Oh no, I love the example. I really will be using that from now on.
Here's another one, specifically for Undead: Just ask a martial artist. About half the weak spots on any creature's body are it's bones, punch out an animal's spine, and watch how far it goes. A skeleton also can't swing it's sword arm too well, if the arm is broken in a dozen places.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is starting to sound like most of my early complaints about 4e have been fixed as long as I'm willing to pay several hundred dollars (if not a thousand) dollars to own the rules (or pay an infinite price via DDI).
What about the cost of... your soul?
(ducks)
|
It is starting to sound like most of my early complaints about 4e have been fixed as long as I'm willing to pay several hundred dollars (if not a thousand) dollars to own the rules (or pay an infinite price via DDI).
If you have Herolab, you can scrape all of the current contents of DDI (assuming you have a DDI account), so if/when your subscription goes or the site goes down, you have a local copy.
Likewise, you can probably back it up with winHTTrack if you can figure out how to set it up to give the password.
Other than that?
Buy lots of books, I guess.
Sure crafting traps need a fix.
Yeah, no one ever fixed trap costs. They are silly, a pit trap is 1000 gp.
Who sells these things? With that mark up cost, they are getting 100 x the price of labor (really the most I can see is 10 gp for a pit trap: all you need is a shovel and labor).| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm getting told that it is, and I don't have enough experience with Rogues to agree or disagree. I've always leaned towards Ranger, Fighter, and Sorcerer. How does the Rogue stack up in combat to other classes as far as RAW is concerned?
Edit: Should I have posted this here? It seemed appropriate since this is an issue dealing with the class under RAW, but maybe it should have gone in Advice. Would a moderator please move it?
Yes. Rogues are underpowered as written. They cannot be compared effectively to non-magic using classes whose role is to deal damage and fight, while also being compared effectively to those who have magic and fight, and cannot be compared to those who have magic as their primary focus.
Example: Rogue vs Ranger. Both have a lot of skills, both are capable of being stealthy, and both have lots of tricks. Ranger is better in combat, has more tricks (ranger spells are actually quite good), and even gets a pet (flanking buddy or mount).
Example: Rogue vs Inquisitor. Both have average base attack, both have lots of skills. Inquisitor is better in combat more often. Inquisitor also has lots of spiffy spells. More often than not, inquisitor wins.
Example: Rogue vs Bard. Both have a lot of skills, and both are medium base attack classes. Bards are better teammates than rogues. Bards have faaaaaar more versatility than rogues (having a variety of excellent spells to benefit both himself and his party). Bard has spells that augment his stealthiness (he can give himself concealment allowing him to use Stealth while observed, like the Predator's cloaking device).
Example: Rogue vs Druid. Rogue has more skills. Druid doesn't need many of them. Both have the same base attack. Druid is better in combat. Druid has more versatility (wild shape + spells + random immunities + animal companion + weapon & armor proficiencies, etc). Druids get a flanking buddy (or an off-tank). Druids are full-casters, so also get to play with some summoning and blasting.
Etc, etc, etc.
The biggest problem is the rogue is presented like it's supposed to be a skirmishing damage dealer. One of its main abilities, sneak attack, progresses every odd level and appears to be its main focus to most people. They have lots of skills, but then again anyone can invest skill points in things, so that's not really a huge deal. They don't have any magic abilities to fall back on (literally being the only 3/4 BAB class without magic) except Use Magic Device (which requires you to have magic items and/or expend resources to get them to use).
Sadly, Use Magic Device is nice, but not an argument in the rogue's favor. Fighters can have Use Magic Device. Wizards can have Use Magic Device. Bards have Use Magic Device and come Charisma-focused and class-skilled on top of it.
Basically, rogues do not excel in combat. They do not excel out of combat (they're good out of combat but limited in a magical environment). They have virtually no teamwork-based abilities. They just kind of fall flat.
And I say this as someone who likes rogues. :P
A 4e fight is 10 or 15 rounds long. Your character use something like 5 special powers; and he use the same at-will 5 or 10 times, or even more. And finally, the special power aren't even powerful or memorable; they're like "deal twice the normal damages and pull the target 3 cases instead of 1".
