no one likes mine? :( It's my first rogue ever and I was planning on playing it in my next game.
Still trying to figure it out. You left out rogue talents and feats.
OK, that makes sense now.
Not really going to comment since I'm no fan of sap master.
The problem is that it is so out of whack with the rest of rogue performance. It is also rather binary since once you make a build around it, if you are not doing the sneak attack, or targeting something vulnerable to non lethal damage, you are left out in the cold.
I suppose another objection I have to it is that it papers over the deficiencies in the class my making a data point in which one build does massive performance and so can be pointed to as justification that rogues are fine in general.
okay so lets study the rogue
but throw out this good thing right here
now let us get back to it
okay so lets study the rogue
but throw out this good thing right here
now let us get back to it
I can build a lot of rangers with a lot of styles and my performance won't be all over the map. Without sap master, your build falls apart. In addition the build is situational. Try figuring your damage out against undead. I can assure you it is utterly laughable. How about contructs? Oozes? Elementals? All are pretty much a case where you better just run since you won't be doing much at all to them.
If it is not clear that one anomalous schtick does not a class make, then I don't really see any point in this discussion.
True though a rogue will be worthless again oozes and elementals regardless of whether you take this. They're both immune to sneak attack whether you deal nonlethal anyways.
Even if you went two hander as a rogue and tried to fight them without sneak attack your damage would be dang near worthless.
True enough, but you have added additional categories by adopting this trick. At least one of those constitutes a pretty large chunk of foes at that (undead).
I'm already familiar with what it's like to run up against a class of critter you can't do much to. I play a witch in a home game, and running into undead just means I get to play buff machine since I have few enough options to do anything to them. The rogue wouldn't even have the buff options.
I have a tendency to build fighters for PFS just to prove I can make viable ones. This is in spite of the fact that I know I could make something even better with other classes. Though I think I may start bowing to rangers and barbarians soon just because some of the shinies are pretty appealing.
True though a rogue will be worthless again oozes and elementals regardless of whether you take this. They're both immune to sneak attack whether you deal nonlethal anyways.
Even if you went two hander as a rogue and tried to fight them without sneak attack your damage would be dang near worthless.
True enough, but you have added additional categories by adopting this trick. At least one of those constitutes a pretty large chunk of foes at that (undead).
I'm already familiar with what it's like to run up against a class of critter you can't do much to. I play a witch in a home game, and running into undead just means I get to play buff machine since I have few enough options to do anything to them. The rogue wouldn't even have the buff options.
Also should be noted that with the unarmed build you wont be in fact useless against foes immune to non-lethal damage. you can change to lethal with no penalty to attack rolls, dealing the same SA damage a rogue twf with short swords would do, for example.
There's a reason that most of my builds have +3 adamantine weapons. It's a lot cheaper than +4, and you get to bypass all material DR.
At high enough level when the cost is manageable I move to +5, but once you have the +3 adamantine you're close enough and can spend on other toys.
A class is like a football team, imagine fans of Barcelona and Manchester opening a thread to discuss how can they make Real Madrid better...You are starting a war.
As someone from Barcelona, I have two things to say about that:
- You are totally right- Real Madrid made the first and more important pass for become a better team; they get rid of Mourinho.
As for the rogue thing, on my group Ninja has basically make Rogue obsolete. We have no problem changing the fluff. Curiously, another of the most problematic classes, Monk, is one of the favourites on my group, in part for our high stats array.
Edit: I think Lumiere is right. Many classes can make some of the basic rogue roles, but all together is difficult.
Also should be noted that with the unarmed build you wont be in fact useless against foes immune to non-lethal damage. you can change to lethal with no penalty to attack rolls, dealing the same SA damage a rogue twf with short swords would do for example, with the added bonus of not being so dependant on flanking as him.
