Rogues have basically nothing going for them over other classes.
The only thing they have is bonus to disable device and finding traps. THAT'S IT!
They aren't any better at stealth than a barb with no spells or a ranger with no spells outside his favored terrain and those are better at it once they have their boost. Plus a familiar like a rat is also ridiculously good at stealth just buy existing. So "being sneaky" isn't something the rogue is really good at or a specialty of.
UMD is something that anyone can do and most will do it better. The bard is rewarded by more than just skills for raising CHA, and since it has a spell list it'll have some stuff that it won't even need to use UMD with. So UMD isn't something good with a rogue or something that is special or useful for a rogue.
Having 8 base skills isn't that useful if you're not good at them comparative to the party. Especially if you're needing to sacrifice all your combat usefulness to try and be the better person at the skills. Like a bard, same stat spread as a rogue, would have combat support going and buff spells. It'll be just as good if not better at social skills and knowledge skills and with a trait all dex skills too as the rogue. Since the rogue has no boosts to skills and no use for mental stats outside of skills it's very VERY hard for them to be the best in the party at skills.
thus ANYTHING A rogue can do a similarly built bard does better or equal WHILE bringing more to the party AND not needing to be useless in combat.
The best rogue is one that is able to do combat because the extra things that a rogue do aren't a primary role, nor does it really take all that much to be good at them. If you're trying to be stealthy a +3 from a 20 dex vs a 14 dex in mithral breastplate isn't worth the -3 attack and damage that you're missing from having a str of 14. Buying a +3 stealth bonus is SUPER cheap compared to the cheapest options of getting +3 accuracy and damage.
Like what you're advocating as the primary strengths of a rogue can be accomplished by a commoner with 2 traits for stealth and UMD.
Now for your comments about "being ripped in half" that is either a poor build or poor play, because those classes can fairly easily be made to not be ripped in half while doing their job, yes even the rogue can be (it just may be harder).
Rogues have basically nothing going for them over other classes. The only thing they have is bonus to disable device and finding traps. THAT'S IT! They aren't any better at stealth than a barb with no spells....
Rogues aren't better at stealth than a barbarian?
4th level halfling rogue with dex 20 (wearing brand new dex belt he just picked up), max ranks in Stealth. He's at +15.
4th level half-orc barbarian with str 20 (wearing brand new str belt he just picked up), figure dex of 14 (maybe 16), max ranks in stealth, a non-class skill: He's at +6 (maybe +7).
That's each class played with a race tailored to it. You could, of course, make the rogue a half-orc and the barbarian a halfling to try at some semblance of parity, but there's still the +3 bonus for Stealth being a rogue class-skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So first off I will admit, that "barb" was meant to be "bard". That is on me (though I feel it should have been fairly clear to see the typo since I said with no spells and bards get spells while barbs don't, and that I had been claiming that bards win over the rogue at stealth before) but hey, mistakes are made.
But even still, if a barb wanted to be stealthy, Half-orc barb with str 18 and 14 dex max ranks, takes a trait to make stealth a class skill and spends 3,750 making his armor shadow instead of a str belt.
that's 5+4+1+3+2 = +15 Oh look, I match the rogue, still have plenty of combat effectiveness since I have a 22 str while raging. This is a medium barbarian that is casually pulling off the rogue's thing with just a little effort.
Plus the point was if you wanted a stealthy person that you'd go with an actual stealthy class of "bard" and ranger.
Lets see the bard and the ranger
bard has the 20 dex cause he can just as easily go finesse as the rogue can, max ranks cause he gets free ranks from his versatile performance and bardic knowledge so he has the points for it. he's the same as this rogue "master of stealth" though this bard can either go invisibility or have heroism up for like an hour giving him a +2 over the rogue, and still has combat utility via support and his archery or finesse fighting that is boosted by his buffs.
ranger
again can easily be built for 20 dex and it's also a class skill so same stealth as the rogue, but if he's in his favored terrain he gets a +2 to that. And if he really wanted there's probably a spell he can cast to increase that stealth. And again, he has plenty of combat utility, can also be going finesse or ranged and probably has a pet that'll only get better to help him fight.
These two beat the rogue using JUST CORE! If we throw in other classes and archetypes it just gets worse for the rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm with you Slim Jim. I don't see why all the hate toward Rogues. They're great at what they do. I guess it all depends on if you role-play or roll-play. I've played through 5 versions of D&D (if you count 3.5 a version) and dabbled in 4 and 5, plus Pathfinder. The only class that has been (at first) impossible to attain, then became a joke until it was fixed, was the bard. Now, the bard fits in it's niche, but I don't see how it's better than a rogue for what a rogue is built for. Yes, a bard can have more flexibility when they get some decent spells, but by that point, rogues are excelling in other areas. If you want to play someone who entertains and is rogue-ish, play a bard. If you want to play a thief or sneaky guy who sticks to the shadows and doesn;t want to draw unnecessary attention to himself, play a rogue. Neither class is "better" than the other unless you're into powergaming and number crunching simply to shove a square peg in a round hole. It's all a matter of preference and I don't understand why people argue this with such conviction. Rogues (thieves) have always been useful and they still are.
