Playing the D&D MMO I learned something about rogues in combat. Rogues honestly have some of the best melee damage potential of any class, but... you have to abandon what you think you know about making a rogue.
1. Strength, not dex is your primary stat.
2. Build your rogue like a fighter, take extra attacks, power attack etc..
3. Stop sneaking around everywhere all the time.
4. Unless you are in an ambush, delay your actions and don't go first.
5. Work with the other heavy hitters and set up flanking deliberately and consistently. Or work with the casters to set up states of sneak attack vulnerability.
You hit 80% as hard without sneak attack, and about 150% as hard with it.
But if you play the traditional skill monkey or super finesse master.. ya, not so good in combat damage. And if you spend half the fight hiding and setting up.. not so helpful.
A strength based combat rogue is risky.. but devastating in a coordinated group.
Playing the D&D MMO I learned something about rogues in combat. Rogues honestly have some of the best melee damage potential of any class, but... you have to abandon what you think you know about making a rogue.1. Strength, not dex is your primary stat.
2. Build your rogue like a fighter, take extra attacks, power attack etc..
3. Stop sneaking around everywhere all the time.
4. Unless you are in an ambush, delay your actions and don't go first.
5. Work with the other heavy hitters and set up flanking deliberately and consistently. Or work with the casters to set up states of sneak attack vulnerability.You hit 80% as hard without sneak attack, and about 150% as hard with it.
But if you play the traditional skill monkey or super finesse master.. ya, not so good in combat damage. And if you spend half the fight hiding and setting up.. not so helpful.
A strength based combat rogue is risky.. but devastating in a coordinated group.
Why not just play a fighter?
|
Maybe Ultimate Combat will strengthen the position of the rogue. But I have my doubts. Both the APG and UM have, in my opinion, weakened the position of the rogue. While the APG contained some interesting options for rogues, it did much more for barbarians and monks, the other weak classes, and also gave trapfinding to bards and rangers. UM on the other hand gave their precious sneak attack to the alchemist. I actually have more hopes for the ninja to be an adequate substitution for the rogue that's actually good in what a rogue is supposed to do, like being stealthy.
Conversely I loved the APG Rogue material and thought it brought a lot to an already diverse class. I look forward to UM extending that further.
|
Something I'm worried that a lot of people have forgotten about. Sure, they can't take as much damage as a fighter. Sure, trapfinding is the only thing they can do, that other classes (other than the ranger) can't do. But first off, D&D is, 9/10 times a "group" game. And with a "group" rogues can really shine.
A well-made rogue should try to get as many attacks as possible in a single full-round action, while working in -TANDEM- with a fighter. If they do this, they can do massive damage, and out-damage the fighter, the wizard with disintegrate, and nearly anyone but other classes that are also designed for massive damage (Monk, and Magus are the big ones here).
This bears the problem of getting into a flanking position with the fighter, I will admit. Because rogues have less HP than a fighter (Because, y'know, sharing the d8 hit die with the monk, druid, cleric, and other front line classes is sooo crippling), they could get dinged up pretty bad while running through mobs of monsters. That's where the acrobatics skill comes into play. As well as the feats dodge, and mobility. An 8th level rogue with 16 dex, and maxed out acrobatics can roll through a swirling melee of monsters designed to fight 4 8th level characters and usually without breaking a sweat.
Then the rogue moves into a flank position with the fighter, and sneak attacks. If the enemy tries to move from that spot without 5-foot stepping, he provokes an attack from both the fighter, and the rogue. And if he does 5-foot step, the rogue and fighter can just re-position themselves for another flank. And if the target doesn't move, he's about to eat a full attack, sneak attack from the rogue (this of course, assumes the rogue is dual-wielding, or has a high enough BAB to get a full attack).
Yes, the need for a flank is a specialized situation. But you'll have it more often than not if you and the other melee combatants work together.
The fighter might be good on his own, until he fights something that does heavy damage, or needs to do heavy...
A lot of people here think in terms of targets that can be brought down in one round by a optimized character.
If your GM allow you to do that routinely the Rogue don't shine as the target will be already dead for the moment when the rogue is ready for his full attack.Similarly a lot of people hate depending on another guy to get his full potentials or "losing" round doing not maximum damage to get in that flanking position.
Rogues require better than average tactical thought to shine in combat and better than average gaming competence to get the best from their capabilities.
A lot of players feel it is too much work and don't even try.
Rogues require better than average tactical thought to shine in combat and better than average gaming competence to get the best from their capabilities.
A lot of players feel it is too much work and don't even try.
Ok, so they are a harder class to play than others. Fair enough, but what do you get from that? People that state they can outdamage other classes with Sneak Attacks...prove it? The tests run so far show that rogues fall far behind on the scale in terms of damage compared to other classes, even with their sneak attacks. Bards are now the undisputed skill users of the game, and they are a great force multiplier for the party, and they have spells. With the recent archetype additions for Rangers and Bards, you no longer even need rogues to handle traps.
From what I see, when playing a rogue, you get a finicky, sub standard melee'er, or a very hard to set up ranged attacker.
What are the benefits to the rogue class to counter balance the required 'tactical thought' and 'better than average gaming competence'?
Ok, so they are a harder class to play than others. Fair enough, but what do you get from that?
A thrilling and diverse class with fantastic flexibility that can be used in a range of campaigns, in a range of playstyles, and always has something to contribute from the get go through to the end game.
The 'Tests' are always a bit spurious, as campaign and playstyles dont often reflect the 'test' conditions. So many factors come into play at the table that it makes such comparisons a bit moot.
