| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen a bit on these threads and it seems like two classes are always getting bashed: The Monk and the Rogue.
The Monk's got a bunch of threads about him already, but the Rogue seems to get a lot of hate and not much love, and I don't think that's right.
People complain that a rogue is invalid because he can't out-DPS a Barbarian even with sneak attack and they need special situations just to use it, but I say a. that thinking just shows you don't understand the rogue and b. they are much deadlier in upfront combat than you think. All you need is two-weapon feint for melee and Use Magic Device and a scroll of greater invisibility at range to do sneak attack damage with every hit, and that's 5-7 hits depending on feats taken and melee vs range, and that means a maximum of 300-420 damage a round with multiple attack feats.
Plus, even if you don't want to use the deadly strike talents to guarantee at least half-damage with each attack you can instead use each sneak attack to:
give yourself an insane AC bonus.
do -2 strength damage
give a general -2 to everything for 1d4 rounds
give them massive bleed damage, which coupled with a weapon of wounding is a lot of damage per round.
take away his ability to do all sorts of things (make attacks of opportunity, etc.)
Plus with variants like the thug and bandit you can add panicked, sickened and powerful intimidate checks on top of that.
If you're fighting in groups a rogue has assault leader, opportunist and redirect attack to take full advantage of small group tactics to decimate the enemy.
Yes I wish the rogue had less weaknesses, more archetypes and fewer requirements to do his stuff, but a rogue is supposed to be about using the battlefield to full advantage, using quick trapsmith and stealth to set up amazing ambushes, pulling assassinations before the fight even starts and, in the hands of a good player, that's exactly what he does.
The problem is that so many players and DMs think of encounters as just straight up fights (charge in, kill the enemy, move on) that they never give the rogue the chance to really shine. If you're jumping an elder dragon on a level, open map of course the fighter, wizard and barbarian will do better. But in groups, in the forest and especially in encounters where guerilla tactics are king or death effects must be hidden from, I say there's no one better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not hate. It's disappointment that the class does not live up to expectations.
Compounded, too, I think by the general acceptance of Ninja being actually fairly competitive by comparison, and actually being strait better than the rogue due to the Ninja getting access to almost everything a Rogue has, WITHOUT the reverse being true (no Advanced Ninja Trick rogue talent).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen a bit on these threads and it seems like two classes are always getting bashed: The Monk and the Rogue.
The Monk's got a bunch of threads about him already, but the Rogue seems to get a lot of hate and not much love, and I don't think that's right.
The difference is that Monks have received additional options in recent supplements that make them much stronger. They can now carve out a niche and excel, as opposed to working hard just to be average.
People complain that a rogue is invalid because he can't out-DPS a Barbarian even with sneak attack and they need special situations just to use it, but I say a. that thinking just shows you don't understand the rogue and b. they are much deadlier in upfront combat than you think. All you need is two-weapon feint for melee and Use Magic Device and a scroll of greater invisibility at range to do sneak attack damage with every hit, and that's 5-7 hits depending on feats taken and melee vs range, and that means a maximum of 300-420 damage a round with multiple attack feats.
The problem is, the Rogue isn't going to do more damage even with Two-Weapon Feint or burning an expensive scroll every combat. While the theoretical maximum damage is high, you about as likely to hit it as you are to roll straight 18's for stats. The average damage per d6 of sneak attack is 3.5, which substantially reduces your output. Further, because of their lower BaB and class-based ways to boost it, they are losing a lot of damage to misses. That doesn't even get into how rounds spend positioning or buffing negatively affect your average.
Plus, even if you don't want to use the deadly strike talents to guarantee at least half-damage with each attack you can instead use each sneak attack to:
Do you mean Deadly Sneak? If so, you really need to look up previous threads on it. Powerful Sneak reduces damage in nearly all circumstances, and Deadly Sneak gives a tiny average bonus at best. Going from 3.5 damage/die to 4 isn't that big of a boost, and the -2 to attack is a killer.
(A list of ability examples)
Rogues do have a few nice toys. The problem is, the majority of talents and archetypes are highly restricted, circumstantial, or not particularly beneficial to the Rogue. For example, Assault Leader would be pretty snazzy... if you could do it more than once a day. Opportunist is good, but you have to wait until level 10 and it still isn't going to bring your damage up to average. Taking away attacks of opportunity when you are already in position to sneak attack is circumstantial at best.
