Why are rogues subpar?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 387 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

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


[sarcasm]Yes. A party of fantasy adventurers would never enter an old tomb or ancient ruin in search of treasure. Why that would be completely unprecedented! [/sarcasm]

I have never gone on an adventure where the goal is treasure, or to delve into an ancient trap filled tomb. Almost every adventure I've partaken in is dealing with the problems of the present and not the ghosts of the past.

I'd be surprised if people were largely different from this.

Almost literally every one of the most famous and iconic D&D adventures involves a dungeon crawl for the sake of dungeon crawling at least as the initial premise. See Tomb of Horrors, Age of Worms, and so on.
do people actually use pre-built stuff a lot?

Yes.

But even beside that...the core of D&D is, as the name implies, Dungeons. As in, going into random places for fun and profit.

But I almost never fight dragons... I even made a Wyrm Sniper for vital-striking fun once, and I didn't see a single Wyrm to Snipe.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
JoeJ wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
well my expectations are trash apparently, continue on.

Not trash. You probably just didn't play 1st ed. like us fossils.

I've only played ADnD and pathfinder, at least for dnd type stuff.

I've played other unaffiliated tabletop systems though too.


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


[sarcasm]Yes. A party of fantasy adventurers would never enter an old tomb or ancient ruin in search of treasure. Why that would be completely unprecedented! [/sarcasm]

I have never gone on an adventure where the goal is treasure, or to delve into an ancient trap filled tomb. Almost every adventure I've partaken in is dealing with the problems of the present and not the ghosts of the past.

I'd be surprised if people were largely different from this.

Almost literally every one of the most famous and iconic D&D adventures involves a dungeon crawl for the sake of dungeon crawling at least as the initial premise. See Tomb of Horrors, Age of Worms, and so on.
do people actually use pre-built stuff a lot?

I use them as inspiration and as a list of suggestions, but yes, I do use them. In fact, sometimes I'll even use a module meant for an entirely different game (and occasionally an entirely different genre, like the time I converted a Top Secret adventure for a DC Heroes game).


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

literally though across multiple GMs and my own GMing my comment still stands, I've never gone through a dungeon left to the ancients. It's always been a place filled with active people doing things.


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


[sarcasm]Yes. A party of fantasy adventurers would never enter an old tomb or ancient ruin in search of treasure. Why that would be completely unprecedented! [/sarcasm]

I have never gone on an adventure where the goal is treasure, or to delve into an ancient trap filled tomb. Almost every adventure I've partaken in is dealing with the problems of the present and not the ghosts of the past.

I'd be surprised if people were largely different from this.

Almost literally every one of the most famous and iconic D&D adventures involves a dungeon crawl for the sake of dungeon crawling at least as the initial premise. See Tomb of Horrors, Age of Worms, and so on.
do people actually use pre-built stuff a lot?

Yes.

But even beside that...the core of D&D is, as the name implies, Dungeons. As in, going into random places for fun and profit.

Actually the game you are playing is called PATHFINDER... NOT D&D.

The "Iconic" game is about as archaic as the idea of the "classic four" (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric)


K177Y C47 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:


[sarcasm]Yes. A party of fantasy adventurers would never enter an old tomb or ancient ruin in search of treasure. Why that would be completely unprecedented! [/sarcasm]

I have never gone on an adventure where the goal is treasure, or to delve into an ancient trap filled tomb. Almost every adventure I've partaken in is dealing with the problems of the present and not the ghosts of the past.

I'd be surprised if people were largely different from this.

Almost literally every one of the most famous and iconic D&D adventures involves a dungeon crawl for the sake of dungeon crawling at least as the initial premise. See Tomb of Horrors, Age of Worms, and so on.
do people actually use pre-built stuff a lot?

Yes.

But even beside that...the core of D&D is, as the name implies, Dungeons. As in, going into random places for fun and profit.

Actually the game you are playing is called PATHFINDER... NOT D&D.

The "Iconic" game is about as archaic as the idea of the "classic four" (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric)

If it's called Pathfinder, shouldn't we all be playing Rangers all the time?


