[D&D] Rogues? Underpowered? Overpowered? Batman?

[nightinverse]

BRR Edit - Right guys, I've split another thread down as the conversation had started veering off in the Cleric and Bard threads to a discussion of the relative power level of rogues. Now comparing other classes to the rogue is fine and dandy, but please try and avoid going off on tangents revolving solely around that class. Also, if you are concerned about threads going off on wild tangents then PM me. And remember, next time, don't reply in the same thread, just start a new one, that way I don't need to perform ardous post hunting, editing and moving.
Much like other split and merged threads this one isa bit of a Frankenstein's monster, so quotes may not line up and stuff but I'm pretty sure I transferred everything directly relevant to a standalone discussion of rogues over here.

I am playing a dwarven cleric in a FR campaign who outdamages the tank, outheals everyone, is better at attack spells than the mage, and can find traps (via the Find Traps spell) better than the rogue. I've had to tone down how I play the cleric simply because the other players were starting to feel unnecessary.
This reminds about link's mistaken belief that the rogue is a weak class. I have played in campaigns where I have needed to play my rogue down - and this is with pretty much Core material and no prestige classes. I remember an eight person game where my rogue made more kills, diplomatic successes and solved more other issues than any two of the other players...

[AbusePuppy]

Link:
You seem to be vastly underestimating the power of Evasion, Opportunist and Sneak Attack. With a decent feat selection rogues can eviscerate any non-immune target so long as the fighter can hold its attention. And, with a bit of magic support (the Strike spells from CAdv to allow Sneak Attack on any target) he can be an absolute machine for damage. Fragile, to be sure, but still better survivability than the bard.

And wait, you think monk is a weak character class? I'll admit they're very ability-score dependant (stats of 18/14/12/12/12/12 won't cut it) but with good rolls they can deal out nasty damage while maintaining decent defense and utility.

I should, perhaps, clarify a bit. I don't think bards are weak per se but rather weak in the most common style of D&D game0 "let's go kill some monsters and/or villains." In games where intruigue, stealth, subterfuge and the like are paramount the bard is at least on par with everyone else and clearly superior to a lot of the others (melee classes, etc).
__________________
"Oh, sure, I start by reinventing, then I disinvent it. I swim in the realm between panels, what I call the... Imaginarium?"

[nightinverse]

Neither rogue nor monk are at all underpowered. Why, with both classes you can run an almost unstoppable combatant by fifth level - with the right feats, rogue shoots up in power at a greater rate than most others for cost, and monk - well, monk speaks for itself. It's the zero-magic reliance class.

link, you remain one of only two people I have ever heard say rogue was an underpowered class. Please, give us some indicator why so we can view your opinion in a more informed light.

[Mercutio]

Actually, NI, I play rogues almost exclusively, and at anything about level 10, rogues are pretty much hosed. Most creatures at that level or higher either can't be flanked, have Uncanny Dodge, fortification, concealment, cover, or are unsneakable in some other way. If you can manage to get a sneak attack in, sure they're great, but a good DM worth his salts isn't going to be throwing up monsters for rogues to sneak attack. As you go up in levels, rogues become mostly unnecessary in combat, simply serving as spies and/or talking heads. They become practically worthless in combat, traps are found with a simple cleric spell and bypassed hundreds of other ways through things like dimension door/teleport/ethereal jaunt, etc.

I love rogues. I've been playing them since 1990 when they were 2e thieves with percentile scores to pick pockets. Sneak Attack makes them immensely more viable than the old backstab, but a straight rogue simply is outclassed and unnecessary in higher levels. That's not to say you can't play them. Maybe the other players don't try to overshadow the rogue or don't fill their niches because of personal reasons, but any party can fill the shoes of an upper level rogues with a few minor adjustments to the other characters.

That's not the point of this thread though. Bards are not underpowered. They aren't made to fill the shoes of the rogue, with whom they are most compatible. They're made to be the 5th party member. They are battlefield controllers and buffers. Secondary healers and talkers. Money makers, charmers, and counterspellers. It's a unique role, and one that clearly demonstrates their viability in the first encounter of any campaign, and continues that through the last encounter.

[Mercutio]

I wanted to address this slightly, mainly because I'm the one who posted about Rogues and gimpiness at high levels. It's not that DMs purposely seek to gimp rogues at those levels. Just take a look at high level monsters. A large portion of high CR creatures are immune to Sneak Attack. It's not twisting it to say that DM's can make classes worthless, but that the game, by the numbers alone, makes certain classes worthless at higher levels.

[LeadPal]

Agrees with sentiment that rogues are weakest class.

[Doomsmile]

Assuming that you count all dragons of all age class and color as one monster type ("Dragon"), only two of the 14 monsters above CR 14 are immune to sneak attack.

[elmer_jok]

And how can you say that 'Find Traps' spell makes it so you don't need a rogue? (looks we're gonna need a thread on rogues next) Even though it gives the cleric the ability to spot the traps, does all your clerics put cross-class skill ranks into Search? It's still dependant upon that. And even if he did, it'll never stack up to the rogues insanely high search modifier. In a campaign that I DM'd (a F2F game) the party got split up and the cleric tried to fill this role, very unsuccessfully.

Cleric: "I'm casting 'Find Traps' so don't worry about loosing Timmy."
Fighter: "Ok, scout ahead like Timmy did then."
Cleric: "Ok, I scout ahead searching for traps."
DM(me): "What's your search skill modifier?"
Cleric: "Um, +2?"
DM(me): *chuckles, rolls, 13+2... fail. "You find nothing"
Cleric: "We continue forward"
DM(me): "Roll a Reflex save!"

man that was great!

[Xaden]

Well, we also must remeber that since a Rogue gets 8 + (Int mod) in skill points, not only can he be really good at trap finding (even if one or two types of clerics might be better at it under some specific circumstances), but he will inevitably be really good at a little more than a half-dozen other things. And while I'm not familiar with the kobold domain, most of the other cleric examples have to use a spell (who's gonna' memorize find traps that often, especially if you have a Rogue in the group), and the spell lasts for mere minutes, while the Rogue can do it as much as he likes (you can take your time searching down the corridor, in the rooms, up the stairs, at the doorways, etc. for traps with the rogue, your time is a bit more limited with the cleric (plus the point made above that the cleric isn't too likely to spend that many skill points cross-class into the Search skill and therefore his spell will still be very limited in ability)). Yeah, just thought I'd add my 2.5 cents. Hehe.

[Xaden]

And Sneak Attack, if you can't make it useful throughout every level you're just not using it right. Even one attack from a hidden rogue at high levels and you're talking about anywhere from +6d6 to +10d6 (depending upon level) with no saving throw, and you don't even have to be hidden for that attack, just flank your opponent. Sneak attack really is useful (and fairly powerful) throughout all the levels. I've DMed many games with rogues and I'm constantly having to consider the rogue's Sneak Attack, just as much as I'm haivng to take into account the cleric's high level spells and what have you.

