# Redundant Rogue Talents? And Major Magic.



## Friend of the Dork (Feb 12, 2011)

Hello

I was reading up on the Rogue class, amazed at the potential of their Arcana abilities. Sure it takes 4th level to get there but is anyone else impressed by the fact that Rogues can now get say Shield 2/day? And this for a class that often gets two-weapon fighting and sneak attacks... pretty awesome I would say at 4th level. There might be other more powerful spells out there but anyway I digress..

The issue is really the Rogue Talents themselves. One of the minor talents is called Combat Trick which allows any combat feat. But why then are there listed several other talents that allows a specific combat feat (Finesse Rogue for instance)?

Or is it maybe that each talent can only be taken once, thus you only get 1 1st level spell, 1 combat feat of your choise, or one... arh...

Ok after reading the rules fully I now realize there is indeed a limitation that you cannot select a talent more than one time, so this whole question is answered  oh well hope I'm not the only one that missed it. 

So.. so not to completely waste this topic.. what do you think of Major Arcana? Which spells would be awesome? A rogue with +1 chain shirt, 18 dex and Shield spell at lvl 4 has AC 23 for 4 minutes, 2 time per day... any way to easily beat that except with more magic items?)


----------



## satinder (Feb 12, 2011)

thats ridiculous the only way ive beat that at 4th level was a PFS bard/oracle with natures whisper mystery. You could even have that at level 3 if you use extra rogue talent from the APG.


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Feb 12, 2011)

satinder said:


> thats ridiculous the only way ive beat that at 4th level was a PFS bard/oracle with natures whisper mystery. You could even have that at level 3 if you use extra rogue talent from the APG.




Yes, it's pretty tough. There is a reason why martial characters usually don't get wizard/sorcerer spells... at least not in anything but scroll form. But here we are talking spell-like abilities which are basically innate magic (still provokes) which can be discreetly used in a suprise round or before an encounter. 

I thought people said the Rogue class was underpowered (compared to fighter, barb, ranger etc). in Pathfinder? I for one can see no evidence of that. 3.5 Rogue was a decent class, and the Pathfinder one seem to be the power-up version, just like all the other classes (possible exception of Monk).

I think maybe a small-sized cleric could beat it though: halfling cleric 3, +1 Breastplate, large shield, 16 dex+Shield of faith= 25 AC for 3 minutes. Of course that means using potential healing. but quite often Channel makes up for it. And a 4th level small fighter in full plate and +1 shield can get 25 AC right there and then, but that is to be expected. 

The only issue is that the Rogue is supposed to have lower AC.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 12, 2011)

Seems to me the rogue has always had UMD; a few Sp abilities just save you a little money and time. I'd still say the rogue is underpowered pending a major revision of sneak attack and the introduction of the medium save.


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Feb 12, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> Seems to me the rogue has always had UMD; a few Sp abilities just save you a little money and time. I'd still say the rogue is underpowered pending a major revision of sneak attack and the introduction of the medium save.




UMD costs money as you said. Although a couple hundred for a clvl 4 Shield might not sound much most characters won't use it unless they feel they have to. Also UMD requires a test and can have consequences if it fails. The DCs are fairly challenging on lower levels. Not to mention that you'd have to dig up a wand or scroll, meaning you can't hold anything else such as two short swords. 

The strength of the Rogue is not and has never been combat ability, for that it is the figher class that righfully dominates, and the other high BAB classes comes close by. 

No other class has the number of skill points and class skills of the rogue. Additionally no class is as good at detecting and disabling traps, locks etc.

Sneak attack is a decent attack ability that fits the flavor of the class and compensates a bit for a lack of spells, weapon proficiencies and full BAB. In fact it is even better than before because it can be used against Undead. 

What else do you think the Rogue needs? Win solo duels against equal level fighters?


----------



## Mojo_Rat (Feb 12, 2011)

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. unless the dm caters to allow for use of the rogues abilities they will fail at the o e area most players judge chatacters by combat.

it's probably not fair to judge them this way but that's how it goes the rogues low level a potential ac is at a price. to get it you have to spend 2 tricks which also means your spending a feat on finess. as opposed to a trick for finesse and bleeding attack.


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Feb 13, 2011)

Mojo_Rat said:


> 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. unless the dm caters to allow for use of the rogues abilities they will fail at the o e area most players judge chatacters by combat.
> 
> it's probably not fair to judge them this way but that's how it goes the rogues low level a potential ac is at a price. to get it you have to spend 2 tricks which also means your spending a feat on finess. as opposed to a trick for finesse and bleeding attack.




Sneak attack is bonus damage. Two-handed swords causes base damage. These two can be combined and a 1st level Rogue with 1 feat to get 3d6+ str bonus. 

What rogues do not get however is +1 BAB per level, d10 hp (they have d8 which is only average 1 less hp per level), and tons of bonus feat (they get tons of rogue abilities instead. 

And I really hope it's not true most players judge characters solely by their combat ability, if that's the case my respect for PF players drops considerably.


