| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if it's because people have a hard time pulling sneak attacks off?
I never got the rogue hate, nor the two weapon fighting hate... My TWF ranger kicks butt, and he's not even optimized. It could be because negative stuff is more vocalized than positive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The changes from 3.0 are subtle, but have had a significant impact on the Rogue.
First, the skill system. Back when non-class skills cost double and you only got the list of your current class, the Rogue's massive list was a huge bonus. Now, with fewer skills and the changes to the class skill system, it isn't as big a boost. A one level dip lets you permanently have their entire list, and even that isn't necessary most of the time. With Listen, Spot, and Search rolled into one skill and anyone able to find traps, a dedicated trapspotter is no longer necessary. Adding insult to injury, other classes (especially Bard and Rangers with archetypes) have invaded the Rogue's niche, getting significant bonuses on top of lots of skill points and stealing iconic Rogue abilities, making the actual Rogue class less powerful by comparison.
Second, the changes to sneak attack. You get to sneak attack almost everything now, but some of the best old tricks are gone. No ring of blink, no throwing flasks of acid, no piles of power creepy splatbook feats. Acrobatics/Tumble is very difficult these days, making even getting a flank more challenging. It is not horrendously difficult or anything, but the extra rounds setting up SA lower average damage considerably. It also makes things tough on the solo Rogue, who doesn't have nearly enough feats for most of the chains that allow for easy solo Sneak Attacks.
Finally, other classes changed. Fighters, for example, now have Weapon Training, making them much more dangerous. There are less long term buffs, making the Rogue's lower attack bonus and weak defenses more of a liability. Most classes got powerful new tricks, while Rogue talents are a generally lackluster bunch (with some significant exceptions, of course). Also, there is the Ninja, which is frankly just Rogue+. The class has been left behind in some regards, and all too often I find I can build my "Rogue" type characters more efficiently using classes other than "Rogue" itself.
The overall result is a pretty weak Rogue. While a well made Rogue can still work (especially if designed and run by a skilled player), many people find them to be significantly behind on the power curve these days. While people can get a bit overly fervent about this, little of it is hate. People loves Rogues, they just want them to get neat, powerful options like other classes have received (Monks, I'm looking at you).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone else here suggested a quick, good fix to the rogue: open Ultimate Combat, find the Ninja class, change all references to ki and replace with Panache. Rogueis fixed.
The previous poster hit the high-lights.
To me, the insultis that so many other class+archetypes do what rogues do, and then do other things rogues can never do makes the rogue superfluous and irrelevant (I'm lookingat you Archaeologists...)
I do love me some light fighters though O.O
GNOME
People loves Rogues, they just want them to get neat, powerful options like other classes have received (Monks, I'm looking at you).
I agree with everything you said but this. Monk got a lot of crappy stuff, too, and had just as many stealth nerfs. And unlike rogue, their starting place was already "worst class in D&D." So, not sure what the heck you're jealous of monks for.
|
I find the bulk of the rogue talents to be lackluster. When I play a witch or alchemist, I find myself tempted to take Extra Hex or Extra Discovery every time I have a free feat. When I play a rogue, I look for sneaky ways to swap rogue talents for feats (swashbuckler, ninja trick, etc.). It's a problem.
I agree with everything you said but this. Monk got a lot of crappy stuff, too, and had just as many stealth nerfs. And unlike rogue, their starting place was already "worst class in D&D." So, not sure what the heck you're jealous of monks for.
I should have been more clear in that I meant "get neat, powerful options" not in the 3.5 -> Pathfinder transition, but in supplemental Pathfinder material. Core Monk were quite weak too, but between Qinggong, style feats, and archetypes (especially the UC ones), they have really been bumped up. Some still find them weak, but the situation is certainly much better than it was.
I was trying to say I'd like to see similar things for Rogues. I don't hate them, I would just like them to get impressive talents, archetypes, and feats. Such things could go a long way towards bringing them up to par, as I feel has happened to an extent with Monks.
The only problem I see with the rogue is as they get to higher level sneak attacks get harder and harder land. The problem really doesn't show up till about 12th level and on. My theory on this is that monster have higher ACs than 3.5 after for the higher CR monsters. I've noticed that the AC of monster are 1-3 points higher in Pathfinder than in 3.5. So while the rogue got lots of boosts they got no bonus to hit and now have to hit in some cases much higher ACs.
Need an example? Take a Nalfeshnee, a CR 14 monster in both editions. In 3.5 it's an AC of 27 but in Pathfinder it is an AC of 29. In both games the rogue could sneak attack this monster but in Pathfinder they are -2 to hit because of the higher AC. The rogue had a hard enough time hitting the AC 27 now it is 29. This is the problem I find with rogues in Pathfinder.
Best solution in my mind to the rogue sneak attack question is Gang up. Flanking without flanking.
In the group Im currently GMing there is a paladin, cleric (with a longspear) rogue and wizard. The rogue pretty much always has flank via Gang Up and thus always has sneak attack.
- Gauss
I have played and NPCd Rogues extensively, tested several different Rogue builds in game, and never felt they were underpowered; I've always had a lot of success with Rogues. I've also seen other players and GMs use Rogues to devastating effect. They have their weaknesses, but overall I don't think they are nearly as crippled as people on the forums have been making them out to be.
However, I am curious. To all of you who are bashing on the Rogue for being too weak a class, is there anything you see wrong with the Rogue class that wouldn't be fixed by giving it a full BAB?
When I compare the classes in PF, BAB is the only thing I see with the Rogue that might be uneven. When I compare the Rogue to the Ranger I see no reason why the Ranger should be granted a full BAB progression and the Rogue should be given only a medium BAB progression. I know there have been studies on how much each class’ abilities are worth to the class and how the classes stack up. I have never read them and don't care to. But it seems to me that between Ranger and Rogue the two are near equal in regard to amount and strength of class abilities. BAB is where the Rogue becomes weaker than the Ranger.
So again, is there anything you Rogue haters see as being wrong in the Rogue class that wouldn't be solved by a full BAB?
