RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If I knew how to do the thing you did for this... wow. Ok, I'll try to learn and do it also.
When you edit one of your characters' profile, there's a big text field where you can type a description. It accepts the same code tags as a regular messageboard post, so you can do spoilers or quotes or whatever. That's all it is.
Rogues are great to play when you have GM that plays to their abilities. It's much like a Ranger is fun to play if the GM provide them with their favored terrain and enemy. Or the Paladin who has targets to smite, I've seen games where the Paladin ends up so frustrated because every BBEG is CN or an actual evil targets are lower CR monsters in great numbers. It's just seem much easier to ignore the rogues features though and that force the rogue to be more of fighter than a rogue.
Man, this is one of my favorite topics and I can't even bring about the effort to discuss this. I've done it too many times before.
The rogue's role is Skill Monkey. This doesn't mean that the skill monkey role can only be filled by the Rogue class. Lots of other classes can fill this role to varying degrees. The debate is do you really need a rogue class anymore. You want sneak attack, pick an alchemist since they sneak attack better than rogues with the Vivisectionist archetype combined with mutagens. Sneaking, pick a ranger they sneak just as good a rogue outside their favored terrain, I argue fast stealth here though. Traps can be done by an Urban Ranger or Detective bard. Some valid arguments here but this what gets people debating the issue sometimes less civil than others.
The ranger that makes traps can also handle disabling them. It does have to give up spells, but for those that really don't like multiclassing or want to keep the class feature that urban rangers give up it is an there as an option.
|
If I knew how to do the thing you did for this... wow. Ok, I'll try to learn and do it also.When you edit one of your characters' profile, there's a big text field where you can type a description. It accepts the same code tags as a regular messageboard post, so you can do spoilers or quotes or whatever. That's all it is.
Ok - I updated one of my characters - but how do I post it so you can link to it? let's see if this works
A lot of people think that being a jack of all trades is a good strength in a party. It's not when everyone can cover the roles you can and do them better than you. The only think rogues are better at than every other class is trapping finding and disabling. However here's the thing, half of traps can be activated summons. Others you can even avoid. So there's no real purpose for the rogue because he doesn't do anything well. As for whoever said less skills made them less powerful are wrong. That makes it easier to cover skills. Also if you're justifying that a rogue can do good damage by comparing yourself to a chain tripper fighter you're delusional. You know what's a memorable character? One that did something effectively.
A lot of people think that being a jack of all trades is a good strength in a party. It's not when everyone can cover the roles you can and do them better than you. The only think rogues are better at than every other class is trapping finding and disabling. However here's the thing, half of traps can be activated summons. Others you can even avoid. So there's no real purpose for the rogue because he doesn't do anything well. As for whoever said less skills made them less powerful are wrong. That makes it easier to cover skills. Also if you're justifying that a rogue can do good damage by comparing yourself to a chain tripper fighter you're delusional. You know what's a memorable character? One that did something effectively.
I think the problem is that most people look at the rogue and think they can cover all of the based that the rogue performs, and do it great. They're not. Rogues are a versatile class that yes, while they can cover a lot of bases, really shine when you select one or two of the many varied things they can do, and focus on that. You can't sit there and spread yourself like butter spread too thin over a whole loaf of bread, when you can get the prefect amount of butter on a single slice rather than wasting it over the entire loaf.
Also, my earlier post was to help out those rogues who are more focused on combat. Not every talent is for everyone, but they fit the situation you may find your roguish self in at the time you select them. As is, like I said, probably my most successful rogue character was one that decided to set up his Sneak Attack to not only make the opponent bleed, but utilized poison, heavy usage of Criticals, and heavy usage out of Improved and Greater Trip. Trip an opponent, it provokes, stab with the rapier. He gets up, use one of your AoOs to trip him, and another to smack him again! Cheap? Hell yes! Do I care? Hell no, I'm a freaking rogue!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people think that being a jack of all trades is a good strength in a party. It's not when everyone can cover the roles you can and do them better than you. The only think rogues are better at than every other class is trapping finding and disabling. However here's the thing, half of traps can be activated summons. Others you can even avoid. So there's no real purpose for the rogue because he doesn't do anything well. As for whoever said less skills made them less powerful are wrong. That makes it easier to cover skills. Also if you're justifying that a rogue can do good damage by comparing yourself to a chain tripper fighter you're delusional. You know what's a memorable character? One that did something effectively.there are so many possible replies I don't even know where to start.
