# How do your rogues get their sneak attacks in?



## Dykstrav

Just like the title says, how do the rogues in your game go about getting their sneak attack damage?

I've seen a great deal of confusion about flanking at home games and Pathfinder Society games over the past year or so. For whatever reason, there is a perception that "flanking" is a condition that an enemy suffers rather than a bonus type that an attacker gets to their attack roll.

It usually goes a little something like this...

*Fighter:* _"I move into position opposite of the cleric--now we flank the ogre."_

*GM:* _"Cool, what's the rogue doing?"_

*Rogue:* _"I drop my shortsword and pull out my bow, then shoot the ogre! If a 19 hits, that's 15 points of damage with my sneak attack."_

*GM:* _"How are you able to get a sneak attack on it?"_

*Rogue:* _"It's flanked."_

*GM:* _"Right, the fighter and the cleric flank it--_you_ don't flank it. Flanking isn't a status effect that two attackers impose on a target, it's a circumstantial type of bonus to attack rolls."_

*Rogue:* _"What? That's not right, it's right here..."_ (flipping through book) _"Huh. That's not the way that my last GM played it."_

*GM:* _"Yeah, that's the way Pathfinder works--sneak attack isn't a carte blanche to gain the damage output of a barbarian at range. It's supposed to represent an underhanded, vital strike, the reason why it's bad for a rogue to catch you unawares. Rogues aren't really designed to stand up to a fighter or barbarian in a straight matchup."_

*Rogue:* _"Oh, then my character is useless because I can't gain this circumstantial bonus on every single attack that I make."_

Do your players rely on flanking and build their rogues for melee? Do they go for skills, using Bluff or Stealth? Do they ask for _invisibility_ form the sorcerer?

Also... Do you have players that view their sneak attack damage as their "thing?" Do they get upset if they can't gain their sneak attack damage on every single attack that their rogue makes?


----------



## Stormonu

As GM, I use the sneak attack rules as presented in the book (flanking only applies to those in the correct position).

Our rogue player isn't in it for the combat.  She plays the rogue for the mischief - picking locks, disarming traps, scouting ahead secretly and misdirecting NPCs.  She is hesitant to get into combat, has to be reminded/directed to look for flanking opportunities and often forgets how many sneak attack dice she has to roll (she's been rolling 1d6 for 3 levels now, the group and I kept wondering why her sneak attack was so lousy).

Sneak attack, like all other combat abilities, is only as important as combat is to the group.  Most of my group is around for the storytelling bit and though they don't abhor combat (though my wife does absolutely loathe combat and is the group healer), they certainly aren't seeking every niggling bonus they can get.  They seem to be more interested in unusual and somewhat whimisical combats than how much DPS they can eke out. (One of our last combats, for example, had the fighter using his sword like a golf club to knock a goblin out of a 2 story tower into the fight below to dismount a goblin riding a dog that was threatening the halfling rogue - he succeeded, and actually knocked the dog rider off the adjacent cliff; a "hole in one", if you will).







---------------------
However, your example has made me rethink this to making Flanked a condition.  I.e., once at least one individual moves into a flanking position, everybody can get in on the party - after all, once you're flanked, there's _someone_ whom you're going to drop your attention on).


----------



## Systole

Incoming rant from [MENTION=35909]StreamOfTheSky[/MENTION] .


----------



## StreamOfTheSky

Systole said:


> Incoming rant from [MENTION=35909]StreamOfTheSky[/MENTION] .




Try to win initiative and end the fight on round 1 before the enemy can go so you "always sneak attack."

Flank in melee and probably die.

Beg the arcanist for Greater Invisibility and hope the enemy doesn't have true seeing

Beg the arcanist to use grease and ready a shot against the foe each round on its turn, since PF made it so creatures are only "balancing" on their turn and thus screwing ranged rogues out of a formerly reliably source of full attack SA.

