How useless is a skill monkey rogue?


Advice

751 to 800 of 1,376 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>

Well... When it comes to skill, Rogues are okay, I guess...

That's the real issue here. Rogues are "Okay, I guess" at best. If they're not "okay I guess..." at something, they are terrible at it.


I could say I want a 10 Str/18 Dex fighter too, and guess what, I'd be equally punished.

It CAN work, it CAN get you from A to B, it just isn't a strong choice when benchmarked against other choices.


Shifty wrote:


What do you WANT to do with your Rogue?

I want to be able to stab things with two daggers using speed and cunning. I want to not be laughed at by the CRB only monk in terms of DPR. I want the rogue to have a different point array than the fighter (because 90% of my fighters have 14dex). I don't want to play my rogue like a fighter in bad armor that REALLY loves flanking.


Pathfinder doesn't support basic fantasy archetypes? Pathfinder's right, players are idiots for ever imagining dexterous characters.


MrSin wrote:
Shifty wrote:
Except a '14' isn't just a '14' is it? Not all 14's are equal.

I'm not sure if that's a good reason to get onto someone for calling 14 middling. Do you have a definite number for middling? If it varies then calling it 14 is fine.

All of those are combat or skills. Its just different skills or combat. My point was when you specialize your still not great. You may even be siphoning from one side or the other. Do I have a 3rd option?

"Just play a freaking bard already!"

I remember the 'advice' I got.

Also 14 is middling because it is not 10. Most of my builds are 16 14 14 10 10 10 before racial mods. If you dump stats to 5 then 14 doesn't seem middling.


That can be done.

Are you 110 completely and purely in hatred of the idea of doing any sort of multiclass? Or do you want 'pure' Rogue?

What else, other than combat did you see this character doing, or were you dedicated to simply fighting?

Daggers are great, and by chosing that weapon you open up a lot of good conversations.


Shifty wrote:

That can be done.

Are you 110 completely and purely in hatred of the idea of doing any sort of multiclass? Or do you want 'pure' Rogue?

What else, other than combat did you see this character doing, or were you dedicated to simply fighting?

Daggers are great, and by chosing that weapon you open up a lot of good conversations.

Who are we responding too?


Shifty wrote:

That can be done.

Are you 110 completely and purely in hatred of the idea of doing any sort of multiclass? Or do you want 'pure' Rogue?

What else, other than combat did you see this character doing, or were you dedicated to simply fighting?

Daggers are great, and by chosing that weapon you open up a lot of good conversations.

Yes Daggers. Daggers are cool. I want to see if it can be done 10 str, 18 dex. Use pathfinder and make something that works well in combat.


Quote:

Rogues work well in certain themes, but each theme has it's trade offs and you pick the flavour you like. This sort of bears out in traditional Rogue tropes when you consider it from the persepctive of a Thieves Guild.

Are you the Guildmaster? (High Int/Wis/Cha - Excellent social)
Are you one of the Thugs? (High Str/Dex/Con - Excellent combat)
Are you the 'smart thug'? (High Str, ok Dex, other mental Stat - Blends combat and social/skills)
Are you the Box man? (High Int/Dex, possible Wis - Great at looking for Traps/Devices etc)
Are you the Cat-Burglar (Similar to Above with a Dex bias, good entry rogue)

We can keep going, but what you wont be is ALL OF THE ABOVE at once.

Mind you, no class is.

1. Bards make Better Guildmasters due to inspire courage, haste, and good hope

2. Barbarians make better thugs
3. Rangers make better smart thugs due to a better base attack bonus, lack of a range limitation, and the fact traits can give them some of the better social skills. the Wis also makes their will save better.
4. Box man? the urban ranger and the archaeologist are better at this. archaeologist gives up inspire courage, but still has haste and good hope.
5. Cat Burglar? urban ranger and archaeologist do this better. trapper, sandman, and crypt breaker also work, as does seeker.


MrSin wrote:
I didn't know ninja got nerfed, I don't know why it would need a nerf either. I've been stuck piling the house rules myself when I can. Ina PFS setting you just have to compromise with RAW and do what you can though.

In the playtest version, all Ninja Tricks gave 1 free use/day before they cost ki, and forgotten trick and the capstone were 1 lower cost in ki.

