Why are rogues subpar?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 387 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Pappy wrote:
JoeJ wrote:


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.

Yep. I always try to have a connection when I play, and when I GM I require every PC to start off knowing at least one other PC.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

JoeJ wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
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.

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).

I don't mean it as a trust issue. I mean, besides for "he's a PC", why would someone say "I need to get out of town, but instead of just paying to join a guarded caravan to get to another city, I'll join up with these guys that face death on a daily basis in direct confrontation with horrible monsters that might eat me alive if we fail." For a character that likes planning jobs to steal from nobles and tries to avoid notice, it seems like a rather poor disappearing strategy.


Joe, there's really no reason why your character can't be built with a Slayer or Ranger and be much more productive for the party. To claim otherwise is just... well, it's just being stubborn.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Because things that give you 25/50/75% immunity to a class's defining feature are poor design.

I feel diferent. The poor design was making the rogue so dependent of a single calss feature.


I had a thought that might help fix some of the Rogue's to-hit problems. What if they had a class feature that increased the bonus to attack that they get from flanking and hitting flat-footed foes? A bonus that scales as their Rogue level increases so that at Rogue level 20, they're getting a +5 or +6 to bonus to hit against foes that they sneak attack.

Maybe also talents that let them sneak attack foes that normally can't be sneak attacked. Like a "go for the head" feat that lets them sneak attack undead (why Rogues can't sneak attack zombies via headshots is kind of a mystery).

Anyway, so thoughts.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
JoeJ wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff

Reluctant fighter =/= either coward or stupid. youtube (The relevant part is around 3:40.)(I fixed the link for you)

Nor does reluctant fighter mean he couldn't have joined an organization. The best way to avoid having to fight constantly might have been joining the thieves' guild.

Bandw2 wrote:
stuff
No plot holes, but of course I'm creating a character concept that matches an iconic rogue. I thought that was obvious from the...

The best way to avoid getting noticed is to NOT join the thieves guild, then you make enemies of people who are enemies of the thieves guild.

nor does fighting make much sense for a thief, it implies you got caught and killing someone will lead to a witch hunt.

the plot holes are the fact that you want non-confrontation but to some how be amazing and trained at sneaking up behind people and shanking them. the hole being the part where you learned to become so "blood thirsty" and good at taking advantage of people dropping their guard.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think what's dumber is that a Human Rogue can't stab people in the dark.

"Man, I wouldn't want to meet THAT guy in a dark alley!"

^Is what people SHOULD say about a Rogue, but sadly, not the case.


I used to give rogues paired opportunist as solo-tactics-feat at first level. Helped some at least


Arachnofiend wrote:
Joe, there's really no reason why your character can't be built with a Slayer or Ranger and be much more productive for the party. To claim otherwise is just... well, it's just being stubborn.

Arachnofiend is probably right Joe. You can accomplish the flavour of what you are going for with a class other than rogue and be more useful to the party. My vote is for ninja.

Does your GM have any houserules for rogues that address the issues raised about the class?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ventnor wrote:

I had a thought that might help fix some of the Rogue's to-hit problems. What if they had a class feature that increased the bonus to attack that they get from flanking and hitting flat-footed foes? A bonus that scales as their Rogue level increases so that at Rogue level 20, they're getting a +5 or +6 to bonus to hit against foes that they sneak attack.

Maybe also talents that let them sneak attack foes that normally can't be sneak attacked. Like a "go for the head" feat that lets them sneak attack undead (why Rogues can't sneak attack zombies via headshots is kind of a mystery).

Anyway, so thoughts.

this would be nice if getting a flank wasn't impossible to get for a whole round. flat-footed is usually only during a surprise round, still hard to get a full attack action in, and after a feint which also only applies to a single attack.

if you flank someone all they do to break your flank is 5 foot step...


Arachnofiend wrote:
Joe, there's really no reason why your character can't be built with a Slayer or Ranger and be much more productive for the party. To claim otherwise is just... well, it's just being stubborn.

