The Rogue


Advice

51 to 100 of 196 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Rogues are challenging to play. They require alot of tactical play and they are really feat intensive in the beginning to get them cooking, but they can be very rewarding. Alot of people find them dissatisfying because their combat role is more supportive than front-line. A rogue is often best employed finishing fights other characters are in rather than starting his own, and a rogue must finish those fights quickly lest he be a target himself.

Liberty's Edge

Robespierre wrote:
Yeah the rogue is "viable" in the sense that it can contribute to a party. That's not what people argue about though. People argue that the rogue is one of the weakest classes in the game and can be outshined in their own professions by a lot of classes.

IN theory they can be; in practice those other classes simply do not grant enough skill points for them to pull it off unless the GM's campaigns under-emphasize skills in deference to pure hack-n-slash.

Grand Lodge

Have you heard of the monk?


The rogue has 2 skill points/level more than the other skill classes. 3 counting the half level bonus for disable device and perception. If you count that, though, you should count bardic knowledge which gives a bard 13+int skill points/level before versatile performance.

Or the other party members could pick up a little of the slack instead of being bored out of their skulls outside of combat. Make that fighter a barbarian and you make up for the skill gap between a rogue and a trapper or urban ranger. Or make the fighter a tactician or lore warden if you don't like barbarians.


Actually a lot of classes can do something that Rogue can, but only a few can do it all. For better combat you may try ninja (a rogue variant), but others may work well too. I'd also gladly use CR = APL + 3 traps as a GM to see how useless the rogue gets :)


Crimson Sirius wrote:

So... I've had a discussion with a friend over the pros and cons of playing a rogue in Pathfinder. He said that everything a rogue does can be done on the same level (if not better) by any other class.

A door to pick? You could send the meat shield to open that up! Or a spellcaster to do something about it.

A trap? Well, there are many ways to go around that, but if you REALLY want to use disable device, why don't you pick a bard instead?

The conversation went on and on like that. My friends point was: the rogue got nerfed on some points and other classes got nice perks, thus, Rogues are not necessary.

I, being a fan of the class, got very disheartened by that. So I'm here to ask the experts and more experienced players:

Are rogues really done?

What could I do to make my rogue badass and have a shining role in the party?

WHAT IS the purpose of having a rogue if other classes could have ways around those "rogue's specialties"?

I don't allow other classes to steal all of what the rogue can do, especially their specialties.

So for instance, by using the old 3.5 rules on trapfinding. Sorry man, your swordsman or wizard collegiate cannot identify a complex trap. A monk can try and pass the trap saves, but he too cannot just "do" the rogues job, that isn't his dao (way).

If you find pathfinder has pushed the rogue into mediocrity and made them less useful, other classes being able to do all their specialties, then change the rules. Pathfinder started as a module and set of suggestions for 3.5 after all.

Dark Archive

ever since alchemist came out, i cant find a reason to play a rogue. alchemist (vivisectionist) gets everything i would ever want in a rogue and then some


"And then some" is why I don't consider the class balanced. If it is a rogue and an alchemist, it is two in one.

Got more info on the vivi? A friend wanted to play one but the pigs ate him.

Grand Lodge

I love the alchemist.

Liberty's Edge

Atarlost wrote:
The rogue has 2 skill points/level more than the other skill classes. 3 counting the half level bonus for disable device and perception. If you count that, though, you should count bardic knowledge which gives a bard 13+int skill points/level before versatile performance.

Bards are MAD-statted; i.e., rogues find charisma useful while bards need it (so bards consequently tend to have lower INT, and therefore fewer skills; bards also need to park skills in Perform -- if not multiple kinds of Perform -- and therefore have fewer points available for "rogue" skills).


I'm seeing a grand total of four rogue skills that aren't either coverable with versatile performance, charisma based, or better shoveled off onto the wizard who doesn't need to take all the knowledges with bardic knowledge in play. And one of them is almost completely useless for non-evil characters.

I'm not counting climb, swim, or professions. Those are fixed DC skills that take a handful of points over the lifetime of the character or useless.

But, seriously, high int rogues? An obligate melee class since ranged sneak attack isn't viable so they need lots of con. They have a weak will save so they need quite a bit of wisdom. They need dexterity for AC. They can't dump strength because of the encumbrance rules. As many charisma based skills as they have int should be the last stat on their priority list.

The bard, on the other hand, doesn't need to be a melee build so he can skimp on constitution and put favored class bonus into skill points. He can skimp on wisdom because will isn't a weak save. Int could be priority three after charisma and dexterity instead of priority five or six.


Mike Schneider wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
The rogue has 2 skill points/level more than the other skill classes. 3 counting the half level bonus for disable device and perception. If you count that, though, you should count bardic knowledge which gives a bard 13+int skill points/level before versatile performance.
Bards are MAD-statted; i.e., rogues find charisma useful while bards need it (so bards consequently tend to have lower INT, and therefore fewer skills; bards also need to park skills in Perform -- if not multiple kinds of Perform -- and therefore have fewer points available for "rogue" skills).

Needless to say that they can replace several skills by the said ranks in perform via versatile performance.

Grand Lodge

Are there any rogue exclusive feats? If they exist, are they any good?


I think the importance of the bard's 'Versatile Performance' has been overstated by some posters on this thread. As Mike Schneider said, bards need Charisma as well as Dexterity. Intelligence may not be a priority. They have fewer skills and will need to pump them into Perception, Spellcraft, UMD and some of the Knowledges; I would say Linguistics is an important bard skill. These - in addition to multiple forms of Perform - are going to spread the bard pretty thin.

Also Versatile Performance is potentially a trap. If you start playing a bard at 1st level and manage to reach 6th, you can extend Versatile Performance to Perform (Act), using it to replace Bluff and Disguise. Great. However, any skill points you put into Bluff and Disguise PREVIOUSLY are essentially lost - unless you're not putting anything into those skills for 6 levels....which isn't going to make you a very good bard. Furthermore there's a lot of redundancy in the list - Perform (Act) and Perform (Sing) both replace Bluff, for instance. Admittedly, Bardic Knowledge is a great ability. Essentially it gives you 10 class skills with a free point every 2 levels. However, you still have to put some points into your Knowledges - if you neglect them, they'll become pretty mediocre over time.

