How useless is a skill monkey rogue?


Advice

801 to 850 of 1,376 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

People are way too sensitive about this. Those of us saying "play a bard" are not saying a rogue is useless*. We are saying the other classes can do skill stuff, and be good in combat, while being a better all around character most of the time. There is no mechanical reason to play a rogue in 95% of these situations.

*Well, most of us are not saying that anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

68% of statistics are made up on the spot.


Lamontius wrote:
68% of statistics are made up on the spot.

99% of my stats have are known because I have seen them on character sheets that are rules legal so it's not too hard for me to reproduce the stats or the character sheet in question.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

314.159% of stats can be used to demonstrate that I am awesome. So is my inquisitor. :D

Sovereign Court

Lamontius wrote:


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

No, I'm not saying he's playing it better, he is just mechanically better at it. His Bluff, Sleight of hand and Stealth skills are better or equal to mine due to the bonus that his archetype grants him. He does more damage in combat (probably mostly gear-related). Also, since I gave up trapfinding for some extra fighter feats for my archetype, he can out-rogue me on the trap side of things. Oh, BTW, he can also cast spells.

I'm pretty much done with this class. I've tried to stick it out for too long.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Matthias_DM wrote:
- You play a class because it is fun, not because it is "special".

I agree. But it's hard to enjoy playing a class that can't pull it's weight, and that other characters overshadow at everything you try and do, if you are trying to play a hero.


Matthias_DM wrote:

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

Not really.

If you took the average CR 10 foe from the Bestiary (which is where the 24AC came from), you would see it had 130 HP, and you did not do 130 HP damage.

So no, you did not kill a target before it gets a round to smack you back.


Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Lamontius wrote:


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

No, I'm not saying he's playing it better, he is just mechanically better at it. His Bluff, Sleight of hand and Stealth skills are better or equal to mine due to the bonus that his archetype grants him. He does more damage in combat (probably mostly gear-related). Also, since I gave up trapfinding for some extra fighter feats for my archetype, he can out-rogue me on the trap side of things. Oh, BTW, he can also cast spells.

I'm pretty much done with this class. I've tried to stick it out for too long.

Ah, but your sneak attack is SO much better. Not that he doesn't have sneak attack. By level 10 he has 2d6 and you have 5d6. See 3d6 of dice, I'm sure that was worth the spell casting and bardic music that you don't have.

Also did your swashbuckler not dump dex? Dumping dex is the best thing to do as rogue.

Sovereign Court

Marthkus wrote:


Ah, but your sneak attack is SO much better. Not that he doesn't have sneak attack. By level 10 he has 2d6 and you have 5d6. See 3d6 of dice, I'm sure that was worth the spell casting and bardic music that you don't have.

Also did your swashbuckler not dump dex? Dumping dex is the best thing to do as rogue.

As other have pointed out, it is so situational, it is a non-factor. Yes, if I do land a really good hit once in a blue moon (TWF with longsword and shortsword, BTW) I do some nice damage, but it is only in the 24-point range on average. Only one attack will hit most times I do get in a full attack. Meanwhile, the bard is moving in and consistently doing damage. I don't know what his exact stats are, but it is consistent and steady damage on most rounds in the 10-15 point range. Did I mention he can also cast spells?

No, I did not dump DEX, because I thought it would be helpful for AC and skill purposes. I did get a good stat array due to my rolls (we don't do point-buy) so I have an 17 Str and a 20 Dex. I think his stats are higher. Honestly, the only thing that is keeping me alive is a Cloak of Displacement.

Sure, this is probably some sour grapes on my part, but it is a little disheartening to play a character for about a year now to be completely outclassed in my niche role as scout and secondary melee. I'll probably do something heroically stupid in the next session so I can come in with a wizard.


Rogues should have built in specialization options. 3 PrCs in specific that rogues could work towards that should be built in combat styles to choose from: duelist, shadow dancer, and arcane trickster. Take those 3 PrCs and boil them down into combat styles like the ranger, and you have some pretty great optimization options for the base rogue.


Surely you would not overlook the glorious Assassin prestige class?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Sure, this is probably some sour grapes on my part, but it is a little disheartening to play a character for about a year now to be completely outclassed in my niche role as scout and secondary melee. I'll probably do something heroically stupid in the next session so I can come in with a wizard.

I'm not seeing the problem here. You built poorly, and poor builds should be punished and gruelingly unfun because ~player skill~. Now you have become a better player and will be playing the character types Pathfinder says you should be saying, so all is well. If anything, you should be thanking Pathfinder for this ingenious design and apologizing for your failure to understand that dex-rogues are for silly children.


