I will observe that the Vivisectionist Alchemist (which is in Ultimate Magic and is thus hardly an obscure feature) gets sneak attack just like a rogue, has skill ranks comparable to a rogue's (due to having likely better intelligence), and also has Extracts which allow for such useful things as Greater Invisibility letting you independently set up sneak attacks. And Discoveries are, I think, generally better than Rogue Talents (you can pick up cold immunity, wings, etc).
Other classes are generally better than the Core Rogue but different, but the Vivisectionist is as close to a flat out, apples-to-apples comparison as possible. And it blows the rogue out of the water.
|
You're over stating the value of sneak attack.No, I am not. The OP topic was "weak". Any class that can dish out potentially 16d6 in just bonus damage in a full-attack at 7th is not "weak", and they're certainly not weaker than archetypes that forfeit it in exchange for extra skills.
Rogues have no practical way to make feinting a useful and realiable endeavour so they basically need a flanking buddy.
Or they go first, which is a situation a Perception/Stealth build commonly enjoys: me see enemy; enemy doesn't see me. I prepare. I initiate combat, ready through surprise round (or UMB summon for flank buddies if necessary), wait, enemy still unaware; full-attack next round. Enemy finally rolls INIT (lower than mine), next round, they're nailed again before they can do anything...or I've taken off down the road if my previous round was a "1-fest". And that's just me on my own without help.
(Regards feinting, the various Teamwork feats open whole, new words. Especially for mounted halflings, or gangs. But I digress.)
It also encourages two weapon fightingOr Rapid Shot
which especially when just core was released meant rogue damage was sneak attack or nothing at all due to the focus on Dex. That's why unchained gave them Dex to damage.Which, in the long run, means they save a few bucks not needing Agile. (Getting Weapon Finesse without a feat-slot is a bigger deal, IMO.)
As for their skills they get a lot of skill ranks true, although not as many as an Alchemist or investigator and they will likely be overtaken by Occultists, Psychics, Witches and Wizards.Because it's totally reasonable to compare CRB vanilla to splatbook archetypes.
And that inquisitor archetype that makes them int based.A rogue who dumps his INT deserves to be killed. (My halfling will slight his corpse's rings off as he lays in the casket at his funeral while his mother sobs nearby.)
But quantity of skill ranks isn't the only quality which defines a skill monkey, things that can allow you to boost skills outside of ranks and also having complimentary ability score requirements. Or make them useful in other ways like the unchained rogue got with skill unlocks.
For instance if your looking for a skill monkey and a face, as is often the case, a bard, Mesmerist or inquisitor with the conversion inquisition will beat out a rogue nine times out of ten. If you're looking for a knowledge skill monkey then bards, inquisitors, alchemists, Occultists and investigator are all stronger candidates.
-- You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. I.e., "Rogues aren't as skilled as these niche guys who suck worse in combat, so rogues are 'weak'!"
|
|
Suck worse at combat? You do realize that rogue is by far the weakest combatant in the game, outside of NPC classes.
Please pay attention, avatarless one; I was responding to a person who argued that rogues weren't as good as other skill-monkey archetypes that forfeit no-limit-per-day bonus damage (sneak-attack).
I would say the best rogue is eldritch scoundrel.
With the spell sense vitals, you do get 10d6 sneak attack.
Since you are pumping both dex and int you can take those kinds of skills and actually be good at them.
When comparing it to vivisection alchemist or an investigator you are weighing the value of more features vs a wider spell list.
If you ignore chained rogue and say unchained just replaces it, then weakest class goes back to fighter or ninja easily.
-- You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. I.e., "Rogues aren't as skilled as these niche guys who suck worse in combat, so rogues are 'weak'!"
If you seriously think that rogues are better at combat than bards or inquisitors (cannot say anything about the medium), you are definitely playing some other game than pathfinder. And they have better bonuses at skills than rogue (hint he doesn't have any except trapfinding), while bard also can outnumber his skills thanks to versatile performance. And again rogues do not have any way to increase their attack bonus by themselves while being a 3/4 BAB class, so unless you are constantly attacking enemies with crappy AC, your going to miss all of your sneak attacks.
It almost sounds like the general consensus agrees with the fact they needed unchained versions which they got.
Or archetypes.
Even chained the Ninja is decent and a half-orc str "scout" archetype with spring attack and a big nasty great axe or falchion can certainly work.
There are also Monk archetypes that some consider better than the Unchained version.