Look, bards are a great class - my second favourite in the game. However possessing a wide and shallow range of skills is not the definition of a skill monkey for me. A wide and deep range is. A rogue needs to put points into Acrobatics, Bluff, Climb, Disable Device, Escape Artist, a Knowledge, Perception, Sleight of Hand, Stealth and UMD to do their job. They can do this, every skill, every level. Bards can't do that. They have too many priorities.


My rogues typically have Intelligence as their HIGHEST stat, followed closely by Dexterity (naturally); With Charisma and Constitution duking it out for third and fourth. Since I don't sell down any stats (who wants to deal with negative modifiers?) this does result in what I feel certain many players would view as "un-optimal" characters. And that may be true... for the first few levels. At which point I'm way ahead of folks who dumped stats in all-around utility.

And all-around utility is what Rogues are supposed to shine at, anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:

I'm seeing a grand total of four rogue skills that aren't either coverable with versatile performance, charisma based, or better shoveled off onto the wizard who doesn't need to take all the knowledges with bardic knowledge in play. And one of them is almost completely useless for non-evil characters.

I'm not counting climb, swim, or professions. Those are fixed DC skills that take a handful of points over the lifetime of the character or useless.

But, seriously, high int rogues? An obligate melee class since ranged sneak attack isn't viable so they need lots of con. They have a weak will save so they need quite a bit of wisdom. They need dexterity for AC. They can't dump strength because of the encumbrance rules. As many charisma based skills as they have int should be the last stat on their priority list.

The bard, on the other hand, doesn't need to be a melee build so he can skimp on constitution and put favored class bonus into skill points. He can skimp on wisdom because will isn't a weak save. Int could be priority three after charisma and dexterity instead of priority five or six.

I am of the opinion, that a rogues's second highest stat should be INT with DEX first. Strength is needed only to meet encumbrance requirements, Con contributes nothing to skills, and while the plus to save and absorption of an extra hit is nice (at high levels)...it is not mandatory. I am really surprised toughness and Great Fortitude aren't sky blue in all of these guides with the emphasis on 14 min Con or you will get pwned in melee. A rogue should only initiate fights in the surprise round and in the first round (ie, against helpless opponents), after that, he should assist teammates is finishing combats quickly. Wisdom is important, as one of the most used skills for a rogue is Perception, but you don't need anything spectacular, as most races have a bonus, and your Rogue's bonus makes traps fairly easy to detect. Most Guides recommend dumping Charisma, but I think it is best at a 10, as you have many skills that key off of it and I think it fits the Rogue to not stand out in a crowd as being too memorable either way. Many people criticize the low saves, but a +2 isn't really going to save you, and a rogue's best defense against a spellcaster is stealth and avoidance of line of sight. A Rogue's strengths are his skills and his speed, and you should emphasize these.


I would not give up a Ranger's spells for disable device unless absolutely necessary. I'd rather play a half-elf fighter/rogue.

Anyone who thinks an archaeologist bard is better than a pure bard (self buff vs. inspire + good hope) has clearly never seen the bard at higher levels. LVl 10 = +5/+5 to the whole party (or usually everyone in melee) in round 1. I would never a play a bard and sacrifice that for disable device.

Not to mention a rogue can use wand/scrolls to get greater invisibility and have a better chance of setting off his sneak attack. This obviously is build dependent, but really doesn't take that much effort.

Also, if the fighter is willing to sacrifice 1 of his numerous feats (isn't that his specialty) or the inquisitor (class ability) can team with the rogue to get the combat flanker feat. Now he is +4 bonus while flanking, add it in with the dual wield sneak attack chain and he is putting in plenty of work.

I'm not even going to get into the skills. That all depends on your GM and what type of dungeons/adventures he runs.

so yeah, you can take another class and nerf yourself to replace a rogue, or you can just play a rogue. Again I'm not saying a rogue can't be replaced (NO CLASS IS NECESSARY IN A PARTY) but someone saying that a rogue is worthless or quite easily replaced is taking some liberties.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crowe wrote:
A Rogue's strengths are his skills and his speed, and you should emphasize these.

I think this actually sums up my issue with the Rogue quite well. Yes, a Rogue's strengths should be his skills and his speeds. Unfortunately, the class itself offers little to aid those.

Skills are great, and the Rogue should be their king. However, various edition changes have long since dethroned them. The removal of 1/2 rank cross class skills means that anyone can grab the Rogue's entire list with a one level dip. The fact that class skills only offer a +3, the number of skills has shrunk, and traits seem to be in widespread use mean that even that dip isn't going to be the best choice for many characters. At the end of the day you have 2 extra skill points, which just doesn't do it for me.

Speed and stealth should be a Rogue's best friends. However, for many Rogues, they are actually a penalty. That dim alleyway you are sneaking through just ruined your Sneak Attack if you didn't burn a feat. If you choose two-weapon fighting as a style, you better not budge or you'll lose the vast majority of the damage you invested so much in getting up. When it comes time to get away, you don't have many options beyond anyone else who invested in Acrobatics, maybe Stealth and Climb in a pinch.

Talents should make up these gaps, letting you make the Rogue of your dreams. However, I tend to find them lacking. Many are overly situational, suffer from limitations on use, or are desperate attempts to help Sneak Attack. There are some gems, but few enough that I can't help but keep glancing over at that sexy Archaeologist in the corner. I could try to go into specifics, but I am being long winded enough as it is. All I can say is, look at other classes, like the Barbarian. He gladly sells his feats for more rage powers. Meanwhile, the Rogue sells talents for feats through Finesse Rogue and Combat Trick. Swashbucklers even get the extra "bonus" of being able to sell more of their unique tricks for feats.

I'm not saying that the Rogue is totally, irredeemably worthless. I don't feel like anyone in this thread is saying that. You can make a Rogue that contributes to the party, and if you are a better builder than your fellows you can even shine and excel. What I am saying is that, when I have a roguish concept, the Rogue class all too often fails to impress these days. Even with coordination and tactics, the Ranger is superior to a combat focused bard. Burning talents on being a skill monkey won't make it compare to an Archaeologist. Then, if I have an idea no other class can fill, I'll invariably end up going Ninja instead of a regular Rogue or archetype.

I just think Rogues need a bit of extra love to bring them back up to the level of other classes, to give them areas to excel in again. I don't see anything wrong with arguing for that, or hoping that the developers eventually hear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still have not seen the infamous wizard build that completely makes the rogue invalid, I keep hearing about it. I personally would love to see this build.

