Can we please look at Rogues as a puzzle piece?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So, I just started reading through these forums, as I've played PF since beta, and DND since I was 9 years old back in first edition (although those memories are blurry). In my experience, as I've followed the game through out it's many implementations, it's remained a game of roles, not balance.

Each player picks a character concept that fulfills a role with regards to a party, and fleshes out the character to truly embody and have fun with that concept. Fighters are front line hitters, taking hits just as well as they dish them out. Wizards are squishy, but can do more damage than anyone else.

I think 3 or 4 of the top General Discussion forums at point of this writing are about how the Rogue is imbalanced, where either the Rogue needs improvements, or the Rogue needs his SA nerfed.

Well I disagree with both points. In fact the Rogue fulfills his puzzle piece perfectly, going above and beyond his role in the party. He can face, he can trap-find, he can manuever tactically.

I can hear you already though... and I agree! The fighter CAN hit more, and gets Strength to every attack. (Currently playing with a power-gamer of a father who can, at level 10, conduct 250 points of damage with an archer-fighter). The Wizard concept can do more damage than even that fighter though! Metamagic feats propel damage so much higher. But that's the point of the Wizard. He fulfills his role!

Now we return to our Rogue. What's his deal? I play the rogue in our group, and I drive the party forward. I wheel, deal, and race into position tactically when I need to. (And because my father challenged me with his 250 damage, I've managed to wrangle similar or higher numbers out of my level 10 rogue with some absurd dancing, presuming all my attacks hit. Oh and I get hurt. A LOT.) But that doesn't change that above anything else, I fulfill my role as the specialist. Because that's what the rogue is. So he doesn't need changing, or limits. By RAW alone, he's good at what he does, and isn't good at what he doesn't do.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I declare October the Rogue Thread Month.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
I declare October the Rogue Thread Month.

But then I won't be able to find those rogue threads!

Grand Lodge

Justin Franklin wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I declare October the Rogue Thread Month.
But then I won't be able to find those rogue threads!

Thats what you get for treating your wisdom as a dump stat and never putting any points in perception.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Justin Franklin wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I declare October the Rogue Thread Month.
But then I won't be able to find those rogue threads!

Aren't rogue threads falling under the PATRIOT Act? Like rogue agents and rogue airplanes...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
I declare October the Rogue Thread Month.

Pssh, I already declared that in my Topic of the Month thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Kulak wrote:
Well I disagree with both points. In fact the Rogue fulfills his puzzle piece perfectly, going above and beyond his role in the party. He can face, he can trap-find, he can manuever tactically.

The problem is it's easy to make a ranger or bard who can do all of that (including having the trapfinding class feature) as well as the rogue does, and more.

That's the crux of the problem. It's not that the rogue can't outshine other classes in his niches; the problem is it's possible to make a character that does everything as well as rogue does or better. Urban ranger is, essentially, the new rogue. All the trapfinding and hot urban action, while doing more damage, with better saves, and bonus feats, and spells.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My position on the rogue threads has been "the problem isn't the rogue - it's that other classes keep crowding into his concept." A lot of the Bard and Ranger archetypes are muscling in on Rogue turf. So do the Ninja and (to a lesser degree) the Inquisitor. (Is the Swashbuckler a PF class? If so, put it on the list!) I'm not saying that the Rogue should be the only "skill-oriented character", but you don't see new classes with better BAB than fighters or faster spell progression than the Cleric/Wizard...


Dire Mongoose wrote:
The Kulak wrote:
Well I disagree with both points. In fact the Rogue fulfills his puzzle piece perfectly, going above and beyond his role in the party. He can face, he can trap-find, he can manuever tactically.

The problem is it's easy to make a ranger or bard who can do all of that (including having the trapfinding class feature) as well as the rogue does, and more.

That's the crux of the problem. It's not that the rogue can't outshine other classes in his niches; the problem is it's possible to make a character that does everything as well as rogue does or better. Urban ranger is, essentially, the new rogue. All the trapfinding and hot urban action, while doing more damage, with better saves, and bonus feats, and spells.

Its not a new phenomenon. Even in 1st ED when "new" classes came out in White Dwarf or such they all seemed to poach a lot of the Thief skills. The trouble with the Rogue is 1) Too many threads dedicated to it. 2) It can easily be replaced by another class and therefore, IMO, brings nothing to the game.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Dire Mongoose wrote:
That's the crux of the problem. It's not that the rogue can't outshine other classes in his niches; the problem is it's possible to make a character that does everything as well as rogue does or better.