Bards are now the undisputed skill users of the game,...
Proof?
From what I see, when playing a rogue, you get a finicky, sub standard melee'er, or a very hard to set up ranged attacker.What are the benefits to the rogue class to counter balance the required 'tactical thought' and 'better than average gaming competence'?
Obsolete to me means not useful or can not contribute. I don't think it is all that hard to play a rogue, and make it contribute.
What makes a class a substandard melee class?
Proof?
Bards gain all the class skills of Rogues, bar Swim and Disable Device. At level 16 they consider these, and every other skill in the game as class skill as well. For the loss of these skills at level 1 they gain all knowledge skills, only needing to invest 1 rank in each to be an expert on them thanks to the increadibly useful Bardic Knowledge and Loremaster. Using Versatile performance they gain skills at a 3 for 1 basis, more than making up for their 2 less skills per level, and on top of this treat those free skills as charisma based.
Finally, at level 10 bards receive Jack of All Trades, which means they can 'fluke' any skill they have not to invested in and can take 10 in situations that threaten failure, thus making them the most reliable skill user.They are also a charisma based caster with all the charm spells, and all the social skills, making them a superb 'face' for the party.
What makes a class a substandard melee class?
I consider a 'standard' melee class one that can be relied upon to solely destroy a CR creature one equal its level in single melee combat if built well. Fighters/ Rangers/ Barbarians/Paladins/Cavaliers can do this. Some non full-BAB classes can do this such as Druids/Clerics/Oracles/Monks/Inquisitors. Fighters etc are valuable because someone has to tangle with the enemies. Those that can't have other tricks.
Not every class has to be a capable melee, but they must bring other things to the table.If you do not need a rogue for skills, and rogues do not contribute equally to the party on the frontline, what reason is there for a rogue to be in the party?
I am not saying a rogue player cannot contribute, I am saying that by choosing the rogue class they will not be able to contribute as much as another class. I merely want rogues to be stronger.
|
|
Rogues require better than average tactical thought to shine in combat and better than average gaming competence to get the best from their capabilities.
A lot of players feel it is too much work and don't even try.Ok, so they are a harder class to play than others. Fair enough, but what do you get from that? People that state they can outdamage other classes with Sneak Attacks...prove it? The tests run so far show that rogues fall far behind on the scale in terms of damage compared to other classes, even with their sneak attacks. Bards are now the undisputed skill users of the game, and they are a great force multiplier for the party, and they have spells. With the recent archetype additions for Rangers and Bards, you no longer even need rogues to handle traps.
From what I see, when playing a rogue, you get a finicky, sub standard melee'er, or a very hard to set up ranged attacker.
What are the benefits to the rogue class to counter balance the required 'tactical thought' and 'better than average gaming competence'?
You use a totally artificial environment for testing and then say "tests prove that x is always true"?
Sorry, the tests prove that under the testing environment restrictions x is true.The tests run there test pure DPR. Nothing more, nothing less.
In post 1 of that thread it say: "If a build is genuinely more optimal by sacrificing DPR for some other benefit, then the sacrifice will be made. For example, rogues will use Crippling Strike and not Bleeding Strike." but then there is no way to evaluate the positive effect of using Crippling strike in game.
Plenty of other limitations that will not be there in the actual game.
So it is a somewhat interesting set of data, but hardly prove anything of how the class work in game.
Maybe it prove something on how the class will work in a PC game, but we aren't playing a PC game.
I consider a 'standard' melee class one that can be relied upon to solely destroy a CR creature one equal its level in single melee combat if built well.
Not my benchmark. I am more interested on how it work in a group.
I really thought about opening a "wizards suck" or "please fix the fighter" thread just to add to these pointless threads. Rogues are a nice class. For RP, they are the most versatile class there is.
Why not just play a fighter?
Playing the D&D MMO I learned something about rogues in combat. Rogues honestly have some of the best melee damage potential of any class, but... you have to abandon what you think you know about making a rogue.1. Strength, not dex is your primary stat.
2. Build your rogue like a fighter, take extra attacks, power attack etc..
3. Stop sneaking around everywhere all the time.
4. Unless you are in an ambush, delay your actions and don't go first.
5. Work with the other heavy hitters and set up flanking deliberately and consistently. Or work with the casters to set up states of sneak attack vulnerability.You hit 80% as hard without sneak attack, and about 150% as hard with it.
But if you play the traditional skill monkey or super finesse master.. ya, not so good in combat damage. And if you spend half the fight hiding and setting up.. not so helpful.
A strength based combat rogue is risky.. but devastating in a coordinated group.
As far as the fluff goes, he does already. But he focuses on flanking since sneak attack is the signature feat of a rogue.
One can argue that fighters do more damage (or do other important stuff like critical conditions) with the bonus of their feats and weapon training, yeah, could be, however the rogue gets tons of skill points that will come in handy, even in battle (for a fighter build you have to think twice if you take intimidate as one of your few skills, in a higher point buy the rogue will also be able to feint - yes, a fighter can put points in here but then this is all he will do), finding traps and well, do much other nice stuff depending on what skills he chooses (he can even be the parties buffer by UMD). He will be better off against stuff like breath weapons since he has evasion and he will make use of these nice rogue talents.
You use a totally artificial environment for testing and then say "tests prove that x is always true"?
Sorry, the tests prove that under the testing environment restrictions x is true.
+1
DPR is a reductive measure. The complex enviroment the characters act in renders the "science of powergaming" incontingent, you can relevate but not deduce strict lawsMathematics and DPR is nice and of use for building stronger chars but it's not the final measurment of a characters "power" (that's also why people pick on the monk - until some enemy wizard casts will targeting spells)
|
Proof?
