Why so much Rogue Hate?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 182 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

@ The OP.

from another thread:

A Man In Black wrote:


Anyway. Rogues are in kind of a weird place in Pathfinder, even moreso than in 3.5. They're not supposed to be as good at martial combat as...uh... all the other classes, so they aren't. What they get in return for this is out-of-combat problem-solving utility. Thing is, almost all (and indeed all, using non-core material) of this out-of-combat utility is redundant with other non-magical classes. That isn't even taking into account spellcasters, who by and large get more out-of-combat schticks, while having comparable or better in-combat schticks.

The rogue's schtick is skills and skills aren't very good. They certainly aren't good enough to explain why a class whose only real combat schtick is "stab a dude" is weaker at stabbing than pretty much everyone else. Skills are not only often nonfunctional (Diplomacy, original-version Stealth), they're also almost always hardcapped at what's "realistic" or "humanly possible" (Stealth again, all of the movement skills).

In return for this schtick, the rogue is worse at fighting. It's not just that the rogue is less capable and more-situational than a fighter, barbarian, or paladin: she's also weaker when it comes to wrecking some jerk than the ranger and (non-core) monk, who also rely on skill-based schticks (albeit skill-based schticks supplemented with class abilities), not to mention the alchemist, cleric, druid, and oracle. All of these classes have class abilities or spellcasting to do more than what's "humanly possible", and can still fight in addition to solving problems that don't require murder.

So yeah. I do think the rogue is a weak class. She's worse at fighting to be good at something that often isn't useful, and will often be overshadowed in her own specialty by someone else in the party.

I wish I knew how to fix it.

I think A Man In Black summed it up very good.

As for needing trapfinders, well even before the AGP a group really didn't need a rogue to deal with traps.
Any class could find traps. Any class could disable traps. Sure, only rogues could disable magical traps, but there was/is however other ways to deal with magical traps than disabling them. We played war of the Burning sky without a rogue. We had no problem.

Now with the APG and UM and UC there are even classes that can disable magic traps.

I have always found the rogue/trap argument silly: "You need a rogue to deal with traps so let's add traps so you need a rogue"

Rogue are like healers. Can be useful, but there are things out there that far more benefits a group.

The class is obsolete.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
AdamMeyers wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:


And I am sure in a 1 on 1 PVP arena style game where there is only combat and only DPS matters, the rogue probably wouldn't win. I have never played any such game in Pathfinder however, so personally that doesn't concern me.

Actually, in another post about whether a rogue can kill a barbarian, we kind of concluded that a well-build rogue would win. Hard. Look up the thread.

It's just that Pathfinder is built on small-group tactics, and while Rogues should do well they get overshadowed because the PCs and DMs just think in terms of DPR.

If I recall the thread correctly it wasn't a well built rogue. It was a rogue built for no other purpose than being a barbarian killing machine and even then it was a really iffy call that took several days worth of collaboration in order for them to get something.

Actually I was referring to the builds I posted at the end. I think they'd work pretty well.


AdamMeyers wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
AdamMeyers wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:


And I am sure in a 1 on 1 PVP arena style game where there is only combat and only DPS matters, the rogue probably wouldn't win. I have never played any such game in Pathfinder however, so personally that doesn't concern me.

Actually, in another post about whether a rogue can kill a barbarian, we kind of concluded that a well-build rogue would win. Hard. Look up the thread.

It's just that Pathfinder is built on small-group tactics, and while Rogues should do well they get overshadowed because the PCs and DMs just think in terms of DPR.

If I recall the thread correctly it wasn't a well built rogue. It was a rogue built for no other purpose than being a barbarian killing machine and even then it was a really iffy call that took several days worth of collaboration in order for them to get something.
Actually I was referring to the builds I posted at the end. I think they'd work pretty well.

I'd say those builds depend on the barbarian. I like beast totem barbarian combined with dragon's ferocity. So no land obstacles will stop his charge and he's got his scent to give himself at least a genral idea where you are assuming you never screw up on stealth or he never rolls well on perception.

Now if you're going for the first one that might work. If you both go first and hit with alot of your attacks. Otherwise I give you 2 rounds to live max.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
AdamMeyers wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
AdamMeyers wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:


And I am sure in a 1 on 1 PVP arena style game where there is only combat and only DPS matters, the rogue probably wouldn't win. I have never played any such game in Pathfinder however, so personally that doesn't concern me.

Actually, in another post about whether a rogue can kill a barbarian, we kind of concluded that a well-build rogue would win. Hard. Look up the thread.

It's just that Pathfinder is built on small-group tactics, and while Rogues should do well they get overshadowed because the PCs and DMs just think in terms of DPR.

If I recall the thread correctly it wasn't a well built rogue. It was a rogue built for no other purpose than being a barbarian killing machine and even then it was a really iffy call that took several days worth of collaboration in order for them to get something.
Actually I was referring to the builds I posted at the end. I think they'd work pretty well.

I'd say those builds depend on the barbarian. I like beast totem barbarian combined with dragon's ferocity. So no land obstacles will stop his charge and he's got his scent to give himself at least a genral idea where you are assuming you never screw up on stealth or he never rolls well on perception.

Now if you're going for the first one that might work. If you both go first and hit with alot of your attacks. Otherwise I give you 2 rounds to live max.

I give him the same. The whole point of that rogue build is after one round he's got such a large minus to his to-hit and damage from sneak attack debuffs and you've got +10 to ac (plus an intimidate check and sickening if you're a thug with Cornigon smash, or just a free intimidate if you're a rake) the chances of him hitting you that second round get pretty small.


gbonehead wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Nice change of avatars Ice Titan.
He's not the only one. But I don't like this one anywhere near as much as the old one :)

Thanks. I haven't seen anyone with this angry dragon yet, but the skull moon for Groetus was kind of popping up here and there.

I'm working on that Legend->Pathfinder conversion at the moment, but it'll be a while due to Star Wars.