The versitility, consistant usefullness, continuous usability of ranks in skills cannot be replaced by spells, the skills are useful from level 1 to 20, you don't have to wait till level 13+ to start making up for not having these skills, they can be used infinitely (how many times are you going to prepair suggestion to make up for the rogue Diplomacing every opponent to become indifferent instead of hostile?)

Now don't get me wrong, spells are useful, they are powerful, and they can temporarily outsrtip most uses for most skills (but again not all), but they are temporary, they are one-time-use things, some of them are no guarantee of anything (Find Traps for example) and if you're seriously making them persistant you're eating up truly usefull spell slots for something that can still be covered with a couple ranks in a skill; and doing such isn't even a possibility until the higher levels.

[Linklegacy77]

And Sneak Attack, if you can't make it useful throughout every level you're just not using it right. Even one attack from a hidden rogue at high levels and you're talking about anywhere from +6d6 to +10d6 (depending upon level) with no saving throw, and you don't even have to be hidden for that attack, just flank your opponent. Sneak attack really is useful (and fairly powerful) throughout all the levels. I've DMed many games with rogues and I'm constantly having to consider the rogue's Sneak Attack, just as much as I'm haivng to take into account the cleric's high level spells and what have you.
Over half of all monsters and enemies past level 10 are immune in some way or another to sneak attack. Sneak attack also doesn't do much damage. At level, 30d6 damage is not a lot for an entire round. (barbarian has an average over 400 easily, spellcaster can outdo 30d6 with a single spell easy.)


You wanted ones to replace the rogue's skills? I've already covered climb and jump, and even spot and listen.

Comprehend Languages, find traps, silence, zone of truth, discern lies, freedom of movement, tongues, true seeing... (the list goes on and on)

And all this with a cloistered cleric, who has 6 skill points per level.

The point is that he can do these things, not that he would. It isn't that the cleric would be a better rogue than the rogue, the point is he can, that shows the balance issues here. And he starts outshining the rogue at around levels 5-7, not all that early in the game. As I've said before, the rogue is best from levels 1-5.

[Xaden]

1. Animated Object, Colossal
2. Golem, Clay
3. Devourer
4. Elemental, Elder
5. Golem, Stone
6. Wraith, Dread
7. Black Pudding, Elder (ooze)
8. Kolyarut (inevitable)
9. Golem, Iron
10. Mummy Lord
11. Nightwing
12. Marut (inevitable)
13. Golem, Greater Stone
14. Nightwalker (nightshade)
15. Nightcrawler (nightshade)

15 creatures is what I could find in the MM I over CR 10 that are immune to sneak attacks, 18 if you wanna' count all types of elder elementals, that's out of 80 over CR 10 not counting dragons. Now my math my be a little poor, or out of use, but I think 18 out of 80 isn't quite half, a quarter would be 20 and we haven't even hit that. Now I don't care who's book you're using, but +6d6 damage plus weapon damage per attack is fairly significant. +6d6 averages at about 21 points of extra damage, just 'cause you flank someone, and that's just a level 11 rogue, once he's doing +10d6, just for flanking you, that's an average of an extra 35 damage. Now okay, I can see a barbarian doing a bonus of +30 to weapon damage from Power Attack, Str, magic weapon bonus, etc. he can proabably even safely do more, but that's just it, the rogue's damage is compairable to a barbarian's and against a fair majority of the mosters at or over DC 10, just 'cause he flanks it. Now yes, the barbarian is still a better fighter than a rogue, of course, that's how it should be, he's a barbarian, and we've got a rogue, the two shouldn't compaire in combat might, but the rogue, coupled with his other abilities does make him worthy.

[Mercutio]

Rogues need to be close to do that damage. With a d6 hit die and low AC, he'll die after one hit.

[Linklegacy77]

Not really, with a d6 hit die, 3/4 BAB, only one good save, and most of his combat abilities which are reactive, the rogue is only really good at staying out of combat.

Let's see here:

Since the foe needs a discernable anatomy to be sneak attacked, it's quite easy to see that almost all abberrations would require a knowledge deepdelving check to sneak attack. Ignoring that for the moment though.

All elementals, plants, constructs, undead, and oozes are immune to sneak attack. That's 5 whole creature types.

Any character with improved uncanny dodge is basically immune to sneak attack, you have to be at least 4 levels higher.

And you are just going by the Monster Manual. How about all the books that include monsters? Lets see here, things like: Fiend Folio, Monster manual 2, 3, 4, Stormwrack, Frostburn, Sandstorm, Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, Draconomicon, Libris Mortis, Lords of Madness, and the list of monster including books goes on and on.

As for sneak attacking, you also have to include all the monsters that have blindsight, tremorsense, ridiculously high spot bonuses, true seeing, and more.

I'm not saying rogues are bad, I love rogues. I am saying that they are the weakest base class. They can't do melee as well as the fighters, they can't do skills as well as the cleric (proven in other thread), there are numerous other things they can't do as well as other classes. Sneak Attack is a very weak ability, that is very dependent on the foes you are fighting, and on the situation you are fighting them in.

[nightinverse]

Five creature types which do not constitute a significant minority together in most games - with the exception of undead - ... a significant portion of your foes will be NPC humanoids in most games - i.e. mooks without immunity. That is on top of the vast majority of creatures in Core D&D which are susceptible.

Once again, stop it with the splat books - those are mainline indicators of how the game has been broken, not the native balance thereof.

The skills of the rogue give it the ability to execute the abilities it depends on more precisely than a spellcaster and more effectively than a fighter. Does it require effort? Yes. Is it effective in most situations and most campaigns? Yes. Do you have to go out of your way to make the class feeble? YES.

[Benicus]

I love rogues personnally. Though, they do suck eggs.

Especially if your ranged, no flanking, no feinting, no sneak attack unless within 30ft.

Rogues are by far the weakest class in my opinion, and even though I love them, at the higher levels (ie. everything above 3) they are pretty much useless.

Now I'm playing a Beguiler in my camp, and it is much more usefull in combat. Spells that control, weaken, and cripple enemies are much more usefull than Sneak Attack or Sudden Strike or Skrimish.

[Linklegacy77]

Five creature types which do not constitute a significant minority together in most games - with the exception of undead - ... a significant portion of your foes will be NPC humanoids in most games - i.e. mooks without immunity. That is on top of the vast majority of creatures in Core D&D which are susceptible.


Campaign specific, not viable in a discussion of in game mechanics.

Once again, stop it with the splat books - those are mainline indicators of how the game has been broken, not the native balance thereof.


Why exactly? Of course they are a mainlaine indicator of how the game can be broken, because they follow every single rule that the d20 system requires, and winds up breaking the game if you try hard. Core can be quite broken too, and even in core only, the rogue is still the weakest class. Not that they don't have their place, but they are weak. Not to mention that the great majority of games use said splatbooks that you are arguing so vehemently against. But again, that's campaign specific, so let's move on.

