So... what you want a rogue do to be a good build?Better in melee combat than a Bard, by a significant margin.
Can do atleast 75% the damage of a Fighter while sneak attacking, (checkpoints for this are lvl 10 and lvl 20)Is not a strength rogue. Dex based is critical.
Is stealthy and can steal.
At level one has atleast a +7 in perception.
*Would be nice but not required: Uses poison, and has UMD;
Ok, let´s see...
20 points buildHuman Rogue Knife master. Str:14 Dex:18 Con:12 Wis:12 Int:11 Car:10
Traits: Reactionary +2 inic. Eyes and Ears of the City +1 perception
Racial trait: Focused Study- 1st skill focus Perception. 8th skill focus Stealth. 16th skill focus UMD
Lv 1 Perception: 1+1+2+3+3 = +10
Feats:1-TWF 3-Double Slice 5- Power Attack 7-Imp.TWF 9-Improved Initiative
Rogue Talents:2-Finesse Rogue 4-Minor Magic 6-Major Magic(Vanish) 8-Weapon Training(ShortSword)
Advanced Rogue Talent: 10-Hunter´s Surprise
Lv 4 Dex+1 Lv8 Dex +1
LV 10 Wealth by level 62k. Boots of Speed 12k. 2x S.Sword+2 16k. Belt dex+4 16k. Ring of Chameleon 12,5k.
Get the suprise round. Stealth: 7+10+10+3+6= +36+Vanish. Move to the target. Be the first to act. Initiative:7+4+2=+13. Full attack: +14/+14/+14/+9/+9 vs AC flat-footed damage 1d6+5d8+8. Next two round use Hunter´s Surprise, or a melee combatent in the group or a wand of summon monster to summon 1d4+1 creatures to flank
I don´t know the dpr calc but if all hits land the average damage is 168
(...i will post lv 10-20 tomorrow..need to sleep now hehehe)
.....
Feats:11-Imp.Critical 13-Critical Focus 15-Greater TWF 17-Two-Weapon Rend 19- Critical, Tiring
Advanced Rogue Talent:12-Crippling Strike 14-Opportunist 16-Fast Fingers 18-Combat Trick(Critical, Exhausting) 20-Feat (Sneaking Precision)
Lv 12 Dex+1 Lv 16 Dex +1
LV 20 Wealth by level 880k. 2x S.Sword+3 speed 144k. Belt dex+6 Str+6 90k. Ring of Chameleon 12,5k.Some scroll/wand for buff your attack bonus.
Get the suprise round. Stealth: 9+20+10+3+6= +48+Vanish. Move to the target. Be the first to act. Initiative:9+4+2=+15. Full attack: +20/+20/+20/+20/+15/+15/+10/+10 vs AC flat-footed damage 1d6+10d8+16. Next two round use Hunter´s Surprise, or a melee combatent in the group or a wand of summon monster to summon 1d4+1 creatures to flank
I don´t know the dpr calc but if all hits land the average damage is 530 + Crippling Strike -16 Str + Critical, Tiring -6 Str.
Anyone figure out a good rogue build yet?
Are you permitted 3rd party material? Specifically the super genius games talented monk, talented rogue, and archer archetypes. If so then yes. (granted you can do it without the archery archetypes, my concept just used that)
|
Anyone figure out a good rogue build yet?
"Your goal is to snatch that purse and run, not fight for it."
Anyone figure out a good rogue build yet?Are you permitted 3rd party material? Specifically the super genius games talented monk, talented rogue, and archer archetypes. If so then yes. (granted you can do it without the archery archetypes, my concept just used that)
No.
Pathfinder must stand a lone.
.....
Feats:11-Imp.Critical 13-Critical Focus 15-Greater TWF 17-Two-Weapon Rend 19- Critical, Tiring
Advanced Rogue Talent:12-Crippling Strike 14-Opportunist 16-Fast Fingers 18-Combat Trick(Critical, Exhausting) 20-Feat (Sneaking Precision)
Lv 12 Dex+1 Lv 16 Dex +1LV 20 Wealth by level 880k. 2x S.Sword+3 speed 144k. Belt dex+6 Str+6 90k. Ring of Chameleon 12,5k.Some scroll/wand for buff your attack bonus.
