Do Rogues just flat out suck?


Advice

401 to 450 of 1,118 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malex wrote:

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's no reason why you can't play a Bard as a thief. You'll be better at it if you're a Bard, too.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Malex wrote:

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's no reason why you can't play a Bard as a thief. You'll be better at it if you're a Bard, too.

Thematically, the rogue niche is needed. Problem is, wanting that theme makes you objectively worse.

Imagine if the fighter didn't exist and all people had access to was the warrior for the non-savage, non-magic melee dude. Warrior would still fit a needed theme, but wanting that theme would make you mechanically worse at your party role.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Too many are convinced that the name of a class defines you.

You can be a Lawful Good, Longsword wielding, Heavy Armor wearing champion of justice, and have nothing but Rogue levels.

The world knows you as a Paladin.

I know, mind-boggling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Malex wrote:

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's no reason why you can't play a Bard as a thief. You'll be better at it if you're a Bard, too.

Thematically, the rogue niche is needed. Problem is, wanting that theme makes you objectively worse.

Imagine if the fighter didn't exist and all people had access to was the warrior for the non-savage, non-magic melee dude. Warrior would still fit a needed theme, but wanting that theme would make you mechanically worse at your party role.

I agree that the Rogue niche is needed, but since the Rogue is just not as good at his own job as the Bard with the proper application of ~roleplaying~ one can play a Bard with all of the flavor of a Rogue without giving up your actually-being-good-at-things.

I'd rather the Rogue just be good on its own because I have a weird aversion to using magic if I can avoid it but I find the "the Rogue is good because it lets me roleplay a thief" argument to be extremely disingenuous.


no, Personally I find being a careless prankster is more fun to play than a class that forces you to be lawful.monk, paladin etc. even if he would have gotten caught the jail wouldn't be able to hold him becauds I Use Skills!! Use them all the time! skills are you friends.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Too many are convinced that the name of a class defines you.

You can be a Lawful Good, Longsword wielding, Heavy Armor wearing champion of justice, and have nothing but Rogue levels.

The world knows you as a Paladin.

I know, mind-boggling.

If you're willing to take ALL of those feats, yeah. But mechanically the rogue is undetpowered. I agree, but its not the worst class. There os only preferences for personal game play.


OK, I had originally set this up as a human with a dip in barbarian at first level, so this might be off by a level in some spots.
.
.
.
.
.
Half-Orc Rogue
20pt. buy, race to str)
S 17
D 14
C 14
I 10
W 12
C 10

Feats & Rogue talents:
1 Dodge
r2 combat trick - power attack
3 shield of swings
r4 fast getaway
5 Mobility
r6 Befuddling strike
7 Spring Attack
9 Iron will

We swap out the trap stuff for the Thug* archetype and the uncanny dodge stuff for the Scout archetype. This gives us nice debuffing options such as making a guy sickened, and allows us to sneak attack more often.

In terms of skills, we are going to max out perception, acrobatics, diplomacy, sense motive, and UMD. A lot of ranks will go into intimidate and knowledge yokel, and most of the other skills will be good.

At 6th level, The attack will be something like +7 to hit and ~20 damage per hit average. (1d12+ 6 str + 6 power + 1 enchant)
If it is a sneak attack, add about 10 more average damage.
AC will be pretty lame at about 17-18, but shield of swings or a total defense will get that up in the 20-25 range.
HP = 51 (8+25+12+6)
Will save and fortitude are weak but not that far off from many other common builds. Again, originally this build started with a level of barbarian, so that would have added speed, rage, HP, and fortitude, as well as weapon options, medium armor, more class skills and BAB.

Can you make a bard who does all that plus mirror image and heroism? Basically.
Can you build an expert or aristocrat who does all that? No.

I would feel comfortable bringing this character to any normal game and not have to worry about sucking. If it is an "optimized" game, I'll just bring my high-DC-blindness spamming caster, and complain if the GM optimizes the monsters to compensate.

*Note The only thing better then writing rogue on your character sheet is writing THUG!


Rogues have always been poor mechanically. That doesn't prevent them being fun to play.

Mechanically they have these pros and cons, as I see them:

Pro - versatile with skills out of combat; can find and disarm traps; situationally competent in combat (when sneak attack comes off and the rogue manages to hit).

Con - easy for melee enemies to squish due to low AC and/or hit points; very reliant on getting sneak attack to work in combat or effectiveness drops off radically; too many other classes can do everything that a rogue does only with extra options.

