Do Rogues just flat out suck?


Advice

101 to 150 of 1,118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It hasn't been addressed so far in this thread, but the stealth rules are screwed up. There was an effort to fix them a couple of years ago, but it petered out, and you never heard much about it after a few weeks.

Someone brought up the way Rogues function in other games, particularly RPG's. I think everyone expects a Rogue to be able to go into Stealth mode and snoop around the enemy fortress, and do it reliably.

Instead if you can cast invisibility you can stealth in a way a Rogue could never dream of (and be harder to hear), unless your opponent has some way to detect invisible creatures.


Goldenfrog wrote:
Sindalla wrote:

From the PFSRD:

Nowhere in here does it say anything about being masters of combat, don't try to play them that way, play them so that if a situation comes up, they can handle it.

Take a stopwatch to the average Pathfinder game session.

Start the watch at the very beginning of the game.

Stop the time during any combat.

At the end of the game stop the time and look at it.

I think you might be amazed at just how much of the time was spent in combat.

That strikes me as more of a flaw in the game system or adventure paths themselves rather than the class. Why have made a class that functions really well outside of combat if you're going to make a game that revolves almost entirely around combat? Heck, why even make feats or traits that provide out of combat bonuses if you're rarely/never going to use them?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Sarrah wrote:

Rogues, when built correctly, are the 2nd highest damaging class in the game. It is just that most people do not know how to build rogues.

I built a L11 rogue not too long ago that could do 300+ DPR.

When sneak attacking and getting a full attack, sure. The problem is you can't always count on one or the other, much less both

Let's see, at level 11 a rogue has 6d6 base sneak attack damage which is the biggest component of the damage. this can become 12d6 +12 with the sap adept & sap master feats, take IUS & knockout artist for another +6 and each attack which hits can be doing an average of 60 points in sneak attack damage (non-lethal) alone. A TWF rogue of level 11 should, when flanking, hit with about 3 of those 5 attacks and do 60 points of sneak attack damage each. To get the magic 300 the rogue needs to do 40 points of non-sneak damage on the 3 attacks. Hmm.


I also think small races with weapon rules were made just to spite my Rogue.

Halfling Rogues are just WHERE IT IS AT(in my head) so the entire wet noodle rogue issue is just frankly ENHANCED by a even smaller,wet,noodle.

Maybe in Pathfinder 2nd edition they will actually make the halfling rogue tiny size so I can fit in the pocket of my other barbarian character?

Problems solved! You can have your out of pocket err combat utility and in pocket err I mean combat usefulness as well(passing up potions).


Sindalla wrote:
Goldenfrog wrote:

Take a stopwatch to the average Pathfinder game session.

Start the watch at the very beginning of the game.
Stop the time during any combat.
At the end of the game stop the time and look at it.
I think you might be amazed at just how much of the time was spent in combat.
That strikes me as more of a flaw in the game system or adventure paths themselves rather than the class. Why have made a class that functions really well outside of combat if you're going to make a game that revolves almost entirely around combat? Heck, why even make feats or traits that provide out of combat bonuses if you're rarely/never going to use them?

Even if the rogue is only bad because it's in a game system that diminishes its strengths and enhances its weaknesses (which sounds about right), it's still bad.


Headfirst wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Headfirst wrote:
Goldenfrog wrote:
The whole children and mmo talk is just a sure way to draw some heavy fire your way. Why not try and keep things friendly?
Then you guys (not necessarily you) should stop making ridiculous arguments about how rogues should be super damage dealers or why wizards are better skill monkeys. :)
You dimiss in combat prowess (not only DPR, but Hp, saves and AC) and that is fine if rogue actually would have been the king of out of combat. But they are not.

They're not supposed to be the king out of combat. They're not diplomats. They're not crafting machines. They're not knowledge libraries. They don't heal, they don't teleport, they don't research.

They tumble, hide, and steal. They break in, pocket the goods, and escape. They're Dex-based skill monkeys.

In other words: they're ROGUES. :)

People can always paly another class, do the same thing plus something else and call theirselves rogues.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Headfirst, show us how to play a rogue or stop telling us we're doing i wrong.

