Are Rogues Useless?

[Teflon Billy]

Re: Re: Are Rogues Useless?

You've never fought a 6th-level rogue, have you?

I've fought them plenty.

A 6th-level rogue with 9 ranks in Tumble and the Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack feats is an absolute nightmare for most parties. That's a free flanked attack against your primary fighter or anyone stuck at the edge of the party's defensive line at +3d6 damage per round. If we make it a human rogue with a +1 longsword, 14 Strength, Weapon Focus (longsword), you're looking at an attack at +10 that deals 1d8+3d6+4 damage (assume the rogue uses the longsword two-handed, since he lacks shield proficiency). Against a fighter in full-plate +1, a large shield +1, and a Dex 13, he hits 40% of the time and deals 19 points of damage per hit. If the fighter doesn't have a shield, he hits 55% of the time.

Yup. But read my post above, I didn't say fighters were any better off than rogues. I said spellcasters.

Of course, the rogue could just tumble past the warriors and hack the wizard to death. Mr. Wizard can toss a fireball at him, but if the rogue saves he takes a big fat 0 damage. If the rogue has an allied spellcaster who summons a monster to flank the wizard, the rogue now goes back to dealing 19 points a round, hitting about 75% of the time (assuming 14 Dex, +2 bracers, +1 ring of protection for the wizard). The rogue could also use Bluff to hide or deny the wizard his Dex bonus to AC.

Can this rogue Tumble into midair and see invisible? Cause to my mind, a wizard of equivalent level is flying and invisible.

For extra nastiness, give the rogue a level of ranger (Rog5/Rgr1) and have him take human as a favored enemy. It has no effect on his base attack progression and gives him a second attack at only -2 on both, a particularly useful feature against soft targets such as wizards and sorcerers.

Yep, that whole "Take a level of Ranger for the front load" plan tends to win alot of Kudos in my group

If our rogue maxes out his Bluff and Hide skills, he can singlehandedly take down a wizard in the typical dungeon setting.

Yup...notice about that I said that it all works fine if you have constant (4/day?) combat encounters. Dungeon crawls are dandy for a endless parade of targets. But I can't get enthused about P&P Diablo. I know this is a flaw in my personality, and not the game, but I did mention as much above.

Wizards do not get Sense Motive or Spot as class skills, making it very difficult for the wizard to spot the rogue or call his bluffs. The rogue can use his movement action to close to melee distance, then use his Spring Attack feat to attack and immediately move 30 ft. away back around a corner to hide again. If no cover is available he can stay in melee and wreck the wizard.

Unless he can do all of this into midair and can see invisible, then I think he's sunk.

[If the rogue hides, the wizard's targeted spells are useless since he can't see his target and his area of effect ones more than likely deal 0 damage because of evasion.

How would he do against a Stinking Cloud? Or web, or a few Magic Missiles cast from a wand that he can make in a day for the change in his pocket (should the spot roll be made)?

If the rogue initiated combat and wins initiative, he gains consecutive sneak attacks by using his partial action to move into melee and attack, staying put, and getting another sneak attack. He can then complete his attack action by moving his full move as per the Spring Attack feat then use his move action to move another 30 ft.

I won't even bother to point out that the Wizard I'm describing is flying and invis. Take it as a given from now on i guess.

As far as rogues vs. spells, every class in the game is weaker than a given spell, but once a spell is cast its gone. At 5th-level my one fireball may deliver 20 points of damage to 8 orcs, more damage than a fighter can deal in one non-critical hit. Does that make a wizard better than a fighter? Of course not. After using his spell, the wizard is spent. The fighter keeps hacking. Same thing for a rogue.

I disagree. Not only are the PC's expected to find magic items, they can now create them (well, the spellcasters can). I don't think it's too far out of the realm of possibility to say that they might have a wand of fireballs or something similar.

I'll repeat what I said above: it all owrks fine in a dungeon crawl in any other situation that involves less than near-constant combat, the Spellcasters outshine every other class after about level 7.

 

[jollyninja]

nothing sticks to teflon billy!