Roberta Yang wrote:
I'm not seeing the problem here. You built poorly, and poor builds should be punished and gruelingly unfun because ~player skill~. Now you have become a better player and will be playing the character types Pathfinder says you should be saying, so all is well. If anything, you should be thanking Pathfinder for this ingenious design and apologizing for your failure to understand that dex-rogues are for silly children.

While I do believe dex builds should be more powerful in general, I fully support that people who put time and effort into making their characters being more powerful than people who just "wing it." Why shouldn't hard work be rewarded?

Sovereign Court

Roberta Yang wrote:
I'm not seeing the problem here. You built poorly, and poor builds should be punished and gruelingly unfun because ~player skill~. Now you have become a better player and will be playing the character types Pathfinder says you should be saying, so all is well. If anything, you should be thanking Pathfinder for this ingenious design and apologizing for your failure to understand that dex-rogues are for silly children.

I wouldn't be that cynical. I don't think it was an intentional choice by the design team at Paizo to have the class in the current state it is.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
I'm not seeing the problem here. You built poorly, and poor builds should be punished and gruelingly unfun because ~player skill~. Now you have become a better player and will be playing the character types Pathfinder says you should be saying, so all is well. If anything, you should be thanking Pathfinder for this ingenious design and apologizing for your failure to understand that dex-rogues are for silly children.
I wouldn't be that cynical. I don't think it was an intentional choice by the design team at Paizo to have the class in the current state it is.

I don't think so either, but don't you think that makes it worse?


Roberta Yang wrote:
Surely you would not overlook the glorious Assassin prestige class?

No, assassin should stay a PrC for evil inclined rogues that can be augmented even further by the duelist, shadow dancer, and arcane trickster combat styles.

Sovereign Court

Jess Door wrote:


I don't think so either, but don't you think that makes it worse?

No more than i think neglect is more malicious than abuse.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Jess Door wrote:


I don't think so either, but don't you think that makes it worse?
No more than i think neglect is more malicious than abuse.

I dunno, to me it's more like:

"dex fighters shouldn't be too relevent in combat vs. dex fighters should be as relevent in combat"

is equivalent to

"Judicious spanking is good discipline vs. spanking is always child abuse"

while

"oops, we rendered the rogue class irrelevent"

is equivalent to

"But, I didn't realize the child needed both food and water!"


Roberta Yang wrote:
Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Sure, this is probably some sour grapes on my part, but it is a little disheartening to play a character for about a year now to be completely outclassed in my niche role as scout and secondary melee. I'll probably do something heroically stupid in the next session so I can come in with a wizard.
I'm not seeing the problem here. You built poorly, and poor builds should be punished and gruelingly unfun because ~player skill~. Now you have become a better player and will be playing the character types Pathfinder says you should be saying, so all is well. If anything, you should be thanking Pathfinder for this ingenious design and apologizing for your failure to understand that dex-rogues are for silly children.

srsly what

Silver Crusade

Lamontius wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Sure, this is probably some sour grapes on my part, but it is a little disheartening to play a character for about a year now to be completely outclassed in my niche role as scout and secondary melee. I'll probably do something heroically stupid in the next session so I can come in with a wizard.
I'm not seeing the problem here. You built poorly, and poor builds should be punished and gruelingly unfun because ~player skill~. Now you have become a better player and will be playing the character types Pathfinder says you should be saying, so all is well. If anything, you should be thanking Pathfinder for this ingenious design and apologizing for your failure to understand that dex-rogues are for silly children.

srsly what

I'm fairly certain that entire post was extremely tongue in cheek.


Lamontius wrote:
srsly what

Did she break your sarcasm-meter?


Jess Door wrote:
"But, I didn't realize the child needed both food and water!"

Worse is the common attitude, more or less, that "no one cares if children need water or poison or whatever, because a good DM will make sure he/she is lactating and therefore render all these dietary suggestions moot -- therefore they're all good suggestions!"


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Lamontius wrote:
srsly what
Did she break your sarcasm-meter?

I waded through all the sarcasm trying to find the rich nougat center and just wound up falling over a cliff on the other side because I dumped dex


Jess Door wrote:
314.159% of stats can be used to demonstrate that I am awesome. So is my inquisitor. :D

This makes me at least 34% more interested in statistics and 100% more interested in inquisitors.

