Why so much Rogue Hate?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

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

No need to go as low as 15. Despite that being called the standard, most games make use of 20 points when building characters.


Honestly in games I DM I don't care about points. I can adjust the difficulty up or down depending on what the party's doing, so the only real thing that the numbers seem to change is what character concepts you can have (since feats have attribute requirements.)

If my guys all want to be playing characters with straight 18s that's fine with me: It just means every ork and goblin they face will have class levels, a 35 point buy and the fiendish template.

Actually, that sounds like a fun game. I may have to make that one sometime.


AdamMeyers wrote:
I Tank Better Than You

Your Will save is atrocious, and your Fortitude isn't that much better. While a Fighter has lots of extra feat-space to patch those holes, the Rogue is not as fortunate. You have absolutely no way of dealing with flying, ranged, or invisible opponents, which aren't rare at low levels and become basically a given as you get higher. While Offensive Defense gives you a very nice AC, your 134 hitpoints do not impress. Defensive Roll allows you to take a single extra hit, which isn't going to help against the numerous strikes of high level opponents. Another Day has the same problem, but is worse due to reach, being staggered, and the fact enemies can take a 5' step during a full-attack.

So, not a build I would solo Tank in an adventure with. Would probably make a good one-on-one combatant in a melee-only Arena fight against other basic humanoids, and that is about it.

AdamMeyers wrote:
If I went up against the PCs, I'd probably win

Still no defense against magic that targets Fortitude or Will. Has to contend with multiple Perception checks vs. Stealth, and his no way to boost Stealth (being able to move at normal speed while stealthed does not help here). You have to get within 30' to hit people. You could be a Sniper to get it up to 90' with Sniper, but that is both well within retaliation range, and dropped back down by a simple "Obscuring Mist." It also precludes getting "Poison Use," making those arrows of yours as deadly to you as they are to your enemies (given your terrible Fortitude save).

Oh, and Vital Strike can't be used with Pinpoint Targeting. Doesn't change much, but should be pointed out.

AdamMeyers wrote:
Technomage

You say it is "amazingly fun in a way that only a Rogue could be," but I don't see how. You've used several talents and feats to be a very poor copy of a wizard. Feint is melee only, so your tactics don't work. A party member would provide soft cover, but not concealment (so moonlight stalker is out). While you can add Sneak Attack damage to rays, your lack of ranged feats will make hitting tough, and high caster levels wands get very expensive, very fast. In fact, all of this builds tactics cost a lot of money for little benefit. And, most importantly, I would ask "What are you doing that an Archaeologist isn't doing better?"

These builds actually help illustrate one of the Rogue's problems. You can be really really specialized, and be pretty good (I'm not saying the builds at bad at their jobs, mind you). It is just that a Ranger would make a better version of build 1 or 2, and an Archaeologist a far better build 3. And they wouldn't have to specialize to the same extent to do it. They won't have to rely on feints to deal real damage, items for magical abilities, or what have you. If I want to make a Arena warrior or "Technomage," I just don't have a reason to pick Rogue for it.


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 **...

What level are these guys, and I am not impressed. What you say he can do, and what he can do are not the same thing?

As a guerrilla fighter he does not win. Perception can be just as high as stealth, and sniping gives penalties. You also need somewhere to hide. Some animal with scent can be summoned to locate you. Dropping glitterdust on your approximate location means you are no long hiding.
In short if you all the cards are lined up for you then you have a chance, but that is very circumstantial.

As far as that tank situation your AC won't be high enough to not get hit unless you sacrifice offense, but ff you can't do enough damage to be an immediate threat then I go after someone who is. Tanking you are not.

PS: Giving an NPC extra wealth and a PC point buy of 20 or higher increases the CR.
Martial classes don't make good BBEG's past level 7 barring very special circumstances which is what my "cards are lined up" statement was about.

PS2:I am not anti-rogue. I just realize the vision of the rogue is better done with other class's mechanics 90+ percent of the time.


Ok, see I wasn't arguing they were weakness-less people. I'd like you to build me a member of any class who is: I could reverse gravity on a fighter and drop him into a pit with no save or SR if he's unstealthy enough for me to see, I could area of effect blast him because he doesn't have evasion, etc. But these builds address many of the problems their role would face and do it well.