Bards gain all the class skills of Rogues, bar Swim and Disable Device. At level 16 they consider these, and every other skill in the game as class skill as well. For the loss of these skills at level 1 they gain all knowledge skills, only needing to invest 1 rank in each to be an expert on them thanks to the increadibly useful Bardic Knowledge and Loremaster. Using Versatile performance they gain skills at a 3 for 1 basis, more than making up for their 2 less skills per level, and on top of this treat those free skills as charisma based.
Finally, at level 10 bards receive Jack of All Trades, which means they can 'fluke' any skill they have not to invested in and can take 10 (At Level 19)in situations that threaten failure, thus making them the most reliable skill user (7-9 levels after the Rogue already has that ability).They are also a charisma based caster with all the charm spells, and all the social skills, making them a superb 'face' for the party. (Spells != Skills)
What makes a class a substandard melee class?I consider a 'standard' melee class one that can be relied upon to solely destroy a CR creature one equal its level in single melee combat if built well. Fighters/ Rangers/ Barbarians/Paladins/Cavaliers can do this. Some non full-BAB classes can do this such as Druids/Clerics/Oracles/Monks/Inquisitors. Fighters etc are valuable because someone has to tangle with the enemies. Those that can't have other tricks.
Not every class has to be a capable melee, but they must bring other things to the table.
If you do not need a rogue for skills,(which is your contention, and far from vigorously defended) and rogues do not contribute equally to the party on the frontline (also far from defended), what reason is there for a rogue to be in the party?I am not saying a rogue player cannot contribute, I am saying that by choosing the rogue class they will not be able to contribute as much as another class. I merely want rogues to be stronger.
In summation, Rogues get abilities earlier than bards, while being less M.A.D., and can approach a fighter in DPR if designed and played intelligently. No, they don't get spells or channel energy or bardic performance or rage.
Instead, they get All Sorts of Neat Things.
From actual, in-game play experience, the greatest moment in the Rogue Player's career is when she realizes that no lock can withstand her talents, almost noone can escape her notice, and getting out of grapples and melee can be as easy as "Taking 10." That facilitates a level of comfort and confidence in her abilities which then translates into smoother, faster, more enjoyable game time.
And that's the POINT of this exercise, no?
Aren't they trying to fix the problem with the ninja anyways...
Yes, you could say that... But it seems pretty clear to me that Paizo heard the feedback on the discrepancy between Ninjas and Rogues, so I expect Ult. Combat to see a Ninja more in-line with Rogue power, but that a bunch of stuff also available to Rogues is included in Ult. Combat.
The problem with the idea of the rogue flanking with the fighter is that it either requires
1) a fast and mobile fighter to move or
2) More likely, the rogue to be in a bad spot against multiple foes
Idealy, this is what you want
Squishies --> Armored meat shield--> Things with big sharp pointy teeth.
If you flank with the fighter, you get
Squishies---> armored meat shield----> TWBSPT--->Rogue <---TWBSPT
Which is why Scout is what you want if you are very combat-focused,
Thug also synergizing by debuffing opponents (and CRAZY synergizing if you pursue Intimidation tactics at all)
AKA: Combat optimized Rogue builds are better at combat.
But there is absolutely nothing in this game that a proper rogue cannot do. Alone or with a group, a rogue can do anything. Absolutely anything.
Pure malarky. Aggrandizing pap without an ounce of argument or evidence behind it.
Unassisted, rogues are worse at hiding than wizards. Using the stealth rules it becomes VERY hard to sneak up on other PC races. Sneaking up on monsters becomes neigh impossible as you level.
Rogues need to sneak attack constantly to barely match a fighter in melee damage.
Rogues cannot one shot cr appropriate opponents from across the room.
Rogues cannot function as the party meat shield.
Rogues cannot take out an entire room full of enemies at once.
Rogues cannot use a disguise to infiltrate a kobold lair.
Rogues, despite the flavor and press to the contrary, are one of the worst classes for utilizing outside of the box solutions.
|
|
Pure malarky. Aggrandizing pap without an ounce of argument or evidence behind it.
Unassisted, rogues are worse at hiding than wizards. Using the stealth rules it becomes VERY hard to sneak up on other PC races. Sneaking up on monsters becomes nigh impossible as you level.
A wand of invisibility makes the rogue twice as good as most wizards, and slightly better than a stealth-specializing wizard.
Rogues need to sneak attack constantly to barely match a fighter in melee damage.
But you admit they can do it.
Rogues cannot one shot cr appropriate opponents from across the room.
Then who can?
Rogues cannot function as the party meat shield.
They usually don't. But they most certainly can. You ought to know as well as I do that the size of a hit die isn't super-important, and AC is independent of class.
Rogues cannot take out an entire room full of enemies at once.
Whirlwind sneak attack. Heck yeah, they can!
Rogues cannot use a disguise to infiltrate a kobold lair.
Hat of disguise.
Rogues, despite the flavor and press to the contrary, are one of the worst classes for utilizing outside of the box solutions.
Says you. But that's pure malarkey. Aggrandizing pap without an ounce of argument or evidence behind it. ;-)
A wand of invisibility makes the rogue twice as good as most wizards, and slightly better than a stealth-specializing wizard.
nope, because that wizard is usually flying.
But you admit they can do it.
No i do not. Because you cannot sneak attack nearly as often as the rogue proponents would have you believe, much less constantly.
Then who can?
Wizards, clerics, druids.
