And without sneak attack we wouldn't have so many trash talents based around sneak attack.I disagree. Publishing so many awful rogue talents was a deliberate choice by the designers. They could have done great talents, sneak attack or not, but they just preferred not to until the last era of PF1 (apparently).
The problem is that sneak attack was drastically over valued. The designers thought it was so great, that they shouldn’t do much to make it better. If it didn’t exist in the first place things probably would have played out better.
The argument has been that Rogue is bad because they can't reliably use Sneak Attack. Or because they can't hit reliably.
While others are arguing that the Rogue is good because of its talents and amounts of skills. And because the player can choose to either focus on sneak attack or skills and still have a ways to affect the other modes of play.
My mention of Phantom Thief is that it's literally one of the best Rogue Archetypes, despite losing sneak attack. It gives more skill ranks, more signature skills, more access to Rogue talents you would normally not take (less spent on sneak attack). The only people would say it's bad are people who want to max out DPR, to which I respond with: You can literally just spend all of your talents and money on getting damaging spells and still keep all the Phantom Thief's skill bonuses.
OK, let me do a litmus test here: what do you think about the Powerful Sneak rogue talent?
Benefit: Whenever a rogue with this talent takes a full attack action, she can elect to take a –2 penalty on all attack rolls until the start of her next turn. If an attack during this time is a sneak attack, she treats all 1s on the sneak attack damage dice as 2s.
Thats pretty terrible. It’d be merely ok if there weren’t an accuracy penalty.
1d6 is an average of 3.5 damage.
Rerolling 1s changes the average to 4.
So, it’s just .5 damage per damage die
Power attack gives 2 damage per -1 to attack. That means you need to have 8d6 of sneak attack dice until it’s on par with an early feat. So it’s maybe an ok talent when your rogue career is almost over. But for a low level rogue, stay away.
Edit. Oops. Did the wrong math. That was for rerolling the 1s. For changing the 1s to 2s it’s way worse.
~3.67 damage instead of 3.5. +0.17 damage per damage dice. If you had 10d6 sneak attack dice, you’d deal 1.7 more damage per hit for a price of -2 attack. Absolutely terrible. Never take that.
Btw, the unchained version of powerful sneak works similar to my first set of math. But not quite as good since you can only reroll once. A little less than +0.5 more damage per damage die. Not amazing but at least it’s worth a look at end game.
Something else that needs to be said. Even with premium system mastery, the Rogue often teeters at the brink of death. When things like Shaken, Sickened, Negative Levels, Difficult Terrain, and pretty much any other complex scenario occur, they begin to deathspiral far, FAR faster than any other class.
It's a byproduct of both the poor bab and worst saves. Once penalties start flying, the oftentimes barely acceptable ability of the Rogue begin to fail catastrophically. This is a pretty wide blanket statement, but I still believe that any Rogue living past 8th/9th level from 1st is a result of:
-Softball DMing
-Absurdly high wealth
-Absurdly good stats for PB or rolling
-Just has really hot dice
-Their group may not understand the rules completely and are houseruling/ignoring a lot of things that completely gut Rogues like dim hallways.
Or more likely, a combination of the above.
Another thing that often helps rogues survive is the players themselves. Often what makes a character seem powerful is often the ability of the player. If you have a highly intelligent player who understand tactics and knows the systems inside and out the characters, they play will be more powerful than normal. On the other hand, if you have someone who is not as mentally gifted with a poor sense of tactics and little to know system mastery their characters will be less powerful.
I know someone who loves to game but in all honesty is not too bright; they have no sense of tactics and often forget details of the system. When they play a wizard, they forget what their spells can do and usually end up sticking to the same spells. If I play a rogue in a game where they are playing a wizard my character will be more powerful. Sure, I will have weaknesses, but I actively look to minimize them. My saves may initially be lower, but I chose my feats and go out of my way to get magic items that boost them. They just take whatever we find and is often more interested in the cool magic items than the ones that cover their weaknesses. The end result is that while on paper his wizard should be more powerful than my rogue, but in reality, it is not.