Sure the Ranger can function as an Urban character, but the Charisma doesn't complement his role, and the Ranger has to go out of his way to fulfill the Face. The Rogue is specialist that triangles Face, Traps, and Combat. The Ranger can dabble in these and surpass in some, but can't do all 3, (keep in mind you can only have one archetype). And Urban encounters aren't the only Face encounters.

Bards can also specialize, but triangles Face, Support, and (with archetypes, I suppose traps or any other facet the bard wants).

The rogue remains a puzzle piece, complementing his surrounding party members. (And I'm pretty sure I can out dps your ranger ;p, but that's just the power gamer raising I had).

Liberty's Edge

Congratulations you are playing the rogue to his strengths. Thats what a lot of people on these forums are saying. However, I know for certain you wouldn't dare boast being able to out damage a ranger if your SA was reduced to 1 per round.

That's the crux of the problem. There are people who are scared of the d6 without realizing that a static bonus is generally much better.


The Kulak wrote:
(And I'm pretty sure I can out dps your ranger ;p, but that's just the power gamer raising I had).

Check out something like one of the DPR Olympics threads where gaming math nerds (and I mean that affectionately) have mathed it to death. You'd be surprised. Even if you assume the rogue can sneak attack with every attack (which as you know isn't a very realistic assumption) it's still not near the top of the DPS pack.

There's an urban ranger in a game I'm playing in; he took a trait to get Diplomacy as a class skill and pretty much Faces with the best of them. And finds/disarms traps. And pours out a ton of damage in combat becuase a spell he can cast as a swift action makes anything that's important enough his favored enemy.


The Kulak wrote:
Dire Mongoose wrote:
That's the crux of the problem. It's not that the rogue can't outshine other classes in his niches; the problem is it's possible to make a character that does everything as well as rogue does or better.

Sure the Ranger can function as an Urban character, but the Charisma doesn't complement his role, and the Ranger has to go out of his way to fulfill the Face. The Rogue is specialist that triangles Face, Traps, and Combat. The Ranger can dabble in these and surpass in some, but can't do all 3, (keep in mind you can only have one archetype). And Urban encounters aren't the only Face encounters.

Bards can also specialize, but triangles Face, Support, and (with archetypes, I suppose traps or any other facet the bard wants).

The rogue remains a puzzle piece, complementing his surrounding party members. (And I'm pretty sure I can out dps your ranger ;p, but that's just the power gamer raising I had).

Please read what skills favored enemy applies its bonus to and then come back to me about how the ranger cant Face.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

First, powergame section.

At level 10, using my character concept (which does incorporate having a partnered fighter to flank with). I can get 10 (11 with haste) attacks, and do 55d8 + 14d4 + 98 ⇒ (2, 8, 7, 1, 2, 8, 1, 7, 3, 7, 8, 2, 8, 7, 4, 4, 2, 6, 2, 7, 4, 3, 7, 2, 7, 7, 6, 8, 1, 4, 8, 1, 1, 2, 6, 3, 2, 8, 6, 6, 4, 2, 8, 8, 6, 6, 6, 8, 2, 2, 6, 2, 4, 5, 8) + (1, 1, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4, 2, 4, 2, 3, 4, 1, 1) + 98 = 397. I've wasted some feat slots on utility.

Second, The actual game section.
I'm not arguing that an Urban Ranger can't face, or find/disarm traps. But in order to hold down those skills, you're losing skills elsewhere, and taking feats. And if you embody the concept of an Urban Ranger, presumably someone who can track down, find, and deal with someone across and Urban environment, congratulations! I'll take my Agent of the Royal Crown concept, and fit the rogue to it much better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Kulak wrote:

Sure the Ranger can function as an Urban character, but the Charisma doesn't complement his role, and the Ranger has to go out of his way to fulfill the Face. The Rogue is specialist that triangles Face, Traps, and Combat. The Ranger can dabble in these and surpass in some, but can't do all 3, (keep in mind you can only have one archetype). And Urban encounters aren't the only Face encounters.

Bards can also specialize, but triangles Face, Support, and (with archetypes, I suppose traps or any other facet the bard wants).

The rogue remains a puzzle piece, complementing his surrounding party members. (And I'm pretty sure I can out dps your ranger ;p, but that's just the power gamer raising I had).

You really need to look beyond the idea of the Rogue to what it actually does. It gets a 2 more skill points a level than other classes, talents, a few defensive abilities, and sneak attack. You are as limited by ability scores and feats as any other class.

