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.
Uh... what Wizard class features benefit from Cha?? Like... all that is coming to mind is opposed Cha checks with charm spells.
What does being less MAD have anything to do with it though? One of the MAD stats for the rogue IS Cha... so... it will be higher on a rogue, typically.
A lot of people I've seen play wizards, myself included, dump cha to 7. Pretty much universally it doesn't go above 10. There just isn't any reason, and those points are better for INT. And any you have left after INT go in Dex or Con, typically. Str isn't needed, nor is Wis, sure... but dumping Wis is always a fool's gamble. This leaves us Cha to dump with virtually zero loss and almost entirely too much to gain by not doing it.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a wizard with a higher cha than a rogue in any group I’ve ever played in, come to think about. Unless they were some otherwise Cha dependent multiclasser.
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.Uh... what Wizard class features benefit from Cha?? Like... all that is coming to mind is opposed Cha checks with charm spells.
What does being less MAD have anything to do with it though? One of the MAD stats for the rogue IS Cha... so... it will be higher on a rogue, typically.
A lot of people I've seen play wizards, myself included, dump cha to 7. Pretty much universally it doesn't go above 10. There just isn't any reason, and those points are better for INT. And any you have left after INT go in Dex or Con, typically. Str isn't needed, nor is Wis, sure... but dumping Wis is always a fool's gamble. This leaves us Cha to dump with virtually zero loss and almost entirely too much to gain by not doing it.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a wizard with a higher cha than a rogue in any group I’ve ever played in, come to think about. Unless they were some otherwise Cha dependent multiclasser.
Well, the rogue is more MAD because of several things.
First, he needs CON because he has low HP and low fortitude save.
Then, he needs DEX (and a feat or talent), because lots of skills and attack rolls depends on it, so is its AC.
He also needs WIS, because he can't afford to lose a perception check and have a low Will save.
Finally, he needs INT, because even with 8 skill points per level, you can't afford all those skills the one defending the rogue talks about (face skills = 4 skill points, rogue skills = 8 skills, + UMD and you're close to needing 18 in intelligence to take most of those, or 14 and human with you favored class bonus in skill points).
So, you have 2 abilities that are left : CHA and STR.
He can't afford to dump STR (you need to carry a lot of equipment, and low STR lowers your damage with melee and bows).
A wizard needs INT, because its whole class abilities and knowledge needs it.
He will take CON, because he has low HP and fortitude.
He will take DEX, because the little bonus in AC and ranged attack can be handy at low levels, and the bonus in initiative is welcome.
Then, he has 3 abilities that are left : CHA, STR and WIS.
And he can afford to dump STR altogether (he doesn't need to wear much besides his spellbook and robes).
He probably won't lower WIS below 10, because having maluses in perception and will save could be bad.
Charisma can be handy for charms and planar binding (even if CHA is not necessary)
Now, find for yourself who is supposed to have the most charisma out of the two.
Why aren't you flanking?
Because I'm laying on the ground with my brains smashed in from the three nasty $%$%$ the fighter and barbarian didn't occupy.
Now, find for yourself who is supposed to have the most charisma out of the two.
The rogue.
No wonder you guys think they suck. You don't even remotely build them to their strengths. You try to force them to be what they're not.
Why aren't you flanking?
Because I'm laying on the ground with my brains smashed in from the three nasty $%$%$ the fighter and barbarian didn't occupy.
That is simply poor tactics. Has nothing to do with the rogue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, find for yourself who is supposed to have the most charisma out of the two.
The rogue.
No wonder you guys think they suck. You don't even remotely build them to their strengths. You try to force them to be what they're not.
Sorry,most of us didn't realize that the Rogues main role was to be a NPC until a short while ago.
Now, find for yourself who is supposed to have the most charisma out of the two.
The rogue.
No wonder you guys think they suck. You don't even remotely build them to their strengths. You try to force them to be what they're not.
Show the good build. Perhpas level 10, 20 PB, 2 traits, standard wbl.
Now, find for yourself who is supposed to have the most charisma out of the two.
The rogue.
No wonder you guys think they suck. You don't even remotely build them to their strengths. You try to force them to be what they're not.
The same sentence that have been used for the monk.
"You try to build it for something that is not its role !"
What is its role ? What are the abilities you would have with a rogue to "build them to their strengths" ?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is simply poor tactics. Has nothing to do with the rogue.Why aren't you flanking?
Because I'm laying on the ground with my brains smashed in from the three nasty $%$%$ the fighter and barbarian didn't occupy.