If you play one in a party where those 'better' classes aren't present, then a rogue is fine; if you play in a style where you are allowed/manage to achieve multiple sneak attack opportunities (this can be very dependent on the GM and how he/she wants to run the campaign, but also requires good tactics on the rogue's part), then again the rogue can be very effective in combat.

In other situations, the rogue is clearly sub-optimal. It always has been so, but back in 1st edition a party had to have a thief because no-one else could find and disarm traps; and no-one else could sneak around effectively (yes, wizards could cast invisibility and clerics could use silence, and rangers and monks got stealth too) without risking setting off those traps. However, a multi-classed fighter-thief or thief-mage or any other combination was much more effective as a character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would rather see a Bard, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Ranger, Barbarian, Druid, Sorcerer or Wizard fill the job of "thief" than have to deal with a Rogue. I don't hate them, but they are worse at the "thief" job than any of the above classes. They are a mostly non-magical class with none of the the benefits of being a non-magical class such as d10 hp or full BaB.


Nah, in 3.5, you use UMD to cast Grease thus ensuring Sneak attack (lose Dex to AC when balancing in 3.5 on Grease, PF requires movement so only AoO grants Sneak Attack).

Against Undead/constructs trade out Trapsense (+X to AC vs traps, worthless, most of time) for 1/2 damage Sneak attack (1/2 of 1d6 better than none).

Rogues had it good in 3.5.

Not to mention, Flask Avenger style (Splash weapons are ranged touch attacks, the splash damage didn't have sneak attack as they aren't attacks with a 1d20 but the direct hits do get sneak attack in 3.5. Jason the designer purposely closed that strategy because he didn't like rogues doing it)

Marthkus wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:
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.

Nah, they will just make something that boots hit and lowers damage (haven't yet made it) or raise damage but lower hit like Deadly Sneak.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Giridan wrote:
If you're willing to take ALL of those feats, yeah. But mechanically the rogue is undetpowered. I agree, but its not the worst class. There os only preferences for personal game play.

I'm pretty sure rogue is the worst PC class.


Sure they suck, but I think rogues make for the best 1st level classes. You could start the game as a level one rogue and get 32 skill ranks at least right off the bat. Then you level up in your primary class from then on. This starting tactic really helps martials seeing as most of them have low skill ranks per level. And the sneak attack is nice.


With my rogue it's not that I can't set up sneak attacks pretty easy.I can and do often.

No,the issue is that many of the encounters have us fighting pitched battles against many creatures.Some our level or greater,some a few levels less and many minor ones that are several levels less.

My rogue is often plunged into the middle of mass melee flanking monsters left and right. I can often get off sneak attack but STILL do sub-par damage compared to the barbarian or even the fighter.

At the same time there is really NOTHING to stop the monsters I'm in the middle of from just kicking the $%$% out of me while I'm flanking.

After all in order for me to be flanking...in many many occasions I'm hanging my arse out in the middle of the pack getting my bloody smears all over the floor.

I dunno,it would be nice since there are so few of us fighting to save the world verse various Evils,if I could hold up my end actually help kill some of them without leaving more of my blood on the floor than theirs.

I do NOT need to top any DPR meter list.

It would be grand to actually make the list.


It is a shame that hte class that is suppsoed to be the clever combatant have as basicaly his only option to flank and sneak attack**.

Grand Lodge

Goldenfrog wrote:

At the same time there is really NOTHING to stop the monsters I'm in the middle of from just kicking the $%$% out of me while I'm flanking.

After all in order for me to be flanking...in many many occasions I'm hanging my arse out in the middle of the pack getting my bloody smears all over the floor.

This is precisely the issue I see at various tables. Rogue tumbles in, gets a lucky SA and helps out the party. Great! Only problem is he's likely to go down in the next round after the bad guy 5 foot steps out of being flanked.

So if rogues aren't really made for melee, are inefficient as archers, and don't have spellcasting, how are they supposed to contribute in combat encounters?


Rogue flank sandwhich like murphy rule of combat.

If enemy is in range, then so are you.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

I know it's pointless to engage with either side of rogue conversations on this board, so just answering the OP here. OP, if you read this and respond, drop me a PM so I know you answered, as I know better than to read a thread I'm certain has been thoroughly pissed upon by the WrongBadFun Brigade on all sides.

taldanrebel2187, emphasis mine 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.

Yep, rogues are really not a great class for a ranged combat focused character, and I agree, Paizo did not do a good job at trying to make sure rogues could fill a ranged role well.

