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?
I suppose that I misunderstood the question. If it was just core rule book then I agree that ranger would be an excellent option.
an expert or a commoner.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.
<boggle> You think a commoner would be better than a rogue?
How could a character with no experience dealing with magic have the ability to disarm magical traps?
an expert or a commoner.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.
<boggle> You think a commoner would be better than a rogue?
your character concept has no combat experience, why would he have good BAB or sneak attack. :/ he would run from fights, and just has tons of ranks in stealth.
I'm saying that a rogue doesn't even fill that. also, if this all happened in urban area, a ranger with favored terrain(urban) would be better. Just don't take Animal companion, even if he does have combat experience.
It probably would not make too powerful, but it is a change in the wrong direction, IMHO.
Which direction would you take?
I think a rogue should gain 1/2 his level as a bonus to all dex based skills. with other stuff, like a complete rework of how sneak attack works.
I agree with the results of this threadhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r7a9?Poll-What-are-the-changes-the-Rogue-class -needs#1
I would improve rogue talents in order for the rogue to feel like the best rogue, instead of making him fighter #2.
That is a good point. I like the idea of improved talents (such as Lemmy's work). I'll have a look.
Thanks.
I agree with your post. In your view would making a rogue full BAB be too powerful? Just curious.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.
Rogues don't need full BAB, just bonuses to hit. They would likely be better off with less sneak attack nice, and a mechanic that boosted their damage instead. That way it would be less swingy, and they could get a bonus to hit.
He spent most of his childhood trying not to be noticed.
What part of "grew up on the streets" suggests no combat experience?
Your concept (and the Rogue class) works for a cat burglar, working minor nobles that don't have big name casters working security.
I don't see that character taking up the even more dangerous life of an adventurer though, his skill set isn't right for it (at least not tabletop adventuring.
In stories where these types of characters join a group of heroes, they will often split up and work separately from the party to aid it. In tabletops, you never split the party, since then there's a big waiting period for the separate groups.
I think a rogue should gain 1/2 his level as a bonus to all dex based skills. with other stuff, like a complete rework of how sneak attack works.
The rogue is already great at skills, they can get excessively high bonuses. The problem is that it isn't actually a dex based class as people expect from a rogue, and that skills pale to spells. And being good at Stealth is no good unless everyone is good at Stealth. Perhaps there should be a Rogue talent for making your entire party use your roll.
If rogues got half level to all Dex skills, then you need even less Dex to be just as good at them. So you can get more Str and get some decent hits in.
He spent most of his childhood trying not to be noticed.
What part of "grew up on the streets" suggests no combat experience?
And?
I think that he was saying that the "trying not to be noticed" part of the description meant limited combat experience. Non confrontational perhaps?
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?
Other 3/4 BaB classes can give themselves better attack rolls as follows
Bards - Performance
Monks - Have faux full BaB two weapon fighting with flurry
Inquisitors - Judgment
Magus - Their weapon enhancement dealy plus Arcana they can select
Druids - Wild Shape
Clerics/Oracles - Fantastic personal buff spells
Alchemists - Mutagen
Summoners - Have an eidolon so who cares
Rogues - ... nothin
did I miss any?
- Torger
He spent most of his childhood trying not to be noticed.
What part of "grew up on the streets" suggests no combat experience?
And?
Why would a character based entirely around avoiding other peoples' notice have enough combat experience to do something worthwhile in a fight? Actually, now that I think about it, I just made a very good argument in favor of choosing a Rogue...
|
your character concept has no combat experience, why would he have good BAB or sneak attack. :/ he would run from fights, and just has tons of ranks in stealth.
I'm saying that a rogue doesn't even fill that. also, if this all happened in urban area, a ranger with favored terrain(urban) would be better. Just don't take Animal companion, even if he does have combat experience.