If you want to be a Face, you are going to have to up your Charisma. That means Combat (Str/Dex/Con) and Traps (Wis/Dex) suffer. Over 20 levels, you still only get 10 talents. Any of those that go towards being a good Face are going to take away from being a good Combatant and Trapfinder. If you don't take talents, you are exactly the same as any other character with equal ranks and Charisma. Worse than a Bard, because they are getting far more out of their Charisma, as well as more skill points thanks to Versatile Performance.

The same idea holds for other options. The Rogue is only as good at his roles as his mechanics dictate. A Rogue can't magically do all these things better just because they are part of the idea of the Rogue. And, as things have gone on, it has become apparent that they can't do any of them better than another class or archetype.

This is what the "Rogues suck" crowd is getting at. We love the idea of a roguish character, a daring swashbuckler or charming scoundrel. The problem is, mechanically, the Rogue class doesn't fit these concepts as well as other classes can. Hopefully, this gets through and we will see some powerful Rogue-only stuff in future material, or even a bit of errata here and there to up their power level. Or go the UC-Monk route and give us some archetypes and feat chains that at least crank the Rogue up to average.

EDIT: Kulak, could you just post the full build? I'm interesting in how a level 10 character is a great trapfinder and face, while getting 10 attacks that actually hit. It will also give us a baseline for comparison to a hypothetical Urban Ranger or Bard.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Kulak wrote:

First, powergame section.

At level 10, using my character concept (which does incorporate having a partnered fighter to flank with). I can get 10 (11 with haste) attacks, and do 55d8 + 14d4 + 98 . I've wasted some feat slots on utility.

Second, The actual game section.
I'm not arguing that an Urban Ranger can't face, or find/disarm traps. But in order to hold down those skills, you're losing skills elsewhere, and taking feats. And if you embody the concept of an Urban Ranger, presumably someone who can track down, find, and deal with someone across and Urban environment, congratulations! I'll take my Agent of the Royal Crown concept, and fit the rogue to it much better.

Howzabout you:

a) post your build
b) make DPR calculations according to the DPRO benchmark (that means: no flanking fighter partners and damage calculations that factor in hit chance and are not just a roll of maximum *possible* dice)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'll post the build, I've never used DPRO standards, but the number of attacks is based on Outflank, which is a teamwork feat, and I use it with the party's two fighters. I'll see how that can factor into DPRO. I'll work on that today.

Shadow Lodge

I remember the good old days when barbarians were derided as the class that was criminally underpowered.

What exactly is AM BARBARIAN's record vs wizards, again?

:P


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
make DPR calculations according to the DPRO benchmark

Can you link?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Kulak wrote:
I'll post the build, I've never used DPRO standards, but the number of attacks is based on Outflank, which is a teamwork feat, and I use it with the party's two fighters. I'll see how that can factor into DPRO. I'll work on that today.

Erm, that's not how behchmarks work.

DPRO numbers assume the same baseline as everybody. If DPROs would allow for having multiple buddies with cherry-picked feats, the results would be all over the place. Drop your summoner/eidolon build as it is, and we'll see what it's standing for.

Otherwise, your numbers have little relevance.

EDIT: Here's the latest DPR Olympics thread.


This is the problems i see with the rogue.

1) Traps are no longer the whirling decapitating monstrosities of TPK that they used to be. This means that the ability to find and deal with them is no longer as useful. If you only catch 75% of the traps instead of 90% , no big deal.

2) A trap you see usually isn't dangerous. Everyone can, and usually does, pump their perception out the wazoo.

3) Skill consolidation allows non rogues with less than 8+ sp's per level to concentrate on the important skills. Gather info, Diplomacy, open lock, disable device, jump, tumble, balance, and bluff took up all 8 skill points. Now you just need Diplomacy, Disable device, Acrobatics, and bluff.

4) The pathfinder skill point system means that a trained skill gets you +3, which you can get for either a feat or by a mere 1 level dip into the rogue class. Even this +3 is diluted by the high amount of skill ranks at higher levels.

5) Traits make problem 4 even worse. Anyone can snag any 2 skills they want as class skills with two traits.

6) They need to flank to damage. That puts them outside the protective zone of the meatshield that other classes get. The Ninja handles this problem nicely by allowing the swift action pop invisibility and stab

7) Spells are better at skills than skills are. Invisibility is a +20 to stealth, alter self is a +20 to disguise.

8) Most of the above are exaggerated by poor choices on the players part trying to be iconic. Specifically the lack of good dex fighting builds (although thats getting much better), iconic sneaky halfling that are too slow to move into position, and two weapon fighting which looks cool, but is horribly, horribly bad for a rogue to try to do. It looks good on paper but completely falls apart on the battlemat.

