| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can get Improved Steal without putting 13 points into what's a dump stat for both classes, I guess.I find this statement extremely telling. I would never build a rogue with intelligence as their dump stat - in fact I consider it the rogue's main stat. Why would you pick a class who's main thing is skill points and then dump the stat that gives you skill points?
Int replaced Dex as the rogue's "prime requisite" as soon as 3.0 hit.
Only the rogue can, in theory, be getting 15 skill points a level right out of the gate, although even I think that's a little extreme. 12-13 is very doable though. (16 int, favored class bonus, maybe human bonus)
Um. What?
So Your rogue is now utterly useless in combat... And there is literally no need for that many skill points. WOOOOHOO!!! You have profession (basket weaver). Whoop...
The rogue's prime stats are Str and Dex...
Rogues have light armor and no way to improve their AC (things like mutagens or some such) so depend on dex for AC. Alot of their skills are also dex based. Rogues need str so they can actually HIT SOMETHING since they have 3/4 BAB and no way to improve it. They also need con due to them being melee with d8 HD and poor AC. Oh and them fort saves... Oh! and you need Wis because them will saves...
Oh! And if you want to actually put those face skills you use you also need cha.....
Why is a rogue's prime stat strength?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are comparing apples to oranges then declaring oranges strictly better--
Rogue= damage dealer
Bard= party buffer
But without any damage dealers in the party, bard can stand there singing all day and haste/heroism to his hearts content and its meaningless.
You do realize that a Bard's buffs also affect the Bard himself, right? You also realize, of course, that a Bard can maintain a Bardic Performance with a free action, which means he can do other stuff while his Bardic Performance is up and buffing everyone in the party (including himself).
A Bard could very easily cast Haste and start a Performance in the same round. And make the whole party much more effective. Rogue advocates love to say "This not a solo game", but then, we mention how Bards are much, much better for a team game, and suddenly, "What if he's alone?" comes up. Then let's remember that if he's alone, he'd be miles ahead of any Rogue who is alone too (try and get Sneak Attack without flanking).
You are "thinking" that a hasted martial does more damage than a rogue?
Want to show some math on it?
Are you honestly saying a non-buffed Rogue that deals more damage than, say... A Ranger under effect of Haste and Bardic Performance? Or, to make the comparison more realistic... Does the Rogue deal more damage than a whole party who is under effect of Haste and Bardic Performance?
Because if you are, you're the one who should bring evidence.
And sorry, but if a player wants to kill things, he is not going to be choosing between Rogue and Bard-- because the player who is likely to choose rogue isn't thinking "ahh, but I could never make an attack myself and let other people do all the killing while I sing". . .
Again, maintaining a Bardic Performance is a freaking free action. A. Free. Action.
And I don't see how dealing lots of damage and throwing lots of dice-- two things rogues can do that bards can't are mutually exclusive?
Rogues are not very good at causing lots of damage... Sure they'll occasionally hit every attack and deal Sneak Attack wiht all of them, but, much more often than not, that occasion will preceded and followed by many rounds where he doesn't hit anything and/or can't use Sneak Attack... Which turns him into an expert with better WBL (and worse saves).
A question was asked and the answer is Yes and Yes. So the answer is Yes?
I don't even know what you're talking about here...
All these posts that are just places for people to bash classes really need to stop-- you don't like the class, don't play it and move on, you aren't going to convince everyone else that they are having badwrongfun playing the class by trying to make false comparisons.
HAH! There we are! We got the the stage 3 of a Rogue's advocate argument...
Can't think of a real argument, so goes the victim route. "Stop telling me I'm having badwrong fun! Stop oppressing Rogue players!". Let's just ignore the fact that I never, not even once, accused anyone of "having badwrong fun" for any reason, much less for playing Rogues.
Honestly, I have seen very few instances in this forum where anyone did that. What I do see a lot, though... Is people (who can't make fact-based arguments) say others are accusing them of having badwrong fun, despite no one having done that.
Go ahead. Point me one instance where I said anything close to "If you're playing a Rogue, you're not having fun". One instance. Just one.
I like the concept for Rogue class. In fact, I like it so much, that I spent a lot of time and put a lot of thought on how to make it better while keeping its flavor, including revising many Rogue Talents, instead of just giving simple upgrades such as full BAB and good Fort saves. Do you think I'd bother to do something like that if I hated the class? (I'd link my homebrew Rogue fix here, but Giant in the Playground is offline for maintenance right now). Hell! Ignore "hating" the class... Do you honestly think I'd put that much effort if I didn't really like the class?!