Spend a crapton of feats on the Shatter Defenses line and wait till level 9 for it to all actually come on line (level 7 if you're willing to dip [insert full BAB class 3] instead of single classed rogue), and even then only on things both vulnerable to SA and fear.

Dip Water Mystery Oracle for Water Sight and shoot a bow from the center of Obscuring Mists so you can see just fine but the enemy can't see you at all.

No need for a rant, those are literally like the only ways at all to get sneak attack every round in PF.  If the small size of that list and cheese required for some of them doesn't make the point that SA sucks in PF, I don't know what will.


----------



## Volaran

Dykstrav said:


> Do your players rely on flanking and build their rogues for melee? Do they go for skills, using Bluff or Stealth? Do they ask for _invisibility_ form the sorcerer?
> 
> Also... Do you have players that view their sneak attack damage as their "thing?" Do they get upset if they can't gain their sneak attack damage on every single attack that their rogue makes?




None of the Pathfinder players I've GMed for have built a rogue with combat as their main priority, and I've never had any 'Why can't I sneak attack all the time?' complaints either. They've understood that sneak attack is situational. 

As for when they _do_ use sneak attack, it varies. Some have been content to run in when another character in melee already has someone flanked. Others have focused on spring attacking when they can. Still others make use of move/hide tactics with ranged weapons, which means that they're only ever attacking once every few rounds until they can effectively snipe. As you mention, synergy with other party members opens up more options later (invisibility, improved invisibility,).

If your rogue players want to play a rogue-like character that is much more combat focused and just wants to do a lot of damage per round, they may find themselves more satisfied with a ranger, a multi-classed fighter/rogue, or even a straight fighter with some of his extra feats geared to rogue-ish non-combat things.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Rogues in my campaigns are typically there to be, you know, rogues, and not combat machines.

They will often get their sneak attack in on the first round of combat, typically at range. After that they remain mobile - be it a spring attack or a five foot step. Popping off a shot as needed, but not trying to beat the fighters at their own game.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Friend of the Dork

Systole said:


> Incoming rant from [MENTION=35909]StreamOfTheSky[/MENTION] .






StreamOfTheSky said:


> SNIP!




LOL! You proved his point Stream 

Anyway, flanking is the most reliable way to gain sneak attack, so that's what the 10 str Rogue in my game does. That means he is fairly useless sometimes, and he is of course more vulnerable than some, but not quite as useless as our Bard. Invisibility and stealth also helps, but are more circumstantial. And yes, he does rely on SA and will always try to flank if he can. He doesn't outdamage the martial characters, but he does ok. 

But anyway the OT has been answered, you cannot sneak attack someone just because they are being flanked by someone else, never has been even since 3rd edition D&D. The player read it wrong.


----------



## DragonLancer

Players in my games tend to go for combat rogues using either rapiers or two-weapon fighting. They expect to get a SA on the first round while the enemy is FF, and then expect the other party members to get into combat so they get the flanking bonuses.


----------



## N'raac

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Try to win initiative and end the fight on round 1 before the enemy can go so you "always sneak attack."
> 
> Flank in melee and probably die.
> 
> Beg the arcanist for Greater Invisibility and hope the enemy doesn't have true seeing
> 
> Beg the arcanist to use grease and ready a shot against the foe each round on its turn, since PF made it so creatures are only "balancing" on their turn and thus screwing ranged rogues out of a formerly reliablysource of full attack SA.






StreamOfTheSky said:


> No need for a rant, those are literally like the only ways at all to get sneak attack every round in PF. If the small size of that list and cheese required for some of them doesn't make the point that SA sucks in PF, I don't know what will.




First off, I don't expect to get Sneak Attack every round.  I do note that it is the rogue's main combat ability, so inflicting significant damage requires Flanking.  Maybe I come from a different perspective, but IMO Flanking and other approaches to get Sneak Attack are vastly easier to achieve than Backstabbing prior to 3e.

