Roberta? You do know that Versatile Performance is quite auditory, and thus broadcasts one's position wherever one happens to be, ALL THE TIME, right? And if the DM has half a brain, all the enemies have to do is gather up and wipe out the party once they learn their Bard is getting funky, right?
Just because the nasty side effects aren't explicitly stated, doesn't mean you can't nail the PC group with logical consequences for their actions.
Seriously, SINGING at one's opponents doesn't make you consider the fact that whatever the effects, it also erects the auditory equivalent of a flashing neon sign with the legend "GET YOUR PC SNACKS HERE!"?
Oh, and did you ever see the Order of the Stick strips involving their Bard? "Bluff, bluff, bluff the stupid ogre." Versatile Performance isn't as versatile as you think, if you figure it can be used willy nilly.
Not all Performances are singing, nor are they all auditory. Mine has oratory and dance. How loud is dance?
Nor can they know, without good skill checks, that you are making a supernatural effect or are just giving the usual "Give one for the Gipper!"
Order of the Stick is meant to be funny, not RAW.
Not to mention really good actors can act without you knowing they are "acting", and so can orators, etc.
Even if you are singing, it's as loud as you need it to be, which is as loud as your party can hear, no more. You don't need to belt it out at high volume. It's a DC 0, no louder than a normal speaking voice- unless you need it to be louder.
Yes, and acting, oratory etc are hardly SILENT, ARE THEY?! Really man.
They're not necessarily locked on full blast all the time either. Dust off that brain of yours and think for once.
And every time a Bard opens her mouth to do their thing, any NPC beastie in a world where Bards are known to exist would happily target them just like they would a Wizard when casting a spell. Would you like your Bard pincushioned, or just gutted? Better yet, the Bard will likely have a worse AC than the Rogue, given that most like to put their high rolls in Charisma.
Again, why are you trying Diplomacy on monsters who attack people who open their mouths?
Unless you are running about using a Bard mime, Perform isn't silent. Try again, kiddo.
And again, you're not SCREAMING AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS SO EVERYONE EVERYWHERE CAN HEAR YOU EITHER, "kiddo".
Have you ever USED those Minor Talent spells as a Rogue? Ever thought about running one, and using it to find traps or whatever? Wow. You focus so much on the upper levels, you never stop to consider what the little abilities can do.
I'm sorry if I don't see the point on blowing a talent on gaining the 3/day ability to do something nearly 3/4 of the classes in the game can do at will.
Including the Bard.
Do either of you know what goes into acting on stage? How about oratory to a group of people? You train to PROJECT YOUR VOICE so they can bloody hear you.
Do yourselves a favor, and try taking some acting classes or attend a play, and perhaps a speech. Ask yourselves what those large speakers are for.
Speaking as someone who has actually taken public speaking courses (which you obviously haven't), I'll try to explain this to you in small words so you can understand.
You train to project your voice, yes. You with me so far? Now, this might be the difficult part, but projecting your voice does not mean "I'M GONNA TALK REAL LOUD OKAY?", it means you speak with authority and clarity so people can understand you. Contrary to your apparent belief, speaking volume can be controlled by the speaker (one of the things you should learn to do if you want to do any public speaking). You can make your voice carry, or you can lower the volume (but not the clarity) if you need to speak to a small group.
The speakers ARE there for a reason, yes, very good. They're there to amplify your voice so people in big audiences can hear your voice all around the room. Now pop quiz: What happens when you take away the speakers?
Do either of you know what goes into acting on stage? How about oratory to a group of people? You train to PROJECT YOUR VOICE so they can bloody hear you.
Do yourselves a favor, and try taking some acting classes or attend a play, and perhaps a speech. Ask yourselves what those large speakers are for.
Actually, you only project loudly your voice if there are people far away from you. If there's only one or two spectators and they are close enough, you can pretty much speak in normal volume.
But it doesn't even matter.
A Bard who uses Versatile Performance is not actually performing, just using his Perform bonus in place of another skill bonus.
He's not singing, dancing or playing his bandolim. He's bluffing, performing acrobatics or being really convincing, like any other person would.
----------------
On a related note, Rogues are so MAD that as they are, they can't really invest in Int. Their saves suck so much, their Wis/Con has to be somewhat high.
In fact, the only attributes they can more or less safely dump is Int and Cha. But low Int/Cha is not exactly iconic for Rogues...