Thank you. A ranger might well work, if its a version without spells. As could the ninja that somebody else suggested. A slayer too, although for that one I'd have to wait and see if anything has been changed when the ACG comes out.

It's interesting that nobody has so far suggested multiclassing.


Bandw2 wrote:
Ventnor wrote:

I had a thought that might help fix some of the Rogue's to-hit problems. What if they had a class feature that increased the bonus to attack that they get from flanking and hitting flat-footed foes? A bonus that scales as their Rogue level increases so that at Rogue level 20, they're getting a +5 or +6 to bonus to hit against foes that they sneak attack.

Maybe also talents that let them sneak attack foes that normally can't be sneak attacked. Like a "go for the head" feat that lets them sneak attack undead (why Rogues can't sneak attack zombies via headshots is kind of a mystery).

Anyway, so thoughts.

this would be nice if getting a flank wasn't impossible to get for a whole round. flat-footed is usually only during a surprise round, still hard to get a full attack action in, and after a feint which also only applies to a single attack.

if you flank someone all they do to break your flank is 5 foot step...

I hear you. Maybe another talent could help Rogues impose the flat-footed debuff more easily, or allow them to count as flanking when they're not. But I guess this falls into "needs better Rogue talents," which has already been mentioned.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
JoeJ wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Joe, there's really no reason why your character can't be built with a Slayer or Ranger and be much more productive for the party. To claim otherwise is just... well, it's just being stubborn.

Thank you. A ranger might well work, if its a version without spells. As could the ninja that somebody else suggested. A slayer too, although for that one I'd have to wait and see if anything has been changed when the ACG comes out.

It's interesting that nobody has so far suggested multiclassing.

this might interest you. It's not as good as the normal ranger since most of his spells act like non-spell things(seriously read his spell list, it's all pretty mundane stuff except for the occasional exception), but the ranger talents are better than rogue ones I think.

just remember not to rely on sneak attack damage too much.


Pappy wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Joe, there's really no reason why your character can't be built with a Slayer or Ranger and be much more productive for the party. To claim otherwise is just... well, it's just being stubborn.

Arachnofiend is probably right Joe. You can accomplish the flavour of what you are going for with a class other than rogue and be more useful to the party. My vote is for ninja.

Does your GM have any houserules for rogues that address the issues raised about the class?

Actually I'm usually the GM. This character is mainly a thought experiment (although he might become an NPC someday) motivated by statements that other classes work better than Rogue at being rogues. Thanks to everyone for the good suggestions.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ventnor wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Ventnor wrote:

I had a thought that might help fix some of the Rogue's to-hit problems. What if they had a class feature that increased the bonus to attack that they get from flanking and hitting flat-footed foes? A bonus that scales as their Rogue level increases so that at Rogue level 20, they're getting a +5 or +6 to bonus to hit against foes that they sneak attack.

Maybe also talents that let them sneak attack foes that normally can't be sneak attacked. Like a "go for the head" feat that lets them sneak attack undead (why Rogues can't sneak attack zombies via headshots is kind of a mystery).

Anyway, so thoughts.

this would be nice if getting a flank wasn't impossible to get for a whole round. flat-footed is usually only during a surprise round, still hard to get a full attack action in, and after a feint which also only applies to a single attack.

if you flank someone all they do to break your flank is 5 foot step...

I hear you. Maybe another talent could help Rogues impose the flat-footed debuff more easily, or allow them to count as flanking when they're not. But I guess this falls into "needs better Rogue talents," which has already been mentioned.

if you read back a bit I suggested a rework of sneak attack that does this among other things. basically, i changes it to utility instead of throwing tons and tons of dice at an enemy if you hit.


Bandw2 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Joe, there's really no reason why your character can't be built with a Slayer or Ranger and be much more productive for the party. To claim otherwise is just... well, it's just being stubborn.