MrBateman wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:


[sarcasm]Yes. A party of fantasy adventurers would never enter an old tomb or ancient ruin in search of treasure. Why that would be completely unprecedented! [/sarcasm]

I have never gone on an adventure where the goal is treasure, or to delve into an ancient trap filled tomb. Almost every adventure I've partaken in is dealing with the problems of the present and not the ghosts of the past.

I'd be surprised if people were largely different from this.

Almost literally every one of the most famous and iconic D&D adventures involves a dungeon crawl for the sake of dungeon crawling at least as the initial premise. See Tomb of Horrors, Age of Worms, and so on.
do people actually use pre-built stuff a lot?

Yes.

But even beside that...the core of D&D is, as the name implies, Dungeons. As in, going into random places for fun and profit.

Actually the game you are playing is called PATHFINDER... NOT D&D.

The "Iconic" game is about as archaic as the idea of the "classic four" (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric)

If it's called Pathfinder, shouldn't we all be playing Rangers all the time?

Hm... a party of rangers.... that would be interesting actually!


K177Y C47 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:


[sarcasm]Yes. A party of fantasy adventurers would never enter an old tomb or ancient ruin in search of treasure. Why that would be completely unprecedented! [/sarcasm]

I have never gone on an adventure where the goal is treasure, or to delve into an ancient trap filled tomb. Almost every adventure I've partaken in is dealing with the problems of the present and not the ghosts of the past.

I'd be surprised if people were largely different from this.

Almost literally every one of the most famous and iconic D&D adventures involves a dungeon crawl for the sake of dungeon crawling at least as the initial premise. See Tomb of Horrors, Age of Worms, and so on.
do people actually use pre-built stuff a lot?

Yes.

But even beside that...the core of D&D is, as the name implies, Dungeons. As in, going into random places for fun and profit.

Actually the game you are playing is called PATHFINDER... NOT D&D.

I didn't realize there were people who would pick nits that closely.


Rynjin wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:


[sarcasm]Yes. A party of fantasy adventurers would never enter an old tomb or ancient ruin in search of treasure. Why that would be completely unprecedented! [/sarcasm]

I have never gone on an adventure where the goal is treasure, or to delve into an ancient trap filled tomb. Almost every adventure I've partaken in is dealing with the problems of the present and not the ghosts of the past.

I'd be surprised if people were largely different from this.

Almost literally every one of the most famous and iconic D&D adventures involves a dungeon crawl for the sake of dungeon crawling at least as the initial premise. See Tomb of Horrors, Age of Worms, and so on.
do people actually use pre-built stuff a lot?

Yes.

But even beside that...the core of D&D is, as the name implies, Dungeons. As in, going into random places for fun and profit.

Actually the game you are playing is called PATHFINDER... NOT D&D.
I didn't realize there were people who would pick nits that closely.

Well, to be fair, your argument was pretty stupid. As I said earlier, I have only ever fought a dragon once in 6 years of playing D&D 3.5 and 4e.


MrBateman wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:


[sarcasm]Yes. A party of fantasy adventurers would never enter an old tomb or ancient ruin in search of treasure. Why that would be completely unprecedented! [/sarcasm]

I have never gone on an adventure where the goal is treasure, or to delve into an ancient trap filled tomb. Almost every adventure I've partaken in is dealing with the problems of the present and not the ghosts of the past.

I'd be surprised if people were largely different from this.

Almost literally every one of the most famous and iconic D&D adventures involves a dungeon crawl for the sake of dungeon crawling at least as the initial premise. See Tomb of Horrors, Age of Worms, and so on.
do people actually use pre-built stuff a lot?

Yes.

But even beside that...the core of D&D is, as the name implies, Dungeons. As in, going into random places for fun and profit.

Actually the game you are playing is called PATHFINDER... NOT D&D.
I didn't realize there were people who would pick nits that closely.
Well, to be fair, your argument was pretty stupid. As I said earlier, I have only ever fought a dragon once in 6 years of playing D&D 3.5 and 4e.

O.o seriously?

I once faced down 3 dragons in a single encounter.


I'm fighting 2 dragons right now.


