So I was thinking about making an open world where there are random "dungeons" as opposed to random encounters.
Whenever I talk to people who played D&D 1.0 or 2.0 (advanced) they always talk about how useful rogues were. They sneaked into newly found caverns or dungeons to see if these places were safe, inhabited by allies, enemies or neutrals, and cleared the way in terms of traps that would kill other party members.
So when I am thinking about the system and how most Pathfinder modules or adventure paths play out I am considering the above. It is somewhat rare that the PCs be allowed to stumble into a dungeon that is 10 levels above them.
I'll use an old Everquest 1 example. Typically the rogue would sneak into the dungeon, look around, tell the party's front liners what is up there, and maybe pull said monsters to the party.
If the PCs, at level 1, can walk into a level 20 dungeon, then stealth becomes overwhelmingly important. It just means that the first monster of every dungeon should have a fear aura so if the Rogue sneaks up and fails that save he can describe the unspeakable horror he just witnessed and the party decide to go elsewhere.
Now, where this shines is that not every dungeon is a module. It also means that the party can leave modules.
Examples of where this can be useful:
Lets say the party is a group of power gamers who want a challenge. They can take on dungeons or areas that they think they can take on. A level 1 party might take on a level 4 dungeon. They are likely to level once or twice before completing it. None of them know what level the dungeon is, but they know it is very hard.
On the other hand, lets assume a party of new players or people who make "interesting" characters over effective characters. Lets assume they get to level 3, they might take on level 1 content.
I'll have to make the World Map into a Hex system, that is going to be interesting. Using the exact same rules in Ultimate Campaign the PCs are able to travel Golarion. I'll have to find or create random dungeon rules, but the idea is that the PCs have a chance to find openings in the ground that lead to dungeons/caves/darklands/whatever. These are intended for variable level, but are generated when the PCs decide to go into them.
In short this means that the PCs don't want to send everyone in. The Rogue has the best chance of not being noticed if he is built like a archetypal rogue (high dex, low str, small race).
The primary problem with Rogues is that they are not good at combat, they are good at ambushing, sniping, and other indirect engagements. PFS, most Paizo Modules, and campaigns thrust the party into combat like crazy.
I hate to say it but a Necromancer is a far more effective trap-finder than a rogue. He sends one of his Bloody Skeletons into a dungeon. It triggers the trap and dies, so he sends the next. Eventually the skeletons encounter a monster and the party kills it. Rinse and repeat.
What the Rogue does over the aforementioned necromancer is that he goes in, sees something, and sneaks out without the potential enemies realizing he is there and coming to see who is at the front door. It might only be 1 guy, but then again he might be a Succubus posing as some guy who is now going to 1-shot each member of the party one by one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand. Scouting is an ability Rogues are only as good as everyone else at.
It's very difficult to balance higher level content when perception checks and extra sensory abilities get outta hand rather quickly against stealth.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This doesn't make Rogues more useful. It makes scouting and Stealth more useful...but Bards, Inquisitors, Investigators, and even some varieties of Oracle, Sorcerer, and Wizard are all notably better at it (via spells and class features), and many Rangers and Slayers are equally good. All while still being good at other stuff.
The thing about earlier editions was that Rogue (or Thief) was either the only class who could do the sort of thing you're talking about or at least by far the best at it (with a higher percentage chance). That's no longer true, and thus increasing the frequency of such challenges doesn't really help Rogues very much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, you seemed to miss the point here. The thing Rogues are good at didn't go away. New classes just became Rogues that could offer more.
It's a lot more fun to design a dungeon around a villain and his group and his agenda. Give it a try. :)
The method you describe was intended to handle some of the oddities of MMO's, specifically, a world where there are hundreds of players looking for adventure. In a tabletop RPG, you have the luxury of catering just to your friends. So...why NOT design each dungeon just for them?
Except, there's no expectation that a level 1 commoner can hold its ground against a level 1 PC class (or a level 10 commoner to a level 10 PC class, etc). There's an expectation that, when you pick a PC class, it will have a similar level of 'ability' (generally speaking) to each other PC class. Rogues do not.
