No rogue in party! What does one do?


Advice

51 to 100 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

boring7 wrote:


"Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die."

I think the larger complaint is not that the rogue is not necessary, but that the general consensus seems to be it is entirely obsolete and outclassed by everything else.

Something something balance.

Hmmm curiously I think if the Rogue got full BAB he'd make a decent striker without being overpowered might actually be the easiest way to give him a step up.


boring7 wrote:

I think the larger complaint is not that the rogue is not necessary, but that the general consensus seems to be it is entirely obsolete and outclassed by everything else.

Something something balance.

Hmm, I personally do not believe the rogue is obsolete. Is one necessary? Not always. As demonstrated, there are many ways to overcome traps and do many of the things a rogue is "known" for. However, as also pointed out, these alternate methods usually take up party resources (in terms of spells, items, hit points, time, money, reputation, etc) or involve archetypes (potentially giving up other necessary skills or class features, depending on the campaign needs and/or archetype chosen).

If you can't or don't have a rogue, it isn't the end of the world. But a PC class that has decent fighting ability (not even including archetype options), and that can also more effectively deal with the traps issue will never be obsolete....especially one that earns the party XP for dealing with said traps and doesn't necessarily have to use up their resources in doing so. That's not even including the other things a rogue can do in the right campaign circumstances (beyond traps).

Personally, I tire of these endless arguements over obsolete or ineffective class options. IMHO, usually that is indicitive of poor imagination or overall power-gaming...but that is another thread entirely. ;)


I'm enjoying my rogue so far. I can post my build later if you'd like but at level 8 I've got a fast weapon and am swinging 13/13/8, can go invisible on top of my +26 stealth mod if need be, can disable traps (even magic ones!) so there's nothing my party can't get into and am often either landing a killing blow to our groups enemies or taking a large chunk of its HP.

I guess a lot what I've done with it can be attribute to me as a player but I'm overall satisfied with the feel of the class. I don't feel any more under powered or less capable then when I've played a full martial class with spell casters. Actually, given that a lot of the dungeons are designed around traps, my character is rather useful.

I don't know what kind of campaigns you guys play in but if you intimidate an NPC or cannon fodder someone outside your party into a trap then that'd be an evil act and your character would be gone.


leo1925 wrote:


Ways to get trapfinding:

8) The 2nd level bard/alchemist/wizard spell Aram Zey's focus (too bad the duration is only 1 minute per level)

The duration is less of an issue than one might imagine; you only need cast it before you find a trap if you really think that a bonus to perception of 1/4 your level is going to really make a difference. Most of the time, you can find a trap with perfectly ordinary perception - the party's druid, cleric, or monk is a good candidate for this - and then cast Arnim Zey's focus so you can disarm it.

The biggest thing you lose from not having a rogue on traps duty, I think, is loss of access to the phenomenal Trap Spotter rogue talent. (This is a real point in favor of the cryptbreaker alchemist, who can take it as a discovery.)


boldstar wrote:
I just think they are going to run into problems, especially in parts 3,4,5,and 6 of this AP.

I am currently DMing RotR (we have finished the 3rd book) and i have to say that in the third group there is no problem if there isn't a rogue in the party.


Burrito Al Pastor wrote:
leo1925 wrote:


Ways to get trapfinding:

8) The 2nd level bard/alchemist/wizard spell Aram Zey's focus (too bad the duration is only 1 minute per level)

The duration is less of an issue than one might imagine; you only need cast it before you find a trap if you really think that a bonus to perception of 1/4 your level is going to really make a difference. Most of the time, you can find a trap with perfectly ordinary perception - the party's druid, cleric, or monk is a good candidate for this - and then cast Arnim Zey's focus so you can disarm it.

The biggest thing you lose from not having a rogue on traps duty, I think, is loss of access to the phenomenal Trap Spotter rogue talent. (This is a real point in favor of the cryptbreaker alchemist, who can take it as a discovery.)

The reason i find the duration being an issue isn't because of the perception bonus because i don't think that this spell's job is to help you find the trap, it's job is to allow to disarm magical traps and thus the 1m/level means that you are going to be burning uses of a wand with this spell like it's a happy stick.


