Oh I know, that part was supposed to be covered under "Rogues don't do this better then any other class."
As to your Rogues, here's what I got of that:
Krom: Your Bard was awesome.
Erin: Had access to the best book for martials prior to Path of War.
Zedwitz: Had access to advanced firearms and borrowed power from the Wizard.
Rumi: This sounds exactly like how a playing a Rogue should go. Notable in that this is the first one that seems pretty RAW.
Chuko: Sounds about right also, though Devastating Sneak ruling in his favor is a big deal, since Rogues have miserable accuracy, even compared to other 3/4th BAB classes.
Jasmine: Sounds like a normal Rogue ie. often completely useless.
Tack on the houserule your group is using (assuming it applies to all of those) and this speaks even worse of the Rogue.
Krom: HE was awesome. Best trap spotter ever, right Zhang?! Though, I suppose if the GM hadn't simply hand-waved whole rooms of book 6 away with the explanation of, "You're going to win initiative and murder them in a hail of precision-guided metal", he might not have been the force of ranged death he was. There was enough prior evidence of that being the case, though, and so so SOOO many such rooms that it was a very sensible conclusion. Ergo, Krom: living proof that striking first and striking hard is the best policy.
Aeryn: yep, Bo9S MADE that character. Far and away the single biggest boost to her mobility, accuracy, and lethality that anything short of mythic could have done. More so, actually, since things like sudden leap are theoretically infinitely reusable each day. That campaign was off the rails power-wise, though. Our wealth levels were bonkers, we had a whole nation doing magical crafting for us by the end, 5 gestalt levels, things were just brought in from earlier system books at times because why not, house-rules that made things easier, the list goes on. It's probably not the best representation of what the class itself is capable of.
Zedwitz: sorry Zhang, but I have to agree with Anzyr here. More than anything, this was the campaign that convinced me advanced firearms aren't the best idea as written. Guns hitting touch AC is somewhat balanced at the early stages of the technology, but getting into advanced just makes it easy mode by removing or reducing the drawbacks to near trivial levels. Always hitting touch AC and always being in full-attack range for a rogue is just crazy good, but it has almost nothing at all to do with what makes a rogue a rogue and is pretty much entirely about what makes a gun a gun.
Rumi: NOTHING about that character was as it should be. Trust me, you weren't there Anzyr. It was all but week after week of train wreck. If the player wasn't a fun addition to our group, we would've ripped our scalps out in frustration years ago.
Chuko: can't speak to anything specific other here other than that there does appear to an inherent lack of any kind of built-in accuracy buff for a rogue.
Jasmine: actually Anzyr, it's the exact opposite. She's quite the scout and party face, even without taking mythic into account. Sometimes a great diplomacy check is better than suggestion or charm person, same with stealth vs. invisibilty. Also, she is death in a sleek fur coat and my monsters would be terrified of her if they had any sense or fear for their lives.
4/6 with minimal information ain't bad (I'm counting everyone but Krom and Jasmine). I'm still going to personally give the inspiring bard more points though as he was likely helping to cover the Rogues accuracy issues here. I didn't realize Jasmine was Mythic or my comment would have been:
Jasmine: Because Mythic gives martials options they should have normally.
Seriously, Mythic Weapon Finesse: Adding Dex to damage... clearly the stuff of LEGENDS. Oh wait. No.
4/6 with minimal information ain't bad (I'm counting everyone but Krom and Jasmine). I'm still going to personally give the inspiring bard more points though as he was likely helping to cover the Rogues accuracy issues here. I didn't realize Jasmine was Mythic or my comment would have been:
Jasmine: Because Mythic gives martials options they should have normally.
Seriously, Mythic Weapon Finesse: Adding Dex to damage... clearly the stuff of LEGENDS. Oh wait. No.
EVERYONE knows bards are crazy good at party support of virtually all kinds. Claiming "the bard helped" is just cheating.
In all seriousness, though, little of what Jasmine does outside of combat is due to mythic. In combat, yeah, mythic is somewhat bonkers and responsibly largely for the havox she wreaks. Though, if she didn't have the "I go invisible at will" trickster ability, she'd probably have taken vanishing trick instead. I know I mentioned it to the player before the campaign started. With her as a scout getting time to sneak into position for full attacks, I'm not certain I'd write off ALL of the ninja's death-dealing ability in this case as simply being due to mythic. Call it an even 40%, I think.