LOL what am I reading?!?
10 or 15 rounds long...wow.
Have you ever played 4e? 10 or 15 rounds is ridiculous! The LONGEST 4e fight I've ever had went 8 rounds.
My current 4e group involves two people who have never played D&D or any tabletop RPG before, and we have never gone that long in a fight. On average fights go for 4-6 rounds.
Also, I find it really weird when anyone mentions that all 4e classes play the same.
They are structured the same way (at-will, encounter, daily) but in play the differences are VERY obvious.
I cannot grasp how someone can possibly think there is more in-play diversity in a system where any non-caster's best option is to stand there and full attack over and over (or charge and full-attack with a few abilities).
The sneak attacking is the driving thing of the class. Without sneak attacking, it is absolutely unplayable in combat. If you are not selling out utterly to get sneak attacks off, if your party isn't selling out to get your sneak attack off, the Rogue is an Urban Ranger...
Without spells, animal companion, d10 HD, good Fortitude save, Favored Enemies, armor proficiencies, weapon proficiences...
See what I mean?
Look at the DPR stuff, just run it. See what your rogue does against something with like AC of CR+15 or so with and without Sneak Attack. Half damage or less. Your rogue doesn't really exist damage wise and he's not going to be casting spells or using Supernatural abilities.
Sneak Attack is overvalued compared to two good saves and 6th level casting progression, it just is. It just friggin' is.
This is one thing i borrow from 4E traps in my games are rarely a hole in the ground or 1 scythe in a wall.
Its a hall filled with scythes that can't the shadows guarding the room but might hit someone each round and while the cleric fighter and mage fend off the shadows the rogue has to get that trapped stoped.
Though everyonce in a while a bard is there and makes it so all weapons can hit incorporeal 1/2 the time.
I heard that 4e rogues were able to kill all discussions of 4e in one attack.
I think rogues should be a non-magical debuffer. Dirty Trick should be a part of the class. Get improved dirty trick, greater dirty trick, and quick dirty trick all by level 8. Quick dirty trick at level 8 when they get their iterative. Improved dirty trick at level 2,greater dirty trick at level 5. And at first level, they always treat their BAB as equal to their character level.
Also, agile maneuvers and weapon finesse for free at first level. Suddenly, they are halfway decent. Still need to give free abilities that make them better than a fighter at dirty tricks, but this is a nice start.
I heard that 4e rogues were able to kill all discussions of 4e in one attack.
I think rogues should be a non-magical debuffer. Dirty Trick should be a part of the class. Get improved dirty trick, greater dirty trick, and quick dirty trick all by level 8. Quick dirty trick at level 8 when they get their iterative. Improved dirty trick at level 2,greater dirty trick at level 5. And at first level, they always treat their BAB as equal to their character level.
Also, agile maneuvers and weapon finesse for free at first level. Suddenly, they are halfway decent. Still need to give free abilities that make them better than a fighter at dirty tricks, but this is a nice start.
That would help nicely. I know for my games, I removed weapon finesse and just had the feat's effect as a core mechanic instead. As a DM, I hate being bogged down with the minutiae of rules, so when calculating CMB, you count your weapon's bonuses to your CMB regardless of what maneuver you're trying to use (i.e. grapple and disarm will have the same bonus mechanically, even though using your weapon to somehow grapple someone doesn't seem to make sense). CMB is suppose to be one simple mechanic for all maneuvers, but the whole "does your weapon apply here" thing just bugs me. I don't want to have to calculate each and every CMB for every maneuver!
But anywho, with that change, if you use a light/finessable weapon, you effectively will have Agile Maneuvers for free (Now that I think about it, I think I'll drop the feat). I'm also seriously considering cutting the Cruelty mechanic for the Anti-Paladin and giving it to the rogue and applying it to Sneak Attack. May have to have some built in limiter, a rogue can sneak attack all day after all. *ponders some more*
I also drop the weapon finesse feat, and make CMBs use dex or str, whichever is higher.
But for generalized groups, I figure this works.
Sap archer with blunt arrows and improved invisibility.
The thing is, Paizo obviously knows this. They sold it cheap for the vivisectionist.