Furthermore, rogues are *not* good at facing high CR monsters. Their bonuses all scale linearly, and because pathfinder assumes nonlinear scaling due to magic items, higher level monsters will have perception checks or other abilites that make a joke of stealth. They also have no ability to 'nova' so can't pour more resources into defeating a harder encounter at the cost of having to retreat from the dungeon sooner.
The best party members for facing high CR monsters are those with abilities that can transcend the numbers game entirely, or put all of their daily resources into a single encounter to beat it. A wizard using clairvoyance, an invisible stealth-based familiar, flight, teleport abilities etc etc etc are much better at coping with this kind of situation. At the very least he can put up walls or vision breaking spells that give the party a chance to escape. A bard with glibness can defeat even high level sense motive checks. A magus can expend all of his spell slots/arcane pool to make things more even, although it means having to straight back to rest. You don't 'help' rogues by having random dungeons at all. If anything, you hamper them.
The best way to help mundane classes like fighters and rogues is to a) play at low levels or E6 where the disparity isn't quite as noticable yet, b) easy access to HP healing (rogue and fighter main resource) and c) many many mandatory fights per day that consume daily resources but are equal or low CR so pose little risk otherwise.
*edit*
Oh, and, d) play in low-optimised groups. Makes a big difference. e) give freebies to the weaker party members if/when the disparity becomes obvious.
Worth noting I only follow b) and e). Our rogue rebuilt at level 8, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the key is that if PF didn't bother to protect a rogue's niche, then the GM must do so if they value the class - that is, forbid archetypes or combinations that supercede a rogue's core activities. So that means no traits that give stealth, acrobatics or perception. No feats that give detrapping. No archetypes that give detrapping. You might even go so far as to say no archetypes that give sneak attack. It doesn't completely solve the problem, only slow it down, as it just forces a dip into rogue for most of these.
The poorly controlled explosion of additional classes and archetypes caused the effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Paizo realized how bad Rogues are and made them a more or less glorified NPC class that is maybe worthy of a dip just to be able to find traps.
Reminds me of one of the regulars who played rogues for about 4 games straight, then after I gave him a Switch Hitter Ranger he never went back.
I see all I need to do to make some people angry is say their favorite classes suck. #roguesforlife
The Rogue is good for its Niche when only the CRB is allowed, but even then I expect it will just be that Clerics, Druids, and Monks will take a 1 level dip for Trapfinding and move on with their actual classes.
Dual Ratfolks can make rogues work due to Swarming, since the race seems almost made for them, but that is about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well actually for most traps you can just set them off on purpose or use dispel magic so you still dont need a rogue with the CRB alone. I really don't care about saving any particular class though. I care about the concept being in the game, and we can do that with other classes.
As an aside, I actually find it kinda funny that I often hear people saying that going back to 'old school values' IE low access to healing, spikey encounter difficulty and rare magic items somehow fixes the class disparity... when these things make the rogue and fighter worse in comparison!
More dangerous trap consequences do help though (although of course you're better off with an archaeologist or similar) - most traps in pathfinder APs can just be walked through and healed off. Problem is, traps aren't really that much fun for most players and difficult to insert organically into a lot of non-dungeon locations.
I made things easier for my player's rogue by just letting her do outrageous against-the-rules things with her skill checks in combat, like flipping behind people to get flatfooted AC and using sleight of hand to steal wielded weapons. She still rebuilt into witch at level 8 when even those tricks weren't keeping up with the optimised druid and charge-adin... but there was some fun in the middle. Of course, that's not really a rogue *specific* fix.
|
|
If you want to make Rogues better at the skills they were classically masters of, add +1/2 level to Stealth, Sleight of Hand, and Climb on top of all other bonuses they get. Being legitimately the best characters in the game at that stuff was what made them truly useful.