A low level wizard can suck. Especially if built to shine at say lvl 7, lvls 1-4 can be painful.
Many new DMs come here and have complained about a 3rd lvl Rogue "breaking" their campaign.
The Weapon and armor mastery handbook have totally changed the game for Fighters.
They can cast Fly, Dim Door, knock arrows out of the air and many other things.
It's sort of counter-intuitive that the fighter is among the most complex classes in Pathfinder, but I will say that this is not the first D20 game where this has been the case.
It's complex to set up but not to play. A experienced player can set up a Fighter for a newb and that newb can happily chop away .And i dont know why the other players arent helping the new guy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, I am not.
yes you are.
The OP topic was "weak". Any class that can dish out potentially 16d6 in just bonus damage in a full-attack at 7th is not "weak", and they're certainly not weaker than archetypes that forfeit it in exchange for extra skills.
yes it is, having an interesting, (not that interesting) corner case does not change that.
Rogues have no practical way to make feinting a useful and realiable endeavour so they basically need a flanking buddy.
Or they go first
or they don't. Jee that was fun, lets play or they're a tiny fey with plus 8 size to dex. Oh no wait. Thats irrelevant.
which is a situation a Perception/Stealth build commonly enjoys: me see enemy; enemy doesn't see me. I prepare. I initiate combat, ready through surprise round (or UMB summon for flank buddies if necessary), wait, enemy still unaware; full-attack next round. Enemy finally rolls INIT (lower than mine), next round, they're nailed again before they can do anything...or I've taken off down the road if my previous round was a "1-fest". And that's just me on my own without help.
jee wizz all these dice roll dependent class features, almost as if every single class is strong if it gets lucky.
It also enourages two weapon fighting
Or Rapid Shot
or purple
Quote:
which especially when just core was released meant rogue damage was sneak attack or nothing at all due to the focus on Dex. That's why unchained gave them Dex to damage.
Which, in the long run, means they save a few bucks not needing Agile. (Getting Weapon Finesse without a feat-slot is a bigger deal, IMO.)
and do, irrelevant damage. Cheaply. but still irrelevant,
Quote:.
Because it's totally reasonable to compare CRB vanilla to splatbook archetypes.
errm no archetypes mentioned, just classes but yeah. Glad we agree that you're wrong.
And that inquisitor archetype that makes them int based.
A rogue who dumps his INT deserves to be killed. (My halfling will slight his corpse's rings off as he lays in the casket at his funeral while his mother sobs nearby.)
not really, its useless to them aside from pointless debates like this. I could give less s!%+s about your halfling.
-- You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. I.e., "Rogues aren't as skilled as these niche guys who suck worse in combat, so rogues are 'weak'!"
They don't suck worse in combat, they're better mathematically and therefore objectively. That was fun.
|
The problem with saying a rogue can do 16d6 extra damage is that it's all theoretical damage. A lot of people who get into the game look at the rogue and think that it's clearly the best class, based on how much damage it could be doing. It's only when you actually start playing that you realize the burst damage a rogue is capable of isn't nearly as useful as the standard, round to round damage a full BAB character can put out.
I mean, theoretically a 10th level wizard, with no extra investment into the spell, could be dealing 440d6 damage with a single fireball, but that's almost guaranteed never going to happen. Similarly, the rogue's not guaranteed to either have the ability to sneak attack, or the accuracy to hit when he does. I mean the rogue is more likely to make all attacks than the wizard is to have a 20 foot radius filled with enemies who all fail their save, but it still doesn't play out enough to beat out most other classes.
Like Dr. Deth, and few others have mentioned, there are some archetypes that help immensely, but standard core rogue just doesn't keep up to it competition.
|
|
While not horrible by any means, I will note that Eldritch Scoundrel gets 4 skills per level vs rogue's 8. That's quite a significant drop. And, *zero* armor & shield proficiency? (So, multiclassing is neigh mandatory; not that many rogues don't dip as well, but they don't need to.) Sense Vitals lasts 1 rnd/lvl, so it's basically competing with every other one-round-'til-we-start combat buff. (And, if you're an ambush build, verbal casting kills your stealth versus anything with ears, so that'll need to be worked around.)I would say the best rogue is eldritch scoundrel.
With the spell sense vitals, you do get 10d6 sneak attack.
Since you are pumping both dex and int you can take those kinds of skills and actually be good at them.
