Rogue would not be a great choice; they are currently underpowered in PF due to the fact that they no longer have a monopoly on skills. That said, they can be a lot of fun. They work better in combat when someone else takes the heat while they flank an opponent and get in sneak attacks. With just two of you, this could be hard to achieve.
What you should play depends on whether Your Ranger is planning to be a Two Weapon Fighting attacker (TWF), an archer or a switch Hitter (Uses bow then switches to hit with melee weapons when the enemy closes). TWF is not really a good option unless you are a rogue, so I would suggest he picks archer or switch hitter.
If he picks archer, you will need someone to take the heat off him, Paladin or Barbarian make good choices since both give you some utility outside of combat (Paladins heal & have spells, Barbarians get some skills).
If he plays a switch hitter (or TWF), he could be your main melee guy while you provide backup. Your options are much greater since you can either play battlefield control (Wizard, sorceror) or support (Cleric, Bard, Druid). The first two stay out of combat and use spells to control the battlefield while the others cast helpful spells ("Buffs") like Bless, Haste, etc. then wade into melee as a back-up fighter.
I am assuming that you have no experience with other Role-playing games such as D&D.
One option for two people would be to play two characters each. This doubles your party size and you could play Rogue as your second character.
The most important thing is to have fun.
If I understand the adventure paths properly, a team of two is going to have some difficulty getting through them no matter what team combo they pick. If each of you want, you can play two characters each, and than having a rogue, a ranger, and then maybe some kind of arcane magic user and some kind of cleric would be a pretty well balances party.
If I understand the adventure paths properly, a team of two is going to have some difficulty getting through them no matter what team combo they pick. If each of you want, you can play two characters each, and than having a rogue, a ranger, and then maybe some kind of arcane magic user and some kind of cleric would be a pretty well balances party.
Bit low on the frontline melee front, but certainly viable. peronally I would go Ranger, then Fighter, Barbarian or Paladin, then Cleric, then any other (Rogue if you want to play one or Wizard). Ranger and Cleric can both step up to the mark as melee backups, but not as a main melee class (except when ranger is fighting favoured enemy - but how likely is that?). Cleric is useful for healing, though they should aim to make healing unnecessary with Buffs.
After that, any class will add something; Rogue can add sneak attack and trapfinding (though Ranger does better on stealth), Wizard can control the flow of combat with Grease or Summon Monster, or buff with Enlarge Person.
Alternatively, Druid gives you Good frontline ability through their animal companion and (later) wildshape while providing spell backup. they would make a reasonable substitute for the Frontline martial class if you have a ranger and Cleric as backup melees.
What John said. Alternatively, you could roll up some NPCs that can serve as hirelings. In time, these mercenaries might become loyal to the PCs to the point of no longer charging for their services or even undergoing suicidal or high-risk adventures for their sake (or the cause they champion).
Also, rogues are a bit underpowered, but they are fine for beginners. As you become more experienced with the game you can make amendments to the game rules to better balance them in your opinion.
If you want to play one, I advise you do. They're fun, just not the strongest combat-oriented class available.
As you and your friend become more experienced at running the game, you can provide more finely-tuned challenges for one another (and any others you recruit to the game).
For example, a rogue is going to appear weak as compared to say the paladin, if all you do is wade through a never-ending series of skeletal and demonic baddies. However, if you provide ample opportunity for the rogue to find and disable traps, negotiate with and gather information from NPCs, and engage in otherwise roguish activities, well, he or she will shine more brightly (and have more fun).
Best of luck, Hopeful.
Rogues 'not having a monopoly on skills' hardly affects their ability to hold up their part of a team. They have just as many skill points as they ever did -- more, in fact, since Pathfinder gives you the option of putting points into either hit points or skills when you take a level in your favored class.
If they have any fewer class skills, it's because skills have been consolidated.
