EDIT: and of course as the claim is that everything rogue can do the other lclss can do it better then the ranger should be better at other several aspects, like social, scouting, trapfinding etc.
The Ranger is equal or better than the Rogue at all of those things excepting that single Rogue talent that lets you auto-check for traps.
EDIT: and of course as the claim is that everything rogue can do the other lclss can do it better then the ranger should be better at other several aspects, like social, scouting, trapfinding etc.The Ranger is equal or better than the Rogue at all of those things excepting that single Rogue talent that lets you auto-check for traps.
Would it be worth it for a ranger to take two levels of rogue in order to get that rogue talent? He'd also get a die of sneak attack, and disable device as a class skill. But he'd be postponing his ranger abilities and missing out on 1 BAB.
|
That's the difference between Seen it wit my own two eyes, (ie actual experience with the subject matter) and crooked spreadsheets.
No, "seen it with my own eyes" is due to cognitive bias.
Or thy have just seen Rogues be consistantly fun and useful members of a group (from a variaty of different groups and players). Or that actual evidence disproves the theorycraft. Ya know, either works. :)
Praytell my friend how are Rogues any better at acting first than a divinitation spec'd wizard or an Oracle with the Roll three times for initiative revelation or other such characters?
Furthermore how exactly are they getting surprise round attacks when the rest of the party is loudly clanking behind the rogue at no more than 60 foot distance, and when the enemy has scent or tremorsense?
How are they getting more Crits when they have nothing that makes that any more likely than a fighter and gain access to improved critical and crit focus later than any full BAB character?
Not trying to attack you, if you legitimately have reasons for why these things work I'd be glad to hear them but when I considered these things the reason why the Rogue got the surprise round was because my GM was cutting me alot of slack on how stealth should technically be working and if he wasn't I'd be relegated to trying that trick on humanoids only. The initiative was almost always the archer characters, particularly since he was better at doing damage with points in dex than the Rogue, AoO honestly happen maybe 2 or 3 times a fight in my experience and almost never in the vast swarms of them to make Combat Reflexes any good.
Unless your Rogue player is always playing with such Wizard and Oracls, I fail to see the point. Other classes can specialize? Surprize Round Actions are based on individuals being aware of every other individual, so the rest of the party's clanging and clinking in full plate is irrelevant. Scent is limited, alerting the creature that there are threats, and allowing them to pinpoint a square if they take actions to do so, but has a small range (unless your DM is screwing you over a lot). Tremorsense is a different story, but hey Golems are immune to magic, and every other class (type) has a weakness against some sorts of creature. It's probably a lot less common than the others, though.
Rogues can take Imp Crit later, (but get Keen at the same exact time, so not that big a deal, really). The thing is that Rogues tend to focus more on high crit range weapons whereas most combat classes tend to focus on more general damage weapons that also balance crit range and multiplier and also manuver qualities. Sure, there is nothing preventing you from makinf a Dagger focused Fighter, but it doesn't tend to happen often.
Or thy have just seen Rogues be consistantly fun and useful members of a group (from a variaty of different groups and players). Or that actual evidence disproves the theorycraft. Ya know, either works. :)
Being "fun and useful" does not make Rogues comparable good. If one character can contribute X, while another contributes X+1, it doesn't matter if X is sufficient or not, the first character is weak and should be fixed.
And actual evidence rarely means anything, because actual evidence is not statistically significant, unless you have hundreds and hundreds of pieces of evidence.
Or thy have just seen Rogues be consistantly fun and useful members of a group (from a variaty of different groups and players). Or that actual evidence disproves the theorycraft. Ya know, either works. :)Being "fun and useful" does not make Rogues comparable good. If one character can contribute X, while another contributes X+1, it doesn't matter if X is sufficient or not, the first character is weak and should be fixed.
And actual evidence rarely means anything, because actual evidence is not statistically significant, unless you have hundreds and hundreds of pieces of evidence.
Not all characters have strengths in the same area.
The barbarian might blitz through foes, cop some damage and cleave heads. Roaring in victory as they stand over the shattered enemies...
