soooooo basically if you want to find traps you dont need to play a rogue. play a rogue because the class is appealing, not because it is the best at something ...
/end thread
The reason so many people are complaining is that not only is it not "the best at something," other classes are better at each of its aspects without trying too hard.
The class doesn't look very appealing when each of the other party members are better at your jobs in the course of doing their own. It has a cool history and a sexy name- and not much else, anymore (unless the GM is constantly and specifically throwing treats your way).
+1
I try to avoid the division of roles in the party as if we were in a video-game like WOW (the tank, the healer, the damage dealer...). Role play is about playing a character, trying to successfully complete an adventure or what goals your character has (it also depends on the campaign of course).
If I had to divide characters, I would make two big categories: 'casters' (divine or arcane) and 'fighters'. In the 'fighters' etiquette I also put monks and rogues.
Compare Rogue to Fighter: they both get a talent each 2 levels, but since Rogue benefits from sneak attack, 8 skill points against 2 and a wide selection of em, evasion, uncanny dodge... of course he has to lose some (in terms of BAB, damage, hp, CA).
Of course you can't think of a Rogue as only a skill dealer, you have to build it in order to be able do something else efficiently (archer / stabber / fighter, whatever suits you), or maybe multiclass it (rogue is one of the best 1 level classes).
Traps can be nasty, and yeah a Rogue (or an Archeologist or whatever it is, never played or seen one in my whole experience or roleplayer) is the best class to deal with them, but it's not that is necessary to have a Rogue just for that (as it's not necessary to have any particular class to reach a specific goal,it's enough that the party's competences vary), there are many ways to get past a particular devastating trap also if it has infinite 'resets' (thus a little crit activating it would not be enough): you can hire a rogue to disarm it, you can pass through the walls with a spell, maybe it would be enough a spell to reveal traps to know where they are and walk past them, or it might be a fly spell used to reach the other side of the room avoiding that particular area, and so on.
+ 10.000.000.000
I try to avoid the division of roles in the party as if we were in a video-game like WOW (the tank, the healer, the damage dealer...)
Where do you think MMO's got the idea? We've had the role of meat shield, thief and caster since collecovision if not pong.
Role play is about playing a character, trying to successfully complete an adventure or what goals your character has (it also depends on the campaign of course).
This argument works better against the rogue class than it does for it. Being sneaky is a METHOD. Not the sole purview of any one class. The question is what is the rogue class FOR these days? Unless you're specifically designing the concept to meet the class by excluding magic the answer seems to be not much.
Sorry Zark, but i have to cut you out there.
This assumption relies on misinterpretations.
[...]
From "what i read" ... "the devs" sounds pretty much like trollings of people not able to read the core rulebook and be aware of what they actually read and there seem to be plenty of those regarding stealth and sneak attack.
Edit:
[threadjack]Start with a diplomatic "misinterpretations" and then end with an insult.
I can't read the rulebook or I'm trolling or both.
Real classy.
Apparently I'm not the only stupid reader. Perhaps that is why they are rewriting the stealth rules.
BTW, your are missing the point. The stealth rules are a mess and that sure isn't helping the rogue, but from what I get, they are working on it. [/threadjack]
I didnt mean to insult you and i apologize if you take this as an insult.
But you are actually telling from hearsaying and including devs about a very sensitive topic here. Also there was quite the evidence of the opposite in the thread i mentioned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But those resources wouldn't be there at all if i wasn't playing a druid.
That argument does not hold water, as you are not comparing the party + druid with just the party, but with the party + rogue. You would need to see the resources you spend compared to those spent by the rogue and then evaluate whether or not the druid performs better in all other situations. To be honest, given the strength of the druid, I would rather think he does in today's gaming environment. Of course, in the olden days your druid would have killed himself and probably the party three times over by triggering every trap, as traps were devious, deadly and prone to punish such a style of gaming. But since traps in PF are rarely more than obstacles meant to drain the party's resources, taking the hit if you can survive it will often work as well as disarming it.
The main problem with the rogue is that he does not age well. Rogues can be pretty good at low to low-medium levels. They can pull their weight in combat, not being the best combatants but being good enough, and they can contribute to almost all encounters, like stealthy or social situations for example. In fact, rogues will get a lot of spotlight at lower levels, because they rarely encounter a situation that leaves them out of their depths. They will often not be the best, but good enough to get some piece of action: jacks-of-all-trades. The (IMO good) changes PF made to the skill system do hurt the rogue from the beginning, but not so much as to render them useless.