I have played and NPCd Rogues extensively, tested several different Rogue builds in game, and never felt they were underpowered; I've always had a lot of success with Rogues. I've also seen other players and GMs use Rogues to devastating effect. They have their weaknesses, but overall I don't think they are nearly as crippled as people on the forums have been making them out to be.
However, I am curious. To all of you who are bashing on the Rogue for being too weak a class, is there anything you see wrong with the Rogue class that wouldn't be fixed by giving it a full BAB?
When I compare the classes in PF, BAB is the only thing I see with the Rogue that might be uneven. When I compare the Rogue to the Ranger I see no reason why the Ranger should be granted a full BAB progression and the Rogue should be given only a medium BAB progression. I know there have been studies on how much each class’ abilities are worth to the class and how the classes stack up. I have never read them and don't care to. But it seems to me that between Ranger and Rogue the two are near equal in regard to amount and strength of class abilities. BAB is where the Rogue becomes weaker than the Ranger.
So again, is there anything you Rogue haters see as being wrong in the Rogue class that wouldn't be solved by a full BAB?
Their full on squishiness and overall defensive shortcomings.
Their full on squishiness and overall defensive shortcomings.I have played and NPCd Rogues extensively, tested several different Rogue builds in game, and never felt they were underpowered; I've always had a lot of success with Rogues. I've also seen other players and GMs use Rogues to devastating effect. They have their weaknesses, but overall I don't think they are nearly as crippled as people on the forums have been making them out to be.
However, I am curious. To all of you who are bashing on the Rogue for being too weak a class, is there anything you see wrong with the Rogue class that wouldn't be fixed by giving it a full BAB?
When I compare the classes in PF, BAB is the only thing I see with the Rogue that might be uneven. When I compare the Rogue to the Ranger I see no reason why the Ranger should be granted a full BAB progression and the Rogue should be given only a medium BAB progression. I know there have been studies on how much each class’ abilities are worth to the class and how the classes stack up. I have never read them and don't care to. But it seems to me that between Ranger and Rogue the two are near equal in regard to amount and strength of class abilities. BAB is where the Rogue becomes weaker than the Ranger.
So again, is there anything you Rogue haters see as being wrong in the Rogue class that wouldn't be solved by a full BAB?
You want a rogue with full BAB, less squishiness and high defense? Play a fighter. : P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So again, is there anything you Rogue haters see as being wrong in the Rogue class that wouldn't be solved by a full BAB?
Well, I prefer to call myself a Rogue lover, but I'll respond anyway.
Full BaB wouldn't be my ideal solution. Sure, it would help bring the Rogue up in relation to other classes. However, it doesn't really do it in a "Rogueish" way. I'd much rather see abilities that reward tactical play and skill use rather than just directly making some numbers bigger. Weapon Snatcher, for example, brings skill into combat in an interesting and useful way. Or Unwitting Ally, which is really cool, useful, and Rogueish. It would be nice to see more stuff like that. It would also be nice to have more options that make it easier for Rogues to maneuver tactically on the battlefield. Stuff like Positioning Attack, but with limitations other than the constant "1/day" thing.
It also doesn't do anything for them as a skill class. If we are balancing them as a class, I'd rather this end be weighted more heavily than the combat abilities of the class. The skill talents are frankly some of the most disappointing for me, being heavily restricted or situational far beyond what is necessary. Thoughtful Reexamining? Neat. Separate talents to be a better crawler and stander? Decidedly "meh."
You want a rogue with full BAB, less squishiness and high defense? Play a fighter. : PTheir full on squishiness and overall defensive shortcomings.I have played and NPCd Rogues extensively, tested several different Rogue builds in game, and never felt they were underpowered; I've always had a lot of success with Rogues. I've also seen other players and GMs use Rogues to devastating effect. They have their weaknesses, but overall I don't think they are nearly as crippled as people on the forums have been making them out to be.
However, I am curious. To all of you who are bashing on the Rogue for being too weak a class, is there anything you see wrong with the Rogue class that wouldn't be fixed by giving it a full BAB?
When I compare the classes in PF, BAB is the only thing I see with the Rogue that might be uneven. When I compare the Rogue to the Ranger I see no reason why the Ranger should be granted a full BAB progression and the Rogue should be given only a medium BAB progression. I know there have been studies on how much each class’ abilities are worth to the class and how the classes stack up. I have never read them and don't care to. But it seems to me that between Ranger and Rogue the two are near equal in regard to amount and strength of class abilities. BAB is where the Rogue becomes weaker than the Ranger.
So again, is there anything you Rogue haters see as being wrong in the Rogue class that wouldn't be solved by a full BAB?
Not necessarily, no. I was simply answering the question regarding rogue issues that would not be solved by giving the class full BAB.
Not necessarily, no. I was simply answering the question regarding rogue issues that would not be solved by giving the class full BAB.You want a rogue with full BAB, less squishiness and high defense? Play a fighter. : PTheir full on squishiness and overall defensive shortcomings.I have played and NPCd Rogues extensively, tested several different Rogue builds in game, and never felt they were underpowered; I've always had a lot of success with Rogues. I've also seen other players and GMs use Rogues to devastating effect. They have their weaknesses, but overall I don't think they are nearly as crippled as people on the forums have been making them out to be.
However, I am curious. To all of you who are bashing on the Rogue for being too weak a class, is there anything you see wrong with the Rogue class that wouldn't be fixed by giving it a full BAB?
When I compare the classes in PF, BAB is the only thing I see with the Rogue that might be uneven. When I compare the Rogue to the Ranger I see no reason why the Ranger should be granted a full BAB progression and the Rogue should be given only a medium BAB progression. I know there have been studies on how much each class’ abilities are worth to the class and how the classes stack up. I have never read them and don't care to. But it seems to me that between Ranger and Rogue the two are near equal in regard to amount and strength of class abilities. BAB is where the Rogue becomes weaker than the Ranger.
So again, is there anything you Rogue haters see as being wrong in the Rogue class that wouldn't be solved by a full BAB?
Yeah, sorry, was just being tongue-in-cheek. Mainly because I don't see rogues being squishy as an issue that needs to be addressed by rules changes. The ideas here for better rogue talents seem like better changes--improve their strengths instead.