Thank you. A ranger might well work, if its a version without spells. As could the ninja that somebody else suggested. A slayer too, although for that one I'd have to wait and see if anything has been changed when the ACG comes out.

It's interesting that nobody has so far suggested multiclassing.

this might interest you. It's not as good as the normal ranger since most of his spells act like non-spell things(seriously read his spell list, it's all pretty mundane stuff except for the occasional exception), but the ranger talents are better than rogue ones I think.

just remember not to rely on sneak attack damage too much.

Interesting. That might work as an option too.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
JoeJ wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Joe, there's really no reason why your character can't be built with a Slayer or Ranger and be much more productive for the party. To claim otherwise is just... well, it's just being stubborn.

Thank you. A ranger might well work, if its a version without spells. As could the ninja that somebody else suggested. A slayer too, although for that one I'd have to wait and see if anything has been changed when the ACG comes out.

It's interesting that nobody has so far suggested multiclassing.

this might interest you. It's not as good as the normal ranger since most of his spells act like non-spell things(seriously read his spell list, it's all pretty mundane stuff except for the occasional exception), but the ranger talents are better than rogue ones I think.

just remember not to rely on sneak attack damage too much.

Interesting. That might work as an option too.

actually, i haven't looked at this in a while, looking at it again, i'm pretty sure this is what i want the rogue to be like, just minus some of the nature fluff.

Scarab Sages

Nicos wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Because things that give you 25/50/75% immunity to a class's defining feature are poor design.
I feel diferrent. The poor design was making the rogue so dependent of a single calss feature.

Barbarians are equally dependent on Rage. Cavalier's are equally dependent on their mount. Wizards are equally dependent on their spells, as are Clerics.

The point being, there are lots of other classes who lean heavily on a particular piece of their class, at least as much so as Rogue's lean on Sneak Attack. However, those other classes have many fewer obstacles to actually using those class features.

And why does it need to be so hard? Sneak Attack does, on average, 35 exra points of damage per hit. Power Attack can grant 18 extra points of damage, and unlike Sneak Attack, that's damage that can be multiplied on a crit or by abilities like Spirited Charge, and which isn't subject to negation by fortification or immunity and which doesn't require special circumstances and/or technical positioning to set up. A Paladin Smiting from horse-back can dish out anywhere from 20-160 extra points of damage by top levels (again compared to the Rogue's 10-60), and not only is it not subject fortification or immunity, it actually removes some of the target's defenses to maximize the damage dealt. Similar numbers for the Cavalier. Ranger's individual attacks might not pack on quite as much extra damage (though Favored Enemy + Power Attack means he's still reaching a +9 to hit over the Rogue with 28 extra damage, so.....) but Hunter's Bond should more than make up for that gap, as will his greater chance to actually deliver attacks.

Basically Sneak Attack is penalized for potential, for its theoretical "unlimited use". Without ways to consistently and reliably deliver it though, that potential is hobbled.

Lots of classes lean on one or two specific class features. The difference is that those class features actually manage to support them.


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.

A ranger... if allowing archetypes, an Urban Ranger... Argument now invalid.


JoeJ wrote:
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.

Ok now your argument is just getitng dumb....

With the new ACG there is just abotu no reason to play a rogue... at all.. short of some stupid contrived scenerio (CRB only, you can only disable traps if you have trapfinding, no magic at all, and you will never rest ever) the rogue is outdone in ever respect by other classes. The Bard, the ranger, the alchemist, the Seeker Sorcerer, the investigator, the druid, and the slayer do his job better than him...

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Rynjin wrote:

I think what's dumber is that a Human Rogue can't stab people in the dark.

"Man, I wouldn't want to meet THAT guy in a dark alley!"

^Is what people SHOULD say about a Rogue, but sadly, not the case.

People usually say that when a person looks like he would have no moral qualms about stabbing them and taking their jewelry if he wasn't afraid of getting caught, rather than admiration for perceived ability to put the knife into a vital organ just so.