The only reason you are on the ground with your face smashed was because you were trying to use a good tactic. You tried to acrobatics your way around the three creatures to flank with the Fighter/Barbarian so you could try to hit and roll all those sneak attacks. Of course, you took 10 on the Acrobatics roll with Skill Mastery, and with your +36, you assumed a 46 would work. Then found out the monsters had a 47 CMD, and got your faced smashed in because you have a d8HD.
This isn't me saying that rogues suck, its me saying that tactics are hard to pull off as a rogue when CMD gets so high.
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.
A host of other classes do better than the Rogue. That is amazing.
"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 second paragraph is wrong where it's not a subjective, made-up fantasy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
~The enemy is flying. We cannot.
~The enemy is backed in a corner making flanking impossible until movement. See checkers and never moving pieces off the back row.
~The enemy has concealment from a smoke stick/obscuring mist/fog cloud/natural ability/terrain.
~The enemy has uncanny dodge
~The enemy is in a bunched up formation that punishes lone flankers.
~Hindering terrain hampers movement to where flanking is difficult.
~Allies are already flanking a target of choice.
~You have no flanking partner.
~In the one or two rounds it took for you to get that flank the cavalier/babarian/archer ranger/clown of carnage has already charged his foe and rendered your miraculous damage output a moot point.
~The enemies ask why aren't you being flanked?"
~You failed a save that disables you.
~You are flanking. You just can't hit.
~You really really really wanted to try an archer rogue you poor bastard.
~The enemy is mounted and the only thing keeping you from getting lanced, trampled, and arrowed is this nice safe rock. The rock is life. Embrace the rock.
~The enemys is a medusa/gelatinous cube/some other monster that can't be flanked/sneak attacked.
~I was scouting alone as is my apparent duty. What do you want from me?
~Our sorcerer decided it was more awesome to have 50 strength then maybe cast greater invisibility, enlarge person, haste, and heroism on me. :(
~The GM thought that fistful of d6's is op. So he only allowed me one sneak attack per round.
~I wanted to be a dirty fighter so I invested in dirty trick without understanding CMB's. I regret this.
~Of course I was flanking and managed to do a crap ton of damage. The dude just turned around and did a crapton of damage back.
That reminds me... It's really sad that Int and Cha are the only attributes a Rogue can dump without makings his already awful defenses even more pathetic. :(
If the GM actively works to make a PC's class features meaningless, and the other players at the table actively work to marginalize a certain PC, then it doesn't matter what class that PC is; the table has larger problems.
TarkXT: I believe I had a post in your thread about making Rogues work which described a rather straightforward and effective template for Rogue that does perfectly well in PFS and first-party content. It also addresses several of the issues you and others have presented in this thread. "Mattastrophic's Rouge-Kissed Lady," I believe it was called?
Anyways... do we know if Paizo intends to revise the Rogue at all, or will we simply have to wait for Second Edition?
-Matt
Anyways... do we know if Paizo intends to revise the Rogue at all, or will we simply have to wait for Second Edition?
Yes and no.
The devs have said they see problems with the rogue and are looking into making some nice rogue talents for it.
The devs have also said they plan to make nothing that is better than what is in the CRB intentionally.
My guess is that Paizo will make some really cool rogue talents, but then cripple them at the final sentence or with errata. Like Opportunist with a once per day limit.
All a matter of how you build the character and roleplay at the table.
Thieves make for one of my favorite classes, though I typically do not play combat heavy characters; which may be the issue at hand here. Combat effectiveness and thieves don't typically mix.
There is a difference between not being combat heavy and being as useful in many combats as a commoner who rolls high on attack rolls.
The devs have said they see problems with the rogue and are looking into making some nice rogue talents for it.
That is unfortunate. As we all know, additive solutions only create more problems. See the board's apparent obsession with the Advanced Player's Guide classes and the Ninja as compared to the Rogue, as well as the citation of many splatbook options as evidence of the Rogue's "uselessness."
-Matt
Anyways... do we know if Paizo intends to revise the Rogue at all, or will we simply have to wait for Second Edition?Yes and no.
The devs have said they see problems with the rogue and are looking into making some nice rogue talents for it.
The devs have also said they plan to make nothing that is better than what is in the CRB intentionally.
Those two sentences are contradictory, but also understandable. Otherwise it would create one of these must-have splatbooks that Pathfinder has worked so hard to avoid.
I wonder if there's anything that could boost the rogue in terms of flexibility that would be worth it. For example, letting rogues pick abilities off the quingong monk list might not be too overpowering. (Really, it would turn them into ninjas, of course.)