Yes, for any one build you can find another build better. this would be true for any class. Let's take a rogue one.
Trapfinding/disable. My 5th level character (Rogue 4/wiz 1) rolls twice for trap location - once just for being within 10 feet.
So when the messanger hands the urban ranger a scroll - the rogue takes it from the ranger before he opens it and say's "don't read this - it's trapped." Auto roll, but I always take 10 (result 30). If the rogues actively looking I take 10 and also roll once - just to keep the Judges happy (they like to hear the dice rolling I think).for Disableing traps. I roll once at the start of my turn and set that dice aside. Think about it.... is it good enough for a disable? yes - ok go ahead and disable device (+15+magic (at least +1 for guidance)) and I have to miss by 10 to set it off.
Can someone build a better trapsmith not using a Rogue for a base? Sure! after all I was trying to do more than one thing. And I know I could have done better! (Skill focus perception, raise the WIS, Goggles of Min. Seeing, etc).
I also wanted my rogue to be able to surprise the BBE and give him 12d6+extras damage before anyone else goes. In addition to...
Archaeologist gets that rogue talent too, always takes 10 on disable device, can get it as a class skill with one of the PFS faction traits, (not that it's strictly necessary) and gets the full bard spell list.
Rogues kind of suck, especially when they start to fall behind in BAB. Better to play a Ranger and write in "rogue" on your sheet if it makes you feel better.
stuff from Black Lantern.Stuff from me...
Can someone build a better trapsmith not using a Rogue for a base? Sure! after all I was trying to do more than one thing. And I know I could have done better! (Skill focus perception, raise the WIS, Goggles of Min. Seeing, etc).
more stuff from me
...
Archaeologist gets that rogue talent too, always takes 10 on disable device, can get it as a class skill with one of the PFS faction traits, (not that it's strictly necessary) and gets the full bard spell list.and your point is?
By the way, what's his perception at level 5? (my rogues is +20 normally) and his disable device (my rogues is +16, but I normally add a Guidance and I get to pre-roll and decide if I want to take it, but that's a Wiz ability)? Not that it really matters, my Cha is 7 so I'll never be a Bard!....Lol
No one is talking about replicating just one function of a rogue. Of course that would be a waste of time to argue. What we're arguing is that ANY combination of roles that a rogue can be built for can be built for better with other classes (bard, for the most part, or ranger) and that furthermore the spells that these classes get are NOT part of what replaces the rogue -- they are BONUSES above and beyond what the rogue can do.
Now, it may be hard to do at extremely low levels, but by level 7 the competition is over, and the rogue loses.
and your point is?
By the way, what's his perception at level 5? (my rogues is +20 normally) and his disable device (my rogues is +16, but I normally add a Guidance and I get to pre-roll and decide if I want to take it, but that's a Wiz ability)? Not that it really matters, my Cha is 7 so I'll never be a Bard!....Lol
That is easy, without even knowing the build. +20. Seriously, the only ability Rogues get that increases perception is trapfinding, which Urban Rangers also get and Archaeologist Bards get a superior version of. With the same stats, race and feats they are going to have the same bonus. You seem to already recognize that a dip into a Foresight Diviner is pretty much irrelevant. I mean, anyone else can choose to do the same thing, so it is irrelevant to a discussion about what a rogue offers that other classes don't. It is awesome fun though (oh hey, I have a critical this round! I draw my scythe and...).
