Do Rogues just flat out suck?


Advice

301 to 350 of 1,118 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

TriOmegaZero wrote:


Stealthy Sniper: It's just a reduction in the sniping penalty. So you're getting one shot a round and hoping they don't have one of the many ways to negate Stealth.

Leaving aside the mechanics, sniping is oneo of the most fun killer tactics in PF, for everyone at the table. All the party is fighting and killing thing while the rogue is getting one attack and trying to not get seeing.

I have see it in game, it makes you wonder why you are adventuring with the rogue.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yeah, the halfling archer rogue in our Tier 1-2 game was really sad. Slow speed meant he was struggling to move from cover to cover in order to get in range of the enemy for sneak attack. He was having to roll two Stealth checks a round against all of the enemies Perception checks just to stay hidden. (I think he should only have been rolling once, but I wasn't GMing.) He might have gotten off one or two sneak attacks that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Apparently, gaining Sneak Attack by any method other than tumbling into flanking with dual daggers is "cheesy".


Ranged stealth being so awful is strange to my Skyrim-experienced self. Maybe give the Rogue a bonus on the Stealth check if she happens to kill her target, and then the Stealthy Sniper talent makes it so that a kill prevents the perception check from happening at all?

Hell, maybe a stealthy kill where the victim is found but the killer is not could raise the fear level of everyone in the room, Arkham style. Give the Rogue something to do on his scouting missions other than just relay information to someone who can actually kill the things he finds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
Apparently, gaining Sneak Attack by any method other than tumbling into flanking with dual daggers is "cheesy".

According to what?

Shadow Lodge

Not even going to post my opinion on rogues here at least, not yet because I don't have time to read the 6[soon 6+] pages of "Rogue Hate", but I will point out one thing.

TOZ wrote:
Perform: Dance. Silent Spell.
Silent Spell wrote:

Benefit: A silent spell can be cast with no verbal components. Spells without verbal components are not affected. A silent spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.

Special: Bard spells cannot be enhanced by this feat.

Emphasis mine.


Headfirst wrote:


I'm not writing you a book report on why advanced rogue talents are good, but here are some highlights:

Improved Evasion, Opportunist, Skill Mastery, Stealthy Sniper, Weapon Snatcher

If you don't immediately recognize how good those are, nothing I can say here will convince you.

Probably not as weapon snatcher is terrible considering the fact that you still haven't dealt with weapon cords, though since their nerf will certainly hurt more. Then again, your sleight of hand still might not make much of a dent against many of the full BAB CMD's (which often by max level are well into the 50's. 10 base + 10 strength + 5 dex + 5 dodge + 1 insight + 20 BAB =51 for a reasonably low baseline.)

Stealthy sniper doesn't change the fact that you get to snipe only 1/turn so your dpr is crap, you're wasting abilities on combat when it really doesn't help that much (by the time you can get this, seriously just beg someone for an improved invisibility and be done with it)

Skill Mastery. Is pretty solid, I'll give you that if you expend all of your gold and feats towards making you great at skills you'll basically not fail another skill check on those. Without that though, you'll still be swingy as you don't get a lot of bonuses beyond the basic crap which isn't enough.

Opportunist. Your attack of opportunity is going to have all the normal faults, i.e. low to hit and damage. This is a crappy ability for someone who is terrible in melee and in combat in general. Also since its not your turn, nothing says you're still flanking anymore.

Improved evasion. Probably the best of the lot, with your high reflex will certainly mitigate failed rolls. It goes without saying though that a high dex, high reflex character would make most reflex saves anyways and wouldn't have taken damage from those abilities to begin with. If anything thats the save that needs the least boosting, not the most.

My picks?

Another day, absolutely essential if you want to melee with someone so squishy.

Dispelling attack, absolutely epic.

Entanglement of blades.

Hard Minded, yes yes yes please!

As always, hide in plain sight.

Not a damage in there to be seen, he shines best as utility.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
Quote:
Special: Bard spells cannot be enhanced by this feat.
Emphasis mine.