Any other class CAN better the rogue at one or two things, and if spread out among other classes the rogue can be replaced. I find the same thing can be done with other classes as well. We have replaced the Cleric in our Jade Regent game with an Alchemist and an Inquisitor. So it is not just the Rogue.

Shadow Lodge

I am doing just fine, thanks. Members of the group are sighing and saying "Have Crazz do it." alot

Social Situation? "Have Crazz do it."
Sneaking and Scouting? "Have Crazz or Li'Neer or Kuruk (the ranger and monk) do it."
Perception? "Have Crazz or Li'Neer do it."
Sabotage or Counter-traps? "Have Crazz or Fuze (the Alchemist) do it."

Combat? Believe it or not, I'm doing just fine. I'm not racking up kills like the Alchemist is, and I'm a bit behind the Ranger, but I'm on par with the Monk and Cleric and Sorcerer. One thing is for sure; I'm the 2nd best defensive tank, next to the Monk. Hurray for Acrobatics and fighting defensively / full defense.

the issue I have is, other than SA (which I use for bleeding strike; love it), I'm so very nothing special.

As a bluff specialist, I can escape combat if need be as well.


I've seen a lot of posting saying that the bard can do the rogue's trapfinding job but he really can't as having ranks in disable device does not allow you to disable magic traps. Only the trapfinding ability allows that.

Still, the bard could take one level of rogue to get around that.

I think that is the major problem here. Much about the rogue is about traps and I've played long campaigns and barely seen traps. I usually forget about them and a lot of my adventures are wilderness encounters. This limits the rogue. The ability should be more versatile or something.

Also, I'm kinda peeved about the comparison to the Ninja myself. If the ninja had fewer skill points or fewer class skills I might not be but it's solidly better.

Now, I have seen the rogue played very well by the player focusing on gear that further boosts skills or really getting the most out of UMD and even TWF to do serious damage so I have a lot of respect for the class except that you really have to try hard and think to get the most out of it. I have also seen rogues using stealth in combat to gain sneak bonuses. I allow it and it works very well as it takes rounds to hide and hide again once you have attacked.

I do think the rogue needs something. Something without changing it too much though. One thought is to have the trap sense feature be a dodge bonus that applies to all opponents. This makes it much like the monk AC bonus that scales with levels and makes trap sense more desirable even if you never see a trap.

Now what about trapfinding? How can we apply that ability to other situations to make the rogue more appealing? It is half the rogue's level (minimum 1) which is huge at later levels. Could we apply it as a damage bonus with the stipulation the rogue can apply it once per round and only against targets that can clearly be seen?

Would those modifications be enough?


eggplantman wrote:
I do think the rogue needs something. Something without changing it too much though.

Here are my suggestions.

  • Combat Style: At level 4, select a combat style, and one feat from the list for that style. At levels 10 and 16, get another feat from the same list. The Rogue need not take Combat Expertise as a prerequisite. For those feats marked with an asterisk, treat Rogue levels as Warrior levels for calculating CMB:
    • Cheater [Catch Off-Guard, Improved Dirty Trick*, Greater Dirty Trick*, Improved Trip*, Greater Trip*]
    • Thief [Improved Disarm*, Greater Disarm*, Improved Steal*, Greater Steal*, Skill Focus - Sleight of Hand]
    • Thug [Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple*, Stunning Fist, Intimidating Prowess, Skill Focus - Intimidate]
    • Coward [Dodge, Mobility, Run, Skill Focus - Bluff, Fleet]
    • Showoff [Antagonize, Dazzling Display, Skill Focus - Intimidate, Shatter Defenses, Weapon Focus]
    • Killer [Improved Initiative, Quickdraw, Skill Focus - Stealth, Improved Feint, Greater Feint]
  • Murderous Strike: at level 6, the Rogue can spend a standard action to make a single sneak attack, where the sneak attack dice are doubled.

  • Dark Archive

    3.5 Loyalist wrote:

    "And then some" is why I don't consider the class balanced. If it is a rogue and an alchemist, it is two in one.

    Got more info on the vivi? A friend wanted to play one but the pigs ate him.

    alch

    vivi


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Malignor wrote:
    eggplantman wrote:
    I do think the rogue needs something. Something without changing it too much though.

    Here are my suggestions.

  • Combat Style: At level 4, select a combat style, and one feat from the list for that style. At levels 10 and 16, get another feat from the same list. The Rogue need not take Combat Expertise as a prerequisite. For those feats marked with an asterisk, treat Rogue levels as Warrior levels for calculating CMB:
    • Cheater [Catch Off-Guard, Improved Dirty Trick*, Greater Dirty Trick*, Improved Trip*, Greater Trip*]
    • Thief [Improved Disarm*, Greater Disarm*, Improved Steal*, Greater Steal*, Skill Focus - Sleight of Hand]
    • Thug [Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple*, Stunning Fist, Intimidating Prowess, Skill Focus - Intimidate]
    • Coward [Dodge, Mobility, Run, Skill Focus - Bluff, Fleet]
    • Showoff [Antagonize, Dazzling Display, Skill Focus - Intimidate, Shatter Defenses, Weapon Focus]
    • Killer [Improved Initiative, Quickdraw, Skill Focus - Stealth, Improved Feint, Greater Feint]
  • Murderous Strike: at level 6, the Rogue can spend a standard action to make a single sneak attack, where the sneak attack dice are doubled.
  • I like the idea of the combat style though I think the last sentence of murderous strike is unnecessary. Just being able to spend a standard action to do a sneak attack is pretty cool. You might save that ability until the rogue would be high enough level to have multiple attacks or that's all the rogue would ever do. So 8th level would be the ideal time to gain that ability.


    Crimson Sirius wrote:
    Hayato Ken wrote:

    Actually, he is not right. Many archetypes got parts of what rogues can do, like trapfinding and disabling magical traps or sneak attack, but no one got it all as far as i know.

    Rogues are still a viable and fun to play choice.
    There are so many new feats and possibilities, just use them right and play tactically.

    More important, unlike barbarians or paladins, rogues offer countless unique options for roleplay.

    I really agree with the roleplaying part. That's one of the things that got me hooked on rogues.

    But can you point out some of these nice feats or combos you mentioned?

    You can have fun roleplaying any class.

    Traps? Any class can find traps. Even magical traps.
    And urban rangers and some Bard archetypes can even disable magic traps, and both classes are as good or skills monkeys as the rogue. Most bards are even better skill monkeys and both classes are great damage dealers. Even better than the rogue.