My idea of adding Int to attack would mean investing in Str is not necessary, but still a viable option if you want a more thugish Str-based Rogue. This reduces MADness and gives him better access to Int.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This, always this:
Anyway. Rogues are in kind of a weird place in Pathfinder, even moreso than in 3.5. They're not supposed to be as good at martial combat as...uh... all the other classes, so they aren't. What they get in return for this is out-of-combat problem-solving utility. Thing is, almost all (and indeed all, using non-core material) of this out-of-combat utility is redundant with other non-magical classes. That isn't even taking into account spellcasters, who by and large get more out-of-combat schticks, while having comparable or better in-combat schticks.
The rogue's schtick is skills and skills aren't very good. They certainly aren't good enough to explain why a class whose only real combat schtick is "stab a dude" is weaker at stabbing than pretty much everyone else. Skills are not only often nonfunctional (Diplomacy, original-version Stealth), they're also almost always hardcapped at what's "realistic" or "humanly possible" (Stealth again, all of the movement skills).In return for this schtick, the rogue is worse at fighting. It's not just that the rogue is less capable and more-situational than a fighter, barbarian, or paladin: she's also weaker when it comes to wrecking some jerk than the ranger and (non-core) monk, who also rely on skill-based schticks (albeit skill-based schticks supplemented with class abilities), not to mention the alchemist, cleric, druid, and oracle. All of these classes have class abilities or spellcasting to do more than what's "humanly possible", and can still fight in addition to solving problems that don't require murder.
So yeah. I do think the rogue is a weak class. She's worse at fighting to be good at something that often isn't useful, and will often be overshadowed in her own specialty by someone else in the party.
I wish I knew how to fix it.
I wouldn’t mind seeing the fighter and monk getting some more love, but compared to the rogue those two classes are demi gods. The rogue suck and the APG and some of the other books pretty much killed the the need of a rogue.
In 3.x the rogue was the only class that could find and disable traps. Instead of fixing the rogue in 3.x every adventure had traps so the rogue could do his thing. Absurd.
In pathfinder anyone can find and disable traps, and the ranger, bard and some other classes can deal with magical traps so there is no need for the rogue on the basis that “we need a trap dude”. As for scout there are divination and classes like the ranger, or even a dex fighter that can stelth. Then there are the druid that can scout and hybrid classes like The Bard, Inquisitor, Magus and alchemist that are even better than the rogue and more versatile.
I used to play rogue in 3.0, put I got fed up when other always took you for granted: Hey you trap finder and stealth dude. Walk 60 feet in front of us.
And once you reach higher levels the party didn’t need a scout or trap finder. The Wizard with some help from the cleric pretty much fixed everything.
Rogues suck. As far as I can tell it is the only class that suck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have created a sheet with some DPR numbers, it is available here.
This does assume that the rogue is always able to get sneak attack which will not be true.
I feel that this shows that the rogue is in a place very similar to the monk, which is that there is almost always a better class choice mechanically to fulfill the combat party role.
I feel that the bard is a better face/skill user due to versatile performance, and access to spells/performances.
As a scout I see nothing a rogue can do that a ranger cannot do better.
This leaves the rogue with only one area to shine, disabling magical traps.
This role is very niche and due to the fact that anyone can use perception to search for traps and the ubiquitousness of Dispel Magic/Summoned Monsters and such, I feel that this is a niche role. If absolutely necessary there are archetypes with access to this ability as well that are not a part of the Rogue class.
In short while the rogue is not nonviable, it is definitively unoptimale.
What I believe most of the people here are saying is similar too, "I like the idea of the rogue class. I would like it if every concept was not better supported mechanically by using a different class and simply calling it a Thief or a detective or a thug."
With this sentiment I agree.
I have completely rewritten Rogue and all of its talents in my home game.
If anyone is interested, just ask and I would be glad to provide my rewrite.
You do realize you've lumped in a lot of very useful abilities with the "bad" ones, like say Minor Magic (Detect Magic really helps with magical traps, and said traps get particularly evil in upper levels, so does Detect Poison while we're at it)?
Maybe the key here isn't the Rogue Talents you don't like, it's how they're used that determines how useful they really are?
Just sayin'...
Oh boy, once per day if I miss my target ONE of my allies gets to make a SINGULAR attack against a random enemy. Do that neat trick again? Sorry my friend I only know how to spot openings in a enemy's defense once a day.
I'm a Master of Disguise! A ability I had to wait a whole 10 levels for. Only really good at disguising my self once per day though. After that sorry, I blew my load on creativity. What do you mean a robe of blending and a hat of disguise is a better investment? How dare you I'm a MASTER OF DISGUISE!
