Core Rogue is fine. It's just RotRL.
You got enough melee to make it workable, you'll stand to benefit from a ton of AoO from the rest of the trippers.
Bard would be good too though, but trapfinding is good too.
Think both you and your team would be better off with a barbarian, as much as I loath to say so. The rogue won't get that many chances to shine in combat considering your set-up and the AP and with your broad team most skills can be handled fairly well already. You could also try fighter and work with pretty much any weapon you're handed, not too hard to build for. Your party seems fairly well balanced all in all so that gives you some freedom of choice.
What kind of character were you aiming for?
I suggest a wizard, RotRL kind of begs you to bring a Wizard.
|
Gotta parrot the others and suggest some of the other classes.
Bard will take you far as the 6th man, talk to your group about which skills you should invest in to cover any gaps that they may have, and pick up the archery line of feats to have something in combat.
If you don't want a bard, if the Urban Ranger is set up for ranged fighting, you could do with a Barbarian, and if the ranger is set up for melee fighting, you could do with something like a sorcerer.
If you go with the sorcerer root, talk to him to decide which spells you're each going to specialize in so you don't step on each other's toes.
|
I asked the GM. If I could I'd go with Bludgeoner/Shatter Defenses/Sap Master Scout with a 2-Hander...and then he'd still be gimped but fairly effective against some foes. Just not sure if I want to go to that extreme, not to mention that's a lot of non-core stuff and the GM really doesn't want a lot of that because he wants to run the AP as-is...and the default difficulty is 4x 15 point buys before a lot of the splat books came out.
I can see where he's coming from. But I mean...this is the rogue we're talking about :)
that's a solid build... give him lots of STR and an Earthbreaker and you're off to the races!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As the urban ranger in the party, I declare I'm a switch hitter. But my strength is higher then my dex by 2. At 2 I will have rapid shot, by 6, improved precise. Lv 5 feat will be quickdraw (probably). As his fellow groupie, I don't want to get in the way of free will and thus will not comment on his choices :)
Lv 1 feat: combat reflexes
Lv 2 combat style feat: rapid shot
Lv 3 feat: power attack
Lv 5 feat : quickdraw
Lv 6 combat style feat: improved precise shot.
I'm running the following stat array: 16 str, 14 dex, 13 con, 12 int 14 wis, 10 cha
I dont believe in dump stats. Period.
|
|
I asked the GM. If I could I'd go with Bludgeoner/Shatter Defenses/Sap Master Scout with a 2-Hander...and then he'd still be gimped but fairly effective against some foes. Just not sure if I want to go to that extreme, not to mention that's a lot of non-core stuff and the GM really doesn't want a lot of that because he wants to run the AP as-is...and the default difficulty is 4x 15 point buys before a lot of the splat books came out.
I can see where he's coming from. But I mean...this is the rogue we're talking about :)
Hadn't had a chance to look at this stuff, until now, and, while it adds up to a lot of potential damage, it also adds up to a lot of nothing, if the target is immune to either sneak or non-lethal.
It can be useful if you need to capture someone for questioning, of course....
I would allow this, along with the required feats along the way, like Dazzling Display, Sap Adept, etc.
It will, at times, have the potential to trivialize some encounters, but that is true even of Core-only builds.
Oh, and I run a rogue, who is, usually, far from a waste of time. I need to figure out how to improve his AC, but he is a combat monster, even without sneak attack, and just ugly with it. And, with Gang Up and Improved Feint, he can usually figure out a way to get his sneak on...
|
It's not the difficulty of the AP, it's that the rogue will never feel like he's valuable to the group.Rogue would work fine. RotR isn't that hard campaign but it depends on your GM's style of play and likewise your tactical strategy during the combat.
Adam
And why wouldn't a rogue feel valuable to the group? Just because he isn't the only person able to disarm traps?
There is plenty of stuff to do besides that.
|
|
It's not the difficulty of the AP, it's that the rogue will never feel like he's valuable to the group.Rogue would work fine. RotR isn't that hard campaign but it depends on your GM's style of play and likewise your tactical strategy during the combat.
Adam
And why wouldn't a rogue feel valuable to the group? Just because he isn't the only person able to disarm traps?
There is plenty of stuff to do besides that.
...that everyone else will be able to do better.
|
|
In a core only game that's nowhere near true....that everyone else will be able to do better.It's not the difficulty of the AP, it's that the rogue will never feel like he's valuable to the group.Rogue would work fine. RotR isn't that hard campaign but it depends on your GM's style of play and likewise your tactical strategy during the combat.
Adam
And why wouldn't a rogue feel valuable to the group? Just because he isn't the only person able to disarm traps?