So again, is there anything you Rogue haters see as being wrong in the Rogue class that wouldn't be solved by a full BAB?Well, I prefer to call myself a Rogue lover, but I'll respond anyway.
Full BaB wouldn't be my ideal solution. Sure, it would help bring the Rogue up in relation to other classes. However, it doesn't really do it in a "Rogueish" way. I'd much rather see abilities that reward tactical play and skill use rather than just directly making some numbers bigger. Weapon Snatcher, for example, brings skill into combat in an interesting and useful way. Or Unwitting Ally, which is really cool, useful, and Rogueish. It would be nice to see more stuff like that. It would also be nice to have more options that make it easier for Rogues to maneuver tactically on the battlefield. Stuff like Positioning Attack, but with limitations other than the constant "1/day" thing.
It also doesn't do anything for them as a skill class. If we are balancing them as a class, I'd rather this end be weighted more heavily than the combat abilities of the class. The skill talents are frankly some of the most disappointing for me, being heavily restricted or situational far beyond what is necessary. Thoughtful Reexamining? Neat. Separate talents to be a better crawler and stander? Decidedly "meh."
I can definitely see your point. I think part of the problem in the beginning of PF was the huge crowd of PF vs. 3.5 players, rather than how it was advertised right on their home page as PF + 3.5 if you get what I'm saying. The Core was meant to be an update to PHB and DMG not a replacement to every single 3.5 option that was out there. When PF started they couldn't possibly revamp and replace all the material that people had gotten used to out of 3.5 D&D. However, I do think they are doing a great job of putting more content and options out there. The APG and UC books had some fantastic Rogue options IMO and that is even without looking at the Ninja which is also an interesting Rogue-ish option.
What additional things would you like to see?
A few of the problems I have with the pathfinder rogue. (repost)
1) Traps aint what they used to be.
*rocks in chair* In my day we walked uphill both ways to the dungeon, and traps were TPKs. Miss a trap ? Die. Look at a trap. Die. Hear the sound of the trap closing, the trap is so awesome that the vibrations kill you! Muahahahahah! The entire room spins around, you're chucked through a 200 foot tall corridor filled from top to bottom with permanent blade barrier spells and dropped into a vat of acid and then attacked by acid breathing sharks!
The DM had to keep a bonfire going just to dispose of all the character sheets, and he filled his Olympic sized swimming pool with the players tears!
Now traps are CR balanced. Some of them are bad, some of them are an inconvenience, but you're far more likely to die from a really hard encounter.
-What this means for your character is that if you're only 85% as a rogue as a real thing its no big deal. This goes double if you have easy access to wands of cure light wounds for cheap healing.
2) Skill parity
In 3.whatever The ability to have skills as a class skill really mattered as you got up in levels. At 20th level a class skill would be at 23 ranks and a cross class skill at 11 ranks. The pathfinder equivalent is a +3 bonus, which fades quickly in importance as you level.
Grabbing a single level or rogue let you max out the skills, but you still had to pay double the sp's to do it. Even wizards couldn't usually afford to do that with more than 1 or two skills.
Under pathfinder, you get 90% of the benefit of having rogue class skills in a single level. Take 1 level, grab +3 to most of the good skills.
-This means you can be a rogue 1/ whatever X and loose very little trap finding ability.
3) trait customization.
With the ever widening availability and diversity of traits its become very easy to get that +3 bonus on the skills that you really care about.
-Even without a level of rogue you can probably use your traits to get disable device and perception.
4) Skill consolidation
In 3.0 you needed 8 skill points for perception (spot, listen, search), acrobatics (jump, tumble, balance) , and dealing with mechanical stuff (open lock, disable device). With the consolidation its pretty easy to get by on 4 skill points to do the same job.
5) Handy hobbies.
For things you might only need a little of you can put one rank into it and get a decent +3 bonus on it. This will let you hit a tn 15 check with a little luck.
6) Everyone can find traps.
The rogues trap finding ability can be made up with a good wisdom score and a feat. You don't NEED a rogue to do it anymore. Concentrate on getting a good perception score. Not every trap needs to be disarmed but they all need to be seen.
So the rogue is, IMHO, not necessary to a parties success. As a class, they really need to work to do a moderate amount of damage. Sneak attack increases your damage by 1.75 points of damage per level.. but its very uneven. You don't always sneak attack. Its incredibly hard to get off MULTIPLE sneak attacks that a lot of theory crafters go for. AT least in pathfinder there are monsters that can be sneak attacked (in 3.x seriously.. EVERYTHING was immune)
To deal their damage, rogues need to be on the other side of the parties other melee combatant.. the tank. Unfortunately, that is not a very good place to hang out because if you're flanking a monster with a fighter its very easier for the monsters buddy to flank you (flank sandwich goes both ways)
You're also reliant on your other party members to help you set up a flank. if you're a rogue and the rest of your party functions like a herd of cats it drops your damage considerably. No other class needs a competent party to function.
7) New Classes/archtypes
The Inquisitor is a divine caster with good skill points. The alchemist, especially the vivisectionist, does being a rogue better than the rogue does. They provide their own access to invisibility, and can easily get multiple attacks for massive amounts of sneak attacks.
I think the issye with rogues is that people judge how good a class is mostly by combat. if your playing a game which isnt whole sessions devoted to it then the rogue can really shine. Your dm has to go out of his way to provide you opportunities to do your thing. well the dm should do that fgor everone really.
I think the issye with rogues is that people judge how good a class is mostly by combat. if your playing a game which isnt whole sessions devoted to it then the rogue can really shine. Your dm has to go out of his way to provide you opportunities to do your thing. well the dm should do that fgor everone really.
What can the rogue do out of combat that others can't?
More importantly, how can a DM let a rogue do that without having 3 other people sitting around doing nothing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issye with rogues is that people judge how good a class is mostly by combat. if your playing a game which isnt whole sessions devoted to it then the rogue can really shine. Your dm has to go out of his way to provide you opportunities to do your thing. well the dm should do that fgor everone really.