When comparing it to vivisection alchemist or an investigator you are weighing the value of more features vs a wider spell list. If you ignore chained rogue and say unchained just replaces it, then weakest class goes back to fighter or ninja easily.
I think core rogue is just fine if you run a race it's clearly catering to with the appropriate attributes pumped instead of dumped.
Nobody calls barbarian weak when DEX-pumping halflings are terrible at it, but boy will they ever piss on rogue when their STR-pumping human is terrible at it. "It's not my fault!", they wail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's sort of counter-intuitive that the fighter is among the most complex classes in Pathfinder, but I will say that this is not the first D20 game where this has been the case.
There's nothing wrong with there being a range of complexity for classes in different categories, so something has to be the most complicated martial, but perhaps there should be some disclaiming pushing new players towards Barbarians and away from Fighters.
Since 3rd ed at the very least Fighter was a class whose main thing were "lots of feats". This alone made it a complex class to approach if you wanted the best optimization and/or a specialized character.
People who bemoan the fighter because it can be complex to build one and so it's not "good beginner class anymore" are just baseless in their opinion, imo. Building a fighter always required effort and system mastery, and unlike the wizard you could not change your feats as easily as you could do with spells. Make one too many mistakes with feats and your fighter is completely useless.
Hmm. It seems like a few folks are defending the rogue, but nobody is defending the poor Core monk. Maybe that alone is worth a last-place finish?
Hmm. It seems like a few folks are defending the rogue, but nobody is defending the poor Core monk. Maybe that alone is worth a last-place finish?
Honestly, with all the archetypes available, the Core Monk is fine, it can keep pace with other martials. It's just that:
- Doing so requires some system mastery.- You don't really fulfill the whole "punches people" part of the monk fantasy.
But the Tetori is the best grappler, the ZAM is one of the better archers, the Nornkith is kind of rad, etc. so the Core monk itself isn't terrible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^Technically, Core Monk doesn't have archetypes (these weren't introduced yet) -- Classic Monk (= pre-Unchained Monk) gets a lot of archetypes (most of which unfortunately have no official conversions for Unchained Monk. So if you're stuck in a Core-only game, Monk would be pretty bad unless you have really high point buy or really good rolls (and in Core-only, Rogue would be rather lacklustre even with those).
Historical note: In 1st Edition AD&D, you needed really good rolls just to get a Monk at all . . . and then you got something far weaker than the Pathfinder Core(-only) Monk. So at least Core Monk made progress. In contrast, in 1st Edition AD&D, the Thief (what they used to call the Rogue back then) could do some things that nobody else could do, so the Core Rogue is in some ways a step back -- not from actual degeneration, but from everybody else evolving to get further ahead.
^Technically, Core Monk doesn't have archetypes (these weren't introduced yet) -- Classic Monk (= pre-Unchained Monk) gets a lot of archetypes (most of which unfortunately have no official conversions for Unchained Monk. So if you're stuck in a Core-only game, Monk would be pretty bad unless you have really high point buy or really good rolls (and in Core-only, Rogue would be rather lacklustre even with those).
Historical note: In 1st Edition AD&D, you needed really good rolls just to get a Monk at all . . . and then you got something far weaker than the Pathfinder Core(-only) Monk. So at least Core Monk made progress. In contrast, in 1st Edition AD&D, the Thief (what they used to call the Rogue back then) could do some things that nobody else could do, so the Core Rogue is in some ways a step back -- not from actual degeneration, but from everybody else evolving to get further ahead.
Yeah new monk is head over heels better. 1st monk has no str or dex bonus added no matter what they were. started at ac 10 and went down (which thaco so got better) by 1 per level so to get an equivalent of AC 20 you needed to be at least 10th level. your damage at first was 1d4 period. nothing added to that. every ability you got was situational and almost always had a down side to it.
1st rogue (thief) was not bad really sneak attack (back stab back then. ) was a damage multiplier. so x2 up to x5 if I remember correctly. plus no other class could do anything rogue-like really. So they had their niche.
Hmm. It seems like a few folks are defending the rogue, but nobody is defending the poor Core monk. Maybe that alone is worth a last-place finish?
Well I must say that even if the rogue is a weak class, and I say that while I really enjoy playing rogues, at least it is really fun and challenging to play.
The monk, on the other hand, has a lot of problems : MAD as crazy, its role is vague. Only a handful of archetypes manage to get interesting and not really that fun to play.