It's not much of a difference, but starving the ninja of ki only helped to exacerbate his horrific MAD problems. Playtest ninja could get by w/ middling cha (12-14) if he needed to. Say you have 3 ki-using tricks. Playest ninja, in terms of ki points, effectively had +6 charisma score compared to the final version of the class.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:


1. Bards make Better Guildmasters due to inspire courage, haste, and good hope

If your Guildmaster is doing any of the above, the Guildmaster has really failed at his job. Its like an Officer in the military, their rifle should be frequently cleaned, and never fired.

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
2. Barbarians make better thugs

A better type of thug in some ways, yet not as good in others, it CAN be a wash here, depending on your tastes.

Saying flat out that they just plain make better Thugs is actually incorrect.

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
3. Rangers make better smart thugs due to a better base attack bonus, lack of a range limitation, and the fact traits can give them some of the better social skills. the Wis also makes their will save better.

Once again, assuming you just want everything dead and aren't looking at a bigger picture, then sure. But then you are jujst being the Thug above and probably should have rolled a Barb.

Ranged shouldn't come into it, unless you want it to.

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
4. Box man? the urban ranger and the archaeologist are better at this. archaeologist gives up inspire courage, but still has haste and good hope.

Why are you using Haste and Good Hope again? Why are you advertising the ability to do something that indicates you have actually 100% failed at doing your job? If you are doing all this hasting, you have already failed.

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
5. Cat Burglar? urban ranger and archaeologist do this better. trapper, sandman, and crypt breaker also work, as does seeker.

Sure, they are pretty good at this stuff, and indeed is about the only area we might have some agreement, but to state simply they 'do it better' as though it were a universal truth is just incorrect. They do some things better, which if that is all you want to do then fabulous. They are not better on every single metric.

They are a bit of a 'GM vs Ford' debate though.


Marthkus wrote:
Yes Daggers. Daggers are cool. I want to see if it can be done 10 str, 18 dex. Use pathfinder and make something that works well in combat.

Would you have to cry yourself to sleep each night with a 16 Dex?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Most of the "Pathfinder doesn't support my concept" is due to the inability to look past class names.

Even if everything points away from what is written in the flavor text, people expect a class to be a certain flavor.

Even some who would consider themselves open-minded, confine themselves to class names.

You can play a PC with all Ninja levels, and be not Asian-themed, or Asian-flavored in any way!

Shocking!

Who knew?

Wait, we all do, but we still shove the preconception in there.

Free yourselves from such silly restrictions.

You define your flavor, not you class name.


Shifty wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:


1. Bards make Better Guildmasters due to inspire courage, haste, and good hope

If your Guildmaster is doing any of the above, the Guildmaster has really failed at his job. Its like an Officer in the military, their rifle should be frequently cleaned, and never fired.

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
2. Barbarians make better thugs

A better type of thug in some ways, yet not as good in others, it CAN be a wash here, depending on your tastes.

Saying flat out that they just plain make better Thugs is actually incorrect.

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
3. Rangers make better smart thugs due to a better base attack bonus, lack of a range limitation, and the fact traits can give them some of the better social skills. the Wis also makes their will save better.

Once again, assuming you just want everything dead and aren't looking at a bigger picture, then sure. But then you are jujst being the Thug above and probably should have rolled a Barb.

Ranged shouldn't come into it, unless you want it to.

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
4. Box man? the urban ranger and the archaeologist are better at this. archaeologist gives up inspire courage, but still has haste and good hope.
Why are you using Haste and Good Hope again? Why are you advertising the ability to do something that indicates you have actually 100% failed at doing your job? If you are doing all this hasting, you have already failed.

1. Wait, so the Guild master shouldn't be buffing his allies or be charismatic. Is your guild master completely inept and unhelpful!? Is his only job paper pushing? May as well leave that job to a fighter. Or an NPC.

2. Barbarian am much more sturdy and scary. Why am say rogue make better thug? Puny rogue am not threat. Puny rogue am not even able fight on own! Rogue depend on others.

3. 2 skill points isn't big. In fact its very likely the ranger may have more skill points than the rogue. Barbarian isn't lagging too far behind either, but that's a stretch. You will have ranged issues and you will need a ranged weapon. This is not an if, its a when.