Thats uh...pretty weird. I've fought dragons a ton. It's just not a fantasy game if I don't get to fight a dragon at some point. Hell I spent the whole game of Divinity: Original Sin waiting to fight a dragon and thinking "Man I really hope I get to fight a dragon."

They're the penultimate fantasy enemy. Sharp teeth, impressive stature, breath weapon, dragonfear, flight, magic, and f$!! tons of treasure when you find their hoard.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Scavion wrote:

Thats uh...pretty weird. I've fought dragons a ton. It's just not a fantasy game if I don't get to fight a dragon at some point. Hell I spent the whole game of Divinity: Original Sin waiting to fight a dragon and thinking "Man I really hope I get to fight a dragon."

man i played that game going "i hope someday i'll fight something that isn't immune to poison and bleeding..."

also, on dragons: I have fought none, but my village was burned down by one at one point and we were going to try to kill it, but we instead ran.


Rynjin wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:


[sarcasm]Yes. A party of fantasy adventurers would never enter an old tomb or ancient ruin in search of treasure. Why that would be completely unprecedented! [/sarcasm]

I have never gone on an adventure where the goal is treasure, or to delve into an ancient trap filled tomb. Almost every adventure I've partaken in is dealing with the problems of the present and not the ghosts of the past.

I'd be surprised if people were largely different from this.

Almost literally every one of the most famous and iconic D&D adventures involves a dungeon crawl for the sake of dungeon crawling at least as the initial premise. See Tomb of Horrors, Age of Worms, and so on.
do people actually use pre-built stuff a lot?

Yes.

But even beside that...the core of D&D is, as the name implies, Dungeons. As in, going into random places for fun and profit.

Actually the game you are playing is called PATHFINDER... NOT D&D.
I didn't realize there were people who would pick nits that closely.

lol well you were the one who pointed out the name D&D xD


Bandw2 wrote:
Scavion wrote:

Thats uh...pretty weird. I've fought dragons a ton. It's just not a fantasy game if I don't get to fight a dragon at some point. Hell I spent the whole game of Divinity: Original Sin waiting to fight a dragon and thinking "Man I really hope I get to fight a dragon."

man i played that game going "i hope someday i'll fight something that isn't immune to poison and bleeding..."

The later half of the game will please you then. It's just plants, undead, earth elementals, and spiders that are immune.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If people are so tired of this popping up, I'm surprised no one has put together something for Rogue in the Class Guides that uses the general features looked for and builds them using the other classes.

Put in comparisons of the Rogue optimized for Trapfinding against an Urban Ranger build, or a Face-man rogue against a Bard build. Then get the best of those write-ups linked into this post.


Scavion wrote:

Thats uh...pretty weird. I've fought dragons a ton. It's just not a fantasy game if I don't get to fight a dragon at some point. Hell I spent the whole game of Divinity: Original Sin waiting to fight a dragon and thinking "Man I really hope I get to fight a dragon."

They're the penultimate fantasy enemy. Sharp teeth, impressive stature, breath weapon, dragonfear, flight, magic, and f#!$ tons of treasure when you find their hoard.

I know that, and I wish I would fight dragons more often, but the group I play with can never stick to a campaign long enough to reach level 10, and the one time we did fight a dragon, we were playing an Epic-level campaign that started at level 30. That time, we were the minions of a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon, and our first task was to kill off a Red Dragon, the age of which I didn't know. We had a Frenzied Berserker that reached ~-800 hp by the time the fight was over, and it was good fun all around.


MrBateman wrote:
Scavion wrote:

Thats uh...pretty weird. I've fought dragons a ton. It's just not a fantasy game if I don't get to fight a dragon at some point. Hell I spent the whole game of Divinity: Original Sin waiting to fight a dragon and thinking "Man I really hope I get to fight a dragon."

They're the penultimate fantasy enemy. Sharp teeth, impressive stature, breath weapon, dragonfear, flight, magic, and f#!$ tons of treasure when you find their hoard.