I would merge the ninja and rogue classes together and make sneak attack damage do 3 bonus flat damage per die. That way they have abilities to survive in melee and can do high bursty damage when they crit.


Rogues are decidedly mediocre. Everything they can do other classes can do better or as well. The one thing they an do that other classes can't without jumping through hoops is trapfinding. Considering that traps by the book CR aren't that major of a threat, and have specific rules for reset... The other classes can avoid the worst traps have to offer by smart play. Or they can just bully through it and use more healing.


gnomersy wrote:
Yeah at somewhere between 12th and 16th level an hr per day becomes full day for an average adventurer so maybe by the time the game ends other than that I don't see anything in the rules to say that it works differently.

When blitzing a dungeon ten minutes between encounters is long and rare is the encounter that lasts a full minute. At least five encounters per hour is possible, which may be all a small dungeon offers. Even a fairly large 15 encounter dungeon should be done in three hours. Combats may be longer at higher levels, but so are spell durations and the physical distance between encounters doesn't usually go up so much.

But if you insist on all day protection just get a lesser extend rod. At caster level four two castings will cover all your waking hours. At level eight one casting is enough.

Dark Archive

Black_Lantern wrote:
I would merge the ninja and rogue classes together and make sneak attack damage do 3 bonus flat damage per die. That way they have abilities to survive in melee and can do high bursty damage when they crit.

And that would create a pretty good class. Especially if he has a ki pool built in and access to all rogue and ninja tricks.

I've also never understood why so many rogue bonuses and rogue favoured class bonuses seem to encourage critical hits when most of the rogue's damage isn't multiplied on a critical hit. There's a jarring lack of focus in some classes that should be addressed.


have hardly any rogues in our weekly AP games and its not much of a problem
no one ever sneaks off ahead
other skill monkeys
not many traps to overceom


The get the pick from several effects that happen when they crit. If you crit 3 times in 3 rounds you can very well have a target that's bleeding, lacking some fort and paralyzed. That's a handy situation to set up for the final kill.


Buri wrote:
The get the pick from several effects that happen when they crit. If you crit 3 times in 3 rounds you can very well have a target that's bleeding, lacking some fort and paralyzed. That's a handy situation to set up for the final kill.

you have PF combats that last more than 3 rounds!! blimey


Buri wrote:
The get the pick from several effects that happen when they crit. If you crit 3 times in 3 rounds you can very well have a target that's bleeding, lacking some fort and paralyzed. That's a handy situation to set up for the final kill.

I haven't seen anything survive 3 crits in 3 rounds with a remotely optimized melee or archer.


We're talking about rogues critting. I'd see a rogue optimizing for a threat range of 15-20, not a fighter or archer.


The problem is most combats tend to last 3 rounds. Also to consistently get sneak attack it means that the rogue is probably double teaming something (and to quote the PSA from back in the day, "if you aren't sneak attacking you aren't doing jack"). Not many CR appropriate enemies can survive 1 round let alone 3 rounds of being sneak attacked while being also hit by most likely a full BAB character.

Stacking conditions onto targets that are probably going down in 1 round or immediately is kinda a waste of abilities.


Friggin AWESOME help here, guys -- and some beautiful discourse. I am more than confident even if the GM pulls no punches that we can box our way out of this one... no pun intended.


I've always been a fan of the barbarian method of dealing with traps.

It can be summed up with the old adage "it's better to be lucky than good."


Carrion Crown in particular doesn't feature many traps. They're largely replaced by haunts, which are sort of a combination trap/undead creature. Haunts are best handled by a Cleric or Paladin, both of which you have.

Many of the others are magical traps, which can frequently be found with detect magic and removed with dispel magic. A lot of them also have bypass conditions.

Boldstar's suggestion that a rogueless party will have trouble in modules 3,4,5 and 6 is flatly wrong. At least one of those contains no traps whatsoever.


Well, you don't have to crit 3 times in a row either. You can add a paralyzed or stunned, forget which, condition in one round. Given the feat that lets you coup de grace on stunned or cowering targets that's handy.