----------



## neofax (Feb 13, 2011)

Friend of the Dork said:


> And I really hope it's not true most players judge characters solely by their combat ability, if that's the case my respect for PF players drops considerably.



I guess then your respect drops for most combat oriented RPG systems players(1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5E, Pathfinder, 4E, MM, Hero...).  This is a least common denominator to measure classes by, right wrong or indifferent.  Do classes like the Rogue get the shaft in this respect, YES, but they are not damage dealers.  As long as you have a DM that understands the differences of each class and how to make them shine, the Rogue and other classes will look underpowered.  I play Rogues almost exclusively and enjoy the flavor of the class and the ability to be OK at just about everything the other classes do until the Wizard comes into their own around level 7-9.  I don't think Minor and Major magic are good rogue talents.  I would invest in wands and either max out my UMD or have the spellcaster use them on me when needed.  This is where the Rogue shines, scout ahead figure out the lay of the land and potential threats and come back buff up and party goes in and knocks some heads.


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Feb 13, 2011)

neofax said:


> I guess then your respect drops for most combat oriented RPG systems players(1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5E, Pathfinder, 4E, MM, Hero...).  This is a least common denominator to measure classes by, right wrong or indifferent.  Do classes like the Rogue get the shaft in this respect, YES, but they are not damage dealers.  As long as you have a DM that understands the differences of each class and how to make them shine, the Rogue and other classes will look underpowered.  I play Rogues almost exclusively and enjoy the flavor of the class and the ability to be OK at just about everything the other classes do until the Wizard comes into their own around level 7-9.  I don't think Minor and Major magic are good rogue talents.  I would invest in wands and either max out my UMD or have the spellcaster use them on me when needed.  This is where the Rogue shines, scout ahead figure out the lay of the land and potential threats and come back buff up and party goes in and knocks some heads.




Well I guess I'm just lucky since most player's I've played with in various systems have not been 100% roll-players. Even the Optimizers have valued classes such as Rogue because of it's non-combat abilities. 

And yes in the long run Major Magic is not worth it, as at later levels you can easily have a wand of shield and can afford a charge per combat. UMD will just get better all along. 

The ability will get better in low-magic or low-wealth campaigns though, and could be exceptional in certain situations. It's all very circumstantial though.


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Feb 13, 2011)

Major Magic is useful for things like Vanish. Exspecially if your gamestyle does not involve dungeon delving only.


----------



## satinder (Feb 13, 2011)

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


----------



## Mojo_Rat (Feb 13, 2011)

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 (Feb 13, 2011)

Mojo_Rat said:


> ...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 (Feb 13, 2011)

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


----------



## DumbPaladin (Feb 14, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> 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 (Feb 14, 2011)

Mojo_Rat said:


> 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 (Feb 15, 2011)

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 (Feb 15, 2011)

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 (Feb 15, 2011)

Mojo_Rat said:


> 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?



neofax said:


> 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. 



DocMoriartty said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Feb 15, 2011)

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.


----------



## neofax (Feb 15, 2011)

Friend of the Dork said:


> Just like the Fighter's weaknes is it's horrendous Reflex and Will saves. Why would the Rogue stand out here?




Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will(along with their Improved counterpart).  Rogues do not have the feats to pull this off unless they are willing to sacrifice other feats.  The best they can do is invest in Ioun Stones, Headbands/Belts, Cloak of Resistance or not be targeted in the first place.



Friend of the Dork said:


> 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.




The Rogue needs to invest on all his abilities as he is the skill monkey.  This is where they shine.



Friend of the Dork said:


> 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.




Fighter only needs to invest in Str and Dex.  Why would he need Con as he already has 1d10 HP and Fortitude is his best saving throw?  He would be better to invest in better armor in the long run.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 15, 2011)

neofax said:


> Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will(along with their Improved counterpart).  Rogues do not have the feats to pull this off unless they are willing to sacrifice other feats.  The best they can do is invest in Ioun Stones, Headbands/Belts, Cloak of Resistance or not be targeted in the first place.




Actually, a rogue with Iron Will and slippery mind is mathematically advantaged. Assume CR 15 and APL 15. A "good" base Will is +9, a "poor" is +5. Wizard and rogue both have average Wis in this example, and, oh, a +2 resistance bonus to saves. DC of the saving throw is 25. 

Wizard (+11 bonus) needs a 14 or better to succeed, or a 35% chance of success.
Rogue (+7 bonus) needs a 18 or better to succeed, or a 15% chance of success. but the chance of failing both saves is only 72.25%, which translates into 38.75% chance of success on at least one save. Further, every increase (such as Iron Will) helps the Rogue more.


----------



## Glade Riven (Feb 15, 2011)

DumbPaladin said:


> Little bit of a masochist, are we, Transbot?



It is possible...I am considering playing a character with two 9s and a 7 for core stats in the next game I play.

I enjoy making the hard cases work. My longest running character was a DEX-based Elf Paladin under 3.5, which most would consider far from optimal.