I've actually found the opposite to be true. All Rogues are bringing to the out-of-combat table are a couple extra skill points over a Bard or Ranger. Maybe a bit of trapfinding, if you didn't trade it out for an archetype. The talents relating to skills are mostly horribly circumstantial, or just plain horrible, especially when compared to the substantial bonuses and abilities other classes get. There are some neat non-combat options amongst the talents, and even some powerful options, but even for a combat free campaign I'd still prefer to make my "Rogues" out of other classes.
Ahhh, when we did Rise of the runelords i enjoed the non combat stuff. ITs when we went into combat and my allies were doing 140 damage a round or re-shaping reality and i was tossing a dagger every second round that i felt like a child trying to do full combat sports with highschoolers.
the thing that changed everything for me was sap adept and sap master and the introduction of the +1 returning bouncy ball.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm seeing (again) here is the stormwind esque idea that a player running a combat character can't enjoy a role playing encounter.
Now, while there is some correlation between a player who makes a combat monster and one who doesn't want to bother with role playing the issue of class is largely irrelevant: someone who doesn't like role play doesn't like it and isn't going to like it more while playing a different class.
I like role playing, even if my character sucks at interpersonal interaction. There is a difference between enjoying roleplaying and being able to hit a dc on a diplomacy check.
I don't think its n issue of roleplaying at all. Its an issue that a char with 10+ so a level can easily find nd things he's good at vs one that can't tumble into position for fear of dieing to the monster, or doing 1 attack every other round for 30-40 dmg while his group members are altering reality itself.
But rp isn't a factor in any of this. Though in my case it was the only reason I enjoyed the character after I realized I had no effect on combat.
Sneak is Easy to get in my party with all the Flanking, Feinting, Stunning Fist, Spell Debuffs, Vanishing, etc.
I have had little issue with playing rogues in Pathfinder, having played them before the APG came out. It really isn't difficult to get off your sneak attack via flanking. Something that I have learned is that when you are in the thick of combat, you should always have a buddy with you (say,a fighter). Getting good flanks off with them is key and is not hard since everyone likes to flank.
Tumbling isn't difficult either. There was a topic recently about it and doing some math, with minimal investment (Skill Focus:Acrobatics) and a Dex belt (which you'll probably get at some point), you get a decent chance at tumbling (was around 60 or 80%, I don't recall). And that was against a CR 18 Red Dragon with a CMD of 49, so a fairly difficult example. Of course, if you want a 100% chance of not getting AoO, Spring Attack is a good option. I've always preferred skirmishing to two weapon fighting, since I don't like staying in a bad guy's reach for long.
There are also good sneak attack talent options both in the CRB and the APG and UC. I've used Offensively Defensive to great effect if I feel the need to play a bit more defensively. Powerful Sneak Attack is also good as it makes your 1s on sneak attack damage into 2s. There is another one that does a similar effect except it is 1s and 2s become 3s.
The archetypes are nice, especially the scout which is the one everyone likes. This is because at level 4, you can make a charge and get a sneak attack off. At level 8, you can just move 10 feet and get your sneak attack. So, if you feel like expanding the way to get sneak attacks, this is one day that can help. Knifemaster is nice too if you want to stick with kukri or daggers, as your sneak attacks become d8s for using those weapons (and other dagger-type weapons). Having played the core rogue, you don't need them but they are nice options that are fun.
Another way to expand your sneak attacks is picking up the Gang Up feat. You only need Combat Expertise to get it so you can grab it fairly easily. This frees you up from the standard flanking and allows you to count as flanked when two of your allies (not including yourself) are adjacent to one enemy target. This is a good boon for the rogue and I quite enjoy it.
One last thing to remember is to not neglect Strength. You don't need a very high strength, but you should have a decent amount to add damage to. Not all GMs allow the agile weapon property so it's good to have a 12 or 14.
Remember that while there are some good talents, you also have some trap ones to avoid. Like Hold Breath.
As an aside, having played and GMed both rogues and ninja, I find that the ninja does a bit better in combat as long as he has his ki. Depending on the adventure, longer, more drawn out dungeons do tend to drain them of ki and with ki, many of their abilities can't be used. In addition, I find them to be a tad more MAD than the rogue and I am a little disappointed that they get evasion as a master trick. This isn't to say that the ninja is a bad class. However, I don't find that it is the rogue+ that many people say it is.
Also I'm not sure what feat allows people to disarm magic traps. As far as I know, you need the trapfinding to disable magic traps.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Also I'm not sure what feat allows people to disarm magic traps. As far as I know, you need the trapfinding to disable magic traps.
I'm not sure about a feat, but there are something like half a dozen (maybe more?) classes/archetypes that will let you do so without rogue levels.
I enjoy the Rogue class. I always have...even back when it was called Thief. I'm currently playing a Rogue in PFS; so please consider my comments with that in mind.
I feel as though I've made this comment several times this week, but its worth repeating: There are other classes that can do anything a rogue can do; but there is not a single class that can do everything that a rogue can do. So the key to having success with a rogue is to highlight those differences and play to them as much as possible.
Nearly every negative criticism I've heard/read about the rogue relates to damage output; and while combat is a pretty big aspect of any RPG it is certainly not the only aspect; and with the Rogue's skill set you can easily best your fellow party members in Disable Device (duh), Diplomacy, UMD and most importantly Perception; and you can do all of these things without sacrificing other skills.
The Rogue is by no means an overpowered class; but it isn't as underpowered as some seem to think it is. In fact a small handful of more useful Rogue Talents is probably all that is needed to bring things up to snuff.
Nearly every negative criticism I've heard/read about the rogue relates to damage output; and while combat is a pretty big aspect of any RPG it is certainly not the only aspect; and with the Rogue's skill set you can easily best your fellow party members in Disable Device (duh), Diplomacy, UMD and most importantly Perception; and you can do all of these things without sacrificing other skills.
I don't think either aspect of this is true. First, every Rogue argument includes numerous mentions of how the changes to the skill system impacted the class and the weakness of many of the skill talents. BigNorseWolf's entire post about 10 spots up was nothing but talking about the out-of-combat issues with the Rogue. The issue with the Rogue is not purely combat or skill, but that their Combat + Noncombat abilities combined are still weaker than what is being brought by other classes.
