Do You Think Rogues Should Have Had A Fighter's HD / BAB?

[Dragon78]

Would anyone prefer that Rogue sneak attack worked like the Swashbuckler's class ability to add your level as precision damage at all times and that damage is doubled when when you flank, attack a flat footed target, etc.?

Would anyone have liked the Rogue to have had path choices based stats?

Examples.

A Str based one would give martial weapon and medium armor prof., bonus combat feats, bonuses to Str based skills, etc.

A Dex based one would give Dex to damage, bonuses to Dex based skills, increased movement speed, etc.

A Con based one would grant survival abilities, energy resistance, healing, natural armor, higher CMD, etc.

A Int based one would grant arcane casting(4th), cantrips, familiar, bardic knowledge, etc.

A Wis based one would grant divine casting(4th), orisions, channel, etc.

A Cha based one would grant psychic casting(4th), knacks, bonuses to Cha based skills, etc.

[Arkham Joker]

Dragon78 wrote:

Would anyone have liked the Rogue to have had path choices based stats?

Examples.

A Str based one would give martial weapon and medium armor prof., bonus combat feats, bonuses to Str based skills, etc.

A Dex based one would give Dex to damage, bonuses to Dex based skills, increased movement speed, etc.

A Con based one would grant survival abilities, energy resistance, healing, natural armor, higher CMD, etc.

A Int based one would grant arcane casting(4th), cantrips, familiar, bardic knowledge, etc.

A Wis based one would grant divine casting(4th), orisions, channel, etc.

A Cha based one would grant psychic casting(4th), knacks, bonuses to Cha based skills, etc.

No, no and no

As much as I appreciate your enthusiasm for PF1 class options D78, trying to make every class have the option to behave like any other class, completes obliviates the point of having classes in the first place!!!

[Lynceus]

Thinking about the Rogue as a Skirmisher who weaves in and out of combat, maybe the Rogue should have a movement speed increase? Scout is already one of the better archetypes (and mostly emulates the feel of the 3.5 Scout class). If you gave Rogues something like the Scout's level 8 Skirmisher power as a baseline ability (but much earlier than level 8), triggering Sneak Attack, then you could probably be decent with Shot on the Run or Spring Attack, staying out of trouble and still getting a single Sneak Attack off each turn.

[Dragon78]

Personally I think Ninjas, Rogues, and Swashbucklers should have had an increase to their movement speed...at least +20.

[Mightypion]

I havent really played a rouge, but the issues which I perceive are:

1: Past early game, people who can cast spells often scout better.
2: Strong reliance on flanking buddies, and actually not all that mobile.
3: Suffers massively from feat taxes.
4: A scouting range attacker is typically preferable imho.

How to fix rouge? Rouges are far more competent under Elephant in the room rules because at level 2 they get:
--Power attack as an option without needing 13 STR.
--Possibly deft maneuvers, giving them trip, steal, feint.
--Combat exerpertize for free
--Dodge and mobility as one feat if they chose to pick it.

I think the rouges actually problem is, by the time he actually paid all the feat taxes he needs to be paying, well, like, any other character seems to pay their feat taxes quicker.

[Temperans]

As a person who proudly plays a Phantom Thief and has gotten 0 combat feats and has never attacked with a weapons (the +1 rapier is more of a fashion piece). I think people are seriously missing a number of stuff.

1) Sneak Attack is good because it is so easy to trigger if you actually try. Flanking will happen naturally and give the Rogue +2 to hit. Removing Dex to AC (not that you don't need flat-footed) will make it easier to hit, not counting any other effects the enemy might get. The fact that you can Sneak Attack with every hit when done properly is why people go for TWF despite how feat intensive it is.

2) People really undervalue the power and amount of skills they get. This is a problem for both players and GMs. A creative player with a GM willing to work with them will make skills truly shine regardless of spells. As for the number of ranks, a Rogue with no focus on int is getting 80 skill ranks at lv 10, while most other classes get less than 40. Yeah investigator is better at skills, but that class is worse at combat.

3) I agree that there are many bad rogue talents; But people forget all of the really good talents they have.

[Mysterious Stranger]

Investigators are actually better at combat than a rogue. First of all they have the same BAB as a rogue and two good saves. Second they can use inspiration on attack rolls and saving throws. It does use up two uses of inspiration but it is still available. He may not be able to use it on every combat but when they need to hit investigators have a better chance than a rogue.

Once they get studied combat at 4th level their combat ability leaves the rogue in the dust. Now he can spend a move action to get a bonus to hit and damage equal to have his level, which last a number of rounds equal to his INT modifier. Since INT is going to be the investigators highest stat that means it last a decent amount of time. Using Studied Strike ends the bonus, but any player with half a brain is only going to use studied strike when he knows the extra damage is going to put down his target, or studied combat is about to run out.

Add in the investigators ability to buff themselves with extracts and the rogue has no chance of matching an investigator in combat.

There are a lot of classes that get 6 skill points per level. Most of those classes also get bonuses to a number of skills as well. Bards get a bonus on all knowledge skills and get versatile performance as well. Inquisitors get a bonus scaling bonus to intimidate and sense motive, they also get a bonus to knowledge skills to identify monsters, and tracking. Rangers get bonuses on multiple skills from favored enemy and favored terrain, and tracking. Hunters, Slayers and Vigilantes all get 6 skill points per level. Getting 80 skill point per level sounds nice when you are comparing it to 40, but when you compare it to 60 it is not really that big of a deal. The investigator is probably going to have at least 100 skill points at 10th level.

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

Dragon78 wrote:

Would anyone prefer that Rogue sneak attack worked like the Swashbuckler's class ability to add your level as precision damage at all times and that damage is doubled when when you flank, attack a flat footed target, etc.?

Would anyone have liked the Rogue to have had path choices based stats?

Examples.

A Str based one would give martial weapon and medium armor prof., bonus combat feats, bonuses to Str based skills, etc.

A Dex based one would give Dex to damage, bonuses to Dex based skills, increased movement speed, etc.

A Con based one would grant survival abilities, energy resistance, healing, natural armor, higher CMD, etc.