The difference between our takes on this subject, Nathaniel, is that I don't delude myself into believing the Rogue is perfect just because I like the class. I know the Rogue's flaws and I accept them. I've seen them in play too often to ignore.
I don't hate Rogues. I hate its mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can get Improved Steal without putting 13 points into what's a dump stat for both classes, I guess.I find this statement extremely telling. I would never build a rogue with intelligence as their dump stat - in fact I consider it the rogue's main stat. Why would you pick a class who's main thing is skill points and then dump the stat that gives you skill points?
Int replaced Dex as the rogue's "prime requisite" as soon as 3.0 hit.
Only the rogue can, in theory, be getting 15 skill points a level right out of the gate, although even I think that's a little extreme. 12-13 is very doable though. (16 int, favored class bonus, maybe human bonus)
Because a skill point on a rogue isn't really worth any more than a skill point on anybody else. A skill point on a rogue is worth one skill point per level. A skill point on anybody else is worth one skill point per level. If you wouldn't always start with a 16 on EVERY class, you shouldn't start with it on a rogue. In fact, once you already have a bunch of skill points/level, additional ones are LESS valuable, because your 13th-pick skill is way less important than your third-pick skill. Rogues are able to dump Int harder than every other class because they need it for nothing, and are sacrificing their eighth-most-important skill by doing that, instead of their second-most-important or fourth-most-important, like most classes are. Int is a dump stat on rogues. Rogues are NOT good at skills. They have zero advantages to using skills aside from perception and disable device, which they can easily afford even with six or seven skill points per level. Bards are good at skills; they get actual advantages to having skill points in things. Rogues don't. A rouge's skill point is no more valuable than anybody else's, and may be less.
It is the case that some skills complement each other when they're on the same character, but not to a degree that you need twelve skill ranks per level. Rogues have zero advantages to having decent int scores that aren't available to EVERY class. Zero.
Calling the rogue "a class whose main thing is skill points" collapses two different ideas - "a class that gets a lot of skill points" and "a class that gets more advantages from having skill points than other classes" - into the same idea. The rogue is the first one. It's not meaningfully the second. And that's why Int is a dump stat for rogues. (You certainly CAN build and play a rogue character with 16 Int, just like you could build and play a wizard with 20 Cha, and you might have fun with that, but it's not an efficiently built character.)
Also, if you're starting with the assumption that it's worthwhile to trash a character just to get a large number of skill points... bards STILL end up being better at that. (And unlike rouges, a skill point on a bard is actually worth a bit more than a skill point on a fighter.)
You can get Improved Steal without putting 13 points into what's a dump stat for both classes, I guess.I find this statement extremely telling. I would never build a rogue with intelligence as their dump stat - in fact I consider it the rogue's main stat. Why would you pick a class who's main thing is skill points and then dump the stat that gives you skill points?
Int replaced Dex as the rogue's "prime requisite" as soon as 3.0 hit.
Only the rogue can, in theory, be getting 15 skill points a level right out of the gate, although even I think that's a little extreme. 12-13 is very doable though. (16 int, favored class bonus, maybe human bonus)
So what's his stats in everything else? That's 10 points of his point buy.
What's his Dex? What's his Str? Con?
You're exacerbating his problem with combat for a meager skill point gain.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Wow I touched a nerve or something there.
Let me first say that it's clear we have different paradigms when it comes to playing a rogue. That's why I thought the comment about Int-dumping is revealing.
First, IMO, you shouldn't build your rogue for combat. We all know the rogue is pretty bad at straight up fighting, i.e., applying her numbers to the monster's numbers to win. So why emphasize that? It's like trying to build a wizard who fights in melee without using spells.
Having lots of skill points is a thing the rogue does. To me, taking an Int penalty is like making a barbarian with a Str penalty - you have a full BAB, so you can have a little penalty and it doesn't matter. Skills are what the rogue does.
Some people have asked for stat arrays based on my apparently bold claim, so here goes (I play 15 point buy):
S12
D14
C13
I16
W10
Ch10
Human, racial bonus in Int. No dump stats needed, but depending on concept it could be fun to dump Wis or Cha. Yes I'm terrible at Will saves, but that can be managed. My Cha is decent enough that with all my skill ranks I can still be a decent "face" character if I want.