I'm having trouble keeping up with the jokes in this thread. Too much laughing to read...

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Jess Door wrote:
"But, I didn't realize the child needed both food and water!"
Worse is the common attitude, more or less, that "no one cares if children need water or poison or whatever, because a good DM will make sure he/she is lactating and therefore render all these dietary suggestions moot -- therefore they're all good suggestions!"

Me proposing a new rule as a hobby enthusiast, and not taking things into consideration and thus throwing the entire system out of whack is understandable. This isn't my bread and butter (just my cake, maybe? (mmmmm....cake.....)), after all. But yeah, the continuing trend of fixing the irrelevence of the rogue by adding archetypes to other classes that make the rogue almost a walking joke...that's not one mistake, that's piling mistake on top of mistake, expecting it to become massive enough that it collapses into a black hole of fail, and you can fall through the event horizon and when you reach the singularity you emerge in some other universe and find out the rogue is cool again.

Or something.

Mostly, I just think black holes are cool.

Sovereign Court

Further up the thread someone suggested that rogues get a +1/die bonus on attack rolls when sneak attack damage would apply. I can totally get behind this rule. It would make my sneak attacks hit more often and go a long way towards making melee sneak attackers more fun to play. When the fighters and full BAB classes can toss out damage in spades without really trying, I'd be happy just doing some nice burst damage after a few turns of positioning and single attacks.


or you could just build your rogue better, too, or talk to the bard player and figure out what you're doing wrong and what he/she is doing right, beyond pinning it on simply your choice of class


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
I wouldn't be that cynical. I don't think it was an intentional choice by the design team at Paizo to have the class in the current state it is.

Oh, I don't doubt it's an accident on Paizo's part rather than deliberate malice. But Paizo's white-knights who come out of the woodwork to defend everything as working-as-intended, like the "rogues are fine provided you ignore dex and play a half-orc greatsword-wielding face-smasher, and if you don't it's your own fault for being an idiot" thing we saw yesterday, treat it as a feature, not a bug.

There have been replies in this thread since my last post unironically agreeing with the ~player skill~ position.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lamontius wrote:
or you could just build your rogue better, too, or talk to the bard player and figure out what you're doing wrong and what he/she is doing right, beyond pinning it on simply your choice of class

Hahaha!

Lamontius, you're such a joker.

Hahah...talk to the other player, he says.

::wipes eyes::

You kill me.

Sczarni

Jubal Breakbottle wrote:

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

Dude, me either. Every day I log on and see 100+ new posts. Why is it even still open??


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jess Door wrote:
Lamontius wrote:
or you could just build your rogue better, too, or talk to the bard player and figure out what you're doing wrong and what he/she is doing right, beyond pinning it on simply your choice of class

Hahaha!

Lamontius, you're such a joker.

Hahah...talk to the other player, he says.

::wipes eyes::

You kill me.

nah, my DPR isn't high enough, I play a rogue


fictionfan wrote:
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.

AT THIRD LEVEL?!! ah, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Marthkus wrote:


Ah, but your sneak attack is SO much better. Not that he doesn't have sneak attack. By level 10 he has 2d6 and you have 5d6. See 3d6 of dice, I'm sure that was worth the spell casting and bardic music that you don't have.

Also did your swashbuckler not dump dex? Dumping dex is the best thing to do as rogue.

As other have pointed out, it is so situational, it is a non-factor. Yes, if I do land a really good hit once in a blue moon (TWF with longsword and shortsword, BTW) I do some nice damage, but it is only in the 24-point range on average. Only one attack will hit most times I do get in a full attack. Meanwhile, the bard is moving in and consistently doing damage. I don't know what his exact stats are, but it is consistent and steady damage on most rounds in the 10-15 point range. Did I mention he can also cast spells?

No, I did not dump DEX, because I thought it would be helpful for AC and skill purposes. I did get a good stat array due to my rolls (we don't do point-buy) so I have an 17 Str and a 20 Dex. I think his stats are higher. Honestly, the only thing that is keeping me alive is a Cloak of Displacement.

Sure, this is probably some sour grapes on my part, but it is a little disheartening to play a character for about a year now to be completely outclassed in my niche role as scout and secondary melee. I'll probably do something heroically stupid in the next session so I can come in with a wizard.

Are you kidding? I see a sneak attack several times each combat. The warrior player LOVES to set up the Rogue and himself with a +2 to hit via flanking.

