Not true, assuming G.Ivisibility + Scorching ray (minimum caster needed 11 for 3 attacks) and (6d6 sneak attack): you deal 3 attacks that deal base 4d6 fire + 6d6 sneak attack (also fire) =30d6.
Average damage around 94.5 damage (so sometimes 94 and other times 95).Assuming not Fire resistance, you are dealing decent for a 2nd level spell. Add Twin or Quicken for another shot and you deal 190 damage.
It would take time to come into being great though.
That's a lot of resources spent and a big assumption (no fire resistance/immunity, at that level + no uncanny dodge + no ability to see invis + a touch AC low enough for you to almost auto-hit, no concealment, etc etc etc.) to do what isn't even very good damage for that level.
It looks workable on paper but, in practice, I have found it to be a bad idea. You're much better off helping people who already do way more damage than that with less preconditions do even more damage, if damage is what you want.
If you are taking trapfinding to speed things up, you are doing it wrong.
You can take a 10 on perception checks, all you have to do is declare it. By the RAW you can take a 20 to find traps, but some DMs don't allow it, and it really slows the party down(1 minute to search each 5 foot square).
The main benefits are the bonus to perception rolls, and the ability to disable magical traps. You can get around the perception bonus by take a 20, or getting a magic item like eyes of the eagle, and there are other ways to disable magic traps like dispel magic.
With that in mind, may I suggest a Alchemist(Vivisectionist). Sneak attack like a rogue. Extracts to buff youself. Feral Mutagen gives you natural attacks for more sneak attack damage.
|
Urban rangers are a pretty strictly better replacement for rogues. Full BAB, lots of feats (specialize in the bow), and if you pick favored enemies right for the campaign some amazing damage output. Also, spells... which have gotten much better for rangers in the new books. Oh, and they trapfind almost as well as rogues :). Also, can use many important wands with no UMD required, and bring a pet to the fight (boon animal companion feat and it's as good as a druid's). They are fun and powerful.
Or do rogue 1/ninja 1/arcane trickster, and you can find traps AND cast spells. Sure you will be 2 levels behind on spellcasting, but will have more out of combat versatility and better saves. And with 1 talent your caster level will be on par (even if you'll always be 1 level behind on max level spells you can cast).
Or do rogue 1/ninja 1/arcane trickster, and you can find traps AND cast spells. Sure you will be 2 levels behind on spellcasting, but will have more out of combat versatility and better saves. And with 1 talent your caster level will be on par (even if you'll always be 1 level behind on max level spells you can cast).
Uh. Explain to me how this works.
It sure seems to me like "+1 level of existing class spellcasting" would be completely wasted even if you could cheese the requirements.
Or do rogue 1/ninja 1/arcane trickster, and you can find traps AND cast spells. Sure you will be 2 levels behind on spellcasting, but will have more out of combat versatility and better saves. And with 1 talent your caster level will be on par (even if you'll always be 1 level behind on max level spells you can cast).
Ninja and Rogue are the same class! You can't multiclass itself.
You can do this:
Rogue1/Alchemist (sneak attack version)1/Arcane casting class 3/Arcane trickster
You need the ability to cast an arcane spell of 2nd level, I don't think Ninja qualifies.
This is what i think has done in the rogue.
1) Traps aint what they used to be.
*rocks in chair* In my day we walked uphill both ways to the dungeon, and traps were TPKs. Miss a trap ? Die. Look at a trap. Die. Hear the sound of the trap closing, the trap is so awsome that the vibrations kill you! Muahahahahah! The entire room spins around, you're chucked through a 200 foot tall corridor filled from top to bottom with permanent blade barrier spells and dropped into a vat of acid and then attacked by acid breathing sharks!
The DM had to keep a bonfire going just to dispose of all the character sheets, and he filled his Olympic sized swimming pool with the players tears!
Now traps are CR balanced. Some of them are bad, some of them are an inconvinience, but you're far more likely to die from a really hard encounter.
-What this means for your character is that if you're only 85% as a rogue as a real thing its no big deal.
