What is better than a Rogue in skills? The Bard will be better after level 6, the alchemist if he maxed int, a Ranger in his favored terrain... and the Caster using Int at higher level. So, yes, he is one of the best in skills.
Oh this merry song and dance, we are joined once more.
Having lots of skill points doesn't necessarily make you good at skills. Skill Synergy and options that expand the use of skills are what is truly important.
A Bard for example, is more useful skills-wise even before 6th. He gets essentially free ranks in Knowledge skills and gains 1 for 2 skill points through Versatile Performance. Furthermore, Versatile Performance changes the ability modifier required to Charisma. For example, Versatile Performance Dance allows you to use Charisma for Acrobatics checks essentially. He can auto succeed on Knowledge checks which is a godsend for progressing or gaining plot related information. He can make them untrained so can always atleast make the roll.
A Ranger by default is just as good at skills as a Rogue and can be only better than them in their Favored Terrains or regarding their Favored Enemies.
At any given Skill, the Rogue is not better at that skill than any other excluding possibly Trapfinding. A Hobgoblin Fighter is as good at Stealth as a Hobgoblin Rogue. The Rogue is not better at Diplomacy than anyone else with Diplomacy as a Class Skill.
Having a few more skill points is pretty meaningless when you have 3 other party members who are bringing anywhere between 6-14 more skill points per level. Skills overlapping can easily mean skill points wasted. It is at this point that 8 skill points per level can be more of a burden than a benefit.
I can say more on this subject but that should be enough.
Sure, the Rogue don't get ''outside bonus'' on his skills. He will probably never be the ''best'' in a given skills. But he will touch to many different skills.
Like, for example, your Hobgoblin. Sure, he can be as good at Stealth than a Rogue.... But will he be good in acrobatics, Perception and Climb (which could be usefull in scouting situation).
And if you have 3 other specialised party mmember, good for you! I mean, your group will have it easy and you will be there when the ranger roll a 1 on his perception. And if you don't have a Ranger and a Bard in your group? Well, the Rogue can take up the big part of their role.
TarkXT:
Read one more time: One of the best.What is better than a Rogue in skills?
Seeker Sage Sorcerer
SlayerInvestigator
Urban Ranger
Bard (just about any flavor)
Inquisitors (depends on build)
Alchemists
It's not just about how many skill points you get to play with, but also how many other bonuses you can get to those skills as well as means to simply bypass the necessity of rolling. Sometimes that's spells. Sometimes it's other things.
Sure, the Rogue don't get ''outside bonus'' on his skills. He will probably never be the ''best'' in a given skills. But he will touch to many diffrent skills.
Then your statement has been proven false. The Rogue is and by your words will probably never be the best in any given skill.
False? No. Why must he be ''The Best'' in one skill to be ''one of the best''? And why should ''specialist'' should overshine ''generalist'' in skills?
I know that ''rogue bashing'' is the flavour of the month, but...
We call that playing a Rogue. Your role is not to get beside the big boss from round 1 to 5 while trying to get your sneak working. Your role is to give the final blow, or at least try to do so, and to attack the weaker one (like caster). Sure, you may pass 2-3 round to do some small distant attack or to try sneak your way behind the front line, and many will not like it... But it's what rogue do.
With a Scout, you chose when you attack, and you can get a Sneak almost every time you try. So yes, I advocate to charge an enemy that seems to be on the verge of death, and no, I don't advocate to charge a Red Dragon at full HP.
Most combats only last 1-3 rounds. If you are rogue doing little to nothing 2-3 rounds you probably aren't even going to get chance to land sneak attack. I find it better to use that great initiative that rogues tend to have to get that sneak attack in 1st round with ranged weapon as usually I'm going first before the melee guy. They move and attack and I start to move into position next round. If combat last long enough I'm taking down wounded opponents. This works great till higher level (higher that 12) when I tend to miss more as I'm not getting that +2 from flanking and flat footed opponents tend to be heavily armored with little if any dex to lose.
And my 9th level Oracle has a +22 Diplomacy versus my 10th level Rogue's +17.
Sure. And how many points in Sense Motive, Bluff and Intimidate? It should be easy for your rogue to get something not far from the +17 of diplo, right?
False? No. Why must he be ''The Best'' in one skill to be ''one of the best''? And why should ''specialist'' should overshine ''generalist'' in skills?