They usually don't. But they most certainly can. You ought to know as well as I do that the size of a hit die isn't super-important, and AC is independent of class.
A rogue can go "off spec" and get the hit points and AC to meat shield , or they can get the tricks and manuvers that let them meat shield, its VERY hard if not impossible for them to do both.
Whirlwind sneak attack. Heck yeah, they can!
1) You cannot sneak that close to that many people (sneaking doesn't let you move through someones space)
2) You'd have to have a pretty bizzar circumstance for 8 enemies all standing around 1 empty square.
3) By the level your rogue can pull that off (7th) 17 extra damage is probably going to leave you as a flank sandwhich for some of your intended victims.
Rogues cannot use a disguise to infiltrate a kobold lair.
Hat of disguise.
1) Disss terrra mesh karyshss?
2) You'd have to be a halfling or gnome ( alter self only gives you 1 foot of height change)
Says you. But that's pure malarkey. Aggrandizing pap without an ounce of argument or evidence behind it. ;-)
I've been through this before. While the hypothetical "the rogue" can be made to do a number of tasks in an almost satisfactory manner, a player does not play "the rogue" they play "a rogue." There is nothing that "a rogue" ... your character, the one you play at any particular time, can do that another character cannot do better.
Rogues require better than average tactical thought to shine in combat and better than average gaming competence to get the best from their capabilities.
A lot of players feel it is too much work and don't even try.
Rogues with that much thought put into them become...ok. Wizards, Clerics, and druids with that much thought into them become incarnations of destruction.
Ah so the 9th+ level wizard now?
-If you need to stealth you can cast fly at 5th.
And what is this 9+ level wizard's stealth?
-Depends on the point by. Usually 4- 5 points lower than the rogues (3 from the class skill bonus 2 from dex), but you make up for it by not having terrain penalties.
Meanwhile the rogue/shadowdancer's stealth either in plain sight near dim light, or along with the wizard (if they invested 2 feats into it) in bright light?
If you want to play the prestige class game , there's nothing that prevents a wizard from walking into the shadow dancer prestige class either now that skill ranks are not limited by class.
And moving at full speed?
Why do people trot out this lame ability? What is the hurry?
A rogue can do this just as well, if not better than a wizard. Likewise the rogue, and only the rogue, can be looking for traps while moving at full speed.
Whereas other classes can just double their movement rates.
And if your DM had made traps worth finding rather than just enduring as random monsters this would matter.
traps have CR's now. If you make an uber trap you're handing the party a boatload of xp for putting up with it.
What's the level of difficulty between encountering say an enemy party when you're surprised and they are buffed as opposed to the opposite?
nowhere near enough to make up for carrying along a useless partymember.
Ah so the 9th+ level wizard now?
-If you need to stealth you can cast fly at 5th.
I am assuming that they were thinking of Overland Flight, not Fly. Overland Flight would give the wizard hours worth of flying time.
Fly will only give them 5 minutes at 5th level. I am not sure that that would give them enough time to explore a significant area, or watch the area, etc..
Could you extend your arguments to cover a full day rather than a few select moments of the day?
As it stands, your wizard has used 50% of his 3rd level spells (assuming a bonus spell due to high intelligence) to maybe outshine the rogue, for a few minutes.
What do rogues do better than anyone else? A few things.
The most obvious is trap, they're the best at dealing with them. Period. If traps are nothing more than a speed bump, well that's a bummer, but ultimately that's on the dm. Some of my most memorable moments in dnd have come from non-standard traps. The old room filling with water/sand. Finding a way out and trying to figure out how to disable it, whilr the party stands around wondering if that shifty guy is coming back to save them.
One of my favorites was a trap that cloned the party and made evil versions. Awesome, "speed bump" becomes a major challenge. Not only that but using summons/ten foot pole means you have to fight yourself, only a rogue could deal with it, especially if the dm sets the dcs high.
Next, spring attack. That's right, a rogue is king of the spring attack. Sneak attack + vital strike + greatsword = more damage than anyone on a single attack, while avoiding full attacks. Get hide in plain sight and a rediculous stealth check and your pretty much invincible. Enemies can't hit what they can't see. Throw in the 3.5 feat darkstalker and tremorsense/scent/blindsight etc can't even detect you. I recently had to retire a character that used this trick because he was too powerful. He didn't deal more damage than the mounted charger or the blasty sorc, but he was the next best thing to invincible.
Sure anyone could max stealth and get H.I.P.S. from a prc, but no one will do the raw dpr of a rogue while spring attacking, all day long.
Still think rogues work best as a dip class, but they do have their own thing going on.
You can't VS and Spring Attack. They aren't compatible. Check the errata.
Okay then, all you that seem to think Rogues are A-OK. What would you say is, all things considered, the weakest class in the game right now? Core+APG+UM.
My bottom 3 are, in order of least worst to worst, Rogue, Monk, Cavalier.
Remember, I'm not like trash talking your girlfriend here, guys. I'm trying to be honest and objective about the relative power and utility of a class. I'm not saying rogues aren't FUN to play. I know I've had fun with mine. Heck one of my favorite characters was a Monk, but I have no delusions that I was a useless waste of space the entire year and a half I played him. If your party doesn't mind having someone around that isn't on par, and you don't feel left out when you are outshined in your own niche by other classes, and you enjoy playing or role-playing a rogue, have at it! I don't mind. I'm not going to tell anyone it's wrongbadfun.
Let's just be honest though. It's all I ask.
