Right until someone hears him.
In pathfinder invisibility makes you harder to hear
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In pathfinder invisibility makes you harder to hear
Yep.
In 3.5 invisibility was +20 spot vs hide. It did not affect move silent vs listen checks. When spot/listen and hide/move silent were merged together into perception and stealth in PF, invisibility became a straight +20 to all stealth checks.
This is why I have house rules that invisibility is onle +10 to stealth. It makes a level 3 wizard with no investment in stealth about as good as a level 3 or 4 rogue.
Don't get me started on how being invisible gives you a +20 to stealth, but having total cover or concealment(IE I am standing on the other side of a 3 foot thick wall) from any other source gives you nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In pathfinder invisibility makes you harder to hear
Yep. It makes the sound particles / waves invisible, so they're harder to detect.
But really, it just says +20 if moving. It's not +20 to be hidden from sight. It's just +20. So it applies to sound, as well as sight.
All it means is that the guard hears you and looks, but doesn't see anything and shrugs it off as his imagination. Thus he is still unaware of your presence.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with invisibility affecting all stealth vs perception checks.
I have a problem with a level 2 spell granting a +20 to a skill for 1 min/level plus giving you hide in plain sight and a 50% miss chance.
I think we've had this discussion before...like yesterday.
But I, for one, am fine with the fact that people who can wield magical energy to alter reality to better suit themselves are better at doing things than someone who is confined to pesky physics. Perhaps one could argue that it's at too low a level, but making something invisible seems like an easy enough trick.
I think we've had this discussion before...like yesterday.
But I, for one, am fine with the fact that people who can wield magical energy to alter reality to better suit themselves are better at doing things than someone who is confined to pesky physics. Perhaps one could argue that it's at too low a level, but making something invisible seems like an easy enough trick.
If there was a level 3 spell that was identical to invisibility, and also dampened the sound you make. I would have no problem with that spell giving you a +20 to stealth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we've had this discussion before...like yesterday.
But I, for one, am fine with the fact that people who can wield magical energy to alter reality to better suit themselves are better at doing things than someone who is confined to pesky physics. Perhaps one could argue that it's at too low a level, but making something invisible seems like an easy enough trick.
I don't have a problem with magic doing amazing things, but I think we can all agree that Time Stop and Meteor Swarm should not be a level 1 spells.
If there was a level 3 spell that was identical to invisibility, and it dampened the sound you make. I would have no problem with that spell giving you a +20 to stealth.
When spells give out skills bonuses like candy, it devalues classes that actually spend points on skills like the rogue.
Stealth: 2 (dex) + 5 (ranks) +4 (class skill + trait) = +11. Which is maybe -1 or two below what a rogue would have, if he was focusing on dex for some reason. Assuming the rogue is suicidal and chooses 18 Dex, that would be +4 (dex) +5 ranks +3 class skill, for +12.
Did I mention that the wizard has Invisibility (3 times per day, for +20 to stealth while moving, for 5 full minutes)?
This is where I have a huge issue with invisibility.
I don't mind a wizard who has actually invested ranks and traits in stealth out sneaking a rogue, here is my problem.
Level 10 rogue with 22 dex, 10 ranks stealth, +3 class skill, +6 dexterity -> +19 to stealth.
Level 3 wizard with 14 dex, +20 invisibility, +2 dexterity -> +22 to stealth.A level 3 wizard is no investment in stealth can out sneak a level 10 rogue. That is not factoring in that invisibility also gives you concealment so that you can always make hide checks.
One of the many reasons why the ninja is what the rogue should be. The ninja now has that +19 stealth AND improved invisibility (or normal invisibility as soon as 2nd level).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Leave Meteor Storm out of this.
I am still very sensitive to the fact that RAW, meteors don't rain down from the sky, but rather appear in your hand and you throw them at people. >:|
|
I think we've had this discussion before...like yesterday.
But I, for one, am fine with the fact that people who can wield magical energy to alter reality to better suit themselves are better at doing things than someone who is confined to pesky physics. Perhaps one could argue that it's at too low a level, but making something invisible seems like an easy enough trick.
I don't have a problem with magic doing amazing things, but I think we can all agree that Time Stop and Meteor Swarm should not be a level 1 spells.
If there was a level 3 spell that was identical to invisibility, and it dampened the sound you make. I would have no problem with that spell giving you a +20 to stealth.
When spells give out skills bonuses like candy, it devalues classes that actually spend points on skills like the rogue.
