Looking back to the original post, the problem isn't the class, it's bad GMing. Finding and disabling traps is a significant ability. If the PC is spending skill points on Disable Device, than the GM should give that player plenty of chances to use that skill.
I disagree. Poorly placed traps are annoyances.
In RotRL there was a room with a monster in it and a horrible trap effecting any who entered it. It was a fun trap that made the encounter interesting, but when the monster was dead we could bypass the trap by disabling it.
THAT is a good trap. One that you grow to hate BEFORE you auto disable it.
This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class.
Thus you cannot actually use that caster level to determine the effect of the spell as you do not actually have it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Traps are a thing that the Rogue does while everyone else just sort of sits around and waits for the Rogue to have his special snowflake moment.
Most of the things that the Rogue does better (sort of) than other classes are things that are total solo missions. Everyone else has to stop what they're doing so the Rogue can feel important. Not exactly the best design for a team game.
Funny thing is, rogues are said to be underpowered if you believe this forum, kobolds are known to be the weakest race, but a kobold rogue with dragonmav teeth and spikes on his tail can really cause a lot of sneak attack damage.
Rogue talents are often horribly designed to be inferior to existing options. If fighters wish that feats were as potent as rage powers, rogues wish talents were as potent as feats.
Seriously, is there anyone who reads 'Steal the Story' or 'Black Market Connections' and gets excited about the possibilities for their character?
I love black market connections. I mean say you are playing RotRL. No time to craft, all the cities have limited magic items. So by having this talent you can boost a location's GP limit and Magic Items available by up to 2 sizes larger.
So you could be in small town and boost the GP limit from 5000 to 25000. This is great for selling loot. Nothing worse an item worth 10,000 gp and not being able to sell it. Now you can. Now you want to buy a the base value goes from 1000 gp to 4000 gp. That's 75% chance that any item that value or lower can be found that week including magic items. Want a belt of giant str +2, 75% chance it's there now. As well for items above the base value you 3D4 to 4D4 minor, 1D6 to 3D4 medium and now you have access to 1D6 major.
When we play RotRl we didn't have this and we had so much treasure we couldn't sell and we were loaded with gold. I mean I had +2 sword for most the game because no place had anything better and I wasn't even focused on a weapon, it just had to a two handed weapon.
I think that you might be a little confused, first of all in PF there is no GP limit, that's a 3.5 term and GP limit has nothing to do with selling loot (GP limit is kinda like PF's base value). In PF it's the purchase limit which sets the maximum amount of gp you can get by selling a single item (and it can get up to 200000gp iirc which more than enough).
Now about black markets connections, i say quite a few things about it here, the short verion is that i think that it's a "hmm... well.. i might take it" kind of talent that can help you and the party to save time.
This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class.Thus you cannot actually use that caster level to determine the effect of the spell as you do not actually have it.
You mimic spellcasting. The staff uses the caster level you mimic.
I don't really feel like arguing about the rules. But this should be pretty straight forward.
The same goes for some of your rogue... "abilities", that are useable by anyone even a commoner.
No it's not the same as those. This is a pretty straight forward interpretation.
By your logic the staff doesn't use the ability score you mimic either. Or you can't use scrolls because you don't have the actual ability score required.
STILL. Talking about this drives me mad. When I run into actual people that have an issue with this or an actual GM, I may reopen this debate.
*Having to twist the rules to PREVENT the rogue from doing things to "prove" your point is sad.
Looking back to the original post, the problem isn't the class, it's bad GMing. Finding and disabling traps is a significant ability.
There's a certain awkwardness in that its mostly created from niche protection. Trapper ranger and archeaologist and crypt breaker also get that power, and there's a trait now.
Funny thing is, rogues are said to be underpowered if you believe this forum, kobolds are known to be the weakest race, but a kobold rogue with dragonmav teeth and spikes on his tail can really cause a lot of sneak attack damage.
And dragonwrought kobold is OP!
More seriously, the only thing that should bring up your sneak attack damage is how often you hit. Natural attacks with 3/4 BAB can actually be a lot nastier than weapon attacks. One of the nastiest things you can do with a vivisectionist is go into a monstrous form to get several natural attacks and turn invisible and use your beastmorph mutagen turn into a pouncing invisible flying creature with 5+ natural attacks. Rogue itself has no access to natural attacks unless it comes from race or a magical gear of some sort.