 

[Storminator]

Sigma: I have them make Move Silently checks. That's why you cast Silence after the fly and invisibilty, but my players don't even bother with scouting anymore, they just cast Scrying. My villians usually detect it, but so what? That's generally when the party teleports in and proceeds to attack.

I think this is generally an abuse of the Scry/Teleport combo. Commonly accepted, true, but that doesn't change my opinion.

You Scry the place. How well do you know it? Were you scrying the place or the person? The person, almost always. So the person detects the Scry, and doesn't move. Nothing in the Scry spells says you can move the sensor, so your view doesn't change. I put your knowledge in the "Viewed Once" category. 25% chance of not reaching your destination with a Teleport. Not something you want to go on.

And if you are casting teleports, one must assume your opponents are at least as powerful. There are some very nice counters for Scry.

PS

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

333Dave: Yeah, actually, that's one of the things that bothers me about the Rogue. All of the other classes have some degree of self suffiency in combat, (even the Bard) but the Rogue is forced to rely on other characters to be truly effective in combat. And in those situations where Sneak Attack doesn't work or isn't viable (which is quite often... Sneak Attack is really overrated) the Rogue is practically worthless in combat.

Saphirahn: Right. So multiclassing into a spellcasting class is the answer? And Sneak Attack is not that great, from what I've seen. And I think getting 9th level spells at higher levels is more appealing to most players than getting Crippling Strike or Improved Evasion.

Cybernetic: No offense taken. I do occasionally give certain players a chance to be in the spotlight. I stopped trying to give Rogues as much showtime in the average adventure because my players would generally bypass what I had set up (IE, a shady NPC that the party needs to get information from, who only the Rogue can really deal with effectively... The party casts Divination/Commune and gets the information without having to deal with the NPC).

The fact that the other characters didn't really need to me to give them special circumstances to shine (though I still do this on occasion) didn't help things.

Jasamcarl: I might buy into that, except the fact that Rogues skills are useful in situations that do not occur many times in a day. How many plot critical NPCs does your party find and interrogate in a day, after all? And I don't give you a play-by-play of my campaign because I don't think it's neccessary. If you want me to, I will.


Henry: The spellcasters in my campaign do generally have a great Scrying skill, and generally speaking they only Scry when scouting out an enemy. The only enemies that have misdirections set up in their lairs/ambush points are things like Dragons/Liches and really high level Wizards. Any information they need they usually get through Divination/Commune. (I swear I'm considering banning these spells, but I don't like taking out core spells).

Crothian: Maybe, but I've ambushed the party several times, and the spellcasters seem to do just fine.

Sodalis: Technically, yes, this is a real question. I haven't had too many problems with spellcasters outperforming Fighters because I usually spread out the combats so Wizards have to conserve a few spells. I guess our campaigns are just different, then, as the spellcasters in my campaign seem to have plenty of spells to deal with the situations a Rogue would normally excel in.

Storminator:

My first party has seven characters. They are on average level 16. My second party has eight characters, and they are on average level 11. What you say makes sense. Maybe in a smaller party the Rogue would be more useful.

 

[Teflon Billy]

That's all fine and good, but what if you have a DM who wisely selects the wizard as the unfortunate receiver of two sneak attacks? Unless he had spells up, (but why would he since he wasn't anticipating the surprise?) that wizard is screwed.

Yeah, in an attack right out of the blue, the rogue would do well.

Now if the wizard was cautious (and who isn't?) then why on earth would he not have his spells up? I have yet to meet the PC who plays an incautious dullard who doesn't use the skills he has.

Now if we compare that to the rogues ability of uncanny dodge (3rd level) and inabilty to be flanked (6th level)...I'll take my rogue any day.

I don't value those two talents over the ability to use any approrpriate level spells in the book. And if I did, Blur could mimic the inability to be flanked (well, not really; but I suspect we are talking about sneak attack), so Evasion?...all yours.

Oh and what happens when the spellcaster runs out of spells? Looks like he's resorted to turtle mode.