And a rogue may just go around them, or coup de grace those troublesome foes when they are resting.
It is more about one character contributing X an another contributing Y, Z, but a smaller amount to X. Combat isn't all there is to a rogue, but I would like to see forts a little lower, or poison dcs a bit higher so that the rogue could use poisons more effectively, and not rely on low rolls to get effects with poison.
That's the difference between Seen it wit my own two eyes, (ie actual experience with the subject matter) and crooked spreadsheets.No, "seen it with my own eyes" is due to cognitive bias.Or thy have just seen Rogues be consistantly fun and useful members of a group (from a variaty of different groups and players). Or that actual evidence disproves the theorycraft. Ya know, either works. :)
"I have seen rogues do well" is the weakest form of evidence possible. At best its a starting point for further inquiry. The next step after it should be, "Rogues do well at X because of Y".
There are a ton of things that go into having a fun game other than mechanics. A sneaky rogue can be a lot of fun to roleplay. You could even contribute equally to a party if you optimize better than the other players. That doesn't mean that the rogue is mechanically good.
Take feats, do what you will to get access to falchions, great falchions (if they are in your game) greataxes and glaives if you want the rogue to do better damage and not be handicapped by sneaking with a short sword.
Not all characters have strengths in the same area.
The barbarian might blitz through foes, cop some damage and cleave heads. Roaring in victory as they stand over the shattered enemies...
And a rogue may just go around them, or coup de grace those troublesome foes when they are resting.
It is more about one character contributing X an another contributing Y, Z, but a smaller amount to X. Combat isn't all there is to a rogue, but I would like to see forts a little lower, or poison dcs a bit higher so that the rogue could use poisons more effectively, and not rely on low rolls to get effects with poison.
No, it is about one character contributing Y and Z, and a smaller amount of X, while other characters contribute Y and Z as well, plus a large amount of X.
The Rogue cannot do things other classes can't. Other classes do the same stuff out of combat (and some do it better because, magic), but function better in combat.
This is not people saying, "Oh man, Rogues suck in combat and we ignore non-combat contributions, so Rogues suck." This is people saying, "Oh man, Rogues suck in combat and do not contribute more to non-combat situations than other characters that also are better in a fight.
It is not X vs. X-1+Y. It is X+Y vs. X-1+Y
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues can take Imp Crit later, (but get Keen at the same exact time, so not that big a deal, really). The thing is that Rogues tend to focus more on high crit range weapons whereas most combat classes tend to focus on more general damage weapons that also balance crit range and multiplier and also manuver qualities. Sure, there is nothing preventing you from makinf a Dagger focused Fighter, but it doesn't tend to happen often.
???QUE???
The Rogue stereotype is high DEX, low STR. STR builds benefit from multiplying damage on a Crit, Sneak Attack doesn't multiply.Rogues can built high STR, low DEX too, but they have a lower BAB,
meaning they have fewer iterative attacks that are less likely to hit when they would threaten, or confirm when they threaten. Full BAB classes can also build for 2wf for more Crit chances, and they will get more attacks/earlier that hit more often, and there are options like Pounce and Mobile/2WF Fighter not available to Rogues.
The other benefit of high crit range, critting more often, ties into the Critical Feats (Stunning Crit, etc),
which coincidentally enough have BAB PREREQUISITES, so the Rogue is behind there.
The only way non-STR builds could get much benefit from Crits is if they have some other source of Crit-able damage, either Paladin Smite or Ranger Favored Enemy or Dervish Dance DEX to DMG... But many of those are Full BAB classes anyways, and the other options are selectable by those classes as well, Dervish Dance doesn't out damage a STR build anyways, and the BAB advantage for Crit Feats is still there.
I don't really care about the Rogue balance issue, they probably are somewhat behind, but they are playable and fun, but this line of reasoning just seemed bonkers. High STR, Full BAB characters benefit the most from Crits, period*, whether you go for Crit Range maximization, Crit Multiplier, or optimal combos of those (Falcata).
