ahead of the party from all the traps he found.

Getting over on the party is RP'ing(and them being good enough sports to play along). It has nothing to do with the class. The trap XP really should go to everyone so that is a houserule.


A common misconception regarding my posts are that rogues are horrible. What i'm really saying is, in regards to PF, they lack the balance and mechanic structure that the other classes have, the only two in my mind that were on the same level were monk and barbarian. Barbarian was fixed in the APG, Monk was at least given an outlet in the Zen Archer.

In regards to RunebladeX - rogues can do almost everything a wizard can do, provided that they have enough gold, and oh wait...yeah that's right, a wizard to make the item in the first place.

As for the rogue in your party that you are bragging about, if I was playing with him, i wouldn't exactly be happy (that's me being as nice about the situation as i can be). You're talking about a person who is routinely stealing from the party, which, while quite possibly in character, is a jerk move. Would you allow the barbarian to in character remove the rogues head from his shoulders if he finds out? I mean, that would just be a barbarian being himself. He is actively making the party worse by making himself better at their expense.

The fact that your rogue has a +2 weapon, 3 wands, magic armor and magic boots at level 4 speaks volumes about the way you choose to run your campaign. Honestly, I mean no offense by that last part, the group I game with rotates GMs and we have one who also hands out copious amounts of loot. But to compare that structure with a normal 4th level rogue isn't cutting it for me.


SpaceChomp wrote:

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?

My thoughts here. For survivability unless your GM let's you use stealth(need cover/concealment, not always available depending on your GM) rogues should take a level of fighter and use better armor and use their skill points elsewhere. Dwarven fighter/rogue TWF with dwarven waraxe and shield bashing in Mithril fullplate is going to be incredible and hilarious. skill point hit hurts but better armor/hps/bab is worth a few skill points.

Tanis said wizards can never be better at stealth. I would like to point out that they can get a 7 level lead without having stealth as a class skill by making their own wonderous items elixer of stealth +10.

And because they are awesome, if you really want to see some great stealth level one halfling bard + vanish for the win.


SpaceChomp wrote:

A common misconception regarding my posts are that rogues are horrible. What i'm really saying is, in regards to PF, they lack the balance and mechanic structure that the other classes have, the only two in my mind that were on the same level were monk and barbarian. Barbarian was fixed in the APG, Monk was at least given an outlet in the Zen Archer.

In regards to RunebladeX - rogues can do almost everything a wizard can do, provided that they have enough gold, and oh wait...yeah that's right, a wizard to make the item in the first place.

As for the rogue in your party that you are bragging about, if I was playing with him, i wouldn't exactly be happy (that's me being as nice about the situation as i can be). You're talking about a person who is routinely stealing from the party, which, while quite possibly in character, is a jerk move. Would you allow the barbarian to in character remove the rogues head from his shoulders if he finds out? I mean, that would just be a barbarian being himself. He is actively making the party worse by making himself better at their expense.

The fact that your rogue has a +2 weapon, 3 wands, magic armor and magic boots at level 4 speaks volumes about the way you choose to run your campaign. Honestly, I mean no offense by that last part, the group I game with rotates GMs and we have one who also hands out copious amounts of loot. But to compare that structure with a normal 4th level rogue isn't cutting it for me.

So you are saying a rogue is "ok", but it needs more help with skills or combat to make it worth playing for you?


Yes. Needs more help with something. Don't really care what. Even a second good save might do it for me.


SpaceChomp wrote:
Yes. Needs more help with something. Don't really care what. Even a second good save might do it for me.

Now that we have a better understanding of your intent it does not sound so bad. Right now being able to take a level dip in rogue, and run away is an option. It reminds me of people taking enough levels in the 3.5 paladin to get the cha bonus to saves, and dropping the class.

What do you think a rogue should stand out at?


RunebladeX wrote:
since were on the whole "the wizard can do anything the rogue can do" kick im going to throw this out there- a rogue can do anything a wizard can do AND cast any spell a other class can cast as well! i rogue that doesn't max out UMD is just silly.

Agreed.

Quote:
the rogue in the party i run has an arsenal of wands and a few scrolls. he also has a base 16 str and 18 dex. while he scouts ahead stealthy and detects enemies he often hides and buffs up right before a combat. he has wands of giant strength, shield, and cats grace. a 20 strength, 22 dex, and 26 ac is not too shaby for a 4th level rogue with a +2 scimitar.

Here you go making the rogue sound bad again. You're talking about a character with go-gobs of gear more than his level is expected to have. A 4th level rogue is expected to have around 6,000 gp. His +2 scimitar is worth more than that by itself. A 1st level, CL 1, wand is 750 gp alone (but I'm all for buying partially charged wands). What is "giant strength"? Do you mean Bull's Strength or Enlarge Person? Is it a new spell mentioned in the APG?