Yes the last one is an inferior copy of a wizard. That's why I'd like to play him sometime and see how he does. Actually, the last guy is three builds in one: the trap finder and creator, the item enchanter and the UMD rogue. I just combined the three into one to see how it looked.


wraithstrike wrote:

As a guerrilla fighter he does not win. Perception can be just as high as stealth, and sniping gives penalties. You also need somewhere to hide. Some animal with scent can be summoned to locate you. Dropping glitterdust on your approximate location means you are no long hiding.
In short if you all the cards are lined up for you then you have a chance, but that is very circumstantial.

As far as that tank situation your AC won't be high enough to not get hit unless you sacrifice offense, but ff you can't do enough damage to be an immediate threat then I go after someone who is. Tanking you are not.

Of course you can find a hidden guy, but it'd be fun to see who drops first: the hidden sneak attack sniper or the wizard trying to find him.

The tank has the same ac starting as a fighter would, plus he can add 10 with offensive defense and give the enemy a -6 to hit with his other abilities. That makes you pretty hard to hit, no sacrifice to offense. And you do sneak attack every round with feint, so you are a threat.

I know other classes can do the above, I'm just pointing out ways the Rogue can be good. I agree he's not mechanically the best, but he can be deadly all the same if played right.


The difference is that, while a Fighter might have a slighter poorer Reflex save, Reflex has nowhere near the number of Save or Die effects of Will and Fortitude. You reverse gravity a Fighter, he is going to hit the ceiling and take a small amount of damage. Then he can pull out a bow (which, thanks to his large number of good class features he is going to be at least passable with) and continue to contribute. Lacking evasion is, likewise, just a bit of damage saving.

Miss a will save, someone else controls your mind. Or you are out of the fight due to unconsciousness or paralysis of some sort. Miss a fortitude save, and you take severe ability damage, are heavily debuffed, or just straight die. For any character, but most especially a character meant to be solo, these are glaring problems.

You can move to patch these holes, but then you start finding that your feats are running low and you have to cut into your offensive abilities. Then those start running low, and the opponents are just beating you to death. It is easy to make a hyper specialized character with massive gaps, but it shouldn't be a surprise when those gaps are pointed out.

Also, I ask again. How is the Technomage something that is best done by a rogue? An Archaeologist actually gets spells (removing Master Craftsman as a prerequisite), gets Spellcraft natively, is just as good with traps, and is getting far greater benefit from Charisma than the Rogue. For the concept, the mechanics of the Archaeologist (or, heck, even straight Bard) simply work better.

EDIT:

AdamMeyers wrote:
I know other classes can do the above, I'm just pointing out ways the Rogue can be good. I agree he's not mechanically the best, but he can be deadly all the same if played right.

Ah. Well, it appears we are arguing past each other again. My point is really that these builds are problematic, and the same general idea would work better with a different class. If we agree on that in principle, I'll lay off.


AdamMeyers wrote:

Ok, see I wasn't arguing they were weakness-less people. I'd like you to build me a member of any class who is: I could reverse gravity on a fighter and drop him into a pit with no save or SR if he's unstealthy enough for me to see, I could area of effect blast him because he doesn't have evasion, etc. But these builds address many of the problems their role would face and do it well.

Yes the last one is an inferior copy of a wizard. That's why I'd like to play him sometime and see how he does. Actually, the last guy is three builds in one: the trap finder and creator, the item enchanter and the UMD rogue. I just combined the three into one to see how it looked.

Here is the issue. We don't think they do it well. Especially the tank build. I don't see it being able to stand up front and take the punishment, along with handling Fort based saves well.

On your other post:
If you are moving and stealthing you still have the glitterdust penalty so you will be seen.

prd wrote:

Any creature covered by the dust takes

a –40 penalty on Stealth checks.

The bonus from the favored terrain is not that good. You can run, but this is one situation where you definitely can't hide.

edit:You are telling me he has the fighter's AC, but I don't see any numbers. If you post a 30 AC as an example, and someone's fighter shows up with a 35 then that will prove you to be incorrect.


AdamMeyers wrote:
Ok, see I wasn't arguing they were weakness-less people. I'd like you to build me a member of any class who is: I could reverse gravity on a fighter and drop him into a pit with no save or SR if he's unstealthy enough for me to see, I could area of effect blast him because he doesn't have evasion, etc. But these builds address many of the problems their role would face and do it well.

As a note, your examples here dont mean anything; the fighter is no more vulnerable to the listed effects than a rogue is. Fighter's can take stealth, Rings of Evasion, Slippers of Spider Climbing/items with Fly, as can rogues. However, the fighter also has extra feats to buff his saves, better armor proficiencies, etc...


Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:


Ah. Well, it appears we are arguing past each other again. My point is really that these builds are problematic, and the same general idea would work better with a different class. If we agree on that in principle, I'll lay off.