I know that ''rogue bashing'' is the flavour of the month, but...
It's not about Rogue bashing. I could give less of a damn about Rogue bashing.
The only thing I care about is showing how conceptually the Rogue fails to be the best at filling it's concepts. At which point it's essentially a glorified NPC class.
Dungeon Delver/Treasure Seeker? Archeologist Bard
Scout/Survivalist? Trapper Ranger
Cunning Rogue who relies on his wits rather than strength or reflexes? Alchemist
Dashing Rogue? Bard or Swashbuckler
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, Paizo didn't gave much love to the rogue. Or, maybe they gave too much love to some ''newer class''. I mean, for the CRB, there is only the Bard who can take the role of the rogue, and not at 100%. So, Why ask for a ''better Rogue'' and not for a less skillfull Alchemist? Trapper Ranger or wathever instead?
But, does it make the Rogue a glorified NPC class? I mean, as a player you can do something decent with the Rogue, and a huge part of the ''Roguish work'' relies on the RP. So I don't think so. I found this class very enjoyable and it can fill any gap in the ''skill combination'' of a party.
Nicos>
Well, a huge part of the problem with the Rogue come out in party who min-max. Sure, the fighter can have 8 in Int and char, and the Wizard can have 8 in cha, str and wis, and the synthesis alchemist can have 8 everywhere but in charisma and still beat the Fighter,but the Rogue can't. So the problem start here... But in group who don't try to get the better build, but the build that fit with their character, the Rogue is not that weak IMO.
I'll grant that the rogue gets plenty of skill points, but I think what's relevant is that other classes can equal or exceed the rogue at skills without needing to be so weak at combat. If bards and int-based characters can beat the rogue at skills and combat, it's a pretty solid indication that the rogue is not measuring up.
|
Sure. And how many points in Sense Motive, Bluff and Intimidate?
Well, my Life Oracle doesn't bother with lies or threats. She's a healer. Her Sense Motive is a +12.
If she needed to Bluff or Intimidate it would be a raw ability check of +7.My Rogue manages a +11 Sense Motive, +18 Bluff, and +9 Intimidate.
He started focusing on Bluff for feinting in combat, because he also tries to be an honest businessman.
My ideas for making the rogue work:
12+Int Skill Points, and give them a "class skill choosing" mechanic like the Expert instead of shoehorning them into classic AD&D roles.
Full BAB.
Ranged attacks can be treated as flanking for the purpose of Sneak Attack if there is an ally on the opposite side of your target.
Not perfect, but I think it at least lets them keep up.
I agree, Paizo didn't gave much love to the rogue. Or, maybe they gave too much love to some ''newer class''. I mean, for the CRB, there is only the Bard who can take the role of the rogue, and not at 100%. So, Why ask for a ''better Rogue'' and not for a less skillfull Alchemist? Trapper Ranger or wathever instead?
But, does it make the Rogue a glorified NPC class? I mean, as a player you can do something decent with the Rogue, and a huge part of the ''Roguish work'' relies on the RP. So I don't think so. I found this class very enjoyable and it can fill any gap in the ''skill combination'' of a party.
As for your first question, because currently playing the Rogue is an exercise in futility anywhere after level 4 unless the universe(I.E the DM) is taking careful pains to lift you up.
As for asking for weaker counterpoints instead of a stronger Rogue, why cripple the track meet to make the cripple feel better? It doesn't make for a better game, just a less enjoyable one.
As a player, I can enjoy anything I play in the right circumstance. A Commoner or Expert could be fun to play. Should that have any bearing in a balance debate? Gods no.
|
I tried playing Tripod Machine's Scout class in a home game and ran into much the same problems as I have found with the Rogue.
Even getting all my bonus dice on standard action attacks, I went entire sessions without hitting anything. Few of my skills really managed to come into play, and the dice often prevented me from succeeding save for Stealth.
As for your first question, because currently playing the Rogue is an exercise in futility anywhere after level 4 unless the universe(I.E the DM) is taking careful pains to lift you up.
I don't quite agree. It depends a lot of the DM and of the PC, and it's where thing go bad. If the player lack in imagination, the class will suck. If the DM do ''one room, one fight'', the class will suck. From my personnal experience, if you have imagination and a DM who like creativity, the Rogue can get a lot of fun to play.
