|
I hope your DM gives you opportunities to shine and your campaign isn't standard by the book modules with lots of combat. You're torturing yourself playing a rogue if you manage to get past about lvl 13 in a standard campaign. Very impotent class at high level, should be ok for you if you stick to 5 to 13 or so though. Not great, but can be useful.And Again Everyone: thanks for the input.
This is my 1st Pathfinder Rogue and I need all the help I can get. My group is pretty rules savvy and I have always been an off the cuff arbitrary gamer, more interested in the story then the rules.
So All these bits of information are really really helpful!
Very interesting.
Having played through Second Darkness as a straight Rogue, I am interested to here how impotent and useless my character was.
One-shotting Drow sentries, dealing significant bow damage consistently, stealthing and talking to everyone, avoiding LOTS of the really dangerous magical traps later on in that AP were all his stock in trade.
So, I'm really not seeing how/why this is such an issue.
It seems to me that the OP just needs help building his rogue so i am going to offer him that.
Also i am seriously trying to restrain myself from ranting (rolled stats and level difference between the party. grrrrrrrrr)
PS. this guide is pre-APG and some of the assumptions are wrong now but the purpose of this guide isn't to be a bible, it's purpose is to make you understand the rogue class, and then by gaining a level of understanding you can judge the things rogue gets to the new material.
For the record, I hate Rogues too! I just can't "get into" one on any level despite having loads of role-playing ideas/traits/quirks etc for other classes.
One of my main issues with Rogues is their natural desire to sneak off ahead and use those skills/class abilities to scout out danger [be it monster or trap]; all the while breaking the cardinal rule of splitting up the party. The Rogue can't handle being attacked when alone, and you so know he's going to fumble a sneaky roll at just the worst possible moment.
This leaves the party in rescue mode, which is a very dangerous mode to be in as it usually deprives the party adequate buffing time, leaves you one man down and gives the monsters a nice free selection of magic gear, all before you do any attacking!
...plus the fact that the other classes can do almost anything he can. Nope, I just don't like me no Rogues.
I fully understand that some crazy fools out there say they do like them, but really, we know you're just pretending...
|
I like Rogues, and think they do okay as compared to other classes (they're even decent combatants with Two-Weapon Fighting and some investment in AC), they're really some of the best skill monkeys out there, and better at straight damage than the other one (the Bard)...but I'm still hoping for some new, more combat effective, Rogue Talents in Ultimate Combat. I mean, right now there's basically one build that works (though you can mod it a bit)...and even it is maybe a bit sub-par all things considered.
A Rogue talent giving them the Ninja's Ki-pool would go a long way towards solving this, as might other similar things. Really, anything that gives Rogues more attacks or the ability to sneak attack on their own without flankers will definitively improve the class's combat abilities.
Scout/Thug seems like a very viable combo...
I love the concept of the rogues, and the rogue talents do a lot to help the class, but sneak attack is still a major breaking point for me. The idea of a lightly armed character with comparably low hp and bab having to get into the thick of melee to regularly have an effect in combat damage wise just rubs me the wrong way. If there were some way to reliably use it for ranged attacks, it would be different, but as it is, its a "have fun hoping that your party is willing and able to support you in pulling off your one trick while dodging enemy blows constantly praying the DM doesn't roll anything above a 10 (or at higher levels, 5 or even 1)" trick that I just don't care for. It's an interesting concept, but the execution falls flat. That being said, a rogue is not all combat; their skills make them highly useful to have, and they can be dex based (scouting), int based (traps, languages, and similar things), cha based (diplomat/face), or a mixture or all three, so the chances of finding 2 rogues built the same outside of combat is very low.
If you don`t want to get in the thick of combat, use a Reach Weapon, like a Polearm or Scorpion Whip...
and better at straight damage than the other one (the Bard)...
I don't think that will hold up any more. Given the same feats the bard is much more likely to be connecting with his attacks and dealing more bonus damage -- which will help his criticals more too. He is also less reliant on 'gimmicks' to activate his extra damage.
This isn't to say that his bonus damage can't be denied, withheld or otherwise stopped -- simply that it is more reliable.