Why would my melee teammates be opposed to setting up a Flank?  They get a bonus to hit, and they enhance - considerably - the team's damage output.  Our first 3e game, we didn't analyze the changes, we just played the game.  After a few sessions, probably about 5th level, we noticed two thing.  First, Sneak Attack was pretty effective, and not hard to set up.  Second, the Fighter working his way up to Whirlwind Attack was pretty mobile (so was the Monk), so setting the Rogue up to sneak attack was a very viable combat strategy.

A Summoned Monster is another easy way to help the Rogue flank, but we had no summoner in that game.

"Beg the Arcanist"?  Isn't it the spellcaster's job (and the rest of the team's, for that matter) to work to making the team more effective?  The Arcanist never has to beg the other PC's in our group to drop everything if he's engaged in melee - he's an eggshell, and we need his spells supporting the melee combatants.

Our Rogue normally fired off an arrow (later a volley) with initiative, then moved in to flank (by which time the Fighter had normally Spring Attacked into a position that facilitated a sneak attack, often with full use of Combat Expertise so he was tough to hit - one attack at full BAB can suck up some hefty penalties and generally hit, and really the point was to get sneak attack damage, not to get one hit by the fighter).

PC teams are powerful because they bring disparate abilities together and generate a whole which is much greater than the sum of its parts.


----------



## Epametheus

In our Kingmaker campaign, our rogue was played by an idiot, but my paladin who had fantastic maneuverability (she had spring attack, she'd dipped 2 levels into bard for Versatile Performer (Dance), and eventually had Wings of Flying) would go through a bit of risk to make sure the rogue got his flanking.  Enemies simply died if the rogue got his sneak attack on them.

In Serpent Skull, our team's favored cheesy tactic to give my rogue ranged sneak attack was Tiny Hut, a.k.a. "the Sniper Blind".  Yeah, enemies could get around that by just making it into the hut -- but that required actually making it past the frontline.  Also, sniper goggles are an amazing item.

Otherwise, my rogue would wade into melee, take the hits, and dish it out. He had started as a melee build (20 pt buy half-orc rogue who started with 16 str, 16 dex, 12 con, 14 int, 10 wis, 8 cha), but shifted over to ranged combat as the campaign wore on.  (Yes, his will save was terrible; his terrible will save was a running joke the entire campaign.)

Also, don't knock the "winning initiative and ending the fight on round 1" bit - there were a number of fights where I did just that over the course of the campaign.  

Anyways, if you're a rogue in a party where people don't coordinate or work together, your experience will suck.  If you're in a party that actually functions as a team, you'll do great.


----------



## Madeiner

I don't know if Pathfinder changed the rules, but i believe that:

You are correct that "Flanking" is not a status effect; but a creature that is Flanked, also loses his dexterity bonus to AC.

Rogues can sneak attack creatures that are denied their dexterity bonuses to AC.

Net effect is that a flanked target can be sneak attacked by any rogue with a bow within 30 feet (i think that's the correct distance for a ranged sneak attack)


----------



## Friend of the Dork

Madeiner said:


> I don't know if Pathfinder changed the rules, but i believe that:
> 
> You are correct that "Flanking" is not a status effect; but a creature that is Flanked, also loses his dexterity bonus to AC.
> 
> Rogues can sneak attack creatures that are denied their dexterity bonuses to AC.
> 
> Net effect is that a flanked target can be sneak attacked by any rogue with a bow within 30 feet (i think that's the correct distance for a ranged sneak attack)




Sorry, wrong before and wrong again. Read up on the rules about sneak attack:
Rogue - Pathfinder_OGC

Notice it says "when the Rogue flanks her target."

You can also check the flanking rules and see you can't flank with a missile weapon. 

That's why melee rogues are generally better than ranged ones.


----------



## Noir le Lotus

Usually as a rogue, I : 

- try to win initiative and with quickdraw throw daggers to a maximum of flat footed targets in the surprise & 1st rounds.
- take any opportunity to have a sneak attack on victims of my spellcaster teammates (Glittering Dust, Hold Person) and encourage them to use this kind of spells.
- work with the main melee fighter to gain flanking.

