If you could change one thing about the Rogue.....


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm seriously hoping Unchained will fix that, bringing the rogue talents and other abilities up in power.


EntrerisShadow wrote:

There's no fixing the Rogue.

Well, let me clarify - it's been fixed. Any fixes now will just make it more like a Slayer. (Best combat rogue) or more like an Investigator (Best skill monkey rogue) Now, yes, I understand people are like, "But that's a Slayer now! We need to fix the Rogue!"

Why bother? It's a waste of intellectual time and, if it were implemented, a waste of print space. You have two very good classes that fill your Rogue role. Three if you count the Bard, but for flavor's sake, the Slayer and Investigator ARE closer. Besides the name and being better at everything, what REALLY differentiates a Slayer from a Rogue? A few things technically. Nothing conceptually.

And really, other fixes are just going to make it do (more) things other classes do better, anyway.

Combat feats? That's a fighter.
Debuffs? That's a Bard, and a Witch.
Take out Dex-to-Damage for other classes and make it specific to the rogue? Admission the only fix is to gimp other classes.

There are a lot of sacred cows that need to be slaughtered for every new iteration of the 3.PF rules, and the Rogue is chief among them. Rip every wasted paragraph that deals with the Rogue out. Or rip out the Slayer and put that statblock over the old Rogue. Or take Arcane Trickster out of PrC, make it a 1-20 base class, and boom - new "rogue".

Untrue, Full BAB Rogue is better than Slayer in Sneak attack (full progression).


Ok, so rogues are not broken but if I were to remake them I would make a couple changes/


  • Make skills more valuable in general.
    How skills are used should be more flexible. For example, Profession (Fisherman) could be substituted for a Survival check to get food if next to a body of water or it could also be substituted for a Knowledge (Nature) to figure out a large predator is eating the fish under a lake. Encouraging players to use skills more creatively makes classes with lots of skill points, like rogues, more valuable.
  • Rogue talents should work like ninja tricks.
    What I mean is that rogues should get a pool of points like qi or grit to activate their special abilities. If I was to guess, I think this is what James meant when he said that he would do the rogue differently now. What I propose is that rogues get a pool of "moxy" that is equal to 1/2 her rogue level + Int modifier. Any rogue talent that says it usable once a day can be re-activated by spending a moxy point. As long as a rogue has at least 1 moxy point, she can roll twice on any opposed skill check (Perception vs her Disguise, Sense Motive vs her Bluff) and take the better result.

Everything else stays the same.


hell, i'd personally settle for any archetype whatsoever that gives them any of panache, inspiration, or favored target (and access to investigator and slayer talents, since they're already stealing from the rogue as is--why not return the favor for ONCE).

Sczarni

If I could change the rogue, I'd give her a gimmick that no other class has, that she could focus on and become better at than any other class. And I think I've come up with a good one.

What do all the traditionally "roguish" things have in common? In combat, Sneak Attack lets a sub-par scrapper hit like a brute far above her actual weight class, and feinting is a classic rogue maneuver that sets up a sneak attack by distracting the enemy with a fake attack. And as for the classic "rogue" skills? Bluff is all about lying, Stealth is all about making them think you're not there, Sleight of Hand is about hiding what you're doing, and Use Magic Device is how a non-magical character pretends she can cast spells.

Truly, a rogue is a master of faking it. Of course a rogue isn't as powerful as any of the other classes. But she can pretend she is quite convincingly, and that's what matters.

So, the changes I'd make would take that and run with it. Give rogues a class bonus to Bluff, Disguise, SoH, UMD, and Stealth-- enough that they become the class those skills are associated with. For each other class, rogues get a talent (and later an advanced talent) that lets them emulate one of their iconic class skills, preferably in such a way that makes them feel more like "impostors" than "dabblers". I'd also want some mechanic that lets a rogue use Sleight of Hand to set up an opponent for Sneak Attacking. Maybe rogues get the option to replace Bluff with SoH for feinting? Then they wouldn't need CHA so much (but could still get mileage out of it if they wanted).


I'd remove the bashing. On the other hand if that happened the boards would be rather light :D


Nicos wrote:
IMHO, it is highly unlikely the gap between rogues and the other to be accidental. For years the desing paradigm have been to publish awful rogue talents for them.