Put up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Headfirst, show us how to play a rogue or stop telling us we're doing i wrong.

Put up.

To be more concrete. Show us with numbers and tactics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Headfirst, show us how to play a rogue or stop telling us we're doing i wrong.

Put up.

To be more concrete. Show us with numbers and tactics.

Again, guys, it's all situational. Give him a situation or multitude of different situations in which to deal with. Also include whether or not he has allis/npc's to help provide flanks/absorb hits.

Everyone's situationally effective. That barbarian that can put out a monstrous 5,000,000 points of damage per hit, (exaggeration I know)
what kind of armor is he wearing? does he have ranks in swim? Oh, Mithril Full Plate, no ranks in swim? so he's relying solely on his Str modifier? Which is reduced to nothing or negatives because of armor. Okay, well, he got teleported above a lake 10 miles wide. Good luck.


Guys,are you not reading his posts? He isn't going to be able to show you because he isn't claiming to be effective in combat and out of combat no one else in his group is trying to compete(good thing cause talk about $%$% move).

He doesn't mind being a wet noodle in combat.He is fine with that.

Now maybe he has been playing rogue a long time,back in the Classic and AD&D days rogue sucked as much in combat as they do in Pathfinder,and is just used to it. Frankly if this is the case I think he is forgetting just how much Thief was 100% irreplaceable and yet necessary back in those days(save or die/save or major suck).

He isn't claiming to have solved the rogue issue he is saying there isn't a issue. It's working as it should.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really wish these stupid threads would stop.

Does the Rogue "suck"? No. It's just been snowballed over by other classes. Being a Rogue isn't necessarily going to make you the Corporal Upham of the party that gets the group killed.

It's basically the equivalent of one person selling you a new Ford Taurus for $10,000 and another person selling you a new Lexus for $10,000. The Taurus isn't a piece of scrap metal. It's a decent vehicle that will get you where you want to go just fine, but many would wonder why they would take it when they can get a better car for the same cost. That is, unless you REALLY like the Taurus for whatever reason or hate Lexus.


MattR1986 wrote:

I really wish these stupid threads would stop.

Does the Rogue "suck"? No. It's just been snowballed over by other classes. Being a Rogue isn't necessarily going to make you the Corporal Upham of the party that gets the group killed.

It's basically the equivalent of one person selling you a new Ford Taurus for $10,000 and another person selling you a new Lexus for $10,000. The Taurus isn't a piece of scrap metal. It's a decent vehicle that will get you where you want to go just fine, but many would wonder why they would take it when they can get a better car for the same cost. That is, unless you REALLY like the Taurus for whatever reason or hate Lexus.

Good response. I like this.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Sindalla wrote:
Oh, Mithril Full Plate, no ranks in swim? so he's relying solely on his Str modifier? Which is reduced to nothing or negatives because of armor. Okay, well, he got teleported above a lake 10 miles wide. Good luck.

...you realize mithral full plate is only -3 right?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

HAH! The hypocrisy of those who claim Rogues are a fine class never ceases to amaze me!

First, they always try to point out the wonders of Sneak Attack!

"Rogues are the best strikers in the game! Sneak Attack means they deal more damage than every other class" (or something like that)

Then, when other posters show how Sneak Attack is not reliable and the Rogue has horrible defenses, they invariably change their tone...

"You only think Rogue sucks because you're obsessed with DPR." (or something like that)

And conveniently forget the fact that no one complains about Bards or Alchemists (not even Vivisectionist, just your usual vanilla alchemists) are useless, despite they supposedly having lower DPR than Rogues (which is not true, of course, but Rogue-defenders will ignore that fact).

Finally, they will go to their last resource...

"You guys simply don't know how to play Rogues! I'm smarter than you all!" (or something like that)

And never provide any mathematical evidence to prove their point.

It'd be almost funny... If it wasn't pathetic.

I don't hate Rogues. And I'm willing to bet neither does TOZ or any other poster in this thread. But liking something and ignoring obvious flaws are two completely different things.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
I don't hate Rogues. And I'm willing to bet neither does TOZ or any other poster in this thread. But liking something and ignoring obvious flaws are two completely different things.