You should note that I placed cooperation with fighter in 3rd place for a good reason : rogues are squeashy !! So going to melee flanking is really dangerous against very strong foes, you must use this tactic with caution : you are more useful to the team dealing 1D6+1 each round for 10 rounds than dealing 6D6+1 in 1 routine and dying in the following round. Against weaker foes, you can go get flanking without problem.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky

Friend of the Dork said:


> That's why melee rogues are generally better than ranged ones.




You forgot to put "...in Pathfinder." at the end of that sentence.  In 3E, low level ranged rogues could get easy full attack SA with the wizard just using a wand of grease for them.  By mid levels, they had ring of blinking and were always sneak attacking.  Ranged rogues worked fine in 3E, this is only a PF problem.


----------



## am181d

StreamOfTheSky said:


> You forgot to put "...in Pathfinder." at the end of that sentence.  In 3E, low level ranged rogues could get easy full attack SA with the wizard just using a wand of grease for them.  By mid levels, they had ring of blinking and were always sneak attacking.  Ranged rogues worked fine in 3E, this is only a PF problem.




So to clarify: There's no issue with the rogue. Just with the magic items available?

Honestly, I've never had a problem in my 3.5 game with rogues getting sneak attack WITHOUT any of those magic items. The only problem has been creatures that are immune to sneak attacks. For this reason, in my games, I ignore monsters' immunity to sneak attacks (and crits, for a similar reason).


----------



## axp_dave

Noir le Lotus said:


> Usually as a rogue, I :
> - work with the main melee fighter to gain flanking.
> 
> You should note that I placed cooperation with fighter in 3rd place for a good reason : rogues are squeashy !! So going to melee flanking is really dangerous against very strong foes, you must use this tactic with caution : you are more useful to the team dealing 1D6+1 each round for 10 rounds than dealing 6D6+1 in 1 routine and dying in the following round. Against weaker foes, you can go get flanking without problem.




In our game the rogues get sneak attacks by working with the party to offer flanking opportunities.  It is a team effort.  I agree that rogues are "squeashy" so it is is a concious decision on byparty to get the rogue in a good spot.  Fighters really need to move where it allows the rogue a chance.  Sometimes even taking AOO's and take it for the team to let the rogue his magic square.  I think it takes smart play by all to squeeze the most out of the rogue's sneak attacks.


----------



## SkredlitheOgre

Our Rogue almost always uses the Feint Combat Maneuver.  Simple as that.


----------



## Friend of the Dork

StreamOfTheSky said:


> You forgot to put "...in Pathfinder." at the end of that sentence.  In 3E, low level ranged rogues could get easy full attack SA with the wizard just using a wand of grease for them.  By mid levels, they had ring of blinking and were always sneak attacking.  Ranged rogues worked fine in 3E, this is only a PF problem.




Hmm I never saw that tactic used in 3.5. Blinking and/or Invisibility is a given though, for mid to high levels. 

For the grease, well we never interpreted that enemies within it was always balancing. The spell said you needed to make a balance test to move, not to just stand there and fight (that required reflex saves). And for prone opponents there would be no need to balance at all (prone != flat-footed).


----------



## StreamOfTheSky

Yes, between prone removing flatfooted since they were no longer balancing, and the general -4 to hit prone targets at range, you wanted them greased, but you actually wanted them to not fall down, amusingly enough.

But if you are standing in grease (in 3E), you are balancing the entire time, not just on your turn.  Just as if you were standing on a narrow beam.  Or how you're "climbing" out of turn when holding onto a rock face (another situation where you lose dex to AC normally).  Only in PF did they create wonkiness by saying you're only balancing on your turn.  It makes no sense, and it screws over rogues.