Well, part of the problem is that Paizo officially tries to avoid out new content that completely overshadows existing stuff (YMMV on how well they stick to that policy). It's rather hard to give rogues or rogue talents a big boost without obsoleting the Core Rogue.


How about rederiving the Rogue from the Investigator (maybe start with the Sleuth Archetype, although that may be a bit on the specialized side) and the Slayer? Do it as if the Investigator and Slayer had been around beforehand, and then make the Rogue a Hybrid Class of them? And then make the Ninja a Rogue Archetype that mixes in some Monk abilities (which is not too far off from what it is today, but for some reason they felt that the feature replacements were just a bit too much to make it a Rogue Archetype). Maybe this could work for the Fighter as well (rederive from Brawler, Slayer, and Swashbuckler), although the path for this seems trickier, and the Fighter seems more amenable to a fix by straight-up buffing of the existing Class build (for instance, d12 HD, 2 more Skill Ranks per Level = usually 4, and after a certain point gets Bonus Feat Chains instead of just single Bonus Feats, and then clean up the list of Fighter Feats).

Chengar Qordath wrote:
Nicos wrote:
IMHO, it is highly unlikely the gap between rogues and the other to be accidental. For years the desing paradigm have been to publish awful rogue talents for them.
Well, part of the problem is that Paizo officially tries to avoid out new content that completely overshadows existing stuff (YMMV on how well they stick to that policy). It's rather hard to give rogues or rogue talents a big boost without obsoleting the Core Rogue.

YMMV indeed, since they put out whole new Classes that overshadow the Rogue.


This is what I did to the rogue when I tried to balance it between slayer and investigator.


I'm somewhat sold on the idea that a Rogue can use existing skills to do things no other class can especially if the option open up the further down Rogue you go. It would create a real reason to stick with Rogue and get something you cant find anywhere else.

and following the same logic for Rogue "faking it" the enhanced skills would allow them to start copying other classes similar to how UMD lets them copy casters.


Phasics wrote:

I'm somewhat sold on the idea that a Rogue can use existing skills to do things no other class can especially if the option open up the further down Rogue you go. It would create a real reason to stick with Rogue and get something you cant find anywhere else.

and following the same logic for Rogue "faking it" the enhanced skills would allow them to start copying other classes similar to how UMD lets them copy casters.

Got any ideas for the skills thing?

I was thinking each rogue class skill would have a rogue talent to get the "rogue only" thing.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Create this archetype that focuses the rogue on it's remaining 'trickster' thematic niche, leaving those that have branched off into the slayer, ninja, investigator and swashbuckler to those classes.

Dark Archive

Phasics wrote:

I'm somewhat sold on the idea that a Rogue can use existing skills to do things no other class can especially if the option open up the further down Rogue you go. It would create a real reason to stick with Rogue and get something you cant find anywhere else.

and following the same logic for Rogue "faking it" the enhanced skills would allow them to start copying other classes similar to how UMD lets them copy casters.

I think a re-write of the skill section to include a Rogue blurb at end of each skill - how they get to use the skill vs. everyone else - would probably do rather well in making the class more viable.

And I agree - level should be tied to it so it doesn't become a one level dip - "all my skills now change the way they work" exploit for other classes.

Wouldn't be very hard to create an Rogue "enhanced/expanded" skill list for a home game.

Grand Lodge

Starbuck_II wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:

There's no fixing the Rogue.

Well, let me clarify - it's been fixed. Any fixes now will just make it more like a Slayer. (Best combat rogue) or more like an Investigator (Best skill monkey rogue) Now, yes, I understand people are like, "But that's a Slayer now! We need to fix the Rogue!"

Why bother? It's a waste of intellectual time and, if it were implemented, a waste of print space. You have two very good classes that fill your Rogue role. Three if you count the Bard, but for flavor's sake, the Slayer and Investigator ARE closer. Besides the name and being better at everything, what REALLY differentiates a Slayer from a Rogue? A few things technically. Nothing conceptually.

And really, other fixes are just going to make it do (more) things other classes do better, anyway.

Combat feats? That's a fighter.
Debuffs? That's a Bard, and a Witch.
Take out Dex-to-Damage for other classes and make it specific to the rogue? Admission the only fix is to gimp other classes.