At doing what? Melee combat?
At doing anything.
It doesn't melee well. (particularly in pfs where you can't guarantee a good flanking buddy)
It doesn't have major skill boosts. It has a lot of class skills but those are just a flat +3 bonus. Even in core those are easy to come by.
Having a lot of skill ranks doesn't make you better at a skill, it makes you better at a bunch of different skills. By the time you're maxing out your 6th, 7th, and 8th skill you're kinda scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of usefulness. It's a case of diminishing returns.
A barbarian with the highlander trait is just as good as the rogue at stealth.
and seems intuitively designed for small characters
Intuition can be wrong.
Something can not live up to it's design goals.Moving slow hurts your flanking. A lot.
I saw bards get ripped in half in PFS just as quickly, but no one calls them underpowered because they have spells.
People call them underpowered all the time. Thats because many players just stand in the back, buff, and don't understand the concept of opportunity cost.
Heck, rangers and monks have decent fort-saves, and I saw them get ripped in half. Even saw barbarians get ripped in half. (Actually, I've...
Occupational hazard of doing the most damage.
So first off I will admit, that "barb" was meant to be "bard". That is on me (though I feel it should have been fairly clear to see the typo since I said with no spells and bards get spells while barbs don't, and that I had been claiming that bards win over the rogue at stealth before) but hey, mistakes are made.
What's the point of a stealthy bard (I mean, aside from a purely defensive capacity, such as when the entire party is sneaking past something)? The rogue uses stealth offensively. If a bard is audible or making some sort of performance scene (singing, dancing, etc), he is by definition not stealthy.
(At least a bard has a good reason to be a small race and enjoy a +4 size bonus to Stealth.)
But even still, if a barb wanted to be stealthy, Half-orc barb with str 18 and 14 dex max ranks, takes a trait to make stealth a class skill and spends 3,750 making his armor shadow instead of a str belt.
Why would the barbarian not buy a strength belt? Just to satisfy a weird on-paper comparison? (Why even pose such a comparison, as if the halfling rogue won't also buy stealth-increasing items to maintain his giant lead to the point that most opponents can't spot him even when they roll a 20?)
'Tis a strange world you inhabit, in which the rogues down anabolic steroids while the barbarians prioritize shadow armor.
Planet Gimp!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, the bard fits in it's niche, but I don't see how it's better than a rogue for what a rogue is built for. Yes, a bard can have more flexibility when they get some decent spells, but by that point, rogues are excelling in other areas. If you want to play someone who entertains and is rogue-ish, play a bard. If you want to play a thief or sneaky guy who sticks to the shadows and doesn;t want to draw unnecessary attention to himself, play a rogue. Rogues (thieves) have always been useful and they still are.
It's that if you want to play some sneaky guy who sticks in shadows or a thief that the bard does that role better than the rogue class.
And what areas are the rogue excelling at?
We're not fitting a square peg into a round hole, you're the one that is convinced that a brand label makes something better than it it.
So first off I will admit, that "barb" was meant to be "bard". That is on me (though I feel it should have been fairly clear to see the typo since I said with no spells and bards get spells while barbs don't, and that I had been claiming that bards win over the rogue at stealth before) but hey, mistakes are made.What's the point of a stealthy bard (I mean, aside from a purely defensive capacity, such as when the entire party is sneaking past something)? The rogue uses stealth offensively. If a bard is audible or making some sort of performance scene (singing, dancing, etc), he is by definition not stealthy.
(At least a bard has a good reason to be a small race and enjoy a +4 size bonus to Stealth.)
The point of a stealthy bard? to sneak into a house undetected to break in an open the front door for your team, walking into a base and coup de grace everyone in their sleep, or whatever else the rogue is using it for. Like how is the rogue using stealth offensively? sneak attack? If the only use for stealth for the rogue is offensively to try and do combat damage then that's just in combat usefulness attempt and the bard beats the rogue at that. Plus you'll spend tons of turns trying to stealth to reach the enemies that will probably be dead before you do anything cause you have such low movement.
But even still, if a barb wanted to be stealthy, Half-orc barb with str 18 and 14 dex max ranks, takes a trait to make stealth a class skill and spends 3,750 making his armor shadow instead of a str belt.Why would the barbarian not buy a strength belt? Just to satisfy a weird on-paper comparison? (Why even pose such a comparison, as if the halfling rogue won't also buy stealth-increasing items to maintain his giant lead to the point that most opponents can't spot him even when they roll a 20?)