1d4+1 will take the fight out of a commoner/aristocrat 1 just fine.

I take your meaning though. That's why Ninjas have a trick for Darkvision.

Scarab Sages

K177Y C47 wrote:
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.

A ranger... if allowing archetypes, an Urban Ranger... Argument now invalid.

That actually combos up with Skirmisher really nicely to create a character who fully occupies the Rogue paradigm, and he'd actually be way better at avoiding notice..... Neat.


JoeJ wrote:

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."

Um do you know how long combat is? The average combat is about 5 rounds... that is literally 30 seconds... and a trap like that would probably not be solved with trapfinding.

you know what the funny thing about the rogue "trapper" is? The times he has somethign to do, it is no fun. When traps are fun, he is actually useless. You know what the collest traps are? The ones that take ingenuity and cleverness to pass, which, coincidentally, are not the ones that are bypassed by " ok... I roll disable device... 31... cool? Ok carrying on..."


Rynjin wrote:

I think what's dumber is that a Human Rogue can't stab people in the dark.

"Man, I wouldn't want to meet THAT guy in a dark alley!"

^Is what people SHOULD say about a Rogue, but sadly, not the case.

LOL.. I never even thought about that.


JoeJ wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

He spent most of his childhood trying not to be noticed.

What part of "grew up on the streets" suggests no combat experience?

And?

Somehow I feel liek a guy who wall-flowers alot would NOT be a very good fighter... just saying...


Ssalarn wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Because things that give you 25/50/75% immunity to a class's defining feature are poor design.
I feel diferrent. The poor design was making the rogue so dependent of a single calss feature.

Barbarians are equally dependent on Rage. Cavalier's are equally dependent on their mount. Wizards are equally dependent on their spells, as are Clerics.

A Barbarians without rage or a cavalier without mount is much more than a rogue who can not sneak attack.

Wizards and cleric are a bit different, thecnically they do depend on a single class feature, but unlike rogues who can basically do one thing (flank for sneak attack, feint for snak attack, sneak attack this sneak attack that...) every spell of wizards and clerics is a diferent option. Something that shut donw one spell do not shut donw their entire spell list (except antimagic field, but that shut down almsot everyone)


Ssalarn wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

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.

Or the trapper archetype...


JoeJ wrote:


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.

Not sure why. You can perfectly have a barbarian,a paladin and a ranger working int he same team and everything would work just fine.


Rynjin wrote:

I think what's dumber is that a Human Rogue can't stab people in the dark.

"Man, I wouldn't want to meet THAT guy in a dark alley!"

^Is what people SHOULD say about a Rogue, but sadly, not the case.

No offense, even if the rogue sneak attacked with every attack, I'd still rather meet him in a dark alley than an angry barbarian.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

I think what's dumber is that a Human Rogue can't stab people in the dark.

"Man, I wouldn't want to meet THAT guy in a dark alley!"

^Is what people SHOULD say about a Rogue, but sadly, not the case.

No offense, even if the rogue sneak attacked with every attack, I'd still rather meet him in a dark alley than an angry barbarian.

Or my wife if the game went too late.


Nicos wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Because things that give you 25/50/75% immunity to a class's defining feature are poor design.
I feel diferrent. The poor design was making the rogue so dependent of a single calss feature.

Barbarians are equally dependent on Rage. Cavalier's are equally dependent on their mount. Wizards are equally dependent on their spells, as are Clerics.

A Barbarians without rage or a cavalier without mount is much more than a rogue who can not sneak attack.

Wizards and cleric are a bit different, thecnically they do depend on a single class feature, but unlike rogues who can basically do one thing (flank for sneak attack, feint for snak attack, sneak attack this sneak attack that...) every spell of wizards and clerics is a diferent option. Something that shut donw one spell do not shut donw their entire spell list (except antimagic field, but that shut down almsot everyone)

Move out of antimagic field and cast conjuration spells :P The effects, with the exception of summons, are non magical and thus continue to function in an antimagic field. My snowball crits and one shots your ancient gold dragon in an antimagic field.