Yes I wish the rogue had less weaknesses, more archetypes and fewer requirements to do his stuff, but a rogue is supposed to be about using the battlefield to full advantage, using quick trapsmith and stealth to set up amazing ambushes,
Traps are weak and expensive, the Rogue is no better at stealth than anyone else, and is going to get killed trying to pull of an ambush. Unless you kill everyone while they are flat footed, a lone Rogue is simply not going to stand a chance against a level appropriate foe. A Ranger, meanwhile, can also lay traps, has actual abilities that make him better at sneaking, and stands a chance in a fight.
pulling assassinations before the fight even starts and, in the hands of a good player, that's exactly what he does.
What, exactly, makes a Rogue good at this? You need to get within 30' to use Sneak Attack, and unless you kill the enemy before it acts you are in deep trouble. A full BaB class can take down an enemy at the full range of a bow, and a wizard can do it from even farther.
The problem is that so many players and DMs think of encounters as just straight up fights (charge in, kill the enemy, move on) that they never give the rogue the chance to really shine. If you're jumping an elder dragon on a level, open map of course the fighter, wizard and barbarian will do better. But in groups, in the forest and especially in encounters where guerilla tactics are king or death effects must be hidden from, I say there's no one better.
There is an entirely unrelated argument to be made on this subject. Anyone, not just Rogues, that specializes in Stealthy, guerilla tactics is going to have trouble if the whole party isn't similarly inclined. Your +27 stealth check doesn't really matter when you are walking next to a Fighter in Full Plate, and going it alone is both boring for the other players and likely to get you killed. However, this is something that affects all such characters equally, not just Rogues.
There is also a final issue with the Rogue that you didn't mention: it has had its abilities sold to other classes too cheaply. Archaeologist Bard, Urban Ranger, and Vivisectionist Alchemist have all taken core Rogue abilities, and are better at them. Archaeologists get almost as many skills, better trapfinding, and magic and luck to boot. Urban Rangers have trapfinding, will have an insurmountable bonus over a Rogue in a single city campaign, and can fighter better. Vivisectionists can overcome their low attack bonus with extracts and mutagens, getting far more use out of Sneak Attack than a Rogue. Oh, and they won't be burning scrolls to get "Greater Invisibility" either. When you can choose one of these, why choose Rogue?
Look, I like Rogues too. So do most of the people bagging on them. They SHOULD be really good at a lot of things that you mentioned, and it is annoying that they aren't. The Pathfinder skill system changes eroded a lot of their specialness, and the low bar set for Talent power hasn't helped. That their archetypes are generally weaker than the base class just makes it worse. The point of complaining isn't to denigrate the Rogue, but to hopefully convince Paizo they can go a little further with the class in new material.
Or just get them to say "The Ninja now has trapfinding and will be called "Rogue." Enjoy." That would be good, too.
I'm the GM and what I see happening with rogues is sad. Not that I hate the rogue.
It's just the rogue has some glaring weaknesses. That alone isn't a problem but when you start allowing other classes to do the same job as the rogue it does pose a problem. Now having trap finding urban ranger is nice, I like options. Not every party needs a cleric nor should they need a rogue. The problem is the ranger has none of the rogues weaknesses. Sure they don't get sneak attack but favored enemy with full BAB, more hit points, bonus feats, and skill bonuses sure makes up for it. The detective bard also another option, same BAB/HD but spells and performances along with with all those skill bonuses. Then the ninja came out which is rogue but better all round.
Then you look at the rogue archetypes, most make the rogue worse off. Give up trap finding or uncanny dodge for a lesser ability in most cases. Also why is rogue archetypes could swap out other class features? Why not trade evasion for something, 1D6 Sneak attack or rogues talent for some other feature to make something really interesting?
Not to mention that a one level dip into Rogue means you can snag a whole heck of a lot of skill points and class skills, along with their coveted Trapfinding. A Bard with one level of Rogue strikes me as better than a straight up Rogue in terms of what it can do for the party both inside and outside of combat. A fighter with three rogue levels can snag evasion and a couple extra points of damage when flanking, which works pretty good if you are playing the Crossbowman archetype because you can get your sneak attack with prepared crossbow attacks; just pair with the vital strike feat line. As said above, the Ninja can grab and talents and advanced talents that strikes her fancy, which the rogue can only grab the regular ninja tricks that he might want. It just seems that the individual powers that the rogue has are too easy to get or to get through other classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never liked thieves and/or rogues.