    Sure you can play a rogue. You just got to ask yourself, why. No sarcasm intended.
    So why do you want to play a rogue?
    I leave you with a post from another thread:

    A Man In Black wrote:

    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.


    eggplantman wrote:
    I like the idea of the combat style though I think the last sentence of murderous strike is unnecessary. Just being able to spend a standard action to do a sneak attack is pretty cool. You might save that ability until the rogue would be high enough level to have multiple attacks or that's all the rogue would ever do. So 8th level would be the ideal time to gain that ability.

    Very good point. Here's what I'd change it to...

  • Murderous Strike: at level 8, the Rogue can spend a standard action to make a single sneak attack, where the sneak attack dice are doubled. The sneak attack must meet the normal requirements, such as flanking or a target denied their dexterity bonus to AC.


  • say is it possible to team up sap adept, sap master and underhanded all at the same time?
    Lets see,using minimins
    D6 sap + 3d6 sneak attack + 6 sap adept
    in specific situations becomes
    D6 sap + 36 underhanded and sap master + 12 sap adept once or twice a day

    sounds worthwhile for sneaky ambushing

    also it sounds a bit gamey but is it possible to team up sap master with bleeding attack?
    My gut instinct is absolutely not since visciously cutting someone with a blungeoning non lethal attack makes no sense.

    RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

    Speaking as someone who likes the rogue... but understands some of the concerns...

    I think rogues in Pathfinder have become more of the general "jack of all trades" than the traditional other skillmonkey, the bard. Bards have become more focused party face/buffers (with good general skills to boot). Rogues become more of the fill in where-ever, 5th party member role than they used to be.

    They're decent, but not excellent, at melee--as good as a cleric or bard or a single-attacking monk, and they have a class feature, sneak attack, that requires melee to work most effectively (it is possible to get sneak attacks off from range but very difficult to set up).

    They of course have a ton of class skills and a ton of skill points. It's one of my favorite classes for dipping because a single level gives you a huge amount of class skills---but it isn't necessarily an incentive to keep going in it. They have almost all of the most useful non-magic class skills--Acrobatics, Disable Device Perception, Sense Motive, Stealth. The only one they don't have is Survival, which if you really want you can get from a trait or rogue talent. And then they have Use Magic Device, which really lets them fill in all kinds of roles nicely, or supplement spellcasting. And then they have all the social skills. How good this is can be dependent on circumstances and campaigns though -- in an urban campaign, a rogue's skills will constantly be in use. In a combat heavy wilderness campaign, less so.

    Rogues have some great defensive abilities -- uncanny dodge and evasion, and at relatively low levels. I've seen both of these make rogues very hard to hurt sometimes. Some folks have dismissed these but I've always found them very useful as a player and sometimes frustrating to bypass as a GM.

    And then they have rogue talents which offer some nice versatility--and are where the Pathfinder rogue in particular shines in terms of unique abilities. There are some rogue talents that ARE useful and canNOT be emulated by other classes; fast stealth, which is very handy, comes to mind as a quick example.

    And this is a lot of good stuff, and it's a lot of good stuff where the rogue may feel useful. But it's sometimes dependent on campaign--and the adeptness of the player. I think the effectiveness of the rogue can also depend a lot on how good the player is at milking all the rogues' abilities for all they're worth. Further, a lot of the rogue boils down to, "The rogue is decent at X,Y, and Z" but not excellent.

    What gets in the way of helping the rogue to shine more, and not just feel like the emergency backup adventurer?
    - Rogue talents are as a concept awesome, so why are they so often overlooked? Because they're inconsistent in quality, with some being dramatically more useful than others. On the good end, you have stuff like Fast Stealth and the like that can be really useful. But many rogue talents tend to be ridiculously circumstantial; there tend to be a lot of rogue talents that go along the lines of, "Gain +82 to your sneak attack if it is Saturday, you are wearing a chicken suit, and it is hailing in Brazil."

    Sure, some variance in general usefulness is fine--but a lot of rogue talents tend to go entirely for flavor at the complete expense of mechanical usefulness. Reading through the lists of rogue talents, I can see several that I can imagine never actually triggering in a campaign (or only once or twice).

    Come to think of it -- maybe that is the real problem with the rogue in general. It is a class that relies entirely upon specific circumstances to fall into place before it can actually do anything. You will shine IF your GM has a lot of skill challenges. Or IF the game uses a lot of traps. Or IF you manage to set up flanking. Or IF you win initiative in a surprise round. To a degree, every class has circumstances where it shines most, but we can rely on the fighter pretty much always being able to deal decent damage with his weapon or the wizard to be able to cast a spell that will help somehow.

    So the rogue needs more to do that doesn't rely on setting up the perfect circumstances that allow things can go off. The easiest place to fix this IS rogue talents -- add more rogue talents that grant some abilities that you know you will be able to use every session, more or less.

    - Rogue can be also surprisingly MAD. The rogues' light armor (and no shields) means the rogue needs to rely on Dexterity for AC, let alone for many commonly used rogue skills. But the Rogue also needs a decent Strength for melee (since sneak attack is most reliable in melee) and carrying capacity. It needs a decent Int if it wants all those yummy yummy skills, and/or the more roguey combat maneuvers like Improved Steal. It needs a decent Charisma if it's going to use the social skills, especially Bluff or Intimidate which the rogue may want for Feinting and the Dazzling Display tree. Oh, and the much vaunted Use Magic Device relies on Charisma too. And if your rogue is going to be in melee, you don't want a hideous Con. That leaves Wis to dump... until you need good Will saves (which rogues otherwise don't have). None of these scores need to be insanely high, but there's good arguments to build up all of them, and that gets frustrating.

    One quick solution to this is give Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers as bonus feats to Rogues at first level. I would be surprised if this ended up being very unbalancing. That reduces at least a lot of reliance on Strength (especially since you can make up for damage lost by setting up sneak attacks). And maybe create some rogue talents that boosts Will saves versus certain things (I think a few already exist, come to think of it).

    - Find a way to make sniping/sneak attacks at range easier. This is another place where some well designed rogue talents could come into play.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I find the rogue is great class for levels less than 10. Above level 10 I find the rogue falling far behind in combat and skill have become trivial. Traps don't appear as often as the rogue can auto detect and auto disarm them with no challenge. At this point every other class is getting more powerful the rogue is struggling to keep up. Now it's not that rogue ineffective just they aren't performing as well as the other class do at those levels. This why I would never take rogue past 11th or 12th level, I'd multiclass with something else. Personally I find the 11th level rogue 9th level fighter quite an good combo. The added feats, weapon training, armor training, extra BAB, boost to the Fort save, weapon specialization, greater weapon focus and extra hit points are very nice.