Duration becomes important in this case. Spells that give skill bonuses should be very limited in rounds - this means the rogues 'always on' skills are of value as the casters will run out of spells during the day, or want to take other spells. Of course this comes down to the GM and way they pace the game. GM's who cater for casters by allowing the 15-minute adventuring day will ALWAYS be taking away from the rogue. The game designers don't help by pampering to the casters by giving them 'at wills' to use. I saw NO issue with a caster running out of magic during the day if they went Nova on an encounter or two. This was the casters choice. Yes at low level casters had to resort to other means of 'adventuring' after an encounter or two - but that WAS what being a caster entailed.
So in my opinion game designers giving in to bleating casters devalued the rogue and caused the rogue's current problems - that and perhaps the 'skill system' of the d20 system to some extent. If everyone can do rogue things (mostly) why do we need a rogue?
S.
So in my opinion game designers giving in to bleating casters devalued the rogue and caused the rogue's current problems - that and perhaps the 'skill system' of the d20 system to some extent. If everyone can do rogue things (mostly) why do we need a rogue?S.
Actually what happened is stabing things keeps getting new stuff, spells keep getting new stuff, but skills are largely ignored. They get a bone thrown their way now and again, but not with the kind of focus that fighting and casting do. So while spell casting and combat options have balooned since the advent of 3rd edition, what you can do with skills has barely changed at all with slight bumps with skill tricks in complete scoundrel that never caught on. Every book has new way to stab, smash, and slash guys, and has new ways for casters to warp time and space, but the rogues best attribute (his skills) remain stagnent.
One of the many reasons why the ninja is what the rogue should be. The ninja now has that +19 stealth AND improved invisibility (or normal invisibility as soon as 2nd level).Stealth: 2 (dex) + 5 (ranks) +4 (class skill + trait) = +11. Which is maybe -1 or two below what a rogue would have, if he was focusing on dex for some reason. Assuming the rogue is suicidal and chooses 18 Dex, that would be +4 (dex) +5 ranks +3 class skill, for +12.
Did I mention that the wizard has Invisibility (3 times per day, for +20 to stealth while moving, for 5 full minutes)?
This is where I have a huge issue with invisibility.
I don't mind a wizard who has actually invested ranks and traits in stealth out sneaking a rogue, here is my problem.
Level 10 rogue with 22 dex, 10 ranks stealth, +3 class skill, +6 dexterity -> +19 to stealth.
Level 3 wizard with 14 dex, +20 invisibility, +2 dexterity -> +22 to stealth.A level 3 wizard is no investment in stealth can out sneak a level 10 rogue. That is not factoring in that invisibility also gives you concealment so that you can always make hide checks.
The problem with that is that the ninja is also a lot of things that the rogue shouldn't be.
The problem with that is that the ninja is also a lot of things that the rogue shouldn't be.
Sneaky? Devious? Underhanded? Good at zooming around a battlemat unseen, popping up where he's least expected and dishing out damage behind enemy lines?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@DH: I specifically gave them Int to AC, because they are forced into melee, unlike every other class.
I like the scaling dodge bonus much more, personally.
But I agree they need an AC Boost.
The problem with that is that the ninja is also a lot of things that the rogue shouldn't be.
Sneaky? Devious? Underhanded? Good at zooming around a battlemat unseen, popping up where he's least expected and dishing out damage behind enemy lines?
Monkish, and Martial-artsy, with a Ki Pool.
Monkish, and Martial-artsy, with a Ki Pool.
File the serial numbers off and call it Panache.
about the only thing wrong with it after that point is that they're still better off using strength rather than dex.
|
|
Monkish, and Martial-artsy, with a Ki Pool.File the serial numbers off and call it Panache.
I guess. I'm not a fan of the x/day ki pool on a nonmystical class. it bugs me with the barbarian, and the monk, slightly less. But thats a personal qualm with it.
about the only thing wrong with it after that point is that they're still better off using strength rather than dex.
Yep. lol. Also, they're still suffering from MAD.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess. I'm not a fan of the x/day ki pool on a nonmystical class. it bugs me with the barbarian, and the monk, slightly less. But thats a personal qualm with it.
Monkish, and Martial-artsy, with a Ki Pool.File the serial numbers off and call it Panache.
SILLY CASTY. BARBARIAN NOT HAVE KI POOL.