The skills of the rogue give it the ability to execute the abilities it depends on more precisely than a spellcaster and more effectively than a fighter. Does it require effort? Yes. Is it effective in most situations and most campaigns? Yes. Do you have to go out of your way to make the class feeble? YES.

Effective in most situations? Ha, that's a statement with no evidencial support and also depends on the campaign. And no, you don't have to go out of the way to make the class feeble. Let's take a look at all of the rogue's class features.

Sneak Attack: an ability which gives the rogue some capability to deal damage, in two situations: where the enemy is denied their dexterity bonus to AC, or when the rogue is flanking an enemy. Both of those situations become harder and harder to create at higher levels. The damage also quickly becomes outshined.

Trapfinding: The ability to find really hard traps, with search DC's over 25. useful, but not a great ability. At the low levels, unless your DM is evil, you won't be facing traps with DC's that high. By the time you normally would, there are many magical ways around them, making the mundane method useful but unnecessary.

Evasion: An ability that comes into play occasionally. Whenever an ability would allow a reflex save for half damage, the rogue instead takes no damage on a successful save. Useful, but defensive, and very limited. It only aids the rogue in select situations, which aren't as common as some may think. Sure, if every enemy you meet is throwing fireballs, lightning bolts, and breath weapons, but otherwise not all that useful.

Trap Sense: I've yet to hear about this ability being useful.

Uncanny Dodge: Decent ability, helps the rogue out a lot in situations where they would be caught flat-footed. Again, a very defensive ability, and subject to situations not caused by the rogue.

Improved Uncanny Dodge: See uncanny dodge. Immune to flanking benefits. Wow. Basically, if the rogue has been getting flanked, it would be dead before reaching this point.

Special abilities: A few of these are actually pretty decent. Crippling strike is probobly the best, but again, sneak attack isn't easily gained, especially at that level. Defensive roll is basically useless, improved evasion isn't all that great, opportunist isn't very good, slippery mind is basically useless. Skill mastery is the second best of these, but again, isn't that great, as you should be passing on basically any roll anyway.

That's it. That's all the rogue gets. His 3/4 BAB and d6 hit die relegate him to skulking in shadows in combat. He cannot be a good frontline fighter like the fighter, ranger, barbarian, paladin, or even as good as a monk.

Even humanoids get to resist sneak attack. Feinting is a poor option, it requires the rogue be in melee and pass bluff checks consistently, which the foe gets to add his base attack bonus to resist. Further, it only allows for one sneak attack before you must feint again. Flanking is a poor option, if you flank, goodbye rogue, you'll be down and out in one or two hits.

The rogue's need for a high dex relegates it to a lower AC, and if it tries to be a good combatant it suffers from MAD. It's best option is sniping, but the rogue must be within 30 feet to do that, unless he uses a crossbow and the feat from the PHB2, in which case he'll be weak from relying on crossbows.

[itches]

Is it effective in most situations and most campaigns? Yes.Ha, that's a statement with no evidencial support
Like this?
Not to mention that the great majority of games use said splatbooks

[akiko]

Maybe a new poll is in order because I played in exactly one game that didn't allow all the Completes and Races of.

[Mercutio]

Even humanoids get to resist sneak attack.Fortification, blink, invisibility, ethereal - these are just a short number of way NPCs can and should beat sneak attack. If the DM doesn't have some way to beat sneak attack on a high level NPC, then he isn't playing that NPC well at all. Any high ranking evil guy is going to know what his weaknesses are, and he's going to compensate for them. There are umpteen ways to beat Sneak Attack, and if you're in high level play and the bad guys don't have a sneak attack beater, something is wrong with the DM.

[itches]

I played in exactly one game that didn't allow all the Completes and Races of.
Aye, I'd be inclined to agree that it would be very rare for a game to not allow some, or part of some, of those books to be included. Even I don't flat out disallow them from my games.

A poll sounds like a nice way to gather some evidence and I'm drifting off topic.

[Mercutio]

Here's a short list of ways to beat sneak attack

Uncanny Dodge
Blink
Invisibility
Ethereal
Fortification
Concealment
Cover
Weather (fog, rain, snow, hail - pretty much anything that grants concealment)
Slippery surfaces
Creatures that are so big their vitals are out of reach
Pseudonatural creatures since body parts change places

[Linklegacy77]

Merc, you left out so many!

Templates of all kinds, prestige classes of all kinds, many spells, and more.

Like this?
Not to mention that the great majority of games use said splatbooks ”
If you read my next sentence, you'll see I address that as well. A poll sounds like a great idea to gather support for it though.

[nightinverse]

Yeah, way to actually debate the material, guys.

Your reply is also campaign specific. Don't attempt to simply dismiss mine on the same grounds that your contribution lingers. They are four minor creature types, and undead. That is a fact. They will not make a majority of encounters in most campaigns. That is a statistically supportable fact.

Merc's list is actually much more helpful - but look at how many things have those.

Concealment? Hell, the rogue doesn't even know the person is there to begin with! That's like having a party pass an encounter in the fog and never fight, yet declaring it a victory and granting encounter experience because the party passed through.

I personally have played in very few games that allow the Races series and the Complete series without significant rebalancing - and I'm in thirteen games or so here alone. Almost no IRL games (Over the past seven years) have allowed the majority of these or any other supplements.

[akiko]

Sorry that the debate was perceived so different for both sides NI. I guess our experiences are so drastically different that our assumptions are as well. I am in over 13 games, the majority here but 5 on other sites as well and am in 1 SRD only game. Which was new to me (but nice). So going forward you would like to hear more about the balance issues of the classes from a Core perspective?

[Mercutio]

I think that's odd NI. I see a lot of games that don't allow the Races, but I've seen few to none that don't allow Complete. DMs that don't allow books typically don't own those books. Are a lot of your games run by the same or similar DMs?

Many, many NPCs would have access to most of those things - blink, invisibility, going ethereal, fortification, cover, concealment? Those types of things are status quo. If you went up against a 16th level caster who didn't have some way to negate sneak attack, either by mirror image, invisibility, or even something as simple as darkness, then you went up against a weak and badly prepared 16th level caster. If you went up against a 19th level fighter that didn't have fortification on his armor, then you went up against a fighter who was ill-prepared to deal with his enemies.

Bad guys aren't stupid. If they know they're going to fight the PCs (and they certainly should), then they're gonna be prepared.

[nightinverse]

I would take anything over the insane lack of communication we've had thus far. I mean, we evidently have three tiers of D&D gamers here. Core, Extended Core, Full. I'm in the Extended Core myself - lots of 3.0 supplements and a few 3.5. ShadowDawn, DoomSmile, The Hive Custodian and a number of others are Core.

Villains are indeed, not stupid, but they are also not all-seeing or all-knowing. Yes, the wizard might be Blinked, the fighter might have Heavy Fortification, but what about the rest? Discounting the Cleric - another thread for another time - there is no real reason why the group would take specific steps against the rogue over other classes. You simply can't optimize your defense against everything at once. The armour might be better designed without Fortification to fit other enchantments - Ghost Touch? Glamered?

