How useless is a skill monkey rogue?


Advice

601 to 650 of 1,376 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

MrSin wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Skills are not that great, for the most part. That is why I wish the rogue could do special things with skills to make them have something other classes did not have.
Have to be careful with things like that. Sometimes you end up taking away options instead of giving them. Just look at the ridiculousness that is disabling magical traps. Apparently this one mundane guy can do it, but not the guy with 20 ranks in it?

We have to get away from the idea that mundane means you can't do extraordinary things. Rogues should be so good they can sneak past a dragon without disturbing a dragon (despite blind sense, blind sight, scent or whatever else they have). They should be so good they can dodge and tumble through an army without slowing down. Rogues should be so good they can steal someone's pants while they are standing at the bar without them noticing.

"But how is that possible without magic!"

My answer: "They are just that damned good!"

Dragons fly without magic. Rogues can steal pants without magic. Or they should be able to.


MrSin wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Skills are not that great, for the most part. That is why I wish the rogue could do special things with skills to make them have something other classes did not have.
Have to be careful with things like that. Sometimes you end up taking away options instead of giving them. Just look at the ridiculousness that is disabling magical traps. Apparently this one mundane guy can do it, but not the guy with 20 ranks in it?

Yes, because they are not rogues. And you can't flurry kicks and punches because you are not a monk. You can't dodge in armor (armor training) because you are not a fighter. And you can't get stronger when you are angry because you are not a barbarian.

If you want to do any of those, take a level in those classes, no one is stopping you.


While disarming magical traps was not a particularly good example, MrSin has a very valid point.
There are quite a few feats that instead of adding an ability to the character, take it away from everyone else.

A few offenders are Strike Back, Bludgeoner and Body Shield.

We really shouldn't need a feat to do any of those things.


That's sort of what I was getting at, but I was trying to use a class feature as an example, rather than a feat. The point about the rogue wasn't that he shouldn't do extraordinary things, just weird when he's the only one who can. Making things exclusive so that someone has a chance to shine is actually one of the worst steps you can take. It forces someone into the role, and if that's that characters only redeeming quality it just won't be a good fit. Many MMOs for example require the tanks/heals/dps trinity. When they don't make tank or heals appealing you spend half an hour trying to fight with all the other dps for tank and heals, even when you need 2 dps for every one of those guys. What becomes heals most appealing aspect? No wait time...

I believe the dozen feats to make whips act like whips are the example I usually see for "Why can't I do this without this?" there are probably a few rogue talents. Charlatan archetype comes to mind. Apparently starting rumors is something only a high level rogue can do?


Marthkus wrote:

I was thinking of playing a rogue with 18 dex and 16 int with 10s in all the other stats as a human. I plan to use my rogue talents for weapon finesse, fast stealth, a combat feat, weapon focus, and skill mastery twice. I'm only planning out to lvl 12.

My normal feats would be ones that added bonuses to skills like stealthy and skill focus.

Can this character function and contribute to the party in an effective way regardless of the campaign situation?

It is an interesting concept, but you will have a glass jaw and a putty fist. I also think that to go through all that and then have a suck CHA is a waste of time, because a character who can't fight worth a dime better be charismatic and able to talk his way out.

Trim that Dex for some CHA.


Marthkus wrote:

if a single handed rogue has a 75% to hit an average creature of appropriate CR, then a two-weapon rogue would have a 65% chance to hit. Assuming the fighter has +8 to hit over the rogue with a minus 4 penalty from power attack. The Fighter flanking with the rogue would have an 85% chance to-hit with his first attack.

Assuming no haste, same ability modifier, rogue has 10 strength and is using dex to hit, Both have the same enhancement bonus on weapons.

And ignoring criticals.

It seems to me you are ignoring that, even though the two-weapon rogue gets -2 on the attack roll, she gets to make the roll twice. If the probability of getting a hit on one roll is .65, then the probability of getting a hit in two rolls is .8775 (2*p - p*p). Assuming the rogue can get in a full attack, her chance of hitting is better than the fighter's.

