... so it's really ONLY in 3rd edition/Pathfinder that Rogues aren't deadly and dangerous.
Further...
I agree with that. My position is that it's not surprising that rogues disappoint if everyone is expecting them to operate like they do in MMORPGs, and of course they will under-perform if you try to force the class into that role with a lot of really specific sub-optimal character build choices.
I agree with that. My position is that it's not surprising that rogues disappoint if everyone is expecting them to operate like they do in MMORPGs, and of course they will under-perform if you try to force the class into that role with a lot of really specific sub-optimal character build choices.... so it's really ONLY in 3rd edition/Pathfinder that Rogues aren't deadly and dangerous.
Further...
My point was that it's not just MMOs, though, it's every other version of D&D, too. It's basically everything with a Rogue in it. Pathfinder/3rd edition is alone in its mistreatment of Rogues.
Let me ask, what do you think the Rogue's role in Pathfinder? Since it's not being dangerous in combat and they're not the best at skills (plus, skills are suboptimal in general anyway because spells obsolete them very quickly), what are they supposed to do?
|
I agree with that. My position is that it's not surprising that rogues disappoint if everyone is expecting them to operate like they do in MMORPGs, and of course they will under-perform if you try to force the class into that role with a lot of really specific sub-optimal character build choices.... so it's really ONLY in 3rd edition/Pathfinder that Rogues aren't deadly and dangerous.
Further...
My point was that it's not just MMOs, though, it's every other version of D&D, too. It's basically everything with a Rogue in it. Pathfinder/3rd edition is alone in its mistreatment of Rogues.
Let me ask, what do you think the Rogue's role in Pathfinder? Since it's not being dangerous in combat and they're not the best at skills (plus, skills are suboptimal in general anyway because spells obsolete them very quickly), what are they supposed to do?
3.5 was actually harder for rogues to do damage because so many blasted things had crit immunity, but the rogue was the only base class that could effectively handle traps and going straight-class in 3.5 was nearly unheard of.
I think my highest level LG character had saves of +30/+25/+25 when he retired at level 15 and had evasion and mettle and was immune to enchantment.
I agree with that. My position is that it's not surprising that rogues disappoint if everyone is expecting them to operate like they do in MMORPGs, and of course they will under-perform if you try to force the class into that role with a lot of really specific sub-optimal character build choices.... so it's really ONLY in 3rd edition/Pathfinder that Rogues aren't deadly and dangerous.
Further...
My point was that it's not just MMOs, though, it's every other version of D&D, too. It's basically everything with a Rogue in it. Pathfinder/3rd edition is alone in its mistreatment of Rogues.
Let me ask, what do you think the Rogue's role in Pathfinder? Since it's not being dangerous in combat and they're not the best at skills (plus, skills are suboptimal in general anyway because spells obsolete them very quickly), what are they supposed to do?
3.5 was actually harder for rogues to do damage because so many blasted things had crit immunity, but the rogue was the only base class that could effectively handle traps and going straight-class in 3.5 was nearly unheard of.
I think my highest level LG character had saves of +30/+25/+25 when he retired at level 15 and had evasion and mettle and was immune to enchantment.
Exactly, yeah. I said 3rd edition/Pathfinder. Did you think I was excluding 3.5?
The problem is that 3.5 made Rogues weak and sucky (though, yeah, trapfinding made them almost necessary), but that wasn't that bad because as you said, everyone multiclassed all the time anyway. But when Pathfinder came around, everyone got buffed up, but Rogues got buffed up the least (plus, multi-classing is now relatively weak). Then, reasonable trap rules (where you don't necessarily need a special feature) and archetypes came around that took away the Rogue's unique thing.
My experience with a "Brute" based rogue from level 1-9 has been fantastic. She is consistently the heavy hitter in the group.
2 Level dip into Barbarian for Rage, Fast Movement, Medium Armor Prof, Uncanny Dodge (given up by the Rogue Archetype), Martial Weapon Proficiency, and a Rage Power (Auspicious mark has be useful for those near misses and if fits in with the story).
Rogue with the Thug and Scout Archetype for the rest (and will till 20). I've got a wand of Lead Blades and an cracked Vibrant Purple Prism to hold it in, so I'm not rolling UMD at the start of a fight.
** spoiler omitted **
It could be that the rest of the party isn't insanely optimized but after buffs swinging in the low 40s with normal hits (3 with Blessing of Fervor) or in the 60s with Vital Strike and getting to move, does quite well in our game (Kingmaker).
Outside of combat UMD has has made my character the utility caster for any scroll or wand our Druid...
What caster level does the wand of lead blades has so that you can assume to have it going in most combats?
Not sure what are you talking about. In 2ed the thief were horrible damage dealers.
Backstab multiplied your damage, eventually by x4 or x5 and it was significantly easier to do because facing existed. Further, normal weapon damage was pretty limited--there was no power attack or anything, just 1d8 + a mediocre str derived bonus. And multiple attacks were fewer and came pretty late. Damage was lower overall, so Thief damage was relatively high. But again, casters were the best damage dealers by far.
|
|
Not sure what are you talking about. In 2ed the thief were horrible damage dealers.