While I get the shatter defenses for sneak attack trick, again this won't manage to impress undead or constructs. I didn't see anything else in the build to generate them, though it is possible I missed something.
ugh
dammit wakedown do not make me come outta the booth
anyways
here are some issues with rogueing
Enemy Subtypes Immune to Precision-based Damage (Sneak Attack):
Elemental
Incorporeal
Ooze
Protean (50% chance to ignore SA damage)
Enemy Subtypes Immune to Flanking
Ooze (Immune to SA damage anyway)
Swarm
Elemental (Immune to SA damage anyway)
Enemy Subtypes Immune to Critical Hits
Aeon
Elemental
Incorporeal
Ooze
Protean
Swarm
The big scarys that appear on all three lists:
Elementals
Oozes
now, to solve things
1. Incorporeals - Elixir of Spirit Sight, Ghost Blanch, or Ghost Touch Weapons (+1 bonus)
2. Elementals - Amulet of Elemental Strife, Elemental Outsider Bane Weapons (+1 Bonus)
3. Oozes - Yeah, they suck, but Dust of Acid Consumption is cheap and will work on a lot of them about 30-50% of the time
4. Swarms - Swarmbane Clasp, fire
I'm not really sure, but I've heard of books with metal covers, so why not?
Hmm let´s see...
My rogue has 133 of average damage while S.A at level 10
PFS has 70 monster CR 10.
2 of them don´t take S.A. 90% has life between 90 and 130.
why rogue is so underpowered?
why rogue is so underpowered?
Because if that sneak attack doesn't go off, you might as well be throwing spitballs (hyperbole, I know) and there's a lot of ways to make sure that sneak attack doesn't happen.
Also, I don't quite get why people are targeting a CR 10 target with a level 10 PC. That is not a normal encounter (or it is meant to be a walk-over in any case so it is hardly a measure of anything). Say it is 3 CR 10 critters. Then fine, you can gank the first one. You put some hurt on the second one. Then you have a problem before you will not be ranged sneaking again that combat most likely.
Also we are assuming you got in a place where you can pull off the sneak. Maybe you will maybe you won't. The key problem with rogues is how situational they are.
|
As a rogue, I always liked it when the party ran into an incorporeal, ooze, elemental or swarm.
"Hey, Mister Wizard - you totally got this right? I'm uh, going to go make sure we don't get ambushed from the east corridor while you take care of it..."
Now the rogue has a chance to sneak ahead and poke their head into a treasure room for some pre-looting.
Or...
Pull a second encounter that's less immune to their attacks for even more fun!
What, your group doesn't pull two encounters at once? They're totally missing out on the extra fun that fighting the dungeon all at one time brings.
why rogue is so underpowered?
Because if that sneak attack doesn't go off, you might as well be throwing spitballs (hyperbole, I know) and there's a lot of ways to make sure that sneak attack doesn't happen.
Also, I don't quite get why people are targeting a CR 10 target with a level 10 PC. That is not a normal encounter (or it is meant to be a walk-over in any case so it is hardly a measure of anything). Say it is 3 CR 10 critters. Then fine, you can gank the first one. You put some hurt on the second one. Then you have a problem before you will not be ranged sneaking again that combat most likely.
Also we are assuming you got in a place where you can pull off the sneak. Maybe you will maybe you won't. The key problem with rogues is how situational they are.
So a make a char that lead the group damage when sneak attacking, support the group damage when not sneak attacking, and can help the group in almost all the situations out of combat and that isn´t good enough just because i´m a rogue.....
Other classes can do that? Sure, in different ways. That makes the rogue inferior?
Your rogue will lead in damage for a round. Sniping is not a tactic that works past one round. If you are detected before that, or don't win initiative, you don't even get that.
The sap masters make a better case, but even in that case there are holes in it, and that is for one specific build with added categories of enemies immune to the schtick.
The fact that you have to find limited edge cases to make the rogue competitive ought to say something.
Your rogue will lead in damage for a round. Sniping is not a tactic that works past one round. If you are detected before that, or don't win initiative, you don't even get that.
The sap masters make a better case, but even in that case there are holes in it, and that is for one specific build with added categories of enemies immune to the schtick.
The fact that you have to find limited edge cases to make the rogue competitive ought to say something.
So the problem of the rogue is make the sneak attack happen. If the rogue can sneak attack all the time without restrictions will be fair?