Granted, some ideas I have may depend on DM discresion - such as whether or not I can use the feat Martial Study from Bo9S to gain a martial maneuver or two (especially as a rogue talent), or whether or not I can take Combat Trick more than once so long as it isn't a duplicate feat (many of the rogue talents are combat feats anyways). Even limited to just Paizo material, though, there should be plenty of opportunity to make an effective combat rogue (effective being the key term, rather than dominant) between Core and AGP.

Plus, unless I have a DM that railroads everything into mostly combat encounters, I don't see an issue. Good Roleplaying can make up for anything.

On another note, I wouldn't be burning any feats on skills...as the rogue, I shouldn't need to. With limitations on how many skill points = level, a decent INT modifier and maxing out what I want shouldn't be a problem.

EDIT: Feeling Inspired


----------



## Walking Dad (Feb 16, 2011)

Mojo_Rat said:


> there are numerous threads on it. the rogue is probably the weakest class in the game.
> ...



I thought they agree in various threads that the monk is the weakest class. Not that I agree...


----------



## Jadeite (Feb 16, 2011)

The monk got brass knuckles and the Zen Archer archetype. The barbarian got some rather nice archetypes and rage powers. The rogue got the urban ranger which killed the rogue and took his stuff.


----------



## Glade Riven (Feb 17, 2011)

Should be interesting if it is rectified in Ultimate Combat...

Still, though, Brugar wants to know why he would want to Tank like a fighter. He just wants to stab people in the back and go through their pockets for loose change. And if the meat sheild wants to walk into a pit trap, that's his business.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Feb 17, 2011)

I still think Monk is the weakest class, though Rogue certainly is a close second.  Figures, they're my two favorite classes and archetypes. 

The only thing surer than those two being at the bottom is that no matter how definitively they suck, there will still be 5x as many "fix the fighter" threads regardless.


----------



## Jadeite (Feb 17, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> I still think Monk is the weakest class, though Rogue certainly is a close second.  Figures, they're my two favorite classes and archetypes.
> 
> The only thing surer than those two being at the bottom is that no matter how definitively they suck, there will still be 5x as many "fix the fighter" threads regardless.




Not to mention all the threads about bards being useless ...

In my opinion, rogues have two major flaws in Pathfinder:
1. They don't hit.
2. They aren't that good in stealth.
They were also very soft targets but with the change to offensive defense at least this problem got much smaller.

Any other class with a good or medium BAB has some ways to increase its chance of hitting. Some people could argue that rogues have the option to flank an enemy or catch him flatfooted, but any other character can do so, too, on top of their other bonuses.
So too fix the rogue, he'd need improved stealth to bring him on par with the ranger, as well as some rogue talents that increase his chance of hitting.


----------



## Walking Dad (Feb 17, 2011)

Jadeite said:


> ...
> 
> 1. They don't hit.
> 
> ...



 I like the Trailblazer solution. They give the Rogue the same attack bonus as a fighter in situations where he could do sneak attack damage. (That does not include more attacks for high bab.)


----------



## Particle_Man (Feb 17, 2011)

Jadeite said:


> Not to mention all the threads about bards being useless ...
> 
> In my opinion, rogues have two major flaws in Pathfinder:
> 1. They don't hit.




Hence the popularity of the sword of subtlety.  Especially since it can eventually be made into a +5 sword with an additional +4 bonus on sneak attacks (so a +9 sword, in a way).


----------



## Jadeite (Feb 17, 2011)

Particle_Man said:


> Hence the popularity of the sword of subtlety.  Especially since it can eventually be made into a +5 sword with an additional +4 bonus on sneak attacks (so a +9 sword, in a way).




Yeah, Swords of Subtlety are nice, although they aren't affordable until level 9 or so. Also there are people that don't allow further enchantment of specific weapons and armor.
Still one of the best specific magic weapons.


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Feb 18, 2011)

neofax said:


> Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will(along with their Improved counterpart).  Rogues do not have the feats to pull this off unless they are willing to sacrifice other feats.  The best they can do is invest in Ioun Stones, Headbands/Belts, Cloak of Resistance or not be targeted in the first place.
> 
> The Rogue needs to invest on all his abilities as he is the skill monkey.  This is where they shine.
> 
> Fighter only needs to invest in Str and Dex.  Why would he need Con as he already has 1d10 HP and Fortitude is his best saving throw?  He would be better to invest in better armor in the long run.




I've seldom seen Fighters invest heavily in Save feats. Usually their feats are all spent on combat, especially since so many good feats requires a bunch of others. Rogues also gets a few combat feats from their Talents now to help compensate. And after the few essentials (Improved Initative, Weapon Finesse, maybe Weapon Focus) they can spare a feat just like the fighter. Not that I would, I like to play characters with weaknesses. 

A Rogue that tries to be good at everything will probably be mediocre at best. They can get decent scout skills, or superb traps/locks skills, and are almost always good at stealth. Yes, someone with say 18 dex and maxed out Stealth is good and many monsters will have a hard time to spot him. 

