Rogue Design and Trapfinding: What do you think of these design choices?

[Volaran]

Not really looking for an argument here, nor to justify my own campaign style or rehash an argument you've had in several other threads.

For the record, I am running Kingmaker (presently on Adventure 2 party consisting of a barbarian, an oracle, a cavalier and a ranger), a Pathfinder converted Curse of the Crimson Throne (presently on adventure 6, consisting of a fighter/rogue, a conjurer, an oracle and rogue), and am playing in a Pathfinder converted Legacy of Fire (presently on adventure 2 with a barbarian, a cleric, an alchemist and a transmuter).

In the past, I have run a Pathfinder converted Rise of the Runelords game (party consisting of a rogue/wizard multiclass, a barbarian, a paladin, and a sorcerer), and played in a Pathfinder-beta coverted Second Darkness game (party consisting of a monk, a fighter/rogue, a druid (player later left and was replaced by a cleric) and a fighter/wizard/eldritch knight).

This is in addition to running or playing in several Iron Kingdoms, Eberron, and homebrew games during the same rough period. So yes, I have a fair amount of experience with the Paizo adventure paths.

I have not found that I have had to alter encounters, or plan out special things to do to keep any rogue-players feeling useful or engaged during the adventure paths. Nor did I notice any similar problems when I was a player. With the homebrew games, there was absolutely more tailoring of the sessions to the particular strengths and weaknesses of all of the characters, but that has always been my experience.

Now, if you are looking for a continued argument about the rogue as it applies to _my_ campaigns, I have no interest in that, nor in debating who is having badwrongfun.

You have stated your issues with the rogue, and your goals to make the class more appealing to your players, or disperse their abilities to allow other classes to take them. As per your comments in other threads, this seems more directed to making the rogue more combat-focused. That is something I am happy to discuss. If you're looking to rehash old arguments, I will suggest now that it is likely fruitless. In those other threads, I saw people getting worked up, but I did not see anyone changing their initial opinions. I don't feel it likely that anything will be changed here.

 

[Celtavian]

re

That was illumunating Volaran. Thank you for listing your campaign experience. I wouldn't have minded seeing levels, but class dispersion was helpful. I would love to see more such dispersions to see how many players truly find even the current rogue as an attractive class compared to other classes with more and varied abilities that aren't situationally useful.

Only one single class rogue in all those campaigns. Thanks for further proving my point. It's not an attractive class to play up as a single class.


From what you listed, your group doesn't sound much different from mine. They take the rogue class probably to add trapfinding in and incorporate a multi-class part in to boost combat effectiveness or at least work towards a more interesting prestige class like Arcane Trickster.


Part of it is the following reason:


The problem isn't rogue damage. It's their abilities. If they get in position to sneak attack, they do comparable damage to the bard, inquisitor, monk, and ranger.

It's that their abiltie are too situational. I tried to design a rogue last night that would be comparable to one of the classes listed and couldn't do it. Nothing they could take was better than what you get as another class.

When the monk is automatically getting up to improved evasion, immunity to poison and disease, a ki pool that gives them an extra attack, bonus feats including Stunning Fist, extra AC, quivering palm, higher AC, up to 90 feet of movement, jumping ability, a self-heal, flurry of blows for up 7 attacks with higher to hit, and spell resistance. And three good saves.

The bard is getting innate abilities that boost the party on top of a highly versatile spell list. And two good saves.

The Inquisitor is getting versatile judgments, bane, equivalent of evasion versus Fort and Will saves, all detect alignments, and a highly versatile spell list. And two good saves.

The ranger has favored enemies that work from ranged or melee, favored terrain, evasion, full BAB, free combat style feats, hide in plain site and camouflage that works in any favored terrain all the time (not once a day), and a versatile spell list. And two good saves.

It would take a Herculean effort to redesign a rogue to compete with those other classes. Not going to bother. Someday Pathfinder will finally do an inventory of what other classes that compete for playing time against the rogue can do and design a rogue that is as attractive as the Inquisitor, Bard, Monk, and Ranger in terms of abilities.


My main hope is that Pathfinder does for the rogue what they did for the Ranger. 3E managed to turn a ranger from a soso class few felt satisfied with, to a class that any player could enjoy playing from 1 to 20 and not feel hamstrung compared to other classes. That's all I'm asking for is that the game designers take a group of classes that compete against each other for playing time and do an inventory of those classes and see where they stand comparatively. If they truly don't see the rogue is lacking compararatively, I'll be very surprised. And if they see what most can see doing this inventory, they make a rogue with abilities as interesting and useful as the other classes.