A Int based one would grant arcane casting(4th), cantrips, familiar, bardic knowledge, etc.

A Wis based one would grant divine casting(4th), orisions, channel, etc.

A Cha based one would grant psychic casting(4th), knacks, bonuses to Cha based skills, etc.

You mean like PF2 Rogues, who can choose between rackets (path choices) based on stats (Dex one, Str one, Cha one, Int one and a "spellcasty" one)?

[Mark Hoover 330]

One thing I've always agreed with Derklord and others on: rogue is a class that relies heavily on having other people around. Even unchained rogues have Flanking as their most reliable method of SA. There are other ways, solo ways to use this ability but Flanking is a guarantee.

I'll take this reliance on others a step further though. Think about the vanilla rogue in the Core book, as well as the core Bestiary and other core rules. Now think: what if the GM runs a home game heavy on oozes and light on traps and locks?

Every other core class remains relevant and has ways to deal with these restrictions. The vanilla rogue however loses the majority of its coolness. In other words, the rogue class is as reliant on the GM and the type of game said person is running as they are on having other PCs in the group to Flank with.

Y'know what I always thought would be cool? Faster movement on a rogue, automatic ways to avoid AoOs without slowing down and perhaps some kind of special incentive to use Readied action. The point would be:

After sneaking up on an enemy, the Rogue character gets a single SA from the Surprise round. Hearing the sounds of combat starting, the rest of the party comes running. In round 1, rather than the rogue having a super high Initiative and going first, they instead wait in the wings, biding their time. When the bruiser PC on the team wades into combat and delivers a huge blast of damage to a foe, but said foe is still on their feet, the rogue comes flying in, all acrobatic-like, ignoring all the other monsters' AoO's and positioning themselves in a flank to deliver the death-blow.

The Core rules make it difficult to deliver a consistent Sneak Attack because, presumably, exploiting this on every successful attack would make the rogue a brutal damage dealer. Every rogue I ever built became less about the kind of personality and character I was trying to make and more of a master class in how to exploit any opportunity for SA.

The thing is, if a rogue's one big combat ability is Sneak Attack then if you want a combat-competitive rogue a majority of your build revolves around a single class ability. Fighters specialize in a weapon, typically, but with high BAB and tons of feats they can still have multiple backup strategies. Same is true for a general ability like Rage; so long as you've got LOTS of rounds of rage, it really doesn't matter what weapon you're holding or what your positioning is, you just rage and reap the benefits pronto.

A rogue's Sneak Attack is like the vanilla Cleric's Channel Energy. It's there, its useful... but its really a "sometimes treat" unless you know how to exploit it and build for that. Then that one strategy becomes your only strategy.

What I mean is... you can't USUALLY be a feint-build rogue AND be a Str based enforcer rogue. You either feint your enemies or scare them to guarantee your SA. If you run into an enemy that has defenses against your strategy you can't easily just go "ok, I'll try a different tactic." All your eggs end up in one basket.

[Matthew Downie]

Chell Raighn wrote:

Rogues are not meant to be in your face fighters, they are designed to be flankers. When playing a rogue you should always be flanking with someone, this brings up your to-hit slightly and is a massive improvement to your damage output. Ideally you would either finish weakened foes off or put them so low that the next hit from anyone will finish them.

Rogues low HP encourages you to utilize cover and concealment. The harder it is to hit you the safer you are, and since rogues are primarily melee combatants (when it comes to combat) you are at greater risk as a rogue than as a squishier class such as wizard.

My experience of seeing a Rogue was like this:

Enthusiastic new player: "My two-weapon-fighting Rogue can do amazing damage!"
In an actual battle:
Round 1: "I guess I'll delay because I can't get flanking yet."
Start of round 2: "I'll come out of delay and move into flanking and make a single attack."
Start of round 3: "Well, the Barbarian killed off the enemy we were flanking, so I don't have flanking again. Also I lost half my hit points before that happened, so now I'm going to have to use cover and concealment..."

Meanwhile, every non-Rogue in the party is providing far more of a contribution, because they're all either 'strong in combat, weak out of combat' like the Barbarian, or 'strong in combat, useful out of combat' like the Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Ranger, Paladin...

[VoodistMonk]

No.

I think Fighters should have the necessary skills to identify their targets, to avoid AoO, and to sneak successfully... all things soldiers do on a regular, if not required, basis.

I think Rogues should have far better inherent proficiencies to reflect their fluid and adaptive nature.

I do not think these things should be confused... their positions on the battlefield are both necessary.

The Slayer is beautiful, and can be considered a "fix" for the Rogue class... especially for everyone that does not immediately gravitate towards the UnRogue "fix" for the Rogue. I do not think the Slayer is a replacement for a Fighter or a Rogue, but I respect and appreciate its position as a martial that is not literally retarded in out of combat situations by a lack of class feature support [such as skills].

I absolutely believe that when people cannot successfully build an efficient cRogue, they do not know what PF1 is capable of... UnRogue's "free" Dex to DMG gets people all d!ckh!gh, and suddenly Rogues are supposed to be about damage??? Rogues have literally never been about damage... they get BONUS damage because they suck at damage. Lock it in, all the BS shenanigans, tumble, charge, feint... your tricks will literally NEVER be as reliable as the Fighter's greatsword... Rogues aren't Fighters... never were, and never will be.

Slayers and Swashbucklers did not change anything.

UnRogue and cRogue, both, are equally viable as player characters. Without full BAB. Most full BAB characters willingly waste 1/4 of their BAB as worthwhile penalties to their attacks for extra damage dealt when they hit... so naturally being less accurate is not a handicap if you are playing smart to avoid the very same accuracy penalties the full BAB players are taking.

WHAT?!?!

You mean not TWF? Yeah. That is what I mean.

No Power Attack? Exactly that... none Power Attacks.

Dear god(s), how may I ever possibly contrinute at all?

By hitting your target EVERY time you swing, perhaps? The big dumb Fighter misses, and misses often [they get to swing more], they just happen to hit really hard when they actually hit. You can literally just hit every time you swing, even though you swing less often. Math is wierd like that.