A Scout/Thug Rogue with high STR build, dipping in Fighter (or possibly Paladin, for CHA bonus to Saves) for Martial Wpn and Hvy Armor proficiency can be VERY effective AND very reliable. Scout lets you ALWAYS get off a single Sneak Attack if you move more than 5´ while not impeding Full Attack Sneak Attacks, and Thug lets ANY Sneak Attack force a Save vs. Sickened (and you also get awesome synergy with Intimidate, letting you force Frightened effects from high checks). Using a Pole-Arm, especially Enlarged, will draw more AoO`s which can also be Sneak Attacks if you were Flanking somebody. You will want all the pure attack bonuses you can get, as opposed to other weapon qualities, but it`s more than do-able, and the Sickened Saves are more than worth it.
And you can still do a DEX build with that as well, having a ranged/thrown option to get off Full Attacks when the enemy is Flat-footed, but able to use all the other options just as well. Shurkien or Dagger Full Attack vs. Flat-footed enemies, forcing all of them to make a Save vs Sickened... I don`t find that underpowered.
That is hardly the same thing as a straight rogue though Quandary, though not a bad idea.
Another option is Dervish Dance, and at higher levels you can grab a Wand of Flame Blade, making all of you attacks only need to beat Touch AC...
That is hardly the same thing as a straight rogue though Quandary, though not a bad idea.
Sure, I guess myself I don`t see the importance of `pure class builds`, especially melee-types and not Casters.
I only suggested dipping 1 level of Fighter because it`s a very efficient way of going about things,you can `buy` Armor and Weapon Proficiency via Feat/Talent if you want to and it`s still a very effective approach
(and some Races have less need for the Full Fighter Wpn/Armor Package, e.g. Tengu weapon proficiency)
Honestly, when I saw that Scout/Thug was allowable (doesn`t overlap) and Scout doesn`t REQUIRE movement to get Full Attacks, I thought it was overpowered... I mean, Monks have a limited amount of Stunning Fist, but this is all day, all night...
I do understand if people say, OK that combo is great, but other Rogue builds suck... But this build does exist, and if people want to be focused on having a very effective/competitive character I assume they would gravitate towards competitive builds... It`s not like every Archetype in the game is equallly great, even for `good` classes there are less powerful options (I`d agree the Core Rogue is underwhelming, but that`s why people buy stuff like APG, right?)
I think I mis-typed... There is NO SAVE vs. the Sickened effect. Now why did I think this combo was over-powered? :-)
Well I pointed out because the premise of the OP is the rogue as a stand alone is obsolete -- if you have to add stuff to the rogue then you really aren't disproving his point.
Personally I think the rogue can still do just fine. Could it be better? Oh yeah, but then the same could be said of many classes.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been all through the books and the discussion forums about rogue skills and it seems that you can indeed take a single level of rogue and then apply your total HD to the acquired skills. This rules discrepancy makes leveling a Rogue a pointless waste of time. Since essentially it is the same as taking 1 level of wizard and gaining every spell at every level. The entire class is bought for a SINGLE level and the only thing left exclusively to the Rogue is a collection of little talents.
This essentially makes Rogues obsolete.
I do not see the problem with a one level dip in Rogue. I don't think this makes the class obsolete.
I also don't understand people that think Rogues have to be sneaky skulker scouts that steal and murder. One of these days I'm going to play Sherlock Holmes, and will use the Rogue class to do so, just because I can.
|
I have been all through the books and the discussion forums about rogue skills and it seems that you can indeed take a single level of rogue and then apply your total HD to the acquired skills. This rules discrepancy makes leveling a Rogue a pointless waste of time. Since essentially it is the same as taking 1 level of wizard and gaining every spell at every level. The entire class is bought for a SINGLE level and the only thing left exclusively to the Rogue is a collection of little talents.
This essentially makes Rogues obsolete.
I do not see the problem with a one level dip in Rogue. I don't think this makes the class obsolete.
I also don't understand people that think Rogues have to be sneaky skulker scouts that steal and murder. One of these days I'm going to play Sherlock Holmes, and will use the Rogue class to do so, just because I can.
Robert Downey Jr's Sherlock Holmes certainly was a Rogue, given his anatomical sneak attack abilities :)
Robert Downey Jr's Sherlock Holmes certainly was a Rogue, given his anatomical sneak attack abilities :)High int, trapfinding (the razorwire Watson almost ran into), Disguise, Knowledges, Linguistics, he was definitely a Rogue.
Or a Detective Bard :O
I think Holmes knowledge certainly mimics bardic knowledge.
Maybe even an internal alchemist vivisectionist, combined with rogue.