Get the suprise round. Stealth: 9+20+10+3+6= +48+Vanish. Move to the target. Be the first to act. Initiative:9+4+2=+15. Full attack: +20/+20/+20/+20/+15/+15/+10/+10 vs AC flat-footed damage 1d6+10d8+16. Next two round use Hunter´s Surprise, or a melee combatent in the group or a wand of summon monster to summon 1d4+1 creatures to flank
I don´t know the dpr calc but if all hits land the average damage is 530 + Crippling Strike -16 Str + Critical, Tiring -6 Str.
That level 20 full attack is hard to compare to the fighters 35/30/25/20 all of which do an average of 53 damage (not including crits but with power attack)
The to-hit difference is devastating for DPR. The rogue never has a higher bonus than the fighter's worst attack.
That level 20 full attack is hard to compare to the fighters 35/30/25/20 all of which do an average of 53 damage (not including crits but with power attack)The to-hit difference is devastating for DPR. The rogue never has a higher bonus than the fighter's worst attack.
Hmm... you can trade the 2x short sword +3 speed for 2x short sword +2 brilliant energy...or 2x short sword +5 and don´t use the power attack, 26/26/26/21/21/16/16, flanking 28/28/28/23/23/18/18. If you can buy a manual of quickness +5 31/31/31/26/26/21/21 average of 58 damage without power attack plus the str damage.
That's better, but a +5 manual might be a little much to assume.
Yes, but if you are a rogue lv 20 you can "buy" a lot of things xD
I can't believe I actually read this whole thing. A few thoughts, though none that add to the "make a good rogue"...that conversation has been done to death.
I'm also glad that I don't play in PFS if the players act like people in this thread say that they do. It doesn't sound much better than the people I played RPGA with, which actually led me to drop D&D altogether until my friends asked me to run a PF campaign.
As a DM, I'd find a use for the skill monkey Rogue's skills in combat. I have that 101 uses for skill book, or whatever it's called, and it's something that I allow in my campaigns. I may complain about my players' min/maxing, but they don't use it as a way to say "that class sucks" or "I wouldn't have fun with X build at my table". I will probably also ban certain archetypes in future games.
In the Kingmaker campaign I ran, while it did take a while, the Rogue was doing solid damage. Of course, the group worked to get him flanking, even when I played the NPCs smartly. When he couldn't get flanking, it as described in this thread. I'm actually going to go with the house rule that rogues get full BAB. While I don't play one in the campaign I'm playing in, I'm going to make this suggestion to our DM for the guy that is playing a rogue.
It's been entertaining.
You are devoting few resources to combat so do not be surprise to be bad at fights.
EDIT: Besides, with 10 in constitution you better stay away from the melee.
And yet you would be suprised, sometimes it's the characters with the lowest stats that have the highest dice rolls. lol
Doesn't matter how high your dice rolls are when the enemy hits you for enough damage to take you to negative ten.
Matter if you do this first xD
And yet you would be suprised, sometimes it's the characters with the lowest stats that have the highest dice rolls. lol
That same guy could be the one rolling straight ones. Best not to bet on good rolls(though it can be exciting). I tend to roll someplace in between 2-19 more often than I do 1 or 20.
In the Kingmaker campaign I ran, while it did take a while, the Rogue was doing solid damage. Of course, the group worked to get him flanking, even when I played the NPCs smartly.
The problem with rogues sucking in combat is not that they teammates don't flank. Everybody tries to flank, just because +2 to hit is nice. The problem with rogues is that they can't sneak attack vs Elementals, Oozes, wraiths, ghosts, other rogues, barbarians, wizards with blurr of displacement, or people in dark alleys.
When he couldn't get flanking, it as described in this thread. I'm actually going to go with the house rule that rogues get full BAB.
So you agree that rogues suck enough to deserve a big boost.
And yet you would be suprised, sometimes it's the characters with the lowest stats that have the highest dice rolls. lolYou are devoting few resources to combat so do not be surprise to be bad at fights.
EDIT: Besides, with 10 in constitution you better stay away from the melee.
Math superstition doesn't make for balanced classes.
The problem with rogues sucking in combat is not that they teammates don't flank. Everybody tries to flank, just because +2 to hit is nice. The problem with rogues is that they can't sneak attack vs Elementals, Oozes, wraiths, ghosts, other rogues, barbarians, wizards with blurr of displacement, or people in dark alleys.
All classes have weak points. Rogues doesn't need better Bab, only better players.