Sometimes I wonder what the rogue would look like if it was based off of what the class in Warcraft can do. Sneak attack is just so stupidly easy to thwart and reduce this class's combat ability to near insignificance in comparison to ANY other class ability, it's insane. Not getting any other neat tricks that aren't purely defensive, exclusively about traps, or that require choosing from a VERY lackluster list of talent makes them pale beside their MMO brethern. Maybe if they were more like my night elf, tearing up the wilds and dungeons of Kalimdor with both party and solo combat capabilities, we'd see the class actually show up as book, or even campaign, end bosses for adventure paths once in a while.
Oh she was a Ninja? Ninja's are fine. Not super mega-awesome, but fine. Much better then Rogues anyway. Even though I know Ninja is a Rogue Alternate Class, I still wouldn't count them as Rogues. They are much more effective then Rogues, thanks to the unique abilities that they get. But ya, I can totally see a Mythic Ninja being a boss.
Oh she was a Ninja? Ninja's are fine. Not super mega-awesome, but fine. Much better then Rogues anyway.
Eh... I'd say they are a very underpowered class with a couple nice tricks added to the mix. They are... Passable.
Oh she was a Ninja? Ninja's are fine. Not super mega-awesome, but fine. Much better then Rogues anyway.Eh... I'd say they are a very underpowered class with a couple nice tricks added to the mix. They are... Passable.
Pretty much this. They still inherit the over reliance on Sneak Attack for combat power that the Rogue does. Before level 10 their options for Sneak Attacking that the Rogue doesn't have really is just burn 1 ki point for 1 Sneak Attack. At high levels they run into the trouble of every creature and their mothers having some way past invisibility.
|
3. The ninja archetype doesn't actually change all that much. Because of the ninja trick rogue talent and the rogue talent ninja trick, until level 10, a ninja's only significant changes are a ki pool and the inability to take Extra Rogue Talent.
The Ki pool and the different Ninja Tricks are huge changes, as is loosing access to evasion, trapfinding, and trap sense.
Ninja tricks are more powerful than rogue talents, Ki Pool can give you an extra attack per round, and even light steps is a straight up utility buff.
While a ninja is a rogue, the only thing it really shares with the base class is 3/4 bab, bad saves, and sneak attack.
I wish people would stop saying that they "wouldn't count ninjas as rogues."
1. The ninja "alternate class" is literally a comprehensive rogue archetype that was written in a different format to make it easier to understand without flipping between books.
2. The whole point of archetypes is that they change your class features to allow you to do new and interesting things. If the ninja archetype does this, then that isn't anything unusual. It's doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
3. The ninja archetype doesn't actually change all that much. Because of the ninja trick rogue talent and the rogue talent ninja trick, until level 10, a ninja's only significant changes are a ki pool and the inability to take Extra Rogue Talent.
Compare that to, say, Archaeologist bards or Vivisectionist alchemists. Or Crossblooded sorcerers. Or Master of Many Styles monks. I mean, there are even bloodrager, paladin, and ranger archetypes that give up spellcasting. And nobody says that those archetypes "wouldn't count" as their original class.
Okay, I'm done with my rant. Carry on.
I don't count Antipaladins when I'm talking about the pro's and con's of Paladins either. It just helps to keep things straight. Rogues are Rogues and Ninjas are Ninjas.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
3. The ninja archetype doesn't actually change all that much.
It changes everything by giving access to easy invisibility.
|
In my experience base-class, straight-class rogues struggle to do well in combat and at things rogues should be good at. I have played 2 rogues in PFS and one has two archetypes and is decent at combat but gave up magic trapfinding, the other is an arcane trickster. Both are fun to play for different reasons.
I like my archetype rogue because he's essentially a halfling mafioso. I grew up just outside NYC and lived in Brooklyn for 5 years, so it's really easy for me to slip into that accent. He's got the scout and knifemaster archetypes, a ridiculously high dex for his level, and is built for combat ... yet he's probably only slightly more effective than your average barbarian or fighter but he can't spot magic traps and he gave up uncanny dodge. He's also got fairly weak saves, so I feel sorry for the party if he's ever confused and ends up attacking a party member.
I like my arcane trickster rogue because it's fun to play a sneaky spellcaster, and he's now rogue 3/wiz 1/arc trick 7 so he's got some decent spells and abilities, and spends the majority of his time invisible. I didn't have to sacrifice trapfinding, but in order to make him an effective "rogue" I had to take most of his levels as a prestige class.