He was into drugs and the like too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the love of all that's polyhedral why on earth do people think that role playing FLAVOR is the saving grace of a mechanical concept like a class?
The only possibility that occurs to me is that its some sort of equivocation. People want to play a rogue
Rogue
–noun
1.
a dishonest, knavish person; scoundrel.
2.
a playfully mischievous person; scamp: The youngest boys are little rogues.
3.
a tramp or vagabond.
and think that this is accomplished through taking a character class. It is not. It is accomplished through role playing. If you want your character to be a wise cracking selfish trickster and ne'er do well then make him one. He can be a sneaky wizard with invisibility, a lying manipulative bard, a devil may care fighter or even scheming, selfish druid.
Class doesn't have to enter into it. Its the same attitude that leads to the "i'm a good role player, look how unoptimized my character is!" syndrome. Role and Roll playing are not some opposite ends of a spectrum that let you become better at one while completely ignoring the other. It is quite possible to do both well or more frequently to be completely horrible at both.
And why are you ranting? Class plays into your role playing -- it's hard to be the world's best wizard if you never take a level in a spell casting class (not impossible... but very hard).
People are discussing ways to use the rogue class to represent a character trope they wish to role play -- nothing wrong with that just like there isn't anything wrong with trying to do it with a different class.
And why are you ranting?
Because its fun. And because you can't actually see the *head desk* I do at some of these ideas.
Class plays into your role playing -- it's hard to be the world's best wizard if you never take a level in a spell casting class (not impossible... but very hard).
"the worlds best wizard" is NOT a function of roll playing. It is largely a function of your class and level.
People are discussing ways to use the rogue class to represent a character trope they wish to role play -- nothing wrong with that just like there isn't anything wrong with trying to do it with a different class.
Because they are discussing it with the assumption that they can have their concept OR they can make an effective character. Both are possible with a little work and some advice from your tables roll player.
And why are you ranting? Class plays into your role playing -- it's hard to be the world's best wizard if you never take a level in a spell casting class (not impossible... but very hard).
People are discussing ways to use the rogue class to represent a character trope they wish to role play -- nothing wrong with that just like there isn't anything wrong with trying to do it with a different class.
The name of this thread is "Rogues are Obsolete". I think it's clear this was meant as a mechanical observation. Petitioners trying to refute this statement with flavor/roleplaying arguments aren't getting it.
Rogues are pretty obsolete. If it weren't for Trapfinding (being able to disarm magical traps) no one would NEED one at all. And there are more and more archetypes given trapfinding so even that is slipping away.
I like playing ROGUISH characters as much as anyone here. That character archetype is not best fulfilled by an actual rogue-class character however, since they are so laughably bad. The system bends over backwards to try to make them feel needed. They are a vestigial remnant of 1e at this point, and very painful to play.
We have shown how everything else a rogue is known for (party face, sneak attack, information gatherer, scout) is easily replaced by another class (bard/inquisitor/sorcerer, vivisectionist, diviner/bard/inquisitor, inquisitor/ranger) so the only thing left unique to their class that is occasionally required is trapfinding. Other than the urban ranger and detective bard (let's pretend they don't exist) no one can disarm magical traps.
Now, either you have a dm that puts magical traps everywhere and/or you're playing a dungeon crawl that has them, or it's just not something you run into like ever. Traps in general do very little but slow down the game and let the rogue shine for a moment...while everyone else naps. Search each square, ooh found a trap, now try to disarm it, oops failed, now you're poisoned/whatever, lets heal him up and put him at it again. It's tedious. And even in this situation you only need a rogue if your DM doesn't let you dispel magical traps and/or find them with detect magic. Cuz anyone can crank perception and find them, you just need a rogue to disable them.
TL;DR-Rogues only exist to disarm magical traps. Magical traps only exist so the rogue feels useful. Hows about we just eliminate both and call it a wash?
EDIT: Brainfart.
Other than the urban ranger and detective bard (let's pretend they don't exist) no one can find magical traps.
The ranger, the bard... and anyone that can cast 0 level spells.
|
I disagree. Rogue are very viable and make great solo or multi class characters.
I think it sounds like the OP has a GM the focuses on combat. The abilities and skills of a rogue has saved parties so much pain and money. I believe a rogue is a must for every party... But it is not an assault warrior!
Well to be clear -- anyone can find magical traps, and several types can disarm them -- what makes trapfinding special is it lets you do so with a skill check.