This does not mean the rogue is not a weak class especially the unchained rogue. I suspect that a lot of people defending the rogue as being perfectly fine are probably the smarter and better players in their group. They don’t see the problems because the other players are not living up to the full potential of their characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect that a lot of people defending the rogue as being perfectly fine are probably the smarter and better players in their group.
Either that, or they've witnessed Rogues played by people with high system mastery and understanding of tactics.
Anothere thing that makes Rogue appear stronger than it is is subjective perception. Many people focus on individual events, and when they see a Rogue deal high damage in the rare instance where all the stars align (full attack with SA where all the attacks hit), they take that as evidence that the class is powerful, even if the average damage across all fights is much lower than that of other characters.
Somewhat related is that many people vastly overvalue damage dice, so when they see the Rogue rolls eight dice for one damage roll, they think that's better than what other melees with their two damage dice do, even if those have 30 static bonus damage. Even if the total damage is lower, the perception is there (and visuals tend to trump heared numbers, and you just don't see static bonus damage). This is actually part why people pick the class in the first place, too.
I already touched upon how Rogue isn't actually bad in low powered game, but it warrents a more in-depth look. In a game where it's normal for two PCs to spend 3-4 turns to bring down an enemy even when they gang up, a Rogue gets plenty of Sneak Attacks off. And based on a believe of, to quote Temperans, "Invisibility (...) Displacement and Mirror Image is a bother for everyone" (which is not actually true, as gish classes often have spells for that), GMs in easy/lower powered games tend to not actually use such tactics or opponents; this also applies to flying/unreachable opponents that stay away from the party. The same applies to saving throws - in games where no one shores up their saves, GMs tend to shy away from nasty effects.
A big part (and related to the above) is also lack of comparison. If no one in your gaming group knows how to build powerful martials, or no one does as to not upstage others, players might never see the potential of Pathfinder mechanics and thus operate from a whole different reference point. If you've never seen a melee like Shifter, WS Druid, unMonk etc. take out a non-adjacent CR=APL enemy in one turn, on a character with good saves and outfight usefulness, you may not realize how low the Rogue's ceiling is in comparison.
And lastly, people may have had good experiences playing a Rogue without realizing they were mollycoddled by the group. When supported by a Bard and either summoning, or melees who're willing to let the Rogue shine by setting up flanking instead of pouncing something to death, a Rogue may look strong, and people may not realize how little of theat apparent strength remains outside of these specific circumstances.
But yeah otherwise I am currently playing in an RP heavy campaign.
Doesn't change that you're playing in an easy and/or low powered campaign. An RP heavy campaign can still be hard in what combat it has, and non-combat-challenges can be of various difficulty, too (and for harder ones, a couple of skill ranks isn't gonna cut it).
The only people would say it's bad are people who want to max out DPR
You're awfully quick to judge, aren't you?
Thats pretty terrible. It’d be merely ok if there weren’t an accuracy penalty.
That question was for Temperans, to see if they understand enough math to make competent comments on Pathfinder mechanics in the first place...
Well, I do agree with Temperans assertion that the phantom thief is a good rogue. And it doesn't have the hassle of sneak attack.
This thread isn't about if the rogue needs a boost. It obviously did or it wouldn't have gotten the unchained attention. But I think a lot of us have different ideas of what kind of boost the class needed. Personally, I think there are already plenty of martial beatsticks, even in core but especially in expanded books. The rogue needed to be the martial master of skills. That's where most of the buffing needs to go. Sneak attack is just a mechanic that messes with people's perceptions. It's been continually over valued, even in Unchained. It would have been better to never have it in the first place.
I find it weird to say that low-powered games are somehow playing the game in easier mode.
That's not what I said, nor did I mean to imply it. "either easy, or low powered games."