Yes but we all played an elf or half-elf rogue/something just to get the 2 XP per gold piece acquired (rogues were 5 levels above everyone due to that amazing class feature... perhaps if we bring this class feature back it would singlehandedly solve all of the rogue's problems?)
:)
I've never played a rogue but I run enough games a GM to see the rogue in action and to see where they shine and where they fall flat.
Rogues are great off the start. 8 skill point gives them lot of skills at 1st level with +3 trained bonus where other class are doing it untrained. And extra D6 damage with sneak attack is great. Things are good and only get better. By 9th level the rogue is performing great but things do not get better. It take a while to make that slide. Usually by about 15th level the rogue is struggling.
What I notice at 15th is a few things. Skills are no longer relevant in most cases. Skill checks become trivial for all classes in most cases. It's at this level that you have ranks, feats, and magic affecting skills. Not like the rogue at 1st level when all you was skill ranks. Then there is combat, the rogue doesn't need to be the best in damage but then need to be able to at least hit with their primary attack. A lot of encounters I see in 15+ range the rogue simply can hit as their primary attack needs a 16 or better and roll of 20 on the rest of their attacks. High level encounter with some tactics, consumables and the AC just shoots out of reach for the rogue. I can as GM put encounters with weaker monsters but then magic just wipes them out in round. Then there is survivability which wouldn't be as big a problem if the rogue could hit but since they can't they are in harms way longer and take much more damage.
Now I've seen games where high level rogues have been successful too. Problem is their success relied on the other players. For example in a game where I was playing, I had a bard who's inspire courage and good hope helped the rogue hit. I worked with rogue on teamwork feats like outflank and was his flanking partner. We'd both have +9 to hit flanking. The Wizard would haste party too bring that +10. Now that roll of 16 is 6 or higher. As bard I hit about as good at the rogue too so big help to me as well.
So in all the rogue as class seems to be a good as the party supporting that rogue. No support then the rogue suffers at the high levels.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure what are you talking about. In 2ed the thief were horrible damage dealers.Backstab multiplied your damage, eventually by x4 or x5 and it was significantly easier to do because facing existed. Further, normal weapon damage was pretty limited--there was no power attack or anything, just 1d8 + a mediocre str derived bonus. And multiple attacks were fewer and came pretty late. Damage was lower overall, so Thief damage was relatively high. But again, casters were the best damage dealers by far.BAckstab was hard to do. The enemy had to be unaware of you, it was only once per fight, you have to attack him from the back, you had to be able to reach a vital spot (like flying to back stab a giant), you can only do it with a dagger, no flat-footed, no flanking.
The multiplier was not that great. with strength 17 you only had +1 to damage.
Besides Rogue AC, saves(I think) and hit points were low.
Rogue were bad warriors.
I played a 2nd edtion swashbuckler rogue once that was a very good warrior. Thanks to a flat +1 to hit and damage every five levels, being almost twice the level of the rest of the party, and a belt of giant strength he was able to put out as much damage as the fighter with grand mastery.
|
|
It was not a class feature. It was an optional rule in the dungeon master guide.Not sure what are you talking about. In 2ed the thief were horrible damage dealers.Yes but we all played an elf or half-elf rogue/something just to get the 2 XP per gold piece acquired (rogues were 5 levels above everyone due to that amazing class feature... perhaps if we bring this class feature back it would singlehandedly solve all of the rogue's problems?)
:)
It was a class feature. :P
An internationally-recognized feature too! :)
BAckstab was hard to do. The enemy had to be unaware of you, it was only once per fight, you have to attack him from the back, you had to be able to reach a vital spot (like flying to back stab a giant), you can only do it with a dagger, no flat-footed, no flanking.
That is not my memory of it at all. I need to dig out my 2e books now, to see if I"m just internalizing houserules or what. By my recollection, Backstabbing was unlimited (not once per fight) as long as you were behind the bad guy (they did not have to be unaware just facing away, though being unaware helped). I also do not remember it being required to be done with only a dagger. I definitely remember playing a Ranger with a Skills and Powers option to get Backstab who used a Quarterstaff.
The multiplier was not that great. with strength 17 you only had +1 to damage.
Right, but everyone else ALSO had those low modifiers, so, multiplying them was still great.
Besides Rogue AC, saves(I think) and hit points were low.
Rogue were bad warriors.
AC and HP was bad, but saves were ok, if I recall. Yes, they were bad warriors, but not bad damage dealers. That was my point.
I think most people would be happy with a Glass Cannon Rogue, but in 3rd/Pathfinder, it's more like a Glass Beebee Gun.
Rogues have always been pretty bad... All that changes is how bad they are and how badly the game forces you to have one in the party. ><'
I played rogue once and only once. I don't think I will ever play that again, not because I don't like it, but I love bloodrager so much I don't see myself playing classes that doesn't have full bab and spells anymore.