Strength is probably the least useful stat for a skill rogue, and they don't need as much in mental stats as spellcasters do. The only thing they really need alot in is Dex really, the rest can be 12-14 with possibly one dump stat. The very successful combat rogue in my group has 7 charisma and he still makes do. 

A fighter with 18 str, 14 dex and 8 con is not very good. d10 is only one average more than the rogue's d8 and the Fighters usually needs tons of HPs to be able to tank effectively. A rogue does not need to tank effectively. Also a fighter limits himself by having less than 13 Int and will have weak Will save and perception by dumping wisdom. Cha is pretty much the only thing that is mechanically "safe" to dump, although many like to play charismatic leaders, good intimidators etc. as fighters. 

The only thing they have an advantage in save-wise is the bonus vs Fear, which is not so common or dangerous as other Will-attacks. The Rogue's Slippery Mind as mentioned is far better. And what does armor have to do with this? And having a good base save doesen't mean you want to dump Con, or the rogue could outdo you in fortitude saves! A 3rd level Rogue with 14 con will outdo a 3rd level fighter with 8 con. 

A fighter with good Con however will get a formiddable fortitude save (and those are important enough to invest in!), and more importantly HPs. I would probably never start a fighter with less than 12 Con, they simply would not last. 



Jadeite said:


> Not to mention all the threads about bards being useless ...
> 
> In my opinion, rogues have two major flaws in Pathfinder:
> 1. They don't hit.
> ...




1. They hit. Just not as often as Fighters. Or Barbarians when raging. Or Ranger's against favored enemies. Which is ok in my book as those classes are supposed to be better at fighting anyway. 

2. ? Compared to what? They even have a Talent that improves Stealth. Rangers are better in their "turf", and they are fairly equal in dungeons. Also, TWF rangers needs more strength to deal enough damage as they lack Sneak attack, so Rogues can pump more into Dexterity without loosing too much combat ability. 

And in any case anyone with Dex as prime stat and Stealth as class skill can become excellent at Stealth, the Rogue is no exception, and has the skill points to spare.


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Feb 18, 2011)

Regarding Rogue Stealth, don't understimate the power of Fast Stealth, as well the one of  talents like Ledge Walker used during stealth.


----------



## Mojo_Rat (Feb 18, 2011)

I don't see how rogues are bad t stealth. while o don't think they are the best class I feel this statement is a bit silly.


----------



## Jadeite (Feb 18, 2011)

No camouflage, no hide in plain sight. They are much better in stealth than they are in combat, but considering how stealth is their shtick, one would think they'd be the class with the best stealth options.


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Feb 18, 2011)

Jadeite said:


> No camouflage, no hide in plain sight. They are much better in stealth than they are in combat, but considering how stealth is their shtick, one would think they'd be the class with the best stealth options.




They have Camouflage, it's a talent from the splat book... AU? Check the SRD it's listed under Rogue. It's maybe not as good as Ranger one but it is still decent.

A ranger is potentially better, but only circumstantially so, or at very high levels. Not enough to judge a class by IMO.


----------



## Mojo_Rat (Feb 18, 2011)

as friend of the dork said, rogues get camouflage as a rogue talent. I don't t know that hide in plain sight is the necessary balance pivot for good stealth.

our current game is in mwangi expanse I had planned on a lvl 6 halfling rogue with a blowgun  with camouflage he would have been +21 or so to stealth and +11 when sniping. would it have been super badass? maybe not but his stealth was solid and likely would have been fun.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Feb 19, 2011)

Friend of the Dork said:


> They have Camouflage, it's a talent from the splat book... AU? Check the SRD it's listed under Rogue. It's maybe not as good as Ranger one but it is still decent.




They get a Talent *called* Camouflage, but is it most definitely NOT camouflage!

"Camouflage (Ex): Once per day, a rogue with this talent can craft simple but effective camouflage from the surrounding foliage. The rogue needs 1 minute to prepare the camouflage, but once she does, it is good for the rest of the day or until the rogue fails a saving throw against an area effect spell that deals fire, cold, or acid damage, whichever comes first. The rogue gains a +4 bonus on Stealth checks while within terrain that matches the foliage used to make the camouflage. This ability cannot be used in areas without natural foliage. Source: Advanced Player's Guide"

A weaksauce +4 bonus on stealth in a certain terrain until you inevitably get hit by an area effect so totally =/= Ranger's camouflage.


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Feb 19, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> They get a Talent *called* Camouflage, but is it most definitely NOT camouflage!
> 
> "Camouflage (Ex): Once per day, a rogue with this talent can craft simple but effective camouflage from the surrounding foliage. The rogue needs 1 minute to prepare the camouflage, but once she does, it is good for the rest of the day or until the rogue fails a saving throw against an area effect spell that deals fire, cold, or acid damage, whichever comes first. The rogue gains a +4 bonus on Stealth checks while within terrain that matches the foliage used to make the camouflage. This ability cannot be used in areas without natural foliage. Source: Advanced Player's Guide"
> 
> A weaksauce +4 bonus on stealth in a certain terrain until you inevitably get hit by an area effect so totally =/= Ranger's camouflage.