Second, you say the Rogue can easily best his fellow party members. I'd ask, how? Of the four skills you listed, the only one one which a Rogue is more powerful than an Archaeologist is Disable Device (Unless the Archaeologist takes one of the ubiquitous traits to get it as a class skill, in which case they are even). Perception? The Archaeologist gets 1/2 level to all checks, not just to find traps. Diplomacy and UMD? The Archaeologist is getting more out of a high Charisma score, and won't even need to use UMD nearly as much thanks to being an actual caster. He even gets Rogue Talents! Using no resources, he is going to be the Rogue's equal or superior in most things. If he bothers to break out the luck points and spells, he will have far higher bonuses than the Rogue. This is but one example, but holds true more often than not. For most Rogue concepts, another class will be able to do it with greater mechanical effectiveness (perhaps with, at most, a 1-4 level Rogue dip).
In the end, the Rogue gets 2 skill points over things like the Inquisitor, Bard, or Ranger. With the smaller skill list and change to cross class skills, that 2 skill points is not a particularly big bonus. Add in the noncombat abilities these other classes get and compare to what the Rogue can bring with talents, and I haven't been able to escape the conclusion that the Rogue comes up short. In most circumstances I can make a non-Rogue character that feels more like a "Rogue" and is more effective, both in combat and out, than one using the actual Rogue class.
|
I find the most amusing part of these arguments that "With, at most, a 1-4 level rogue dip" - in other words, so long as they multiclass a ROGUE they will be as good as a rogue. That is hilarious! By comparison, a ROGUE can take a single other class (druid gives them all but 5 knowdledge skills as class skills) and get a +3 on THE REST of its skills... 15% on d20... yep. And all they have to give up is the lvl 20 feat which has a FAIL chance of happening anyway. (I am still pretty keen on the whole 1 level of Shadowdancer for the Hide In Plain Sight ability that lets them get stealth even if you are looking at them and hide in other people's shadows (hey, it just says they can't do it in their own...))
By comparison, a ROGUE can take a single other class (druid gives them all but 5 knowdledge skills as class skills) and get a +3 on THE REST of its skills... 15% on d20... yep
The difference is that skills are not the key defining feature of the druid class. The rogue isn't getting more spells, shapeshifting, and a more powerful death dealing animal companion to advance when he leaves the druid class. The trained skill bonus is both static and available from other sources (feats, skills, traits, magic items)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference is that skills are not the key defining feature of the druid class. The rogue isn't getting more spells, shapeshifting, and a more powerful death dealing animal companion to advance when he leaves the druid class. The trained skill bonus is both static and available from other sources (feats, skills, traits, magic items)By comparison, a ROGUE can take a single other class (druid gives them all but 5 knowdledge skills as class skills) and get a +3 on THE REST of its skills... 15% on d20... yep
Yes, but consider a human rogue starting out with a single 18 + 2 int, as a rogue specialized class. That is 15 skill ranks per level for 19 levels. 285 ranks. There are about 24 main skills. A rogue with that INT can take the Skill Master 3 (for the base 24 skills) or 4 times (to take 10 on most crafting/profession/knowledge skills) and become basically a savant. He can have a base of 11 in all the 24 base skills, plus 3, plus stat (which by now he could have upped a few others to a +1). So his TAKE 10 autorolls become a DC25 success for every skill in the game. Despite what you may think regarding "combat" that lone ability is MEGA SUPERIOR to most other classes.
in short - other people were arguing that simply sinking in 1-4 levels would allow them access to skills... um, not like a rogue's skill monkey ability... not even close! (to compare: a feat is 4 skill ranks... so any class which only gets 4 skill ranks per level is one feat down on a rogue...)
Need to avoid a fight? Intimidate 25 - yay, you can automatically avoid fights with 20 HD mobs/npcs with 20 wisdoms. Need to know something about an opponent/situation/tactical scenario? Take 25. Need to do something that involves no inherent risk? Take a 20 and get 35! Every skill except sub skills! No individual skill FEATS needed.
This rogue armed with a greater invisibility ring (or like I said, one level of Shadowdancer as opposed to druid for skill list mastering) is also a 4 attacks per round killing monster at +40d6 sneak shot for being invisible and using a bow (and he can throw on a NO SAVE -8 str bleed as well). (granted his BAB isn't a 20 like a fighter's, but its 14 with a -4 to their ac and no dex bonus for being invisible... 44d6... tastes like I don't need that lvl 20 elite for rogue).
Yes, but consider a human rogue starting out with a single 18 + 2 int, as a rogue specialized class.
I really don't see what you want me to consider as so great. You're hyper specializing in skills to the exclusion of any apparent combat ability.
At 10th level skills are... meh. They're easily replaced by low level spells which are something casters have in abundance even before you consider a small library of handy, situational scrolls.
Need to avoid a fight? Intimidate 25 - yay, you can automatically avoid fights with 20 HD mobs/npcs with 20 wisdoms.
assuming the thing trying to eat you will sit and talk to you for a minute
Action: Using Intimidate to change an opponent's attitude requires 1 minute of conversation.
This rogue armed with a greater invisibility ring
Where is this item found?
I find the most amusing part of these arguments that "With, at most, a 1-4 level rogue dip" - in other words, so long as they multiclass a ROGUE they will be as good as a rogue.
Uh, no. What I was saying was that, if you really, desperately want to steal the entire classes skill list, you can do it with a single level dip. If you really, truly want a couple of the Rogue talents, maybe you'll take a few levels more. Few characters need bother, given that other classes have massive skill lists already (the Bard actually has more class skills than the Rogue, the Inquisitor only one less), traits exist for most skills, and at the end of the day all having it as class skill gives you is a +3. And, of course, most of the talents are so utterly terrible nobody would give up a couple levels of their main class for them, but if you terribly want one or two they can be taken with minimal investment.
Even if one did desperately want a level of Rogue for some reason, does that mean it is a good class? The Crossblooded Sorcerer is a very popular one level dip, but otherwise it is a very weak archetype. Monk's can still be tough to do well, but you wouldn't be able to tell from how popular a 1-2 dip into an archetype for saves and feats is. That someone can steal the entire skill list, which used to be a major draw of the class, in a single level is a reason the Rogue has become comparatively weaker, not a benefit to the class.