Lightbulb wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Boldstar wrote:
Again, where is the stealthy character

When/why is a stealthy character neccesary? How often is it even POSSIBLE to sneak anywhere with your party clanking along behind you, much less a good idea to do it?

When the party wants to and GM let them.

Knowing what's coming is a big help. However some GM's don't seem to like it and so its 'not allowed'.

Scouting is risky. Actually i'll go past that: its suicide unless you can solo a level appropriate encounter. You're going to run into something that doesn't care what your stealth score is: they've got scent (which roflcopters stealth if it does anything), and darkvision: which means if you're standing in the dark with a stealth roll of 107... you're still just standing in the middle of a lit room as far as they're concerned.

You need cover or concealment to stealth. That comes from the DM. If its not there then its not there.


Take Boat wrote:

Carrion Crown in particular doesn't feature many traps. They're largely replaced by haunts, which are sort of a combination trap/undead creature. Haunts are best handled by a Cleric or Paladin, both of which you have.

Many of the others are magical traps, which can frequently be found with detect magic and removed with dispel magic. A lot of them also have bypass conditions.

Boldstar's suggestion that a rogueless party will have trouble in modules 3,4,5 and 6 is flatly wrong. At least one of those contains no traps whatsoever.

Actually I was not referring to traps. I was referring to the need to scout and/or sneak.

Dark Archive

boldstar wrote:
Take Boat wrote:

Carrion Crown in particular doesn't feature many traps. They're largely replaced by haunts, which are sort of a combination trap/undead creature. Haunts are best handled by a Cleric or Paladin, both of which you have.

Many of the others are magical traps, which can frequently be found with detect magic and removed with dispel magic. A lot of them also have bypass conditions.

Boldstar's suggestion that a rogueless party will have trouble in modules 3,4,5 and 6 is flatly wrong. At least one of those contains no traps whatsoever.

Actually I was not referring to traps. I was referring to the need to scout and/or sneak.

If that's the issue, a bard, ranger or even wizard are all better at those. The bard and wizard have access to invisibility, and the ranger is going to likely have a better Perception score, and eventually Hide in Plain Sight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But there are no bards, rangers, or wizards in the OP's party...


They have a sorcerer, and invisibility is worth knowing even if you don't want to scout/sneak (which I think is a very questionable tactic.)


Why do you think it's questionable, Take Boat?


One of the PCs should take Leadership and recruit a Rogue.


I agree that the sorcerer can do it, but are undead affected by illusions in Pathfinder? I don't remember. Looking back at the AP again, I do think that stealth is going to be less needed in part three, due to the type of primary monsters, but I still think it is valuable when used right in parts 4,5, & 6. In each of those parts, there are definite times where sneaking is a good tactic.
I do understand the point that when you separate from the party to scout, you run the risk of getting wacked, but a well-played sneak usually doesn't push the scouting past the point of minimal danger. I know that it can't always be helped, but, in general, it is a good tactic.
In an urban setting, when scouting/investigating, it becomes more valuable, in my opinion. I also feel that when the sorcerer is casting invisibility on themselves for the purposes of scouting, they are taking away one of their best battlefield buffs. I know that the sorcerer can get it frequently via scrolls or wands, but it is still eating up resources.


Invisibility works normally against undead, as it did in 3.5. It's not mind-affecting. And sorcerers aren't really "taking a way one of their best buffs", they're just giving up a spell slot, which are relatively plentiful, especially in modules 4-5-6.

Even if you view solo scouting as a viable tactic, even if you insist that it's necessary so frequently the party NEEDS to have somebody who can do it at will, having the party argue over who has to be the rogue is a bad solution.

Better solution: Sorcerer takes Arcane Bloodline and gets a Nosoi familiar (which appears in book 2). They're adorable, fit the AP perfectly, get invisibility at will, have a +17 to Stealth, can fly, and also get hide from undead and speak with dead as spell-likes and did I mention they're adorable? And they can write with pens in their beaks!

Dark Archive

Scouting tends to mean 1 PC is all by himself a sufficient distance away from the party that if something goes wrong the party will need to pay for a raise dead.