When I played my rogue, I had his main stats as Int, then everything else just around 10. I can't remember fully now, but something like 10 str, 14 dex, 12 con, 16 int, 12 wis and 10 cha. I played him like Joker from Batman really. He was very chaotic, but not evil like Joker. Just plotting all the time, when the GM throwing main encounters, I always well prepared. Either I bought all the items I need to help with the encounter, or I got the trap set up in all the right places. Made many deals with NPCs to make them do stuff that the GM thought it was pointless, than works for the party later. Around level 10, it was the most fun as I can take 10 in many skills and I got to do many things in and out of combats with just skill checks.
But yea... Very stressful to play like that though, had to keep track of everything better than the GM and plan ahead of him. I still do that once in awhile but now I prefer just go in and hit stuff.
Not sure what are you talking about. In 2ed the thief were horrible damage dealers.Backstab multiplied your damage, eventually by x4 or x5 and it was significantly easier to do because facing existed. Further, normal weapon damage was pretty limited--there was no power attack or anything, just 1d8 + a mediocre str derived bonus. And multiple attacks were fewer and came pretty late. Damage was lower overall, so Thief damage was relatively high. But again, casters were the best damage dealers by far.BAckstab was hard to do. The enemy had to be unaware of you, it was only once per fight, you have to attack him from the back, you had to be able to reach a vital spot (like flying to back stab a giant), you can only do it with a dagger, no flat-footed, no flanking.
The multiplier was not that great. with strength 17 you only had +1 to damage.
Besides Rogue AC, saves(I think) and hit points were low.
Rogue were bad warriors.
It was easier to catch a person unaware. Hide in shadows and move silently were flat percentile rolls and no opposed perception check. Make the two rolls and your victim is unaware. As for the vital spot that was subject to GM ruling. On GM might make you fly to back stab a giant anther might let you hamstring the giant. There was not consistency. Really in the end the GM decided if back stab occurred or didn't.
|
|
It was easier to catch a person unaware. Hide in shadows and move silently were flat percentile rolls and no opposed perception check. Make the two rolls and your victim is unaware. As for the vital spot that was subject to GM ruling. On GM might make you fly to back stab a giant anther might let you hamstring the giant. There was not consistency. Really in the end the GM decided if back stab occurred or didn't.Not sure what are you talking about. In 2ed the thief were horrible damage dealers.Backstab multiplied your damage, eventually by x4 or x5 and it was significantly easier to do because facing existed. Further, normal weapon damage was pretty limited--there was no power attack or anything, just 1d8 + a mediocre str derived bonus. And multiple attacks were fewer and came pretty late. Damage was lower overall, so Thief damage was relatively high. But again, casters were the best damage dealers by far.BAckstab was hard to do. The enemy had to be unaware of you, it was only once per fight, you have to attack him from the back, you had to be able to reach a vital spot (like flying to back stab a giant), you can only do it with a dagger, no flat-footed, no flanking.
The multiplier was not that great. with strength 17 you only had +1 to damage.
Besides Rogue AC, saves(I think) and hit points were low.
Rogue were bad warriors.
Could you backstab the giant if you had a steampunk style apparatus which let you shoot through the air with an odd combination of grappling hooks and compressed air? Then you could reach the nape of their neck with your matched pair of surgical blades!
Missing a lot.
Hitting for pitiful damage.
Every now and again hitting for what damage the party barbarian does on a normal hit.
I agree with that. My position is that it's not surprising that rogues disappoint if everyone is expecting them to operate like they do in MMORPGs, and of course they will under-perform if you try to force the class into that role with a lot of really specific sub-optimal character build choices.... so it's really ONLY in 3rd edition/Pathfinder that Rogues aren't deadly and dangerous.
Further...
My point was that it's not just MMOs, though, it's every other version of D&D, too. It's basically everything with a Rogue in it. Pathfinder/3rd edition is alone in its mistreatment of Rogues.
Let me ask, what do you think the Rogue's role in Pathfinder? Since it's not being dangerous in combat and they're not the best at skills (plus, skills are suboptimal in general anyway because spells obsolete them very quickly), what are they supposed to do?
3.5 was actually harder for rogues to do damage because so many blasted things had crit immunity, but the rogue was the only base class that could effectively handle traps and going straight-class in 3.5 was nearly unheard of.
I think my highest level LG character had saves of +30/+25/+25 when he retired at level 15 and had evasion and mettle and was immune to enchantment.
Exactly, yeah. I said 3rd edition/Pathfinder. Did you think I was excluding 3.5?
The problem is that 3.5 made Rogues weak and sucky (though, yeah, trapfinding made them almost necessary), but that wasn't that bad because as you said, everyone multiclassed all the time anyway. But when Pathfinder came around, everyone got buffed up, but Rogues got buffed up the least (plus, multi-classing is now relatively weak). Then, reasonable trap rules (where you don't necessarily need a special feature) and archetypes came around that took away the Rogue's unique thing.
No, Pathfinder mad them sucky.