4. Neither of those failed at the job. Both do it better. Haste and good hope make them even better than the better they were already bettering.


MrSin wrote:
Shifty wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:


1. Bards make Better Guildmasters due to inspire courage, haste, and good hope

If your Guildmaster is doing any of the above, the Guildmaster has really failed at his job. Its like an Officer in the military, their rifle should be frequently cleaned, and never fired.

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
2. Barbarians make better thugs

A better type of thug in some ways, yet not as good in others, it CAN be a wash here, depending on your tastes.

Saying flat out that they just plain make better Thugs is actually incorrect.

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
3. Rangers make better smart thugs due to a better base attack bonus, lack of a range limitation, and the fact traits can give them some of the better social skills. the Wis also makes their will save better.

Once again, assuming you just want everything dead and aren't looking at a bigger picture, then sure. But then you are jujst being the Thug above and probably should have rolled a Barb.

Ranged shouldn't come into it, unless you want it to.

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
4. Box man? the urban ranger and the archaeologist are better at this. archaeologist gives up inspire courage, but still has haste and good hope.
Why are you using Haste and Good Hope again? Why are you advertising the ability to do something that indicates you have actually 100% failed at doing your job? If you are doing all this hasting, you have already failed.

1. Wait, so the Guild master shouldn't be buffing his allies or be charismatic. Is your guild master completely inept and unhelpful!? Is his only job paper pushing? May as well leave that job to a fighter. Or an NPC.

2. Barbarian am much more sturdy and scary. Why am say rogue make better thug? Puny rogue am not threat. Puny rogue am not even able fight on own! Rogue depend on others.

3. 2 skill points isn't big. In fact its very likely the ranger may have more skill points than the rogue. Barbarian isn't lagging too far behind either, but that's a stretch. You will have ranged issues and you will need a ranged weapon. This is not an if, its a when.

4. Neither of those failed at the job. Both do it better. Haste and good hope make them even better than the better they were already bettering.

1. a guild master who doesn't support his allies is ill fit to be guildmaster, buffing them and firing a bow, is sufficient support to make your guildies feel better

2. barbarian is both Sturdier and Scarier. they are also able to back up thier words. even if they don't actually kill. the fear of the damage they deal is enough to encourage the victim to pay

3. Smart Thug? rangers aren't too far behind in this area either. and urban rangers can even have respectable social skills. these guys aren't too different from run of the mill thugs, except they hit harder than rogue thugs, allowing them to back up their threats. a major bonus on intimidation.

4. Box Man. haste and good hope make your allies better. they also make you better at picking the lock, and better at beating your target into submission to get what you want, even if they aren't dead.

6. Assassin. i'd rather have a ranger for that, just as sneaky, better saves, tougher, and hits more often. urban archery ranger for best nonmagical guerilla assassin ever.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Not all Barbarian PCs are lumbering dumbarses.

Read my previous post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To Mr Sin and Lumiere (mostly answering Lumiere)

1 - I see the problem now, you think there's only pone way to play, and you both get hysterical when someone suggests an alternative.

2 - As above. Why is the Barbarian killing people? It's terrible for business. Best stick to Barbarianism because a life of Roguery is just not for you as you don't grasp cause and effect, nor long term business sustainability. Thug =/= Brute and this is where you are seriously going wrong. Barbarian is usually not scarier, because so many dumpstat CHA, yeah you need to Mr Barbarian, sorry.

3 - As above.

4 - Box men don't beat people up, I question why you would suggest this is a good idea, if anything its the complete opposite of what he should be doing.

6 - Normally 6 follows 5 which shows me that either you are using a secret code or you finally got what Rogues were about and quietly tried to steal it without needing to kill everything first, assuming the second then kudos to you, well played Rogue, well played. Then you went right ahead and said your cat burlgar was great because he was a master 4554551N killer Ninja, which is entirely what the cat burglar is not.

So umm yeah...

You are:
A) Assuming there is only ONE style of play.
B) Your style of play is highly kill-o-centric.
C) You decry that other classes dedicated to killing things are better at it.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Not all Barbarian PCs are lumbering dumbarses.

Read my previous post.

They don't have to be, no.