There is stronger options for Rogues interested in combat, Scout/Thug is great, and Ninja too, and dipping in Martial classes can be great for a Rogue build. But Because Crits? No.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But i would like to see those DPR calculation for rangers against non favored enemies. it would be nice to see how actual builds do againt CR equivalent AC (acording to the monster creation table).
That what the DPR calculations posted earlier in the thread were.
Not all characters have strengths in the same area.
The barbarian might blitz through foes, cop some damage and cleave heads. Roaring in victory as they stand over the shattered enemies...
And a rogue may just go around them, or coup de grace those troublesome foes when they are resting.
It is more about one character contributing X an another contributing Y, Z, but a smaller amount to X. Combat isn't all there is to a rogue, but I would like to see forts a little lower, or poison dcs a bit higher so that the rogue could use poisons more effectively, and not rely on low rolls to get effects with poison.
No, it is about one character contributing Y and Z, and a smaller amount of X, while other characters contribute Y and Z as well, plus a large amount of X.
The Rogue cannot do things other classes can't. Other classes do the same stuff out of combat (and some do it better because, magic), but function better in combat.
This is not people saying, "Oh man, Rogues suck in combat and we ignore non-combat contributions, so Rogues suck." This is people saying, "Oh man, Rogues suck in combat and do not contribute more to non-combat situations than other characters that also are better in a fight.
It is not X vs. X-1+Y. It is X+Y vs. X-1+Y
B@~&@&~s, rogues are not terribad inside of combat or out. Others can do what they do--a whole party may be able to do what the rogue does, each bit by bit, but that will consume resources (spells) or be due to the builds being close (perception, stealth, acrobatics, etc). The rogue doesn't run out of their rogue abilities like expended spells. Those skills and some focusing makes them fantastic in multiple areas, if skill are something that matters in the games that you play.
They are slippery scoundrels, great fun, not useless in combat, and not front line fighters. We can compare them to other skill heavies, like the bard. The bard has skills too, that is great, and the bard will be better socially than the rogue. The rogue though, can be pretty darn good at the social side too, and do better damage than the bard, and be far better at stealth than the heavy charisma bard. Compare to a wizard, that wizard can use spells to somewhat be like a rogue, a certain number of times, but has worse hp, no evasion without the old ring of evasion, and a far poorer reflex save (so no fireball hopping for that wizard). The rogue has strengths, often unacknowledged because of the desperate claims that they are useless, can't perform, explode when they get hit a bit. It is just a bit damn tiring to hear the same old thing over and over.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
im going to say this and people are going to moan and groan, but it needs to be said...
rogues need a Shadow Step similar to World of Warcraft. if they were given a ki pool for free, then they had the option for a ki pool ability "shadow step" that would allow rogues to dimension door to a location on the map. give it a short range like 30 feet, and remove the "your turn ends after uing this ability" bs that DD has.
this would make rogues soooo much more capable in combat.
do you know how annoying it is to hear rogues go "i cant find a flank, so im useless right now"
I think some of the problems that people have with the whole sneak thing is it only takes a level 2 spell to get +20 while moving stealth.
Then you add the not being able to sneak in many situations due to how hiding works. Also known as the "why can't I just hide in plain sight?" problem (which you can, but takes a while to get).
Also dex focus rogues tend to hit with wet noodles if they don't sneak attack when they don't A: take the feat tax that they can't really afford very well, or B: pay out the nose for an ability that strength characters get for free.
An example of how hit and miss rogues can be is what happened this night during my pathfinder Shattered star adventure. Rogue is a full on dex build scout and sap master guy, really piles on the non lethal and can intimidate really well. Some encounters he just ended quickly because of the power of sneak attack tons of dice (dropping or rendering useless the enemy). But during a few key encounters he was completely useless. The first one actually happened last week, but he was in a situation where movement was greatly hampered, fighting a flying undead enemy. Without the ability to charge or flank he just couldn't do anything important other than stabilize the dying witch (which got flat foot attacked and paralyzed, never had a chance).