----------



## Friend of the Dork

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Yes, between prone removing flatfooted since they were no longer balancing, and the general -4 to hit prone targets at range, you wanted them greased, but you actually wanted them to not fall down, amusingly enough.
> 
> But if you are standing in grease (in 3E), you are balancing the entire time, not just on your turn.  Just as if you were standing on a narrow beam.  Or how you're "climbing" out of turn when holding onto a rock face (another situation where you lose dex to AC normally).  Only in PF did they create wonkiness by saying you're only balancing on your turn.  It makes no sense, and it screws over rogues.




This seems more like a rules clarification to me - in 3.5 it says creatures can walk through the area with a DC 10 Balance check - it doesn't say you need to take a balance check if you are not moving. 

About what it should say, well for starters it should be a balance check to avoid falling in the first place, but that removes the age old tradition of a reflex save, and makes the spell much better at higher levels. 

In any case, the Pathfinder rules luckily leaves no doubt.


----------



## N'raac

am181d said:


> Honestly, I've never had a problem in my 3.5 game with rogues getting sneak attack WITHOUT any of those magic items. The only problem has been creatures that are immune to sneak attacks. For this reason, in my games, I ignore monsters' immunity to sneak attacks (and crits, for a similar reason).




I have no issue with monsters immune to Sneak Attack.  Some are immune to certain energy types, and the wizard, or the guy with the magic weapon, becomes less effective.  Clerics prefer undead opponents since they can't Turn Orcs, and no one wants to make everything Turn-able.

A good team covers for each member's weaknesses and works to exploit each member's strengths.


----------



## Dykstrav

Maybe my recent involvement with Pathfinder Society games has skewed my experience a bit, but I've seen many people play rogues specifically to get sneak attack. I also think that some people want to get sneak attacks with ranged weapons to meliorate the "squishiness" of the rogue. It's a case of someone wanting to take the benefits (awesome damage output) and ignore the drawbacks of a particular class ability (situational setup that often requires you to get into melee), I've just seen a lot of this particular example lately.

Upon further reflection, I think it also sticks in my craw a bit because the sort of players that go for that sort of thing just don't _want_ to be team players. It's been observed by several people here that teamwork makes each individual character more effective, but there are unfortunately some players that don't see things that way. They don't _want_ to ask a caster for help and they don't _want_ to wade into melee beside the fighter, because they somehow feel that it detracts from their character's inherent coolness to get help.

That's an entirely different issue than in my original post, but it's what I'm gradually realizing as I reflect on it more and more.



Madeiner said:


> I don't know if Pathfinder changed the rules, but i believe that:
> 
> You are correct that "Flanking" is not a status effect; but a creature that is Flanked, also loses his dexterity bonus to AC.
> 
> Rogues can sneak attack creatures that are denied their dexterity bonuses to AC.
> 
> Net effect is that a flanked target can be sneak attacked by any rogue with a bow within 30 feet (i think that's the correct distance for a ranged sneak attack)




Nope, "flanking" is a bonus type to attack rolls that you may or may not qualify for, depending on where you and an ally is positioned. It imposes no sort of penalty on the creature that you gain a flanking bonus against. In that respect, it's similar to the +1 bonus you get for being on higher ground or the +2 bonus you get for charging--it's something _you_ get, _not_ something that the target suffers.

Let's say that your party's cleric and fighter flank an orc together. When the fighter raises his longsword high overhand to slash at the orc, his cleric pal can catch on to what his fighter buddy is doing and take advantage of that--maybe he swings his morningstar at the orc's knee or abdomen when he sees the fighter going high. You're going to have an easier time hitting that orc because you can attack a weak spot while your flanking pal has the target tied up. A +2 bonus to hit is what this sort of teamwork represents.

That doesn't make him any easier to hit with an arrow, however--he's not going to ignore the rogue at precisely thirty feet away just because a fighter and cleric are in his face. (Incidentally, I've also noticed that rogues that want ranged sneak attacks rarely build with Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot, but that's another can of worms entirely.) 