Skills I'd take: acrobatics, appraise, bluff, diplomacy, disable device, disguise, escape artist, know (local), linguistics, perception, sense motive, sleight of hand, stealth, UMD. I don't have quite enough skill points even with this guy to max all those, so some like appraise, linguistics, and disguise won't be kept maxed. Also probably put one rank in each of climb and swim. Probably also keep a few ranks in a couple campaign-specific knowledge skills.
This character is terrible in combat, it's true. But, I can assert that I would still be useful to the group in a general problem-solving sense. I also assert that I could take this character just fine into any AP and do well with him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what does he bring to the table that a Bard doesn't?
He's now a liability in combat, for a few extra skill points.
He can't hit anything, he deals NO damage, he has little HP, so you've given up any chance of him contributing in any meaningful way in combat.
And for what? 11 skill points a level?
Whoop-de-freakin'-doo.
Even if that was some major contribution to the group (it's not, unless literally everyone in the party dumps Int and invests in no skills whatsoever, because the Rogue is NOT the only class that can have skills, but if it was), let's see how that stacks up to the bard.
12 Int = 7 skills/level. So, 4 less skills at 1st level.
What does he bring to the party in addition to that? Bardic Performance. +1/+1 to every other character on the field.
So he has a negligible amount less out of combat impact than you (7 skill points is already a lot, 11 is overkill by comparison since by the time you have 8/9 you've maxed out most skills you want), but is already a force multiplier to the rest of the party. He's infinitely more useful in combat.
Fast forward to 6th level. He's got 2 Versatile Performances now, and Bardic Knowledge up.
With just Versatile Performance he's rocking an equivalent 11 skill points a level now, same as you.
Let's be fair, say you got an Int headband and he did not. So 11 vs 12.
Then throw in Bardic Knowledge, which is essentially "3 free skill ranks to all Knowledge skills in the game" at 6th level.
Let's also be fair, say he invest skill points in 3 Knowledge skills (Local, Arcana, and...Planes we'll say).
So he's got History/Nature/Religion/Nobility/Geography/Dungeoneering/Engineering with 3 ranks apiece.
Divide that by 2 (since only 3 ranks, half investment)and that's 3 extra ranks per level.
So he's got 14 to your 12. He wins, good day.
He's infinitely more useful in combat, AND is more useful out of combat than you. Your Rogue can't fight, the Bard can drop a Haste and Inspire Courage and make the rest of the team wreck everything forever and be content.
Your Rogue either cowers at the back of the pack going "Can we have a skill challenge yet?", or gets into combat and dies horribly without accomplishing anything.
Even worse, a Bard can tank the same stats you did to rock Int/Cha as his primary attributes, and widen the gap EVEN FURTHER.
The Int Rogue is hands down worse than any other Rogue, and that's saying something. At least a Dex or Str Rogue can deal some good Sneak Attack damage on occasion without worrying about being obliterated by a sharp glance.
I suppose the one upside to the Int Rogue is that when you're Dominated or something because of your low Will save, nobody will care, since your attacks each hit with a similar amount of force as a pillow filled with helium.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow I touched a nerve or something there.
Did you? Because they simply replied to you. They don't sound angry or even irritated at all.
Let me first say that it's clear we have different paradigms when it comes to playing a rogue. That's why I thought the comment about Int-dumping is revealing.
First, IMO, you shouldn't build your rogue for combat. We all know the rogue is pretty bad at straight up fighting, i.e., applying her numbers to the monster's numbers to win. So why emphasize that? It's like trying to build a wizard who fights in melee without using spells.
Here is the problem... Combat is a huge part of PF. Being bad at it means you'll be bad at at least 50% of a normal campaign (i.e.: A campaign not specifically designed about non-combat. No class should need a custom-made campaign just to be decent) and like it or not, the consequences for failing at combat are usually much steeper than the consequences for failing a skill check.
That sample build of yours... What's his AC, accuracy and saves? You can claim "Rogues are not meant for combat", but combat happens all the time, and the Rogue will either be involved and ineffective, or he will let his friends fend for themselves without his help, in which case he's completely useless.
Either way, the party is worse for having the Rogue come along. They have one less man to count on during those situations where it's a
The second problem is the fact that there are over half a dozen classes that are better than Rogues at everything. Out-of-combat utility included.
The 3rd problem, is that increasing skills doesn't really help much the Rogue... Int doesn't do anything particularly useful for them. The difference between having 2 and 4 skill points is much, much more significant than the difference between having 10 and 8 skill points, even though the numerical gap is the same.