While we are on the subject of the rogue weakness, I really blame Paizo for the problems of the rogue. When I see that autohrs can create archetypes like Archeologist that can do the job of the rogue and still get better ST, better skills and spells, this is not just power creep, this is just stupid game design.
Hmm. It seems like a few folks are defending the rogue, but nobody is defending the poor Core monk. Maybe that alone is worth a last-place finish?Well I must say that even if the rogue is a weak class, and I say that while I really enjoy playing rogues, at least it is really fun and challenging to play.
The monk, on the other hand, has a lot of problems : MAD as crazy, its role is vague. Only a handful of archetypes manage to get interesting and not really that fun to play.
While we are on the subject of the rogue weakness, I really blame Paizo for the problems of the rogue. When I see that autohrs can create archetypes like Archeologist that can do the job of the rogue and still get better ST, better skills and spells, this is not just power creep, this is just stupid game design.
Sounds like your mixing in your personal feelings about rogues you've played. Which is fine but it doesn't make it a less weak class. I personally like the monk over the rogue.
I feel monk fits in the same role as rogue.
Monk can do ok at rogue jobs have have a few class skills and their attributes tend to give bonuses to the skills that rogues would have too. wisdom for perception, dex for stealth etc. With good saves they should be ok at finding traps even if they don't their still idea at taking the effects of a trap.
One thing I think the rogue needed was more class features all their archetypes are so boring because they have nothing you can replace except trap finding. Trap finding is usually the main reason I want a rogue in my party darn it!
Unchained seems ok. I'm thinking about making a talent to buff sneak attacks damage maybe a talent to increase the die d6 to a d8 or something.
My choices are Fighter. Rogue and Monk. Granted all have received some new material to make them better. Yet with the Fighter much too little so very little and spread over too many books imo.
The core Rogue would work if the class was designed to be hit and run type of class. Except it's not designed that way. It has too low a AC and not enough hit points. Go in sneak attack, move away rinse and repeat.
While not horrible by any means, I will note that Eldritch Scoundrel gets 4 skills per level vs rogue's 8. That's quite a significant drop. And, *zero* armor & shield proficiency? (So, multiclassing is neigh mandatory; not that many rogues don't dip as well, but they don't need to.) Sense Vitals lasts 1 rnd/lvl, so it's basically competing with every other one-round-'til-we-start combat buff. (And, if you're an ambush build, verbal casting kills your stealth versus anything with ears, so that'll need to be worked around.)I would say the best rogue is eldritch scoundrel.
With the spell sense vitals, you do get 10d6 sneak attack.
Since you are pumping both dex and int you can take those kinds of skills and actually be good at them.
When comparing it to vivisection alchemist or an investigator you are weighing the value of more features vs a wider spell list. If you ignore chained rogue and say unchained just replaces it, then weakest class goes back to fighter or ninja easily.I think core rogue is just fine if you run a race it's clearly catering to with the appropriate attributes pumped instead of dumped.
Nobody calls barbarian weak when DEX-pumping halflings are terrible at it, but boy will they ever piss on rogue when their STR-pumping human is terrible at it. "It's not my fault!", they wail.
1. You get mage armor and shield. Then you can craft your own bracers of armor which are +8 with no max dex. It's optimal rogue armor. Also if you do wear armor, your spells are basically gone.
2. You don't need X build anymore to set up sneak attack. You have illusions, invisibility, and can summon flankers. Rods of silence do cover the verbal issue.
3. Strength is the optimal stat pump for chained rogue. It's stupid, but that's the build.
4. As for skills. You lose some, but now you are married to higher int and you can give up all those skills you weren't good at but needed to set up sneak attacks like bluff. Things like umd are no longer needed.
Too much emphasis is put on how strong Sneak Attack is. It's a decent ability yet not enough to make the Rogue any less weaker. As well no properly run intelligent opponent in the game is just going to let a Rogue do sneak attack over and over. As soon as one uses that ability than one ends up being the primary target. That's the issue with the Rogue too low AC and not enough hit points to survive the inevitable counter attack. Sure one can have the right build yet that alone to me shows the class is weak when people keep pushing a specific build.
Too much emphasis is put on how strong Sneak Attack is. It's a decent ability yet not enough to make the Rogue any less weaker. As well no properly run intelligent opponent in the game is just going to let a Rogue do sneak attack over and over. As soon as one uses that ability than one ends up being the primary target. That's the issue with the Rogue too low AC and not enough hit points to survive the inevitable counter attack. Sure one can have the right build yet that alone to me shows the class is weak when people keep pushing a specific build.