What I find funny is that it's apparently okay for the another class to mimic the rogue, but the moment the rogue mimics another class, such as the wizard, then it's a problem.
To be fair, other classes that mimic the rogue do it with their classes features then show the rogue up in other places. Any idiot can do UMD, but it has its own issues such as cost and scaling. Its a difference relating to being self contained.
What I find funny is that it's apparently okay for the another class to mimic the rogue, but the moment the rogue mimics another class, such as the wizard, then it's a problem.
Yeah other classes can use spells to compensate for a lack of skill mastery, but a rogue can't mimic spells via UMD to compensate for not having spellcasting because that's "not rogue-y".
This logic holds back the fighter too. "Did that fighter just deflect an attack? Nerf" "is that a reach weapon that can hit adjacent foes? NERF!" "Would this feat allow the fighter to do something other than hit things? NERF that's not fighter-y enough!"
What I find funny is that it's apparently okay for the another class to mimic the rogue, but the moment the rogue mimics another class, such as the wizard, then it's a problem.Yeah other classes can use spells to compensate for a lack of skill mastery, but a rogue can't mimic spells via UMD to compensate for not having spellcasting because that's "not rogue-y".
People complain when you talk about a fighter using a spell via UMD to make up for sucking too really. They also complain if race is used in an argument.
People complain when you talk about a fighter using a spell via UMD to make up for sucking too really. They also complain if race is used in an argument.What I find funny is that it's apparently okay for the another class to mimic the rogue, but the moment the rogue mimics another class, such as the wizard, then it's a problem.Yeah other classes can use spells to compensate for a lack of skill mastery, but a rogue can't mimic spells via UMD to compensate for not having spellcasting because that's "not rogue-y".
Fighter's don't take 10 on UMD, so what they can do with it is far more limited.
Comparatively though, It's easier to make the fighter useful out of combat than it is to make the rogue useful in combat.
For example, if I were trying to fix both here is what I would do:
1) At level 1 I would give fighters a "fitness" ability which gives them a +4 bonus on climb, swim, and jump checks. I would also have all these checks be strength based. I would like to do more to fix jump, but that would be a game wide change not class specific. This ability is an effective skill point increase with being "4+int" EDIT: Forgot to mention that this bonus increases by 1 with each level.
2) Rogue's sneak attacks add dex to damage, don't have a 30ft range limit, and are not negated by concealment unless they miss because of concealment.
3) Make bleeding attack stack with itself and allow for multiple sneak attack augmenting abilities to be used at the same time.
|
People complain when you talk about a fighter using a spell via UMD to make up for sucking too really. They also complain if race is used in an argument.What I find funny is that it's apparently okay for the another class to mimic the rogue, but the moment the rogue mimics another class, such as the wizard, then it's a problem.Yeah other classes can use spells to compensate for a lack of skill mastery, but a rogue can't mimic spells via UMD to compensate for not having spellcasting because that's "not rogue-y".
Well rogues using magic items has been a rogue thing for a lot of years.
So it takes class features to mimic a rogue but it takes 1 skill that everyone can use to mimic a spellcaster.
People complain when you talk about a fighter using a spell via UMD to make up for sucking too really. They also complain if race is used in an argument.What I find funny is that it's apparently okay for the another class to mimic the rogue, but the moment the rogue mimics another class, such as the wizard, then it's a problem.Yeah other classes can use spells to compensate for a lack of skill mastery, but a rogue can't mimic spells via UMD to compensate for not having spellcasting because that's "not rogue-y".Well rogues using magic items has been a rogue thing for a lot of years.
So it takes class features to mimic a rogue but it takes 1 skill that everyone can use to mimic a spellcaster.
Yes, with UMD you can mimic spells. You won't do it as well as a caster, but you can cast spells provided you have the object to cast. Any class can do it, even a commoner, a wizard, or a fighter.
Now back to rogues... because rogues casting lightning bolt won't actually make them a better rogue, I'd wager for most people anyway.
|
|
What I find funny is that it's apparently okay for the another class to mimic the rogue, but the moment the rogue mimics another class, such as the wizard, then it's a problem.