Unfortunately, as the party gains levels, spells, special abilities and magic items will tread on the rogue's territories, especially skills. There are so many spells that lessen the need for skills. Not to mention the ones that simply change the dynamics of the battlefield. There will be many situations that used to be the rogue's time to shine that will be taken over by other classes. Monster abilities reduce the usefulness of stealth and other skills. At the same time, the rogue's combat prowess starts to fall behind more noticeably. The lower BAB begins to tell, monsters with reach and special abilities make reliably getting Sneak Attack in more difficult, high monster damage means higher danger for classes with lower HPs and so on. Casters come unto their own and gain an ever growing toolbox that can be used for a plethora of situations.
The strengthening of the bard compounds this problem. He too is a jack-of-all-trades, but with his spellcasting his power curve does not flatten as much as compared to rogues. The same can be said for the new and much more versatile ranger. As other classes gain versatility, they intrude on the one area that the rogue really excels at.
In short, if you expect to see a lot of lower level play, a rogue is not a bad choice. But at higher level I would rather pick a different class.
I do not know how to fix this, or even if it needs to fixed in a game with so many different options. There are so many classes and archetypes that can be used to play rogue-ish characters if you do not insist on the rogue, and the rogue will actually be viable in many campaigns.
I thought about making Use Magic Device a rogue-only auto-advancing class ability, which would create rogues that can use the funky stuff that the party loots but nobody can activate, granting them a mix of strange tricks and aces up their sleeves, giving them some of their situational control back via scrolls and wands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoy rogues. That said, I see their "role" as leaning itself to a more solo adventuring style, more noncombat elements...which is and isn't what DnD has become.
Solo adventure? It's a party-based game, and the heavies will have trouble sneaking through the underbrush, or infiltrating the enemy encampment.
No combat or more ambush-oriented? DnD is a set of rules that was based around a set of miniatures. I love the noncombat elements...yet, it is primarily combat-focused.
A class with "rogue-like abilities" may fit more closely and work more closely with other party members than "purely rogue-like abilities."
Rogues are a handicap.
For those players who hog the spotlight, and you want to be more on par, play a rogue (or monk). It'll help even things out.
It's also weaker then the other classes. I know some people here can create amazingly effective rogues, but it requires a lot of game knowledge to pull off.
No combat or more ambush-oriented? DnD is a set of rules that was based around a set of miniatures. I love the noncombat elements...yet, it is primarily combat-focused.A class with "rogue-like abilities" may fit more closely and work more closely with other party members than "purely rogue-like abilities."
These are extremely informative to this discussion. The Rogue class requires you to try a heck of a lot harder to be good at its specialties than other classes. If you want to even compete for "the best," you are spending 90-100% of your effort and resources doing it, and odds are someone can match or beat you using about 60% of theirs- and usually surpass everything you are capable of in a few levels with that same level of effort.
The Rogue's specialties are also things that either need DM cooperation for (not just "not ignore you" or "not fight you," but actual go out of your way cooperation), or they are things that are specifically exclusive to the rest of the party being able to participate (stealth, traps, scouting). It's helpful when you can do it, but everyone else is waiting on you, not actively assisting- the old "Decker" problem. If they are assisting- it's not your specialization anymore, so why did you sacrifice so much elsewhere (and in the long run) to do it?
Rogues are a handicap.
For those players who hog the spotlight, and you want to be more on par, play a rogue (or monk). It'll help even things out.
This isn't fueling a creative discussion, just distracting from genuinely informative responses. Everyone who responds to this bait is paying that much less attention to something that might give them pause and challenge their assumptions.
I'm playing a Rogue and being very successful in the group. Two people have even called my character OP, including an Alchemist.
I've made plenty of contribution to "creative discussion" and provided "genuinely informative responses". I've offered some optional class mods and (using an alt) talked about the benefits of skill monkeys.
My "bait" is actually a new angle to look at a Rogue, or any class which is perceived to be "weaker". Not like I have to answer to you, or that you have any authority despite your presumptuous and haughty sounding reply.
Good day.
Malignor, please feel free to share your insights how you play a rogue with us.
Not like I have to answer to you, or that you have any authority despite your presumptuous and haughty sounding reply.
Good day.
Fair enough, I deserved that.
My "bait" is actually a new angle to look at a Rogue, or any class which is perceived to be "weaker".
This I don't actually understand. A full, 20-level base class, placed in with the rest, giving the implication that it is fully on par with the others and can function at all levels- but its limitations are simply it working as intended, a self-imposed handicap? That it isn't designed to fulfill a concept so much as be used to bring skillful players into parity with everyone else?