As for asking for weaker counterpoints instead of a stronger Rogue, why cripple the track meet to make the cripple feel better? It doesn't make for a better game, just a less enjoyable one.
Because the crippel wasn't that crippled before they put those classe/ archtype in the game? Why give 6+int skills pts to the Alchemist? Why Making an Archeologist class who do the same thing as the Rogue, but get spell? And from what I've see, the new class will make it even worst...
But, it could be very easy to pump the rogue. Just giving him some ''favored skill'' at each 4 or 5 level where he could put half is level in bonus points would give him back the title of ''skill king''.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for your first question, because currently playing the Rogue is an exercise in futility anywhere after level 4 unless the universe(I.E the DM) is taking careful pains to lift you up.I don't quite agree. It depends a lot of the DM and of the PC, and it's where thing go bad. If the player lack in imagination, the class will suck. If the DM do ''one room, one fight'', the class will suck. From my personnal experience, if you have imagination and a DM who like creativity, the Rogue can get a lot of fun to play.
What makes the rogue benefit from imagination and creativity more than any other class? I would imagine that casters get the most out of an imaginative player, since spells give a lot more options to play around with.
I don't quite agree. It depends a lot of the DM and of the PC, and it's where thing go bad. If the player lack in imagination, the class will suck. If the DM do ''one room, one fight'', the class will suck. From my personnal experience, if you have imagination and a DM who like creativity, the Rogue can get a lot of fun to play.
Imagination and using it is not a class feature. Any character can do that. And believe me, varied scenarios hurt Rogues a lot more than one room one fight. Flying foes, spellcasters, haunts, lighting conditions, and terrain are all issues Rogues have difficulty with.
Because the cripple wasn't that crippled before they put those classe/ archtype in the game? Why give 6+int skills pts to the Alchemist? Why Making an Archeologist class who do the same thing as the Rogue, but get spell? And from what I've see, the new class will make it even worst...
Nerfing 6 options seems unnecessary when you can simply buff 1. The efficacy of the Rogue didn't change when those classes were released. It's just always been rather mediocre. CRB, the Bard was still a vastly better option and the Ranger was competitive with it. Druids made equivalent trap springers through spontaneous summons. And they all do combat better of course. And cast spells for utility.
But enough talk. Anecdotal experience is anecdotal. If you have a solid character to show then show it. I'm interested in seeing the math because the current math shows how under par Rogues are by comparison.
But I'm likely to be disappointed if your frame of reference for Rogues is Merry. That's a rather weak metric for Rogues to live by.
Imagination and using it is not a class feature. Any character can do that.
Not many class get as versatility in skills + Rogue Talents as the Rogue. Sure, as you pointed out some classe will pump some skill very high... But generally speaking, they will not have as much skill usable in ''stress'' situation as the Rogue. And that's were it goes better: sure, you can ''imagine'' your paladin in heavy armor jumping on a rope, to see him fail with a -3 in acrobatics...
Flying foes, spellcasters, haunts, lighting conditions, and terrain.
And... those scenario are more friendly for the other more ''martial'' class? A paladin will do far better than a Rogue in a flying fight in the night? You are pointing a problem that almost all martial class (and even the one with 4th level spell) will have...
Nerfing 6 options seems unnecessary when you can simply buff 1. The efficacy of the Rogue didn't change when those classes were released. It's just always been rather mediocre. CRB, the Bard was still a vastly better option and the Ranger was competitive with it. Druids made equivalent trap springers through spontaneous summons. And they all do combat better of course. And cast spells for utility.
The bard was not that better. Sure, the spell give it a head, but the bard is as much dependant of the group as the rogue and not all player like spell, And at that time, the Bard and the Rogue didn't completely overlap in use, but with the Archeologist...The Ranger? Sure, in his favorite terrain. And the Druid? At high level he can use his summon, sure... but at low? Will he use one summon per door, in case of? And why 6 class instead of 1? Because they were created after, with the idea of ''taking some speciality of the rogue and giving it to other class'', maybe?
I'm interested in seeing the math because the current math shows how under par Rogues are by comparison.
If I wanted to do math, I would do math. Pathfinder is a Roleplaying Game, so I roleplay. If my concept fit better with a Rogue, I will play a Rogue.