Thanks! I've never taken the feat myself. Guess I should have left that edit out.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
Not even going to post my opinion on rogues here at least, not yet because I don't have time to read the 6[soon 6+] pages of "Rogue Hate", but I will point out one thing.
TOZ wrote:
Perform: Dance. Silent Spell.
Silent Spell wrote:

Benefit: A silent spell can be cast with no verbal components. Spells without verbal components are not affected. A silent spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.

Special: Bard spells cannot be enhanced by this feat.

Emphasis mine.

Spells or not, the Bard still gets every relevant sneak thief skill except Disable Device which is easily picked up with a trait. The spells make the Bard useful in places other than this one specific scenario that is entirely designed to make the Rogue feel better about himself.


Headfirst wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Fixed it for you...

Yikes, I thought were were talking about a challenge that was scaled to the level of the party.

Yeah, if a high-level wizard just needs to get through a house full of a bunch of 1st level warrior guards and low DC locks, sure, his low-level spells will work just fine.

Fun fact: Knock doesn't automatically open locked doors; you still have to make a roll. Roll low and guess what? You just blew your one chance to unlock one door. Hope you had more knock spells memorized and I hope the nobleman's house only had that one door...

As if a rogue was necessary to open a door. You don't even need spells for that.

Any character that take disable device can (even a fighter).
Moreover, as the whole group is likely to be noisy, just cut the door to pieces and get passed it.
The rogue need to be alone to use his skills effectively, but if he is alone, he won't be able to do anything.

No door can stop a character. Any character. Even less a group. If the pinnacle of the adventure for the rogue is opening a door (even the door just before the BBEG), something goes weird.
Be it at level 1 or level 20, by the way.

Traps can be detected by just everyone. They don't even have to be disabled to pass those : avoiding it or triggering it (volontarily and safely) may have the same result (=> moving past it) and be less time consuming. And it will do less noise than the fighter walking.


fictionfan wrote:

Heres a nice rouge biased test. Imagine you want to steal something from a Noble's mannor house a crown or something. The house has dogs guards and possibly traps which class would you want for this mission. You are level 5.

There are that's a non-combat test that does not come up that often if some other class can do it better then a Rogues aren't just sub-pare they flat out suck.

Bard. All of the skills of the rogue plus invisibility, plus detect magic to find any magic traps. Better at disguising himself and conning his way in.

Monk focused in dex and wis. Zen archer especially. Better at detecting traps (high wis) capable o jumping from the ground to the top of the wall and rom there to the second or third floor window.
Ranger. Can tame the dogs, sneak just as well as he rogue (better if he takes urban as his terrain) better at finding traps (higher wis and fav terrain urban)
Wizard that planned for the assault and thus came with the right prepared spells. Fly, detect magic, detect secret doors, invisibility, disguise self, pilfering hand. Also has a lot of skill points.
Alchemist. Not as high on skills but has extracts. Lower Stealth by 3 for not being class, increase by twenty with invisibility. Perception, umd, sleight of hand and disable device skills are the same as the rogue, but he can get extracts to increase perception bt +2 and gain low light vision, negate the dogs scent, gain a +2 competence bonus on Disable Device, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth checks, +5 perception.

So, two can do it better (Ranger and Alchemist) and three just as well, and the Alchemist is the only one that can sneak past the dogs instead of having to find another way in.


Headfirst wrote:

If you think rogues suck, it's because you're trying to play them like another class.

Try this build on for size: Play an elf rogue. Get your Dex to at least 18, but try to keep everything else around 12. Don't dump anything. Trade out the elven magic trait for the silent hunter trait. For your other traits, pick up warrior of old and threatening defender.

Your first level feat should be combat expertise. At 2nd level, you're using a rogue trick to gain weapon finesse, because you're going to be using a rapier whenever you have to put your composite longbow away. At 3rd level, you want improved feint. Now you've got all the melee help you need, so all of your subsequent feats should be chasing down ranged effectiveness: point-blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot, manyshot, focused shot, etc. Read up on all the different flavors of arrows there are to buy!

For your 2nd and 3rd rogue talents, ignore the crappy sneak attack ones. Instead, go for minor magic (touch of fatigue) and then major magic (vanish). Every level, put your favored class bonus into the elf racial bonus that increases the uses per day of these spells.