Hey guys did you know I can cast a cantrip and a 1st-level spell both 2 times per day. Saved myself 1125 GP, no need to buy a couple of wands with 50 casts each. It was a tough choice choosing a talent for my precious few talents from the following list: Ki Pool, Ninja Trick, Finesse Rogue, Firearm Training, Grit, Weapon Training, Fast Stealth, Stand up, Trap Spotter, Swift Poison, Surprise Attack, Feat: Skill Focus UMD, Improved Evasion, Hide in Plain Sight, Skill Mastery.........Minor Magic, and Major Magic.
And lets not forget gems like Rope Master, Survivalist, Terrain Mastery, Hold Breath....
Yes it's how they used, not because there's far better choices to pick from, a feat/spell/magic item does it better, or probably going to be use once in a campaign unless a DM specifically designs around this one talent out of many. Look at my list again, I didn't pick lightly.
Edit:
I have completely rewritten Rogue and all of its talents in my home game.
If anyone is interested, just ask and I would be glad to provide my rewrite.
Yes, hook me up. I would like to see how it compares to rewrites I'm planning to make. I'm seriously planning to do a Talent/Archetype rewrite thread.
I'm fine with Rogue class too, I just wish it had better supporting abilities. Like would it have been over the top to have a master talent that allows for adding dex to damage for ranged and melee attacks? I don't think so.
I have created a sheet with some DPR numbers, it is available here.
This does assume that the rogue is always able to get sneak attack which will not be true.
I feel that this shows that the rogue is in a place very similar to the monk, which is that there is almost always a better class choice mechanically to fulfill the combat party role.
With the resent errata/fix, the APG and UC the monk, at least if using a weapon, is rock solid. True the Vanilla Monk still god some issues.
I feel that the bard is a better face/skill user due to versatile performance, and access to spells/performances.As a scout I see nothing a rogue can do that a ranger cannot do better.
This leaves the rogue with only one area to shine, disabling magical traps.
This role is very niche and due to the fact that anyone can use perception to search for traps and the ubiquitousness of Dispel Magic/Summoned Monsters and such, I feel that this is a niche role. If absolutely necessary there are archetypes with access to this ability as well that are not a part of the Rogue class.
In short while the rogue is not nonviable, it is definitively unoptimale.
What I believe most of the people here are saying is similar too, "I like the idea of the rogue class. I would like it if every concept was not better supported mechanically by using a different class and simply calling it a Thief or a detective or a thug."
With this sentiment I agree.
I more or less agree with this. The fact that it got the worst base save in the game (reflex only) doesn’t help. I leaning to it being less than unoptimal
I have completely rewritten Rogue and all of its talents in my home game.
If anyone is interested, just ask and I would be glad to provide my rewrite.
I’m interested :-)
@Piccolo. This:
A Bard who uses Versatile Performance is not actually performing, just using his Perform bonus in place of another skill bonus.He's not singing, dancing or playing his bandolim. He's bluffing, performing acrobatics or being really convincing, like any other person would.
Your argument is now that bards are literally incapable of using normal speaking volume.
I'd type a further response but honestly I think that the sheer fact that that's actually your argument is a better counterargument than anything I could come up with.
and it had peculiar effects?Versatile Performance doesn't have peculiar effects and isn't magical. It's literally "Hey, all that training I did learning to talk good lets me talk to people good".
The only explanation I can really think of at this point is that Piccolo hasn't read what Versatile Performance does. For reference:
At 2nd level, a bard can choose one type of Perform skill. He can use his bonus in that skill in place of his bonus in associated skills. When substituting in this way, the bard uses his total Perform skill bonus, including class skill bonus, in place of its associated skill's bonus, whether or not he has ranks in that skill or if it is a class skill. At 6th level, and every 4 levels thereafter, the bard can select an additional type of Perform to substitute.
In 3.x the rogue was the only class that could find and disable traps. Instead of fixing the rogue in 3.x every adventure had traps so the rogue could do his thing. Absurd.
Quite. I can't think of any other class in Pathfinder or 3.5 where DMs and AP/Module designers ever needed to stop and make sure they were giving that class something useful to do.
At the end of the day, if you wanna compare the Pathfinder classes to superheroes then Rogues are Aquaman. The only way they won't be outclassed by everyone else to the point of near irrelevancy is if the DM or module/AP writer goes out of their way to add things specifically for the rogue to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Chengar Qordath
Great link :-)
Versatile Performance. At 2nd level, the bard is able to max 8+Int skills, so right out of the gate the bard can already match the rogue, and because of the way Versatile Performance works, a Skill Focus helps the bard far more than it helps the rogue (since it applies to three skills for the price of one), so the bard is better at boosting skills too in a way that the pitiful Rogue Talents can't even touch. By 14th level, the bard can max 4 Perform skills and 10+Int other skills, while the rogue is still stuck at 8+Int.
