Why are rogues subpar?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 387 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

DominusMegadeus wrote:
John-Andre wrote:
Master of the Dark Triad wrote:

Really? We haven't learned yet to stop feeding the "why are rogues bad, again?" trolls yet?

Yes, I realize that I'm posting on this thread too, but come on guys!

Then maybe people should shut up about how bad Rogues are?

The core classes -- expecially the non-casters -- all seem to be subpar in many ways. Maybe what's required is for Paizo to finally abandon the 3.5e D&D OGL SRD, and rebuild the core classes to the same level of capability and power as the classes in other books?

Rogue and Fighter are the only classes in the core that are derided as weak.

Fighter is by no mean a weak class. Of course, at very high level casters are more attractive to the powergamer, but fighters start strong and stay relevant until very high levels. Many people (and all of PFS) play from level 1 to level 12: few classes are as consistent in this bracket as the fighter, especially in the hands of someone not well versed in the art of optimization.

In my opinion, rogue is the weakest class because not even the archetypes are any good (except the ninja which is generally considered a different class). Monks are quite bad too, but they have some redeeming qualities. 1) they are great dips 2)they have some archetypes which are among the best options for some niche roles (zen archer and maneuver master).


Tom S 820 wrote:
Dannorn wrote:
Ok can someone explain why they're saying Rogues have bad to-hit? I'm just not getting it, aside from not being full BAB how is a Rogues ability to hit, or to improve their to-hit, any worse than any other 3/4 BAB class?
I agree 3/4 is 3/4. Also it is not poor that would be 1/2 or full arcance caster BaB.

Yea, that is so much not helpful. But always great to spread some confusion for those who are not into the pf mechnics already.


The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:
I don't think they are subpar I've never had Any problems playing rogues

For someone trying to understand how to properly play one, or compare it to other classes to see which generally performs better at which role or under what circumstances, that answer is incredibly unhelpful.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
I see a lot of posts implying that rogues aren't worth playing, why is that?

Allot of people will tell you rogues are sub Par. From my granted limited perspective to me It doesn't matter if a class is "above par" or "below par".

As a GM, I do my best to tailor the game to my players. So there isn't really any "above par" or "below par" in my games. If someone wants to play a rogue, I will for example, make sure there are traps to disarm and also magical traps to disarm. I try to make sure every character has a chance to shine.

This is a repost from a thread where someone was asking if it was worth playing a rogue:

I am currently running a home pathfinder game on "google hangout" with some of my old buddies. I'm in North Carolina, and my old friends are in New York City. We played 2nd edition together and some 3rd and 3.5 D&D as well. They haven't had a chance to play for a while, and they are just getting introduced to Pathfinder.

I am running a game with Core Rule Book only. For ability scores, Roll 4d6 assigned as desired re roll 1s. My players have picked:

an Elven Cleric of Iori

a Human (Ulfen) Paladin

a Human Rogue.... (The paladin and rogue are 1/2 brothers)

and a gnome sorcerer.

From a GM's perspective I am quite happy with my player's choices. All the bases are covered.
In this party everyone has a part to play. The party is now 2nd level

In the current adventure, a dungeon crawl through an egyptian themed pyramid, the rogue has been very helpful. He had to deal with 4 traps, either by disabling them, or setting them off on himself. I made sure one of the traps was a big rolling stone ball ! as a nod to Indiana Jones.

Later in the adventure, the party had to face a giant scorpion. Everyone contributed to the fight. The paladin and the rouge flanked. The sorcerer used his ranged magic spells, and the cleric blessed, channeled positive energy, and moved about and healed as necessary. The paladin was torn apart by the scorpion's claws stung, poisoned, and dropped into unconsciousness. After stabilizing the paladin. the cleric stepped in to flank with the rouge. The rogue's sneak attack was what dropped the scorpion. Everyone contributed to the fight.

As a GM, I want to make sure each of the player's character's has a chance to shine and contribute to the success of the party.

I put traps in the dungeon for the rogue to disarm. I thought a scorpion would be a nice desert themed monster to fight. Also the scorpion could damaged by a sneak attack.

I know people say rogues are not useful because everything else can do its job better.

In the game I am running the rogue will be useful. I can tell you this rouge will be dealing with the "grey market" to help sell antiquities for the party. He disables traps, helps with fights and he scouts ahead to report for trouble.

I can also tell you my player is enjoying the game and he is happy with his rogue. Does my party have "optimized" characters? Well the cleric has selective channeling....the rogue trap finding.....etc. It doesn't matter if my players characters are optimized. I tailor the game to my players and their characters.

So I would encourage you to have fun. This is a game. You win by working together with the other players and their characters. So have fun. Try the rogue.....try the bard.....try the barbarian....try whatever you would like to try and have fun.

Good luck with your rogue!


Crysknife wrote:
Fighter is by no mean a weak class. Of course, at very high level casters are more attractive to the powergamer, but fighters start strong and stay relevant until very high levels. Many people (and all of PFS) play from level 1 to level 12: few classes are as consistent in this bracket as the fighter, especially in the hands of someone not well versed in the art of optimization.

They're not considered weak in combat - just the opposite. They don't have many options outside of it. Adding a couple of skill points/level would help a lot.

Fighters and rogues seem to really benefit from multiclassing to help paper over their weak spots. Most of the other classes don't really need that.