    If we are going to compare rogue to bard for skills we should be looking at archetypes. The base bard is definitely not as good at rogue skills as a rogue is, but some of the archetypes get close.

    Street Performer; keeps versatile performance and gets 1/2 level to a lot of rogue skills as well. However this archetype does not get trapfinding, and will be worse at finding/disabling traps. Street Performer gets the equivalent of 8+Int in rogue skills before versatile performance (which I would count as 1-2 more rogue skills).

    Sandman; loses versatile performance but gets 1/2 level to a lot of rogue skills. This archetype does get trapfinding, so is just as good as the rogue at finding/diabling traps. Sandman gets the equivalent of 8+Int rogue skills.

    Rogue gets an equivalent of 8.5+Int skill points counting trapfinding.

    IMO the bard archetypes above are going to be better than the rogue in most situations due to the bard's spell casting and bardic music. Of course on the combat side they play pretty differently.


    Crimson Sirius wrote:
    So... I've had a discussion with a friend over the pros and cons of playing a rogue in Pathfinder. He said that everything a rogue does can be done on the same level (if not better) by any other class.

    Sort of. Not really. Depends on the GM quite a bit.

    Crimson Sirius wrote:
    A door to pick? You could send the meat shield to open that up! Or a spellcaster to do something about it.

    Bash the door = goodbye surprise round. Cast a spell? You're kidding, right? Your wizard has slots or GP to waste? Wow. In all seriousness, I would love my caster players to be so naive, just so I could enjoy administering the lesson.

    Crimson Sirius wrote:
    A trap? Well, there are many ways to go around that, but if you REALLY want to use disable device, why don't you pick a bard instead?

    Bards do not get Disable Device as a class skill. Not even the trap-oriented archetypes like archaeologist. They also can't disable magic traps, but even if they take an archetype that can they will always be behind the rogue on this skill application. The few bard archs that get trap love are decidedly sub-optimal compared to the vanilla bard, too.

    Crimson Sirius wrote:
    The conversation went on and on like that. My friends point was: the rogue got nerfed on some points and other classes got nice perks, thus, Rogues are not necessary. I, being a fan of the class, got very disheartened by that.

    It sounds like your friends believe what they read on the internet. Internet balance rants can be a lot more convincing if the GM believes them too. Your GM can fix any "problem" with the rogue just by applying existing rules that may be ignored in your style of play.

    Crimson Sirius wrote:
    Are rogues really done?

    Depends on the GM. A GM who doesn't really understand skills, is uncreative with skill challenges, and who underthinks things like traps, secret doors, hidden treasures — you know, rogue stuff — that will break the rogue. If your GM isn't willing to address the increasingly marginalized role of skills in his campaign, yes, you are better off with another class.

    Crimson Sirius wrote:
    What could I do to make my rogue badass and have a shining role in the party?

    Talk to the GM. Focus on aspects of gameplay that you would like to see, and talk about ways to integrate that with the style that other players like. One 100% great way to integrate the rogue is to start incorporating trap challenges into combat rounds. Disable device uses rounds for timing for a reason.

    Crimson Sirius wrote:
    WHAT IS the purpose of having a rogue if other classes could have ways around those "rogue's specialties"?

    This is misleading. No spontaneous caster ever relies on trap spells, prepared casters need to see it coming and even then quantity outdoes them (unless they have a wand, which isn't cheap). Spells are resources, skills are not.

    The rogue isn't broken, but the game's evolution has been pushing the style-of-play of all groups away from the rogue. It used to be that traps and secret doors and hidden treasure were the core of the game. Now the game's core is combat. A conscious GM can fix that, or an unconscious GM sometimes just picks a trap-heavy adventure.

    Without the GM's support, the rogue is an unfun class. But that's true of all classes... it just happens that most groups favor a combat-heavy style of play over dungeon crawls.

    EDIT: Am I saying fix it with Rule 0? No. All of the tools are there in the rules, which implies that this is more of a GM blind spot. Not unlike, and indeed related-to, the 15 minute work day and soft timers on adventure plots.


    slacks wrote:
    If we are going to compare rogue to bard for skills we should be looking at archetypes. The base bard is definitely not as good at rogue skills as a rogue is, but some of the archetypes get close.

    You'll always be 3 points behind without the class skill. And Disable Device is go big or go home.

    Liberty's Edge

    Malignor wrote:

    Here are my suggestions.

  • Combat Style: At level 4, select a combat style, and one feat from the list for that style. At levels 10 and 16, get another feat from the same list. The Rogue need not take Combat Expertise as a prerequisite. For those feats marked with an asterisk, treat Rogue levels as Warrior levels for calculating CMB:
    • Cheater [Catch Off-Guard, Improved Dirty Trick*, Greater Dirty Trick*, Improved Trip*, Greater Trip*]
    • Thief [Improved Disarm*, Greater Disarm*, Improved Steal*, Greater Steal*, Skill Focus - Sleight of Hand]
    • Thug [Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple*, Stunning Fist, Intimidating Prowess, Skill Focus - Intimidate]
    • Coward [Dodge, Mobility, Run, Skill Focus - Bluff, Fleet]
    • Showoff [Antagonize, Dazzling Display, Skill Focus - Intimidate, Shatter Defenses, Weapon Focus]
    • Killer [Improved Initiative, Quickdraw, Skill Focus - Stealth, Improved Feint, Greater Feint]
  • Murderous Strike: at level 6, the Rogue can spend a standard action to make a single sneak attack, where the sneak attack dice are doubled.
  • Not bad. I like adding the following to a level 1 rogue's list of abilities gained:

    Combat Tactics (ex): Rogues are particularly adept at striking when their opponents are otherwise unable to defend themselves. When a rogue is making an attack under conditions that qualify for sneak attack (flanking or attacking a flat-footed foe, for example), he gains a +1 bonus to attack rolls. This bonus increases by +1 at 5th level and for every 5 rogue levels thereafter. (+2 at level 5, +3 at 10, +4 at 15, and +5 at 20.)

    ---

    This helps the rogue mimic the fighter's base attack bonus in situations where the rogue is supposed to shine: When in a position to sneak attack. This improves the rogue's accuracy in those situations without granting other benefits of high BAB, like additional attacks or better power attack/piranha strike damage.