Most of the arguments presented direct specialized attention to handicapping the rogue, at the cost of other possible aggressors. They also seem to be designed from a perfect third-person view point - something neither PCs or NPCs possess without extensive work (Bardic Knowledge, Divination, Sages, Spying).

[Mercutio]

I was pointing out that sneak attack as a class feature becomes practically worthless at high levels. I picked 2 powergamed bad guys to deal with a rogue because we were talking about a rogue PC. There are literally dozens of other ways to prevent sneak attacks Mirror Image, which I just brought up, is a perfect way to do that, and it's certainly not a defense against rogues only. Fighting in the dark if you have darkvision and the PCs don't is easy. Fighting in a forest gives concealment. Fighting in any kind of sight limiting weather stops sneak attack. And those are not rogue only defenses.

As for tiers, I'm the Extended Core - Core books, Complete books, Eberron Books and MMIII. I have access to a lot of other books through friends and other players, but that's all I really own.

[nightinverse]

But it only becomes worthless if you work to do that - which is precisely what your examples revealed. I could make spells useless with work - give the NPCs absurd saves through objects, SR scores, the works...

[Mercutio]

Did you read the last three examples? I didn't use those things just to make Sneak Attack worthless. I used those things because they are common ways for villains to get the upper hand. Once again, villains aren't dumb. They don't get jumped in the street by a prepared party. They are generally assaulted in their strongholds which they have prepared specifically to protect them from the party.

[Doomsmile]

Now, one thing you're missing is that the rogue is in a party, allowing for fun ways to the party members can bail each other out.

Uncanny Dodge: the mage puts the sucker on grease. Whoops! Where'd my dex go?
Blink, invisibility, ethereality, fortification: The mage drops an anti-magic bubble on the enemy, then starts tossing out indirect effects (why transmuters rock!)
Concealment: Blindsight. It can be done.
Cover: has no more effect on sneak than it does on non-sneak attack
Weather (fog, rain, snow, hail - pretty much anything that grants concealment): see concealment.
Slippery surfaces: Actually helps the rogue, because it can deny the target its dex bonus.
Creatures that are so big their vitals are out of reach: shoot it.
Creatures immune to sneak attacks: The rogue will have to run interference on this one. Unless the mage turns the target into a carp, in which case, the game's back on.


Now, before you cry foul, how many solo campaigns have you been in, seriously? I've been in one. Ever. In these, the rogue slinks past the target with preternatural stealth.
Good. Game.

[Linklegacy77]

DS: The fact that the rogue relies on other members of the party to help bail him out shows he is weak. The fighter, doesn't have that problem as badly, and the wizard and cleric definately don't have it.

Uncanny Dodge: the mage puts the sucker on grease. Whoops! Where'd my dex go?
Reflex save, and not to mention Prone doesn't deny you dex to AC.

Concealment: Blindsight. It can be done.
It's much harder for a rogue to get blindsight than it is for a caster, or any number of monsters.

Cover: has no more effect on sneak than it does on non-sneak attack
True

Creatures that are so big their vitals are out of reach: shoot it.
But then you can't use flanking, can you? Or feinting. You have to actually catch the person off guard for that to work.

Now, before you cry foul, how many solo campaigns have you been in, seriously? I've been in one. Ever. In these, the rogue slinks past the target with preternatural stealth.
Good. Game.

Bard is a better soloist, and the cleric is the best.

[Doomsmile]

Should I list how many things screw over fighters that they need to be bailed out from? Besides, fighters suck at the rogue's "look over there!" *hide* escape hatch.

[Benicus]

Not unless you have Hide in Plain Sight, if you do you become much much meaner!

[Doomsmile]

A ranger could do half of the "look over there!" *hide* trick... but in order to hide (even in plain sight) they need to not be staring right at you when they do that. And since bluff isn't a ranger skill...

[Linklegacy77]

Actually, hide in plain sight lets you hide even if somebody is staring at you.

Bluff can be used to create a diversion, and yes, it will hide the rogue from the fighter, but it's not as if it would harm to fighter much. By the point in time that the rogue is guarenteed to hide sucessfully, the fighter should have fortification.

[Doomsmile]

1) I didn't say against the fighter. I said it's an option that the fighter doesn't have.

2) If it was a fighter, they tend to have cr** for spot checks. The rogue attacks the fighter's armor from hiding with a magic bow at long range until the armor breaks, then moves to sneak attack range and chisles the fighter to death.

3) Fortification is only useful against rogues and scimitars, as far as I can tell. Only an idiot or someone with too much gold takes total fortification. And since non-spotters can't find the rogue in order to smite her back...

[Linklegacy77]

2) If it was a fighter, they tend to have cr** for spot checks. The rogue attacks the fighter's armor from hiding with a magic bow at long range until the armor breaks, then moves to sneak attack range and chisles the fighter to death.

You can't sunder armor, and you can't sunder from range without a sundering ranged weapon.

Fortification is very useful. Immunity to sneak attack and critical hits is a very useful feature, it means you won't get screwed over by one unlucky die roll.

And your whole argument is based upon the assumption that the rogue has the terrain advantage.

[elmer_jok]

what self-respecting rogue doesn't have terrain advantage. He's one of the most mobile characters in the game.

[Linklegacy77]

What self-respecting rogue doesn't have the terrain advantage? Let me ask this then, what self-respecting fighter doesn't have the terrain advantage? The fighter is a character that prides itself on being the most versitile fighting class in the game. Of course they'd know that terrain advantage is important.

Let me put it this way: Except for having more skill points than any other base class (except scout), the rogue has no advantage. In fact, the rogue has only 1 or 2 class abilities that aren't situational.

I'm not saying the rogue is useless, or that it can't be good in some cases. I'm saying that the rogue is weaker than every other class, and it needs a boost.

[Doomsmile]

It's weaker in combat than the other classes. Let's keep that straight.
The bard is also traditionally weaker in combat than the other classes, but we agreed that bards are okay. Maybe there's more to D&D than fighting?

[Mercutio]

And it's power outside of combat can be done by other classes too. That's why it's weak. A bard can do better with diplomacy. A scout can do better with finding traps. A ninja can do better with stealth. A monk can do better with tumbling. Simply put, there is nothing that a rogue can do, that some other class can't compensate for and do at least as well as the rogue.

[Doomsmile]

The bard can (actually, he can't, but let's ignore that) do better diplomacy, a scout can (actually can't, but let's side-step that for now) find traps better than a rogue, a ninja can (got me there) hide better than a rogue, and a monk can (actually, he can't either, but let's not troble ourselves with that now) tumble better than a rogue- but none can do all of them better than the rogue- and at the same time.

