Problem for the rogue, not with the rogue.
Problem for the rogue, not with the rogue.
OK, then how is it a problem FOR the rogue?
Barbarians seem to be doing just fine, even after the archetype for fighters(viking) that gives them access to rage powers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's obviously a problem because it devalues the class. The more options you have for attaining sneak attack, the less important the rogue class becomes. As someone who likes rogues, I want 'em to remain relevant in the game. Hence, banning the vivisectionist and patching the rogue's faults via house rules. Works for my table; no complaints as of now.
Regarding the viking archetype: I'm not a fan. As I said, I don't like when archetypes steal class abilities from other classes. It comes off as lazy and unoriginal. Want rage/powers? Play a barbarian!
Problem for the rogue, not with the rogue.OK, then how is it a problem FOR the rogue?
Barbarians seem to be doing just fine, even after the archetype for fighters(viking) that gives them access to rage powers.
And a ranger archetype and a subdomain.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that having trapfinding as a trait is actually a good development for the rogue as a class.
As long as having the trapfinding trait qualifies as having the trapfinding class ability (and why shouldn't it), this opens up options for the rogue to gain archetypes that focus more on his non-trapfinding abilities.
Example: A rogue with the trapfinding trait, and the trapfinding class ability is able to take a archetype that replaces his trapfinding class ability with something else while retaining the trapfinding ability and allowing him to use that alongside his improved archetype abilities.
This is a buff for the rogue.
I was under the impression that Campaign Traits were only intended for characters participating in particular adventure paths. If this interpretation is correct, players are only able to select the "Trap Finder" if they're playing in a Mummy's Mask game. My suspicion is that traps will be more common in said adventure, and that the party needs at least one person that can deal with 'em. With that in mind, it doesn't seem to be a death sentence for the rogue; the trait just facilitates gameplay in the event that no one wants to play a rogue.
That said, there's till the issue of the vivisectionist alchemist. My solution is simply to ban 'em. Solves the issue pretty easily, in my opinion.
Indeed. 'Tis part of why I made the 'does Hero Lab encourage blandness?' thread. But, once you start saying things like this then you get all sorts of responses how fluff is just fluff and doesn't matter. THEN, you get people saying how x can take y and class z is worthless. It's cats sleeping with dogs, I tell ya!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's obviously a problem because it devalues the class. The more options you have for attaining sneak attack, the less important the rogue class becomes. As someone who likes rogues, I want 'em to remain relevant in the game. Hence, banning the vivisectionist and patching the rogue's faults via house rules. Works for my table; no complaints as of now.
Regarding the viking archetype: I'm not a fan. As I said, I don't like when archetypes steal class abilities from other classes. It comes off as lazy and unoriginal. Want rage/powers? Play a barbarian!
Sorcerers have 9th level arcane casting. Does this devalue the wizard?
The problem with rogues is that they cannot stand alone as a class. Their overall package is sub-par.
How can they not stand alone as a class? Alone, you can still get in your sneak attacks, which is one of their main features. What other thing need they be able to do to operate solo?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How can they not stand alone as a class? Alone, you can still get in your sneak attacks, which is one of their main features. What other thing need they be able to do to operate solo?
1. Not talking about operating solo, but I am talking about their class features compared to encounters not other classes.
2. You normally need other people to sneak attack :P
3. Their overall kit is weak. The best thing rogues have going for them is their skill list. Rogue 1/Wizard 19 is arguably the best rogue build.
4. Sneak attack is an awful mechanic and APs seem to go out of their way to make sure that the rogue has trouble doing it.
Sorcerers have 9th level arcane casting. Does this devalue the wizard?
Sorcerers and wizards have other classes features besides spells. While they're similar, they're different enough that they make sense as separate classes. I don't think the same could be said of the viking fighter. It's too similar to the barbarian and doesn't fulfill a function in the same way that a spontaneous arcane spellcaster does, as compared to a prepared arcane spellcaster.
The problem with rogues is that they cannot stand alone as a class. Their overall package is sub-par.