And since every class can easily get 3~4 skill points by simply not dumping Int, its much easier for a party with no Rogues to cover all its bases on the skill department than it's for a party to be effective in combat with only characters.
Many skills only have to be covered by 1 party member. But very few combats end well when you can't rely on your whole party.
Some people here get killed for a rogue and get repressed anger
I doubt Rogues are capable of killing anything whose defenses are more powerful than a wet paper-towel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, he said killed FOR a Rogue, not by a Rogue.
I can easily see a party being killed because they're lugging a round dead weight. If the GM doesn't acknowledge that they're essentially a 3 man party with a cohort they pull out of a bag of holding when it's time to pick locks and throws threats for 4 people at them, it can be a bad time.
What can a Rogue do?
I also assert that I could take this character just fine into any AP and do well with him.
I think you'd have a lot of trouble in Rise of the Runelords. Especially in a 4 person party.
Not saying you couldn't have fun, and that getting creative might not accomplish everything you need to. It'd be pretty tricky though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What can a Rogue do?
So... Sneak Attack a 2~3rd level Expert and still see them get away without any significant injuries?
Yeah, I can see that happening...
Additionally, I would like to point out that, with those stats, your saves are crap. Rogues already have the WORST SAVES OF ANY PC CLASS. Exasperating that problem with weak attributes is ASKING for your rogue to die...
I'm sorry but between the Alchemist, the Bard, and the Seeker Sage Sorcerer, there is literally NO NEED for a rogue... like... ever.
What makes it worse is that Paizo pretty much confirmed it by creating the Ninja, which, for all intents and purposes, is just about a better rogue than the rogue. The ONLY thing a rogue does better is traps... which is such a tiny part of the game that it is almost inconsequential. And if you REALLY want a ninja to straight up replace a rogue, give the Ninja a Wand of Mount. BAM!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I gotta say, commoners are awesome. I love playing them. If their combat damage doesn't stack up *shrug*. When I play a commoner, I make him the star of the show. 'Nuff said.
Having lots of skill points is a thing the rogue does. To me, taking an Int penalty is like making a barbarian with a Str penalty - you have a full BAB, so you can have a little penalty and it doesn't matter. Skills are what the rogue does.
This seems to be the core of your inability to get why int isn't any better for a rogue than for any other class. The skill points:rogue::attack bonus:barbarian analogy isn't a valid one because having additional skill points when you already have a lot of skill points isn't the same as having additional attack when you already have a lot of attack bonus.
The reason is that because barbarians have a naturally high BAB, taking a specific action - attacking - is a good option for them. So it makes sense to further invest into attacking.
Taking a stat that gives you extra skill points doesn't "stack" with something you're already doing. In fact, by divesting away from things like Dex, you're making yourself worse at things that the party would otherwise be relying on you for.
Short version: Str makes a barbarian better at what they're doing anyway. Int makes a rogue worse at what they're doing anyway. (Because "skills" isn't a thing. It's a bunch of things.)
You are getting a little extra versatility out of the int... but only three skill points worth, which is no more than a barbarian or a sorcerer or any other class would get out of 16 int. Do you suggest that a barbarian should always take 16 int, since getting just three skill points out of it is apparently worth that investment?
You're also still confusing "class that benefits from having extra skill points more than most classes do" - which the rogue is emphatically not and "class that has a high base number of skill points", which the rogue actually is. An extra skill point on a rogue is not worth any more than an extra skill point on any other class.
Some portion of your position does seem to be based around the idea that rogues are SO helpless at combat that you should give up on that completely and basically just make an Expert, but I don't think that rogues are so bad at combat that you should make the severe sacrifice of having your party fight a man down just so that the party has access to another +X worth of appraise.
|
...Trapsmith...
This isn't any better than anyone else at traps. The 8th level ability seems situational at best, and the fourth level ability replaces the ability that makes Trap Sense actually work most of the time. If the trap is an AoE, you probably don't benefit from Trap Sense anyway, since you probably need a 1 to fail with or without it. If the trap is a targeted trap, you need Uncanny Dodge to apply the dodge bonus to traps.
You guys got it; I'm out-- rip the pages that say rogue out of your books if you want, its not an irrelevant class and there are reasons to play it.
Rogues are not "liabilities in combat"
And you cannot compare the damage output of two characters (whatever martial you want +bard) to that of rogue by himself-- you have to compare the same martial + bard to that martial + rogue if you want to be fair and I have yet to see the math to back up any of these claims.