Or am I totally off base?

Edit:
Perhaps more interesting than the chance of getting at least one hit in two strikes with TWF would be to also calculate the probability of getting two strikes and the resultant damage:

Only one hit (2*p - 2*p*p): .4225
two hits (p*p): .455

Expected damage: .4225*d + .455*2*d = 1.3325*d

So, in this case, the expected damage for a two weapon attack is 33% greater than one attack with the same weapon, everything else being equal.


Yeah the rogue needs to land BOTH of those shots to do the same damage.

Choppy Mc Fighty with his two handed weapon lays on 2d6+Strx2+PAx1.5, whereas Stabby Mc Rogue has two attacks, one at 1d6+Str+PA and 1d6+1/2Str+PA.

And each of them have a 65% chance of landing.

So if you land BOTH hits you are going to keep up with the Fighter, sorta, but the Fighter will more consistently lay in the damage because he only has a 15% chance of missing, whereas Stabby has a 35% chance to miss and then another 35% chance to miss, and if either iss he does significantly lighter damage.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quaternion wrote:

It seems to me you are ignoring that, even though the two-weapon rogue gets -2 on the attack roll, she gets to make the roll twice. If the probability of getting a hit on one roll is .65, then the probability of getting a hit in two rolls is .8775 (2*p - p*p). Assuming the rogue can get in a full attack, her chance of hitting is better than the fighter's.

Or am I totally off base?

It's the flurry-of-blows fallacy, I'm afraid. You are attacking at -2 for TWF, yes. Then you are losing out because of 3/4 BAB (in the case of the monk, MAD and lower enhancement). These stack up. So the target the fighter could hit 65% of the time, you hit 40% of the time - before you factor in iterative attacks. While the fighter's iterative attacks add to a significant boost to hit, multiple attacks for a TWFing rogue or a flurrying monk don't add significantly. In the above example, the fighter's second attack hits 40% of the time, while the rogue's hits 15% of the time. Then say the fighter gets a third hit, at 15%. So the fighter gets 120% hits, and the rogue 55% hits. Now the TWFing rogue would get two hits at 30%, and two at 5%, for 70% hits. That's only an extra 15% to hit, for the investment of two feats, and that's on top of Weapon Finesse because you need a dex build for TWFing.

Now that looks like an improvement, but now take a boss-fight that the fighter hits 50%/25%/5% of the time, and the rogue will get 25%/5% or 15%/15%/5%/5%. The higher the target AC, the worse off the TWFer/flurryer is. Fewer attacks for almost as many hits and for higher damage work better.

In short, multiple attacks just add up to multiple misses against the targets you really want to hit, and they only make a difference at all if you can get a full-round attack in - not something a glass cannon wants to do!


^^^ As above :) ^^^


Marthkus wrote:

Something like the rogue should be able to optimize for combat. They can't. They can't even be decent at it.

Rogue talents: Finesse Rogue, Weapon Training, Combat Trick. That's just for starters, and right off the top of my head. Have you read the Rogue out completely? Take a Goblin, max out the Dex to 22, and at 2nd level, take Finesse Rogue. 2 levels later, take Weapon Training in Rapier. Take the Knife Master archetype, get d8's for backstab. Later, take Outflank with your warrior buddy. Buy a Mithral Heavy Shield, you can still use it just fine without proficiency, then enchant the heck out of it. Want me to go on?


Marthkus wrote:
Oh of course, but the same can be said of a fighter not full-attacking.

Not to the same extent.

1)Most of a fighters damage is in that first almost guaranteed to hit swing.

2) All the fighter needs to do full damage is hold still. The rogue needs to hold still AND be in a flanking position: that creates a good bit of conflict

3) The fighter can move up and whack of his own volition, the rogue needs people paying attention.


Dabbler wrote:
Quaternion wrote:

It seems to me you are ignoring that, even though the two-weapon rogue gets -2 on the attack roll, she gets to make the roll twice. If the probability of getting a hit on one roll is .65, then the probability of getting a hit in two rolls is .8775 (2*p - p*p). Assuming the rogue can get in a full attack, her chance of hitting is better than the fighter's.