Experiment 626 wrote:
They're not considered weak in combat - just the opposite. They don't have many options outside of it. Adding a couple of skill points/level would help a lot.

Not quite. I would say that they are generally fine at dealing HP damage providing they are capable of making a full attack.

Unfrotunaely the ability to make full attacks becomes harder to achieve as you go up in levels and face more opponents who fly or teleport or what have you. The fighter also have some fairly glaring defensive weaknesses which can easily result in them spending most of an encounter doing nothing.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

Noone cares how much fun people have playing rogues. We all know its possible to enjoy playing a rogue in certain games and groups. That has just nothing to do with the question why the rogue is subpar. He definitly is, no matter whether you care or not or enjoy playing rogues more than anything else. This topic appearently deals with the weak mechanics of the rogue class and not with amazing rogue-fun in some homegames, not with rogues who were viable in unoptimized groups an not with CRB-only games which try to make all other classes weaker in order to maintain a reason for playing rogues. Its about nothen but the mechanics of that class - the rogue - compared to other classes mechanics and why it is as "subpar" as it is.

And I know that people dont like to hear that, but this topic is not about fun. its about game design, predictable problems that may occur due to weak balancing regarding how the classes perform.

Honestly, I think "just have fun with that class, its possible" is an answer full of ignorance to the vital spot of this annoying discussion that comes up again and again on therse boards and always inspires some people on here to explain "us" how this game is meant to be played....

Sorry for that rant, but I'm really tired by this.


andreww wrote:
Experiment 626 wrote:
They're not considered weak in combat - just the opposite. They don't have many options outside of it. Adding a couple of skill points/level would help a lot.

Not quite. I would say that they are generally fine at dealing HP damage providing they are capable of making a full attack.

Unfrotunaely the ability to make full attacks becomes harder to achieve as you go up in levels and face more opponents who fly or teleport or what have you. The fighter also have some fairly glaring defensive weaknesses which can easily result in them spending most of an encounter doing nothing.

That's a good point. We don't play at high levels but I see a lot of AoO opportunities for the guys who have reach and Combat Reflexes as opposed to chances to get full attacks off. Except for archers...those guys seem to have it easy.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rogue and Monk were generally considered the two weakest classes in the game (Fighter having a whole different set of issues as he's more "incomplete" than "weak"), and they share a very common issue: Their class features act in opposition to each other. The Monk has some amazing archetypes and ready access to feats that remove this issue; you can drop the opposing features and exchange them for complimentary ones that turn him into one of the best and most versatile options in the game. The Rogue, unfortunately, lacks these options and has a much harder time balancing out his abilities.

The Rogue really wants to sneak ahead. He wants to get the jump on the enemy and dish out a ton of damage. There are a couple problems with that though. The first one is that the Rogue's damage is unlikely to be sufficient to actually drop an enemy with a single attack, and after that he's a lightly armored warrior who has snuck ahead of immediate assistance from his allies. Escape may prove difficult as well since CMD scales even faster than skill checks and his odds of successfully dodging past his opponents and avoiding attacks of opportunity are rarely better than 50% after the first couple levels unless he burns a couple feats or regularly makes use of skill-boosting consumables before engaging in combat.

He also faces the issue that his damage is highly conditional. He has to get in that first strike, have flanking, or feint if he wants to get in his sneak attacks, all of which have their own weaknesses. Striking first and flanking both have the issue addressed above; you can hit hard enough to make yourself a target (potentially) but if you don't end the enemy right then and there you're now a squishy target begging the guy you just irked to turn you into jelly. Feinting has a variety of issues, starting with the fact that it's hard to actually do and fairly painful to your action economy. Two-Weapon Feint requires you to be taking two-weapon fighting penalties, painful to begin with for a 3/4 BAB class with no solid attack boosters, but then it also requires you to give up the attack that's most likely to actually connect and allow you to deliver damage, and Feinting does nothing to improve your chance to hit against enemies who rely primarily on natural, magical, or heavy armor.

The final issue is that the Rogue gained the least during the transition from 3.5 to PF. Most Rogue Talents are really, really weak. Even the PF design team has acknowledged this. So a few big paradigm shifts hurt the Rogue perhaps more than any other class, like the CMB/CMD system weakening his ability to successfully perform specialized techniques or use Acrobatics to facilitate movement and avoid AoOs, and what he gained back in exchange was much poorer than what other classes gained, resulting in a total net downgrade at the same time everyone else was being boosted up.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Oftentimes in stories, rogues take advantage of their terrain or exploit weaknesses in magic to overcome their difficulties.

See Aladdin. There's all sorts of obstacles for him to acrobatically take advantage of, he tricks Jafar into a form that the universe regulates.

This requires a story centered on him.

In Pathfinder, combat is a large part of the game, so you can't just run and expect the party to run with you and have fun. Magic doesn't really have any exploits to take advantage of. And standing, well, rogues ain't so hot at that for reasons discussed.

A rogue with a party is far more restricted in how he can deal with problems, and magic does what skills do but many times better.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Petty Alchemy wrote:

Oftentimes in stories, rogues take advantage of their terrain or exploit weaknesses in magic to overcome their difficulties.

See Aladdin. There's all sorts of obstacles for him to acrobatically take advantage of, he tricks Jafar into a form that the universe regulates.

This requires a story centered on him.