This might be because the Rogue does it with a price tag attached. It's not really a class feature to be a crappy wizard, especially when most things that mimic the Rogue also comes with better features.
Archaeologist and vivisectionist both come with spells, and in the vivi's case, spells that help them DESTROY with sneak attack instead of just help barely get to pull it off like the Rogue.
I'd honestly agree that UMD was a 'Rogue' thing to do if they were any better at it than anyone else, but Bards and Alchemist are just as good without any real drawbacks, plus they come with spells of their own which just makes everyone's life easier.
And as I think I saw someone else mention before, why is Rogue considered an 'all day' class when so many of its (lackluster) talents are 1/day pieces of crap?
Now back to rogues... because rogues casting lightning bolt won't actually make them a better rogue, I'd wager for most people anyway.
I think some people are confusing rogue with slayer.
Personally, I see it as a very rogue-y thing to just make magic items work with skill instead of magic.
It's the pure skill class. Has the most base skill points and has skill mastery to make the rogue better at skills when the INT casters start catching up in skill points.
Unlike the investigator, the rogue has a direct damage mechanism.
I'd honestly agree that UMD was a 'Rogue' thing to do if they were any better at it than anyone else, but Bards and Alchemist are just as good without any real drawbacks, plus they come with spells of their own which just makes everyone's life easier.
It's like the only class that can take 10 on UMD though.
I consider that a enough to be better at it than other people.
|
|
I'd honestly agree that UMD was a 'Rogue' thing to do if they were any better at it than anyone else, but Bards and Alchemist are just as good without any real drawbacks, plus they come with spells of their own which just makes everyone's life easier.It's like the only class that can take 10 on UMD though.
I consider that a enough to be better at it than other people.
I believe that fact is under contention, although I'm fine with Rogues taking ten on UMD.
I wouldn't say this makes them better, rather more consistent. Better would be:
A: Getting a scaling bonus to it to make it easier
B: Eventually getting to ignore certain things without the check
Like if a Rogue got better at faking things, maybe choosing a "favorite fake class" or something like that, I'd agree their job was UMDing. They don't though, and Skill Mastery just makes them consistent. Nothing about the class screams "I fake magic well!" that another class doesn't, and a Bard probably has them beat by virtue of needing a higher Charisma for casting, whereas the Rogue may need it for social skills, and that's it.
|
|
We've ran games where the Rogue occupies the Wizard's role.
A wizard isn't even a class you need to have.
Depending on the game, you don't need ANY specific role. Although as stated before, a Wizard constantly adds resources, while a Rogue constantly needs resources. Sure, a Rogue can UMD a wand of Mage Armor, but that wand is now down one charge, and probably last for an hour (not a bad duration, but still just an hour.)
A Wizard cast Mage Armor for far longer and can nap, and get it back with no loss in gold or resources, OR cast it from a wand without a check. The game's pretty nice about letting people fulfill other roles.
The problem here is that in situation one, the Rogue now has one less Mage Armor to call upon, while the Wizard has the same amount, as well as an infinitely larger selection of powers to call on.
I'll agree that useful Rogue Talents would go a long way towards making the Rogue attractive again, things that actually fix the holes in the class rather than "Banana Peel" talents than we have now. Although seeing that "Banana Peel" was from their Inner Sea Rogues book, if that's what they consider powerful, Rogues may as well pick up a chemistry lab or a lute.
As others have said, I don't hate the Rogue. I love the archetype and character personality, but the class is mechanically weak compared to other who attempt to do the same things. I would like to see the Rogue play as a sneaky mundane who can actually do the things that it's advertised to do instead of looking at a partial caster with better saves stealing my lunch when it came to versatility and play ability.
Like if a Rogue got better at faking things, maybe choosing a "favorite fake class" or something like that, I'd agree their job was UMDing. They don't though, and Skill Mastery just makes them consistent. Nothing about the class screams "I fake magic well!" that another class doesn't, and a Bard probably has them beat by virtue of needing a higher Charisma for casting, whereas the Rogue may need it for social skills, and that's it.