For your skills, concentrate on the classic rogue stuff: acrobatics, bluff, disable device, disguise, escape artist, perception, sleight of hand, stealth, and use magic device. Now actually go and read up on everything you can do with those skills. Seriously, go read them again. I'll bet even an experienced player is going to discover something he didn't know at least one of those skills does.

And now you're all set. You can dish out incredible damage at short range or in melee, plus you have long range capabilities. After the battle, when the fighter, cleric, wizard, and most other classes are sitting there twiddling their thumbs, waiting for the next fight, you can get to work using bluff, disable device, and disguise to turn a town upside down!

Enjoy!

Or play a Slayer, Inquisitor, or Bard and be better at both.


Headfirst wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Fixed it for you...

Yikes, I thought were were talking about a challenge that was scaled to the level of the party.

Yeah, if a high-level wizard just needs to get through a house full of a bunch of 1st level warrior guards and low DC locks, sure, his low-level spells will work just fine.

If a Rogue can do it, chances are a Wizard can do it with low level spells. He might need a little more than that, but he is still very likely to have most, if not all, of his high level spell slots prepared for different stuff. Hell, he can spend a few more spell slots and bring his friends with him, instead of splitting the party.

Headfirst wrote:
Fun fact: Knock doesn't automatically open locked doors; you still have to make a roll. Roll low and guess what? You just blew your one chance to unlock one door. Hope you had more knock spells memorized and I hope the nobleman's house only had that one door...

A wand of Knock is much cheaper than the resources a Rogue would drain from the party. If it's just for the money, a Wizard can simply save the same amount (or more) by crafting gear for the whole party. If it's an important mission, then it's well worth spending more spells on it. And the Wizard will probably have means to bring his friends along without being detected. Even the Paladin in a shiny full plate is a decent infiltrator when under effect of Invisibility.

Besides... Better have the Wizard gimped for a day than have the whole party gimped for as long as it has a Rogue in it.


You'd think a Rogue would excel as an archery build, but post after post (especially the ones trying to defend the weak Rogue(if I were in a better mood I wouldn't point out that the incredibly vague & poor arguments put forth to show how great the Rogue really is belie a terrible problem with reason and logic and are hardly coincidental)) show just how hard the Rogue sucks. It's scandalous that a class that can use Dexterity so much is just awful compared to so many others as a sniper, and those others have cool things the Rogue doesn't have.

The fact that the Rogue is bad at archery, not that he doesn't suck elsewhere but just to stick to the topic, does not reflect a problem with me. Don't shoot the messenger, though with Rogue's arrows I'd probably survive anyway. This failure is on Pathfinder and hopefully the Swashbuckler -which I haven't read yet but sounds very promising- or some other fix will come along


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Headfirst wrote:


As for out-of-combat stuff, let me just say this: Some classes might be better at certain skills than a rogue, but I don't think every class has easy access to all of them. Anything you do to a bard, wizard, ranger, or another class to try to emulate a rogue comes at the sacrifice of one or more of that class's core abilities.

Let's focus on this statement here for a moment.

Let's point something out right away.

Trapdfinding is now a trait.

It is also a spell.

PRetty light investment that encompasses nearly everything a second level rogue gets and the main reason that groups acknowledge they need one. Not to mention alchemists, bards, rangers, investigators, sorcerers, and pretty much everyone else in some form or another.

So, I think in the context of the post the rogue in question is meant to be a sneak thief.

So, that means skills.

Acrobatics, Climb, Stealth, perception, and disable device.

He probably also means Bluff since apparently being sneaky also means being a liar. Oh and sleight of hand. Because.

So who has those?

Bards have everything but disable device which they can get through a trait.

Inquisitors have neither disable device, sleight of hand, nor acrobatics. A tough call on this one.

Ninjas have all of these of course.

Rangers lack bluff, sleight of hand, acrobatics, and disable device.

I'm not going to touch other classes since we're looking for rogue analogues. Well okay Alchemists don't have bluff, acrobatics or climb.

So, in terms of improving on those skills in terms of either utility or power they only have talents.

In those terms you have some fairly okay ones. Canny observer is a raw +4 to perception checks for finding traps and listening in on conversations (but not for finding ambushes). The Quick series of talents can speed up the time it takes for there associated situations to go. Trap spotter is considerably useful since it's passive.