To make them a more modular and better skill class in general, let them get the aforementioned bonus to any four or five, or maybe 3+Int mod skills per level. At 11th level, give them Skill Mastery with all those skills free of charge. That wouldn't help their combat performance, but it makes them legitimately very good indeed at skills.
|
I don't understand why a rogue who can use the same feats and weapons as any other class is so much more horrible than they all are? Add to this a simple flanking maneuver or obtaining invisibility (pretty easy to get) upping their damage by 5 or 10d6 a hit? Why is this weak again? Using a rapier which is one of the highest crit range weapons in the game (sure, almost anyone can)?
Much less if you throw on a cheap pair of sniper goggles (20k for 11d6 each attack at any range? Yes please.) Anyway, yeh, other classes can do things. I really love the Bard comparison, where basically, an arcane caster class is compared to mundane melee classes. Of course "everyone is better with magic." That is why rogues develop the UMD skill.
Well, my 2 cents: if you want the rogue to be "equal" or blow every other class away (except other sneak attack subclasses) - throw them a couple bones: greater invisibility ring/wand/whatever and a pair of sniper goggles.
Wand of greater invisibility: 21k gp, duration 7 rounds ea casting, 350 rounds of greater invisibility. 11th level rogue = 6d6 with 3 attacks (4?). Sniper goggles + Speedy Composite short bow +1, +5 str, maybe acidic or something for another d6. So at range we have a person rolling on 4 attacks, 3 at full BAB (+8) and one at +3. Dealing 8d6, 8d6, 8d6, 2d6 (extra arrow), 8d6 = 34d6 + 25 (plus whatever else they have). Can dealing 34d6+25 damage to something in one round "equal" anything else a typical level 11 of another class can do? 3 spells at 11d6 ea? Ok. Sure. 33d6. Seems pretty evenly matched to me.
If you want to make Rogues better at the skills they were classically masters of, add +1/2 level to Stealth, Sleight of Hand, and Climb on top of all other bonuses they get. Being legitimately the best characters in the game at that stuff was what made them truly useful.
+½ level to skills is a terrible mechanic. It's not enough to make you noticeably better at low levels, and by the time the skill bonus is big, it's usually overshadowed by something else. Your basic Druid outperforms a Rogue on Perception until level 8 or so, just by virtue of having Wis as a main stat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why a rogue who can use the same feats and weapons as any other class is so much more horrible than they all are? Add to this a simple flanking maneuver or obtaining invisibility (pretty easy to get) upping their damage by 5 or 10d6 a hit? Why is this weak again? Using a rapier which is one of the highest crit range weapons in the game (sure, almost anyone can)?
Their to-hit bonus is significantly worse than any other class that actually relies on attack rolls. That's basically it. Every other medium BAB class has something (spells, class features, something) to jack that up by 5th level at the latest. Rogues do not. So...they miss with those Sneak Attacks. A lot. Something they can ill afford given that setting up Sneak Attacks for a combat costs at least one action from someone no matter what, and often a great many more if fighting multiple opponents.
And since Sneak Attack doesn't double on a critical, and Rogues rely on Sneak Attack for damage, rapiers are actually worse for Rogues than almost anyone else.
Much less if you throw on a cheap pair of sniper goggles (20k for 11d6 each attack at any range? Yes please.)
Except that without Greater Invisibility you get that +11d6 all of one round max. And even Greater Invisibility doesn't allow it vs. anything that can see through Invisibility. And 20k isn't cheap. At all. Certainly not pre-13th level. It's almost a full third of your wealth at 10th.
Anyway, yeh, other classes can do things. I really love the Bard comparison, where basically, an arcane caster class is compared to mundane melee classes. Of course "everyone is better with magic." That is why rogues develop the UMD skill.
Yep, everything's better with magic. But that doesn't explain why Rogue is still notably worse than Ranger (even a spell-less one) or Slayer. Or why classes with magic are also better at skills and often combat than a Rogue is, even sans spells.
Well, my 2 cents: if you want the rogue to be "equal" or blow every other class away (except other sneak attack subclasses) - throw them a couple bones: greater invisibility ring/wand/whatever and a pair of sniper goggles.