I do think, and agree with what I think is the implied sense here, that rogues SHOULD be good for a ranged support build. They are usually a high Dexterity based character (although, depending upon the build, apart from needing high Dex for AC, they don't strictly need high Dex for anything else -- a build that relies on Dexterity based skills, perhaps, but a party-face or Int-based rogue, less so) and usually not a high Strength base character (though a rogue you can manage to give high Str almost always benefits).... plus rogues are generally seen as opportunists who are good at stealth, so it SHOULD stand to reason that they should be a good start for a sniper build.

But they're not.

The main issue is of course that rogues rely upon Sneak Attack to deal notable damage, and that means you've either got to be within 30 feet or be wearing sniper goggles (which removes that restriction completely), or be a reasonably high level rogue with the sniper archetype.

Otherwise it's hard to do high damage with ranged attacks -- you can multi-attack with Rapid Shot and such and build up damage with successive hits, but so can anyone else (and rangers are better at it because they are full BAB). You CAN build a rogue who is ranged who will perform solidly in support, but that's probably not necessarily going to be the area where they will shine save in the occasional perfectly set up sniper shot scenario (where sniper-based and stealth-based rogue talents + sneak attack give the rogue a unique, if circumstantial, advantage).

So yes, if you want to play a character primarily focused above all things on being an archer, and moreover as shining in the party as an archer, rogue is not the ideal class to choose. Going to skip your class analysis because of that and because for the purpose of the discussion I have little to add.

However, I do have some particular thoughts on your rogue analysis:

Quote:


Well the good side is Rogues are even more gimped in melee. With a full attack a Rogue can dump truck loads of damage with Sneak Attack.

This I strongly disagree with, although you've got to be a player who's good at making focused builds, and you also have to be good at tactics -- mastering maneuverability, getting into range to flank, which is of course the easiest way to get off sneak attack damage. While this is certainly anecdotal and must be taken with the requisite grain of salt, I have seen rogue players who are VERY clever about getting into and staying into flanking range (assisted by Acrobatics, and feats like Stand Still or Step Up) and who just deal massive sneak attack damage every round in most fights. Especially as there are only a handful of creature types that are immune to precision damage (and those creature types usually everyone's trying to find alternate tactics to handle effectively; i.e., incorporeal creatures are a challenge for everyone save a spellcaster with a bucket of force magic at his or her disposal).

The thing here is you have to be good at tactics (or at least better than your GM), and you have to be willing to be a team player (because you need to work with your buddies to set up flanking). If you want to be a solo melee shining god whose idea of tactics is saying "I hit it with my sword" and it dies, you should not play a rogue. People who ARE good at teamwork and tactics can surprisingly, in my opinion, dominate in many combats with a rogue. This is based on what I've actually seen, not based on what I hear people talk about on message boards. Again, anecdotal evidence, take it with the appropriate grains of salt.

For solo-tactics, a feint-build-based rogue can also be decent, although can't get off full attacks (unless you're going for Two Weapon Feint, which requires a bucket of feats to achieve and forces you to give up the attack that's most likely to hit every time, and isn't something you're going to be able to achieve till quite high level). It also (unnecessarily, IMO) requires two feats to do which means only humans can start off with a proper feint build at level 1 (level 2 for everyone else via Combat Trick).

And that is the big and unfortunate challenge for melee-based rogues is they do require lots of feats to build up... (but so does any ranged build for any class because of the Point Blank Shot feat tax to access just about any other ranged feat, including the pretty much requisite Precise Shot). And rogues don't get a lot of feats. Sometimes I wonder if a handful of extra bonus feats (beyond what rogue tricks grant) would help.

Quote:
Some rogue talents allow for a really lethal combination with ranged.

This is true, and especially in combo with Stealth feats. A 10th level sniper archetype with Stealthy Sniper, Fast Stealth, and Hide In Plain Sight can set up some nice shots from a fair distance away and never be seen. It takes awhile to get there though, unfortunately. (That's the real problem with any combat-focused rogue... it usually takes several levels before they really can perform how they want to.)

Quote:
Downsides: Light armor proficiency,

Technically, that shouldn't be a downside for a ranged build, as you'd hopefully be staying out of range of most weapon attacks, and you actually want to NOT be in medium or heavy armor because you don't want to be slowed down (you want to get and stay in ranged distance, not have someone be able to close in on you because you don't have a full 30 ft move). At higher levels/wealth availability mithral mitigates this but that depends upon the generosity of your GM.