It became apparent (to me, anyway) during the UC Ninja playtest that they think Evasion is a much, much more valuable ability than I do.
So that's probably also part of the calculus.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is anyone else bothered by the fact that everyone is focusing on combat in fixing the rogue?
You mean the area they need the most improvement in? Not a bit.
The rogue is fine out of combat just easily replaced in combat however they have few options that allow them to do more than be a pale comparison of the other guys.The rogue is like the water boy on a football team nowadays we don't actually need them anymore but we keep them for the memories and they like to hang out with the pros.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention, gatorade is clearly superior to water.
Water sucks.
Just because you aren't having any issues in your group, doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.
A good example: I'm playing in a group of extremely inept players, but I could play a quadruple amputee, and still be the most important member of the party, because I would provide 90% of the good ideas.
|
|
...Campaign Story...
Alot of people over-estimate the competence of their rogues. When you hit, you can often hit pretty hard if youre built decently and youre getting sneak attack.
However, most people playing rogues aren't considering just how often they miss.
When we talk about the rogue being terrible in combat, its as much the low chance of hitting as it is the difficulty of getting sneak attack and a full attack action at the same time.
When you can get a full sneak attack, and youre lucky enough to hit with everything, you do some nice damage. But that doesnt happen often enough.
Oh please. The DM can make tribbles a lethal threat in the right situations.
That's a lot of the problem with the rogue. He requires a very specific environment and timing and he is in charge of neither.
Rogues are already set up to do the job, tribbles are not.
Rogues only require that a DM allow patience and opportunity. Which a DM is not able to do while running a party. But he is able to do while using rogues as enemies.
The basic design of the rogue is such that the class is not at all optimized for operation with a normal mixed party. They are usually the only member of the group with strong stealth abilities and that can move through a dungeon in a quiet way ambushing as they go. But create an entire party that likes to operate this way and the rogue will work far better than trying to having them operate in the standard party.
Hell yeah. I could murder my PCs with a stealthy fighter if I wanted to.
Could you really? With two skill points per level? You could make a really stealthy fighter that could do the damage the rogue could, disable traps, use poison as effectively, pick locks, use sleight of hand, disguise, climb, and speak different languages? I want to see that fighter. Building a rogue assassin capable of using mundane means for infiltration that often bypass spells like alarm and true seeing is far easier than doing so with any other class save for perhaps the bard or ninja. This is the kind of argument I hear from folks that are looking to support a position as an absolute rather than have a real debate.
The rogue is not an absolutely inferior class. They do shine when a DM uses them. They are built very well for DM use without any modifying. They have a wide variety of skills and abilities a DM can use to great effect against a party or even build an adventure around for a rogue player which other classes do not have.
They are not built well for use by a player in a standard party. I do not argue agains this because I know it is true.
But I also know I as a DM can without fudging rules mess up an entire party with rogues without modifying the class in any way and allowing the player to tell me what they are doing.
For example, using commoners to see off a false alarm. You do that a few times and then have the rogue disguise himself as a commoner and conceal a weapon using Sleight of Hand. Then when the angry wizard checks his door or sends his servant, you make your move. This is very hard to do with any other class unless they have the ability to have a lot of high skills. Maybe the ranger, bard, and inquisitor could pull it off. But then you lose the massive sneak attack damage.
Some things the rogue is better at than any other class. Messing up a party by mundane, unconventional means is one of those things.
Ask yourself the following questions:
What other classes can do the damage a rogue can do with a kitchen knife or fork?
How many classes have talents aimed at surviving a long-term infiltration with little more than a disguise kit?
How many classes can bypass magical traps to make it seem as though they haven't even been there?
How many classes can infiltrate a well-guarded castle wihout a single magic item or spell?
Certain things a rogue can do that other classes cannot do or cannot do near as well. You have to take those into account when discussing the rogue.
@Madigan:That sounds a lot like a ranger to me.
Raith/Maddigan: It really doesn't take much to coup de grace a sleeping person, which is what TOZ was referring to specifically.
Also, lol at the "build a stealthy fighter that can do as much damage as a rogue can".
@Madigan:That sounds a lot like a ranger to me.