There are a lot of sacred cows that need to be slaughtered for every new iteration of the 3.PF rules, and the Rogue is chief among them. Rip every wasted paragraph that deals with the Rogue out. Or rip out the Slayer and put that statblock over the old Rogue. Or take Arcane Trickster out of PrC, make it a 1-20 base class, and boom - new "rogue".

Untrue, Full BAB Rogue is better than Slayer in Sneak attack (full progression).

I'm confused about what you're saying is untrue here?

Sovereign Court

EntrerisShadow wrote:
I'm confused about what you're saying is untrue here?

I think he was pointing out that rogues gain sneak attack dice faster than slayers.

Grand Lodge

The Human Diversion wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
I'm confused about what you're saying is untrue here?
I think he was pointing out that rogues gain sneak attack dice faster than slayers.

I get that. I just don't get how that's a counter to my argument that nothing really separates them conceptually?

EDIT: OK, I think that's a response to when I said "aside from being better at everything" about the Slayer.

While Rogues do get a better SA progression, that's balanced by losing out on full-BAB and the Slayer also gets the Studied Target for +x to hit and damage. I'd say the ST + SA is still overall better than a full SA progression.


wraithstrike wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Change the Rogue's role in combat from DPR to debuffing.
The rogue is really not a designed to be the DPR guy. He is more like a secondary combatant with non-magical utility. Thematically the rogue is the "fixer", but without magic and no EX that looks magical, and no boost to his combat abilities he just falls behind the other classes.

He has utility abilities out of combat, sure, but in-combat? All he does is damage. The only combat related boosts he gets involve sneak attack die; whether this was intended or not, when initiative is rolled the rogue's role is to hit stuff right now. He's terrible at it, of course, and it's frankly not very thematic for a Rogue to be competing with a Barbarian.

Which is why I reworked the Rogue to revolve around the dirty trick maneuver...

Debuffing as an option is not a bad idea. In 3.X Oriental adventures you could trade in some of your sneak attack dice to do other things. The skill tricks from one of the later books would also be nice for a rogue to have.

Yes.

I'd mostly remove sneak attack, and then rework the class to focus on debuffs.

The skill system needs reworked also.


Sneak attack is iconic for rogues. Many people who play rogues do so for the fun of being able to do this: "Ha, I sneak attack for..." *rolls a dozen dice*


I feel like the rogue needs to be in-between slayer and investigator

I think rogues should do more DPR than an investigator, but I disagree that they should be able to straight up fighter people like a slayer. When it comes to utility though, I think Rogues need to be more useful than a slayer, but not have the raw skill advantage that investigators have.

That being said I want the rogue to be better than a slayer/investigator even multiclass character.


I think there is too much of an emphasis on what characters do in combat.


Out of combat roguea do not shine more than the other roguish classes.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
darth_borehd wrote:
I think there is too much of an emphasis on what characters do in combat.

Check out the post toward the bottom of page 2 of this thread that compare "Empathy" and "Hard to Fool" (class abilities that focus on skills)- that's a perfect example of why other classes "out-rogue" the rogue.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

The Human Diversion wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
I think there is too much of an emphasis on what characters do in combat.
Check out the post toward the bottom of page 2 of this thread that compare "Empathy" and "Hard to Fool" (class abilities that focus on skills)- that's a perfect example of why other classes "out-rogue" the rogue.

Word. Combat isn't the only place the Rogue falls behind. By the latter half of the game classes like the Alchemist, Bard, Investigator, and Slayer are out-performing the Rogue at either combat or skills while at least matching them in the other. The Alchemist and Investigator in particular have no problem outdoing the Rogue on both fronts, especially when the Investigator's Studied Strike comes online. Note that even though it comes on relatively late, it scales up fast and nearly matches the Rogue's SA while being both more reliable, and better supported thanks to the Investigator's Alchemy and Inspiration class features.


I'm still very sceptical. I've never seen another class "out-rogue" a rogue and in fact, more often than not, I have seen rogue characters dominate the party as the most useful member.