As I have alluded to this entire thread, my first PFS character is a rogue.


someone with more ambition than me make a thread about how to fix rogue and lets vote on the fix!

Once it's fixed we can just point to the thread and say"Fixed"

Who knows if the goal of the thread is to fix the rogue in the easiest,least complicated way,maybe Paizo will read it.


I like a lot of the points made here. Rogues overall do tend to seem weaker in Pathfinder from what I've seen (not played very long yet though)

I've always enjoyed playing and running (as a GM) rogues because we tend towards trap-heavy games (anyone remember Grimtooth's Traps? ok our's aren't quite that bad but still ;)).

Whether pathfinder, d&d or just our house RPG rules. We tend to prefer scenarios where you get away with less, have to think more and tend to try other options before combat. So I think a lot of people's problem is with playstyle.

Anyway, just my two cents :)


Sindalla wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Headfirst, show us how to play a rogue or stop telling us we're doing i wrong.

Put up.

To be more concrete. Show us with numbers and tactics.

Again, guys, it's all situational. Give him a situation or multitude of different situations in which to deal with. Also include whether or not he has allis/npc's to help provide flanks/absorb hits.

Everyone's situationally effective. That barbarian that can put out a monstrous 5,000,000 points of damage per hit, (exaggeration I know)
what kind of armor is he wearing? does he have ranks in swim? Oh, Mithril Full Plate, no ranks in swim? so he's relying solely on his Str modifier? Which is reduced to nothing or negatives because of armor. Okay, well, he got teleported above a lake 10 miles wide. Good luck.

Eh, Mithral Full Plate only has a -3 ACP. And you have to fail a save by 5 to start sinking. I think he'd be fine. With even a single point in Swim, combined with his STR bonus he'll not have many problems. Besides, if you can Teleport him to arbitrary locations, why not just drop him in a volcano and call it good? Also, most Teleport spells require the caster to go along for the ride (and require being in Touch range), and can be negated with a Will save. Sounds more like ... caster suicide to me. The Barbarian can use your body as a raft after he kills you.

EDIT: Fixed the (incorrect) ACP from -2 to -3. Whoops.


Sindalla wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Headfirst, show us how to play a rogue or stop telling us we're doing i wrong.

Put up.

To be more concrete. Show us with numbers and tactics.

Again, guys, it's all situational. Give him a situation or multitude of different situations in which to deal with. Also include whether or not he has allis/npc's to help provide flanks/absorb hits.

Everyone's situationally effective. That barbarian that can put out a monstrous 5,000,000 points of damage per hit, (exaggeration I know)
what kind of armor is he wearing? does he have ranks in swim? Oh, Mithril Full Plate, no ranks in swim? so he's relying solely on his Str modifier? Which is reduced to nothing or negatives because of armor. Okay, well, he got teleported above a lake 10 miles wide. Good luck.

Mithral Full Plate would have a -3 or less check penalty. When's the last time you saw a barbarian with a STR bonus of +3 or less?

I think that's the common problem here. People just not doing the math.

It also depends on the level of optimization in your games, and how much the GM follows the rules. I think that if you go pretty much with RAW, skills lose out to spells in a big way pretty early. If a GM will allow you to use your skills, you can at least keep up a bit longer, maybe 12th level.


Why would a barbarian wear mithral full plate?

Mithral Breastplate. You don't need to spend a feat on proficiency (you still need to be heavy armor proficient to use mithral full plate), most barbarian have plenty of dex anyways, and you can move full speed.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Sindalla wrote:
Oh, Mithril Full Plate, no ranks in swim? so he's relying solely on his Str modifier? Which is reduced to nothing or negatives because of armor. Okay, well, he got teleported above a lake 10 miles wide. Good luck.
...you realize mithral full plate is only -3 right?

-6 if you're swimming. (you double armor check penalties for swimming just in case you didn't know that, I actually didn't learn that until after I'd been playing for a couple years.)

So if a barbarian optimized himself 18 base strength +2 from racial for 20 he'd still be taking a -1. He will now HAVE to roll each round to swim because he can't take a 10.