Rangers can make good assassins too. But rogues are a bit better because of the skill diversity and ability to bypass magical traps. And the damage with the fork thing. Nothing like getting assassinated with mundane objects even when you thoroughly search the target and have spell support to check your enemies.
Speaking of rangers, they are the ideal main fighter to have in a group with a rogue. A ranger and rogue can move and ambush playing off each other well.
I'm not arguing rogues as PCs need help. They do. But rogues in the hands of DMs are definitely dangerous, more dangerous than many other classes that a party toasts because they can see them coming a mile a way or have the easy means to deal with them.
Not every party member has a bunch of maxed out skills to deal with a rogue coming after them. The only way to defeat a skill is generally with another skill. But they usually have magic items or spells for dealing with almost every magical problem coming their way.
For example, using commoners to see off a false alarm. You do that a few times and then have the rogue disguise himself as a commoner and conceal a weapon using Sleight of Hand. Then when the angry wizard checks his door or sends his servant, you make your move. This is very hard to do with any other class unless they have the ability to have a lot of high skills.huh?
You need sleight of hand. That's only one skill.
You need Sleight of Hand, Disguise, Stealth, Bluff, and possibly Disable Device. Spend some time picturing the situation rather than looking at only one piece of it.
|
You need Sleight of Hand, Disguise, Stealth, Bluff, and possibly Disable Device. Spend some time picturing the situation rather than looking at only one piece of it.For example, using commoners to see off a false alarm. You do that a few times and then have the rogue disguise himself as a commoner and conceal a weapon using Sleight of Hand. Then when the angry wizard checks his door or sends his servant, you make your move. This is very hard to do with any other class unless they have the ability to have a lot of high skills.huh?
You need sleight of hand. That's only one skill.
A human Fighter with 12 Int can have 5 skill points per level, you know. :)
Not even mentioning Rangers for all the obvious reasons.
Rogues are already set up to do the job, tribbles are not.
Well, if your environment is an enclosed grain silo and your opponents require oxygen and can't fly then being buried under the pile of tribbles is a real problem.
Likewise, a rouge needs
-Concealment (he needs it to be dark)
-His opponent to not be in concealment (his opponent can't be in the dark)
-An opponent he can sneak up on- Blind sense, blind sight, tremor sense, and the ubiquitous scent roflcopter stealth.
-The rogue needs something to hide behind. If you have a 60 foot long rectangular passage in the dark and a kobold standing at the far end you cannot stealth up on the kobold.
Rogues only require that a DM allow patience and opportunity. Which a DM is not able to do while running a party. But he is able to do while using rogues as enemies.
No. This is insulting to DM's everywhere. Rogues are OK when they're working together as a pack with a unified mind and similar abilities. The DM can do that because he's running all the bad guys, a player cannot because he's only running one of the good guys.
The basic design of the rogue is such that the class is not at all optimized for operation with a normal mixed party.
Well, if i built the entire party around a wizard you could do much better. You go to war with the party you have, not the party you want.
Raith/Maddigan: It really doesn't take much to coup de grace a sleeping person, which is what TOZ was referring to specifically.
Also, lol at the "build a stealthy fighter that can do as much damage as a rogue can".
It does. The coup de grace was against a barbarian with a +18 fort save naked with access to hero points. The coup de grace had to be delivered by the person naked. No magic items. It was the woman he slept with. I know of few other classes that could have delivered a coup de grace attack strong enough to do the job in a similar situation.
Certain things rogues do well, better than other classes. Operate absent magic items in highly dangerous situations is one of them.
Undervaluing what the rogue does well does not in any way strengthen your argument nor provide helpful feedback for the game designers to fix the rogue.
You need Sleight of Hand, Disguise, Stealth, Bluff, and possibly Disable Device. Spend some time picturing the situation rather than looking at only one piece of it.For example, using commoners to see off a false alarm. You do that a few times and then have the rogue disguise himself as a commoner and conceal a weapon using Sleight of Hand. Then when the angry wizard checks his door or sends his servant, you make your move. This is very hard to do with any other class unless they have the ability to have a lot of high skills.huh?
You need sleight of hand. That's only one skill.
A human Fighter with 12 Int can have 5 skill points per level, you know. :)
Not even mentioning Rangers for all the obvious reasons.