Or am I totally off base?

It's the flurry-of-blows fallacy, I'm afraid. You are attacking at -2 for TWF, yes. Then you are losing out because of 3/4 BAB (in the case of the monk, MAD and lower enhancement). These stack up. So the target the fighter could hit 65% of the time, you hit 40% of the time - before you factor in iterative attacks. While the fighter's iterative attacks add to a significant boost to hit, multiple attacks for a TWFing rogue or a flurrying monk don't add significantly. In the above example, the fighter's second attack hits 40% of the time, while the rogue's hits 15% of the time. Then say the fighter gets a third hit, at 15%. So the fighter gets 120% hits, and the rogue 55% hits. Now the TWFing rogue would get two hits at 30%, and two at 5%, for 70% hits. That's only an extra 15% to hit, for the investment of two feats, and that's on top of Weapon Finesse because you need a dex build for TWFing.

Now that looks like an improvement, but now take a boss-fight that the fighter hits 50%/25%/5% of the time, and the rogue will get 25%/5% or 15%/15%/5%/5%. The higher the target AC, the worse off the TWFer/flurryer is. Fewer attacks for almost as many hits and for higher damage work better.

In short, multiple attacks just add up to multiple misses against the targets you really want to hit, and they only make a difference at all if you can get a full-round attack in - not something a glass cannon wants to do!

I don't doubt that a given TWF build is less effective than a single weapon build with some other weapon and character class. I said "better than the fighter's" because there was a specific example of probabilities to hit for a fighter and TWF rogue.


Dabbler wrote:
Quaternion wrote:

It seems to me you are ignoring that, even though the two-weapon rogue gets -2 on the attack roll, she gets to make the roll twice. If the probability of getting a hit on one roll is .65, then the probability of getting a hit in two rolls is .8775 (2*p - p*p). Assuming the rogue can get in a full attack, her chance of hitting is better than the fighter's.

Or am I totally off base?

It's the flurry-of-blows fallacy, I'm afraid. You are attacking at -2 for TWF, yes. Then you are losing out because of 3/4 BAB (in the case of the monk, MAD and lower enhancement). These stack up. So the target the fighter could hit 65% of the time, you hit 40% of the time - before you factor in iterative attacks. While the fighter's iterative attacks add to a significant boost to hit, multiple attacks for a TWFing rogue or a flurrying monk don't add significantly. In the above example, the fighter's second attack hits 40% of the time, while the rogue's hits 15% of the time. Then say the fighter gets a third hit, at 15%. So the fighter gets 120% hits, and the rogue 55% hits. Now the TWFing rogue would get two hits at 30%, and two at 5%, for 70% hits. That's only an extra 15% to hit, for the investment of two feats, and that's on top of Weapon Finesse because you need a dex build for TWFing.

Now that looks like an improvement, but now take a boss-fight that the fighter hits 50%/25%/5% of the time, and the rogue will get 25%/5% or 15%/15%/5%/5%. The higher the target AC, the worse off the TWFer/flurryer is. Fewer attacks for almost as many hits and for higher damage work better.

In short, multiple attacks just add up to multiple misses against the targets you really want to hit, and they only make a difference at all if you can get a full-round attack in - not something a glass cannon wants to do!

The rogue is plus 8 behind the fighter. If the fighter is power attacking, the rogue is plus 4 behind the fighter. Making the difference only 20%. So the fighter goes 85%, 60%, 35%. while the rogue goes 65%, 65%, 40%, 40%. Now if the fighter isn't power attacking, him and the rogue come pretty close in damage, ignoring crits.


Quaternion wrote:


I don't doubt that a given TWF build is less effective than a single weapon build with some other weapon and character class. I said "better than the fighter's"...

Of course the problem is, the assumptions which were used were wrong. The fighter was short some bonuses which make a substantial difference.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Two quick and easy fixes for rogues/ninjas:

1. Weapon Finesse is a baseline bonus feat at level 1.

2. For every die of Sneak Attack dice you get, you add +1 to your attack bonus. This bonus is only added to attacks that qualify for Sneak Attack.