And, lest we forget, Rogues are supposed to be smarter... more skills, Intelligence-based class features and DC's... so fight smarter, you lazy bums! We aren't giving this fight to you just because you chose a sh!tty class [Rogues. I hate Rogues]. Flank... it's on you to set up your own bonus damage. The Fighter has positioned themselves to tactically shut down avenues of movement across the battlefield. The Fighter ate two AoO casually walking through enemy lines so they could cover whatever they needed to cover...

Sneak, Acrobatics, do your silly Rogue stuff... I don't care... use all those freaking skills the Fighter does not have to position yourself next to the Fighter in a way you get your stupid bonus damage. Big dumb Fighters are super easy to work with. They like flanking bonuses, too! It is not hard to be like, hey, charge that guy so I can sneak up behind them. Enemies die faster, and all is good.

Izzek and Urk did god's work because they both could speak Common... Izzek was a cRogue, Urk was a cFighter... we were both in a 15pt but, low loot game... if you can't figure out how to effectively use the Rogue class without full BAB, I have no sympathy for you.

Be better at playing team games. Your street rat vagabond child hooligan is part of a team now... adapt or die.

[VoodistMonk]

Also, to be fair, Rogue Talents are weak because nothing is ever updated to reflect the advances of new content, and not all GM's run the game the same way...

Some Rogue Talents are actually quite powerful in a game where lighting, concealment, cover, moving whilst using Stealth, and difficult terrain are being used regularly. The use of these things can absolutely cripple players with no magical means to overcome them.

To say that Rogues need MORE out of combat utility literally means the GM is NOT using skill checks... a Rogue should FAR excel at out of combat utility. Literally everything that is not combat should be something a Rogue can do... or at least attempt. All those skills, man... if we aren't fighting dragons, say, a casual bar encounter or lying in court... Rogue, that's you! You have the skills! If you can't Bluff whem we need it most, why are you here at all? Who else has stupid skills to waste on cooking or disguise?

Izzek, the one cRogue I have played, was a strength-based Tengu using the racial Swordtrained feature to swing a Greatsword, and I pumped Wisdom in an attempt to help my p!ss-poor Will save... I had the Nature Magic feat and Wild Magic Rogue Talents to build off my aforementiomed pumped up Wisdom. I used the Armor Expert/Master trait the wear Mithral Breastplate without penalty (even though I still was not proficient with medium armor). I was a Scout archetype, so I was the "laser sight"... I would use all my skills to position myself in a way that when I charged, I was in a position that allowed the Fighter [Urk] to charge into flanking position. I would walk around, I would charge from "over there" in order to set the flanking I needed...

I cannot capitalize or otherwise express the importance of "I"... as the Rogue, it was me that "needed" the flanking... I needed it for the accuracy bonus, because Urk was a better combatant than me. And I needed it for my Sneak Attack, because Urk was a better combatant than me. Urk was stronger, literally possessing more strength that went to accuracy and damage. Urk had a naturally higher attack bonus, regardless of whether or not Urk was currently using or not using Power Attack. The flanking bonus to accuracy is always what Izzek was after, Sneak Attack was just icing on the cake.

That's just it, though... Rogues don't need full BAB... Rogues need players that don't rely on Sneak Attack to play a Rogue.

[Dragon78]

Though I do think Rogues should have had two good saves, I would be fine if it was ether Fort or Will, ether one would be useful.

[Melkiador]

I think it's bad design to have melee specific class features and not have a good fortitude save. There are way too many fort saves when you're up front like that. That's true for the swashbuckler too. It's even a problem for the investigator, though I think that's from trying to make them look a little different than the alchemist.

[Diego Rossi]

Just to speak of tradition: the thief (now rogue) was in the 3rd rank as a martial in AD&D.
The first rank were the cavalier, barbarian, fighter, and ranger.
Second rank the cleric, druid, bard, and monk.
The thief was the third rank and the wizard the fourth.

D&D/AD&D Thief/Rogue isn't meant to be the computer games Rogue that deals a lot of DPS. So if someone chooses to be a Rogue thinking he will be a DPS machine, he is playing the wrong game.

[Derklord]

Diego Rossi wrote:

So if someone chooses to be a Rogue thinking he will be a DPS machine, he is playing the wrong game.

If someone designs a non-combat-class for a combat heavy game, they're designing for the wrong game.

Yes, not every class needs to be "a DPS machine", but ever class needs to be useful in combat. A buffing Bard doesn't do much damage on their own, but they still increase the party's overall damage by a lot (and unlike Rogue, work with almost all martials, and don't require them to change what they're doing). A debuffing/slumbering Witch might do zero damage the entire campaign, but still contributes plenty to combat.

A class that sucks in combat in a game like Pathfinder is a design failure, pure and simple. Having characters that suck in combat but are good out of combat, and characters that are good in combat but suck out of it, means that part of the players are bored a significant part of the playtime. That is terrible design. Every class in the game should be able to contribute well both in and out of combat, if they can't, they're badly made.

Diego Rossi wrote:

D&D/AD&D Thief/Rogue isn't meant to be the computer games Rogue that deals a lot of DPS.

Sure, but it's meant to be a class that can quickly take out enemies, and that can adapt well to any situation, fighting dirty if necessary. And the PF Rogue simply can't do those things, either. "Rogues excel at moving about unseen and catching foes unaware" (CRB pg. 67), they don't actually do that. "they are the msters of the knife in the back" (AD&D 2E PHB), they sure aren't in Pathfinder. "a rogue knows how to hit where it hurts, and a rogue who can hit an opponent with a sneak attack can dish out a lot of damage." (D&D 3.0 PHB), a PF Rogue doesn't know how to hit period.

[Skele Tor]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Just to speak of tradition: the thief (now rogue) was in the 3rd rank as a martial in AD&D.

The first rank were the cavalier, barbarian, fighter, and ranger.
Second rank the cleric, druid, bard, and monk.
The thief was the third rank and the wizard the fourth.

D&D/AD&D Thief/Rogue isn't meant to be the computer games Rogue that deals a lot of DPS. So if someone chooses to be a Rogue thinking he will be a DPS machine, he is playing the wrong game.