'Tis a strange world you inhabit, in which the rogues down anabolic steroids while the barbarians prioritize shadow armor.
Planet Gimp!
I said IF the barb wanted to be stealthy. Like if you're wanting to be stealthy you can postpone getting the str belt super fast because you already do combat really well, delaying the belt a level isn't going to ruing your character. And sure if the rogue forgoes his belt for the shadow armor he'll be slightly ahead, but the barb is still at +15 stealth which by your definition is really good at stealth since that's where a small rogue is at. And the other consideration was that the barb was free to "waste" gold on stealth because he already has his combat base covered. So the rogue that does that sacrifice as well makes them even more useless most of the time. And if we REALLY wanted to we'd go with a race like wayang to get the small size stealth bonus AND not have a str penalty, now the barbs stealth is at +20, same as the rogue buying the shadow armor but the small barb still has 16 str and 20 while raging, which isn't bad for a small guy. Tons better than the 18 dex rogue with like 10 str that struggles to move into flanking.
The point of a stealthy bard? to sneak into a house undetected to break in an open the front door for your team, walking into a base and coup de grace everyone in their sleep...
Gimp, the Core Bard: "Sorry, guys; I tried, but I couldn't pick the lock; not only is Disable not on my list, but I've determined that it's magical. Maybe if I research 'Knock' we could get in, but that will take awhile because I get so few 'known' spells. Not sure it'll work on the good ones anyway. Also, I'm a little worried that Sgt. Rock in there might actually make his fortitude save when I jab him because I don't have a big pile of sneak-attack damage to apply to the check. ...are you sure we shouldn't hire a real professional for this?"
Rest of the Party: "Gimp, you are so gullible! We didn't think you'd actually try that...." <collapse in spasms of laughter> "That gorilla will beat you to a pulp with a chair leg! <more laughter> "Besides, he didn't have any gold anyway. We made that up!"
Shadowy figure in the corner: "Actually, he DID, at least up until that last Thursday, when he was 'relieved' of it. Concealing your stash in a wall safe behind an oil painting of a sloop in one's living room just makes it too easy for the likes us, as we needn't blunder through the entire house tripping over ottomans and waking up the animals, who are always such light sleepers."
Party: Who are you, and wot's all this!? How dare you eavesdrop on us!"
<halfling moves out into the dim light and hops up on a stool>
"Scabbard your steel, brave warriors! I could scarce help but to overhear your revelry, this being a public establishment on a slow night. Of course I do prefer the corner booth as its acoustics amplify even the breeziest of whispered conversations. But enough about me; let's gets to your merry band's pressing need for a 'real professional'. For a fait cut, I would accompany you. My only requirement is that our future endeavors not take place in this dink town, as it's 'played out'. That, and pick up the tab for the drinks I've just ordered us."
OH NO! MY -3 DISABLE IS JUST SO PITIFUL!
at level 2 a rogue's disable is +4, 8 compared to 12, sure rogue is ahead here.
at lv4, a rogue's disable is +5 unless the bard has heroism up then it's just +3, 10/12 compared to 15. And since we really want to be good let's throw in both having Goggles of Minute Seeing for totals of 15/17 and 20.
At lv6 we'll add in a dex belt and now rogue is 6/4 ahead with totals of 17/19 and 23
this discrepancy is made up by having a trait to pick up DD as class skill, and stuff like guidance can help the bard reach important breakpoints if needed.
And this is just with core.
Now, us trying to break in? that is disable device. There aren't magical locks outside of arcane lock and being a rogue does nothing there for you, but a bard does cause you can eventually dispel it and can use scrolls of dispel far easier.
so the story goes like this
Gimp, the Core Bard: "Sorry, guys; I tried, but I couldn't pick the lock; not only is Disable not on my list (causing me to be just behind a rogue), but I've determined that it's magical aka arcane lock is on it, which means that a similar level rogue probably can't break in since the DC is even to high for him.
OR
Gimp, the Core Bard: "Hey guys, since I was able to get that guidance from Healbot, the Core Cleric I'm able to pick this lock,
even though it's not a class skill for me. It was tough too since there was an arcane lock on it.
Now to your next part, where the fortitude save comes into play?
at lv1 the damage the bard can do is 4d6+8, from 12 str and arcane strike. that should outright kill most low level targets at min damage 12 average 22 and those that survive are met with a dc 22 minimum fort save average 32. The comparison for the rogue is 5d6+4 or lv3 6d6+4. Min damage 9 average 21 save dc 19/32 at lv3 it's min 10 average 25 save 20/25. Dropping 4 from each for each str mod lower.So the core bard is doing a fine job at this compared to the rogue at coup de grace people.
