| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to make the case that Advanced Class Guide should look into the Stealth skill and increase it's utility - a lot.
Why? Because in more than half the discussions here, the gimpedness of the rogue seems to come up. Class X is being held down because it is half rogue, and thus it cannot be a better rogue than the rogue is. Because so many things in this book tangentially touch the rogue, a rogue buff would seem to be needed. Otherwise the gimpedness of the rogue means 1/3 of these new classes are gimped too. And in a future revision it is a lot harder to correct 4 classes at once than it is to correct a single class.
I know the devs say the rogue is not gimped, and to a degree it is true. The rogue has some nice abilities (even if the talents have too many usage limits). But the problem is that the rogues main trick - sneak attack from stealth - really isn't a viable tactic. This forces the rogue to rely on flanking, which puts him in danger, where his poor defenses gets him killed. If the rogue could instead reliably use Stealth to achieve sneak attack, it would make him less reliant on others, reduce his exposed position, and actually work as a defense (you cannot attack what you cannot see).
Much of this comes from a 4E game I used to run that had a sneak-and-throw-daggers rogue. 4E Stealth rules were much clearer and much more liberal than Pathfinder's. At first the utility of this kind of stealth sort of overwhelmed me as a GM, but soon I came to see it as a natural and worthwhile rogue ability.
Additionally, the current Pathfinder Stealth rules are very unclear. From just reading the skill description, it is almost impossible to understand what they mean. I have had to research several forums to get what I feel is an understanding of Stealth, and that still has a lot of assumptions in it.
How: So, what kind of Stealth rules do I want? Rather than trying to write out a new rule, I will give some points that I feel the Stealth rules should allow.
- It should be easier to get a distraction to hide, and much clearer than it is now. In general, an ally closer to the enemy than you are should be an adequate distraction. An enemy actually in melee could suffer a -5 distraction penalty to Perception, more if actually flanked.
- It should be possible to gain stealth at the end of a round after making a (ranged) Sneak attack, potentially setting you up for a full round of sneak attacks next round as well. Naturally you need to be under cover/concealment to do this.
- Stealthed should be a condition, similar to invisible. Either you are stealthed or you are not, there is no such thing as being hidden only to some enemies (unless there are two distinct groups that do not communicate). That means that a single high-Perception opponent helps defend all his pals, making Perception less of a universal must-have for PCs. (This is actually a slight nerf compared to how I think Stealth works right now).
- Once you are Stealthed, the result should be like invisibility, and should last until the end of your turn at a minimum. So all actions you do during your turn effectively benefit from invisibility - including moving past enemies outside of cover and making full attacks.
- Because this is an extraordinary ability, things like True Seeing and See Invisible are no defense.
Yes, I know this makes Stealth more powerful, and that is actually the point. By making Stealth more powerful, you make the rogue more balanced, which creates design space to improve classes like the investigator and slayer and by lesser degree the hunter and swashbuckler.
Hm, I guess this post should have been in Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Advanced Class Guide Playtest / General Discussion. Well, too late for that now
While I agree that stealth is a little underpowered at the moment, I think it would require a LOT of research by the devs to fix it, its all well and good to suggest fixing it so that the rogue can use it better, but the fact that its a skill not a rogue talent means there would be large scale abuse possible with other classes.
It might be less of an ask to try and add a new rogue talent which allows you to use "advanced stealth" working somehow similar to how you said, and that lets you add your rogue levels to the stealth roll etc.
You could word it that any other class which has access to rogue talents (eg Ninja?) would also be able to use their class level.
Also if you ask nicely im sure some mod will move the topic ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hoping the upcoming strategy guide will help with this:
I'm hoping the upcoming strategy guide will help with this:
This actually meshes pretty well with what I said above - I am not suggesting a rewrite of the Stealth rule, just a clarification on what Distraction means that is more rogue-friendly. The penultimate point of my OP is harder to get around as just a clarification, tough, and is pretty much vital to the rogue. But THAT could be a rogue talent.
|
I think a clarification on what Distraction is and how it works and how to use it would be great. However, I am tired of seeing threads that state the only way to get sneak attack is with stealth or flanking. It seriously shows a lack of consideration on the players part and is probably why so many people think the Rogue is underpowered. Also "too situational" on the rogue tricks in another example of how players as a whole tend to stay inside the box when it comes to tactics and combat or even on how to approach a situation.