Sneak attack is a power attack/deadly aim replacement
It's not that important except for chained rogues where it also replaces strength mod.
It's not a lot of damage. It's passable damage. Can't really compete with investigator's studied combat or bards.
Too much emphasis is put on how strong Sneak Attack is. It's a decent ability yet not enough to make the Rogue any less weaker. As well no properly run intelligent opponent in the game is just going to let a Rogue do sneak attack over and over. As soon as one uses that ability than one ends up being the primary target. That's the issue with the Rogue too low AC and not enough hit points to survive the inevitable counter attack....
Emphasis mine.
In a Rise of the Runelords game I ran, the rogue would deftly step behind an enemy in the front line to gain a flank. He would deal significant damage that way. But in some encounters in dungeon rooms, the enemy had a few combatants who could not fit into the front line. The rogue became their target. His hit points vanished so quickly that he had to retreat from combat before it finished. Only one person in the party, the battle oracle, had the AC to survive in the position between enemies, and she was slow because she began combat by self-buffing.
That rogue took a few levels of Duelist and gained (through GM fiat) a Rapier of Puncturing for alternatives to putting himself in a meat grinder. Later, a second rogue joined the party and the two rogues teamed up to give each other flanks, after their first-round sneak attacks due to high initiative. They could last long enough together for the battle oracle to reduce the threat by killing one enemy per round.
Rogues work in the right party. It takes teamwork. Of course, every class is better with teamwork.
|
|
Hmm. It seems like a few folks are defending the rogue, but nobody is defending the poor Core monk. Maybe that alone is worth a last-place finish?
I'd have to agree. (They also had a rough time making it past 2nd level in PFS. They're a melee class with fewer hitpoints and no armor proficiency. Ate consumables like crazy. You basically had to not fight much until the build gelled with level, and, aside from not pulling your weight at a mustered table, that tactic is just deadly boring. Immune to whatever at level 9? ...few had the patience to wait that long.)
@Mathmuse
All good points. Mind you when the class has to multiclass to survive it's not a ringing endorsement for the class imo. What I would have done is given them a +1 to a +2 to AC when flanking and only when flanking every three levels. That +1 Trap Sense is not that great a class feature imo.
Core monk even without archtypes is still better than Core rogue, not by a lot but is. It is way worse desingned as a class though. Rogues main fault is that the rogue talents are not good enough to compete with other class features, the other major issue is too low to hit chance, if I had been in charge of the desing I would have given them bonus to hit when sneak attacking.
I disagree. One issue is that PF has nerfed traps. Really, you can just take your toughest guy and have him walk thru traps and bring out the wand of CLW in most PF adventure paths.
Try that in a dungeon full of deadly Gygaxian traps and see what happens.
Now yes, some non-rogues archetypes do have trapfinding. And altho few of them have TRAP SPOTTER many DMs more of less give this to anyone for free. If the rules for trap spotter were followed and traps were more deadly, trust me, rogues would be very popular.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Core monk even without archtypes is still better than Core rogue, not by a lot but is. It is way worse desingned as a class though. Rogues main fault is that the rogue talents are not good enough to compete with other class features, the other major issue is too low to hit chance, if I had been in charge of the desing I would have given them bonus to hit when sneak attacking.
small race: +1, acro'd into flank: +2, and/or target flat-footed: (enemy AC-DEX), and/or target blinded: (enemy AC-2), and/or target prone: +4. It piles up quite nicely. It does require tactical awareness, a moderate amount of system mastery, and the ability to scheme longer than the attention spans of many players.
-- You can't just look up from your phone on your turn and say, "I hit it some more!" while rolling your dice.
I belive the rogue is defended more because it is more popular archtype(not the game term.) than a mystical martial artist. Also because sneak attack is a bit deceiving, it looks impressive, but when you start doing the math it is a different story.
Of the two, rogue is a better dipping class for a martial: You get a boat-ton of class skills (including UMD, which monk doesn't grant) and the points to put in 'em. For polearm/trip guys, trading BAB-1 for +2d6 in a lot of situations represents a better att/dmg conversion ratio than Power Attack (in parties where summon makes ubiquitous appearance, they'll be enjoying it constantly), and the other bennies are gravy.