In general if you want to sneak you need all PCs (or at least most) to be able to effectively contribute to it otherwise your basically asking the rogue to solo the next encounter if he gets unlucky on his stealth checks (or the opponents get very lucky on perception).

With a paladin and a cleric both lacking stealth as a class skill and likely taking between -3 and -6 on stealth checks they are required to be a very large distance away from the rogue (I think its a -2 perception per 10 ft, so you take the rogues stealth mod of say +18 add +6 for the paladins rubbish stealth mod and your looking at about 120ft for the rogue to need to roll the same as the paladin not to be heard and thats a low modifier for the rogue).


I would argue that at higher levels a sage/seeker sorcerer will be the ideal scout. If things get hairy, they can have a contingent D-Door to go right back to the party.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've got 99 problems, and not having a Rogue ain't one.


Quote:
NO ROGUE IN PARTY! WHAT DOES ONE DO?

Keep calm and carry on?


My group never has a rogue, instead we use an Adamantine axe named Lockpick, and treat traps as puzzles instead of skillchecks.

And what is this "stealth" or "scouting" that you speak of? If we really, really need to know what's coming, there are always spells.


Thanks take boat for the clarification on invisibility. I do love the idea of the Nosoi. Not sure, however, that the sorc will want to send his/her familiar into a scouting situation if it is too dangerous for a rogue. I may not like the idea of the rogue being unneeded, but that doesn't mean that you haven't come up with valid ways around the need for a rogue.
I still argue that scouting is a valid and valuable tactic that, at least on this board, seems to be underused. Yes, there is a risk, but that is one of the things that a rogue does well. To me, it isn't different than the front-line fighter stepping into melee. Both can get you killed, but it is your role.


Scouting is like decking, it's something only one party member does while the rest try to contain their add for the ne-ooh shiny!

...

It's actually a really good idea, as is a trap-filled dungeon, but in practice both tend to just not happen because that's how adventures are written these days. I think it's to do with writing simply finding rogues to be passe these days.


A rogue may be obsolete but a trap finder is not


Archeologist (Bard)

Grand Lodge

That's what the "Find Traps" spell is for.


Also, divination spells don't just automatically work. You often need something of the target or be familiar with them. How do you do that if you don't have someone to sneak up and pickpocket them for future tracking?


I'm not a fan of the "summon xxx and break the door" knocking down walls etc. I don't ever play canned adventures but I can't Imagine a dungeon filled with loot and no traps or an adventuring party knocking down every door with reckless abandon and not having half the dungen's inhabitants coming to destroy them. I guess most gm's are so used to catering to players they don't want to challenge them. I'm sure Gygax would be disappointed. I heard he was pretty hardcore.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
That's what the "Find Traps" spell is for.

"find traps" doesn't equal "deal with traps"


Deyvantius wrote:
I'm not a fan of the "summon xxx and break the door" knocking down walls etc. I don't ever play canned adventures but I can't Imagine a dungeon filled with loot and no traps or an adventuring party knocking down every door with reckless abandon and not having half the dungen's inhabitants coming to destroy them. I guess most gm's are so used to catering to players they don't want to challenge them. I'm sure Gygax would be disappointed. I heard he was pretty hardcore.

I concur. I don't care what a party has packing. If they're in a CR appropriate mid-sized dungeon and somehow attract the attention of most of the dungeon's inhabitants, they're going to die if they try to wade through it all. They'd have to teleport out and go back bit by bit with hit and run attacks. That's hoping the the dungeon's citizenry doesn't have something that can track down the PCs and proceed to hunt them down.

My GM would NOT tolerate a party going all "slam, smash!" though a dungeon.


I've never once, in 30 years of gaming, GMed a rogue. Ever. I've played in parties with them from time to time, and they're certainly fun, don't get me wrong, but I'm not a believer in the idea that a party should consist of fighter + mage + cleric + rogue.

A good GM will adjust the adventure for whatever class combos are present. And rogue is probably the least "necessary" class, simply because it's easy for a GM to simply lower trap / lock DCs or ignore them entirely, whereas stripping out magic or heavy combat can be a lot harder.