KrispyXIV wrote:
TOZ wrote:
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).

Ninjas are especially better because they get a good weapon proficency (Katana 1d8 DMG 18-20/x2) for free. The Rogue not only has a 3/4 BAB he also has only really bad weapons to choose from. Ninjas are somewhat better here. The only thing I don't like about Ninjas is that they skip Trap Finding for Poison Use.

Plus Ninjas get a Ki Pool for an additional attack per round which heavily boosts their DPS compared to the Rogue.

So we have better abilities, a good weapon and an additional attack per round (if you need it) for the sake of sacrificing Trap Finding.
If you want Trap Finding take 1 lvl of Ranger (Trapper) at first level which gives you 1 additional HP (no fav class) and a full BAB with +2 to hit and dmg against a creature of your choice.
Otherwise I always like dipping into Fighter for two feats or dipping one barbarian and one fighter for extra movement, extra damage rage a feat (plus their good BAB) and good starting HPs.


Alienfreak wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
TOZ wrote:
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).

Ninjas are especially better because they get a good weapon proficency (Katana 1d8 DMG 18-20/x2) for free. The Rogue not only has a 3/4 BAB he also has only really bad weapons to choose from. Ninjas are somewhat better here. The only thing I don't like about Ninjas is that they skip Trap Finding for Poison Use.

Plus Ninjas get a Ki Pool for an additional attack per round which heavily boosts their DPS compared to the Rogue.

So we have better abilities, a good weapon and an additional attack per round (if you need it) for the sake of sacrificing Trap Finding.
If you want Trap Finding take 1 lvl of Ranger (Trapper) at first level which gives you 1 additional HP (no fav class) and a full BAB with +2 to hit and dmg against a creature of your choice.
Otherwise I always like dipping into Fighter for two feats or dipping one barbarian and one fighter for extra movement, extra damage rage a feat (plus their good BAB) and good starting HPs.

Yep, the Ninja vs Rogue issue was a concern for the UC Playtest, yet very little changed:

*For most builds the Ninja gets better weapons, not solved.

*So Ninjas get Monk's Ki instead of Rogue's Evasion, but can get Evasion latter as a Master Trick.
Well if you devs think that Evasion is worth that, What about an Adavenced Talent that gives Rogues a similar ability? We get a Rogue Talent (at least it isn't an Advanced Talent) that gives us a very limited version of Ki Pool. You don't even get much for increasing your Rogue's Wisdom, Wis10->1 Ki point, Wis12->1 Ki point. C'mon, at the very least give me 1+Wisdom modifier.

*So Ninjas get Monk's Ki AND Light Steps instead of Evasion. Evasion can only be used while wearing light armor, Monk's Ki only works while wearing NO armor. Ninja's Ki Pool works even while wearing a Full Plate, and I can't think of any character screaming "ARMOR RESTRICTIONS" more than a Ninja.
Use a feat or multiclass, buy a Breastplate or FullPlate, get invisible and forget about Stealth checks, raise your Str and forget about Dex, destroy, enjoy your AC.

*At least let Rogue's disable magic traps. Nah, multiclassing one single level is enough to get TrapFinding.

*To be honest, in the "standard" ideal campaign the Rogue can get most things from magic items or a spellcaster. However most people doesn't play ideal standard campaigns, the Rogue just can't adapt because it has got serious desing flaws, which is different than being underpowered.


Yeah, but you need to meditate to get your ki points back - 8 (non-consecutive) hours if I remember correctly; there are a lot of situations and I run a lot of games where taking breaks can have very, very bad consequences. I prefer something more reliable that doesn't depend essentially on a 15 minute workday. Abilities that you can use at the beginning and end of the day are just more flexible. Plus a bad will save versus 'ki block' is going to render a lot of your combat tricks useless for a rather critical number of rounds. Still, what are the chances of a rogue-type making a poor will save?


IkeDoe wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
TOZ wrote:
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).

Ninjas are especially better because they get a good weapon proficency (Katana 1d8 DMG 18-20/x2) for free. The Rogue not only has a 3/4 BAB he also has only really bad weapons to choose from. Ninjas are somewhat better here. The only thing I don't like about Ninjas is that they skip Trap Finding for Poison Use.

Plus Ninjas get a Ki Pool for an additional attack per round which heavily boosts their DPS compared to the Rogue.

So we have better abilities, a good weapon and an additional attack per round (if you need it) for the sake of sacrificing Trap Finding.
If you want Trap Finding take 1 lvl of Ranger (Trapper) at first level which gives you 1 additional HP (no fav class) and a full BAB with +2 to hit and dmg against a creature of your choice.
Otherwise I always like dipping into Fighter for two feats or dipping one barbarian and one fighter for extra movement, extra damage rage a feat (plus their good BAB) and good starting HPs.

Yep, the Ninja vs Rogue issue was a concern for the UC Playtest, yet very little changed:

*For most builds the Ninja gets better weapons, not solved.

*So Ninjas get Monk's Ki instead of Rogue's Evasion, but can get Evasion latter as a Master Trick.
Well if you devs think that Evasion is worth that, What about an Adavenced Talent that gives Rogues a similar ability? We get a Rogue Talent (at least it isn't an Advanced Talent) that gives us a very limited version of Ki Pool. You don't even get much for increasing your Rogue's Wisdom, Wis10->1 Ki point, Wis12->1 Ki point. C'mon, at the very least give me 1+Wisdom...

I always played my Rogues as Breastplate wearing Shieldusers. And Ninjas are really good at that. It somewhat balances them out because they need a really high Str to hit something reliably and can at least ditch Dex somewhat in favour of Str and Con and still have a good AC.