On that point -- rogues used to have Balance, Jump and Tumble. Now a Pathfinder rogue can get all three skills with just Acrobatics. Rogues used to have Listen, Search and Spot. Now a Pathfinder rogue can get all three skills with just Perception. Rogues used to have Decipher Script, Forgery and Speak Language. Now rogues get all three with just Linguistics. Rogues used to have Disable Device and Open Lock. Now Pathfinder rogues can get both skills with just Disable Device. Rogues used to have Hide and Move Silently. Now Pathfinder rogues can get both skills with just Stealth.
Pathfinder did make skills easier for other classes, sure. Other classes can get more class skills with traits; and now somebody that boosts their non-class skills are just 3 points behind other characters instead of at half the bonus. But although PF raised the other characters up in skills, rogues may very well be the most improved class skill-wise, as you can see for yourself in the paragraph above that nearly everything they could want to do has been combined with other skills.
The most damning argument that they've lost their special edge is the fact that a few archetypes get Trapfinding, which is the only way to disable magical traps (without dispelling). But that's a matter of balancing classes against each other -- the fact that they released an Alchemist archetype with Trapfinding doesn't suddenly make your rogue unable to keep up in the middle of an AP you were playing. Besides, I seem to recall that archetypes usually have to give up something fairly precious for Trapfinding.
Make sure to grab two-weapon fighting and weapon focus. Since you guys have a small group, you both should grab leadership to round off the party.
But hey,
To be fair, the alchemist's "vivisectionist" archetype has stolen the most iconic class feature of the rogue, sneak attack. This, I think, is where the rogue has "lost its edge". Personally, I ban the aforementioned archetype to escape this pitfall. But, I'm probably in the minority, as many seem to love the vivisectionist.
As a new player, I doubt the OP understands what an archetype is, as they were not introduced until the Advanced Player's Guide, a book he or she has not listed as being in his or her possession.
Rogues 'not having a monopoly on skills' hardly affects their ability to hold up their part of a team. They have just as many skill points as they ever did -- more, in fact, since Pathfinder gives you the option of putting points into either hit points or skills when you take a level in your favored class.
If they have any fewer class skills, it's because skills have been consolidated.
On that point -- rogues used to have Balance, Jump and Tumble. Now a Pathfinder rogue can get all three skills with just Acrobatics. Rogues used to have Listen, Search and Spot. Now a Pathfinder rogue can get all three skills with just Perception. Rogues used to have Decipher Script, Forgery and Speak Language. Now rogues get all three with just Linguistics. Rogues used to have Disable Device and Open Lock. Now Pathfinder rogues can get both skills with just Disable Device. Rogues used to have Hide and Move Silently. Now Pathfinder rogues can get both skills with just Stealth.
Pathfinder did make skills easier for other classes, sure. Other classes can get more class skills with traits; and now somebody that boosts their non-class skills are just 3 points behind other characters instead of at half the bonus. But although PF raised the other characters up in skills, rogues may very well be the most improved class skill-wise, as you can see for yourself in the paragraph above that nearly everything they could want to do has been combined with other skills.
The most damning argument that they've lost their special edge is the fact that a few archetypes get Trapfinding, which is the only way to disable magical traps (without dispelling). But that's a matter of balancing classes against each other -- the fact that they released an Alchemist archetype with Trapfinding doesn't suddenly make your rogue unable to keep up in the middle of an AP you were playing. Besides, I seem to recall that archetypes usually have to give up something fairly precious for Trapfinding.
The point is the rogue more easily replaced in pathfinder than in any D&D based game in history. The fact you need less skill points means many other classes can fill the role that used to require a rogue and bring other things to the table. In the early editions of the game rogues or thieves as they were called had abilities no one else had. in third edition that was still somewhat the case due to the number of skills you needed and the fact class skills cost double the points.
The Archeologist bard was the final nail in the coffin for the rogue. Other than sneak attack, there is not a single traditional rogue role that the Archeologist Bard does not do better than a rogue, and that without using spells. Add in spells and the rogue is outclassed so badly it is not even funny. Cantrips like detect magic and mage hand give you an edge no mundane rogue can match. Spells like invisibility, knock, and dispel magic means the rogue is less able to deal with what is supposed to be his niche.