Sure, as I have said, if you play with player who min-max and try to get the better of the class, the rogue will fall behind, I never said the other way. The Rogue mechanics are not good for optimization: no real dump stats, damage that will always be behind the Full BAB, no option to overcome the ''move, one attack'', few option to get sneak each turn... But in your ''regular group'', the Rogue is not as bad as some people say on this board.
But in your ''regular group'', the Rogue is not as bad as some people say on this board.
Actually this assertion have a lot of truth. A dex based TWF (or feint) based rogue do just fine in a non optimized group, and tose are two pretty comon tropes for players (not like the trap monk could be for newish players).
But the point is, if A,B and C works fine for low powered gamers but only A and B works for people with system mastery then there is still a problem with C.
The problem is, maybe, more a problem of MAD than a problem of class. You can't really min-max a Rogue: For? Damage. Dex? Skill, armor Con? HP. Int? Skill. Wis? Will. Cha? All the ''face part''. It's one of the more MAD class in the setting, and it hurt when you try to optimize. While the other class can work with one (wizard, witch, sorcrer), two or three stat, the Rogue can't really do that. IMO
More Anecdotes
If you're not interested in backing up your statements with a character, then I have no interest in reading them.
It's good that you play in an environment that allows the Rogue success but against the vast majority of possible challenges in the Bestiaries, APs, and Modules, the Rogue is rather lacking after about 4th level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not many class get as versatility in skills + Rogue Talents as the Rogue. Sure, as you pointed out some classe will pump some skill very high... But generally speaking, they will not have as much skill usable in ''stress'' situation as the Rogue. And that's were it goes better: sure, you can ''imagine'' your paladin in heavy armor jumping on a rope, to see him fail with a -3 in acrobatics...
I listed 7 classes out of 19 that can be better skill monkeys than the rogue. I don't often count the druid, but sure, given the right shape and spells he can do better as well.
All are generally better/more valuable in combat as well. It's kind of a damning combination.
I'm interested in seeing the math because the current math shows how under par Rogues are by comparison.If I wanted to do math, I would do math....
Then don't expect support here. This thread does not exist for the purposes of accepting mediocrity or telling people they don't know how to play. If you put in the effort and its found wanting you can choose to accept that, defend it, or shrug and do better. Saying you don't feel like it while simultaneously telling people that the problem is their imagination is merely infuriating.
I actually think that the major problem for rogues have been the lack of good support from paizo in the form of good (Rogue only) rogue talents.
Man tell me about it. On a whim I wrote the foundation for a good rogue rewrite and the talents I was coming up with were just plain a lot better then what I read. And it was nothing much more powerful than anything barbarians or alchemists got.
|
First the goal
I'm going to make our goal here as clear as possible. We wish to make a rogue (PURE rogue) that can perform roguish functions while dealing enough damage in combat to be on par with his spellcasting peers (bards, aclehmists, etc.). We do not want to surpass them as that may prove more difficult than it's worth.
Dipping is allowed but only like one or two levels
Our tools
Just so we have a common ground to work with here keep things paizo published, and 20pt. buy.
Builds posted if any must be functional at all levels and try to come to fruition at or before 10th level (because we want to talk to the pfs crowd as well)
Well, I just stumbled upon the Rogue's best friend, the homunculus (added HD as much as possible) who flanks for him (flies, uses any weapon). But other than that, I would say the following is a must after 5th level - 1 level of Shadowdancer. HIPS is a must for getting sneak attack damage all the time (not to mention full cover bonus). After that I would say a rogue only needs a few magic items to cover the BAB downside: an "at will" ring of true strike (or a x/day, whatever they can afford), and something that adds darkness (so they can HIPS).
An alternate build would be the sniping rogue, but one attack a round is kind of lame. Composite bows work, with high strength, point blank shot, multishot, rapid reload and eventually the threat range bow skills that allow 5 and 15 feet of melee threat range (but I think these may be a bit higher BAB than a 10th level would have) allow a rogue to flank and do sneak attack at point blank ranges of up to 15 feet. (so a 5 foot step means 20' really)
The class works, just fine... so far as I have ever crafted a rogue character into a killing machine.
ps. taking one adv rogue talent which reduces the defender's str by 2 with no save every sneak attack is the bomb end all of rogue uberness. Think about what happens when people lose 6-12 points of strength. coup de gras anyone? (I also already outlined a "whip master" rogue in another thread that could, in theory, kill everything in a 25' radius circle in one round, something like 4375d6 damage, granted a fighter doing about the same was about 1/3 the dice but close in total damage)
Okay, I have found a way to balance the rogue. If you think it makes the rogue too OP, well let him be the OP class for a while as he has been last for enough years to enjoy some love.