9) RougeS are a versatile class. They can face, trapfind, and fight. The problem is that A rogue has to pick one. People complain about schrodingers wizard with his infinite spell selection, a far more common thing i see is a rogue with every talent by level 5. A rogue needs their talents to be viable in combat, if they blow them becomming a trapfinder they're less effective in combat. If they use them to get good at combat, it undercuts the idea that they're there to deal with traps.

Its less of a puzzle and more of a rubix cube. There's too many other connected factors to just change one thing so it fits.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The Pro min-maxxers of the Internet don't carefully pick feats that let them maximize on their strength anymore? The Rogue is a tactical option, if you don't have Flanking, you don't have Sneak Attack. I'll post everything regarding the duo build for viewing, and I'll include the DPR Olympics formulae, but you can't omit tactical feats with a tactical character...

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Kulak wrote:
The Pro min-maxxers of the Internet don't carefully pick feats that let them maximize on their strength anymore? The Rogue is a tactical option, if you don't have Flanking, you don't have Sneak Attack. I'll post everything regarding the duo build for viewing, and I'll include the DPR Olympics formulae, but you can't omit tactical feats with a tactical character...

Benchmarks assume you're going solo, because otherwise you would have to factor in any "tactical" outside help - starting with every possible buff spell your caster buddies could give you.

DPRO doesn't measure your possible team action result, it judges your raw personal damage output. If your summoner is in a party with two fighters that pick the right tactical feats, great, but what if he isn't? That's why DPRO assumes the solo baseline, because you can be always sure that you can be solo.


I am perfectly fine with the rogues the way they are and in fact i am playing a rogue fighter so i can not only hold the front line but cover all the needed skill checks. Sneak attack is awesome when you have two fighters flanking!

I believe that their are not enough skill oriented encounters in games just because people are playing video games and the only thing video games do well is the hack and slash which intern pigeon holes us into wanting hack and slash.


Gorbacz wrote:
That's why DPRO assumes the solo baseline, because you can be always sure that you can be solo.

+1.

It would be interesting to see a "Two Man Team" season of DPRO but I'd be willing to bet a rogue build can't take a medal in that, either -- and it gets worse and worse if you don't assume ideal positioning in round 1 and/or that enemies will just sit there in the worst possible position and take it instead of moving.


The Kulak wrote:
I'll post the build, I've never used DPRO standards, but the number of attacks is based on Outflank, which is a teamwork feat, and I use it with the party's two fighters. I'll see how that can factor into DPRO. I'll work on that today.

Wait wait wait... "The number of attacks is based on Outflank?" I was really confused as how you were getting 10... 4 from two-weapon fighting, 1 from a bite or something. Are you assuming your two flanking fighters are getting 5 critical hits a round for you to get extra attacks on? Because that is... wow. Just... wow.

Dark Archive

Even if you want a rogue, being an urban ranger skirmisher does the rogue better. Tricks comparable to rogue tricks, trapfinding, a perception bump... and also full BAB and d10 HP per level and free combat feats. The loss? 2 skill points / lvl, and the sneak attack that almost never works in ranged combat anyway.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think via DPRO, I think I only do about 150, assuming sneak attacks, and subtract 30-40% because my to hit should be about 6-8 less than a comparable fighter. I'll run the numbers when I have time. Then I'll run the numbers for the fighter I pair with solo, and subsequently post the numbers if we are together. I see the validity of your points with regards to the benchmark requiring solo play, but rarely does that actually happen, and using that benchmark limits the scope of, and implies an aspect of the game that isn't there.

I get the baseline concept, but the validity of the character has to exceed the DPRO standards.

EDIT:

Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
Wait wait wait... "The number of attacks is based on Outflank?" I was really confused as how you were getting 10... 4 from two-weapon fighting, 1 from a bite or something. Are you assuming your two flanking fighters are getting 5 critical hits a round for you to get extra attacks on? Because that is... wow. Just... wow.

Outflank combos. I partner with a fighter that uses an Elven Curve blade with improved crit range, meaning 30% of either of our attacks are crits. Everytime she crits, I get an AOO, which, if it subsequently crits, creates and AOO for her, etc. Add in Opportunist, which basically adds one extra attack, and I usually get to roll 8+ attacks in the round.


The Kulak wrote:

I think via DPRO, I think I only do about 150, assuming sneak attacks, and subtract 30-40% because my to hit should be about 6-8 less than a comparable fighter. I'll run the numbers when I have time. Then I'll run the numbers for the fighter I pair with solo, and subsequently post the numbers if we are together. I see the validity of your points with regards to the benchmark requiring solo play, but rarely does that actually happen, and using that benchmark limits the scope of, and implies an aspect of the game that isn't there.

