Redundant Rogue Talents? And Major Magic.

[satinder]

When i play a rogue it usually does bad in combat but stops alot of combat with diplomacy.

 

[Mojo_Rat]

yes a rogue can use a 2h weapon he will just be bad at it. the rogue aside from very narrow circumstances will never be a good damage dealer compared to say the fighter. I like the rogue thematic in story and fiction. the clas is just bad at doing that in a way that is meaningful to how ALOT of players play. those issues can be accommodated because games should be tailored for the players and their characters. but ALOT from Internet posts do not seem to and one of the classes big strengths has been de emphasized.

I was simply trying to say that getting a 24 ac at low levels is not a an overpowered thing because it hardly compensates for the classes weaknesses.

 

[neofax]

...it hardly compensates for the classes weaknesses.

The Rogues largest weakness is it's horrendous Fort and Will saves and there are very few things to help rectify these. My major suggestion for these is to max your Stealth and not be the target of such attacks. They also suffer from MAD having to spread their points across so many abilities to be effective in combat, skills and saves.

 

[Glade Riven]

The more people complain about the rogue's combat effectiveness, the more I want to play one...

 

[DumbPaladin]

The more people complain about the rogue's combat effectiveness, the more I want to play one...

Little bit of a masochist, are we, Transbot?

 

[JacktheRabbit]

there are numerous threads on it. the rogue is probably the weakest class in the game.the main method of damage sneak attack gets out passed by upfront damage from 2h weapons.

The Pathfinder rogue had its sneak attack choices increased dramatically. So its very easy to deal fighter or barbarian levels of damage. This of course requires a flank, but in a party of adventurers its only the fools that dont work to get the rogue a flank.

The weakness of the rogue is the same. To be a combat monster it needs the help of a flanker. In solo combat a rogue will never equal a fighter.

As for the comment that a rogue can learn two handed weapons, that would be a huge waste of a feat for a rogue unless he plans on fighting with a flanking buddy in which case he might as well take levels in warrior.

A rogue with flanking buddy using a greatsword will fall way behind another rogue wielding two daggers.

 

[Kaisoku]

They increased the number of things that can be sneak attacked, but they took out a number of good ways for a Rogue to trigger his sneak attack on his own (blur spell, grease, etc).

Which leads to my comment on internet theory-crafting.
People like to judge what a class can do based on the following factors:

- Rate the abilities in a vacuum. No allies, no buffs, no situational modifiers, no circumstance... just straight up "what does this ability do".
Sounds like a good scientific method, right? Eliminate random variables to get a "clean" result.
The problem is that this is never how it works out in play (especially when you have some control over the conditions of the battle), and for some reason the Rogue ends up doing better than what the vacuum test predicts.

- Assign the class roles and then see if other classes can perform those roles. This might give a nice test to see if there's a "need" for the class in a group, or if there's another class that's doing the same thing already, etc.
The problem is when you combine it with the vacuum test for the other classes. This is where you get logical roadblocks like: "Well if the Wizard has all the right spells and magic items and spends all his money and time and resources performing the rogue's roles, then the rogue is obsolete... therefore the Rogue as a class is made obsolete by the wizard class."
Two issues: I've never seen a Wizard have the proper resources to be able to pull off what a Rogue fully can do until VERY late into the game... which means the Wizard is likely a little more preoccupied with filling wizard roles.
Second, the base assumption is false... sometimes, people want to play a Rogue because they like the theme and abilities of the class. They don't want to play a "guy who scouts, solves traps, and bypasses diplomacy situations with magic", they want a guy who does it with skills.


I have to say, I haven't run into a situation where the Rogue has felt completely useless, all the time. Sometimes the melee focused Fighter feels a bit useless when all he has is a throwing axe for ranged combat. Sometimes the Cleric or Wizard or Sorcerer or whatever feels useless when he doesn't have a particular spell that would work for the situation, and he falls back on his acid splash, etc.

In play, the Rogue isn't that bad off, regardless of what people theorize on forums.