But again, I'm undotting this post since its clearly just a spot for a particular subset of posters to scream loudly about how me/my players/ other players shouldn't enjoy rogues and how dumb we are if we do.
You guys got it; I'm out-- rip the pages that say rogue out of your books if you want, its not an irrelevant class and there are reasons to play it.
OMG! Maybe you can post builds of rogues you had fun with and could describe the AP you did it in?
Please, no-one is biting on this request.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you cannot compare the damage output of two characters (whatever martial you want +bard) to that of rogue by himself-- you have to compare the same martial + bard to that martial + rogue if you want to be fair and I have yet to see the math to back up any of these claims.
We can compare "Party + Bard" and "Party + Rogue", though. And I'm betting on the Bard team being more effective.
But again, I'm undotting this post since its clearly just a spot for a particular subset of posters to scream loudly about how me/my players/ other players shouldn't enjoy rogues and how dumb we are if we do.
I'm still waiting for you to point an occasion where anyone in this thread accused you of having badwrong fun or called you dumb for playing a Rogue...
|
|
You guys got it; I'm out-- rip the pages that say rogue out of your books if you want, its not an irrelevant class and there are reasons to play it.Rip out one of the best classes* in a book I payed 60 dollars for?
Rogues are not "liabilities in combat"Could not agree more. They just aren't as good as some similar options. By the CRB, Rogues actually aren't that bad, as long as all other classes are CRB only. Bards and Rangers are the only options that are close to them in skills, and they seem to fall behind a bit without being great Strides ahead, and nobody else comes close other than maybe wizard. APG, Ultimate Combat and Magic, and a handful of splatbooks sold Rogues to other classes.
And you cannot compare the damage output of two characters (whatever martial you want +bard) to that of rogue by himself-- you have to compare the same martial + bard to that martial + rogue if you want to be fair and I have yet to see the math to back up any of these claims.Well, Martial+Bard is probably better than Rogue+Bard in damage, since martials will have higher attack bonuses and be more likely to hit. But the rogue will benefit significantly more than the martial will. Going from needing a 20 to hit to needing a 14 to hit, is much better than needing a 10 to hit to needing a 4 to hit, regardless of the DPR increase is identical.
But again, I'm undotting this post since its clearly just a spot for a particular subset of posters to scream loudly about how me/my players/ other players shouldn't enjoy rogues and how dumb we are if we do.
I disagree here. Several of the people who have posted in this thread have said that they like the rogue class, but find it severely Underpowered and in need of a boost. Nobody [to my knowledge] has stated that playing or enjoying a rogue is dumb, just that saying stuff like rogues are superior to other classes at X and have no way of backing it. I don't recall anyone screaming out BADWRONGFUN about playing a rogue [unless they were being sarcastic].
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You guys got it; I'm out-- rip the pages that say rogue out of your books if you want, its not an irrelevant class and there are reasons to play it.
Rogues are not "liabilities in combat"
And you cannot compare the damage output of two characters (whatever martial you want +bard) to that of rogue by himself-- you have to compare the same martial + bard to that martial + rogue if you want to be fair and I have yet to see the math to back up any of these claims.
But again, I'm undotting this post since its clearly just a spot for a particular subset of posters to scream loudly about how me/my players/ other players shouldn't enjoy rogues and how dumb we are if we do.
This here, is what I like to call, melodrama...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I swear, it seems like the people arguing for the roguebeing fine as is haven't actually read any other class...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the same set of conflations and crosstalk happen in most of these threads.
The rogue IS NOT strictly dominated - There technically exist (narrow and convoluted) sets of priorities where the rogue is technically the best way to get those things.
The rogue IS mostly dominated - For most realistic sets of priorities you might have, even for a rogue-like character, the rogue class is not the most efficacious way to get those things, or else you can get those things and a whole lot more better stuff elsewhere.
A rogue IS NOT complete dead weight - You won't instantly fail and die and doom your whole party if you play a rogue. A rogue can be a functional contributing member of a party.
The rogue IS below the curve - A rogue is less able to contribute to resolving standard adventuring challenges than most classes are.
A rogue IS NOT impossible to have fun with. While extremely out-of-band characters can make the game less fun, the rogue is not so far out of band that you'd expect that for the class.
The rogue is NOT magically better at roguey things than its listed abilities indicate, outside of houseruling.