Not entirely true since the bard can’t "cash out" any skill ranks he spent on skills that, later on, get "replaced" by a versatile performance.
Versatile performance is great when you get it at level 2, not so great at level 6 and useless and level 10, 14 and 18.
Even if they could cash out" any skill ranks he spent on skills that, later on, get "replaced" by a versatile performance truth be told that skills with some very few exceptions aren’t really good. Especially not at higher levels.
What’s great about the bard is that he has lots of skills, he is a great buffer, can be a good or even great damage dealer and is a caster. And he even got more cool stuff going on.
I hate versatile performance but still love bards :-)
|
This awesome modification to sneak attack goes a great length in improving the rogue's ability to stand on her own; notably by removing the absolute need for an actual flanking companion in order to deal opportunistic damage.
You replace "1d6 precision damage when flanking/enemy flat-footed" with "+2 bonus damage multiplied on a crit against enemy afflicted by any detrimental condition (dazzled, blinded, deafened, shaken, etc.) or flanked".
Since much non-combat rogue talents are so weak, I think one of the best and simplest ways to grant rogues the much needed boost to their ability, in addition to the previously nominated Vicious Opportunist variant to sneak attack, would be to grant them TWO rogue talents whenever they may normally select one, with a maximum of 1 combat-oriented talent per such opportunity (a limit that a swashbuckler or Str-based brute rogue archetype may ignore in order to grant candy to combat, and especially Str rogues).
Bard > Rogue.
Problem with sounds? Want to disarm traps? Archeologist, and it's fine.
At level 12 takes assassinate (cha based) and you can be also a sneaking assassin. Plus spell, better chances to hit, better saving throws, and more ability bonus! 6 for level? No problem, this archetype gives you tons of bonus (half your level), and you'll do even better than rogue.
Scared of sneak attack? No, he has uncanny dodge.
If not, even a normal bard is a better option for a group. Buffs, heals, abilities, spells, better AC (shields.
Rouge snake attack works on undeads and constructs now, but there are a lot of monster, class and feats that avoid that.
Rogue in combat got only an option: hit the target with a weapon. Bards can attack with weapons, use spells, performance to buff or debuff. Tired of this? Chose an archetype, you can rise undead.
And rogue archetype? If you are not an half orc, they will not change so much your playstyle.
Rogue is the only martial class with attack bonus 0.75 x level. Monk would have too, but he has full BAB when makes a flurry, a manouver, and certain feats are designed to work on monk level (style feats for example). Not to speak about monks' class abilities...
Oh, i forgot. Rogue talents are weak. Some exception, but weak. Rogue has worst saving throws of all classes.
By the way.
Rogue has a set of unique abilities that permits him to makes part of adventure alone. Yes, because almost none in the group would follow him. He will not bring his group in a sneak mission. So probably the gm will keep this situation as a short part of the adventure. Disarming traps? It's just a roll... not so funny.
Ehy, I search for traps!
Ok, roll. Found one.
I try to disarm it.
Roll. Done.
But since the rogue is a good solo character (if he don't try to do non-rogue adventure) it's also a very good NPC. Can sneake in your house, his damage can be good, but why as NPC?
First, an NPC can work alone and doesn't have to play togheter his friends. Second, PC can have good AC but not ad some monsters. Third, PC usually are not immune to sneak attacks.
Every rogue rework can be a problem because assassins can be used against the party, but a rogue is not a good member of the party.
First of all his BAB should be changed, or at least he should have more bonuses when flanking or his target is denied his AC bonus. Then, he should have some options when his target is immune to sneak attack. Manouvers? Not good BAB. (please notice that i give weapon finesse for free in my games). What else?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those who were interested here is the version of the rogue I currently use.
With the resent errata/fix, the APG and UC the monk, at least if using a weapon, is rock solid. True the Vanilla Monk still god some issues.
Yes, I agree the monk is fine when using archetypes. However I still feel the Vanilla CRB monk is an inherited mess without real focus. I believe we agree on this, just making my position clear. :-)
I honestly have written a new unarmed + Ki class, tweaked fighter, changed rogue as above, and have written a new martial that uses weapons + Ki. Also I rewrote the magic item rules, and am currently codifying spells ala unearthed arcana into common/uncommon/rare/personal. *shrug* I have eight new races for my new campaign , starting after I return from Japan.
I always write my own material just for the fun of it.
I like to write/create, and I would love to get published some day, just have to keep practicing.
Sorry for the rambling, it is late here.
Edit: Feedback is both welcome and wanted.
In 3.x the rogue was the only class that could find and disable traps. Instead of fixing the rogue in 3.x every adventure had traps so the rogue could do his thing. Absurd.