It makes me wonder how much of this "rogue needs fixing" notion is based on hypothetical situations and how much is based on actual play examples.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
darth_borehd wrote:

I'm still very sceptical. I've never seen another class "out-rogue" a rogue and in fact, more often than not, I have seen rogue characters dominate the party as the most useful member.

It makes me wonder how much of this "rogue needs fixing" notion is based on hypothetical situations and how much is based on actual play examples.

So your anecdotal evidence outweighs everyone else's anecdotal evidence?

/not trying to be a jerk or rude, just pointing out that you're in the minority on this thread, and Paizo has at least seemed to agree on the Rogue.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
darth_borehd wrote:

I'm still very sceptical. I've never seen another class "out-rogue" a rogue and in fact, more often than not, I have seen rogue characters dominate the party as the most useful member.

It makes me wonder how much of this "rogue needs fixing" notion is based on hypothetical situations and how much is based on actual play examples.

I think that's likely due to system mastery. Generally the people that DO play rogue tend to know what they're doing. But if they wanted to they could make a more potent character.

(Frankly - I think the weakness of the rogue is often overstated, but that doesn't keep them from still being pretty weak.)


Rogue should be great at skills and stealth, but in Pathfinder, spells are better for both of those things than are skills. So I would totally give the rogue bard casting. But with a very focused list, and I wouldn't call it spellcasting; I'd call them "skill tricks," make them (Ex), and have them usable at will but you'd need to pass a related skill check to use them (DC maybe 10 + 4 x spell level).

Then you'd keep your Stealth skill maxed out because you'd need it to become invisibile. And you'd keep your Climb skill up so that you'd be able to spider climb. And so on. You'd have a whole array of things you could do with your skills, that were level-appropriate and that didn't get you upstaged by your teammates at every turn. And you could do them all day, if need be.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
I think that's likely due to system mastery. Generally the people that DO play rogue tend to know what they're doing. But if they wanted to they could make a more potent character.

That's one of the main reasons anecdotal evidence is of little value in these discussions, especially when it's so vague. At a lot of tables the gap in system mastery/player skill is a lot more significant than the gaps between the classes themselves. Not to mention how often tables play with house rules of some sort.

Number-crunching and comparing abilities to other classes are not the be-all end-all of game balance, but they do have the virtue of being clear, objective, and based in indisputable fact.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Rogue should be great at skills and stealth, but in Pathfinder, spells are better for both of those things than are skills. So I would totally give the rogue bard casting. But with a very focused list, and I wouldn't call it spellcasting; I'd call them "skill tricks," make them (Ex), and have them usable at will but you'd need to pass a related skill check to use them (DC maybe 10 + 4 x spell level).

I had been toying with the idea of giving the rogue something like the 3.5 Assassin's spellcasting list. Only about thirty spells total, but full of all the 1-4 spells that a rogue would want. Invisibility, Glibness, Misdirection, Ghost Sound, etc.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I used to think along the lines of "Rogue is fine as is, stop whining like b#%^@es just because you can't be better at everything with him"

But that's because I've got some high system mastery, and I played rogues along with other classes, and I figured, yeah, they're about equal. There's differences, sure, but it's not epic.

Then I saw the rogue in the hands of a new player.

The group I'm in now has had three new-to-Pathfinder players since we got started. They have played a fighter, a wizard, and a rogue each.

The wizard pretty much sucked balls; he made a generalist wizard, he prepared blaster spells, and used his hand-of-the-apprentice ability all the time, even though he had a 10 strength. Just...awful. He has since left the party. Still - IMO casters are for more advanced players; the homework is harder, but the payoff is better when you know what you're doing.

The fighter, on the other hand, has continued to dominate combat. Power attack, furious focus, cleave, great cleave, and exotic weapon proficiency - falcata...she slices through enemies without even trying, and for her, picking that selection wasn't too hard. Fighter is not the most powerful class in the world, but dang is it easy for beginners. Kinda the opposite of the wizard.

Now, let's look at the rogue player. He built it vaguely...roguey. He chose a selection of feats that seemed rogue-ish. Rogues are tricksters, no? So he chose some miscellaneous "+2 to 2 skills" feats. Ugh. He thought "Run" was a good one. It was sad. Yeah, he did figure out finesse rogue was a good talent to take, but with his 8 strength and godawful AC due to not understanding how to make a rogue that can fight, he just couldn't get in to sneak attack and deal any damage. The wizard contributed more than he did.