Now, find for yourself who is supposed to have the most charisma out of the two.
The rogue.
No wonder you guys think they suck. You don't even remotely build them to their strengths. You try to force them to be what they're not.
The same sentence that have been used for the monk.
"You try to build it for something that is not its role !"
What is its role ? What are the abilities you would have with a rogue to "build them to their strengths" ?
I doubt this will be answered. Those who actually post builds and try to back up positive claims about the rogue tend to have their mind change.
The ones still defending the rogue are either new or don't make their claims based on any kind of evidence.
Anyways... do we know if Paizo intends to revise the Rogue at all, or will we simply have to wait for Second Edition?Yes and no.
The devs have said they see problems with the rogue and are looking into making some nice rogue talents for it.
The devs have also said they plan to make nothing that is better than what is in the CRB intentionally.
Those two sentences are contradictory, but also understandable. Otherwise it would create one of these must-have splatbooks that Pathfinder has worked so hard to avoid.
I wonder if there's anything that could boost the rogue in terms of flexibility that would be worth it. For example, letting rogues pick abilities off the quingong monk list might not be too overpowering. (Really, it would turn them into ninjas, of course.)
Ninja basically is the rogue that sort-of works. Still has massive problems, but invisibility and greater invisibility address many rogue issues.
Likewise a rogue with 3 mythic tiers for vanishing move would be pretty decent when compared to non-mythic characters.
The ones still defending the rogue are either new or don't make their claims based on any kind of evidence.
Or the board simply demonstrates its uncanny ability to forget any and all previously-presented well-reasoned evidence which contradicts the current poster's dug-in, immovable belief.
-Matt
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Bad options are a bad idea. Having a range of different options is great when the player can process the information well enough to make an informed choice.
This in itself adds depth to the game.
Not really. More options =/= more depth; there is a correlation but it's not definite. I think I linked it in the previous post too, but if you haven't watched it, watch this: Some game designers talking about depth vs complexity
Someone makes a quite nice summary in the comment field, and while I don't think it's entirely accurate it's a quick shorthand; Depth is how much a player can think around a situation in the game, complexity is how much a player has to think around a situation in the game.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?
Because you're a squishy class and if not correctly built can be squished in an instant by the creature it tries to maneuvre around? Because just flanking isn't enough to be a credible threat in combat as a rogue, unless you have put a lot of extra resources into being able to hit, or built something that is quite counterintuitive for new players (such as STR-focused rogue).
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
...
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.
Paladin was just an example; this applies equally to a class like cleric or bard.
Dynamic games with depth and variety are disserviced by complex mechanic and classes that need to put a lot of their resources into being combat viable.
You could literally remove half of the rogue talents that exist and have the game be equally deep, while being far less complex.
The devs have said they see problems with the rogue and are looking into making some nice rogue talents for it.That is unfortunate. As we all know, additive solutions only create more problems. See the board's apparent obsession with the Advanced Player's Guide classes and the Ninja as compared to the Rogue, as well as the citation of many splatbook options as evidence of the Rogue's "uselessness."
The rogue is useless just with the CRB alone. Bards started off as the better skill monkey in PF, they just were different so it was less obvious how bad the rogue is. Now all sorts of classes can take gimping archetypes to do everything the rogue does + more, and there is even a trait to replace the rogues primary niche. Scavion already linked to alchemist build that really does everything the rogue does plus MORE. That's what eventually tipped me over in my opinion after thread upon thread of trying to make the rogue work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ones still defending the rogue are either new or don't make their claims based on any kind of evidence.Or the board simply demonstrates its uncanny ability to forget any previously-presented well-reasoned evidence which contradicts the current poster's dug-in, immovable belief.
-Matt
That could be the case... If we anyone had actually given any real evidence of Rogues not being completely overshadowed by a whole a bunch of other classes.
The ones still defending the rogue are either new or don't make their claims based on any kind of evidence.Or the board simply demonstrates its uncanny ability to forget any and all previously-presented well-reasoned evidence which contradicts the current poster's dug-in, immovable belief.
Ah yes the strength rogue in full-plate with fighter or barbarian dips. Basically a beef stick with more skill points.
At the end of day, all those builds only managed to be competent. They never did something better than another class. You could easily replace those rogue levels with vivisectionist alchemist and end up with a hands down better character.
Even then the idea of a strength rogue as being the only viable way to play a rogue is ridiculous.
Now, find for yourself who is supposed to have the most charisma out of the two.
The rogue.