The Ranger is actually a great class for a character who worked his way to the top of a street gang and aspires to be a guild leader. Favored Terrain (Urban) is of course a no-brainer as is Favored Enemy (prevailing species in the city you grew up in), and the Hunter's Bond option that allows him to share his bonuses with his allies makes perfect sense for a gang/guild leader. If you don't want him having magic, you grab the Skirmisher archetype to exchange his spells for a bunch of abilities that look an awful lot like advanced Dirty Tricks.
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.
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.
The other post said it was changing the game, not me. You got us confused. I am saying that changing the trap rules is forcing the rogue to be useful. If the class was good "as is" then you would not need to cater to it.
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.
1. Just because nobody can use disable device that does not mean they can't detect the trap. If it is a pit trap they go around it. If it is not a pit trap you set it off, and then go past it. Most traps that reset have a reset time. If it is magical you set it off or dispel it.
2. As for resting in dungeons that is not really a problem. If the dungeon is also enemy HQ there won't likely be a lot of traps since you don't want to kill your minions. Of course you might not care about the minions, but most people are not fanatically loyal. With that aside most dungeons are not filled with traps. Some players also set them off on purpose knowing they have a good chance at making the save.
3. What traps are you or your GM using? Are the CR appropriate. You do know traps have rules. If you do not follow those rules then you are using GM Fiat to help the rogue.
PS: I normally run AP's and those traps are not normally too difficult to deal with, and in home games I don't even bother with them too often, but when I do they are magical. Most players are smart enough to come up with nonconventional ways to circumvent them however.
I've been thinking, that it might be nice if Sneak attack instead of just gave you hundreds of dice to throw at an enemy, improved in damage a bit more normally and had different mechanics.
like it starts off as it is now, with 1d6, need flank, or flat footed.
at 5th level it improves to 1d8, you no longer need flank if your target is the only one threatening you.
at 10th level improves to 2d6 he can roll the bluff skill to hit isntead of using his BAB(but not to damage) and applies sneak attack damage even if he normally could not due to concealment.
at 15th improves to 2d10, he can now apply sneak attack damage so long as he is not flanked by his target(and someone else obviously).
at 20th level he gets masterful strike as normal.
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.
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...
See what I mean about being creative, Eldmar. :)
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.
Another good idea.
He spent most of his childhood trying not to be noticed.
What part of "grew up on the streets" suggests no combat experience?
And?
fisticuffs in the streets tends to get one noticed by the powers that be, whether they be gang members or police.
Quickfire solution:
If it can be dealt damage, it can be sneak attacked. Fortification stops crits, but not sneak attacks.
If you're in a position to apply sneak attack, you count as full BAB (as the Monk does while flurrying)
Count as full BAB for feats.
|
|
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?Other 3/4 BaB classes can give themselves better attack rolls as follows
Bards - Performance, spells
Monks - Have faux full BaB two weapon fighting with flurry, ki points/Qinggong
Inquisitors - Judgment, spells
Magus - Their weapon enhancement dealy plus Arcana they can select, spells
Druids - Wild Shape, spells
Clerics/Oracles - Fantastic personal buff spells
Alchemists - Mutagen, infusions
Summoners - Have an eidolon so who cares, spells, mounted combatRogues - ... nothin
did I miss any?
- Torger
Made a small adjustment to your list.
Quickfire solution:
If it can be dealt damage, it can be sneak attacked. Fortification stops crits, but not sneak attacks.
If you're in a position to apply sneak attack, you count as full BAB (as the Monk does while flurrying)
Count as full BAB for feats.
Why does Fortification need to be nerfed? It's not like it's a 100% chance to block crits and sneak attacks.
Quickfire solution:
If it can be dealt damage, it can be sneak attacked. Fortification stops crits, but not sneak attacks.
If you're in a position to apply sneak attack, you count as full BAB (as the Monk does while flurrying)
Count as full BAB for feats.
Interesting ideas for a quick solution. I still lean towards buffing rogue talents, but that is far from a quick fix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see a lot of posts implying that rogues aren't worth playing, why is that?