He can swim 15 feet per round if successful and it will take him 3520 rounds, that's 35.2 hours. Each hour you swim you have to make a DC 20 swim check, which he can't. If you fail, you take 1d6 points of damage from fatigue, he will be taking 35d6 damage minimum to get to shore. More if he fails some of those 3000+ rolls.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
I don't hate Rogues. And I'm willing to bet neither does TOZ or any other poster in this thread. But liking something and ignoring obvious flaws are two completely different things.
As I have alluded to this entire thread, my first PFS character is a rogue.

And I'm currently playing a Rogue!

Well... Not a Rogue-Rogue, but a Rogue. So it still counts.

EDIT: Are people really using the Swim skill as a selling point for Rogues now? Are they truly that desperate?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Sindalla wrote:
-6 if you're swimming. (you double armor check penalties for swimming just in case you didn't know that, I actually didn't learn that until after I'd been playing for a couple years.)

That's a 3.5 rule. The Special entry under the Swim skill was deleted in Pathfinder.


AndIMustMask wrote:
their main damage mechanic (sneak attack) is hilariously limiting like NO OTHER CLASS' FEATURES, and simply can't be used in most situations without heavy feat taxing (looking at you, shadowstrike feat) to even attempt to use. generally people have to resort to outlandish methods to get even SOME of their sneak attacks off (such as relying on hiding in an invisible tiny hut conjured from a wand to solve all their problems)

This is actually what makes my GM convinced that rogues are an NPC class.

The problem with this argument is that sneak attack is the rogues primary combat class feature. The rogues primary class feature is their skill points per level and their skill list. Which is basically worthless in Pathfinder as opposed to 3.5.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Sindalla wrote:
-6 if you're swimming. (you double armor check penalties for swimming just in case you didn't know that, I actually didn't learn that until after I'd been playing for a couple years.)
That's a 3.5 rule. The Special entry under the Swim skill was deleted in Pathfinder.

Well I'll be a son of a gun, I've been bamboozled. I retract that statement then. None-the-less, I feel that rogue's are very situational and when given those situations, they do well, and can cover a more broad number of scenarios than any other class. Maybe not as well, but they can still do it.


Sindalla wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Sindalla wrote:
Oh, Mithril Full Plate, no ranks in swim? so he's relying solely on his Str modifier? Which is reduced to nothing or negatives because of armor. Okay, well, he got teleported above a lake 10 miles wide. Good luck.
...you realize mithral full plate is only -3 right?

-6 if you're swimming. (you double armor check penalties for swimming just in case you didn't know that, I actually didn't learn that until after I'd been playing for a couple years.)

So if a barbarian optimized himself 18 base strength +2 from racial for 20 he'd still be taking a -1. He will now HAVE to roll each round to swim because he can't take a 10.

He can swim 15 feet per round if successful and it will take him 3520 rounds, that's 35.2 hours. Each hour you swim you have to make a DC 20 swim check, which he can't. If you fail, you take 1d6 points of damage from fatigue, he will be taking 35d6 damage minimum to get to shore. More if he fails some of those 3000+ rolls.

Indeed ACP and weight has been removed from swim penalties. Meaning a level 1 barb not raging with an 18 Strength is at +1


Sindalla wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Sindalla wrote:
Oh, Mithril Full Plate, no ranks in swim? so he's relying solely on his Str modifier? Which is reduced to nothing or negatives because of armor. Okay, well, he got teleported above a lake 10 miles wide. Good luck.
...you realize mithral full plate is only -3 right?

-6 if you're swimming. (you double armor check penalties for swimming just in case you didn't know that, I actually didn't learn that until after I'd been playing for a couple years.)

So if a barbarian optimized himself 18 base strength +2 from racial for 20 he'd still be taking a -1. He will now HAVE to roll each round to swim because he can't take a 10.

He can swim 15 feet per round if successful and it will take him 3520 rounds, that's 35.2 hours. Each hour you swim you have to make a DC 20 swim check, which he can't. If you fail, you take 1d6 points of damage from fatigue, he will be taking 35d6 damage minimum to get to shore. More if he fails some of those 3000+ rolls.