    Evil Lincoln wrote:
    slacks wrote:
    If we are going to compare rogue to bard for skills we should be looking at archetypes. The base bard is definitely not as good at rogue skills as a rogue is, but some of the archetypes get close.
    You'll always be 3 points behind without the class skill. And Disable Device is go big or go home.

    1. I'll be even if we both take the right trait.

    2. "Go big or go home" depends entirely on your GM and setting, and could equally apply to other skills which the Bard archetypes are much better at than the straight Rogue.
    3. Disable device is not the only rogue skill.

    If all you care about is disable device then I would say the Archeologist wins from level 6 on.


    Axebeard wrote:


    Combat Tactics (ex): Rogues are particularly adept at striking when their opponents are otherwise unable to defend themselves. When a rogue is making an attack under conditions that qualify for sneak attack (flanking or attacking a flat-footed foe, for example), he gains a +1 bonus to attack rolls. This bonus increases by +1 at 5th level and for every 5 rogue levels thereafter. (+2 at level 5, +3 at 10, +4 at 15, and +5 at 20.)

    I was thinking of adding a Rogue talent along the same lines to my games, though I was going to limit it to only when the opponent was denied their Dexterity bonus (but it would work whether they were vulnerable to sneak attack or not).

    Another thought would be to allow a rogue to add their Dexterity modifier to damage when using ranged/finesse-able weapons, to a maximum of their rogue level (so no 1 level dips to maximize damage for rangers and the like.)


    Making Int one of your highest stats on a rogue character is actually a really rotten optimization idea. Int does exactly two things for rogues - gives them skill points and makes them better at knowledge and a few other skills. (Which they're not the ones who should be handling anyway - other classes have way more as class skills or actual valid reasons to pump int.)

    "But rogues are for skills! That's their job! Just like how a class that is good at hitting things with a sword takes character options that make them better at hitting things with a sword, a rogue should take character options that make them better at skills, like making what should be a dump stat for rogues their highest stat."

    Here's the thing, though - a fighter taking weapon focus is making himself better at something he's doing anyway. Making yourself better at something you're doing anyway is a great idea, because it means that your effectiveness in common situations is higher.

    "Skills", though, doesn't work like swinging a weapon. Rogues are NOT "good at skills". They get a lot of skill points, which allows them to be good at more different individual skills, but they get no more benefit from an extra skill point than any other class in the game. In fact, they arguably get LESS benefit from extra skill points because extra skill points have diminishing returns, because your eleventh skill point/level is going to be boosting something way, way less important than your third skill point/level. (This is offset to some degree by the large number of class skills rogues have, giving them places to scatter spare skill points for decent return.) The key thing here, though, is that a skill point on a rogue is NOT worth any more than a skill point on any other class. (Unless it's a disable device skill point, since rogues DO have a competitive advantage in disable device, but any rogue build will have the skill points for that.)

    There are some other classes for which a skill point in certain skills is something that's "worth more". Wizards benefit more than the average class from a skill point in Spellcraft, for example. There's only one class, though, that's really "good at skills". A class where an extra skill point on that class is worth a lot more than an extra skill point on another class. That class is not rogue. It's bard. A bard who, by being human or having a good int score or whatever, is getting extra skill points, provides additional utility to the party compared to if those skill points were on another character. A bard makes the skill points he has count for more than what they're generically worth. A rogue does not. Bards are "good at skills". Rogues are not, they just get a bunch of skill points.


    Evil Lincoln wrote:
    Without the GM's support, the rogue is an unfun class. But that's true of all classes... it just happens that most groups favor a combat-heavy style of play over dungeon crawls.

    I just can't agree with blaming the GM for Rogue issues. Or combat heavy campaigns, or 15 minute work days. While these can make things worse, it doesn't really address the specific issues people raise.

    In terms of the GM, anyone who takes traditionally "roguish" skills is in the same position as the Rogue class. If Disguise and Sleight of Hand don't come up, a bard who invested in them is losing out just as much as a Rogue. The issue is, when they do come up, the Bard is going to be just as good as the Rogue, but with the option of burning resources to be far superior. If it doesn't come up, he can use those resources on other activities. Having two extra skill points doesn't bridge this class feature gap for me. It is one of the reasons I love the Ninja: a unified resource pool to draw from, so more powerful options can be offered and used as needed as opposed to abilities balanced by being situational.

    In relation to combat heavy campaigns, I also don't see a specific Rogue problem. A member of another class can be built more heavily towards combat or non-combat scenarios too. That a Rogue built for out of combat use is very weak in combat, while a Ranger or Bard built in a similar way will still be able to contribute quite well, just highlights the issue with the class.

    I agree that people will latch onto these arguments and blow them out of proportion. It is how we get the idea that the Rogue is "worthless" rather than weak, or that Wizards have limitless power, or any argument related to AM BARBARIAN. However, even with that in consideration, I believe the Rogue is too far on the weak side and could really use a boost. More broadly useful talents, interesting feat options that aren't at the end of the long chains, or most any of the more drastic options listed in this thread could help bring the Rogue up to the level of other classes again. And that would be a very nice thing to see.


    @ Joyd

    This is exactly the sort of thing I'm finding repellent about PFSOP: 'it's a really rotten optimization idea.'

    You seem to be defining "important" as "optimal." The two are not the same thing. I put intelligence as my highest stat for a rogue because I WANT those 'way, way less important' (optimal) skills. I like having some craft skills and profession skills (at LEAST one of each). I KNOW PFSOP nerfs 'em both, but I still want them. And knowledge skills are pretty much ALWAYS a good thing to have.

    And if an extra skill point is of 'no more benefit' to a rogue than any other class, HOW do you reach the conclusion that that extra skill point is better on a bard?

    I will also point out that intelligence is the controlling attribute for that all-important disable device skill, as well as appraise, linguistics, and every craft and knowledge skill.

    You do a disservice to people who enjoy being that amazingly multitalented guy (or gal) who has a skill for every occasion by chiding them for being less-than-optimal. It's not like we NEED to be optimal, judging by all the whining about scenarios not being challenging enough.

    This kind of attitude makes it really difficult to enjoy playing a character who's built on a solid CONCEPT, rather than a number-crunching, MUNCHKIN eye for what's "optimal."

    Shadow Lodge

    Joyd wrote:
    Bards are "good at skills". Rogues are not, they just get a bunch of skill points.