In Pathfinder, combat is a large part of the game, so you can't just run and expect the party to run with you and have fun. Magic doesn't really have any exploits to take advantage of. And standing, well, rogues ain't so hot at that for reasons discussed.

A rogue with a party is far more restricted in how he can deal with problems, and magic does what skills do but many times better.

This touches on another Rogue issue, what I like to call "Getting screwed by the loud clumsy oaf in full plate who just got a -4 on his Stealth check". I don't know about you, but this is an iconic Rogue moment in groups I've played in. The Rogue has had a few harrowing near death experiences after getting too far ahead of the group, so now he tries to stick with the group so he doesn't get caught in the middle of a group of enemies with his pants down. That usually ends up playing out something like this:

Cleric: *rolls Perception check, succeeds* "Hey guys, it sounds like there's a group of orcs partying just up ahead."

Rogue: "Excellent! This is our chance to get the drop on them. Stay close on my heels and we'll take these guys down before they even know what hit them." *rolls Stealth check* "Hah! 32! I'd like to see the orc who can perceive that."

GM: "Okay, since you guys are traveling in a fairly close group I'll need Stealth checks from the rest of you as well."

Dwarven Fighter: "Let's see, that's a 10 on the die, -6 for my full plate, -2 for my heavy shield, +0 for my base skill modifier... What's a 2 do for you?"

GM: "The orcs have heard your approach. As you spring from the trees they stand ready to meet your attack with spears leveled."

Rogue: "Son of a b+@@%."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:

This touches on another Rogue issue, what I like to call "Getting screwed by the loud clumsy oaf in full plate who just got a -4 on his Stealth check". I don't know about you, but this is an iconic Rogue moment in groups I've played in. The Rogue has had a few harrowing near death experiences after getting too far ahead of the group, so now he tries to stick with the group so he doesn't get caught in the middle of a group of enemies with his pants down. That usually ends up playing out something like this:

Cleric: *rolls Perception check, succeeds* "Hey guys, it sounds like there's a group of orcs partying just up ahead."

Rogue: "Excellent! This is our chance to get the drop on them. Stay close on my heels and we'll take these guys down before they even know what hit them." *rolls Stealth check* "Hah! 32! I'd like to see the orc who can perceive that."

GM: "Okay, since you guys are traveling in a fairly close group I'll need Stealth checks from the rest of you as well."

Dwarven Fighter: "Let's see, that's a 10 on the die, -6 for my full plate, -2 for my heavy shield, +0 for my base skill modifier... What's a 2 do for you?"

GM: "The orcs have heard your approach. As you spring from the trees they stand ready to meet...

Just wait till you play pfs, and the fighter wields a tower shield for a -14 instead. :P

The Exchange

I think that the rogue was invalidated mostly with the advent of Pathfinder Society games and Paizo's need to keep that machine of a market turning. I always saw traits and archetypes as optional things and in my home games I highly suggest against them. In fact, you have to give me a pretty compelling back-story and in-character reason to have an archetype. I also disallow traits wholesale. They feel like the flaw system from 3.5 only with no negative consequences at all.

With this kind of system, is the rogue the best choice? No, probably not as the ninja still does exist. The rogue however is a viable choice. Especially since I own about 15 different source-books on traps. (Traps and Treachery series, Grimtooth's Traps, a third party book on kobolds here and there, The World's Largest Dungeon, etc). In this kind of home-game environment the rogue keeps its staying power. But not in the world of the over-optimized realm of archetypes, traits, and so many class options as to make ANY class obsolete given enough material and enough time.

I believe very strongly that in Pathfinder Society, the Rogue is mostly there for beginning players who don't understand optimization yet. In a home game though, a rogue can be alot more. It all depends on your philosophy, your GM, and your play-style.

Oh, and before anyone says something like "I'd never play in your game, you don't allow enough options." That's fine. I never asked you too, and its my world were some things just don't make sense or work. I don't play in Golarion, I don't use Golarion's deities. I believe in GM fiat when it comes to campaign building, and all of my allowances and house-rules are given to players in a document, and at session 0 (which is character creation, pizza, and a movie afterwards. I'm a nice host after all.)


Eldmar wrote:
Play a game with the base book only, no trapper rangers, or bard archaeologists or alchemists. Play with an old school group with an old school GM that always ratchets up the traps to the point where in the first few levels a trap can 1 shot you. Then stop whining about how sub-par rogues are. They are only sub-par because paizo trivialises traps and the value of trap finding so that any tom dick or harry can get it with a trait. You can't get animal companions or rage or spells with a trait, shouldn't be able to get trap finding either.

So basically you have to change the rules to force the rogue to be useful. That is not evidence in your favor or the rogue's.

With that aside even in core you don't need a rogue. Summon an animal to set the trap off, or just use dispel magic unless the GM is trying to force you to have a rogue in the party. Traps are normally set up in their location so you just make sure you are not in the room when it goes off.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hodor


Tom S 820 wrote:
Dannorn wrote:
Ok can someone explain why they're saying Rogues have bad to-hit? I'm just not getting it, aside from not being full BAB how is a Rogues ability to hit, or to improve their to-hit, any worse than any other 3/4 BAB class?
I agree 3/4 is 3/4. Also it is not poor that would be 1/2 or full arcance caster BaB.

3/4 is 3/4 but...