I get the baseline concept, but the validity of the character has to exceed the DPRO standards.

Could you please just post the build? There are people with programs and spreadsheets already set up to run the numbers. And it will give us an idea of how good your rogue is at his other specialties.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Rogue Level 10 - Archetype Blademaster (Ulti Combat)
Str: 14 (Gauntlets for +2) -> 16
Dex: 16 (+2 for ability points from level, +4 from belt) ->22
Con: 10
Int: 14
Wis: 9
Cha: 16 (+2 Human) -> 18

BAB: 7/2
2 WPN: 5/5/0/0
Dex: 11/11/6/6
Magic Weapons (+1 Keen Kukris): 12/12/7/7
Weapon Focus: 13/13/8/8
Potion of Haste: 14/14/14/9/9
Flanking: 18/18/18/13/13 (This happens all the time, but I guess solo it doesn't count)

Feats:
Combat Reflexes
2 Weapon Fighting
Outflank
Weapon Focus
Improved Two Weapon Fighting
Combat Expertise

Rogue Talents:
Finesse (Weapon Finesse)
Bleeding Attack
Underhanded
Black Market
Fast Tumble
Oppurtunist (Bonus Talent from Human Rogue Favored Class - 1/6 of talent, taken levels 5-10)

Skills:
Acrobatics 10 (+5 for boots of striding/springing)
Appraise 10
Bluff 10
Climb 5
Diplo 10
Disable Device 10
Disguise 5
Knowledge Local 10
Perception 10
Sleight of Hand 10
Stealth 10
UMD 10

Damage:
1d4 (base) +1 (magic) +3 (strength) + 5d8 (sneak attack)

DPRO Standard:
For values of "to hit chance" >0.3 : (to hit chance)(149.55) - 14.175


Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
The Kulak wrote:

I think via DPRO, I think I only do about 150, assuming sneak attacks, and subtract 30-40% because my to hit should be about 6-8 less than a comparable fighter. I'll run the numbers when I have time. Then I'll run the numbers for the fighter I pair with solo, and subsequently post the numbers if we are together. I see the validity of your points with regards to the benchmark requiring solo play, but rarely does that actually happen, and using that benchmark limits the scope of, and implies an aspect of the game that isn't there.

I get the baseline concept, but the validity of the character has to exceed the DPRO standards.

Could you please just post the build? There are people with programs and spreadsheets already set up to run the numbers. And it will give us an idea of how good your rogue is at his other specialties.

Ooh, I'm not as good as some at the DPR calculating, but I've always wanted to know how my Pimp Slapping rogue (thug-scout rogue) measures up. Would it be all right to post it here and let others analyze it?

prototype00


Just nitpicking a bit...

The Kulak wrote:

Str: 14 (Gauntlets for +2) -> 16

Do +STR gauntlets even exist as a non-custom item anymore?

General stat aside: This is a character with crazy high stats. "Epic ridiculously overpowered" is 25 point buy and you're north of that.

So, yeah. Let me build a two weapon wielding fighter with 30 or whatever point buy and that's going to look a lot crazier than what you see in DPSO, too.

The Kulak wrote:

Oppurtunist (Bonus Talent from Human Rogue Favored Class - 1/6 of talent, taken levels 5-10)

I don't think picking an Advanced Talent that way is legal.

The Kulak wrote:


Potion of Haste: 14/14/14/9/9

Even if we were benchmarking some weird DPSO variant in which we allowed prep items and averaged your damage over, say, 10 rounds I'm still not positive that giving up attacking for at least a round to quaff the potion for 5 rounds of haste is a good trade.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Dire Mongoose wrote:
Do +STR gauntlets even exist as a non-custom item anymore?

Not in Pathfinder, but we converted. DM allowed, but on straight PF, you are correct.

Dire Mongoose wrote:


General stat aside: This is a character with crazy high stats. "Epic ridiculously overpowered" is 25 point buy and you're north of that.

16,16,14,14,10,9 feels fairly standard, but we rolled, not point buy. Drop from strength, or charisma as required to meet standards, although Charisma is really just for being that "dashing" rogue.

Dire Mongoose wrote:


So, yeah. Let me build a two weapon wielding fighter with 30 or whatever point buy and that's going to look a lot crazier than what you see in DPSO, too.

Oh definitely. A rogue solo is poor stuff, no comparison for your solo fighter/ranger based on the to hit chance alone.