In a home campaign (lv11-14) I was in a group where the rogue was decent. I mean the GM house-ruled a ring of greater invisibility for him, that the TWF penalties didn't apply for the rogue, that Using an wrong sized weapon penalty didn't apply, that he was a Minotaur for extra str, and that the GM was bad at combat and had dragons come into our melee party and let themselves get flanked, that he could sneak attack when the enemy had lesser concealment. AND he had a level of ranger for favored enemy dragon. With all of that and who knows how much more rule bending/ignoring, this rogue was able to sometimes do decent damage, he'd still miss many of his attacks.
Out of Combat he didn't have much either. I was playing a rogue-ish wizard, and I had more skills per level than he did, plus spells. My stats for skills were comparable. So I was only missing on some class skills, which for a lot I made up for by being able to craft my own gear to boost skills I wanted.
|
|
In a home campaign (lv11-14) I was in a group where the rogue was decent. I mean the GM house-ruled a ring of greater invisibility for him, that the TWF penalties didn't apply for the rogue, that Using an wrong sized weapon penalty didn't apply, that he was a Minotaur for extra str, and that the GM was bad at combat and had dragons come into our melee party and let themselves get flanked, that he could sneak attack when the enemy had lesser concealment. AND he had a level of ranger for favored enemy dragon. With all of that and who knows how much more rule bending/ignoring, this rogue was able to sometimes do decent damage, he'd still miss many of his attacks.
Out of Combat he didn't have much either. I was playing a rogue-ish wizard, and I had more skills per level than he did, plus spells. My stats for skills were comparable. So I was only missing on some class skills, which for a lot I made up for by being able to craft my own gear to boost skills I wanted.
That's a pretty big list of pretty impressive boons the GM gave the rogue, just to be able to compete, to say nothing of excelling.
I.E. That's a perfect microcosm of what's wrong with rogues.
My experiences with rogues in PF are those two:
1) Kingmaker AP (which means easy combats, little to no spellcasting opposition and A LOT of money) another player had a DEX based rogue twf-er (we had rolled for stats so we all had god-stats, something like 50 pointy buy). The rogue pulled his own weight at combat and contributed, nothing like my switch-hitter ranger or the STR based magus but still... Out of combat there was one instance where i couldn't follow him and do what he did and that had more to do with unnecessary risks and not leaving the cleric alone (who was the only one who couldn't follow).
2) WotR AP, keep in mind that beside mythic the DM also gave the rogue full BAB, d10 and high fort. The rogue is a DEX based twf-er tiefling (with a bite attack), the party has 3 other melee combatants, also not a pure rogue but had a dip of demon-hunter ranger, went trickster mythic path. Ok the character was quite good, very good i might add but still, around level 9, the player saw that if he was a slayer or ranger he would be better, after 10 levels of rogue he decided that he would take the rest of his levels as demon-hunter ranger and dualed path into champion.
|
|
H
Also, has anyone tried having **2** Rogues or Ninjas in a party, with teamwork feats to make them synergize? (Think of combining the above with something like Paired Opportunist.)
My father in law plays Lefty, we synergize skills and feats and set up dual sneak attack chains. We did this through 3.5 (Blackmoor) and continued through pathfinder. The teamwork feats we didn't go through, mainly as we are not guaranteed to be in the same party. However, if that were the case - absolutely.
3. The ninja archetype doesn't actually change all that much.It changes everything by giving access to easy invisibility.
countering invisibility is a joke at any level. just buy a dog or few, problem solved for most baddies. on dog's turn, dog uses scent and barks out location, rogue is autodetected, henchmen throws sack of flour on invisible ninja, invisibility is foiled by a 1 copper piece sack of flour, and even if you used it again, the flour would still reveal you. negating any miss chances. plus, invisibility goes off after your first attack, and by the level you get greater invisibility, most of the stuff autodetects you or doesn't care about sight, meaning your back down to your piddly 1d4-1 damage again
countering invisibility is a joke at any level. just buy a dog or few, problem solved for most baddies. on dog's turn, dog uses scent and barks out location, rogue is autodetected, henchmen throws sack of flour on invisible ninja, invisibility is foiled by a 1 copper piece sack of flour, and even if you used it again, the flour would still reveal you. negating any miss chances. plus, invisibility goes off after your first attack, and by the level you get greater invisibility, most of the stuff autodetects you or doesn't care about sight, meaning your back down to your piddly 1d4-1 damage again3. The ninja archetype doesn't actually change all that much.It changes everything by giving access to easy invisibility.
