Umm, but why? One of the concepts here is that the rogue isn't functional because archetypes from other classes can do the rogues job. I don't entirely agree with that, but that's one of base tenets here, isn't it? but they you don't allow the rogue his archetypes but want to shoehorn him into a DPR role.Its scout archetype.No archetypes is one of the goals here.
The title of the thread is "CAN YOU MAKE THE BASE ROGUE CLASS FUNCTIONAL?" meaning vanilla rogue class. The reasons have already been stated multiple times.
This thread also has nothing to do with other classes getting trap finding through archetypes. The rogue's dysfunction comes from an apparent reliance on melee flanking to do more the base weapon damage (aka commoner-who-rolls-high DPR). Which is why these builds can't assume flanking and must have a viable range option.
Our rogue has dropped several nasties with the combo of sneak attack then bleed. How does the commoner get those?You're obviously comparing it to the damage of another class.That class is a commoner-who-rolls-high. As I have stated.
This is a comparison for all situations. This is a low bar (as in avoid matching this).
Situations being: Can't flank and need to do range actions
Base weapon damage is unacceptable because it is easily doable by a commoner-who-rolls-high.
Its scout archetype.No archetypes is one of the goals here.Umm, but why? One of the concepts here is that the rogue isn't functional because archetypes from other classes can do the rogues job. I don't entirely agree with that, but that's one of base tenets here, isn't it? but they you don't allow the rogue his archetypes but want to shoehorn him into a DPR role.
Not cricket, wut?
Not shoe horning him into a DPR roll. Making sure the rogue can get his sneak attack on a normally consistent basis without having to rely on others constantly to do so.
If I was to play a commoner, I could do wonderfully in combat if I've got lots and lots of support from other team members.
That's one way to look at and is essentially what I'm asking with the restriction on no strength rogues and archetypes. But, it is not like I'm am not open to other ideas that meet the goals.
For example, a viable range option does not have to be a range sneak attack or anything related to DPR. Nor does sneak attack need to be what you do when not in flanking.
Our rogue has dropped several nasties with the combo of sneak attack then bleed. How does the commoner get those?You're obviously comparing it to the damage of another class.That class is a commoner-who-rolls-high. As I have stated.
This is a comparison for all situations. This is a low bar (as in avoid matching this).
Situations being: Can't flank and need to do range actions
Base weapon damage is unacceptable because it is easily doable by a commoner-who-rolls-high.
You've actually ignored the mundane ways I posted to distract an enemy. You also do not need to kill an enemy to neutralize it. If the condition you proposed of an enemy in a corner, drop a tangle foot bag in his square and go do the stuff you intended to do in the room.
Does the rogue have a chance to scout? Gather information about the are/target? Is it a dungeon or the dwelling place of the enemy? Is it in a brightly lit open field? The Shadow Plane? Sigil?
Our rogue has dropped several nasties with the combo of sneak attack then bleed. How does the commoner get those?You're obviously comparing it to the damage of another class.That class is a commoner-who-rolls-high. As I have stated.
This is a comparison for all situations. This is a low bar (as in avoid matching this).
Situations being: Can't flank and need to do range actions
Base weapon damage is unacceptable because it is easily doable by a commoner-who-rolls-high.
You've actually ignored the mundane ways I posted to distract an enemy. You also do not need to kill an enemy to neutralize it. If the condition you proposed of an enemy in a corner, drop a tangle foot bag in his square and go do the stuff you intended to do in the room.
Does the rogue have a chance to scout? Gather information about the are/target? Is it a dungeon or the dwelling place of the enemy? Is it in a brightly lit open field? The Shadow Plane? Sigil?
Your mundane options were doable by a commoner-who-rolls-high.
The situation is general. The goal is to have a functional rogue in most/'nearly all' situations. Not to have a rogue that is functional in some combat situations.
This thread has already reach that goal, and is simply looking for more builds/ideas to add to it.
Your mundane action ideas were appreciated as fall back plans in the situations where some of these builds still flounder (mindless creature in a corner).