It isn't that Rogues are stupid or awful, it is just that the majority of roles you could choose to carve out for yourself are done better by other classes. Archetypes like Urban Ranger and Archaeologist have exacerbated this problem by making it even easier for other classes to crowd in. Especially the Archaeologist, which lets you grab the choice talents that would otherwise make Rogues unique. Using those classes and calling yourself a "Rogue" will make you a more powerful, capable "Rogue" than the class that bears that name.
Seriously, I love the Rogue. I love two-weapon knife fighters and charming scoundrels and the two or so literary rogues I recognized from that list upthread. The point of the "Rogue sucks" crowd, at least from my perspective, isn't to call people jerks for playing Rogues. It is to argue for a little more Rogue love in future content, to bring our sneaky, stabby friends up to the level of other classes. It happened for monks, it can happen here too.
|
|
Rogues kind of suck, especially when they start to fall behind in BAB. Better to play a Ranger and write in "rogue" on your sheet if it makes you feel better.rolls eyes... yeah, sure.
No eye rolling necessary. If you want a trapsmith that isn't terrible at other stuff, Urban Ranger or Archaeologist.
Perception score, let's see.
Half-Elf Bard 5 (Archaeologist)
Str 16 (+3), Dex 14 (+2), Con 14 (+2), Int 10 (+0), Wis 12 (+1), Cha 14 (+2)
Feats Skill Focus: Perception, Extra Performance, Nimble Moves, Arcane Strike
Skills Acrobatics +6, Bluff +6, Diplomacy +6, Disable Device +12, Knowledge (all) +6, Perception +16, Perform (Comedy) +6, Use Magic Device +10
So no, I didn't make it up to +20 Perception, but taking 10 for 26 is pretty okay I think. In one level he'll be able to take 10 on disable device checks no matter what, and he can use archaeologist's luck to give himself a +2 to any skill check or attack 10 rounds/day. He has of course taken the rogue talent to alert him to traps when within 10 feet.
Also, this character's player has taken a bright red crayon and written 'ROGUE' on the top of his sheet. Keeps everyone happy.
and your point is?
By the way, what's his perception at level 5? (my rogues is +20 normally) and his disable device (my rogues is +16, but I normally add a Guidance and I get to pre-roll and decide if I want to take it, but that's a Wiz ability)? Not that it really matters, my Cha is 7 so I'll never be a Bard!....LolThat is easy, without even knowing the build. +20. Seriously, the only ability Rogues get that increases perception is trapfinding, which Urban Rangers also get and Archaeologist Bards get a superior version of. With the same stats, race and feats they are going to have the same bonus. You seem to already recognize that a dip into a Foresight Diviner is pretty much irrelevant. I mean, anyone else can choose to do the same thing, so it is irrelevant to a discussion about what a rogue offers that other classes don't. It is awesome fun though (oh hey, I have a critical this round! I draw my scythe and...).
It isn't that Rogues are stupid or awful, it is just that the majority of roles you could choose to carve out for yourself are done better by other classes. Archetypes like Urban Ranger and Archaeologist have exacerbated this problem by making it even easier for other classes to crowd in. Especially the Archaeologist, which lets you grab the choice talents that would otherwise make Rogues unique. Using those classes and calling yourself a "Rogue" will make you a more powerful, capable "Rogue" than the class that bears that name.
Seriously, I love the Rogue. I love two-weapon knife fighters and charming scoundrels and the two or so literary rogues I recognized from that list upthread. The point of the "Rogue sucks" crowd, at least from my perspective, isn't to call people jerks for playing Rogues. It is to argue for a little more Rogue love in future content, to bring our sneaky, stabby friends up to the level of other classes. It happened for monks, it can happen here too.
That last paragraph is 100% accurate for me. I love rogues just like I love monks. Those classes just happened to be at the bottom of the ladder in terms of usefulness to a party, and while the monk got lots of help from the Ultimates, the rogue is still languishing alone at the bottom. I'm not in these topics in order to laugh at people for gimping themselves by playing rogues. I want to see the weakness of the class corrected.