There is plenty of stuff to do besides that.
No. Still very true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beware! long-winded non-answer:
Presently mastering the 6th book of RotR. My party has had the following forms.
Inquisitor
Rogue
Summoner
Alchemist
Monk
The rogue moved and was unable to continue participating. The Alchemist discarded her alchemist to make a rogue to fill the gap left by the old one. The summoner discarded her summoner for a witch, because the character of the summoner was not well-written and was unsuited for the campaign. Lastly, another player joined the campaign, and rolled a bard. This left the party with the following.
Inquisitor
Rogue
Witch
Monk
Bard
For the longest time, this party worked just fine, but then the Inquisitor died to a few unlucky dice-rolls, and rerolled as a paladin.
Paladin
Rogue
Witch
Monk
Bard
This party continued all the way to book 6, and only just recently changed, with the death of the Paladin and Witch. The Paladin had respectfully requested from the beginning that if he died, he'd be left in the ground, rather than the party attempting to bring him back. And the Witch, mentally distraught after the death of the paladin, wanted to just slip away from it all, when she died, and as such, her soul refused to ressurection. They were replaced by an Arcanist and a Fighter.
During most, basically the entirety of this campaign, there has been both a Bard and a Rogue in my party. None of them have felt useless, outshined or outclassed by anyone. Both invest themselves in what is happening and their characters work with the rest of the party, and that is enough to make the wheels turn.
RotR is a rough path, make no mistake. But it is not so rough that you cannot work your way around the problems, even if you are playing classes that this board claims are weak.
I'd say go with the Rogue, and if you ever find that the task becomes too uphill for your class-kit, do what your character would do in-world, and sit down and talk with your party-members. Let them understand and work out how you can all fight smarter, instead of harder, and watch as the characters becomes what solves the problems, instead of players tossing numbers around to defeat the enemy numbers.
FYI - the Rogue in my party is specialized in ranged combat and scouting.
-Nearyn
A game shouldn't be a competition. Rogue can do just fine but isn't top best at what he does.
...that everyone else will be able to do better.
The game isn't a competition, but nobody wants to be dead weight.
It doesn't seem very realistic for a basket weaver to go adventuring and fighting monsters.
A game shouldn't be a competition. Rogue can do just fine but isn't top best at what he does.
...that everyone else will be able to do better.
I don't think he was saying it is a competition. However a player can feel marginalized or useless if someone does their "thing" better they do, or just replaces their "thing" with something else. They might feel like "why is my character even here?".
I have seen this in real life, and there was a recent(within the past 48 hours) thread on this on the boards.
What wraithstrike said also applies here.
|
|
@Icyshadow
Comparing rogue with basket weaver is unfair.
@wraith
That I can and will understand. I have seen it more then once on PFS, but it's also often enough opposite. In truth, the veteran and experienced players overshadow unexperienced or new players more due to system mastery and less due to class. At least that's how I believe so.
|
|
A game shouldn't be a competition. Rogue can do just fine but isn't top best at what he does.
...that everyone else will be able to do better.
I don't think he was saying it is a competition. However a player can feel marginalized or useless if someone does their "thing" better they do, or just replaces their "thing" with something else. They might feel like "why is my character even here?".
I have seen this in real life, and there was a recent(within the past 48 hours) thread on this on the boards.
That the archaeologist bard thread, "feeling useless"?
From what I saw, a lot of that was a lack of party coherence, and part is due to building against the archetype's strengths.
@Icyshadow
Comparing rogue with basket weaver is unfair.
@wraith
That I can and will understand. I have seen it more then once on PFS, but it's also often enough opposite. In truth, the veteran and experienced players overshadow unexperienced or new players more due to system mastery and less due to class. At least that's how I believe so.
You are talking about someone just making a better character. I am talking about someone doing your main schick better than you do. It is better to avoid that by not playing a rogue. No it is not a guarantee that but it does help your chances.
A game shouldn't be a competition. Rogue can do just fine but isn't top best at what he does.
...that everyone else will be able to do better.
I don't think he was saying it is a competition. However a player can feel marginalized or useless if someone does their "thing" better they do, or just replaces their "thing" with something else. They might feel like "why is my character even here?".
I have seen this in real life, and there was a recent(within the past 48 hours) thread on this on the boards.
That the archaeologist bard thread, "feeling useless"?
From what I saw, a lot of that was a lack of party coherence, and part is due to building against the archetype's strengths.
Yeah that was it. I agree some of it was on the player, and some of it was the others stepping on his toes.