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

Are all you of pro-rogue people playing in customized campaigns?

Nope.

I'm running Legacy of Fire using PF ruleset. One of my players is a half-orc Rogue, single class. The party is level four and he has no desire to multi-class. Not only is he a straight-up Rogue, he doesn't even do lethal damage! He refuses, using only a sap for combat and strictly avoiding killing. And he's told me it's his second favorite character, because he loves the flavor.

While we like a good fight - and he likes those fights as well - it's the role play that's the focus of this group. AND, in the last encounter they had (a straight up, not modified by the GM Paizo written encounter) the Rogue was king of the dungeon. He was flipping and tumbling all over the place, flanking and sneak attacking with his little sap, and finally getting in the last, telling blow that knocked the thing out.

Later the group discovered that while killing the foe would have earned them XP for a CR5 fight, keeping him alive and returning him to their employer earned them CR6 XP. Again, straight-up Paizo writing.

My experience with Paizo adventures has been that while they're chock-full of tough fights there's plenty of out of combat stuff to do as well. And that approaching every encounter like it has to be a fight will cost you. Surely you can finish the adventure this way - and enjoy it if that's what your group is into - but many of their encounters are set up to gain allies, treasure, or extra experience if you don't kill everything in sight that doesn't belong to the party. This has held true across PFS Scenarios and APs alike. Could groups do these adventures without a Rogue? Certainly. The group I'm running through Serpent's Skull is comprised of Gestalt characters - so effectively 8 character classes - and not a rogue in the bunch. They'll do fine.

IMO, folks who love the Rogue (like me and many others I know personally) love the flavor. If your group doesn't like 'em, don't play 'em! If you want to play 'em but they don't fit with your particular combat oriented style, change 'em up! Looks to me like you've done a good job of it here . . . I like the changes you presented in the OP, and it looks like they'd go a ways to make the class more tenable for your group.

But please recognize that just because a class doesn't work for your group doesn't mean it's broken. Nor does it mean it doesn't do what it was designed to do, nor that it's not fun for others to play.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

IMO, folks who love the Rogue (like me and many others I know personally) love the flavor. If your group doesn't like 'em, don't play 'em! If you want to play 'em but they don't fit with your particular combat oriented style, change 'em up! Looks to me like you've done a good job of it here . . . I like the changes you presented in the OP, and it looks like they'd go a ways to make the class more tenable for your group.

But please recognize that just because a class doesn't work for your group doesn't mean it's broken. Nor does it mean it doesn't do what it was designed to do, nor that it's not fun for others to play.

A commoner can be role played and enjoyed, too. That's not the point. The OP, myself, and others think Rogue is mechanically lacking and would like to see it better balanced with the other classes in the game, which one could just as easily use to roleplay just about any archetype you could with a rogue anyway. That you can still have fun interacting with a Rogue character and anything else that doesn't involve game mechanics is irrelevant to the discussion, IMHO.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Nope.

I'm running Legacy of Fire using PF ruleset. One of my players is a half-orc Rogue, single class. The party is level four and he has no desire to multi-class. Not only is he a straight-up Rogue, he doesn't even do lethal damage! He refuses, using only a sap for combat and strictly avoiding killing. And he's told me it's his second favorite character, because he loves the flavor.

While we like a good fight - and he likes those fights as well - it's the role play that's the focus of this group. AND, in the last encounter they had (a straight up, not modified by the GM Paizo written encounter) the Rogue was king of the dungeon. He was flipping and tumbling all over the place, flanking and sneak attacking with his little sap, and finally getting in the last, telling blow that knocked the thing out.

Later the group discovered that while killing the foe would have earned them XP for a CR5 fight, keeping him alive and returning him to their employer earned them CR6 XP. Again, straight-up Paizo writing.

My experience with Paizo adventures has been that while they're chock-full of tough fights there's plenty of out of combat stuff to do as well. And that approaching every encounter like it has to be a fight will cost you. Surely you can finish the adventure this way - and enjoy it if that's what your group is into - but many of their encounters are set up to gain allies, treasure, or extra experience if you don't kill everything in sight that doesn't belong to the party. This has held true across PFS Scenarios and APs alike. Could groups do these adventures without a Rogue? Certainly. The group I'm running through Serpent's Skull is comprised of Gestalt characters - so effectively 8 character classes - and not a rogue in the bunch. They'll do fine.