UMD also has the caveat that if you fail on a 1, you can't use the item again for a day.
So being consistent is rather huge if you are using the skill enough.
This also isn't core of a rogue. It's just their side trick that no one else really does quite as well (need 28 cha or additional investment to overtake skill mastery completely).
I also find people calling taking 10 as consistent to be odd. Many times failing one roll can ruin you. And when you have to make many checks the chance for a low roll only increases. Skill mastery prevent that. I also don't roll high like at all, which may lead to my perception (anything over 5 is a good roll).
NOTE: I understand that some people don't think you can take 10, but I also think it's quite silly to lament the rogue when you stretch and twist rules interpretations to work against the rogue.
Welcome to the real world. In a perfect one you might be able to have equal spotlight time for all PCs all the time, but back here in reality the PCs have to unfortunately share and take turns (unless it's a PbP, but then Rogue solo mission problem is moot). And as long as at the end of the session everyone had their moment, it's okay.Traps are a thing that the Rogue does while everyone else just sort of sits around and waits for the Rogue to have his special snowflake moment.
Most of the things that the Rogue does better (sort of) than other classes are things that are total solo missions. Everyone else has to stop what they're doing so the Rogue can feel important. Not exactly the best design for a team game.
The niche protection or having to set up those moments is a pretty heavy handed way to handle it though, imo. Probably a better way. Games can be made so those moments aren't forced and come naturally or with the player's actions, in a way that's rewarding rather than "well, we really need a rogue for this one guys!"
|
|
We've ran games where the Rogue occupies the Wizard's role.
A wizard isn't even a class you need to have.
Depending on the game, you don't need ANY specific role. Although as stated before, a Wizard constantly adds resources, while a Rogue constantly needs resources. Sure, a Rogue can UMD a wand of Mage Armor, but that wand is now down one charge, and probably last for an hour (not a bad duration, but still just an hour.)
A Wizard cast Mage Armor for far longer and can nap, and get it back with no loss in gold or resources, OR cast it from a wand without a check. The game's pretty nice about letting people fulfill other roles.
The problem here is that in situation one, the Rogue now has one less Mage Armor to call upon, while the Wizard has the same amount, as well as an infinitely larger selection of powers to call on.
I'll agree that useful Rogue Talents would go a long way towards making the Rogue attractive again, things that actually fix the holes in the class rather than "Banana Peel" talents than we have now. Although seeing that "Banana Peel" was from their Inner Sea Rogues book, if that's what they consider powerful, Rogues may as well pick up a chemistry lab or a lute.
As others have said, I don't hate the Rogue. I love the archetype and character personality, but the class is mechanically weak compared to other who attempt to do the same things. I would like to see the Rogue play as a sneaky mundane who can actually do the things that it's advertised to do instead of looking at a partial caster with better saves stealing my lunch when it came to versatility and play ability.
Resources are irrelevant since you get them anyway. If you have a player who wants to spend his gold on scrolls, wands, and staves to help the party that's his choice.
|
|
UMD also has the caveat that if you fail on a 1, you can't use the item again for a day.
So being consistent is rather huge if you are using the skill enough.
This also isn't core of a rogue. It's just their side trick that no one else really does quite as well (need 28 cha or additional investment to overtake skill mastery completely).
I also find people calling taking 10 as consistent to be odd. Many times failing one roll can ruin you. And when you have to make many checks the chance for a low roll only increases. Skill mastery prevent that. I also don't roll high like at all, which may lead to my perception (anything over 5 is a good roll).
NOTE: I understand that some people don't think you can take 10, but I also think it's quite silly to lament the rogue when you stretch and twist rules interpretations to work against the rogue.
A 5% chance isn't enough to scare me away from UMD, even though it does suck.
And yeah, eventually I will roll that 1, but I'm not really worried about it. In that sense, I will give the Rogue a due...at 10th level. I mean I doubt I'd be UMDing a lot before then, but that's still nearly half the game doing it as well as anyone else, so I feel like skill mastery has to come online sooner to make it a move valid point.