The trouble with talents though is that it prevents you from taking things like Offensive Defense and the like which are talents that allow you to do crazy things like survive combat.

Let's compare this to a bard, whose the closest of the 4 to beinga sneak thief.

He'll end up spending fewer skill points becuase PErform (act) straight up gives him bluff and disguise based on his perform score.

Now, the bard has options to make these skills better himself. Heroism is a raw morale bonus to all skills that lasts 10 min per level. This can be more than long enough to rush through the nobleman's house.

They can also use Innocence which gives a +10 bonus to seem innocent. Given that you are aready a charisma based class and are using your featured skill on it the bonus even at level 3 can be quite ludicrous (off the top of my head I got a +19 on that roll at this level). At some point you get Glibness which is a flat +20 to bluff checks.

Bard's also happen to be very good at distraction. Illusion spells, ventriloquism, ghost sound, all these can be used to draw attention away from the rogue.

Now, the argument against this is that a rogue can do his thing all day. And the answer is yes, yes they can.

But, reality is that it doesn't matter that they can do it all day. Dungeons rarely require that you spend 24 hours literally rolling all of the above skill checks at once. Often, situations arise where the skill check is precluded. Why bother stealthily walking up to and opening the locked door when the barbarian just rips the door off its hinges, eats the trap to the face like a champ (tastes like mild itching) and murdelates the poor bastard on the other side?

And the times when he can't? The bard or who ever can probably do it with a casting of invisibility. Heck it can come from the wizard even if they are pressed for resources.

He may need to do it once or twice that day. The rest of it spent with Krug the impatient simply ripping doors off hinges and killing people with them. If they even need to do that.

He won't need to kill any "core" aspects of his class. He's just spending skill points. And given our above sample bard will have points to spare (3 per level if he's human using favored class bonuses). HE can chuck those points wherever he wants.

And those other classes aren't exempt. Alchemist doesn't have climb? That's were extracts of spider climb come in handy. Ranger doesn't have acrobatics? Probably doesn't even need it.

The ultimate point being is that there is usually multiple ways to solve a problem. Making a statement like "it kills the core of your character" is ridiculous from my spot at the table. The core of your character is however you require it to be to fit the needs of the group. The only question is the difficulty in making it happen and the overall effectiveness of the results. Often, it's been found that effective answers are found among the other classes, heck even the much mounred for fighter and cavalier have answers for "the enemy is attempting to make sweet love to my heart via my ribcage how do I stop this?" problem.

Now as I said earlier. We've put in the work. The ultimate conclusion is that the rogue can work quite well within a certain set of expectations. But, it requires a lot of system mastery and shenanigans to make work. And ultimately you'll probably only just be on par with a less optimized investigator or bard.

If you're willing to accept this then that's awesome. If not, then please don't attempt to shoot rhetoric at me without a really good argument to back you up. Give me some numbers, some context, give me some real life play examples and not just theorycraft scenarios.

EDIT: I'm tired. Corrected for ease of reading and clarification.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
Perhaps what many of us want isn't for every character to be supreme killing machines, but for every character to be able to survive and contribute effectively in encounters because we want to keep doing that out of combat character stuff?

Now that is just crazy talk.

Although, on that note: A monk does that pretty well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Remember when traits were supposed to equal half a feat? The further it goes along the more I think the whole thing should be scrapped.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
Remember when traits were supposed to equal half a feat? The further it goes along the more I think the whole thing should be scrapped.

They are half a feat. That's how worthless a good class skill list and the ability to mundanely disable magic traps is.

Atleast the plus 1/2 bonus to disable device and perception checks for traps wasn't also put into the trait.


I'm saddened by the fact that a couple of posters in these threads actually get incensed or derisive when someone likes and sees no major problem with the rogue as-is. I mean, really. If you feel there's a problem, house rule it to the nines. Why do you care whether someone like me agrees?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
I'm saddened by the fact that a couple of posters in these threads actually get incensed or derisive when someone likes and sees no major problem with the rogue as-is.