As a Ninja I would definately go Breastplate and Large Shield with a Katana. 1st level go Ranger, Fighter or Barbarian (depends on what you need most) for the proficiency and get a good starting boost.
16 14 14 8 10 12 may be a good 15ptb array (human bonus on Str)

Ditching Str in favour of Dex works out in campaigns in which you start at lvl 6+ because you can easily afford an Agility enchanted weapon. Now if you have an evil DM or nobody that can enchant weapons in your group this build again starts to suck because you can't just go shopping but will pretty much be limited to upgrade that weapon.
I generally dislike these "trick builds" that are heavily depended on one special magic item that makes their whole build work and without they are worthless (AMF here I come...)


Wrexham3 wrote:
Yeah, but you need to meditate to get your ki points back - 8 (non-consecutive) hours if I remember correctly; there are a lot of situations and I run a lot of games where taking breaks can have very, very bad consequences. I prefer something more reliable that doesn't depend essentially on a 15 minute workday. Abilities that you can use at the beginning and end of the day are just more flexible. Plus a bad will save versus 'ki block' is going to render a lot of your combat tricks useless for a rather critical number of rounds. Still, what are the chances of a rogue-type making a poor will save?

Wow so you are really telling us that all spellcasters are nearly useless in your campaigns?

Plus the scenario of another Ninja sneak attacking the Ninja and affecting him with his Ninja ability is a realistic scenario for you (who must be higher level than you to pull that one off) in your campaigns and thus renders the Ninja useless for many rounds when it is important? How many times in a normal campaign is this gonna happen?

I am not sure I wanna be a player of yours :)

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

AdamMeyers wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:


And I am sure in a 1 on 1 PVP arena style game where there is only combat and only DPS matters, the rogue probably wouldn't win. I have never played any such game in Pathfinder however, so personally that doesn't concern me.

Actually, in another post about whether a rogue can kill a barbarian, we kind of concluded that a well-build rogue would win. Hard. Look up the thread.

It's just that Pathfinder is built on small-group tactics, and while Rogues should do well they get overshadowed because the PCs and DMs just think in terms of DPR.

I suggest you look up the same thread because you will see I contributed to it. :)

Note the words "probably" in my quotation there.

Because the thing is, actually, I'm sure you could get a rogue to be fairly successful at arena combat (and I'm also sure I could have worded much of that hastily written message better). But at the same time someone in another thread could post a barbarian build to counter the anti-barbarian rogue and another person could post their fighter build that they are so very certain tromps both the barbarian and the rogue, and round and round and round we go.

And no one thread will prove anything, really---which really gets closer to the point of part of what I was saying in the lengthy, post I made, of which that tiny sentence was a very small part. (Also, the taking a quote out of context to nitpick something tangential? I find that kind of behavior is uncool and unappreciated.) People will say the rogue sucks in one and post their "proof" and someone else will post that the rogue is awesomezorz in another and post their "proof." And nothing really proves anything.

The fact is, we agree on the last point---the rogue is good for group tactics. And that's nothing to be ashamed of. DPR is a poor measure for a character in a teamwork driven, complex storytelling game where all manner of challenges are regularly presented, combat being only one portion.

I'll reiterate while I'm here, I think the rogue has a lot of strengths as is. I do think some more could be done to make it more obviously shine, but it certainly isn't the weak class some present it to be--and yeah, I think the barbarian killer is an interesting example of a build that shows what you can do with it, when people stop blindly reiterating what other people on message boards say (which is part of the issue with the rogue hate, I honestly do believe) and start looking at what the class is actually capable of.


Alienfreak wrote:

Wow so you are really telling us that all spellcasters are nearly useless in your campaigns?

Plus the scenario of another Ninja sneak attacking the Ninja and affecting him with his Ninja ability is a realistic scenario for you (who must be higher level than you to pull that one off) in your campaigns and thus renders the Ninja useless for many rounds when it is important? How many times in a normal campaign is this gonna happen?

I am not sure I wanna be a player of yours :)

Well I don't know about useless -- it's a lot easier though for the ninja, monk, or barbarian to sneak in an hour here or an hour there to get up to their non-consecutive eight hours than the spell caster to get their consecutive 8 hours of rest.

Secondly since all ninja have improved uncanny dodge by level 8 its highly unlikely that they'll take any sneak attack damage pass that point.


DeathQuaker wrote:
But at the same time someone in another thread could post a barbarian build to counter the anti-barbarian rogue...

Yeah it's a simply little build I like to call, "Any".

Shadow Lodge

Abraham spalding wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
But at the same time someone in another thread could post a barbarian build to counter the anti-barbarian rogue...
Yeah it's a simply little build I like to call, "Any".

I don't know too much about barbarians, but I bet I could come up with a barbarian-build that would suck rather hard. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Probably -- but the fact is the rogue doesn't work. It's even funnier since after 5th level you have to out level the barbarian by so much to even have a chance of sneak attacking him it isn't funny. It doesn't work in teamwork settings when you are better off with just about any other class (including the rogue alternative class).

Let me put it this way: It is now much like the bard in 3.5 -- they wanted the bard to be the 5th party member. Well in order for that to be true he had to be a good 1~4th party member too, and he wasn't. Now the rogue is in that boat. You don't need him for skills, you don't need him for combat, and several other classes have what he has and more to boot.

Look I like the idea of a rogue class, but currently I'll take a bard, alchemist, inquisitor, ranger, monk, or even the ninja over the standard rogue any day of the week.


Alienfreak wrote:
Wrexham3 wrote:
Yeah, but you need to meditate to get your ki points back - 8 (non-consecutive) hours if I remember correctly; there are a lot of situations and I run a lot of games where taking breaks can have very, very bad consequences. I prefer something more reliable that doesn't depend essentially on a 15 minute workday. Abilities that you can use at the beginning and end of the day are just more flexible. Plus a bad will save versus 'ki block' is going to render a lot of your combat tricks useless for a rather critical number of rounds. Still, what are the chances of a rogue-type making a poor will save?
Wow so you are really telling us that all spellcasters are nearly useless in your campaigns?