With the archetypes, monks can actually do pretty good. Same with the rogue. The base class is weak for both, but the APG and UM both have pretty decent options that improve them greatly.
|
|
Okay then, all you that seem to think Rogues are A-OK. What would you say is, all things considered, the weakest class in the game right now? Core+APG+UM.
My bottom 3 are, in order of least worst to worst, Rogue, Monk, Cavalier.
Let's just be honest though. It's all I ask.
My bottom two are Rogue and Monk in that order. Off Topic, but Cavaliers are legitmiately pretty badass, people just don't seem to get that, I mean, their Challenge is a DPR enhancer on par with Paladin's Smite Evil only usable on anyone!
I mean, my class order would probably be something like this:
Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch, and Oracle
Sorcerer, Bard, Alchemist, Inquisitor, and Summoner,
Paladin, Ranger, Fighter, Barbarian, and Cavalier,
Rogue,
Monk,
(Note: The two non-spellcasters with less than full BAB are rated lowest. This is probably not a coincidence.)
But the differences are small enough to not honestly be that huge a deal. A Rogue isn't any more unplayable or useless as compared to an Urban Ranger than a Sorcerer is compared to a Wizard. Both are only less than fun if the 'more powerful' version is in the same party...which really doesn't come up a whole lot.
Now, both Sorcerer and Rogue (as well as Monk) could use a definite power-up, but they're certainly powerful enough for use without it.
Slight derail
You can't VS and Spring Attack. They aren't compatible. Check the errata.
Thanks for the heads up. I'm actually aware of the errata, but errata that makes a somewhat subpar feat completely useless can safely be ignored IMHO.
Sorry, back on topic. As far as spells making the rogue obsolete, rogues have use magic device. So a rogue can actually be invisible for more rounds a day than a wiz or sorc. A high level rogue can easily break into a wizard's tower and steal his scrolls/wands/staves, not to mention his spellbook.
Why not just play a fighter?
Because fighters don't get 10d6 or more sneak attack damage.
Why not just play a fighter?Because fighters don't get 10d6 or more sneak attack damage.
They also don't need it. They do more damage without needing a gimmick.
Slight derail
You can't VS and Spring Attack. They aren't compatible. Check the errata.Thanks for the heads up. I'm actually aware of the errata, but errata that makes a somewhat subpar feat completely useless can safely be ignored IMHO.
Sorry, back on topic. As far as spells making the rogue obsolete, rogues have use magic device. So a rogue can actually be invisible for more rounds a day than a wiz or sorc. A high level rogue can easily break into a wizard's tower and steal his scrolls/wands/staves, not to mention his spellbook.
That's just laughable.
They also don't need it. They do more damage without needing a gimmick.Why not just play a fighter?Because fighters don't get 10d6 or more sneak attack damage.
So which class exclusive ability gives you 35 average damage per swing?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i have known people who glance at the number of sneak attack dice and panic because they seem to be blinded by thier fear of the maximum result. a statisitcal occurence that requires a both red moon and a once every 5,000 year planetary alignment.
So which class exclusive ability gives you 35 average damage per swing?They also don't need it. They do more damage without needing a gimmick.Why not just play a fighter?Because fighters don't get 10d6 or more sneak attack damage.
At level 19-20, which is what you're talking about. None, though weapon focus/spec and training add up to +8/10 (with dueling gloves) if my math is correct. But a strength of 30+, power attack, a crit range of 15-20 and the crit feats make it pretty brutal. Or archery. Base archery is pretty dang badass. I mean if we're talking about wild theoretical possibilities then the rogue wins. He could get 7 attacks with 7 crits and all 6s on sneak attacks. It will never happen though, and we have only to judge on the probable not the possible.
i have known people who glance at the number of sneak attack dice and panic because they seem to be blinded by thier fear of the maximum result. a statisitcal occurence that requires a both red moon and a once every 5,000 year planetary alignment.
I played a rogue in a campaign from August '10 to April '11 and got max sneak attack dice maybe once. I don't remember ever rolling two sixes or even one six at levels 1-4.
Sneak attack sucks. Would I have liked to play a more social rogue? Sure-- if I wasn't in a party with a diplomacy/sensemotive/intimidate paladin, in Serpent's Skull, which is an adventure that's general encounters can be defined by the immortal words "It's coming right for us!"
Bards gain all the class skills of Rogues, bar Swim and Disable Device. At level 16 they consider these, and every other skill in the game as class skill as well. For the loss of these skills at level 1 they gain all knowledge skills, only needing to invest 1 rank in each to be an expert on them thanks to the increadibly useful Bardic Knowledge and Loremaster. Using Versatile performance they gain skills at a 3 for 1 basis, more than making up for their 2 less skills per level, and on top of this treat those free skills as charisma based.
Finally, at level 10 bards receive Jack of All Trades, which means they can 'fluke' any skill they have not to invested in and can take 10 in situations that threaten failure, thus making them the most reliable skill user.
Bardic Knowledge and Loremaster are very good for knowledge skills. That is does not mean they are better for skills overall. As for Jack of all Trades if you can't meet the DC then it really does not matter. You can take 10 and still fail, and therefore not reliable with that skill. So far you are showing can be very good at social skills, and decent at some knowledge checks that they are not focused on, but only up to a point. After a while that half-class level bonus does not cut it for DC's if you don't actually put ranks into the skill.
What makes a class a substandard melee class?I consider a 'standard' melee class one that can be relied upon to solely destroy a CR creature one equal its level in single melee combat if built well. Fighters/ Rangers/ Barbarians/Paladins/Cavaliers can do this. Some non full-BAB classes can do this such as Druids/Clerics/Oracles/Monks/Inquisitors. Fighters etc are valuable because someone has to tangle with the enemies. Those that can't have other tricks.