~ ~ ~
...no properly run intelligent opponent in the game is just going to let a Rogue do sneak attack over and over. As soon as one uses that ability than one ends up being the primary target. That's the issue with the Rogue too low AC and not enough hit points to survive the inevitable counter attack....In a Rise of the Runelords game I ran, the rogue would deftly step behind an enemy in the front line to gain a flank. He would deal significant damage that way. But in some encounters in dungeon rooms, the enemy had a few combatants who could not fit into the front line. The rogue became their target.
A low-AC rogue (why is his AC low? ...suboptimal build decisions are not the class' fault) who runs into the middle of the enemy formation to get flanks is a fool, and giving him another +2 to attack won't solve that problem. He could have full-attacked with archery versus flat-footed opponents in the opening round instead of moving. If he hits twice with Rapid Shot, that's +2d6 as early as 1st level, or +4d6 by 3rd. -- He also gets to chortle every time an enemy is an "new & improved" archetype which forfeited base-class-granted Uncanny Dodge.
And if his friends are spending a round buffing, he can likewise be using the opportunity to UMD a Summon wand or scroll.
Personal anecdote: The Time When I Discovered that Rogues are Awesome: 3rd Ed, Living Greyhawk, boxed-in-an-alley fight vs. half-dozen fighters with spiked-chains. The horrible nasty, trippy kind of spiked chains that resulted in LOTS of dead characters and which were so OP that a different game company (Paizo) later nerfed the crap out of them. So anyway, the party rogue is a halfling goofball who wore a soup-pot for a helmet and used a soup-ladle for a weapon. He wins INIT and waltzes right up to the enemy, triggering an AoO. It whiffs. He continues in a double-move right down their entire line. Whiff-fest across the board.
The enemy was out of attacks of opportunity, so the rest of the party moved up and beat the tar out of them. And it all worked because the rogue had "boring" Dodge+Mobility and a DEX emphasis for an aggregate AC+8 or so over a strength-based build taking different feat-chains. He went first, and neutered the enemy without even making an attack.
~ ~ ~
That +1 Trap Sense is not that great a class feature imo.
Eh...it's actually pretty decent (though the player often forgets to add his bonuses when rolling). The main problem is: Why are traps going off in the first place if there's a straight- or mostly-straight class rogue in the party? Did he not take Trap Spotter?
My choices are Fighter. Rogue and Monk. Granted all have received some new material to make them better. Yet with the Fighter much too little so very little and spread over too many books imo.
The Weapon and armor mastery handbook have totally changed the game for Fighters.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personal anecdote: The Time When I Discovered that Rogues are Awesome: 3rd Ed, Living Greyhawk, boxed-in-an-alley fight vs. half-dozen fighters with spiked-chains. The horrible nasty, trippy kind of spiked chains that resulted in LOTS of dead characters and which were so OP that a different game company (Paizo) later nerfed the crap out of them. So anyway, the party rogue is a halfling goofball who wore a soup-pot for a helmet and used a soup-ladle for a weapon. He wins INIT and waltzes right up to the enemy, triggering an AoO. It whiffs. He continues in a double-move right down their entire line. Whiff-fest across the board.
The enemy was out of attacks of opportunity, so the rest of the party moved up and beat the tar out of them. And it all worked because the rogue had "boring" Dodge+Mobility and a DEX emphasis for an aggregate AC+8 or so over a strength-based build taking different feat-chains. He went first, and neutered the enemy without even making an attack.
That is pretty anecdotal, because I had a core monk who did the exact same thing. Strength based even. GMs would be frustrated because they would miss with a 28 to touch. And the monk had enough movement that when he made it passed the enemies he could still make an attack on the farthest enemy, or more likely grapple because combat maneuvers are a better use of a core monks standard action.
I still don't consider core monks a good class though. There's a big difference between a class having occasional moments of glory, and a class that shows up to do it's thing every time it's needed. Both core monk and rogue can have moments of greatness if everything works out for them, but the standard game assumptions don't often allow for that.
I will observe that the Vivisectionist Alchemist (which is in Ultimate Magic and is thus hardly an obscure feature) gets sneak attack just like a rogue, has skill ranks comparable to a rogue's (due to having likely better intelligence), and also has Extracts which allow for such useful things as Greater Invisibility letting you independently set up sneak attacks. And Discoveries are, I think, generally better than Rogue Talents (you can pick up cold immunity, wings, etc).
Other classes are generally better than the Core Rogue but different, but the Vivisectionist is as close to a flat out, apples-to-apples comparison as possible. And it blows the rogue out of the water.