Rogues are going to hit more often, but they still won't do the same amount of damage as a fighter/paladin of similar level. They may not even do the same amount of damage as a well-built inquisitor with Bane active. The alternative to #2 would be to just make rogues full BAB and let rogue levels count as 1/2 fighter levels for qualifying for feats.


Number one is pretty reasonable. Number two breaks the game. I mean rips it up into tiny little pieces and stomps all over it.

Let me explain.

Let's look at the DRP of your suggestion vs. the 2 handed fighter at 20.

Fighter 20 259 DPR

Rogue 20 with +1 per sneak die 350 DPR (or with so much to hit bonus I could use power attack in the build and boost that to 370 DPR).

I think going with the full BAB is a better option. Though if you mean rogues would also get fighter specific feats on top (at 1/2 leve) that really will push it over the top.


Instead of making Weapon Finesse a standard feat, simply make the "Finesse Rogue" talent allow you to get another feat you qualify for if you already have Weapon Finesse. This solves the problem with 1st level Rogues and don't pigeonhole the class into Finesse builds, some people like Str-based thugs.

The ability to sacrifice 1 die of Sneak Attack for a +2 to attack rolls seems like a nice idea IMO.

Give them something to boost their saves, like a 2nd good save or the ability to make a Reflex save instead of a Will/Fort save 1 per day for every 3~4 Rogue levels.

Their AC is usually a bit lower than Rangers/Barbarians, but not incredibly so. I'd give Rogues the ability to use Stealth to get a 20% miss chance.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Two quick and easy fixes for rogues/ninjas:

1. Weapon Finesse is a baseline bonus feat at level 1.

2. For every die of Sneak Attack dice you get, you add +1 to your attack bonus. This bonus is only added to attacks that qualify for Sneak Attack.

I would not suggest the latter, as rogues get to sneak attack when either they are flanking (so they already have a +2 to attack) or their opponent is denied Dexterity to AC, and thus are easier to hit anyway. In my personal experience (so take that for what it is) as a GM with players who design melee rogues well, they don't need the extra to-hit.

Rogues definitely DO need some help in the skirmishing department (high Dex melee, heck, I'd give'em Agile Maneuvers and Weapon Finesse for free).


One of the big issues with Rogues is that people seem to think that they have to use two weapon fighting. You will notice that I don't. This gives me a +2 to hit and a load more feats than Rogues that waste their time with it.

You know all those arguments that it is so hard to set up a full attack while flanking? It doesn't apply to me. And all of a sudden I don't feel the need to stand still in combat.

Seriously! What is the obsession with DPR?! Somewhere someone figured out that you could squeeze a few more DPR out of a rogue if you are TWF while flanking and now everyone thinks that's the only thing you can do. Then they complain about how you can't do it!

Personally I focus on trying to get at least one good hit a round. I went with a skill focused rogue this time around, but a more standard rogue would add things like Bleeding Attack and Crippling Strike (after Opportunist of course, that one is too good to pass up).

Now I am not trying to argue that the rogue doesn't need fixing. They could use a boost. But I would like to see a fix that allowed them to do something other than standing still and trying to beat on someone while they get pounded back in return. That role is already filled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:
Rogues definitely DO need some help in the skirmishing department (high Dex melee, heck, I'd give'em Agile Maneuvers and Weapon Finesse for free).

I do. I also give them Defensive Combat Training, because I picture rogues as being focused on avoidance.


Lord Twig wrote:
Seriously! What is the obsession with DPR?! Somewhere someone figured out that you could squeeze a few more DPR out of a rogue if you are TWF while flanking and now everyone thinks that's the only thing you can do. Then they complain about how you can't do it!

A martial with low DPR is in trouble and may cause the game to lag a bit. How much damage you do is important. Its certainly not the focus I don't think, but its one of rogues problems.