Also if we are assuming lv2 or higher the bard easily is having an amazing sense motive by using versatile performance to pick it up with sing or oratory, far better than the equivalent rogue's skill.
AC we're up there using the same armor as the rogue while also using a shield, perhaps heavy. So less likely to get ripped apart than the rogue.
SO
Bard shown it's filling that role of the rogue, now lets look at a normal combat which is far more common.
Rogue,
hopes there's something to hide behind? there's not? drat
well hope that a fighter will move behind the enemy so I can flank, he's not? drat
well hope I have feint skills and succeed to maybe help out this fight a little.
Or pulls out bow and starts shooting for less than the inspired bard, or wand that he always needs to UMD.
bard,
"guys fighter better okay!" inspire courage goes up, helping everyone.
Bard then pulls out his shortbow and starts shooting for damage, or pulls out a wand he doesn't need to UMD, or casts one of his own spells for the day.
Yeah, looks like bard is winning here.
So that's one clear win for the bard, and a very close call slight edge to rogue. Yeah, that bard is FAR better as the fourth man than a rogue.
Heroism? Brilliant! -- You've just cast a spell with a verbal component near Sgt. Rock's snoozing mastiff. <GM rolls two Perception checks>OH NO! MY -3 DISABLE IS JUST SO PITIFUL!
at level 2 a rogue's disable is +4, 8 compared to 12, sure rogue is ahead here.
at lv4, a rogue's disable is +5 unless the bard has heroism up then it's just +3
And since we really want to be good let's throw in both having Goggles of Minute Seeing for totals of 15/17 and 20.
<GM goes 'ahem', points to CRB text under Disable Device> "Only characters with the trapfinding class feature can disarm magic traps."
(Sgt. Rock has learned his lesson after last week's incident and upgraded security around the house. And, did I mention the dog? That thing is mean.)
At lv6 we'll add in a dex belt and now rogue is 6/4 ahead with totals of 17/19 and 23 this discrepancy is made up by having a trait to pick up DD as class skill, and stuff like guidance can help the bard reach important breakpoints if needed.
Because on Planet Gimp -- where everybody trades pants in the morning -- the bard buys a rogue's equipment instead of a charisma headband and an ES-335. Elsewhere, the rogue purchased a lute and is learning how to strum after putting his ear to the wall.
Heroism? Brilliant! -- You've just cast a spell with a verbal component near Sgt. Rock's snoozing mastiff. <GM rolls two Perception checks>OH NO! MY -3 DISABLE IS JUST SO PITIFUL!
at level 2 a rogue's disable is +4, 8 compared to 12, sure rogue is ahead here.
at lv4, a rogue's disable is +5 unless the bard has heroism up then it's just +3
Right... near... as in 5 minutes away to have 35 minutes of it running when you get to the house at the earliest levels it's up. Right, right near them. And if we're next to the snoozing mastiff then coup it silently and now there's back to being no sleeping dog near you.
And since we really want to be good let's throw in both having Goggles of Minute Seeing for totals of 15/17 and 20.<GM goes 'ahem', points to CRB text under Disable Device> "Only characters with the trapfinding class feature can disarm magic traps."
Right, you haven't listed ANY magical traps and as such my bard hasn't needed to deal with any of them. All there has been is a lock, a lock with arcane lock (which only increases the DD check by 10) on it since that's the only thing I can think of when you said "magic lock". So sure, a bard can't disable magical traps, never said or implied they could there GM.
(Sgt. Rock has learned his lesson after last week's incident and upgraded security around the house. And, did I mention the dog? That thing is mean.)
And the bard is better able to deal with that dog, he can cast lullaby and then sleep on the dog if it looks like it's stirring or if it was awake. Whatever the situation the bard has more options than the rogue does at this point.
At lv6 we'll add in a dex belt and now rogue is 6/4 ahead with totals of 17/19 and 23 this discrepancy is made up by having a trait to pick up DD as class skill, and stuff like guidance can help the bard reach important breakpoints if needed.Because on Planet Gimp -- where everybody trades pants in the morning -- the bard buys a rogue's equipment instead of a charisma headband and an ES-335. Elsewhere, the rogue purchased a lute and is learning how to strum after putting his ear to the wall[/url].
There is no trading pants, and there's no big reason for the bard to get a charisma headband if he's wanting to be a stealthy rogue guy. their starting charisma is plenty to cast his spells, and he'll pick one up eventually. I have a lv7 bard in PFS a vanilla bard, he only picked up his CHA headband here at lv7 since I want it for the extra lv3 spell the 16 cha gives. A dex belt was picked up at lv4.