Sound's like camouflage to me. I never said it was the same ability.. note I say it is "not as good as the ranger one." And why is it inevitable that the rogue fails a save against a stated burst effect? The fact that you can get a bonus that can last all day is pretty damn decent if you ask me. 

The Ranger's Favored Terrain is hands down better. (Urban wtf??) But the point is that the Rogue does get some abilities to help improve their stealth, and can get good enough to sneak past most adversaries.


----------



## Jadeite (Feb 19, 2011)

The Ranger has better stealth abilities, better combat abilities, better spellcasting and a pet.
The only thing the rogue has is trapfinding and even that is available to the ranger (though getting it hurts is stealth potentials). And the difference in the combat abilities is extreme, by 20th level an enemy that the rogue needs a 20 to hit the ranger can hit on a 2 (Instant Enemy + Greater Quarry).


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Feb 19, 2011)

Jadeite said:


> The Ranger has better stealth abilities, better combat abilities, better spellcasting and a pet.
> The only thing the rogue has is trapfinding and even that is available to the ranger (though getting it hurts is stealth potentials). And the difference in the combat abilities is extreme, by 20th level an enemy that the rogue needs a 20 to hit the ranger can hit on a 2 (Instant Enemy + Greater Quarry).




No one is arguing that the rogue is better. Although.. these abilities you mention is not listed in the Ranger class, not sure where you found them. But Improved quarry (19th level) and high BAB (20th level) will make the Ranger more accurate, no doubt about it. And that's assuming it is not his favored enemy.


----------



## Jadeite (Feb 19, 2011)

Friend of the Dork said:


> No one is arguing that the rogue is better. Although.. these abilities you mention is not listed in the Ranger class, not sure where you found them. But Improved quarry (19th level) and high BAB (20th level) will make the Ranger more accurate, no doubt about it. And that's assuming it is not his favored enemy.




Ah, I was referring to Improved Quarry. Instant Enemy is a 3rd level ranger spell that lets the ranger treat a creature as one of his favored enemies.

The Pathfinder ranger wasn't that bad to begin with and still got much greater boosts in the APG than the rogue.
What's the point of the rogue if the ranger is that much better a what the rogue is supposed to do?


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Feb 19, 2011)

Friend of the Dork said:


> Sound's like camouflage to me. I never said it was the same ability.. note I say it is "not as good as the ranger one."




Good or not good is irrelevant.  One is a skill bonus.  The other *lets you use the skill when you normally could not*.  Apples to oranges.  The only thing the two have in common is the naming and the skill they relate to.  You said the rogue gets a weaker version of ranger's camo.  What they get is nothing at all like ranger's camo.  Do you understand the difference?



Friend of the Dork said:


> And why is it inevitable that the rogue fails a save against a stated burst effect?




Because area effects aren't always reflex saves?  Because they're fairly common, so even when it's Reflex, there's a good chance of failing eventually?



Friend of the Dork said:


> The fact that you can get a bonus that can last all day is pretty damn decent if you ask me.




Feats

It's +1 better but only in one type of terrain and with a chance of being lost.  Until level 10, when it's just plain worse.  Kind of reminds me of 3.5's Combat Casting feat and how it was a trap because for only 1 lower bonus, the (far from powerful itself) Skill Focus feat applied all the time without condition.



Friend of the Dork said:


> The Ranger's Favored Terrain is hands down better. (Urban wtf??) But the point is that the Rogue does get some abilities to help improve their stealth, and can get good enough to sneak past most adversaries.




Maybe, I don't know.  My experience has been that ever since Perception was turned into a *GOD* skill, by taking two already very good skills and one pretty good skill and bundling them all together, every single character has ranks in it, and half of the party is *very* good at it.  The fun thing about skills like Hide is that all it takes is one failure to make the entire exercise a failure.  Maybe Rogue gets enough to sneak past enemies, I'd hope so.  But I wouldn't want to try it without the party within 1 round's run action away.


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Feb 19, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Good or not good is irrelevant.  One is a skill bonus.  The other *lets you use the skill when you normally could not*.  Apples to oranges.  The only thing the two have in common is the naming and the skill they relate to.  You said the rogue gets a weaker version of ranger's camo.  What they get is nothing at all like ranger's camo.  Do you understand the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Now you're splitting hairs. My point was that the Rogue has something that improves it's Stealth, the aptly named talent called Camouflage. The ranger one's is basically Hide in Plain Sight that only works in a specific terrain. 

Does your Rogue really fail a save against one of the stated elemental forces every day? In the games I've played in these have been rare, and the Rogue is usually the one that manages to avoid it completely. 

Skill focus isn't bad but it's a feat.. which it has been pointed out repeatedly that Rogues have fairly few of. CC is another matter as both are feats and thus expected to be balanced.