Dire Mongoose wrote:


The Kulak wrote:
Oppurtunist (Bonus Talent from Human Rogue Favored Class - 1/6 of talent, taken levels 5-10)

I don't think picking an Advanced Talent that way is legal.

Advanced Talent from SRD:

PF SRD wrote:


Advanced Talents

At 10th level, and every two levels thereafter, a rogue can choose one of the following advanced talents in place of a rogue talent.

It's debatable, and definitely min/maxing, but it's fast tumble. Doesn't factor into damage, just tactics for positioning.

Dire Mongoose wrote:


The Kulak wrote:

Potion of Haste: 14/14/14/9/9

Even if we were benchmarking some weird DPSO variant in which we allowed prep items and averaged your damage over, say, 10 rounds I'm still not positive that giving up attacking for at least a round to quaff the potion for 5 rounds of haste is a good trade.

Fair enough, my character walks with these often as prep for combat if the wizard isn't around, but benchmark stats, I think you'd be right. 5 extra attacks at max BAB is better than 4 at varied though.


Running the numbers (Someone please correct me if I mix something up):

When flanking and hasted, you have a 75% of hitting on the DPRO target AC of 24 and a 50% chance on the iterative attacks. Each hit with the main hand does 29 average damage, while the off-hand does 27. There is a 30% crit chance, at a x2 modifier.

Churning it all out, I get 78.25 damage a round. This is with a custom magic item (the +2 strength gauntlets), around a 30 point-buy of abilities, haste, and outflanking. You also had to chug a 750gp potion. Based on the DPR Olympics threads, this is around the level of a monk without flanking or super stats.

Give me a bit, and I'll post a counter-build.

EDIT:Wait... blah, someone with a spreadsheet check me. I think I forgot the haste attack, but already deleted my calculation.

Dark Archive

Also, that character is based on the assumption it is that easy to get into flank and fill attack (with a specific person, no less). If this was the case, few would complain about 2-handed rogues, as their slightly lower damage output would be justifyable by their slew of tricks.

The real issue is keeping monsters in one place and achieving that flanking keyword; not an easy task. And even doing all of that, Joe Bob the fighter tends to outdamage you somewhat (or at 10th level, Jim Bob the just-as-skilled-with-better-saves archer ranger).


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Thalin wrote:

The real issue is keeping monsters in one place and achieving that flanking keyword; not an easy task. And even doing all of that, Joe Bob the fighter tends to outdamage you somewhat (or at 10th level, Jim Bob the just-as-skilled-with-better-saves archer ranger).

Actually easier than you think. Round 1 is positioning, allowing both fighter and rogue 1 Attack.

From there, any 5 foot step taken by the target can be adjusted for by a 5 foot step by both fighter and rogue. And, damagewise, you have to keep in mind, that if Flanking is acheived, the rogue above gets (on average) 3-4 extra attacks at max BAB, and the Figter gets 2-3 extra attacks. Above all that, the attacks have a 30% chance of snowballing.


First of all who told you that you can only have one archetype? They lied.
Second who told you that rangers can't be Face? They lied. Between 6+ skills, traits and favored enemy bonuses you can Face just fine with your 10 or lower CHA.


leo1925 wrote:

First of all who told you that you can only have one archetype? They lied.

Second who told you that rangers can't be Face? They lied. Between 6+ skills, traits and favored enemy bonuses you can Face just fine with your 10 or lower CHA.

Also who told em a wizard's role is damage? They lied.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:


EDIT:Wait... blah, someone with a spreadsheet check me. I think I forgot the haste attack, but already deleted my calculation.

I got 97.98 on the damage for the round on 5 attacks at AC 24. Using the DPRO formula by hand/calculator, not an excel sheet. I could be wrong. I also have 30.95 main hand damage and 28.35 secondary hand.


Cibulan wrote:
leo1925 wrote:

First of all who told you that you can only have one archetype? They lied.

Second who told you that rangers can't be Face? They lied. Between 6+ skills, traits and favored enemy bonuses you can Face just fine with your 10 or lower CHA.
Also who told em a wizard's role is damage? They lied.

I didn't mention that because i don't want to drag the thread into a blaster wizard vs batman wizard argument.


Quote:

I didn't mention that because i don't want to drag the thread into a blaster wizard vs batman wizard argument.

Rabbit season!


leo1925 wrote:
Cibulan wrote:
leo1925 wrote:

First of all who told you that you can only have one archetype? They lied.

Second who told you that rangers can't be Face? They lied. Between 6+ skills, traits and favored enemy bonuses you can Face just fine with your 10 or lower CHA.
Also who told em a wizard's role is damage? They lied.
I didn't mention that because i don't want to drag the thread into a blaster wizard vs batman wizard argument.