If you want to play a rogue, play a rogue. Simple as that. If you're looking for a "jack of all trades" utility kind of guy, though, you might find the bard more rewarding (especially since he'll have access to some handy spells, including a little healing magic).
Rogues 'not having a monopoly on skills' hardly affects their ability to hold up their part of a team. They have just as many skill points as they ever did -- more, in fact, since Pathfinder gives you the option of putting points into either hit points or skills when you take a level in your favored class.
If they have any fewer class skills, it's because skills have been consolidated.
On that point -- rogues used to have Balance, Jump and Tumble. Now a Pathfinder rogue can get all three skills with just Acrobatics. Rogues used to have Listen, Search and Spot. Now a Pathfinder rogue can get all three skills with just Perception. Rogues used to have Decipher Script, Forgery and Speak Language. Now rogues get all three with just Linguistics. Rogues used to have Disable Device and Open Lock. Now Pathfinder rogues can get both skills with just Disable Device. Rogues used to have Hide and Move Silently. Now Pathfinder rogues can get both skills with just Stealth.
Pathfinder did make skills easier for other classes, sure. Other classes can get more class skills with traits; and now somebody that boosts their non-class skills are just 3 points behind other characters instead of at half the bonus. But although PF raised the other characters up in skills, rogues may very well be the most improved class skill-wise, as you can see for yourself in the paragraph above that nearly everything they could want to do has been combined with other skills.
The most damning argument that they've lost their special edge is the fact that a few archetypes get Trapfinding, which is the only way to disable magical traps (without dispelling). But that's a matter of balancing classes against each other -- the fact that they released an Alchemist archetype with Trapfinding doesn't suddenly make your rogue unable to keep up in the middle of an AP you were playing. Besides, I seem to recall that archetypes usually have to give up something fairly precious for Trapfinding.
I don't particularly want this to degenerate into an argument about rogues; that's not helpful. That said, consolidation of skills is part of the problem. You mentiona anumber of iconic rogue skills that have been consolidated into just 5, meaning the rogue can get all of them and have some spare. The point is, so can others. In a party with 3 other players, each one can cover 2-3 of those skills about as well as the rogue. The gap has drastically closed. The rogue used to be the only one who could get any meaningful ability in all those skills, now they can be covered by the rest of the party.
Already there is a ranger in the group; they will be as good as the rogue at stealth and gain spells (like camouflage) that can improve them. The rogue doesn't. Rangers also get Hide in plain sight. The rogue doesn't.
That said, rogues can still be a lot of fun; I have no objections to someone wanting to play one. Most of the fun is in the character, not the mechanics and rogues still have plenty to contribute. My advice to a new player is try it and see; you might find you enjoy them. They cover a wide variety of literary, film and television characters (from captain Jack Sparrow to The Hobbit to Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser), can be played in a variety of ways (smooth-talking conman to hardened thug) and have a versatility all if their own. Enjoy for what they are, not for what they aren't.
Hang out at comic book store and recruit:), in meantime play whatever character you wish. Your adventures will be tailored to your PC, since you are the only one.
Remember that you have to be able to fight, it's not ALL skills.
Most of the bad rogues I've seen are all Dex and Int, with 10 str and 10 con. They die quickly.
For a rogue, I'd try to have a lot of 14s everywhere.
If you want to play a rogue, play a rogue. Please just do not get into all of the forum talk of this class is broken or this class is underpowered. If you and your friend are both new, then neither will have a totally optimized character and that is just fine!
At some point you will want to add a cleric type and probably an arcane caster but that depends on your comfort level and your style of play.
So am I to understand that it is just the two of you and one will be the DM with a character and the other will run their own character?
If so, then I would make a suggestion that you look to something simple. If you feel like an adventure path is the way to go, then have at it. I have Shattered Star but have not read it so I cannot advise you there. I do know that the adventure paths are usually well put together.