Its scout archetype.No archetypes is one of the goals here.Umm, but why? One of the concepts here is that the rogue isn't functional because archetypes from other classes can do the rogues job. I don't entirely agree with that, but that's one of base tenets here, isn't it? but they you don't allow the rogue his archetypes but want to shoehorn him into a DPR role.
Not cricket, wut?
Not shoe horning him into a DPR roll. Making sure the rogue can get his sneak attack on a normally consistent basis without having to rely on others constantly to do so.
If I was to play a commoner, I could do wonderfully in combat if I've got lots and lots of support from other team members.
The rogue does rely on others. This is what a support melee class does. And you guys are shoehorning the class into a DPR role, except you're removing his main functions of damage. No flanking, no strength, not allowed to rely on magic items and become a "loot monkey".
If you think a rogue is comparable to the commoner you're not playing the same game or you're doing something seriously wrong.
Right. “Can you make the Wizard class functional? We’ll measure that by DPR. Oh, and no spells.”
|
Well, you seem to be asking for a DPR Rogue build... but disallowing various things that can be used to do that.
Obviously, the main DPR advantage of Rogues is Sneak Attack. Flanking is the easiest way to get that, but by no means the only. I haven't seen you bar a ranged sniper build yet, so I'd suggest that. There are various ways to 're-engage' ranged stealth after sniping (even if we assume prestige classes and/or multi-classing in general are verbotten) so they can still get their sneak attack damage despite your no flanking restriction. Similarly, strength can help with composite bows, but isn't strictly a requirement with ranged builds like it is on melee. If the char can get a set of Sniper Goggles that would significantly increase both range and damage.
Well, then what we need to do is not compare the Rogue to the Warrior classes (Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, etc.) but instead compare the Rogue to the Priestly classes (Cleric, Oracle, etc.) and the Mage classes (Wizard, Sorcerer, etc.).
So. Combat-wise and damage-per-melee-attack, how does the Rogue stack up to these non-frontline fighters? Well? ;)
Commoners are also not playable by PCs, d6 hit die, 3 bad saves, 1/2 BAB, proficient with one simple weapon, not proficient in armor, gain feats only on every odd level, 2 skill points +int per level.
Exactly. Now you should understand that the situations where the rogue could trade out his class levels for commoner and still contribute just as much need to be kept to a low low rate of frequency.
NOTE: I said situations. When fighting a monster in a corner, the rogue is not better than a commoner-who-rolls-high because he can disable traps. He has to be better because of reasons that apply to the situations.
NOTE2: It is a commoner-who-rolls-high not a commoner. As in rolls high on the d20. We're assuming this commoner hits with the same frequency as the rogue for base weapon damage. It doesn't matter that actual commoners aren't that accurate. The low bar is set a little higher than that.
Our rogue has dropped several nasties with the combo of sneak attack then bleed. How does the commoner get those?You're obviously comparing it to the damage of another class.That class is a commoner-who-rolls-high. As I have stated.
This is a comparison for all situations. This is a low bar (as in avoid matching this).
Situations being: Can't flank and need to do range actions
Base weapon damage is unacceptable because it is easily doable by a commoner-who-rolls-high.
You've actually ignored the mundane ways I posted to distract an enemy. You also do not need to kill an enemy to neutralize it. If the condition you proposed of an enemy in a corner, drop a tangle foot bag in his square and go do the stuff you intended to do in the room.
Does the rogue have a chance to scout? Gather information about the are/target? Is it a dungeon or the dwelling place of the enemy? Is it in a brightly lit open field? The Shadow Plane? Sigil?
Your mundane options were doable by a commoner-who-rolls-high.
The situation is general. The goal is to have a functional rogue in most/'nearly all' situations. Not to have a rogue that is functional in some combat situations.
This thread has already reach that goal, and is simply looking for more builds/ideas to add to it.
Your mundane action ideas were appreciated as fall back plans in the situations where some of these builds still flounder (mindless creature in a corner).