False, 3.5 classes/Prc other than Rogue:
Spellthiefs (rogue, reduced sneak attack but can steal spell/stuff),Scouts (movement based striker),
Ninja (Had actual abilities enhancing their role like turn invisible, etc but nerfed sneak attack,
Beguiler (enhantment/illusion based caster, but had good skill points), Psychic Rogue (psionic version of rogue),
Artificier (magic item crafter, decent skill, had magic)
Factorum: Pretty awesome Master of all trades, jack of some (yes the reverse of Jack of all trades, master of some).
Ranger (3.5 Archetype) (lose track)
Cleric with Kobold Domain
Lurk (3.5 Archetype, loses Lurk augments though)
Barbarian (3.5 archetype made him lose trapsense to gainit)
Incarnate (when binding Theft Gloves)
Some Prcs
Dwarven race get trapfinding if Trap involved stone
Roberta? You do know that Versatile Performance is quite auditory, and thus broadcasts one's position wherever one happens to be, ALL THE TIME, right? And if the DM has half a brain, all the enemies have to do is gather up and wipe out the party once they learn their Bard is getting funky, right?
Just because the nasty side effects aren't explicitly stated, doesn't mean you can't nail the PC group with logical consequences for their actions.
Seriously, SINGING at one's opponents doesn't make you consider the fact that whatever the effects, it also erects the auditory equivalent of a flashing neon sign with the legend "GET YOUR PC SNACKS HERE!"?
Oh, and did you ever see the Order of the Stick strips involving their Bard? "Bluff, bluff, bluff the stupid ogre." Versatile Performance isn't as versatile as you think, if you figure it can be used willy nilly.
You don't actually "perform" to use the skill. You just get to use the modifier so no it will not create noise.
|
Excuse me if this has been suggested before, but I wonder if the Rogue's Sneak Attack problem could be largely resolved by allowing him/her to Sneak Attack an opponent affected by any condition other than invisibile and incorporeal.
This solution opens the door to a greater frequency of Sneak Attacks, seems to be thematically consistent with reasoning for precision attacks, may boost the utility of some weak talents (e.g., Minor Magic/Flare), or increase options for combat tactics (e.g., Dirty Trick/entangle).
Roberta? You do know that Versatile Performance is quite auditory, and thus broadcasts one's position wherever one happens to be, ALL THE TIME, right?
It doesn't say that anywhere in the rules. VP is not a part of bardic performance, but a separate ability. I kinda wish it was bardic performance, that would make the Pathfinder Chronicler the best skillmonkey in the game!
Also, tone down the hostility, bro.
I made a very long post about my house rules but i can't see it... seems i lost a lot of time for nothing :(
Btw, i love Covent rogue, but there are some problems that still have.
First, BAB. Chance to hit or a rogue is lowest of all class except full casters.
Bards, inquisitors, magi, druids, clerics, all have self buffs (or global, that is even better) that rise the chance to hit. Monks have flurry, make manouvers with monk's level instead of BAB, and some feats requires monk level instead of other requisite. Rogue has nothing. And can't do nothing but hit with a weapon, as i said.
Saving throws are worst of all classes.
Rogues are not encourage to use high crit chance weapon, like kukri, since sneak attack doesn't work.
My long disappeared post included some change i tested or i'm testing, i'll give just some example.
First, wapon finesse is not a feat and everyone can use DEX bonus on appropriate weapons.
Concealment doesn't limit sneak attack. A rogue can stab you in the shadow. For total concealment use same rules of coup de grace.
Give rogues a +1 bonus on ST against poison and mind affecting effects (except fear) at 4th level and every 4 level (max +5 at 20th).
Give rogue a +2 bonus on hit if flanking or hidden, cumulative with normal bonuses.
What we can add? Int bonus as precision damage on every hit that multiply on critical?
Chance to feint as a swift with some feats or rogue ability?
Use critical feats with rogue level instead of BAB as requisite, and take them as a fighter?
Or we should simply give him full BAB?
I've never understood why anyone would take minor or major magic instead of dipping a level into wizard or something and actually getting 4 useful spells and being able to use them all day. But then I'm a huge fan of multiclassing anyway. That said has anyone ever tried the arcane trickster and does it work as well as I imagine it would?
@Piccolo. This:
A Bard who uses Versatile Performance is not actually performing, just using his Perform bonus in place of another skill bonus.He's not singing, dancing or playing his bandolim. He's bluffing, performing acrobatics or being really convincing, like any other person would.
I found that to be pretty obvious myself.
Sorry Covent, i misread about saving throws.