Good luck!
Really, ban the Vivisectionist to not hurt the Rogue's feelings?
You really don't know when, and where the weaknesses of the Rogue class are.
All you do is smash the hopes of a bombless Alchemist.
That's rather dismissive, but yeah--I ban the vivisectionist because it encroaches upon the rogue's niche. With trapfinding available to others, sneak attack is the only feature that sets them apart and makes them feel unique. I'd rather it stay that way.
That said, I've posted elsewhere on the subject and would really not bog down this thread with needless repetition. The OP can certainly comb through the many rogue threads to discover the many complaints/weaknesses associated with the class. I'd rather not venture too deeply into such discussions, though--I've had my fill of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without a spellcaster, going rogue might not be the best choice, unless your DM is able to compensate for this (I love Rogues, but....)
Consider a Rogue (Scout)
with proper feats and talents and items it is possible to get sneak attacks without flank and sort of tank for a round or two (scout's charge, skirmisher, gang-up, offense defense, etc). But expect to die a lot if the BBEG crits...
cannot remember the progression, and make no claims about optimization, but here was my character at level 7 (the only sheet I can quickly find)
Human Rogue(scout) 7 (played in Council of Thieves AP)
Str 12
Dex 20
Con 13
Int 16
Wis 13
Cha 8
HP: 55
AC: 21 (23 w/ buckler, 25 vs. SA foes, 27 vs SA foes w/ buckler)
Fort +4
Reflex +12
Will +5
CMB +6
CMD 22
Skills (partial list)
----------------------
Acrobatics +19
Climb +11
Disable Device +19 (+22 for traps)
Escape Artist +16
Perception +11
Stealth +16
Use Magic Device +9 (never ever used this though)
+1 mithril daggers (+14) 1d4+3
+1 adamantine dagger (+14) 1d4+3
+1 mithril chain shirt
Handy Haversack
+1 mithril buckler
Cloak of Resistance +1
Amulet of Natural Armor +1
Belt of Dexterity +2
sneak attack 4d6
feats and traits
-----------------
2-Weapon Fighting
Weapon Finesse
Skill Focus: Acrobatics
Scout's Charge
Gang Up
Combat Trick (combat expertise)
Weapon Training (dagger)
Offense Defense
Trap Spotter (dm hated this)
Shadow Strike
River Rat
I also spent most of the fighting with "reduce person" up, and eventually got it cast on my PC permanently....which was nice most of the time. Overall I was disappointed with how often I successfully used Acrobatics (would probably not spend so much on that if I did it over) - I got stopped quite a bit, so stopped trying. I went negative quite a bit, until I started hanging back more. My weaknesses were Will saves (Charm Person...grrrr) and low HP (I often "died" when I was ~75% HP and got one-shotted) but I spent most of the time out front and routinely spent 1-2 rounds toe-to-toe with baddies before the Tank (a Paladin) could engage....other players were a Cleric and a Wizard. I enjoyed this Character quite a bit, although could easily have enjoyed other classes equally (if not more). I often did about as much damage as the Paladin (unless we were fighting evil) in our encounters...
But, without the Cleric and Wizard buffing, healing, etc. I would have died a LOT more.....
Hello everybody, I literally just started playing Pathfinder last night, my friend and I got the beginner's box and "played" our way through. Unfortunately we don't have much access to more players at the moment so we are planning on doing a Alternating GM type of deal. Just a couple side notes first of all:
My friend(also new) and I aren't the most intelligent creatures ever, so we like to be able to look at fancy tiles as we go through our dungeons and pregenerated scenarios will be our best friends. (I bought one of the D&D dungeon-esque tile-set packages, as well as a shattered star booklet, part 1 of 6, and the book that includes world maps ( which I thought were going to be tiles by the way the guy in the store described it =( )
My friend is pretty set on making an Elf Ranger, which has led me to what I believe is an overthinking nightmare of what class I will make. I would ideally like to be a Halfling Rogue, but will this severely cripple our capabilities as a team? The chances of us picking up other regular adventurers are slim to none.