3/4 + modifiers > 3/4


Jericho Graves wrote:
I believe in GM fiat when it comes to campaign building, and all of my allowances and house-rules are given to players in a document, and at session 0 (which is character creation, pizza, and a movie afterwards. I'm a nice host after all.)

I have become a strong believer in having a "session 0" (I like your term!) where the players can create characters together. That makes it so much easier to get a party where everybody has their own niche, and simultaneously lets me as a GM know how to better adjust the adventures so everybody has a chance to be the superstar once in a while. Also, this lets the players more easily figure out how their characters happen to know each other.


Jericho Graves wrote:

I think that the rogue was invalidated mostly with the advent of Pathfinder Society games and Paizo's need to keep that machine of a market turning. I always saw traits and archetypes as optional things and in my home games I highly suggest against them. In fact, you have to give me a pretty compelling back-story and in-character reason to have an archetype. I also disallow traits wholesale. They feel like the flaw system from 3.5 only with no negative consequences at all.

With this kind of system, is the rogue the best choice? No, probably not as the ninja still does exist. The rogue however is a viable choice. Especially since I own about 15 different source-books on traps. (Traps and Treachery series, Grimtooth's Traps, a third party book on kobolds here and there, The World's Largest Dungeon, etc). In this kind of home-game environment the rogue keeps its staying power. But not in the world of the over-optimized realm of archetypes, traits, and so many class options as to make ANY class obsolete given enough material and enough time.

I believe very strongly that in Pathfinder Society, the Rogue is mostly there for beginning players who don't understand optimization yet. In a home game though, a rogue can be alot more. It all depends on your philosophy, your GM, and your play-style.

Oh, and before anyone says something like "I'd never play in your game, you don't allow enough options." That's fine. I never asked you too, and its my world were some things just don't make sense or work. I don't play in Golarion, I don't use Golarion's deities. I believe in GM fiat when it comes to campaign building, and all of my allowances and house-rules are given to players in a document, and at session 0 (which is character creation, pizza, and a movie afterwards. I'm a nice host after all.)

The CRB is not exactly balanced. Some of the most powerful options in the game are in the CRB, and even before the APG came out the rogue was being given a difficult time. Even in some AP's, which are not optimized, a rogue will struggle with some players.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

wraithstrike wrote:
Tom S 820 wrote:
Dannorn wrote:
Ok can someone explain why they're saying Rogues have bad to-hit? I'm just not getting it, aside from not being full BAB how is a Rogues ability to hit, or to improve their to-hit, any worse than any other 3/4 BAB class?
I agree 3/4 is 3/4. Also it is not poor that would be 1/2 or full arcance caster BaB.

3/4 is 3/4 but...

3/4 + modifiers > 3/4

This too. A Rogue's 3/4 BAB is nothing at all like an Inquisitor, Bard, Alchemist, Oracle, Cleric, or Druid's 3/4 BAB. The other classes all have ways to turn that 3/4 into a to-hit value on par with or even higher than a full BAB class'. The Rogue lacks any to-hit boosting options, which I think actually makes him unique amongst his peers (and not in a good way). An Inquisitor or Bard built to hit things can have a to-hit equal to or greater than a Fighter's fairly consistently at almost every level of play (often while doing something else as well); a Rogue will generally have the lowest to-hit value of any member of the party, with the possible exception of people who don't actually plan on hitting things.


Waiiiiit, I thought you got 4 times the normal skill ranks at first level. So for fighters it would be 8 (no including INT) for bards it would be 24 and rogues would get 32. Is this in fact not the case then? I am confuzled.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Domestichauscat wrote:
Waiiiiit, I thought you got 4 times the normal skill ranks at first level. So for fighters it would be 8 (no including INT) for bards it would be 24 and rogues would get 32. Is this in fact not the case then? I am confuzled.

They got rid of that in Pathfinder. Now you get the same number of skill points at 1st level as any other level, but you get a +3 bonus the first time you put a skill point into a class skill.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Domestichauscat wrote:
Waiiiiit, I thought you got 4 times the normal skill ranks at first level. So for fighters it would be 8 (no including INT) for bards it would be 24 and rogues would get 32. Is this in fact not the case then? I am confuzled.

That was 3.5, Pathfinder is different.

In 3.5 you got 4x skills at first level, could put 4 ranks into a skill at first level, and and paid two skill points per rank in cross class skills.

In Pathfinder, you get normal skill points per level, can only per one rank per skill, and can put the same ranks in class skills or non class skills, but class skills give a +3 bonus if you have one rank in it.

Edit: ninja'd in a rogue thread.


Well that just shatters my entire universe. Why would they make that change when all the classes got tons of new abilities? I thought the biggest change to Pathfinder from 3.5 was to give more things to the classes, not take them away.

This disappoints me really, house rule initiated in my game now!

Silver Crusade

*Cast protection from energy (fire) to protect against the intense heat and flame war that is about to occur*

Scarab Sages

Domestichauscat wrote:

Well that just shatters my entire universe. Why would they make that change when all the classes got tons of new abilities? I thought the biggest change to Pathfinder from 3.5 was to give more things to the classes, not take them away.

This disappoints me really, house rule initiated in my game now!

It actually makes it MUCH easier to have relevant ranks in cross-class skills, and makes the skill system much easier to use imo.