    Tell that to the campaign I'm dominating with my outlandish Bluff skill.

    Why bother with trapfinding? The Ranger can find them and the Alchemist can disarm them. I can help, if I feel like it. Actually, I'm about as good as they are. But why do it yourself when you can just delegate?


    Alitan wrote:

    @ Joyd

    This is exactly the sort of thing I'm finding repellent about PFSOP: 'it's a really rotten optimization idea.'

    You seem to be defining "important" as "optimal." The two are not the same thing. I put intelligence as my highest stat for a rogue because I WANT those 'way, way less important' (optimal) skills. I like having some craft skills and profession skills (at LEAST one of each). I KNOW PFSOP nerfs 'em both, but I still want them. And knowledge skills are pretty much ALWAYS a good thing to have.

    You can define "important" however you like; it doesn't change the underlying argument. "Important to my character concept" is just as legit as "important for being a character who can effectively contribute to overcoming challenges."

    Quote:
    And if an extra skill point is of 'no more benefit' to a rogue than any other class, HOW do you reach the conclusion that that extra skill point is better on a bard?

    Versatile performance lets a bard get 2+ skills worth of skill points. Bards can take 10/20 on knowledge checks, and eventually all checks. Bards eventually get everything as a class skill. It's not much, but it means that if there's a bard and a rogue in the same party and I get the option to give an extra skill point to one of them somehow, I give ii to the bard.

    To be fair to rogues, they actually do have talents that allow them to get added value out of skill points, but it means further compromising their already limited combat potential. Bards just get it for free.

    Quote:
    I will also point out that intelligence is the controlling attribute for that all-important disable device skill,
    Ever actually made a DD check? It's dexterity, a stat that rogues have an actual use for.
    Quote:

    as well as appraise, linguistics, and every craft and knowledge skill.

    You do a disservice to people who enjoy being that amazingly multitalented guy (or gal) who has a skill for every occasion by chiding them for being less-than-optimal. It's not like we NEED to be optimal, judging by all the whining about scenarios not being challenging enough.

    This kind of attitude makes it really difficult to enjoy playing a character who's built on a solid CONCEPT, rather than a number-crunching, MUNCHKIN eye for what's "optimal."

    I love rogues. I love the concept of the rogue, and I love the concept of the guy whose good at a lot of stuff. I am sad that the rogue is not the guy who is best at a lot of stuff, since he's the worst combatant and "good at lots of stuff" is supposed to be his niche. I can still have an objective discussion about what is and isn't powerful in a Pathfinder game. For better or for worse, that means discussing characters that are not deliberately built weaker than their normal potential. I also like to take craft and profession skills! I think they're a nice way to fill out a character, especially one with so many skill points. But when discussing whether a character type is mechanically well-balanced against other options, it helps to assume that they're not just taking fluff options that make the character less effective overall. My post was intended to demonstrate why making Int a high stat on a rogue is NOT "the thing to do" to bring the rogue out from its status of "class that is mechanically outclassed at the things its supposed to be good at by several other classes, while still paying for it by being relatively ineffective in combat". I apologize if it came off as chiding; people are free to build their characters however they want, including taking options that are rotten from an optimization perspective. (I do it!) It's just that characters built around concepts that happen to make them ineffective at overcoming standard pathfinder challenges aren't particularly relevant for a discussion of class balance.


    Versatile Performance and Bardic Knowledge. Bards get two for one on several of their skills and can potentially hit 50% higher knowledge DCs if they max those. If you place value on having useless skills a bard gets three for one on performances giving the level 2 bard with X int as many skill points to spread around as the level 2 rogue with X int with the sole constraint that the perform and one of several skill pairs linked to it are at 2. Then there are the knowledges. The bard gets pretty good knowledge for one point each.

    If the rogue isn't the better way to build the dilettante than the bard why use it? If you want to pump int and suck at combat you can do that with a bard just as well as a rogue. It's a little harder to suck at combat with medium spellcasting, but I'm sure you can manage to select your spells known for that purpose.


    In our sunday game i am playing a lvl 12 rogue, we just made 13 (but havent picked my stuff for the lvl yet) For the most part i havent had alot of fun with anythig related to combat in 4-5 levels. For the most part its like being a kinder gardener trying to play full contact sports with people in highschool.

    for example we made it 2/3 of the way through lvl 12 before i got to actually sneak attack.

    However there are contributing factors to this some of which i could have solved had i anticipated the problems, but before this AP i had never played a character over lvl 8.

    My party is a bad makeup for sneak attack. at this point the only character who can take a full attack from a Main bad guy monster is a Cohort. So i rarely have anyone to Flank with. in fact i did so for the first time the other night in 3 or 4 levels.

    IF i had anticipated the problems i could ave taken feats to make myself more 'combaty' but i have stuff that was fun at the time and.. well no longer use.

    Really i probly wouldnt play a rogue again if i expect the game to go to high level.


    @ Joyd - ooops on the DD/Int thing; dunno how I got that in there.

    @Altarlost - they're not useless skills, thanks.

    I'm outta this thread. Not worth banging my head over.

    Liberty's Edge

    Theconiel is almost always the most versatile member of the party. I play PFS, so the party makeup can vary considerably.

    Do we need someone to shoot enemies? I can do that. I made sure to have Precise Shot for shooting into combat.

    Do we need to bluff our way around an encounter? Do we need to convince someone to help us? My charisma isn't high, but I have skill ranks in Bluff and Diplomacy.

    Is there no one else who can use the wand of CLW? Again, my charisma isn't high, but I have ranks in UMD.

    I am reasonably effective in melee, if I have a flanking partner. I am almost always able to tumble around foes to flank and get sneak attack.

    No one else in the party disables traps as well as I.

    Do we need to sneak weapons into some sort of social gathering? I'm the one for that.

    I am usually the best choice for Knowledge (Local).

    Yes, others are better archers than I. Yes, others are better at going toe-to-toe with opponents than I. But I can do the widest variety of useful things.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Someone show me how a bard can find and deal with traps better than a rogue.

    We are also still waiting on that wizard build that makes a rogue useless.

    Also, after the first quick one, versatile performance comes at 6 and 10, so who is doing all those skills before then?


    Deyvantius wrote:
    Someone show me how a bard can find and deal with traps better than a rogue.

    Be an Archaeologist and take Vagabond Youth or a different trait to gain Disable Device as a class skill. Done. Congratulations, you are now numerically identical to a Rogue. Better, in fact, because your Perception bonus is universal (not just for traps), you can use your luck or spells to boost yourself, and your trapfinding has some built in talents.