Flour trick works on 3.5 invisibility not on PF invisibility.
I believe there is an item listing in Ultimate Equipment that is listed as chalk, flour, etc. and covers the use against invisible targets. Essentially, ranged touch attack against a square (AC 5). If successful, reveal that an invisibld creature is there
Alternatively, full-round action to spread substance in one square. Any invisible creature passing through can be noticed via footprints.
It reveals the location, but nothing more. No concealment bypass, still denied dex, and all that.
I think Marroar is right, actually... And if you think I'm a "caster supremacist", I invite you to read my post history.
I think Marroar is right, actually... And if you think I'm a "caster supremacist", I invite you to read my post history.
i know your post history, but do you agree with me that pouring a bag of flour on an invisible target should be just as effective as casting a glitterdust spell on them?
|
I think Marroar is right, actually... And if you think I'm a "caster supremacist", I invite you to read my post history.i know your post history, but do you agree with me that pouring a bag of flour on an invisible target should be just as effective as casting a glitterdust spell on them?
It shouldn't be. For one thing, it doesn't blind anyone, but I'm assuming that's not the part you were arguing should be just as effective. The second part though, it doesn't outline the target, there's just a lack of powder where the target is. So it's still difficult to make out exactly where the target is, and hence why they still get concealment.
Don't get me wrong, it's a great trick that I've used on occasion, but it isn't as good as glitterdust.
EDIT - Also, when the invisible creature moves out of the affected square, they go back to being normally invisible, another thing glitterdust has on top of powder.
I think Marroar is right, actually... And if you think I'm a "caster supremacist", I invite you to read my post history.i know your post history, but do you agree with me that pouring a bag of flour on an invisible target should be just as effective as casting a glitterdust spell on them?
You'd know where the character is, and be able to attack him. But the 50% miss chance would still apply... Unless you somehow managed to completely immerse the enemy in an "ocean" of flour.
So, no. I don't think it'd be just as effective. Nor do I think it should be. I think mundane classes should have options to deal with this sort of thing, but I don't think flour should be able to completely negate invisibility.
I think Marroar is right, actually... And if you think I'm a "caster supremacist", I invite you to read my post history.i know your post history, but do you agree with me that pouring a bag of flour on an invisible target should be just as effective as casting a glitterdust spell on them?You'd know where the character is, and be able to attack him. But the 50% miss chance would still apply... Unless you somehow managed to completely immerse the enemy in an "ocean" of flour.
So, no. I don't think it'd be just as effective. Nor do I think it should be. I think mundane classes should have options to deal with this sort of thing, but I don't think flour should be able to completely negate invisibility.
Well they do.
Blind-fight + flour = 25% miss chance
Blind-fight + perception + looking at all the extra penalties that only invisible creatures can have to stealth = 25% miss chance
Blind-Fight is not good enough, IMO. And it's a touch too situational to be worth a feat. It should at least scale into Improved/Great Blind Fight based on your ranks in Perception.
Feats are a very scarce resource. Possibly the scarcest in the game, actually. It shouldn't just offer a minimal benefit against invisible enemies (who at most, spent a 2nd level spell slot to get it).
|
A trap. Even if their sneak attack was "straight up" a d6 damage every 2 levels they are a trap. The Thug archtype is a great 1-level splash for the Enforcer-type character, but otherwise they don't do the "DPS" they are meant to and have difficulty boosting their AC. Skills should do more; their tricks should be more unique, there should be less "better" skill monkeys in the game.
I keep an open mind when one sits down at our tables, but they always turn out the same (disappointing and frustrated in combat and not really to stand out even outside of combat). I think if you are making the "heavy roleplaying skill-monkey" character. Slayer does the DPS-skill monkey better, too.
And it's nothing new; I had more fun with them in 1st and 2nd edition, where they were more necessary (and nobody else actually had skills)... but it is always the roleplaying aspect. Even there they felt like the odd-man out, only there to detect traps and try to be cool. At least there skills were an exclusive to them; and sneaking was a straight-percentage (not a losing die roll where they had to beat EVERYONE in the room).
These days I still have fun playing "rogue themed" characters, but they are Bards, Slayers, and Swashbucklers.