If you mean that spellcasters (which includes ninjas) generally have to manage their considerable resources carefully because they can't predict what might happen, and that the 15 hour work-day isn't a given in my games, then I have to admit that yes, spellcasters are next to useless.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Well I don't know about useless -- it's a lot easier though for the ninja, monk, or barbarian to sneak in an hour here or an hour there to get up to their non-consecutive eight hours than the spell caster to get their consecutive 8 hours of rest.

You are quite right that it's easier if rest periods are non-consecutive, Abraham, and in many situations the PCs will be able to catch those breaks. But with all due respect, it can effect their flexibility in any number of instances. An example - the PCs are having to bust into a prison and get a condemned man out before he's executed at daybreak. Between the waves of guards, it's not going to be very practical for the ninja player to say 'Run out of ki points, guys - let's come back tomorrow.'


Which means of course that you are better off without a limited supply of power rather than no power at all?

Because the rogue has nothing. The ninja at least has a chance to have something. Besides its not like this isn't a problem that doesn't present itself for most of the other classes too, barbarians have rage rounds, bards have performance and spells per day, alchemist, wizards, sorcerers, clerics, paladins, druids, oracles, etc.

It's resource management -- which works best when you have resources... the rogue doesn't even have that.


Alienfreak wrote:

I always played my Rogues as Breastplate wearing Shieldusers. And Ninjas are really good at that. It somewhat balances them out because they need a really high Str to hit something reliably and can at least ditch Dex somewhat in favour of Str and Con and still have a good AC.

As a Ninja I would definately go Breastplate and Large Shield with a Katana. 1st level go Ranger, Fighter or Barbarian (depends on what you need most) for the proficiency and get a good starting boost.
16 14 14 8 10 12 may be a good 15ptb array (human bonus on Str)

Ditching Str in favour of Dex works out in campaigns in which you start at lvl 6+ because you can easily afford an Agility enchanted weapon. Now if you have an evil DM or nobody that can enchant weapons in your group this build again starts to suck because you can't just go shopping but will pretty much be limited to upgrade that weapon.
I generally dislike these "trick builds" that are heavily depended on one special magic item that makes their whole build work and without they are worthless (AMF here I come...)

The DPR research crew goes for the high Str falchion wielding Rogue, but would prolly agree with you.

I don't get why your Rogue can't use Evasion while wearing that Breastplate and the Ninja can use his Light Steps and any ability related to Ki Pool while wearing a Breastplate or Full Plate. That's the kind of stuff that makes people raise an eyebrow while reading the Rogue and the Ninja.
In my current campaing one player is a high Dex Rogue and another a Ninja with a few fighter levels (breastplate+high Str+two handed weapon). The Rogue is the only character with a decent Touch AC (useful against many monsters with touch attacks), and Evasion is ok. But his touch AC will become irrelevant at high levels (monster's attack raise far more quickly than his touch AC) and I think that the Ninja in armor is overall better.


The real problem I find with the rogue class is there really isn't any reason to stick with the class for 20 levels. Multi-classing the rogue just adds so much and make the class that much better.

Just going with fighter for 4 levels gets you more feats, better weapons, better armor, armor training, Boosts the fort save and weapon specialization. Sure you lose out on sneak attack but then there is the Vivisectionist Alchemist, now that's a sweet deal for the rogue. +4 to stat and +2 natural armor with the mutagen, shield infusion for more AC as well. So +2 to hit and +6 AC and you don't lose any sneak attack. Rogue/Inquisitors is another combo. There are so many multi-class combination that just improve the rogue better than sticking with the rogue for 20 levels. Even if you only play to level 12 a dip into another class for few levels just improves things.

So if the goal was to make classes something you'd want to stick with for 20 level the rogue clearly fails here.


Abraham spalding wrote:

Which means of course that you are better off without a limited supply of power rather than no power at all?

Because the rogue has nothing. The ninja at least has a chance to have something. Besides its not like this isn't a problem that doesn't present itself for most of the other classes too, barbarians have rage rounds, bards have performance and spells per day, alchemist, wizards, sorcerers, clerics, paladins, druids, oracles, etc.

It's resource management -- which works best when you have resources... the rogue doesn't even have that.

But once the ninja has run out of ki points, half his much-vaunted ninja tricks don't work because they require ki. Bomb tricks don't work. Vanishing trick/Invisible Blade doesn't work. Forgotten Trick doesn't work. Flurry of Stars doesn't work. As half of a ninja's tricks work through a finite resource, when that resource is gone half these tricks become useless. However, the majority of rogue talents (including his wider range of combat talents) can be used again and again, including Crippling Strike, Dispelling Attack, Improved Evasion and a host of other useful stuff.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Wrexham3 wrote:
But once the ninja has run out of ki points, half his much-vaunted ninja tricks don't work because they require ki. Bomb tricks don't work. Vanishing trick/Invisible Blade doesn't work. Forgotten Trick doesn't work. Flurry of Stars doesn't work. As half of a ninja's tricks work through a finite resource, when that resource is gone half these tricks become useless. However, the majority of rogue talents (including his wider range of combat talents) can be used again and again, including Crippling Strike, Dispelling Attack, Improved Evasion and a host of other useful stuff.

Doesn't that just mean that a well-built ninja will take only a couple of the best ki Tricks and spend the rest on non-ki Tricks and borrowing Rogue Talents?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just so we're all clear here:

Does anyone actually disagree with the assertion that the rogue is generally a weak class? We clearly all have different opinions on how weak they are, but is there anyone here who wouldn't still describe them as "weak"?

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:

Just so we're all clear here:

Does anyone actually disagree with the assertion that the rogue is generally a weak class? We clearly all have different opinions on how weak they are, but is there anyone here who wouldn't still describe them as "weak"?

*raises hand*

I think it could be improved upon, definitely. But I do not think it is a weak class, and I've often seen the rogue be MVP in many parties. While the circumstances of play style and GM style definitely apply, that's still my experience. And I trust actual gameplay experience gajillions of tons more than messageboard theory.

