Classes in the APG

[Kaiyanwang]

Barring one single order, is quite pessimistic think that cavalier abilities are mounted-combat only. yeah, is a significant part, but is not the only part.

Moreover, if one is afraid of enclosed spaces, there is the old "trick" used for paladins too: gnome or halfling cavalier, and you take only a 5 feet square space

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

That's too bad. My friend is playing a Zen Archer. I think he will be disappointed as the Two-hander Fighter and Invulnerable Rager barbarian come into their own.

Well, Zen Archer is all about getting lots of attacks and hitting a lot. Perfect Strike (which 95% of the time resulted in two low or two high-but-not-enough-to-threaten-a-crit rolls and thus was utterly useless IME, but I just have crappy luck like that) helps with that. As does getting Improved Precise Shot at the insanely early level of 6. Honestly, THAT is the main draw for the class IMO. Nothing else made me feel more useful than situations with light fog, some cover, or grappling compared to the ranger archer. As long as it's not a high level game, the lack of ability to do just about anything else but damage shouldn't be a big issue as long as he doesn't get bored with that. If he is in a high level game, like high enough for the level 17 Ki Focus (Bow) ability, he should buy up a bunch of the "fist" feats (Stunning Fist and Touch of Serenity being the biggest standouts, IMO). Monks have the BAB for them at level 11, and while a Zen Archer doesn't get the class based improvements (like a normal monk's other status effect options with stunning fist), you're still a monk, so you still get each feat 1/day/monk level, which is a lot of additional daily resources. And stunning from a bow at long range is pretty cool.

Rogue is a poorly designed class. And will only shine in the weakest, most poorly designed parties. Until Paizo Pathfinder designs a better rogue class, I won't force my players to play one. Thus expanding trapfinding and giving the rogue good fort save in the hope someone might try one.

I think Monk is still weaker, at least the standard monk. Zen Archer specifically cuts down on MAD slightly and just by virtue of the ranged focus makes the monk's squishiness less hindering, but standard monk's got serious problems. Pathfinder in general seems to hate MAD classes, with the "all physical stats only come in one slot" belt. Not many casters need two mental stats, and when they do (cleric), not enough for it to be critical. Martial classes? They totally need Str, Dex, Con, at least 2 of those if not all 3. Suckers!

But I doubt it. Rogue is too dependent on other classes to shine, mostly other melee classes. And other me melee classes do so much damage now, they will kill what the rogue was hitting before he gets a chance to shine.

Don't neglect how dependent they are on casters to provide them with sneak attack, too! Setting up flanking is often tedious, and with the nerf to tumble acrobatics, very dangerous. Even though my rogue and later on monk both maxed ranks in it, I NEVER used it to tumble (I might have once the entire 4 month campaign, honestly), the ranks were for the other uses or for emergencies only. DM would often try to say, "You have tumble!" to encourage me to move around more. I'd yell back "tumbling is suicide!" If he pressed about it, I gave my modifier and asked him if I seriously had a very high chance of avoiding an attack. He generally left me alone after that.
So umm...yeah, anyway. PF removed a lot of means of getting sneak attack, especially ranged sneak attack (Grease, Blink, and splash weapon synergy, off the top of my head). So I was actually figuring my rogue would be more dependent on the sorcerer for greater invisibility, summon flanking buddies to save me the danger of tumbling around, etc... A gust of wind once in a while to disperse the extremely low level cloud/fog spells that even in the "more balanced" pathfinder completely hose a rogue's ability to fight was also nice to know you had waiting, for peace of mind. I think rogue's possibly more dependent on caster classes in the long run. In any case, switched off of rogue because I hated being so needy.

I think rogue can be salvaged if you do more than just the fort saves, which is still a good idea. Give them some sort of edge in skill usage, get rid of the rule that you can't sneak attack in concealment (leave it in for total concealment if you want), undo pathfiner's changes to how balancing effects your armor class, blink, ability to SA with splash weapons.... Maybe go back to 3E / Magic Item Compendium body slot rules for ability score enhancements... Little tweaks like that would help a lot. For level 10+, they could probably do with beefier Advanced Talents, and maybe class features to make their skill checks closer to the line of being magical. Not sure how exactly, but if X times/day or once/day/each skill they're training in they get a massive bonus specifically towards trying to accomplish epic level skill abilities (or similar power level abilities you houserule), it's probably on the right track.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Sounds like a good idea.