K177Y C47 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

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."

Um do you know how long combat is? The average combat is about 5 rounds... that is literally 30 seconds... and a trap like that would probably not be solved with trapfinding.

you know what the funny thing about the rogue "trapper" is? The times he has somethign to do, it is no fun. When traps are fun, he is actually useless. You know what the collest traps are? The ones that take ingenuity and cleverness to pass, which, coincidentally, are not the ones that are bypassed by " ok... I roll disable device... 31... cool? Ok carrying on..."

So the problem isn't that the Rogue class is bad at being an iconic fantasy thief, it's that having adventures that let somebody really play an iconic fantasy thief is BadWrongFun. Gotcha.


Oops, I see that angry barbarian was already mentioned. Nevermind.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's because those classes typically use the one true melee style (2handed weapon smash) and Power Attack, and get amplified by class features without relying on them to be relevant.

That's why the Rogue should also be built with high strength and a greatsword to be strong. Most people have a different concept they want to fulfill though, usually daggers/rapier, and base combat rules don't support that. That's why the rogue relies on Sneak Attack more than a Barbarian relies on Rage.

As Ssalarn has said, the rogue is already jumping hoops to apply SA damage. There shouldn't be a wall after you get past the hoops.


JoeJ wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

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."

Um do you know how long combat is? The average combat is about 5 rounds... that is literally 30 seconds... and a trap like that would probably not be solved with trapfinding.

you know what the funny thing about the rogue "trapper" is? The times he has somethign to do, it is no fun. When traps are fun, he is actually useless. You know what the collest traps are? The ones that take ingenuity and cleverness to pass, which, coincidentally, are not the ones that are bypassed by " ok... I roll disable device... 31... cool? Ok carrying on..."

So the problem isn't that the Rogue class is bad at being an iconic fantasy thief, it's that having adventures that let somebody really play an iconic fantasy thief is BadWrongFun. Gotcha.

When you make encounters where the rest of the team has to sit there and go yawn, can't do anything, then yeah this is the one time I'm inclined to say its BadWrongFun. It's BadWrongFun when you decide to make choices that allow you to have fun to the detriment of the fun of everyone else at the table. If they feel its awesome to sit there and watch you do cool things more power to you!

I've played with dozens of people across the years and I have yet to meet such a person though.


Nicos wrote:
JoeJ wrote:


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.
Not sure why. You can perfectly have a barbarian,a paladin and a ranger working int he same team and everything would work just fine.

You can have three fighters in a party, too. I've been in groups like that myself, and had a lot of fun. My point is still that every PC should get a chance to shine. That's what I mean by "niche." That has very little to do with class abilities, and everything to do with how the GM designs (or modifies) the adventure.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

technically, playing an iconic rogue is at odds with team oriented play, so yeah, it sort of is bad.


JoeJ wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

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."

Um do you know how long combat is? The average combat is about 5 rounds... that is literally 30 seconds... and a trap like that would probably not be solved with trapfinding.

you know what the funny thing about the rogue "trapper" is? The times he has somethign to do, it is no fun. When traps are fun, he is actually useless. You know what the collest traps are? The ones that take ingenuity and cleverness to pass, which, coincidentally, are not the ones that are bypassed by " ok... I roll disable device... 31... cool? Ok carrying on..."

So the problem isn't that the Rogue class is bad at being an iconic fantasy thief, it's that having adventures that let somebody really play an iconic fantasy thief is BadWrongFun. Gotcha.

No. The fact that you immidiately jumped to that conclusion pretty much takes any legitimacy out of your argument...

Here lets break this down barney style:

Lets take your trap. The Room filling with sand. How boring would it be if it went:

GM: Ok the room fills with sand and the statues start attacking. 3 minutes before it fills
Party: *Commences combat for 10 rounds (that is a REDICULOUSLY long combat...)
2 minutes remain
Rogue: ok so I do a perception check to find the trap mechanism *Roll perception* 27?
GM: Ok you find *blah blah blah*
Rogue: Ok so I use disbale device for... 32 to disable?
GM: Ok... sand stops.... moving on...

that traps feels weak...