Well, you only get what you give.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
I'm saddened by the fact that a couple of posters in these threads actually get incensed or derisive when someone likes and sees no major problem with the rogue as-is. I mean, really. If you feel there's a problem, house rule it to the nines. Why do you care whether someone like me agrees?

Most of the people with your opinion "looks back at past 4 pages pointedly" were decidedly rude, calling everyone everything from children to suggesting we all only want munchkinized super dpr and were better off playing WOW.

After insulting us, proceeded to ignore any calls to back up their claims, refuting them with more insults.

In short, we don't actually care if you disagree. You weren't nearly as bad though, most people who disagreed were blatantly antagonistic.


blahpers wrote:
I'm saddened by the fact that a couple of posters in these threads actually get incensed or derisive when someone likes and sees no major problem with the rogue as-is. I mean, really. If you feel there's a problem, house rule it to the nines. Why do you care whether someone like me agrees?

I get annoyed when people make blanket statements and generalizations than refuse to clarify when questioned. Even stating that if I can't see the obvious then they won't put in the effort.

But if it helps, I give you an e-hug.


TarkXT wrote:
blahpers wrote:
I'm saddened by the fact that a couple of posters in these threads actually get incensed or derisive when someone likes and sees no major problem with the rogue as-is. I mean, really. If you feel there's a problem, house rule it to the nines. Why do you care whether someone like me agrees?

I get annoyed when people make blanket statements and generalizations than refuse to clarify when questioned. Even stating that if I can't see the obvious then they won't put in the effort.

But if it helps, I give you an e-hug.

Can i have an ehug too? I'd really like one tonight.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
blahpers wrote:
I'm saddened by the fact that a couple of posters in these threads actually get incensed or derisive when someone likes and sees no major problem with the rogue as-is. I mean, really. If you feel there's a problem, house rule it to the nines. Why do you care whether someone like me agrees?

I get annoyed when people make blanket statements and generalizations than refuse to clarify when questioned. Even stating that if I can't see the obvious then they won't put in the effort.

But if it helps, I give you an e-hug.

Can i have an ehug too? I'd really like one tonight.

Sure why not.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Headfirst wrote:

Wizard: "Hey guys, I successfully broke into that nobleman's house and stole his prize jewels! We can sell these for an easy 1,000 gold! Who's the rogue now?"

Party: "Nice! How'd you do it?"

Wizard:"I spent 2~4 spell slots of low level spells."

Party: "Cool, but first we need you to craft us some arms and armor, then use your knowledge skills to decipher some clues. Also, we're fleeing some thugs right now; could you cast magic missile or web to help us out?"

Wizard: "Sure! I still have all my mid/high level spells. And I spent my skill ranks in knowledge skills and my feats on whatever I want, because I need nothing but a few low-level spell slots to do the whole job of a Rogue."

Party: "I'm so glad we don't have a Rogue!"

Wizard: "Right?"

Fixed it for you...

What I love about this scenario is that no matter who is the one breaking into the house....it's one person out of the entire party. Who would bother showing up to that play session aside from the burglar's player?

Good to know that rogues are "good" at playing all by themselves. As long as he doesn't make a mistake, anyway: low saves, AC, attack bonus, damage, and zero movement enhancers means that he's one failed bluff check to create a diversion from getting creamed by the guards.


TarkXT wrote:
blahpers wrote:
I'm saddened by the fact that a couple of posters in these threads actually get incensed or derisive when someone likes and sees no major problem with the rogue as-is. I mean, really. If you feel there's a problem, house rule it to the nines. Why do you care whether someone like me agrees?

I get annoyed when people make blanket statements and generalizations than refuse to clarify when questioned. Even stating that if I can't see the obvious then they won't put in the effort.

But if it helps, I give you an e-hug.

Well, maybe a little. : )

Just hoping that folks remember to take a deep breath every now and then to put thing into perspective. The game's only as good as it allows people to enjoy playing it, and there are solutions to most problems so that everybody can have fun regardless of their inclinations.

I've mentioned it before, but I wonder what effect the popularity of PFS has had on the "heat" level of these threads? It must be frustrating as a GM to be unable to change the rules to suit the table--and as a player to be unable to petition for and negotiate such changes. That means there's an actual investment in what the printed rules say, as opposed to other tables who can just say "@%#¥ the rules and the FAQ, rogues get X boost".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Wow.