Now I agree that a lot of what rogues get is pieced out to several other characters, I also agree that a party without a rogue can get along just fine.
But really the same can be said for a party without a:
Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Bard, Sorcerer, Wizard, Witch, Cavalier, Alchemist, Oracle, or Inquisitor
No class is needed as an absolute necessity to have an effective party. Everyone's 'job' is replaceable or at minimum able to be filled with a different class.
The Bugati Veyron has a top speed of 253MPH
The Hummer can only go about 65MPH
Hummers are obsolete :(
The Bugati Veyron has a top speed of 253MPH
The Hummer can only go about 65MPHHummers are obsolete :(
Quite the fail there Shifty -- the Bugati doesn't cover all the options that the Hummer gives. A similiar comparison for pathfinder would be:
The fighter has a BAB of +20
The wizard has a BAB of +10
The wizard is obsolete.
Well to be clear -- anyone can find magical traps, and several types can disarm them -- what makes trapfinding special is it lets you do so with a skill check.
Now I agree that a lot of what rogues get is pieced out to several other characters, I also agree that a party without a rogue can get along just fine.
But really the same can be said for a party without a:
Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Bard, Sorcerer, Wizard, Witch, Cavalier, Alchemist, Oracle, or InquisitorNo class is needed as an absolute necessity to have an effective party. Everyone's 'job' is replaceable or at minimum able to be filled with a different class.
One great thing about PF is that there are no class/role equivalences. You don't have to be a fighter to be a tank (though I would argue that's another role not needed, but I digress) or a cleric to be a healer.
But rogue FILLS NO PARTY ROLE. When someone says "I'm playing a wizard" you think either yay we'll have a blaster, or a god wizard, or a crafter, or good buffs. There are things a wizard can do to aid the party. There is nothing a rogue does to aid a party, except the things specifically put there by the DM so that someone has to play a rogue.
Assume there are no magical traps. What does a rogue do that isn't easily subsumed by virtually any other class. Skills are easy to pick up, flanking can be provided by a trained animal or summoned creature, and any class that has a mechanical reason to pump Cha (paladin, bard, sorcerer, cleric) is better at being a party face.
They aren't particularly useful in combat. They aren't particularly useful out of combat. They aren't particularly useful period.
The Bugati Veyron has a top speed of 253MPH
The Hummer can only go about 65MPHHummers are obsolete :(
Quite the fail there Shifty -- the Bugati doesn't cover all the options that the Hummer gives. A similiar comparison for pathfinder would be:
The fighter has a BAB of +20
The wizard has a BAB of +10The wizard is obsolete.
You're being purposely obtuse.
It's more like:A [insert car here] can get you from point a to point b.
A clump of dirt cannot. <------that's the rogue in my comparison.
A wizard can cast spells. Spells are pretty f!+!ing awesome.
What does a rogue get? More skills? Than a wizard? Methinks not.
Anyone who wants to play a rogue, why wouldn't they play a detective bard instead? Or urban ranger?
But rogue FILLS NO PARTY ROLE. They aren't particularly useful in combat. They aren't particularly useful out of combat. They aren't particularly useful period.
I don't think that is quite right -- they might not be optimial in a lot of situations but they can fill roles. They can do damage, they can absorb damage -- they can do both well. They can do well on skill checks, and they have a lot of skills they can do those checks with.
Now just because other classes can do these things too, doesn't mean the rogue can't do them.
In order for your statements to be correct you would have to empirically prove that there is no possible way for a rogue to contribute in combat or out of combat no matter what build was used for the rogue.
It's a task I don't think you are up to quite frankly.
You're being purposely obtuse.
It's more like:A [insert car here] can get you from point a to point b.
A clump of dirt cannot. <------that's the rogue in my comparison.A wizard can cast spells. Spells are pretty f%%!ing awesome.
What does a rogue get? More skills? Than a wizard? Methinks not.
Anyone who wants to play a rogue, why wouldn't they play a detective bard instead? Or urban ranger?
Not at all -- he chose his cars poorly. If he was to compare one sports car to another sports car he would have done better -- instead he pulled an "apples to oranges" comparison, putting the Bugati in a situation where it couldn't possibly do what the hummer could do then saying the hummer was useless since it didn't have the speed of the Bugati.
My suggested comparison is valid since it puts the fighter in a role where he simply cannot do what the wizard can do and then calls the wizard useless for not having the BAB of a fighter.