Read the skills chapter and compare it to 3.5, it's a great improvement, not even taking into account merging redundant skills.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

It was an... interesting change, with repercussions that aren't entirely clear cut. What it definitely did was make the average baseline for skills more accessible (generally regarded as a good thing). The overall result is a little more varied. For the Fighter, it made it harder to branch out. Since he didn't get those extra points at 1st level he probably has a lower number of out of combat options, but with a higher chance of success with the few options he does have. For the Rogue, it was kind of a dilution of one of his few strengths, that is, his large number of skill points and the multiplicative power of a large number of class skills. For pretty much everyone else (except maybe the Cleric who's in the same boat as the Fighter but can compensate for it magically), it was basically a straight up win.


It is no longer simple at level 1 to put a single point into every skill that requires you be trained in it in order to attempt.


Dannorn wrote:
Ok can someone explain why they're saying Rogues have bad to-hit? I'm just not getting it, aside from not being full BAB how is a Rogues ability to hit, or to improve their to-hit, any worse than any other 3/4 BAB class?

Rogue have a bad to hit because they 3/4 BAB with no in class method of increasing their to hit bonus. Simple as that. Every other 3/4 BAB class can increase attack bonus via class feature or buff spells.

Then to make it worse most rogue builds go Two Weapon Fighting which makes sense since you have the DEX to do it and it works really well at the lower levels. At the higher levels the -2 to hit impacts you more because monster AC is much higher. Also add the fact that monster AC at the higher CRs is typically higher than they were in 3.5 and the rogue didn't get anything boost their to hit.


voska66 wrote:
Dannorn wrote:
Ok can someone explain why they're saying Rogues have bad to-hit? I'm just not getting it, aside from not being full BAB how is a Rogues ability to hit, or to improve their to-hit, any worse than any other 3/4 BAB class?

Rogue have a bad to hit because they 3/4 BAB with no in class method of increasing their to hit bonus. Simple as that. Every other 3/4 BAB class can increase attack bonus via class feature or buff spells.

Then to make it worse most rogue builds go Two Weapon Fighting which makes sense since you have the DEX to do it and it works really well at the lower levels. At the higher levels the -2 to hit impacts you more because monster AC is much higher. Also add the fact that monster AC at the higher CRs is typically higher than they were in 3.5 and the rogue didn't get anything boost their to hit.

I agree with your post. In your view would making a rogue full BAB be too powerful? Just curious.

Scarab Sages

Pappy wrote:
voska66 wrote:
Dannorn wrote:
Ok can someone explain why they're saying Rogues have bad to-hit? I'm just not getting it, aside from not being full BAB how is a Rogues ability to hit, or to improve their to-hit, any worse than any other 3/4 BAB class?

Rogue have a bad to hit because they 3/4 BAB with no in class method of increasing their to hit bonus. Simple as that. Every other 3/4 BAB class can increase attack bonus via class feature or buff spells.

Then to make it worse most rogue builds go Two Weapon Fighting which makes sense since you have the DEX to do it and it works really well at the lower levels. At the higher levels the -2 to hit impacts you more because monster AC is much higher. Also add the fact that monster AC at the higher CRs is typically higher than they were in 3.5 and the rogue didn't get anything boost their to hit.

I agree with your post. In your view would making a rogue full BAB be too powerful? Just curious.

No, and it's one of the most common house rules to fix them. It still only makes them as good as 3/4s BAB classes as the other full BAB classes have ways to increase accuracy over full BAB(Rage, Weapon Training, Favored Enemy+spells, Smite+spells)


Imbicatus wrote:
No, and it's one of the most common house rules to fix them. It still only makes them as good as 3/4s BAB classes as the other full BAB classes have ways to increase accuracy over full BAB(Rage, Weapon Training, Favored Enemy+spells, Smite+spells)

I think that I might try this out in our game. I've always been a rogue fan, but agree that rogue talents fall short of other class abilities.


wraithstrike wrote:


So basically you have to change the rules to force the rogue to be useful. That is not evidence in your favor or the rogue's.

With that aside even in core you don't need a rogue. Summon an animal to set the trap off, or just use dispel magic unless the GM is trying to force you to have a rogue in the party. Traps are normally set up in their location so you just make sure you are not in the room when it goes off.

How is playing with the core book / rules changing the rules or as someone else said earlier playing a different game? All the other books are optional extras, just because they have been published doesn't mean that they 'must' be used.

As far as the summon animal suggestion - well that is great as long as you have enough of them to cover the entire adventure, because in most dungeons you shouldn't get chance to rest and recover. Also doesn't help if traps are not one time only. For example when there is an area of a 'revolving floor' trap that revolves with anyone stepping on it, dropping them into a pit and is too far to jump. Now sending your summoned critter across sets off the trap and drops to it's doom, then seconds later the lead pc walks across the trap because it is safe now right and, oh crap I am falling into a deep spike filled pit.... A rogue on the other hand could have used disable device to jam the mechanism and everyone could then walk safely across. It sounds like your gm's have no idea how to construct traps.


Ssalarn wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:

Oftentimes in stories, rogues take advantage of their terrain or exploit weaknesses in magic to overcome their difficulties.

See Aladdin. There's all sorts of obstacles for him to acrobatically take advantage of, he tricks Jafar into a form that the universe regulates.

This requires a story centered on him.