2) Skill parity
In 3.whatever The ability to have skills as a class skill really mattered as you got up in levels. At 20th level a class skill would be at 23 ranks and a cross class skill at 11 ranks. The pathfinder equivilant is a +3 bonus, which fades quickly in importance as you level.
Grabbing a single level or rogue let you max out the skills, but you still had to pay double the sp's to do it. Even wizards couldn't usually afford to do that with more than 1 or two skills.
Under pathfinder, you get 90% of the benefit of having rogue class skills in a single level. Take 1 level, grab +3 to most of the good skills.
-This means you can be a rogue 1/ whatever X and loose very little trap finding ability.
3) trait customization.
With the ever widening availability and diversity of traits its become very easy to get that +3 bonus on the skills that you really care about.
-Even without a level of rogue you can probably use your traits to get disable device and perception.
4) Skill consolidation
In 3.0 you needed 8 skill points for perception (spot, listen, search), acrobatics (jump, tumble, balance) , and dealing with mechanical stuff (open lock, disable device). With the consolidation its pretty easy to get by on 4 skill points to do the same job.
5) Handy hobbies.
For things you might only need a little of you can put one rank into it and get a decent +3 bonus on it. This will let you hit a tn 15 check with a little luck.
6) Everyone can find traps.
The rogues trap finding ability can be made up with a good wisdom score and a feat. You don't NEED a rogue to do it anymore. Concentrate on getting a good perception score. Not every trap needs to be disarmed but they all need to be seen.
Let's review what the party wants (in theory, we still need feedback):
-Scout
-Face
-Trapfinder
Let's review what the party needs:
-Another frontline warrior class (unless Cleric goes that route)
-Perhaps another healer (especially if Cleric goes self-buffing warrior route)
Yes, all this suggests Ranger type, but really? Unless you can line up a good favored enemy, Rangers do not match up well against the other warrior-types. (You'd better really like those spells.)
1. Scout: Does the wizard have a familiar? Done. If not, does he have Invisibility? Does the party plan to separate so much that the scout can actually go undetected? (Cleric & Fighter imply clunky armor...)
2. Face: Cleric's can be faces. Charisma's even more important for them in PF. Wizard can handle the Cleric knowledge bases and Spellcraft, and the Cleric can counter with Dispel Magic if he really needs to (which he shouldn't).
3. Trapfinder: Add another healer (and bump up the fighter's saves) and add some tricky (teleportation/object shaping-destroying magic) and a liberal use of Detect Magic and you should be fine unless you're Indiana Jones.
4. Frontline warrior: This is far more important than the above three. Fighting happens. Nobody should be getting to your mage or lone healer, and a rogue/face/scout character would have a hard time stopping them. (Though with TWF and a flank, he may destroy them in one round for daring to go in the middle of the group.) He'd also have a hard time standing in should the fighter get critted. This is what your party needs.
5. Another healer: Having a lone healer is a precarious position. A second Cleric would aid more than a rogue (or rogue replacement).
My suggestions:
Paladin: Healer/frontline and his saves can make him the trap monkey.
Summoner: Eidolons are effective and, frankly, disposable for traps, scouting, and frontline combat. With an evolution in "Skilled: Diplomacy +8" it's a better diplomat than a rogue would be and with the feat to grab two traits you can have one trait nab you diplomacy as a class skill for +12 at Level One. (The trait also gives +1, I think.)
With more "Skilled" evols it can scout too, pretty darn well.
Plus you get to be a caster, which you like playing.
That said, be whatever you will enjoy playing. If you don't like the roles you 'have to' fill, then you'll not like playing. Heck, be a Sorcerer with Knock...
JMK
strange as it may sound I've been toying with the summoner brood master as a "rogue type." This idea isn't play tested, but I was thinking several 1HD edilions with specific rogey purposes. One for scouting, one skill monkey, etc. They are not overly effective in combat, but they can provide flanking for everyone. For combat i was going to basically use summon monster (spell and SLA) stuff mostly.
I would go bard. There are some fun archtypes that overlap considerably with the rogue.
Of course you won't get Trapfinding to disable traps, but you will get dispel magic and minutes per level summons to exhaust those traps.What level do people actually find this viable?