Back then we were Real Men who played Wizards with 1 HP but sadly today it's all video game kids who somehow think a Wizard with 6 HP is fine.

[Mark Hoover 330]

A c-rogue gets Sneak Attack to add damage, and that's cool, but they get no inherent accuracy bonus. A 20 pt buy c-rogue gets 10 feats, has access to a minimal amount of weapons and can't always count on dealing SA on every attack.

Based on the averages in the Monster Creation rules, a CR 1 foe has an avg AC of 12 and 15 HP. This sets the expectation that a level 1 PC in an average party size (here meant to be 4 PCs) needs to be able to consistently overcome that 12 AC and deliver 3.75 damage in a full attack round. This is not an issue for most level 1 c-rogues.

Looking at CR 6 we see monster avg benchmarks of a 19 AC and 70 HP. This means a level 6 c-rogue needs to consistently beat a 19 AC and deliver 17.5 damage. WBL at this point suggests the c-rogue has a +1 weapon, as well as a +2 stat enhancing item and several defensive items. Let's assume that the +2 stat enhancement boosts their attack stat.

A Medium sized c-rogue built with these items, a 20 point buy and beginning the game with an attack stat that granted a +4 has an attack with their magic weapon at +11 so their accuracy is fine. A full attack round for this PC, barring the inclusion of Sneak Attack, delivers 5.5 damage before factoring in racial weapon proficiencies, stat bonus to damage and feats.

This means that the level 6 c-rogue needs to make up a 12 damage gap in order to be "contributing" to combat. The obvious answer to this is Sneak Attack damage. By level 6, they are only delivering 10.5 damage in a full attack round aided by Sneak Attack damage; they're still behind by 2 points.

This means that a c-rogue either needs to sacrifice some amount of accuracy through feats to make up the damage or they need their stats to add damage somewhere, possibly through the use of feats. Rogues don't get bonus feats, save for 1-2 that might impact these numbers through Rogue Talents.

By level 10 the c-rogue has an iterative attack. They likely have a +2 weapon and either a +4 stat enhancer or 2 stats enhanced by +2. Otherwise, again, they have no inherent accuracy boosters in combat. A CR 10 foe has a 24 AC and 130 HP; they likely ALSO have a number of secondary defenses such as DR, SR, energy resistance/immunity, and so on.

The rogue at this point has a baseline of +14 to their first attack, perhaps +16, before feats. Their full attack needs to deliver 32.5 damage. Since the c-rogue has no inherent class abilities, besides SA, that add to damage, the PC is still at potentially 11 damage in a full attack round if both their attacks hit. SA, a stat bonus and feats then have to make up a 21.5 damage gap.

Their SA damage by this level is an avg of 17.5, leaving another 4 damage from feats or stats. Again, several points of this character's build would have to go into shoring up their damage in melee and guaranteeing at least 1 SA per round, just to be "contributing" to the DPR needed to defeat an Average fight for their level.

Now, is it impossible to build a c-rogue for this? No, but you'd likely need several feats and potentially 1-2 Rogue Talents going solely to maintaining your efficacy in combat. You're heavily reliant on Sneak Attack damage which several folks have pointed out is not as consistent a resource as other martial class abilities.

Out of combat, the c-rogue get's nothing unique besides Trapfinding. I know; they get 8 + Int bonus skill ranks/level! However, this just means they have more ranks to be just as good as other PCs get to be in their own skills, it doesn't give them an inherent class ability to perform those skills any better than other classes, other than finding and disabling traps.

Finally, I'd like to point out that having more skill ranks, having no inherent "Dex to melee accuracy or damage bonus" synergy and having only one good save strongly encourages a c-rogue to be a MAD build. The arguably most valuable skills for a vanilla c-rogue are Acrobatics, Bluff or Diplomacy or Intimidate, Disable Device, Perception and Stealth. Between these 5 skill ranks you've got 3 Dex based, one Cha based and one Wis based skill.

So, a 15 point buy PC might be Dex 16, Wis 13, Cha 12 before Racial bonuses at level 1. After racial, perhaps 18, 13, 12 or 18, 13, 14 with a -2 to Str.

With the advent of Traits a Cleric focused with an 18 Wis could have Perception as a skill as a 15 point buy. This means by spending one skill rank and casting an Orison on themselves, this level 1 Cleric has a Perception of +9 to the rogue's +5.

While the Cleric can't do EVERYTHING the Rogue can out of combat, this cleric is better at spotting traps than the PC who will eventually get the Trapfinding ability.

My point is only that the c-rogue requires a HIGH degree of system mastery and skill to both build and play, and even then you're breaking even in combat and excelling at a couple things out of combat. If you're playing a 15 point buy, using only Core rules and your GM is running a game with a mix of dungeoneering, social encounters, traps and combat, your c-rogue will be great.

As classes and mechanics expand however, Traits add versatility and Class Skill synergy options to other PCs; other PC classes gain Trapfinding; a wider range of classes and archetypes do what the c-rogue does only better, while not having to rely on the inconsistency of Sneak Attack as their primary damage booster.

While there is nothing WRONG with the c-rogue, there are other ways to skin that particular catoblepas.

[Melkiador]

I think the rogue should be more of a battlefield controller/buffer than a DPS. Maybe if sneak attack worked both ways. Like maybe an ally gets half your sneak attack dice when flanking with you?

The rogue doesn't need to be a damage based class. They just need to be valued in a fight. Unchained's debilitating injury does this a bit, though it also relies on sneak attack, which was probably a mistake. If the rogue had something like debilitating injury that worked on any successful attack, then they'd be valued even if they weren't topping the damage meters.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Yeah Mel, that seems to be the issue with c-rogue in general. They actually can give a lot of little helpful debuffs, even without going unchained, to an enemy with Sneak Attack through Rogue Talents, but they're all reliant on that precious Sneak Attack.

Consider the Armor Piercer talent. If your rogue hits and deals SA, they can forgo one or more SA dice to lower the creature's natural AC by 1 per die removed. A level 5 c-rogue could hand out a -3 AC debuff to a creature until the end of their next turn; great to pull off in a Surprise round so the rest of the team can jump the big bruiser type.