It's not the core of the Rogue, but it always comes up in these discussions like one of the Rogue's class features is UMD. If the Rogue was the only one who could get it, as well as it not being open as a trait, I'd totally agree that it was a point in the Rogue's favor. Heck, I'd be entirely fine with that. But it isn't, it's open to anyone (see: Fighter threads), so aside from Skill Mastery, it's hard to take it as a valid argument for the class, which is often what it's used as.
And yeah, it's useful, but I'm rarely in an in combat situation where I want to UMD due to the terrible saving throws for UMD'd spells, so I'm not too afraid of failing. I'd say they can Skill Mastery UMD myself, but that's because trying to cripple the Rogue further is painful.
As others have said, I don't hate the Rogue. I love the archetype and character personality, but the class is mechanically weak compared to other who attempt to do the same things. I would like to see the Rogue play as a sneaky mundane who can actually do the things that it's advertised to do instead of looking at a partial caster with better saves stealing my lunch when it came to versatility and play ability.
Agreed. The partial casters may not play the same way. But they can be just as or more effective.
It takes the most hyper optimized builds to even be able to do things that other classes can't, and those things are generally minor (like UMD) and not central to the character. Even a fighter can always say they have more feats.
It is not impossible to play a functional or even a good rogue that is unique and does things no one else can. But it is too hard. I've seen like 3 builds total for a rogue that work and they can only take minor variation. Then you have people like the fighter who are viable with power attack and the ability to role play, they then have 20-21 feats and 2-3+int skill points to make them different from each other. Druids take natural spell, maybe a decent strength score, their AC instead of a domain, and they are on the path to success. Paladins and rangers grab power attack or deadly aim. The monk doesn't actually NEED to take anything and does OK, not as great as others, but even if you raise the bar higher the monk has many different builds that work for it. Wizards can't mess up their build (without dumping INT), but require actual skill to play. Sorcerers are trickier, but they have an almost endless amount of viable builds. Ect.
Rogues do have problems. I really like their play style though and don't want to see that go away with "fixes". But rogue problems are also exaggerated. They aren't an NPC class.
|
|
Resources are irrelevant since you get them anyway. If you have a player who wants to spend his gold on scrolls, wands, and staves to help the party that's his choice.
...are you just trying to say nothing matters here? The Rogue is as gear dependent as any martial, so any cash going towards magical toys isn't going towards a new dagger/armor/stat booster/etc. Sure, they can pick them up, so can anyone else. Not really seeing what you're proposing here other than gold can be spent as the player chooses.
A Vivisectionist can do just about everything a Rogue can do, and comes with what equates to free potions per day at the party's level, many of which are impossible to have as a potion otherwise. There is literally nothing the Rogue can provide that comes close to that level of versatility.
A 5% chance isn't enough to scare me away from UMD, even though it does suck.
And yeah, eventually I will roll that 1, but I'm not really worried about it. In that sense, I will give the Rogue a due...at 10th level. I mean I doubt I'd be UMDing a lot before then, but that's still nearly half the game doing it as well as anyone else, so I feel like skill mastery has to come online sooner to make it a move valid point.
It's not the core of the Rogue, but it always comes up in these discussions like one of the Rogue's class features is UMD. If the Rogue was the only one who could get it, as well as it not being open as a trait, I'd totally agree that it was a point in the Rogue's favor. Heck, I'd be entirely fine with that. But it isn't, it's open to anyone (see: Fighter threads), so aside from Skill Mastery, it's hard to take it as a valid argument for the class, which is often what it's used as.
And yeah, it's useful, but I'm rarely in an in combat situation where I want to UMD due to the terrible saving throws for UMD'd spells, so I'm not too afraid of failing. I'd say they can Skill Mastery UMD myself, but that's because trying to cripple the Rogue further is painful.
Might be a misconception here. Rolling a 1 isn't an auto fail. IF you roll a 1 AND fail then you can't use the item for a day.
Scrolls and staves are also important to have a constant caster level for. If the wizard hands you a staff of electricity to cast chain lightning and you roll a 3, 5, and an 8, you just sorely mis-used those resources instead of giving the wizard extra actions. Not to mention using staves takes 3 rolls (one to activate, one for ability score, and one to mimic the spell casting class feature). That's a pain to do every turn.
