| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh boy, here we go again.
3/4 BAB full martial class with no means of increasing hit rate. Only one good save, and it's the least important one. Any concept you might look to the Rogue for would be better built with another class (notably Alchemist, Investigator, Slayer, Bard).
I see a lot of posts implying that rogues aren't worth playing, why is that?
1.) Low to-hit.
2.) Damage only situationally applicable.
3.) Even if, as many say, they're supposed to be the "skill class" and therefore not good in combat, several classes play the skill game a hell of a lot better, and ALSO contribute a lot more in combat.
Basically the only thing the Rogue brings to the table is Trapfinding. And other classes get that too, and also do everything else better.
You can come very close mechanically to Rogues through a number of archetypes while either doing something like combat better or gaining spells.
A Trapbreaker Vivisectionist Alchemist for example gets full Sneak Attack, trapfinding and his all his alchemist features still.
A Trapper Ranger loses his spells but can find traps, has cool trap flavored abilities, and fights better due to favored enemy and full BAB.
Archeologist Bards get trapfinding, can generally fight better and get spells.
The only thing the Rogue really gets over these classes is skill points and those have diminishing returns especially compared to spells. For example, Climb is completely worthless compared to Spider Climb or Flight, Swim to a Swim speed, etc since most events where you would use one of these skills, it's simply one check and you're done. The fact that skill checks have failure rates also plays into it.
|
With three quarters BAB, and restricted armor, they aren't front line combatants. A bard or higher intelligence ranger equals or even exceeds them with the number of skill points. And disabling magical traps doesn't come up that often, and several archetypes of other classes have that ability.
The ninja and new slayer are seen as allowing the rogue playstyle, only better in combat.
I like rogues, especially as back-up melee characters. If you are willing to delay your action and flank, I think they contribute just fine in combat. But I never thought the rogue was over powered.
I find that my main issue with the rogue is that unlike most other classes, the 'iconic' rogue doesn't really work without excessive optimization.
To me the "classical" rogue is dextrous, smart and suave if not downright charming, uses small discreet weapons such as throwing knives and shortswords, and has an agile combat style with an emphasis on movement, feints and dirty fighting.
Unfortunately, for reasons already explained, that concept isn't really supported very well by the rogue class.
You can however make competent if not stellar rogues by dumping intelligence and charisma, pumping strength with some points in dex, con and wis, and wielding a greatsword or a falchion. It gives you some much-needed HP, decent saves and a damage output not completely reliant on sneak attacks. Doesn't really feel like you're playing a rogue, though.
They're great as a first level thing. At first level they get 32 base skill ranks. After level 1 though, multi class into your main class
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There should be a bot identifying these threads, posting a link to an older one and then closing them. That would save a lot of people a lot of time.
edit: Another way would be a "the rogue issue"-sticky.
They're great as a first level thing. At first level they get 32 base skill ranks. After level 1 though, multi class into your main class
No, they don't in PF.
They're great as a first level thing. At first level they get 32 base skill ranks. After level 1 though, multi class into your main class
I'd probably hang in for 2 levels to score Evasion and qualify for talents. Most of them aren't very good, but there are some nice ones in the mix.
I just tried making a Rogue in the one game I'm playing, but shrugged and went with the Ninja instead when I realized I couldn't beat what I'd get via the ki pool. If I thought it likely that I'd be eating a lot of area effect spells Evasion might have looked better, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see a lot of posts implying that rogues aren't worth playing, why is that?
It is not that a rogue absolutely can not function in a game. The idea is that whatever you want from a rogue you can get from another class, and the other class will be better at it.
You want to do decent damage and find traps--> Go bard or ranger.
You want to be good at a variety of skills, and do damage--->bard, ranger, inquisitor.
You don't care about damage, but want to be the utility person that can do a little of everything-->bard, inquisitor.
etc etc
Also traps are not really deadly enough as a whole to make trapfinding worth having. You can get past a trap without disabling it.
They're great as a first level thing. At first level they get 32 base skill ranks. After level 1 though, multi class into your main classNo, they don't in PF.
+1 for putting a rank in +3 for class skill.
It's more nuanced but relatively the same thing.
They're great as a first level thing. At first level they get 32 base skill ranks. After level 1 though, multi class into your main class
No they don't. Unlike 3.5 ranks don't work like that anymore.
You just get a +3 bonus to a class skill if you put a rank into it.
In Pathfinder that(your statement) would mean you could actually put one rank in 32 different skills at first level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with the rogue-class is that it is not the best way to build a rogue.
If you have several classes, all of them covering the "rogue" theme completely (keep in mind, classes are just mechanical constructs, what your chrarakter is like has nothing to do with its class - the class just provides different abilities) then there is no real reason to play an actual rogue. There is no advantage the rogue-class has over some other classes in playing the "sneaky role".