This thread blew up.

Not a surprise though.

This always a heated issue.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wow.

This thread blew up.

Not a surprise though.

This always a heated issue.

Around 200 posts in 8 hours.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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 think this helps to identify the problem with the class. A player should not have to find the "optimal build" to make the class an effective class.


Headfirst wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Drink unto the sweet ambrosia of enlightenment and make informed decisions for yourself.

Exactly the case I'm making. The example in that link has the rogue wasting a feat on martial weapon proficiency so he can try to power attack with a greatsword.

Guys, if you want to do tons of damage with a greatsword, play a fighter. I'd say the same thing to some halfwit coming here and complaining that his sorcerer can't keep up in melee with a barbarian. He's not supposed to fight like that!

I have a sorcerer who fights with a falchion and kicks butt doing so. What now?

/flex

By level 20, this guy will be rocking over 50 Str, easy. Hits like a mack truck yo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

You'd really have to define "average pathfinder game". Because no one has the time or ability to go to every pathfinder game to check and see what the average game was like.

We are all pretty much limited by our own experiences with pathfinder games, and quite frankly, those experiences are often highly varied.

For example; I'd say that combat in the average game I've played in clocks in for about 10-15% of game time. Maybe a little less. Combat doesn't happen every session, and sometimes we've gone weeks without drawing a blade.

It has been my experience that rogues are remarkably effective characters. There is practically no point where they are devoid options to contribute. In fact, that is their greatest strength... they are always able to contribute. No matter which direction the story takes, they have a role to play.

A rogue very often has the capacity to become the heart of a group, and steer the storyline themselves. the can be the mastermind, or leader. They know a good bit of everything. Yeah, other classes who specialize in a narrow focus are better in their niche, but the rogue is okay at all of the niches.

Need to dig up some info? Sure the wizard might know something or the bard for sure. But the rogue can find the guy who saw the stuff first hand. Having a political scandal and need someone to run interference? Yeah the party face can often handle this, but they can't be everyone at once, and an extra face can come in handy. Doing a bit of recon? Yeah the ranger can go it alone... but why send him off alone and vulnerable when the rogue can go off with him?

The rogue always has something to do, they can always be involved. Unless perhaps you built your rogue to be a crappy fighter... then he is just going to be a crappy fighter.


No need to go to every pathfinder game....simply get the games to come to us...lets go see.


Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper 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 think this helps to identify the problem with the class. A player should not have to find the "optimal build" to make the class an effective class.

That is a ridiculous sentiment.

There can only be a fixed number of ways to the do the absolute best at any particular thing.

If that thing in question is max DPR, there are only going to be a finite number of ways to achieve it.

You need not do max DPR to be effective, and if you think you do then you already are going to assume that playing the "optimal build" is required to do max DPR for any class... because it can only be done with an optimal build!

So much circular logic. >.<


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Goldenfrog wrote:
No need to go to every pathfinder game....simply get the games to come to us...lets go see.

We should ask Noah how to do it. I hear he is good at getting the impossible to come to him, maybe he gots some tricks n tips for us.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Remy Balster wrote:
Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper 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 think this helps to identify the problem with the class. A player should not have to find the "optimal build" to make the class an effective class.

That is a ridiculous sentiment.

There can only be a fixed number of ways to the do the absolute best at any particular thing.

If that thing in question is max DPR, there are only going to be a finite number of ways to achieve it.

You need not do max DPR to be effective, and if you think you do then you already are going to assume that playing the "optimal build" is required to do max DPR for any class... because it can only be done with an optimal build!

So much circular logic. >.<

If a class has a hard time without a lot of optimization (monks, rogues, barbarians, fighters, cavaliers), if they have a low optimization floor and is not very very intuitive, that's an issue with game design. If there also are just a very finite amount of ways to actually be combat effective, they're also quite shallow classes (in that there aren't really many _relevant_ decisions to make).

Of course there is a finite number of ways to get adequate DPR (if DPR is what you are contributing with in combat), but if those are hidden among a load of crappy options that makes the game a lot harder on new players, while just providing a long "ignore" list for players with experience. It also gives a bad depth to complexity ratio.