That somebody correctly recognizes that the rogue class is mechanically mostly dominated and under the curve does NOT mean that that person hates the concept of the rogue, its general implementation, or the idea that somebody would enjoy playing one.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I swear, it seems like the people arguing for the rogue being fine as is haven't actually read any other class...
C'mon, KC. you know how Rogue advocates go...
Stage 1:
Rogue Advocate: Rogues are the best strikers in the game! Sneak Attack deals a quadrillion damage every round!
Poster Who Actually Checks The Math: No, they aren't. They don't even hit often enough for Sneak Attack to be useful, and their awful saves, AC and CMD means they are likely to be neutralized before they even have a chance to try.
Stage 2:
Rogue Advocate: This game is not about combat! Rogues are not a combat class! You guys focus too much on DPR! Rogues are the kings of skill, and skills are awesome!
Poster Who Actually Checks The Math: Rogues are not that good out of combat either... Bards, Inquisitors, Rangers, Alchemists, every single full caster in the game and even a few Barbarian builds have better out of combat utility. And all of them are vastly superior in combat too.
Stage 3:
Rogue Advocate: SHUT UP! STOP OPPRESSING ME AND TELLING ME I'M HAVING BADWRONG FUN!!! YOU JUST HATE THE CLASS, YOU DPR-OBSSESSED ROLLPLAYER!
Poster Who Actually Checks The Math: Dude... I never said anything even close to that. And you're the one who brought up DPR. Oh, and you don't have to play a Rogue to role-play a roguish character.
Stage 4:
Rogue Advocate: F@@& YOU! GO HOME AND TEAR YOUR BOOK APART! I'M OUT!
Poster Who Actually Check The Math: Drama queen...
Sometimes, Rogue advocates skip stage 1 or switch it around with stage 2.
I swear, it seems like the people arguing for the rogue being fine as is haven't actually read any other class...C'mon, KC. you know how Rogue advocates go...
Stage 1:
Rogue Advocate: Rogues are the best strikers in the game! Sneak Attack deals a quadrillion damage every round!
Poster Who Actually Checks The Math: No, they aren't. They don't even hit often enough for Sneak Attack to be useful, and their awful saves, AC and CMD means they are likely to be neutralized before they even have a chance to try.Stage 2:
Rogue Advocate: This game is not about combat! Rogues are not a combat class! You guys focus too much on DPR! Rogues are the kings of skill, and skills are awesome!
Poster Who Actually Checks The Math: Rogues are not that good out of combat either... Bards, Inquisitors, Rangers, Alchemists, every single full caster in the game and even a few Barbarian builds have better out of combat utility. And all of them are vastly superior in combat too.Stage 3:
Rogue Advocate: SHUT UP! STOP OPPRESSING ME AND TELLING ME I'M HAVING BADWRONG FUN!!! YOU JUST HATE THE CLASS, YOU DPR-OBSSESSED ROLLPLAYER!
Poster Who Actually Checks The Math: Dude... I never said anything even close to that. And you're the one who brought up DPR. Oh, and you don't have to play a Rogue to role-play a roguish character.Stage 4:
Rogue Advocate: F&$# YOU! GO HOME AND TEAR YOUR BOOK APART! I'M OUT!
Poster Who Actually Check The Math: Drama queen...Sometimes, Rogue advocates skip stage 1 or switch it around with stage 2.
Alternative to Stage 3 for the advocate: BLARGH ROGUES SUX!
Or as like to put it, the converted.
Or the way it really goes. . .
"Math shows rogue garbage worthless"
"Please show this math"
"Math shows rogue garbage, lolz, maybe you should look at math like me."
"Please show this math"
"I SAID MATH! I WIN!"
"Please show this math"
"MATH! WHY YOU WANNA SEE MATH MATH SAYS I WIN!?"
"You got it bro, I cannot dispute imaginary math you cannot or will not show."
Bards have more skill points thanks to versatile performance and the bonus to knowledge skills. How that tis imaginary math?
Or the way it really goes. . .
"Math shows rogue garbage worthless"
"Please show this math"
"Math shows rogue garbage, lolz, maybe you should look at math like me."
"Please show this math"
"I SAID MATH! I WIN!"
"Please show this math"
"MATH! WHY YOU WANNA SEE MATH MATH SAYS I WIN!?"
"You got it bro, I cannot dispute imaginary math you cannot or will not show."
What are you on? I want some.
Scavion! someone needs to see the alchemist build again!
Or the way it really goes. . .