If you renamed the bard, the ranger and the rogue "class 1", "class 2" and "class 3" and someone wanted to play a rogue-like charakter then - after checking out and understanding those three mechanical bases he can use for his charakter, I highly doubt someone who has understood the mechanics of the game (e.g. by finding the trait that gives trapfinding - so you dont even have to lose spells as ranger) would pick "class 3" - the actual rogue.
The only thing it provides over the other classes is SA and yea, thats an incombat ability that is - combined with the rest of the mechanical construct "rogue" - not worth picking the class over one of the others.
Honestly I'd predict if the class would not be named "rogue" it would not be played much at all and if so then by those who do not understand that sneak attack is not the best way to DPR (even though there are some optimized ways to make efficient use of SA, touch-rogue, sap adept scout and so on).
But most people see the image and the description of the rogue class and therefor think (understandably) this is the class they want to play in order to get that bad ass backstabber. So in case you want to make the class more popular, just copy description and layout of the rogue page of the crb and combine with the one for rangers. people will start playing rangers all of a sudden.
short story: low accuracy and horrible rogue talents (they hit your terrible accuracy even more, are WORSE at something than if you didn't have them (see: rumormonger), or are only usable once per day, making them useless).
Rogue was my go to class in 3e, but now I rather go with Bard [variant] or Ranger [trapper], depending on how I plan on playing it.
| 26 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's the gift that keeps on giving
Oh boy, here we go again.
It's the gift that keeps on giving
These made me laugh more than they should have.
Basically, anything a rogue can do, another class can do better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Every single 3/4ths BAB has an in class method of boosting their To-hit, though they generally have not only 1 method, but two...except the Rogue.
Bards get Inspire Courage and buff spells
Inquisitors have buff spells, Judgement, and Bane
Alchemists have buff spells and mutagens
Clerics have very strong buff spells and domains like the Rage Domain
Ninjas can get the invisibility attack bonus(Which is +2)
I actually think that sneak attack and the low to hit is not that big problem per se.
The actual problem is the lack of options besides " I try to sneak attack"
The light armor is also a problem. If the rogue does hit it does decent damage, but then the monster, if it is made for melee, gives the rogue some attention, and that is bad for the rogue. The reason is that some of them can kill a rogue quiet easily. If they dont kill it with one full attack the 2nd one will likely finish it off.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
- Cleric:Has domain powers that can buff attack rolls, and spells that can buff attack rolls. Spells like Divine Favor, Divine Power, Righteous Might, Blessing of Fervor, and Magic Weapon[to name a few]. These all add up to becoming seriously nice buffs, some of which the whole party will benefit from.
- Bard:Buffing is literally the name of the game for bards. They have a series of buff spells at higher levels, along with things like Inspire Courage and Inspire Greatness to buff attack rolls. Again, really nice buffs that the whole party benefits from.
- Druid:The main draw to a combat druid is 1:Built-in flanking buddy[animal companion], and 2:Wildshape. Which equates to some high strength or dex bonuses, a bunch of natural attacks[at highest BAB], and some other good benefits[pounce, namely]. Not as great for the party, but awesome for himself.
- Monk:They only get one, flurry. Which means when they full attack they get level-2 in place of BAB, and extra attacks. Then there are archetypes that grant things like Weapon Training and True Strike, and they start to get better. They don't have a huge ability to increase attack rolls, but its still something.
- Inquisitor:They have spells like Prayer and Divine Favor, along with Judgements and Bane which are swift-action self-buffs. Not great for the party, but I can tell you from experience, amazing for themselves.
- Magus:They get Arcanas that let them add to attack rolls, can use arcane pool points to increase weapon enhancement bonus[giving attack roll bonuses], and they can Spell Combat things like True Strike and Haste for attack roll bonuses that help himself and occasionally the party.
- Alchemist:They get Mutagen to increase stats and extracts to increase attack rolls, which are both very nice, and they can use natural attacks which all resolve at their highest BAB.
- Oracle:Again, there are spells[like the cleric], to increase attack rolls, along with revelations that can increase attack rolls[like wood bond], and certain other Mystery spells the Cleric doesn't get.
- Rogue:Nothing. They literally have no class features that improve their attack rolls. They don't have rogue talents that increase attack rolls beyond Weapon Training[which only grants +1], they don't have class features that increase attack rolls, they don't have in-class ways to get spells to buff themselves[other than UMD, which is something everyone can do]. Which is why they are seen as sub-par.
*Makes Will Save*
I'm going to stay out of this one. Have fun beating the dead horse.
wait, you mean that used to be a horse?
I actually think that sneak attack and the low to hit is not that big problem per se.
The actual problem is the lack of options besides " I try to sneak attack"
I disagree, it is by far the worst problem. A simple +1 every 4 levels when sneak attacking would almost fix the problem by itself.
AC can be solved by taking offensive defence
Really? We haven't learned yet to stop feeding the "why are rogues bad, again?" trolls yet?
Yes, I realize that I'm posting on this thread too, but come on guys!