Its almost better to throw out class names and just read the contents, that way we don't get wrapped up in as many misconceptions or railroaded into certain choices based on our personal biases, myths, beliefs.

The names ARE good for providing suggestion and guidance, but a lot of people seem to be straightjacketed by it.

Part of the reason I found GURPS so liberating in the way-back I suppose.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You need a different game to relieve yourself from trying to look beyond a name?

Am I reading that right?


No, you are not reading that right.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

My bad.


All good :)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
What we appreciate is that your "mistakes" are not ours :)

Yeah, trying to play an effective monk without extra support and special treatment from the DM is certainly a mistake.

MrSin wrote:
Monks do best with one sword oddly enough. They can use one sword really well. So well they get two weapon fighting for free, with one sword.

Yep, the iconic unarmed combat class does better with a 2nd rate weapon.

StreamOfTheSky wrote:
Byrdology wrote:
Why hasn't anyone petitioned paizo for a new rogue re-write? The ninja was a step in the right direction, but too little/ too late.

Rogue and Monk have both been requested. A lot.

It's not going to happen. I have little confidence they'd actually fix things even if they did deign to do so, anyway.

Hell, they actually nerfed the ninja from playtest to final release, even though either version was still barely better than rogue and still had massive unresolved problems.

They have, however, published some adjustments to the monk that were a step in the right direction.

Marthkus wrote:

So half-orc with a great axe is an optimum rogue.

That is about as wrong as RageLancePounce. Who is the high dex fighter? Who is the two-weapon-fighter? In 3.5 this was the rogue. Not so in Pathfinder.

High dex should be a thing that people can do.

I agree, and it is ironic that a half-orc rogue with a falchion was the best rogue I have seen played - and even he turned ranger after five levels.

Roberta Yang wrote:
"Rogues should be musclebound hulks with middling Dex" is a better argument that the rogue class's design is horribly broken than anything I could possibly come up with. Good one Shifty.

I agree, and the same applies to monks. Fact is the system has zero support for the fast/smart fighting style compared to the strong/stupid fighting style.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Most of the "Pathfinder doesn't support my concept" is due to the inability to look past class names.

No, seriously, there is almost no effective support for the fast/smart combat style, other than the duelist PrC. The monk and the rogue are very weak classes and don't deliver, and that's pretty much it.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Even if everything points away from what is written in the flavor text, people expect a class to be a certain flavor.

The flavour text is to help guide the player make the character. Now I agree, taking a set of class mechanics away from the flavour is perfectly acceptable and imaginative, but that doesn't change the fact that for one particular combatant type there is very little support in the system to make it effective.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Even some who would consider themselves open-minded, confine themselves to class names.

Problem is, we aren't confining ourselves to the class name, we're complaining about the lack of support for the character concept. The rogue is fulfilling a character concept, only the concept is ineffective. Same for the monk. These are problems as much with the concept delivery as with the class itself; the class' main issue is that it tries to deliver a concept that doesn't work.


Dunno.

I've seen onks that did just fine, and have lpayed Rogues with no complaints (from myself, or the party).

Depends on what you want to be able to do I suppose.


Shifty wrote:

The biggest problem with Rogues and combat is this belief that 18 Dex is a 'Good thing' and that Finesse is really 'all that'.

For a Rogue, more than a 14 Dex is a bit of an indulgence and is a waste of stats big time.

Str is where it is at for Rogues; finesse all you want, when your hits land they will be a joke. 10 or 12 Str on a Rogue? What a waste of time, will only lead to feelings of inadequacy and ineffectiveness.

Especially important when swinging a Katana (and no, it shouldn't be finessable, thats not how they work)

Nope. It's been mathematically proven that hitting on a regular basis is demonstrably better than occasionally hitting and doing more damage when you do hit. Why do you think weapons are limited to a +5 to attack and damage? Or why bonuses to hit are so difficult to find?

I am happy with Rogues, personally. They have a repeatable several d6 extra damage that doesn't run out, they have the skills to thrive in a dungeon, and the saves to usually come out smelling like roses. They make great scouts and trap men. Only thing I wish they came with was darkvision.