It's just sad that your argument has boiled down to trying to mock mine in an attempt to throw off the point it's making, usually this tactic is employed when you can't make a rebuttal to the actual argument. So mock this "trading roles" if you want, but the bard is able to fill the rogue's role just fine while actually still covering his own role, while the rogue can't swap to fill the bard's role, and is just barely better at his role. If all you see when you see a bard is someone that has like 20 cha and 18 int and is otherwise useless then you're just too narrow of your vision. A bard can fill the rogue's role, can fill the role of frontline, can fill the role of ranged damage too (not all at once mind you, just beign clear that that's not the claim being made). EVEN IN CORE!
And if the bard REALLY wanted to disable magical traps without the use of magic, he could dip Rogue for a single level and take the Rogue's only schtick away from the Rogue.
As could a Barbarian.
Yeah, if someone wanted to be a rogue character while no negotiations on magical trap disabling, the one level dip into rogue is the better rogue character still, for core.
If there’s only one way to play a rogue, what happens when your rogue dies? Glen the Rogue’s twin brother Ben the Rogue shows up? And they are all halflings?
I’ve been playing long enough that I’m kind of bored with the same classes over and over. I shudder to think how boring it could be if I limited myself to one specific way to play each class or one specific class to fill a particular role. Core cuts down on the options a great deal but creativity is huge part of this game. For me, a significant part of expressing that creativity is finding new and interesting ways to get a job done.
Not all druids are three-hugging hippies, not all rangers are outdoorsmen, not all clerics are heal bots...why must all rogues be super sneaky halfling trap disablers and why must all super sneaky halfling trap disablers be rogues? Chess Pwn has pretty effectively shown that bard is a very viable, if not superior, way to rogue and the rogue’s unique feature is unfortunately easily obtained by any class.
If you're gonna count the bard special ability of spells, then count the rogue's Rogue Talents. Plus, the rogue adds 1/2 his level to rolls to find and remove traps. As I said, you can make a bard behave like a thief, but the rogue is specifically made for that. If you have to have a rogue that is also more combat effective, just use the rogue talents... or multiclass into fighter or ranger. Can a bard make someone continue to bleed after a sneak attack? Oh... Bards don't get sneak attack. How about moving full speed while sneaking? How about a free perception check to find a trap when you walk near it? These are just a couple of things that help the rogue be a better thief than a bard. Bards aren't useless. They can sneak and steal stuff, too but a rogue can do it better. Sometimes, even if you make the bard to be a thief... which I don't know why you would do unless there's no rogue in the group. I have played in games and still do play in games where people (including me) play rogues. There's even a halfling rogue in one I currently play in. I think there's a reason I see more rogues than bards. More people want to play a trapfinding thief than an entertainer... without having to build it a certain way just to prove a point. As I said, every class have it's strengths. It's niche. The rogue is no different. Just because some of you don't like it and you can make another class behave like it, almost as well, doesn't mean it's a bad class. Right now, my least favorite is the summoner. I;m giving one a try right now, and I'm just not feeling it yet.
I hope people aren't missing my meaning, I'm not saying that people shouldn't play rogues, or that rogues are always useless, but that rogues are under powered and less useful, and often useless. If people want to play that, go for it, have fun.
but for advice I'm making sure they understand that rogue is a less strong choice.
Now, for rogue talents? which of them provide anything useful? As far as I'm aware the best are the free combat feat and the free weapon focus (and the free finesse for core rogues) so please, share which of the rogue talents are awesome and help in combat more than these for extra feats?
I've already stated that with its trapfinding bonus it'll be slightly ahead of the bard at that stuff, I'm touting that the bard is good enough being slightly behind.
So bard vs rogue's sneak attack and bleed afterwards.
Does the party have a fightery type person in it or two? Do they ever hit the target? That's damage for the bard, do they ever roll a die that hits because of inspire courage bonus (and maybe the heroism or good hope bonus)? that entire hit is the bard's damage. Ever have the bard cast haste as the only source of haste for a party? every attack that hits by 1, damage they deal with that extra attack, and attack they dodge by 1 is all because of you. On your own rolls if you ever hit within the range of your buffs you know that the rogue would have missed that attack and done nothing. Ever try summoning to provide flanks and might take hits for your allies and hit themselves cause of buffs? that's your damage.
So how does this compare to sneak attack and maybe a few points of bleed that maybe matter for a round or two at best? REALLY GOOD. The bard is pumping out more damage easier than the rogue can be.
So on to your skill points. Yes the bard can effectively move full speed while sneaking, it's invisibility. And what's the main point for moving full speed? in combat? the bard has useful things to do than running away and hiding. Free perception checks? yeah that's nice, but isn't crippling, just saying that you move at half speed and search before moving accomplishes the same thing. And you made an outright lie, "They can sneak and steal stuff, too but a rogue can do it better" the rogue has no bonuses to stealth or slight of hand it only has them as class skills, so does the bard, that means they are the exact same at them BEFORE the bard uses spells to be better at it.