Those classes just happened to be at the bottom of the ladder in terms of usefulness to a party, and while the monk got lots of help from the Ultimates, the rogue is still languishing alone at the bottom
Perhaps in the future we shall see an "Ultimate Skill" or some such book, pertaining to a lot of the things our stab-happy little sneakers can do, and make them better? I certainly would like to think so...
|
|
Sorry folks. not seeing it that way. I play rogues, I play other classes. When I want to "rogue" I play the Rogue class. When I want to heal, I play the Cleric class. When I want to "face", I play a bard. When I want to skill monkey I play... normally a Wizard which might seem strange but that's what I do.
And yeah, I play a lot at lower levels. I like to play my characters up from level 1. I like to build them. In PFSOP every character I have has been level 1. Many have been levels 2 thru 4. Some have been higher. I find it bothersome to play with a person who keeps telling me how good his character will be ... in 4 or 5 levels. You know, the "just 3 more feats" guy.
Can you out rogue the rogue with a selected build at a selected level. I would hope so. Can you out fight the fighter? or spell the wizard? out cleric the cleric? or Heck, out Face the Face? I would hope so, with selected builds at selected levels. Can you do it at every level, every time, in every way, all the time. No.
Show me a build that you feel out does a Rogue, at being a rogue, at levels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. same build at each please. The reason I pick those levels, is because every 6+ level character unless he is an NPC, went thru those to get to 6+.
When I set at a table and ask - "What's everyone running?" and someone says "play what you want!" and I say "I want to play something that is not at this table, do we have a cleric?, a face?, A Max Damage guy?, Arcane? a Rogue?" if someone answers yes to all that... but it's never happened yet. At level 4 to 6 I have a Armored Cleric, a Trapsmith Rogue, and a Face Bard. I play them all, I enjoy them all, I feel they all fill a need in the parties they run in.
** spoiler omitted **...
All clerics are healers! All fighters are meatshields! All rogues are trapbusters! All bards are faces!
This opinion is archaic.
Sorry folks. not seeing it that way. I play rogues, I play other classes. When I want to "rogue" I play the Rogue class. When I want to heal, I play the Cleric class. When I want to "face", I play a bard. When I want to skill monkey I play... normally a Wizard which might seem strange but that's what I do.
And yeah, I play a lot at lower levels. I like to play my characters up from level 1. I like to build them. In PFSOP every character I have has been level 1. Many have been levels 2 thru 4. Some have been higher. I find it bothersome to play with a person who keeps telling me how good his character will be ... in 4 or 5 levels. You know, the "just 3 more feats" guy.
Can you out rogue the rogue with a selected build at a selected level. I would hope so. Can you out fight the fighter? or spell the wizard? out cleric the cleric? or Heck, out Face the Face? I would hope so, with selected builds at selected levels. Can you do it at every level, every time, in every way, all the time. No.
Show me a build that you feel out does a Rogue, at being a rogue, at levels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. same build at each please. The reason I pick those levels, is because every 6+ level character unless he is an NPC, went thru those to get to 6+.
When I set at a table and ask - "What's everyone running?" and someone says "play what you want!" and I say "I want to play something that is not at this table, do we have a cleric?, a face?, A Max Damage guy?, Arcane? a Rogue?" if someone answers yes to all that... but it's never happened yet. At level 4 to 6 I have a Armored Cleric, a Trapsmith Rogue, and a Face Bard. I play them all, I enjoy them all, I feel they all fill a need in the parties they run in.