Sczarni

Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Marthkus wrote:


Ah, but your sneak attack is SO much better. Not that he doesn't have sneak attack. By level 10 he has 2d6 and you have 5d6. See 3d6 of dice, I'm sure that was worth the spell casting and bardic music that you don't have.

Also did your swashbuckler not dump dex? Dumping dex is the best thing to do as rogue.

As other have pointed out, it is so situational, it is a non-factor. Yes, if I do land a really good hit once in a blue moon (TWF with longsword and shortsword, BTW) I do some nice damage, but it is only in the 24-point range on average. Only one attack will hit most times I do get in a full attack. Meanwhile, the bard is moving in and consistently doing damage. I don't know what his exact stats are, but it is consistent and steady damage on most rounds in the 10-15 point range. Did I mention he can also cast spells?

No, I did not dump DEX, because I thought it would be helpful for AC and skill purposes. I did get a good stat array due to my rolls (we don't do point-buy) so I have an 17 Str and a 20 Dex. I think his stats are higher. Honestly, the only thing that is keeping me alive is a Cloak of Displacement.

Sure, this is probably some sour grapes on my part, but it is a little disheartening to play a character for about a year now to be completely outclassed in my niche role as scout and secondary melee. I'll probably do something heroically stupid in the next session so I can come in with a wizard.

Sneak attack is TOTALLY situational!

...Like when I get it on every single charge, because I am a Scout...or how I ALWAYS get to charge because I took Improved Overrun and Charge through on my Scout...or how I have a +15 Acrobatics so I can almost always get a flank...or how I took Friendly Switch, so if that stupid Bard is in my spot, I kick him and his d4 sneak attack dice, out of the way.

....Oh wait, the player makes the situation??? Lamontius's sarcasm is rubbing off on me. ;)


Well if you have a warrior at the table you have bigger problems.

Really though, the rogue does do much better if the other melee help him flank. This actually bothers me because it requires other people for him to do his job.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:

Well if you have a warrior at the table you have bigger problems.

Really though, the rogue does do much better if the other melee help him flank. This actually bothers me because it requires other people for him to do his job.

...Or she could just Feint to deny his enemies Dex. Which, with a couple of feats becomes a move action. Or as I said, take the Scout Archetype and sneak attack all day. Both totally independent of other player.

Question though? What's so bad about working with other players, anyway?


Lamontia wrote:
Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Marthkus wrote:


Ah, but your sneak attack is SO much better. Not that he doesn't have sneak attack. By level 10 he has 2d6 and you have 5d6. See 3d6 of dice, I'm sure that was worth the spell casting and bardic music that you don't have.

Also did your swashbuckler not dump dex? Dumping dex is the best thing to do as rogue.

As other have pointed out, it is so situational, it is a non-factor. Yes, if I do land a really good hit once in a blue moon (TWF with longsword and shortsword, BTW) I do some nice damage, but it is only in the 24-point range on average. Only one attack will hit most times I do get in a full attack. Meanwhile, the bard is moving in and consistently doing damage. I don't know what his exact stats are, but it is consistent and steady damage on most rounds in the 10-15 point range. Did I mention he can also cast spells?

No, I did not dump DEX, because I thought it would be helpful for AC and skill purposes. I did get a good stat array due to my rolls (we don't do point-buy) so I have an 17 Str and a 20 Dex. I think his stats are higher. Honestly, the only thing that is keeping me alive is a Cloak of Displacement.

Sure, this is probably some sour grapes on my part, but it is a little disheartening to play a character for about a year now to be completely outclassed in my niche role as scout and secondary melee. I'll probably do something heroically stupid in the next session so I can come in with a wizard.

Sneak attack is TOTALLY situational!

...Like when I get it on every single charge, because I am a Scout...or how I ALWAYS get to charge because I took Improved Overrun and Charge through on my Scout...or how I have a +15 Acrobatics so I can almost always get a flank...or how I took Friendly Switch, so if that stupid Bard is in my spot, I kick him and his d4 sneak attack dice, out of the way.

....Oh wait, the player makes the situation??? Lamontius's sarcasm is rubbing off on me. ;)

Lamontia, I will refrain from any double entendres on that last line but yes, there are two things to always keep in mind with Sneak Attack

A. Learn every single way you can get it through your own actions

2. Educate your teammates on how they can position to assist you with it or if that is not an option take feats/abilities (like Friendly Switch) to mitigate their dum-dum moves

D. There were only two points why am I still typing


Working with other players is great! I love when a group has teamwork. When it has to happen for the character to be effective I have problems though.