I house ruled the rogue to have good Fort Save. And we gave trapfinding to Bards, Inquisitors, and Rangers. We felt like Paizo Pathfinder held onto the old idea that only rogues can find magical traps. I find the decision to be short-sighted on Paizo's part.

Paizo needs to give up on the rogue, sneaky trapfinder guy and make it an equivalent secondary melee or support class like the monk, bard, and inquisitor. And stop pigeon-holing groups so they have to have a rogue to find traps and for no other reason. And give he rogue too good saves finally for the love all that his holy. The bard, rogue, inquisitor, and monk all have two or more good saves. Why is Paizo hanging on to a sacred cow like one good save for the rogue? Makes people want to play them even less because of how easily neutralized or killed they are.


Sure rogues occasionally shine if they get off a nice run of sneak attacks. But they often still pale the fighter, barbarians, and the like as damage dealers and die far, far easier due to lower hit points, lower fort and will saves, and being the guy who handles traps and scouts in front. Often meaning one bad save or missed perception check leaves them in a bad way. Thus no one in my group plays a single class rogue because we get past lvl 10 most of the time. Once you get to high level, the gap in power between the rogue and other classes really begins to show itself as DMs design monsters with ACs and defenses to challenge amped up fighters, paladins, and barbarians making a rogue pale in comparison to them.

Rogue is poorly designed. I get arguments from people that they are fine and do the most damage in the group. All I can say to those people is they must play with players who make poor design decisions when it comes to class construction.

Rogue is a poorly designed class. And will only shine in the weakest, most poorly designed parties. Until Paizo Pathfinder designs a better rogue class, I won't force my players to play one. Thus expanding trapfinding and giving the rogue good fort save in the hope someone might try one.

But I doubt it. Rogue is too dependent on other classes to shine, mostly other melee classes. And other me melee classes do so much damage now, they will kill what the rogue was hitting before he gets a chance to shine.

No, you are just nioticing the difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder,
Pathfinder removed many methods of sneak attack.

Blink
Grease (causes enemy to balance by standing in it unlike pathfinder only when moving)

These "minor" nerfs make the rogue weaker in your exp. The Blink nerf lowers the Rogue survivability as well (because 50% miss is useful).

 

[The_Gneech]

On the other hand, a lot fewer monsters are immune to sneak attack these days!

-The Gneech

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

On the other hand, a lot fewer monsters are immune to sneak attack these days!

-The Gneech

True, it really depends on how much 3E you want to compare to pathfinder to know if rogues are better or worse off, regarding sneak attack. With splats open, rogues had weapon augment crystals and low level spells to ignore SA immunity, and a really really sweet Dungeonscape variant to do half SA dmaage to anything immune no matter what.

Not to mention all the tasty stuff aside from sneak attacking things that you otherwise couldn't, like the Craven feat, Staggering Strike feat, Assassin's Stance...mmm...yummy.

Everyone gains super mega ultimate power the more 3E books you add in, obviously, so it's not like Pathfinder has to stack up to all of that stuff. But since rogue was one of the weaker 3E classes, you'd expect it to get a greater share of awesome extras in pathfinder's class rebalancing.

 

[Celtavian]

re

What's this stat boosting change in Pathfinder you are speaking of? Can you not stack on multiple ability enhancements to a single item any longer? I haven't read that yet.



The problem my group has with rogues is the power of melee classes. Sneak Attack does great damage when it works. But rogues rarely get a chance to use it.

Our parties are not statted with point buy. We use the 4d6 seven times method. Most every melee in the party starts with an 18 to 20 strength after racial benefits then stacks everything they can into strength.

Most of my party melee prefer Two-handed weapons.

They charge into battle and very few things they attack can withstand them for a round. We have a five person party with a Two-hander Fighter, an Invulnerable raging barbarian with a Greatsword, and Zen Archer Monk. No one wanted to play a rogue because they are lacking compared to the other classes.