I play most of my characters from level 1, also. In fact, it's been at least 4 years since I've played a character that started at anything higher than level 1. I have a trapper ranger that's level 2 right now that is as good a combatant, dungeoneer, scout, and trapbuster as a rogue. The player in the group that was going to play a rogue actually scrapped his character and rolled a paladin after he saw how completely my character replaced him. (He actually knew that I was playing a trapper, but rolled a rogue anyway, because he also thought a non-rogue couldn't measure up.) As levels progress, he will stay just as good a scout, dungeoneer, and trapbuster (even better when in favored terrains) as a rogue while becoming easily the better combatant. A friend of mine is running an arcane duelist bard in another game that at level 5 (started at level 4) is as good a face as the rogue could ever expect to be while also being a better combatant with spells just being the icing on the cake.
And I'm sorry, but level 6 is not some distant future that will never be. A DM that provides appropriate level challenges on a regular basis will get his players there rather quickly, in fact. If I had instead been talking about level 16 or 17 characters, then you would have a point, but I just don't see one as it is.
Furthermore, to most players, being great during the first small slice of the game is not worth being progressively further behind the power curve as the game progresses.
Show me a build that you feel out does a Rogue, at being a rogue, at levels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. same build at each please. The reason I pick those levels, is because every 6+ level character unless he is an NPC, went thru those to get to 6+.
The problem is, you really need to say what kind of Rogue you want an equivalent build to. A charismatic, swashbuckling duelist is likely to be an Bard, while a sneaky loner who is deadly in a fight would be a Ranger. Just saying "Rogue" doesn't really give enough information to work on.
I know if I post something - someone can point at some build that is better in some way. I want to be the responder for a while, rather than haveing to justify my character against critics.
But that is our point. It is not that one class or build does everything a Rogue could theoretically do. It is that, for whatever job a rogue chooses (be it a specialist, jack-of-all-trades, or what have you), another class is likely going to be able to fill the same role, and be better at it. While I could make a 5th level character that could compete with a given 5th level Rogue, I cannot make a 5th level character that competes with every conceivable 5th level Rogue.
Mort's got it.
There is literally nothing nothing a rogue has over another class. Except for a few extra skill points.
Even in terms of roleplay I can easily pick another class and play it like a rogue.
A shifty pickpocket or thief? An urban ranger with favored enemy (common humanoid race) so now all my rolls to oppose them are better.
A deadly poisonous assassin? Vivisectionist alchemist.
Terrible brutish thug? Brawler archetype fighter, urban barbarian, urban ranger (again).
A master dungeoneer? Urban druid, Cryptbreaker alchemist, archaeologist.
A master of stealth and trickery? Bard, Wizard, Trickery Domain Cleric, Ranger, Druid, Ninja and Alchemist (again).
That's the issue there's nothign a rogue does that can't be done ebtter by another class. In fact all their unique features without exception are stolen by other classes.
So a rogue that specializes in something is matched by other classes, and the other classes have extra stuff that contributes more. A rogue that goes for jack-of-all trades gets outdone by several bard archetypes.
You got it.
The only thing that can save the rogue is his talents and sadly they are all sorely lacking. Compare them to say Alchemist Discoveries or Gunslinger deeds or Magus arcanas or Rage powers or ninja tricks and you quickly see a discrepancy of power and use.
I think that the fundamental problem with Rogues is this:
As far as D&D/PF since 3.0 is concerned - the Rogue is a life support system for sneak attack damage.
Sneak attack damage is highly conditional, unreliable and, unfortunately, a core element of anything called a Rogue.
Since this class feature is unavoidable, everything else that might get strapped onto a rogue concept is nerfed because of the existence of SA. No matter what kind of rogue you might envision, their ability to be the most awesome face, the most awesome McGuyver, the most awesome stealth machine, most awesome whatever is going to be limited by the assumption that you can't make them too awesome at it, or else they'll be overpowered because of the ever-growing threat of SA damage.
If you could uncouple SA from the rogue, then designers would be free to make rogues awesome-r at other things, making them the best there is at this, that or the other.
Until then, all rogues are going to be pretty good at a bunch of things, and have SA damage.