And contributing is important. It's not about needing to do "max DPR" whether by class or by party, but you need to pull your own weight, and in a remotely optimized party facing opponents of similar difficulty, the rogue has a hard time unless it is optimized.

With many classes, the choices are either quite straightforward, or the floor is much higher. A paladin that makes the worst choice of class abilities at every point will end up much more powerful than a fighter that does the same thing, because fighters have to make more dicisions and the power level difference between those decisions are much larger (for example chosing feats vs mercies).

Sorcerers also have a low optimization floor, but they are straightforward enough that few new players won't be able to contribute well in combat.

(Note that I'm just talking about how easy it is to fail with a class here, not what the power ceiling is; both sorcerers and barbarians are quite high at that)


Sorry to be a bit off topic but @OP how are you getting your divine bond for paladins to activate as a swift action? Im unaware of any feat or archtype that allows you do change the action required to activate your weapon as anything but a standard action.


the rogue has a hard time even though it is optimized.

Fixed By the Ever Helpful Goldenfrog!


Damiancrr wrote:
Sorry to be a bit off topic but @OP how are you getting your divine bond for paladins to activate as a swift action? Im unaware of any feat or archtype that allows you do change the action required to activate your weapon as anything but a standard action.

Divine Bond is a spell-like ability, so you should be able to take Quicken Spell-Like Ability. Need to be around level 14 or so to do it though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
EpicFail wrote:

You'd think a Rogue would excel as an archery build, but post after post (especially the ones trying to defend the weak Rogue(if I were in a better mood I wouldn't point out that the incredibly vague & poor arguments put forth to show how great the Rogue really is belie a terrible problem with reason and logic and are hardly coincidental)) show just how hard the Rogue sucks. It's scandalous that a class that can use Dexterity so much is just awful compared to so many others as a sniper, and those others have cool things the Rogue doesn't have.

The fact that the Rogue is bad at archery, not that he doesn't suck elsewhere but just to stick to the topic, does not reflect a problem with me. Don't shoot the messenger, though with Rogue's arrows I'd probably survive anyway. This failure is on Pathfinder and hopefully the Swashbuckler -which I haven't read yet but sounds very promising- or some other fix will come along

I like your name, good choice.

Why should a rogue excel at archery? I hear people say that... but no one has justified why the rogue should be good at archery...

What is it about a rogue that screams "I'm an archer!!" to you guys?? I simply don't see it, and no one has posted anything compelling to the contrary.

The rogue is specifically amazing at being okay at everything. If that isn't what you want in a character, play a class that is more specialized.

In terms of game time relevance, the rogue is always up to bat, or at the very least standing by as the next guy to bat. He doesn't ever get the bench.

Your low cha Wiz or Fightery guys have to keep their mouths shut when they get the invite from the duke for a courtly dinner... the rogue can safely chat em up and possibly even be the star of the show. Impress the duke, win favors with his court, maybe even bed one of his dozen daughters.

That is what the rogue does. Is always at the ready to step in, is always relevant. Maybe he isn't always the absolute best at something, but he isn't a schmuck either.


Inquisitors with Bane, flanking feats, Animal domain animal companions out-rogue the rogue in Bane/Precise damage on Flanks and bring their own flanking buddies. Actually getting bonuses to hit means the to-hit buries the rogue.
With guided they are nearly a SAD class and they can find traps excellently.

That class is by no means broken, at all, by the way.

You can just accidentally out-rogue the rogue. As soon as Slayer and Swashbuckler go live, Rogue is done.

The Truckloads Of Damage thing is nothing but perceiving rolling a d6 with no critical synergy
As worth more than 3 or 4 flat damage with synergy, when it is not. They don't even do Melee burst damage all that well. Paladins and Rangers are the Focused Fire DPR guys.

Pathfinder has made an NPC class out of them.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

I really dislike making threads like this, but I've been looking at making a ranged Rogue build and frankly it seems like they... well, basically suck completely. Paizo seems to have sort of dropped the ball on this.

Let's look at classes that can do archers:

Fighter:

Free bonus feats. 6 free bonus feats by level 8. Viable archetypes. Full BAB. Heavy Armor proficiency allows mobility in mithral full plate.