 

[Particle_Man]

Personally, I like Acid Splash for minor magic and True Strike for major magic. Gives me chances to use sneak attacks even when I normally would not be able to (no ranged weapon to hand in the surprise round, or the AC of the bad guy is too darn high, or the bad guy has concealment). But I am sure there are other options.

 

[Friend of the Dork]

yes a rogue can use a 2h weapon he will just be bad at it. the rogue aside from very narrow circumstances will never be a good damage dealer compared to say the fighter. I like the rogue thematic in story and fiction. the clas is just bad at doing that in a way that is meaningful to how ALOT of players play. those issues can be accommodated because games should be tailored for the players and their characters. but ALOT from Internet posts do not seem to and one of the classes big strengths has been de emphasized.

I was simply trying to say that getting a 24 ac at low levels is not a an overpowered thing because it hardly compensates for the classes weaknesses.

Bad at it? You mean he will usually not have the strength and feats to do the damage a Fighter will. But that is not an issue of the two-handed sword, that's an issue of the Fighter's BAB, feats, and Weapon Training.

So it boils down to the fact that fighters are better at... fighting... than rogues. To put it another way, what else could you give Rogues to compensate for their supposed lack of combat ability?

The Rogues largest weakness is it's horrendous Fort and Will saves and there are very few things to help rectify these. My major suggestion for these is to max your Stealth and not be the target of such attacks. They also suffer from MAD having to spread their points across so many abilities to be effective in combat, skills and saves.

Just like the Fighter's weaknes is it's horrendous Reflex and Will saves. Why would the Rogue stand out here? Also I'm not so sure about MAD, it depends on what kind a rogue you want. A devoted trapfinder/thief needs high dex, some con, good int, a little wisdom and can pretty much dump the rest.

A charming rogue needs charisma of course, but might not need as much int.

And really the ideal fighter needs high str, good dex and con, decent int (13), average wisdom and can dump cha unless you want him to be good at intimidation etc. That's pretty MAD to me. Not as bad as say Paladins though.

BTW in our party at 3rd level the most effective at dealing damage is the rogue with 10 str. He is also the one character that has survived the most damage taken in a single round, and has more HPs than the Paladin. This is at 15 point-buy. I think about 75% of his attacks are flanking attacks.

The party's Paladin is of course the best tank, and completely annhilated a CR 5 Barbed Devil almost by himself.. with no one in the party getting injured.

The Pathfinder rogue had its sneak attack choices increased dramatically. So its very easy to deal fighter or barbarian levels of damage. This of course requires a flank, but in a party of adventurers its only the fools that dont work to get the rogue a flank.

The weakness of the rogue is the same. To be a combat monster it needs the help of a flanker. In solo combat a rogue will never equal a fighter.

As for the comment that a rogue can learn two handed weapons, that would be a huge waste of a feat for a rogue unless he plans on fighting with a flanking buddy in which case he might as well take levels in warrior.

A rogue with flanking buddy using a greatsword will fall way behind another rogue wielding two daggers.

I think most Rogues plan on fighting with a flanking buddy. A level of fighter is nice, but this system rewards staying to a single class, and delaying SA progression is not that good even in return for an extra feat and proficiencies.

The only real problem with greatswords is that they can't be Finessed, thus except for Elven Fullblades, Rogues benefiit more from light weapons, such as Kukri or shortswords.

In any case the proper way to compare the classes would be a Dex-based fighter (probably TWF) such as "Dexter" that was made here, in which case the fighter remains on top in damage dealing, but only barely, except in a straight duel, where the Rogue will almost always lost. But a class should not be judged solely by it's ability to fight 1 on 1 but rather it's usefullness to a party inside and outside of combat.

 

[Mojo_Rat]

Most of my coments are intended based on personal experience and observation from the Few rogue chars that have been made.

I think if the rogue gets the flank that they likely do good damage, i also think alot of monsters can turna round and leave rogue bits splattered across the landscape. Thats historically eben the problem with the class.

I would like to reiterate i /love/ the thematics for the class. I dont even knwo that it is fair to judge them based on combat. The value of flanking would vary alot based on the groups that you are in.

I also think the assumption wizards can replace them is a false one. though recently urban rangers have been cited and i hav eno experience with them.