Um, yeah, that's what I said in my previous posts, like I admitted the technomage isn't doing anything better than anyone else, if you read what I said. That's why I didn't understand why you were arguing with me.

I just feel like the complaints on how to overcome the rogue apply to all classes, and the situational ways to beat these builds apply to all classes as well, either the same ways or each one having their own individual "well this could bet him". A lot of the ways people are pointing out to beat my builds would work just as well against a fighter or ranger and are over-stating the weaknesses of the rogue.

But it doesn't matter, that's what we're all saying: The rogue is weak, I just don't think he's as worthless as some assume.

Sovereign Court

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).

ultimate combat lets a rogue take ninja tricks


Human Seeker Sorcerer Crossblooded Sage/Umbral Bloodline.

Trapfinding, hide in shadows, int based caster, extra spells from being human helps with the lack of spells from being crossblooded, and you can pick up Iron will to help with the -2 to will saves if you want.


Purple Dragon Knight 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).
ultimate combat lets a rogue take ninja tricks

Very true, the rogue can't get as good of use of the ninja tricks however since his Ki pool is much (MUCH) smaller and the fact that he has to take a talent simply to get the ki pool hurts him a little too (a problem the ninja doesn't have in reverse). However there are some nice tricks that don't require a ki pool that could be very worthwhile for the rogue.


Purple Dragon Knight 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).
ultimate combat lets a rogue take ninja tricks

You'll note I said Advanced Tricks.


I just thought of some fun class-rogue combos:

barbarian with beast totem + scout rogue at least 4 = barbarian with pounce who makes sneak attacks with every attack during a charge.

Rogue or ninja w/ smoke bomb, moonlight stalker feat tree, greater feint, and 3 archer fighter levels= can feint from distance as a swift action, get full archer attacks w/ sneak attack on each arrow.

Just thought those were cool.


Personally I dont think the rogue holds up too badly. I won't bicker about the rogues powerlevel, I dont really want to beat a dead horse. It certainly doesnt hold up so well on its own in straight up fights, where its opponents certainly come out on top for numbers. Nor is it really a class that can benefit from clever builds, so it definately doesnt excite that side of anyone.

Why, I'm itching to play a rogue (preferably without too many of those pesky teammates to slow me down) not for a powerful character or a clever build, but for some clever play.

What I see the Rogue as is the class that makes the most out of terrain, or at least can have the most fun with it. Slanted rooftops (forcing balance checks), crowds, a sniping position and the constant use of ambushes (especially against low level mooks), there are a number of ways to assure these sneak attacks over the (probably superior) flanking, and in ways that leave you well out of the line of fire and possibly several rounds to work with.

However, this kind of play takes a considerable amount of time, requires a good deal of GM cooperation and environment design that caters to swashbuckling, and even then, this doesnt have its place in every adventure. Worse yet, this kind of play does not work with a team.

Also the rogue is cool. While I'm all for equal opportunity employment I say let rangers be rangers and bards be bards. Even with a sub-optimal class choice, if you can't pull your weight in the party and are as useless as people are claiming, you probably have deeper, more easily fixed problems than ninja-trick envy. There's no doubt Paizo hasnt given the rogue a lot of love, lately, but it's still a damn sight better than it's 3.5 combination, and there are plenty of options old and new to make an exciting, versatile, and even powerful character. I dont think the class is in as dire need of a revamp as people think.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
It's not hate. It's disappointment that the class does not live up to expectations.

This has always been so bizarre to me. I truly feel the Rogue class is probably the strongest class in the game, that gained the most in the 3.5 -> PF transition (6 more rogue talents, which can equal feats or better; the changes to and consolidation of the skill system; the massive change to sneak attack; hit-die bump; etc.)

I *don't* really love rogues, but I'd never tell someone they were underpowered.


Majuba wrote:
TOZ wrote:
It's not hate. It's disappointment that the class does not live up to expectations.

This has always been so bizarre to me. I truly feel the Rogue class is probably the strongest class in the game, that gained the most in the 3.5 -> PF transition (6 more rogue talents, which can equal feats or better; the changes to and consolidation of the skill system; the massive change to sneak attack; hit-die bump; etc.)

I *don't* really love rogues, but I'd never tell someone they were underpowered.

Yes, that's my first thought too. :/


@Majuba

And they lost some precious Feats, like Telling Blow. Also, almost all the other Classes gained more that the Rogue.