Give the rogue 16 skill points per level + 2xINT and let him invest up to two ranks per level in each skill. If all these skills make everyone in PFS play say, "Wow, Joe is much too useful out of combat with his rogue. He is outshining all other classes!" ..we can get out the nerf bat.
If, as I suspect, he has one clear niche that is MOSTLY out of combat, and some skills actually help him tumble to flanking positions at higher level and be useful, he will be much improved but not overly so.
Here:
(half-orc rogue scout 10, 15 pts build)
For : 20 (+2racial, +2 magic, +1 level)
Con :14 (+2magic)
Dex : 14(+1 level)
Int : 12
Wis :16 (+4 magic)
Cha: 11
HP: 10d8+20+10+10 (85)
AC: 18(10+2dex+6armor)
Fort: +6 Ref: +10 Will: +8
BAB:+7/+2
Feat:
1: Unarmed Strike
2: Dodge
3: Dragon Style
4: Mobility
5: Snake Style
6:Spring Attack
7: iron Will
8: combat style master
9:toughness
Rogue talent: 4x combat feat, Slippery Mind
Attack: falchion+2: +14/+9 (2d4+11), 15-20/x2
Special: Sneak attack +5d6
Equipment:
Falchion+2 keen, belt of physical might (con/for+2), headband of inspired wisdom +4, studded leather armor +3 shadow (should still have around 5000 gp)
He should hit monster of is CR a little bit more than 50% of the time without any party boost, and be able to sneak each round for something around 31 damages. For the AC: snake style could give him something around 28 every rounds. And he can charge everywhere, almost. He will not be the star in combat, but he will not be useless, while still getting 9 skill pts per level.
Maybe there is some way to make it even better, I build it a little bit fast.
I listed 7 classes out of 19 that can be better skill monkeys than the rogue. (....)
Seeker Sage Sorcerer
Slayer
Investigator
Urban Ranger
Bard (just about any flavor)
Inquisitors (depends on build)
Alchemists
Two of them are playtest and could change, right? The sorcerer still need at least 24 of int to beat the rogue, which take a while. And even then, they will have to put many skill in spellcraft, which is not really ''creative'' in combat/skill challenge situation.
So, what do you have? The bard, sure. The Alchemist, sure. Some archetype, sure. Chances are, you will be the skill monkey of your group...
Rogue talent: 4x combat feat, Slippery Mind
ummm.... you can't select combat feat 4 times.
That said, that is a fix to help the rogue out, since combat feats are better then rogue talents most of the time. This is sad, since other classes abilities tend to be better, or at least have chains that lead to better things. Rogues talents are bad enough that the best one, is one that gives you a feat.
And... those scenario are more friendly for the other more ''martial'' class? A paladin will do far better than a Rogue in a flying fight in the night? You are pointing a problem that almost all martial class (and even the one with 4th level spell) will have...
the difference is, that a paladin can whip out a bow, and have a much better attack and chance to hit then the rogue. Even without specialization, the paladin can contribute (although not as effectively) while the rogue really, can't.
AC: 18(10+2dex+6armor)
not to pick on the build too much, but monsters with decent attacks will hit him on a 2+ and even ones with poor attacks will hit him on a 5+. (monster guide shows CR10 good attacks will have a +18 and low will have +13).
Fixed
For : 20 (+2racial, +2 magic, +1 level)
Con :14 (+2magic)
Dex : 14(+1 level)
Int : 12
Wis :16 (+4 magic)
Cha: 11
HP: 10d8+20+10(75)
AC: 18(10+2dex+6armor)
Fort: +6 Ref: +10 Will: +6
BAB:+7/+2
Feat:
1: Unarmed Strike
2: Dodge
3: Dragon Style
5: Mobility
7: Snake Style
9: spring attack
10:combat style master
Rogue talent: combat feat, feat, hard to fool, offensive defense, weapon training
Attack: falchion+2: +15/+10 (2d4+11), 15-20/x2
Special: Sneak attack +5d6
Equipment:
Falchion+2 keen, belt of physical might (con/for+2), headband of inspired wisdom +4, studded leather armor +3 shadow (should still have around 5000 gp)
with one lvl dip in Marital Artist, this build would be much better.