Now, I've never denied the assertion that rogues are underpowered. Indeed, I've mentioned multiple times that I've tried in various ways to make 'em more relevant. House rules go a long way, as does banning the vivisectionist alchemist.
Rogue 1/Wizard 19 is the best "rogue build" for people who like playing wizards. The idea that every option in the game has to be as good or better than arcane spellcasting is ridiculous.
Rogues =/= Wizards
1. Then why mention standing alone? Not all classes can tackle all encounters. Not even wizards.
2. This is a build issue and not a class one.
3. I would counter the best thing about rogues is their talents that let you do things with skills you can't normally do.
4. I think it's fine. Again, your build lets you do other things with it.
The idea that every option in the game has to be as good or better than arcane spellcasting is ridiculous.
The alchemist and inquisitor beg to differ. Especially the alchemist, who doesn't technically cast spells.
1. Then why mention standing alone? Not all classes can tackle all encounters. Not even wizards.
2. This is a build issue and not a class one.
3. I would counter the best thing about rogues is their talents that let you do things with skills you can't normally do.
4. I think it's fine. Again, your build lets you do other things with it.
1. Whoosh
2. Not everyone knows that rogues must have feint builds. Some even think TWF would work
3. Rogue talents are aweful
4. It's not fine that rogues are useless for most fights unless played suicidal-ly or perfectly.
2. You can do both.
3. I'll agree to disagree. To me, it comes down mostly to ingenuity on part of the player for the less combat-y ones.
4. When was this claim made? Assuming we have a build that isn't hopelessly codependent, how is it useless in most fights?
2. You can do both.
3. I'll agree to disagree. To me, it comes down mostly to ingenuity on part of the player for the less combat-y ones.
4. When was this claim made? Assuming we have a build that isn't hopelessly codependent, how is it useless in most fights?
2. not really feint requires about 5 feats to be consistent.
3. *doubt*
4. uncanny dodge, mindless enemies, blur, darkness, range combat, choke point combat, elementals, oozes, range combat, range combat, range combat.
2. Using rogue talents (hey, hey) you can gain a few feats to effectively gain a feat every level from 1 - 12ish. Be human for one more and 3 more traits than standard over your career to help make up for those you spent on feats. Feat heavy builds shouldn't be an issue for most rogues. You just need to know what you want to do going into it and are somewhat limited in your options as talents are predetermined.
4. A ton of these come down to other circumstances and can be solved by simple things like race and build including potion use. It's not a failing of the class. You can also do a ranged rogue easily enough.
Eh, I disagree. Ranged rogues are really suboptimal. They're hard to pull off and even if you build around it, you're going to be losing out on sneak attack quite often.
What I like to do with my rogues is carry a ranged weapon for use during the surprise round and during the 1st round of combat (when enemies are still flat-footed). Get a couple shots off while they're susceptible to sneak attack, then switch to melee--kinda like a switch-hitter ranger, but different. Roll a stealth check to create a diversion if things get too heavy, wait for someone else to pull the heat, and then tumble/sneak into place.
A ranged rogue won't be a ranger or gunslinger by any means. It's an option, though. I don't think all classes that can gain proficiency with a weapon must be able to use it as well as all other classes.
Ifrit rogue with fire sight and smoke sticks can full-attack sneak attacks with range weapons
Personally I prefer just taking skill focus(umd) to cover range combats. Also works against foes with concealment, like blur.
Much more seriously, I don't think there's any resignation, official or not, but I do think there's a lack of good content and I don't think that's entirely intentional, though it might feel like it sometime.I dont know MrSin. We've been clamoring for good Rogue talents for awhile and traps like Trap Spotter* and Rumormonger keep getting through.
*Isn't as good as it seems if you read how Perception works.
I don't think trapspotter is a trap, but otherwise agree.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was under the impression that Campaign Traits were only intended for characters participating in particular adventure paths. If this interpretation is correct, players are only able to select the "Trap Finder" if they're playing in a Mummy's Mask game. My suspicion is that traps will be more common in said adventure, and that the party needs at least one person that can deal with 'em. With that in mind, it doesn't seem to be a death sentence for the rogue; the trait just facilitates gameplay in the event that no one wants to play a rogue.