You asked for ways for the rogue to be functional. I provided them. I disagree with a commoner doing those things simply due to D&D economy. Also a commoner can sneak attack someone once they've been set on fire.
The situation becomes paramount to decide tactics. If I need to infiltrate an estate, I need disguise, bluff, diplomacy, knowledge, and intimidate. Maybe points in various professions to aid in the disguise. If I need to deliver poison I need slight of hand maybe craft or I can coup de grace the individual in his sleep (apply sneak attack by the way)
If its a dungeon setting there aren't many characters that would go into a dungeon blindly, so again you have information gathering skills, stealth, perception and knowledge's to formulate some tactics going in.
So a base rogue class covering those skills will be "functional" and appreciated in a group.
The real issue here is the bad title. If you had asked for a 'verY specific rogue build, able to do high DPR without flanking and also ranged attacks- oh and my DM has banned archetypes" we would have gone along with it.
But you state a very arguable assumption - that the rogue is not "functional" and then add six HUGE disadvantages: Must be a DPR build, has to do ranged also, no flanking, no high STR, no archetypes and no multiclassing. Wow, that's SIX goalposts.
Many of us disagree strongly with your initial assumption, and then your "rules' made it completely unfair. The base rogue isn't much a a DPR monster anyway. It's a skill class.
It's like “Can you make the Wizard class functional? We’ll measure that by DPR. Oh, and no spells. And I'll add in four more rules later.”
So, let's take your same rules, and apply them to the bard- a class which is known as quite a competent class:"Must be a DPR build, has to do ranged also, no depending on spells for damage, no high STR, no archetypes and no multiclassing." Go! Oh, I guess that proves the bard isn't functional.
You state the goal was reached? Which post had that perfect six goalpost rogue? I'd like to see that build.
The real issue here is the bad title. If you had asked for a 'verY specific rogue build, able to do high DPR without flanking and also ranged attacks- oh and my DM has banned archetypes" we would have gone along with it.
But you state a very arguable assumption - that the rogue is not "functional" and then add six HUGE disadvantages: Must be a DPR build, has to do ranged also, no flanking, no high STR, no archetypes and no multiclassing. Wow, that's SIX goalposts.
Many of us disagree strongly with your initial assumption, and then your "rules' made it completely unfair. The base rogue isn't much a a DPR monster anyway. It's a skill class.
It's like “Can you make the Wizard class functional? We’ll measure that by DPR. Oh, and no spells. And I'll add in four more rules later.”
So, let's take your same rules, and apply them to the bard- a class which is known as quite a competent class:"Must be a DPR build, has to do ranged also, no depending on spells for damage, no high STR, no archetypes and no multiclassing." Go! Oh, I guess that proves the bard isn't functional.
You state the goal was reached? Which post had that perfect six goalpost rogue? I'd like to see that build.
I kinda looked like make it better than a commoner at the end.
|
Because the rest of the party supported the commoner to be able to do so.So 3 people had to burn actions to aid another just to make the commoner capable of hitting as well as the rogue? Seems like good comparison.
So 3 people had to burn actions to aid another just to make the rogue capable of hitting as well as the fighter?
Why is the party willing to help the rogue be better than the fighter but won't help the fighter do anything?
Because the rest of the party supported the commoner to be able to do so.So 3 people had to burn actions to aid another just to make the commoner capable of hitting as well as the rogue? Seems like good comparison.So 3 people had to burn actions to aid another just to make the rogue capable of hitting as well as the fighter?
Why is the party willing to help the rogue be better than the fighter but won't help the fighter do anything?
The other three players had a bad Kender experience in Dragon Lance
|
|
Its the same thing K.
But here's the thing, we never said the party had to burn 3 aid other actions to make the commoner hit as well as a rogue.
At level 10, a Rogue only has 2 Bab over a Commoner.
With enough support even a commoner can rise to be a functional part of the party. Especially when they rely less on whatever there class is, and more on the player's own imagination.
Its the same thing K.
But here's the thing, we never said the party had to burn 3 aid other actions to make the commoner hit as well as a rogue.