Quote:
there's also another thing rogues are good at-STEALING! the rogue i GM for has sleight of handed a couple gems and wands without the party knowing. he also has really good diplomacy and bluff skills and has often ante'd up quest rewards and take an extra cut. on top of that the players love him as there unawar he's taking anextra cut as they just think he talked the guy into giving more tressure to all of them.

And making them sound worse again. "Rogues are great because you can cheat your friends" probably won't win them too many popularity contests (and probably shouldn't).

Quote:
he has also somehow managed to talked the party into giving him most of the gear, talking up how "WEAK" he is lol. he has the magic scimitar, talked them out of the only magic armor they have found so far, AND has the magic boots. also as i mentioned earlier he is 1 level ahead of the party from all the traps he found.

...I don't even know what to say about this.

---

I think rogues are great. I've made plenty of rogues in the past, and I've GMed for quite a few rogues. They're fun and they have a lot of options. Even if Charisma is your dump-stat, I'd recommend maxing Use Magic Device, because it really is quite awesome in the hands of a rogue (but good for anyone, really).

Rogues can be anything from Han Solo to Iaijutsu focused samurai duelists, from ninjas and assassins to silver tongued pirates and courtly diplomats. All of them have plenty of fun options both in an outside of combat, and by the time sneak attack is easy (and cheap) to ignore, then they've got a plethora of additional options to make use of.

I'd say the biggest problem that rogues face in most situations is people can't pin down the stuff that makes them good in general terms. We can generally accept warriors for being good at damage and tanking, sorcerers & wizards for arcane magic, clerics and druids for divine, and bards seem naturally gifted for party support. The main thing people can agree on with rogues is "they're great vs traps, and they get lots of skills".

I think the type of rogue and what they're meant to do when you make them has a lot to do with the rogue's successes and failures.

The Exchange

Ashiel wrote:

I think rogues are great. I've made plenty of rogues in the past, and I've GMed for quite a few rogues. They're fun and they have a lot of options.…

I think the type of rogue and what they're meant to do when you make them has a lot to do with the rogue's successes and failures.

Can you go into more detail on what made your past rogues good? What talents/feats, non-combat and combat capabilities and so on.


SpaceChomp wrote:
How is that any different? If there is no reason to stay in a class then it is at it's core saying that class isn't viable across 20 levels. One of my major concerns that has been brought up several times in this forum is this very topic. Mostly, because the class lacks a certain zazz.

Asking for a blend of mechanics and style that appeal to you is not easy. Everyone has thier own benchmarks for what jumps out and makes a person want to play a particular class. Numerous people have posted that the rogue fulfills the concepts they have in thier mind already.

At a glance, I would suggest something that increases the rogue's versatility as well as provides an incentive to gain more rogue levels. The use of skills and traps will always be determined by the GM. I dont know if you could do more than review what could be done to increase the tactical options available to a rogue in combat. Not increase the rogue's damage, more his versatility.

Straight up fighting is not a rogue's forte. However, I can understand the frustration of always needing to rely on an ally to set up a condition for a Sneak Attack. Perhaps the class could get some innate ability that would just allow you to do a Sneak Attack without needing to flank/be concealed/target is flat footed? One that you could only use for a limited number of rounds per day? Say, one round per day at 1st level and one additional round per day every three levels thereafter? You could not use this ability to Sneak Attack something immune to such attacks; just use it to set up the occasional Sneak Attack.

This would give the rogue a bit of flexibility in combat and might even allow for more archer style builds as well as encourage taking more levels in rogue. I think it would also increase the value of the higher Sneak Attack dice you get at higher levels if you had some means of using Sneak Attack in a reliable fashion.


A rogue talent that gave access to an animal companion might be a good option to include in the game. Assume ranger equivalent (HD-3) in terms of power level but still extremely useful in giving the rogue access to a reliable flank partner.

Pets are kinda the niche of the nature classes (druid and ranger) but I could see some justification for giving the rogue access to a buddy.

It also wouldn't hurt from the standpoint of giving the rogue additional DPR (assuming that the animal companion is a part of the rogue's resources).

Now arguably Animal Companion > Feat = Talent but I think the relative value is fairly close.


vuron wrote:

A rogue talent that gave access to an animal companion might be a good option to include in the game. Assume ranger equivalent (HD-3) in terms of power level but still extremely useful in giving the rogue access to a reliable flank partner.

Pets are kinda the niche of the nature classes (druid and ranger) but I could see some justification for giving the rogue access to a buddy.

It also wouldn't hurt from the standpoint of giving the rogue additional DPR (assuming that the animal companion is a part of the rogue's resources).

Now arguably Animal Companion > Feat = Talent but I think the relative value is fairly close.