Let us look at your specific examples. I'd recommend you actually compare that 20 Intelligence Rogue to something else. For example, a Bard with the same intelligence. At level one, you have two less skill points but a larger skill list. By level 20, you have the equivalent of far more skill points that the Rogue (thanks to Versatile performance) and can take 10 on absolutely every skill, of which every one is a class skill. An Archaeologist would be arguably even worse for the Rogue, depending on how you value trapfinding and talents compared to versatile performance. And none of this gets into Performance/Luck or Spells, which will make the Bard outdistance the Rogue as a skill character even further.
On Sneak Attack, it simply does not work that way. First, a 20th level Rogue has three attacks, not four. A Ring of Greater Invisibility is not an official item. Even if it was, True Seeing and Blindsight are very common at high level. Using Stealth is barely an option, as you only get one shot at sniping and have to beat their Perception with Stealth-20 to stay hidden (good luck with that). Your lower BaB, combined with the lack of class based bonuses to it (Ranger's Favored Enemy, Fighter's Weapon Training, Paladin's Smite, etc) means that even when you have the opportunity for multiple Sneak Attacks, hitting is unlikely on those iteratives.
I can't say I'm terribly impressed by these examples.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am new to Pathfinder as a long time D&D 3.x player and I have mostly lurked on these boards. I noticed that rogues are being described as weak in PF. It seems like to me they lost nothing from 3.0, and gained many advantages, i.e. the new abilities they can pick from as they level, the condensed skill list, the bigger hit die, and the fact that sneak attack works on more monsters now. If rogues weren't regarded as terribly weak before, why would they be considered weak now?
I don't consider rogues weak. They are not overpowered, but they are a good skill-based, medium combat class. As long as your expectations are at that level, they perform very well--and a well-played rogue can manage to outshine party members more often than the theorycrafters expect and the antifanboys refuse to acknowledge. The thing is people like to compare a d8 medium BAB skillmonkey class to fully martial classes or fully caster classes and fabricate something that is "lacking" that is merely different, and requires a different style of play. I can also say that in practice, I have frequently seen rogues be the MVPs in the party, taken with the grain of salt that personal/anecodtal experience is.
Now, that said, I think rogues do have some problems/issues that would make them better were they resolved. The four I can think of:
1. Rogues are generally expected to be a Dexterity-based class. They don't have to be, but a lot of their class skills are Dex-based and since they are lightly armored, they need a high Dex to help round out their AC. And this makes them innately bad at combat maneuvers, because Strength is the stat for your CMB. And YET a lot of the Combat Maneuvers really make a LOT of sense for a rogue to have for a scoundrel's style of play--trip, disarm, dirty trick, and of course steal for the most obvious ones. While there is a feat that swaps your Dex for Strength in combat maneuvers (Agile Maneuvers) it feels like an unnecessary feat tax considering you also need to follow a long feat tree to excel at combat maneuvers to begin with. Not to mention the separate feat Weapon Finesse if you want Dex for your to-hit roll for weapon attacks---it can take longer than seems appropriate to build a combat maneuvering Rogue. Some rogue talents help with this, but not enough. A commonly proposed revision/house rule is to combine Agile Maneuvers and Weapon Finesse into a single feat. It's still a feat tax, but it's a little better than otherwise. Another possibility would be making more rogue talents that support fast/early rogue combat maneuver skill in appropriate areas (just being able to take more feats isn't enough).
2. Rogue talents are extremely inconsistently designed and many of them are too circumstantial to be truly useful. I love the idea of rogue talents, but they were something that needed a lot more playtesting than they seem to have gotten. While some rogue talents are pretty awesome -- fast stealth, some of the sneak attack talents, etc. -- a lot of them are disappointing ("Gain a +20 to Bluff on Thursdays when the Moon is full"--an exaggeration, but that's how a lot of them read). They either don't provide much of an advantage, only provide the advantage in circumstances that rarely arise, or both. I think if a lot of the rogue talents were improved a lot of the rogue's perceived issues would go away. (I find it interesting though that the rogue detractors often ignore rogue talents entirely when they discuss the rogue, when some of them really are truly unique and very useful.)
3. Too hard to apply sneak attack to ranged attacks. Rogues on one hand seem like they ought to be naturals at ranged combat -- usually high Dex, light armor. But sniping rules are dodgy and hard to set up, you can only sneak attack from 30 feat away (making it too easy for opponents to engage you in melee the next round). There are some ways you can do it, and some of the rogue archetypes and talents in the APG and other supplements help, but they're a few tiny, not very sticky bandaids on a core problem the rogue has.
4. Stealth and lighting rules are a confusing mess. This affects everyone, but especially hits the rogue because you can sneak attack if concealed, and determining concealment and how you enter/leave it can be a big old tangled mess if you really start paying attention to the rules and stick to their letter.
Those are the four things I think an issue, largely, from my POV. They do NOT make the rogue weak or unplayable, and the rogue still has a number of strengths despite these issues. Sure, these problems are frustrating sometimes--but even then, there are other classes that have far more frustrating and confusing issues at hand ().
Things I DON'T think are a major problem with rogues but other people do:
1. "SO MANY other classes/archetypes have trapfinding."
"So many" is three, for the record:
- the trapper ranger gets trapfinding at first level. The reasons should be fairly obvious.
- the urban ranger gets trapfinding at 3rd level. The reasons for this is also fairly obvious, and there's a delay before it's received.
- The bard archetype archeologist gets "clever explorer" which works much the same way as trapfinding, but it doesn't add the ability to actually find or disable magic traps until 6th level, which means the archeologist cannot be the party magic trapfinder from the start of a campaign. It's also worth noting for the archeologist that as bards, they don't actually get Disable Device as a class skill (even though he gets bonuses to the skill).
Three more bard archetypes get a limited version--the archivist, detective, and sandman get an ability that allows them to find magical traps at 2nd level, but do not get the bonuses to Perception or Disable Device (which are pretty awesome bonuses)--and again, bards do not actually get Disable Device as a class skill.