----------



## Kaisoku (Feb 19, 2011)

I think some of you might want to qualify what your stating.

"Bad at Stealth" implies "bad at stealth in general". Which is absolutely false for the Rogue. He can get a very high check for Stealth, and perform stealth actions with less penalties/faster.

"Bad at entering stealth in combat" is probably what you meant, which is by no means the "only" yardstick for measuring Stealth effectiveness.

Rangers are great _in their chosen terrain_. Which is pretty limited until you get to much higher levels (typically 1 to 2 for most APs, maybe a third right at the end). If you actually look at it, they don't even get Hide in Plain Sight until after most APs finish (17th vs ~15 for most APs). Even Camouflage is nearing the tail end of most APs at 12th level.
And when they aren't in their terrain, they are pretty much as good as anyone who might have it as a class skill, that's it. And there isn't a spell to alleviate this like there is for Favored Enemy.
Also, the Ranger can (and probably will) wear Medium armor, since unless he's specifically ranged focus, he's going to need the armor for up close encounters. Likely a higher check penalty in the earlier levels.

Rogues have a multitude of bonuses to stealth between archetypes and talents, and they can get them early on in the game (like 1st-3rd levels).
And if you really, really, REALLY need that "in combat" effectiveness, getting one level of Shadowdancer (a primarily rogue prestige class) gives you a _more universal_ version of Hide in Plain sight, long before the Ranger ever gets it (say, 7th level instead of 17th).

To say that the Rogue "isn't good at stealth" is narrow minded and misleading.


----------



## Glade Riven (Feb 21, 2011)

Rereading a few rules lead to a rather interesting discovery...Rogues can sneak attack with spell trigger items (wands, staves, etc). So flank your foes and whip out the wand of scorching ray to watch them burn. Sure, there's a UMD you can't take 10 on (although, at high enough levels + _Magical Aptitude_ can make it so that rolling a 1 still works), but it's a range touch attack. Whether or not a level dip into a wiz or sorcerer is worth using wands without a UMD is a personal choice.

Mmmm...I love the smell of napalm in the morning...

As far as being out-stealthed, there's magical help for that (either from an allied caster or a UMD check) at higher levels.


----------



## Volaran (Feb 21, 2011)

That is true, regarding spell-trigger items and sneak attack.  Our party rogue in EN Publishing's War of the Burning Sky regularly kept a CL5 wand of Shocking Grasp (I think later supplemented by an inflict wand of some sort, and a wand of scorching ray) as alternatives to use when he could not perform a full attack action, or when DR would prevent him from doing meaningful damage.


----------



## Jadeite (Feb 21, 2011)

A wand of scorching ray would cost 90 gp per shot. Also, even a commoner would be good at stealth if buffed by others. Certainly, a rogue would be better, but than, a buffed ranger would be better than the rogue.

Concerning the shadow dancer, to become better at stealth the rogue has to stop being a rogue. Yes, that certainly will show how awesome the class is at stealth.

If you want a good stealth class that isn't a ranger, take a look at the ninja. Might as well be renamed rogue done right.


----------



## Volaran (Feb 21, 2011)

If a wand of scorching ray is too expensive for you, unless you happen to find one in the field, (and certainly at low levels, that makes sense) a wand of ray of frost or acid orb clocks in at a much more reasonable 375gp (or 7.5 gp per shot).  

Granted, neither spell deals as much damage on their own as scorching ray, but both are still energy damage, and allow you to add your full sneak attack.  Acid orb even bypasses spell resistance, so remains useful against just about anything that isn't immune to acid.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Feb 21, 2011)

Jadeite said:


> If you want a good stealth class that isn't a ranger, take a look at the ninja. Might as well be renamed rogue done right.




PF has a Ninja class now?  And it's plainly better than Rogue?  That would be a complete 180 from how things went down in 3.5!


----------



## Jadeite (Feb 21, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> PF has a Ninja class now?  And it's plainly better than Rogue?  That would be a complete 180 from how things went down in 3.5!




http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy8igw

The ninja is okay, although it might be nerfed because people are complaining it's stronger than rogue or monk (it is, but I don't see that as a bad thing).


----------



## Jadeite (Feb 21, 2011)

By the way, you can't flank with a wand (unless you plan to stab your enemy with it as an improvised weapon).


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Feb 21, 2011)

Jadeite said:


> The ninja is okay, although it might be nerfed because people are complaining it's stronger than rogue or monk.




Then it's doomed. 

(I might actually try and read it later, if I have time)


----------



## TanisFrey (Feb 21, 2011)

Jadeite said:


> By the way, you can't flank with a wand (unless you plan to stab your enemy with it as an improvised weapon).



I can see a rouge flanking an enemy with a wand in one hand and a weapon in his other.  Now, he threatens the foe with the weapon and AOOs but, chooses to use the wand for his primary attack each round.  The rouge just needs to deal with the AOO he will provoke for using the wand in melee.