This actually meshes pretty well with what I said above - I am not suggesting a rewrite of the Stealth rule, just a clarification on what Distraction means that is more rogue-friendly. The penultimate point of my OP is harder to get around as just a clarification, tough, and is pretty much vital to the rogue.I'm hoping the upcoming strategy guide will help with this:
Just as an off the cuff thought concerning the stealth against whole groups vs against a single target, this does mean that you cant sneak around a single opponent and attack them via effectively blindsiding them. But I understand your point that if someone can see the rogue doing this they would free-action call out to warn their comrades.
Maybe a rough idea could be that you need to pass your perception check by X amount (eg by the rogues level) in order to not just spot them but also realise that your comrade isnt aware of them and thus warn them. After all in a fight you wouldnt spend the whole time going "Greg on your right, bob left, jack behind you", you would only call it out if you thought they needed the warning?
I think a clarification on what Distraction is and how it works and how to use it would be great. However, I am tired of seeing threads that state the only way to get sneak attack is with stealth or flanking. It seriously shows a lack of consideration on the players part and is probably why so many people think the Rogue is underpowered. Also "too situational" on the rogue tricks in another example of how players as a whole tend to stay inside the box when it comes to tactics and combat or even on how to approach a situation.
While I do see you point, all such tactics usually take a lot of time. They are good setup tactics, but once the chips are down and the swords swinging, a rogue can no longer afford to use whole rounds to set up for a single sneak attack - he needs ways to turn out full-round sneak attack chains to contribute, seeing how he can't control and can't tank.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a clarification on what Distraction is and how it works and how to use it would be great. However, I am tired of seeing threads that state the only way to get sneak attack is with stealth or flanking. It seriously shows a lack of consideration on the players part and is probably why so many people think the Rogue is underpowered. Also "too situational" on the rogue tricks in another example of how players as a whole tend to stay inside the box when it comes to tactics and combat or even on how to approach a situation.While I do see you point, all such tactics usually take a lot of time. They are good setup tactics, but once the chips are down and the swords swinging, a rogue can no longer afford to use whole rounds to set up for a single sneak attack - he needs ways to turn out full-round sneak attack chains to contribute, seeing how he can't control and can't tank.
I see what you are saying but with combat expertise and improved feint you can feint as a move action and then attack if already in melee combat (one yes but still useful). If you take the scout archetype, you can deal sneak attack on a charge and at 8th level you need only move 10 feet to do sneak attack damage. The greater feint feat not only maintains feinting as a move action from improved feint so you can follow it up with a standard attack to gain your sneak attack but adds leaving them flat-footed for all of your allies to get an easier chance to hit until the beginning of your next turn.
If you want a giant chain of sneak attack damage and there exists an easy way to do it the rogue begins to outpace all other classes, even with the reduced BAB. I mean even spells usually do damage dependant on level so at 3rd level a rogue is doing +2d6 on a sneak attack with it only being one sneak attack a round with casters doing one spell a turn at 3d6.
At 10th level a caster can usually do 10d6 with a rogue having to be level 17 to gain a +9d6 to their sneak attack but also at level 10 enough things you will be facing are going to have immunities and resistances (without mentioning saves and abilities like evasion)...so the typical caster 10d6 blast spell is rocking out at 50% effective or less in general while even things with damage reduction are still getting the potential for more damage from a sneak attack. Even then buying a weapon to overcome DR is easier than investing in feats to overcome Spell resistance not to mention that finding a way around fire resistance when you focus purely on fire damage is about the hardest thing to do in the game. (Yes, I am aware of spells and class abilities and feats and magic items and blah blah blah that all work in conjunction with each other, but it is still more difficult than buying a silver/cold iron/ adamantine/holy/unholy weapon)
Also consider that if a rogue is in melee combat and you have another character providing flanking (which realistically if going to happen at some point), you do gain the "crazy sneak attack on every attack" chaining that people seem to think is fair.
So a 10th level rogue is doing +5d6 on a sneak attack and with flanking that is every attack. If he hits with both attacks while flanking you effectively do 2d6 more damage than a caster of equivalent level. Consider that you have built a two weapon fighting rogue that gets one off hand attack, so it is an additional +5d6 on top of that plus the die your weapon uses so effectively do 8d(6/x) damage more than a caster is able to do.
Rogue is not a straight up fighter, it never will be, but they can still be on par in effectiveness during combat as anything else people are bringing to the table; it just requires more forethought and consideration from the player. This seems to set people into fits about the Rogue being underpowered or weak or ineffective when a careful look shows that in truth it is quite effective and powerful in combat at 1st level for a human and 3rd for anything else.