Alternately I guess you could dip into 3 levels of fighter to get armor proficiencies and get rid of medium armor movement penalty. Plus that also boosts max Dex AC by 1 which helps since it's a high Dex build. Fighter/rogue archer could be pretty damned good actually.

Quote:
low HD, feat tax, gimped BAB,

HD -- I've never really considered d8 "low." If so, bards, clerics, inquisitors, monks, and magi also suffer from "low HD." They seem to do okay. If concerned about HP you could always add a favored class bonus.

Feat Tax -- well, the Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot feat tax affects any ranged build. I agree Rogues have a high disadvantage here, however, because of fewer bonus feats. Fighters and Rangers make the best archers in part because they can overcome the feat tax right away.

3/4 BAB is indeed an issue -- rogues are a support class, and you are looking to play an archer who I presume is a primary archer, not support. So poor choice for that yes.

Quote:
1 good save only,

Fighters technically have the same problem, and I would say Rogues are better off having a good Reflex save -- especially for a ranged build, as people are going to try to hit you with AOEs, which rogues laugh off via evasion and a good Reflex save.

A lot of charm type spells are close range, so if you're hanging back you might stay out of range, but it all depends on both spell level and how close you want to get to snipe (getting sneak attack bonus) and how high level you are (sniper archetype increases range at higher levels but it takes awhile to build up).

Rogues do have some rogue talents to help with other saving throws but again are either not well made or take too long to get (can't get Slippery Mind till 10th at earliest). (Which is a fundamental issue with the rogue--talents are inconsistently designed and often not strong enough or inaccessible when they should be.)

Quote:
low survival. Will have trouble both surviving and hitting.

"Low survival" is quite subjective. A rogue with a good Con AND a high Dex is going to be hard to hit and hard to take out. It would depend a lot on the build, player skill, and the nature of the campaign (and the rest of the party).

The big issue I think is the hitting -- again, if your primary focus is only hitting with a bow, you should be going for a full BAB class.

Quote:
Rogues are also not proficient with composite longbows.

A rather minimal issue as your typical high Dex rogue will probably a) not have a high Str to get the most out of a composite weapon, and b) not be able to take advantage of the improved range of the composite longbow (unless you have sniper goggles).

The difference between a shortbow and longbows base damage is an average of 1 damage otherwise, and if you ARE playing a ranged rogue, presumable the point WOULD be to get the sneak attack damage off where possible, so the base damage is beside the point.

If it WAS an issue, playing an elf (a good choice for a ranged rogue anyway) would immediately fix it. As would, horrors, dipping into any martial class, or, more horrors, burning a feat on a proficiency.

Quote:
No viable ranged archetypes.

Sniper is the most viable. Deadly range is pretty much crucial if you DO want to play a ranged rogue. I assume you looked at it so I'd be curious as to why you think it isn't viable.

You could also stack sniper with bandit for the ambush ability, which means if you get off an ambush successfully, you can snipe and then use your move action to get back into Stealth mode.

Don't take my areas of disagreement to say you are wrong on the basic principle... yes, if you wanna play an archer, a pure rogue's not a good choice.

That said, if something is drawing you to rogue even though otherwise you want to be a primary archer... fighter/rogue and ranger/rogue could do a decent ranged build. In both cases, rogue adds the occasional sneak attack on top of good damage and excellent to hit that both classes have (or rogue/paladin--to stack smite evil with sneak attack), as well as some useful rogue talents like fast stealth and stealthy sniper. For the fighter, rogue improves the reflex save and adds some much needed class skills, including Acrobatics and Perception. Ranger needs it less but could also at least use some extra class skills as well (again, Acrobatics).

Whatever you end up playing, good luck and have fun.


I'm going to say that perhaps Headfirst just has a easy DM. I know I had one a while back.

My rogue almost never drew fire even in the middle of mobs. I always seemed to luck out and a lot of the downsides to rogue were glossed over. Heck he even let me get off sneak attack at ranged just because he thought it was fair.

Sure he wasn't the best DM around but being flat out nice and easy went a long way.

Then we started playing with the new DM, who is great by the way,but who believes in playing by the book mostly and doesn't seem to be happy unless he plays the monsters and npc's as they would be,not as it's better for us for them to behave.

I mean think about it.

If your DM doesn't have the monsters attack the rogue when in range but target the tankish types mainly,if you get (special) magic gear meant to fill in your weak spots as a rogue and in general everything normally ends up roses you might be staring at the message board Rogue Sucks thread as well thinking"What the heck are these guys talking about? Man,they just don't know how to play a Rogue! It's not like its rocket science,frigging Flank you idiots!Sneak attack! stop trying to go toe to toe with mobs! Geez what Noobs!