In the end, the GM asked me to help him out, and I made a pretty passable combatant and skill monkey by taking a scout/daggermaster and dipping a level of fighter for proficiencies and bonus feat...pointed him in the direction of Slashing Grace (our GM is cool with it working on light weapons), handed him a kukri and a mithral breastplate, and explained how charging works. I also explained putting 1-point ranks in class skills to be "decent enough to aid another" on dangnear everything. Now? He STILL doesn't kill as much as the fighter, but at least he's contributing pretty strongly in combat, and he has the out-of-combat skills to help everyone out, and his favorite skill, stealth, is something he excels at.

The homework was harder, but the reward wasn't even being better than a fighter.

So it took system mastery of the rogue to make it just about comparable to a newbie's fighter. That's...pretty sad, honestly, especially when you consider all the fighter hate that already exists.

Yeah, in light of these experiences, I'm definitely up for changes and hope Unchained does a good job of balancing rogue out.

I guess the point of my speech was I had strong anecdotal evidence for leaving the rogue alone...until further evidence shut me up.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:


I think that's likely due to system mastery. Generally the people that DO play rogue tend to know what they're doing.

That possibly could be the case. I'm not sure how to test for that though.


darth_borehd wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:


I think that's likely due to system mastery. Generally the people that DO play rogue tend to know what they're doing.

That possibly could be the case. I'm not sure how to test for that though.

Build and play a rogue and then after that build and play some rogue replacement. Try to Build them with the same amount of system mastery.

You can also play a rogue replacement while a friend play a rogue, but the rogue could feel unhappy.


darth_borehd wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:


I think that's likely due to system mastery. Generally the people that DO play rogue tend to know what they're doing.

That possibly could be the case. I'm not sure how to test for that though.

basically to test it just stack a rogue up vs the various lookalikes in X situation with the same feats/items/stats (though for some classes that might be bending over backwards to accommodate the rogue).

it let's you see where the rogue is failing or what pitfalls to watch out for, and where to put resources into breaking even (despite it's competitor not needing those).

optimizing for basic competence enough like this can put you with or above non-optimized party members (and by extension, the overall challenges you face as a party) despite your core disadvantages, which can lead to the 'rogue/sneak attack OP please nerf' threads for unprepared GMs.

Sovereign Court

Here's another completely anecdotal view of the rogue being underpowered:

I have 2 PFS characters with rogue levels.

One is a halfling rogue knife master/scout archetype build with an extra +2 to dex thanks to a boon, so at 9th level he's got a 28 dex. With an agile dagger, piranha strike, and d8's for sneak he can often get in the 40's on a single hit when he catches something flat-footed. But ... to get to that point he had to give up trapfinding, uncanny dodge. He's still a bit of a glass cannon in terms of big hits, and he's got no will save to speak of. I'm happy with his combat performance, but I had to pull out some cheese to get him to that level and give up perhaps the most iconic thing associated with a rogue (trapfinding).

The other rogue is an arcane trickster who thanks to an exceptionally generous ruling by Paizo only had to take one level of wizard. My significant other made a "companion" character and they both have stealth synergy and duck and cover, so in order to get really high levels of stealth and good results on reflex saves, he had to take teamwork feats. Yes, only 3 levels of rogue there, but my point is that to get a magic-based rogue I ended up going completely outside the class.

To counter that, I have a slayer in a home game, who without any archetypes can deal similar levels of damage to my pure rogue while still retaining trapfinding and in addition tracks things well ... and he's built with less ability points.

Again, completely anecdotal, but I had to drop major iconic class features to get a combat rogue to work well, and a slayer with less ability points can do similar damage while still retaining that iconic class feature.


If there was only 1 thing I could change I'd give the rogue a bonus to hit on Sneak Attacks. It could be that the rogue treats their BAB as full BAB when making sneak attacks, could be + 1/2 rogue level to hit on sneak attacks, +1 to hit per sneak attack dice, +1 per 2 sneak attack dice or something else. The rogue just needs that to functional at high levels. I mean at level 18 a rogue could need to roll 19 or higher hit on their primary attack in flanking position. So they are likely to miss and would be put in danger as their AC maxed out 4 levels ago and their hit point are on average 54 less than the martial character.


