Pathfinder 1E Forked from Pathfinder: Rogues

[Votan]

Does your DM pull stuff straight out of the book? Maybe most DMs.

Our DM designs our encounters around the capabilities of the characters. Which means he uses the BAB and abilities of our toughest melee fighter as his barometer for the enemy's AC. For example, if we were fighting that Ancient Gold dragon it would cast Mage Armor and Shield boosting its AC to 47. He would give the Balor armor or Bracers of armor +6 and a ring of protection +4 boosting its AC to 46. Possibly toss in an evil priest to buff it.

I assumed this is how other DMs designed encounters so their players don't walk over an encounter. That's why I listed only BABs. Creature doesn't matter very much if the DM is designing encounters based on the highest BAB and damage capacity in the group. And the +20 BAB classes are often going to have a much higher BAB and be able to boost it even higher than the rogue.

This is an issue of design philosophy. If the DM is increasing AC dramatically above what is in the monster manual to increase the challenge of encounters then that can adversely effect the rogue. However, this type of adaption of the game system (i.e. increasing AC of monster above that seen in the PF SRD) can have unexpected results and may be why your group sees poor performance from rogues (who are suddenly unable to hit).

As always, the system may have issues when you decide to push on it in specific ways. I often tried to add hit points to 3.5 critters to make them more challenging -- that had the unexpected effect of making save or XXX spells more potent.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

designing challenging encounters

Celtavian,

I hate to say it, but I think your problem may be with your DM. It sounds like your fighters have focused on hitting well, and the DM is reacting by making his monsters harder to hit, which means that your rogue can't hit them.

The thing is, that's the wrong way for a DM to make encounters challenging -- when your players focus on making a particular aspect of a character its strength, the DM should not balance his encounter by attempting to negate that strength. Rather, he should try to challenge the PCs in a different way.

For example, in my Savage Tide campaign my PCs have gone to significant lengths to have high ACs. Some of them are difficult to hit. Now, I could simply increase the monster's attack bonuses, which would lead to me always hitting the other PCs who have not achieved super high ACs. But I don't do that. PCs who are strong in one area are generally weak in another area -- a fighter with a very high AC likely has low damage output or poor saves. Instead of challenging the player by arbitrarily raising the monster's attack bonus, I either put them in situations where they need to kill the bad guys quickly, or make them deal with spellcasters.

So, I don't think the problem lies with the Pathfinder rogue. He's already got a substantial powerup from 3.5, and I think the class is fine.

Ken

 

[zag01]

I hate to say anyone is playing the game 'wrong' since its such a customizable game but I do disagree with a dm that uses the "BAB and abilities of our toughest melee fighter as his barometer for the enemy's AC"

Otherwise I agree with Haffrung, the guy with the highest attack bonus should hit often the guy with the lowest should hit less and the guys with their bonus in between should be the 'barometer for enemy's AC'. IMO

 

[Votan]

I hate to say anyone is playing the game 'wrong' since its such a customizable game but I do disagree with a dm that uses the "BAB and abilities of our toughest melee fighter as his barometer for the enemy's AC"

Otherwise I agree with Haffrung, the guy with the highest attack bonus should hit often the guy with the lowest should hit less and the guys with their bonus in between should be the 'barometer for enemy's AC'. IMO

I don't like to say wrong; it is more that if you customize the game in specific ways then balance points may alter. In this case it is monster AC.

It's like the idea of removing magic items. It can do really nice things to campaign flavor and be really evocative of some settings but may change the balance between classes dramatically.

Redeveloping the rogue in this campaign environment might make it too powerful in others.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

I am gonna have to agree with the others, the issue is not the rogue but the way encounters are being designed,

 

[Aus_Snow]

A gamer friend of mine, who, with a few others (myself included,) has switched campaign from 3.5 to 3.pf, is mad keen on Rogue types, and his first reaction to Pathfinder was a positive one. I don't think that's waned any.

Yes, it's as anecdotal as the next, but hey, just for the record 'n all. Also, me personally, I think the classes are all pretty well done.

 

[Celtavian]

So designing encounters to be challenging is "wrong"?

There really is no way to balance that out when it comes to the rogue most of the time. Even James Jacobs states that if you want to make a monster damage dealer, you make a +20 BAB class, not a rogue. I'm quite sure he understands the disparity in hit rolls is the prime reason the rogue can't deal as much as a fighter or paladin or what not.
It certainly isn't because of sneak attack, which is very effective when you can use it.

sounds like your fighters have focused on hitting well,

What do you mean "focused on hitting well"? Every fighter gets what I listed as bonuses to hit. I doubt any do not take weapon spec and weapon focus given the number of feats they get.

Same with the paladin. If it's evil, they get their Charisma bonus on top of everything else. They almost all get to power up their weapon unless they take teh mount.