Easily by 8th level a rogue defeats any magical trap including CL 17 minimum spell traps, and specialists can bypass these traps by this level. An 8th level caster will need to roll a natural 20 on the dispel check to achieve this.
-James
What CR is a CL 17? Way higher than 8th I assume.
So you shouldn't be facing those regularly.
|
I am playing in a four man group, and by process of elimination have been chosen to be the 'rogue' character. I am not terribly fond of the class in general, as I prefer more of a Druid or Wizard type role. What are some good alternatives to playing a core rogue that won't limit my growth at higher levels or overlap other players roles?
...
P.S. Arcane Trickster is an option I am thinking of, what are the limitations of this PrC?
...
The other players are:
Fighter(offensively inclined)
Cleric(focus not as yet determined, but probably healer/blasty)
Wizard(buffer and blasty)
If you go Arcane Trickster, not only are you going to hate it as a tedious slog of suck for about the first twelve levels, but when you finally do get any good at it -- you'll be overlapping two of the other players "blasty" roles.
Meanwhile, the poor fighter will be flailing away as the sole melee PC most of the time, lacking a flank-buddy. You could mix it up with him as a trickster, but your lower hitpoints, lower BAB and lack of rogue talents will make you much easier monster-bait if you do. (So, continuing the grand tradition of PrCs, AT is a trap that nerfs you.)
Try this guy. Belkar personality optional.
|
Try this guy. Belkar personality optional.
Don't forget to take the River Rat trait! +1 damage for small daggers makes them better weapons than shortswords, even before the throw-ability!
This whole "We need a rogue, fighter cleric and wizard thing" is ridiculous. My group has 6 players, and not a single one of them is a skill monkey or arcane caster, know what we do when we suspect traps? They either send in my fighter or the paladin. Regardless of the group make-up, you'll probably be able to get around most problems if you think smart.
Trap=Alarm is worth noting, but with two blasters and two armored noise machines, it's unlikely it's the trap giving them away. (And the need would vary much by campaign style and trap abundancy/cunning. In mine, it's almost always the light sources or cowardly guards ruining it for PCs. Traps are seldom at the start of an adventure.)
Plus, if the fighter is laying down the battle line to protect the blasters, is the rogue going out to flank? (Gulp!)
Main point, this poster doesn't really want to play a rogue, he likes casters, so even the hybrids are just rogues of a different flavor. (Meaning perhaps the Bard hybrids should get more love, but there really aren't enough melee people to buff for a Bard to fulfill its potential.)
And heck, why doesn't the fighter PC dip 1 level rogue (or 2 for evasion) if traps pose such hindrance? He can focus on traps, the cleric can focus on face, the wizard can do knowledge, and our poster here doesn't have to feel pushed into playing something he doesn't want to play.
Sorry, but it irks me to see people forced to 'play' something unfun to them, so I've been focusing on other options. FYI, I respect rogues and love the damage they can dish out, especially now that in PF more critters are susceptible to SA. I find them fragile though, and don't think one would suit this party as much as several other options.
In most published materials, traps hit you when you're healthy and moving forward, generally at key (usually predictable) junctures. Monsters will hit you everywhere and much more often, chasing your wounded PCs down if need be. Be ready for them first.
I'd rather have better help in every fight than great help vs. traps. (Again, because traps are rare to me.)
And lastly, if Leadership is allowed, which in a small group I think would be, just pick up a Rogue. (Even with a Summoner, his CHA will overcome the penalty of an Eidolon.)
Okay, I think I'm spent...
JMK
|
|
If you are taking trapfinding to speed things up, you are doing it wrong.
You can take a 10 on perception checks, all you have to do is declare it. By the RAW you can take a 20 to find traps, but some DMs don't allow it, and it really slows the party down(1 minute to search each 5 foot square).
The main benefits are the bonus to perception rolls, and the ability to disable magical traps. You can get around the perception bonus by take a 20, or getting a magic item like eyes of the eagle, and there are other ways to disable magic traps like dispel magic.
First you certainly can take 20 to search as there is no penalty for failure and you can retry a failed attempt. So let's ignore house rules here.