The Human Diversion wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:

I'm still very sceptical. I've never seen another class "out-rogue" a rogue and in fact, more often than not, I have seen rogue characters dominate the party as the most useful member.

It makes me wonder how much of this "rogue needs fixing" notion is based on hypothetical situations and how much is based on actual play examples.

So your anecdotal evidence outweighs everyone else's anecdotal evidence?

/not trying to be a jerk or rude, just pointing out that you're in the minority on this thread, and Paizo has at least seemed to agree on the Rogue.

Yes, but people who post on the MB are in a small minority, and those who venture into the unfriendly waters of General Discussion are often shouted down by a loud few.

Many posters, including myself, have also said the Rogue performs just fine- at least in the commonly played lower levels. In fact there's fairly often threads where DM's complain the Rogue is breaking their game (about 5th level the rogue is a powerhouse in many campaigns). Dont get me wrong- sure, like with any "mundane" class, there are issues at the very high levels. And, even us rogue fans have said many times that the rogue needs some cool new talents and also the ability to use those dreaded "once a day' talents" more times.

No doubt some Bard or ranger archetypes or the Slayer can also do as well as the Rogue- or even better. But the Sorc or witch can outdo the wizard sometimes and the Oracle can be a better cleric than the cleric in some games. The fact that the rogues niche can be filled by others doesnt mean its a weak class.

So it's not "everyone else's" at all.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

So, the Rogue is probably the weakest class out there. I once compared the Rogue to one of those traps the kid makes in Home Alone or similar movies, where these overly elaborate devices that look a child's board game go through a wide series of dominoes, falling books, and cut wires to ultimately drop a bowling ball on the crook's head. Sure, it works (assuming the crook is willing to sit there and watch it all unfold) but everyone else just goes and gets the gun out of the closet. The Rogue may reach the same result as another class, but it requires fairly ridiculous levels of game knowledge and system mastery to pull off, when that same level of system mastery applied to another class results in something absolutely horrifying in its raw power.

Here's a little anecdotal theory of my own: the less a GM knows about the game, the stronger a Rogue seems. I can think of at least 3 instances where I joined a group who thought Rogues were just the most OP thing ever, only to discover the Rogue was being given insane advantages:
Rogue player:"My Rogue is going to use acrobatics to roll into flanking. Success!"

Me: "How do you know? We haven't done anything that revealed its CMD yet."

Rogue Player: "I just have to hit DC 15"

Me: "That's actually a 3.5 thing. Now you have to beat his CMD."

I've had similar conversations regarding the rules for sniping, only the first attack getting sneak attack if a Rogue is using standard invisibility that breaks when a hostile action is taken, GMs not properly remembering their creature's AoOs, etc. In almost every instance I'be found where a group thought the Rogue was strong, it turned out that the reality was one of two things : the average system mastery of the whole table was low and their mistakes were directly benefiting the Rogue, or the Rogue's player's system mastery exceeded the GMs and he wasn't interested in educating the GM on how to adjust accordingly.

That being said, the Rogue, like most classes, is more or less fine during the first 5 levels of play, because the variance in probability is proportionally very small at that point, usually only around 10% or less. It's every level after that where the class' weaknesses start to really have a light shone on them.

Put another way: the Rogue is like mounted combat; the more familiar you are with the rules and the more you try to follow them, the less it works.


Ssalarn wrote:
That being said, the Rogue, like most classes, is more or less fine during the first 5 levels of play, because the variance in probability is proportionally very small at that point, usually only around 10% or less. It's every level after that where the class' weaknesses start to really have a light shone on them.

While I agree the rogue is actually pretty good @ level 5, in fact some classes, like the Wizard, take quite a bit of gamemastery to be good at that level.