IMO, folks who love the Rogue (like me and many others I know personally) love the flavor. If your group doesn't like 'em, don't play 'em! If you want to play 'em but they don't fit with your particular combat oriented style, change 'em up! Looks to me like you've done a good job of it here . . . I like the changes you presented in the OP, and it looks like they'd go a ways to make the class more tenable for your group.

But please recognize that just because a class doesn't work for your group doesn't mean it's broken. Nor does it mean it doesn't do what it was designed to do, nor that it's not fun for others to play.

Lvl 4 isn't high enough to see the problems with the rogue. If your friend thinks a character is his second favorite by level 4, that doesn't seem like a lot of experience playing.

You pointing out one Paizo encounter that didn't require a guy being killed isn't a reflection of the entire module. I'm running Kingmaker and I could name such encounters. But they don't comprise the majority of the module. As I stated above, 90% of the Kingmaker module is combat outside of the kingdom building phases which don't require skills. Might have been nice had they incorporated bonuses for skills in the kingdom building part of the adventure.

A class should be designed so that it is competitive with other similar classes. That means when the game designers look over the class, they can see comparable ability by other classes in and out of combat.

They did a great job with this with the Inquisitor, Ranger, Monk, and Bard. Why such a poor job on the rogue?

Let's take minor magic as an example. They let a rogue cast a single 0 level spell three times per day. Why not let a rogue cast a single 0-level spell as often as he wants? Bards can cast up to six 0-lvl spells as often as they want. So can Inquisitors. Why such a stiff limitation on the rogue? Is that zero-level spell abuseable?

Being able to acrobatics at full speed as an advanced talent when the monk is SR, DR, up to 90 foot movement, and up to seven attacks a round?

Let's take Camouflage. A rogue can do this one time a day. It takes a minute for him to activate. He has the same limitation as a ranger in their favored terrain. But a ranger can use Camouflage and Hide in Plain Sight at will in his favored terrains.

Improved Evasion is an advanced talent and both monks and rangers get it for free.

I've already pointed out how many classes get two good saves. The only classes that don't get two good saves are the fighter (who gets bravery), the barbarian (who gets will save bonus while raging and Indomitable Will), and most of the arcane casters who can counter a bunch of stuff with spells. Even the paladin and ranger get two good saves. And the monk three. Why the single good save for the rogue who often puts himself in harm's way more often than any class in the game?

No sneak attack against concealment without a talent? That's ridiculous. Not only does the rogue still get the base 20% mischance, but his best combat ability doesn't work with 20% concealment.

They have some good abilities like Crippling Strike and Dispelling Attack. Some that are useful based on skills which I like.

But it sure seems like they did not take the same amount of time and effort to develop a competitive and interesting rogue like they did the Ranger, Monk, Bard, and Inquisitor. I'm not sure why the rogue continues to be Paizo's red-headed step-child. The game designers sure don't seem to show the rogue the same kind of love they've shown almost every other class at this point. Even the fighter is hugely attractive to play to lvl 20 now and is the undisputed master of weapons.

People used to hate playing the fighter to 20 as a single class because it was so uninteresting. Now it's one of the most played classes. I hope they one day design a rogue my group can love like they do the Ranger, Paladin, Monk, and Fighter now, at least the guy's that love melee. I love what they did with the wizard and sorcerer. Cleric's still mostly the same, but they were really powerful to begin with and didn't need much change. Though it would have been nice if the cleric had received a cool lvl 20 ability like the other classes.

 

[Ydars]

Hi all,

I have Pathfinder but have never played it yet.

It sounds to me like the Rogue is more powerful than the 3.5 version but that his power relative to the other classes is now lower.

The problem you all identify with Rogues in combat is also evident in highly optimised parties in 3.5.

It gets even worse when you are playing games where the players know that most challenges are tough but correctly CRed for them and so they just charge in all the time.

I always found that when you start mixing up encounters, so that some are overwheming and are designed so that the party have to run or scout carefully (i.e. with at least two party member scouts covering each other for safety), then a Rogue comes into its own. This is because when you scout ahead, the Rogue is already in a decent postion for flanking when battle starts; we often used the message spell (at low level) to report back to our party once in position.

It sounds to me like a simple house rule would be to give Rogues more skill points and increase the skill cap at level X for them relative to other classes.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I always found that when you start mixing up encounters, so that some are overwheming and are designed so that the party have to run or scout carefully (i.e. with at least two party member scouts covering each other for safety), then a Rogue comes into its own. This is because when you scout ahead, the Rogue is already in a decent postion for flanking when battle starts; we often used the message spell (at low level) to report back to our party once in position.