Shadow Lodge

I hope they give the rogue full bab when flanking/sneak attacking, that would fix my problems of hitting people with the main shtick of the class without scrounging for attack boni from every nook and cranny. I mean, sure you can get your attack stat and other things high enough that against regular mooks it's likely to succeed, but melee bosses and speciality creatures like grapplers and ability damagers will still be a pain since AC, CMD and saves do require almost equal investment.

For instance, I was going to play as rogue through RotRL, but the stars were not right. Reading through the campaign a year or two later after we were done with it(after my rogue died to the first module's boss, I played a cleric who summoned, buffed and blasted), I was glad that didn't have to play the campaign with that class. Just about every melee boss was also some kind of caster and most of the challenges asked for heavy duty smacking and magical might instead of wits and swashbucklery(unless you count the DC 40 Knowledge:History and Religion checks, which were totally in the bard's jurisdiction). Monsters were big and hit hard and will saves were everywhere, while there was very little infiltration to do and even less city survival and diplomatic skullduggery. This might look like a campaign problem isntead of a class problem, but read on and I explain.

Same thing with the Serpent's Skull AP we are playing nowadays, bosses are all special cases, who use tons of buffs, start from favorable positions and can take a beating. I don't mean that GMs should softball opponents for the rogue to shine, but that there isn't really much for the rogue to do if he can't tackle melee. Alright, he might opt for UMD and wands or try Aid Another, but any a class can do that AND some other unique thing in order to contribute. An alchemist could lob bombs(thank the divines I didn't choose a Vivisectionist), an inquisitor might contribute by buffing the melee capable people, a bard could do the same or even hazard a trip or two with a whip, a monk might be in similarly dire straits when not capable of meleeing, but at least he has a chance with combat maneuvers, etc. I want to be able to contribute with the class, dammit. Give the rogue some kind of encounter-changing trick or ability he can use, please. Inherent skill tricks, Antagonize pre-built into the class, flank-based debuffing that doesn't require large stat investments, something!

That said, disabling traps has been darn useful and it's all thanks to trapfinding from the rogue dip. :P Maybe combats should involve traps too!


AdamMeyers wrote:


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

I think you cheated on Technomage, Master Craftsmen applies to one feat. You took Wonderous and Craft magic weapon/armor.

You can't have both as a non-caster.
Explain how you qualify.


I wouldn't call the rogue underpowered. The class works well up to about level 12. So if all you play is PFS you won't see the problems. Those problems start appearing around level 9 and get worse as you go up in level.

In my games I see rogues begin getting frustrated with missing a lot around 13th and up. Sure they missed before that too but they start missing a lot. I also see the rogues start taking a beating using up more resources in fight than they should. For example typical combat should eat 20% of their HP but I see 80% being eaten up. Then there are skills, the rogue is auto succeeding in most skill checks. Finding traps becomes a bore as does using disable device to disarm or open locks. None of this was an issue before level 12 though. Another issue I notice is saves, rogues start failing save big time by the higher levels. Going with APs I find at about this level the save tend to be more heavily on Wil and Fort where the lower levels seem to target reflex. The rogue doesn't have enough feats to fill the gaps here as they generally go TWF and that's feat heavy chain.

There are ways to mitigate this to a degree with the right magic items and this is where UMD comes in handy but it tends to make the rogue much more magic item dependent than any other class. Also going with really high stats helps fix the problem. At 25 pt buy really helps, 30 pt even better.

I think if there was way to make the rogue hit more reliably at higher levels would help.


Starbuck_II wrote:


I think you cheated on Technomage, Master Craftsmen applies to one feat. You took Wonderous and Craft magic weapon/armor.

You can't have both as a non-caster.
Explain how you qualify.

That's not how Master Craftsman works. It reads "Ranks in your chosen skill count as your caster level for the purposes of qualifying for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats. You can create magic items using these feats, substituting your ranks in the chosen skill for your total caster level. You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item."

So if he has Master Craftsman and has the appropriate skill ranks, he can take both Craft Wondrous and Craft Magic Arms and Armor.

Grand Lodge

Well, now my player's up and decided to build an Archaeologist. Thanks a lot, guys. :/

Shadow Lodge

Majuba wrote:
I *don't* really love rogues, but I'd never tell someone they were underpowered.

Again, because they meet your expectations.


J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:
Well, now my player's up and decided to build an Archaeologist. Thanks a lot, guys. :/

But Archaeologist is awesome!

Which I suppose is part of the problem; the alternatives are awesome.