Non-Core 3.5 made them awesome.
First:
Methods of sneak attack-tude:
Blink (including Ring), Grease, Glitterdust, marbles, etc
Acquisition of sneak attack on immune creatures:
Magic assault crystals (Magic Item Compendium)
Penetrating Strike (Dungeonscape) trades away trapsense though (but who needs +X to AC vs traps)
Various spells (Golemstrike, Plantstrike, Gravestrike)
Seriously, a 3.5 rogue can beat a Pathfinder rogue anyday in DPS anytime (assuming 3.5 rules).
Heck, a Pathfinder rogue in 3.5 would be even awesomer.
Not to mention that a 3.5 rogue is probably not going to have all that many levels in the actual rogue class, since you'd be hopping into prestige classes by level five or so.
Edit: Just googled a 3.5 optimization handbook to see what it said, and ... yeah. Most of the suggested builds have all of 3-5 rogue levels before they start jumping into other classes, and a couple only have 1 rogue level.
...
I beg your pardon, I was insufficiently precise, and possibly provided extraneous information that was confusing. The specific system or environment that _isn't_ this one and to which pathfinder rogues are compared is irrelevant. I'm trying to communicate that it is my impression there are a lot of people trying to play _this_ class like it were a different class in a different system because it happens to have the same name.
It's not my contention that a rogue's role is "doing skills," or whatever you crazy kids call it these days. Although it might be the case, by some reasonable measures, that rogues _are_ the best skill class, I'm confident that's not relevant.
What is it you want this class to be that it isn't? (I don't mean that rhetorically or insincerely.)
My experience:
- Bad to-hit;
- Damage is very situacional;
- Poo survivability;
- Skills in Pathfinder are near useless.
I'm playing now a STR Stygian Slayer, and it's WAY better.
...I beg your pardon, I was insufficiently precise, and possibly provided extraneous information that was confusing. The specific system or environment that _isn't_ this one and to which pathfinder rogues are compared is irrelevant. I'm trying to communicate that it is my impression there are a lot of people trying to play _this_ class like it were a different class in a different system because it happens to have the same name.
It's not my contention that a rogue's role is "doing skills," or whatever you crazy kids call it these days. Although it might be the case, by some reasonable measures, that rogues _are_ the best skill class, I'm confident that's not relevant.
Sidenote: Bards and Investigators are objectively better skill classes than Rogues.
That said, I am trying to figure out what your contention is as far as the Rogue is concerned. You're suggesting people who come in expecting Rogues to be deadly or skillful or whatever else are to blame because they're not playing right--they're trying to play the Rogue as something it's not (i.e. like it was before or since in other games). So, what is the Rogue in Pathfinder?
What is it you want this class to be that it isn't? (I don't mean that rhetorically or insincerely.)
Me, personally? I'd like Rogues to be a high skill/high reward class. I'd like their effectiveness in combat to potentially be the highest, higher than say, two-handed power attackers, but only if they get the set up right. I'd like them to be the Wizards of the martial world. A poorly played wizard is nearly worthless, but one played optimally is the consensus best character in the game. I'd like the Rogue to do garbage damage if the player just grabs two weapons and wades into melee, but top the DPS charts (and/or deliver the nastiest conditions--damage should not be the only option) if they play smart and know what they're doing (flanking even, is too easy in my opinion).
Ideally, they'd be hard to hit, but not be able to take a punch--great saves, good non AC defenses (concealment, for example, or Evasion), but crappy hit points.
But honestly, I'd just settle for them being good at something--if they did the most damage, or at least damage competitive with fighters, I'd be ok. If they were actually the best at skills. If...there was any reason to be a non-multiclassed Rogue, I'd be satisfied.
|
|
What is it you want this class to be that it isn't? (I don't mean that rhetorically or insincerely.)
I'd like 2 things to help fix the Rogue.
1 - Full BAB
2 - While don't go back to 3.5 of non-class skills costing double - have them cap out at 1/2 your current level if they aren't class skills. (My group's usual houserule both in Pathfinder and back in 3.5) This makes class skills more relevant - and the rogue has loads.
There would be better ways to fix the Rogue, but that is the KISS method.
Personally - I'd like them to be less about damage and more about some sort of expanded Dirty Trick debuff system - but they'd have to be rebuilt nearly from the ground up.
|
Personally - I'd like them to be less about damage and more about some sort of expanded Dirty Trick debuff system - but they'd have to be rebuilt nearly from the ground up.
I rebuilt a rogue with a similar concept. I categorized all conditions into 5 different power levels and allowed this possible rogue build to apply them (based of her level) without the need of sneak attack, making sneak attack additional rather than a requirement. I fueled this power by reducing sneak attack progression and Rogue talent progression.
Well, just like most here I've played a rogue with less favourable results.
Ranger 1
Rogue-> (rest)
I played him like a self-confident archer. It was effective, as I always rolled sneak attack since I made use of every little detail of the scenario. Energyconsuming as it was, he still only dealt 75% of my unoptimized allies.