Why gimp the challenges a party has to face? Isn't that inherently part of the fun of the game? I don't care if it's 'simply' a disable device DC or lowering the AC of a monster to give the party an easier time. The satisfaction comes from overcoming things and not from having the game handed to you. Facing a more difficult time when you're under-prepared teaches you to get prepared and to appreciate the tools the game gives you.

Maybe I'm a purist but I *hate* when the GM goes easy on me. I've had a couple characters killed because I told the GM to give me the full damage from, say, falling off a bridge even when it was the negligence of another party member that made mine fall. I play for the thrill of the universe of the game which is based on action and consequence.


Quote:
Why gimp the challenges a party has to face? Isn't that inherently part of the fun of the game? I don't care if it's 'simply' a disable device DC or lowering the AC of a monster to give the party an easier time. The satisfaction comes from overcoming things and not from having the game handed to you. Facing a more difficult time when you're under-prepared teaches you to get prepared and to appreciate the tools the game gives you.

Well, I don't think modifying an adventure to suit the party is "gimping" it. Likewise, I don't think a party of three characters - a fighter, a sorcerer and a cleric is "under-prepared" when you have four people able to get together.

"Gimping" an adventure means making it easier - I'm not making it easier for a fighter + cleric + sorcerer group, I'm simply removing the rogue-centric stuff because they don't have a rogue. It's not gimping something to make it playable...if a party is stuck behind a DC 30 Disable Device door because they don't have a rogue it makes for a pretty boring adventure.

Narrativist here, not simulationist or gamist...:)


It's one of yooooooouuu! Haha j/k.

What about breaking it down, teleporting through it, etc? Would that have been viable options or were you speaking in the abstract?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rogues only exist to handle traps. Traps only exist to give rogues something to do. Get rid of both and you have a better game with a lot fewer repetitive perception and disable device rolls.


The thing about rogues is they have always been the mostly useless class. 1st and 2nd ed they were the class that had skills, but skills were very situational, and you didn't get enough to even do anything with them until mid/high level. They had the potential to do decent damage, if they could get off a backstab (much harder than sneak attack), but the damage was still underwhelming compared to the other classes, especially considering how much effort was involved. If you failed to kill the target, which was likely, then rogues had poor survivability.

The main advantage for rogues was they had faster leveling at the beginning. Which meant for dual and multi class characters (2nd ed) they could add that class on and get decent enough with it.

3rd added a bunch of skills, made sneak attack decent but still didn't solve the problem of survivability with fail/ineffective/partially effective sneak attacks: Rogues die to retaliation. Doesn't help they still have poor to hit progression.

PF being mostly a port of 3rd, have not really done anything to help rogues, and depending on the reading of stealth, it is still really hard to pull off. They are still squishy in combat, still have their skills replicated/negated by magic users, and get out-shined by so many other classes/archetypes one can wonder why they are even a PC class at this point.

The talk about attracting attention by bashing down doors reminds me of a PFS scenario where there was the usual stupid skill challenge + riddle BS of a puzzle door. On top of all of that it was a water puzzle with the grade school logic gate blah blah blah. Party flew/climbed to the door rather than mess with stupid valves. Door was sill in way, so cleric cast silence on door, barbarian fighter and stone fist alchemist bash door to tiny pieces. Boss enemy was in large room, with lots of background noise, was still able to get within 10 feet of the enemy and basically 2 round him into oblivion.


Again, I don't care about the rogue class. I'm saying taking out traps to accommodate players is weak. If there are only 3 people that's one thing, but with 4 characters you have Ranger/rogue/ Bard and whoever else that can do trap-finding or you can do a 1 level dip just to get the ability (which means it shouldn't be lacking in a 3 party group either, but I could see a reason for leeway).

Whatever happened to the days of failing a trap roll and having your whole party hit with a cone of cold/fireball, paralyzed etc. and then the stone giants come rushing in. Nowadays every PC is trying to maximize his character to do uber-damage and then throws a fit when the GM doesn't mold the adventure to have him win.

Guess some just game differently.

51 to 100 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / No rogue in party! What does one do? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.