I think Ninjas are simply cheese-eriffic, and now that I've examined the new Ranger more closely, so are the Rangers (6 skill points, warrior BAB, and all the rest is simply not reasonable). But that's imho. Summoners are simply broken. Haven't really examined the Magus, but I have heard a few bad things about them.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Whoah. I opted out of slamming Rogues over, and over here but...

Glass Cannon Barbarians?!?

You have to build around that, to make it so.

Invulnerable Rager? D12 HD? Superstition?

The list goes on, and on, to make Barbarians very hard to kill.

Hell, Barbarian even does the Dex based fighting better, with
Urban Barbarian.

Glass cannon my arse.

I should state that Barbarians are effectively -5 AC compared to a Fighter. -2 from Rage, -3 for not having full plate armor. Barbarians NEED that d12 and DR just to survive. They're a nice class, but they definitely have weaknesses.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Armored Hulk moves just fine in Full-Plate.

Silver Crusade

Marthkus wrote:
Shifty wrote:

That can be done.

Are you 110 completely and purely in hatred of the idea of doing any sort of multiclass? Or do you want 'pure' Rogue?

What else, other than combat did you see this character doing, or were you dedicated to simply fighting?

Daggers are great, and by chosing that weapon you open up a lot of good conversations.

Yes Daggers. Daggers are cool. I want to see if it can be done 10 str, 18 dex. Use pathfinder and make something that works well in combat.

You can do this bit you're going to have to give up the skill monkey idea and be human for the bonus feat. You'll also be better off as a ninja rather tha a rogue. And you should use wakizashi, which are just slightly longer daggers with an eastern flavor.

I'd recommend a stat array of 10/18/12/7/12/16. This gets you the 18 Dex you need and gets you a decent amount of Cha for ki pool. You'll be putting your 7 skill points per level in Stealth, Disable Device, Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Acrobatics, Use Magic Device, and Perception. Work in Disguise and Escape Artist in place of Intimidate and Bluff on even levels. Take Weapon Finesse and Two-weapon Fighting at level 1 and Vanishing Trick ninja trick at level 2. You will want to work towards getting a menacing agile wakizashi and a plain old agile wakizashi for the other hand.

Feats to take are Improved Two-weapon Fighting, Piranha Strike, Combat Reflexes, and Improved Critical.


Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Shifty wrote:

That can be done.

Are you 110 completely and purely in hatred of the idea of doing any sort of multiclass? Or do you want 'pure' Rogue?

What else, other than combat did you see this character doing, or were you dedicated to simply fighting?

Daggers are great, and by chosing that weapon you open up a lot of good conversations.

Yes Daggers. Daggers are cool. I want to see if it can be done 10 str, 18 dex. Use pathfinder and make something that works well in combat.

You can do this bit you're going to have to give up the skill monkey idea and be human for the bonus feat. You'll also be better off as a ninja rather tha a rogue. And you should use wakizashi, which are just slightly longer daggers with an eastern flavor.

I'd recommend a stat array of 10/18/12/7/12/16. This gets you the 18 Dex you need and gets you a decent amount of Cha for ki pool. You'll be putting your 7 skill points per level in Stealth, Disable Device, Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Acrobatics, Use Magic Device, and Perception. Work in Disguise and Escape Artist in place of Intimidate and Bluff on even levels. Take Weapon Finesse and Two-weapon Fighting at level 1 and Vanishing Trick ninja trick at level 2. You will want to work towards getting a menacing agile wakizashi and a plain old agile wakizashi for the other hand.

Feats to take are Improved Two-weapon Fighting, Piranha Strike, Combat Reflexes, and Improved Critical.

Stay away from Two Weapon Fighting. It's a waste. I would say that you are better off as a ninja or rogue just having a mithral heavy shield, since you don't need a proficiency to have it without penalty. Then just amp the heck out of your flanking abilities, even talk the party warrior into taking some teamwork feats like Outflank or Gang Up. Or if you want to do some serious damage, check out the Rogue archetype Knife Master. You give up trapsense for d8's on your backstabs.


The problem is see with full Skillmonkeys that can't do much in combat is:
While everyone else is participating, they are goofing around. But out of combat they expect to have the spotlight on them alone because they want the Monopoly over all that is skill-related.

I like Pathfinder's approach, where everybody has some nifty niche of skills he's good at and can contribute outside of combats.