Sure alladin was a rogue.. he had abu... little basterd saved his skin multiple times in that movie, so under appreciated.

I do like the above sneak attack a day idea, what if it was 3 +Dex Mod per day, that would be sweeeeeeeeet stuff and I dont even think the Rogue is broken, but it really bugs me when they cant sneak just because you cant flank or they arent sneaking... but that is just how it has always been. Should still be identical to a sneak attack in all other ways though in my opinion, otherwise it just becomes MIGHTY SWORD SWING ATTACK! which would worry me... decent thought though


wraithstrike wrote:


Getting over on the party is RP'ing(and them being good enough sports to play along). It has nothing to do with the class. The trap XP really should go to everyone so that is a houserule.

i agree it is RPing nd i wasn't trying to convey it as a class advantage.

As for xp for traps actually no it's not a houserule it's raw.

pathfinder SRD-"Keep a list of the CRs of all the monsters, traps, obstacles, and roleplaying encounters the PCs overcome. At the end of each session, award XP to each PC that participated."

key word participated. If a rogue scouts ahead and disarms a trap and the party is out of reach of the trap it is not a threat to them. They did not participate in any way so i don't reward them XP. So in your campaign if a PC is away in town, or dead, or in a separate room away for a whole battle you give him an equal share of the experience the party earned for an encounter? A rogue going on ahead ALONE and disarming a trap is no different than a completely separate encounter or fighting a battle by himself. If thats how you run your campaign thats fine but the way i run mine is not a houserule. i only award XP to players for encounters that they participated in, as it should be.


SpaceChomp wrote:


In regards to RunebladeX - rogues can do almost everything a wizard can do, provided that they have enough gold, and oh wait...yeah that's right, a wizard to make the item in the first place.

I dont see how that matters. A wizard learns most of his spells from scrolls and other spell books that were written by, oh wait...yeah that's right, other wizards. And most wizards don't make there own magical items in most games either as they don't have the game time to do it.

SpaceChomp wrote:


As for the rogue in your party that you are bragging about, if I was playing with him, i wouldn't exactly be happy (that's me being as nice about the situation as i can be). You're talking about a person who is routinely stealing from the party, which, while quite possibly in character, is a jerk move. Would you allow the barbarian to in character remove the rogues head from his shoulders if he finds out? I mean, that would just be a barbarian being himself. He is actively making the party worse by making himself better at their expense.

I'm not bragging about him at all. Im pointing out that rogues have features just as useful as anyone else in the party and just as limited,they still have a place in a RPG, and not as gimped as most make rogues out to be. And more than likely you wouldn't be unhappy about him "stealing" from the party as you would have failed your perception check like everyone else has so far and wouldn't even know he's doing it. actually you would have probably caught him cause you have every spell in the game and active at all times as "a contingency plan" i forgot, my bad. And yes i would allow the barbarian to take his head off if he caught the PC and wanted to do so. Players are free to run there own characters in my campaign, for better or worse. But just because you feel it's shady to "steal" from the party it doesn't mean that a rogue is still not good at stealing which was my point.

Ashiel wrote:
And making them sound worse again. "Rogues are great because you can cheat your friends" probably won't win them too many popularity contests (and probably shouldn't).

From an NPC point this could be a very potent ability, say the guide they thought was on there side actually stole the wizards spell book or bonded item in the middle of the night or right under his nose for that matter. now who is the weakest class in the game?

SpaceChomp wrote:


The fact that your rogue has a +2 weapon, 3 wands, magic armor and magic boots at level 4 speaks volumes about the way you choose to run your campaign. Honestly, I mean no offense by that last part, the group I game with rotates GMs and we have one who also hands out copious amounts of loot. But to compare that structure with a normal 4th level rogue isn't cutting it for me.
Ashiel wrote:
Here you go making the rogue sound bad again. You're talking about a character with go-gobs of gear more than his level is expected to have. A 4th level rogue is expected to have around 6,000 gp. His +2 scimitar is worth more than that by itself. A 1st level, CL 1, wand is 750 gp alone (but I'm all for buying partially charged wands).