Last night due to geometry of the rooms he couldn't get off his sneak more than twice all night. He was useless against the amorphous enemies, due to no sneak and DR (with his no strength and small weapon damage it was literately impossible for him to do anything). The BBEG was flying and had a reach weapon so he couldn't charge or flank. His actions in this combat consisted of him moving into position to charge in case somebody grounded the enemy. When that happened there was already a group of friendlies surrounding it when it got to his turn. The rogue player is pretty good, and in about half of the fights (the humanoid only fights) his character did quite well, but in the unusual situation fights, he might as well not been there.
So if you don't mind a character being utterly useless in many combats, in exchange for dominating a combat once in a while (against enemies that the rest of the party isn't even afraid of...), rogue is a good choice. But that is the problem whenever you have a character that overspecializes, but isn't unique to rogues. Rogues just have it happen more often since they are so situational in the other things they can do. Social? Not to useful in a dungeon. Find traps? Unless you got a different trap in mind, not to useful in a bar or town, stealth? Good luck crossing that featureless dungeon floor without being seen, and sneaking is effectively doing the whole scooby doo split the party thing that is sure to get somebody killed.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread reminds me just how much I hate the "scout ahead" Rogues.
Me: DUNGEON ENTRANCE, yo.
Player1: Ha ha! I twist my moustache and tell my companions the following: "I shall now dazzle, dart and dash ahead, flair and luck be my allies, and scout ahead for dastardly dangers!"
Player 2: Dude, umm, last time you got Rodney King'ed by a bunch of mummies and we had to pull your sorry corpse out. How about we move as a team? Also, flanking for sneak attacks.
Player 1: Ha ha! Not a slightest idea about how a Rogue works you have, do you, my mentally challenged Barbarian compatriot! A quick run, a stealthy approach, a daring reconnoitre, so much in a day of life for me! Ahead I go, so long!
Players 2,3,4: I have a baaad feeling about this.
Me: OK Rogue, room one. Filled with acid with iron poles sticking out of it.
Player 1: Ha ha! A test of my dazzling acrobatic skills! Take that, slowpokes and watch as I somersault and flip ahead! *rolls Acrobatics* And lo and behold, here I am on the other side! A challenge such as this was made for ones like me!
Me: OK Rogue, room two.
Player 1: Hush as I stealth ahead carefully lest the denizens notice me! *rolls Stealth*
Me: Wraiths. Roll initiative.
Player 1: But I am hidden in the shadows, perfectly safe...
Me: Lifensense is a beach. You're about to be gangwraithed.
Player 1: ERM, BRAVE FELLOWS I AM IN A BIT OF A TICKLE HERE COULD USE SOME HEFHGGBGBGBLLLLZZZZZ!
Player 2: We're gonna rush to save him?
Player 3: Across a pit full of acid that requires DC 25 Acrobatic checks? Sure. Ey yo casty man, got any flying left there?
Player 4: We used it to bypass that bridge full of ogres on the way here, remember? Got one left for turbo emergency situations, and there's no way two people can handle a wraith pack.
Player 1: FRIENDZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.........*x*
Player 2: It's OK, I have the raise dead money, I just wonder if we really want that jerk back...
I'd like to point out that I've never said that rogue cannot do anything, or that they are patently terrible at the things they are expected to do. What I have advocated is that other classes do these things as well or better than they do while bringing more to the party.
Using the example of the Rogue vs Ranger again.
Ranger
1) Has enough skill points to match a rogue in necessary skills (Acrobatics, Perception, Stealth, etc).
2) Is strictly better in combat than rogues (doesn't need flanking, concealment matters less, better weapons, better at archery, etc).
3) Is tougher with better saves.
4) Has good spells to fall back on as well to aid the party with, or to allow him to do very rogue-like things (delay poison makes you immune to poison for 1 hour / CL, allowing Rangers to use poison while being immune to it). Pass without trace is ideal for scouting. They even get stuff like longstrider (faster movement and also Stealth and acrobatics) and nondetection which makes it difficult to notice them with divinations.
It's not that being a Rogue means you fail life forever. It just means that you can achieve essentially the same result but better by not being a rogue.