And again, this is IN CORE!!! if you expand to other books and archetypes than the archaeologist bard wipes the floor with the rogue. The alchemist and the crypt breaker archetype wipes the floor with the rogue. People need to see that just because the label of the character says rogue that doesn't mean it's the best at being the rogue. You make the bard the thief because it's a better and more useful character to the party than a rogue.
The rogue only slightly has anything it can call it's niche in core. Once you add in more stuff, the rogue has no niche and is completely outclassed. Unchained finally gives it a niche, but core rogue in the expanded rules doesn't have any niche it fills that another class fills all of them better.
Okay. So, your gripe is combat. Yes. Bards are best for buffing in combat. Rogue's aren't made for combat. They can do some neat stuff in combat, but they're not a combat class. They get more skill points, find and remove traps better than other classes and ability to survive if they set off a trap. They get talents to help in those areas, but if you want to be more effective in combat, you can get talents for that, too. If you go into a dangerous, trap infused dungeon, people don't think... "Hmm... I think I can get the same thing done with <insert other class here> if I build it this way". They think, Rogue. I would rather have a rogue in the group for bypassing traps than a bard that was built to bypass traps. Now, if we were going into a place to kill hill giants, I'll take a bard, cleric and a bunch of fighter types. I disagree that the rogue is under powered. That's a blanket label that I don't think is true in all situations. I could say a barbarian is under powered. Or a wizard is under powered because they can't get through a trap-filled dungeon. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say the rogue isn't a good class to play. I'm still shocked. For 30 years, it's been the bard that gets the bad wrap. I never felt strongly about that, either. I mean, the Gamers 2 (movie) pokes fun at the bard. I'm sure you've seen it, but if not, you have to.
You'll never convince me that rogue is a bad class. I've had too much experience with playing rogues and seeing others have fun playing them. Not just earlier editions. This is Pathfinder. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but don't expect everyone to agree. Some of us still find them useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like every class is a combat class except for the rogue.
Okay. So, your gripe is combat. Yes. Bards are best for buffing in combat. Rogue's aren't made for combat. They can do some neat stuff in combat, but they're not a combat class. They get more skill points, find and remove traps better than other classes and ability to survive if they set off a trap. They get talents to help in those areas, but if you want to be more effective in combat, you can get talents for that, too. If you go into a dangerous, trap infused dungeon, people don't think... "Hmm... I think I can get the same thing done with <insert other class here> if I build it this way". They think, Rogue. I would rather have a rogue in the group for bypassing traps than a bard that was built to bypass traps. Now, if we were going into a place to kill hill giants, I'll take a bard, cleric and a bunch of fighter types.
my gripe isn't just combat, it's the fact that the bard is far better in combat while still being great at all the skills the rogue has. Like Ventnor says, the rogue is the only class that people will try and pull saying it's a non-combat class.
They don't get more skill points per level than other classes, that is a false view you get from just looking at base skill points, looking at actual skill points received and you'll find that they are in the same place as wizards, bards, alchemists.How are their talents helping outside of combat (beside trap spotter) or inside combat?
Also most parties don't swap out characters as they go through a dungeon or to go fight giants. They create a party that goes and does lots of different situations. Thus on the outset you deciding if you're taking a bard everywhere or a rogue everywhere, and thus having the bard that is better everywhere but traps and good enough at traps to cover that role compared to someone pretty bad everywhere but traps and only a little better at traps. the bard to me seems like the best choice of the two.
You'll never convince me that rogue is a bad class. I've had too much experience with playing rogues and seeing others have fun playing them. Not just earlier editions. This is Pathfinder. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but don't expect everyone to agree. Some of us still find them useful.
I've never said they can't be useful or fun to play. I've seen many people have fun with them too. But I've seen many people be sad that they are pretty useless with them as well, and that they aren't good at anything compared to other party members and there's no getting around that they are a less effective and less useful class than the others. Knowing and explaining how the rogue is less useful doesn't equal not liking rogues.
But it's like a commoner, people can have fun and be useful with a commoner, that doesn't somehow make commoner as useful and effective a class as rogue or as bard.
Not really, outside of Core.
This is about Core rogues. I know there are other things outside core that can get you the same things the rogue does. I have access to Unchained, but didn't look at it too much. I've been getting tired of all the additional rules and changes. They're heading down the same road as TSR. I understand the need to do it. They have no choice, but I'm fine with the rules as they are now.
They don't get more skill points per level than other classes, that is a false view you get from just looking at base skill points, looking at actual skill points received and you'll find that they are in the same place as wizards, bards, alchemists.
I really do see that. Rogue's get 8 skill points. Bards get 6. Wizards get 2. You add in INT mods, but the variable is too great to take that into account. You might have a wizard with 3 more (to make 5) or the rogue might get none (to keep 8).