Well, I do agree with Temperans assertion that the phantom thief is a good rogue. And it doesn't have the hassle of sneak attack.
It doesn't fix any of the Rogue's issues. It doesn't improve fortitude save or will save, doesn't make the Rogue a competent combatant in vanilla fights, and doesn't let her contribute in non-vanilla-fights. How does a Phantom Thief provide a meaningful contribution to combat in a non-easy and non-low powered game? Because Temperans' "Magic Trick (Magic Missile) 4 times a day is more than enough" sure isn't in my games.
Sneak attack is just a mechanic that messes with people's perceptions. It's been continually over valued, even in Unchained. It would have been better to never have it in the first place.
I strongly agree - SA in the existing form should never have been made. I don't dislike the situational bonus damage itself, but it shouldn't be triggered by flanking. But Rogue does not something that makes it able to meaningfully contribute in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also in your own statement you are talking about the Rogue based on how much damage it does
No, I was talking about that some people tend to overestimate how much damage it does or can do.
If you've never seen a melee like Shifter, WS Druid, unMonk etc. take out a non-adjacent CR=APL enemy in one turn, on a character with good saves and outfight usefulness, you may not realize how low the Rogue's ceiling is in comparison.That statement says that the Rogue is bad because of how much damage those other classes do.
No, it says that people who have never seen a actually good damage dealer may falsely believe Rogue to be one.
You are judging Rogue by how much DPR it has compared to other classes and using that as a basis for that class being better in low power games.
Again, no, I'm judging Rogue by how much it helps a party in combat (which does not necessitate damage), for which I include how much of a liability it is.
Three instances of you blatantly misrepresenting what I've said. Either you don't understand my arguments, or you're deliberately constructign a strawman.
The campaign I am playing in literally has a very optimized unMonk, my position still stands.
It's not about position, it's about vantage point. Either you don't actually have any idea how a true "very optimized unMonk" looks like, or you're fine with being virtually useless in combat in comparison. Because Magic Missiles sure isn't notable damage compared to what I consider an optimized unMonk!
This means your comments are either worthless for anyone playing in harder or higher difficulty games, or they're worthless for anyone who isn't fine with being neigh useless in combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The skill rogue can contribute by flanking and maybe even using the aid another action. At a certain point you could start using wands during combat. There is plenty to do if you just try to look for something.
You seriously don’t have to be great at combat. This is a team game. One guy not maximizing offense is barely ever going to matter.
Stealth Synergy for 1 measly feat makes the full plate warrior as stealthy as the Rogue.
That's not how Stealth Synergy works. The Fighter doesn't get Rogue's Stealth bonus, the only thing the feat does is that it lets everyone use the highest roll of all teamwork-ed people. The feat is badly worded, but this way it's in line with other Teamwork feats (which is: crap unless you're an Inquisitor or Cavalier).
I see your games have a rather liberal and player-friendly interpretation of things, which is nice and cool, but not PF1 baseline.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The monster creation chart isn't fine compared to reality. It was made with core sword and board Fighters swinging their longsword for 1d8+11 damage at level 10 in mind, not a properly built 2H damage dealer that can compete in DPR olympics.
The measuring stick is being able to hit things with your multiple attacks (TWF, most of the time) to get enough out of sneak attack to be comparable to a greatsword Fighter/Barbarian or bowladin. cRogue can't do that, because of med BAB and no accuracy boosters.
Outside of combat, the cRogue is a glorified NPC Expert class. So is Fighter, but at least they can chop/bow things to death reliably, the Rogue can't.
If you say "yeah but you can clobber together thirty things from 20 splatbooks to make Rogue do this or that" I'm afraid that the same floor raises for all other classes, and once the Slayer and Archeologist Bard are available, there's really no reason for cRogue to exist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The monster creation chart isn't fine compared to reality. It was made with core sword and board Fighters swinging their longsword for 1d8+11 damage at level 10 in mind, not a properly built 2H damage dealer that can compete in DPR olympics.