So the problem of the rogue is make the sneak attack happen. If the rogue can sneak attack all the time without restrictions will be fair?
For most rogue builds it would be as their DPR would not be excessive. For these outlier builds it would not.
I would consider it a better system if it didn't have localized spikes of performance like these. Also again these builds are subject to limitations which again make performance vary wildly.
Is what i´m trying to say. For some builds the S.A restrictions makes the rogue underpowered, for others builds is just the game balance.
So the problem of the rogue is make the sneak attack happen. If the rogue can sneak attack all the time without restrictions will be fair?For most rogue builds it would be as their DPR would not be excessive. For these outlier builds it would not.
I would consider it a better system if it didn't have localized spikes of performance like these. Also again these builds are subject to limitations which again make performance vary wildly.
I do think this is really the biggest issue the rogue has: how effective it is as a class is going to vary wildly depending on the the campaign they're in. Trapfinding, Trap Spotter, and the like really only pay off if traps are at Gygaxian levels of ubiquity, which the game as a whole seems to be moving away from. Really, the whole trap system need some changes, to make traps more interesting and relevant to the entire party. I'd prefer traps as story elements with narrative consequences/solutions, rather just "Roll a d20. If it's high enough, you win. Otherwise, you take Xd6 damage." Stuff like traps that split the party or alert the enemy to your presence just carries a lot more interest to me.
Then there's all the issues attached to sneak attack, which just has way too many potential failure points for my tastes. Sure, you can do plenty of damage when things go perfectly right, but there always seem to be several "ifs" attached to that. Sap Master Sap Masters do tons of damage if the opponent can be demoralized, if they succeed on the intimidate check to do so, if the opponent doesn't have Uncanny Dodge or something else that makes them immune to being flat-footed, if if the opponent can take nonlethal damage, and if the enemy isn't immune to sneak attacks due to race or circumstance (light conditions, spells, armor enchants/class abilities). Plus the attack still needs to hit (with medium BAB) and the rogue still suffers the common martial issue of losing a ton of effectiveness when they move.
I would personally prefer a significant reduction in the number of ifs a rogue needs to jump through to make their abilities work. I'd prefer rogues that can consistently do good damage over ones that can do crazy damage when the stars align, but other times does close to nothing.
In theory, and the way you say, look like impossible S.A. If you play a rogue you will see that it is a lot easier.
Looks like it's totally proven that there's lots of other folks who can "do the same job as the rogue".
No, there’s just one, the Archeologist Bard. But that’s only if we really need a dedicated trapfinder. Such Gygaxian dungeons are rare today.
No, there’s just one, the Archeologist Bard. But that’s only if we really need a dedicated trapfinder. Such Gygaxian dungeons are rare today.
Add being a dwarf to the rest of them and you have trapfinding in essence.
In theory, and the way you say, look like impossible S.A. If you play a rogue you will see that it is a lot easier.
In my game, we have a rogue with an improved version of the class (has ninja tricks and ki as well). He has improved invisibility, as well as +20 to acrobatics to tumble into flanking positions with a ki point. He can also sneak against concealed creatures (with a % to resist the sneak equal to the concealment), and in my game incorporeal undeads and elementals with vaguely humanoid forms are sneak-able.
And he still miss a lot of combats because he can't sneak. Last sunday, against a pair of Shoggoth.
No, there’s just one, the Archeologist Bard. But that’s only if we really need a dedicated trapfinder. Such Gygaxian dungeons are rare today.Looks like it's totally proven that there's lots of other folks who can "do the same job as the rogue".
Several others have proved to do it too. The ones that you say they don't, is because they don't have Trap Spotter. But if having Trap Spotter is necesary for being a "gygaxian-type" rogue, then rogues in gygaxian-era weren't gygaxian-type rogues. As this statement is obviously wrong, the obvious conclusion is that Trap Spotter isn't needed to be a gygaxian-type rogue.