Some examples where I used UMD:
1. Being carried off by a roc, I used a wand of featherfall to prevent damage should it drop me or get killed while in the air.
2. Used chain lightning from a staff three times while the wizard was using lightning orbs. We needed that blasting that fight so much so the wizard would have do it instead without the rogue there. So my actions allowed for the lightning orbs.
3. Me and wizard sneaked up on a couple of charmed dragons. I used a dispel magic scroll that he gave me while he used the spell. We couldn't have done that with any guarantee of success if the person using the scroll couldn't take 10 on UMD.
4. Removed negative levels from the wizard after he was brought back to life using a scroll we found, since no one else could use the scroll.
5. Wand of protection from evil used before entering a room with enemy spell casters to prevent those nasty mind affecting spells for 10 rounds of combat.
There is literally nothing the Rogue can provide that comes close to that level of versatility.
That is subjective. Not going to argue the statement, but that doesn't make it objective fact either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Amusingly, the ACG will actually have a straight Fake Wizard archetype for the Rogue. You can pick a favored wand that you can draw as a free action, probably some other stuff that makes using that wand more reliable.
It'd be amusing if it's strong enough that fake wizard ends up being the best rogue. Well, less amusing than really sad.
Looking back to the original post, the problem isn't the class, it's bad GMing. Finding and disabling traps is a significant ability. If the PC is spending skill points on Disable Device, than the GM should give that player plenty of chances to use that skill. The same is true for Acrobatics, Climb, Escape Artist, Sleight of Hand, and all the other class skills.
I can not even start to understand this.
Lets ignore for a moment that everyoen can detect traps, and that everyone can disable non-magical traps, and that there are several calsses that can disarm magical traps as a class feature, and that there is a trait that let you diable all traps.
So, lets ignore that hte ability to disarm magical traps is worth a trait.
Are you actually saying that the GM have to modify every campaing to put traps here and there just because joe wanted to play a rogue? or otherwise joe will be a sad rogue?
You do not need to do any of that with any other calss i the game. You do not need to fill the adventure with combat in order for the paladin to be happy, you do not need to fill the adventure with dozend of injured people so the cleric feel good channeling energy...
...and more improtantly, you do not need to put traps in order tha thte urban ranger feel good, because they actually are good at other things.
Well, to be fair, you do need to fill the campaign with combat so a Fighter has something to do.
The difference is that combat is a situation in which every character is taking actions and contributing (well, except the Rogue, he missed his sneak attack and got KO'd for his trouble).
So, lets ignore that hte ability to disarm magical traps is worth a trait.
That trait is not from a rule book though. It would be hypocritical to consider that, while at the same time throwing out things like blood money, dervish dance, ect...
I think most GMs allow it though.
So, lets ignore that hte ability to disarm magical traps is worth a trait.That trait is not from a rule book though. It would be hypocritical to consider that, while at the same time throwing out things like blood money, dervish dance, ect...
I think most GMs allow it though.
Not sure how exavtly dervish dance and blood money are comparable to each other.
If you want to ban the trait ban it, I certainly ban blood money. But if you have to ban a TRAIT in order for rogue to not feel bad, then rogue sucks.
When the GM says, "we are playing pathfinder" I only assume things from the PRD. Which none of those things are. If I want to use something from there, I would ask me GM. But that is also the same thing I would do for 3rd party or homebrew.
Exactly, if you have to twist the rules in order for the rogue to be a second class wizard, that shoudl say how wrong is the class.
Not really twisting the rules. Just using the abilities as written, without doing things like assuming staves work off your actual caster level and not the one you mimic to use the item or assuming that an ability that let's you take 10 doesn't let you take ten on some skills.
they can't take 10 on disarming those magical traps - or even unlocking a door during combat, so that the party can escape from a fight they're losing.
"Well guys, this looks like a pretty scary dungeon and the dragon is right in front of us and he's looking at least CR5. Lets lock the door!"
More seriously, rogue doesn't even get skill mastery until he takes the advanced rogue talent for it. You don't touch the fact niche protection is the only reason its good(you literally have to take the ability away from everyone else to make him feel special?), and trapper ranger can definitely sink the skill points into things, as can the alchemist, alchemist has the added bonus of having ways other than mundane means to deal with problems.