Fair enough, but I think it is a telling statement about the OP's reference for the game. In AD&D wizards were big damage glass cannons. Back then a great wyrm had like 65 hp. The thief and the wizard were equal back then with their own niches, but this is Pathfinder and that mindset no longer holds.


The Kulak wrote:

Actually easier than you think. Round 1 is positioning, allowing both fighter and rogue 1 Attack.

From there, any 5 foot step taken by the target can be adjusted for by a 5 foot step by both fighter and rogue. And, damagewise, you have to keep in mind, that if Flanking is acheived, the rogue above gets (on average) 3-4 extra attacks at max BAB, and the Figter gets 2-3 extra attacks. Above all that, the attacks have a 30% chance of snowballing.

You can 5' step out of flanking. At least one of them will lose flanking on their attacks next round. Also, I think you are overestimating the number of attacks you will pick up from Outflank. A fighter isn't going to have more than a 30% chance of a critical, and using the curve blade you mentioned above will only have 3 attacks. That means less than 1 critical on average. The chance of your follow up being a critical is also 30% (less than 1 in 3), and with your base attack bonus you will only be confirming about 75% of those. I'm not saying it is a cool combo, I'm just saying I don't think 3-4 extra attacks is a reasonable assumption.

As to the Rogue's damage, I got 24.675 on the main hand, full-bab, and down from there. Seriously though, my mind is going fuzzy from too much math at this point. Lets just go with your number of 97.78 damage on an average round.

Anyway, here is a build that is as comparable to your as I could possible make it.

Arnie the Archeologist:
Human Bard (Archaeologist) 10
Identical Stats and feats.

His talents are "Weapon Finesse" and "Black Market Connections." Bleeding Attack and Underhanded wouldn't do anything for him. Opportunist is missed, but he can get it at level 12 if he really wants it.

He has identical bonuses on his skills to Kulak's character, but is a better lookout (since his bonus to Perception applies to everything, not just traps). He disarms traps twice as fast, and can open a lock as a standard action. Plus, he can always take 10 on Disable Device. He can't fast tumble yet, but you can grab that at level 12 if it is really important. He can use rounds of his luck, or keep heroism running for +2 (or +4 with both) to everything. He did lose out on a skill or two, since archaeologists don't get Versatile Performance. But otherwise, identical or superior at pretty much everything.

He has the same base attack routine as Kulak (+18/+18/+18/+13/+13), but when he spends a round getting haste it works on his whole party (and he can do it 4 times a day). He can use Archeologist's luck for +2 attack and damage, and can choose between Heroism (long term), Good Hope (medium term, but helps the party) or Dance of a Hundred Cuts (Short term, but a bit stronger).

His damage per round is very variable. 75ish with Luck and Dance of a Hundred Cuts, less with with heroism or Good Hope. This isn't even considering other weirdness he could pull with spells.

So he is dishing out about 25% less raw damage. But then, his haste works on the whole party (as would Good Hope, and other buffs), and his attack rolls are much higher (aiding in critical-snowballing). One extra hit from a fighter thanks to these, and they are even. In exchange, he gets the versatile Archaeologists Luck, bard spellcasting, a much better will save, and superior trap finding and disarming. And he loses out on far less when alone, or not flanking.

So do you see why people talk badly about the Rogue? This is with a very sub-optimal build, designed entirely to mimic the your rogue's exact abilities. Yet he can do pretty much everything a Rogue can, and quite a bit more. I like Rogues in theory, but in practice basically any "Rogue" concept can be pulled off better by something other than a straight Rogue. Often, involving no Rogue at all. That is disappointing, and I would love to see some stronger pro-Rogue feats, talents, or archetypes to maybe balance things out.


CptKracker wrote:
I believe that their are not enough skill oriented encounters in games just because people are playing video games and the only thing video games do well is the hack and slash which intern pigeon holes us into wanting hack and slash.

No.


The Kulak wrote:


From there, any 5 foot step taken by the target can be adjusted for by a 5 foot step by both fighter and rogue.

That's why in that situation you move more than 5 feet.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:


You can 5' step out of flanking by going diagonally.

(Nitpick) Fighter and Rogue both take 5' diagonal step to re-flank.

Quote:


Also, I think you are overestimating the number of attacks you will pick up from Outflank. A fighter isn't going to have more than a 30% chance of a critical, and using the curve blade you mentioned above will only have 3 attacks. That means less than 1 critical on average.