Your comparison also doesn't really match.
I'm simply asking for people to do these things right if they are going to do them.
But rogue FILLS NO PARTY ROLE. They aren't particularly useful in combat. They aren't particularly useful out of combat. They aren't particularly useful period.I don't think that is quite right -- they might not be optimial in a lot of situations but they can fill roles. They can do damage, they can absorb damage -- they can do both well. They can do well on skill checks, and they have a lot of skills they can do those checks with.
Now just because other classes can do these things too, doesn't mean the rogue can't do them.
In order for your statements to be correct you would have to empirically prove that there is no possible way for a rogue to contribute in combat or out of combat no matter what build was used for the rogue.
It's a task I don't think you are up to quite frankly.
Are you reading my posts? I never said they can't contribute to combat, so why would I have to prove a statement you put in my mouth?
What does a rogue do better than anyone else?
A rogue cannot contribute to combat as much as...anyone else really. I never said they don't contribute to combat. A commoner can contribute to combat. No one wants to play one.
Imagine, again, if a Cleric only had one class ability. Channel Energy. Why wouldn't a party just buy potions and wands of CLW instead of dragging this other shmuck along? Rogues can't do everything at once. Or rather, if they spread themselves so thin as to try to be good at everything they end up being worse at everything than a commoner. Jack of all trades, yeah I know the trope, but this is a system that rewards specialization. If you want to be a good combat rogue (thug/scout, which is really pretty good!) you won't be any better at your skills than a bard/ranger/inquisitor/wizard. And you STILL won't be as good at dealing combat damage as a fighter/summoner/barbarian, so why try?
There are things an adventuring party needs. I don't wish to enumerate them here, but they exist. You need someone in the party to do all those enumerated things. The people you choose to do those specific things should be REALLY GOOD AT THEM and that makes your party better at what it does (murdering monsters/saving princesses/what have you). If the rogue isn't better at doing at least one of those things enumerated than the other party members who, remember, have already been brought with because they're better at something else enumerated than anyone else who wants to come, why bring him?
Any class should have a niche, and have some malleability. They should be as good at that niche, or at least competitive, as any other class that has the same niche, from level 1-20. That's what makes a class good. The rogue's niche is disarming magical traps. If that trap is on the floor, a wand of summon monster does his role as well and more expediently than the rogue does. If it is in the door then he does his role better than anyone else until the casters get dispel magic at level 5, and then he does it no better than anyone else who invested skill points (or bought an ioun stone of int attuned to disable device).
Quite the fail there Shifty -- the Bugati doesn't cover all the options that the Hummer gives.
Umm no I believe we are on the same track with that one.
You have quite rightly illustrated the key point that any intelligent person should pick up on, trying to narrow down a class to a single key point as though that is all the class does is a bit silly.Rogues are a Hummer.
We shall let everyone make the obvious joke on their own, yes?
That you have pointed it out will now trip all the overly earnest and literal types in this debate to the fact that all was 'not as it seemed'.
:p
|
|
But rogue FILLS NO PARTY ROLE. They aren't particularly useful in combat. They aren't particularly useful out of combat. They aren't particularly useful period.I don't think that is quite right -- they might not be optimial in a lot of situations but they can fill roles. They can do damage, they can absorb damage -- they can do both well. They can do well on skill checks, and they have a lot of skills they can do those checks with.
Now just because other classes can do these things too, doesn't mean the rogue can't do them.
In order for your statements to be correct you would have to empirically prove that there is no possible way for a rogue to contribute in combat or out of combat no matter what build was used for the rogue.
It's a task I don't think you are up to quite frankly.
Are you reading my posts? I never said they can't contribute to combat, so why would I have to prove a statement you put in my mouth?
What does a rogue do better than anyone else?
A rogue cannot contribute to combat as much as...anyone else really. I never said they don't contribute to combat. A commoner can contribute to combat. No one wants to play one.
Imagine, again, if a Cleric only had one class ability. Channel Energy. Why wouldn't a party just buy potions and wands of CLW instead of dragging this other shmuck along? Rogues can't do everything at once. Or rather, if they spread themselves so thin as to try to be good at everything they end up being worse at everything than a commoner. Jack of all trades, yeah I know the trope, but this is a system that rewards specialization. If you want to be a good combat rogue (thug/scout, which is really pretty good!) you won't be any better at your skills than a bard/ranger/inquisitor/wizard. And you STILL won't be as good at dealing combat damage as a fighter/summoner/barbarian, so why try?