Hell the Mesmerist gains sneak attack and permanent greater invisibility too. Couple that in with the sneak attack feat that progresses it and well...
Mesmerist's don't get sneak attack unless there is an archetype I don't know about?
Traps are stupid. Either one character solves everything or they trigger. Weak gameplay and in general make little narrative sense
~ ~ ~...no properly run intelligent opponent in the game is just going to let a Rogue do sneak attack over and over. As soon as one uses that ability than one ends up being the primary target. That's the issue with the Rogue too low AC and not enough hit points to survive the inevitable counter attack....In a Rise of the Runelords game I ran, the rogue would deftly step behind an enemy in the front line to gain a flank. He would deal significant damage that way. But in some encounters in dungeon rooms, the enemy had a few combatants who could not fit into the front line. The rogue became their target.A low-AC rogue (why is his AC low? ...suboptimal build decisions are not the class' fault) who runs into the middle of the enemy formation to get flanks is a fool, and giving him another +2 to attack won't solve that problem. He could have full-attacked with archery versus flat-footed opponents in the opening round instead of moving. If he hits twice with Rapid Shot, that's +2d6 as early as 1st level, or +4d6 by 3rd. -- He also gets to chortle every time an enemy is an "new & improved" archetype which forfeited base-class-granted Uncanny Dodge.
And if his friends are spending a round buffing, he can likewise be using the opportunity to UMD a Summon wand or scroll.
I never said the rogue's AC was low. Only the fully-buffed battle oracle had higher AC.
The particular battle where the rogue fared worst from stepping between enemies occurred at 7th level in 2011 (Core Rulebook and APG only). I don't know the rogue's exact stats and equipment, but he upgraded his equipment at 6th level, so let's figure on +2 chain shirt and +1 ring of protection, along with Dex 18 and the Dodge feat. That would be AC 22. That is not bad for 7th level. However, he was flanked due to the two enemies in the front line, so had the -2 flanked penalty for AC 20. Meanwhile his high-strength opponents (Rise of the Runelords has plenty of high strength opponents) had +12 to hit and dealt 2d8+12 damage. They hit on a 8 or less, 60% chance of success. Two opponents against the rogue would average 25.2 damage per round. In this battle, luck was not with him and both opponent's hit on the same round, for around 42 damage. He chose to withdraw rather than deal more damage. He probably had only around 50 hp max.
That half-elf rogue invested in Dodge, Mobility, and Weapon Finesse to qualify for Spring Attack and Duelist prestige class. That left few feats for two-weapon fighting or archery, both which eat feats like candy. His specialty was mobile skirmishing, and he was using that specialty.
This was shortly before I took over as GM. I played a gnome ranger/monk who had been the archer in the party. The front line had been a dwarf fighter and the elf battle oracle, but the fighter had died and been replaced by a spellcasting gnome druid. My ranger/monk had moved up to the front line. The party had four spellcasters--wizard, sorcerer, druid, and oracle--so the rogue investing in UMD to act like a fifth spellcaster would have been a waste.
Instead, the gnome ranger/oracle retired as I took over as GM, the party gained a bard and a second rogue, and they learned to battle fluidly without a solid front line. Spring Attack worked well with the fluid tactics.
As for rogue success stories, one module later the party battled Mokmurian, a boss wizard with high AC and lots of hit points. In addition, he was flying and had guards on the ground. The party wizard dispelled the Fly spell. The rogues rushed past Mokmurian's guards without a scratch and flanked him, getting attacks of opportunity as Mokmurian stood up. Mokmurian attempted to convert the rogue/duelist into stone but failed. The next round, the newer rogue, a two-weapon specialist, rolled 12, 13, 18, and 17 on his d20, hitting Mokmurian with four sneak attacks, +6d6 each, and killed him.
|
Classic Rogue is the weakest class by far. It is outclassed in all categories by every classes out there. Better trapfinder in other classes, better skills users in other classes, better bab and sneak attack in other classes.
Eldritch scoundrel archetype for rogue does make it better but that's mostly an endorsement that spells are better than the entire class features of rogue...which isn't wrong.
Traps are stupid. Either one character solves everything or they trigger. Weak gameplay and in general make little narrative sense
Dungeons are 'stupid" too. Adventuring is "stupid".
Flying firebreathing monsters are "stupid".But that's the game.
Traps are part of D&D since Day 1.