Then maybe people should shut up about how bad Rogues are?
The core classes -- expecially the non-casters -- all seem to be subpar in many ways. Maybe what's required is for Paizo to finally abandon the 3.5e D&D OGL SRD, and rebuild the core classes to the same level of capability and power as the classes in other books?
Really? We haven't learned yet to stop feeding the "why are rogues bad, again?" trolls yet?
Yes, I realize that I'm posting on this thread too, but come on guys!
Then maybe people should shut up about how bad Rogues are?
The core classes -- expecially the non-casters -- all seem to be subpar in many ways. Maybe what's required is for Paizo to finally abandon the 3.5e D&D OGL SRD, and rebuild the core classes to the same level of capability and power as the classes in other books?
Rogue and Fighter are the only classes in the core that are derided as weak.
Rogue and Fighter are the only classes in the core that are derided as weak.Really? We haven't learned yet to stop feeding the "why are rogues bad, again?" trolls yet?
Yes, I realize that I'm posting on this thread too, but come on guys!
Then maybe people should shut up about how bad Rogues are?
The core classes -- expecially the non-casters -- all seem to be subpar in many ways. Maybe what's required is for Paizo to finally abandon the 3.5e D&D OGL SRD, and rebuild the core classes to the same level of capability and power as the classes in other books?
Monks too, but that is mostly because they are hard to build well unless you choose one of the 2 or 3 good archetypes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you guys are so tired of having this discussion, once one person has explained it, just... don't reply.
The basic answer is because par is based off of damage output pretty much exclusively. That is what is optimized.
I dont think they are subpar in diplomacy? Have you considered using a rogues cha skills to 'defeat' his enemies without just frontal assault toe to toe tactics?
The basic answer is because par is based off of damage output pretty much exclusively. That is what is optimized.
I dont think they are subpar in diplomacy? Have you considered using a rogues cha skills to 'defeat' his enemies without just frontal assault toe to toe tactics?
Not only will a bard do that better, you've got to have the right kind of campaign and playstyle to make that work with any regularity. The rogue does much better when you have the luxury of hit and run and stealth tactics. When you're playing with people who don't build their characters for that, you're going to have problems making that work. Heck, I have problems getting people to even flank reliably in my group, let alone operate like they're in SpecOps or starring in Oceans 11!
So just to go against the grain. The problem does not rest with the rogue class but generally how dnd is run. If your group is smashing down every door and killing everything and everyone is playing fully optimized characters then the rogue is going to be useless. But for well balanced campaigns where the DM rewards creative game play it isn't that hard to play a rogue and feel rewarded in doing so. The last rogue I played was a Neutral Evil human that was really a worshiper of some evil diety and was impersonating a priest (not a cleric) of Iomedae (spelling is wrong I know). I had a ton of fun doing it as well! The group needed to get into some bishops home so I had a special mass for said bishop. Not only did the place clear out but my character was able to steal most of the tithe with out being caught! Dnd shouldn't just be about who can hit the monster the hardest but in my humble yet accurate opinion it should have challenging social situations where stealth and guile can find a home. So in short there is nothing wrong with the rogue but rather look at how the game is being run for the problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yea, sure, but that has nothing to do with the rogue mechanics. You could have done the same as commoner, bard, ranger or awakened sheep (skill focus sleight of hand, some item to pimp dex and the SoH and there you go).
The thing is not that you cant have fun, the problem is that the rogue mechnics are just bad and there is no justification why. I could enjoy playing tennis with a baseball bat as well if my goal isnt to hit the ball but talk to the referee about how weather is in cologne. But some people wanna get that freaking ball over the net and therefore struggle when holding a rogue in their hand who isnt even close to a bat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Play a game with the base book only, no trapper rangers, or bard archaeologists or alchemists. Play with an old school group with an old school GM that always ratchets up the traps to the point where in the first few levels a trap can 1 shot you. Then stop whining about how sub-par rogues are. They are only sub-par because paizo trivialises traps and the value of trap finding so that any tom dick or harry can get it with a trait. You can't get animal companions or rage or spells with a trait, shouldn't be able to get trap finding either.
|
Play a game with the base book only, no trapper rangers, or bard archaeologists or alchemists. Play with an old school group with an old school GM that always ratchets up the traps to the point where in the first few levels a trap can 1 shot you. Then stop whining about how sub-par rogues are. They are only sub-par because paizo trivialises traps and the value of trap finding so that any tom dick or harry can get it with a trait. You can't get animal companions or rage or spells with a trait, shouldn't be able to get trap finding either.
So play a different game, gotcha.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*opens stale popcorn*
Ok can someone explain why they're saying Rogues have bad to-hit? I'm just not getting it, aside from not being full BAB how is a Rogues ability to hit, or to improve their to-hit, any worse than any other 3/4 BAB class?
I agree 3/4 is 3/4. Also it is not poor that would be 1/2 or full arcance caster BaB.