The iconic epic traps tend to be beyond the scope of "Roll Perception... Roll Disable device... ok cool" and are things you have to deal with with ingenuity *like setting off the giant boulder trapwhile being chased up hill by an army of bugbears and quickly dashing into a few corners to allow the boulder to run the bug bears over* or cool stuff like that... If you allow the cool epic traps to be disabled wiht a single dice roll.. they kinda lose their coolness...


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

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."

Um do you know how long combat is? The average combat is about 5 rounds... that is literally 30 seconds... and a trap like that would probably not be solved with trapfinding.

you know what the funny thing about the rogue "trapper" is? The times he has somethign to do, it is no fun. When traps are fun, he is actually useless. You know what the collest traps are? The ones that take ingenuity and cleverness to pass, which, coincidentally, are not the ones that are bypassed by " ok... I roll disable device... 31... cool? Ok carrying on..."

So the problem isn't that the Rogue class is bad at being an iconic fantasy thief, it's that having adventures that let somebody really play an iconic fantasy thief is BadWrongFun. Gotcha.

When you make encounters where the rest of the team has to sit there and go yawn, can't do anything, then yeah this is the one time I'm inclined to say its BadWrongFun. It's BadWrongFun when you decide to make choices that allow you to have fun to the detriment of the fun of everyone else at the table. If they feel its awesome to sit there and watch you do cool things more power to you!

I've played with dozens of people across the years and I have yet to meet such a person though.

Instead of just yawning and sitting around, maybe you should get in there and help. Use your ingenuity and cleverness to suggest something that will improve the thief's chances. Or if you as a player can't think of anything clever, then use the Aid Another action to give him a third hand. Or just keep those damned regenerating statues off his back so he can work.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Nicos wrote:
JoeJ wrote:


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.
Not sure why. You can perfectly have a barbarian,a paladin and a ranger working int he same team and everything would work just fine.

You can have three fighters in a party, too. I've been in groups like that myself, and had a lot of fun. My point is still that every PC should get a chance to shine. That's what I mean by "niche." That has very little to do with class abilities, and everything to do with how the GM designs (or modifies) the adventure.

I agree that every PC have to have a chance to shine, I disagree taht is all on the DM. If the DM have to work harder for one class because that class is subpar then that calss is not Ok in my book.


JoeJ wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

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."

Um do you know how long combat is? The average combat is about 5 rounds... that is literally 30 seconds... and a trap like that would probably not be solved with trapfinding.

you know what the funny thing about the rogue "trapper" is? The times he has somethign to do, it is no fun. When traps are fun, he is actually useless. You know what the collest traps are? The ones that take ingenuity and cleverness to pass, which, coincidentally, are not the ones that are bypassed by " ok... I roll disable device... 31... cool? Ok carrying on..."

So the problem isn't that the Rogue class is bad at being an iconic fantasy thief, it's that having adventures that let somebody really play an iconic fantasy thief is BadWrongFun. Gotcha.

When you make encounters where the rest of the team has to sit there and go yawn, can't do anything, then yeah this is the one time I'm inclined to say its BadWrongFun. It's BadWrongFun when you decide to make choices that allow you to have fun to the detriment of the fun of everyone else at the table. If they feel its awesome to sit there and watch you do cool things more power to you!

I've played with dozens of people across the years and I have yet to meet such a person though.

Instead of just yawning and sitting around, maybe you should get in there and help. Use your ingenuity and cleverness to suggest something that will improve the thief's chances. Or if you as a player can't think of...