And remember that all the tactics and luck needed to make sneak attack works is done in order to allow the rogue to do lower damage than a fighter working on his own.

And when a rogue is in frontline, it is more than likely that he will die in a full attack, because the rogue has low AC and low HP, and he is in the best range of the attacking creature, allowing it to full attack.

Hooray, 5000gp to resurrect the guy... or maybe we should just sell his stuff and recruit someone more suited for group adventures ?

Shadow Lodge

What would people think about a rogue talent that let you sacrifice the last attack in a full attack to feint? Or a talent that let you add a bonus to attack rolls equal to the sneak attack dice that you will roll if the attack hits ignoring situation Sneak Attack negating stuff like the Jingasa or Fortification?

Also, here is my

Personal Opinion about Rogues:
They don't need a fix too badly. A bonus to attack rolls and some rogue talents that let you do unique things with skills, like use Bluff to pretend to be genuinely kind when using Diplomacy or use Disable Device in place of Slight of Hand would be nice and all, but they don't need it. I have played a rogue, and have GM'd for rogues, and one of the rogues I have GM'd for fell into the "trap" of Two-Weapon Fighting. The rogue actually seemed almost broken, and could out-damage the Barbarian and Fighters each of the same level with good optimization. The rogue player wasn't even optimizing, he just made smart choices and had been playing PF and 3.5 both for a while*.

Rogues could use some Power Creep benefits, to make it easier to know the smart choices, maybe to throw in some good stuff into one of the next upcoming hard-covers, but aren't as weak as the boards claim.

spoiler'd because the opinion is based off of anecdotal evidence instead of mathematical proof, so I can't show that rogues are exceptional.
*:
To clarify, this isn't me using the fallacy of experience/age being equal to deserving respect and being undeniable proof, just me saying the guy knew a lot about good choices for rogues.


Actually, I strongly believe that Fighters, Rogues and Monks should be deleted and replaced by two classes :

- The scoundrel : someone who fights with short weapons and with light/no armor, who is a master in skills and movement in combat

- The swordsmaster : someone who fights with techniques learnt with great discipline, master of maneuvers and weapons (be it swords or something else).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avh wrote:

Actually, I strongly believe that Fighters, Rogues and Monks should be deleted and replaced by two classes :

- The scoundrel : someone who fights with short weapons and with light/no armor, who is a master in skills and movement in combat

- The swordsmaster : someone who fights with techniques learnt with great discipline, master of maneuvers and weapons (be it swords or something else).

Is it just me or did the monk disappear in that?


On the off chance the OP is still reading...

I think you'll find a lot more traction for your sneak attacking archer idea in the new Slayer class that's coming out. Looking at the play test document, it seems to have everything you need. By using slayer talents to take the ranger archery line of feats at levels 2 and 6, and combat trick to get a combat feat at level 4, you've got the 'feat at every level' progression that archers need to be deadly, and 2d6 sneak attack by level 6. From there, you can pick feats, slayer talents, and magic items that enhance the sniping element of your character (or just view the sneak attack damage as bonus damage given in the first round, which WOULD make for a rather deadly barrage).

On top of that, you have enough skills to be the party scout and tracker. You could even take Trapfinding as a level 8 slayer talent (or earlier at level 4 if you don't mind the delay to your archery tree). Honestly, the slayer reads as Paizo saying "well, we can't make dramatic changes to the core rule book at this late point in the game's development, but here's the Rogue Mk II. Sorry about the confusion."

EDIT: Feats would look something like this for a dedicated archer focus.
H. Point blank shot
1. Precise shot
2. Ranger path: Rapid shot
3. Deadly aim, +1d6 sneak attack
4. Talent: Weapon Training (Weapon Focus: Composite Long Bow)
5. Improved Initiative
6. Ranger path: Point Blank Master, +2d6 sneak attack
7. Manyshot
8. Combat trick: Clustered shots
9. Greater weapon focus, +3d6 sneak attack
10. Ranger path: Snapshot
11. Improved precise shot
12. Improved Talent: Feat- Improved snapshot, +4d6 sneak attack

...and so on. Reorder feats to your taste depending on priorities.