We're assuming optimal. As in theoretical. We don't need a build for that.Yes we do. I want a spell list that can make your INT18, level 5 wizzy "out-rogue any rogue". I want to see how
Can out-rogue a rogue for stealth, bluffing, sneak attack, trap disarming, evasion, and middle-of-the-road traits and feats. All day. Without being extra vulnerable to ambush.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually what happened is stabing things keeps getting new stuff, spells keep getting new stuff, but skills are largely ignored. They get a bone thrown their way now and again, but not with the kind of focus that fighting and casting do. So while spell casting and combat options have balooned since the advent of 3rd edition, what you can do with skills has barely changed at all with slight bumps with skill tricks in complete scoundrel that never caught on. Every book has new way to stab, smash, and slash guys, and has new ways for casters to warp time and space, but the rogues best attribute (his skills) remain stagnent.
So in my opinion game designers giving in to bleating casters devalued the rogue and caused the rogue's current problems - that and perhaps the 'skill system' of the d20 system to some extent. If everyone can do rogue things (mostly) why do we need a rogue?S.
I have attempted to address with with 101 New Skill Uses
We have Three 5/5 star reviews for the product.
My favorite quote is
"This should be owned by all PFRPG-groups out there. Period." -Endzeitgeist
We're assuming optimal. As in theoretical. We don't need a build for that.Yes we do. I want a spell list that can make your INT18, level 5 wizzy "out-rogue any rogue". I want to see how4 cantrips
4 x 1st level slots
3 x 2nd level slots
2 x 3rd level slots
Can out-rogue a rogue for stealth, bluffing, sneak attack, trap disarming, evasion, and middle-of-the-road traits and feats. All day. Without being extra vulnerable to ambush.
Meh, I've already given you enough of an outline. You'd probably just come up with some completely unrealistic situation (such as needing 20 doors unlocked in one day! Or having to sneak 50 times a day! Oh, and all of these are AGAINST TIME, so the wizard can't fill in empty slots, or spend rounds pulling out a scroll), ignoring the fact that the wizard with all their skill points will have almost as many skills as a rogue will (and eventually more), meaning that the only real difference will be ability modifiers and maybe class skills. As long as there isn't a time limit, which there usually isn't in all of my experience, the wizard can just come back later with a spell or scroll. Who knows, perhaps every single one of, or the vast majority of, your quests have been races against time where you can't even spare one single moment. In those situations, the rogue might shine. But the wizard still has a good chance of doing better.
Add that to the fact that the Wizard can easily make his own magical items for reduced cost (such as a glove of disable device +10 for 5k.). A rogue can't do that without either a lot of feat investments in an already extremely feat starved class (not to mention putting a rank per level into one type of Crafting that must be applicable to the item). And that at level 5, creating a +5 item will only cost 1250 gp (or about 10% of their WBL) which will pretty much erase any skill bonus advantage the rogue will have unless he really focused on a skill by taking traits and Skill Focus in it.
Or maybe instead of an arcane bond, he'll have a familiar. At 7th level, he could have a homunculus that could disable devices with the best of them (remember, you're making him, so you get to choose what he has), or fly a rope up high and fasten it for you to easily climb.
Or maybe our "wizzy" is a Creation subschool mage! That means he can create items out of thin air quite a few times per day. Need a tool for a job? I can do that. Need a Crowbar because the wizard doesn't want to use his +18 Disable Device check to -- sorry, +2 with the masterwork tools! -- unlock the door? Well, I'll gladly do that!
Or hell, even just teleport through the door with Shift. You just need a peep to get through!
It's not even worth it to go through and choose spells, when I've already out-rogued the rogue in all but the most contrived of circumstances.
I mean, sure. What happens if the whole party is stuck in a gigantic anti-magic zone for days and they need to open some locked doors that the fighter can't bash through? Yea, the rogue really shines right there! But in the situations common to the Paizo APs/modules I've seen, I haven't seen any real cases where an optimal wizard couldn't do the same or better than a rogue.
And that's not due to a lack of looking at Paizo APs/modules.
For reference, a rogue 5 will probably want a +1 armor and +1 weapon, costing about 3k. The wizard can make 2 +5 stat items for just under that price.
I refer to a standard adventuring day: 2-4 combats, plus maybe a trap or two, and an RP encounter or two, plus hours of scouting in between.
You're right in assuming my demand is a loaded one, and the sheer size of your response explaining why you won't do it, instead of just doing it, implies that my trap is a good one. A wizard can out-rogue a rogue in a 15-minute adventuring day, and/or with "safe zones", and/or no time limit, and/or a generous player group+DM.
The generalization, under scrutiny, suddenly demands a collection of asterisks, doesn't it.
Actually, I'm just too lazy to scour the wizard sorc list for the exact spells.