That said, there's till the issue of the vivisectionist alchemist. My solution is simply to ban 'em. Solves the issue pretty easily, in my opinion.
I'd much more likely ban the rogue.
Having been DMing for a party the past few weeks that consists of a Wizard, Sorcerer, Sword-n-Board Fighter, and a Rogue; I can tell you it sucks a lot of the fun out of it for me. If I don't want the rogue to sit there to the side and watch the grown-ups play, I have to do a lot of adjustments. The casters will always have something to do, of course, and even the fighter will always hit things real hard and keep on trucking. But my choices essentially always boil down to either kill the rogue, not challenge the rest of the party, or specifically play counterintuitively. They could be a party of 3 and I can honestly say it would make no difference if she were there.
Even when it comes to roleplay, the Sorcerer can outshine her with his pumped up Bluff and Diplomacy and insane CHA score. At least an alchemist could be brewing healing potions or providing buffs.
Now, I understand if she had optimized we'd be looking at a different story - a bit. But that's the thing: NONE of these characters are optimized. The Sorcerer is all blasts all the time, the Transmuter Wizard's spelllist is mostly a flavor vehicle (He wanted the most 'traditionally' magical of schools, which pretty much boiled down to transmutation or conjuration, and he took the weaker option because he loved the polymorph ideas), and the fighter's not even two-handed or power attacking. Even though nobody is optimized, the Rogue is probably the closest to optimized of the group (High DEX, small size two-weapon fighting - generally agreed upon as the best-of-the-worst rogue build) and she still drags them down.
The problem is that other classes do EVERY SINGLE THING the rogue does, but better. It would be one thing if the Rogue were a Bard-style jack of all trades that's good at everything but not excelling in anything, but the problem is it sucks at everything. I could choose almost any other class in this game and make a build that will surpass the Rogue in all of its designated roles, or far exceed it in one designated role and perform comparably in its others. Leaving behind the theorycrafting, I've never been in a game where encounters did not have to be tailored to make the rogue useful. I've seen a 12th level rogue outshined by a 4th level Fighter cohort. When you're of less use to the party than 1/3rd level NPC, the class is demonstrably broken.
When you're of less use to the party than 1/3rd level NPC, the class is demonstrably broken.
I'm fully aware of the problems with the rogue class; I've got a number of house rules to make them more viable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with rogue is not that other classes can sneak attack or find/disarm traps. Those classes just highlight the problem with the rogue. That problem is the rogue lacks defense and offense at high levels and has no viable method to improve them. Magic can only carry them so far.
As I've seen it once monster starts hitting harder and the rogue can't afford to put himself in harms way to get sneak attack. Even if he does he misses with 1/2 the attacks which allows the target to survive longer getting more attacks on the rogue.
|
Again I think people ignore that a Rogue in melee unless agaisst a helpless opponent does not have the AC or hp to survive for long. Two 3.5 and one Pf game I was in. Each time the Rogue went into melee he either got really hurt, unconcious or killed. Almost without fail. Dms must be going easy on Rogues that go into melee alot in games. Unless your fighting a unintelligent monster like a Gelationous Cube the enemy is going to strike at the guy stabbing him in the back constantly. Unless he is out of range. Rogue Talents while useful are too much of a mixed bag.
Agreed: there are many problems with the class. (Still not giving up on them, though.)
When you're of less use to the party than 1/3rd level NPC, the class is demonstrably broken.I'm fully aware of the problems with the rogue class; I've got a number of house rules to make them more viable.Those houserules are terribly unhelpful to this discussion, since we are not discussing Rogues in X,Y, or Z's campaign using their houserules, but rather the actual PF Rogue. And currently the problem in PF (again not your campaign, which is irrelevant here) is that the Rogue too weak, not the Vivisectionist or Trap Finder are to strong.