A class that needs over 40k in Items, minimum, to equal other classes has a problem.
If you want to make Rogues better at the skills they were classically masters of, add +1/2 level to Stealth, Sleight of Hand, and Climb on top of all other bonuses they get. Being legitimately the best characters in the game at that stuff was what made them truly useful.+½ level to skills is a terrible mechanic. It's not enough to make you noticeably better at low levels, and by the time the skill bonus is big, it's usually overshadowed by something else. Your basic Druid outperforms a Rogue on Perception until level 8 or so, just by virtue of having Wis as a main stat.
I disagree. Most of the stuff you say is true...if it's a skill you don't focus on. If, on the other hand, it's a skill that you focus on, the extra bonus makes you unambiguously superior to almost anyone else in your area of specialty. Which is very nice.
Or to put it another way: Rogues are Dex-based. Giving them an additional bonus on some Dex-based skills, which they can go further towards boosting with Items, makes them the ones on the front of the disparity you're talking about. It's like giving a Wizard Bardic Knowledge, the bonuses stack up real quick.
|
|
....
Deadman, you and I are never going to agree about Rogues... A "properly equipped" Rogue at 130+ feet vs. see invisible = dead mage. At level 11, the goggles and the wand only cost 1/2 the rogue's gold (41k of 82k). So there is plenty for other stuff (like a wand of true strike 750gp). We'll simply never agree on how good/bad the class is. It is fine. Well balanced against other classes that have other abilities. IMHO.
Also, you can go sans items if you get the proper ART/feats (HIPS, Lightning Stance, etc...). And magic items help those with magic a lot less than those without, for obvious reasons. So of course "if everything is better with magic" then the "needing to spend 41k" helps them more - what the heck else are they going to spend it on? Getting the worst gear they can find that doesn't help them at all??? With running and lightning stance a rogue can be out of sight before anyone can follow. Let the pin cushioning begin!
stuff that was edited
because HP damage straight up is usually not that effective, also flanking for sneak attack can require a lot of effort based on the circumstances. I've mentioned this before to you, that the problem is that sneak attack doesn't scale and it's dependent on enemy actions.
Sniper goggles don't circumvent the flat footed requirement of ranged attacks either. they just allow sneak attacks at a greater range than normal. you still need to roll the -20 stealth check and he is still aware he is being shot at, and thus not flat footed(i'll be it, confused).
don't even bother trying to syntax out sniper goggles to apply on all ranged attacks, no where does it say you gain the ability to apply sneak attack damage on ranged attacks. It simply states that you can do ranged sneak attacks at any range in stead of the normal 30 ft requirement. (which still require flat footed)
Sniper goggles just allow you to open up like normal with a ranged sneak, but this time at any range. Range sneak attacks are still brutally unattainable in normal combat.
....Deadman, you and I are never going to agree about Rogues... A "properly equipped" Rogue at 130+ feet vs. see invisible = dead mage. At level 11, the goggles and the wand only cost 1/2 the rogue's gold (41k of 82k). So there is plenty for other stuff (like a wand of true strike 750gp). We'll simply never agree on how good/bad the class is. It is fine. Well balanced against other classes that have other abilities. IMHO.
Also, you can go sans items if you get the proper ART/feats (HIPS, Lightning Stance, etc...). And magic items help those with magic a lot less than those without, for obvious reasons. So of course "if everything is better with magic" then the "needing to spend 41k" helps them more - what the heck else are they going to spend it on? Getting the worst gear they can find that doesn't help them at all??? With running and lightning stance a rogue can be out of sight before anyone can follow. Let the pin cushioning begin!
That mage is not dying at level 11 from a rogue barring extreme luck.
If you have 130 feet of space you are likely outside and the caster in question is not likely to be outside without combat spells prepped, and if the mage is in his home then it actually gets worse for the rogue, since he is less likely to have buffs precast.
Yeah I am assuming the wizard/sorc has done something for the wrong to come after him so he has a reason to be cautious.