In combat, they're usually mediocre fighters.
Out of combat, they usually specialize in single person jobs (e.g. scouting or disabling traps), so the rest of the party sits around while the rogue does his thing. Alone.
|
Not to mention that a one level dip into Rogue means you can snag a whole heck of a lot of skill points and class skills, along with their coveted Trapfinding. A Bard with one level of Rogue strikes me as better than a straight up Rogue in terms of what it can do for the party both inside and outside of combat. A fighter with three rogue levels can snag evasion and a couple extra points of damage when flanking, which works pretty good if you are playing the Crossbowman archetype because you can get your sneak attack with prepared crossbow attacks; just pair with the vital strike feat line. As said above, the Ninja can grab and talents and advanced talents that strikes her fancy, which the rogue can only grab the regular ninja tricks that he might want. It just seems that the individual powers that the rogue has are too easy to get or to get through other classes.
Every time I want to make a Rogue, I end up making a Fighter/Rogue, a Ninja, or an Urban Ranger. A Fighter/Rogue can beat a straight Rogue's DPR by a good amount, only lagging ever-so-slightly behind the straight Fighter's DPR, with many, many more skill points and access to Evasion any the key Rogue talents.
It looks like the last few books' worth of new talents and archetypes have attempted to re-establish Rogue as #1 skill monkey by giving them skill bonuses that make Stat + Ranks look lame (like adding 1/2 level to important skills like Bluff), but that still leaves them in the dust in a fight, and two Rogue levels is enough to score a talent as well as access to more talents by using the "Extra Talent" feat.
Fighter X/Rogue 2 or Fighter X/Rogue 4 is one of my favorite builds, because some talents grant combat feats, meaning I have as many feats as a Fighter, behind only one BAB, more skill points, Evasion, Trapfinding, a little sneak attack and I qualify for Extra Talent just in case there are any must haves for my character concept. Rogue is a fun class, but I feel kind of bad for any new players taught to think of the Rogue as a 20-level class. It's like the Fighter in 3.5, it's a class that excels at dipping but has little other use.
I would argue that a straight rogue is not that bad if played right, but I do agree that he needs more archetypes, better abilities and less restrictions.
I feel like the rogue was built for all-rogue games. If all you had were rogues you could use rogues to fill almost every party role and have all sorts of fun with diplomacy, ambushes, poisonings and other fun without anyone being left behind, plus have use for the more obscure rogue archetypes like roof runner and driver, and that's a kind of game I'd love to play.
In a mixed party, however, then yeah, Urban rangers and archeologists work better, as for the rogue to really shine he'd by necessity need to leave other party members behind, and in doing the tactics built for other party members the rogue ends up not using most of his really good abilities, and as a rogue-lover I hate that.
It seems all my points have already been made. I support the above post.
I think it is a fallacy to think the ninja exceeds the rogue. They really are extremely equal. The ninja gains ki more easily and has advanced tricks - but the rogue gets to use his "Extra Rogue Talent" feat to get far more ninja tricks than a ninja ever gets. Different. Not better or worse.
|
I'm a rogue, and I'm doing fine.
We rogues could probably use some boosting - there are a lot of valid points that have been brought up. However, I submit that a substantial portion (perhaps most) of the rogue's power deficit is the result of poor building.
For instance, people seem to want a rogue to simultaneously be a DPR monkey, a skill monkey, and a UMD monkey.
Too many monkeys!
A rogue can be a UMD monkey. He can be a DPR monkey (well, that one's debatable). He can be a skill monkey. But not all at the same time!
If you want a DPR monkey, dump CHA (sacrificing UMD) and leave INT and WIS low-ish to focus on STR with DEX and CON as secondaries. For talents, pick things like Weapon Training and Combat Trick. Now you're very like a fighter, only with the possibility of sneak attack and (even if you dump INT) more skills.