[Linklegacy77]

The bard can do diplomacy better because he has spells to back him up with it. The rogue does not. And yes, the scout can do all those better at the rogue, at the same time. Same skill points, and other, more useful class features. (Don't get me wrong, the scout is still weak.)

My point is: The rogue's niche is skills, but he isn't the best at it. That's the problem. The rogue is one of the 4 primary roles that can be dealt with easiest if you are missing it. It's hard to compensate for missing a front-line fighter, a healer/support, or an arcane caster, but it's not that hard to compensate for the skill specialist. Sure, the rogue can be useful, but his skills are nothing in comparison to the features other classes get, and that's the problem.

And as I said, the bard has spells for diplomacy, the scout does it just as well if not better, the monk tumbles just as well if not better (don't forget, if the monk screws up, he's more likely to survive it). The problem comes from the rogue's niche being too easy to intrude upon. If it was more unique, then he'd be more valuable, but skills are universal: every class can take them.

[Doomsmile]

I think of sneak attack as a very unique ability, even if not everyone thinks its terribly impressive. Also, the scout isn't a fair comparison here because the point of the scout is an alternate rogue, much like the barbarian is an alternate fighter or the sorcerer is an alternate wizard. He's supposed to do what a rogue does! He is a rogue.

Also, though it can be easy to compensate for the lack of a rogue in the party if you're prepared to do so when generating the character, it isn't that hard to compensate for some of the elements you listed above. A mage can stand in for a front-line fighter easily if he's a summoner, a bard or rogue or warlock can stand in for the healer if the party springs for cure sticks, and an arcane caster can be made up for with a cleric. Some of these roles can be dropped entirely.

Let me elaborate: My IRL game (probing the World's Largest Dungeon) started with a rogue, a fighter, a cleric, and a warlock (a caster-like class that gains a very small number of at-will spell-like abilities as he gains levels). When we lost our cleric, we had to learn to prepare food ourselves (instead of purifying it), but not much else was the matter- our rogue, Slink, had use magic device (unlike my warlock at the time), so he used a wand of cure light wounds we found when someone was badly hurt. When Slink left, though, we found ourself in trouble: we began springing traps on ourselves left and right, and since no one else had taken search, open lock, or disable device, locked doors actually kept us out for several rounds while our tank smashed at it with his great sword and we rarely found secret passages and the like. We also lost Slink's unerring ability to scamper around to the other side of a monster and stab it for 3d6 damage- more than anyone but Theis, our tank, could muster.

Was Slink the most powerful character in our party? Not really- we picked up a nearly untouchable swachbucker, the warlock stayed pathetic (bad example), and Theis got pretty darned thumpy- but Slink was an essential part of our party, and we had a nightmarish time coping with his absence during that painful period nearly drove our swashbucker to pick up the scout class (y'know, the other rogue). And she would have if it wasn't for the multi-class penalty.

[Linklegacy77]

Of course the scout is fair game: it's another base class. The point that it is a variant rogue is irrelelvant, if it is better than the rogue (which it is, but not by much,) then it doesn't help the rogue's position, does it?

And a mage can't stand in for the front-line as easily as you think, and especially not at low levels. It takes a full-round to summon a monster, so while you're summoning, the enemy is attacking somebody in melee. Not a good situation for a wizard. Not to mention that all the monsters you summon are a bit below your CR. And note that I said healer/support. Nothing makes up for the loss of a support cleric. (I once had a level 10 who buffed the party so well, that he added an average of 80 damage to every party member per round)

Nearly untouchable swashbuckler? Do tell.

In a dungeon like that, sure, the trapfinding abilities are useful, but nothing you couldn't have gotten along without careful compensation. (There are so many ways around traps, I should know, ask my Mieller players how much I like traps).

Hell, even the spellthief is more useful than the rogue.

[Mercutio]

I think of sneak attack as a very unique ability, even if not everyone thinks its terribly impressive. Also, the scout isn't a fair comparison here because the point of the scout is an alternate rogue, much like the barbarian is an alternate fighter or the sorcerer is an alternate wizard. He's supposed to do what a rogue does! He is a rogue.But should he be better than a rogue? His precision damage is infinitely easier to qualify with, and he can do all the other rogue stuff.

[Doomsmile]

Actually, it isn't. He has to move 10 or more feet, which means he has to be entitled to a full round of actions and can't use his move action for something more productive and can't use it if he's mired, entangled, or something similar. And it's still percision damage, so it's not like he qualifies to use it against more targets than the rogue.
The scout also lacks many class skills that the rogue benifits from, I belive. I remember someone grumbling about his lack of Open Lock and Disable Device, and chances are he's also missing a great deal of other amusing rogue skills.

[Linklegacy77]

And the rogue and scout don't get an extra attack until level 8. And the scout gains immunity to being mired and entangled. The fact is that the scout can use it much easier than the rogue can also doesn't help the rogue. While SA is more powerful than Skirmish, the scout's other abilities are superior.

And the Scout was given Open Lock and Disable device in the errata.

But enough comparing to the scout. Does anybody disagree that the rogue is weaker than every other class?

[Doomsmile]

I do. There's more to the game than combat.

[elmer_jok]

Even given the lack of magic, a rogue makes a great soloist character. He doesn't do this by the way that all the other classes do, it's more about sneaking past the encounters for him than actually overcoming them through force. One of the best soloist campaigns I've ever been in was with a rogue, made it from 1st to 9th level before I was finally apprehended and put to death. I'd been caught before that at level 6 but I miraculously escaped.

[Linklegacy77]

Not as much from a mechanical perspective.

And as it has been shown, spellcasters don't need rogues. Rogues can be useful in out of combat situations, very useful in fact. But they aren't by any means necessary, and they aren't even that strong in out of combat. Any number of other characters can perfom better out of combat than the rogue can.

[Benicus]

I have played many a rogue and in combat they are fairly useless, especially if you have a good tank.

Link is right though, traps are easily avoided without rogues.

Skills is the Rogues niche, but it isn't a very good niche.

[Linklegacy77]

Are rogue's playable? Yes. Are they strong? Not in any way.

But if you say that rogue's are not the weakest class, so what would you say is the weakest class then?

[elmer_jok]

I'm trying to think what the party would have done if there wasn't a rogue to find, and disable the traps. Maybe have it's cleric use Find Traps, and fail, then stumble into the trap, get fucked up and be all that much weaker when it gets to the boss. In many adventures I've been in and DM'd rogues were Very essential and indespensible. What is the cleric going to do against the search DC 40 trap that he runs across? Stumble into it.

Although I guess I'd say rogues are the weakest class, in combat. But, by that note Fighters are the weakest class in diplomatic situations. Wizards are the weakest class when it comes to traps. Paladins are the weakest class in stealth encounters, etc. etc.

It's all in perspective.

The weakest class Overall though? I guess I'd say Barbarian. He's good in two situations, Fights and sometimes stealth. If he's built right. But mostly he's just an illiterate hack and slasher, without the benefit of the extra feats that a fighter has access to.