Class skill also only adds a +3. It doesn't make a class inherently good at something and not having it won't make them bad. There are classes who's bonus from modifier are going to almost inevitably going surpass another classes bonus from having one in class.
The difference is, the Paladin, Cleric, and Sorcerer skills will always come up eventually, even if the GM isn't specifically trying to use them.
A GM has to deliberately avoid evil encounters to not have them, especially at higher levels where the majority of your "boss characters" are likely going to be evil outsiders or other supernatural beings.
Channel Energy usually isn't considered terribly useful to begin with, but the party will always need healing eventually and the Cleric has so much more to do than that one ability.
I can't even imagine how badly you'd have to pick your spells to not be able to use them most of the time as a Sorcerer. Hell, pick Paragon Surge and you never have to worry about having the wrong spell again!
they can't take 10 on disarming those magical traps - or even unlocking a door during combat, so that the party can escape from a fight they're losing."Well guys, this looks like a pretty scary dungeon and the dragon is right in front of us and he's looking at least CR5. Lets lock the door!"
More seriously, rogue doesn't even get skill mastery until he takes the advanced rogue talent for it. You don't touch the fact niche protection is the only reason its good(you literally have to take the ability away from everyone else to make him feel special?), and trapper ranger can definitely sink the skill points into things, as can the alchemist, alchemist has the added bonus of having ways other than mundane means to deal with problems.
Class skill also only adds a +3. It doesn't make a class inherently good at something and not having it won't make them bad. There are classes who's bonus from modifier are going to almost inevitably going surpass another classes bonus from having one in class.
Wait...
1) Rogue doesn't do anything that only he can do.
-Show that rogues can do things that no one else can do
2) Niche! Protection is dumb!
Explain.
The same goes for some of your rogue... "abilities", that are useable by anyone even a commoner.No it's not the same as those. This is a pretty straight forward interpretation.
By your logic the staff doesn't use the ability score you mimic either. Or you can't use scrolls because you don't have the actual ability score required.
STILL. Talking about this drives me mad. When I run into actual people that have an issue with this or an actual GM, I may reopen this debate.
*Having to twist the rules to PREVENT the rogue from doing things to "prove" your point is sad.
You emulate a score, the item doesn't use it.
If you want a more appropriate example : emulate a strength of 25 for your weapon, and try to hit. It won't hit as if you have 25 STR, but your current strength. You emulated it in order for the item to activate, not for actual use.
The same goes for Intelligence/charisma for scrolls or CL (for scrolls and staves). They don't use your emulated score/CL, but your real score/CL or the built in CL/ability score (using your emulated score only to allow activation).
So, your CL is that of the staff (as your wizard/cleric/whatever level is 0).
THEN
Any skill can be mastered by any character. Yes, every character can take Skill focus, and/or an item boosting their check for a specific skill and reach gigantic modifiers by early levels. And you don't even need the talent to take 10 (because in most situation, you can do it already, and in combat most skills are useless anyway).
UMD can't be used with take 10. Not just for distraction or combat, never. There is a debate considering which one between the "can't take 10" or the "can take 10 even under stress and combat" prevail. In my opinion, the talent is just allowing to use the take 10 under stress and combat, not allowing to take 10 in a skill that doesn't allow it. In your opinion, it bypass the "can't take 10". Neither RAW nor RAI are clear (so pure GM choice here).
Feint is useless for every character besides rogues, because every other classes can hit at least reliably with their own class features/BAB/ability and actually do something useful when they hit. The rogue can't. Being able to feint a creature is not an advantage, it's a "counter-disadvantage". And bluffing can be so simple you don't even need more than a couple ranks in it to convince anyone about pretty much anything you want.
Acrobatics is useless for every character besides rogues (and monks, for defensive combat), because every other classes don't need that +2 that badly in order to hit, and they don't rely so much on flanking to do decent damage (or other useful actions, not everything is about damage). Same as Feint here, a counter-disadvantage, not an advantage. I will pass on the dangers around flanking.
So, yes, when ignoring every rules against the rogue, she can be almost decent. But within Pathfinder ruleset, the rogue is just a bard-, a ranger- or an expert+.