And died in the middle of an island, shielding the party from 2 swarms. Taking them both down to half health by alone holding his position among the sparkling flames of his own alchemist fire. (level2)
The party died but for one survivor - the scared bard, with our only healing potion.
(the death was at a third's rate the Rogue class fault, it's incapability of offering any option in that encounter, she was too slow to run, too weak to fight and too meak to endure.) (that was the one session I was too tired to play at the best of my ability) - something I regret to this day.
If it is something rogues excell at it is to be Pathfinder's top-notch glasscannon! Once triped, she drops hard.
As I played in an unoptimized setting I figured the Rouge would make a valid class, and it was (since I knew of every single method and had built towards obtaining sneak attack).
It is long since that rogue was alive but by reading through all the rogue threads here at Paizo there seems to be 4 things the rogue is lacking:
- Layered offensive abilities (it has sneak attack, but no other method of adding damage or strengthening the party or weakening his foes with his class features).
- Fortitude Save! (atleast if you plan on using weapon finesse)
- Individuality (you may optimize it, but it will continuously feel like some other class does the same thing better on top of being more flexibly strong.)
- Attack flexibility (most rogues need to be optimized towards a specific path to remain less than a drain on the party's behalf.) - too many feats required to do too little.
Though most Rogues works well with an Oracle dip for the revelation 'Mist Sight' + Obscuring Mist combined with being a gnome for the size stealth bonus, size aim, "Produce Flame" + "Recharge Innate Magic". The aim becomes good, damage becomes better, sneak becomes easier and the fortitude save and his health becomes decent.
Oh, and I can second that about TWF being s&*~. The aim drops too low and one's movement options become too restricted. The only time it is worth it is with touch attacks (through holding a charge).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen two rogues in play recently:
Rogue nr. 1 was the classic high-dex low-str switch hitter no-archetype rogue in Curse of the Crimson Throne, switching between a shortbow and a rapier. The player repeatedly stated frustration with the character's lack of contribution to the party both in and out of combat, and eventually retired the character to make a vivisectionist alchemist which he was much more happy with.
In the rogue's defense I should note that the party also had a dex-based Dawnflower Dervish Bard and an bow-focused Urban Ranger, so he had fairly harsh match-ups in both melee and archery. The only (primary) spellcaster in the party focused on evocation spells, so there were limited opportunities to attack targets with sneak attack-friendly conditions. I should also note that Fencing Grace wasn't released at the time, which would probably have helped him a fair bit.
Rogue nr. 2 was a high-strength tiefling rogue in Skull & Shackles using a greatsword to good effect. I want to say he had the Scout archetype, but I'm not 100% sure. This character fared better, in part because he had a viable source of damage when not flanking and in part because S&S favors a character who can put a decent amount of skill points in non-traditional skills such as climbing, swimming, acrobatics, profession (sailor) and so on. He was able to contribute meaningfully until the game fell apart at about level 7.
In this case I should note that the GM insisted on using a homebrewed dice-based stat creation system and the rogue player rolled the equivalent of 41 PB, and that the party had a conjuration-focused arcanist who was very fond of Glitterdust. There were numerous blind opponents and flanking opportunities provided via summoned monsters.
Speaking more generally, in my experience the rogue is not a completely lost cause - with sufficient system mastery you can make perfectly viable rogues unless your party is playing at very high levels of optimization. That said, I also find that point for point the rogue requires more effort than any other class to reach a decent level of competence. If you make a cavalier, an investigator or an inquisitor, a fairly new player or a player who doesn't particularly care about power levels can still make a good character - the logical choices work out well for the character. If you make a rogue however, you need to really milk the system to come out ahead. More troublingly, the class works best when you make choices that seem very out of place for the iconic representation of the class: using a two-handed weapon instead of a light weapon or TWF, prioritizing strength over dexterity, choosing wisdom over intelligence and charisma and so on. One of the better rogue builds I've seen relied exclusively on the seven-branched sword for sneak attacks, for example.
For what it's worth I hope the new rogue rewrite will have class features that encourage rogues to use light weapons or ranged weapons over two-handed weapons, and prioritize dexterity, intelligence and charisma over strength, constitution and wisdom.
Could you backstab the giant if you had a steampunk style apparatus which let you shoot through the air with an odd combination of grappling hooks and compressed air? Then you could reach the nape of their neck with your matched pair of surgical blades!
If only D&D titans were simple minded grotesque muscle beasts instead of giant Greeks. :P
Sidenote: Bards and Investigators are objectively better skill classes than Rogues.
That's a difficult thing to quantify, and I don't think you've supported that claim sufficiently to make it as a side note. It's not especially important, though. While I don't agree with your assertion, I can comfortably concede to it for the sake of argument. If there are two classes in the game that are better than this one, that doesn't mean this one is under-powered.
You're suggesting people who come in expecting Rogues to be deadly or skillful or whatever else are to blame because they're not playing right--they're trying to play the Rogue as something it's not (i.e. like it was before or since in other games). ...