For the AC: snake style. He should get around 28 ac when using the style on one attack (let say, the AoO). So the good CR10 monster will hit him 50%, wich is not bad I think (and with hard to fool, you could roll your sens motive check twice). And then, you move out of range (and get +5 ac against that creature if you have hit)
For the ''Paladin could do a better job than a Rogue'', it depends of the build. Paladin don't get very high Dex, while Rogue tend to get a good dex, wich can help the rogue. Also, the Paladin must put some of his wealth in his bow if he want to do somthing with it: if he don't, I don't see how he will be really better at it than a Rogue with a crossbow.
Actually I tend to not see much variety in the ways rogues are played. WIn initiative to sneak attack, stelath to sneak attack, flank for sneak attack, perhpas feint for sneack attack or charge for sneack attack...boring.
I'm sad to hear that. Personally, I find Power Attack very boring, and archery even more boring, which contributes to my opting for Sneak Attack.
It's good that you play in an environment that allows the Rogue success but against the vast majority of possible challenges in the Bestiaries, APs, and Modules, the Rogue is rather lacking after about 4th level.
I would disagree with this. Rogues can do perfectly well when facing published content.
However, Rogues tend to be more affected by the abilities of the party than more straightforward classes like the Fighter. My own PFS Rogues had this issue; they were really strong, the point of being labelled overpowered at times, when in solid parties, but I recall two instances of weakness due to not-so-solid parties. Such as the time I was seated with two Witches who would simply do Flight Hex, Evil Eye, and Slumber Hex and nothing else every single fight.
-Matt
Actually I tend to not see much variety in the ways rogues are played. WIn initiative to sneak attack, stelath to sneak attack, flank for sneak attack, perhpas feint for sneack attack or charge for sneack attack...boring.I'm sad to hear that. Personally, I find Power Attack very boring, and archery even more boring, which contributes to my opting for Sneak Attack.
Well, power attack and archery are pretty monotonous, in general martial suffer from this by design. I am just saying that I consider rogues to be at least equally restricted. In fact, I would say that rogues are even more restricted, fighters can opt for diferent combat maneuvers, paladins can enhace their weapon diferently each time and/or spells, ranger could switch hit or whatever; Inquisitors, magus and bards have tons of options.
I remember a rogue talent to use sleight of hand instead of disarm CMB, and that is pretty much the only other option beyond "I try to sneak attack" that i can remember at the moment.
In fact, I ould say that rogues are even mroe restricted, fighters can opt for diferent combat maneuvers, paladins can enhace their weapon diferently each time and/or spells, ranger could switch hit or whatever; Inquisitors, magus and bards have tons of options.
Fortunately, the Rogue can leverage his talents to give himself enough bonus feats to make maneuvers work, especially if he dips Fighter2 (particularly Lore Warden2) or Monk2 (I suggest Sohei2) for extra bonus feats. I talked about this awhile back in this thread.
-Matt
|
|
Nicos; yeh, doing things that aren't expected. When playing PFS with my family and three other people, the three other people kept telling my son to "stop trying to roll past xyz monster, it never works." Well, the first time he did it without any problems, setting up flanking for the fighter (my wife). The second time... they yelled at him again "Don't try to move past that!" and he did it again no problem. The third time they said "he's going to do what he wants anyway" as if they wanted to control his toon via metagaming (shocker!). And this third time took him THREE ROLLS to move past a sea hag, under water. He did so eventually and got flanking and then the fighter and he killed the hag in one round. Had he NOT done this, the entire party might have died (the fighter could have easily failed his saves and drowned). But OH NO! Don't try to tumble past that monster! (FYI, the generic build for PFS play rogue is designed to tumble! It has a chance of tumbling past creatures 11 HD higher than it!)
But seriously, what rogue talent give more combat option besides "this enhace my sneak attack"?, I always imagine the rogue as the guy who do thing that nobody expect, but that is hard to accomplish in PF, at least for me.