We play in a high fantasy game. Many players do (obvious from most posters having every spell for every situation and fortitude saves of +15 with there wizards) so i wouldn't say it's abnormal. Technically the armor and boots are just on loan until the party can get to a big enough town to sell them and divide the spoils. The party felt they needed another strong combatant as there playing a really combat oriented adventure path right now so they loaned the gear to the rogue. I ignore wealth by level in cases like this where it's the parties choice. It kind of doesn't make sense to say, "you can't loan those to the rogue he's over WBL" and then expect the group not to metagame think in return. The wands technically belong to the whole party, the rogue buffs other players just as often as he buffs himself depending on the encounter at hand.


overall i concede. i feel the rogue IS probably one of the worst classes to take to level 20 compared to other classes. i do feel they still have a nitch,can be fun to play,and are not weak however. i think weak wasn't the best choice of words. i also feel it's not really fair to compare them to wizards, who are probably the most over powered class. on a side note it's also not fair to only compare them at high levels, a low level rogue IMO opinion is more useful than a low level wizard and less a liability as well. Actually at lower levels a rogue might even be one of the strongest characters as they don't need the heavy armor a fighter does, does not need to rest to get his limited class abilities back each day, and is very versatile at low levels. Wizards can steal the limelight from ALL classes not just the rogue, which is one reason my players refuse to even allow them in the there group. so while they may be the least powerful of classes they still have some decent abilities that shouldn't be brushed aside so easily. Plus, a lot of there abilities work well in a GROUP not solo, and classes that work well with others IS a nice class feature than overshadowing the party.

some features and traits about rogues-

-Sneak attack damage is a nice feature. and not that hard to achieve when working as a team or UMD with say summon monster.

-rogues have the highest available skills and skill points in the game, it might not seem that great in a campaign where the GM does not allow there full potential so this may very greatly from campaign to campaign.

-rogues have high stealth which makes them useful for scouting, and surprising enemies. which seems to be more useful/feasible at low levels.

-rogues primary stat is dex which means they can make good use of combat expertise to get a decent hit rate, again mainly useful at lower levels as the damage output is low unless sneak attacking- which is hard to do by himself.

-rogues work best when flanking which stacks well with combat expertise and gives him SA, so in this case they have a fair hit rate and decent damage. it also makes the party feel more like a team-which is a good thing.

-rogues are the ONLY class that can disarm magical traps, this ability can be mad lackluster if the the GM doesn't use them and give the rogue a chance to stand out.

-rogues are good at detecting/disarming traps and can AUTO detect traps (i think they might be the only one who can?)-i'm not sure if anyone mentioned this one?

-rogues are good at stealing- this can come in handy than just robbing the party. sneaking ahead and stealing an item the party needs(like keys, a quest item, a map, etc)

-rogues have good perception which makes him a good scout and spotter, allowing the party time to buff and prepare, or save them from being surprised.

-rogues can make great use of UMD and gains access to spells that work good with there class abilities and give them more chances to SA.

-rogues have tons of skills and points so they probably will have NUMEROUS good skills maxed out, while another PC might be able to focus on a few to a good degree to match the rogue nobody can match him overall.

- a rogue can fill in for just about any class in a pinch if really needed and when equipped right. This can be crucial if the fighter, cleric, or mage goes down. he can UMD to buff, heal, fight, depending and the scenario or whats needed-he's very versatile.

i think maybe a better place to take this thread (or to start a new one) would be how to best utilize the rogue and ideas how to bring out his abilities, or maximize him. Or maybe ideas how to improve him with new trait ideas or features. cause arguing class power never seems to go anywhere but into an argument.


I think Rogues (and Monks) should have full BAB like other martial classes. Also Trapfinding should be a feat available for everyone, so that you wouldn't have to make Rogue just for that (or you could make a Rogue template from AGP).

So:
5th level Rogue with full BAB would do 3d6 extra damge per hit when allowed to use Sneak Attack
5th level Inquisitor using Bane & Precise Strike would do 3d6+2 extra damage with same attack bonus. Yeah Bane is limited use, but much more easily applied than Sneak Attack.


Quote:
The fact that your rogue has a +2 weapon, 3 wands, magic armor and magic boots at level 4 speaks volumes about the way you choose to run your campaign. Honestly, I mean no offense by that last part, the group I game with rotates GMs and we have one who also hands out copious amounts of loot. But to compare that structure with a normal 4th level rogue isn't cutting it for me.

This. Screw the rules, I have money is not a valid argument.

I suspect someone is using a DMPC, who he constantly DM fiats for with contrived traps so the party has to tolerate him.


Riku Riekkinen wrote:

I think Rogues (and Monks) should have full BAB like other martial classes. Also Trapfinding should be a feat available for everyone, so that you wouldn't have to make Rogue just for that (or you could make a Rogue template from AGP).

So:
5th level Rogue with full BAB would do 3d6 extra damge per hit when allowed to use Sneak Attack
5th level Inquisitor using Bane & Precise Strike would do 3d6+2 extra damage with same attack bonus. Yeah Bane is limited use, but much more easily applied than Sneak Attack.

The problem with giving the rogue full BaB is that it will generally push DPR of the rogue past the fighter if you assume full attack + sneak attack damage.