"Math shows rogue garbage worthless"
"Please show this math"
"Math shows rogue garbage, lolz, maybe you should look at math like me."
"Please show this math"
"I SAID MATH! I WIN!"
"Please show this math"
"MATH! WHY YOU WANNA SEE MATH MATH SAYS I WIN!?"
"You got it bro, I cannot dispute imaginary math you cannot or will not show."
What are you on? I want some.
Scavion! someone needs to see the alchemist build again!
I don't want to see an alchemist build.
Show me the bard who does more damage than the rogue which is what I asked for.
And then show me Bard + 1 Martial compared to Rogue + that exact same martial to prove how superior Bard is in every way.
That's two things that people have asserted "math shows" but they have yet to post the math for these assertions.
I'm not "on" anything and please do not change the subject to personal insults in place of supporting your arguments with facts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<Something, something, Bards... Does it really matter?>
Didn't leave us yet? How quaint...
What exactly do you propose we do? Dow e want me to build a Rogue and show how weak he is? I can build a crappy character with any class, how does that prove any point?
you're the one saying you can build amazing Rogues who are irreplaceable and more effective than Bards, Inquisitors, Alchemists, etc. It's you who has to show what mysterious build you're using.
I have yet to see any Rogue advocate show a Rogue build that can't be easily replaced by half a dozen classes... They just parrot "Skills. Traps. Sneak Attack." and never ever show any evidence to backup their claims...
Then they accuse others of being unfair for comparing Rogues to other classes... r.g.: "You can't compare Party+Bard with Party+Rogue. That's unfair!".
Why it's unfair, though... I have no clue.
Show me the bard who does more damage than the rogue which is what I asked for.
This is the good weay to go.
So, post a rogue and somebody post a bard. I suggest 10 level, everything from paizo, standar WBL, 20 PB, two traits.
There could be other restrictions, like
a)The rogue and the bard have to be skill monkeys
b)The other party members are a fighter, a sorcerer and a druid.
c)They have to have survivality
20 dex, 7 con is not acceptable.
The things to compare are
a) Skills
b) other out of combat utilities
c) DPR
d) Defenses (AC, CMD, saves)
Deal?
Bro you claimed "rogue can't do more damage than a bard plus a martial"
Of course not-- one character not being able to do more damage than TWO characters just makes and of course that's not a fair comparison.
You keep saying how much more damage the bard is causing to happen without ever showing how or how much-- you're the one who keeps claiming that the numbers are on your side, so yes, asking you to show those numbers is logical, fair, and necessary to have a discussion in good faith.
You have posited a theory "bard does more damage" and a second theory "bard+martial does more damage" it is YOUR responsibility to show the evidence if you want to "prove" how bad rogue is.
But you won't provide any support other than repeating that you are right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you won't provide any support other than repeating that you are right.
He is right here. I think he is wrong about rogues but tonly numbers will prove him wrong.
Soporific Lotus said
Using the elite array, which is a 15 point buy and what was used in the DPR Olympics, I calculated what an optimized level 10 archer arcane duelist bard would contribute against a CR 10 encounter if it inspired courage the first round as a move action, took a single attack and then the next round took a full attack.
The bard alone does 56 damage over two rounds. The inspire courage would contribute 15 total points of damage to an optimized level 10 fighter making a single attack and then a full attack with an elven curved blade. For a level 10 challenge this accounts for over 50% of the target’s health without considering the effect of the inspire courage on additional allies. I think that is pretty good for a support class.
The bard has point-blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot, many shot, weapon focus, arcane strike and lingering performance with a +3 short bow, belt of +2 dex and bracers of the falcon, a dexterity score of 20 and a strength score of 14.
I recently posted an archeologist bard that focused on taking skill focus and had no bonus to strength. That bard only had point-blank shot, rapid shot and many shot as offensive feats but could take the same gear. That bard, with the same dex, if it used luck on itself both rounds would do 50 damage. Without luck it would do 37 over two rounds which is still more than 25% of a CR 10 encounter. I guess that shows that an unoptimized bard can still pull its weight for an encounter by that standard.
This from establishing a baseline thread
He is right here. I think he is wrong about rogues but tonly numbers will prove him wrong.
But you won't provide any support other than repeating that you are right.
I'd really love to have a conversation about it and dig into it, but I can't dispute assertions that haven't been shown.
|
|
Or the way it really goes. . .