However, said rogue has to hit, deal SA, then forgo the extra damage in the first place. If the monster has Scent or some other way to know you're there, or otherwise isn't denied it's Dex bonus, this ability doesn't work; if you roll low, it doesn't work; if you choose not to forgo your SA damage, its a wasted ability.

Heck, the more I review Rogue Talents the more situational they all continue to be. Feint from the Shadows requires you to have Concealment from an enemy; if you want your saves to be better, there's Emboldening Strike and Fortified Position, but one requires you to forgo SA damage dice for a general bonus to saves while the other requires you to have Cover for a bonus to Fort saves.

Like, everything the c-rogue gets is all based around situations and environments they rarely have control over. C-rogues are the Mysterio of PF1 classes; if they can get a minute or more to set up a fight ahead of time, they can be absolutely devastating, but they struggle with adapting on the fly.

[Nicos]

Diego Rossi wrote:

D&D/AD&D Thief/Rogue isn't meant to be the computer games Rogue that deals a lot of DPS. So if someone chooses to be a Rogue thinking he will be a DPS machine, he is playing the wrong game.

Even with all their drawbacks, AD&D thieves had abilities that were hard to replicate. That is not the case in pathfinder with the rogue. If someone wants to play a rogue, the best path is not to choose the rogue class.

[Neriathale]

My biggest gripe with the class is the talents. There are a huge number that are so specific about when they can be used that they rarely come up, and others that are 1/day, which reduces the chance the character will use them because it might not be the perfect moment. Of the list of 200-odd talents, there re probably less than 20 that are any good, and two of those are the ones that allow you to take an extra feat.

[SheepishEidolon]

If you want a pseudo-d10 for a rogue, there is the resiliency rogue talent. Once a day class level HP when brought below 0 HP doesn't sound great, but it's roughly the same benefit as actually having a d10 (assuming rolling for HP, the hardcore way). These bonus HP come up when you need them most. You can't heal them (opposed to actual HP), but you don't have to either (next day you will have another daily usage).

Unchained doubled the talent's benefit, now you gain the HP of a barbarian's d12 (hardcore-rolling) respective a fighter's d10 (even for full HD for PCs). And you can gain multiple daily uses via the multitalented rogue talent.

But rogue has limited HP for a reason. You are supposed to do opportunist strikes, not to wade into the middle of melee and shout "I SMASH FACE". There are other classes for that.

[Nyssa Veshane]

VoodistMonk wrote:

the big, dumb Fighter…

“Who you callin’ big and dumb?”

;)

[Matthew Downie]

SheepishEidolon wrote:

But rogue has limited HP for a reason. You are supposed to do opportunist strikes, not to wade into the middle of melee and shout "I SMASH FACE".

'Opportunist strikes' are part of the problem. Most classes can attack (or cast) whenever they want. A character that needs to look for an opportunity is much less useful than one that doesn't.

A good opportunity to deal damage (by running round into a flanking position, or dashing across the battlefield to stab the enemy caster) typically puts you in the most dangerous place you can be.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Nicos wrote:

Even with all their drawbacks, AD&D thieves had abilities that were hard to replicate. That is not the case in pathfinder with the rogue. If someone wants to play a rogue, the best path is not to choose the rogue class.

Really? For mundanes and most clerics, yes, but a Wizard could do basically everything with spells. Backstab might be the hardest to emulate but I wouldn't be surprised to find out there was a version of Tenser's Transformation that gave your Thief abilities instead of Fighter.

[Darigaaz the Igniter]

Neriathale wrote:

My biggest gripe with the class is the talents. There are a huge number that are so specific about when they can be used that they rarely come up, and others that are 1/day, which reduces the chance the character will use them because it might not be the perfect moment. Of the list of 200-odd talents, there re probably less than 20 that are any good, and two of those are the ones that allow you to take an extra feat.

barbarians/oracles/witches/alchemists/etc spend feats to gain access to more of choices of their specific class feature because those choices are usually more powerful than a feat. Rogues spend their specific class feature to get more feats.

[Mysterious Stranger]

1st edition AD&D rules were a lot different. For one thing class abilities were pretty much exclusive. Only two classes had the ability to move silently or hid in shadows. If you were not either a thief or a monk you could not do either. No other class had those abilities including the Ranger. UMD was a high level thief ability that no other class had. Second was the fact that all that non-humans had limits as to how high of a level they could go in most classes. The only class that a non-human had unlimited advancement was thief. Multiclassing was a lot different so most if not all non-humans were multiclassed. Humans actually could not multiclass. This lead to almost all non-humans being thieves.

In 1st edition AD&D the situation was reversed for non-humans. If you were not a thief and the game got past a certain level your character did not was basically stuck and could not gain any levels. The experience system was a lot different so multiclassing usually meant you were about 1 level behind, but got all the abilities of both classes. So a magic user/thief could were leather armor and still cast spells with no chance of failure.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Even with all their drawbacks, AD&D thieves had abilities that were hard to replicate. That is not the case in pathfinder with the rogue. If someone wants to play a rogue, the best path is not to choose the rogue class.

Really? For mundanes and most clerics, yes, but a Wizard could do basically everything with spells. Backstab might be the hardest to emulate but I wouldn't be surprised to find out there was a version of Tenser's Transformation that gave your Thief abilities instead of Fighter.

Something you've gotta remember about 1e and 2d D&D: there were no consumable magic items, other than some elixirs and dusts. Magic Users weren't walking around with a half dozen wands and an accordion file full of scrolls.

An MU could cast Spider Climb a couple times/day, that's it; a thief could climb a wall if they rolled well on percentile dice at any time. This made thieves indispensable for many reasons.

When 3x hit, suddenly some of that unique utility went out the window for the Rogue class. It got worse when PF1 consolidated some skills. But, Rogues in Core had a way to act when they should be Flat Footed, so they at least had SOMETHING still going for them.