These guys are all 5th lvl:

The average damage for the Two-weapon fighter right now is

1d12+7 str +2 spec +1 fighter bonus +1 magic weapon +6 power attack=23 points a hit with a +11 to hit while power attacking. If he crits it's 3d12+51.

The rager's average damage:
2d6 +10 str +1 weapon +6 power attack=24 with a +11 to hit with power attack

Let's take a comparable rogue with an 18 dex and say he rolls ok and has a 14 str using a rapier in sneak attack position just for kicks.

1d6 +2str +1 weapon +3d6 sneak (average +10)=16 points of damage with a +10 to hit. Crit would be 1d6+3d6+6 damage.

A rogue absolutely pales in comparison to two-weapon attackers built for dealing damage. And the two-weapon fighters don't have to flank or wait for position or hope the guy their attacking isn't immune to sneak attack. They just hammer.

That's why people don't want to play rogues. They can't stand up to the brutality of the other melee in the group. Then on top of that the weak fort and will save make them vulnerable to not only poisons, death spells, and other severely damaging fortitude attacks, but they are also susceptible to will attacks like holds, charms, and the like.

It's like they get to be the trapfinder and that's it. No party support abilities. They rely on the other classes to set up their sneak attacks. Their sneak attack damage often still pales in comparison to the big, bad melee hitters.

And in our groups the monk at least is hard to kill. He gets great saves, a great AC, super fast movement, and a ton of other helpful abilities. With the addition of brass knuckles and an amulet of might fists with seven attacks, he often starts closing the damage gap past lvl 10 or so. And grappler monks are really helpful. You can get your CMD so high that once you grapple something, it has little hope of escape.

Rogues are still the worst designed class in the game in any group that knows how to design a proper melee damage dealer, monk, or arcane caster. They have none of the utility of the cleric or bard. I hope in the future Paizo Pathfinder finally sits down and reduces sneak attack if they must and designs a rogue worth playing. Because I don't care how many people tell me it is worth playing, I as a DM and a player any class in this game better than anyone can design a rogue to shine brighter. Rogues are weak by design. And you would have to really try to make another class as weak as the rogue, especially in higher level game play.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

What's this stat boosting change in Pathfinder you are speaking of? Can you not stack on multiple ability enhancements to a single item any longer? I haven't read that yet.

The change is that they went in the exact opposite direction than Magic Item Compendium's enlightened approach. MIC took the 3E rule about multiple properties on the same magic item costing +50% more after the first, and stated that you could add common boosts, such as ability score enhancements, to existing magic items without an increased cost. They also expanded the number of compatible slots for each ability score enhancement. Both rules made the lives of MAD (multiple ability dependent) classes easier.

In Pathfinder, they went in the opposite direction. You just plain CAN'T put things on innapropriate body slots for +50% cost anymore (I see no such rule for it in the PRD at least). And all 3 physical ability scores are keyed to the belt slot. There is no other body slot with an affinity for them. They also tied all 3 mental stats to the head slot, but as I said, not many people need more than 1 of those, and almost never all 3. Many melee classes and noncasters need all 3 physical, and all need 2. So they end up paying exhorbitant prices compared to 3.5. Basically +50% on the other two scores, with the added annoyance that you need to upgrade all the ability scores at the same time. In 3.5, you could do it piecemeal, like Str +4, Dex +2, Con +2, so you could begin further upgrading at an earlier level.

Here's Belt of Physical Might and Belt of Physical Perfection, the belts to get more than 1 physical score up. You could also get Iuon Stones, I should note, but then you're paying double for each of those. Yay, options! Wondrous Items

 

[Kaisoku]

There are no longer any body affinity slots in Pathfinder. The rule was taken out.
This means when you create a Wondrous Item, you never incur the +50% cost increase. Make your effect on any part of the body.

As for the belts, etc. Those are the "store bought" versions. If you wanted to make your own, there's nothing in the rules that states that you need to keep them on the belt.
If you plan on going to a town and having the DM roll to see if you can find a magic item, then yeah.. it's gonna be a belt and it's going to cost the way it does.

If you ask your party item crafter (or if you did it yourself, with the new Master Craftsman feat), then you can make whatever you want, on any body slot you want.

I cannot find anywhere anything that says that crafted magical items with enhancement bonuses have to be made for the belt or headband slots. Those are just the default ones.