I'd rather ramble off the top of my head, because I have a Kingmaker game to play. Maybe during my work break tomorrow, I'll make one. But really, without any spells I've shown how a wizard will be about equal to a rogue if he sets his mind to it. Just like how a rogue doesn't necessarily need to put points into Diplomacy / Disable Device / Acrobatics / Climb / etc, nor does the wizard. But that's part of the thing about assuming optimality. I'm assuming the rogue places ranks in all of those skills, just as I assume the wizard will have a fair number of utility scrolls and spells to help him out when he really needs a boost.
|
|
Actually, I'm just too lazy to scour the wizard sorc list for the exact spells.
I'd rather ramble off the top of my head, because I have a Kingmaker game to play. Maybe during my work break tomorrow, I'll make one. But really, without any spells I've shown how a wizard will be about equal to a rogue if he sets his mind to it.
Again, this is a pacing issue. I think Malignor has a good point. You say "unrealistic situations", my take on that is "situations that have become 'normal'" because of GM's pampering to the spell casters (specifically arcane casters). The rules made rogues less relevant and then pacing finishes the task!
If the arcane caster knows that each day will be the 'average encounter' same ol' same ol' and the nice GM will make sure there is a 'save point' about the time the arcane caster is out of spells then I agree with your analysis. Rogues I would agree are an easy victim of a lazy GM or a badly written adventure however - but not a bad class in themselves.
S.
Eh, what the hell. It's the boring phase.
Let's say Divination school (for +2 to any skill check for a round), or Foresight for (effectively) roll twice, take best. Creation (Conjuration) is great, as mentioned earlier. Maybe an Enchantment to really help out with the Face operations.
Since most of the spells that'll help this guy out-rogue the rogue are transmutation, that's also a solid choice. Enhancement is basically a +1 to skills.
But let's just go with Divination. Scratch that, let's go with Transmutation.
Cantrips: 4 total.
We don't really need Presti, so whatever is desired can go there. Read Magic could be useful if you find new scrolls. Perhaps Scoop, or Acid Splash.
1st level: 4 + 1 trans.
2nd level: 3 + 1 trans
3rd level: 2 + 1 trans
Plus, due to our arcane bond, we can cast any spell in our book, once per day.
Banned schools are Evocation and Necromancy, by the way.
He'll have...6 skills per level. Spellcraft, Knowledge Arcana, Disable Device, Climb, Acrobatics, and Stealth.
If he spends the 2k on a headband of Int, he'll effectively get 5 more ranks in any one skill. Maybe Bluff, maybe Diplomacy, maybe Disguise.
Anyways, this guy has 7 offensive spells, 3 utility spells, and 3 blanks.
For under half his WBL, he can grab a +2 headband of int (which he'd be getting anyways), and be able to make 2 +5 items to shore up any skills he thinks he could use a boost in. Or to totally bypass the rogue, in the case of Disable Device.
Another 1k and we get a Handy Haversack. 500 gp and a cloak of resistance +1. And I think we still have 4k more to play around with, for scrolls, writing materials, masterwork thieves tools, random assortment of crap, etc.
A level 5 wizard will out rogue a rogue in almost any situation.
Not likely a Level 5 wizard might be better in one or two scenes in a clues style game where much of the encounter involve research the Wizard is more limited.
Do not underestimate the skill monkey which the rogue is one of the best at, mainly because unlike the rogue he is not limited by number of spells per day.
|
|
Cantrips: 4 total.
This is SO wrong. Whatever member of Paizo, who I imagine is married to a Wizard, came up the 'unlimited casting' of cantrips or ANY unlimited spell (see Cleric domains) rules needs moved into HR where they can do less damage. Well less damage to the rules, all others in Paizo be afraid of the dreaded 'right-sizing' HR love to do - but never to themselves it should be noted.
More "WAAAAGH!" I ran out of spells my caster is SO useless rubbish. Now it's cool my caster can do cool things ALL day and night make other classes rubbish - yep, that's a win for the game.
Sorry my biggest peeve against PF,
S.
A level 5 wizard will out rogue a rogue in almost any situation.Not likely a Level 5 wizard might be better in one or two scenes in a clues style game where much of the encounter involve research the Wizard is more limited.
Do not underestimate the skill monkey which the rogue is one of the best at, mainly because unlike the rogue he is not limited by number of spells per day.
The spells a wizard gets are just icing on the cake. With all the skills they get, they too are skill monkeys. Do not forget that.
I love the idea of rogues. I refuse to play a character with less than 5 skill points. Maybe 4 if I really, really like the concept.