If that actually is the case, wouldn't it be wise to pull it out from the rest and label it as such? Something along the lines of what was done with the Broodmaster Summoner, a disclaimer warning of potential problems and pitfalls? Or is that what the Ninja is for, so people can play a Rogue with more distinctive specialties that last deeper into the 20 levels?
That argument does not hold water, as you are not comparing the party + druid with just the party, but with the party + rogue. You would need to see the resources you spend compared to those spent by the rogue and then evaluate whether or not the druid performs better in all other situations.
Sure it does. Comparing what a druid spends to be a rogue is only half the equation. You have to figure out what a druid adds. If the druid is bringing in 10 spells and needs 3 of them to be a rogue you're still up 7 spells. There's an opportunity cost in being a rogue that isn't made clear if you only look at resources spent without looking at resources added.
"I thought about making Use Magic Device a rogue-only auto-advancing class ability, which would create rogues that can use the funky stuff that the party loots but nobody can activate, granting them a mix of strange tricks and aces up their sleeves, giving them some of their situational control back via scrolls and wands."
This is a very nice idea I think the staff should take it into consideration. Bravo! Something like wild empathy, so it would save skill points to the rogue to spend in other skills (as if it needs lol).
Anyway, it's hard to make perfectly balanced classes leaving complete freedom to players. In a video game is easier, because you have restrictions that make rules easier, it's just a matter of maths to make balanced classes. Here is different, how much can be valuated the ability to have high stealth, perception, bluff, diplomacy and disguise? Using these skills could allow you to avoid completely a fight, that could have been deadly. Than you are better than a warrior that would have to fight and die there?
I mean this is role play. With most GMing, stealth is a skill you use vs perception to be undetected. I don't know what are the RAWs that make this a non-viable option, but if it's like this I'd say RAW sucks.
Also, spell casting IS AWESOME. It's hard to make balanced 'fighter' classes (or 'not caster' if you prefore the term) in comparison with spell casters, because with levels they will be basically able to do whatever they want with spells. And I think this is pretty a fact. I also think that Pathfinder has done a lot to make non-casters classes more competitive (the ranger example comes to mind).
As for bards... Honestly I don't see why bards should be so much better than rogues. First of all, no multiclass with bards (otherwise you just split powers with no synergies). They rock in out of combat, more than rogues, but they don't have high perception (or are you making a bard with high WIS, almost the only dumpable ability for bards?), in a 1v1 he would probably be surprised, stabbed and sneaked by a rogue, before starting the combat and be able to cast out a modest spell (given that he passes his concentration check).
The save on their spell is modest, and they don't have sneak attack (imagine a rogue without sneak attack what a poor damage dealer would be: this is more or less a bard).
Maybe I'm missing some extra content from some strange book with awesome bard talents and archetypes that let you use your CHA modifier insted of STR DEX COS and WIS, but guys please this is like with 'Magic the gathering' or 'yugiho', to sell you have to give always more powerful options to all users, otherwise who would buy a new set of cards/rulebook?
My suggestion is not to mix role play with marketing or videogames.
If it's a matter of class balances, than I would nerf casters more than powering rogues, and give to spells the importance they deserve, like it was in the original warhammer roleplay game I'd say. I think I'm starting a new thread about this :)
Yo goodnight!
The rogue like any other class has the capability of shining like any other class. I don't understand they have to be optimized though in order to feel somewhat useful though. Why is it that when they do spike they do less damage then a lot of other classes? Why is it that one of their main class features are barely used? Why is it that they can be crushed like a bug by monsters as if they were just a nuisance? Why does the DM have to offer prebuilt in advantages in encounters for them to be effective? Why does the class have bad defenses overall when it's melee? Why does the class only generate good damage if he's going sap master or twf? (considering that nonlethal damage is even more conditional and twf makes it hard to hit) Why can a second level spell beat the rogue at stealthing?
A party just really doesn't need a rogue anymore considering other classes can fill their nearly all their roles and be better. As for people that will state all that matters is roleplaying I think you're lying to yourself and your peers. There is no sensible reason to play a rogue for a character concept when you could play another class that will fill that character concept.
Mh, i don´t know.
I´ve been playing a ninja since the playtest caem out.
In most cases, invisible blade is not a boon anymore because of some countereffects.
I still deal enough damage and contribute in many good ways, often saving the party.
It´s true, you don´t need a rogue anymore.
But then, you don´t need any of the other classes either, just some fuys who fill some concept and can take over some parts.
Malignor, please feel free to share your insights how you play a rogue with us.
Build
Combat
Skills
Now, all this is also "commoner-capable", but not all at once. The Rogue can do all these things, and should never be found lacking something to do.