I'd be wary of this. The general consensus I've seen over the years is that scouting in D&D is far too dangerous and usually just will lead to the scout getting killed. In real life, it sounds like a smart tactical decision. In D&D, how many monsters are there out there with better senses and/or stealth than you? Darkvision, blindsense, blindsight, tremorsense, scent, invisibility, burrow speeds, ethereal creatures... There's a ton of freaking monsters out there that are well suited for getting the drop on YOU. If you're mixing in some "overwhelming" encounters, you're just increasing the likelihood of this happening. And if they spot you first, and you're isolated...you are very very screwed w/o some sort of mercy on the part of the DM. When people scout in my groups, it's generally been no more than a few hundred feet ahead of the party. Far enough so that the party's sounds and light sources might[/] not tip off enemies before the scouter reaches them, but close enough to get into the fray in a round or two and probably save the scout's hide.

 

[Ydars]

Scouting is dangerous and so we never solo scout; we always have at least 2 party members (Rogue and Ranger), and then it is viable, provided the rest of the party is reasonably close. You just have to have a good exit strategy; I usually have a level or two of wizard for my Rogues, so it's expeditious retreat for me at low levels and invisibility at higher levels, sometimes augmented with silence.

Scouting also depends on realistic DMing; monsters in our games leave tracks or dung or other clues to their presence, as would happen if they were real, so we have a decent chance of finding some clue as to what lies ahead without landing in real trouble or getting too close.

Having said that, I have lost more than one character on a scouting mission gone wrong, but since we play in a sandbox, where the encounters are not level appropriate, there is actually NO choice; if we all charge in expecting to win every encounter we would have a TPK every other session. Indeed, the point of scouting in our games is to AVOID monsters, not find them.

That is probably my criticism of standard D&D/Pathfinder; the level appropriate encounter meme leads to some very odd behaviours (like no scouting) becoming a viable and even advantageous tactic, which is completely mad. If our heavily armoured characters, with 20ft moves, no hide skills and no magic were to run into a dragon's lair without knowing it and then had to run away from a flying creature that they have no chance of fighting, they would die. We faster and stealthier types have a much better chance of finding some clue to said Dragon and allowing the 'tanks' to avoid this sort of potential carve-up.

YMMV of course.

 

[Shayuri]

I'll throw in here.

I love rogues and roguey sorts. I am often drawn to those classes due to their fun flavor, and because I like the RP associated with them.

That said, I have to agree that in most games I've played, from level 1 to level 20, rogues are way behind the curve in combat performance unless it's a rogue multiclass with a synergetic class. Rogues and rangers work well, for example, as do rogues and "finesse"-built fighters. This is especially true in Pathfinder, as one of the big advantages of rogues is their large list of class skills...which can be gained for a 1 level dip in Pathfinder.

Pathfinder did improve rogues, especially in early levels. It's possible (even mandatory) to get Weapon Finesse at 2nd level now, meaning you only have to get through one level of pain, rather than 2 levels as in 3.5e. The increased HP help with this. The consolidated skill list and reframing of Disable Device as a Dex skill help with this. And Rogue Talents really help push rogues forward as secondary melee/scouts.

It's not until past level 10 or so that I think rogues once again are supplanted by spellcasters. I don't blame this on Pathfinder in particular. High level spells are just...pretty overwhelming. There are very few situations that can't be solved with sufficient damage points of energy. Non-combat situations are usually solveable with a judicious Charm or Dominate. The few times one might need a rogue (say, to climb a tower and sneak into a lord's bedroom to steal a document) can be done more easily via spells (fly up, invisible, dimension door in, use Locate Object and Silence, then dimension door out...with Silent spell or a rod of metamagic).

This leaves rogues as...the untrappers, really, since there are other ways to scout by those levels too. And while everyone likes untrapping, is that really enough to justify a whole other party member?

*shrug*

I dunno. Like I said, I like rogues. I'm just frustrated with how hard it is to make them "useful" to a group of characters. Especially high level ones.

 

[Mojo_Rat]

I think some of the problems relating to the rogue issue may also come down some to group play style. in our groups there is usually only one umgawa i hit like a ton of bricks Pc. I could see though in a group of 4 Pc's say A fighter, a Barbarian and a Rogue and a Cleric, if the Two melee guys just walk up and hit everything for 20-30 damage (around level 8) then i can see this could be a problem.

I am honestly not sure what the solution is to be honest, i haven't had a chance to play a rogue yet in PF though i plan to and the one rogue we had suffered more from unfocused build than being a rogue (rogue 5, bard 1, shadow dancer 2) and at the time of our TPK he was using a blow gun but didn't have precise shot.