The game is mostly balanced around that chart though. Going over that amount might win some olympics, but there isn't a need to win the olympics.
And it's not like there aren't already other party members. If 2 party members are each doing twice as much damage as another party member like the phantom thief rogue, then the results won't be much different than if that 3rd member did the same damage as the other 2. A party doing X5 DPR vs X6 DPR? One might sometimes finish the enemies off 1 round sooner than the other. It's not that big of a deal. Scale the party up to a more common 5 or 6 member group, and it's even more insignificant. A party doing X9 vs X10? Most encounters will die in the same number of rounds either way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Mark Hoover 330
You're not far from the measuring stick. Bench-Pressing and the most updated version of that table.
This translates to a 1d6 weapon attack dealing an average of 10.5 damage. The monster creation chart says a CR6 monster has 70 HP, meaning one PC in a 4 character party needs to be contributing 17.5 damage. This means the rogue is woefully behind.
However the level 6 rogue, with no other help from feats, has the capability of adding 3d6 damage to an attack in the combat. That's an average of another 10.5 damage. This means that the rogue has now contributed OVER their expected damage against this foe.
You're forgetting to roll the d20. By your assumptions the rogue would have a +11 to hit, which means their attack has a 65% chance to hit. So their average dmg for a round is not 21, but ~13,5. And that's if they get their sneak attack in.
And it's not like there aren't already other party members. If 2 party members are each doing twice as much damage as another party member like the phantom thief rogue, then the results won't be much different than if that 3rd member did the same damage as the other 2. A party doing X5 DPR vs X6 DPR? One might sometimes finish the enemies off 1 round sooner than the other. It's not that big of a deal. Scale the party up to a more common 5 or 6 member group, and it's even more insignificant. A party doing X9 vs X10? Most encounters will die in the same number of rounds either way.
"Hey guys, so since you have such competent characters, can I play a useless extra?" is not the best take in a cooperative game where everyone is supposed to pull some weight together.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dealing half as much damage isn't useless though. X1 is still more than X0, even if it's not as much as X2. And it's not like you couldn't be many times more competent in the other parts of the game.
Basically, combat is basic. Everyone can take part, even if it's not their focus. Not everyone has to win the DPR olympics to take part. There is a lot more to a game of Pathfinder than just whacking on things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dealing half as much damage isn't useless though. X1 is still more than X0, even if it's not as much as X2. And it's not like you couldn't be many times more competent in the other parts of the game.
Basically, combat is basic. Everyone can take part, even if it's not their focus. Not everyone has to win the DPR olympics to take part. There is a lot more to a game of Pathfinder than just whacking on things.
But the Rogue isn't more competent in other parts of the game. A bloody Ranger has almost the same amount of skill points as Rogue. There's just preciously little that Rogue has unique going for it that other classes can't do ON THE TOP of being far better in combat.
Seems to me like you just can't get the "3.5 Rogue was crap and Paizo failed to update it meaningfully the first time round" idea through - once you do that and stop assuming that all elements of PF1 were well done, it gets easier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point has always been that the other parts of the game is where the buffing needs to be. Focusing on damage is boring since that field is already flooded. The phantom thief addresses this. It’s what the baseline for the rogue should have been like.
IME, an unRogue can often expect to do significant damage (enough to pull his weight) if in a party of 5+. But to do that (as per some examples above) he's putting essentially all his feats and talents into offence. He still has light armour, d8 hp, MAD stats and the worst saving throws in the game. So he's fine until someone hits him back, which they'll probably do because SA almost always requires getting in close.
And seriously, 10x5d4 magic missiles a day at 20th level? Is that it? I do hope you have some other way to inflict pain.
Did you miss the part where I said it's a single talent?
Also you are clearly forgetting that ranged options to applying sneak attack exist. Mainly sniping.