Here's a thought, what if rogues first attack was always a sneak attack? The one with the highest to hit and one you use when your moving. Fluff it as an opportunistic strike. One that doesn't require careful set up of the battlefield, and it would allow them to get a sneak attack off during solo play.


I like the idea of just getting sneak attack damage on a critical hit. Rogues should be able to exploit weakness. If a critical hit is a shot to a vulnerable area, they should do extra damage when they hit. That would mean that rogues using a rapier (or other high threat range weapons) would make more sense too. Right now there really is little benefit to getting a critical hit as a rogue.

Call it "Dirty Infighting" or "Exploit Weakness" or whatever. Make it a rogue only ability. Why can only rogues get a sneak attack on a critical hit? The same reason that only rangers get a bonus to hit a favored enemy.

Silver Crusade

Making the katana finessable would also be a nice addition for rogues. Give me a finessable agile katana, wielded in 2 hands with 18 base Dex and I'd be a happy camper, errr ninja.

Instead I have to waste a feat to get proficiency with the Elven Curved Blade or play a race I don't want to play.


Rogues aren't the only ones that get a sneak attack. Are rangers the only ones with favored enemy?

Think everyone will be a crit fisher if you gave sneak attack on a crit?


MrSin wrote:
Rogues aren't the only ones that get a sneak attack.

So? They will be the only ones that can use it on a crit. Why is that a big deal?

MrSin wrote:
Are rangers the only ones with favored enemy?

Are they? I honestly don't know. If they were treated like rogues are treated then favored enemy would be given to a fighter or barbarian archtype. Why should they be special in any way?

MrSin wrote:
Think everyone will be a crit fisher if you gave sneak attack on a crit?

Uh... What? Who doesn't want to crit in combat? Fighters certainly look for them with their crit feats. I would think that it would actually fit the image of a rogue more than a fighter.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Marthkus wrote:
The rogue is plus 8 behind the fighter. If the fighter is power attacking, the rogue is plus 4 behind the fighter. Making the difference only 20%. So the fighter goes 85%, 60%, 35%. while the rogue goes 65%, 65%, 40%, 40%. Now if the fighter isn't power attacking, him and the rogue come pretty close in damage, ignoring crits.

One important feat the fighter will have: Furious Focus. Now he has +20% on that first attack if he's going two-handed (and if he is not TWFing/Sword&Boarding, why wouldn't he?).

Criticals will make a lot of difference. Most of the fighter's bonus damage is static, and multiplies. The rogue's is from sneak attack, and doesn't.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Two quick and easy fixes for rogues/ninjas:

1. Weapon Finesse is a baseline bonus feat at level 1.

A Rogue Talent at level one would fix this without tying the rogue into a finesse build (which a few rogues will not want).

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
2. For every die of Sneak Attack dice you get, you add +1 to your attack bonus. This bonus is only added to attacks that qualify for Sneak Attack.

No, too much. Let them exchange one dice of sneak attack for +2 to hit instead, if he wishes. Gives more flexibility, and allows him to always contribute - in some cases less, in some cases more.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Rogues are going to hit more often, but they still won't do the same amount of damage as a fighter/paladin of similar level. They may not even do the same amount of damage as a well-built inquisitor with Bane active. The alternative to #2 would be to just make rogues full BAB and let rogue levels count as 1/2 fighter levels for qualifying for feats.

The rogue is not a fighter, and shouldn't pretend to be. In a fight he is there to provide support - he's the devastating knife in the back when the enemy is concentrating on tougher targets, he's the stab in the dark when they thought they were safe.


I just find it odd that someone can't sneack up and assassinate someone for more damage than someone else hitting them with a sword in the face.


Dabbler wrote:


The rogue is not a fighter, and shouldn't pretend to be. In a fight he is there to provide support - he's the devastating knife in the back when the enemy is concentrating on tougher targets, he's the stab in the dark when they thought they were safe.

Yes, but in practice he's more like that mosquito bite that you can ignore while you dispatch the big tough guy who is actually doing damage to you, or the caster who is trying to turn you into a newt.


Marthkus wrote:
I just find it odd that someone can't sneack up and assassinate someone for more damage than someone else hitting them with a sword in the face.