Grand Lodge

DeathQuaker wrote:
J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:

Just so we're all clear here:

Does anyone actually disagree with the assertion that the rogue is generally a weak class? We clearly all have different opinions on how weak they are, but is there anyone here who wouldn't still describe them as "weak"?

*raises hand*

So just to verify, if you ranked the different classes by mechanical strength, you would not have the rogue in, say, the bottom 40%?


Wrexham3 wrote:
But once the ninja has run out of ki points, half his much-vaunted ninja tricks don't work because they require ki. Bomb tricks don't work. Vanishing trick/Invisible Blade doesn't work. Forgotten Trick doesn't work. Flurry of Stars doesn't work. As half of a ninja's tricks work through a finite resource, when that resource is gone half these tricks become useless. However, the majority of rogue talents (including his wider range of combat talents) can be used again and again, including Crippling Strike, Dispelling Attack, Improved Evasion and a host of other useful stuff.

Rogue talents -- that the ninja can also choose. He can take nothing but rogue talents (or their ninja equivalent) the entire way. He could simply use his ki for extra attacks when he does get an extra attack.

What's more many of the rogue talents only work once a day -- probably over half in fact (you can count I'm not going to). So again the rogue has only one thing the ninja doesn't (trapfinding) and the ninja has more on top to boot. Yes the rogue can get a ki pool, but his won't be as big or as useful.

Yes the ninja could run out of ki points -- that's still better than not having anything to begin with, and (once more) he can still choose rogue talents or their equivalents if he wants.

So really your entire argument here is moot.


Jiggy wrote:
Wrexham3 wrote:
But once the ninja has run out of ki points, half his much-vaunted ninja tricks don't work because they require ki. Bomb tricks don't work. Vanishing trick/Invisible Blade doesn't work. Forgotten Trick doesn't work. Flurry of Stars doesn't work. As half of a ninja's tricks work through a finite resource, when that resource is gone half these tricks become useless. However, the majority of rogue talents (including his wider range of combat talents) can be used again and again, including Crippling Strike, Dispelling Attack, Improved Evasion and a host of other useful stuff.
Doesn't that just mean that a well-built ninja will take only a couple of the best ki Tricks and spend the rest on non-ki Tricks and borrowing Rogue Talents?

Well then in that case the so-called superiority of the ninja class is based upon a couple of choice special effects which they can't do without ki points, as opposed to rogues, who don't have to buy 'evasion' or 'improved evasion', and can have access to 'extra rogue talents' anyway. I honestly don't see that much difference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem is we all agree the rogue is lacking compared to other classes. I just hold from my personal experience that a rogue with the right build and tactics can still be a force to be reckoned with. The biggest problem he has is that the things he does better than anyone else are normally tactics that become pointless as soon as you put a Barbarian in the party. A rogue can become the ultimate guerilla warrior and destroy enemies in mass without ever being seen, but doing that takes so many rounds of combat that your party tank, if he's not a stealth master, would be sitting around doing nothing most of that time, and that gets really boring really fast.


DeathQuaker wrote:
I think it could be improved upon, definitely. But I do not think it is a weak class, and I've often seen the rogue be MVP in many parties. While the circumstances of play style and GM style definitely apply, that's still my experience. And I trust actual gameplay experience gajillions of tons more than messageboard theory.

So then, which class is weaker? I mean, some class is always going to be the weakest. If we ignore the "how weak is too weak" part of the argument, I'm interested in your opinions on how Rogue doesn't end up at the bottom.

Also, the problem with gameplay experience is that it is the equivalent of an anecdote in science. It can be interesting, it can be informative, but it can't be taken as proof. Houserules, selective memory, and other issues cloud the actual mechanics. There are also differences in game mastery between players (and GMs), as well as tactics. To overstate it, a tactical genius with a hyper optimized commoner may well be able to take out a level 20 Wizard built by a guy who kept needing to check how "Magic Missile" worked.

I'm reminded of a person who came on the forums to claim that Fighter was wildly overpowered. It eventually turned out that the GM only ever used single big monsters, never used saving throws, and avoiding things like flight, invisibility, or anything else that could hurt a non-caster. Meanwhile, party wizard only blasted and the Paladin didn't smite. This is an extreme example, but I hope it shows my point: gameplay experience can be wildly influenced, sometimes even by things we don't realize we are doing differently. Especially when dealing with something like Pathfinder, where we known all the variables of abilities, the expected ranges of challenges at a given level, and the like, theoretical discussion is pretty good at sussing out issues. While not perfect, I'd still put it above anecdotal evidence from a game.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:

Just so we're all clear here:

Does anyone actually disagree with the assertion that the rogue is generally a weak class? We clearly all have different opinions on how weak they are, but is there anyone here who wouldn't still describe them as "weak"?

*raises hand*
So just to verify, if you ranked the different classes by mechanical strength, you would not have the rogue in, say, the bottom 40%?

No, if absolutely forced to rank every class by what I consider most effective and useful for a campaign both in and out of combat, Rogue would be around position 3-7 depending on factors considered, and therefore not fall into the bottom 40 (the bottom 7.2).

But I'm not sure why 7.2 base classes have to be considered "weak"? Or 4.4 core classes? Is there a reason we have to split the classes into "weak" and "strong" and why pick an arbitrary 40%? Why not 30 or 50 or 90? I'm not sure that's going to help.

But for the record I actually also think very few classes are "weak." I think core Monk is weak because of MAD, or at least much harder to build "strong." Certain archetypes are weak (frex, Geisha or Cloistered Cleric). But that's about it. I think the majority of classes are consistently effective and fun to play, and thus, in my book, "strong." (Mort posted while I was typing this -- no, one class does not have to be weakest, nor strongest. I just really can't grasp why you would even want to try to "tier" them--it's just a concept foreign to me, I just don't even really grok what you're talking about. Last I checked, the classes were not in a competition with each other--very much so, they are designed to in fact work together. And I already acknowledged that experiential evidence is circumstantial, thank you for reading. But theorycraft also fails often to account for numerous variables which can affect class performance, and often assumes the best case scenario--that the class tested will always roll high and enemies will always roll low for example, which we all know tends not to pan out in reality :) )


AdamMeyers wrote:
A rogue can become the ultimate guerilla warrior and destroy enemies in mass without ever being seen...