You can also try to distract the orc yourself and gain that underhanded blow, which is what a Bluff check to feint in combat is about. Even that, however, is still applicable to melee.

It's a common misconception that a flanked creature can be sneak attacked by a rogue at range, but it's not the case in the rules as written.

From d20pfsrd.com, although it also appears in the _Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook_...



> *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.
> When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the  middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If  the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space  (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
> _Exception_: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
> Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky

Dykstrav said:


> Maybe my recent involvement with Pathfinder Society games has skewed my experience a bit, but I've seen many people play rogues specifically to get sneak attack. I also think that some people want to get sneak attacks with ranged weapons to meliorate the "squishiness" of the rogue.




Well, when your hp is basically equal to the wizard (he could afford a higher con score than you)... and your armor and fort saves are laughable...hell yes?  What, you think the big scary monster that even the Fighter has trouble tanking is going to just sit there, watch a blatantly soft target move around into flank, do decent damage...and attack the fighter instead of him?  I know this is a "fantasy" game, but come on now!



Dykstrav said:


> It's a case of someone wanting to take the benefits (awesome damage output) and ignore the drawbacks of a particular class ability (situational setup that often requires you to get into melee), I've just seen a lot of this particular example lately.




Sneak Attack isn't awesome damage output.  When you factor in the Fighter's higher attack bonus leading to more attacks actually landing and factor in his weapon training, weapon-related feats, gloves of duelling, str x1.5, etc...  You'll see even when sneak attacking, rogue's not doing "awesome" damage output, unless you define "awesome" as "what any generic meat shield can do all the time with ease."  And again, the idea that a rogue HAS to melee to get his precious sneak attack is a Pathfinder convention.  Ranged sneak attacking used to be a perfectly reasonable request.



Dykstrav said:


> Upon further reflection, I think it also sticks in my craw a bit because the sort of players that go for that sort of thing just don't _want_ to be team players. It's been observed by several people here that teamwork makes each individual character more effective, but there are unfortunately some players that don't see things that way. They don't _want_ to ask a caster for help and they don't _want_ to wade into melee beside the fighter, because they somehow feel that it detracts from their character's inherent coolness to get help.




Nice generalizations and back handed insults about the people you've gamed with!  Hurray for being a team player!
Let me ask you a question.  Why should the rogue, more than ANY other class, be so utterly reliant on others just to fight?  No other class is like that.  A Fighter just swings his sword.  Buffs are nice, but ultimately, he can swing his sword.  Casters...having a meat shield is awesome, but "dude 15 ft in front of you in full plate" isn't exactly a required focus for spellcasting...  Why is a loner, self-sufficient rogue an incompatible genre to RP in the game?

As for your observations...  You said before, this is from PFS play...*organized play*!  Maybe you don't understand why I felt the need to bold that, I'll explain...
I like team work.  I LOVE team work.  Playing with my long time friends is awesome, any time we play in a game together we try to find fun ways to synergize, buffs useful for each other, 1-2 combo actions to do (which we call "dual techs," after the Chrono Trigger term), and more.  It's great!
But...sadly, a lot of times I don't get to play with my longtime friends.  Often times, I end up joining games with a bunch of random strangers I've never seen or spoken to before.  You know...like *organized play*.  I don't know who the hell these hopefully nice people are, what they like to do, their gaming preferences, how generous they are with buff spells and teamwork tactics.  It'd be great if things all went peachy and we became a tightnit unit.  But, what if that does't happen?  Do I really want my character's ability to be competent to rely on the kindness of strangers?  Heck no, that's crazy!

So perhaps...that had more to do with your observations than those Rogue players being terrible human beings?  Maybe?



Dykstrav said:


> That's an entirely different issue than in my original post, but it's what I'm gradually realizing as I reflect on it more and more.




Please do more reflecting...