Honestly I'm not opposed to the rogue having higher spike damage than the fighter as the rogue has to fulfill 2 conditions (position for a full attack + flanking) to reliably get that higher DPR but combined with the rogue's greater Out of Combat utility I think a full BAB rogue definitely makes the rogue a more desirable character than the fighter.

Further Pathfinder implicitly ties BAB to HD type. Only d10 or d12 HD get full BAB. I think it would be fine to open full BAB to d8 HD but not everyone is going to agree on that.

Dark Archive

I mean, there are other factors. Consider rogue vs the urban ranger now. Urban ranger gets fill BAB, similar tricks, spells (or skirmishers tricks if you want to replace spells), and can TWF without the heavy dex requirements. It just seems as of APG, thinking about it, the ranger has completely circumvented the need for a rogue in all cases.


Thalin wrote:
I mean, there are other factors. Consider rogue vs the urban ranger now. Urban ranger gets fill BAB, similar tricks, spells (or skirmishers tricks if you want to replace spells), and can TWF without the heavy dex requirements. It just seems as of APG, thinking about it, the ranger has completely circumvented the need for a rogue in all cases.

I'd say that in many cases the niche of the rogue is heavily infringed on by other hybrid classes.

The ranger can do the hybrid martial skirmisher routine pretty well. His DPR is competitive, he's got a similar skill set, and he's got better tricks at range (ranged rogues are suboptimal). Add in spells and an animal companion and from a pure theorycraft perspective the martial rogue is inferior to the ranger.

The bard can handle the social rogue aspect at least as well as the rogue. His DPR is inferior, his skill set is pretty much equivalent (bard versatile performance and jack of all trades pretty much level stuff out), he's got spells and he can also make the whole team better.

The rogue can do both roles, often simultaneously, but in larger groups the ranger and bard really squeeze the rogue's core competencies into a very narrow band of utility.

I think from a pure design perspective it's important to note that for the rogue at least niche protection is heavily undermined. I think it would be a good thing if the rogue had more unique talents (some of the rogue talents are pretty good) and/or could improve their combat utility to keep pace with the other martial characters.


Ashiel wrote:

It doesn't help that people are making the rogue look bad by suggesting that you have to castrate (figuratively speaking) the other classes to do so, or play 17th level wizards like bumpkins with so much money that they commission or crafted items which don't even work* to have continual anti-me* fields around them, to make skills look good.

(*: An item that produces a continuous antimagic field would immediately shut off the moment it activates, so at best you might end up with an every-other-round antimagic field, or more likely a 198,000 gp paperweight.)

(*: I say anti-me fields because the wizard is sitting in a sphere that robs him of the vast majority of his power, including - but not limited to - his magical protections and items. Likewise, he surrounds himself with strong heavily armed guards. Using Diplomacy to have the guards kill him while in his own antimagic field and play themselves off like the heroes who stopped the BBEG would be surprisingly easy (maybe DC 33-37, most likely, and that's not very hard for a 10th level character).

Rogues can be pretty awesome. They just go about it in roundabout ways. Thanks to their ability to take full advantage of wealth by level, sneak attack, and so on and so forth, a rogue has a lot of options. While a Fighter leads the rogue in pure DPR and Tanking, the rogue has the advantage on the fighter in other cases. Some skills cap out in their usefulness, but many don't. Likewise, when things like Magic can fail (such as via spells like see invisibility) skills can still gain an advantage for the rogue.

The problem is, rogues aren't the best at anything but skills, and it takes a knowledgeable player to really capitalize on their benefits. I mentioned a few ways to play a rogue successfully in combat during my last post. Perhaps I should try to make a guide, similar to treantmonk's, for rogues.

*ponders this*

Just to play devil's advocate for a minute, the only reason I can think of that a wizard of that high a level would want to relax within an anti-magic field would be if he were extremely arrogant and condescending toward other classes (sound familiar, anyone?) and believed that only magic and other casters represented a real threat. I can find such a character believable in a world in which wizards truly dominate (and the "wizards rule" crowd believe that is every world) and in which they regularly try to off each other and steal each other's power. In that type of world, an anti-magic field protected by mundane traps and loyal guards might indeed be the safest place to rest and relax. Because other character types are mere peasants and pawns and couldn't possibly represent a real threat.


Brian Bachman wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute, the only reason I can think of that a wizard of that high a...

+1


I would also like to bring up this feat again:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/cosmopolitan

which gives a player 2 languages AND two int, cha or wisdom based skills. Meaning that literally anyone can have UMD. Why not take it on your paladin who's already cha based and is a mechanically more sound character? Or on your fighter/barbarian who really doesn't care about any of his skills? Or every other character if we're going to speak of it at it's most broken potential?

I also don't understand the concept that wizards are so OP they are unusable, but giving a rogue every item in the game and the ability to UMD them all by level 4 is not. But again, that's just my two cents.