Their only noteworthy and unique class feature that the rogue offers is the sneak attack, meaning that most people really want to capitalize on what the rogue has to offer (sneak attacks). The main problem is that sneak attacks are not reliable, you still need to invest a lot of feats to be able to feint and use your sneak attack and that it's IF you hit your target after spending 2 round prepping your attacks.
The Rogue represent why action economy is so important in this game system, if it take you 2 rounds to do something I can do in one you lose, simple as that.
You can play a "very powerful" rogue if you wish too, using the chain of "sap adept" and "sap master feats to capitalize on non-lethal sneak attacks. Combine this with the "Bludgeoner" feat and a lucerne hammer + "mobility" and "spring attacks" and STR focused build and you will be able to run around the battlefield in circle and put a lot of people KO. The problem is that Sap master does double your sneak attack dices but only versus flat footed opponents, so you have to use something like the scout archetype for your rogue allowing you to consider people you charge flat footed, something that you should not want to do anyway because of your low AC and HP and your crappy saves.
All of that to maybe do almost as much damage has a plain fighter using power attack and weapon focus or a wizard casting lighting bolt. However that said I think pathfinder is a teamsport and having a wizard that can cast greater invisibility or having access to that spell via use magic devices will make you a real killing machine using this setup:
Use the knife master archetype and focus on two weapon fighting, this will transform your 1d6s into 1d8s when using knives to perform sneak attacks, at low-mid level (6-9) you will be the god of death of your party causing tons of damage in very little time, especially if you are affected my a haste spell. But you will be very reliant on your party/items to deal a bit more damage than your average combat focused class at this level a 2 handed fighter with greater invisibility will actually do more damage than you since he will get more iterative attacks because of his BAB.
Rogues are kind the hardest class to get the most millage out of in Pathfinder, they are like trying to squeeze lime juice out of a lemon. But if you are a very patient player and that you plan your character to play well with your party you should have a blast anyway.
|
|
Why does Fortification need to be nerfed? It's not like it's a 100% chance to block crits and sneak attacks.
It's the same principle as an arcane caster stacking up displacement and mirror image. A 50% miss chance, coupled with an (up to) 87% miss chance = no freaking way you're going to hit. If a Rogue has to go through all the trouble of getting a Sneak Attack set up in the first place, and then still has a 50% chance of his damage being nerfed (assuming he even hits to begin with), it's just no bueno. Probably would have been better if crits and sneak attack hadn't been lumped together. I get thematically why they were, but it doesn't work out super well for the Rogue. It'd be like if there was an armor ability that caused Fighters to lose 1/2 of their feats 50% of the time they tried to attack the wearer.
Made a small adjustment to your list.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?Other 3/4 BaB classes can give themselves better attack rolls as follows
Bards - Performance, spells
Monks - Have faux full BaB two weapon fighting with flurry, ki points/Qinggong
Inquisitors - Judgment, spells
Magus - Their weapon enhancement dealy plus Arcana they can select, spells
Druids - Wild Shape, spells
Clerics/Oracles - Fantastic personal buff spells
Alchemists - Mutagen, infusions
Summoners - Have an eidolon so who cares, spells, mounted combatRogues - ... nothin
did I miss any?
- Torger
Heh, was trying to go for the more hardcoded in type class features that the rogue is lacking but you're certainly not wrong, spell casting can often be used to up your attack rolls as well.
However, even assuming these other classes used all their spell casting for other stuff, they still have ways to get better attack rolls built in was kinda my point.
- Torger
Because things that give you 25/50/75% immunity to a class's defining feature are poor design. Rogues have heaps of other problem as they currently are, but even if you fix those, there are all these ways to negate their main feature.
If there was an equivalent item that gave you 25/50/75% immunity to enemy spells, it still wouldn't be as crippling because now they just use spells that affect allies, create allies, or change reality around you without directly affecting you.
Because things that give you 25/50/75% immunity to a class's defining feature are poor design. Rogues have heaps of other problem as they currently are, but even if you fix those, there are all these ways to negate their main feature.