Which is something anyone else can do too, and for many classes better than the rogue can (faster and with a higher chance of success).

Lets be clear -- the rogue has little that supports the idea of him being the 'ultimate guerilla warrior'. The only thing that comes close to helping is the ninja's fast stealth trick.

Otherwise it's simply a matter of ranks in stealth... which anyone can have.


Deathquaker you do realize you aren't even on the same scale here? You are talking pass each other. He's talking about mechanical strength you are talking about, "effective and useful" -- these are not the same thing.


DeathQuaker wrote:
Last I checked, the classes were not in a competition with each other--very much so, they are designed to in fact work together.)

Its implicit. If I want to be a (we call whats follows your Chracter Concept) 'sneaky guy who is good at talking to people and capable of breaking through locked doors and disabling traps', I look at my list of classes to see which one fits that best and is the best besides so as to have the best contributing character possible.

If the answer is never rogue, no matter what the Character Concept is, that is an issue with the strength of the class.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Abraham spalding wrote:
Deathquaker you do realize you aren't even on the same scale here? You are talking pass each other. He's talking about mechanical strength you are talking about, "effective and useful" -- these are not the same thing.

What's mechanical strength? And is what I consider mechanically strong going to be the same as what you or he thinks is mechanically sound? Very very probably not.

He asked a simple question: does anyone not think the rogue is weak?

I answered that question: I do not think the rogue is weak.

That is all. We can talk semantics and statistics and numbers till the cows go home, we can try to deconstruct what the other is saying until all meaning is lost.

At the end of the day, I will still not think the rogue is weak, by my personal assessment. At the end of the day, you and JJ will think it is, by yours. Probably the things I use to evaluate classes you think are stupid. Probably the things you use to evaluate classes I think are invalid. So let's agree to disagree. I answered his questions, and I'm done.


J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:

Just so we're all clear here:

Does anyone actually disagree with the assertion that the rogue is generally a weak class? We clearly all have different opinions on how weak they are, but is there anyone here who wouldn't still describe them as "weak"?

I disagree, altough I'm not sure what I have to factor to meet your definition of weak.

However:
I think that it is one of the worst designed classes since AD&D. Any modification to what the developer had in mind for the standard campaign and the Rogue won't have the tools to adapt to the homebrew campaign. And given that everyone is playing a homebrew campaign odds are the Rogue will be in trouble in most games.
For me it is a huge difference, the Rogue doesn't need BADLY a general boost (say d8 sneak attack dices for free), what it needs BADLY is tools to have a decent performance in most campaigns (i.e., an Improved Talent to cast Improved Invisibility at high levels). I haven't found those tools in Ultimate Combat, the Ninja has got a plenty.


1) Rogues are subpar in combat compared to martial classes and just can't compare at all to level 5+ spell casters. Sometimes it's impossible to get into flanking position because of the revised PF rules for Acrobatics and tumbling.

2) Skills become more useless at higher levels because spells are just better. Maybe fixing some spells is the solution, not decreasing the spells ability but reducing the duration.

3) There are many broken mechanics for the rogue class. For example, Stealth.

There are other things too, for example you can't sneak attack if the target has concealment, so if you're creeping up on someone in a dark alley, you can't sneak attack them without the feat Shadow Strike. You should be able to sneak attack someone that has concealment and SS shouldn't be a feat tax.

4) The rogue talents should be better, comparable to spells at certain levels, and much better than feats. Instead there are very few good options. The ninja is definitely a step in the right direction.

That's just off the top of my head. It's not that rogues completely suck and are non-viable, but they're definitely weak.

The Exchange

I think that most people here are forgeting is that the Rogue is a class easily set up and a great starter character. While the Ninja gets the Ki, Barbarians get rage, Bards get performance, etc, the Rogue doesn't. Thats not necessarily a bad thing. If you are just starting out, the Rogue is probably the best class to learn how to play with. No tracking abilities for a number of rounds per day, or no spells to memorize or keep track of, but instead they get sneak attack damage that is simple to get. Between the Fighter and the Rogue, there probably isn't anything better for starting to play. I have heard from friends who started recently that the Fighter is great to play in combat, but out of it he was bored. The Rogue fixes this by giving enough skills that even if you dump INT you get about as much as a Wizard. If you want to talk to the guy about getting across the sea, get the rogue who has Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense Motive. Sneak onto his ship, rogue with Stealth, Acrobatics, and Disguise. You play alot as the Rogue, without the need to count abilities. Yes, the Rogue doesn't have a lot of bite, but it is simple to play.

I am also surprised that no one has mentioned the Knife Master Archetype for the Rogue. Instead of d6s for sneak attack, they get d8 with any knife and d4 with anything else. By the time you get to 3rd level, you sneak 1d4+STR+2d8 damage. For one knife. Sure, you lose Trapfinding, but as many have pointed out, other classes get this ability. Now you can sneak a knife in your glove and assassinate the king while your Trapper Ranger is held up for having weapons.

Grand Lodge

Jason S wrote:
Sometimes it's impossible to get into flanking position because of the revised PF rules for Acrobatics and tumbling.

Would you mind expounding on this? I'm not sure what you're referring to, and I like to be up-to-date on Core rules.

Thanks!


J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:
Jason S wrote:
Sometimes it's impossible to get into flanking position because of the revised PF rules for Acrobatics and tumbling.

Would you mind expounding on this? I'm not sure what you're referring to, and I like to be up-to-date on Core rules.