In much the same way a skilled player can play an adept, expert, or warrior and do alright; yet there's no denying that you could do more with another class that was simply better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A while back a buddy challenged me to build a skill character to play in PFS. Not having done so before, I decided to see if I could pull of such a thing and started trying to engineer a rogue which would be both skill monkey effective and not laughable in combat.
I decided to go with a dervish dance route, and just have to pump dex then. I worked up the character to 11th level as a pure rogue, and found it to be a bit lacking. I tried again with a build that did fighter 1/rogue 10 and that worked out better (needed the weapon proficiencies and extra feat to get everything I really wanted). The build combined both dervish dance and gang up to optimize combat ability, so my dex would do damage, and I would be able to flank without putting myself on the wrong side of the battle line.
I then read about the trapper ranger (didn't see the urban ranger at the time). I therefore decided to see what a build based on that could do by comparison. I did it in the same dervish dance stat way, but didn't need gang up since I wasn't going to be sneak attacking. The ranger build ended up being a guide/trapper. This way I could handle the sneaky and trap handling aspects (also added a trait to gain sleight of hand as a class skill), though he doesn't do any faceman type stuff.
Once both builds were built up to 11 and equipped by WBL, I plugged them into my DPR spreadsheet.
Granting the rogue/fighter sneak attack every hit, the DPR was mid 40s. The ranger just using power attack(from two handed weapon fighting style) and no ranger focus matched this (within a point or so). When I added use of ranger focus, the DPR exploded to 80 or so. The ranger also had a better AC, better saves, and more HP, so was appreciably more survivable.
That was when I decided that rogues just weren't worth the bother. Yes, they are handy outside of combat (though yesterday I played with a rogue who didn't cover a number of important skills, IMO, and still wasn't combat optimized, not really sure what he built for, day jobs perhaps?). However in combat, I have yet to see a rogue that is consistently a performer. They can't hold the line, they can't really dish consistent damage, and they can do much battlefield control (3/4 BAB and not enough feats says 'no).
Yes, I see a fair number of people play rogues (in PFS, in my home games, we have 0). Given the ease of early seasons of PFS, the rogues were adequate. Given the ramping up of difficulty in recent scenarios, I am reasonably sure people are going to hit a wall and reconsider their choices. Sure, they have their moments to shine, and when their dice get hot and they lay down all those d6s with lots of dots, they get real excited. Those moments are not the norm.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
johnlocke90 - Rogues don't need those spells. They can access potions, wands, and scrolls (when needed) and further increase their already maxed stealth skill with an already high base stat. Fast stealth is nothing to sneeze at and eventually skill mastery removes those darn 1's.
However, many of these discussions operate from the mindset that the rogue is in a vacuum. Or he has nothing to contribute. Or is useless here or there or everywhere. Reminds me of Dr. Seuss - would you could you in a car, on plane, on a train, etc. etc.
Would you try to be a Rogue?
Maybe you'll like it.
We all came here from different paths, I've found them to be an asset (not a liability). At least this discussion has kept my mind off the stresses of life a little while. Have Fun
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you try to be a Rogue?
Maybe you'll like it.
By Joe. Clearly you have solved the riddle dear boy. Clearly none of us is actually familiar with rogues at all, and must have never played them. Egad, how on earth did it ever take anyone so long to come to that brilliant and dazzling conclusion. You sir win the thread, and the internet, and life. The rogues of the world applaud your cunning sense motive and skills of extraordinary perception. ಠ_ರೃ
|
|
Don't be a complete dick Ashiel, you had managed to get off some posts without this mocking sarcasm.Would you try to be a Rogue?
Maybe you'll like it.By Joe. Clearly you have solved the riddle dear boy. Clearly none of us is actually familiar with rogues at all, and must have never played them. Egad, how on earth did it ever take anyone so long to come to that brilliant and dazzling conclusion. You sir win the thread, and the internet, and life. The rogues of the world applaud your cunning sense motive and skills of extraordinary perception. ಠ_ರೃ
Heck, if he/she would have thrown in a few jabs at "strawman" and calling people "trolls", that would have been the verbatum doublespeak responce equalling basically "I can't disprove or argue, so it's time to get that spotlight off me and switch the subject".