Downsides: Only 1 good save. This is sort of off-set by Bravery, and correctable entirely by taking Iron Will.

Barbarian:

Full BAB. Rage keeps you alive with the CON boost. D12 hit die plus High CON keeps you in the fight for the long haul. Superstition keeps you form getting CC'd. Fast Movement plus Swift keeps you out of combat. Medium armor is still beating Rogues butt here. Taking invulnerable rager seems to make the most sense with this build. Surprise Accuracy line makes bow crits HURT a lot.

Downsides: Few Rage powers lend themselves to this.

Ranger:

Unlike early versions, Rangers get d10 HD and Full BAB. Basically made for ranged. Free combat feats means getting Rapid Shot without taking Precise Shot. Getting Pinpoint targeting 6 levels early is awesome. Lots of archetypes keep the Ranger fresh. Nice class skill list

Downsides: Are there any? Rangers seem like a solid choice for archer builds.

Monks:

Zen Archer is pretty cheesed out. Perfect Strike from level 1. Free feats. 3 good saves. Nice hit die. Auto-high AC from Monk levels. Fast Movement is a real winner here. Perfect Strike becomes even more broken at level 10. If starting level is 3, you can build an archer and dump dexterity altogether. This allows for a focus on Constitution. Still better HP than Rogues and all sorts of free toys.

Downsides: MAD, especially before level 3. No full BAB.

Paladins:

Paladins are tough as nails. With divine grace, d10 hit die, heavy armor, swift action healing and free immunities... Yeah, Paladins don't die that often. 2 good saves is a real winner as well. Oath...

Short answer to your title question: No. I'm not going to take the time to provde a long answer to this question AGAIN. It's been re-hashed way too many times. You can make a viable rogue build, if you do it right. Is it a little tougher than some other classes? Sure. But Rogues don't just flat-out suck.


Why would a wizard have a lower Cha than a rogue? It has at least as many class features that benefit from it, and is less MAD.


Ilja wrote:
If a class has a hard time without a lot of optimization (monks, rogues, barbarians, fighters, cavaliers), if they have a low optimization floor and is not very very intuitive, that's an issue with game design. If there also are just a very finite amount of ways to actually be combat effective, they're also quite shallow classes (in that there aren't really many _relevant_ decisions to make).

I'd actually call that a design feature. Having a range of different classes with options that matter to varying degrees seems like an awesome thing, to me.

I guess that is a matter of personal taste... But I like it. I actually like it quite a deal.

This in itself adds depth to the game.

Ilja wrote:

Of course there is a finite number of ways to get adequate DPR (if DPR is what you are contributing with in combat), but if those are hidden among a load of crappy options that makes the game a lot harder on new players, while just providing a long "ignore" list for players with experience. It also gives a bad depth to complexity ratio.

And contributing is important. It's not about needing to do "max DPR" whether by class or by party, but you need to pull your own weight, and in a remotely optimized party facing opponents of similar difficulty, the rogue has a hard time unless it is optimized.

Rogues have it pretty easy, tbh. You have to screw up pretty hardcore to be unable to pull your weight in combat with a rogue. Are you not flanking? Why not?

Ilja wrote:

With many classes, the choices are either quite straightforward, or the floor is much higher. A paladin that makes the worst choice of class abilities at every point will end up much more powerful than a fighter that does the same thing, because fighters have to make more dicisions and the power level difference between those decisions are much larger (for example chosing feats vs mercies).

Sorcerers also have a low optimization floor, but they are straightforward enough that few new players won't be able to contribute well in combat.

(Note that I'm just talking about how easy it is to fail with a class here, not what the power ceiling is; both sorcerers and barbarians are quite high at that)

While the Paladin may be more powerful if he makes bad character option choices than a fighter who makes similarly bad character choices....

A paladin who makes a couple bad in-character decisions is much... much worse off than even the least optimized fighter.

Dynamic game with depth and variety mate. I can dig it. I think it is good. Maybe you disagree? That is fine. I’m sure we disagree on a number of things that are purely and totally based on personal taste and preference.

301 to 350 of 1,118 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Do Rogues just flat out suck? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.