Now just to be clear I am not saying a rogue can't work, but like most others you can do better with another class.
stuff that was editedbecause HP damage straight up is usually not that effective, also flanking for sneak attack can require a lot of effort based on the circumstances. I've mentioned this before to you, that the problem is that sneak attack doesn't scale and it's dependent on enemy actions.
Sniper goggles don't circumvent the flat footed requirement of ranged attacks either. they just allow sneak attacks at a greater range than normal. you still need to roll the -20 stealth check and he is still aware he is being shot at, and thus not flat footed(i'll be it, confused).
don't even bother trying to syntax out sniper goggles to apply on all ranged attacks, no where does it say you gain the ability to apply sneak attack damage on ranged attacks. It simply states that you can do ranged sneak attacks at any range in stead of the normal 30 ft requirement. (which still require flat footed)
Sniper goggles just allow you to open up like normal with a ranged sneak, but this time at any range. Range sneak attacks are still brutally unattainable in normal combat.
Now to be fair in his defense the caster only needs to be denied dex to AC not flat-footed. The two are not the same, but you do have a point with the -20 for sniping. It does not allow for a full round attack.
edit: What I mean is that only that first attack will be sneak attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wand of greater invisibility: 21k gp, duration 7 rounds ea casting, 350 rounds of greater invisibility. 11th level rogue = 6d6 with 3 attacks (4?). Sniper goggles + Speedy Composite short bow +1, +5 str, maybe acidic or something for another d6. So at range we have a person rolling on 4 attacks, 3 at full BAB (+8) and one at +3. Dealing 8d6, 8d6, 8d6, 2d6 (extra arrow), 8d6 = 34d6 + 25 (plus whatever else they have). Can dealing 34d6+25 damage to something in one round "equal" anything else a typical level 11 of another class can do? 3 spells at 11d6 ea? Ok. Sure. 33d6. Seems pretty evenly matched to me.
You're spending 21K for the ability to turn invisible as a standard action. The equivalent ninja can do that as a swift action for free.
I'm assuming the flat footed-ness full attack is coming from acting before the wizard in initiative order, which is possible if the wizard has no initiative boosting traits or items, but is hardly a given. Against a diviner of course, the rogue is out of luck on that front.
If the rogue fails to kill the wizard in the first round, any number of spells basically ends the fight, including wind wall, EFS, displacement etc etc.
We're also talking about level 11, where the mage has EFS and contingency up and running. I wouldn't be trying to argue rogue > mage at level 11. Building a level 1 1-shot-pot-luck rogue would be a much better idea, because the wizard has fewer options at that point. Of course, you could probably do the same thing (rocket tag) much more effectively with, say, a barbarian or mounted lancer.
It's probably been mention already, but perception checks, senses and other ways to counter scouting do tend to go up with CR, making a 1st level scout of any class almost certainly obvious to a 10th level challenge and hence rendering the whole occupation rather suicidal.
Wow! Come and play at our table and you will see just how much rogues DO NOT suck! The only thing that is wrong with rogues is that Paizo trivialised them by allowing multiple character classes to get trap finding and even granting it via a trait. :( If you simply don't use all of the splat books the rogue class instantly gets it's mojo back.
Wow! Come and play at our table and you will see just how much rogues DO NOT suck! The only thing that is wrong with rogues is that Paizo trivialised them by allowing multiple character classes to get trap finding and even granting it via a trait. :( If you simply don't use all of the splat books the rogue class instantly gets it's mojo back.
So you don't allow Archaeologist Bards, Urban Rangers, core Bards, core Wizards, or core Druids? Cause again, trapfinding isn't super special awesome. Anyone can take Disable Device to disarm regular traps (and the Rogues bonus isn't particularly significant at early levels. Anyone with Dispel Magic can disarm magic traps. Anyone with spells can be a better skill monkey then an actual skill monkey (Wizards also will have more skill points to boot past level 8). Furthermore, Bards will have so many more skill points thanks to Bardic Knowledge and Versatile Performance. All of the lists classes outperform the Rogue in both combat and skills. The fact that trapfinding is a trait should tell you something, namely that a trait is all its worth.