[Purple Lemon]

I never use anything outside of the core without much consideration and debate. I hate non-core spalts. I allow PHBII, DMGII, and the extra monster manuals, but not often.

The rogue is an excellent character. He can do anything. He's not the master of anything expect stealth, but he can do almost anything else without help from another class.

That in and of itself is an excellent 'class feature'.

Also, you guys metagame a lot. You're assuming that NPCs will have access to exactly what they need to be invincible. Sorry boys and girls, the world doesn't work like that.

[Doomsmile]

Rogues and bards make probably the best soloists. A cleric will eventually run into a situation that he hasn't prepared spells for, while a rogue or bard can just vanish and slink away. Or lie, and claim to be a lesser diety at the right levels.

[Mercutio]

Also, you guys metagame a lot. You're assuming that NPCs will have access to exactly what they need to be invincible. Sorry boys and girls, the world doesn't work like that.And you apparently don't understand the difference betweeen metagaming, and gaming. Metagaming would be going outside the roleplaying world. An NPC designed to counter the party is not metagaming. He does his research in game to learn about the players, and really, with gather info checks, divination spells, spies, etc, how hard is it for the NPC to know his enemies - especially if it's an ongoing fight with one main NPC?

No, NPCs ARE going to be specifically prepared to fight the PCs, otherwise not only are you as DM not dealing in versimilitude, you aren't really doing much more than a dungeon crawl. NPCs are tailored. Monsters are not run stock out of the books. I have a tough time with people who argue that tailoring encounters means metagaming, and that's exactly what you suggested.

[Purple Lemon]

I had a big lost post typed up, but I killed it by mistake.

Long story short, treat your villian's power levels with what you've seen in your players. Even with all the information in the world, you don't always get what you want. There isn't a one-stop magic shop that can outfit you with everything. There isn't a bloody K-mart in Praemael or Faerun or Greyhawk. You've gotta take what you can find, and sometimes it just isn't exactly what you were looking for. Good DMs make challenging, believable encounters. Taking one without the other is just stupid.

Also, Mercutio, learn to further your argument without defending yourself for an entire post. I read what you said and couldn't get past the part where you seem to be taking everything I say as a personal jab at your character.

Metagaming is using external, non-game world resources to further your position in the game world. Players can do it, and so can DMs. Poring through the DMG looking for the exact magic, weaponry, and equipment your villain needs to perfectly counter everything the PCs have is metagaming, and you should be ashamed.

Wait! Maybe you shouldn't! It is your game after all, and my game is my game. You just spent so much of your time in the last post trying to tell me how wrong I was that I didn't even bother to think about your side of the argument. Once again, learn to argue effectively and you'll have a lot more fun on the internet, and in life in general.

Rogues rock. They mostly roll, but they do a fair amount of rocking.

I also had a good point in the ill-fated previous post I wrote up about the rogue being effective even if all he does is make your enemy spend time and effort trying to counter his myriad abilities, but I forget the details and this has gone on long enough.

I await your inevitable riposte,

PL

[Linklegacy77]

NPC's who's power level is above any single member of the party so as to be a challenge, if they have a good intelligence score, are going to research their target whenever possible. Every time the PC's complete an adventure, they become more and more famous, and information about them becomes slightly easier to gain. Divination spells are easy enough to access, and will generally tell somebody all they need to know. NPC's with an intelligence of at least 14 are going to be prepared, no matter how you cut it.

You say the barbarian is the weakest? I'd say that the barbarian's mechanics are much stronger than the rogue's. Best hit die, full base attack bonus, 4+int skill points.... In fact, the barb has several of the rogue's class features, so it makes for a good comparison. Rage beats the crap out of Sneak Attack. Damage Reduction can be very helpful. The barbarian is the heaviest damage character in the game.

The rogue, as I've said, is useful. The problem is, the only thing the rogue has going for it, 8+int skill points, isn't very useful in comparison. Every class can put ranks into skill points. The bard has only 2 less, as does the ranger. Both can replace a rogue. Skills are good, don't get me wrong, but they aren't good enough. Spells are much better, and it goes on and on.

Rogue as a party member is not a valid argument, because it shows he relies upon other characters to be useful.

[elmer_jok]

But you're downplaying the usefullness of finding AND removing traps. Now, granted, I'm not taking into count the scout and ninja (who I see as just alternate flavored rogues) but, no other class can get around traps like a rogue can and in some adventures, that can be a real big problem.

Also, I've seen you tear apart the rogues myriad of special abilities, including saying that Defensive Roll is near useless? I'd say that's one of the top, but, just my opinion (after seeing it make me a very frustrated DM.) Evasion, while being not helpful in Every instance, does get used quite a bit in most adventures. Uncanny Dodge comes into play more often than you'd think and why not get up in melee? The rogue can and usually does have just a high of an AC as most fighters and the opportunist ability is another one that is great, especially when flanking your opponent.

Now I understand that at higher levels you have more of a chance to run into enemies that are immune to sneak attack, it still doesnt' happen all the time. I mean sure, the BBEG might have Fortification or Displacement, negating said sneak attack, but what about all his evil cronies? Is the BBEG really gonna have the resources to outfit everyone in his employ with fortified armor and/or displacement cloaks? As a player I really wouldn't mind I guess, I'd be rich after looting them.

It's also understandable mercutio that your BBEG should be intelligent enough and resourceful enough to investigate his enemies and make appropriate steps to counter the parties strengths, but like purple lemon said. No K-Marts in most places. In alot of instances he'll be lacking a thing or two that would make for a full-proof defense vs. the PC's. Now, I can see maybe at around epic levels running up against that all powerful evil guy that has all the tricks in the book up his sleave. But should that start from level 10 on? I'd think not. Rogues remain usefull through 20th level, and beyond if equipped right.

[Mercutio]

Also, Mercutio, learn to further your argument without defending yourself for an entire post. I read what you said and couldn't get past the part where you seem to be taking everything I say as a personal jab at your character.Whoa, whoa, whoa. Where in any of that post did I say anything "defensive" or indicate that I took your statements as "personal jabs"? I challenge you to find it in my post. You read into it what you wanted to read into it, externalizing your own thoughts on the matter.

Metagaming is using external, non-game world resources to further your position in the game world. Players can do it, and so can DMs. Poring through the DMG looking for the exact magic, weaponry, and equipment your villain needs to perfectly counter everything the PCs have is metagaming, and you should be ashamed.You should be ashamed to bring this to the personal level in insinuate in any way that I metagame based on a discussion of rogues. You want to bring it in the personal realm, lets do it through PMs and not lodge insults across a faceless bulletin board. You need to learn to keep your insults out of your posts.

I didn't tell you that you were wrong. I said I had a tough time when people come in and tell me that I'm doing things wrong. You want to point fingers? Look at your own first.

Let's take it to PM's now, shall we?

EDIT: And your definition of metagaming is EXACTLY the same as mine, is it not? Not sure where you get off thinking your horse is higher than mine.