The charismatic guy might be sweet-talking the noble after the bookworm told him about how to handle the nobles of that specific country. And the sneaky guy uses that time to sleight-of-hand that important letter from the noble's purse. The fighter-guy who refused to have decent mental stats, is talking dice/card-games with the noble's bodyguard to divide that guy's attention, too.

It's up to the DM to give players the opportunity to do skill-related stuff together. But it's up to the players to actually work together as a team when tackling those "skill"-encounters.

I as a DM avoid situations where the rogue goes off to do stuff alone while everybody else gets to sit around and twiddle their thumbs or scream "I aid" without a ROLEplaying explanation.
In th same way I'll try to make sure all people at the table have a way to contribute to most kinds of situations and are all able to do something meaningfull in combat. I'll clearly advise players against pure skillmonkey, because skill-related stuff should be a combined party effort, not a 1 on 1 rogue-DM session. Otherwise you might just run two separate games and avoid the long twiddle-thumbs times for both player-sides.
Also, playing a rogue should not be a "get-out-of-jail-free"-card for being an attention hog.


Stefan Hill wrote:
VM mercenario wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


That is invalid. Rogues are good at skills. Skills just dont do too much as a whole so it does not matter much, that they are good at skills.

Unless your campaign is a combat-lite game focusing on roleplaying & skills...

In which case the bard runs rings around the rogue and makes him cry, the ranger takes the group to a wilderness sidequest so he can take his turn shaming the rogue and the alchemist decides to be a sneaky vivisectionist assassin and shows the rogue what a real alpha strke is like and how to make poisons awesome.

How exactly does a Bard or any class for that matter run rings around another in a roleplaying encounter? In a rollplaying encounter perhaps you are right however.

For me the Rogue as a whole is a interesting class and I have thought of numerous characters on which the Rogue class fits the concept better than any other class. If my GM is worth there pay then my 'character concept' will be no more or less invalidated than anyone else's.

S.

You realize that no matter how good the player is at acting, you still have to roll bluff or diplomacy or sense motive, etc? It's why almost any given group has only one face. And the bard has naturally more charisma and as been shown several pages ago even if he has less skill points he still ends up with more and bigger skills than the rogue.

"Oh, poor little baby rogue has +20 bluff? I've got +26, so shut up and look pretty while the big boys talk" "Oh, you got diplomacy +18? I got +25, now go make me a sandwich and stop getting in the way"

Silver Crusade

Piccolo wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Shifty wrote:

That can be done.

Are you 110 completely and purely in hatred of the idea of doing any sort of multiclass? Or do you want 'pure' Rogue?

What else, other than combat did you see this character doing, or were you dedicated to simply fighting?

Daggers are great, and by chosing that weapon you open up a lot of good conversations.

Yes Daggers. Daggers are cool. I want to see if it can be done 10 str, 18 dex. Use pathfinder and make something that works well in combat.

You can do this bit you're going to have to give up the skill monkey idea and be human for the bonus feat. You'll also be better off as a ninja rather tha a rogue. And you should use wakizashi, which are just slightly longer daggers with an eastern flavor.

I'd recommend a stat array of 10/18/12/7/12/16. This gets you the 18 Dex you need and gets you a decent amount of Cha for ki pool. You'll be putting your 7 skill points per level in Stealth, Disable Device, Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Acrobatics, Use Magic Device, and Perception. Work in Disguise and Escape Artist in place of Intimidate and Bluff on even levels. Take Weapon Finesse and Two-weapon Fighting at level 1 and Vanishing Trick ninja trick at level 2. You will want to work towards getting a menacing agile wakizashi and a plain old agile wakizashi for the other hand.

Feats to take are Improved Two-weapon Fighting, Piranha Strike, Combat Reflexes, and Improved Critical.

Stay away from Two Weapon Fighting. It's a waste. I would say that you are better off as a ninja or rogue just having a mithral heavy shield, since you don't need a proficiency to have it without penalty. Then just amp the heck out of your flanking abilities, even talk the party warrior into taking some teamwork feats like Outflank or Gang Up. Or if you want to do some serious damage, check out the Rogue archetype Knife Master. You give up trapsense for d8's on your backstabs.