But why would I play a rogue when I can get almost as many skill points with another class that has more interesting, and better, abilities? Even if you don't agree that the wizard can out rogue the rogue, you do have to agree that he can come pretty close with all the skill points and items they can easily and cheaply make. This is what the entire thread is about: Is the rogue a weak class? The answer is unfortunately yes. Before APG and archetypes, they were somewhat passable balance-wise.
I quite like unlimited cantrips. Even love them. Someone who has supreme mastery over magic shouldn't just "run out" of the ability to use it. If Minor Magic gave unlimited uses of cantrips, I'd seriously consider take a 2 level dip in Rogue for many character concepts just to pick up some SLA cantrips.
Cantrips: 4 total.This is SO wrong. Whatever member of Paizo, who I imagine is married to a Wizard, came up the 'unlimited casting' of cantrips or ANY unlimited spell (see Cleric domains) rules needs moved into HR where they can do less damage. Well less damage to the rules, all others in Paizo be afraid of the dreaded 'right-sizing' HR love to do - but never to themselves it should be noted.
More "WAAAAGH!" I ran out of spells my caster is SO useless rubbish. Now it's cool my caster can do cool things ALL day and night make other classes rubbish - yep, that's a win for the game.
Sorry my biggest peeve against PF,
S.
I don't see it that way, Cantrips though usable all the time are relatively a non point at higher levels. Nor do they make the other classes useless.
I don't see it that way, Cantrips though usable all the time are relatively a non point at higher levels. Nor do they make the other classes useless.
They make my class that specializes in opening and closing doors useless!
Wizards can even do it from range!
Tots OP.
Wizard build stuff
Don't forget your a wizard you should have more spells in your book you can buy a few scrolls and easily add a few more level ones.
If the arcane caster knows that each day will be the 'average encounter' same ol' same ol' and the nice GM will make sure there is a 'save point' about the time the arcane caster is out of spells then I agree with your analysis. Rogues I would agree are an easy victim of a lazy GM or a badly written adventure however - but not a bad class in themselves.
Yeah, can we not assume that every situation that goes against your point is from bad or lazy DMing?
The fact is you need to go out of your way to make a rogue useful when writing an adventure. You need a low level adventure with a strict timer, otherwise the wizard can just teleport the party somewhere safe for the night and resume the adventure the next morning, or cast rope trick and camp out for 8 hours, or do 101 other things to control the pacing.
Wizard build stuffDon't forget your a wizard you should have more spells in your book you can buy a few scrolls and easily add a few more level ones.
Oh yea, I just made it for one day. Didn't want to deal with buying new scrolls and figuring out the effect on WBL.
My favorite take on the roguish character is the Archaeologist. Pretty much mostly for this spell. It's amazingly versatile.
Plus, they can get Rogue Talents, which I find one of the coolest set of menu-choices in the game, if not the coolest.
|
|
I quite like unlimited cantrips. Even love them. Someone who has supreme mastery over magic shouldn't just "run out" of the ability to use it.
I guess it just goes against my "D&D" instincts. Then again it's PF not D&D so perhaps I am unfair. Still I believe the rule was not included for any other reason than to appease the casters and their rebelling against Vancian spell casting. Why stop at cantrips? Why not have a rule that any spell 5 levels lower than you can cast becomes unlimited for example? Why if I can cast the mighty Wish is casting say Alarm a challenge to my brain anymore?
Perhaps that is the problem - people (like myself) still see PF as an extension of D&D, when really they parted ways many moons ago.
S.
I quite like unlimited cantrips. Even love them. Someone who has supreme mastery over magic shouldn't just "run out" of the ability to use it.I guess it just goes against my "D&D" instincts. Then again it's PF not D&D so perhaps I am unfair. Still I believe the rule was not included for any other reason than to appease the casters and their rebelling against Vancian spell casting. Why stop at cantrips? Why not have a rule that any spell 5 levels lower than you can cast becomes unlimited for example? Why if I can cast the mighty Wish is casting say Alarm a challenge to my brain anymore?
Perhaps that is the problem - people (like myself) still see PF as an extension of D&D, when really they parted ways many moons ago.
S.
I go with 6 levels, because 4th level spells are really powerful, and I still make sure they keep at least one spell above 3rd level that they can do all the time. Then again, when I want to do custom rules for every class, I do a lot more for non-casters.
Based on my very limited experience just dealing with traps isn't worth giving up a lot o other things. In pathfinder I've played a total of 6 sessions, all PFS modules. I can think of exactly two that had a trap. One was set late because the GM forgot about it and the other was and the other was disabled by the level 2 Paladin of all people. Fights happen 3-4 times a module and traps once every 3-4 modules. For that reason alone it isn't worth giving up much combat ability for traps unless your setting is quite different.Yeah, my experience has been that trapfinding is really not necessary. I have been in multiple groups now that have no class with trapfinding.