Note: This does screw over Society play, since you can't craft your own magic items, so you are limited to the magic items that can be rolled/found in the list.
For anything else, RAW lets you have gloves of dexterity or a vest of constitution, etc, you just have to make it custom-made.

 

[Kaisoku]

In my experience, and in my own theorycraft, the Rogue is no longer a class that you go to to deal brutal combat damage. You look more towards the Fighter (or Paladin depending on the enemy) for laying down carnage.
And honestly, that's fine by me. The Rogue really shouldn't be competing against the full BAB classes for combat effectiveness.

The Rogue has a number of talents and class abilities that make him a great troubleshooter and scout. The rest makes him a decent 2nd tier combatant.

There's a number of new approaches in Pathfinder though, the playing field has simply changed.

The APG has a spell Vanish at 1st level, so a Rogue going down magical talent lines can get brief invisibility fairly early on, and eventually can dispel magic with every attack for additional utility (good if you know the campaign is about fighting casters).

Sniper Goggles (also in the APG) let you deal Sneak Attack damage at any range. This can make a rogue sniper actually viable (and deadly if you pick some of the other APG options, like halfling rogue favored class stuff, a couple new rogue talents, and the sniper rogue archetype).

I'm glad that people are now looking at the Fighter primarily for being the guy that murders people in combat, and look at the rogue for more than just "deals massive damage". Poison crafting had an overhaul, making it a viable option as well with minimal investment.

Regarding Tumbling... I preferred the concept of previous editions (it's about altering how you move to no longer present openings, not an "attack" against their "defense" to see if you get past).
However, if this is your primary method of getting places in combat, there's ways to get your check up. The feats Acrobatics and Skill Focus (Acrobatics) will give you +5 bonus (and later a +10 at 10th level) that really kicks in your ability to pull this off.
There's also a rogue talent in the APG that lets you move 30 feet without provoking an AoO after you hit a guy... basically you hit him and then move into your flanking position with impunity.

Oh, and one other thing I noticed... the Dirty Trick combat maneuver allows you to cheaply apply the blinded condition to a target, giving you the ability to make sneak attacks against them.
The feats that increase your odds at pulling the Dirty Trick off nearly eliminates the lower BAB, and lets you apply the condition for a number of rounds. Plus, the victim has to waste actions to remove it (at least a move action, and with the greater feat it's a standard action). Meaning the enemy no longer is capable of pulling off a full attack properly (more utility).

 

[Celtavian]

re

In my experience, and in my own theorycraft, the Rogue is no longer a class that you go to to deal brutal combat damage. You look more towards the Fighter (or Paladin depending on the enemy) for laying down carnage.
And honestly, that's fine by me. The Rogue really shouldn't be competing against the full BAB classes for combat effectiveness.

Yeah. He should. Or he is a waste of a character slot. The game is designed around combat. Period. If you are not an effective combatant, you are some guy that watches everyone else be effective while you wait for the next lock or trap.

The Rogue has a number of talents and class abilities that make him a great troubleshooter and scout.

This role doesn't matter in modules. You can live completely without a character of this type through modules, adventures, and any standard game and not miss a beat. Unless every module is the Tomb of Horrors the rogue is obsolete.

The rest makes him a decent 2nd tier combat

Decent means not fun to play for the majority of players. Why play a "decent 2nd tier combatant" when you can play a great second tier combatant like a fighter with a couple of rogue levels to find traps.

There's a number of new approaches in Pathfinder though, the playing field has simply changed.

The APG has a spell Vanish at 1st level, so a Rogue going down magical talent lines can get brief invisibility fairly early on, and eventually can dispel magic with every attack for additional utility (good if you know the campaign is about fighting casters).

Does it a cost a standard action to use? All it takes is one or two rounds for a well-designed fighter, paladin, or barbarian to make mince meat of just about anything they face. Toss in an arcane caster opening up right from the get go. And that rogue casting vanish just wasted his spell-like ability.

Sniper Goggles (also in the APG) let you deal Sneak Attack damage at any range. This can make a rogue sniper actually viable (and deadly if you pick some of the other APG options, like halfling rogue favored class stuff, a couple new rogue talents, and the sniper rogue archetype).