If you want a UMD monkey, you need a higher CHA (sacrificing stat points elsewhere) and to spend less money on armor/weapons.
If you want a skill monkey, you need higher INT and probably still decent CHA (depending on the skills you want).
Me? I'm a melee-capable action man who doesn't out-DPR a barbarian but can still hit for 1d8+3 at level 2 without sneak attack. Meanwhile, I can sneak, tumble, swim, or do anything else I need to overcome obstacles. In fact, I once climbed down a 150' cliff with my bare hands while being fly-by attacked by a pair of harpies and reached the ground in one piece. Show me the ranger who can do that at level 2!
Yes, the Urban Ranger and the Archaeologist Bard give me a run for my money. But focusing on a goal instead of trying to do everything really helps to close the gap.
For instance, people seem to want a rogue to simultaneously be a DPR monkey, a skill monkey, and a UMD monkey.
This is a misleading way to phrase things, because it implicitly suggests that those three things are equally useful. They're not. As long as a party has a few key skills distributed amongst them a "skill monkey" is unnecessary, whereas most games I've played in have pretty much required one or more competent damage-dealers.
I think it is a fallacy to think the ninja exceeds the rogue. They really are extremely equal. The ninja gains ki more easily and has advanced tricks - but the rogue gets to use his "Extra Rogue Talent" feat to get far more ninja tricks than a ninja ever gets. Different. Not better or worse.
The ki difference is not minor. A Ninja gets 1/2 level + CHA Ki, and can natively use it in a variety of ways. The Rogue can spend a talent to get a ki pool limited to WIS, with only one use (+10' movement) that is worse than the Ninja version of it (+20').
You are also overvaluing "Extra Rogue Talent." Sure, you can get more Ninja Talents than the Ninja, but the best ones require Ki (which you have a poor supply of). Additionally, many of the most common Rogue talents are ones that just give you feats! I can't recall ever seeing a Rogue build that made heavy of use of Extra Rogue Talent.
You are also forgetting No Trace and Light Steps. No Trace is far more useful than Trap Sense, and Light Steps is a unique ability the Rogue can't hope to replicate.
So no, not equal. Not an even close.
For instance, people seem to want a rogue to simultaneously be a DPR monkey, a skill monkey, and a UMD monkey.
Too many monkeys!
A rogue can be a UMD monkey. He can be a DPR monkey (well, that one's debatable). He can be a skill monkey. But not all at the same time!
The Rogue can focus, but is simply going to be worse in that niche than others. A DPR monkey will be flat out worse at their chosen field than a Ranger, and the same goes for the UMD monkey and the bard. As previously mentioned, "Skill Monkey" isn't really a thing anymore, especially with the Pathfinder skill system.
This is the problem: no niches in which the Rogue is the best, and not enough value (or talents and feats) for versatility to be a good option.
Ninja Trick (Ex)
Benefit: A rogue with this talent can choose a trick from the ninja trick list. The rogue can choose but cannot use talents that require ki points, unless she has a ki pool.
Special: A rogue can pick this talent more than once.
@ nicos A Rogue can take Ninja Trick more than once
@ Mort every rogue I have ever played always got good use out of trap sense. Most of the AP's have some sort of trap in them as well as many modules. As a GM I use traps no trap sense can be bad.
My problem with the Ninja vs Rogue argument is the need to blow of things like trap sense as a good useful ability. I've been in a tpk situation because no one had trap sense.
Both over lap the other, Rogues can do more with traps, Ninjas edge out in combat. Ninjas may be better if all you look at is combat roles. You want a trap springer then you go Rogue. Both make decent faces though most of my players have rogues fill that role because they want combat ninjas.
As far as other players taking face skills, over lapping skills is a good thing. Bluff, Diplomacy, Knowledges, Perception, and Sense Motive all can benefit from aid another and are important in gaining out of combat information. Other than Perception easily the most used skill in the game, the others listed above are often overlooked, mainly because everyone except Bards, Ninjas, Rogues, and Sorcerers tend to nerf Charisma.
|
|
For instance, people seem to want a rogue to simultaneously be a DPR monkey, a skill monkey, and a UMD monkey.This is a misleading way to phrase things, because it implicitly suggests that those three things are equally useful. They're not. As long as a party has a few key skills distributed amongst them a "skill monkey" is unnecessary, whereas most games I've played in have pretty much required one or more competent damage-dealers.