The only option when you acknowledge the rogue is too weak is to buff them (hence, house rules).
I'm toying with the idea of a rogue BBEG armed to the teeth in custom made major artifacts and mythic tiers
Also considering just gestalt-ing rogue and fighter together.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you're of less use to the party than 1/3rd level NPC, the class is demonstrably broken.I'm fully aware of the problems with the rogue class; I've got a number of house rules to make them more viable.
It should say something, however, that you not only had to houserule the rogue to make it viable, but then STILL had to ban a class that continued to make it obsolete.
Seems like a simpler fix is just to reskin the Ninja/Vivisectionist/whatever as a rogue and ban the utterly useless Rogue-as-written altogether.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think trapspotter is a trap, but otherwise agree.
The Search skill from 3.5 was the one that required you to find traps. It had the requirement of needing a full-round action to search a 5 by 5 square for traps.
Perception, the skill now used to find traps, has no such caveats. In addition, Perception is made reactively to observable stimuli, such as when you step into the room, you don't have to ask to roll perception to see whats in it. You roll Perception immediately in response to everything that *could* be observed within it. This includes hidden enemies, the intricate tapestry on the wall and the log trap rigged up to slam into you if you take another step.
In addition, since the Perception penalty only increases with each 10 feet, if you have a good Perception bonus, you can potentially find traps from farther away.
So Trap Spotter doesn't actually do anything. Since coming within potential sight of an observable stimulus gives us a Perception check reactively to spot it anyways.
Its just as bad as Rumormonger in that it doesn't actually grant you anything.
Rogues function and survive perfectly well at my table.
Best of luck to you all sorting this out, but I thought that you might like to know that there are tables out there where this is not an issue.
I don't think trapspotter is a trap, but otherwise agree.The Search skill from 3.5 was the one that required you to find traps. It had the requirement of needing a full-round action to search a 5 by 5 square for traps.
Perception, the skill now used to find traps, has no such caveats. In addition, Perception is made reactively to observable stimuli, such as when you step into the room, you don't have to ask to roll perception to see whats in it. You roll Perception immediately in response to everything that *could* be observed within it. This includes hidden enemies, the intricate tapestry on the wall and the log trap rigged up to slam into you if you take another step.
In addition, since the Perception penalty only increases with each 10 feet, if you have a good Perception bonus, you can potentially find traps from farther away.
So Trap Spotter doesn't actually do anything. Since coming within potential sight of an observable stimulus gives us a Perception check reactively to spot it anyways.
Its just as bad as Rumormonger in that it doesn't actually grant you anything.
Interesting point.
I think most GMs require you to say "I search for traps" before they let you find traps.
Rogues function and survive perfectly well at my table.
Best of luck to you all sorting this out, but I thought that you might like to know that there are tables out there where this is a non-issue.
I thought so too, but then I realized that I was just being oblivious to my players problems.
|
|
So Trap Spotter doesn't actually do anything. Since coming within potential sight of an observable stimulus gives us a Perception check reactively to spot it anyways.
Its just as bad as Rumormonger in that it doesn't actually grant you anything.
While I agree with you, I don't know of any GM who actually runs it that way. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree with you, I don't know of any GM who actually runs it that way. :(So Trap Spotter doesn't actually do anything. Since coming within potential sight of an observable stimulus gives us a Perception check reactively to spot it anyways.
Its just as bad as Rumormonger in that it doesn't actually grant you anything.
Show em the differences between 3.5 Search and PF Perception. This is pretty hard to refute unless traps aren't an observable stimulus. But Perception governs what you can see so if it isn't you can't see it period, searching or not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're using a much broader definition of "observable stimulus" than my table does.
So Trap Spotter doesn't actually do anything. Since coming within potential sight of an observable stimulus gives us a Perception check reactively to spot it anyways.
I am?
Observable-
capable of being or liable to be observed; noticeable; visible; discernible
If the trap can be seen, it is observable, if it cannot be seen, then it is not observable.