Sczarni

MrSin wrote:
Working with other players is great! I love when a group has teamwork. When it has to happen for the character to be effective I have problems though.

But it is a problem of their own creation. I am highly effective on my own. If a party member would like to, oh, I don't know, share a bonus to hit and obliterate bad guys with me, excellent! If not, then I will rely on the fact that I have a well built character, that I actually know how to play and run with it. ;)


Wait so one sneak attack per round with a scout is good? Find a way to throw on some double strike and sapmaster, then we're doing some good. Also how does overrun allow you to attack people on a charge and run away?


Archetypes should be used to create a character who's customized to be more appealing. Not something necessary to be useful. I find the feint chain to be a little too intensive myself.


Lamontia wrote:
Jubal Breakbottle wrote:

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

Dude, me either. Every day I log on and see 100+ new posts. Why is it even still open??

Why would it be closed? There is a lot of meaningful conversation going on. Plus this thread has it's own inside jokes now. Everyone loves inside jokes.


MrSin wrote:
Archetypes should be used to create a character who's customized to be more appealing. Not something necessary to be useful. I find the feint chain to be a little too intensive myself.

Everyone assumes that a barbarian takes pounce. Which is technically an archetype. Without all the archetypes the barbar is just a worse so many rounds per day fighter.

Some archetypes just become part of the class.


Marthkus wrote:

Everyone assumes that a barbarian takes pounce. Which is technically an archetype. Without all the archetypes the barbar is just a worse so many rounds per day fighter.

Some archetypes just become part of the class.

I would suggest a little more subtlety and less overt generalization but that would defeat the purpose of your post


Erm... Pounce isn't an archetype. Its a rage totem line. Most of the Rage totem lines suck. Fiend totem may as well be NPC only because it doesn't dictate friend from foe. I would rather open up all rage totem lines than for no reason at all claim you can only get one at a time. Putting the word totem after it doesn't make it special...

Sczarni

MrSin wrote:
Archetypes should be used to create a character who's customized to be more appealing. Not something necessary to be useful. I find the feint chain to be a little too intensive myself.

Personally, I do too. Also, my Cha is a little lacking, so I tend to go for a more "in your face" approach. :)But it's another option that is available.


Lamontia wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Archetypes should be used to create a character who's customized to be more appealing. Not something necessary to be useful. I find the feint chain to be a little too intensive myself.
Personally, I do too. Also, my Cha is a little lacking, so I tend to go for a more "in your face" approach. :)But it's another option that is available.

Lamontia plays her character's low CHA by stabbing things that my character is trying to use Diplomacy with, preferably while also having her character make fun of mine for being a goody-two-shoes and stealing my lunch money.


Marthkus wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Archetypes should be used to create a character who's customized to be more appealing. Not something necessary to be useful. I find the feint chain to be a little too intensive myself.

Everyone assumes that a barbarian takes pounce. Which is technically an archetype. Without all the archetypes the barbar is just a worse so many rounds per day fighter.

Some archetypes just become part of the class.

I'd argue he's better. His saves beat out the fighter by a mile, as does his HP. If his damage is lower, which it usually isn't, its only slightly.

So almost equivalent DPR
Less AC
Higher HP
DR/-
More skills
Better Class skill list
Immunity to sneak attack/loss of dex
Faster moving.
VASTLY BETTER SAVES

Yeah he's a worse fighter. You know it, I know it, we all know it.

Sczarni

Lamontius wrote:
Lamontia wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Archetypes should be used to create a character who's customized to be more appealing. Not something necessary to be useful. I find the feint chain to be a little too intensive myself.
Personally, I do too. Also, my Cha is a little lacking, so I tend to go for a more "in your face" approach. :)But it's another option that is available.

Lamontia plays her character's low CHA by stabbing things that my character is trying to use Diplomacy with, preferably while also having her character make fun of mine for being a goody-two-shoes and stealing my lunch money.

That only happened once, Lamontius. You need to move on already. Geeze.


MrSin wrote:
Erm... Pounce isn't an archetype. Its a rage totem line. Most of the Rage totem lines suck. Fiend totem may as well be NPC only because it doesn't dictate friend from foe. I would rather open up all rage totem lines than for no reason at all claim you can only get one at a time. Putting the word totem after it doesn't make it special...

Totem barbarian is an archetype that only replaces rage powers, and is not particular about which rage powers you replace.

801 to 850 of 1,376 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 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.