You can -- on a successful assassin's death attack, on a failed save the victim takes infinity points of damage.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
I just find it odd that someone can't sneack up and assassinate someone for more damage than someone else hitting them with a sword in the face.
You can -- on a successful assassin's death attack, on a failed save the victim takes infinity points of damage.

Oh ninja's why do I have to choose between greater invisibility and assassinate at lvl 10... oh well I'll just wait until lvl 12 to grab it.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
I just find it odd that someone can't sneack up and assassinate someone for more damage than someone else hitting them with a sword in the face.
You can -- on a successful assassin's death attack, on a failed save the victim takes infinity points of damage.

A rogue can do it easier than an assassin can. They can force a Fort save or die on any sneak attack, and they don't need to study for 3 rounds. Or course they have to wait till level 20 to do this while the assassin can do it at 1st level. It's a prestige class, so a 6th level character.


Lord Twig wrote:
Or course they have to wait till level 20 to do this...

...so it might as well not exist, and doesn't ever come up in Society play (which I'd been led to believe the OP was interested in).


MrSin wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Skills are not that great, for the most part. That is why I wish the rogue could do special things with skills to make them have something other classes did not have.
Have to be careful with things like that. Sometimes you end up taking away options instead of giving them. Just look at the ridiculousness that is disabling magical traps. Apparently this one mundane guy can do it, but not the guy with 20 ranks in it?

That makes sense to me because of special training. It just like two guys trained in making websites, but one is specialized in VoIP.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Piccolo wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

Something like the rogue should be able to optimize for combat. They can't. They can't even be decent at it.

Rogue talents: Finesse Rogue, Weapon Training, Combat Trick. That's just for starters, and right off the top of my head. Have you read the Rogue out completely?

Let's see, take a Rogue talent that is really a feat (which the fighter doesn't need because he's pumping Str), take a Rogue Talent that is a feat (that the fighter takes as a matter of course), and take a Rogue talent that gives a combat feat (which the fighter gets as a matter of course every other level).

So I can get feats that the fighter (and any other martial class) gets anyway. Which doesn't get me any closer to being good at combat, since they all have them too. But they are still full BAB and the Rogue is still 3/4 BAB. Doesn't help with the core problem at all.


Everyone is forgetting that rogues should be getting the alpha strike as well as scouting combats so that casters can prepare.

Damage Dealing Rogue with Plent of Skills:

Human Rogue 10
(25 point buy)

Str 22 Dex 16 Con 10 Int 12 Wis 12 Cha 7
BAB +7
Initiative: +9
Sneak Attack: +5d6
Traits: Reactionary, Killer
Rogue Talents:Minor Magic - (Ghost Sound), Major Magic - (True Strike), Powerful Sneak, Deadly Sneak
Advanced Rogue Talents:
Feats - Power Attack, Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Initiative, Double Slice, Skill Focus (Stealth)
Skill Points:100
+2 Keen Scimitar (18k), +2 keen kukri (18k), Cloak of the Elvenkind(2.5k), Belt of Giant Strength +2 (4k) +21500 GP in "Other Gear"

I am the alpha strike, I start combat.
While hidden: True Strike, still hidden.
Surprise Round: Opening Attack, Power Attack 2 handing the Scrimitar +30 (1d8+20 15-20/x2, +23 sneak attack average)
Against an AC 24, that' is (.95(47.5)+(.3)(.95)(26.5))
Average Alpha Strike Damage: 52.7

Round 1, I gain initiative or target denied dex or flanking. We will call it a flat +2 to my attack for any of those to make it easy and average it out. Quick Draw my Kukri.

+15/+10 (1d8+8 15-20/x2, +23 sneak) +15/+10 (1d4+8 15-20/x2, +23 sneak)

2(.6(35.5)+.3(.6)(14.5)) = 2(21.3 +2.61)= 47.8
2(.35(35.5)+.3(.35)(14.5)) = 2(12.425+1.5225) = 27.9

Average Round 1 Damage = 75.7

Oh, and PS. That first attack could be a trip at a whopping +20, they either stay on the ground or I get an attack of opportunity and they waste their first turn anyway.