In Pathfinder, combat is a large part of the game, so you can't just run and expect the party to run with you and have fun. Magic doesn't really have any exploits to take advantage of. And standing, well, rogues ain't so hot at that for reasons discussed.

A rogue with a party is far more restricted in how he can deal with problems, and magic does what skills do but many times better.

This touches on another Rogue issue, what I like to call "Getting screwed by the loud clumsy oaf in full plate who just got a -4 on his Stealth check". I don't know about you, but this is an iconic Rogue moment in groups I've played in. The Rogue has had a few harrowing near death experiences after getting too far ahead of the group, so now he tries to stick with the group so he doesn't get caught in the middle of a group of enemies with his pants down. That usually ends up playing out something like this:

Cleric: *rolls Perception check, succeeds* "Hey guys, it sounds like there's a group of orcs partying just up ahead."

Rogue: "Excellent! This is our chance to get the drop on them. Stay close on my heels and we'll take these guys down before they even know what hit them." *rolls Stealth check* "Hah! 32! I'd like to see the orc who can perceive that."

GM: "Okay, since you guys are traveling in a fairly close group I'll need Stealth checks from the rest of you as well."

Dwarven Fighter: "Let's see, that's a 10 on the die, -6 for my full plate, -2 for my heavy shield, +0 for my base skill modifier... What's a 2 do for you?"

GM: "The orcs have heard your approach. As you spring from the trees they stand ready to meet...

The fighter wouldn't be that bad. For the rogue to get 32 on roll assuming a roll of would 22 bonus. Lets assume 5 from magic, 6 from Dex, 3 Class skill. So that mean 8 ranks of stealth so 8th level rogue. Now 8th level fighter with 2 levels of armor training, the armor expert trait in mitheral full plate and shield would have ACP penalty of 0. Adding shadow to the plate is fairly cheap so 10 +5 for shadow, +3 for Dex. The fighter would have 18 Stealth. Any fighter wanting ambush would have some ranks in Stealth as well if they went to expense to put shadow on their armor. This cost just over 1/2 your wealth by level to get +1 Mitheral Full plate and Shield.

Also if I were the rogue I'd kick some GP towards the fighter getting Shadow armor. I need flanking partner after all and if I can ambush with the fighter that's good for me. The cleric and wizard can use invisibility.

Of course I've seen the fighters that don't synergize well the rogue. I always try to be stealthy with my fighters as it helps the rogue big time. Gives my fighter something to do out of combat too.


Eldmar wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


So basically you have to change the rules to force the rogue to be useful. That is not evidence in your favor or the rogue's.

With that aside even in core you don't need a rogue. Summon an animal to set the trap off, or just use dispel magic unless the GM is trying to force you to have a rogue in the party. Traps are normally set up in their location so you just make sure you are not in the room when it goes off.

How is playing with the core book / rules changing the rules or as someone else said earlier playing a different game? All the other books are optional extras, just because they have been published doesn't mean that they 'must' be used.

As far as the summon animal suggestion - well that is great as long as you have enough of them to cover the entire adventure, because in most dungeons you shouldn't get chance to rest and recover. Also doesn't help if traps are not one time only. For example when there is an area of a 'revolving floor' trap that revolves with anyone stepping on it, dropping them into a pit and is too far to jump. Now sending your summoned critter across sets off the trap and drops to it's doom, then seconds later the lead pc walks across the trap because it is safe now right and, oh crap I am falling into a deep spike filled pit.... A rogue on the other hand could have used disable device to jam the mechanism and everyone could then walk safely across. It sounds like your gm's have no idea how to construct traps.

Or you could summon a monster on the other side and throw a grappling hook to them, or use featherfall and then climb back out, etc etc.

You don't need the rogue to disable, just toss a rock down on it a second time as a general practice for traps. If it goes off again its a resetting trap. If not, it should be safe. Afix two ladders together and lay them down across it. Have your fighter climb across the walls with a rope tied to his waist and the rest of the party holding it. When he gets across he holds his end and the rest of the party holds the other as one person crosses. Then another. Then the last one ties the rope to his waist and he jumps as far as he can. When the floor gives out the rope catches him and they pull him up.


Tom S 820 wrote:
Dannorn wrote:
Ok can someone explain why they're saying Rogues have bad to-hit? I'm just not getting it, aside from not being full BAB how is a Rogues ability to hit, or to improve their to-hit, any worse than any other 3/4 BAB class?
I agree 3/4 is 3/4. Also it is not poor that would be 1/2 or full arcance caster BaB.

Rogue talents feel weak to me. They're about at the power of 3/4 or 1x of a feat. They should be more like 1.5x a feat or even 2x a feat.

Sneak attack requires too many hoops to jump through, and is all or nothing. It'd be better if you always got some of your sneak attack damage, and more damage as the target is further compromised.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We once had a wand of mount named "rogue"

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If I were only playing with the core book, I'd still rather be a bard who happened to put max ranks into Disable Device than a Rogue. I would be able to deal with mechanical traps via DD and magical ones via Dispel Magic. Meanwhile, I'd be a better party face (via versatile performance), a better knowledge monkey, and have something to do in combat.


Eldmar wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


So basically you have to change the rules to force the rogue to be useful. That is not evidence in your favor or the rogue's.

With that aside even in core you don't need a rogue. Summon an animal to set the trap off, or just use dispel magic unless the GM is trying to force you to have a rogue in the party. Traps are normally set up in their location so you just make sure you are not in the room when it goes off.