Second, even not taking 20 it really slows down the party. Your party's movement rate is now 5 feet as the 'urban ranger' searches each square.
Meanwhile a trapfinder with trapspotter is moving at full speed... Thus my analogy of walking to take a car trip...
The bonus to the perception rolls (and disable rolls) is nice, but really trap spotter is a key factor here. Then comes disabling magical traps instead of having to find a way around them which requires a class ability (rogue et al). Next would be bypassing traps which only a rogue can do (and some archetypes can do much easier.. master trapsmith).
It really does depend on what the party expects the character to deliver. Its quite easy for an 8th level rogue trap specialist to be able to bypass 9th level spell traps and auto-detect them. Perception +24 (8ranks +3class +4traps +2WIS +2racial +5item) and Disable +24 (8ranks +3class +4traps +6DEX +2tools +1item) by investing into reasonable stats, skills and around 2700gp in items beyond the typical +2 stat booster that one can assume to have by 5th level (let alone 8th level). With such a PC in the group encounters with traps are essentially handled (much like low level undead threats were handled by 3e turning based clerics) and that might be what the group...
True you do things faster, so Rogue is taking a car instead of walking (well, more like riding a horse). Assuming the Rogue takes Trapspotting as a talent. A lot of Rogues don't bother with it because mechanically it is convenient but not required.
But now come to fighting you have brought a featherweight boxer to a heavyweight fight.
A princess may get old waiting for you to slowly find traps with Ranger or Bard, but she is just plain dead when the party never make it because they were beaten to death because they could not handle the encounters.
|
|
On the other hand, a well build rogue might open different approaches to the encounter through their skills and tallents (stealth, climb, disables device etc.) without expending resources from other classes.
Just look at the armies today. Intelligence (not the stat, but knowing what your enemy does) and (mechanical aided) skills are atleast as important as holding the biggest gun.
ihmo, you can't grasp the complexity of an encounter in simple metaphors. You can twist them and focus on certain aspects to prove each and every point.
I didn't know that rogues were more intelligent than other classes. I know, however, that they certainly aren't the strongest class when it comes to skills, rangers, bards and inquisitors are superior.
|
|
My wife played a rogue in my latest game. She was so unhappy with it by 6th level that I let her rebuild as a ranger. Now she's much happier and the difference is staggering.
In a game we play I sit between a Rogue and a Ranger and I do feel sorry for the Rogue. Great player, great Roleplaying, but there is nothing he can do that the Ranger can't and plenty that the Ranger does that is better than the Rogue.
Of course in our game we also have a Bard so the Rogue really does feel lacking as Bard covers all party face stuff while the Ranger can cover all things stealthy whilst both Ranger and Bard make big impact on combat while the Rogue runs around tumbling in desperae attempts to get a flank and at least some damage
Or lets put it this way, if you're doing a one on one and the player's character is a fighter, do you set challenges that only a wizard can overcome?
No, but I certainly might include challenges that could be dealt with much more easily with a wizard's resources.
|
|
The trapfinder talent is worth it (barely) because the only truly viable traps are in-combat. Putting pits full of needles just costs a little healing (and CLW wands are cheap, as are Lesser Restore after 7th level). Alarms are by far the most useful trap; as it gives GMs fiat to prep encounters with buffs etc, makes the rogue feel useful without overpunishing the party for not taking one.
But inquisitor, bard, ranger, are fine skill monkeys. If you want, take archivist 1 and wizard the rest of the way. You'll have tons of skill points, a great inspiring buff, a few extra spells, some save bonuses, and trapfinding. And your wizard will gain spells at the rate of a sorcerer. And you'll get almost as many skill points as a rogue, since your int will be so focused. Focus your spells on buffs so you aren't redundant with the other Mage.
Traps have to be actively looked for, but when you look how much area do you cover?
The trapfinder talent is worth it (barely) because the only truly viable traps are in-combat. Putting pits full of needles just costs a little healing (and CLW wands are cheap, as are Lesser Restore after 7th level). Alarms are by far the most useful trap; as it gives GMs fiat to prep encounters with buffs etc, makes the rogue feel useful without overpunishing the party for not taking one.