I know that, and I wish I would fight dragons more often, but the group I play with can never stick to a campaign long enough to reach level 10, and the one time we did fight a dragon, we were playing an Epic-level campaign that started at level 30. That time, we were the minions of a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon, and our first task was to kill off a Red Dragon, the age of which I didn't know. We had a Frenzied Berserker that reached ~-800 hp by the time the fight was over, and it was good fun all around.

You can start off on low level dragons, you can fight them as early as 3 or so.


Some drakes make pretty good "dragon-lite" bosses.

Lava Drakes anyone?


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
Scavion wrote:

Thats uh...pretty weird. I've fought dragons a ton. It's just not a fantasy game if I don't get to fight a dragon at some point. Hell I spent the whole game of Divinity: Original Sin waiting to fight a dragon and thinking "Man I really hope I get to fight a dragon."

They're the penultimate fantasy enemy. Sharp teeth, impressive stature, breath weapon, dragonfear, flight, magic, and f#!$ tons of treasure when you find their hoard.

I know that, and I wish I would fight dragons more often, but the group I play with can never stick to a campaign long enough to reach level 10, and the one time we did fight a dragon, we were playing an Epic-level campaign that started at level 30. That time, we were the minions of a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon, and our first task was to kill off a Red Dragon, the age of which I didn't know. We had a Frenzied Berserker that reached ~-800 hp by the time the fight was over, and it was good fun all around.
You can start off on low level dragons, you can fight them as early as 3 or so.

Yeah, well, I haven't been a DM for any games in D&D or PF, but I suppose I could tell that to my groups DMs. Not sure that they'll listen, though.

I am actually GMing a Dark Heresy game soon, it's going to be my first experience as a GM. So far, the planning has been pretty fun.


Hiya.

claudekennilol wrote:
I see a lot of posts implying that rogues aren't worth playing, why is that?

Because far too many people think of the MMORPG version of "rogue". In other words, "Rogue = the main damage-dealer in the party", and not the actual "D&D" RPG version of "rogue = thief who avoids combat, preferring to gain treasure via stealth, planning and patients".

^_^

Paul L. Ming


I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?


pming wrote:

Hiya.

claudekennilol wrote:
I see a lot of posts implying that rogues aren't worth playing, why is that?

Because far too many people think of the MMORPG version of "rogue". In other words, "Rogue = the main damage-dealer in the party", and not the actual "D&D" RPG version of "rogue = thief who avoids combat, preferring to gain treasure via stealth, planning and patients".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

That's great and all, but it's not as much fun when the rest of the party can't sneak as well as you can, so you either end up sneaking around without them(boring for them) or you end up not sneaking at all(in which case, why play a rogue?).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrBateman wrote:
I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?

Because their defenses are some of the weakest in the game, and their versatility the most lacking.

They have no spells and only 2+int sp with absolutely nothing that int really gives them as a class.

They have 1 good save, and good hp and AC and middle of the road damage and that's about it.


pming wrote:

Hiya.

claudekennilol wrote:
I see a lot of posts implying that rogues aren't worth playing, why is that?

Because far too many people think of the MMORPG version of "rogue". In other words, "Rogue = the main damage-dealer in the party", and not the actual "D&D" RPG version of "rogue = thief who avoids combat, preferring to gain treasure via stealth, planning and patients".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Except even at that the rogue is weak....

How can the rogue compete with something like the Bard who can drop invisibility, use magic to gras items from a distance, AND still be as good at skills? The reason rogues are not worth playing anymore is that anything you build a rogue to do, others can do it better. The rogue HAS no niche anymore....


MrBateman wrote:
pming wrote:

Hiya.

claudekennilol wrote:
I see a lot of posts implying that rogues aren't worth playing, why is that?

Because far too many people think of the MMORPG version of "rogue". In other words, "Rogue = the main damage-dealer in the party", and not the actual "D&D" RPG version of "rogue = thief who avoids combat, preferring to gain treasure via stealth, planning and patients".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

That's great and all, but it's not as much fun when the rest of the party can't sneak as well as you can, so you either end up sneaking around without them(boring for them) or you end up not sneaking at all(in which case, why play a rogue?).