Not a Rogue Talent, but consider these houserules as a way to make combat more interesting for everyone, including Rogues.
+6 fortitude and reflex at level 10 is asking for trouble. At CR10 you are regularly looking at saves of 20+. Similarly +15 attack is pretty low given average CR10 AC is 24. On defence snake style is really not that great. It eats your immediate action so you are only getting it once per round. If anything focuses on you then it is likely to splatter you horribly.
For the save, my bad. I forgot to buy a cloak of resistance +2 with the 5000 gp unused.
For the Ac: yeah, 15 is not that high. But you expect at that level at least one or two ''party buff'', so he should touch around 70% pretty easily, especially if you try to get behind the enemy.
For the Snake Style, sure you get it one time per rounds. But your are not the tank: you are not suppose to be the ''main target'' of the monster, and if it happen, run. Snake style help you get to the guy without being hit, and then you continue your spring attack out of range.
Also anyone can take UMD. I had a barbarian with UMD before. That is not something only rogues do. I just took skill focus(UMD)to make up for the lack of charisma, which I did not dump.
True. But are you really telling me that, in combat your Barbarian is more interested in pulling out a wand than raging and wading into the enemy? A lot of useful actions in combat are ones that other classes are too busy to do. The Wizards and Sorcerors lay down some battlefield control, the Bards and Clerics Buff, the Fighters and Barbarians attack, what does the Rogue do? anything that's necessary. pulling the levers that shut down the planar gates; sawing the ropes that hold up the rope bridge, providing backup with wands and UMD, throwing caltrops on the floor to provide additional control (or tanglefoot bags, thunderstones, etc.) - and all that's before we start moving into flanking position for sneak attacks.
The main problem is that Rogues are played as wannabe Fighters, but they will always lag behind a well built fighter in pure damage. A rogue must play to their strengths; acrobatics and good Dex gives them the ability to move through difficult terrain; while the Fighters are slipping and sliding all over the place, the Rogue can fight effectively on the ice; while the Fighters are getting tangled in the ship's ropes, the Rogue is balancing atop the mainsail facing off against his opponent, or swinging down on those same ropes to land in advantageous position. This gives him a place in combat - and in people's hearts. It doesn't matter if he get's sneak attack or not (I know, I know, that's sacrilege!), he gets a cool image and can do things a fighter can't without tons of equipment and a massive investment in skills. That makes it a class worth playing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it's been almost 2000 posts now, have you guys and gals made the rogue work yet?
So it's been almost 2000 posts now, have you guys and gals made the rogue work yet?
I know I have, as I have shown in my various posts throughout the thread.
-Matt
It's good that you play in an environment that allows the Rogue success but against the vast majority of possible challenges in the Bestiaries, APs, and Modules, the Rogue is rather lacking after about 4th level.I would disagree with this. Rogues can do perfectly well when facing published content.
-Matt
I respectfully insist my position.
Dragons, Evil Outsiders, Undead, and pretty much every monster out there with a solid array of magical ability takes a dump(Metaphorically) on Rogues. So pretty much most credible threats past 6th level.
The two weak saves being the most important saves in the game hurts it so much out of the get go. I picked a monster at random and the Bone Devil is already devastating.
Fort Save(DC 20) or Strength damage 1d3 for 6 rounds
Wall of Ice effectively, easily and almost assuredly seals away a Rogue for multiple rounds, barring being saved by his party or having just the right item to save him.
Invisibility to deny Sneak Attacks(Can even quicken it to reposition)
Flight to avoid melee and reach to make it even worse.
Major Image to bait and lure with almost guaranteed success.
Basically for the Rogue to function "Perfectly well" against Bestiary content, requires the DM to either pull his punches or avoid creatures who can easily isolate, target saves, and/or fly/have reach or both. Which pretty much means no spellcasting.
And after forty pages, we've learned that lovers love, haters hate, and goalpost-movers move goalposts, until we're right back to where we started. All that's changed are the identities of the posters, most of them.
Round and round and round we go.
-Matt, posting like it's #1999...
So it's been almost 2000 posts now, have you guys and gals made the rogue work yet?
Work?, perhaps. Work on par? I would say no. There was a build (1 figther/ x Scout-thugh, I believe) who two handed a eartbreaker to deal a considerable amount of non lethal damage and that was the closest one.