Rounds are 6 seconds. Even 3520 rounds is 352 minutes or about 6 hours. He's not going to die. His skill check not going to go negative. He can take a 10. He'll probably be in Medium armor and be able to move 20' per round, in which case it'll take about 4.5 hours. 4d6 to 6d6 (avg 14 to 21 dmg total) is not that big of a deal. And that's if he has not ranks in Swim and will fail most of his rolls.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Sindalla wrote:
Well I'll be a son of a gun, I've been bamboozled.

Happens to us all. Another thing to remember, you can always take 10 on Swim.

Special wrote:
A creature with a swim speed can move through water at its indicated speed without making Swim checks. It gains a +8 racial bonus on any Swim check to perform a special action or avoid a hazard. The creature can always choose to take 10 on a Swim check, even if distracted or endangered when swimming. Such a creature can use the run action while swimming, provided that it swims in a straight line.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:

This is actually what makes my GM convinced that rogues are an NPC class.

The problem with this argument is that sneak attack is the rogues primary combat class feature. The rogues primary class feature is their skill points per level and their skill list. Which is basically worthless in Pathfinder as opposed to 3.5.

The best part! Best place to meet a human rogue? In a dark alley! No sneak attack!


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Sindalla wrote:
Well I'll be a son of a gun, I've been bamboozled.

Happens to us all. Another thing to remember, you can always take 10 on Swim.

Special wrote:
A creature with a swim speed can move through water at its indicated speed without making Swim checks. It gains a +8 racial bonus on any Swim check to perform a special action or avoid a hazard. The creature can always choose to take 10 on a Swim check, even if distracted or endangered when swimming. Such a creature can use the run action while swimming, provided that it swims in a straight line.

That's creatures with a swim speed my friend. Seems we both learned something new today.


Having had a player play a rogue through the majority of Rise of the Runelords...(we're about 2 weeks from the finale)

Firstly, let me add my GMing style os to add out of combat encounters and plenty of npcs to interact with. i am a cthulhu gm by general inclination, so I have alot of experience in runnning detective based games ,as well as those revolving around the characters personal lives.

And yes, I'm sorry to say....Rogues do suck MECHANISTICALLY compared to many of the other classes.
( thats just using the core book!)

I've had to work twice as hard to keep the party rogue as relevant as the other character classes (and that includes the party monk!) , I'm generous with sneak attack situations, and try to leverage rogue sklls in non-combat encounters..,,and even then (at 14th level) the character is in danger of being constantly sidelined by the party monk, bard or ranger.
(We have a six player group : bard, ranger, monk , druid, sorcerer, thief)

Dont get me wrong...THEMATICALLY Rogue is one of my favourite classes...but mechanistically it currently lacks a great deal at mid-high levels. It definitely needs a combat buff of some kind at 12th level + , in my opinion, and out of combat it needs some sort of tweaking to prevent it being overshadowed by the bard and ranger...


Sindalla wrote:
(...) and can cover a more broad number of scenarios than any other class. (...)

Except for... You know... Bards, Inquisitors, Alchemists, Ninja, Rangers, Magi and every full caster in the game.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Sindalla wrote:
That's creatures with a swim speed my friend. Seems we both learned something new today.

Right, I misread that as I was reviewing my knowledge. XD


Lemmy wrote:
Sindalla wrote:
(...) and can cover a more broad number of scenarios than any other class. (...)
Except for... You know... Bards, Inquisitors, Alchemists, Ninja, Rangers, Magi and every full caster in the game.

All of which would be ruined by an anti magic field except for the ranger, and maybe the ninja, correct?

I did say "broad" number of scenarios, anti-magic zones included.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Sindalla wrote:
That's creatures with a swim speed my friend. Seems we both learned something new today.
Right, I misread that as I was reviewing my knowledge. XD

Like you said, happens to us all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sindalla wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Sindalla wrote:
(...) and can cover a more broad number of scenarios than any other class. (...)
Except for... You know... Bards, Inquisitors, Alchemists, Ninja, Rangers, Magi and every full caster in the game.

All of which would be ruined by an anti magic field except for the ranger, and maybe the ninja, correct?

I did say "broad" number of scenarios, anti-magic zones included.

So no scenarios.

Even then, bard, alchemist, ninja, and ranger still outperform the rogue.