Marthkus wrote:
Avh wrote:

Actually, I strongly believe that Fighters, Rogues and Monks should be deleted and replaced by two classes :

- The scoundrel : someone who fights with short weapons and with light/no armor, who is a master in skills and movement in combat

- The swordsmaster : someone who fights with techniques learnt with great discipline, master of maneuvers and weapons (be it swords or something else).

Is it just me or did the monk disappear in that?

Shhhh, he's hiding.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Shhhh, he's hiding.

Does he have concealment?


Marthkus wrote:
Avh wrote:

Actually, I strongly believe that Fighters, Rogues and Monks should be deleted and replaced by two classes :

- The scoundrel : someone who fights with short weapons and with light/no armor, who is a master in skills and movement in combat

- The swordsmaster : someone who fights with techniques learnt with great discipline, master of maneuvers and weapons (be it swords or something else).

Is it just me or did the monk disappear in that?

Well, for the most part.

The scoundrel is a rogue that gains the mobility and AC of the monk, full BAB, lose Sneak attack and rogue talent, and gains dirty tricks instead (one every 2 levels). Dirty tricks being things allowing the use of skills in combat, and maybe things close to spell-like abilities. He has Reflexes and Will good saves.

The swordsmaster is a fighter that gains Disciplines (one every 2 levels) instead of the standard fighter features. Disciplines makes him a master of weapons, armors, combat styles, maneuvers and help improve his mind to match his body, depending on the disciplines taken. He has Fortitude and Will good Saves.

I didn't have an idea for the monk to make him useful and not a variation of the two above.


No.

Shadow Lodge

TOZ wrote:
Does he have concealment?

No, he is just in ArmouredMonk-brand Armour. Gives a +10 to Knowledge[Metagame], Rules Lawyer, and Profession[Thread-Lurker] checks.

Sovereign Court

To the OP - Stick a level of gunslinger on the ninja. Target level 11 greater invis self while going for flat footed touch. Double tap for Sap adept / Sap master with a merciful pistol. It takes a while to get there, but anything worthwhile takes investment. Full round attacks without any 3rd party buff all sneak attach.

a. if you can't hit a flat footed touch, just go wizard and stop rolling d20's.
b. prior to level 12 you can still vanish.
c. you may consider going tiefling and using darkness in certain situations (where the enemy doesn't have darkvision).
d. anytime you can unload in surprise rounds / top of the round

So far out of the scenarios I've played with this rogue (in PFS) now level 4
a. I've outdamaged all other characters at the table.
b. I've soloed several encounters, just by getting the drop with initiative.
c. I've dominated several combats simply with darkness. (without putting my party at any disadvantage). Again full round attacks at flat footed touch.

You mentioned survivability.
Rogues have to play smart, think about position, and primarily not soak damage. Its not their role. You're looking for targets putting them down and finding out what the next target will be. Maybe you fire first and take down a key opponent. Another encounter you vanish and study the opposition in round one. Or you'll sneak into encounters, let the loud guys trip the enemy and pop in at the right time.

I will disagree that Rogues are weak and useless. But as I've been informed, I'm simply a Rogue Enthusiast- a type of deviant....and yet another title that I embrace wholeheartedly.


Wow, that is scary. How does it match up to a full gunslinger in terms of DPR?


Rogues are not allowed to do anything except try to Tumble-Flank beefed up monsters with CMDs of You Have Got To Be Freaking Kidding Me and try to stab a guy for truckloads of damage (if you consider a 3/4 BAB class single attacking for about 30 damage a "truckload").

Along with that, there is always the old standby of begging a full-caster to throw Greater Invisibilty on you so you can pretend to not be garbage in combat.

James Jacob and Jason Bulmahn would hate for you to do anything cheesy, like not suck a bag of hammers in combat. So back to two weapon fighting with horrible weapons and tumble-flanking like the Iconic Cliche that isn't Functional But Is "Flavorful" that you are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Avh wrote:

Actually, I strongly believe that Fighters, Rogues and Monks should be deleted and replaced by two classes :

- The scoundrel : someone who fights with short weapons and with light/no armor, who is a master in skills and movement in combat

- The swordsmaster : someone who fights with techniques learnt with great discipline, master of maneuvers and weapons (be it swords or something else).

Is it just me or did the monk disappear in that?

He forgot that swordsmaster was supposed to replace the monk too.

Rename to Weaponmaster (as they master any weapon)
Weaponmaster: someone who fights with techniques learnt with great discipline, master of maneuvers and weapons (be it swords or something else).

They chose path at 1st level (these determine class features like weapon/armor proficiency/skills)
Base Skills: Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (engineering) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).