You're putting words in my mouth. Please be careful not to do that. A rogue is and should be skillful.
... I'd like their effectiveness in combat to potentially be the highest, higher than say, two-handed power attackers, but only if they get the set up right...
This seems unreasonable to me. Fighter characters should be the best at fighting. If rogues fight as well as (or better than) fighters while still having access to a variety of skills and abilities, why would you play a fighter? (The popular answer is "to tank," but I don't think most people enjoy standing around getting punched so someone else can play D&D), and if the only condition for putting out the damage you want them to put out is "playing smart and knowing what you're doing," they will almost always be _just_ _better_ than a fighter, and then we'll be having this same conversation about the fighter class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter characters should be the best at fighting. If rogues fight as well as (or better than) fighters while still having access to a variety of skills and abilities, why would you play a fighter? (The popular answer is "to tank," but I don't think most people enjoy standing around getting punched so someone else can play D&D), and if the only condition for putting out the damage you want them to put out is "playing smart and knowing what you're doing," they will almost always be _just_ _better_ than a fighter, and then we'll be having this same conversation about the fighter class.
We do have much the same conversation about the Fighter class. Fighters are the worst at non-combat abilities. They lack skill points, special abilities, magic, etc. This is not balanced out by them being the best in combat.
And getting sneak attack damage as a rogue isn't something you can do reliably just by playing smart. Whatever you're doing depends on your opponent being flankable, vulnerable to feinting, etc.
We do have much the same conversation about the Fighter class. Fighters are the worst at non-combat abilities. They lack skill points, special abilities, magic, etc. This is not balanced out by them being the best in combat.And getting sneak attack damage as a rogue isn't something you can do reliably just by playing smart. Whatever you're doing depends on your opponent being flankable, vulnerable to feinting, etc.
Hey, Matthew. I think you might be jumping into this conversation in the middle and making some mistakes about what we're talking about. We're discussing what it would be like if the rogue did more damage than the fighter when both were played well, but still was (or was newly) the best class for maximizing skill use.
I'm not referring to any specific class for comparison, only party roles, and I'm not placing any additional restrictions on what it means to "play smart" because we're dealing with a hypothetical rogue class that meets mplindustries expectations.
|
|
Sidenote: Bards and Investigators are objectively better skill classes than Rogues.That's a difficult thing to quantify, and I don't think you've supported that claim sufficiently to make it as a side note. It's not especially important, though. While I don't agree with your assertion, I can comfortably concede to it for the sake of argument. If there are two classes in the game that are better than this one, that doesn't mean this one is under-powered.
Inspiration and Bardic Knowledge + Versatile Performance make Investigators and Bards much better skill classes than a rogue. The only thing that sugguests rogues are good at skills is that they get 8 skill points per level. This doesn't actually make them good at skills though. It just means they have two more skills trained by default than those classes.
You're suggesting people who come in expecting Rogues to be deadly or skillful or whatever else are to blame because they're not playing right--they're trying to play the Rogue as something it's not (i.e. like it was before or since in other games). ...You're putting words in my mouth. Please be careful not to do that. A rogue is and should be skillful.
How is a rogue skillful? Again, while they gain multiple skill points per level, they have no inherent bonus to using those skills, which is something the investigator, bard, and inquisitor all have.
... I'd like their effectiveness in combat to potentially be the highest, higher than say, two-handed power attackers, but only if they get the set up right...This seems unreasonable to me. Fighter characters should be the best at fighting. If rogues fight as well as (or better than) fighters while still having access to a variety of skills and abilities, why would you play a fighter? (The popular answer is "to tank," but I don't think most people enjoy standing around getting punched so someone else can play D&D), and if the only condition for putting out the damage you want them to put out is "playing smart and knowing what you're doing," they will almost always be _just_ _better_ than a fighter, and then we'll be having this same conversation about the fighter class.
We are already having the same conversation about the fighter class. The fighter class has just as many problems as the rogue, but at least the fighter can be decent at fighting.
The rogue isn't decent at combat, and it isn't decent at skills.
This isn't to say you can't make an effective rogue. You can. But it requires advanced system mastery, and even still other classes fill the same role better with less effort required.
Imbicatus, what would _you_ like the rogue to be able to do that it doesn't do now?
|
|
(The popular answer is "to tank," but I don't think most people enjoy standing around getting punched so someone else can play D&D)
I would!
I've always liked to play tanky/supporting roles.
I like tanky bards. My current samurai does decent damage - but he's more about AC, resolve giving him the equivilent of decent saves, and shaking/antagonizing his foes.
My MMO characters are usually tanks (though it's been awhile). Heck - in LoL - my favorite champion is probably Taric. (for those of you who get the reference)
Some of us actually do LIKE to be the guy who doesn't get the killing blows/glory but is nonetheless the backbone of the party.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imbicatus, what would _you_ like the rogue to be able to do that it doesn't do now?