Brian Bachman wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute, the only reason I can think of that a wizard of that high a level would want to relax within an anti-magic field would be if he were extremely arrogant and condescending toward other classes (sound familiar, anyone?) and believed that only magic and other casters represented a real threat. I can find such a character believable in a world in which wizards truly dominate (and the "wizards rule" crowd believe that is every world) and in which they regularly try to off each other and steal each other's power. In that type of world, an anti-magic field protected by mundane traps and loyal guards might indeed be the safest place to rest and relax. Because other character types are mere peasants and pawns and couldn't possibly represent a real threat.

In such a world, that attitude is the least believable of all. You turn off all of your own class abilities.

And for what? The privilege of being an easy target for any Conjuration (Creation) effect or any use of indirect magic. Hm, I'll just turn the ceiling over your head to mud. What do you suppose will happen to you?

In the Wizards rule world, which is every world in which they are not a constant and non stop target of nonability fiat AMFs are not used at all, by anyone. It's like turning into a snake. It never helps.

Not to mention that the spellcasters don't have a set base. They keep moving. Constantly. And keep Mind Blank up, so other casters can't jump them. And don't keep any other people around except other casters, they're easy Scry targets.

If you're going to take things to their logical conclusion, do it properly.


CoDzilla wrote:
And for what? The privilege of being an easy target for any Conjuration (Creation) effect or any use of indirect magic. Hm, I'll just turn the ceiling over your head to mud. What do you suppose will happen to you?

summoned monsters blink out I thought and turning a ceiling to mud would require magic last time I checked, the field can extend through objects.

CoDzilla wrote:


Not to mention that the spellcasters don't have a set base. They keep moving. Constantly. And keep Mind Blank up, so other casters can't jump them. And don't keep any other people around except other casters, they're easy Scry targets.

In a realistic world that is hardly a claim. What wizard would want to stay on the move forever? not many. not say some wouldnt but to say that all wizards would isnt accurate. Mind Blank is not a good solution for that, and there are many ways to counter scrying.

CoDzilla wrote:


If you're going to take things to their logical conclusion, do it properly.

how quaint.

Diplomacy to find someone by talking to the right people beats scry anyday.

So unless your wizard has no friends or associates, always moves, puts up modify memory on everyone he meets and wastes spells, he isnt unfindable or unkillable in the presmise that wizards are scared of wizards.

What is the point of being 'all powerful' if no one knows you exist and you have no one to either show your wealth off too or share?


CoDzilla wrote:
Brian Bachman wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute, the only reason I can think of that a wizard of that high a level would want to relax within an anti-magic field would be if he were extremely arrogant and condescending toward other classes (sound familiar, anyone?) and believed that only magic and other casters represented a real threat. I can find such a character believable in a world in which wizards truly dominate (and the "wizards rule" crowd believe that is every world) and in which they regularly try to off each other and steal each other's power. In that type of world, an anti-magic field protected by mundane traps and loyal guards might indeed be the safest place to rest and relax. Because other character types are mere peasants and pawns and couldn't possibly represent a real threat.

In such a world, that attitude is the least believable of all. You turn off all of your own class abilities.

And for what? The privilege of being an easy target for any Conjuration (Creation) effect or any use of indirect magic. Hm, I'll just turn the ceiling over your head to mud. What do you suppose will happen to you?

In the Wizards rule world, which is every world in which they are not a constant and non stop target of nonability fiat AMFs are not used at all, by anyone. It's like turning into a snake. It never helps.

Not to mention that the spellcasters don't have a set base. They keep moving. Constantly. And keep Mind Blank up, so other casters can't jump them. And don't keep any other people around except other casters, they're easy Scry targets.

If you're going to take things to their logical conclusion, do it properly.

Metagaming FTW!


Kryzbyn wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
Brian Bachman wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute, the only reason I can think of that a wizard of that high a level would want to relax within an anti-magic field would be if he were extremely arrogant and condescending toward other classes (sound familiar, anyone?) and believed that only magic and other casters represented a real threat. I can find such a character believable in a world in which wizards truly dominate (and the "wizards rule" crowd believe that is every world) and in which they regularly try to off each other and steal each other's power. In that type of world, an anti-magic field protected by mundane traps and loyal guards might indeed be the safest place to rest and relax. Because other character types are mere peasants and pawns and couldn't possibly represent a real threat.

In such a world, that attitude is the least believable of all. You turn off all of your own class abilities.

And for what? The privilege of being an easy target for any Conjuration (Creation) effect or any use of indirect magic. Hm, I'll just turn the ceiling over your head to mud. What do you suppose will happen to you?

In the Wizards rule world, which is every world in which they are not a constant and non stop target of nonability fiat AMFs are not used at all, by anyone. It's like turning into a snake. It never helps.