Also, I have 100 skill points to max out 10 skills and an amazing Stealth (+27) at level 10.

What do I sacrfice? AC and a little HP and a little damage and the easy play of "I charge da monsta!!!!"
What do I gain? Trap detection and amazing skill power.

Edit: Also, why does everyone go weapon finess? It sucks.


wraithstrike wrote:
MrSin wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Skills are not that great, for the most part. That is why I wish the rogue could do special things with skills to make them have something other classes did not have.
Have to be careful with things like that. Sometimes you end up taking away options instead of giving them. Just look at the ridiculousness that is disabling magical traps. Apparently this one mundane guy can do it, but not the guy with 20 ranks in it?
That makes sense to me because of special training. It just like two guys trained in making websites, but one is specialized in VoIP.

The other side of the argument is that this means the wizard with all his training in the arcane and the like, and all his intelligence, and all his arcane power, and with 20 ranks in disable device... Doesn't know how to deal with this magical thingy beyond casting dispel magic. He has all the power to recognize it(possibly more than the rogue!), just doesn't know how to disable it. Which I find a bit weird. YMMV of course.


Matthias_DM wrote:

Everyone is forgetting that rogues should be getting the alpha strike as well as scouting combats so that casters can prepare.

** spoiler omitted **

Edit: Also, why does everyone go weapon finess? It sucks.

One PFS is a 20 point buy. Weapon finesse looks better when you don't have to dump three mental stats to hit things. Agile seems like a better work around than 12 points in an ability plus the extra AC and bonus to skills is nice. Correct me if I'm wrong but major magic can only be used once a day right? I expect combat to happen more than once a day.

Sovereign Court

Matthias_DM wrote:

Everyone is forgetting that rogues should be getting the alpha strike as well as scouting combats so that casters can prepare.

** spoiler omitted **

Edit: Also, why does everyone go weapon finess? It sucks.

Take out the True Strike before combat, you can't take it with Minor Magic, it is a 1st level spell. Also, you can't cast while hidden, or at the very least, the target would be aware of your presence because it has a verbal component. The bolding is mine:

Pathfinder PRD wrote:
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.


Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Matthias_DM wrote:

Everyone is forgetting that rogues should be getting the alpha strike as well as scouting combats so that casters can prepare.

** spoiler omitted **

Edit: Also, why does everyone go weapon finess? It sucks.

Take out the True Strike before combat, you can't take it with Minor Magic, it is a 1st level spell. Also, you can't cast while hidden, or at the very least, the target would be aware of your presence because it has a verbal component. The bolding is mine:

Pathfinder PRD wrote:
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.

He used major magic to get true strike...


MrSin wrote:
Rogues aren't the only ones that get a sneak attack. Are rangers the only ones with favored enemy?

Nope, the Hateful Rager barbarian archetype gets it too.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
You can -- on a successful assassin's death attack, on a failed save the victim takes infinity points of damage.

But then you're using the awful assassin class, which somehow manages to be a downgrade from the already-unimpressive rogue class.

Sovereign Court

Marthkus wrote:
Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Matthias_DM wrote:

Everyone is forgetting that rogues should be getting the alpha strike as well as scouting combats so that casters can prepare.

** spoiler omitted **

Edit: Also, why does everyone go weapon finess? It sucks.

Take out the True Strike before combat, you can't take it with Minor Magic, it is a 1st level spell. Also, you can't cast while hidden, or at the very least, the target would be aware of your presence because it has a verbal component. The bolding is mine:

Pathfinder PRD wrote:
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.
He used major magic to get true strike...

Sorry, I misread that. The second point about casting while hidden still applies.


I'm sorry, this was a 20 point buy
16 10 +2 Human, +1 4th, +1 8th, +2 Belt
16 10
10
12 2
12 2
7 -4

2x per day. I didn't optimize on purpose. Let's be honest, Potions of true strike aren't exactly expensive at 50gp a pop.