In theory, and the way you say, look like impossible S.A. If you play a rogue you will see that it is a lot easier.In my game, we have a rogue with an improved version of the class (has ninja tricks and ki as well). He has improved invisibility, as well as +20 to acrobatics to tumble into flanking positions with a ki point. He can also sneak against concealed creatures (with a % to resist the sneak equal to the concealment), and in my game incorporeal undeads and elementals with vaguely humanoid forms are sneak-able.
And he still miss a lot of combats because he can't sneak. Last sunday, against a pair of Shoggoth.
Ok, let me teach your rogue:
High stealth allow you sneak attack the surprise round.
High initiative allow you sneak attack the first round.
Hunter´s surprise take no action allow you sneak attack the second and third round, and allow you sneak attack opponents with uncanny dodge.
Greater TW Feint allow you sneak attack all the others rounds.
In theory, and the way you say, look like impossible S.A. If you play a rogue you will see that it is a lot easier.In my game, we have a rogue with an improved version of the class (has ninja tricks and ki as well). He has improved invisibility, as well as +20 to acrobatics to tumble into flanking positions with a ki point. He can also sneak against concealed creatures (with a % to resist the sneak equal to the concealment), and in my game incorporeal undeads and elementals with vaguely humanoid forms are sneak-able.
And he still miss a lot of combats because he can't sneak. Last sunday, against a pair of Shoggoth.
Ok, let me teach your rogue:
High stealth allow you sneak attack the surprise round.
High initiative allow you sneak attack the first round.
Hunter´s surprise take no action allow you sneak attack the second and third round, and allow you sneak attack opponents with uncanny dodge.
Greater TW Feint allow you sneak attack all the others rounds.
None of those would had worked against the Shoggoths.
No, there’s just one, the Archeologist Bard. But that’s only if we really need a dedicated trapfinder. Such Gygaxian dungeons are rare today.Looks like it's totally proven that there's lots of other folks who can "do the same job as the rogue".
A Dwarf Ranger with both the Trapper and Dungeon Rover archetypes (which do stack) will also work (and probably better). He would also eventually get 5 extra feet of trap spotting.
Several others have proved to do it too. The ones that you say they don't, is because they don't have Trap Spotter. But if having Trap Spotter is necesary for being a "gygaxian-type" rogue, then rogues in gygaxian-era weren't gygaxian-type rogues. As this statement is obviously wrong, the obvious conclusion is that Trap Spotter isn't needed to be a gygaxian-type rogue.No, there’s just one, the Archeologist Bard. But that’s only if we really need a dedicated trapfinder. Such Gygaxian dungeons are rare today.Looks like it's totally proven that there's lots of other folks who can "do the same job as the rogue".
Because the rules were different, there was no need for trap spotter. There was no “Perception” skill, either, so we can also skip this as important? The AD&D thief class worked under a different set of rules for his ‘skills” entirely. Trust me, that was the period when I was writing stuff for the game.
A Dwarf Ranger with both the Trapper and Dungeon Rover archetypes (which do stack) will also work (and probably better). He would also eventually get 5 extra feet of trap spotting.No, there’s just one, the Archeologist Bard. But that’s only if we really need a dedicated trapfinder. Such Gygaxian dungeons are rare today.Looks like it's totally proven that there's lots of other folks who can "do the same job as the rogue".
Dungeon Rover archetype??
The way to really replace the rogue is to play a Trap Breaker Alchemist. This is a pretty good archetype from the Dungeoneer's handbook. Anyway, in exchange for their poison use and poison resistances, they can detect and disarm both mechanical and magical traps (at level 8) by throwing one of his bombs at it.
So, then you have a character with a lot of skills, trap disabling/detection, bombs, discoveries, extracts, and a mutagen. Far far far better than a rogue in my opinion.
Edit: Well, I guess the one downside is that the character would need a silence spell on him if he wants to disarm a magical trap silently.