Or when they are all good and sneak around with stealth plus invisibility, plus bunch of better class features.


MrBateman wrote:
I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?

Make a will save?....

Oh... and I am a flying Kitty xD


Nicos wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
pming wrote:

Hiya.

claudekennilol wrote:
I see a lot of posts implying that rogues aren't worth playing, why is that?

Because far too many people think of the MMORPG version of "rogue". In other words, "Rogue = the main damage-dealer in the party", and not the actual "D&D" RPG version of "rogue = thief who avoids combat, preferring to gain treasure via stealth, planning and patients".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

That's great and all, but it's not as much fun when the rest of the party can't sneak as well as you can, so you either end up sneaking around without them(boring for them) or you end up not sneaking at all(in which case, why play a rogue?).
Or when they are all good and sneak around with stealth plus invisibility, plus bunch of better class features.

My fetchling Umbral Sorcerer... puts most rogues to shame xD


K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?

Make a will save?....

Oh... and I am a flying Kitty xD

Don't Cavaliers have those same exact problems?


MrBateman wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?

Make a will save?....

Oh... and I am a flying Kitty xD

Don't Cavaliers have those same exact problems?

Pretty much... but thye atleast have some skill points xD

Shadow Lodge

MrBateman wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?

Make a will save?....

Oh... and I am a flying Kitty xD

Don't Cavaliers have those same exact problems?

The people trying to convince the guy obsessed with riding exotic animals has the problem. Because once he finds out you are a flying Kitty he will be trying to ride you through any means necessary.


K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?

Make a will save?....

Oh... and I am a flying Kitty xD

Don't Cavaliers have those same exact problems?
Pretty much... but thye atleast have some skill points xD

What good are skill ranks to a Fighter, though? I can think of 2 or 3 skills that are absolutely essential, and 2+int is usually enough to cover that. However, I do agree that Fighters should get at least 4+int.


EvilPaladin wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?

Make a will save?....

Oh... and I am a flying Kitty xD

Don't Cavaliers have those same exact problems?
The people trying to convince the guy obsessed with riding exotic animals has the problem. Because once he finds out you are a flying Kitty he will be trying to ride you through any means necessary.

Lol that can be taken in some weird ways lol xD.

Besides.. I am small sized! So unless he is a Brownie Cavalier then he is kinda SOL xD

spoiler:
I am a girl xD So... xD


MrBateman wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?

Make a will save?....

Oh... and I am a flying Kitty xD

Don't Cavaliers have those same exact problems?
Pretty much... but thye atleast have some skill points xD
What good are skill ranks to a Fighter, though? I can think of 2 or 3 skills that are absolutely essential, and 2+int is usually enough to cover that. However, I do agree that Fighters should get at least 4+int.

They allow the fighter to do things other than "I kill it", especially when killing the problem is considered socially impolite and generally frowned upon... like a duke...


K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?

Make a will save?....

Oh... and I am a flying Kitty xD

Don't Cavaliers have those same exact problems?
Pretty much... but thye atleast have some skill points xD
What good are skill ranks to a Fighter, though? I can think of 2 or 3 skills that are absolutely essential, and 2+int is usually enough to cover that. However, I do agree that Fighters should get at least 4+int.
They allow the fighter to do things other than "I kill it", especially when killing the problem is considered socially impolite and generally frowned upon... like a duke...

I agree that it would be nice if Fighters got more skill points and better class skills, but usually you have other characters to be the skill monkeys or face of the party.


MrBateman wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?

Make a will save?....

Oh... and I am a flying Kitty xD

Don't Cavaliers have those same exact problems?
Pretty much... but thye atleast have some skill points xD
What good are skill ranks to a Fighter, though? I can think of 2 or 3 skills that are absolutely essential, and 2+int is usually enough to cover that. However, I do agree that Fighters should get at least 4+int.

UMD, Perception, swim, climb, or acrobatics, any of the social skills, sense motive, even disable device.

There are a lot of places you can stick skill points on any character and they would be useful (though acrobatics very much less so due to scaling).

The Exchange

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.