I don't know that that's necessarily true -- there are lots of long-term malediction (or potentially deadly) magical traps that CLW and Lesser Restoration can't beat.
Off the top of my head: Blindness. Bestow Curse. Waves of Fatigue/Exhaustion. Flesh to Stone.
A Fear trap that caused the party to scatter would be pretty fun, too...
I agree that the rogue (pre-UC) is a redundant sacred cow. I never recommend anyone play one, optimized or not. We have one player who is an old school AD&D player who's playing a rogue right now (first Pathfinder game for him). We rolled for stats and at level 7 he's got something like 22 Dexterity but he insists on using a bow so does like 1d4+2 damage. He might as well not even exist in a fight. Part of this is his level of system mastery that should improve with time, but it is also a part of the rogue mechanics.
As for traps, I hardly ever use them. I object to their existence in most places. I cannot understand why any intelligent BBEG would have traps all over his lair. What if he forgets one in a rarely used room? What if he sleep walks (I do)? I don't put traps in my apartment's hallway so why should he put them in his castle's hallway? What if he has less intelligent minions? I wouldn't expect orcs or goblins to remember where the wizard placed his traps. It's all so very... messy.
Traps are only logical for places where people are expected to rarely, or never, visit. For example, an Egyptian pyramid or a Indiana Jones style Temple of Doom. Places where there aren't live beings living/walking around on a daily basis. I can also understand someone trapping a treasure vault or store room but that's about it.
Traps exist to give the rogue something to do, so if there's no rogue, no need for traps (or put them in very rarely in appropriate places [see above]).
Traps have to be actively looked for, but when you look how much area do you cover?It's just a perception check based on the position you are standing with all the appropriate modifiers.
Just like a perception check to notice a stealthy opponent or identify the square of an invisible attacker.Thus, no line of sight, long distance or too little light severely hamper the chance to detect something.
This unlike trap-sporter where the distance is always (less than) 10 feet. Line of sight is less of a problem at this short distance and I don't think there are light sources off less then 10 feet.
Ok, So if you're worried about speed then you take the -0, -1, or -2 (a -1 on average) Look 30 feet, and then move 30 feet, for a movement total of 30 feet. The party is probably going to move at 40 feet around anyway, if you have any plate wearers or short people. You'll go a bit slower for corners and doors and stuff, but not very.
What CR is a CL 17? Way higher than 8th I assume.So you shouldn't be facing those regularly.
A 9th level spell trap is CR 10.
-James
Well, 9th is higher than 8th so I was correct.
That seems screwy to let a 9th level spell be a trap. Also again, if higher CR than you than you shouldn't face those regularly.
Ok, enough theorycrafting. For brass tacks, we need more brass.
1) What level are you starting? If the level is 1 I can't see the Arcane trickster being all that fun of an option.
2) Is your group willing to adjust with you? Say , if you cover all the physical role stuff with the cleric get a decent charisma and diplomacy, or the fighter switch to a paladin.
3) What does your group want a rogue FOR. Presumably trap finding. How trap happy is your dm? Are the traps death traps, annoyances, or do they just change whats supposed to be an ambush by you into an ambush of you?
4) How open to nonstandard ideas is your group?
5) How available are magic items. Is it magic mart, buy your own, or "you will get magic items when you pry them from my cold dead fingers" ?
What CR is a CL 17? Way higher than 8th I assume.So you shouldn't be facing those regularly.
A 9th level spell trap is CR 10.
-James
Well, 9th is higher than 8th so I was correct.
That seems screwy to let a 9th level spell be a trap. Also again, if higher CR than you than you shouldn't face those regularly.
If we're being super hair-splitting (and we seem to be), no, you weren't correct because you didn't say higher, you said 'way higher'.