The thing is, the different sides have what they concider definitive proof that they are correct, (experience vs spread sheets for example) but fail to see that not everyone agrees with them (and obviously we do not all take the other sides proof as valid). I think a PFS style game should be the grading method. Spread sheets like suggested tend, (in my opinion and experience) are much too biased towards home game style play, specifically in regards to play-style and house rules, (which again are not factored into the data presented). However, it is possible to take a look at PFS numbers of classes, and how often those classes are played. It's less definitive to get answers from those players on just how powerful those characters where, (but it is telling how many Rogue characters there are past level 2 for example, not built on DM credit).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't be a complete dick Ashiel, you had managed to get off some posts without this mocking sarcasm.Would you try to be a Rogue?
Maybe you'll like it.By Joe. Clearly you have solved the riddle dear boy. Clearly none of us is actually familiar with rogues at all, and must have never played them. Egad, how on earth did it ever take anyone so long to come to that brilliant and dazzling conclusion. You sir win the thread, and the internet, and life. The rogues of the world applaud your cunning sense motive and skills of extraordinary perception. ಠ_ರೃ
Here's the thing...it really grinds my gears that when there are some of us who have put up detailed evidence that something is the way it is, discussed how they function in play, where we ourselves have found them to be lacking, and so forth, that someone comes up and contributes nothing to the contrary other than suggesting that "we should play a rogue" and "we might like it". The entirety of every ounce of sarcasm (which is a verbal tool for drawing attention to details, generally) in my entire posting history is not filled with such mockery and insult as that very string of words.
Oh gee whiz mister! Why didn't I ever think to actually play a rogue or something! How ever did you know!? Oh yeah, you figured "Hey, I like rogues, these guys think they are mechanically subpar, so they must have never actually seen/played them for real! Yeah! That's it!".
Perhaps it's a pet peeve of mine. Perhaps it's because, believe it or not, I do give people more courtesy than making uneducated assumptions as to whether or they actually have any experience with what they're talking about (especially if they've been giving detailed examples out of an effort to aid others). When was the last time you heard/read anything by me telling you that you should ignore evidence and listen only to me and play what I tell you without any reasoning behind it beyond the implication you have no experience with what you're doing (y'know, rather than doing things like discussing hit/damage potential, buffs, interactions with environment like concealment, hiding in bright light, opportunity costs, tactical considerations, etc).
Perhaps it was these things that instigated a reflexive response that was a little more sarcastic than most. Of course, sarcasm has it's merit. Maybe, I hope, it got the point across and was entertaining in the process (it's a heck of a lot funnier, tongue in cheek, and far less dry than what I would have said otherwise). The funny thing is it's not so much anger, just that I'm very let down by this sort of response.
What does irk me a little bit is that, a sarcastic response was in reply to someone handwaving away all the efforts of everyone who didn't agree with the person, yet it is the sarcastic response that solicited the "Don't be a complete dick" response. Where, I wonder, where was that response before the sarcastic one? Hm? What exactly was the "dickish" thing in the sarcastic post? Was it the fact that it draws attention to the inanity of the comments former one without making it personal, or was it because of perceived notions of side A vs B? Or perhaps it was because of some other reason. Maybe someone was taught sarcasm is bad, but I have a different thought on the matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Math is not wrong, and no amount of evidence can disprove it. It is extremely frustrating that someone would suggest the number of players playing a certain class could say anything towards its effectiveness. Popularity does not equate to quality. I mean, if you saw someone playing a plain Warrior--the NPC class--but he never rolled below a 15, would you suddenly think Warriors were great classes because that guy you saw did well?
It is simple: people like Rogues even though Rogues are not worth being, mechanically.
They are not awful, they are obsolete. It's different. It's like being given $20 or $25. It's certainly nice to have $20, but when the alternate choice is $25, why would you take less?
Nobody can build a Rogue such that another class built under the same conditions and rules wouldn't be better in just about every way.