Then Archetypes began expanding bards, the Inquisitor and Alchemist arrived, and Traits became a thing. Suddenly there were plenty of ways to have Precision Damage, Trapfinding, and have access to most of the "thiefly" skills by playing OTHER classes. Those other classes offered ways to force enemies to lose their Dex bonus, ways to make up damage deficits without relying on Precision damage, and had inherent skill boosts.

Essentially, they rogued harder than the rogue did.

But after all of this the vanilla rogue IS still one of the classes that gets a class ability allowing them to ignore being Flat Footed. If you're going to make a Dex based, Combat Reflexes type character... well, there's probably STILL better ways to do it than using Rogue as the base, but this is ONE way to pull it off.

[Nicos]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Even with all their drawbacks, AD&D thieves had abilities that were hard to replicate. That is not the case in pathfinder with the rogue. If someone wants to play a rogue, the best path is not to choose the rogue class.

Really? For mundanes and most clerics, yes, but a Wizard could do basically everything with spells. Backstab might be the hardest to emulate but I wouldn't be surprised to find out there was a version of Tenser's Transformation that gave your Thief abilities instead of Fighter.

I didn't say impossible but hard. Wizards have way fewer spells per day compared to 3.x, and scrolls/wands were not a granted thing.

[ErichAD]

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

1st edition AD&D rules were a lot different. For one thing class abilities were pretty much exclusive. Only two classes had the ability to move silently or hid in shadows. If you were not either a thief or a monk you could not do either. No other class had those abilities including the Ranger. UMD was a high level thief ability that no other class had. Second was the fact that all that non-humans had limits as to how high of a level they could go in most classes. The only class that a non-human had unlimited advancement was thief. Multiclassing was a lot different so most if not all non-humans were multiclassed. Humans actually could not multiclass. This lead to almost all non-humans being thieves.

In 1st edition AD&D the situation was reversed for non-humans. If you were not a thief and the game got past a certain level your character did not was basically stuck and could not gain any levels. The experience system was a lot different so multiclassing usually meant you were about 1 level behind, but got all the abilities of both classes. So a magic user/thief could were leather armor and still cast spells with no chance of failure.

Not to mention that rogues had the cheapest xp chart and generous bonus xp by 2nded AD&D.

[Diego Rossi]

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

Second was the fact that all that non-humans had limits as to how high of a level they could go in most classes. The only class that a non-human had unlimited advancement was thief. Multiclassing was a lot different so most if not all non-humans were multiclassed. Humans actually could not multiclass. This lead to almost all non-humans being thieves.

In 1st edition, AD&D non-humans Cavaliers had no level limits and were on par if not better than a fighter as melee combatants.

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Something you've gotta remember about 1e and 2d D&D: there were no consumable magic items, other than some elixirs and dusts. Magic Users weren't walking around with a half dozen wands and an accordion file full of scrolls.

Consumables existed, the problem was that there weren't clear rules on crafting them, so a PC couldn't craft his set of magic items, and the magic market wasn't something that existed in every corner of the world.

Wands were a common item found in loot, staves were rare and non-rechargeable, you could find some potions on sale at the major churches.

[ErichAD]

1e cavalier chivalric code wrote:

As a result of the code and the desire for battle, cavaliers cannot be controlled in battle situations. They will charge any enemy in sight, with this order of preference:

Powerful monsters (dragons, demons, giants) serving enemy leaders.
Enemy leaders.
Opponent cavaliers of great renown, and enemy flags and standards.
Opponent cavalry of noble or elite status.
Other opponent cavalry.
Opponent elite footmen.
Opponent camp and headquarters.
Opponent melee troops.
Levies or peasants.

Losing control of your character during combat does seems like quite the price to pay for full advancement. But, while Gygax did say he wanted the non-humans to be level limited as a fighter, that wasn't published in anything official. Just Dragon #96 page 8, so yeah I guess they could fully advance.

[Mudfoot]

While 1e thieves were the only ones who could pick locks, move silently and so on, they were terrible at it until at least mid-level. A 3rd level human thief with 16 Dex has a 27% chance of moving silently and a 20% chance to hide in shadows. And he's AC6 in his leather armour and 11hp. And THACO 21 (worse than a basic goblin). He's going to have to be very brave and very lucky.

1e thief was a bit like 1e cleric. Someone had to be able to open doors and disarm traps, just like someone had to be the healer.

[Diego Rossi]

Mudfoot wrote:

While 1e thieves were the only ones who could pick locks, move silently and so on, they were terrible at it until at least mid-level. A 3rd level human thief with 16 Dex has a 27% chance of moving silently and a 20% chance to hide in shadows. And he's AC6 in his leather armour and 11hp. And THACO 21 (worse than a basic goblin). He's going to have to be very brave and very lucky.

1e thief was a bit like 1e cleric. Someone had to be able to open doors and disarm traps, just like someone had to be the healer.

And the Wizard had 1 spell and, at most 1d4+2 hp.

Low level survival required more work than today for all classes.

[Tonya Woldridge]

Removed a post calling another poster a greedy, spoiled brat. Name-calling is against our community guidelines. Please post without doing so. Thanks!

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Nicos wrote:

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Even with all their drawbacks, AD&D thieves had abilities that were hard to replicate. That is not the case in pathfinder with the rogue. If someone wants to play a rogue, the best path is not to choose the rogue class.

Really? For mundanes and most clerics, yes, but a Wizard could do basically everything with spells. Backstab might be the hardest to emulate but I wouldn't be surprised to find out there was a version of Tenser's Transformation that gave your Thief abilities instead of Fighter.

I didn't say impossible but hard. Wizards have way fewer spells per day compared to 3.x, and scrolls/wands were not a granted thing.

You said the abilities were hard to replicate, so I replied to that. Most of them aren't. Is what you meant to say that is it is hard to reliably replace a Thief for all occasions they are useful on an adventure?

E.g. a Wizard might have a Knock available, but that only works on one door, so a Thief is nice to have for all the other locked ones you find.

[Nicos]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Even with all their drawbacks, AD&D thieves had abilities that were hard to replicate. That is not the case in pathfinder with the rogue. If someone wants to play a rogue, the best path is not to choose the rogue class.