I agree. What I'm talking about is that people seem to want the rogue to be focused on all three (and sometimes more) all at once. For instance:
Them: "I want my rogue to be good at X."
Me: "Okay, do this and this."
Them: "But then I'm only average at Y!"
Me: "So...?"
Them: "Then it's not even a rogue anymore!"
I have 7 CHA. I'm trained in Diplomacy just in case, but that's it. I've gotten a lot of criticism for that choice, because people think if I can't bluff at +7 or use UMD then I'm "not a rogue".
People have even balked at my having STR over 12, then complained about the rogue's DPR.
That's what I'm talking about.
I agree. What I'm talking about is that people seem to want the rogue to be focused on all three (and sometimes more) all at once.For instance, people seem to want a rogue to simultaneously be a DPR monkey, a skill monkey, and a UMD monkey.This is a misleading way to phrase things, because it implicitly suggests that those three things are equally useful. They're not. As long as a party has a few key skills distributed amongst them a "skill monkey" is unnecessary, whereas most games I've played in have pretty much required one or more competent damage-dealers.
And I'm saying that I wouldn't have a problem with having a PC focused on all three at once, because the last two aren't really very important (in my experience).
I will say though, that while it would focus your character so much they'd have problems in other ways, it is nice that the rogue can do some other-class specific things better than those classes.
For instance, gain more favored terrains than a ranger at bigger bonuses. You'd have to have a pretty specific campaign, but there must be some benefit to having 10 favored terrains and +20 bonus to everything in your main one.
I agree that it's all in the build, I just wish it wasn't so much so. The benefit to a rogue is he can do virtually anything, and the downside is figuring out how much to specialize in your given 'thing' at the sacrifice of versatility. Other classes, like the Bard, becomes a great skill monkey naturally without having to sacrifice his spells and other class abilities to achieve it. A rogue can be a better tank, a better skill monkey, a better stealthy-guy than any other class, but in order to do that you have to invest so many feats and talents into the build that you lose your ability to do much anything else. That's what I wish was different, and that's what they did with the ninja. Gave him the ability to lots of things well naturally without having to sacrifice as much.
@ Mort every rogue I have ever played always got good use out of trap sense. Most of the AP's have some sort of trap in them as well as many modules. As a GM I use traps no trap sense can be bad.
My problem with the Ninja vs Rogue argument is the need to blow of things like trap sense as a good useful ability. I've been in a tpk situation because no one had trap sense.
Are we looking at the same Trap Sense? +1 Reflex save and +1 AC against traps Trap Sense? Because I simply don't see how this is some great ability that bridges the "ki gulf." IF you fail at your job and set off a trap, AND that trap targets Reflex or AC, you get a small bonus.
To make matters worse, Reflex and Attack traps usually just deal damage. Most of the time, not even that much. Fortitude or Will based traps are much more dangerous, and you get no bonus on them. Which would be much more useful, given the Rogue's terrible Fortitude and Will saves.
And No Trace vs Trap Sense isn't the only issue...
Both over lap the other, Rogues can do more with traps, Ninjas edge out in combat. Ninjas may be better if all you look at is combat roles. You want a trap springer then you go Rogue. Both make decent faces though most of my players have rogues fill that role because they want combat ninjas.
Ninja's are better at much more than combat. They are better Acrobats, stealthier, and can even run across water! Plus Ki. Plus better weapons.
If all you care about is being good with traps, an Archaeologist bard is the superior choice. Luck, spells, better saves, superior Perception, and they even get Trap Sense!
As far as other players taking face skills, over lapping skills is a good thing. Bluff, Diplomacy, Knowledges, Perception, and Sense Motive all can benefit from aid another and are important in gaining out of combat information. Other than Perception easily the most used skill in the game, the others listed above are often overlooked, mainly because everyone except Bards, Ninjas, Rogues, and Sorcerers tend to nerf Charisma.
Archaeologist, Archaeologist, Archaeologist. You are getting more benefit from the Charisma you use for Face skills. You get Bardic Knowledge, outpacing any Rogue in that skill. Your Perception also gets a straight 1/2 level bonus (as opposed to the Rogue's conditional one). Plus luck, plus spells.