At level 10, a Rogue only has 2 Bab over a Commoner.
With enough support even a commoner can rise to be a functional part of the party. Especially when they rely less on whatever there class is, and more on the player's own imagination.
You can say that about any non casting class. A wizard can polymorph any object the commoner into a manticore, so whats the point of fighters. A caster can cast rage on the polymorphed commoner so what use is there for a barbarian.
Does that mean a party should consist of a wizard, cleric, druid, and one commoner to buff the crap out of?
|
|
Its the same thing K.
But here's the thing, we never said the party had to burn 3 aid other actions to make the commoner hit as well as a rogue.
At level 10, a Rogue only has 2 Bab over a Commoner.
With enough support even a commoner can rise to be a functional part of the party. Especially when they rely less on whatever there class is, and more on the player's own imagination.
You can say that about any non casting class. A wizard can polymorph any object the commoner into a manticore, so whats the point of fighters. A caster can cast rage on the polymorphed commoner so what use is there for a barbarian.
Does that mean a party should consist of a wizard, cleric, druid, and one commoner to buff the crap out of?
Not at all.
Nor should it consist of a Wizard cleric druid and one rogue all buffed out.
Thats the point of this. Its not about making the rogue a fighter. Its about /what/ the rogue can really bring to the table without having to rely on others to get it.
If the rogue has to rely on others for everything, he quickly becomes more of a commoner.
BUT THIS IS A TEAM GAME!
Exactly. Its a team game. And a team is only as strong as its weakest link.
If you have a racing team, and you have one guy who is really good a hurdles, Another who's really good at sprinting, another who can run long distances, and one guy who is slow, incapable of jumping, and dependent on the rest of the team.
The last guy becomes a weak link. While each other member brings something to the table, the last one doesn't. He drags it down.
If you review the thread in its entirity rather than dismissing everyone off who is actually actively attempting to find builds that are not the slow nonathletic kind that fill a certain set of requirements (No Archetypes, More than Base Weapon Damage, has a ranged option, 20 Point build, Uses Dex not Str) were not dismissed. Some even had a few suggestions to make it just a bit better due to something being typically useless.
But K and Pals, fly off the handle, dismissing the entirety of the the thread as the accuse others of dismissing the builds.
Because its the builds that are important. The builds are what the /character/ can bring to the team.
As K points out, Rogues do have sneak attack. Now how do we get sneak attack on a regular basis within the guide lines? You know.. like Don't assume you have the ability to flank with everything all the time.
If a rogue doesn't have the ability to use his sneak attack, then what is the difference between him and a commoner in combat? And NO this isn't MAASSSGIVA DAMAGESES!!! But this is something a commoner cannot do in combat. Ever. A Fighter can't either.
Sure there are a few archetypes of other classes out there that have the ability to do sneak attack possibly even as good as the rogue.
But this isn't really about them..
Except a Wizard can, at higher levels, do everything a Fighter can, either through direct magical augmentation or through Summons. For that matter, so can a Cleric. So by your reasoning the Fighter is in fact a worthless class that can be replaced by a Commoner.
For that matter, at 1st level a Cleric can fight pretty much as effectively as a Fighter - if she casts a Bless spell she gets a +1 to hit. However, at 1st level a Rogue is better at detecting and disarming traps than any other non-archtyped class.
And this is about the base Rogue. If you're talking base Rogue, without archtypes and the like, then that same rule should count for every. single. class. you are comparing the Rogue to.
I'm actually pointing out that the class is very viable. My "commoner" dig was in fact stating the argument could be given that Fighters can be replaced by Commoners just like Rogues because a Wizard or Cleric can replicate their abilities.
In fact, my argument about Archetypes is because people are arguing about the "base Rogue class" and his or her functionality. But they're comparing the base Rogue to archetypes of other classes. So they're comparing oranges to grapefruits - both are citrus, but they're not the same thing.
|
Yep!The more builds we have the meet the goals and restrictions the better.So then this is essentially a build thread with restrictions.