I had a rogue up to 6th level in Carrion Crown that was my favorite character I have ever had. He was 4th Rogue Acrobat, 2 Monk Martial Artist, and he had a Sneaky Vicious Dagger and Snake Style for his style feat. He had like a +14 Acrobatics, +11 Sense Motive, which saved his life a whole bunch.
My favorite moment was fighting a Manticore...he climbed a tree next to where the Manticore was hovering, did a flip from the tree onto the Manticore with an Acro check, Sneak Attack for mega damage to kill it, natural 20 on the Acro check to dismount to the ground after slitting it's throat...
Next session he was attacked by Wraiths and succumbed to severe Con damage.
Rogue is my favorite class so far. With high Acro and Dex, and the ability with Snake Style to use a Sense Motive check as his AC, he was nigh untouchable.
However, our party got split up and we were without a healer, so the wriaths wraithed the s~#* out of him.
|
|
My buddy plays a PFS rogue - usually along with my bard. We've built them so that between the two of us we cover virtually every skill. He never totally dominates - but he's a very solid member of the party.
Of note though - he went Tengu natural weapons, with scout/tengu swordmaster archetypes. Getting three sneak attacks on the enemy wizard off a charge in the first round of combat is pretty sweet, especially at level 4. (Yes - it happened.)
But I suppose one could argue that his using system mastery allowed his rogue to be above average. Plus I suppose my bard makes for a great flanking buddy - high AC & low offense (DPR isn't his job), it's totally worth it for me to give up my attack to get into flanking position if need be.
How does the flour disappear? Does the invisible creature put its skin/clothes into a pouch? Re-cast invisibility?
The same way anything that isn't glitterdust or dust of revealing or something otherwise meant to negate invisibility disappears: because magic.
For your friend, maybe point her in the direction of brawler instead? It's simpler, has less poorly thought out features, and functions like a monk should in combat.
Anything you would want to be for a rogue can be easily done by slayer or investigator.
No.
Many things, yes, but anything, no.
If you threw in bard and alchemist into the mix then you would be closer.
But that's four different classes, and there are still worthwhile things that rogues can get and they can't.
Besides "be better against traps", what major capabilities of the class is he missing?
|
|
Besides "be better against traps", what major capabilities of the class is he missing?No.
Many things, yes, but anything, no.
If you threw in bard and alchemist into the mix then you would be closer.
But that's four different classes, and there are still worthwhile things that rogues can get and they can't.
It's not the class in general, it's extremely specialized builds of the rogue that can't be replicated by other classes. Thug is the only class in the game that can stack demoralizes. Carnivalist is the only way to get a Familiar with sneak attack.
There are a few others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've read tons of thread about rogue building,rogue issues and so on but i've found a lot theorycrafting and not that much personal experience.
My personal experience includes the overwhelming abundance of dead rogues I've seen in my campaigns or campaigns I've participated in, coupled with the even larger number of wallflowers sucking up experience points with their 1d6+3 damage at 8th level, coupled with the mixture of amusement and worry when one explodes like a pinata because they wanted to sneak attack and their foe decides to swat the fly, but then you're down a PC which means baddies might target someone that's actually contributing to the success of the group.
Of course you might have bought some riding dogs or summoned monsters who can serve as much or better of a distraction. :)
|
|
the problem there is, are any of those builds actually GOOD?I mean, the thug stack demoralize is fine, but then a caster can simply cast a fear-like spell and accomplish the same thing faster and possibly to more people.
A sneak attacking familiar, while sounds fun i'll admit, will get stomped the round after it does it's thing.
Any martial class can be made irrelevant by spells.
As for the familiar, if you took the valet archetype on the familiar, and then multiclassed into a sanctified slayer with the crocodile domian, you would have all of the benefits of a hunter sharing teamwork feats with an AC but with a Familiar instead. A Familiar can be made to be surprisingly hardy and dangerous, especially if you take the evolve familiar feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel the rogue is only useful as a trap to people that think a "rogue character" has to be played by the "rogue class". Rogue's not getting any bonus on the things you'd think a rogue would be good at makes them fail so hard. Every rogue I've seen has felt unsatisfied and kinda useless. Because other classes were just as good as them if not better at sneaking around and perception. Or at forgery or sleight of hand. I wanted to make a very good pickpocket and went street performer bard because they get a bonus to that skill.
The rogue was probably "better" when class skills meant a lot more.As it is they don't have anything that I feel makes them special at all. If you give an expert sneak attack you have the rogue.