Even there as a total of 6, including the guys who don't get the bonuses, I don't consider this "so many" given how many classes and archetypes there are. (Disclaimer: it IS possible I missed something in UC or UM, so if my numbers ARE off, I was not intending to misinform.)
So I don't think this is actually a huge deal that massively steps on the rogue's toes--the classes that get the ability make sense to get it, and only the rogue and trapper get the ability in total from 1st level on up, and only the rogue, trapper, and urban ranger get Disable Device as a class skill.
Not to mention I have also read an alternate argument that trapfinding isn't even all that important--anyone with Perception and/or detect magic can have a go--and isn't the main reason you'd play a rogue anyway.
And finally, I find the whole situation rather ironic given I remember masses of conversations amongst 3.5 players who complained that trapfinding SHOULDN'T be a unique class skill--why should being able to notice a weird magic glyph or pressure plate be limited to the rogue? And there were often discussions of house rules and feats that allowed other classes to take trapfinding (and eventual other classes that had it or similar abilities that came out in splats). I am not sure how in 3.5 we got from it being an incredible injustice that ONLY rogues got trapfinding to it being an incredible injustice that trapfinding is no longer unique to rogues, but I'd love someone to spell that transition out for me.
2. "It's too hard to set up a sneak attack."
If you're having trouble setting up a flank with your buddies, then your group's party tactics suck, I am very sorry. I think the biggest challenge I face as a GM is how to stop the PCs FROM flanking (without also keeping baddies from being vulnerable to AOEs). (But in fairness to the nameless faceless entities I just insulted, my GM tactics suck too.)
And even if you can't get a flank, there's still feinting, invisibility (potions of and the major magic talent to cast vanish), attacking from concealment, and the Shatter Defenses feat, amongst probably other things I'm forgetting. Yes, yes, the precious rings of blink don't apply anymore, but I can't even remember a game I've played in 15 years where one of those has even shown up anywhere, and there's plenty of other ways to get concealment or denying opponents their Dex penalty.
Yes, there is the problem of ranged sneak attack but I did cover that.
3. "Two weapon fighting is too feat taxy"
While the tree is enormous, a rogue can easily take the qualifying feat at level 1, and you CAN'T take Improved or Greater until later levels anyway. Just the 1 extra attack is great and easy enough to do, do that and take rogue finesse as your talent the next level if you need more to-hit. I won't say it's not a problem, but if you're building a TWF rogue you're probably going to really focus on melee anyway and you can work with it well enough.
4. "Fighters/Barbarians/Rangers do more damage!"
Yes. That's why we call them the martial classes, and they get the big hit dice.
5. "Bards are now better skillmonkeys."
Not really. Bards are really good skillmonkeys, yes. And Pathfinder bards are better skillmonkeys than 3.x bards. But the rogue still has more skill points and is more likely to have a higher Intelligence--and the rogue's pool of class skills is one of the best in the game. Many rogue talents also buff rogue skillmonkeyness in a way that a lot of rogue-haters overlook. Bards do get versatile performance but that's bit of a clunky ability (goes up over time, and sometimes at higher levels it's just easier to build the skill you want than the related Performance). After level 2, the subsequent ones seem less useful (especially since while folks houserule you can transfer your skill points to Perform afterward, otherwise if you built both a Perform and a skill you can later Versatilely Perform, you feel like you wasted skill points earlier).
And, let's say it one more time: bards don't get Disable Device as a class skill (Remember that's "open locks" now too, not just traps or random other device sabotage).
Now don't get me wrong. Bards are awesome. Bards are one of my favorite classes. But for skillmonkeyness I'd probably still take a rogue or ranger, unless the skills I am desiring in question--and sometimes I do--are social or knowledges.
6. "Using Acrobatics to tumble through squares is too hard."
You have to dedicate building it, but no--if that's how you want to build your rogue, then you take 1 of your gazillion skill points per level and pump Acrobatics, and you can beat most CMDs pretty easily (grab Skill Focus around 10th level if you're really not sure). I saw a halfling rogue in my high level game pretty much be able to bypass most but the toughest enemies with a low roll.
And when you can't beat the CMD, that's what Mobility is for. Or 5 foot steps for that matter. (Or Step Up or Stand Still to keep people from moving away from you to avoid being flanked).
Not to mention, certainly other classes use Acrobatics, I'm not sure why this complaint doesn't come up for Bards or Monks too.
TL;DR: Rogues are a decent class. They definitely do have some flaws but can be extremely valuable contribitors to the party in and out of combat and are a great class for teamwork and versatility, and it's a mistake to disregard them. Of course, if you do underestimate them, their plan is working....
A lot of good stuff
I couldn't have said it better myself.
You make all good points and I agree with them but the rogue does fall apart in combat starting from level 13 and on. I have put tons or rogues in play during combat encounters as GM. At the high levels they are not a challenge but level 12 or under they quite effective. Also I see the same thing happen with the player who has rogue character. They end up avoiding combat at the higher levels and trying to use UMD to help the party but find themselves redundant next to the divine and arcane casters.
From what I can tell is the going from 3E to PF you average APL appropriate encounter in the higher levels has high AC. For example Full Plate gives you 9 AC and the fighter has armor training. At the upper levels an Orc fighter has 3 more AC than in 3E. Now the rogue. Effectively by not giving the rogue a bonus to hit they just penalized the rogue at the higher levels.
So other than this problem the rogue is great class. I'd play one for PFS for sure as the max level is 12 and the problems with the rogue won't really show up. But in high level game I'd multiclass the after 12th level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. "SO MANY other classes/archetypes have trapfinding."
"So many" is three, for the record:
So many is all of them. Anyone can find the trap these days. Magic traps in particular have a glowing neon sign on them
Its not that this is a great injustice, its just that its something that was the exclusive purview and power of the rogue thats been exported out. Its technically something that the other classes gained rather than anything that the rogue lost but the net effect is still the same.
I'm not saying that it shouldn't have happened, but I don't think that what the rogue got back in return was worth it.