How is playing with the core book / rules changing the rules or as someone else said earlier playing a different game? All the other books are optional extras, just because they have been published doesn't mean that they 'must' be used.

As far as the summon animal suggestion - well that is great as long as you have enough of them to cover the entire adventure, because in most dungeons you shouldn't get chance to rest and recover. Also doesn't help if traps are not one time only. For example when there is an area of a 'revolving floor' trap that revolves with anyone stepping on it, dropping them into a pit and is too far to jump. Now sending your summoned critter across sets off the trap and drops to it's doom, then seconds later the lead pc walks across the trap because it is safe now right and, oh crap I am falling into a deep spike filled pit.... A rogue on the other hand could have used disable device to jam the mechanism and everyone could then walk safely across. It sounds like your gm's have no idea how to construct traps.

Unless it's a magical trap, anybody could disable it. And if it was a magical trap, there are magical ways to deal with it.


Melkiador wrote:


Rogue talents feel weak to me. They're about at the power of 3/4 or 1x of a feat. They should be more like 1.5x a feat or even 2x a feat.

If memory serves, a forum member named Lemmy (my apologies if this is wrong), went to the trouble to redesign/rewrite rogue talents to make them more powerful and useful. I haven't tried them yet, but I have to say that I admire the creativity and ambition that went into them.

Have a look. I'd link to them, but I'm horrible at all that.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

voska66 wrote:

The fighter wouldn't be that bad. For the rogue to get 32 on roll assuming a roll of would 22 bonus. Lets assume 5 from magic, 6 from Dex, 3 Class skill. So that mean 8 ranks of stealth so 8th level rogue. Now 8th level fighter with 2 levels of armor training, the armor expert trait in mitheral full plate and shield would have ACP penalty of 0. Adding shadow to the plate is fairly cheap so 10 +5 for shadow, +3 for Dex. The fighter would have 18 Stealth. Any fighter wanting ambush would have some ranks in Stealth as well if they went to expense to put shadow on their armor. This cost just over 1/2 your wealth by level to get +1 Mitheral Full plate and Shield.

Also if I were the rogue I'd kick some GP towards the fighter getting Shadow armor. I need flanking partner after all and if I can ambush with the fighter that's good for me. The cleric and wizard can use invisibility.

Of course I've seen the fighters that don't synergize well the rogue. I always try to be stealthy with my fighters as it helps the rogue big time. Gives my fighter something to do out of combat too.

A Halfling Rogue, which is pretty much the ultimate archetypical fantasy rogue, can hit a 32 at 1st level, just by putting a rank in Stealth. He can actually hit 33. You're also assuming this Fighter has nothing better to do with 1/2 of his WBL when he's nearing the midpoint of the game other than spend half of it on making the Rogue's life easier. The fact that a class can almost do something reliably if other party members wait until they're 3/4 of the way done with the lifespan of most PFS characters and then pool 1/2 of their resources into assisting them is not a point in that classes favor.


Eldmar wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


So basically you have to change the rules to force the rogue to be useful. That is not evidence in your favor or the rogue's.

With that aside even in core you don't need a rogue. Summon an animal to set the trap off, or just use dispel magic unless the GM is trying to force you to have a rogue in the party. Traps are normally set up in their location so you just make sure you are not in the room when it goes off.

How is playing with the core book / rules changing the rules or as someone else said earlier playing a different game? All the other books are optional extras, just because they have been published doesn't mean that they 'must' be used.

As far as the summon animal suggestion - well that is great as long as you have enough of them to cover the entire adventure, because in most dungeons you shouldn't get chance to rest and recover. Also doesn't help if traps are not one time only. For example when there is an area of a 'revolving floor' trap that revolves with anyone stepping on it, dropping them into a pit and is too far to jump. Now sending your summoned critter across sets off the trap and drops to it's doom, then seconds later the lead pc walks across the trap because it is safe now right and, oh crap I am falling into a deep spike filled pit.... A rogue on the other hand could have used disable device to jam the mechanism and everyone could then walk safely across. It sounds like your gm's have no idea how to construct traps.

Anyone can take disable device and take the vagabond child trait to get a +1 trait bonus making it a class skill. Between that and spells you should be good to go.


Pappy wrote:


If memory serves, a forum member named Lemmy (my apologies if this is wrong), went to the trouble to redesign/rewrite rogue talents to make them more powerful and useful. I haven't tried them yet, but I have to say that I admire the creativity and ambition that went into them.

Have a look. I'd link to them, but I'm horrible at all that.

I like Lemmy's changes to the rogue. I know Tarkxt has a rogue rewrite and there are several 3rd party sources that help boost the rogue's potential, too. Rogue Glory is particularly nice, and has some goodies re: traps, the Trapper Ranger, and new equipment as well.

There are a couple of newer rogue guides that came out at least partially in response to Tarkxt's recent "Let's make the rogue work" thread that are quite useful, too.


L33Fish wrote:
If I were only playing with the core book, I'd still rather be a bard who happened to put max ranks into Disable Device than a Rogue. I would be able to deal with mechanical traps via DD and magical ones via Dispel Magic. Meanwhile, I'd be a better party face (via versatile performance), a better knowledge monkey, and have something to do in combat.