Outside of eversmoking bottle/goz mask cheese, "sniping" is not a concept in a game where you need to be 30 feet to make ranged sneak attacks and the first attack de-stealths you. Yes, sniper goggles exist, no, they cost 20k so it's late levels territory (and come from a splatbook, so you're SOL if it's a core only game or your GM is a PITA and says "nooo, too cheesy") and it's all still just a single attack. Not to mention that, once again, it's all defeated by dim light of any sort, as any uRogue sneak attack is.
@Temperans: Would you mind giving me the build of the "very optimized unMonk" in your party, to see what you consider such?
This is a team game.
If letting others do the work is your idea of teamwork, I'm glad I was never assigned to a group with you for a homework assignment!
One guy not maximizing offense is barely ever going to matter.
If the game is geared towards a party full of PC with maximised offense, it does matter. And if the game is geared towards all PCs having moderate combat prowess, the other players building their characters accordingly, and one player insists on playing a character notably below that, it either forces the others to alter their characters, or it does produce issues for the group.
If 2 party members are each doing twice as much damage as another party member like the phantom thief rogue, then the results won't be much different than if that 3rd member did the same damage as the other 2.
I don't see a Phantom Thief doing half the damage of a reasonably well build melee. Temperans' Magic Missile Rogue does less than 1/6th of the damage an unMonk with just two feats on offense and 16+2 starting strength can do at 8th level.
Oh, and that unMonk can (for example) turn ethereal, which means turn invisible, fly, and move through walls, let party members reroll saving throws, and suppress status conditions from themself or allies, so it's not like they're useless out of combat, or don't support the party.
a properly built 2H damage dealer that can compete in DPR olympics.
You know, you kinda undercut your own argument there but furthering the false dichotomy that "better in combat than a Rogue" automatically means "totally optimized munchkin build with no regard to anything but damage"...
Yeah, but I said "compete", not "win" :)
But in fact, any competently built PF1 Core martial (Fighter with greatsword and Power Attack, Bowladin with all the non-brainer archery feats) leaves a Rogue so far behind that it isn't even funny.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it is a team game, I think it is fine that not everyone does the exact same thing. 1-2 people hyper focusing on damage, 1 person hyper focusing on spells, and 1 person hyper focusing on skill is the literal stereotypical party. The Rogue is the skill person, so it's fine if they deal less damage than a Barbarian or Fighter whose thing is damage. For me the game is not just combat, but everything including social things and skills so maybe that is the problem? Some people see the game as only combat and nothing else?
Most classes are useful both in and out of combat.
Some classes, like Fighter, are good in combat, bad out of combat.
Rogues are comparatively bad in combat, mediocre out of combat. You'd probably get more utility from a Ranger, a Bard, a Wizard, a Cleric, a Paladin, a Druid, etc. There are so many spells that are better than skills.
A party can generally cope with having one or two characters who are bad at non-combat stuff, as long as you have the most useful abilities covered (eg, someone who can remove negative conditions, someone who can cast Fly/Teleport, a party face, Perception, etc.) Missing abilities create challenges. If no-one can disable the trap in the door, you have to figure out a way to set it off safely, or to tunnel through the wall, or whatever.
Characters who let you down in combat, on the other hand, are a leading cause of TPKs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "I can do with one feat and one skill unlock what others need an overhyped wand" argument is kind of self-defeating, anyway, because you're advocating for needing to blow one of your limited feats and having to use an optional rule from a splatbook to recreate what an average party can do all day, every day, with a core rulebook thing by expending just the money, which is the easiest resource to come by - heck, you can have a CLW wand easily at level 1 thanks to Rich Parents.
Just like that, core rulebook spells invalidate pretty much all skills, because PF1 skills were designed with the "you can only achieve peak normal human ability using skills, for anything beyond that, you need magic" which automatically makes magic the better tool for problem-solving. There are some funky exceptions to that rule, but 9 times out of 10, magic will get you where skills can't.