I feel like you don't know how disable device works do you? It takes time to disable a trap... its not somethign you are doing in 1 round... as in you are not doing it in combat... and all the ingeinuity and advice in the world does nothing to help the rogue if it is a trap that "requires" the rogue to solve it. If the rogue is needed, then it is a trapp that falls under the:

Roll Perception
Roll Disable
Good to go

Catagory. If it is anything else then just about anyone can handle the trap, not just the rogue.


And it's pronounced....'rouge'.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
JoeJ wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

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."

Um do you know how long combat is? The average combat is about 5 rounds... that is literally 30 seconds... and a trap like that would probably not be solved with trapfinding.

you know what the funny thing about the rogue "trapper" is? The times he has somethign to do, it is no fun. When traps are fun, he is actually useless. You know what the collest traps are? The ones that take ingenuity and cleverness to pass, which, coincidentally, are not the ones that are bypassed by " ok... I roll disable device... 31... cool? Ok carrying on..."

So the problem isn't that the Rogue class is bad at being an iconic fantasy thief, it's that having adventures that let somebody really play an iconic fantasy thief is BadWrongFun. Gotcha.

When you make encounters where the rest of the team has to sit there and go yawn, can't do anything, then yeah this is the one time I'm inclined to say its BadWrongFun. It's BadWrongFun when you decide to make choices that allow you to have fun to the detriment of the fun of everyone else at the table. If they feel its awesome to sit there and watch you do cool things more power to you!

I've played with dozens of people across the years and I have yet to meet such a person though.

Instead of just yawning and sitting around, maybe you should get in there and help. Use your ingenuity and cleverness to suggest something that will improve the thief's chances. Or if you as a player can't think of...

except the iconic rogue would be on his own, far off from the rest of his party, doing things to help that succeed for their party. AKA, you would have half the party doing nothing and then later the other half is doing nothing.


K177Y C47 wrote:

Here lets break this down barney style:

Lets take your trap. The Room filling with sand. How boring would it be if it went:

GM: Ok the room fills with sand and the statues start attacking. 3 minutes before it fills
Party: *Commences combat for 10 rounds (that is a REDICULOUSLY long combat...)
2 minutes remain
Rogue: ok so I do a perception check to find the trap mechanism *Roll perception* 27?
GM: Ok you find *blah blah blah*
Rogue: Ok so I use disbale device for... 32 to disable?
GM: Ok... sand stops.... moving on...

that traps feels weak...

The iconic epic traps tend to be beyond the scope of "Roll Perception... Roll Disable device... ok cool" and are things you have to deal with with ingenuity *like setting off the giant boulder trapwhile being chased up hill by an army of bugbears and quickly dashing into a few corners to allow the boulder to run the bug bears over* or cool stuff like that... If you allow the cool epic traps to be disabled wiht a single dice roll.. they kinda lose their coolness...

You're assuming an awful lot. I never once said that the trap could be disabled with a single roll. I just came up with it on the spur of the moment, but if I put it in a dungeon the trap mechanism would likely be inaccessible, and opening the door would require figuring out some sort of puzzle to get to the part where a Disable Device roll can succeed.

You're also assuming characters have the ability to defeat the animated statues at all. Maybe the best they can hope for is to hold them off long enough to get the door open.

The bottom line, the situation I described is not an instant death trap, but it is intended to require everybody to do their part to avoid a TPK. And yes, defeating this encounter would be worth significant xp.


Bandw2 wrote:
except the iconic rogue would be on his own, far off from the rest of his party, doing things to help that succeed for their party. AKA, you would have half the party doing nothing and then later the other half is doing nothing.

This was my experience with my Slayer. I'd disable traps, bluff out an enemy looking for our map, and got into a drawn out stealth war while the rest of my party just... waited for me to be done. I felt especially sorry for our Fighter, poor fellow got one combat and spent most of it in a net. If our GM hadn't decided to ignore diplo rolls and let him be the face he wouldn't have gotten to do anything at all.