Once again, the Rogue Problem: They don't excel at anything, other classes have stolen all their tricks, and their Alternate Class is pretty much just a straight better version.
The problem isn't rogues are worse than other classes: rogues can excel at anything and can outstrap urban rangers and archeologists at anything. They just have to sacrifice so much to be good at that thing, while archeologists and urban rangers get their abilities without losing their other uses.
|
|
And I'm saying that I wouldn't have a problem with having a PC focused on all three at once, because the last two aren't really very important (in my experience).I agree. What I'm talking about is that people seem to want the rogue to be focused on all three (and sometimes more) all at once.For instance, people seem to want a rogue to simultaneously be a DPR monkey, a skill monkey, and a UMD monkey.This is a misleading way to phrase things, because it implicitly suggests that those three things are equally useful. They're not. As long as a party has a few key skills distributed amongst them a "skill monkey" is unnecessary, whereas most games I've played in have pretty much required one or more competent damage-dealers.
Oh, it's definitely possible to do all three at once - you just won't be as good at them. Mostly the CHA issue: I dumped CHA to get my physical stats where I wanted them, but people were saying that a rogue with less than 14 CHA isn't a rogue. If I wanted that 14 CHA, I would have to lower something else - which affects how focused I am on other things. And investing ranks/feats in UMD with 7 CHA doesn't count as "focusing" on both, you know?
It's like people have this idea that in order to be a rogue, you have to do something like this:
STR 10
DEX 18
CON 12
INT 14
WIS 08
CHA 14
...and then they complain about their lousy DPR and abysmal Will save. Then I come along and suggest this:
STR 16
DEX 16
CON 15
INT 12
WIS 10
CHA 07
...and they say I'm not a rogue anymore. Then I tell them they can't have my physical stats and their mental stats at the same time and they conclude that the rogue must suck.
I agree with you that you don't need a lot of investment for a rogue to be a skill monkey (you could dump INT and still be doing pretty well).
I also agree with you that UMD isn't that important for a rogue.
The point I'm trying to make is that a lot of the "rogues suck" sentiment is based on an assumption that a rogue needs to invest a lot in skills and CHA. They see that rogue sucking, dismiss anything different as not being rogues in the first place, and then conclude that rogues in general (of which their own assumptions are the only accepted examples) must suck.
The problem isn't rogues are worse than other classes: rogues can excel at anything and can outstrap urban rangers and archeologists at anything. They just have to sacrifice so much to be good at that thing, while archeologists and urban rangers get their abilities without losing their other uses.
No. Just no.
Much in the same way that I don't always like using the social skills in place of actual roleplaying (I try to encourage that an interaction be played out and then a check rolled, usually with a bonus for good roleplaying) I am beginning to think it would be more interesting to allow players a chance to interact with a trap and disable it without necessarily having some arbitrary ability that allows them to do so. I am not saying that disable device should be removed as a skill, but that trapfinding as a power should probably get throw out the window. Change it to being something in the same vein as Craft (Alchemy) for alchemists. Everyone can do it, sure, but the Alchemist can do it best (if he chooses to follow that route) thanks to in-built class abilities and proper feat selection.
...and then they complain about their lousy DPR and abysmal Will save. Then I come along and suggest this:
STR 16
DEX 16
CON 15
INT 12
WIS 10
CHA 07
Seems like your classic brutish thug character, the hired muscle of many of thieves' guild or pirate crew. Plenty rogue-like if you ask me.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem is the erosion of the skill monkey role and the fact that almost every other class has some sort of combat ability that you have to intentionally sabotage to be of low or no usefulness in combat. Spellcasters of any stripe need only wake up today and prepare a combat buff or SoS spell, and they're useful, in addition to all of the other utility that they will provide by being able to bypass the laws of mundane reality several times a day. Classes designed for combat will have lots of abilities that make them constantly useful. However, Rogues have class abilities that are fixed when chosen, and there are many noncombat abilities to choose from. Unlike a spellcaster, a Rogue can't wake up and pick a new talent.