If he spends his favored class bonus on skill points eh.
And the human rogue can have 11. What's your point?
You think the fighter is going to spend all his points on those five skills? Doubtful.
I build rogues that are top assassins. Not meta-gamed specific enemies using cheese. The rogue is naturally suited to the role I have outlined. It doesn't require building him in an inferior fashion like it would a fighter or most other classes.
I spend the rogue's skills wisely to be a top assassin. I build his talents the same way, which are not being taken into account either. Keep on telling yourself you can build a better assassin using a fighter or even a ranger, I'll keep on using the rogue to nasty effect with their already established abilities.
The rogue makes a nasty assassin/infiltrator in the hands of the DM. One of the most dangerous in the game. Though they are surpassed now by the ninja.
Rogues are already set up to do the job, tribbles are not.Likewise, a rouge needs
-Concealment (he needs it to be dark)
-His opponent to not be in concealment (his opponent can't be in the dark)
-An opponent he can sneak up on- Blind sense, blind sight, tremor sense, and the ubiquitous scent roflcopter stealth.
-The rogue needs something to hide behind. If you have a 60 foot long rectangular passage in the dark and a kobold standing at the far end you cannot stealth up on the kobold.
No. The rogue needs a good Disguise, Bluff, and other skills to allow for a seemless infiltration and ability to blend into the surrounding environment as an assassin.
No. This is insulting to DM's everywhere. Rogues are OK when they're working together as a pack with a unified mind and similar abilities. The DM can do that because he's running all the bad guys, a player cannot because he's only running one of the good guys.
Not to DMs that know how to use rogues as enemies. I know I'm not alone in seeing their value as a DM.
Well, if i built the entire party around a wizard you could do much better. You go to war with the party you have, not the party you want.
No kidding. What part of "DM can better utilize rogues as enemies" did you miss?
Rogue as a PC needs work. But we're not going to see the rogue improved if your argument for their improvement includes discounting what a rogue does well.
Game designers want a focused argument on what about the rogue needs improvement. Primarily their combat ability, specifically sneak attack. Which needs to made useable all the time, not in situations where it is grossly overpowered (sap master build, archery build, arcane trickster with ray spells) or vastly underpowered (most melee builds, against fortification armor and creatures immune to crit, against creatures in darkness or with the blur spell up). And their archetypes and talents need to be made more attractive.
Sneak Attack should be as useful as weapon specialization and weapon training, spells, or the like. Not situationally useful. So rogue players have a useful combat element to them at all times, since the game by design revolves heavily around combat.
I support that type of change. I prefer to also note some of the elements of the rogue the game designers did well such as their focus on skills over magic and a fair degree of customization with the rogue talents (though the talents themselves can be improved). I think that makes for a more productive discussion than stamping the rogue with the general term "weak".
|
|
I again point out that rangers really are the rogue plus plan. They have the skill points, bonuses, and can even have the trapfinding ability. If they want the weaker skirmished archetype instead of spells they can have similar (in some cases, the same) tricks. Meanwhile they get more hp, full BAB, and earlier access to combat feats.
I do think "Ultimate Sneak" will come out and do a rogue redux the way Ultimate Combat/Magic snuck Monks into the "high tier 2" category (from below rogues), I have faith in paizo. Right now they are simply stuck as a sub-optimal class becAuse, unlike bards, barbarians, and monks, no book has come along that gives them superior options.
Raith/Maddigan: It really doesn't take much to coup de grace a sleeping person, which is what TOZ was referring to specifically.
Also, lol at the "build a stealthy fighter that can do as much damage as a rogue can".
It does. The coup de grace was against a barbarian with a +18 fort save naked with access to hero points. The coup de grace had to be delivered by the person naked. No magic items. It was the woman he slept with. I know of few other classes that could have delivered a coup de grace attack strong enough to do the job in a similar situation.
Certain things rogues do well, better than other classes. Operate absent magic items in highly dangerous situations is one of them.
Undervaluing what the rogue does well does not in any way strengthen your argument nor provide helpful feedback for the game designers to fix the rogue.