    Deyvantius wrote:
    We are also still waiting on that wizard build that makes a rogue useless.

    It is customary to wait until someone actually makes an argument before demanding a build. Spells and magic are mentioned as one of many reasons that Rogues fall behind, but nobody here has said there is a Wizard build that makes Rogues useless. Or that Rogues are useless, for that matter.

    Deyvantius wrote:
    Also, after the first quick one, versatile performance comes at 6 and 10, so who is doing all those skills before then?

    Someone else who took them? Or perhaps use different options until you grab them with VP? I don't see how this is particularly relevant, anyway. The Rogue's two skill point bonus isn't impressive with or without the existence of Versatile Performance. I think Joyd explained this quite well already. That Bards can eventually end up with even more skillpoints is really just icing on the schtick-stealing cake.

    Liberty's Edge

    Atarlost wrote:
    But, seriously, high int rogues? An obligate melee class since ranged sneak attack isn't viable so they need lots of con. They have a weak will save so they need quite a bit of wisdom.

    Since when isn't ranged-sneak viable?

    -- Sniper rogues are among the most deadly opponents a party of PCs (let alone a single individual) can face: if their Perception can't crack enemy Stealth, they're screwed unless they can find a place to hole up.

    Imagine a foe who, at any random moment of the day, zings you one for 1d8+6d6. You're out in the middle of nowhere, running low of consumables and spell uses per day, and can't get a moment's rest -- and if they let you sleep, it'll be to coup de grace.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    So, just to give some input to the rogue role... Take a half orc. Your attributes are Str and Dex (8 sp is enough without int bonus), Cha is your low ability (18-15-12-10-10-7 might be a good 15 point buy start). Get a falchion, get power attack, get at some point toughness, dodge, medium armor proficency -with a mithral brestplate?-, improved critical (you could also think about a fighter level); make them bleed with your snakes attacks and hit when they don't expect with a two handed!

    You have a lot of skills anyway, you sacrifice charisma and related skills (this kind of character would be probably best in a party where there is a paladin / sorcerer another 'face' of the party), but you can still cover a lot of situations and you hit HARD. You can acrobatically jump in position, deliver one massive snake attack (maybe with vital strike later on) with a nice dmg output: your buddy will be flanking on his round, you can deliver another snake attack on your next turn and acrobatically find your way out of trouble if needed.
    Your use magic device would not be optimized, maybe you won't be the best character for later on gaming (as any non-spellcaster class is) but still very effective. You can also add an assassin level just to try a death attack as combat starter (the CD will be ridiculously low, but it's gonna kill anyway rarely; you don't get 1 BAB but you have a plain 1d6 SA bonus for 1 lv into assassin. Consider well if it's the case).
    Most probably rogue / fighter is the natural develop of such a build.
    Human would also be a nice choice for this kind of character, but keep in mind that if you play a human, 1 fighter level is almost a must to get all the proficiency.


    Evil Lincoln, thank you for sharing your wisdom with us.
    It´s absolutely right, having fun with playing a rogue depends a lot on the GM, his understanding of the rules of skills and traps, lighting conditions, vision and terrain, flanking rules, surprise round rules, being able to determine the difference between flat-footed and denied DEX, etc. It also depends on your fellow players. If those don´t understand how to flank a foe and that they too profit from it, well ... let them be flanked hehe.

    I saw people who didn´t know that a rogue doesn´t want to hit full AC, but "flat footed" AC for a sneak attack while flanking or attacking from stealth(the term flat footed is currently badly used in Pathfinder, it is kind of confusing, because of the two terms in use, denied DEx and flat footed. But the AC entry reads flat footed AC.).
    I also heard a lot of stuff about skills. Like "oh no you can´t do that with diplomacy!" - "Why not, thats whats written there." - "Skills are not magic, its like dominating someone" - "Yes exactly, only i don´t need magic for it."

    Also the focus of the game really shifted. Rogues shine in a lot of stuff, you can play amazing things with them. But if you only focus on combat, you need to optimize rogues for combat. At this point many people forget that its a group game and you are supposed to cooperate. While you can build a rogue that fights well and survives on its own, its feat intensive and a rogue with a team to cooperate too will always be better. Same is true for all classes.

    What is a problem with some skills are fixed DC´s.
    Like sleight of hand stealing something the DC 20 to notice it.
    The relation between stealth and perception is also an ingame problem, high WIS classes can have such ridiculous perception, its just impossible to sneak around them.
    Stealth rules should be written clearer, as should perception rules. Also there should be more interaction for rogues with stealth and sneak attack. And yes there are many feats that make rogues really great, but need long, long feat lines and/or higher BAB´s. Common argument is those are for fighters to help them out. Well, rangers and barbarians can take them too and surely don´t need help. It should be for non-magical melee classes.

    But all of that doesn´t mean rogues are a weak class.
    It´s you failing to play and build them right.
    Adding to that are some in my eyes real poor design choices, the alchemist class with all its archetypes is a real fail. And this reflects a Paizo problem, obviously there is no such thing as a common creation line anymore, some staff statements clearly reflect that too.
    Different guys, different imaginations. Only problem is a lack of communication to keep the game in check and everything at its place.
    (I don´t want to use the word balance here.) Why pick out alchemist for that? Alchemist can pretty well jump in for every other class, they can just get everything. Why open up such stuff for some classes ubt keep other classes so restricted and gift them with inconsistent rules?
    Just look at so many rogue talents, talking about flat footed, making it a once an encounter eventually not bad ability.


    Mike Schneider wrote:
    Imagine a foe who, at any random moment of the day, zings you one for 1d8+6d6. You're out in the middle of nowhere, running low of consumables and spell uses per day, and can't get a moment's rest -- and if they let you sleep, it'll be to coup de grace.

    You camp someplace with 60 feet of unobstructed sight and put the dwarf or half orc on watch. The rogue says "Oh look i'm in the dark " the person with dark vision says "You're standing in the open, you have no cover and no concealment. Auto spot! WHACK"

    And by 12th level you're not camping anywhere except maybe in your Tiny hut. Pardon me, do you have any grey poupon?

    The rogue relies on particular terrain and target types: which are not under his control, they're under the DM's. Rogues work ok as foes but the mark of how good a class is for a player is how well a player can do with it.

    1 to 50 of 196 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / The Rogue All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.