Really? For mundanes and most clerics, yes, but a Wizard could do basically everything with spells. Backstab might be the hardest to emulate but I wouldn't be surprised to find out there was a version of Tenser's Transformation that gave your Thief abilities instead of Fighter.

I didn't say impossible but hard. Wizards have way fewer spells per day compared to 3.x, and scrolls/wands were not a granted thing.

You said the abilities were hard to replicate, so I replied to that. Most of them aren't. Is what you meant to say that is it is hard to reliably replace a Thief for all occasions they are useful on an adventure?

E.g. a Wizard might have a Knock available, but that only works on one door, so a Thief is nice to have for all the other locked ones you find.

Yes, that was what I meant.

[Melkiador]

Rather than disable device, the big loss to the rogue entering pathfinder was how much easier it was to find traps in the first place. Getting through doors and locks is often as simple as spending a few rounds beating them down. And a trap spotted can often be bypassed with some clever uses of the terrain. But if you don't know a trap is there in the first place, then you can't do anything about it and it is likely to hurt the party in the most inconvenient way.

[Doompatrol]

It's been sort of mentioned already but the Rogue doesn't need to be fixed because if you want to take it another direction you just play another class.

More straightforward in combat, play a Slayer

Magic, play an Investigator.

Want Ki, Ninja

Want to focus on being a face or have more interesting talents, Vigilante

Is there any need to find a niche for the Rogue other than having a class called the Rogue and if the class gives you what you want more than the others, play it.

[*Thelith]

Doompatrol wrote:

It's been sort of mentioned already but the Rogue doesn't need to be fixed because if you want to take it another direction you just play another class.

More straightforward in combat, play a Slayer

Magic, play an Investigator.

Want Ki, Ninja

Want to focus on being a face or have more interesting talents, Vigilante

Is there any need to find a niche for the Rogue other than having a class called the Rogue and if the class gives you what you want more than the others, play it.

But this is kinda the Point.... All of these "rogue niche" things have been slowly pulled off of the rogue and given to other classes that can now do those rogue things better than the rogue.

So if every rogue thing you might be interested in doing, sneaking, backstabbing, smart-mouth face, etc... Its better to pick something else.

[Mark Hoover 330]

*Thelith wrote:

Doompatrol wrote:

It's been sort of mentioned already but the Rogue doesn't need to be fixed because if you want to take it another direction you just play another class.

More straightforward in combat, play a Slayer

Magic, play an Investigator.

Want Ki, Ninja

Want to focus on being a face or have more interesting talents, Vigilante

Is there any need to find a niche for the Rogue other than having a class called the Rogue and if the class gives you what you want more than the others, play it.

But this is kinda the Point.... All of these "rogue niche" things have been slowly pulled off of the rogue and given to other classes that can now do those rogue things better than the rogue.

So if every rogue thing you might be interested in doing, sneaking, backstabbing, smart-mouth face, etc... Its better to pick something else.

Rogue was created in the Core of the game. Among the Core classes with no archetypes, Rogue is the ONLY way to deliver Sneak Attack damage. Also vanilla rogue is one of 2 classes that is never flat-footed.

As the game began to expand, the rogue class was eclipsed by all the other classes and archetypes that duplicate their abilities. There's nothing inherently WRONG with the rogue; it can do its job following the Core rules, albeit a tad inconsistently due to the nature of Precision damage and the Sneak Attack ability, but a vanilla rogue with a 15 point buy can meaningfully contribute in and out of combat at every level.

However... other builds will do these things BETTER.

[Doompatrol]

*Thelith wrote:

Doompatrol wrote:

It's been sort of mentioned already but the Rogue doesn't need to be fixed because if you want to take it another direction you just play another class.

More straightforward in combat, play a Slayer

Magic, play an Investigator.

Want Ki, Ninja

Want to focus on being a face or have more interesting talents, Vigilante

Is there any need to find a niche for the Rogue other than having a class called the Rogue and if the class gives you what you want more than the others, play it.

But this is kinda the Point.... All of these "rogue niche" things have been slowly pulled off of the rogue and given to other classes that can now do those rogue things better than the rogue.

So if every rogue thing you might be interested in doing, sneaking, backstabbing, smart-mouth face, etc... Its better to pick something else.

Which is why I don't think it needs fixed,

To answer the thread questions, should the Rogue have full bab? no, it already has it in the Slayer

[Claxon]

I don't think the rogue should have had d10 hd and full BAB.

I do think the class needed different mechanics for a damage adder. You could still call it sneak attack, but the mechanics are general awful.

The class also could use access to accuracy boosters.

I look at the Inquisitor as a comparison.

Both have 3/4 BAB. Both have d8 hit dice. Rogue has 8+int skills while Inquisitor has 6+Int skills.

Many people consider the rogue worthless to play compared to other options. Many people consider the Inquisitor to be one of the strongest and most fun classes available.

Excluding the optional skill variants system, while the rogue may have more skills they don't get any booster to those skills. In PF1, having full ranks in a skill is sort of the minimum threshold for competency. If someone else has the skill they are likely to have some sort of class booster, which will make the better than you on average.

If you were to change the theme of the Inquisitors abilities to be not religiously focused and gave it access to Trapfinding and magical trap removal, there would be 0 practical reason to play a rogue. In fact, if you're not playing a trap heavy campaign there's already little reason to play a rogue. IDK...Maybe you like Dark Souls and want to play the game on hard mode.

Anyways, I look at all the other classes that exist and think what the rogue could have been in hindsight.

And if I ever have an itch to play a rogue I'll just make a Inquisitor of Calistra or another befitting deity.

Doompatrol wrote:

*Thelith wrote:

Doompatrol wrote:

It's been sort of mentioned already but the Rogue doesn't need to be fixed because if you want to take it another direction you just play another class.

More straightforward in combat, play a Slayer

Magic, play an Investigator.

Want Ki, Ninja

Want to focus on being a face or have more interesting talents, Vigilante

Is there any need to find a niche for the Rogue other than having a class called the Rogue and if the class gives you what you want more than the others, play it.

But this is kinda the Point.... All of these "rogue niche" things have been slowly pulled off of the rogue and given to other classes that can now do those rogue things better than the rogue.