No wonder you guys think they suck. You don't even remotely build them to their strengths. You try to force them to be what they're not.
Why would the rogue have higher charisma?
The rogue has higher need of str (needs to carry more, doesn't want a penalty to damage especially at low levels)The rogue has higher need of dex (AC for front-lines, potentially attack bonus; both need Init
The rogue has higher need of con (Less access to spells that solve fort-save induced issues, needs more HP for the frontlines, less access to False Life)
The wizard has more need of Int (obvious)
The rogue has more need of Wis (Low will save)
Both benefit about equally from Cha (rogue has a few talents, wizard has charm and binding spells)
The rogue thus has fewer points to put into it.
A human rogue I would say would have these minimum stats for a build that relies on dex in combat (and one that relies on str is even more MAD):
Str 10 Dex 16+2 Con 12 Int 7 Wis 12 - That's 10 points right there, allowing for a 14 cha. But note that this is with 6 skill points per level.
For a human wizard relying on spells in combat the minimum would be something like:
Str 7 Dex 12 Con 12 Int 16+2 Wis 8 - That's 8 points, leaving 7 points for Cha, and the wizard gains 6 skill points per level, so as many as the rogue.
Those two sentences are contradictory, but also understandable. Otherwise it would create one of these must-have splatbooks that Pathfinder has worked so hard to avoid.
Magical Lineage. Spell Perfection. Spell Sunder. Superstition. Instant Enemy. Persistant Spell. Dazing Spell.
Pathfinder has a huge amount of "power creep", for every class except fighter, rogue and cavalier.
Those two sentences are contradictory, but also understandable. Otherwise it would create one of these must-have splatbooks that Pathfinder has worked so hard to avoid.
Magical Lineage. Spell Perfection. Spell Sunder. Superstition. Instant Enemy. Persistant Spell. Dazing Spell.
Pathfinder has a huge amount of "power creep", for every class except fighter, rogue and cavalier.
Although those are all nice, I think there is one that will always be my favorite.
Quiggong Monk.
Eh 20 point wizard array before race mods
10str 14dex 14con 16int 10wis 10cha
Rogue same
10str 16dex 14con 14int 10wis 10cha
After race mods say (human) assuming favored class goes into health for the wizard and skill points for the rogue that's rogue with 12 skill points per level and wizard with 7 skill points per level.
At 10 this changes up. Rogue is still 12 and wizard is now 10 points.
This assumes some things for the rogue, now compare to the alchemist, who even under these assumptions would tie the rogue by level 10 and then proceed to surpass him.
All of that is before taking spells into account.
Those two sentences are contradictory, but also understandable. Otherwise it would create one of these must-have splatbooks that Pathfinder has worked so hard to avoid.
Magical Lineage. Spell Perfection. Spell Sunder. Superstition. Instant Enemy. Persistant Spell. Dazing Spell.
Pathfinder has a huge amount of "power creep", for every class except fighter, rogue and cavalier.
Superstition was in the CRB.
TarkXT: I believe I had a post in your thread about making Rogues work which described a rather straightforward and effective template for Rogue that does perfectly well in PFS and first-party content. It also addresses several of the issues you and others have presented in this thread. "Mattastrophic's Rouge-Kissed Lady," I believe it was called?
I've pointed out said thread a couple of times.
I for one don't believe the rogue is "broken".
But, I do find that thinking it's easy to play or build well or very effective compared to its kin is a false statement.
Eh 20 point wizard array before race mods
10str 14dex 14con 16int 10wis 10chaRogue same
10str 16dex 14con 14int 10wis 10cha
Yes, I was noting what I considered "minimum" (and on a 15 pt buy standard), so there wouldn't be any talk about "not optimally built".
Superstition was in the CRB.
Those two sentences are contradictory, but also understandable. Otherwise it would create one of these must-have splatbooks that Pathfinder has worked so hard to avoid.
Magical Lineage. Spell Perfection. Spell Sunder. Superstition. Instant Enemy. Persistant Spell. Dazing Spell.
Pathfinder has a huge amount of "power creep", for every class except fighter, rogue and cavalier.
Yeah, but then it wasn't really that strong; giving up friendly buffs for +2 to saves is only circumstantially useful.
It's the human FCB that made it such a no-brainer.
(sing-song) Anything rogues can do Alchs can do better...
(sing-song) Anything rogues can do Alchs can do better...
Yes they can =)
Superstition was in the CRB.
Those two sentences are contradictory, but also understandable. Otherwise it would create one of these must-have splatbooks that Pathfinder has worked so hard to avoid.