I would like the rogue to be at least as effective in combat as an investigator, inquisitor, bard, or alchemist. These are the four main rogue replacement classes that are also 3/4th BAB. There needs to be some kind of accuracy booster for the class. Sneak attack is fine for a damage booster, but it alone is not enough. I would also like them to be able to make more effective dirty tricks than other classes.
Out of combat, there needs to be some class features that give a +1/2 bonus to skills. Trapfinding gives +1/2 levels to perception for finding traps. Archaeologist bard gets +1/2 levels to perception for everything.
Finally, there need to be rogue talents that are actually rogue only that don't suck.
I would want the rogue to be better at combat and at skills than a slayer/investigator multiclass character.
I gave a stab at that. I am still not completely satisfied with the concept.
|
|
There needs to be some kind of accuracy booster for the class. Sneak attack is fine for a damage booster, but it alone is not enough. I would also like them to be able to make more effective dirty tricks than other classes.
Actually - I've been thinking about this for awhile. What would you guys think about rogue sneak attack giving a bonus to hit equal to the # of sneak attack dice?
In addition - for dirty tricks - just give them a free dirty trick at the end of any round in which they did sneak attack damage with a bonus equal to the total dice rolled on all hits.
And both the bonus to attack and dirty trick would still work on monsters immune to crit hits. (Though the diry trick wouldn't get any bonuses since no damage dice were rolled - you'd still get it for free at the end of the round.)
That's doesn't seem OP to me - but it's hard to tell just on paper. It'd make them mean in rounds they get to sneak attack, but otherwise they'd be the same as current.
(This would just be a combat fix and not address their being out-skilled.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just throwing this out there for AMSAO but...
Fighters aren't the best damage dealers. In fact, they generally just kind of average out with the other martials who are generally leaps and bounds better. Fighters are generally the worst martials in the game. They have the worst defenses out of any martial. They have arguably the worst skills and/or out of combat usage in the game (even Commoners are better). They are horrid at endurance-style games (the kind where you try to push through lots of encounters without resting) and they're bad at nova'ing (if your GM is the opposite and likes using few but grand scale encounters requiring you to push yourself). Fighters are just bad.
And yes, Rogues should be able to outpace other classes in damage when their hand is played well. Rogues already have to deal with being a caster without spells and mediocre damage, but when they actually do get into position where they can sneak attack (where they are in fact most vulnerable to getting murdered I might add) then at best they might do moderate damage that's still outdone by any martial with a stick.
Rogues are horrible. They are the Fighters of their respective fields. Both are outmoded by the Ranger and Slayer, while their individual shticks are outmoded by lots of additional classes such as Barbarian, Paladin, Bard, Inquisitor, and Alchemist.
Imbicatus, what would _you_ like the rogue to be able to do that it doesn't do now?
- actually hit in combat: Choose a fighting style get a special bonus* and full BAB with that fighting style
- stealth without concealment/cover: (HIPS) at low levels in every terrain*for example for TFW style reduce the penalty for TWF by 2, stacks with the feat line.
With those two changes you suddenly have two different viable approaches:
- Straight, head on combat. You now have a chance to actually hit something after all.
- use sneak attack + vital strike or cleave and re-stealth afterwards.
|
|
Imbicatus, what would _you_ like the rogue to be able to do that it doesn't do now?
I know, not addressed to me, but here's my take:
"Fighter-only" feats make it so that they are always a "go-to" class when someone wants to make certain builds to enhance a weapon, weapon group, shield use, punching through DR, killing magic-users or owning with AoOs, (oh, and Critical Mastery feats... too). If you want to be the best there is with *something* at the cost of low adaptability and heavy reliance on party members, fighter is "dat guy".
Now, why not do the same to rogues and have "Rogue-only" feats that are centered on another concept? how about complete reliance on "nobody else". Have the rogues play up the traditional trope of "coward" or "resourceful". Give him feats / rogue talents like the Pathfinder Chronicler's pull anything out of a bag ability. Give him stuff to better escape of flee a fight or run away. Give him stuff that will let him grease the guards or gain a favor from the local crime boss. Give him stuff that will grant him tons of bonuses with Use Magic Device or that lets him use magic items like Class X, and then Class Y 4 levels later, and Class Z another 4 levels after that (i.e. allowing the dumping of UMD, which is nigh impossible to use with Scrolls btw...)
Last but not the least, make a feat chain that lets them do awesome things with sneak attack. I'm not only talking damage and auto-kill stuff, I'm talking stuff that will really stump the opposition like severing fingers (no more casting), taking eyes out (blind), pin a guy to the bar table with a knife through the hand ganster badass-style, and some feats that result in more heavy bleeding, like arterial life death situation bleeding, or that lets you stack bleeding effects, etc. They don't have lots of feats like fighters, so make each feats give lots of options (like one feat giving you 4 or 5 of those new abilities, like gunslingers do when they level and get 2 or 3 deeds)
Would it be overpowered if Rogues gained the following:
Considered as having Int 13 for combat maneuver feats
Combat Expertise as a bonus feat at level 1
Don't forget that 3.5 rogues could throw alchemist fire and acid flasks and the like for touch attack sneak attacks.