I could spend those extra rogue talents on 2 favored terrains (underground +4 and urban +2) or armor proficiency(medium) so that I can wear a mithral breastplate and assault leader.


Roberta Yang wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Rogues aren't the only ones that get a sneak attack. Are rangers the only ones with favored enemy?

Nope, the Hateful Rager barbarian archetype gets it too.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
You can -- on a successful assassin's death attack, on a failed save the victim takes infinity points of damage.
But then you're using the awful assassin class, which somehow manages to be a downgrade from the already-unimpressive rogue class.

Or you can be a ninja and grab a better ability at 12.


Roberta Yang wrote:
But then you're using the awful assassin class, which somehow manages to be a downgrade from the already-unimpressive rogue class.

No disagreement here! -- I was merely replying to the question as to whether there's a sneaky way to deal more damage than simply walking up and stabbing someone in the face. (And, it was implied, a nn-magic way, of course.) And there is -- but as you point out, it's a really lousy one, because it forces you to suck in every other possible way.

(And P.S. why were the "assassin" class features not simply made into rogue talents in the first place?)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Matthias_DM wrote:

Everyone is forgetting that rogues should be getting the alpha strike as well as scouting combats so that casters can prepare.

** spoiler omitted **

Edit: Also, why does everyone go weapon finess? It sucks.

Take out the True Strike before combat, you can't take it with Minor Magic, it is a 1st level spell. Also, you can't cast while hidden, or at the very least, the target would be aware of your presence because it has a verbal component. The bolding is mine:

Pathfinder PRD wrote:
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.
He used major magic to get true strike...

Both of you LOL. REad up on spell like abilities The bold is mine.

The Book wrote:


Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components).

Also, Think about it. They are flat footed and cannot take an attack of opportunity. You can get a +20 to a surprise maneuver of ANY kind (disarm anyone) and at their flat footed CMD!

Sovereign Court

Matthias_DM wrote:


Also, Think about it. They are flat footed and cannot take an attack of opportunity. You can get a +20 to a surprise maneuver of ANY kind (disarm anyone) and at their flat footed CMD!

Huh, I never noticed that Sp didn't require verbal or somatic components. That actually makes it a viable rogue talent.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Matthias_DM wrote:

Let's be honest, Potions of true strike aren't exactly expensive at 50gp a pop.

Let me just point out that potions of True Strike are non-existent (unless you have an Alchemist friend to make them for you). Personal spells can not be made into potions. And since he was looking at PFS, I don't think that is a possibility.


I was ninja'd, oh the shame.

Anyway, True Strike as a SLA is a nice trick especially when used on a combat maneuver, it's one I like to use with Monks with Ki Throw to get an auto trip on almost anything that doesn't fly.

Unless you can get Quicken SLA, though, it's pretty situational.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
drbuzzard wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
The rogue is not a fighter, and shouldn't pretend to be. In a fight he is there to provide support - he's the devastating knife in the back when the enemy is concentrating on tougher targets, he's the stab in the dark when they thought they were safe.
Yes, but in practice he's more like that mosquito bite that you can ignore while you dispatch the big tough guy who is actually doing damage to you, or the caster who is trying to turn you into a newt.

I agree, that's what happens most often in practice to the rogue and the monk (although the rogue actually does more damage on a hit). But that's the concept that we want to meet, hence my suggestions. We don't want to make the rogue the equal of the fighter in combat, or even close to it. The rogue is not meant to be a toe-to-toe fighter, after all. But we do want his sting to be more effective, so foes can't just ignore him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
(And P.S. why were the "assassin" class features not simply made into rogue talents in the first place?)

Because it was a separate class in 3.5 (where it actually had a point, since rogues didn't get talents until 10th level and assassins actually got spells like Invisibility to help them do their job), and Pathfinder wanted to copy-paste as much text from d20srd as possible regardless of playability.

I especially like how a Rogue 5 / Assassin 1 has the same BAB as a Wizard 6.

601 to 650 of 1,376 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / How useless is a skill monkey rogue? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.