If there was an equivalent item that gave you 25/50/75% immunity to enemy spells, it still wouldn't be as crippling because now they just use spells that affect allies, create allies, or change reality around you without directly affecting you.
25% chance to have it negated isn't really that crippling, and the costs associated with getting magical armor with moderate or heavy fortification is high enough that it wouldn't really be relevant to consider until higher levels, especially considering how limited the applications of that enchantment are. The real problem lies with the Rogue class itself, not Fortification.
I think that he was saying that the "trying not to be noticed" part of the description meant limited combat experience. Non confrontational perhaps?He spent most of his childhood trying not to be noticed.
What part of "grew up on the streets" suggests no combat experience?
And?
My description works just as well for somebody who is reluctant to get into fights. He grew up in a very rough neighborhood, however, so sometimes you just can't avoid fighting. When that happens, he prefers to strike by surprise from behind whenever possible. This is a character I intended to be an adventurer, after all.
Trapper Ranger sounds good. Just don't use the features that don't fit. Only use Wild Empathy on dogs, cats, and other common animals you might have grown up sleeping beside.
My description works just as well for somebody who is reluctant to get into fights. He grew up in a very rough neighborhood, however, so sometimes you just can't avoid fighting. When that happens, he prefers to strike by surprise from behind whenever possible. This is a character I intended to be an adventurer, after all.
I think I understand where you are coming from in this description and it makes sense to me. Hey, it is your character concept - go for it!
It's not relevant to consider now because Rogues aren't very threatening anyway. If they got fixes and became threatening, then boom Fortification throws them back into the pits without any counterplay. It's not an interesting mechanic. There's no parallel to other classes getting turned off like that.
I think that he was saying that the "trying not to be noticed" part of the description meant limited combat experience. Non confrontational perhaps?He spent most of his childhood trying not to be noticed.
What part of "grew up on the streets" suggests no combat experience?
And?
My description works just as well for somebody who is reluctant to get into fights. He grew up in a very rough neighborhood, however, so sometimes you just can't avoid fighting. When that happens, he prefers to strike by surprise from behind whenever possible. This is a character I intended to be an adventurer, after all.
the only way you can sneak up on someone is if you are trying to harm them, you can't be forced into a situation where you can apply sneak attack. Also, you can still avoid fights in a rough neighborhood, how? by being a good sneak. use the hidden passages through a town. A good thief wouldn't be associated with gangs or bigger organisations and thus would avoid fights just from knowledge of the local. This is sounding more like expert at this point and not just your average burglar.
at this point anyway, your purposefully making a character concept that matches rogue, even with the few plot holes.
It'd be like saying my character is know for going into an unstoppable rage where it's almost impossible to bring him down or defeat him. basically, a barbarian.
Or maybe he takes up with a group of adventurers because he somehow offended the head of the Thieves Guild and needs to get out of town in a hurry.
The only reason that would get someone into the party is because of the bolded "PC" sign over his head. Realistically the party would take a fee and escort him to another town. Likewise that rogue wouldn't suddenly want to fight through a tribe of bugbears. That's not any safer than what he's running from.
<<sneaks up to Bandw2 and gives him a cookie>>
There you go son. All is right and good in the world. No harm done!
Care of your friendly neighbourhood rogue (creepy old guy).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not relevant to consider now because Rogues aren't very threatening anyway. If they got fixes and became threatening, then boom Fortification throws them back into the pits without any counterplay. It's not an interesting mechanic. There's no parallel to other classes getting turned off like that.
If the Rogue truly did get fixed, it would mean that they wouldn't be completely reliant on sneak attacks to do damage anyways.
It's fairly typical for PCs to come together without any particular reason to know or trust each other. However, I would try to come up with a reason this character knows at least one of the other PCs already (which would, obviously, depend on who else is in the party).
Additionally, a relationship with at least one member of the party will help party cohesion. I encourage players to come up with reasons why they would risk life and limb with the other members of the party that go beyond, "she hits things hard," and "he casts spells and stuff."
Doesn't have to be complicated. Maybe it is someone that showed kindness to them in the past.