The only issue rogue still has is BAB, or lack of bonus on hit.
Sorry Covent, i misread about saving throws.
The only issue rogue still has is BAB, or lack of bonus on hit.
Trailblazer had a tidy fix for this one: Rogues and Monks got a special bonus to sneak attacks and flurries: exactly enough to make them effectively full BAB for their class level.
So when a rogue makes a sneak attack he uses his level as BAB?
I'd like to find a way to make this not only related to snake attack.
For example, full BAB when flanking or attacking a target denied of his DEX bonus to AC. In this way a rogue can make something even against target immune to sneak attacks, maybe performing a manouver. Or it can be full BAB with sneak attacks and when performing disarm, trip or dirty trick (and steal for who use it).
In 3.x the rogue was the only class that could find and disable traps. Instead of fixing the rogue in 3.x every adventure had traps so the rogue could do his thing. Absurd.
False, 3.5 classes/Prc other than Rogue:
Spellthiefs (rogue, reduced sneak attack but can steal spell/stuff),
Scouts (movement based striker),
Ninja (Had actual abilities enhancing their role like turn invisible, etc but nerfed sneak attack,
Beguiler (enhantment/illusion based caster, but had good skill points), Psychic Rogue (psionic version of rogue),
Artificier (magic item crafter, decent skill, had magic)
Factorum: Pretty awesome Master of all trades, jack of some (yes the reverse of Jack of all trades, master of some).
Ranger (3.5 Archetype) (lose track)
Cleric with Kobold Domain
Lurk (3.5 Archetype, loses Lurk augments though)
Barbarian (3.5 archetype made him lose trapsense to gainit)
Incarnate (when binding Theft Gloves)
Some Prcs
Dwarven race get trapfinding if Trap involved stone
what is false?
|
|
So when a rogue makes a sneak attack he uses his level as BAB?
I'd like to find a way to make this not only related to snake attack.
For example, full BAB when flanking or attacking a target denied of his DEX bonus to AC. In this way a rogue can make something even against target immune to sneak attacks, maybe performing a manouver. Or it can be full BAB with sneak attacks and when performing disarm, trip or dirty trick (and steal for who use it).
A rogue is not meant to have a BAB equal to a fighter's at equal level, even in limited occasions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like how a Rogue 5 / Assassin 1 has the same BAB as a Wizard 6, is less stealthy than a Wizard 6 due to lack of invisibility, and its death attack DC is lower than the DC's of the wizard's first-level spells.
Assassin is great because it starts out by inheriting all of the rogue's problems and then somehow manages to get even worse.
A rogue is not meant to have a BAB equal to a fighter's at equal level, even in limited occasions.So when a rogue makes a sneak attack he uses his level as BAB?
I'd like to find a way to make this not only related to snake attack.
For example, full BAB when flanking or attacking a target denied of his DEX bonus to AC. In this way a rogue can make something even against target immune to sneak attacks, maybe performing a manouver. Or it can be full BAB with sneak attacks and when performing disarm, trip or dirty trick (and steal for who use it).
Which is a major flaw in the class.
In 3.x the rogue was the only class that could find and disable traps. Instead of fixing the rogue in 3.x every adventure had traps so the rogue could do his thing. Absurd.
False, 3.5 classes/Prc other than Rogue:
Spellthiefs (rogue, reduced sneak attack but can steal spell/stuff),
Scouts (movement based striker),
Ninja (Had actual abilities enhancing their role like turn invisible, etc but nerfed sneak attack,
Beguiler (enhantment/illusion based caster, but had good skill points), Psychic Rogue (psionic version of rogue),
Artificier (magic item crafter, decent skill, had magic)
Factorum: Pretty awesome Master of all trades, jack of some (yes the reverse of Jack of all trades, master of some).
Ranger (3.5 Archetype) (lose track)
Cleric with Kobold Domain
Lurk (3.5 Archetype, loses Lurk augments though)
Barbarian (3.5 archetype made him lose trapsense to gainit)
Incarnate (when binding Theft Gloves)
Some Prcs
Dwarven race get trapfinding if Trap involved stonewhat is false?
This line: "In 3.x the rogue was the only class that could find and disable traps."
This is false.|
|
Which is a major flaw in the class.A rogue is not meant to have a BAB equal to a fighter's at equal level, even in limited occasions.So when a rogue makes a sneak attack he uses his level as BAB?
I'd like to find a way to make this not only related to snake attack.
For example, full BAB when flanking or attacking a target denied of his DEX bonus to AC. In this way a rogue can make something even against target immune to sneak attacks, maybe performing a manouver. Or it can be full BAB with sneak attacks and when performing disarm, trip or dirty trick (and steal for who use it).