Thanks!

In order to use Acrobatics to avoid AoOs you have to roll Acrobatics and beat the foe's CMD.

Mooks have low CMDs, but big foes (the guys you want to flank ASAP) have got high CMDs. Some NPCs built using APG archetypes get CMDs even higher.

I could be cool, Acrobatics that work far best for Dex based characters sounds good.
But the rules are too harsh, your max Acrobatics modifier and the foe's CMD changes every level, there's some point at low level when Acrobatics is great. But there are some points (specially high level) when Acrobatics is too difficult. Believe me, I played an archer with Dexterity and Acrobatics maximized, using acrobatics against two of my team-mates would have been autofail O_o, difficult against many monsters too.

Grand Lodge

And this is a change from 3.5?

I just wasn't sure if he meant that, or meant that the PF rules had actually changed without me noticing. :P

For reference, a CR 8 Stone Giant has a whopping 30 CMD, and 16 DEX rogue (at level 7, making the Giant a +1CR encounter) with max ranks and no other investment has +13 to Acrobatics, needing to roll a natural 17 or better to tumble safely past.

Yeah, that's not great... On the other hand, at least in PFS, lots of enemies are humanoids who don't have 27 STR. So lots of 8th-level opponents will have CMDs closer to 24 or less, so the 7th level rogue with 16 DEX needs to roll an 11 or better, possibly less.

Hm, yeah, maybe like a class bonus to tumbling?

Oh! That reminds me! I'd forgotten all about my 3rd-level Swashbuckler ability: I get a +1 to Acrobatics and saves against fear, with an extra +1 for every 3 additional levels! That helps a little, I suppose, right?

Shadow Lodge

In 3.5, it was a flat DC 15 Tumble check. 25 if you had to move through someone's square to do it.

While I thought auto-succeeding wasn't a good thing, having enemies the character has nearly no chance to succeed is not much better.


J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:

And this is a change from 3.5?

I just wasn't sure if he meant that, or meant that the PF rules had actually changed without me noticing. :P

In 3.5 the DC was 15 iirc (with some modifiers), so every 15th level character in light armor (wizards, sorcerers..) was a tumbling artist. Far too easy (back then).

In the last Pathfinder Errata they only updated the rules for moving through a foe's space iirc.

Edit: Ninja'd! (i'm too slow)

Grand Lodge

IkeDoe wrote:
In the last Pathfinder Errata they only updated the rules for moving through a foe's space iirc.

There's errata on that? Do you recall what it is? (I'm at work and can't download an errata file.)


J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:
IkeDoe wrote:
In the last Pathfinder Errata they only updated the rules for moving through a foe's space iirc.
There's errata on that? Do you recall what it is? (I'm at work and can't download an errata file.)

Long story short: If you fail the Acrobatics check you suffer an AoO (as happens when tumbling) and the move action you used is wasted (so you can't try again using this action).

Grand Lodge

IkeDoe wrote:
Long story short: If you fail the Acrobatics check you suffer an AoO (as happens when tumbling) and the move action you used is wasted (so you can't try again using this action).

Mkay, that part I was aware of. Thanks.


So here's three rogue builds using nothing but rogue levels that I think work out fine. And by fine I mean are powerful and use what the rogue does best. I'm not doing the math to figure out if a ninja could do the same things better or worse, I'm just saying that if you want to see straight rogue in all his glory, here he is:

The "I Tank Better Than You" Build:

Spoiler:

human,
Thug/Bandit archetypes

starting stats (25 point):

Str 10
Dex 17 (+2)
Con 14
Int 14
wis 8
Cha 16

Put all increases to Dex, but human alternate favored class bonuses into extra rogue talents, using them to get an extra combat feat and normal feat.

Feats: two-weapon fighting (3), shield proficiency, combat expertise, two-weapon feint (2), skill focus (bluff, Intimidate) Improved shield bash, shield slam, shield mastery power attack, cornugon smash

Rogue Talents: finesse rogue, befuddling strike, offensive defense, resiliency, defensive roll, improved evasion, another day, hard to fool (advanced), crippling strike, trap spotter, canny observer

This guy is about going solo as a rogue. Sure he could do better if built to allow a flanker, but this rogue's job is simple: Without needing help from anyone, destroy the enemy with 5 sneak attacks a round, drive them off with archetype powers that give them the frightened condition, debuff them with archetype powers and sneak attack powers, and give himself such a high ac that, combined together, means the enemy he's soloing will virtually never hit him. Plus with an agile weapon and power attack, he's got a decent damage option even against an enemy immune to sneak attacks.

For defense he's got hard to fool and improved evasion vs. magic and resiliency, another day and defensive roll to make sure even the hardest-hitting enemy will have a tough time taking him down.

The best part is that he has a nice UMD for unforseen situations, a high bluff and intimidate for party face options, and while he's sacrificed his trap finding through archetypes he still has room to take trap spotter and canny observer just to add a little help in that regard.

The "If I went up against the PCs, I'd probably win" Build:

Spoiler:

Human
Sniper archetype

starting stats (25 point):

Str 10
Dex 19
Con 12
Int 12
Wis 16
Cha 8

put all into dex, again put all alternate favored class bonuses into rogue talents

Feats: Point blank shot, precise shot, improved precise shot, pinpoint targeting, far shot, vital strike, improved vital stike, skill focus (stealth), the rest as extra rogue talents.

Rogue talents: bleeding attack, fast stealth, minor magic (ghost sounds), ki pool, sniper’s eye, camouflage, shadow clone (ninja trick), vanishing trick (ninja trick), deadly cocktail, cunning trigger, quick trapsmith, improved evasion, stealthy sniper,

With all your left-over rogue talents, take favored terrains and hide in plain sights for whatever terrains you will be having encounters in.