Not to mention that the spellcasters don't have a set base. They keep moving. Constantly. And keep Mind Blank up, so other casters can't jump them. And don't keep any other people around except other casters, they're easy Scry targets.

If you're going to take things to their logical conclusion, do it properly.

Metagaming FTW!

One man's metagaming is another man's logical world building.

Dark Archive

The issue is even if the wizard isn't a replacement for the rogue, the ranger is a complete one. They have nearly as many skill points, get hide in plain sight with no drawback, and can even find magical traps with the right kit. They get spells (or tricks with the skirmishers option), the ability to be better bs specific creatures, and the awesomeness that is the animal companion. So I believe pre-APG a case could have been made for outside combat rogues... But after APG the ranger has completely and effectively made the formerly staple rogue outdated.


Thalin wrote:
The issue is even if the wizard isn't a replacement for the rogue, the ranger is a complete one. They have nearly as many skill points, get hide in plain sight with no drawback, and can even find magical traps with the right kit. They get spells (or tricks with the skirmishers option), the ability to be better bs specific creatures, and the awesomeness that is the animal companion. So I believe pre-APG a case could have been made for outside combat rogues... But after APG the ranger has completely and effectively made the formerly staple rogue outdated.

If you like combat...

the APG also opened a whole lot of roleplaying potential and skill potential for the rogue.

their talents differ greatly from the ranger skirmisher and comparing them would be like comparing rage powers and talents.

IMO


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
Brian Bachman wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute, the only reason I can think of that a wizard of that high a level would want to relax within an anti-magic field would be if he were extremely arrogant and condescending toward other classes (sound familiar, anyone?) and believed that only magic and other casters represented a real threat. I can find such a character believable in a world in which wizards truly dominate (and the "wizards rule" crowd believe that is every world) and in which they regularly try to off each other and steal each other's power. In that type of world, an anti-magic field protected by mundane traps and loyal guards might indeed be the safest place to rest and relax. Because other character types are mere peasants and pawns and couldn't possibly represent a real threat.

In such a world, that attitude is the least believable of all. You turn off all of your own class abilities.

And for what? The privilege of being an easy target for any Conjuration (Creation) effect or any use of indirect magic. Hm, I'll just turn the ceiling over your head to mud. What do you suppose will happen to you?

In the Wizards rule world, which is every world in which they are not a constant and non stop target of nonability fiat AMFs are not used at all, by anyone. It's like turning into a snake. It never helps.

Not to mention that the spellcasters don't have a set base. They keep moving. Constantly. And keep Mind Blank up, so other casters can't jump them. And don't keep any other people around except other casters, they're easy Scry targets.

If you're going to take things to their logical conclusion, do it properly.

Metagaming FTW!
One man's metagaming is another man's logical world building.

It just strkes me as funny that the guy who thinks a rogue using RAW to get one over on a wizard must be DM fiat, is the same guy that came up with the above.


CoDzilla wrote:


Not to mention that the spellcasters don't have a set base. They keep moving. Constantly. And keep Mind Blank up, so other casters can't jump them. And don't keep any other people around except other casters, they're easy Scry targets.

It strikes me that one couldn't imagine a wizard having the intention of stay somewhere because wants an home, is tired of a life of adventuring, or wants to keep adventuring but wants to build a magic fortress..

And hangs around of spellcasters only because of paranoia. I mean, even wizards are human or humanoids, can have friends, fall in love.

I recognize that Sociopaths make good wizards, but I wonder if every wizard is a Sociopath.

You talk about the PC only as a token of your game. But is a person in his world, a Character in a Story.


Kryzbyn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:


Metagaming FTW!
One man's metagaming is another man's logical world building.
It just strkes me as funny that the guy who thinks a rogue using RAW to get one over on a wizard must be DM fiat, is the same guy that came up with the above.

Could you please clarify that statement? I'm not sure if it was directed at me or CoDzilla, and exactly what you mean by it.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:


Metagaming FTW!
One man's metagaming is another man's logical world building.
It just strkes me as funny that the guy who thinks a rogue using RAW to get one over on a wizard must be DM fiat, is the same guy that came up with the above.
Could you please clarify that statement? I'm not sure if it was directed at me or CoDzilla, and exactly what you mean by it.

Oh, it wasn't directed at anyone, just an observation on the varying dichotomy of CoD's posts.


Midnightoker wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
And for what? The privilege of being an easy target for any Conjuration (Creation) effect or any use of indirect magic. Hm, I'll just turn the ceiling over your head to mud. What do you suppose will happen to you?
summoned monsters blink out I thought and turning a ceiling to mud would require magic last time I checked, the field can extend through objects.

Conjuration (Creation). Not Conjuration (Summoning).