I include this as a house rule in my game. When you have to roll an attack roll and the item does damage based on the accuracy of that roll, it's a stupid rule that inhibits only one class which needs all the help it can get to say that sneak attack doesn't apply.
(The popular answer is "to tank," but I don't think most people enjoy standing around getting punched so someone else can play D&D)I would!
I've always liked to play tanky/supporting roles.
I like tanky bards. My current samurai does decent damage - but he's more about AC, resolve giving him the equivilent of decent saves, and shaking/antagonizing his foes.
My MMO characters are usually tanks (though it's been awhile). Heck - in LoL - my favorite champion is probably Taric. (for those of you who get the reference)
Some of us actually do LIKE to be the guy who doesn't get the killing blows/glory but is nonetheless the backbone of the party.
I am the same way, and sometimes when I just want to play, but I dont want to do any book keeping I just playing a character based on hitting things hard, and I don't consider it as "not playing D&D".
It is not like the RP'ing is somehow diminished so I dont know what that other poster was talking about.
Imbicatus, what would _you_ like the rogue to be able to do that it doesn't do now?I would like the rogue to be at least as effective in combat as an investigator, inquisitor, bard, or alchemist. These are the four main rogue replacement classes that are also 3/4th BAB. There needs to be some kind of accuracy booster for the class. Sneak attack is fine for a damage booster, but it alone is not enough. I would also like them to be able to make more effective dirty tricks than other classes.
Out of combat, there needs to be some class features that give a +1/2 bonus to skills. Trapfinding gives +1/2 levels to perception for finding traps. Archaeologist bard gets +1/2 levels to perception for everything.
Finally, there need to be rogue talents that are actually rogue only that don't suck.
I'm on board with a lot of this. I think a bonus on to-hit for attacks that would deal sneak attack damage and, the rogue talent list is pretty weak sauce.
I don't think the rogue needs to be as good at fighting as classes that make other trade-offs (and I presume we're talking about variants of these classes, so we're sorta' comparing apples and oranges, too!).
Here's my proposal, then:
The rogue's attack gains a bonus to hit and deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. The bonus to hit is equal to one half the number of sneak attack die she would roll, minimum 1. This bonus applies to combat maneuvers, but combat maneuvers don't deal sneak attack damage unless they deal hit point damage. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
Roguish Sneak Attack is modified by feats or abilities that modify Sneak Attack and counts as Sneak Attack for meeting any requirements or prerequisites.
Athletic- A rogue with this talent may use Acrobatics in place of Climb and Swim for skill checks.
Blind Side- If a rogue with this talent would make a ranged attack or an attack with a reach weapon against a target who threatens an ally that grants the target partial cover, that rogue may choose to take a -2 penalty on all attacks for the round to treat that target as flanked.
Canny- A rogue with this talent may use Perception in place of Heal and Survival for skill checks.
Greater Magic- A rogue with this talent gains the ability to cast a 2nd-level spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list once per day as a spell-like ability. The caster level for this ability is equal to the rogue's level. The save DC for this spell is 12 + the rogue's Intelligence modifier. A rogue must have Minor Magic, Major Magic, and an intelligence of as least 12 to take this talent.
*You may gain additional uses of this ability with the Elf alternate favored class bonus, but you can't gain more additional uses for Greater Magic than you have for Major Magic. You may use the Bookish Rogue feat to replace your spell known as with Minor Magic.
Pointed Defense- A rogue with this talent may, when taking the full defense action, make a single attack with a light melee weapon at a -4 penalty, applying only half his strength modifier to damage.
Savvy- A rogue with this talent may use Bluff in place of Disguise and Intimidate for skill checks (she must still use a disguise kit or take penalties for improvising equipment, as normal).
Tricky- A rogue with this talent may use Stealth in place of Escape Artist and Sleight of Hand for skill checks.
Worldly- A rogue with this talent may use Knowledge (local) in place of Knowledge (geography) and Knowledge (nobility and royalty) for skill checks, and may make those checks as if she were trained.
I feel strongly that making new rules or abilities that say, "This game feature is only available to this class for no reason other than fiat" is pretty bad, so I don't like that as a solution. I also don't like super-specific changes (like giving combat expertise as a bonus feat) because that's great for _your_ rogue, but makes the class into the combat trick class. It needs to be a blank template, you know?
So the sneak attack change is modeled on the monk's flurry of blows, in that it lets you function sort of like you had a full base attack bonus. If I were going to use this in my game, I'd make a parallel BAB chart complete with extra attacks specifically for when sneak attack conditions are met. This is, obviously, a dramatic increase in power level, and would need play-testing across a spectrum of levels. It also increases the complexity of what was an introductory class, so that's not insignificant.
The skill-based talents are modeled after versatile performance. I kept the base ability the same across all skills for a talent, so it's a bit weaker. Also, I made sure the "best" skill was the parent skill so there is no "skill tax."
Would these changes bring the rogue in line with what you folks are expecting it to be?