Magical Lineage. Spell Perfection. Spell Sunder. Superstition. Instant Enemy. Persistant Spell. Dazing Spell.
Pathfinder has a huge amount of "power creep", for every class except fighter, rogue and cavalier.
Yeah, but then it wasn't really that strong; giving up friendly buffs for +2 to saves is only circumstantially useful.
It's the human FCB that made it such a no-brainer.
Oh god why. I was just talking about how superstition scales up to +6.
Another +6 from FCB is just awful.
Superstition was in the CRB.Magical Lineage. Spell Perfection. Spell Sunder. Superstition. Instant Enemy. Persistant Spell. Dazing Spell.Pathfinder has a huge amount of "power creep", for every class except fighter, rogue and cavalier.Those two sentences are contradictory, but also understandable. Otherwise it would create one of these must-have splatbooks that Pathfinder has worked so hard to avoid.
Yeah, but then it wasn't really that strong; giving up friendly buffs for +2 to saves is only circumstantially useful.
It's the human FCB that made it such a no-brainer.
It still scaled with level. And with Clear Mind, the Barbarian could reroll failed Will saves. I'm not denying that Barbarians got a lot of cool stuff with later books, but even using only the CRB, they still had cool tricks and decent saves.
|
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.
I'm gonna guess it's because most rogues have high dex. Also people assume ranged sneak attack would be fairly easy to accomplish (it isn't).
It's not that hard to flank and gain the extra attack dice. A rogue who has a high initiative is also getting his sneak attack on his flat-footed opponent. The player in our game who plays the rogue is very skilled at getting into position for sneak attacks.
Now that he has a ring of invisibility and a hat of disguise, he causes even more havoc on the opposition. I just don't see how the rogue is ineffective based on what I've seen in game.
If you're looking for pure "toe-to-toe" combat then the rogue class isn't the right class for it. I also think that many adventures done on the fly neglect traps since traps generally require some thought. I can see how a person might feel the rogue's skills are handicapped. Nonetheless, the rogue is an effective fighter when using stealth, flanking and catching his opponents flat-footed.
AP or original campaign?
APs tend to have a lot more corners and tight spaces, making flanking impossible or stupid for most encounters.
The ring of invisibility is a standard action to use, so I guess he at least gets 1 sneak attack off every 2 rounds. Or maybe he uses it to get into flanking position since acrobatics no longer does the job with CMD nonsense paizo added.
Those two sentences are contradictory, but also understandable. Otherwise it would create one of these must-have splatbooks that Pathfinder has worked so hard to avoid.
Magical Lineage. Spell Perfection. Spell Sunder. Superstition. Instant Enemy. Persistant Spell. Dazing Spell.
Pathfinder has a huge amount of "power creep", for every class except fighter, rogue and cavalier.
Superstition is CRB only, but yes. There is a lot of prower creep in PF.
It's not that hard to flank and gain the extra attack dice. A rogue who has a high initiative is also getting his sneak attack on his flat-footed opponent. The player in our game who plays the rogue is very skilled at getting into position for sneak attacks.
Now that he has a ring of invisibility and a hat of disguise, he causes even more havoc on the opposition. I just don't see how the rogue is ineffective based on what I've seen in game.
If you're looking for pure "toe-to-toe" combat then the rogue class isn't the right class for it. I also think that many adventures done on the fly neglect traps since traps generally require some thought. I can see how a person might feel the rogue's skills are handicapped. Nonetheless, the rogue is an effective fighter when using stealth, flanking and catching his opponents flat-footed.
AP or original campaign?
APs tend to have a lot more corners and tight spaces, making flanking impossible or stupid for most encounters.
The ring of invisibility is a standard action to use, so I guess he at least gets 1 sneak attack off every 2 rounds. Or maybe he uses it to get into flanking position since acrobatics no longer does the job with CMD nonsense paizo added.
So, after the first attack, he becomes visible (the attack being successful or not BTW).
Then it's the monster's turn (because you already moved).Rogue is dead, lowering the attack bonus from the fighter by 2.
And by doing your best attack move (sneak attack), if you managed to critical hit your foe, you did less damage than a standard slash from a fighter. Good Job.
Not to mention that at the level you need to be to access Ring of invisibility, ennemies are more than likely to be able to "see" you directly (see invisible, true sight, blindsight, blindsense, ...).
And that suppose the creature isn't immune to sneak attack : creatures are immune by their type, others by camouflage, class features, spells and a bunch of other abilities.
So, not that good an idea finally... :(