I think that the fundamental problem with Rogues is this:
As far as D&D/PF since 3.0 is concerned - the Rogue is a life support system for sneak attack damage.
Sneak attack damage is highly conditional, unreliable and, unfortunately, a core element of anything called a Rogue.
Since this class feature is unavoidable, everything else that might get strapped onto a rogue concept is nerfed because of the existence of SA. No matter what kind of rogue you might envision, their ability to be the most awesome face, the most awesome McGuyver, the most awesome stealth machine, most awesome whatever is going to be limited by the assumption that you can't make them too awesome at it, or else they'll be overpowered because of the ever-growing threat of SA damage.
If you could uncouple SA from the rogue, then designers would be free to make rogues awesome-r at other things, making them the best there is at this, that or the other.
Until then, all rogues are going to be pretty good at a bunch of things, and have SA damage.
Well I think one way might simply be to fix sneak attack.
I think the developers went a long way in that direction by increasing the list fo sneakable targets by a lot. But it cna go further.
I say remove the dice element entirely from them. Instead have them do extra damage in this situation in the form of a static number. This makes the situation that causes the sneak attack much much more lethal and justifies there "glass jaw" status.
More than that it makes critical hits worthwhile for them since the static number will also be increased. Then you can actually add a mechanic at say level 5 that allows them to double the dmage they do ina sneak attack maybe once a day.
I think it's fixable. It's jsut backwards compatibility that held them back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's fixable. It's jsut backwards compatibility that held them back.
They did, to an extent. It is called the ninja. Much more powerful talents and great versatility in "Forgotten Trick," ki to give them a bit of a boost when they need it, and other odds and ends. A Ninja with the Rogue weapon set and trapfinding instead of Poison Use would go a long way to making the class more useful, if still having to compete with damn Urban Rangers and Archaeologists.
Frankly, talents on the level of tricks, discoveries, or rage powers combined with your idea of fixed sneak attack (or at least multipliable sneak attack) would get us most of the way. Add in ways to get sneak attacks a bit more easily (such as feinting tricks that don't take all your feats) to go with the ki pool and other ninja goodies, and we can call it a day.
This is how i see it.
1) The game is at least 3/4's combat. You may have some funny campaign where you're trying to survive in castle heterodyne or keep up with Indiana jones but lets face it, the game has a very large component where you spend time trying to hit something in the face with a pointy object.
You do not get a sneak attack every time. You do not get a full attack every time. You do not get full sneak attacks often. People spend far too much time moving around the battlemat for that.
If the rogue is subpar for combat then they're subpar for 3/4 of the game.
2) The way the rogue is supposed to work does not mesh with the need to play with others.
It doesn't matter how stealthy Lightfoot is. When Sir clanks a lot comes down the hall every monster ini the dungeon knows he's coming. You can build a stealth party... but you probably wont.
The idea of sticking and moving: spending a round to duck into the shadows and pop back out the next round would be fine.. if you were the only one fighting. However while a rogue is spending their action setting up for the next shot, he barbarian/alchemist/fighter spends that round being hit in the face and hitting back in return.
3) Stealth works fine against humans. Most things you're killing are not human. The stealther needs to get through open areas that are, to him, dark and shadowy, but are to the things he's sneaking up on, lit as bright as day.
4) Skill consolidation hurt the rogue.
In 3.5 you needed 8 skill points for spot, listen, search, open locks, disable device, hide, move silently, jump, and tumble.
Now you need perception, disable device, stealth, and acrobatics. 4 SP per level will get you the basics. Anything else is gravy.
5) The new cross class skill rules hurt the rogue.
in 3.5 The difference between a 10th level rogue with maxed out perception and the fighter with maxed out perception was 5. In pathfinder its 3, unless...
6) .. traits destroyed the rogue's skill supremacy
In addition to weakening the class vs cross class, traits opened up pretty much any skill to be a class skill. Anyone can snag perception and disable device and take over trap finding duties. Clerics and druids can do this better than the rogue at trap spotting for quite some time because their wisdom bonus surpases the rogues trapfinding bonus.