In the old days, Rogues didn't need to be good at combat. their stranglehold over the skill monkey role, as well as the view that combat was not a whole-group activity, meant that Rogues were one of the best classes - in a game about exploration, the classes that could overcome terrain and environmental conditions - like Rogues and Rangers - were the most valued. Wizards and Clerics couldn't negate environmental hazards with any reliability or repetition until much later - without bonus spells, domains, or arcane bond, you might get one 5th level spell a day and feel lucky that you were forced to choose between a damage spell, a utility spell, and a SoD spell. It was a huge deal that you got one of those.
Another issue about Rogues' usefulness in combat, IMO, comes from the Medieval paradigm of the game Pathfinder's rules are based on. Dex, as a stat, is not as important in combat as it will be in another few centuries of real world historical development. The original campaign worlds were very much based on the idea of "Dark Ages with magic". The best equipment in d20 games is the stuff that would have won you victories on the Medieval battlefield - plate armor and big weapons. It wasn't until action moved into urban and aquatic environments and involved guns, where wearing fifty pounds of metal was a really bad idea, that massive melee damage output became less important than being adaptable, maneuverable, versatile, and able to defend with dodges and parries as opposed to letting your armor take the blow. For an example of a game that works off of the opposite paradigm, look at AEG's 7th Sea. The Dex stat (Finesse) always determines accuracy in melee, and there is no strength version of weapon finesse. High-str, low-dex characters will always lose fights to high-dex characters, who have better dodge AND accuracy. It's a Renaissance paradigm.
Oh, it's definitely possible to do all three at once - you just won't be as good at them.
...which is a bad thing, considering that there's already a class that can be a good "DPR monkey, skill monkey, and UMD monkey" -- the alchemist, for one. And that's totally okay, because "skill monkey" and "UMD monkey" should come for free in a box of Froot Loops.
I think it is a fallacy to think the ninja exceeds the rogue. They really are extremely equal. The ninja gains ki more easily and has advanced tricks - but the rogue gets to use his "Extra Rogue Talent" feat to get far more ninja tricks than a ninja ever gets. Different. Not better or worse.
A Ninja can get an extra attack each round off of Ki that the rogue will never get. Now while a rogue can proceed to pick up all the ninja tricks he wants he's drop a feat or talent for each one and possibly for the (much!) smaller ki pool to boot, and he's not getting as much use out of the Ki pool either (as I noted above).
|
|
In any case, show me the Ranger or Archaeologist who, at level 2, can bare-hand his way up a canyon wall to a height of 150' and then climb back down while being fly-by attacked by two morningstar-wielding harpies and get all the way to the bottom (conscious and not prone) with no help from anyone.
I AM HANGING ON TO MY SECOND-LEVEL GLORY DANGIT
In any case, show me the Ranger or Archaeologist who, at level 2, can bare-hand his way up a canyon wall to a height of 150' and then climb back down while being fly-by attacked by two morningstar-wielding harpies and get all the way to the bottom (conscious and not prone) with no help from anyone.
I AM HANGING ON TO MY SECOND-LEVEL GLORY DANGIT
Vanara -- anything.
Actual Climb speed -- moving 20 foot a round, his tail can carry an extra object to boot.
Sorry I really am but you asked for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the Urban Ranger and the Archaeologist Bard give me a run for my money. But focusing on a goal instead of trying to do everything really helps to close the gap.They don't just give you a run for your money, they leave you in the dust.
The Urban Ranger does combat far better than you could hope to while still holding up the trapfinding thing and some skills. Because he gets a combat style he can even TWF without dex leaving the statpoints to not dump int completely, and he gets spellcasting starting at level 4.
So the combat focused rogue is out of a job.
The combat rogue maxes dex, takes the whole two-weapon combat tree and two-weapon feint, along with another day, resiliency, defensive roll, offensive defense and crippling strike. He now can't be hit, when he is hit he negates the damage, and he feints with his first attack giving him 5 more attacks with sneak attack to debilitate his enemy with strength damage (after giving himself a +10 to ac with offensive defense.) That's a rogue tank and DPR right there.
|
|
In any case, show me the Ranger or Archaeologist who, at level 2, can bare-hand his way up a canyon wall to a height of 150' and then climb back down while being fly-by attacked by two morningstar-wielding harpies and get all the way to the bottom (conscious and not prone) with no help from anyone.
I AM HANGING ON TO MY SECOND-LEVEL GLORY DANGIT
Vanara -- anything.