Because it is a team game, I think it is fine that not everyone does the exact same thing. 1-2 people hyper focusing on damage, 1 person hyper focusing on spells, and 1 person hyper focusing on skill is the literal stereotypical party. The Rogue is the skill person, so it's fine if they deal less damage than a Barbarian or Fighter whose thing is damage. For me the game is not just combat, but everything including social things and skills so maybe that is the problem? Some people see the game as only combat and nothing else?Most classes are useful both in and out of combat.
Some classes, like Fighter, are good in combat, bad out of combat.
Rogues are comparatively bad in combat, mediocre out of combat. You'd probably get more utility from a Ranger, a Bard, a Wizard, a Cleric, a Paladin, a Druid, etc. There are so many spells that are better than skills.
A party can generally cope with having one or two characters who are bad at non-combat stuff, as long as you have the most useful abilities covered (eg, someone who can remove negative conditions, someone who can cast Fly/Teleport, a party face, Perception, etc.) Missing abilities create challenges. If no-one can disable the trap in the door, you have to figure out a way to set it off safely, or to tunnel through the wall, or whatever.
Characters who let you down in combat, on the other hand, are a leading cause of TPKs.
I think you've touched on the real reason that rogues are viewed as bad.
Rogues are "good" at a lot of skills. Good in this case meaning they have lots of skill points and class skills. They lack significant class based bonuses to skills (except with regard to traps).
And the real issue....skills in general are just okay. Especially without the optional skill unlock system.
Magic is just so much better. And having some sort of sizable bonus to your skills is important too. While the rogue might have a lot of skills, if someone else in the party has the skill they're probably just as good as the rogue. Which means the rogue doesn't get a chance to shine at skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not like I'm saying the rogue, especially the core rogue, was good enough at skills to be less good at combat. What I'm saying is that if the rogue were good enough at skills, it wouldn't matter if they were less good at combat.
But the unchained phantom thief comes close to the point of being good enough at skills to not have to be good at combat. And in my opinion, the phantom thief is a better party member than the base rogue, even if it's worse at doing damage.
i had this homebrew option i allowed players of unchained rogue to take (and have been giving npc unchained rogues, what's fair is fair). that seem to bring into being the potential of being in the right place and time (also getting out in the right time).
it goes like this. when ever an unchained rogue can take the skill edge ability he can opt to get the homebrew 'Dash' ability instead. (can be taken only once, the idea was to avoid others classes just one class dipping into unchained rogue for this ability as well as showcasing a rogue of higher then basic thug level)
'Dash' is basically the ability to use an immediate action to move your speed even in difficult terrain, without provoking aao. and it can be used up to 1 time per level each day (so 5 times a day at 5th level for example). at level 10,15 and 20 the distance moved while dashing get a stacking +20 ft to it. (up to 60 ft+ normal speed at level 20)
this allow the unchaind rogue to get into position to strike at the right time (or get closed enough to enemy casters). as well as getting away from fights they have no intention of sticking close to.
it also meant the party had to keep close tab on enemy rogues who suddenly became a lot more nasty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the unique things that the Rogue offers his group is getting Surprise Rounds and preventing Ambushes, and on a consistent basis. Yes other classes can do this, but they have to build specifically for it. The Rogue does this naturally, and with almost no investment outside of what they would normally do. The Trapfinding Mechanic naturally causes this; it all but forces the rogue out front as a scout and a point-man. Trapfinding + A high Dex and Stealth/Perc maxed is really all the Rogue needs to get this ball rolling, and with 8skills/lvl and being a Dex-focused class this sacrifices nothing in their build. The Rogue is constantly stealthing/scouting ahead for traps and enemies, and when he spots enemies (either smokin' n jokin', or waiting in ambush), he can alert the party without alerting the enemies - and this all naturally happens due to the Trapfinding Mechanic.
And if the Rogue wants to crank any of this to the next level, they have access to a plethora of Rogue Talents that no other classes get access to (except Ninjas, Slayers, etc.)