Being lectured on internet discussions by someone with 14 post on this board. Please. I'm gonna go back and edit out the parts where I got angry, because it's obvious you can't separate your pompous attitude from your posts.

[Linklegacy77]

Traps? Very campaign specific, and very adventure specific. If your adventure doesn't have you going into dungeons, it isn't likely that you'll have to worry about traps. Traps aren't generally very common. (it just so happens that I love traps though, so in my games expect to see a few.) I think you are overestimating the usefulness of finding traps.

Defensive roll is unlikely to suceed, and isn't particularly useful. By the time you get it (level 10 minimum), it seems likely that any attack that would kill you would be too high of a DC for you to save against. Uncanny dodge is one of the better abilities, but they aren't the only ones to get it, and it doesn't benefit the rogue enough to make a difference. (that is, they aren't tough enough for it to save them. And why is opportunist great? By the time you get it, many enemies are immune to SA, and even worse, flanking is suicide.

And it is much easier to become immune to SA than you realize. Any caster you face should be immune. Any fighter with up to par wealth should be immune. Many monsters are immune (or resistant in one fashion or another). And if he's a big NPC, he'll get his hands on what he needs. He could in fact have a crafter on his payroll, which isn't that hard.

And I've shown before that clerics can be better than the rogue at everything, all the time.

[Purple Lemon]

I've been on this board a lot long than you think, Merc. And for the record, you were the one who first made a comment about me personally. Also, your entire post is in defense of what you already said. That's not furthering the argument. I did not make that up to make myself look good.

You also bring my post count into question. An arbitrary number. I've been around for 26 years, 17 of them playing dungeons and dragons. See how the two don't connect? It looks like you just brought it up to defend yourself again. If this board is a place where people with higher post counts automatically get favored, I'll go back from whence I came. Also, as I said, I existed here once before as a different screen name.

If you'd just make your point without directly accusing people of being wrong, you wouldn't have to sit through all this bullshit that happens right after people read something and react. Like this. Bullshit. I apologize, moving on.

I agree, our definitions of metagaming are exactly the same. I just wrote it in different words to see if you agreed. You do agree that DMs are capable of the same metagaming, right? That's all I'm saying. I just don't think it's kosher to have the antithesis of every single ability the PCs have, unless they've been around for a long, long time. When the PCs hit epic levels (15 or so), then everything that wasn't feasible before becomes feasible.

But I agree. We both got a bit angry. No need to PM insult back and forth. Let's move on, shall we? You don't like rogues and think the DM should impart his metagame omniscience to his villains, and I like rogues and think the DM should treat his villains much like normal player characters.

You read too much into what I said, and I read too much into what you said.

And I'll bet you ten bucks my horse is higher than yours. Check out all this weed, man.

[Doomsmile]

I think you're under-estimating the usefulness of finding traps, LL. Especially with bonehead PCs (which can either result from a stupid player or a good RPer), traps will tear up a party. I speak from personal experience, as both a DM and player.

Additionally, your assumption that everything at high levels is immune to sneak attack is fairly irroneous, unless you're in a game run by the kind of DM who enjoys making characters uselss and actively designs every encounter to screw all party members (I've seen DMs like that- the moment the wizard learns fireball, all manner of fire-retartdant creatures come flying in).
Sure, the villain may optimize against the rogue, but, if this game's a party game, the rest of the party can kick his butt (and why would he optimize against the weakest class?), while if it's a solo game, the villain never sees the rogue in the first place and dies after repeated and nightly doeses of ear poison.

Lastly, using the cleric to say the rogue's useless also makes the fighter, ranger, and virtually all similar classes useless by the same claim. We all agreed clerics are stupidly over-powered, remember?

[Purple Lemon]

See! Doomsmile, if I could I would buy you a drink. Well posted. I don't know why I can never say things like that without being an asshole about it.

[BigRedRod]

Mercutio, you seem to be taking this argument a little too personally. I also don't like post count snobbery.


I'd rather not make this the first locked thread in CY, keep it civil (and this goes for everybody), and try to avoid personal jabs (I understand that lots of stuff is subjective and comes down to DMing style). Be aware that tone is entirely lost when posting so things can come across in an unintentionally angry manner.

[akiko]

I can't stand people with over 8,000 posts. :D

I think rogues are underpowered but fun. That is all.

[Purple Lemon]

Yeah, sorry Mercutio. I get a little heated over things like that. Blame my philosophy major.

No one likes philosophers. :D

[Mercutio]

Now lest anyone else attack me for my opinion - despite EVERY flaw rogues have, I still play them to almost exclusivity because I love the rogue character and have played rogues since they were thieves in 1st edition AD&D. They are significantly MORE important now than they were then, and qualifying for sneak attack is still easier than backstab ever was, but they are still weak compared to other classes. A scout is an "optional rogue" sure, but he can do the job of the rogue just as well, and is a little bit better at areas the rogue sucks at. Still not great. The ninja is different flavor, but is essentially the same - a rogue variant that is actually better than the core rogue, even if only marginally so, such that you might be better off, if the sources are allowed, playing one of those character classes in preference to the rogue.

There, is that less attacking and more substance? Well, it's exactly what's been said at least two other times in this conversation.

BRR Edit: Removed a few inflamatory statements. Last warning to keep this one on topic.
Mercutio Edit: Noted.

[Linklegacy77]

Rogues are fun, I love 'em. That doesn't make them strong.

There are any number of other rogue options that are better, like the ninja, scout, beguiler, and spellthief. Just realize: trapfinding does not a character make. A class that can only find traps well is useless. Traps can tear a party apart if you don't have a trapfinder. Fine. Besides spells that can easily negate and locate traps, there are other ways as well. Even so, it is nice to have a rogue. That said, they are still weak. The whole point of this is that rogues need a boost. The problem is, in combat, rogues are virtually useless, and out of combat they are overshadowed by casters still.

The only thing rogue's have for a niche is a very bad niche to have, because every character intrudes upon it in some way.

[elmer_jok]

Any caster you face should be immune. Any fighter with up to par wealth should be immune.

I'd like an example of a level 3 wizard and a level 3 fighter (up to par wealth) that is immune. Hell, even a level 13 fighter might have a hard time at this. And sure, the wizard has spells that can make it immune at the higher levels, but are they always active - and if not, does that truly make them immune?

it seems likely that any attack that would kill you would be too high of a DC for you to save against.

An attack only needs to do about 12 or so hp's to kill you if you're low on hp's already, and there's plenty of examples of high CR creatures with low damage output (their strengths being wrapped up in resistances, immunities, and other spell-like abilities). Take that cryshmal we seen for example... CR 3 with less damage output than the CR 2 ogre.


that clerics can be better than the rogue at everything, all the time.