Opportunist gives an extra attack on a non crit, so presumably the fighter spawns 2 attacks for the rogue. The rogue total attack is now 7, 30% of which will crit, creating a little more than 2 attacks for the fighter, which (statistically, considering the rogue has one extra attack left over from the seven) has a good chance of causing one more attack for the rogue. From there it trails off infinitely (capped at max AOOs) at a return of 9% chance that any attack you take will let you take another.

For everything else.

I see your point. That's.... depressing. I haven't investigated the archetypes enough to see how much crossover there is, but from what you've shown, it's clear that other classes can mimic almost all of the rogues abilities. The only thing I would defend the rogue with is the rate of damage potential increase, where at level 19, the rogue is dishing out 6-7 attacks by himself, with AOO's to fill out the rest at 10d8 easily resulting in hundreds of damage.

But you are correct, the rogue concept seems to be pulled off by other classes very easily. (not to mention, I'm completely befuddled when I can't crit).

Well, lemme switch forums and go jump on the "BUFF ROGUES!!!!" train.


Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
The Kulak wrote:

Actually easier than you think. Round 1 is positioning, allowing both fighter and rogue 1 Attack.

From there, any 5 foot step taken by the target can be adjusted for by a 5 foot step by both fighter and rogue. And, damagewise, you have to keep in mind, that if Flanking is acheived, the rogue above gets (on average) 3-4 extra attacks at max BAB, and the Figter gets 2-3 extra attacks. Above all that, the attacks have a 30% chance of snowballing.

You can 5' step out of flanking by going diagonally. Also, I think you are overestimating the number of attacks you will pick up from Outflank. A fighter isn't going to have more than a 30% chance of a critical, and using the curve blade you mentioned above will only have 3 attacks. That means less than 1 critical on average. The chance of your follow up being a critical is also 30% (less than 1 in 3), and with your base attack bonus you will only be confirming about 75% of those. I'm not saying it is a cool combo, I'm just saying I don't think 3-4 extra attacks is a reasonable assumption.

As to the Rogue's damage, I got 24.675 on the main hand, full-bab, and down from there. Seriously though, my mind is going fuzzy from too much math at this point. Lets just go with your number of 97.78 damage on an average round.

Anyway, here is a build that is as comparable to your as I could possible make it.
** spoiler omitted **...

Drop Black Market, grab combat trick. Pick up one of the current feats you have from that.

Replace with Arcane Strike for +3 damage per attack. Or even Discordant Voice to get +1d6 sonic damage per attack.

Or drop Combat Expertise to get both, for +6.5 average damage per attack.


The Kulak wrote:
Opportunist gives an extra attack on a non crit, so presumably the fighter spawns 2 attacks for the rogue. The rogue total attack is now 7, 30% of which will crit, creating a little more than 2 attacks for the fighter, which (statistically, considering the rogue has one extra attack left over from the seven) has a good chance of causing one more attack for the rogue. From there it trails off infinitely (capped at max AOOs) at a return of 9% chance that any attack you take will let you take another.
PFSRD wrote:

Opportunist (Ex)

Prerequisite: Advanced talents

Benefit: Once per round, the rogue can make an attack of opportunity against an opponent who has just been struck for damage in melee by another character. This attack counts as an attack of opportunity for that round. Even a rogue with the Combat Reflexes feat can't use the opportunist ability more than once per round.

You mean this opportunist? That says directly you can only get one attack from this per round.


Kthulhu wrote:

I remember the good old days when barbarians were derided as the class that was criminally underpowered.

What exactly is AM BARBARIAN's record vs wizards, again?

:P

AM LIKE 10,000,000/0.5. BARBARIAN AM ALWAYS WINNER.


Kulak: Ya, I figured out I was being stupid. Already edited my post. But the point stands that whoever goes first is not going to be flanking in the next round. Also, you can't use Opportunist more than once a round.

And you don't get 30% of all your attacks as criticals. Against an average AC (24), you have a 75% chance of confirming on a full-BaB, and 50% on the lesser. That is, 22.5% criticals and 15% criticals. I'm not going to do math (since I appear to have recently lost all aptitude for it), but I think that is closer to 1 critical a round on average.

This isn't that important, though. We are getting into more of an "Outflank is awesome" discussion than a Rogue argument. Since we already agree on Outflank being awesome, we aren't really getting to the heart of the issue.

Cheapy: I was going for as close-to-identical of a build as I could. But yes, there are tons of feats the Bard can take to bump up the damage.

EDIT: And welcome to the Buff Rogues train, Kulak! Make sure to take advantage of the free bottled water, as our frothing rage can really dry a person out.

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Can we please look at Rogues as a puzzle piece? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.