Umm only a few other classes lets see: barbarian, inquisitor, ranger, alchemist, oracle, witch, really any caster with touch spells (sorcerers bard, oracle being charisma based will excel here (infiltration skills+spells), eschew materials, spontaneous casters and as touch spells can crit lets go with vampiric touch as an example where all the dice are doubled on the CDG as opposed to the rogues sneak not), bards with their buffs and arcane strike, because all of these classes with their flat top bonuses will see more consistent high DC CDG attacks even with improvised weapons. Ohh yea also monk of the empty hand if we are talking about improvised weapons.
You have tried to make this argument earlier upthread and still did not answer these questions the first time I brought them up HOW is the rogue better by virtue of 0-4 more skill points than these characters? When even your best case for the rogue involves injuring someone.
Could you really?Yes. I'm the DM. It is trivially easy. Which is what the statement I responded to was saying.
Page 335 of the CRB *and* the 3.5 DMG both say that I, in fact, am the DM.
Also the GM.
opposed check, no bonuses.
No. The rogue needs a good Disguise, Bluff, and other skills to allow for a seemless infiltration and ability to blend into the surrounding environment as an assassin.
Then the rogue still needs an environment to blend into where they can blend in. Again, that's something under teh DM's control, not the players.
Not to DMs that know how to use rogues as enemies. I know I'm not alone in seeing their value as a DM.
How about their value as a player?
ves them superior options.|
|
But their role can be more easily filled outside of combat. In fact, the bard is generally higher in charisma, has more skill points thanks to versatile performance, and has good spells to contribute out of combat. That's on top of fulfilling their combat role and, should you feel like it, their trapfinding role. Take a rogue and a bard. Give them the same stats (I guess the bard needs at least a 14 Cha and the rogue can dump this, but that weakened them out of combat, no?) Make them both try to do the same things out of combat. Pretty easy right? Now look at the bard. Much more meaningful combat contribution (in the form of buffs) and spells (like honeyed tongue) to make him even more useful out of combat. Seems the superior option, right?
Same comparison can be made even more powerful by going ranger, save the loss of 2 skill points BUT far outperforms in terms of combat. He even has a higher perception typically and an animal companion that with a single feat ALSO outdamages the rogue. Once again the rogue is put to shame.
So out of combat, any int-based or high-skill character can take the rogue's place. In combat every class contributes more. Still think the rogue can justify existence?
|
|
Players always work with one another to set up flanks; it's not rogues alone that have this feature. But even with this critical setup, rangers and fighters and barbarians all outdamage the rogue (look at DPS olympics). And it's not like flanking is easy, often moving combats or bridges or walls make it difficult, and in order to get a flank someone has to take AOOs and/or give up opportunity for a full round of action.
So even in their best combat scenarios many do better (especially through level 7); and none of those are reliant on the ideal circumstances like the rogue. They just can't get it together in life; they have few tricks that aren't better served as the combat feat options (that fighters/rangers do better). I do look forward to the inevitable skills upgrade; but how will they do that without also upgrading rangers/bards?
I guess you're right that there has to be opportunity for a rogue to excel. The thing is...if your rogue doesn't ever get a chance to excel, then I think it's players not working together. With all of the groups I play with regularly they always help the rogue to be in flank as often as possible (when he isn't coming out of stealth to attack) because with flanking he is usually the highest damaging character. There are plenty of ways a well organized group can capitalize on this.
[anecdotal evidence incoming, YKMV] Ohh believe me when my ranger / inquisitor and the rogue were the only melee combatants in a party I gladly helped him flank, of course me having +10-14 in flat top bonuses at 5th level and using an elven curve blade to his rapier meant even when sneak attacking from flank our damage was usually evened out, and that's the problem. I wanted him to, when in the best of all situations, to hit WAY harder than I did with my every swing. I wanted the situational nature to make it beyond equivalent, it just doesn't.
Not to mention, gatorade is clearly superior to water.
Water sucks.
Well, sure. It's roughly what plants crave.
Well, sure. It's roughly what plants crave.Not to mention, gatorade is clearly superior to water.
Water sucks.
Careful or the computers will do that auto fire thingy and we will all loose our jobs!
\Welcome to Costco... I love you.