Yeah I'll take the 18-20 crit range on a wakizashi over having to use a dagger and getting d8s on sneak attack dice. It's giving up 1 average damage per attack to increase my crit range by 1, or by 2 once I get Improved Critical.

And once you can get a menacing enchantment on one of your weapons, there's no reason not to go TWF.


Shifty wrote:

To Mr Sin and Lumiere (mostly answering Lumiere)

1 - I see the problem now, you think there's only pone way to play, and you both get hysterical when someone suggests an alternative.

Actually from my point of view your doing that to me and Lumiere... My point was someone else does the job better and possibly even has more skill points when they do it! Being better at both combat and skills. At which point... Why are you playing a rogue? Worse your points against me were about how there was one style to play. Especially with the barbarian.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to go to a Con someday and pull out a rogue for PFS, then watch while the other players rifle through their character sheets and wind up pulling out two bards, an alchemist and a ninja while all simultaneously flipping me the bird


Bigdaddyjug wrote:


Yeah I'll take the 18-20 crit range on a wakizashi over having to use a dagger and getting d8s on sneak attack dice. It's giving up 1 average damage per attack to increase my crit range by 1, or by 2 once I get Improved Critical.

And once you can get a menacing enchantment on one of your weapons, there's no reason not to go TWF.

I would rather have the 1 extra damage on EACH sneak attack die (guaranteed damage) than having a 1 point increase on the critical hit threat. Improved Critical can still be taken with a dagger, and you will have many more feats to play with on top of that.

"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."


Lamontius wrote:


I'm going to go to a Con someday and pull out a rogue for PFS, then watch while the other players rifle through their character sheets and wind up pulling out two bards, an alchemist and a ninja while all simultaneously flipping me the bird

I'd rather play a Rogue, despite their not being my favorite class. Bards just plain give me the giggles, alchemists spend way too much money to be able to perform their basics and can't use their primary abilities unlimited times per day.

In fact, I would rather have a good Rogue player next to me whilst dungeon crawling in the nastiest dungeon crawls ever made, than any of those classes even with whatever archetypes. They're dependable, and they work well with other classes. Plus, they are far more adaptable, given that most of what they are is skills.


Lamontius wrote:
I'm going to go to a Con someday and pull out a rogue for PFS, then watch while the other players rifle through their character sheets and wind up pulling out two bards, an alchemist and a ninja while all simultaneously flipping me the bird

I saw that once. An inquisitor, a ninja, a rogue, and 2 monks all sit at a table... Well there wasn't bird flipping, but there was much pain and suffering.


VM mercenario wrote:
"Oh, poor little baby rogue has +20 bluff? I've got +26, so shut up and look pretty while the big boys talk" "Oh, you got diplomacy +18? I got +25, now go make me a sandwich and stop getting in the way"

I have a 3rd level Rogue with +20 Stealth. Beat that, Homer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just all like sup peeps it's rogue time and just getting shown the door and having my badge taken away and being all like nooooooo I haven't even gotten to show SKR the hair doll I made for him nooooooooo

all because of rogues


Piccolo wrote:
VM mercenario wrote:
"Oh, poor little baby rogue has +20 bluff? I've got +26, so shut up and look pretty while the big boys talk" "Oh, you got diplomacy +18? I got +25, now go make me a sandwich and stop getting in the way"
I have a 3rd level Rogue with +20 Stealth. Beat that, Homer.

invisibility

edit: ok I'm not really trying and I realize the limitations of the invisibility spell.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Piccolo wrote:
VM mercenario wrote:
"Oh, poor little baby rogue has +20 bluff? I've got +26, so shut up and look pretty while the big boys talk" "Oh, you got diplomacy +18? I got +25, now go make me a sandwich and stop getting in the way"
I have a 3rd level Rogue with +20 Stealth. Beat that, Homer.

Let introduce you to, the Inquisitor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

'okay coming off delay I'm going to five-step into this flanking position and take my full-round action sneak attack on the bbeg right now, so that the barbarian in front of the bbeg can attack right after me with the flanking bonus as well'

'ppffffttttt'

'what?'

'man, a vivisectionist could do that so much better'


1) The rogue in my example did enough damage to kill a target before it gets a round.

2) It had a fun and interesting playstyle.