So if every rogue thing you might be interested in doing, sneaking, backstabbing, smart-mouth face, etc... Its better to pick something else.

Which is why I don't think it needs fixed,

To answer the thread questions, should the Rogue have full bab? no, it already has it in the Slayer

Yeah, to be honest the best thing to do might be to remove the rogue from the rule books and everyone collectively pretend like it never existed.

[SheepishEidolon]

Matthew Downie wrote:

'Opportunist strikes' are part of the problem. Most classes can attack (or cast) whenever they want. A character that needs to look for an opportunity is much less useful than one that doesn't.

You can counter that with a bunch of alternate options. Demoralize, feint, identify the monster, total defense, use a consumable, even aid another - they don't win the encounter on their own, but they contribute. The rogue's many skill ranks help vastly with having multiple options. I'd interpret the following as not just flavor text but as a recommendation how to actually play:

CRB, page 67 wrote:

Role: Rogues excel at moving about unseen and catching foes unaware, and tend to avoid head-to-head combat. Their varied skills and abilities allow them to be highly versatile, with great variations in expertise existing between different rogues. Most, however, excel in overcoming hindrances of all types, from unlocking doors and disarming traps to outwitting magical hazards and conning dull-witted opponents.

If a player wants a combat option that works 99%+ of the time, I would point them to other classes than a rogue.

[Temperans]

You don't need maxed out skills to be competent. That is only needed if you want to minmax a skill, which is not relevant for most skills. As a Rogue you can max out Perception and Stealth. Then put the minimal amount into various skills and be perfectly fine. For most cases that will be more than enough to try and pass the save with no problem.

Also, its incredible how many people ignore rogue talents being a thing.

* Black Market Connections is how you can get the party buying higher level equipment without having to travel.
* Castling let's the rogue get the benefit from cover when facing large creatures.
* Dampen Presence straight makes the rogue better at stealth.
* Demand Attention allows a Rogue who has an easier time escaping to allow allies to escape. Even if they are a full plate character with -10 to stealth.
* Disabling Stunt is one of the few ways to deal with construct DR, even if it's just rogue Sneak Attack.
* For a solo rogue, Greater Gloom Magic straight up invalidates a ton of encounters. Deeper Darkness is OP.
* etc.

Rogue is definitely one of the classes that requires a lot of system mastery. But a lot of the effects are very easy to figure out use cases if you spend a few moments to think about what they do.

For example: Slippery Mind + Follow Along allows a Rogue to really mess up casters who use enchantment. While the various disguise talents make them great at gathering information from unlikely sources.

*******************
In the end a Rogue, like many casters depends on the GM giving them something to work with.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Claxon wrote:

Excluding the optional skill variants system, while the rogue may have more skills they don't get any booster to those skills. In PF1, having full ranks in a skill is sort of the minimum threshold for competency. If someone else has the skill they are likely to have some sort of class booster, which will make the better than you on average.

Inquisitor gets + 1/2 level to Intimidate, Sense Motive, and Survival (made to ID/follow tracks); Rogue gets 1/2 level to Perception and Disable Device for the purpose of finding/removing traps. While Rogue doesn't get AS MUCH of a skill boost, they get one. Also, the bonus for Inquisitors on Intimidate and Sense Motive is a Morale bonus, just on the off chance than a foe's abilities remove said Morale bonuses.

But again... you're comparing the Rogue to the Inquisitor; of COURSE the Inquisitor is superior. The Inquisitor came out after the Core Book and after folks began to recognize their frustration with mechanics like Sneak Attack and healing in combat in PF1.

A more accurate comparison would be the Rogue to the Bard, or perhaps the Cleric. No archetypes, no traits, core-only feats. In this comparison, Rogues are the only class that can disable magic traps, gets Precision damage or is never Flat Footed. That is the bubble inside of which this class was ported from 3.5 to Pathfinder in.

As I've said a couple times now, there's nothing inherently WRONG or useless with the rogue class. With the advent of expanded classes, archetypes, traits, a greater array of feats and optional gestalt or multiclass rules, there are now BETTER ways to be a "rogue" than taking levels in that class, depending on the direction you want to build the character.

[Claxon]

I guess I put extremely low value on trap disabling (including magic traps) because of how they're usually included.

Often they're stand alone encounters that pretty binary and boring.
Did you detect the trap? No, here's so damage you're going to heal with a wand.
Yes? Can you avoid the trigger? Yeah, we walk around it. No? Okay, let one character alone, disable it.

They're just not interesting as usually implemented IMO. And it was always bad (IMO) to put it forth as one the thing to do for one class.

And precision damage really isn't a great or important niche either. People care about more damage, not so much precision damage itself. The hoops you have to go through to set it up and the lack of accuracy just meant the theoretical damage potential almost never materialized.

Especially compared to playing a stronk fighter, barbarian, or ranger.

I disagree that there was nothing wrong with the rogue, I think they were bad even in the core rule book.

[Diego Rossi]

Claxon wrote:

I look at the Inquisitor as a comparison.

Both have 3/4 BAB. Both have d8 hit dice. Rogue has 8+int skills while Inquisitor has 6+Int skills.

The Inquisitor is a good example of "giving all the possible gifts to a class". 6 skills/level, plenty of good class skills, several good abilities, a large set of sub-abilities for the Judgments, 2 good saves, a good spell selection, a good weapon selection, and the teamwork feats.

It is a nice sep up when compared to most CRB classes.

Sure, the number of judgments in a day is limited, but "a combat" isn't necessarily "killing the guys in this room". If the other opponents in the area react, or there is a chase, it can extend to a long period.

I like to be able to always do something, even if I am not the best at it, and would always take the Inquisitor before a Fighter, and take it 6 out of 10 times instead of a Cleric.

The Rogue fail at that test. It is the Skilled class, but it is subpar when compared to other classes that can always do something. As other people have already said, too many classes have poached his special abilities through archetypes or because they are hybrid classes.

I don't think that giving it a d10 HD and full BAB is the solution, but it needs some help. Currently, I have a player playing an Unchained Eldritch Scoundrel and is doing well, but that is a major rewrite of the class.