- Anyone with high perception can spot any trap
- Anyone with high disable device can disable non-magical traps.I hated the days of 3.0 where only rogues could spot traps with a DC higher than 20, but in PF trapfinding is a niche ability that can safely be traded for something else via archtypes.
Anyone...
CR 6... +4 wisdom +6 ranks +3 skill focus feat +2 racial perhaps - you can beat DC 25 while taking 10. Provided that you have good light and stand right next to the thing and nobody's distracting you.
The rogue still has an advantage in this department.
And to respond to the obvious charge that will be brought up:
Creating a 1250 gp item will take about 5 days of adventuring, in which he is doing the normal stuff as well. A ring of sustenance could make this only 2.5 days, depending on how it's ruled.
Actually what happened is stabing things keeps getting new stuff, spells keep getting new stuff, but skills are largely ignored. They get a bone thrown their way now and again, but not with the kind of focus that fighting and casting do. So while spell casting and combat options have balooned since the advent of 3rd edition, what you can do with skills has barely changed at all with slight bumps with skill tricks in complete scoundrel that never caught on. Every book has new way to stab, smash, and slash guys, and has new ways for casters to warp time and space, but the rogues best attribute (his skills) remain stagnent.
Less is more.
This is why I don't like splat books. Every new feat that comes out restricts the rules, rather than enables them. Why? Because suddenly "you can't do that anymore unless you have the feat."
I sincerely hope they never come out with a skills book. Skills currently are flexible. The more definition given to them, the less flexible they will become.
The problem with rogues is with the class itself, rather than skills.
They also can reduce the number of spells and magic items required to accomplish tasks.After all this time, you still don't understand opportunity cost.
The question is not can a rogue reduce the number of needed spells. The question is can a rogues reduction in the number of spells and magic items required to complete a days worth adventuring exceed the number of spells that a spell-caster can bring to the table? This is iffy at low levels, and a definite no after level 7.
At higher levels, the rogue is saying "Hey, i can get your car a 10% reduction in mileage for your trip to Indiana" and the casters are saying "Hey, i have a tanker truck filled with free gas!" Its a no brainer which one is going to help you get further.
I fully understand opportunity cost and that is exactly what I'm talking about. All I ever read about is the theoretical spell caster that is always ready with whatever spells are needed or he can just wait a day and reset his spells while the world stands still waiting for the caster to come back and finish things.
I have never, in more than 30 years, seen this perfect caster built or played. The build has never shown up in any of these discussions. The reason why I believe that it won't ever show up is because it is a pipe dream. Pick whatever pipe, but it is still a dream.
I agree 100% that casters are uber and can accomplish a lot. I do not agree that casters can do everything, and yet that is how they are portrayed in these discussions.
Show me a pure caster, from level 1 to 20 (preferably core since that is where the majority of the "problem" is with the rogue), that can fill the rogue's role as well as any other role.
Oh, I want him to be a real skill monkey and have all those knowledge skills that are touted. I want him to be able to find and disable traps consistently. I want him to be able to get his butt into some melee and deal some damage (yes, the rogue can actually do this). I want him to be able to be very stealthy from level 1. I want him to be able to do everything the rogue can do as well as what is expected of the caster (whatever that may be).
I don't think it will happen. I've been in these discussions before and have never seen it. I have seen some people show some interesting builds, but none have ever been able to compete with the rogue with being a rogue.
Once we establish this, then we can look at archetypes and see how they compare. What we are doing right now is just pretending that we all play the exact same style of game and that casters have all spells available at all times for all levels.
I love how people think that because spellcasters can do everything, stepping on the toes of other classes, that's ok. But if the rogue can do a lot with his skills, that's not ok.
The rogue can be versatile outside of combat. With their skill points they really can be very versatile. They also can reduce the number of spells and magic items required to accomplish tasks. Sure, the wizard can levitate or fly up the cliff, but the rogue can just climb up there and secure the rope so that the party only needs a DC 5 climb check. Those spell slots are now better used for other purposes. The same thing with Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate. Now that Charm Person spell can be a more useful spell. To make things better, the Diplomacy won't wear off.
The rogue can get several of the things listed that they should need:
Bleed: It's a talent
Weapon Finesse: It's a talent
Flanking without being opposite an ally: a couple different options
Abilities to hinder the opponent: feats and talents
No what folks are saying is the other skill monkeys can do what the rogue does as well as he can and bring more to the combat section of the game.