Like I said in my original post, it all works fine in a state of near-constant combat encounters. Otherwise, they don't run out of spells (or potions/scrolls etc)

edit: tidied up some HTML

 

[Swack-Iron]

Swack: Thank you. But my question would be, is it really better to have those two Rogues in your party than it would be to have two Clerics/Sorcerers/Wizards, or Bards? And yes, Bards rock. I think they're way more useful than Rogues. They are really underrated, in my opinion.

Absolutely. We already have two wizards and a cleric in the party. Rogues just give us even more options.

Rogues have several built in, inherent strengths:

* Rogues have tons of skill points. They are among the best spotters, listeners, disarmers, etc. Fear the intelligent rogue. Can some of these skills be emulated with magic? Of course, but skills are inherent.

* Rogues are Dex/Reflex experts. They are fantastic with ranged weapons, finessed weapons, and reflex saves. And never discount Evasion and Improved Evasion. Are there other classes with these abilities, and can these abilities be simulated with magic? Of course, but this combination is unique to the rogue and is inherent.

* Rogues can sneak attack. No one else can, no matter what. It can't be simulated. Can it be countered? Of course it can. But *everything* can be countered. So when you are preparing your defenses, do you cast Blur first, or Resist Elements: Fire? Because if you cast Blur first my squad is going to fireball you, and if you cast Resist Elements my rogue is going to sneak attack you.

* Rogues, by dint of being rogues, have access to places and organizations that others don't. They are the best chance a party has of interacting with thieves guilds, the black market, and other shadowy groups.

* Rogues, with Use Magical Device, can use wands and such in a pinch. They're not inherently good casters, but it's a source of backup magic that fighters and monks can't do.

* Everything a rogue does can be enhanced with magic. It's one thing for a caster to cast spells on themselves to emulate a rogue. Far more effective, however, are spells cast on the party expert to enhace those abilities. Same goes for items: you can put a pair of elven boots on a cleric and get the cleric's Move Silently above 10, or you can put them on the rogue and get the rogue's Move Silently above 30.

Every class (with the exception of the bard, who is a jack-of-all-trades) is an expert at their chosen profession. Many classes can cover for the abilities of other classes with skills or spells, but you will never outshine an expert in their field.

 

[Shadeus]

Actually one of the best skills of a rogue is Spot. Helps a see that ambush before it happens. Since its a cross-class skill for everyone but rangers, rogues are useful and sniffing out that ambush too...not just sneaking around.

Even invisible wizards can be spotted, even without detect magic or detect invisibility.

 

[Zerovoid]

Even in my 8th and 9th level party, I've found that the rogues are already becoming less useful. The wizards all load up on invisibility and fly, and we usually do that. Also, to those who say the rogue is good at climbing and jumping, I would never put points in those skills. Most rogues I've played with had slippers of spider climb. 2k for complete mastery of those skills.

The only thing my party really needs rogues for is moving silently. If one of the mages had silence, this wouldn't be as much of an issue, but it would still be present. If a guy with a 15' sphere of silence walks past a guard, the guard will notice. In fact, I would say that move silently is the only thing a high level party needs from a rogue.

 

[Crothian]

Why is it the a Wizard is always judged by the best spells they have? Not all Wizards have these spells in their spellbook. Further more, they don't have them memorized all the time.

Rogues abilities are part of the class. They all have them and they all use them.

Personally, I think if once class is overshadowing another then it's not so much the class that is useless but the player. Some people play certain claasses better then others. And since the majority of people who play seem to think the rogue is not being overshadowed, there must be a reason within your own group that it is.

 

[-Ekimus-]

my lvl 9 rogue has been through the entire campaign with our group. went through an Automaton campaign, to the Isle of Dread, to White Plume Mountain, and to another campaign our dm made up. rogues have been most important. we have been through 3 anti magic dungeons where our 2 wizards and cleric have been screwed, so its essentially me and a barbarian. im the only one that can find traps, i find most secret doors, open up locked areas (our dm makes spells rare and money hard to come by so its rare to actually write a spell). the sneak attack adds up, and i tend to have as much / more than our barb does, given the less HP. we have had to sneak into numerous places and drop a lot of spellcasters, which rogues are nice for.

IMO rogues are FAR better than wizards/sorcs/bards, but clerics as as good/better than they.