How are their talents helping outside of combat (beside trap spotter) or inside combat?
I'm not gonna run down the whole list. If you don't see it, you're not looking or you're so jaded, you refuse to see it.
Also most parties don't swap out characters as they go through a dungeon or to go fight giants. They create a party that goes and does lots of different situations. Thus on the outset you deciding if you're taking a bard everywhere or a rogue everywhere, and thus having the bard that is better everywhere but traps and good enough at traps to cover that role compared to someone pretty bad everywhere but traps and only a little better at traps. the bard to me seems like the best choice of the two.
That was me thinking in character, not me as a player making a different class for each adventure. People, in character, don't think of the other classes when it comes to traps or breaking in to places. Out of character, we might wish we had somebody more focused on traps than a bard, but we wouldn't tell the player to make a new character.
But I've seen many people be sad that they are pretty useless with them as well, and that they aren't good at anything compared to other party members and there's no getting around that they are a less effective and less useful class than the others.
You and I must have played in far different groups. The only time I heard someone complain their character was ineffective was when I had a player (against my urging) made a monk / rogue / sorcerer / Shadow Dancer... and I want to say he took a level of fighter, too. He ended up abandoning his character because he couldn't keep up with the other (more focused) players.
Like I said, you're not going to convince me, so I'll stop posting. I've never had a problem with rogues and I've never seen anyone complain about them until this thread. Maybe, with all the new players, some things need to change to make them happy. I never thought of myself as an old player, but I actually am. Have fun in your campaign. That's what it all boils down to. If you don't like a class, don't play it. Like I said, I'm leaning towards not liking the summoner, but I'm not opening that can of worms. Just have fun. And, please don't try to make someone else hate a class just because you don't like it. You might make someone, not as experienced as you, feel pressured into not playing it because "it's not cool because the seasoned player says so". Let people make their own choices. If you're helping someone, try to be objective. Try to point out the pros and cons. Rogues have talents and abilities that make them better at finding and removing traps that other classes don't have access to. I'm not going to get into it. You know what I'm talking about.
So... have fun in your games and enjoy the continuation of the thread without me.
I think too much value is being placed on the ability to sneak well and/or sneak quickly. You are only as sneaky as the least sneaky character and as fast as the slowest character unless you want to split up the party. Splitting up the party is problematic in that being off on your own makes you incredibly vulnerable--this is a lesson hard-learned early on by most players lol.
One of the sneakiest characters I've ever played was not a rogue at all but an urban ranger. She was super sneaky; she was also stuck travelling with Sir Clanksalot, who had a negative stealth score and speed of 20 in his stupid full plate so fat lot of good my stealth and speed did 95% of the time--it was very frustrating!
As well, people don't come over to my house to watch the sneaky character play the sneaking game, they come over to participate in a group activity. Some amount of individual time with each player is to be expected but it's no fun to be the guy not sneaking around while the rogue dominates the session because he's the only sneaky one.
Right, you haven't listed ANY magical traps and as such my bard hasn't needed to deal with any of them. All there has been is a lock, a lock with arcane lock...
"On a safe behind a trapped oil painting that an amateur like you shouldn't be messing with.
...Wants to go into a man's house snooping around and just assumes an absence of magic..."<halfling professional shakes his head while face-palming>
One of the sneakiest characters I've ever played was not a rogue at all but an urban ranger. She was super sneaky; she was also stuck travelling with Sir Clanksalot, who had a negative stealth score and speed of 20 in his stupid full plate so fat lot of good my stealth and speed did 95% of the time--it was very frustrating!
While Sir Clanksalot makes sneaking together pretty much impossible, he doesn't stop you from hiding yourself. There is a difference between ranger and rogue: The latter can benefit way more from striking from the shadows. Depending on investment, that works once or multiple times (sniping, withdraw talent, Bluff to create diversion etc.).
One of the sneakiest characters I've ever played was not a rogue at all but an urban ranger. She was super sneaky; she was also stuck travelling with Sir Clanksalot, who had a negative stealth score and speed of 20 in his stupid full plate so fat lot of good my stealth and speed did 95% of the time--it was very frustrating!While Sir Clanksalot makes sneaking together pretty much impossible, he doesn't stop you from hiding yourself. There is a difference between ranger and rogue: The latter can benefit way more from striking from the shadows. Depending on investment, that works once or multiple times (sniping, withdraw talent, Bluff to create diversion etc.).
Not really. The necessity for sniping, feinting, withdrawing and other finicky positioning or tactical requirements to maximize accuracy and damage for a rogue are commonly identified as part of the reason it is a sub-par class. Such requirements are rarely offered as an advantage of the class.