J.J., Agent of the Decemvirate wrote:
Well, now my player's up and decided to build an Archaeologist. Thanks a lot, guys. :/

As an actual archaeologist, I'm here to tell you that that way lies the Dark Side. And tea breaks - lots of them.


AdamMeyers wrote:
Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:


Ah. Well, it appears we are arguing past each other again. My point is really that these builds are problematic, and the same general idea would work better with a different class. If we agree on that in principle, I'll lay off.

Um, yeah, that's what I said in my previous posts, like I admitted the technomage isn't doing anything better than anyone else, if you read what I said. That's why I didn't understand why you were arguing with me.

I just feel like the complaints on how to overcome the rogue apply to all classes, and the situational ways to beat these builds apply to all classes as well, either the same ways or each one having their own individual "well this could bet him". A lot of the ways people are pointing out to beat my builds would work just as well against a fighter or ranger and are over-stating the weaknesses of the rogue.

But it doesn't matter, that's what we're all saying: The rogue is weak, I just don't think he's as worthless as some assume.

Our point is that anything the rogue can do someone else can do better, and bring a second option(s) to the table also. So that leads many people to ask "Why go rogue?".

I am not saying rogues can't be useful in a game. I am saying I can do it better with another class or combination of classes.

PS:For the next "rogue hate" thread maker. It is not hate. It is frustration that the rogue we envision is not doing it for us. Now if we said rogues suck and they don't function that would be different.

Grand Lodge

LazarX wrote:
Wildonion wrote:
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.
The bonus you get for Trapfinding is tied directly to your rogue class levels. Dipping for one isn't going to get you that much. And the fighter snagging evasion is doing so at the cost of armor.

The bonus to Disable Device is not the point, it's being able to locate and disarm magical traps.


Read the whole thread, looks like a lot of semantics, and not really an argument.

Here's how I see the problem: Someone says, "Rogues are weak relative to other classes" and someone else who likes rogues hears "Rogues are not worth playing." The rest of the posts then continue with "I can build a rogue that's fun to play," followed by posts of "Sure, but can't we at least agree he's weak?"

Here's my take: I like the word 'rogue'. I like a character based on stealth and thievery, a little sneak with different combat mechanics than other classes. I like the idea behind the rogue classes of past RPG's. Stealth and thievery used to be his purview alone. You simply couldn't pickpockets (with few exceptions) without rogue levels in 1e.

That's just not true anymore. Any class can take any skill. If it's a class skill, you get a whopping +3. If you're a modern rogue, you get trapsense. This is negated by an uber-cheap wand. No one in any of my groups has played a rogue since Pathfinder came out ('cept me). I play them knowing their limitations, again, because I like the concept. I build the same concept with other classes, already named several times in this thread, but I still like the name 'Rogue'.

But anyone who reads the number crunching on these boards knows they're outshined. I like that about them.

I have found a place where they excel. I have a sadistic DM who plunked us in a world where spellcasters (divine and arcane) are illegal, and the authorities have means of ferreting them out. Oh, and he doesn't allow Ninjas in this world, either. In comes the rogue, who hides in shadows without the use of spells, talks guards out of arresting his spellcasting friends without the benefit of glibness, and who registers a blank when the powers that be scan him for spell ability.

Big block of text, sorry.

I love the rogue, the weak, underappreciated rogue.

He will rise again, in some as-yet unwritten edition.


Strife2002 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Wildonion wrote:
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.
The bonus you get for Trapfinding is tied directly to your rogue class levels. Dipping for one isn't going to get you that much. And the fighter snagging evasion is doing so at the cost of armor.
The bonus to Disable Device is not the point, it's being able to locate and disarm magical traps.

In Pathfinder any class can find/locate traps, even magical traps.

Once you find them, traps can be delt with.

  • Other classes can Disable them. Urban ranger, archaeologist, etc.
  • You can trigger them. Use items, summons, etc. or let some one in the group set them off.
  • Dispel them
  • Avoid them, go around them, jump over them, fly, dimension door, etc.
  • etc.


  • In the last 2 campaigns I played, we had ALOT of traps. Most of them were magical, and it was more of a game to stay alive than to deal the most damage. I played a ninja and my friend played a rogue, and with no evasion at my level we relied on her for traps. She didn't care in the least or feel underpowered in comparison because she plays a GOOD rogue. I have also never met a bard player that likes playing an Archaeologist.

    It comes down to how someone plays a character and class. Rogue will always have tricks that a Ninja wont. Ninja is just a highly specialized Rogue.

    151 to 182 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.
    Recent threads in General Discussion