So then, getting back to the topic of this thread, here is an
Str10
Dex22
Con14
Int13
Wis10
Cha14
Skills:
Use Magic Device+24
Bluff+18
Acrobatics+19
Perception+13(+18v.Traps)+Darkvision
Disable Device+24
Diplomacy+20
Escape Artist+19
Stealth+19
Knowledge(Dungeoneering/Local)+14
Racial Features:
Darkvision 60ft
Glitterdust 1/day
Skilled
Celestial Resistance
Native Outsider
Traits:
Armor Expert
Innocent
Feats/Talents:
L1:Arcane Strike
R2:Finesse Rogue
L3:Combat Expertise
R4:Trap Spotter
L5:Gang Up
R6:Fast Stealth
L7:Butterfly's Sting
R8:Offensive Defense
L9:Skill Focus (Use Magic Device)
R10:Skill Mastery (Use Magic Device, Acrobatics, Bluff, Disable Device)
Class Features:
Sneak Attack +5d6
Evasion
Improved Uncanny Dodge
Gear:
+2 Mithral Breastplate
+2 Agile Rapier
+2 Belt of Incredible Dexterity
+2 Ring of Protection
+1 Amulet of Natural Armor
+3 Cloak of Resistance
Circlet of Persuasion
Boots of Springing and Striding
~3k for Wands/Adventuring Gear
Attacks:
+1 Keen Agile Rapier +14/+9(1d6+9)
*Combat Expertise +12/+7(1d6+9+2AC)
*Flanking +16/+11(6d6+19+5AC)
**Both +14/+9(6d6+9+7AC)
HP=83
AC=27(or buffs up to 34)
CMB+7
CMD26
Fort+8
Ref+16
Will+6
Khrysaor please stop flaming or the thread is going to be locked. I am really interested on what this thread might uncover but you are not helping.
Again please stop flaming, you make this thread very hard to read for me.
|
|
Just to the commoner who rolls high idea, I've had a game where a commoner rolled high enough to out-damage any other class in the book. We were using the triple nat. 20=kill rule, and the commoner killed like 3 enemies with that tactic. We checked the guy's dice, and he even kept alternating because they kept rolling too high and he didn't like stealing the barbarian's thunder, they weren't loaded. His dice haven't rolled a single roll above a 16 since.
Dungeons are cramped. Sometimes flanking is impossible(corners and walls), other times flanking is suicidal (party - monster - you - 6 other monsters). My GM also tends to run intelligent mobs such that they try to avoid being flanked (like taking a 5ft step into a corner and then attacking) because like you said flanking is good for all melee not just the rogue.
"Dungeon" is a greater assumption than "flanking".
Is there anyway to get Khrysaor to stop harassing me?
I don't really want to post in this thread anymore because he's going to flame my every post.
Then perhaps you should stop just saying "post a build" and actually answer the questions. Seriously. I mention something, you say "post a build" and I did. And you then never said another thing about it. Showing that you aren't interested in people showing the Rogue as an effective class, you're interested in tearing down the Rogue.
It seems quite apparent that the Rogue IS an effective functional class. However, people don't see it that way because Rogues don't have abilities that can't be replicated with magic.
Then again, Fighters don't have abilities that can't be replicated with magic.
Do you want to know why to run a Rogue? Because the Wizard can't always have Detect Traps up, and having someone who knows what he or she is doing concerning traps is better than jumping over it only to be hit by a Yeth Hound's howl and sent fleeing back into the trap. And for that matter, having the Wizard with other spells may in fact be a better role for said Wizard than doing the job of the thief.
Rogues are not front-line fighters. What they are is the person who can scout out ahead, find traps and disarm them, appraise the items in the chest, go to the merchant and negotiate the best deal, and then seduce the barmaid who never thought of being with another woman, let alone an elf with more daggers than Shax. ;)
Then perhaps you should stop just saying "post a build" and actually answer the questions. Seriously. I mention something, you say "post a build" and I did. And you then never said another thing about it. Showing that you aren't interested in people showing the Rogue as an effective class, you're interested in tearing down the Rogue
I did respond to your to build.