The character you are describing has terrible action economy once his group enters combat because he has to invest standard actions into other things than an actual attack to set up his attacks. That, or one who is very likely to get himself killed by engaging a threat on his own. When you get far enough away from Sir Clanksalot that you are not being ghosted, it pretty much means that Sir Clanksalot, with his 20’ speed and inability to run, is too far away to help you from being squished by whatever you just sniped, feinted or otherwise attempted to fight by yourself.
Not really. The necessity for sniping, feinting, withdrawing and other finicky positioning or tactical requirements to maximize accuracy and damage for a rogue are commonly identified as part of the reason it is a sub-par class....One of the sneakiest characters I've ever played was not a rogue at all but an urban ranger. She was super sneaky; she was also stuck travelling with Sir Clanksalot, who had a negative stealth score and speed of 20 in his stupid full plate so fat lot of good my stealth and speed did 95% of the time--it was very frustrating!While Sir Clanksalot makes sneaking together pretty much impossible, he doesn't stop you from hiding yourself. There is a difference between ranger and rogue: The latter can benefit way more from striking from the shadows. Depending on investment, that works once or multiple times (sniping, withdraw talent, Bluff to create diversion etc.).
...among those who see damage as the only thing the class brings to the table (invariably as the result of unpleasant experiences with their own strength builds capable of little else). And the contextual comparison here was with a ranger, whose shtick is at the utter mercy of the GM or AP/scenario author to provide them their "favored" bennies.
In my three-year career as a PFS rogue, I did not feint *once*. I did not try to once. Melee was dangerous business that I wanted no part of in Year 2 (everybody else was going nuts with bladebound magus back then); I went archery, although the sapmaster mechanics were appealing. That, and lots and lots of UMD because I met like three wizards the whole time.
I solved the problems that don't get any attention because they never materialized in the first place. The traps that didn't go off, the lurking predators which were spotted, the honeyed lies sussed out to prevent us from falling for the "bait" option, the "optional" (not worth it) encounters bypassed, the Lesser Restro wands that weren't roasted dry, the Raise Deads that weren't needed, etc.
...among those who see damage as the only thing the class brings to the table (invariably as the result of unpleasant experiences with their own strength builds capable of little else). And the contextual comparison here was with a ranger, whose shtick is at the utter mercy of the GM or AP/scenario author to provide them their "favored" bennies.Not really. The necessity for sniping, feinting, withdrawing and other finicky positioning or tactical requirements to maximize accuracy and damage for a rogue are commonly identified as part of the reason it is a sub-par class....One of the sneakiest characters I've ever played was not a rogue at all but an urban ranger. She was super sneaky; she was also stuck travelling with Sir Clanksalot, who had a negative stealth score and speed of 20 in his stupid full plate so fat lot of good my stealth and speed did 95% of the time--it was very frustrating!While Sir Clanksalot makes sneaking together pretty much impossible, he doesn't stop you from hiding yourself. There is a difference between ranger and rogue: The latter can benefit way more from striking from the shadows. Depending on investment, that works once or multiple times (sniping, withdraw talent, Bluff to create diversion etc.).
The comparison was with an urban ranger. I know because I made it. It was also regarding the value of sneaking rather than a specific criticism of the rogue class. I don’t think any character being significantly sneakier than the rest of the party is particularly valuable. It is in my opinion a good way to bore most of the group. It is also very likely to get the sneaky guy murderlized. Both of these are utterly and completely regardless of class.
FWIW, the urban ranger I mentioned was played in Council of Thieves. We rarely left Westcrown. Even when we did though, she was fine in combat and still the sneakiest sneak around without any favoured bennies. In Westcrown, she was disgustingly good. Like DM threatening house rules good. She was a great character; one of my favourites in PF so far but being very, very stealthy didn’t pay off as well as you might think.
I don’t think being very, very stealthy pays off for rogues for the reasons Sheepish Eidolon mentioned either. I don’t think it pays off for anyone unless the entire group focuses on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very very stealthy can payoff if you're sniping or doing hit-and-run tactics, but in PF, you run into action economy issues. You generally only get one attack per round, and often it's one attack every other round.
Too bad there isn't a PF version of the 5E rogue's Cunning Action. Maybe a version of Cunning Action can be a splatbook Rogue Talent in the future?
Fun fact: sniping + fast getaway rogue talent + Halfling with right racial and feat + Vital Strike = a pretty good sniper. Zero penalty for sniping, withdraw action after snipe for free. Follow up with a Decoy Ring and those goggles that increase sneak attack range for funnies.
Definitely not core, but definitely fun.
Somebody's gettin' it. (Don't need VS so much, though, as weapon die is generally small. Check out that sapmaster link in my last post. Way better.)
When you're clicking, it'll get to the point where you scarcely remember the last time your AC was targeted because no one ever knows where you are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, remember when this thread was about helping someone with a build and not bickering at one another?
Pepperidge Farm remembers.