Sindalla wrote:

All of which would be ruined by an anti magic field except for the ranger, and maybe the ninja, correct?

I did say "broad" number of scenarios, anti-magic zones included.

Bards end up with more effective skill points per level than rogues, all keying off of charisma, so no even without magic they're still better


Sindalla wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Sindalla wrote:
That's creatures with a swim speed my friend. Seems we both learned something new today.
Right, I misread that as I was reviewing my knowledge. XD
Like you said, happens to us all.

I don't see anything indicating a normal creature can't take a 10 on a Swim check, as long as it's not being threatened or distracted (or in stormy water). What am I missing here?


Cheburn wrote:
Sindalla wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Sindalla wrote:
That's creatures with a swim speed my friend. Seems we both learned something new today.
Right, I misread that as I was reviewing my knowledge. XD
Like you said, happens to us all.
I don't see anything indicating a normal creature can't take a 10 on a Swim check, as long as it's not being threatened or distracted (or in stormy water). What am I missing here?

"always" take 10.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Goldenfrog wrote:

someone with more ambition than me make a thread about how to fix rogue and lets vote on the fix!

Once it's fixed we can just point to the thread and say"Fixed"

Who knows if the goal of the thread is to fix the rogue in the easiest,least complicated way,maybe Paizo will read it.

The easiest way would be to gestalt Fighter and Rogue together to make the Adventurer class. It's dirty, but it is quick and easy.


Sindalla wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Sindalla wrote:
(...) and can cover a more broad number of scenarios than any other class. (...)
Except for... You know... Bards, Inquisitors, Alchemists, Ninja, Rangers, Magi and every full caster in the game.

All of which would be ruined by an anti magic field except for the ranger, and maybe the ninja, correct?

I did say "broad" number of scenarios, anti-magic zones included.

And then you come up with the one scenario where the Rogue sucks less than them (maybe)... Not perform better, just suck less. Because like it or not, every class is screwed when in a Antimagic Field.

Claiming something is better in an AMF is a pointless desperation move. Unless whoever used the AMF is a moron (e.g.:A Wizard who casts AMF and stays right next to the enemy Barbarian), the only viable course of action in an AMF is leaving it ASAP.

And how often do AMFs come up anyway?

And I'm still not sure I'd have a Rogue over all of those classes even in an AMF. Many of them have better AC and all of them have better saves. Bards, Magi, Alchemist and arcane casters are likely to have more skills too.


Athaleon wrote:
Goldenfrog wrote:

someone with more ambition than me make a thread about how to fix rogue and lets vote on the fix!

Once it's fixed we can just point to the thread and say"Fixed"

Who knows if the goal of the thread is to fix the rogue in the easiest,least complicated way,maybe Paizo will read it.

The easiest way would be to gestalt Fighter and Rogue together to make the Adventurer class. It's dirty, but it is quick and easy.

Sample Build:
Human Adventurer || 17 15 14 14 8 8 ||

Armor Expert(reduce armor check penalty by 1), Deathtouch(+2 vs mind affecting)
1 | Trapfinding
Toughness, Intimidating Prowess, Combat Reflexes
Sneak Attack +1d6
2 |Bravery +1, Evasion
Power Attack
Trap Spotter
3 |Armor training,trap sense +1
Cleave
Sneak Attack +2d6
4 | Uncanny dodge
Great Cleave
Combat Trick(Blind-Fight)
5 |Weapon training(Blades, Heavy)
Skill Focus(UMD)
Sneak Attack +3d6
6 |Bravery +2, trap sense +2
Lunge
Bleeding Attack
7 |Armor training
Iron Will
Sneak Attack +4d6
8 | Improved Uncanny dodge
Quick Draw
Slow Reactions
9 |Weapon training(Bows), trap sense +3
Point-Blank Shot
Sneak Attack +5d6
10|Bravery +3, advance talents
Rapid Shot
Skill Mastery
11|Armor training
Deadly Aim
Sneak Attack +6d6
12| Trap sense +4
Far Shot
Opportunist
13|Weapon training(Spears)
Leadership
Sneak Attack +7d6
14|Bravery +4,
Mounted Combat
Crippling Strike
15|Armor training,trap sense+5
Mounted Archery
Sneak Attack +8d6
16|
Ride-By Attack
Feat(Manyshot)
17|Weapon training(Close)
Spirited Charge
Sneak Attack +9d6
18|Bravery +5, trap sense+6
Trample
Improved Evasion
19|Armor mastery
Improved Iron Will
Sneak Attack +10d6
20|weapon mastery(GS), Master Strike
Improved Critical(GS)
Weapon Training(GS)

Thread about topic with sample builds

Although I am working on a fighter rewrite, so I have abandoned the idea for now.