As I cannot write about the heroics of the rogue of my RotR party without spoiling the AP, I won't. I'll just plainly state that the rogue has saved the day plenty of times. And she didn't do it by magically turning into another class in the nick of time. She's playing her character, who just so happens to be of the rogue class, and said character is just as much an addition to the team, as any of the other party-members :)
-Nearyn
|
|
You are talking about someone just making a better character. I am talking about someone doing your main schick better than you do. It is better to avoid that by not playing a rogue. No it is not a guarantee that but it does help your chances.
Well, we'll have to simply agree that we disagree then. I simply believe that rogue can work okay. Not a best pick, but simple and okay pick.
Please note people (this goes for others) that I do not wish to wage a flaming class war. There is plenty of other "roguish" topics about it already.
You are talking about someone just making a better character. I am talking about someone doing your main schick better than you do. It is better to avoid that by not playing a rogue. No it is not a guarantee that but it does help your chances.Well, we'll have to simply agree that we disagree then. I simply believe that rogue can work okay. Not a best pick, but simple and okay pick.
Please note people (this goes for others) that I do not wish to wage a flaming class war. There is plenty of other "roguish" topics about it already.
The point was never that "the rogue could not work". The point was that "another class can do it better most of the time".
With that party composition, looks like you could use a dedicated (and devastating) archer. In RotRL, with that party, you'd probably be contributing a lot more with an archer than you would with a rogue.
But my actual advice is this: Play something you're gonna have fun with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But my actual advice is this: Play something you're gonna have fun with.
This is the best answer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want also to add. Is it a game where everyone wans to be better, or you all want to work together. At my table we have someone who has a Paladin with Cha 12, a cleric using soundburtst as his main combat spell and a halfling paladin with an archetype reducing his paladin level for smites. And so far we managed. You do not need a superoptimized char. You need a char you have fun with. A rogue does not need to be MR DPS. Just find something you enjoy in battle.
|
|
With that party composition, looks like you could use a dedicated (and devastating) archer. In RotRL, with that party, you'd probably be contributing a lot more with an archer than you would with a rogue.
But my actual advice is this: Play something you're gonna have fun with.
This is the entire reason it was suggested that Rogue, might not be that thing.
One could have fun having fun playing a Commoner.
That doesn't make it a good class.
Wanderer: I am about 1/2 way through the RotRL AP, somewhere in book four-ish.
Our party composition:
Wizard - Me (Thassilonian Transmuter. It had to be done!)
Investigator (Mostly plays for theme, not combat optimized)
Warpriest (First Pathfinder Game)
Druid (Not Pathfinder Proficient)
Monk/Soulknife psionic hybrid (defensive fighter, AC typically mid-40s at L5 to L9)
Our GM optimizes monsters, increases quantity and quality of bad guys, so YMMV.
My opinion on having a prospective rogue in the group:
Pros
- Lots of melee, with lots of combatants.
- You're in a party of 5 with 2.5 casters, so lots of flanking or Dex denial should be available.
- Scouting is great, locks and traps exist, and perception is key as always.
Cons
- We don't have a full BAB character, and it REALLY HURTS! We have had all of our combats significantly prolonged by whiffery.
- Most creatures are knocking out 30-50 damage per hit at this point
- If your GM is as competent as ours, your Fort/Will saving throws will be a huge liability
I think a rogue would be a great PC in the campaign, if you can find a way to mitigate some of the typical rogue weaknesses. I think a Two-Handed rogue would have much more hitting power than a Two-Weapon-Fighting rogue. You can't really spare the misses, as you'll get counter-whomped ASAP.
Have you considered proposing a Slayer to the GM? It really mitigates some of the whiffery, and you'll want the BAB. You can still be a sneaky guy with a brutish mentality, great skills, more HP, and some sneak attack.
Perhaps your GM will allow Slayer as a variant Rogue? If you're committed to going rogue, I would maximize strength and con, and pick up Iron Will.
But my actual advice is this: Play something you're gonna have fun with.
Hear, hear.
Given the
Current party lineup:
Wizard
Urban Ranger(2H reach, trip)-can disarm magical traps at 3rd.
Divine Defender Paladin (trip)
Cleric of Desna
Druid (domain).
All the major bases are covered, so hey, go wild & play something you've always wanted to play, but never tried out. Maybe...
- A wizard, sorcerer or arcanist who has different specialties than the current party wizard - there are so many.
- A magus, just to test out the quasi-cool synergy of swords & sorcery.
- An alchemist, to go for the mad bomb-flinging anarchist feeling.