Umm... undead CAN be sneak attacked. In fact one of the improvements pathfinder did was to expand the list of creatures that can be sneak attacked. The only SA immune creature types are oozes and elementals. Incorporeal creatures can be sneak attacked with ghost touch weapons. So every rogue should buy ghost salt or a wand of CLW.


Rogues are subpar because the way most games are played. Many games dont use skills that much, dont use traps, dont use locked doors that need to be open and dont run adventures where people need to sneek around.
And as for using Magic to do what a rogue does you can but just remember detect Magic is a ZERO level spell everyone gets and every competent bad guy should have some low level Mook who only job is to cast detect magic on a regular basis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?

Make a will save?....

Oh... and I am a flying Kitty xD

Don't Cavaliers have those same exact problems?
Pretty much... but thye atleast have some skill points xD
What good are skill ranks to a Fighter, though? I can think of 2 or 3 skills that are absolutely essential, and 2+int is usually enough to cover that. However, I do agree that Fighters should get at least 4+int.
They allow the fighter to do things other than "I kill it", especially when killing the problem is considered socially impolite and generally frowned upon... like a duke...

Fighter: Sorry, its a traditional greeting where I come from.

Captain of the Guard To kill each other?!

Fighter: -shrugs- We're kinda antisocial


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Degoon Squad wrote:

Rogues are subpar because the way most games are played. Many games dont use skills that much, dont use traps, dont use locked doors that need to be open and dont run adventures where people need to sneek around.

And as for using Magic to do what a rogue does you can but just remember detect Magic is a ZERO level spell everyone gets and every competent bad guy should have some low level Mook who only job is to cast detect magic on a regular basis.

We've run into plenty of locked doors in PFS. My barbarian makes a very successful rogue.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
MrBateman wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?

Make a will save?....

Oh... and I am a flying Kitty xD

Don't Cavaliers have those same exact problems?
Pretty much... but thye atleast have some skill points xD
What good are skill ranks to a Fighter, though? I can think of 2 or 3 skills that are absolutely essential, and 2+int is usually enough to cover that. However, I do agree that Fighters should get at least 4+int.

maybe he wants to be a part time blacksmith or sailor, or dabbles in some actual knowledge.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
MrBateman wrote:
I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?

Make a will save?....

Oh... and I am a flying Kitty xD

Don't Cavaliers have those same exact problems?
Pretty much... but thye atleast have some skill points xD
What good are skill ranks to a Fighter, though? I can think of 2 or 3 skills that are absolutely essential, and 2+int is usually enough to cover that. However, I do agree that Fighters should get at least 4+int.

UMD, Perception, swim, climb, or acrobatics, any of the social skills, sense motive, even disable device.

There are a lot of places you can stick skill points on any character and they would be useful (though acrobatics very much less so due to scaling).

Most of those skills aren't essential, though. They'd be nice to have, and I would invest in them if Fighters got 4+int like I think they should, but still, they aren't essential.


pming wrote:

Hiya.

claudekennilol wrote:
I see a lot of posts implying that rogues aren't worth playing, why is that?

Because far too many people think of the MMORPG version of "rogue". In other words, "Rogue = the main damage-dealer in the party", and not the actual "D&D" RPG version of "rogue = thief who avoids combat, preferring to gain treasure via stealth, planning and patients".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

So... Rogues are known for being quack doctors, then?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:

Rogues are subpar because the way most games are played. Many games dont use skills that much, dont use traps, dont use locked doors that need to be open and dont run adventures where people need to sneek around.

And as for using Magic to do what a rogue does you can but just remember detect Magic is a ZERO level spell everyone gets and every competent bad guy should have some low level Mook who only job is to cast detect magic on a regular basis.
We've run into plenty of locked doors in PFS. My barbarian makes a very successful rogue.

i know i was gonna say something along the lines of,

"locked door? meet fist!"


Hiya.

o_O

I guess my experience with PF is just so far out on the edge of what is considered "normal play" that I don't "get it". Admittedly, we've only played PF for roughly a year total (not continuous). I guess we are "on the fringe" for a couple reasons:

(1) We also use the core book and the Advanced Players Guide. Period. We don't allow, use, or need anything from any other source. So a "fetchling Umbral Sorcerer"...???