Not every class has to be a capable melee, but they must bring other things to the table.
Fighters I agree. Rangers can only do this with their favored enemy unless you have the guide variant and that is limited to a number of time per day. Barbarians maybe with the APG options, but if that pounce does not do it then it may not happen. Paladins require evil enemies which most of them are, but other than that they don't do too much more damage than a rogue if they do at all. Cavaliers if they are in open space are even more limited than the sneak attacking rogue.
Druids can, clerics are kind of iffy. The days of 3.5 are gone. A druid however falls off at higher levels though since a lot of its DPR comes from the animal companion. Oracles can also. Monks, not so much. Inquisitors limited. The monster is question is also a factor. A rogue can do it also, not that I think about it. I guess they are not substandard then.If you do not need a rogue for skills, and rogues do not contribute equally to the party on the frontline, what reason is there for a rogue to be in the party?
Rogues can contribute on the frontline. I am sure they can keep up if not outdamage most clerics. Sure a buffed cleric might do more damage, but you can't really depend on that as a constant. Any class can be replaced so by "another class can fill your spot" argument all classes are obsolete.
I am not saying a rogue player cannot contribute, I am saying that by choosing the rogue class they will not be able to contribute as much as another class. I merely want rogues to be stronger.
There will always be a weaker class.
There are a few things that I'm really hoping that Ultimate Combat brings back for Rogue and a few things that I hope they add..
-------------
Rogue Talents
-------------
Modification to Trap Spotter that will allow the sensing of secret/hidden doors as well, or a new Rogue Talent similar to Trapspotter called Door Spotter.
Faster Stealth - Ability to Double Move while Stealth without penalty, pre-req of Fast Stealth
Lasting Poison - Ability to poison a weapon and have it last for multiple rounds (Similar to the Alchemist Sticky Poison discovery)
Improved Flanking - Bonuses that allow extra attack bonuses for flanking an enemy or catching them flat footed. Possible damage bonuses if they feel it is helpful to balance.
----------------------
Advanced Rogue Talents
----------------------
Running Stealth - Ability to Run with Stealth at a significantly less penalty.
Hide in Plain Sight - As Shadowdancer/Assassin
Darkstalker - As the old feat (Possibly level 20 requirement, possibly sooner)
Improved Trap Spotter/Door Spotter increased range increment to make it more viable for higher end traps.
Magical Aura Negation - Ability to hide magical auras from worn items. It helps you pose as a Diplomat or other various official when you don't glow as bright as the son if someone attempts to use Detect Magic in the area.
Any other Rogue Talent would easily be added to this list, allowing improved benefits of adding status effects to enemies by sacrificing a number of sneak attack dice for an attack.. Anything that aids Stealth.. Anything that aids Trap Detection and Neutralization.
Just my opinions on paper. :)
Because a Rogue does not suffer penalties for moving while using stealth. Invisibility loses a lot of appeal when you move because the +40 becomes a +20 if you move at all, and stealth doesn't work if you move at half speed
Thats incorrect.
When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty.
So a wizard can cast expeditious retreat or and move at 55 feet per round with a -5 penalty. An Elven wizard can take the racial trait to eliminate this penalty.
so your flying wizard can move 35' and get a +20 on stealth and no skill bonus]To recap, flying wizard moving 35', +20 stealth while invisible.
Rogue using full move moving 60', stealth skill+stat+feats+20 while invisible
This is disingenuous in the extreme. The wizard can easily spend a skill point per level on stealth and be a mere 3 points behind the rogue. He can snag a familiar that adds to stealth and make up the difference. This is not 3.5 anymore. the wizard can put his skill points wherever he'd like.
while the invisible rogue with haste moves at 60'
And how is the rogue becoming invisible and hasted?
and gains his entire skill bonus - and at 10th level, he can take ten on his skill check netting him an automatic +43 with no stat or feat bonuses, just invisibility.
and a sneaky wizard would be 1d20 +33 (10 ranks +20 invisibility +3 for the familiar.
As said so many times before, Rogues can out stealth casters while moderately optimized, while a caster has to work his tail off to get anywhere remotely close to a rogue's capability.
A caster opting to be sneaking is under optimized for a caster. It is still more optimized than the best rogue. A small german shepard is still bigger than a large Chihuahua.
There is literally no skill that casters can manage that the rogues cannot also manage BETTER.
Disguise- polymorph, alter self,
Diplomacy- charm person, dominate person, glibness,Bluff- suggestion
Craft- fabricate
Disable device- knock
Escape artist- dimension door
Heal- heal spell
Intimidate- meteor swarm
Linguistics: tongues.
perception- scry, detect magic, the ring of eyeball things.
stealth- invisibility
survival- magnificent mansion
swim= polymorph
use magic device- I don't need to cheat thanks.
Disguise- polymorph, alter self,
Diplomacy- charm person, dominate person, glibness,
Bluff- suggestion
Craft- fabricate
Disable device- knock
Escape artist- dimension door
Heal- heal spell
Intimidate- meteor swarm
Linguistics: tongues.
perception- scry, detect magic, the ring of eyeball things.
stealth- invisibility
survival- magnificent mansion
swim= polymorph
use magic device- I don't need to cheat thanks.