Any advice you all could give me on building a useful rogue? Or how I'm approaching this whole game? I can't help but shake the video game mentality that our class combo could break us. From the small amount of reading I've done so far (Which is still proving to be overwhelming!) looks as though Ranger only get minor healing spells through the early stages and a Rogue isn't exactly the ideal meat shield. Also will our Alternating GM Duo ever work?
Thank you for your replies and sorry for rambling!
Welcome to the game!
Although this is only one approach, and there is no one right way, my advice for character creation is to think about WHAT IS YOUR CONCEPT before picking race and class. Write down a few things about what you want to be good at, what you don't (for example "I want to be good at melee, I do not want to be a spellcaster," or whatever). Then look at what races and classes fit that idea best. If that turns out to be halfling rogue, then play a halfling rogue.
You're starting out, do not worry about optimization or what other people think. Look at what looks fun to you. If something ends up working not as well as you hoped it would, that's how you learn--and that's a heck of a better way to play the game. After all, different GMs and campaigns have widely varying focuses and feels, and what works spectacularly in one GM's game may work horribly in another, so just follow your instincts, figure out what specifically works for your group's unique play style, and have fun.
Now, as for your choice, here is my advice which you are welcome to completely disregard: if you do go halfling rogue, I'd bear in mind you are not likely going to be very strong, so any damage you're going to do in any significance is likely going to be sneak attack. If you're going to be solo or your ranger buddy is focusing on ranged combat, I'd suggest building a feint build, since you can't rely on an ally for flanking. Halfling rogues are small so focusing on stealth is a great way to go, and you may get some good hits off ambushing someone and attacking them while they're still flat-footed as well. Rogues are decent for solo play since they are fairly versatile, but they definitely do have a jack of all trades, master of none quality about them so try not to spread yourself too thin. If you're worried about lack of magic, make sure you can train Use Magic Device so you can at least use some magic items. If you find yourself wanting somewhere, you could always consider dipping into another class to round yourself out more (for example, if focusing on melee combat, dipping into fighter for the BAB boost and extra feat). Don't multi too much though or you'll loose out on sneak attack progression (if sneak attack is important to you). Rogues do not make good meat shields, no, in terms of damage absorption, but you can boost their AC pretty well, especially with high Dex. So the trick is more avoid being hit than being able to take lots of damage.
For a small party, I'd say a Rogue and Ranger combined make a good team, and certainly will have most skill bases covered except for knowledges. They certainly both can make good scouts so that's nice.
I don't know how the dual GM thing will work to be honest, but it can't hurt to try. Just remember you're half of a normal party size so adjust your challenges appropriately--keep the CRs low.
I have run with just two people where the player has two to three characters and the DM has a character to run. It is complicated but since there are only two of you, things tend to go fast.
You could just run the two of you and just have smaller or lower CR encounters. If you want to run an adventure path, I suggest you run some other adventure at 1st level to get a few levels or just start at a higher level. Instead of 1st level, I would start at 3rd level and the encounters should not be too hard for just two characters. With only two of you splitting the XP, you will advance quicker and you should make it through okay. Healing and spellcasting will be missed but you do what you can. You should also have more wealth than the normal characters of your level.
I like the idea of a stealthy pair of adventurers. Usually, the cleric and fighter clank their way down the dungeon.
|
This is the most untrue statement I have seen on these forums. Two-weapon fighting requires a very high chance to hit and a lot of feats. Because of this, fighters make the best two-weapon fighters, followed closely by rangers. Rogues would be the worst two-weapon fighters if they didn't get so much out of it from sneak attack.
lol thanks I have been biting my tongue the whole time while reading these forums. On that note, Dex based anything is pretty bad compared to a STR build.