Classic Rogue is the weakest class by far. It is outclassed in all categories by every classes out there. Better trapfinder in other classes, better skills users in other classes, better bab and sneak attack in other classes.
How many classes have Trap spotter?
And since in order to find traps what you need is Trapfinding for magical ones and a maxed out Perception, I dont know how any classes will be "better", altho certainly any class with decent SkP, Trap Spotter and Trapfinding can be as good.
What classes have better Sneak attack?
|
|
Classic Rogue is the weakest class by far. It is outclassed in all categories by every classes out there. Better trapfinder in other classes, better skills users in other classes, better bab and sneak attack in other classes.
How many classes have Trap spotter?
And since in order to find traps what you need is Trapfinding for magical ones and a maxed out Perception, I dont know how any classes will be "better", altho certainly any class with decent SkP, Trap Spotter and Trapfinding can be as good.
What classes have better Sneak attack?
Not really need to max out even the highest CR 20 trap only has a perception and disable device of 34. It's not hard to achieve even without stat bonus modifiers just from trained and skill ranks, you will succeed at it. Of course someone who bothered to take an archetype or ability which can disable magical traps would have stat bonuses in them, making it even easier.
Someone with trapfinding would have Perception and disable device of 40 or even 50+ which basically never comes into play...ever. Basically a waste.
As for sneak attacks:
Ninja alternate class for the classic rogue, can become invisible with their ki abilities and sneak attack on their own without the need of extra assistance or magic items.
Sandman bard can support like ninja their abilities without any extra assistance.
Base Slayer have better sneak attacks easily. Not only they do dice damage , they add studied target damage on top of it and of course, their death attack is better than the rogue and assassin class version on top of it. Not taking into account some of other archetypes that make sneak attack even better, hell, they have a slayer archetype where they make their own flanking partners (not just one but multiple of them)
Snakebite Striker (brawler archetype) offers more tactical options with sneak attack just as part of the archetype features.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What classes have better Sneak attack?
Sneak attack is not a metric. Damage is.
The Weapon and armor mastery handbook have totally changed the game for Fighters.
I disagree they help yet in no way shape or form change game for the the Fighter imo. They took too long to release those books and more importantly I'm not spending 100$+ Canadian to buy the above books. One needs the above well as the Ranged/Melee Tactics toolbox books. If they ever compile the books into one I may play more Fighters. Right now my go to Fighter is the Sword Saint Samurai Archetype or the Arcane Duelist. I may trade some of the stuff the Fighter class gets. In favor of more versatility and imo much better classes.
As for traps being stupid. I completely disagree. If they kept the unfun Gygax instant death traps players would still complain. Not deadly enough the same thing. Traps are staples in D&D and will never probably go away.
Alarms make more sense than deathtraps most of the time, but there's a place for those. Carefully placed (ideally part of an encounter) rather than a passageway which just happens to pour acid on intruders that is. Chests with poison needle traps are particularly pointless.
BTW, remember trapfinding is misnamed. Anyone can find magical traps but only those with trapfinding can disarm them. Though a dispel magic can at least suppress a magical trap for 1d4 rounds, and if the trap's a spell like glyph of warding rather than a constructed trap a dispel can actually remove it.
Archaeologist Bard gets all of those things and thus ends up being a much better Trap Spotter. Plus they've got the Utility of a 6 level caster.
.
So then, as good. Not better.
Indeed, and that's pretty nice.
Classic Rogue is the weakest class by far. It is outclassed in all categories by every classes out there. Better trapfinder in other classes, better skills users in other classes, better bab and sneak attack in other classes.
How many classes have Trap spotter?
And since in order to find traps what you need is Trapfinding for magical ones and a maxed out Perception, I dont know how any classes will be "better", altho certainly any class with decent SkP, Trap Spotter and Trapfinding can be as good.
What classes have better Sneak attack?
Not really need to max out even the highest CR 20 trap only has a perception and disable device of 34. It's not hard to achieve even without stat bonus modifiers just from trained and skill ranks, you will succeed at it. Of course someone who bothered to take an archetype or ability which can disable magical traps would have stat bonuses in them, making it even easier.
Someone with trapfinding would have Perception and disable device of 40 or even 50+ which basically never comes into play...ever. Basically a waste.
As for sneak attacks:
Ninja alternate class for the classic rogue, can become invisible with their ki abilities and sneak attack on their own without the need of extra assistance or magic items.
.
But of course a DM can make the DCs higher.
Ninja is just a rogue archetype.