A friend of mine played a Rogue very similar to JoeJ's theoretical Rogue. His character was a burglar that avoided notice and confrontation too. He had to leave the city because he stole something important from someone very dangerous. He joined the newly formed adventuring group simply because they were in a need of a trap-finder and he didn't have other options at the time. The game started with him being a 1st level Rogue, but prior to leaving the city as an adventurer he was more like an Expert, 'cause he only had his skills. The situations he found himself in while adventuring forced him to quickly adapt and learn the other Rogue abilities as well as some combat. But all that was part of his backstory. It was a few months he spent with the group, so he had time to befriend the others and become a proper adventurer.


JoeJ wrote:


Instead of just yawning and sitting around, maybe you should get in there and help. Use your ingenuity and cleverness to suggest something that will improve the thief's chances. Or if you as a player can't think of...

Encounter ends in 5 rounds. That's generally long for me, but other people tend to say that's average.

Either the trap requires disable device or it doesn't. Either its a puzzle or a die roll.

If its a die roll, then everyone who did not put points in disable device is worthless, because you need ranks in it even to attempt. That means no aiding.

If its not a die roll, if its a puzzle instead, then you never needed the rogue to begin with. A 7 int Barbarian could do it, same as a 20 int wizard.

Either the rogue is needed (or someone with disable device) and everyone else becomes worthless because that's how the rules work, or else the rogue is superfluous and all of his skill in disable device is meaningless because you're not using the skill to disable it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So a custom designed trap using homebrewed parts(Invulnerable Statues?) designed to make a character with disable device shine?

And even after the puzzle is solved, it still takes the disable device check 2d4 rounds in which the disabler is doing...nothing.


JoeJ wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

Here lets break this down barney style:

Lets take your trap. The Room filling with sand. How boring would it be if it went:

GM: Ok the room fills with sand and the statues start attacking. 3 minutes before it fills
Party: *Commences combat for 10 rounds (that is a REDICULOUSLY long combat...)
2 minutes remain
Rogue: ok so I do a perception check to find the trap mechanism *Roll perception* 27?
GM: Ok you find *blah blah blah*
Rogue: Ok so I use disbale device for... 32 to disable?
GM: Ok... sand stops.... moving on...

that traps feels weak...

The iconic epic traps tend to be beyond the scope of "Roll Perception... Roll Disable device... ok cool" and are things you have to deal with with ingenuity *like setting off the giant boulder trapwhile being chased up hill by an army of bugbears and quickly dashing into a few corners to allow the boulder to run the bug bears over* or cool stuff like that... If you allow the cool epic traps to be disabled wiht a single dice roll.. they kinda lose their coolness...

You're assuming an awful lot. I never once said that the trap could be disabled with a single roll. I just came up with it on the spur of the moment, but if I put it in a dungeon the trap mechanism would likely be inaccessible, and opening the door would require figuring out some sort of puzzle to get to the part where a Disable Device roll can succeed.

You're also assuming characters have the ability to defeat the animated statues at all. Maybe the best they can hope for is to hold them off long enough to get the door open.

The bottom line, the situation I described is not an instant death trap, but it is intended to require everybody to do their part to avoid a TPK. And yes, defeating this encounter would be worth significant xp.

Well disable device still takes time to perform... as in, minutes. The party woud be dead then if they cannot kill the statues...

As for the puzzle, again, the rogue is not needed then. Personally I would prefer someone with Knowledge dungeoneering... as in a bard...

I feel like you are making up more and more stuff to try and justify the rogue...


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Instead of just yawning and sitting around, maybe you should get in there and help. Use your ingenuity and cleverness to suggest something that will improve the thief's chances. Or if you as a

...

This was my experience with my Slayer. I'd disable traps, bluff out an enemy looking for our map, and got into a drawn out stealth war while the rest of my party just... waited for me to be done. I felt especially sorry for our Fighter, poor fellow got one combat and spent most of it in a net. If our GM hadn't decided to ignore diplo rolls and let him be the face he wouldn't have gotten to do anything at all.

don't miss quote me...

151 to 200 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