"Math shows rogue garbage worthless"
"Please show this math"
"Math shows rogue garbage, lolz, maybe you should look at math like me."
"Please show this math"
"I SAID MATH! I WIN!"
"Please show this math"
"MATH! WHY YOU WANNA SEE MATH MATH SAYS I WIN!?"
"You got it bro, I cannot dispute imaginary math you cannot or will not show."
Would you care to run the DPR math of
Str10
Dex22
Con14
Int14
Wis10
Cha10
Skills:
Diplomacy+19
Perception+13(+18 traps)
Stealth+19
Acrobatics+19
Use Magic Device+13
Disable Device+24
Slight of Hand+19
Bluff+13
Alternate Racial Trait:
Toothy
Feats:
Racial Heritage(Catfolk)
Catfolk Exemplar(claws)
Rapid Reload (Light Crossbow)
Skill Focus(Diplomacy)
Arcane Strike
Rogue Talents:
Finesse Rogue
Trap Spotter
Fast Stealth
Minor Magic(Insert Useful Cantrip for Campaign here)
Crippling Strike
Class Features:
Trapfinding +5
Sneak Attack +5d6
Evasion
Improved Uncanny Dodge
Trap Sense +3
Traits:
Armor Expert
(insert favorite trait here)
Gear:
+1 Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists
+3 Ring of Protection
+2 Mithral Breastplate
+2 Belt of Incredible Dexterity
+3 Cloak of Resistance
Boots of Elven Kind
Ring of Feather Falling
Attacks:
Bite+14(1d4+7)
Bite/Claw/Claw+14/+14/+14(1d4+7all)
Flanking Bite/Claw/Claw+16/+16/+16(1d4+5d6+2Str damage+7all)
Masterwork Crossbow+14/+9(1d8)
AC=27
Touch=19
CMD23
CMB+7
Fort+8
Ref+17
Will+6
I'd really love to have a conversation about it and dig into it, but I can't dispute assertions that haven't been shown.He is right here. I think he is wrong about rogues but tonly numbers will prove him wrong.
But you won't provide any support other than repeating that you are right.
So, post a rogue and somebody post a bard. I suggest 10 level, everything from paizo, standar WBL, 20 PB, two traits.
There could be other restrictions, like
a)The rogue and the bard have to be skill monkeys
b)The other party members are a fighter, a sorcerer and a druid.
c)They have to have survivality20 dex, 7 con is not acceptable.
The things to compare are
a) Skills
b) other out of combat utilities
c) DPR
d) Defenses (AC, CMD, saves)Deal?
Or the way it really goes. . .
"Math shows rogue garbage worthless"
"Please show this math"
"Math shows rogue garbage, lolz, maybe you should look at math like me."
"Please show this math"
"I SAID MATH! I WIN!"
"Please show this math"
"MATH! WHY YOU WANNA SEE MATH MATH SAYS I WIN!?"
"You got it bro, I cannot dispute imaginary math you cannot or will not show."
What are you on? I want some.
Scavion! someone needs to see the alchemist build again!
I don't want to see an alchemist build.
Show me the bard who does more damage than the rogue which is what I asked for.
And then show me Bard + 1 Martial compared to Rogue + that exact same martial to prove how superior Bard is in every way.
That's two things that people have asserted "math shows" but they have yet to post the math for these assertions.
I'm not "on" anything and please do not change the subject to personal insults in place of supporting your arguments with facts.
Easy: Inspire Courage boost dam and hit. What determines if you hit? Bonuses to hit. Crazy I know.
What boost DPR? Hit bonuses.Level 1:
Sneak attack adds +0 hit, +3 dam on average (if meet right conditions)
Inspire Courage: Adds +1 hit, +1 dam (more with right archetype like Dervish)
Or the way it really goes. . .
"Math shows rogue garbage worthless"
"Please show this math"
"Math shows rogue garbage, lolz, maybe you should look at math like me."
"Please show this math"
"I SAID MATH! I WIN!"
"Please show this math"
"MATH! WHY YOU WANNA SEE MATH MATH SAYS I WIN!?"
"You got it bro, I cannot dispute imaginary math you cannot or will not show."
What are you on? I want some.
Scavion! someone needs to see the alchemist build again!
Woop. Got distracted with fooling around in skyrim with mods.
As requested. Can be custom tailored to fit the Rogue-ish concept you seek.
A Full Bard with a 1 level dip in Pathfinder Delver would also be super nasty. I see no reason to take Archeologist anymore.