3) It had LOADS of skill points (100 at level 10), which offers alot of versatility.

4) It was able to disarm traps, magical or otherwise.

So...

- Don't blame the Rogue class just because Paizo created an archtype that has too much power creep (the Archaeologist). DMs will always say yes to a rogue.... but not always to an archetype for that very reason.

- Is it hard to play a rogue? Yes... there is a learning curve and a challenge. I find challenges just as fun as having power.

- You play a class because it is fun, not because it is "special". There isn't anything special about a sorcerer vs a wizard, is there? They do basically the same thing, same party role, and I would argue that the wizard is enormously more powerful (mostly because of improved familiars and UMD). However, guess what... I've got friends that prefer sorcerer's and like to play them because the enjoy having charisma and more spells per day! Are they wrong? am I? Neither.... it's about fun and playstyle.

Sovereign Court

Lamontius wrote:

'okay coming off delay I'm going to five-step into this flanking position and take my full-round action sneak attack on the bbeg right now, so that the barbarian in front of the bbeg can attack right after me with the flanking bonus as well'

'ppffffttttt'

'what?'

'man, a vivisectionist could do that so much better'

Anecdote: I am playing a level 6 rogue with the swashbuckler archetype in a campaign. One player just rejoined the group with a level 6 Sandman bard. He is a better fighter and a better rogue than I am, with the benefit of being able to cast haste. Also, he doesn't even bother to use his bardic performance abilities.


Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Lamontius wrote:

'okay coming off delay I'm going to five-step into this flanking position and take my full-round action sneak attack on the bbeg right now, so that the barbarian in front of the bbeg can attack right after me with the flanking bonus as well'

'ppffffttttt'

'what?'

'man, a vivisectionist could do that so much better'

Anecdote: I am playing a level 6 rogue with the swashbuckler archetype in a campaign. One player just rejoined the group with a level 6 Sandman bard. He is a better fighter and a better rogue than I am, with the benefit of being able to cast haste. Also, he doesn't even bother to use his bardic performance abilities.

so you are saying that he plays his character better than you play your own while he is also not really taking full advantage of his class


I can't believe that this thread is still attracting posts.


Piccolo wrote:
I am happy with Rogues, personally. They have a repeatable several d6 extra damage that doesn't run out, they have the skills to thrive in a dungeon, and the saves to usually come out smelling like roses. They make great scouts and trap men. Only thing I wish they came with was darkvision.

Yeah... Because Rogues have such great saves...

Piccolo wrote:
I think Ninjas are simply cheese-eriffic, and now that I've examined the new Ranger more closely, so are the Rangers (6 skill points, warrior BAB, and all the rest is simply not reasonable). But that's imho. Summoners are simply broken. Haven't really examined the Magus, but I have heard a few bad things about them.

Ninjas are barely better than Rogues. Rangers are considerably stronger than both, but still very far from OP. IMO, They could even be buffed just a little and they'd e perfectly balanced. Summoners are a bit too powerful, though the biggest problem is their bizarre spell list and the archetypes Master Summoner and Synsthesist, vanilla summoner ends up undergeared, since he has to buy gear for 2 character with the WBL of 1 and both of them share item slots. Magus are okay too. They do lots of spike damage and are decent frontliners, but I have yet to see a build or character that breaks anything.

Piccolo wrote:
I have a 3rd level Rogue with +20 Stealth. Beat that, Homer.

Sadly, Rogues are not any better at Stealth than anyone else. I'm guessing whatever you did as a Rogue, you could have done with an Inquisitor or Bard. And then, next level, you'd get Invisibility to boost your Stealth by +20 (or +40).


Piccolo wrote:
VM mercenario wrote:
"Oh, poor little baby rogue has +20 bluff? I've got +26, so shut up and look pretty while the big boys talk" "Oh, you got diplomacy +18? I got +25, now go make me a sandwich and stop getting in the way"
I have a 3rd level Rogue with +20 Stealth. Beat that, Homer.

A 3rd level goblin rogue can beat it. :)

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Heck, I find the inquisitor more fun and it fits most of my desire for roguishness better than bards - mostly because they're selfish about their buffs, as a true rogue would be!

751 to 800 of 1,376 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 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.