As to your list of things all of those are available to anyone provided they have the prereq's for the feat there is even a bleeding critical to give others a bleed, none of those are unique to the rogue. Granted the rogue will get a bleed far earlier than other classes.
That's the problem: the class dosen't have enough to unique shine (perhaps a non visual metaphor would be better here but its all I could come up with) compared to his contemporaries. Except possibly the Monk who still isn't quite hitting on all cylinders either.
The rogue doesn't need bleeding critical. He has a talent that gives him bleed. He can take it at level 2. He doesn't need every hit with every attack. He only needs to hit with one attack. Bleed damage is very useful at all levels and the rogue can even use it at range so can be useful in the surprise round. The first time another melee character can get this as a natural ability in Core is at level 11.
As for the "unique" argument, it doesn't hold water. Many spells crossover. Heck almost all the wizard spells crossover with the sorcerer. Does that mean the wizard is worthless because the sorcerer can fill the role? Add in the APG and a human sorcerer can know a ton of spells. He won't know as much as the wizard, but he isn't spending his money on learning them. The druid has a companion. So do how many other classes? The cleric has a healing burst? How many other classes have this? The fighter can deal a lot of damage. How many other classes can do this? Uniqueness is not a valid argument when determining the effectiveness of a class.
I am willing to bet that I can build an effective rogue, at any level, that can be effective in and out of combat. I can stay Core or expand. It will be effective against CR appropriate encounters.
First off, thanks for doing this even though you knew I was trying to set you up. This is honestly interesting, trying to make a Rogue-imitating-wizzy build.
Nice, nice. Solves alot of trapped doors and chests, once you unlock them with you Disable Device (below).Cantrips: 4 total.
Mage Hand (very useful)
Prestidigitation
Detect Magic (aka: detect magical traps. Then just use your Arcane Bond to cast Dispel Magic!)
Open/Close.
Animate Rope is kind of a way to get the extra "oomph" in climb, and also to trigger traps from afar. May I suggest Reduce Person to get +4 size modifier on stealth checks, and to shrink out of bonds (skipping Escape Artist).1st level: 4 + 1 trans.
Trans: Enlarge Person!
Animate Rope (Battle field control *and* utility!)
Magic Missile (pewpewpew)
Blank
Blank
Shouldn't you have invisibility here?2nd level: 3 + 1 trans
Trans: Knock! Or Spider Climb! Levitate sucks.
Create Pit!
Stone Call or...Create Pit!
Blank
Interesting. Not very Rogue-ish.3rd level: 2 + 1 trans
Trans: Fly!
Haste
Haste
He'll have...6 skills per level. Spellcraft, Knowledge Arcana, Disable Device, Climb, Acrobatics, and Stealth.
If he spends the 2k on a headband of Int, he'll effectively get 5 more ranks in any one skill. Maybe Bluff, maybe Diplomacy, maybe Disguise.
Fun and games aside, you're now in a pickle: Bluff/Diplomacy/Disguise for subterfuge, or PERCEPTION to actually find the traps and secret doors (remember those disable device ranks)?
May I suggest: 6 ranks/Lvl = {Bluff, Stealth, Perception, Disable Device, Know Arcana, Spellcraft}. This way you can find the traps, and rely on spells to disable some of them, such as your Open/Close, Mage Hand, or Animate Rope. Skill will handle the rest.
So, here are some problems I see, no matter the build:
Here's what I'll grant you: A wizard can, if built for that purpose, compete with a rogue, outshining them for the short term, but struggling as the day draws out.
The funny thing is, a mid level rogue with an efficient quiver full of wands, and the Quickdraw feat, can do anything that a rogue can do, which includes cast any level 0-4 spell from any class (if they pony up the cash). So can anyone, for that matter, with enough investment in UMD. All the talk of casters being ultra-awesome is true, but any class can now cast level 0-4 spells... higher if they want to burn up scrolls.
PF rocks.
I love how people think that because spellcasters can do everything, stepping on the toes of other classes, that's ok. But if the rogue can do a lot with his skills, that's not ok.Nobody said that. We're saying the exact opposite. We're saying the rogue's versatility outside combat isn't enough to make up for how much he sucks in combat.
But he doesn't suck in combat. He may suck in some games, but I'm willing to bet that the GM isn't building encounters and adventures as well as he could. If the party is consistently going up against CR+ opponents, then there is a problem. There should be a mix. There should be some lower than CR, CR, and CR+. The rogue can deal with any of them. No, he will not ever be as effective as the full base attack classes. That's simply because he isn't meant to be.