7) Spamable detect magic killed the magic trap.
A magic trap now comes with a built in giant neon sign.
|
|
sorry guys, got pulled away and now it is my bed time. (the silly rogue guy nosig here - this is one of my current rogues > a Trapsmith/sniper.
As to a character to push against - try not to cut up Twee to much, I'm kind of fond of him. Remember, he's not a face, just a Trapsmith with a touch of scout. Most of the build just sort of grew, and I like him the way he is.
If you're looking to give a new wrinkle to rogues - let them steal other characters stuff. You know, steal a wizards spells, a fighters combat feats, a clerics link to his god. They grew out of a thief afterall.
On a side note, does anyone besides me remember that Bards originally were Fighter/Thieves? if I remember right they started life as Fighters, and at 3rd level or so switched to thief and went to 4th or 5th as Thief (7th+ total level) before they started training with Druids (where the current Bard gets his healing from, where it is decended from I mean). Back then it took a long time to build a Bard.
sorry guys, got pulled away and now it is my bed time. (the silly rogue guy nosig here - this is one of my current rogues > a Trapsmith/sniper.
As to a character to push against - try not to cut up Twee to much, I'm kind of fond of him. Remember, he's not a face, just a Trapsmith with a touch of scout. Most of the build just sort of grew, and I like him the way he is.
If you're looking to give a new wrinkle to rogues - let them steal other characters stuff. You know, steal a wizards spells, a fighters combat feats, a clerics link to his god. They grew out of a thief afterall.
On a side note, does anyone besides me remember that Bards originally were Fighter/Thieves? if I remember right they started life as Fighters, and at 3rd level or so switched to thief and went to 4th or 5th as Thief (7th+ total level) before they started training with Druids (where the current Bard gets his healing from, where it is decended from I mean). Back then it took a long time to build a Bard.
Rogues don't really need to take roles from other classes as much as they need to be better at the things that they already do (combat especially). Trapfinding and sneak attack do not a viable class make.
2) From the fluff pont of view, and despite all archetypes you may want to throw at me, the average Joe has normally somethin in his mind when building a rogue that pretty much more or less only fits in a Rogue. Examples:- Kheldar of Drasnia (Chronicles of Belgarath asf) is no bard
- Tasselhof Burfoot (Dragonlance) only fits in a Rogue
- Even Thom Merrilin (the Wheel of Time) fits better in a Rogue with perform skills than in a bard's skin.
- In the latter series you could also "build" Mat Cauthon with a rogue character.
- Arya Stark (A song of...) has the feeling o a rogue
- So has Varys the spider and LittlefingerAll these characters have something in common: they are pretty damn memorable. The "rogue role" is usually one of the most popular in fantasy series.
I don't usually copy characters from fantasy when building a PC, but it's true that some inspiration derives from literature, graphic art, films asf and IMHO in the very root of Roleplaying (hence the name) lies the act of giving life to somebody of your imagination.
Excuse the length but I'm not able to express myself in english more concisely...
This.
Magic traps should be built with detect magic in mind. Stop thinking about them as reliant on short-ranged alarm when they can rely on detect magic themselves and be wrapped in lead plates for the exposed parts.
It's mighty stupid of a trap builder to have the traps easily detectable UNLESS it serves some particular purpose.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So I've peen pondering this topic a bit since last I was online...
I wonder if rogues might be better in PFS than they are in APs or home games. The reason is that versatility is worth more in PFS.
See, some people have been saying that being a "jack of all trades" isn't that helpful because for each "trade", there's someone else doing it better - the base is already covered. But in PFS, you never know who you'll be with (unless you have a pretty darn small local PFS scene). I've played at a table that had 3 barbarians and a paladin (plus my fighter); a table with 2 rogues, a ninja, a barbarian, a cavalier and a ranger; a table with a bard, 2 rogues, a wizard, something else and my fighter... I've also GM'd a table with 3 monks, a paladin and a ranger.