Show em the differences between 3.5 Search and PF Perception. This is pretty hard to refute unless traps aren't an observable stimulus. But Perception governs what you can see so if it isn't you can't see it period, searching or not.While I agree with you, I don't know of any GM who actually runs it that way. :(So Trap Spotter doesn't actually do anything. Since coming within potential sight of an observable stimulus gives us a Perception check reactively to spot it anyways.
Its just as bad as Rumormonger in that it doesn't actually grant you anything.
Most GMs are from 3.5 and just rule that you have to use the search component of perception.
Some GMs even go so far as to say invisibility doesn't give you a bonus to checks when trying to be quiet.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only conclusion to be drawn is that traps don't exist in the observable universe, but rather inhabit some Platonic realm of pure forms. When a rogue is searching for a trap, she's not actually searching for anything. Rather, she is intuiting the existence of the trap via pure thought.
But yeah, I don't make players announce their characters are actively searching for traps. I don't hate them.
I thought so too, but then I realized that I was just being oblivious to my players problems.Rogues function and survive perfectly well at my table.
Best of luck to you all sorting this out, but I thought that you might like to know that there are tables out there where this is a non-issue.
Two of my players claim that the Rogue is their favorite class.
I figure if I can detect no issues and my players can detect no issues then there are no issues with the Rogue class (at my table, at least).
Show em the differences between 3.5 Search and PF Perception. This is pretty hard to refute...See, your first mistake is assuming they feel a need to refute anything.
I can't account for non-sensible creatures. I'll give you my money back guarantee now though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the same set of conflations and crosstalk happen in most of these threads.
The rogue IS NOT strictly dominated - There technically exist (narrow and convoluted) sets of priorities where the rogue is technically the best way to get those things.
The rogue IS mostly dominated - For most realistic sets of priorities you might have, even for a rogue-like character, the rogue class is not the most efficacious way to get those things, or else you can get those things and a whole lot more better stuff elsewhere.
A rogue IS NOT complete dead weight - You won't instantly fail and die and doom your whole party if you play a rogue. A rogue can be a functional contributing member of a party.
The rogue IS below the curve - A rogue is less able to contribute to resolving standard adventuring challenges than most classes are.
A rogue IS NOT impossible to have fun with. While extremely out-of-band characters can make the game less fun, the rogue is not so far out of band that you'd expect that for the class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rogue IS NOT strictly dominated - There technically exist (narrow and convoluted) sets of priorities where the rogue is technically the best way to get those things.
I think we can safely exclude goals like "have as many rogue talents as possible" from consideration.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rogue IS NOT strictly dominated - There technically exist (narrow and convoluted) sets of priorities where the rogue is technically the best way to get those things.I think we can safely exclude goals like "have as many rogue talents as possible" from consideration.
Which makes me extra sad. When I play a class I should want more of its class features. With a rogue I'm actually looking for the rogue talents that give me feats. I'm actually trading out my class features for feats!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The trap is sitting completely idle, hidden from sight save for very few telltale signs. Unless trained to instictively recognize these telltale signs (i.e. able to be stimulated by the trap, such as with trap spotting), they wouldn't react to it. The same with, say, an invisible incorporeal that chooses to make no sound. Or a deactivated golem passing for a statue. On our table, unless it does *something* to draw attention (i.e. a stimulus), it wouldn't trigger a reactive perception roll. Simply existing is not enough to trigger it.
something that causes something else to happen, develop, or become more active. Something that causes a change or a reaction
I disagree. If it has no observable stimulus than nothing can be found. Displaced dust is a valid stimulus. The telltale sign of a dart hole in the wall is a valid stimulus. If you pass the tapestry on the wall it doesn't go unseen because it wasn't moving.
This is like saying a rock isn't possible to be seen because it doesn't move. No, thats ridiculous. A rock thats been covered in sand could be discovered as such. The Invisible Incorporeal can definitely remain unseen. Unless it moves. Then we immediately get a DC20 Perception check to know if theres an invisible enemy in the room. But that is a byproduct of invisibility which makes you unobservable.