Actual Climb speed -- moving 20 foot a round, his tail can carry an extra object to boot.
Sorry I really am but you asked for it.
/facepalm
I thought I was thorough enough, but I forgot to exclude monster races so you couldn't just slap a class level on a monster and call it good. Alright, can you do it with "normal" races?
In fact, let's say the whole character has to be PFS-legal, since I'm a PFS character.
Err... um... what all is included in that currently? I don't keep up with it.
Also do race boons count? What race boons are out there currently?
I think an Elf Rogue would be fairly nasty race choice.
|
|
Err... um... what all is included in that currently? I don't keep up with it.
Also do race boons count? What race boons are out there currently?
*sigh*
Nevermind that. The race shouldn't matter. We're talking about comparing the classes. Show me a way for the a level 2 ranger or bard to do what I specified above in a non-race-dependent way.
In any case, show me the Ranger or Archaeologist who, at level 2, can bare-hand his way up a canyon wall to a height of 150' and then climb back down while being fly-by attacked by two morningstar-wielding harpies and get all the way to the bottom (conscious and not prone) with no help from anyone.
I AM HANGING ON TO MY SECOND-LEVEL GLORY DANGIT
Vanara -- anything.
Actual Climb speed -- moving 20 foot a round, his tail can carry an extra object to boot.
Sorry I really am but you asked for it.
/facepalm
I thought I was thorough enough, but I forgot to exclude monster races so you couldn't just slap a class level on a monster and call it good. Alright, can you do it with "normal" races?
In fact, let's say the whole character has to be PFS-legal, since I'm a PFS character.
Are Synthesists PFS Legal? They can do it, right?
Next question -- you climbed up while under attack? The entire time you were attacked? Would Feather Falling down be cheating? How about relying on being invisible the whole time (vanish spell)?
Could we get the entire story?
@ Mort every rogue I have ever played always got good use out of trap sense. Most of the AP's have some sort of trap in them as well as many modules. As a GM I use traps no trap sense can be bad.
My problem with the Ninja vs Rogue argument is the need to blow of things like trap sense as a good useful ability. I've been in a tpk situation because no one had trap sense.
Are we looking at the same Trap Sense? +1 Reflex save and +1 AC against traps Trap Sense? Because I simply don't see how this is some great ability that bridges the "ki gulf." IF you fail at your job and set off a trap, AND that trap targets Reflex or AC, you get a small bonus.
To make matters worse, Reflex and Attack traps usually just deal damage. Most of the time, not even that much. Fortitude or Will based traps are much more dangerous, and you get no bonus on them. Which would be much more useful, given the Rogue's terrible Fortitude and Will saves.
And No Trace vs Trap Sense isn't the only issue...
Both over lap the other, Rogues can do more with traps, Ninjas edge out in combat. Ninjas may be better if all you look at is combat roles. You want a trap springer then you go Rogue. Both make decent faces though most of my players have rogues fill that role because they want combat ninjas.Ninja's are better at much more than combat. They are better Acrobats, stealthier, and can even run across water! Plus Ki. Plus better weapons.
If all you care about is being good with traps, an Archaeologist bard is the superior choice. Luck, spells, better saves, superior Perception, and they even get Trap Sense!
As far as other players taking face skills, over lapping skills is a good thing. Bluff, Diplomacy, Knowledges, Perception, and Sense Motive all can benefit from aid another and are important in gaining out of combat information. Other than Perception easily the most used skill in the game, the others listed above are often overlooked, mainly...
I'm guess the OP was thinking the rogue talent trap spotter. Come with 10 feet of a trap and you get an automatic perception check rolled in secret by the GM. A cool talent that I'd take as Ninja, spotting a trap means avoiding a trap.
Synthesists are bad designed and umbalanced class.
Are Synthesists PFS Legal? They can do it, right?
Not really relevant.
And Synthesists CAN give a rogue a run for their money... first level, they can get a climb speed and +8 racial bonuses to 2 rogue skills (Perception/Disable Device, maybe?) and be one class feature (a level) or some clever spell use (Detect Magic + Dispel Magic > Magical Traps) away from marginalizing a rogue...
EDIT: Also, dont forget, Summoners can disable traps with their Summon SLA with near impunity.