There is no getting around the fact that a +20 BAB class will always have +5 to usually +10 or more BAB higher than the rogue.

If you don't want your +20 BAB class to rip apart the monster they're fighting long before anyone else gets to do much, then you gotta boost that AC. Sure you can occasionally use a movement ability to keep the +20 BAB at bay or use a hold spell and hope the cleric isn't ready, but sometimes you want the creatures to be able to go toe to toe with the PC fighter and you have to boost AC to do that.

I guess it's something we'll have to take care of ourselves as I can see that most people don't run campaigns as lethal as ours. If you did, you would understand what I'm talking about. Though I'd bet money the rogue is one of the least effective characters in end module encounters for most posting here as well, but they just don't want to admit to it. Low will save against a dragon with dragon fear? C'mon, they barely make it most of the time. Target them with a panic effect or a hold spell, see you later rogue, you're out of it.

And our DM prepares well for the casters too. So the save or x spells aren't likely to end the encounter either. It's lucky melee crits that mess him up the most because he can't account for those every encounter. He wants his end game encounters to make you feel like you walked within a hair's breadth of death to win. He does that by taking into account the characters' abilities. It's real hard to balance encounters for a rogue given their inherent weaknesses.


So you DMs on here really don't balance the encounters based on your party's abilities? You just let an optimized fighter walk all over your end module encounters while he is hasted and supported by the cleric? Or are your clerics not well prepared to deal with holds and your wizards more interested in blasting than casting support spells?

I always wonder how other DMs run the game. Sometimes I think most don't care if their players walk on the end module encounters. And I know our DM would have little fun if the party walked over everything they've made. It's led to alot of dead parties, but you do feel like you won something.

And the rogue has always been that red-headed step-child of a class because he doesn't have anything standout but sneak attack when it comes to a fight. And if he can't hit or maneuver well in the case of huge creatures like dragons, he is out of luck when it comes to battle...almost useless.

Also, have any of you seen what an archer can do yet? They get up to 6 attacks a round with no haste and x4 crit at lvl 20. You have any idea what kind of damage output that is?

I guess I should have also asked what is your experience? What are the highest level campaigns you have played in? This rogue issue is for rogues past lvl 8 or so and the disparity and balance issues only become worse as the fighter, paladin, ranger, and barbarian get stronger while the rogue stays fairly pat with his to hit rolls since he has no innate hit boosting abilities.

 

[Votan]

So designing encounters to be challenging is "wrong"?

There really is no way to balance that out when it comes to the rogue most of the time. Even James Jacobs states that if you want to make a monster damage dealer, you make a +20 BAB class, not a rogue. I'm quite sure he understands the disparity in hit rolls is the prime reason the rogue can't deal as much as a fighter or paladin or what not.
It certainly isn't because of sneak attack, which is very effective when you can use it.



What do you mean "focused on hitting well"? Every fighter gets what I listed as bonuses to hit. I doubt any do not take weapon spec and weapon focus given the number of feats they get.

Same with the paladin. If it's evil, they get their Charisma bonus on top of everything else. They almost all get to power up their weapon unless they take teh mount.

There is no getting around the fact that a +20 BAB class will always have +5 to usually +10 or more BAB higher than the rogue.

If you don't want your +20 BAB class to rip apart the monster they're fighting long before anyone else gets to do much, then you gotta boost that AC. Sure you can occasionally use a movement ability to keep the +20 BAB at bay or use a hold spell and hope the cleric isn't ready, but sometimes you want the creatures to be able to go toe to toe with the PC fighter and you have to boost AC to do that.

I guess it's something we'll have to take care of ourselves as I can see that most people don't run campaigns as lethal as ours. If you did, you would understand what I'm talking about. Though I'd bet money the rogue is one of the least effective characters in end module encounters for most posting here as well, but they just don't want to admit to it. Low will save against a dragon with dragon fear? C'mon, they barely make it most of the time. Target them with a panic effect or a hold spell, see you later rogue, you're out of it.

And our DM prepares well for the casters too. So the save or x spells aren't likely to end the encounter either. It's lucky melee crits that mess him up the most because he can't account for those every encounter. He wants his end game encounters to make you feel like you walked within a hair's breadth of death to win. He does that by taking into account the characters' abilities. It's real hard to balance encounters for a rogue given their inherent weaknesses.


So you DMs on here really don't balance the encounters based on your party's abilities? You just let an optimized fighter walk all over your end module encounters while he is hasted and supported by the cleric? Or are your clerics not well prepared to deal with holds and your wizards more interested in blasting than casting support spells?

I always wonder how other DMs run the game. Sometimes I think most don't care if their players walk on the end module encounters. And I know our DM would have little fun if the party walked over everything they've made. It's led to alot of dead parties, but you do feel like you won something.