There is "effective" and then there is "broken". Most people get the definition of the two mixed up because some classes can really rain some apocalypse...the rogue isn't a caster...the rogue isn't a tank...the rogue isn't a buffer/debuffer/healer....the rogue is a skill and finesse fighter/skill monkey (notice how skill is listed in both its combat and out of combat role...because that's the trick...a Rogue requires skill and finesse to play effectively)
If you really want to talk damage then consider the items, abilities, and feat that add bleed damage and so forth....Trust me, the Rogue doesn't have any worries when it comes to being a total badass
If you really want damage, get a CL 15 wand of Holy Ice and use it on the first round before an enemy has acted :o. At level 10, that is 15d8+75d6 if all sneak attacks hit. So yes, there are absurd combos you can do!
But more realistically: flanking is likely to be lethal to the rogue, and feint or scout nets you one sneak attack per round for, again by risking yourself in melee. And with one sneak attack, you are not doing more damage than anyone else in the party. The class lacks any inherent accuracy, so hitting is also a problem.
With repeated ranged sneak attacks being possible, the rogue has a way to earn sneak attacks for itself, but it still needs to succeed at those Stealth rolls. Unlike feint, this means beating every opponent's skill. And under a conservative reading of the current rules, that gives you one sneak attack every other round.
I am not saying the rogue should automatically get to make full attack sneak attacks, but if it works at it, it should be reasonably likely, because that is the only time the rogue actually contributes as much as everybody else to a combat. Remember, this class neither controls, buffs, or tanks anything. It can jst barelu hold a second-line position. Damage is its only combat contribution.
|
I would have to agree that flanking is a death sentence for most rogues. Usually the CR are always above your level and to be quite frank most of the time, you will be fighting brute monsters. Yes with flanking you can do a lot of damage but when the ogre mage can one shot you with his large greatsword+power attack, this doesn't help a whole lot.
In the situation where one of your sneak attack is enough to kill a monster, they were so weak to begin with that it didn't really matter.
Reworking stealth in my opinion wouldn't really help the rogue in the end. It would end up gimping him in my opinion. There are so many archetypes stealing the rogue stealth specialty and to add insult to injury, trapfinding. Many of these archetypes are bard archetypes which frankly I'd rather have a bard in my party than a rogue.
|
|
But more realistically: flanking is likely to be lethal to the rogue, and feint or scout nets you one sneak attack per round for, again by risking yourself in melee. [/b]
I disagree for the most part. While it is true that the Rogue has low hit points they are going to average around the same AC as most fighters throughout all levels based simply on the way that different bonuses stack. This really only stops being true at higher level but with mithral armor and things that pump dex they are still going to have a competitive AC. Then you have your monster and nasties that are always going to hit no matter what...yes they will be dangerous but I'm also going to be designing a scout as a hit and run expert so there are feats and abilities and such that give a bonus to your AC when provoking an AoO. Consider that you can have potions that give you AC bumps for combat and there are relatively cheap potions that give you concealment and the "risk" of flanking really isn't any more risky then the fighter brute designed for it.
Also when you consider adding in rogue tricks that help you out in a number of situations once an opponent has been hit with a sneak attack.
Befuddling Strike: for the enemy to take a –2 penalty on attack rolls against the rogue for 1d4 rounds
Bleeding Attack: This attack causes the target to take 1 additional point of damage each round for each die of the rogue's sneak attack (e.g., 4d6 equals 4 points of bleed).
Offensive Defense: the rogue gains a +1 dodge bonus to AC for each sneak attack die rolled for one round.
Positioning Attack: Once per day, when a rogue with this talent hits a creature with a melee attack, she can move up to 30 feet without provoking attacks of opportunity. The movement must end in a space adjacent to the creature hit with the melee attack. (Allowing you to move into flanking even better and sooner free of harm)
Or if that doesn't float your boat - Slow Reactions: Opponents damaged by the rogue's sneak attack can't make attacks of opportunity for 1 round.
Then you get to add advanced talents
Confounding Blades: When a rogue with this talent hits a creature with a melee weapon that deals sneak attack damage, her target cannot make attacks of opportunity until the beginning of her next turn.]
And a lot of other good one even considering their limited use.
And with one sneak attack, you are not doing more damage than anyone else in the party. The class lacks any inherent accuracy, so hitting is also a problem.
[/b]
This also isn't true. You will be averaging what a caster does until about 5th level but with a successful sneak attack will still be averaging a standard 4d6 which is potentially more than a two handed weapon, sword and board, or two weapon wielding fighter and barbarian is going to do at the same level. Even at level 11 when a fighter gets 3 attacks around a rogue is doing roughly 7d6 base damage on a sneak attack with a greatsword wielding fighter doing 6d6 base damage.
and to hit it is going ot be based off of your primary to hit modifier...either str or dex if you took weapon finesse, which matters more when you haven't forced the enemy to be flat-footed but then if you were playing a melee Rogue denying the opponent their dex modifier would be a focus.