I don't know if the Ninja could take this build and frankly I don't care. This is the guerilla warrior I mentioned earlier. His tactics are simple: using sniping from stealth option (standard action, use movement action to stay in stealth) you shoot arrows at the enemy one a round, either with sneak attack if within 90 ft, or from a very, very great distance as between the sniper archetype and far shot your range penalties are at 1/4. Your DPR is not great, but that's not the point: your point is that every arrow you use will virtually never miss (poinpoint targeting,) has two poisons, a good amount of damage (improved vital strike), a big bleed effect if you can sneak attack them, and they'll never know where you are.

Trap the area and use ghost sounds and mirror images to lead them into traps while you keep picking them off. The chances of you even being found are negligible, and if you are caught you can hide in plain sight (with camouflage and favored terrain bonuses too) along with your two ninja tricks as backup for withdrawing safely and returning to stealth. Even if they try area effect spells to flush you out it's not a guarantee since you've got improved evasion.

This character would need the right kind of game for a PC to play, but as an enemy he'd work just fine, forcing the players to try new tactics as they find a way to flush him out. If I were playing in a game with open forest terrains especially, I'd love the chance to be or use this guy.

The Technomage Build:

Spoiler:

Gnome
Trapsmith archetype

(Note: I’ll admit, this one needs a special kind of party. This guy takes over the magic item creation, the trap-finding and ranged damage, which normally doesn’t all need to be the same guy. if You do need one guy to do all three than yes an arcane trickster might just be better, but that being said I would love the chance to give this guy a whirl, just because he’s so distinctly different from anyone else I’ve ever played and fulfills his roles in a way that just distinctly cries out "Rogue." If you care only about optimization don't bother with this one, but if you want a character concept that rocks your socks off, check him out.)

Starting stats (25 point):

Str 8
Dex 16
Con 12
Int 16
Wis 10
Cha 16

Put all points into Dex. If you want to be the god of disarming magical traps using scrolls, take the alternate favored class bonus with each level.

talents: cunning trigger, minor magic, major magic, gain familiar, trap spotter, quick trapsmith, dispelling strike, crippling strike or some other damaging sneak attack alteration, frugal trapsmith, quick disable,

feats; improved familiar, master craftsman, craft magic weapons and armor, craft wondrous items, blind-fight, combat expertise, improved feint, moonlight stalker (all three feats)

In dungeons, buildings and other places with cover and traps this man is king. He’s got an amazing ability to not just disable traps, set up his own and but use his archetype powers to reprogram the existing magical traps as his own weapons. In fact his numbers get so high, especially with magical traps, that the DM just might have to invent harder traps than the books contain just to challenge you (and if you want to get rid of quick disable, frugal trapsmith and dispelling strike for skill focus (use magic device, disable device, perception or craft traps), go right ahead.

He not only can craft amazing magical items and traps and use them against enemies, but he’s designed to be a wand-user. With moonlight stalker he can feint anyone if he has any concealment (just hide behind another party member) and can thus add his sneak attack damage to any ranged attack he makes, which means he’s a bow user some of the time and a scorching ray wand user most of the time (I’m not sure, but I think RAW says he could add his sneak attack bonus to each ray.) With improved familier he also has another little guy aiding him, meaning two wand uses per round.

He’s not designed to do damage, really. He’s designed to use traps, both his own and the terrains, against anyone who comes after him, taking over the magical crafting needs of the party, and still be a valuable asset in combat by his ability to use magical device with a familiar and sneak attacks on top of everything.

Is this guy optimized? Probably not and other people can do what he does. Would he still be amazingly fun to play in a way that only a rogue can do? Absolutely yes.


DeathQuaker wrote:
J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:

Just so we're all clear here:

Does anyone actually disagree with the assertion that the rogue is generally a weak class? We clearly all have different opinions on how weak they are, but is there anyone here who wouldn't still describe them as "weak"?

*raises hand*

I think it could be improved upon, definitely. But I do not think it is a weak class, and I've often seen the rogue be MVP in many parties. While the circumstances of play style and GM style definitely apply, that's still my experience. And I trust actual gameplay experience gajillions of tons more than messageboard theory.

Is there any reason the rogue could not have been replaced by the classes named in this thread and gotten the same results?


AdamMeyers wrote:
The problem is we all agree the rogue is lacking compared to other classes. I just hold from my personal experience that a rogue with the right build and tactics can still be a force to be reckoned with. The biggest problem he has is that the things he does better than anyone else are normally tactics that become pointless as soon as you put a Barbarian in the party. A rogue can become the ultimate guerilla warrior and destroy enemies in mass without ever being seen, but doing that takes so many rounds of combat that your party tank, if he's not a stealth master, would be sitting around doing nothing most of that time, and that gets really boring really fast.

If I am in the jungle and my men are being taken out by an "invisible" enemy then it is time to run, at least to a place where the terrain is more to my advantage. Sitting around and dying is not likely to happen.

Grand Lodge

AdamMeyers wrote:

So here's three rogue builds using nothing but rogue levels that I think work out fine. And by fine I mean are powerful and use what the rogue does best. I'm not doing the math to figure out if a ninja could do the same things better or worse, I'm just saying that if you want to see straight rogue in all his glory, here he is:

The "I Tank Better Than You" Build:** spoiler omitted **...

I'm supposed to be impressed when you're using 25pt buy? I could build a character using NPC class levels who could hold his own with 25 points.


J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:
AdamMeyers wrote:

So here's three rogue builds using nothing but rogue levels that I think work out fine. And by fine I mean are powerful and use what the rogue does best. I'm not doing the math to figure out if a ninja could do the same things better or worse, I'm just saying that if you want to see straight rogue in all his glory, here he is:

The "I Tank Better Than You" Build:** spoiler omitted **...

I'm supposed to be impressed when you're using 25pt buy? I could build a character using NPC class levels who could hold his own with 25 points.

That really matters? Fine, take 2 points off a few of his stats and do it with 15 point buy, same builds different numbers.

101 to 150 of 182 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why so much Rogue Hate? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.