The only place I end up feeling small is in combat, where I'm more often useful spamming stolen wands than fighting, and when I fight, I get maybe 1 or 2 SA, or get to tank for awhile with defensive actions. That said, I think the Rogue's only fix should be a combat fix... and my pet peeve is TWF, so I love my fix of, at level 8 (when BAB is +6), spending a standard action to deliver a x2 dice SA.
@Hayato Ken: Apology accepted.
There are a lot of hearsaying going around. Even is this thread. Sometimes you believe posters, sometimes you don't. Stealth rules are messy and I admit I'm not even sure on how they work in all situation.
HiPS, Stealth, Stealth + spring attack, Stealth and the use or stuff like Blur or a tower shield, etc. has been up for debate for a long time.
As for evidence, I'm not sure what to believe. I'm waiting for the new stealth rules or/and FAQ. No point in having bickering between players and GM at the table until there is a fix. Until then all players are left to the GM's discretion.
pretty sure you cannot stealth with spring attack.
If it's not a disable device check Rogues are no better than anyone else.If Mr. Anyone Else has the skill points.
Theoretically, he may; practically, he almost never does.
A) Mr. and Mrs. Anyone Else may not need to.
B) Mr. Anyone Else does not need to be a one man party. All classes gets skill points. 2, 4, 6 or 8. +/- int, fav. class and human bonus point. All players/classes in the group can and should help out.Let's say you have a party with a Battle Oracle, Barbarian and druid. In this group a Bard archetype that can find and disable traps would probably be more useful since he add arcane magic to them mix.
In a group with Fighter, Cleric and sorcerer a rogue might be a fin addition to the group. At least at lower levels.
C) You don't have to max skills to make them useful. Just look a the Icons. They don't. My bards seldom do. They max UMD until they have +19
|
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.
Considering that there are Ranger archetypes with Trapfinding, I'm sort of inclined to agree at this point.
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.Considering that there are Ranger archetypes with Trapfinding, I'm sort of inclined to agree at this point.
And the Ranger can use evasion and Improved evasion in medium armor or even in a mithral fullplate.
When facing is favored enemy he do as much damage (or more) as a fighter and with instant enemy he can do as much damage (or more)as a fighter regardless of the opponent.
Then there are spells. abilities and bonus feat and good reflex and fortitude saves. Two good saves are nice when dealing with traps.
Heck. Or play any Ranger, Vanilla or any archetype and pick one level rogue.
You have to figure out what a druid adds.
I did not get that from your last post, but since you meant to say it, we are essentially arguing the same point.
Whilst I like Malignor's combat styles, I feel that that's just making the rogue into yet another mundane melee specialist. It's necessary but not sufficient, and results in a poor ranger. he rogue needs something to help it with roguery. Something like:
1) Rogue SA works in dim light. Other classes need a feat.
2) Rogues get low-light vision and eventually darkvision.
3) 1 Favored Terrain (as the Ranger, but bonuses to Climb, Knowledge (Dungeon, Local, Geog or Planes as applicable) Perception, Stealth) as a Talent. Seriously, why is a ranger better at stealth than a rogue?
4) Camouflage (as the Ranger) in all favored terrains as a Talent.
5) Hide in Plain Sight (as Ranger) in all favored terrains as an Advanced Talent. Requires Camouflage.
6) Fix the more hopeless talents. Some are feat-equivalent; some, especially in the APG, are worse than useless. A shining example is Powerful Sneak, which swaps -2 to hit for +1/6 of a point of damage per die. If that were -2 to hit for +1 per die, it still wouldn't be as good as Power Attack until 7th level.
And as well as all this, high-level skills need to do something special and marvellous so that they can compete with low-level spells. Climb on the ceiling. Wuxia acrobatics. Stealth that lets you walk through a door without even opening it. Disarm using Sleight of Hand (that's how the Steal maneuver should work). This would help the Monk as well, who could do with a bit of love no matter how he looks Stoic about it.
Ehm Mudfoot, there are already rogue talents like you describe them. Ok some are ninja, but they are there.
Hey guys, i just got pretty amazing new insights on a often overseen feat from James Jacobs: Hellcat stealth.
Can you perhaps explain the hellcat stealth feat? Does it only work in normal and bright light or can you use stealth in dim light and darkness with this too if observed? Could i say it´s like you gain concealment in normal and bright light, but only for the purpose of stealth (no miss chance etc)? Does this feat allow me to sneak around without concealment and cover in normal and bright light? How would this interact with darkvision in dim light and darkness?
Ummm... Stealth feat? Are you asking about its "Invisible in Light" ability? The ability seems to be pretty straightforward to me... there are 4 light conditions.