And the rogue has always been that red-headed step-child of a class because he doesn't have anything standout but sneak attack when it comes to a fight. And if he can't hit or maneuver well in the case of huge creatures like dragons, he is out of luck when it comes to battle...almost useless.

Also, have any of you seen what an archer can do yet? They get up to 6 attacks a round with no haste and x4 crit at lvl 20. You have any idea what kind of damage output that is?

I guess I should have also asked what is your experience? What are the highest level campaigns you have played in? This rogue issue is for rogues past lvl 8 or so and the disparity and balance issues only become worse as the fighter, paladin, ranger, and barbarian get stronger while the rogue stays fairly pat with his to hit rolls since he has no innate hit boosting abilities.

In Core rules, 17th level (as DM).

With nearly 50% of the party as rogues: 12th level.

[So designing encounters to be challenging is "wrong"? ]

Nobody is saying this (or at least I am not). What I am reacting to is that boosting Monster traits to make an encounter challenging is a delicate art. In the game that ended at 17th level, my trick was hit points (generally multiple by 1.5 or 2.0). This tended to make the Ranger feel under-appreciated (while the rogue and the paladin did fine).

It is perfectly okay for the rogue to lag a bit in combat if they add a lot with skills. This tends to matter less at higher levels when the cleric and wizard were doing a lot of the utility options too.

So I am not (and doubt anybody else) is contesting that you should make encounters challenging. It's more that the high AC approach to beefing up critters (note your examples are above any monster in the SRD) may result in some classes having differential impact.

If you really are going to continue with this approach then, getting constructive for a moment, giving rogues full BAB may be okay. I can see some edge effects with mutli-classing that will not be pleasant but, under this style of game, that might be a sane adaption of the class.

If you have me as a DM, then the higher HP totals will make the rogue work just fine but a 3.5 psion would be quite put out. This is the wonderful thing about D&D (or Pathfinder) -- every table is a bit different and there are a thousand cool variations. If you like the style that has evolved at your table but find the rogue isn't fitting in then feel free to improvise. This goes double if you have a player who likes rogues and is feeling left out.

 

[Celtavian]

In Core rules, 17th level (as DM).

With nearly 50% of the party as rogues: 12th level.

[So designing encounters to be challenging is "wrong"? ]

Nobody is saying this (or at least I am not). What I am reacting to is that boosting Monster traits to make an encounter challenging is a delicate art. In the game that ended at 17th level, my trick was hit points (generally multiple by 1.5 or 2.0). This tended to make the Ranger feel under-appreciated (while the rogue and the paladin did fine).

It is perfectly okay for the rogue to lag a bit in combat if they add a lot with skills. This tends to matter less at higher levels when the cleric and wizard were doing a lot of the utility options too.

So I am not (and doubt anybody else) is contesting that you should make encounters challenging. It's more that the high AC approach to beefing up critters (note your examples are above any monster in the SRD) may result in some classes having differential impact.

If you really are going to continue with this approach then, getting constructive for a moment, giving rogues full BAB may be okay. I can see some edge effects with mutli-classing that will not be pleasant but, under this style of game, that might be a sane adaption of the class.

If you have me as a DM, then the higher HP totals will make the rogue work just fine but a 3.5 psion would be quite put out. This is the wonderful thing about D&D (or Pathfinder) -- every table is a bit different and there are a thousand cool variations. If you like the style that has evolved at your table but find the rogue isn't fitting in then feel free to improvise. This goes double if you have a player who likes rogues and is feeling left out.

Nice post.

You're probably right. Our group has evolved a particular style based on our DM. Our DM has been doing things this way for going on 16 years now. He's been the one DMing most of the time over that period. He likes the lethal encounters. I think he feels like he hasn't done his job as a DM if he doesn't almost kill us.

And it probably doesn't help that we are a group of natural min-maxers. Some of us will take some feats that aren't always super optimal, but almost everyone takes the bread and butter feats too like Power Attack and Weapon Focus.

And I play alot of casters. I know all the counters for most spells and how to set up battlefields for destroying enemies piecemeal. So that makes it hard on him too since he can't always incude a caster counter.

We might have to modify the rogue some to make it more attractive or maybe toss in a feat for giving trapfinding rogue abilities to any class. Then we don't have to have anyone forced to play a rogue. They can play whatever class they want and we'll still have trapfinding abilities. It isn't fun to get softened up by a trap before a major encounter.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

So uh...if I understand this correctly.

Your DM alters the monsters to have a much higher AC, preying on the rogue's biggest weakness.

You then get upset that the rogue is weak.

Uhhhhhhhh.

Yes the rogue will always have lower BAB to the fighter. That's not too big of an issue unless you start altering things.