Conceptually, the rogue is all about seizing the instant, exploiting and provoking opportunities; not in hitting true and hard often.
In the end, the goal is the same: you want to hit AC and deal damage with both a fighter and a rogue. But where the fighter will be precise, strong, deflect blows with his armor and have high HPs; the rogue will cripple the enemy, deal killing blows in the best conditions, avoid damage thanks to some thinking and strategy, and have more overall utility and versatility.The flaw is not in the class, but the execution when compared to other classes:
- low bonus to hit
- low skill bonuses
- dependancy to allies in order to deal damage
- low damage because of (conditions required in order to deal SA damage)+(bonus to hit).
See Cheapy's replacement to Sneak Attack as a way to correct this issue and remove the rogue's dependency to allies.
You may also wait for The Secrets of Tactical Archetypes II to land on D20pfsrd.com; Cheapy wrote in this supplement a full archetype for sneak attack users, complete with rogue talents patching the rogue on the whole "cannot hit or do anything by herself". Our group's rogue is using it and is having a blast with the Dirty Trick combat maneuver-oriented talents... something that any rogue should be the best at.
Sounds interesting.
@Lumiere Dawnbringer: Heh. If you want a rogue that does respectable damage, be a ranger instead. Still enough skill points to cover the stealth, disable device and perception skills, and you get the full BAB.
Which is the problem with the strength rogue. The full BAB guy doing power attack now has a BAB like the rogue without power attack. The rogue power attacking will miss more often.
Ranger is indeed better. but some stubborn individuals often insist that they have to be a rogue.
often not realizing that with a bit of investment, that any class with access to either at least 6+int skills or intelligence as at least a secondary stat can be a substitute rogue in a pinch.
That said has anyone ever tried the arcane trickster and does it work as well as I imagine it would?
I happen to think it can work pretty well.
There's just a weak zone from 4-9 or so that you have to tolerate, but it's not the only PrC that's like that. It rocks at high levels.
@Lumiere Dawnbringer: Heh. If you want a rogue that does respectable damage, be a ranger instead. Still enough skill points to cover the stealth, disable device and perception skills, and you get the full BAB.
Which is the problem with the strength rogue. The full BAB guy doing power attack now has a BAB like the rogue without power attack. The rogue power attacking will miss more often.
Ranger is indeed better. but some stubborn individuals often insist that they have to be a rogue.
often not realizing that with a bit of investment, that any class with access to either at least 6+int skills or intelligence as at least a secondary stat can be a substitute rogue in a pinch.
I don't think that's the point. It's like telling the magus or bard player to simple play a wizard because he does everything better than they possibly could. Sure the rogue and ranger are similar but they are apparently different enough to be their own class and players such as myself don't want all the extra nature fluff and prefer the concept of an urbanite scoundrel. And while I am aware of the urban ranger option, there are still reasons that I prefer the rogue concept such as the classic sneak attack.
The other problem is that players often see a few d6 'at will' and think they've got access to some kind of impressive damage or something >.<
Rogues could get +1d6 to sneak attack at every level (as opposed to every odd level) and it wouldn't break anything.
It's not that either, at least for me. I just enjoy the concept of being able to use stealth and deception to my advantage and being rewarded for such actions.
It seems quite apparent that the rogue is lacking and I am not doubting that, I just don't feel like telling people to play another class is a solution. The rogue needs some sort of fix as it will always be one of the classic four roles of role-playing games (for dungeon & dragons at least).
even in 2nd edition, the bard was a better rogue than the rogue. and in 1st, the assassin and monk were a better rogue than the rogue.
the rogue had the advantage of gaining up to an unlimited number of levels, if it survived long enough to gain them all. where eventually, relevant challenges would stop occuring,and even then, those high levels were often ignored.
while in 1e, you hypothetically could have a 50th or 5,000th level rogue. it was an often ignored advantage due to a variety of factors
lack of relevant challenges made XP farming harder
campaigns just didn't reach that point
level caps were often ignored
race/class restrictions were often ignored
attribute prerequisites were often ignored
such a high level character was pointless
in fact, making a 1e rogue useful required multiclassing with another, more useful class. such as wizard, which while a downgrade to the wizard, was practically an upgrade to the rogue.
Conceptually, the rogue is all about seizing the instant, exploiting and provoking opportunities; not in hitting true and hard often.
In the end, the goal is the same: you want to hit AC and deal damage with both a fighter and a rogue. But where the fighter will be precise, strong, deflect blows with his armor and have high HPs; the rogue will cripple the enemy, deal killing blows in the best conditions, avoid damage thanks to some thinking and strategy, and have more overall utility and versatility.