I would have to agree that flanking is a death sentence for most rogues. Usually the CR are always above your level and to be quite frank most of the time, you will be fighting brute monsters. Yes with flanking you can do a lot of damage but when the ogre mage can one shot you with his large greatsword+power attack, this doesn't help a whole lot.
I think that is a bit of a gross over generalization isn't it?
Any GM or game designer worth their weight in salt is going to stager encounters with mixes of big nasties (with a super big nasty at the end for the "typical boss fight") and multiunit encounters (which a multiunit encounter could be the “boss fight” instead of one big bad). Even if the overall CR of an encounter is higher than your party that doesn't mean that the CR of each individual monster/NPC is going to be above that of your rogue...at least not on a regular basis.A GM or game designer that doesn't understand action economy might throw hard hitter after hard hitter at you but then it is a matter of distracting with a tank while everyone else lays a smack down. Chances are that even a flanking rogue can take one hit from a greatsword+power attack without dropping and before it comes around to the big bad again it is dead from being seriously out matched in action economy. Also as far as big brute monster...I would argue that again there are going to be a good mix of various monsters. I would say that the vast majority of what I have encountered both through PFS, modules, Adventure Paths, and home brew it is rare that an entire adventure is just bruiser type enemies.
I don't see anything wrong with stealth to be honest and I don't believe it needs to be modified. I think if you are relying on stealth to do sneak attack you are missing a lot of more effective ways to crank out sneak attack damage. Would a ranged sneak attack focud rogue be as effective? probably not but then your original argument was that a better stealth system was needed for a rogue to take full advantage of their sneak attack....my argument is "that's not true"....Now if your actual argument is that Pathfinder needs a modified stealth system to play the type of Rogue you described as being awesome...well then yes that is true
Reworking stealth in my opinion wouldn't really help the rogue in the end. It would end up gimping him in my opinion. There are so many archetypes stealing the rogue stealth specialty and to add insult to injury, trapfinding. Many of these archetypes are bard archetypes which frankly I'd rather have a bard in my party than a rogue.
Sadly, you have a point here, but the only class that really has a big punch out of Stealth as the rogue is the Ninja, which is a rogue in all but name. Sure, a caster benefits from staying low, but do they put enough into Stealth to do it without improved invisibility? Why should they, when they have improved invisibility? Slayers will benefit a lot from creeping up on the enemy and selecting their targets before the fight, but in the fight its better to simply hit and flank stuff. And rangers can sneak very well, but once in combat, why should they bother?
But more realistically: flanking is likely to be lethal to the rogue, and feint or scout nets you one sneak attack per round for, again by risking yourself in melee.I disagree for the most part. While it is true that the Rogue has low hit points they are going to average around the same AC as most fighters throughout all levels based simply on the way that different bonuses stack.
The problem is not the one big brute monster. That has to-hit to spare to hit the figher or rogue indiscriminately. It is stupid and goes for the biggest guy (fighter). Or it is smart and has an agenda, which is rarely "hit the rogue".
The problem are the big groups of lesser monsters. What misses the fighter can still hit the rogue. And to get flanking in this situation, you have to be ahead of the fighter, which leaves you exposed to several of the smaller critters. Debuffing is pretty useless here too, as it's not the guy you just killed that is going to kill you back.
The reason rogues have less defenses is not just the lighter armor they use, it is also a matter of priority; the rogue has a lot of other areas to invest in, besides combat.
This [single sneak does less damage than regular full-round attack] also isn't true. You will be averaging what a caster does until about 5th level but with a successful sneak attack will still be averaging a standard 4d6 which is potentially more than a two handed weapon, sword and board, or two weapon wielding fighter and barbarian is going to do at the same level. Even at level 11 when a fighter gets 3 attacks around a rogue is doing roughly 7d6 base damage on a sneak attack with a greatsword wielding fighter doing 6d6 base damage.
Well, comparing base damage is (sadly) relevant for the rogue and caster, but not for the warrior classes. Besides Strength, all these classes have ways of improving damage as they level. That greatsword fighter is more likely to do something like 2d6 + 10 (discounting enchantment bonus, which the rogue can match). So we are comparing 8d8 vs 6d6+30. This is before Power Attack. Casters use save or suck and against groups area damage, so the single-target comparison is not very interesting.
I don't see anything wrong with stealth to be honest and I don't believe it needs to be modified. I think if you are relying on stealth to do sneak attack you are missing a lot of more effective ways to crank out sneak attack damage.
Well, that is my point. Stealth is now a substandard option for the rogue, and it shouldn't be.