Paths:
Swordsmen (weapon wielding master, low skills)
-1st level: All armor/all shields/2+Int Skill points
-Bravery at Second (+2 vs fear and +1 Fear saves every 3 levels thereafter)
-Armor Training:

Lore Warden (maneuver master, plus medium skills)
-Medium/light armor
4+ Int skill points (including All Knowledge, Linguistics, Appraise, Spellcraft)
-Agile: +1 Reflex every 4 levels.
-Maneuver Mastery: +2 CMB/CMD at 3rd, +1 every 3 levels thereafter

Martial Artist (Unarmed master, Ki flavored if wish, but see quigong)
-light armor (but see Unarmored Class feature)/4+ Int skill points
-Evasion at 2nd level while wearing no heavy than light armor.
-Skills:
Stunning Fist/Punishing Kick/Elemental Fist/Lotus Touch/Etc: Beside lowering Prereqs of feats (seriously+8 bab for Stunning Fist), 1 use/level.

Bonus feat: Choices Any Fighter Bonus feat, plus a few extras based on path.
Stance: Basic Benefits related to Path at 1st level
1) Swordsmen:
Risky Parry: As an immediate action, can attempt to block an incoming attack. Roll an opposed attack roll, win you are considered miss even if it was a Crit. Fail, you suffer a Critical threat. The enemy then rerolls to see if it was a Critical (if you have Fortification, it is just a hit as normal).

2) Lore Warden:
Combat Expertise

3) Martial Artist:
-Unarmored: Wis to AC while wearing no armor/shield, but 1/2 this is wearing light armor (why else is there a Brawler enhancement for armor).
-Unwielding: Needing no weapon, you gain a bonus to unarmed attacks. Unarmed Strikes (assume Med) deal 1d6, and increase in by +1 hit/dam every 2 levels (instead every 3 or 4 like monk, plus base damage not dice).

Level Progression:
1. Bonus feat, Discipline (think Rogue Talents but the Path determines choice [adds and removes a few]).
2. Path ability, Bonus feat, Discipline
3. Ki Powered/Unpowered, Armor (as normal)/Unarmored Training (+1 AC every 4 levels while nor wearing armor)
4. Bonus feat, Discipline
5. Weapon Training
6. Bonus feat, Discipline

Yes, one of the discipline choices is Flurry (light or no armor). Lore Warden can take Flurry of Maneuver instead like Maneuver Master Archetype if he wants.

Ki Powered grants normal Ki Pool, but Unpowered grants Exploit Weakness.
Exploit Weakness is At 4th level, as a swift action, can observe a creature or object to find its weak point by making a Wisdom check and adding 1.5 level (rounding down fractals) against a DC of 10 + the object’s hardness or the target’s CR. If the check succeeds, the Weaponmaster gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls until the end of his turn, and any attacks he makes until the end of his turn ignore the creature or object’s DR or hardness. A Weaponmaster may instead use this ability as a swift action to analyze the movements and expressions of one creature within 30 feet, granting a bonus on Sense Motive checks and Reflex saves and a dodge bonus to AC against that opponent equal to 1/2 his monk level until the start of his next turn.

More to Come, but basic idea.

Sovereign Court

To Mystically Inclined - Gunglingers are generally about getting criticals. As long as I hit, I do all the damage I intend. Criticals are simply gravy. At level 4 i'm gunning 3 shots (primary, Ki shot, Rapid Shot) if I hit (flat foot touch) = d8 +1 + 2d6, avg 11.5x3=36.

The old saw is - rogues can't hit, ranged rogues can't ever make more than 1 sneak attack. I've not experienced these two myself as of yet. But when you move into levels 13 to 17 more things have true seeing and can prevent invis. Then I'll have more trouble. Luckily with PFS I really don't have to worry much past 12. I've already promoted one guy to 18, one to 12, one to 13. The balance of my characters are not likely to move up past 12....unless I DM


Huh. Well. OP just got a solid, workable answer.

/Thread?


Perhaps 1 level gunslinger, 4 levels of trench fighter and hten go with sniper archetype.

You will need to be close to the enemie but at least you will add dex to damage and you will not provoke AoO from shooting and have a good fort.

The good thing is that you will not need str so you can pump int to have the typical rogue skills.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You want to have a good archer rogue for Mummy's Mask?

Make a dwarven zen archer that can see in the dark and take that campaign trait that give you trapfinding. Make wisdom your highest stat. Worship Irori and take the trait lets you sub wisdom for dexterity and make a class skill out of sleight of hand so you can prove to others that you can still pick pockets.