DrDeth wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
That being said, the Rogue, like most classes, is more or less fine during the first 5 levels of play, because the variance in probability is proportionally very small at that point, usually only around 10% or less. It's every level after that where the class' weaknesses start to really have a light shone on them.
While I agree the rogue is actually pretty good @ level 5, in fact some classes, like the Wizard, take quite a bit of gamemastery to be good at that level.

or just prep web/glitterdust/grease/blur/mirror image/etc/etc/etc that day


Wizards are never weak. They are not as strong as in higher levels, but they are never weak.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Really, the wizard is probably the best class to use as a barometer or a player's system mastery. There's no character stronger than a wizard with the right spells, or weaker than a wizard with the wrong ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All Rogues automatically get a Mythic Tier every 3 levels for being brave enough to be Rogues.


Phasics wrote:

whether or not the Rogue is currently under powered or overpowered is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

The question as it stands is this.
If you could change one thing about the Rogue what would it be.

Highly subjective sure, but I'm interested in hearing what people would do.

For myself personally these would be my top 3 single changes keeping in mind you can only make one change you can certainly suggest more than one.

1.) Rogue has a full BAB

or

2.) Rogue levels can count as levels from another other class you multiclass in for the purposes of effective level on abilities. (Can only apply to one other class)

or

3.) Rogue talents include one talent (that can be taken once) that can pick one feature/ability from every other class e.g. discovery, hex, revelation, rage etc

Or perhaps your one of those people who wouldn't change anything about the Rogue in which case by all means let us hear your Rogue Love ;)

For me #1 would be enough. #2 is interesting but it dépends on what it applies. For example it would be bad with sneak attacks. 1 rogue lvl dip to get 1-2-3-4-5/d6 sneaks seems to much...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
...or the Rogue's player's system mastery exceeded the GMs and he wasn't interested in educating the GM on how to adjust accordingly.

Educate the GM? That way lays darkness. I've been asked to leave groups because I attempted to educate GMs. Many people take it as a challenge to their authority rather than a sincere attempt to help. Then again, too many people take this game too seriously.

Grand Lodge

Ssalarn wrote:

Here's a little anecdotal theory of my own: the less a GM knows about the game, the stronger a Rogue seems. I can think of at least 3 instances where I joined a group who thought Rogues were just the most OP thing ever, only to discover the Rogue was being given insane advantages:

Rogue player:"My Rogue is going to use acrobatics to roll into flanking. Success!"

This mirrors my experience perfectly. In my group, the other GM's nerfed rogues hard due to some misunderstandings about how a lot of things work. One broken rogue played completely ignoring rules for moving through threatened squares, concealment/cover, and sneak attack not multiplying on a critical hit and they were convinced this was the most powerful class ever.

The funny thing is, all of those broken rules just let him stay on par with the Two-Handed Fighter damage wise - and it required a critical hit to do so.


Ravingdork wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
...or the Rogue's player's system mastery exceeded the GMs and he wasn't interested in educating the GM on how to adjust accordingly.
Educate the GM? That way lays darkness. I've been asked to leave groups because I attempted to educate GMs. Many people take it as a challenge to their authority rather than a sincere attempt to help. Then again, too many people take this game too seriously.

I start off such things as "well consensus on the forums is..." that way it is only silly internet people doing it differently than the GM and discussion does not get personal.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'd make the minor magic talent 3/day cantrip a simple "at will" and then make the rest of the magic-related talents actually worth it with 5/3 ratios.


Zhayne wrote:
Phasics wrote:


If you could change one thing about the Rogue what would it be.

Its existence.

Remove it from reality, replace it with the Slayer retroactively.

That way it would still be one of the weaker classes but it would fix the worst issues.

+1


Reading over this, the idea I like the best is twofold:

1) Make talents not suck; and

2) When sneak attacking, treat the rogue's BAB as equal to her level.

This would still focus on the central combat mechanic of the class -- sneak attack -- but make it much easier to land the hit, and if using power attack, piranha strike, or deadly aim to boost damage, would often increase the tier of damage from the feat.


If I could change one thing about the rogue it would be that it ever existed. I believe the thief is responsible for the poor skill progressions of the other classes starting from when they were nonweapon proficiencies. If there had never been a rogue the fighter and cleric would be less boring and the idea of skills as something you distribute with minimal overlap between party members may never have developed. Instead of it being stepping on toes and an inefficient distribution of scarce skill resources for everyone to be able to be useful in social situations it would be standard roleplaying because nobody would have been shorted skills to protect the rogue's niche.

101 to 150 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / If you could change one thing about the Rogue..... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.