In the grand scheme of things, over the course of a campaign the Rogue mitigates a metric asston of damage, ailments, and harmful crowd control that a party would otherwise have to deal with if they didn't get all these Surprise Rounds. Not all combats can be Surprise Rounds/Ambushes, obviously, but there are MANY encounters in a campaign that can be influenced by the Rogue. So sure, the Rogue doesn't deal as much damage as a fighter, nor does he soak up as much damage as a fighter either, at least not in terms of actual HP. But! The Rogue consistently puts enemies on the back foot through Surprise Rounds, and prevents his own party from being on the back foot in Ambushes.
And this benefit is easily quantifiable. Take any combat encounter and run it 3 times. First, as a Surprise Round where all the PC's get to act; second, as an encounter where neither side gets a Surprise Round; and third, as an ambush encounter where the enemies get a Surprise Round on the PC's. Count up all the damage, ailments, and crowd control your party had to suffer in each of these 3 encounters, and the difference is staggering. The Rogue can turn what might be a 6 round combat with a couple of near-deaths, 5-10ish uses of 1/day or 3/day ability uses from the party, 10 charges of CLW-worth of post combat healing, and the casters' spell slots are running on fumes, into a 3 round combat that was reminiscent of a Seal Team 6 raid.
Now multiply this by how many combat encounters that could have Surprise Rounds that you face in an entire campaign.
TLDR: Rogues pwn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When talking about a characters ability to contribute you also have to factor in the ability to avoid problems is just as good as being able to overcome them with brute force. The Idea is that while the rogue may not be able to win every combat they can often avoid them. The real problem is that the core rogue does not do a good job at this. Diplomacy takes too long and does not really work at stopping a combat very well.
The unchained rogue is a little better at this but in order to do it they have to be absurdly high in level. The Phantom Thief archetype is actually surprisingly good at this. Take a 12th level phantom thief with an 18 CHA and maxed out diplomacy, with skill focus and persuasive. That gives him a +35 bonus to diplomacy and the ability to use diplomacy to adjust a characters attitude in on round with no penalty. He can change a hostile character to indifferent as long as the hostile character has less than a +5 CHA modifier. The rogue talent Coax Information allows him to use his diplomacy in place of intimidation to force a character to act friendly, and they don’t get angry afterwards. If the character is human they can take the silvered tongue in place of skilled and shift the reaction from hostile to friendly. The phantom thief’s bonus is high enough that they do not even need to roll and they will still succeed.
The party’s goal is to recover some item being guarded by a demon. The barbarian, cleric and sorcerer are arguing about how to do kill the demon. Meanwhile the phantom thief walks up to the demon and convinces him that he was sent by the evil wizard to fetch the item without the rest of the party noticing he is gone. After the rest of the characters explain to the rogue what he is supposed to do, he say or we could simply leave now that we have the item, while casually tossing it around. Don’t tell me that rogue is not pulling his weight despite having very little combat ability. The phantom thief at 10th level is getting 15th level skill unlocks. By 15th level they can be getting the 20th level unlocks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A common disconnect from reality is the expectation of the Rogue as a combat blender. Sneak Attack is not a good combat drug compared to what other classes achieve. And they don't need to invest multiple feats to rely on something that is ultimately unreliable.
Even the topic of this thread betrays those expectations. Increasing the Rogue's HD/BAB would indeed make it deal more damage. But as people have already said, that's not what the class was designed for. It was meant to provide utility through being a mundane skill monkey. And unfortunately that just isn't a big enough niche to base an entire class around if you don't make the Rogue better at such checks rather than just being broad.
It's not just about having the biggest skill bonus, in which case several other classes outclasses the Rogue, but also about doing more with the skills.
A Rogue is not "the best" at finding traps because of their Trapfinding. A Rogue is "the best" at finding traps because of their Trap Spotter talent.
Skill Unlocks was an attempt to fix this issue.