No full attack action while sniping is there? Why spend all that time hiding and trying to hide again when the melee type runs out in the open without hiding and kills what you're fighting faster than you could dream of doing it.

I'm glad that people are now looking at the Fighter primarily for being the guy that murders people in combat, and look at the rogue for more than just "deals massive damage". Poison crafting had an overhaul, making it a viable option as well with minimal investment.

Poor design choice. The game is about combat. The glory is in damage dealing, not being the guy who finds the occasional trap or who scouts ahead, tells you where the guys are that need to be killed, then shoots his pea shooter while the cannons and tanks smash everything down.

There's also a rogue talent in the APG that lets you move 30 feet without provoking an AoO after you hit a guy... basically you hit him and then move into your flanking position with impunity.

If you're flanking with a figher, even the amount of time it takes you to get into flanking position is probably long enough for the fighter to take most of the enemies hit points and possibly move on to the next guy.

Oh, and one other thing I noticed... the Dirty Trick combat maneuver allows you to cheaply apply the blinded condition to a target, giving you the ability to make sneak attacks against them.
The feats that increase your odds at pulling the Dirty Trick off nearly eliminates the lower BAB, and lets you apply the condition for a number of rounds. Plus, the victim has to waste actions to remove it (at least a move action, and with the greater feat it's a standard action). Meaning the enemy no longer is capable of pulling off a full attack properly (more utility).

So you take the time to pull off dirty trick to set up your sneak attack, and I repeat again that the fighter has already destroyed the mob by the time you set it up more than likely. High level fighter dish out insane damage and hit far, far, far more often the rogues. So do paladins and barbarians.


The game is combat-oriented. You might be able to work in one or two encounters an entire adventure where the rogue gets to be Mr. Troubleshooter. And that is if you even bother to try as a DM and your party doesn't mind sitting there while the rogue makes skill rolls.

Then as soon as combat hits, all your big, bruising melee and powerful arcane casters bring the hammer. While rogue guy maneuvers into flanking range hoping he gets a round of attacks off before the fighter, paladin, or barbarian crush the monster.

At least classes like the cleric, oracle, and bard bring massive utility to the table.

Rogues bring almost nothing.

And Dirty Trick matters not much at all once the fighters start picking up critical feats that can blind, stun, stagger, deafen, and exhaust what they are fighting with a crit (which is pretty often with Improved Crit and four or give attacks a round) while doing insane damage with any crit as well.

I have not seen one campaign where it was a necessity to have a class with more than a few levels of rogue. I haven't had a single player since 3.0 came out play a rogue past lvl 4. Just isn't worth it. Still not worth it in Pathfinder. The rogue is a poorly designed class that isn't worth playing unless you have a DM that goes out of his way to create scenarios where the rogue shines.

But the natural style of play in most groups I've played in is fairly straighforward. And the majority of players want to be effective combatants or at the very least provide highly visible utility like healing or magical buffing. The rogue does neither. He doesn't even have a defining talent that makes you go "Wow, that is awsome" like say a barbarian with Come and Get It and Fiend Totem. Or anything of the kind.

I doubt Paizo play-tested the rogue in average groups. Or took the time to see how they compare to other classes, which is why they continued to give the Rogue the sacred cow trapfinding ability of past editions. They know the class is weak and the only reason to play one is to deal with traps. Otherwise it is pointless.

3E made the worst rogue of any edition of D&D to date. It is by far the least played class in my group due to its low combat effectiveness and weak survivability. Once you reach the high level game which we almost always do reach 10th level plus, the rogue is amongst the first to suffer the negative effects of AoE fear, strange fortitude or will based gaze attacks, AoE spell effects like Mass Holds or Wail of the Banshee. They have amongst the lowest hit points in the group. They fall for just about every illusion that exists. They usually don't hit anywhere near as well as the other classes because of their low BAB, especially once you start fighting big bad evil guys with ACs designed to survive fighter types.

All in all a poorly designed class which all my players avoid like the plague. Some guys have tried a few rogues, then they get past 5th level and start feeling like chumps. Not enough feats, not enough cool abilities, not enough opportunities to shine in a game oriented almost solely around combat.