Wow! Come and play at our table and you will see just how much rogues DO NOT suck! The only thing that is wrong with rogues is that Paizo trivialised them by allowing multiple character classes to get trap finding and even granting it via a trait. :( If you simply don't use all of the splat books the rogue class instantly gets it's mojo back.
Whilst normally i'd say 'core is the most broken part of PF', in the case of rogues they really do gain basically nothing extra from splats.... except for the agile weapon quality I guess. So you do have a point.
In terms of trapfinding though: you don't need it, even in core. Perception finds traps just fine without trapfinding. A Druid or Cleric will have a higher perception than the rogue, even with trapfinding - a druid especially can spontaneously summon to trigger traps easily enough, and both get dispel magic for magical traps.
I think the key is that if PF didn't bother to protect a rogue's niche, then the GM must do so if they value the class - that is, forbid archetypes or combinations that supercede a rogue's core activities. So that means no traits that give stealth, acrobatics or perception. No feats that give detrapping. No archetypes that give detrapping. You might even go so far as to say no archetypes that give sneak attack. It doesn't completely solve the problem, only slow it down, as it just forces a dip into rogue for most of these.
The poorly controlled explosion of additional classes and archetypes caused the effect.
I find these ideas tempting as heck to use in my games! I hate that later iterations of the game have prostituted the Rogues class features by sprinkling them around into other class archetypes etc. Stop whoring out the Rogue!
High CR creatures often have supersenses that'll catch the rogue out, like tremorsense or blindsense/sight. There are feats one can invest in for this purpose, but you'd better be good at everything else already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the key is that if PF didn't bother to protect a rogue's niche
...
The poorly controlled explosion of additional classes and archetypes caused the effect.
Content creep isn't the problem. The problem is that the rogue was poorly designed in the first place. Rather than hinder future content to "protect" a poorly made legacy class, they choose to simply move on and make classes and archetypes with a similar feel so players still have tools to make a roguish character concept. Considering that Paizo does not have the means to make complete rewrites of existing classes (like an online video game would), this was not a bad choice. Though I do admit they could have mitigated the issue by simply introducing new rogue talents that weren't book filler.
It's true that it was a fundamental mistake to use so many weakly protected abilities to create the rogue's niche. But people would still be reliant on rogue levels if content hadn't crept for at least some of them.
The concept of 'rogue levels' should have been given as much importance as 'caster level' for things within their niche. Just as they should have protected the concept of 'fighter levels' as something special, rather than just giving away of their unique gifts to everyone and their brother.
It's true that it was a fundamental mistake to use so many weakly protected abilities to create the rogue's niche. But people would still be reliant on rogue levels if content hadn't crept for at least some of them.
There are two basic ways to fix the Rogue- raise their class powers and abilities or sink other classes to their levels (yours is a subset of second case). Banning other classes from doing Rogue-like stuff makes Rogues important again which would mean it would be important to play an impaired class. I'd rather fix the class by amping up the Rogue myself, but Paizo's latest publications indicate they've abandoned the poor guys and implicitly said just go elsewhere for all your Rogue needs.
It's a lot more fun to design a dungeon around a villain and his group and his agenda. Give it a try. :)
The method you describe was intended to handle some of the oddities of MMO's, specifically, a world where there are hundreds of players looking for adventure. In a tabletop RPG, you have the luxury of catering just to your friends. So...why NOT design each dungeon just for them?
Simple, to make a living breathing world that doesn't feel hollow and empty as though it exists purely for the story.
A good and well loved world/setting feels like it has more going on in it than just the adventure the players are currently pursuing.
Making every single thing exactly to match the party makes the whole thing feel orchestrated and fake.
Players who have never experienced anything else (because anything else is hard to find) may never notice, but give them a better setting with lore, history, peoples, places, events, etc, that have nothing to do with them (or many of the other things in the world) or their quest and they will never want to go back to your perfectly orchestrated world.