So what class should I play if my character is a little guy who grew up on the streets, making a living by breaking into the houses of the wealthy? He's never had the chance to learn any magic, and he's certainly not a performer - just the opposite, in fact. He spent most of his childhood trying not to be noticed.


JoeJ wrote:


So what class should I play if my character is a little guy who grew up on the streets, making a living by breaking into the houses of the wealthy? He's never had the chance to learn any magic, and he's certainly not a performer - just the opposite, in fact. He spent most of his childhood trying not to be noticed.

I'd suggest ninja.


voska66 wrote:
Anyone can take disable device and take the vagabond child trait to get a +1 trait bonus making it a class skill. Between that and spells you should be good to go.

Anybody can, but did they? Obviously you don't want to bring a trapfinder rogue into a party that's already got a non-rogue specialist in that. But it would be just as bad for the non-rogue to come in and displace the existing rogue. And if they players are creating their characters at the same time, they should work out between themselves what niches they want for their characters.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Eldmar wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


So basically you have to change the rules to force the rogue to be useful. That is not evidence in your favor or the rogue's.

With that aside even in core you don't need a rogue. Summon an animal to set the trap off, or just use dispel magic unless the GM is trying to force you to have a rogue in the party. Traps are normally set up in their location so you just make sure you are not in the room when it goes off.

How is playing with the core book / rules changing the rules or as someone else said earlier playing a different game? All the other books are optional extras, just because they have been published doesn't mean that they 'must' be used.

As far as the summon animal suggestion - well that is great as long as you have enough of them to cover the entire adventure, because in most dungeons you shouldn't get chance to rest and recover. Also doesn't help if traps are not one time only. For example when there is an area of a 'revolving floor' trap that revolves with anyone stepping on it, dropping them into a pit and is too far to jump. Now sending your summoned critter across sets off the trap and drops to it's doom, then seconds later the lead pc walks across the trap because it is safe now right and, oh crap I am falling into a deep spike filled pit.... A rogue on the other hand could have used disable device to jam the mechanism and everyone could then walk safely across. It sounds like your gm's have no idea how to construct traps.

yeah, that trap isn't anything a rogue is needed for. Anyone can try to deal with it in several ways, also if i had cleared out the dungeon before this point, i would say it's a good chance for the spell casters to rest as the characters on watch can simply activate the trap if anyone tries to scurry across that knows a way to not activate it, if they go around, yay we now know a secret passage is in that direction.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
JoeJ wrote:
L33Fish wrote:
If I were only playing with the core book, I'd still rather be a bard who happened to put max ranks into Disable Device than a Rogue. I would be able to deal with mechanical traps via DD and magical ones via Dispel Magic. Meanwhile, I'd be a better party face (via versatile performance), a better knowledge monkey, and have something to do in combat.

So what class should I play if my character is a little guy who grew up on the streets, making a living by breaking into the houses of the wealthy? He's never had the chance to learn any magic, and he's certainly not a performer - just the opposite, in fact. He spent most of his childhood trying not to be noticed.

an expert or a commoner.

Scarab Sages

JoeJ wrote:
L33Fish wrote:
If I were only playing with the core book, I'd still rather be a bard who happened to put max ranks into Disable Device than a Rogue. I would be able to deal with mechanical traps via DD and magical ones via Dispel Magic. Meanwhile, I'd be a better party face (via versatile performance), a better knowledge monkey, and have something to do in combat.

So what class should I play if my character is a little guy who grew up on the streets, making a living by breaking into the houses of the wealthy? He's never had the chance to learn any magic, and he's certainly not a performer - just the opposite, in fact. He spent most of his childhood trying not to be noticed.

Ranger would work well for that. Several skills, you are tough enough to deal with anyone looking for an easy mark, and you are still able to disarm and mundane trap. Favored enemy would be whatever gang of toughs that ran tat part of the slums. You know where to hit them where it hurts, bluff your way past them, and negotiate for a higher cut from a fence.

Only thing not covered is magic traps, but you never had time to learn magic, how would you learn to bypass it as a rogue?

Shadow Lodge

JoeJ wrote:
L33Fish wrote:
If I were only playing with the core book, I'd still rather be a bard who happened to put max ranks into Disable Device than a Rogue. I would be able to deal with mechanical traps via DD and magical ones via Dispel Magic. Meanwhile, I'd be a better party face (via versatile performance), a better knowledge monkey, and have something to do in combat.

So what class should I play if my character is a little guy who grew up on the streets, making a living by breaking into the houses of the wealthy? He's never had the chance to learn any magic, and he's certainly not a performer - just the opposite, in fact. He spent most of his childhood trying not to be noticed.

Urban Ranger with one of the archetypes that gives up spellcasting, who refuses to prepare spells, or has a low Wis score? Expert with Sleight of Hand, Disable Device, and Stealth as class skills? Slayer with Trapfinding Slayer Talent?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of the best places for a trap is in the middle of a combat encounter. Particularly if it's of the "TPK in 3 minutes if this isn't dealt with" type.

For example: "Just as the last of you enters the room, the stone door slides shut with a loud BANG. Sand begins pouring out of those holes you saw in the ceiling. And there's a noise of stone scraping against stone as the nearest three statues come to life and move toward you, swinging their weapons. Roll for initiative."

51 to 100 of 387 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why are rogues subpar? All Messageboards