There are things an adventuring party needs. I don't wish to enumerate them here, but...
Meatrace is correct. The problem i see and i think that he is trying to point out is the only reason to play a rogue over a different class is the flavor/fluff. There is a class/s that do everything the rogue can do but equally or better. Not just that but some of the new books added arch types to classes like rangers that do a rogues job to.
Now i play a rogue very often to the dismay of my group (due to power loss) because i love their flavor and just the idea of a cool dex rogue is exactly what i would like to play half the time.. but unless i power game the crap out of that rogue (and even then..) he will fall short both in combat and out in his effectiveness compared to the rest of the party.
The things most people see as a rogues "job" come in a few forms.
Party Face: A Sorcerer, Pally, Bard or anyone with a high CHA can do this as well if not better. MUCH better in the case of sorc and pally.
Skill Monkey: Wizard and Bard do this job and usualy better than a rogue and even the alchemist doesn't can do it well enough as to ignore the rogue in its favor.
Traps: A Wizard, Sorc and Witch can use magical resources to replace this and all those with high skills as discussed can also do this such as a bard. The ranger arch-type also gives the ranger the ability to do it just as good as the rogue.
Damage: Although usually not what one aims for i have seen some people parrot that rogues can do as much or more damage than a fighter. Even if you take into account that the rogue would have to be sneak attacking every time to come close that's a silly assumption. In many cases just trying to get into position in order to attack can mean you do nothing with the mage or fighter having killed the mob already.
UMD: Bards and Witchs do it just as well.
Now i am NOT saying i hate rogues and i am NOT saying rogues are useless. They can be fun to play and if you mainly want there fluff/flavor they are good to play. However they aren't better at there own job than anyone else. They turned from a almost needed class into a "why would you choose a rogue over something else class". And even back before pathfinder they weren't THAT good.
As a few examples...
No one can beat a wizard at his range of spells and there power.
No one can beat a bard at his mixture of party buffs, skills and flavor (the iconic jack of all trades, not the rogue)
No one can beat a pally against evil and undead
The cleric is still one of the best if not the best class to both heal, buff and strike fear into heretics hearts with his might weapon
No one can beat the Druid at effecting nature as well as his kick ass summons rivaling the summoner.
The Witch can't be beat as a jack of trades of the magical world.
The Cavalier can't be beat with a mount.
Now people will have opinions on all of that i am sure.. but no one can deny that those classes listed above are known for there thing and do it exceptionally well. Some even on the verge of "brokenness"
So why can't/shouldn't the rogue have a niche that he can do better than everyone else? Not only would it match his flavor but it would instantly stop the complaining of it being underpowered.
Its NOT that the rogue is bad at combat, its NOT that the rogue isn't as good a skill monkey as others. It IS that the rogue is floating is a limbo where if you want to focus on something specific you would NEVER choose him. Want high powered magic, wiz or sorc, want healing.. cleric, want skills..bard. You get the point.
Would it really be so bad to give them something unique? something special?
This is what i want to see. I want the rogue to be able to do SOMETHING that no other class can do or at the least be able to do it a deal better than every other class.
(lets not even go into how once the ninja is released the rogue in its current form will never see the light of day again apart from pure fluff)
ps: i DON'T want the rogue given anything special that the ninja can also do. That would be against the point. Which is why i don't believe any rogue talents released with the upcoming ultimate magic book will fix our problem.
|
|
I have to agree with a lot of arguments in this thread. That said, I really think a rogue is a valuable member to most groups. I have played super effective rogues and seen great rogue's played. Now in the vast majority of those groups most players were not optimizers.
Since the rogue works well even when multi classing that leads to some fun combinations.
In the end, as in many things about Pathfinder/D&D, it comes down to the group, DM, and play styles. I have only ever heard the rogue and monk disparaged on forums and never at the game table. They are fun classes and most people with whom I play enjoy them.
My rogue sucked... Then I gave him three blunderbusses and improved initiative :D
only really contributed the surprise a first round of combat, but oh boy does he ever contribute. I often have more total damage then the fighter from that. Obviously a fight in a large open area with spread out enemies suck, but I would expect a rogue to be very uncomfortable in these areas anyway.
I agree that it would be cool if rogues got something all their own. How about we brainstorm, instead of argue?