You would really recommend using limited resources like spells to do things mundane skills can do? Tote up the number of spells (13, assuming you don't need to cast another Alter Self, or other spell) / levels you are using (from 1st to 9th level depending on your suggested spell) to do a number of things that might be required on a mission. Skills are usable at will, don't require memorization or magical gear and are, for the most part, reusable / usable at need. They don't involve casting spells in view of others (unless you metamagic your way out of spell requirements -- and bump your spell levels up). Skills work without the time needed to rememorize spells etc when you run out. Even with a knowledge of the mission it's doubtful that a Wizard could memorize the exact spells that might be needed (and would have to resort to wands, etc.), doubtful a Sorcerror would have all the specific spells needed. Sounds like a waste. Time to hire a Rogue to do... oh, that's right you don't need one.
In an artificial "firing range" type situation a caster can out do any individual Rogue skill via magic. Having the magical resources, knowledge and luck to do so on the fly / in "real life"... that's another thing entirely.
Personally I'd let the Rogue do his skill monkey bit, buff him as needed and save the rest of my spells for those things he can't do. Ymmv.
Intimidate- meteor swarm
That's hilarious.....and true.
I haven't looked at them for awhile, how have barbarians improved?-James
APG Barbarians are where its at in the melee mix at the moment. Go Invulnerable Rager for 10/DR, get Beast Totem for more natural armour and pounce, take superstitious for paladin like saves, Come and Get me and Dazing Assault means free attacks every round, and enemies make fort saves each time they try and hit you, and Reckless Abandon for Fighter AB. I can't speak for other types but this type of Barbarian tore down the house in my last game. Life is good in the Barbarian world.
You would really recommend using limited resources like spells to do things mundane skills can do?
Yes. Here's why: opportunity costs.
When a player decides to play a rogue what they have decided is that they will bring NONE of those limited resources to the table. That means that if someone decides to play a caster and they have to use ALL of their resources to fill in for the rogue, then the net result is zero gain and zero loss. Any gain in power after that is a bonus. this holds true if the wizard is using 50, 60, or even 90% of his spells as a faux rogue: the player and the party still get more power than if they'd brought a rogue.
Even with a knowledge of the mission it's doubtful that a Wizard could memorize the exact spells that might be needed (and would have to resort to wands, etc.)
Or scrolls.
In an artificial "firing range" type situation a caster can out do any individual Rogue skill via magic. Having the magical resources, knowledge and luck to do so on the fly / in "real life"... that's another thing entirely.
Its not that hard. If your party is doubling down on wizards your off- wizard can get most of the benefit of the rogue class out of taking one level of it or even blowing feats on skill focus for the important stuff.
Personally I'd let the Rogue do his skill monkey bit, buff him as needed and save the rest of my spells for those things he can't do. Ymmv.
Thats a completely different question. The idea behind the rogue being obsolete isn't "should my party wizard try to usurp the place of the party rogue" The answer to that is a flat no: its bad gaming from one player to another. The question is "should any player play the rogue class". I can't see any mechanical reason for doing so. As often as i get lambasted for my alleged lack of role playing ability for saying that, it often seems as if the rogue supporters are the ones leaning on a mechanical concept they think comes with inherent cool factor and sneakiness instead of imbuing their own creations with it.
Yes. Here's why: opportunity costs.When a player decides to play a rogue what they have decided is that they will bring NONE of those limited resources to the table. That means that if someone decides to play a caster and they have to use ALL of their resources to fill in for the rogue, then the net result is zero gain and zero loss. Any gain in power after that is a bonus. this holds true if the wizard is using 50, 60, or even 90% of his spells as a faux rogue: the player and the party still get more power than if they'd brought a rogue.
I'm not seeing this. When a Rogue uses skills you're not using *any* limited resources to achieve what is arguably the same result for using your spells. Leaving all your spells for other uses. If you're using 2 casters to replace one Rogue and one caster you have more limited resources. More of a limited resource is still not as flexible / useful as a limitless resource. You can run out of spells, particualrly of a specific one, while skills are an unlimited resource. Two casters will get you more raw power than one Rogue and one caster for a limited time, but skills are forever. In a "stealth" oriented mission (which I would presume this to be given the emphasis on replacing Rogue skills with spells) you are rarely going to be on the upper end of the power equation. Or it probably wouldn't be a stealth mission.
Even with a knowledge of the mission it's doubtful that a Wizard could memorize the exact spells that might be needed (and would have to resort to wands, etc.)Or scrolls.
You can drag along all kinds of magical gear, so can the Rogue.
Its not that hard. If your party is doubling down on wizards your off- wizard can get most of the benefit of the rogue class out of taking one level of it or even blowing feats on skill focus for the important stuff.
In which case you're probably better off having the "real deal" with you as opposed to a caster who's going to spend his own limited choices of feats / skills to do a poor immitation of a Rogue. The caster is better off using his skills / feats to maximize his forte -- casting. I'm not a fan of optimization to the exclusion of roleplaying (far from it) but almost any caster is going to find better uses for his limited feats / skills than trying to out stealth a Rogue.
Thats a completely different question. The idea behind the rogue being obsolete isn't "should my party wizard try to usurp the place of the party rogue" The answer to that is a flat no: its bad gaming from one player to another. The question is "should any player play the rogue class". I can't see any mechanical reason for doing so. As often as i get lambasted for my alleged lack of role playing ability for saying that, it often seems as if the rogue supporters are the ones leaning on a mechanical concept they think comes with inherent cool factor and sneakiness instead of imbuing their own creations with it.