All classes have weak points. Rogues doesn't need better Bab, only better players.
Not all classes are balanced either? A better player isn't really a fix.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With respect, a better player is the ONLY fix.
Not an optimized player. Not a number-crunching player. Not a player who has calculated a way to do triple-digit "DPR" at first level.
A player who has created a compelling character, enjoys playing him or her, contributes to the game in the way intended, and helps bring enjoyment to himself or herself, the GM, and the other players.
There's so much attention (too much attention, I think--your mileage may vary) played to the disparity between this class and another class, the flaws of this class vs. that class, the problems with this class vs. that class.
Play the character you want to play. Have fun. It's a game, not a calculus problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Play the character you want to play. Have fun. It's a game, not a calculus problem.
And ignore all the problems with the game, and when people point out flaws tell them they're playing it wrong and don't love it or know how to have fun right? Seriously, its never been about "Don't play!" its people who want the game to be better and want the class to be more enjoyable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All classes have weak points. Rogues doesn't need better Bab, only better players.
The problem with rogues sucking in combat is not that they teammates don't flank. Everybody tries to flank, just because +2 to hit is nice. The problem with rogues is that they can't sneak attack vs Elementals, Oozes, wraiths, ghosts, other rogues, barbarians, wizards with blurr of displacement, or people in dark alleys.
In a scale of level, 1 to 10. Rogues are level 2 or so. With a better player they climb to 5. That better player playing a real class, like a bard, rank at 7. If he play a Tier 1 , they go up to 11.
Better players don't solve anything. In a group of bad players the rogue is the worst member of the classic party. In a group of great players, he is the worst member of the party regardless.
Hello, Armchair Theorists.
I've seen rogues sucking in every combat involving elemenals since dnd 3.0. In firsthand experience.
|
Hello, Armchair Theorists.I've seen rogues sucking in every combat involving elemenals since dnd 3.0. In firsthand experience.
That's a very firm reason to consider a class "2/10". I mean, unless your GM just doesn't like you and you fight them every week, but that's less a design problem and more a person problem. Which is what 90% of "wrong design" arguments amount to, in the end.
Hello, Armchair Theorists.I've seen rogues sucking in every combat involving elemenals since dnd 3.0. In firsthand experience.That's a very firm reason to consider a class "2/10". I mean, unless your GM just doesn't like you and you fight them every week, but that's less a design problem and more a person problem. Which is what 90% of "wrong design" arguments amount to, in the end.
well, it is less an issue in PF than 3e, where half the enemies where immune one way or another. But it is a problem regardless. It has happened a lot of time in our campaign with our ninja, and he does have imp invisibility. Several oozes, elementals, incorporeal creatures, creatures with concealment,with rogue or barbarian levels, with true seeing, blindsight, or with enough CMD and reach to make tumbling into flanking impossible, etc. Not to mention several classes are much better at skillmonkey stuff. So yes, if we put bards in a 5/10 rank, then rogues are 2/10.
And the only thing your rogues do is combat. Oh wait, I know the answer: in every non-combat situation you're made obsolete by the wizard. Did I guess correctly? If yes, read the article I linked again. Spherical Cows all around!
or you could read my whole post.
"Not to mention several classes are much better at skillmonkey stuff."|
|
RE: The wizurd's spell list obsoleting the rogue.
That's awesome, if the wizurd happens to have devoted every bit of his spells prepared list specifically to trying to make the rogue obsolete. In that case, the biggest problem isn't one of balance between classes, it's that you're playing with a complete and utter a%!~%~!. Who is wasting resources by filling his spell list with stuff that the rogue can do without limit.
RE: The wizurd's spell list obsoleting the rogue.
That's awesome, if the wizurd happens to have devoted every bit of his spells prepared list specifically to trying to make the rogue obsolete. In that case, the biggest problem isn't one of balance between classes, it's that you're playing with a complete and utter a*&+!&!. Who is wasting resources by filling his spell list with stuff that the rogue can do without limit.
Who said the wizard was going out of his way to make the rogue obsolete?
RE: The wizurd's spell list obsoleting the rogue.
That's awesome, if the wizurd happens to have devoted every bit of his spells prepared list specifically to trying to make the rogue obsolete. In that case, the biggest problem isn't one of balance between classes, it's that you're playing with a complete and utter a~!~$~!. Who is wasting resources by filling his spell list with stuff that the rogue can do without limit.
the wizard does not need to use his spell list to do that. He bought wand.