It's a shame that rogues are worse than fighters in every single one of those respects. (Except for out-of-combat versatility - but that's more a function of fighters being awful outside of combat, and even then the fighter is still more versatile in combat.)
Sorry Covent, i misread about saving throws.
The only issue rogue still has is BAB, or lack of bonus on hit.
I can see the lack of ability to mitigate their 3/4 BaB being a problem.
However I ran some numbers here for my changes and they seem to be in the ballpark I am aiming for.
I have though of adding a "Rogue's Luck" pool mechanic allowing for re-rolls, however I am still play-testing the current changes and prefer to make smaller changes and then give my players more if needed, rather than upsetting them by taking abilities away.
Thank you for the feedback.
Does anyone have any opinions about the rewritten rogue talents?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We should just combine the Fighter and Rogue into one class, then they can do stuff out of combat and in combat ...
Rogues are a tricky class, and it's really to the benefit of gameplay if GMs frame encounters in such a way that rogues can contribute, and rogue players can help by investing in multiple avenues of creating their own sneak attack.
But if a rogue player has uncooperative allies and an uncooperative GM, yes, it's going to be a sad day. When the environment doesn't cooperate with you, it's in your best interest to be able to disguise as your enemies' ally, to sneak past them and get a surprise round, to hide a weapon on your person and attack with it unexpectedly, to create your own dim light / darkness, to blind enemies, to become invisible, to cause your enemies to become Stunned or helpless, or to disarm your enemies and use Catch Off-Guard to hit them with an improvised weapon.
I've had mounted chargers that deal with the Charge limitations by taking feats and features to circumvent them, but curiously, I've known rogue players that absolutely focus on just one aspect of gaining sneak attack to the exclusion of the others then complain when their chosen method is negated.
We should just combine the Fighter and Rogue into one class, then they can do stuff out of combat and in combat ...
TBH I thought the same thing. Would fix many of the problems I have with both classes, that Fighters can't do jack (without hefty investment) out of combat, and Rogues can't do jack in combat.
Rename him the Tactician or Commando or some such, he's a skilled, highly trained professional soldier.
Sorry Covent, i misread about saving throws.
The only issue rogue still has is BAB, or lack of bonus on hit.I can see the lack of ability to mitigate their 3/4 BaB being a problem.
However I ran some numbers here for my changes and they seem to be in the ballpark I am aiming for.
I have though of adding a "Rogue's Luck" pool mechanic allowing for re-rolls, however I am still play-testing the current changes and prefer to make smaller changes and then give my players more if needed, rather than upsetting them by taking abilities away.
Thank you for the feedback.
Does anyone have any opinions about the rewritten rogue talents?
Yes, I have. Generally speaking i think they are really good. Separation between utilities and sneak attack feats is a great idea. More uses/day is a great idea, could be used also for other feats (like improved iron will). I think would not be a problem using ninja feats in the same manner (pressure point is an example).
I found the feats very well balanced.I really like your rogue. I made one for a new campaing but after some try became a bard archeologist. Now i think i will try your. The only thing i will change will be this.
-Bonus on hit when flanking or attacking a dex denied target. Could be a flat +2, or a scaling bonus, +1 every 3 or 4 level. I will think more on this tomorrow.
-Using his level as BAB for critical feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We should just combine the Fighter and Rogue into one class, then they can do stuff out of combat and in combat ...
Ranger?
We should just combine the Fighter and Rogue into one class, then they can do stuff out of combat and in combat ...TBH I thought the same thing. Would fix many of the problems I have with both classes, that Fighters can't do jack (without hefty investment) out of combat, and Rogues can't do jack in combat.
Rename him the Tactician or Command or some such, he's a skilled, highly trained professional soldier.
I give all 2 skill/ level class 4 points instead. This is because i made minor changes in all classes, but generally speaking what interest warriors is this:
-4 points level.-bonus level/2 to martial knowledge (easy to imagine how it works). Discover fighting styles, things related to warfare, etc.
-weapon specialization is not a feat. Every PC that got weapon focus and the equivalent of 4th fighter level got its bonus.
-all manouvers feats work this way: if you don't have feats, manouver is made at -4 but don't provoke attacks of opportunity. The feats erase the penality, but gives no bonus on the check. When you reach +6 BAB it triggers the effect of the improved version, but no bonus on check.
-No siege engines feats three. All is made with knowledge engineering.
With this changes in game non warrior in my campaign used manouver (too much expensive for a rogue, for example). Warriors could take more non combat oriented feats, or bonuses on ST, and his skills were worthed the expense. Warriors needs just more skill points and class skills.