I think all the argument is coming from Rogue players who don't want to admit they made a choice that is sub par. Rather than thinking, "oops!" or "Since I'm not concerned about mechanics anyway, I shouldn't feel bad about myself because I'm still having fun," or any number of reasonable things, they're thinking, "No! I can't look a fool! I must defend my choice to the death, even to the point of disputing math with...uh...nothing!"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO the guy who comes in and says "you just haven't actually played a rogue/ you just don't know how to play it right", when people have given both anecdotal evidence and numerical proof, is the dick here.
I enjoy playing rogues, and the particular combination of abilities they have, even if any given one may be duplicated by another class (just like I might play an oracle even though there are other classes that cast divine spells, or what have you). I am not going to argue this point, this is just by way of establishing my POV.
I will say I do agree to an extent with some posters here that the rogue is unfocused and that there might be a way to do it better (even if I think the way the class is currently designed works fine). The problem is the Pathfinder rogue tries to be sneak thief, skirmisher, and dungeoncrawler all in one package, rather than try to do any one of those roles especially well.
I think if you had a future or alternate edition, and had a "dungeoneer/tomb raider" class (modeled more on archaeologist bard), a criminal/dirty fighter class that was not necessarily martial but designed toward sneak attack and hindering foes (and did so effectively by enabling improved skill with appropriate related combat maneuvers), and, yes, a full BAB/martial class that focused on being lightly armored finesse warrior, those would probably solve many issues.
Until that future/alternate edition happens however, I for one am content.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could not, would not, be a rogue.
I could not, would not be a Pogue.
I'd mix the class, and end up richer.
I'd much prefer an Arcane Trickster.
Well, maybe you just all fail miserably at playing Rogues, and take out your frustrations by trying to convince us that everybody fails at playing Rogues, so you won't feel so special? Who knows! :)
System mastery can go a long way. I've played rogues just fine (as I imagine many people here have). I even noted that I had achieved the best results with X rogue versus Y rogue. Yet I still can acknowledge that they are behind other classes in terms of ability (for the record, if the player is skilled enough, they can play NPC classes alongside PC classes without explicit failure).
Of course, if those people who play rogues correctly so they are on par with all those other classes would explain how they are doing so, then maybe we would concede that rogues aren't mechanically troubled next to their peers. Unfortunately, there is a great refusal to do so, and the insistence that we should just trust them and play rogues more. You can't expect a rational human being to accept that, anymore than you can expect them to believe that shooting someone won't harm them and will make gumdrops fall from the sky merely because I tell them so.
Then there is often those who aren't following the rules and getting distorted results. For example, if you're a human sneak-attacking someone in a dark alley, you're cheating the game. If you aren't applying the -1 penalty to Perception / 10 ft. and your rogue notices the tiger sneaking up on your party because of it, you're cheating the game. If you're not required to have cover/concealment to Stealth, you're cheating the system. If your adding facing ("I sneak up behind him while his back is turned"), you're cheating the system.
It might not be intentional, but I have seen - many times - that often the over estimation of certain classes, features, or tactics comes with the explicit misunderstanding, ignorance, or misuse of rules.
I could not, would not, be a rogue.
I could not, would not be a Pogue.
I'd mix the class, and end up richer,
I'd much prefer an Arcane Trickster.
Nice rhyme. :P
Arcane Tricksters are cool. (^-^)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay so wait am I allowed to play a rogue?
I've been getting the feeling due to how ineffective rogues are its just better to start with a better class/archetype combo, then use traits to get the remaining skills that you miss out on. Heck you can even go alchemist and still get sneak attack on top of being a superior class.
Okay so wait am I allowed to play a rogue?
Whenever you want to. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and saying "no rogues for j00". They are, however, helping people make informed decisions, understand where certain pitfalls may await them, and offer options that may be more useful in the same situation.
Most of us are/were rogue players too (I'm actually an every class in the core rulebook player, though I gravitate towards a subset of those classes).
It'd be really nice if you guys didn't try to run things off into wild absolutes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man don't try to trick me I don't want to violate the rules and get kicked out for playing a rogue.