I'm sorry, you misunderstood me. I'm aware those are available, and nearly anyone can take them. I'm saying the rogue should be getting some of them for free.The rogue can get several of the things listed that they should need:
Bleed: It's a talent
Weapon Finesse: It's a talent
Flanking without being opposite an ally: a couple different options
Abilities to hinder the opponent: feats and talents
Staying Core, name 1 class that can get those abilities when the rogue can (weapon finesse can be gotten at level 1 buy full BAB classes). Leaving Core there are a couple, but not many classes that can get them at the same level as the rogue.
The rogue should not be the biggest damage dealer. That's not his shtick. He should be able to do a lot without magic, but then bring in magic when it's cool to do so. That's where a couple talents and the UMD skill come in handy.Agreed. But that's not enough. The rogue should be able to contribute meaningfully in combat, even if he's not the biggest damage dealer. I listed other things he could be doing in combat. In my opinion, he needs to be able to do at least one of those things, tied near the top, or a bunch of them competently - right now he does none of them competently.
If the rogue can do too much, he will step on the toes of the front-line fighters. That isn't his role. He can accomplish several of the things you asked for, often sooner than other classes. He can also do them consistently. A rogue that hits only once in combat can cause bleed for the entire combat. A rogue can weaken foes (the Strength damage stacks so multiple successful hits can be brutal). He can dispel magic with a successful hit (enlarge person on the enemy? not anymore). He can do these all on a single successful hit. So a level 12 rogue can deal 6d6 sneak attack, 6 bleed, 2 Strength damage, and dispel a single spell all on 1 hit. If he gets a second hit, he can deal another 6d6, 2 Strength, and another spell dispelled. He is versatile and effective, if built that way. Oh, and he can do these on attacks of opportunity if he meets the criteria for sneak attacks.
If the campaign isn't going to be using traps, then the player should select an archetype that loses trap finding and trap sense. My view is that if a character has an ability, the GM should throw the player a bone every once in a while and make it useful. It is the GMs job to make sure the players are having fun. The adventures should be tailored a bit (not completely, but a bit) to the characters but there should always be more than one way to deal with a situation.I'm assuming the campaign IS using traps. The rogue falls behind regardless.
I have never seen this. I have seen the rogue run into problems when the player and GM don't have the rogue doing the rogue job. I have seen this be a problem when the player and/or GM think the rogue should tank or fill the role of caster. I have also seen this when someone intentionally steps on the toes of another player's role. I have seen this with more than just the rogue. I have seen this with many of the classes.
The current game I'm in, we run into traps about as often as combats, and the module is based on a video game. to make things worse they are becoming magical. I've been forced to become a ranger with the trapper archetype because of it. Which I don't mind entirely, I've been wanting better armor and weapon proficienciesI think most of us agree that these things depend heavily on the campaign. In the games I have played traps are rare and not very dangerous, so you are better off just having the wizard or somebody use a spell when they do come up. If the game regularly involved lots of traps then you would need a specialized trap-finder though I'm not sure an archetype wouldn't be better.
We run into traps about as often as combat encounters, otherwise I'd probably take something else,probably another level of ninja. Unfortunately, we don't have a wizard. We have a sorcerer, an oracle, a summoner, and me.
Since I'm the least inept player of the group, I always end up doing all the work anyway, so why not just take a level in ranger? Gets me skills I wanted (though annoyingly enough, not Knowledge history, though I'm going to talk to my GM about getting that switched out), weapon and armor proficiencies I wanted, I get a bigger hit die, in exchange for less skill points (no real loss here), and it improves my saves...though, not my crappy save.
I think I'm going to end up picking up Iron Will, which will be nice because then I can access Improved Iron Will when I know I will need it, thanks to Forgotten Trick.
It is funny, but it seems like the bard and the rogue have basically traded places in PF.
In 3.0/3.5, the bard was a 5th wheel character, but for the most part they lacked any focus or specific niche. Now the bard is a solid buffer/backup healer/secondary damage dealer while the rogue struggles to have a niche.
Take a standard party with a fighter, cleric, and wizard. A bard is generally a much better compliment to the party than a rogue. The bard is almost as good at the face/scout/skill monkey game, while bringing hard to replace buffs and secondary damage.
And the funny thing is that the bard wasn't given much in Pathfinder, while the rogue gained all those new "rogue talents".
That being said, rogues are not totally useless. Rogues are there for players who like challenges. :D