Emanations are blocked by solid objects.

Quote:
In a realistic world that is hardly a claim. What wizard would want to stay on the move forever? not many. not say some wouldnt but to say that all wizards would isnt accurate. Mind Blank is not a good solution for that, and there are many ways to counter scrying.

It becomes a self correcting problem. Remember, we are taking caster superiority to its natural conclusion here.

Quote:

Diplomacy to find someone by talking to the right people beats scry anyday.

So unless your wizard has no friends or associates, always moves, puts up modify memory on everyone he meets and wastes spells, he isnt unfindable or unkillable in the presmise that wizards are scared of wizards.

What is the point of being 'all powerful' if no one knows you exist and you have no one to either show your wealth off too or share?

This is why keep moving is important.

In any case you are completely missing the point. That point is that people do not cast Antimagic Field unless they wish to commit suicide.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:


Metagaming FTW!
One man's metagaming is another man's logical world building.
It just strkes me as funny that the guy who thinks a rogue using RAW to get one over on a wizard must be DM fiat, is the same guy that came up with the above.
Could you please clarify that statement? I'm not sure if it was directed at me or CoDzilla, and exactly what you mean by it.

In his world, a spellcaster knowing how their spells work is metagaming?

I have no idea what he's blabbering about. I stopped paying him any mind a while ago.


CoDzilla wrote:
Brian Bachman wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute, the only reason I can think of that a wizard of that high a level would want to relax within an anti-magic field would be if he were extremely arrogant and condescending toward other classes (sound familiar, anyone?) and believed that only magic and other casters represented a real threat. I can find such a character believable in a world in which wizards truly dominate (and the "wizards rule" crowd believe that is every world) and in which they regularly try to off each other and steal each other's power. In that type of world, an anti-magic field protected by mundane traps and loyal guards might indeed be the safest place to rest and relax. Because other character types are mere peasants and pawns and couldn't possibly represent a real threat.

In such a world, that attitude is the least believable of all. You turn off all of your own class abilities.

And for what? The privilege of being an easy target for any Conjuration (Creation) effect or any use of indirect magic. Hm, I'll just turn the ceiling over your head to mud. What do you suppose will happen to you?

In the Wizards rule world, which is every world in which they are not a constant and non stop target of nonability fiat AMFs are not used at all, by anyone. It's like turning into a snake. It never helps.

Not to mention that the spellcasters don't have a set base. They keep moving. Constantly. And keep Mind Blank up, so other casters can't jump them. And don't keep any other people around except other casters, they're easy Scry targets.

If you're going to take things to their logical conclusion, do it properly.

Some of yoru points are valid. My only comment is that, if that were the case, it would be a miserable, fear-filled existence.


The wizard who just happens to have the correct defensive spells prepared every time, looks like metagaming.


Brian Bachman wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
Brian Bachman wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute, the only reason I can think of that a wizard of that high a level would want to relax within an anti-magic field would be if he were extremely arrogant and condescending toward other classes (sound familiar, anyone?) and believed that only magic and other casters represented a real threat. I can find such a character believable in a world in which wizards truly dominate (and the "wizards rule" crowd believe that is every world) and in which they regularly try to off each other and steal each other's power. In that type of world, an anti-magic field protected by mundane traps and loyal guards might indeed be the safest place to rest and relax. Because other character types are mere peasants and pawns and couldn't possibly represent a real threat.

In such a world, that attitude is the least believable of all. You turn off all of your own class abilities.

And for what? The privilege of being an easy target for any Conjuration (Creation) effect or any use of indirect magic. Hm, I'll just turn the ceiling over your head to mud. What do you suppose will happen to you?

In the Wizards rule world, which is every world in which they are not a constant and non stop target of nonability fiat AMFs are not used at all, by anyone. It's like turning into a snake. It never helps.

Not to mention that the spellcasters don't have a set base. They keep moving. Constantly. And keep Mind Blank up, so other casters can't jump them. And don't keep any other people around except other casters, they're easy Scry targets.

If you're going to take things to their logical conclusion, do it properly.

Some of yoru points are valid. My only comment is that, if that were the case, it would be a miserable, fear-filled existence.

The D&D world, regardless of campaign setting is a crapsack world. And this is before most campaign setting writers deliberately make the setting Grimdark. Golarion is a very prominent example.

So yes, it would be a fearful existence. But it'd be one free of casting AMF on one's self. And running around with a Fortitude save so low I question why this guy doesn't drop dead when he climbs out of bed. And being so... trusting with complete strangers. The closest real world parallel would be handing your wallet, including all credit cards and personally identifying information over to a complete stranger because he asked nicely for it.

Raise your hand if you would trust a stranger with everything to your name, including your name itself.

301 to 350 of 1,387 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 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