Because the rules were different, there was no need for trap spotter. There was no “Perception” skill, either, so we can also skip this as important? The AD&D thief class worked under a different set of rules for his ‘skills” entirely. Trust me, that was the period when I was writing stuff for the game.Several others have proved to do it too. The ones that you say they don't, is because they don't have Trap Spotter. But if having Trap Spotter is necesary for being a "gygaxian-type" rogue, then rogues in gygaxian-era weren't gygaxian-type rogues. As this statement is obviously wrong, the obvious conclusion is that Trap Spotter isn't needed to be a gygaxian-type rogue.No, there’s just one, the Archeologist Bard. But that’s only if we really need a dedicated trapfinder. Such Gygaxian dungeons are rare today.Looks like it's totally proven that there's lots of other folks who can "do the same job as the rogue".
The rules were different, but gygaxian-era thiefs detected traps by slowing the game, you said it yourself in this thread. And using ten feet poles in every corridor is no longer considered fun, nor it is needed either.
Claiming than a urban ranger can't be a rogue replacement because they don't have trap spotter is just whimsical. The current AP don't need to slow down the game by using ten feet poles in every corridor, couse traps are not so ubiquitous and not so lethal. If the urban ranger would be playing in a gygaxian-type dungeon, with thousands of "you die" traps, then they'll could solve that just like the gygaxian-era thief did. By using ten feet poles and slowing the game.
Considering the rogue essential because he has access to a certain talent that is no longer needed in the current gaming enviroment doesn't hold any water at all.
Dungeon Rover archetype??A Dwarf Ranger with both the Trapper and Dungeon Rover archetypes (which do stack) will also work (and probably better). He would also eventually get 5 extra feet of trap spotting.No, there’s just one, the Archeologist Bard. But that’s only if we really need a dedicated trapfinder. Such Gygaxian dungeons are rare today.Looks like it's totally proven that there's lots of other folks who can "do the same job as the rogue".
Dungeoneer's Handbook. Dungeon Rover
Because the rules were different, there was no need for trap spotter. There was no “Perception” skill, either, so we can also skip this as important? The AD&D thief class worked under a different set of rules for his ‘skills” entirely. Trust me, that was the period when I was writing stuff for the game.Several others have proved to do it too. The ones that you say they don't, is because they don't have Trap Spotter. But if having Trap Spotter is necesary for being a "gygaxian-type" rogue, then rogues in gygaxian-era weren't gygaxian-type rogues. As this statement is obviously wrong, the obvious conclusion is that Trap Spotter isn't needed to be a gygaxian-type rogue.No, there’s just one, the Archeologist Bard. But that’s only if we really need a dedicated trapfinder. Such Gygaxian dungeons are rare today.Looks like it's totally proven that there's lots of other folks who can "do the same job as the rogue".
The rules were different, but gygaxian-era thiefs detected traps by slowing the game, you said it yourself in this thread. And using ten feet poles in every corridor is no longer considered fun, nor it is needed either.
Claiming than a urban ranger can't be a rogue replacement because they don't have trap spotter is just whimsical. The current AP don't need to slow down the game by using ten feet poles in every corridor, couse traps are not so ubiquitous and not so lethal. If the urban ranger would be playing in a gygaxian-type dungeon, with thousands of "you die" traps, then they'll could solve that just like the gygaxian-era thief did. By using ten feet poles and slowing the game.
Considering the rogue essential because he has access to a certain talent that is no longer needed in the current gaming enviroment doesn't hold any water at all.
Well, you see the rules weren’t as strict. Every DM I played with, except one at a CON tourney, allowed me to specify “standard operating procedures” and we went with that rather than slowing down the game. Indeed, even here in the days of PF, I said “if you have a lenient DM…” but in AD&D days you didn’t need to have a lenient DM, just not a ultra-strict DM. Remember, guy , I was one of the group that invented the Thief class, been playing since 1974.
Indeed I have made the point several times that deadly Gygaxian dungeons are not part of the current PF AP series. I said that *IF* you play in one, and THUS that role become essential, then the rogue can’t easily be replaced. You're just not reading the thread and my posts, I made that exact point many times.
Indeed I have made the point several times that deadly Gygaxian dungeons are not part of the current PF AP series. I said that *IF* you play in one, and THUS that role become essential, then the rogue can’t easily be replaced. You're just not reading the thread and my posts, I made that exact point many times.