And you responded back with
So. Does this make the base Rogue class functional? ;)
Which I felt no need to reply to.
I find these false accusations about my wants and desires maddening
THE GOAL OF THIS THREAD WAS ACCOMPLISHED by many builds and many different people.
Just because people are calling me an unreasonable monster or that the goals of this thread are attainable does not make either true.
Do you want to know why to run a Rogue? Because the Wizard can't always have Detect Traps up, and having someone who knows what he or she is doing concerning traps is better than jumping over it only to be hit by a Yeth Hound's howl and sent fleeing back into the trap. And for that matter, having the Wizard with other spells may in fact be a better role for said Wizard than doing the job of the thief.
other Trapfinders could include
a Sorcerer or Oracle with the Seeker archetype
a bard with the Archaeologist, Sandman or Magician Archetypes
an Alchemist with the Cryptbreaker Archetype
a Ranger with the Trapper or Urban Ranger Archetype
an Inquisitor with an Archetype that i know exists somewhere in some part of the Golarion setting line but i can't name
an Investigator
a Slayer with Talent Investment
11 classes that can find traps. i wonder why trapfinding isn't a feat yet. 4 of these can gain trapspotter
Rogues are not front-line fighters. What they are is the person who can scout out ahead, find traps and disarm them, appraise the items in the chest, go to the merchant and negotiate the best deal, and then seduce the barmaid who never thought of being with another woman, let alone an elf with more daggers than Shax. ;)
anyone with Trapfinding, Ranks in Disable Disable Device, Ranks in Stealth and Perception, Ranks in diplomacy, Ranks in Appraise, and Ranks in either bluff or disguise can do all that
A better standard would be a warrior using the same point buy as the rogue and using fair dice. This is roughly the scale other medium BAB classes appear to be built to.
This is more apt and less confusing.
Basically base-weapon damage is not OK after level 4-ish much less lvl 10.
You know, Umbriere, you are comparing Archetypes to the base Rogue class. This is about the functionality of the base class. So you're comparing grapefruits to oranges. They're not the same fruit. (The exception being the Slayer and Investigator, but they're still playtest classes.)
To be honest, a Fighter can be a trapfinder. All he needs is ranks in Disable Device. But that does not make him a GOOD trapfinder. This is what the Rogue does. And more. While other classes can replicate some elements of the Rogue, they don't replicate ALL elements of the Rogue. The Rogue is a functional and reasonable class. If your GM just bases the game on combat and doesn't bother including elements where the Rogue is meant to thrive, then it's not the rogue's fault.
|
|
other Trapfinders could include
a Sorcerer or Oracle with the Seeker archetype
a bard with the Archaeologist, Sandman or Magician Archetypes
an Alchemist with the Cryptbreaker Archetype
a Ranger with the Trapper or Urban Ranger Archetype
an Inquisitor with an Archetype that i know exists somewhere in some part of the Golarion setting line but i can't name
an Investigator
a Slayer with Talent Investment
11 classes that can find traps.
Technically, thats only 7 classes, just 11 archetypes. Still, point is taken. The only real advantage a rogue has is full sneak attack progression (for those of us who really like backstabbing), and 2-4 more skills/level (and not even that with bard). So make the most of those I say. Also, there is a limited use of Disable Device that can only be used by rogues in the CRB.
Dungeons are cramped. Sometimes flanking is impossible(corners and walls), other times flanking is suicidal (party - monster - you - 6 other monsters). My GM also tends to run intelligent mobs such that they try to avoid being flanked (like taking a 5ft step into a corner and then attacking) because like you said flanking is good for all melee not just the rogue."Dungeon" is a greater assumption than "flanking".
Houses, buildings, large thick brush walls. Most maps tend to fall into the "dungeon" level of cramped conditions with choke points. In more open areas you need a viable range option as you close the distance (if you can).
Is it always impossible to flank? No. But situations that make flanking difficult to impossible are frequent enough that you need a back up plan that is better than doing base weapon damage.