Also, pathfinder is totally different than classic DnD since you can pretty much craft any character you like with the addition of Archetypes. Familiarize yourself with these rules. When building your character ask yourself these simple questions:
1. What one thing I want my character to do in combat? (Damage people, Debuff, Buff, Heal, ect.)
2. What one skill/skillset do I want to use? (One Skill or if skillset: Catburglar (Acrobatics, Stealth, Disable Device), Cutpurse (Stealth, Sleight of Hand, Bluff), Conman (Bluff, Disguise, Diplomacy), ect.)
3. What's the best possible combination of race/stat array/class and archetype to accomplish these tasks?
4. Does the best combination match the character image in my head or am I willing to sacrifice some optimization for flavor/background reasons?
Now with the mechanics done behind building a character effective at what you want to do, flesh out the concept with background information and add in at least one quirk (a fighter who always cleans his armor except for three days a year, a sorcerer scared of slugs and sloths, a beautiful elven druid who munches on bugs pulled from her unkempt hair every time someone hits on her, ect.).
Wow I did not expect so many replies so quickly, thank you for that first of all!
I'll try to address as many people as possible here.
So far the only hardcover books we've got are the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary. It does bother me a little bit not having the Advanced one, but I think my plate is overflowing already as it is. I'll also just throw in there that I've never played a tabletop RPG. I Have played Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights series when I was younger, though the whole rule concept didn't really sink in, I'm still familiar with a lot of the spells and a few of the terms.
As far as my character concept goes, I would like to be able to dish out good damage, and be able to take a hit as well.. But without being a generic "Fighter" and not too much emphasis on Spells. I will admit that when I had Rogue in mind for our Duo, I had the mindset I would be more stealth than the Ranger and that Sneak Attack would be an extremely devastating asset, and perhaps we could avoid any grave danger at first with trapfinding and our sneakiness. Having reading your replies I see that is not quite the case, haha. I'm almost certain my friend would be going the Archer route with the Ranger.
And to rkraus2, you are correct, we plan to alternate DM's between the two of us while maintaining our own Characters. Which brings me to the idea of making two characters each, at first glance this seems like a great idea, but wouldn't it overcomplicate an already complicated situation? Heh. We are honestly having a real hard time learning the game because we are both overthinking everything.
Thank you again very much, to each and every one of you that replied, this is all very helpful!
While I normally would not recommend it for new players, I will for you guys if you are sure you are going to only have the two of you. There is something called 'gestalt' rules for dnd 3.5 (which pathfinder is based off of). Very simply stated, with these rules your character has two separate classes, and you take the better attributes from whichever side is greater and all of the class abilities.
So for instance, if you went rogue 1/Cleric 1, you would get the strong reflex save from the rogue, and the strong fortitude and will save from the cleric. You would take the base attack bonus from either (its the same for rogue and cleric) and the skill points from the rogue (which is higher) but class skill list from bith. You would get all of the class abilities from both classes. This makes characters that are somewhat more powerful then normal, but particularly they are more versatile (can fill more of the classic DnD/Pathfinder roles). In addition, I would recommend at least one of you take a 'pet' class as one of your classes. In the core rules thats the druid at 1st level.
Have your friend play a gestalt druid/ranger and you yourself play a rogue/wizard,sorceror or bard). With your friend's animal companion (and possible second animal companion at 4th level) you wouldnt be as low on numbers you would with just the two of you, and you would have a front liner (put armor on the animal companion and they make great tanks and the ranger/druid can also be an excellent combatant), lots of skills, arcane magic, and divine magic. With that setup you can probably take on most adventure paths without too much more difficulty then is normal.
Is there any way at all that you can get more players? Ask parents/siblings, maybe? Knock on neighbours' doors? Post an ad in a local shop? I think the lack of players is going to be the biggest hurdle to your enjoyment and learning.
Secondly, all the rules are here.
Before starting Shattered Star, think about running a module. It'll give you an idea of how the game works and what you like before launching into a fully-fledged AP (Adventure Path). Free modules can be found here.
Lastly, ignore what anyone says about class X being under/overpowered; if you enjoy playing it, play it.