Tell everyone you are a rogue even though it says zen archer on your character sheet.


The most mechanically strong and thematically appropriate Ranged Rogue presented is...
12th level
Dips in a level of Gunslinger
Uses 11 levels of Ninja, not Rogue
Takes an archetype
Has about as much to do with a core rogue as Captain Crunch has with Captain Kangaroo.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SPCDRI wrote:


Has about as much to do with a core rogue as Captain Crunch has with Captain Kangaroo.

That about sums up the situation round these parts.

Were they both in the navy?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They were both beloved by hoards of wide eyed, innocent, inexperienced fans who had much to learn.

Kind of like the r... Nah. Too easy.

Sorry. I don't have a dog in this fight. I just couldn't resist. ;)


Avh wrote:

Actually, I strongly believe that Fighters, Rogues and Monks should be deleted and replaced by two classes :

- The scoundrel : someone who fights with short weapons and with light/no armor, who is a master in skills and movement in combat

- The swordsmaster : someone who fights with techniques learnt with great discipline, master of maneuvers and weapons (be it swords or something else).

You probably don't even need to make new classes to replace Fighters, Rogues and Monks. The upcoming classes in the ACG seem to do a good job at that.

Sovereign Court

Mystically Inclined wrote:

On the off chance the OP is still reading...

I think you'll find a lot more traction for your sneak attacking archer idea in the new Slayer class that's coming out. Looking at the play test document, it seems to have everything you need. By using slayer talents to take the ranger archery line of feats at levels 2 and 6, and combat trick to get a combat feat at level 4, you've got the 'feat at every level' progression that archers need to be deadly, and 2d6 sneak attack by level 6. From there, you can pick feats, slayer talents, and magic items that enhance the sniping element of your character (or just view the sneak attack damage as bonus damage given in the first round, which WOULD make for a rather deadly barrage).

On top of that, you have enough skills to be the party scout and tracker. You could even take Trapfinding as a level 8 slayer talent (or earlier at level 4 if you don't mind the delay to your archery tree). Honestly, the slayer reads as Paizo saying "well, we can't make dramatic changes to the core rule book at this late point in the game's development, but here's the Rogue Mk II. Sorry about the confusion."

EDIT: Feats would look something like this for a dedicated archer focus.
H. Point blank shot
1. Precise shot
2. Ranger path: Rapid shot
3. Deadly aim, +1d6 sneak attack
4. Talent: Weapon Training (Weapon Focus: Composite Long Bow)
5. Improved Initiative
6. Ranger path: Point Blank Master, +2d6 sneak attack
7. Manyshot
8. Combat trick: Clustered shots
9. Greater weapon focus, +3d6 sneak attack
10. Ranger path: Snapshot
11. Improved precise shot
12. Improved Talent: Feat- Improved snapshot, +4d6 sneak attack

...and so on. Reorder feats to your taste depending on priorities.

My only beef with this? It's just not a Rogue... it's a Slayer. I'm tempted to observe that pure Rogues simply cannot compete with Zen Archer or Paladin builds. Either in terms of feats, BAB, hit points, armor class or even DPR.

Is there any way to keep an opponent constantly flat-footed with a ranged build? Seems that PRD says that ranged weapons can't flank, so.... Meh.

Sovereign Court

Samduc Dawnbringer wrote:

You want to have a good archer rogue for Mummy's Mask?

Make a dwarven zen archer that can see in the dark and take that campaign trait that give you trapfinding. Make wisdom your highest stat. Worship Irori and take the trait lets you sub wisdom for dexterity and make a class skill out of sleight of hand so you can prove to others that you can still pick pockets.

Tell everyone you are a rogue even though it says zen archer on your character sheet.

Actually now that I think of it... a Dwarf Zen Archer will Steel Soul... Those are some sick saves. Plus ZA gets most of the good ranged feats for free.


taldanrebel2187 wrote:
My only beef with this? It's just not a Rogue... it's a Slayer. I'm tempted to observe that pure Rogues simply cannot compete with Zen Archer or Paladin builds. Either in terms of feats, BAB, hit points, armor class or even DPR.

Ah. I thought you wanted an effective ranged sneak attacker.

Well, if it has to be pure rogue, then I'm afraid you're right. Pure Rogues simply cannot compete with Zen Archer or Paladin builds.

401 to 450 of 1,118 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Do Rogues just flat out suck? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.