Besides,pweople in the "rogues arent obsolet" camp never see it unxer the proper point of view. It's not the guy in he caster role wasti g resources to do some other player job. It's the guy in the souting/skillmonkey role chosing "wizard" as his class.
We need 4 roles. A tanky guy, a sneaky/skilled guy, a diviner caster and an arcane caster. The tanky guy is going to be the druid. He'll be built as a tanky guy, with str 18 and all the fighty stuff. The skilled rogue can be a wizard. With ton of utility stuff AND skills to back up. The divine guy could be a cleric. And the arcane guy can be a sorcerer or witch or whatever. Bob, the player in the skilled guy role, isn't stepping in anyone toes. Heias doing HIS job, just much better ghan a rogue. You could have a similar party with synth-bard-oracle-wizard or inquisitor-alchemist-druid-witch.
Unless he's really attempting it, then he can't do it. (And even if he's attempting it, he only gets so many spell slots before his attempt fails).
Why spend all your 2nd level spell slots on when the rogue can just pick the lock? Hell, why spend ANY of the spell slots on Knock?
I don't really need to attempt it when I play a wizard. I prepare invisibility because it has numerous uses, and it makes stealth easy. I have plenty of skill points because intellect caster(though other full casters don't have the pleasure). I had overland flight up because flying is awesome, and it makes maneuvering and climbing slightly moot.
Knock isn't usually my first thought for "Why rogues are obsolete" the fact I can break the lock easily might be. Its also easy for other classes to put points into things like disable device. Look at other spells, like invisibility or flight.
Really though, what wizard prepares knock in every 2nd level spell slot he has?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the only thing your rogues do is combat. Oh wait, I know the answer: in every non-combat situation you're made obsolete by the wizard. Did I guess correctly? If yes, read the article I linked again. Spherical Cows all around!or you could read my whole post.
"Not to mention several classes are much better at skillmonkey stuff."
But reading the whole post would detract from his trolling.
|
|
Breaking the lock = everything on the other side of the door being prepared for you to come through that door.
Can a medium-to-high level wizurd make a rogue obsolete? Yes, for a short time. While throwing away limited resources to do what a rogue can do WITHOUT using limited resources.
Which means that wizurd is rather grotesquely stupid, despite his 20+ Int score. (I'll be generous and ascribe the stupidity to the character.)
Which means that wizurd is rather grotesquely stupid, despite his 20+ Int score. (I'll be generous and ascribe the stupidity to the character.)
Well that's just flamebait there.
Wizard with 17 intellect gets 6 skill points per level. By level four he has 22, which is 9 per level. Ranger starts with 6, only 2 less than the rogue. Part of what makes the rogues obsolete isn't just spells(though spells do in many cases make skills moot), its that they don't have many skill points over other classes. Bards have more because of versatile performance, and they then have spells to cover other things. They can also boost themselves and others.
Rogue talents would help them out you'd think, but they tend to be underwhelming and don't really help that much with skills. Many of them are just limited in x/day and some actually don't do much like rumormonger.
Also, why does breaking a lock have to be loud? I didn't say smash the door with a 6 foot hammer! And in some cases you really don't care who hears you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Play the character you want to play. Have fun. It's a game, not a calculus problem.
Well, the characters I want to play are largely monks and rogues, thematically. But they suck terribly, so I can't just... play a rogue or monk. Not being competent makes it hard to have fun. If I'm supposed to be a martial arts master but a vanilla fighter can out damage me with punching...
Or if I want to play a skirmisher character. Tumbling is suicide, and rogue is squishy and doesn't hit hard enough to justify a one attack per round set up. Conversely, I could play a magus, a class with absolutely ZERO fluff related to being skilled at hit and run, and Spell Combat with Bladed Dash to full attack, attack some more, and move away without provoking automatically so they can't retaliate in kind.
Contrary to what you think, the rules and game balance does actually matter. There are classes better than monk at unarmed and especially combat maneuvers and if you're willing to re-fluff natural attacks as kung fu, the better replacements become nearly limitless. And there are literally at least half a dozen classes that do a rogue's job better than she does.
Also, why does breaking a lock have to be loud?