I also made a rogue rewrite that I am less proud of. I plan to try again some time in the future.

Grand Lodge

Squirrel_Dude wrote:

Wizards and Bards, and many other spellcasting classes have many ways available to completely negate the risky skill rolls.

Scouting?: Imp familiar. Faerie Dragon familiar. [Insert X familier here]. Invisibility on yourself. Summon a Dretch demon or a Mephit
Gathering Information?: A whole slew of divination spells and all that int synergy that wizards have. If you need to directly negotiate with someone? Charm Person. Charm Monster. Summon a Lantern Archon to make some diplomacy checks for you.
Infiltration? Invsibility. Disguise Self. Glibness for Bards. Simulacrums. Etherealness. Dimension door.
Overcoming obstacles? Fly. Alter Self. Beast/Dragon/Plant/Vermin Shape.
Locked Doors, Chests, Traps? Knock.

Congratulations, you've gimped your wizard or bard to give them the ability to emulate a rogue's skill selection. Now, for a few rounds or minutes each day, they can emulate something a rogue can do all day.

What do you do when the party turns to your wizard and says "alright, cast enlarge person on our fighter, please" and you can only reply "uh, sorry, I memorized disguise self instead because I thought it might come in handy" or when they ask you to cast web to deal with charging orcs, you shrug and say "how about knock?"

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Headfirst wrote:
What do you do when the party turns to your wizard and says "alright, cast enlarge person on our fighter, please" and you can only reply "uh, sorry, I memorized disguise self instead because I thought it might come in handy" or when they ask you to cast web to deal with charging orcs, you shrug and say "how about knock?"

One, the wizard made the fighter a potion of enlarge person because then it's a standard action rather than 1 round.

Two, scroll of web works just fine.


You leave slots open so you can prepare utility spells like that as needed. Or you bring scrolls, which the Wizard makes at half price, he can copy them out of his spellbook at any time, and he doesn't have to roll UMD.


Headfirst wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:

Wizards and Bards, and many other spellcasting classes have many ways available to completely negate the risky skill rolls.

Scouting?: Imp familiar. Faerie Dragon familiar. [Insert X familier here]. Invisibility on yourself. Summon a Dretch demon or a Mephit
Gathering Information?: A whole slew of divination spells and all that int synergy that wizards have. If you need to directly negotiate with someone? Charm Person. Charm Monster. Summon a Lantern Archon to make some diplomacy checks for you.
Infiltration? Invsibility. Disguise Self. Glibness for Bards. Simulacrums. Etherealness. Dimension door.
Overcoming obstacles? Fly. Alter Self. Beast/Dragon/Plant/Vermin Shape.
Locked Doors, Chests, Traps? Knock.

Congratulations, you've gimped your wizard or bard to give them the ability to emulate a rogue's skill selection. Now, for a few rounds or minutes each day, they can emulate something a rogue can do all day.

What do you do when the party turns to your wizard and says "alright, cast enlarge person on our fighter, please" and you can only reply "uh, sorry, I memorized disguise self instead because I thought it might come in handy" or when they ask you to cast web to deal with charging orcs, you shrug and say "how about knock?"

Or the wizard just has those skills while the other party wizard has knowledge skills. Or the party spends around the knowledge skills and the wizard grabs both those skills and his wizarding skills with all those skill points he has from being an INT caster.


Yeah, people tend to underestimate preparing half your spells as combat and just leaving everything else open.

Some of us play rogues intentionally because we know the class is bad and we want a challenge.

101 to 150 of 1,118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Do Rogues just flat out suck? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.