Sorry, I must have missed that. But, how is the cleric going to get his search check up to +20 and not expend any resources doing so? How is that cleric (through shear might of being a cleric) going to make himself unflankable? And, how is that cleric (again, not taking items into account, just by being who he is, with spells or such) going to be able to avoid all damage from nearly all reflex saves?

I'm starting to see how you may compare them to the other classes and call them weaker, but I'm personally still not seeing why they need to be beefed up in any way.

Lemon summed it up though in my opinion...


I just don't think it's kosher to have the antithesis of every single ability the PCs have, unless they've been around for a long, long time.


Edit: No, I wasn't cheating by looking up the cryshmal... it just so happened that I pored through the psionics section of SRD recently, wasn't it like 1d4+2-3? Something like that. Pretty low, but still CR 3.

[Doomsmile]

Now, you see, rogues aren't useless in combat at low- to mid-levels, and that's where the game matters for me. Ballance just curls up and dies at high levels. Even so, the rogue's wealth of skills and medium BAB makes it much easier for her to qualify for prestiege classes that can greatly increase her combat or stealth ability greatly, the way I see it.

[Linklegacy77]

Now, you see, rogues aren't useless in combat at low- to mid-levels, and that's where the game matters for me.

So you are justifying the usefulness of rogue's and avoiding the problem by saying that they are just fine in low levels and you'll never play higher levels? It seems to me that it needs to be fixed in order to make it playable at higher levels.

There aren't all that many good PrC's for a rogue to go into. The few that I particularly favor like Assassin take away from the rogue's greatest strength, skills.

Edit: No, I wasn't cheating by looking up the cryshmal... it just so happened that I pored through the psionics section of SRD recently, wasn't it like 1d4+2-3? Something like that. Pretty low, but still CR 3.

Rogues are alright at low levels, but they soon die out once you start hitting levels past 5. And the cryshmal is cr 3 because it can teleport and blast you with mind attacking powers.

I'd like an example of a level 3 wizard and a level 3 fighter (up to par wealth) that is immune. Hell, even a level 13 fighter might have a hard time at this. And sure, the wizard has spells that can make it immune at the higher levels, but are they always active - and if not, does that truly make them immune?

As I said, rogues are only good at low levels. Even so, it is still likely for them to have their behinds handed to them at low levels.

An attack only needs to do about 12 or so hp's to kill you if you're low on hp's already, and there's plenty of examples of high CR creatures with low damage output (their strengths being wrapped up in resistances, immunities, and other spell-like abilities). Take that cryshmal we seen for example... CR 3 with less damage output than the CR 2 ogre.

Right. At level 10, it is very common for attacks to only do 12 damage. I wouldn't count a cr 3 as a high cr creature.


Sorry, I must have missed that. But, how is the cleric going to get his search check up to +20 and not expend any resources doing so? How is that cleric (through shear might of being a cleric) going to make himself unflankable? And, how is that cleric (again, not taking items into account, just by being who he is, with spells or such) going to be able to avoid all damage from nearly all reflex saves?


Check the thread about clerics for how I did it. It really isn't that hard or complicated.

I'm starting to see how you may compare them to the other classes and call them weaker, but I'm personally still not seeing why they need to be beefed up in any way.

I'm glad you are starting to agree. Let's see if I can show you why they need to be beefed up.

The simple fact that spells and magic items replace the need for skills shows that the rogue's only niche is weak. Then, it gets worse. Every class can use skills, just not as many as the rogue. The bard can easily replace the rogue in a party, and is actually better than the rogue. (and people say the bard is weak?) What else does the rogue have going for him? Let's see here... SA is decent as far as it goes if your DM is nice enough about it, but overall it is very lacking. It is incredibly situational, very easy to defend against, and doesn't do much damage. Trapfinding is alright, but isn't particularly great. By the time you are facing DC 25+ traps, you'll have spells to bypass them. Trap sense is essentially useless. Evasion is good, but it doesn't occur enough to make a huge difference. Uncanny dodge is useful, but the rogue isn't even close to unique in gaining this. Some of the special abilities are good, but they aren't good enough to make up for the rogue's deficiencies.

[elmer_jok]

The strength in bypassing traps lies in a rogues ability to do so all day long. You're having to waste very valuable resources to bypass said traps and they're usually of pretty high level if you want them to have any real effect. Teleport works if you can see where you're teleporting to. Otherwise you're just taking a blind stab in the dark. Open Locks is very useful at higher levels as well. Sure, you can use spells to bypass this as well but again, you're using valuable resources to do so whereas a rogue can do it thousands of times a day. As far as the sneak attack, it has it's place in many adventures of high levels (10-15) and can even be useful at higher levels if the rogue is smart about it. Because alot of his abilities are defensive in nature he doesn't make that bad of a combatant (again, if he's smart about it.) Spring attack and boots of expeditious retreat go a long way, even at epic levels (unfortunately I learned that the hard way in my f2f campaign). I'd say that without caster support (which even the fighter needs at epic levels) the rogue falls apart like any other non major caster. No reason to fix him though unless you want to apply fixes to all the other non-caster classes as well.

If a fix was necessary in your game though, I'd focus on making a couple new special abilities to choose from, maybe even give him more special abilities at higher levels or something of that respect.

[Mercutio]

The strength in bypassing traps lies in a rogues ability to do so all day long.Yeah, but in your experience - how many trap encounters does a party face each day. How many social encounters, and how many combat encounters?

Traps are not present in many adventures. In fact, unless it's a dungeon crawl, most adventures don't have traps at all. And even in a dungeon crawl, how many traps do you typically face in one IC day? Maybe 2. By that point you've probably had at least 2, probably more like 4 combat encounters and now you need to rest. Only in an adventure that has a trap every five steps, is the limited resources things even going to come into effect. Quite frankly, it's like having 4+ Cha turn undead attempts in a dungeon that has 2 or three undead encounters. The other attempts are meaningless.

[Linklegacy77]

At higher levels, the casters will likely have a wand of knock, or be able to cast knock fairly easily. Or the fighter can just break the door down. No open lock necessary.

And yes, he does make a bad combatant. What about the rogue makes people think they can be good combatant? Is it the d6 hit die or the 3/4 BAB? The fact that the only combat abilities they get are SA which isn't even guarenteed useable in fights, and isn't a lot of damage even if you get it, and a few random defensive abilities which are dependant on who you are fighting?

Don't even mention epic, the only thing viable in epic levels are a few select melee builds (frenzied berserker?) and spellcasters.

And I'm talking about the rogue in general. They even fall behind fighters, who got some good unique feats in the PHB2 for higher level play.

[LeadPal]

Observation: Why would everyone care so much about becoming immune to sneak attack, when rogues are the least powerful of all characters and the least of anybody's worries anyways? I ran into this problem designing a character a while back: it came down to either spending my monies making my character more capable of fending off spells, or spending my monies becoming immune to critical hits. The later seemed more important... which ended up making SA one of my weaknesses.

As always, it's not that I disagree with the general consensus (rogues=worst)... it's just that I don't see the problem quite as starkly.