Yeah, wtf? It's stupidly easy to sunder just about anything in this game (adamantine axe or hammer isn't terribly expensive). And Disable Device / Open Lock DCs are stupidly high until you get to higher levels. Half the freaking point of using Disable Device is to get the lock opened without people on the other side of the wall noticing!
Except the wizard doesn't need to spend any resource, since he has to put every point he has in int and the rogue has to spread his attributes more, meaning the wizard has as many skillpoints as a ranger or bard or alchemist or inquisitor. All classes which also obsolete the rogue.
Any class can max Disable Device. It's not a thing only rogues can do. One can make a barbarian with maxed stealth, disable device, perception and acrobatics. All of it with int 10. There, I've obsoleted the rogue with a barbarian. You should see what I can do with an alchemist.
I don´t know what kind a dungeons you run, but magic slots has limits, they end...and them? you will make the group stop every time the spells ends and whait until the next day?
Before you can make all the other classes look like a rogue i suggest you play a rogue. One of the reason for the Rogue exist is for the other classes don´t spend points where are not their "business"
Honestly, I think that the rogue is only as obsolete as the player playing the rogue. If the player not only understands the character, but also is good at ROLEPLAYING the social encounters and the trap finding/disarming, and other areas in which he should shine, then the character will probably shine... Unless the GM won't let him.
Doesn't mean that a wizard isn't a more versatile class, just that sometimes a rogue is fun to play. Isn't fun what the game is all about?
I don´t know what kind a dungeons you run, but magic slots has limits, they end...and them? you will make the group stop every time the spells ends and whait until the next day?
When I run a game, if someone stops having fun its a problem. If you run out of spells and your expected to spend the next few hours slogging it not doing what you picked your class to do, life can suck. At higher levels it usually isn't a problem unless the GM has gone out of his way to make it a problem. At lower levels color spray can end encounters in a turn.
Before you can make all the other classes look like a rogue i suggest you play a rogue. One of the reason for the Rogue exist is for the other classes don´t spend points where are not their "business"
I've played a rogue. My bard did skillmonkeying better. My wizard did problem solving better than both of them. My rogue and several others I've seen at the table also fell behind in combat while at the table.
Anecdotal evidence though, so its not the best. Don't claim people don't play a class. Its rude. Calling something 'rogue business' and trying to claim its special just for the rogue is silly and not a real point. Its just pushing forward your own opinion.
Doesn't mean that a wizard isn't a more versatile class, just that sometimes a rogue is fun to play. Isn't fun what the game is all about?
Clarify what you mean? I could argue a commoner is fun and that good player could play a commoner and really try to make him shine. Doesn't make the commoner class good.
Isn't fun what the game is all about?
What is this "fun" you speak of?
Isn't fun what the game is all about?What is this "fun" you speak of?
Masochism maybe? Doesn't excuse a bad design though imo.
Not trying to change anyone's mind, just wanted to state that playing a character who is completely focused on thieving skills can be fun. No spells, no super powers. Kinda like playing batman when everyone else are playing supermen. There IS a challenge to it, but that can make it much more satisfying.
I am not going to argue that rogues are balanced, power-wise... Just balanced fun-wise.
|
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?
As others have mentioned it really depends on your GM. However, the problem you often see is that skills only take a few minutes to resolve in real time but combat can take hours. Then you have the problem of being sub-optimal for the majority of your playing time. Some people don't mind that but it would not be my cup of tea.
BTW, been playing since 1977 and the rogue class has been arguably the weakest class in every edition of the game. There has to be some reason people keep playing them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just balanced fun-wise.
That's pretty subjective though, which is why I said my friend can have fun with a commoner. I like my arcane trickster for a theif personally, but if had to have a pick of class with no magic I might actually look for another game. Pathfinder likes its combat, so being a pure skill monkey isn't really viable, especially in a scenario like PFS. There are other games that probably handle a lack of combat better.
BTW, been playing since 1977 and the rogue class has been arguably the weakest class in every edition of the game. There has to be some reason people keep playing them.
Denial... but really it has to do with a forced niche if I remember correctly. A lot of people play monks because it advertises being this unarmed and unarmed guy, and in 3.5 I knew plenty of guys who played them and had fun, even if they were pretty awful and easily doable by another class(and better). Improving the class probably wouldn't hurt their fun, and would help keep the concept alive and well. Instead of using fun as an excuse, ask why they should be weak maybe?