I'm reading your posts. It's just that they don't hold any water, being playing since 1974 or not. IF you play in a type of dungeon that are no longer very common, you only need a GM that allow "standard operating procedures" like they did back when the rogues didn't have Trap Spotter (which mean 95% of the game history, and 99.999% of the rogues, because not every rogue have it in pathfinder either). A urban ranger, trapper ranger, crypt breaker alchemist, or any of the bards can perfectly work in a gygaxian dungeon, if you have a Dungeon Master that does not purposelly try to bog down the game not allowing you to declare "standard procedures"
None of those would had worked against the Shoggoths.
Yes ,but he can use that in the others 99% of encouters. So he won´t miss a lot of combats anymore...just one or two.
Dungeoneer's Handbook. Dungeon RoverDungeon Rover archetype??A Dwarf Ranger with both the Trapper and Dungeon Rover archetypes (which do stack) will also work (and probably better). He would also eventually get 5 extra feet of trap spotting.No, there’s just one, the Archeologist Bard. But that’s only if we really need a dedicated trapfinder. Such Gygaxian dungeons are rare today.Looks like it's totally proven that there's lots of other folks who can "do the same job as the rogue".
A Half-Orc Ranger with the Scavenger racial trait and the same archetypes would also work. But if you go Dwarf and don't dump Wis, your Perception will be at least 1 point higher. You could also dump the Shapeshifter archetype on top as well to go the natural attack route which might appeal more to the (Toothy) Half-Orc. Whether that is enough to make up for no sneak attack damage is debatable, but it should easily outperform base rogue two weapon fighting until 8th for the Dwarf or 15th for the Toothy Half-Orc.
Get a few permanent +5 magic fang enchantments, an amulet of mighty fists, and make smart favored enemy choices and you can probably (I'm not a math cruncher) outperform sneak attack, or at least hold your own.
Ok, let me teach your rogue:High stealth allow you sneak attack the surprise round.
High initiative allow you sneak attack the first round.
Hunter´s surprise take no action allow you sneak attack the second and third round, and allow you sneak attack opponents with uncanny dodge.
Greater TW Feint allow you sneak attack all the others rounds.
Stealth doesn't let you sneak attack in a surprise round. In fact if you use stealth by moving you wont get to sneak attack in a surprise round. You can either move or attack, not both.
The Surprise Round: If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs.
To top it off, suprise rounds are usually super rare events in games I play in. Most often nobody gets the drop on anybody. Sir Clanksalot in his fullplate usually gives it away.
High Iniative will allow you to get Sneak Attack for that one round, then nobody is flat-footed. Hope that they don't have something like Defensive Strategist trait though, because that kills it.
Hunter's Surprise is once per day, and allows you to ignore normal flanking or flat-footed necessity on an enemy. This works, but only once per day. Glad you don't need to sneak attack more than 1 thing a day. It also doesn't let you overcome Uncanny Dodge or Blur or the other multitude of things that will prevent a sneak attack.
Hunter's Surprise (Ex): Once per day, a rogue with this talent can designate a single enemy she is adjacent to as her prey. Until the end of her next turn, she can add her sneak attack damage to all attacks made against her prey, even if she is not flanking it or it is not flat-footed.
Improved Two-Weapon Feint (I assume you mean Improved since there isn't a Greater) is actually a valid way to get multiple sneak attacks. However, you still have make a successful bluff check against the enemy, and you loose your primary highest BAB attack. Thus reducing significantly your chance to hit. On a 3/4 BAB class losing one of you highest BAB attacks is a significant detriment and will often result in missing more time than you will hit with your remaining attacks.
So no, not how you "rogue".
Stealth allow you make the surprise round.
High Initiative will allow you to get Sneak Attack for that one round,that is what i said.
Hunter´s Initiative you are right...i´m post it to fast so i don´t check.
Yes, it is Improved, not great. but the bluff check is easy and that attack can be replaced by haste...
and, of course, you can flank almost all the time.