(2) My DM'ing style is definitely "old skool" (it's the only way I really know how...old dog, new tricks and all that...;). If the PC's start to infiltrate the Evil Cultist lair, then turn back half way through so they can "rest and stuff", well, chances are they will die quickly in their sleep. The bad guys don't just sit around waiting (unless they are dumb, of course); they pro-actively defend themselves. So, having all these cool powers and spells to bump-up "thief" skills *will* run out....when they do, you're left with a guy who can get his butt kicked the next combat (sorcerer) or a guy who can fight a bit and sneak a bit (but not nearly as good as the rogue can).

(3) Rogues have something called a "thieves guild". ;) That is a HUGE advantage for a rogue. When the brown stuff hits the spinning blades, and those Evil Cultists come looking for some payback...the sorcerer has...well, nobody (sans other PC's), and the bard as...uh, ditto. The rogue? An entire enclave of other thieves (and all their 'contacts'...like city officials, merchants, 'questionable' clerics/casters, etc).

Of course, if the group/DM focus on the Game aspect of RPG to the general exclusion of the RP part...well, yeah. I guess I can see Rogues "sucking". If you put a long distance runner against a 100m sprinter...in a 100m sprint, the long distance runner will loose pretty much every, single, time. Other way around, however...and it's a whole 'nuther ballgame. :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming


Degoon Squad wrote:

Rogues are subpar because the way most games are played. Many games dont use skills that much, dont use traps, dont use locked doors that need to be open and dont run adventures where people need to sneek around.

And as for using Magic to do what a rogue does you can but just remember detect Magic is a ZERO level spell everyone gets and every competent bad guy should have some low level Mook who only job is to cast detect magic on a regular basis.

Um... what?

That is so flawed just...

ok here:

1) The rogue is not a king of skills... he just has a lot of them... but even then, he can't compete with things like the Bard who have pretty much the same number of skill points as the rogue as virtual skill (Versatile Performance and Bardic Knowledge for the win). Argument invalid

2) We have beat the trap thing to death.. and besides, ROGUES ARE NOT THE ONLY GUYS HWO CAN DISABLE A TRAP.... Without going into traits... The Trapper Ranger, the Urban Ranger, the Cryptbreaker Alchemist, The Archeologist bard, the Seeker Sorcerer, The Slayer, and the investigator can disable magical traps... anyone with Disable Device can disable a normal trap... so argument invalid.

3) Locked doors don't matter... Adamantine laughs at doors... and the knock spells works well.. and, just like traps, ANYONE CAN PICK A LOCK.... ANYONE.... Argument Invalid

4) You know why having adventures that require sneaking around a lot are not popular? Because the fighter is now SOL.... Or you end up like in OotS where everyone rolls well but the spoony bard rolls a 4... Oh! And ANYONE CAN FREAKING SNEAK.... ANYONE... argument invalid

5) Detect magic only works in a 60 ft cone... and it requires concentration... so... yeah... it doesn't work the way you think it works...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

where exactly did this rogue get a whole thieves guild from?

in that case, the bard has the bard's guild, the sorcerer has the Mage's guild, and the fighters have the fighter's guild. The clerics and paladins have churches...


pming wrote:

Hiya.

o_O

I guess my experience with PF is just so far out on the edge of what is considered "normal play" that I don't "get it". Admittedly, we've only played PF for roughly a year total (not continuous). I guess we are "on the fringe" for a couple reasons:

(1) We also use the core book and the Advanced Players Guide. Period. We don't allow, use, or need anything from any other source. So a "fetchling Umbral Sorcerer"...???

(2) My DM'ing style is definitely "old skool" (it's the only way I really know how...old dog, new tricks and all that...;). If the PC's start to infiltrate the Evil Cultist lair, then turn back half way through so they can "rest and stuff", well, chances are they will die quickly in their sleep. The bad guys don't just sit around waiting (unless they are dumb, of course); they pro-actively defend themselves. So, having all these cool powers and spells to bump-up "thief" skills *will* run out....when they do, you're left with a guy who can get his butt kicked the next combat (sorcerer) or a guy who can fight a bit and sneak a bit (but not nearly as good as the rogue can).