Not to mention I have also read an alternate argument that trapfinding isn't even all that important--anyone with Perception and/or detect magic can have a go--and isn't the main reason you'd play a rogue anyway.
What IS the main reason to play a rogue?
Most people seem caught up on the flavor they think is inherent in the class: the scoundrel, ne'er do well anti hero fighting with smart tactics that everyone else is too honorable to use.
That's something that comes from the player.
If you're having trouble setting up a flank with your buddies, then your group's party tactics suck
Quite possible and even likely. Teamwork can be hard to come by.
My main problem isn't that the flank is too hard to set up, its that the party will focus fire on the same target just because of how the hit point system works. While you can maneuver and attack, once, the multiple sneak attack thing never seems to happen because nothing lives that long.
(But in fairness to the nameless faceless entities I just insulted, my GM tactics suck too.)
And if your DM's tactics DON"T suck and enemies are often moving around, flying, behind barricades, hidden in the dark, invisible have a buddy with a reach weapon etc?
And even if you can't get a flank, there's still feinting, invisibility (potions of and the major magic talent to cast vanish), attacking from concealment, and the Shatter Defenses feat, amongst probably other things I'm forgetting.
Those will generally let you get in one sneak attack. Many of them take up an action.
Concealment doesn't work very well. You have to be in it but your opponent has to be out of it: any miss chance will negate your ability to make the sneak attack.
3. "Two weapon fighting is too feat taxy"
Its not that its too taxy, its that the convergence of a sneak attack
5. "Bards are now better skillmonkeys."
Not really. Bards are really good skillmonkeys, yes. And Pathfinder bards are better skillmonkeys than 3.x bards. But the rogue still has more skill points and is more likely to have a higher Intelligence--and the rogue's pool of class skills is one of the best in the game.
You're leaving out the bards spells. Who cares if you're down a few ranks if you can get a +THIRTY to your bluff?
And, let's say it one more time: bards don't get Disable Device as a class skill (Remember that's "open locks" now too, not just traps or random other device sabotage).
Any bard can be fairly well justified in taking the vagabond child trait to pick it up not only as a class skill, but with a class skill +1.
6. "Using Acrobatics to tumble through squares is too hard."
My problem isn't getting to the other side.. its what you do while you're there.
Cleric wizard meatshield *Big sharp pointy teeth* Rogue
This presents two problems. 1 is that there's nothing between you and the big sharp pointy teeth and there is a lot between you and the healer should something go wrong. The other is
Cleric wizard meatshield *Big sharp pointy teeth* Rogue *Big sharp pointy teeth*
That the flank sandwich is pretty easy to have go both ways.
|
|
Let us look at your specific examples. I'd recommend you actually compare that 20 Intelligence Rogue to something else. For example, a Bard with the same intelligence. At level one, you have two less skill points but a larger skill list. By level 20, you have the equivalent of far more skill points that the Rogue (thanks to Versatile performance) and can take 10 on absolutely every skill, of which every one is a class skill. An Archaeologist would be arguably even worse for the Rogue, depending on how you value trapfinding and talents compared to versatile performance....
Um... at level 16 you can take 10 on every skill with a Rogue... without making a sound... Additionally, you got 16 x 2 = 32 more skill ranks no matter the intelligence. So if you go by a "Feat by Feat" comparison, the rogue gets 8 for the skill points, while sacrificing 4 for the "mastery" of the skills. Still seems like they end up 4 skill feats ahead (and the rank points are more versatile than taking a feat).
Anybody can use Use Magic Device. Many classes don't NEED Use Magic Device.
Since, you know, they can cast spells without it, at a higher DC, caster level, and more importantly for free.
You also obviously don't understand how Sneak Attack interacts with Scorching Ray. You do not add Sneak Attack to each ray. Only the first that hits.
Additionally, a caster level 11 Wand of Scorching Ray costs 16, 500 gold (over a quarter of your total wealth up to this point).
A whole lot of investment for 17d6 (best case scenario) Fire damage (the most commonly resisted element in the game...which you have now converted your Sneak Attack damage to).
Congratulations, you have maybe dealt 60 damage. Approximately 1.5x the damage my Barbarian did. With one of his hits.
Then comes the difficulty of surviving to level 10 in the first place with your garbage armor, trash damage, and meh at best weapon selection.
I hear this "creativity" myth spouted often. As of yet nobody has been able to back it up, and many (like you) base it on faulty rules knowledge.
Well you can still split scorcing ray to 3 targets, and no other classes get Skill Mastery :PAnybody can use Use Magic Device. Many classes don't NEED Use Magic Device.
Since, you know, they can cast spells without it, at a higher DC, caster level, and more importantly for free.
You also obviously don't understand how Sneak Attack interacts with Scorching Ray. You do not add Sneak Attack to each ray. Only the first that hits.
Additionally, a caster level 11 Wand of Scorching Ray costs 16, 500 gold (over a quarter of your total wealth up to this point).
A whole lot of investment for 17d6 (best case scenario) Fire damage (the most commonly resisted element in the game...which you have now converted your Sneak Attack damage to).
Congratulations, you have maybe dealt 60 damage. Approximately 1.5x the damage my Barbarian did. With one of his hits.
Then comes the difficulty of surviving to level 10 in the first place with your garbage armor, trash damage, and meh at best weapon selection.
So no, the problem is not "creativity", as the common myth which nobody I've ever heard spout it has been able to back up.
So now you've dealt 9d6 (31 damage) to one guy, and 4d6 (14 damage) to two others. At 10th level. For the cost of nearly 17 thousand gold.
Whooo.
Skill Mastery is a neat ability.
Not worth subjecting yourself to 10 levels of Rogue for.
Also, I'm confused, since most rogues build for 2 weapon fighting, under the assumption they get sneak attack damage on successive attacks with their off hand. Why wouldn't the subsequent rays hit for SNaB? It's still multiple attacks.
|
Skill mastery also does nothing to use magic device at all.
Skill mastery allows you to take 10 on a skill even if distraction would stop you from being able to. Use Magic Device specifically denies you from being able to be take 10, and the limiting language on Skill Mastery means you still can't take 10 on UMD.