The point is, in PFS, you might spend one adventure with no healing outside of potions and wands, another with no arcane caster, another with no tank, etc. Thus, having a character (like my rogue, J.J.) who can be a reasonable tank, or use skills without magical assistance, etc will help those random holes be less of an issue.
A laser-focused character will do great when he lands in a well-rounded party. When he shows up next week and plays with two other clones of himself, well, not so much.
Now, there's still the "bards can be better jacks-of-all-trades" issue, but to be honest, I have yet to meet such a bard. The theoretical possibility exists, but usually if someone builds a bard (at least, in my experience) they're not building it to replace a rogue. They're building it to be a bard.
Anyway - I'd still like to see a eharacter build that is valid for PFSOP that is better than a rogue in, let's say the following.
1) trap Detection
2) trap disable (and open locks)
3) stealthy killing of an orc guard outside a tunnel entrance.
4) climbing
5) Slight of Hand concealment of his primary melee weapon
6) Ledge walking (Acrobatics)oh, and just to make this guy a party kind of guy he needs to be able to aid another at least 50% of the time to all of the above and the following:
1) Gather Info (either Kn-Local or Diplomacy, prefer both).
2) Disguise.
3) Detecting or creating a forged document.The character build needs to be the best when compared to rogue built for the above at 1st level, 2nd level, 3rd level etc. up thru 6th which is half the life of a PFS character (and the first half). At 1 game every two weeks that would be (ah... 18 games? yeah thru 6th) aprox. 9 months of play.
sound good? Match him against Twee if you want.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Hay Jiggy! did you check out Twee?
I did. Forgive me, but he seems a tad... cliche' for my taste. He does look to be good at what he does, though. :)
I think your JJ is kind of cool, more of a combat guy than my usual Rogue. Did you build him to be a climber from the start or did he just sort of fall into it?
The idea with J.J. is to be an "action man". Sort of a "special agent" kind of vibe - he is loyal to the decemvirate and is ready to face whatever challenges he encounters. He'll be sturdy in combat; able to climb, swim, tumble, balance, etc; he doesn't bother with lies or intimidation - he uses diplomacy on friendlies, and the blade on enemies.
As soon as he can afford it, he'll be getting a mithral breastplate to help his AC without burning a feat on proficiency. Also, he'll be taking the Strong Swimmer talent, so he can roll twice and take the better on every swim check he makes. After that is Peerless Maneuver, for a once/day Acrobatics reroll.
Basically, he serves the Society with single-minded determination; whatever obstacles you put in front of him, he'll overcome them. He won't be stopped.
sound good? Match him against Twee if you want
where's twee?
Hay Jiggy! did you check out Twee?I did. Forgive me, but he seems a tad... cliche' for my taste. He does look to be good at what he does, though. :)
I think your JJ is kind of cool, more of a combat guy than my usual Rogue. Did you build him to be a climber from the start or did he just sort of fall into it?The idea with J.J. is to be an "action man". Sort of a "special agent" kind of vibe - he is loyal to the decemvirate and is ready to face whatever challenges he encounters. He'll be sturdy in combat; able to climb, swim, tumble, balance, etc; he doesn't bother with lies or intimidation - he uses diplomacy on friendlies, and the blade on enemies.
As soon as he can afford it, he'll be getting a mithral breastplate to help his AC without burning a feat on proficiency. Also, he'll be taking the Strong Swimmer talent, so he can roll twice and take the better on every swim check he makes. After that is Peerless Maneuver, for a once/day Acrobatics reroll.
Basically, he serves the Society with single-minded determination; whatever obstacles you put in front of him, he'll overcome them. He won't be stopped.
Mithral changes the effective weight class for armor for everything BUT proficiency. You still need the feat if you don't wanna eat the penalty.