In bright light it's invisible.
In normal light you have a 20% miss chance to hit it.
In dim light, it's normal.
In darkness, the MOST it can become concealed is only partial concealment, whereas most creatures gain full concealment.
This is near revolutionary and opens a lot of incrdible stuff for rogues, while at the same time it makes the dim light condition a new problem.
Debate! (On a friendly and quality level please)
Debate! (On a friendly and quality level please)
I don't think there is a debate here. He misunderstood you, and thought you were talking about the monster "Hellcat," and its "Invisible in Light" ability.
In bright light, a hellcat has natural invisibility. In normal light, a hellcat has partial concealment (20% miss chance). In dim light, it has no concealment. In darkness, a hellcat’s flickering glow limits it to partial concealment, unless the darkness is magical in nature.
Totally unrelated to the feat "Hellcat Stealth," unless you happen to be taking it AS a Hellcat. So sorry, no. No Rogue revolution here.
Ehm Mudfoot, there are already rogue talents like you describe them. Ok some are ninja, but they are there.
Not really.
stuffThis is near revolutionary and opens a lot of incrdible stuff for rogues, while at the same time it makes the dim light condition a new problem.
It's James Jacobs, not Sean or Jason.
I don't mind asking James for an advice. I use his answers as they are given. As opinions and advice but I do follow them.But he is not a Jason or Sean. His words are not official rulings. Even if he was right I don't think it changes much.
Yes sorry, this was a misunderstanding. No raveolution here unfortunately.
Hellcat Stealth is a great feat if you want to bug your DM by constantly making Stealth checks even where they're really unlikely to succeed, just because there's an off chance that they might. By removing the greatest barrier to being allowed to make a stealth check, Hellcat stealth allows you to try to make a (usually weaksauce) stealth check every time you move. Sure, they'll typically fail, but you'll make it once in a while.
Depends. My first halfling ninja had hellcat stealth. You then have skillfocus too. Halflings also get +4 small size stealth bonus. Pimp your DEX for more. Buy some stealth bonus equipment. Ring of chameleon power negates the -10 from hellcat stealth. If you really need it take the stealthy feat. Numbers can quite add.
Of course you will always have problems with high WIS perception builds.
@Hayato: the only similar talent in the core book or APG is "Camouflage" which lets you stick leaves on your head once per day for +4 to hide in the woods. It lasts for a while, but...woot. If this were a feat, Nobody Would Take This (tm). And it's not even the worst talent out there.
Compare to the Ranger's Camouflage which lets him hide even if there's nothing to give cover or concealment. In broad daylight.
I know i know, some rogue talents are really more than suboptimal.
Just pick some to complement your other feats.
Ok 16th level rogue, virtually useless now in the group I GMing for. He can't hit when it counts at all. He might hit with one attack if he's lucky. So he switches to the fall back of UMD but at this level 1-4 level spells with minimum caster level are pretty easy for bad guys to ignore.
The only thing left for the rogue is skills and roleplaying but skills at this level are mostly trivial. So for 3/4 of the gaming session the rogue is just taking up space.
Now roll back the game 10 levels to 6th level and the rogue was major contribute. Skills meant something, he was hitting with both sneak attack using TWF but UMD wasn't high enough to be useful.
What can you do to make the rogue useful in the game after 15th level?
At the moment on level 12 i flank and trip foes - makes for a +6 bonus.
Doesn´t he get buffed by casters too or something?
|
Let's say you have a party with a Battle Oracle, Barbarian and druid. In this group a Bard archetype that can find and disable traps would probably be more useful since he add arcane magic to them mix.
A bard is unlikely to be a race/class build which receives automatic trap checks (i.e., dwarf or elf, or rogue with the Trap Spotter talent) when they are merely near a trap. Anyone else has to be actively looking.
Yes: A GM can make a rogue feel pretty worthless if he lets any old Joe PC with a high Perception easily notice traps 24/7.
A bard is unlikely to be a race/class build which receives automatic trap checks (i.e., dwarf or elf, or rogue with the Trap Spotter talent) when they are merely near a trap. Anyone else has to be actively looking.
Yes: A GM can make a rogue feel pretty worthless if he lets any old Joe PC with a high Perception easily notice traps 24/7.
You can do it for a lot of traps with a spammable detect magic.
If your party isn't in a hurry any old Joe can just announce that they're looking for traps as they move along. It has pretty much the same effect to the players at the table, even if the characters would get bored.
Another trick is to simply double your speed. A druid can keep up a shape shifted form for hours. If something has a speed of 60 they can effectively walk look walk look without even slowing the party down.