(3) Rogues have something called a "thieves guild". ;) That is a HUGE advantage for a rogue. When the brown stuff hits the spinning blades, and those Evil Cultists come looking for some payback...the sorcerer has...well, nobody (sans other PC's), and the bard as...uh, ditto. The rogue? An entire enclave of other thieves (and all their 'contacts'...like city officials, merchants, 'questionable' clerics/casters, etc).

Of course, if the group/DM focus on the Game aspect of RPG to the general exclusion of the RP part...well, yeah. I guess I can see Rogues "sucking". If you put a long distance runner against a 100m sprinter...in a 100m sprint, the long distance runner will loose pretty much every, single, time. Other way around, however...and it's a whole 'nuther ballgame. :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Again incorrect...

1) Fetchling is a Race in ARG, Umbral was wildblood of the sorcerer (the shadow bloodline). It works just as well if you are a Human Shadow Bloodline sorcerer. APG/CRB STILL invalidates the rogue with the Archeologist Bard, the Alchemist, the Urban Ranger, and the BASE druid...

2) Rope Trick... or just make a pocket plane.... or you can just be smart and know how to play casters and not depend on just your top level spells (a single Black Tentacles is good enough to mop up most mook encounters) or just play smart enough to not NOVA until the boss fight... Also, you are comparing a party without a rogue vs a party with a rogue. If you built a seeker sorcerer to replace teh rogue, he would be built TO REPLACE HIM. Even without spells, the sorcerer can match the rogue in skills... seeing as rogues get no inherent bonus to most skills anyway...

3) Um.. where in the CRB/APG/UC/UM/UC/UE does it say rogues have a "thieves guild?" Heck, if anyone has a backing group it is the WIZARD (seeing as most wizards tend to learn from a wizard school or another wizard... not many self taught guys out there...). You are just fiat-ing someing out of nothing...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pming wrote:

Hiya.

o_O

I guess my experience with PF is just so far out on the edge of what is considered "normal play" that I don't "get it". Admittedly, we've only played PF for roughly a year total (not continuous). I guess we are "on the fringe" for a couple reasons:

(1) We also use the core book and the Advanced Players Guide. Period. We don't allow, use, or need anything from any other source. So a "fetchling Umbral Sorcerer"...???

(2) My DM'ing style is definitely "old skool" (it's the only way I really know how...old dog, new tricks and all that...;). If the PC's start to infiltrate the Evil Cultist lair, then turn back half way through so they can "rest and stuff", well, chances are they will die quickly in their sleep. The bad guys don't just sit around waiting (unless they are dumb, of course); they pro-actively defend themselves. So, having all these cool powers and spells to bump-up "thief" skills *will* run out....when they do, you're left with a guy who can get his butt kicked the next combat (sorcerer) or a guy who can fight a bit and sneak a bit (but not nearly as good as the rogue can).

(3) Rogues have something called a "thieves guild". ;) That is a HUGE advantage for a rogue. When the brown stuff hits the spinning blades, and those Evil Cultists come looking for some payback...the sorcerer has...well, nobody (sans other PC's), and the bard as...uh, ditto. The rogue? An entire enclave of other thieves (and all their 'contacts'...like city officials, merchants, 'questionable' clerics/casters, etc).

Of course, if the group/DM focus on the Game aspect of RPG to the general exclusion of the RP part...well, yeah. I guess I can see Rogues "sucking". If you put a long distance runner against a 100m sprinter...in a 100m sprint, the long distance runner will loose pretty much every, single, time. Other way around, however...and it's a whole 'nuther ballgame. :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming

So essentially what you are saying is, the Rogue becomes a decent option when it is the only option.


Degoon Squad wrote:

Rogues are subpar because the way most games are played. Many games dont use skills that much, dont use traps, dont use locked doors that need to be open and dont run adventures where people need to sneek around.

We realy need a rogue Freaquently repeated myths thread.

251 to 300 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