----------



## Glade Riven (Feb 21, 2011)

Well, I never said there weren't risks...and if your turn is before the bad guys on the first turn, kaBLAM! Flat-footed toasty toast. Assuming you make the UMD roll. And the range-touch. Which, you should if they are flat-footed as well.

As far as the Ninja goes, if the rogue can get in on some of that action the way a ninja can use rogue talents, the class could be seeing a decent boost with Ultimate Combat.


----------



## Jadeite (Feb 21, 2011)

Yeah, Ultimate Combat might certainly help the rogue. After all, Barbarians, Rangers and, to a certain extent, even monks got much better. There's no reason the rogue might not get a similar boost in usefulness, except of course the notion of the game's designers that the rogue is fine at it is.

And no, you can't flank with a ranged weapon, even if you happen to threaten the target with a different weapon. Unless you're a Zen Archer, of course.
Shocking Grasp or Chill Touch might work, though. Still rather pathetic.


----------



## Volaran (Feb 21, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> Well, I never said there weren't risks...and if your turn is before the bad guys on the first turn, kaBLAM! Flat-footed toasty toast. Assuming you make the UMD roll. And the range-touch. Which, you should if they are flat-footed as well.




Indeed.  The wand would get more use for sneak attack under circumstances where the target is denied their dex bonus (first turn against an opponent that hasn't gone, or any situation under which the opponent is unaware of the rogue,  etc.), which is really no different than any other circumstances in which you use a ranged sneak attack.

I'm pretty sure you can benefit from an opponent being flanked when you are using a wand with a melee touch spell (shocking grasp, inflict light wounds, etc.)



			
				The PRD said:
			
		

> When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.




I could not find anything in the descriptions of flanking, or touch spells that would prevent you from benefiting from this.  When using a melee attack (which should include a melee touch attack), flanking is more about making sure your ally is on the opposite boarder/corner at the time of the attack.  Granted, once the touch spell was delivered, you would not be threatening the creature (unless you had a melee weapon drawn as well), and would not provide flanking bonuses to your ally.


----------



## Glade Riven (Feb 21, 2011)

Jadeite said:


> ...Unless you're a Zen Archer, of course...




Odd, I'm not seeing it in my copy of the AGP...


----------



## Jadeite (Feb 21, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> Odd, I'm not seeing it in my copy of the AGP...







> Reflexive Shot (Ex): At 9th level, a zen archer can make attacks of opportunity with arrows from his bow. The monk still threatens squares he could reach with unarmed strikes, and can still only make one attack of opportunity per round (unless he has Combat Reflexes). This ability replaces improved evasion.




This should allow the monk to flank with his bow since he threatens adjacent squares.


----------



## Glade Riven (Feb 22, 2011)

But it isn't flanking at range. Point Blank Shot covers using a range weapon while flanking, but flanking is a status that requires being in the foe's personal space by being adjacent to.

So you can use your bow when they move right next to you. That's not the same thing as shooting someone that moves within range of your bow.


----------



## Jadeite (Feb 22, 2011)

Never implied anything else. A Zen Archer can flank someone with a bow if he's next to him. A rogue with a wand can't (even if he has a short sword in his other hand).


----------



## Volaran (Feb 22, 2011)

Jadeite said:


> Never implied anything else. A Zen Archer can flank someone with a bow if he's next to him. A rogue with a wand can't (even if he has a short sword in his other hand).




Please provide a rules citation for this.



			
				Zen Archer said:
			
		

> Reflexive Shot (Ex): At 9th level, a zen archer can make attacks of opportunity with arrows from his bow. The monk still threatens squares he could reach with unarmed strikes, and can still only make one attack of opportunity per round (unless he has Combat Reflexes). This ability replaces improved evasion.




This is a very handy class feature, but does not specifically indicate that a zen archer monk can suddenly flank with his bow.  It indicates that the monk can take attacks off opportunity with his bow, and indicates that he is considered to be flanking opponents with his unarmed strike.  This is an important notation because the monk's unarmed strikes are not restricted to his hands



			
				 Monk Class said:
			
		

> Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.




Because the monk threatens with his whole body, it means that he can hold a weapon like a bow in both hands and and still threaten (and attack) with his feet, or other body parts.  The Reflexive Shot ability simply means that he can take of opportunity with his bow, not that he gains flanking benefits when making a ranged attack.  

As noted previously:



			
				PRD Combat Section said:
			
		

> Flanking
> 
> When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.




Nothing in the Reflexive Shot ability (or the Point Blank Master feat, which the Zen Monk also gets for free) has phrasing that says their bow is considered a melee attack.  It simply gives them greater versatility for using a ranged weapon in close quarters.

Would you be able to provide a specific listing to suggest that cannot use a wand with a touch spell in a flanking situation?  As indicated in the flanking rules, it is important that your ally be threatening the opponent at the time of your melee attack.  I was not able to find a rule in the flanking section, or the section on touch spells to suggest that this was somehow excluded.