Or whatever works for you. With 6 20-pt PCs in the group, the DM is going to have to beef up encounters anyway, why not go for something marginal but flavorful. Even... (gasp, shudder, oh the horror!) a rogue!
|
|
We had a rogue In our RotRL. Plenty of fights he was absolutely useless. The class had nothing to offer 20% of the fights. Out of combat he found maybe 5 traps. Could only disarm half of those.
Rogue did better in the first 3 books but by book 4+ became the weakest member of the party.
Saves are a big thing and rogues have aweful saves. Trying to get around giants to flank got him slapped about the battlefield.
I recommend an archer type with the current group make up.
|
|
rogues need friends on the battlefield to flank and soak damage getting there
rogues need friends that can cast greater invisibility
rogues need friends to fight, yes
but out of combat, rogues need to be alone to sneak, do the talking, fence goods, steal stuff and a ton of other stuff nobody else can do -- STOP LIMITING YOUR VIEW OF ROGUES IN TERMS OF COMBAT CAPABILITY!
PDK: I agree that combat is not the only portion of the game. However, when I'm at a table with a dead-weight PC in a tough fight, I find myself wondering if they're going to get my character killed.
If the encounter is built for 5 competent PCs, and we have someone not contributing, I just became 25% more likely to die. This is very easy to rationalize in character:
"Purple Dragon, the last few fights I felt like you did not really help our knighthood. You fought like a Squire. In fact, I feel you have become a liability, and I would prefer we go our separate ways. I will seek out Lancelot, The Dark, Michael, or Kiera -Ley for my future knight requirements."
Fortunately, I don't do this with players at the table, but in character I can't imagine why any of my PCs would adventure with liabilities. I want my meatbricks to wreck face and take/avoid hits. I want my casters to solve problems and change reality. If you're not helping on either front, my PC is going to die prematurely.
Combat isn't everything, but I've never had a PC die from failing an appraise check. I've never had a PC die from a poorly told story, or an out of tune flute. I've never had a PC die from lack of sneakiness (although the stabbing or crushing that followed has been dangerous).
Monsters kill PCs. PCs need to kill monsters to live. If you don't help kill monsters, you don't help the other PCs. You might as well play PvP through negligence.
As an aside, do you also play the rogue that steals treasure without knowledge of the other PCs? Cause if my PCs adventured with another PC that stole loot, that would be the end of the arrangement as well.
|
|
Im not limiting it to combat.
Out of combat anything with stealth can sneak like a rogue.
Same with fencing, doing the talking, steal stuff, and a ton of other things.
Lets look at those skills.
Fencing/selling/facing- usually cha based...rogues typically dont have more then a 12 in cha...so...any class like paladin, bard, sorcerer, summoner, do it better...just to name a few.
Sneaking- monks, ranger, slayer, investigator, alchemist, wizard, bard, sorcerer...each can do it better by skill or magic.
Stealing stuff- I assume you mean slight of hand...cause just picking something up when no one is looking then any class can do this. Slight of hand hardly ever comes up.
But lets just compare a investigator verses a rogue since they both do the same stats and abilities.
Sneaking- both can take stealth and have s imiliar dex. So they are even out the gate. Wait an investigator can use extracts to do it better.
Facing/selling- same skills...again same till extracts come in.
Stealing- same as above.
Even if your a fan of rogue it is the weakest PC class. Period. Only fan boys will ignore evidence and say a rogue can compete...but they cant.
|
Im not limiting it to combat.
Out of combat anything with stealth can sneak like a rogue.
Same with fencing, doing the talking, steal stuff, and a ton of other things.Lets look at those skills.
Fencing/selling/facing- usually cha based...rogues typically dont have more then a 12 in cha...so...any class like paladin, bard, sorcerer, summoner, do it better...just to name a few.
Sneaking- monks, ranger, slayer, investigator, alchemist, wizard, bard, sorcerer...each can do it better by skill or magic.
Stealing stuff- I assume you mean slight of hand...cause just picking something up when no one is looking then any class can do this. Slight of hand hardly ever comes up.
But lets just compare a investigator verses a rogue since they both do the same stats and abilities.
Sneaking- both can take stealth and have s imiliar dex. So they are even out the gate. Wait an investigator can use extracts to do it better.
Facing/selling- same skills...again same till extracts come in.
Stealing- same as above.
Even if your a fan of rogue it is the weakest PC class. Period. Only fan boys will ignore evidence and say a rogue can compete...but they cant.
A lot of your post smacks of "No True Scotsman" to me, but let's take your premise as it stands. Yes, a lot of the classes step on the rogue's toes. But none of them get as many skill points as the rogue. Sure, the investigator can do a lot of those things - but can they do all of the same things as the rogue?