Yea, here's my lvl 7 dude:
AC 25, touch 17, flat-footed 19
hp 52 (7d8+7)
Fort +3, Ref +10, Will +2
Init: 7
Spd 30 ft.
Melee +1 Keen Rapier +10 (1d6+4/15-20/x2) and
Dagger, Punching +8 (1d4+1/20/x3)
Special Attacks Sneak Attack +4d6
Str 16, Dex 20, Con 12, Int 9, Wis 10, Cha 7
Base Atk +5; CMB +8; CMD 25
Feats Dodge, Elven Weapon Proficiencies, Combat Reflexes, Mobility, Rogue Weapon Proficiencies, Two-weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus: Rapier
Traits Reactionary, Warrior of Old
Skills Acrobatics +15, Disable Device +18, Escape Artist +15, Knowledge: Dungeoneering +9, Perception +12, Sense Motive +10, Stealth +15
So with TWF my attacks are +10/+8 dealing (assuming flanking or otherwise) d6+4 +4d6 and d4+1 +4d6
ACs at CR 7 seem to be between 18 and 22. So assume 22.
So my first attack hits on an 8/12, second one 10/14 (assuming flanking)
Safe to say I hit at least once (50% per attack, so probably)
Assuming no crit (even though it's keen) the average on the rapier is 21.5. Avg on dagger is 17.5.
And that's only combat. This isn't including the stealth +15, trapfinding, etc
rogues work very well with druids, summoners, and bards as well
druids and summoners may provide an excellent source of flanking buddies. and they also make great cohorts. they both get pets, they both summon critters, and they both can be fairly decent melee combatants with a reasonable bit of effort.
bards can provide buffs, and rogues with 2 weapons get a lot of mileage from a bard. because most of the bardic bonuses are static. make sure she can sing or dance to inspire courage.
if casters are really afraid of being unable to cast with a weapon out. there is the wonderful innovation called the spiked gauntlet. a wizard should get one too. wear it on your hand, and that hand is still able to perform somatic components. even if you don't plan on attacking with one. the ability to threaten squares will help every melee combatant, especially the rogue. and you don't even need to attack to threaten squares.
|
|
some things to fix the problem as mentioned above by Ironicdisaster suggested.
First off make the rogues end ability 'Master Strike' use dex for the DC instead of INT. Dex makes more sense anyway and makes the ability useful again.
second i think they should expand the idea of traps and fit rogues into them better. At the moment traps are just something a DM may or may not put into a module and most of them are to weak to care about.
So why not give the rogue a unique ability (even as a rogue talent as long as no one else including ninjas can't take it) to place traps down all setup at ready as a standard action or even quicker. perhaps bring in a portable trap magical item that only rogues can use. That way they can throw them onto a 5 foot square to hinder enemies or do damage and even add abit of crowd control. To help rogues out more perhaps only allowing rogues to disarm these new magical portable traps.
These traps would need to be versatile, from doing direct damage like that of piercing and elemental to perhaps emulating spells that are cast on the portable traps before being deployed.. giving the rogues a teamwork aspect with the party casters or allowing him to use wands/scrolls (UMD) more efficiently. A trap that can place a wall of ice upon it being triggered or healing upon triggers or even black testicles upon trigger? very useful.
Of course the key to all of this is keeping it rogue only.
|
|
Aren't they trying to fix the problem with the ninja anyways, I mean look at its abilities, yes they are not as great as other classes, but atleast its a move in the right direction.
Overall though a rogue is a rogue, they have no true definition and should be more peicemeal in thier access to abilities. I look back on a class called the Charlatan that could easily trade XP forthe abilities of other classes just by observing and making a successful check, or by training to do so. he could even use skills on the fly with out having to put points in them. Though this was in a hybrid 1st/2nd edition RPG called hackamster, but to me it spoke a true rogue, you know the guy who doesn't really say hey I'm gonna waste 10 plus years studying spells, when I can watch Jimmy McTwitchyfingers over here and boom I'm able to use a spell, or watch Jack Holyroller and boom I can cast heal... oooo. I mean come on the rogue is the guy who just tags along doing his thing always learning how to take the easy road, and solve puzzles to make the skilled and the educated look bad. Or atleast thats what he should be the intellegent slacker who just drifts about always keeping his eye out for the next easy mark, coin, or quick fix to add to his bag o tricks!!