Similarly, I was not able to find something to suggest that you would not threaten with your primary weapon (a sword for example) even if you were activating a wand with your other hand on that particular round.  If you have a rules reference there, I would also appreciate it.


----------



## Jadeite (Feb 22, 2011)

Volaran said:


> Please provide a rules citation for this.
> Similarly, I was not able to find something to suggest that you would not threaten with your primary weapon (a sword for example) even if you were activating a wand with your other hand on that particular round.  If you have a rules reference there, I would also appreciate it.




It's in the rules you quoted yourself. You only flank while making melee attacks. While you would still provide a flanking bonus to others, a ranged attack with a ray would not count as flanking and therefore be unable to get the bonuses from sneak attack unless the target were denied his dexterity bonus.
Since activating a wand of scorching ray is a standard action, the rogue might try to use his melee weapon to feint. He might even make a 5ft step after feinting to avoid the attack of opportunity for ranged attacks.
Still pathetic and expensive.
You seem to be right about the Zen Archer, however.


----------



## Volaran (Feb 22, 2011)

Jadeite said:


> It's in the rules you quoted yourself. You only flank while making melee attacks. While you would still provide a flanking bonus to others, a ranged attack with a ray would not count as flanking and therefore be unable to get the bonuses from sneak attack unless the target were denied his dexterity bonus.
> Since activating a wand of scorching ray is a standard action, the rogue might try to use his melee weapon to feint. He might even make a 5ft step after feinting to avoid the attack of opportunity for ranged attacks.
> Still pathetic and expensive.
> You seem to be right about the Zen Archer, however.




This may be the source of my confusion. 



			
				Jadeite said:
			
		

> Never implied anything else. A Zen Archer can flank someone with a bow if he's next to him. A rogue with a wand can't (even if he has a short sword in his other hand).




Reading back, I can see that you were referring specifically to wands using a ranged touch attack, such as scorching ray, as per statements made by Transbot9.  Out of context, it looks like you were referring to all wands.  Sorry for the confusion.

I was referring to a melee touch attack with a wand, such as inflict light wounds, or shocking grasp.  Melee touch attacks can be used when you flank an opponent, and so these wands would be valid for flanking sneak attack use, and would be significantly less expensive than a wand of scorching ray.

Primarily, I find a rogue using one of these wands in melee useful under two circumstances.

1. Opponent has high AC, where a touch attack can much more reliably hit, even in a situation where a rogue might be giving up an iterative attack to use it.

2. Opponent has DR (particularly high DR) where energy damage would more reliably be bypassing this than the rogue's melee weapon.

Obviously, there are situations when this tactic is particularly weak as well, such as against opponents with spell resistance.

I do believe that ranged touch attack do also have their place for the rogue, but they would certainly not get them in flanking situations.  You'd more often get use out of this in situations like a surprise round, invisible rogue, or other cases where a ranged sneak attack would apply.

Again, you are correct in that a wand of scorching ray might be too expensive to invest cash in specifically for this tactic, but the rogue will continue to get mileage out of a wand of ray of frost or particularly acid orb (since it ignores SR) long after anyone else in the party, and those are pretty affordable.

For higher level wands that use melee or ranged touch spells, certainly the rogue may get better use out of them than a wizard or sorcerer if they find one in the field, but it may not be the best use of crafting time.


----------



## Jadeite (Feb 22, 2011)

Chill Touch would be better than Shocking Grasp for this purpose. With a CL 5 wand Chill Touch, you get a lot more touch attacks than Shocking Grasp would grant, making it more cost effective. Might even be worth the Major Arcana Rogue Talent since that's also a prerequisite to the Dispelling Greater Talent. By 20th level, you could deal 20 touch attacks per day.


----------



## Volaran (Feb 22, 2011)

Oh, that's a good point.  I think you might even get iterative touch attacks on subsequent rounds of use.  Good catch!


----------



## Glade Riven (Feb 22, 2011)

Wand of Inflict (light, moderate, serious, critical). Other touch spells. In fact, since you can hold touch spells, a rogue could cast it while moving into position, then BLAM! Sneak attack with the hand of death. Avoids that attack of opportunity completely. Vampiric Touch would be a nasty combination with Sneak Attack.

For the flat footed, Range Touch would work fine.


----------



## Jadeite (Feb 22, 2011)

A Wand of Cure Moderate Wounds would be inefficient. Wands of higher level would be even more inefficient. For the price of a Wand of Cure Moderate Wounds you could get a Wand of Chill Touch of 6th CL, allowing six touch attacks.
Unless the difference between normal AC and touch AC is greater than 20, you are usually better of with a Wand of True Strike. You also have no problems with SR that way.
Vampiric Touch is nice, but very expensive. With Wands more expensive than 750 gp, Chill Touch tops everything.


----------



## Glade Riven (Feb 22, 2011)

I dunno, being able to heal without the cleric can be handy. Oh, um, if you mean _inflict_...inefficiant, maybe, but it does increase the effectiveness of the rogue - at least in a few more situations.


----------