I don't know what your games look like, but I expect multiple CR = APL+2 encounters per session. In other words, yes, regularly.
|
|
I agree that the rogue (pre-UC) is a redundant sacred cow. I never recommend anyone play one, optimized or not. We have one player who is an old school AD&D player who's playing a rogue right now (first Pathfinder game for him). We rolled for stats and at level 7 he's got something like 22 Dexterity but he insists on using a bow so does like 1d4+2 damage. He might as well not even exist in a fight. Part of this is his level of system mastery that should improve with time, but it is also a part of the rogue mechanics.Building a good rogue with an eye on combat utility is apparently an art-form:
...dagger damage versus sneak-applicable target at 10th, assuming River Rat trait, two daggers drawn from Scabbards of Vigor (at +3 for 3 rounds), acquired Gloves of Dueling: d3+3(WT)+1(trait)+3(enh)+4d6 = 22.5 (31 on crit) with five Haste attacks.
-- This is the lowest end damage on a sneak; it'll usually be considerable higher factoring Bane or elemental weapons and various likely buffs from allies and items.
...dagger damage versus sneak-applicable target at 10th, assuming River Rat trait, two daggers drawn from Scabbards of Vigor (at +3 for 3 rounds), acquired Gloves of Dueling: d3+3(WT)+1(trait)+3(enh)+4d6 = 22.5 (31 on crit) with five Haste attacks.
-- This is the lowest end damage on a sneak; it'll usually be considerable higher factoring Bane or elemental weapons and various likely buffs from allies and items.
Yea but that's a melee build and if you notice the player insists on using a bow, no matter how stupid it is. I could probably build a TWF rogue that wasn't terrible, but it would still be a gimmick depending on setting up sneak-attacks and I'd rather just make a switch hitter ranger who can also find traps.
In this particular case the fault is not the class but with the player.
Oh no doubt it is the players fault, but like the monk, some classes are extra bad with new players. For example, he sees a rogue as needing high dexterity and that automatically equates to ranged combat for him. If he was playing a fighter, he'd have high strength instead which would automatically equate to melee. Who's better with no optimization, a high STR fighter or a high DEX rogue? Clearly the fighter.
We take one step to the left in logic-ville and the unoptimized ranger is also better than the unoptimized rogue, so given his skill set, he should be an urban ranger. That's not a fault of the rogue class itself, but it does sort of speak to the rogue's base power (there's not much there to begin with so you really have to squeeze hard).
Sorry folks, was busy for a bit. Lots of really good suggestions that I will investigate after Gencon (lots of stuff to do before then!), thanks to everyone who contributed!
Answering questions:
What is your intended role?
- The DM pretty clearly told us that we should go with the basic 4: Rogue Cleric Wizard Fighter, and that going with any "weird builds" i.e. some of the weaker PrC's, would end up penalizing us at high level.
What is the setting?
- It is a published adventure, so the chance of traps is decent. I have not played anything from the publisher so I can't be sure. The DM has assured us it is a dangerous world.
What is the DM like?
- Not sure, have not played with him before, this is our first outing with him.
What is the group like?
- It is doubtful that I will be able to convince the fighter to take rogue levels, though I may be able to convince the Wizard to attempt to take that role over, but again the Wizard is a highly sub-optimal choice for a trapfinder and I wouldn't want to weaken the party in that way.
Sorry folks, was busy for a bit. Lots of really good suggestions that I will investigate after Gencon (lots of stuff to do before then!), thanks to everyone who contributed!
Answering questions:
What is your intended role?
- The DM pretty clearly told us that we should go with the basic 4: Rogue Cleric Wizard Fighter, and that going with any "weird builds" i.e. some of the weaker PrC's, would end up penalizing us at high level.What is the setting?
- It is a published adventure, so the chance of traps is decent. I have not played anything from the publisher so I can't be sure. The DM has assured us it is a dangerous world.What is the DM like?
- Not sure, have not played with him before, this is our first outing with him.What is the group like?
- It is doubtful that I will be able to convince the fighter to take rogue levels, though I may be able to convince the Wizard to attempt to take that role over, but again the Wizard is a highly sub-optimal choice for a trapfinder and I wouldn't want to weaken the party in that way.
Hm, so he recommends staying single class? I second that a pure rogue likely is not necessary, especially not with a published adventure. Sandman Bard or Urban Ranger should cover every "classic" requirement. Personally, I would go with the bard - it gives you lots of tricks to increase your own survivability and that of your party.