This is where we differ. I can see mechanical advantages. Unlimited resources versus limited resources. It wouldn't hold true for every type of adventure, but for one requiring stealth, take a professional along. My 2 cp.
|
|
Disguise- polymorph, alter self,
Diplomacy- charm person, dominate person, glibness,
Bluff- suggestion
Craft- fabricate
Disable device- knock
Escape artist- dimension door
Heal- heal spell
Intimidate- meteor swarm
Linguistics: tongues.
perception- scry, detect magic, the ring of eyeball things.
stealth- invisibility
survival- magnificent mansion
swim= polymorph
use magic device- I don't need to cheat thanks.
You would really recommend using limited resources like spells to do things mundane skills can do? Tote up the number of spells (13, assuming you don't need to cast another Alter Self, or other spell) / levels you are using (from 1st to 9th level depending on your suggested spell) to do a number of things that might be required on a mission. Skills are usable at will, don't require memorization or magical gear and are, for the most part, reusable / usable at need. They don't involve casting spells in view of others (unless you metamagic your way out of spell requirements -- and bump your spell levels up). Skills work without the time needed to rememorize spells etc when you run out. Even with a knowledge of the mission it's doubtful that a Wizard could memorize the exact spells that might be needed (and would have to resort to wands, etc.), doubtful a Sorcerror would have all the specific spells needed. Sounds like a waste. Time to hire a Rogue to do... oh, that's right you don't need one.
In an artificial "firing range" type situation a caster can out do any individual Rogue skill via magic. Having the magical resources, knowledge and luck to do so on the fly / in "real life"... that's another thing entirely.
Personally I'd let the Rogue do his skill monkey bit, buff him as needed and save the rest of my spells for those things he can't do. Ymmv.
It is always the "wizards have unlimited spells and know all the spells" problem.
Apparently some guy play it that way, the wizards always know the right spells, have the time to memorize them when needed, have enough spell slots to do what another class do and still do their job.I don't know how they do that.
Some other guy play in a world where time resources and monetary resources are limited, the wizard don't know all the spells, he don't burn most of his spells to overcome the first obstacle he find and so on.
With the second playstile you get much more mileage from the classes that can use multiple times theirs abilities in a reliable way without depleting them (fighter/barbarian for damage, rogue for stealth and trap removing).
-BNW wrote: opportunity costs.
I'm not seeing this. When a Rogue uses skills you're not using *any* limited resources to achieve what is arguably the same result for using your spells.
When your rogue uses his inexhaustible supply of skills you are using the most limited resource of all: the one character you get to play. Having a rogue's abilities aren't free. You opted to have them instead of having a wizard, a druid, or a cleric.
In pathfinder this is also a false dichotomy. There is no reason that your caster cannot grab the rogue skills that they need.
Leaving all your spells for other uses. If you're using 2 casters to replace one Rogue and one caster you have more limited resources. More of a limited resource is still not as flexible / useful as a limitless resource.
The spells are a more useful resource than anything a rogue brings to the table because they are FAR more powerful.
You can run out of spells, particualrly of a specific one, while skills are an unlimited resource.
You're playing in a very unusual campaign if you can exhaust a wand of knock before you can replace it.
Two casters will get you more raw power than one Rogue and one caster for a limited time, but skills are forever. In a "stealth" oriented mission (which I would presume this to be given the emphasis on replacing Rogue skills with spells) you are rarely going to be on the upper end of the power equation. Or it probably wouldn't be a stealth mission.
Here's the thing with that. 1) how often are missions stealth missions? 2)a related point, Can the rogue function with the party in stealth mode?
Unless the entire party tailors itself around sneaking a stealth mission is impossible/unlikely with the entire party there. This means that the rogue has to go off alone to do his thing. this is both dangerous and boring for all the other players to sit around while the rogue does stuff. It happens occasionally but for the reasons above its not common.
You can drag along all kinds of magical gear, so can the Rogue.
the wizard can make said magical gear though. Sometimes overnight.
In which case you're probably better off having the "real deal"...
Not really because the copy is only marginally worse than the original at what the original is supposed to be good at and is far superior at other things. Make or show me the rogue that's the real deal. Its not a poor imitation. Its a reasonable facsimile.
The caster is better off using his skills / feats to maximize his forte -- casting. I'm not a fan of optimization to the exclusion of roleplaying (far from it) but almost any caster is going to find better uses for his limited feats / skills than trying to out stealth a Rogue.
You have the wrong starting point. Think outside of the box.
The starting point for comparing optimization/power level is NOT your class it is your ROLE or function in the party: what it is that you want your character to be able to contribute to the success of the group. You are not starting with a wizard and then saying "what can i do to be the best at what i want this character to accomplish" You start with a concept, idea, or role and then say "whats the best way to pull this off". Many people want to play (or think someone needs to play) the door opening trap finder. They think that that automatically means rogue. It does not have to.
That a wizard taking wizardy abilities is more powerful than a wizard taking roguey abilities is not the question. The question is "Is a wizard taking roguey feats better at fulfilling the function of the party sneak than the rogue." A wizard to wizard comparison is irrelevant. All that matters is the caster to rogue comparison.
This is where we differ. I can see mechanical advantages.
Show them.
Unlimited resources versus limited resources. It wouldn't hold true for every type of adventure, but for one requiring stealth, take a professional along. My 2 cp.
There is no adventure that requires an unlimited amount of anything. The question is whether the amount you need will exceed the amount you have if you're playing a caster instead of a rogue. A well prepared wizard should be able to have more than enough juice to get you through the day, and it gets more and more likely as you level. Even if for some reason you need to open 100 doors on an adventure there's no reason the wizard can't take disable device. Given how easy it is to use cross class skills these days you would have to be incredibly stuck with preconceived notions to fall into the dichotomy.