----------



## EUBanana

Rogues really aren't combatty characters.  Sneak attack stops them from being utterly useless, that is all.  Playing a rogue /for/ the sneak attack is pretty laughable.  

 If you want to play a combatty character you shouldn't really be a rogue, at least not a straight rogue.  They are better left to sneaking/poisoning/social skills/dealing with traps.

I think it's down to expectations.  Are you expecting WoW/4th edition rogues, or OD&D thieves.  3rd edition was merely a slight blip.  Pathfinder has them more like the old school Thief class.  There's nothing wrong with that, but combat is not their thing.


----------



## Friend of the Dork

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Well, when your hp is basically equal to the wizard (he could afford a higher con score than you)... and your armor and fort saves are laughable...hell yes?  What, you think the big scary monster that even the Fighter has trouble tanking is going to just sit there, watch a blatantly soft target move around into flank, do decent damage...and attack the fighter instead of him?  I know this is a "fantasy" game, but come on now!
> 
> 
> 
> Sneak Attack isn't awesome damage output.  When you factor in the Fighter's higher attack bonus leading to more attacks actually landing and factor in his weapon training, weapon-related feats, gloves of duelling, str x1.5, etc...  You'll see even when sneak attacking, rogue's not doing "awesome" damage output, unless you define "awesome" as "what any generic meat shield can do all the time with ease."  And again, the idea that a rogue HAS to melee to get his precious sneak attack is a Pathfinder convention.  Ranged sneak attacking used to be a perfectly reasonable request.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice generalizations and back handed insults about the people you've gamed with!  Hurray for being a team player!
> Let me ask you a question.  Why should the rogue, more than ANY other class, be so utterly reliant on others just to fight?  No other class is like that.  A Fighter just swings his sword.  Buffs are nice, but ultimately, he can swing his sword.  Casters...having a meat shield is awesome, but "dude 15 ft in front of you in full plate" isn't exactly a required focus for spellcasting...  Why is a loner, self-sufficient rogue an incompatible genre to RP in the game?
> 
> As for your observations...  You said before, this is from PFS play...*organized play*!  Maybe you don't understand why I felt the need to bold that, I'll explain...
> I like team work.  I LOVE team work.  Playing with my long time friends is awesome, any time we play in a game together we try to find fun ways to synergize, buffs useful for each other, 1-2 combo actions to do (which we call "dual techs," after the Chrono Trigger term), and more.  It's great!
> But...sadly, a lot of times I don't get to play with my longtime friends.  Often times, I end up joining games with a bunch of random strangers I've never seen or spoken to before.  You know...like *organized play*.  I don't know who the hell these hopefully nice people are, what they like to do, their gaming preferences, how generous they are with buff spells and teamwork tactics.  It'd be great if things all went peachy and we became a tightnit unit.  But, what if that does't happen?  Do I really want my character's ability to be competent to rely on the kindness of strangers?  Heck no, that's crazy!
> 
> So perhaps...that had more to do with your observations than those Rogue players being terrible human beings?  Maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> Please do more reflecting...



Maybe you require too much of the Rogue? If you need the Rogue to be expert on traps, a good scout, a social chameleon AND a light-fighter, then yes he obviously fails at being good at all that. But nothing says he has to, in fact I have seen plenty of Rogues dumping charisma and wisdom in favor of Con and Dex, and even getting some Str. Such a character is obviously better at melee, and will have only marginally fewer hit points than a fighter. His AC will not be as good, but with the high dex and best light armors he will be comparable to any other class than the fighter. 

He will still be dependent on getting flanking buddies of course, but then again most groups have at least one melee fighter that loves to have a flanking buddy. 

Monsters tend to go for those enemies that they think is the most dangerous, and that may wel be the big fighter with the greatsword and power attack, rather than the rogue with shortswords and feeble sneak attack. And smart NPCs might attack the further back wizard instead, realizing that he is the more dangerous of the 3 and much squishier.


----------



## frankthedm

Friend of the Dork said:


> Maybe you require too much of the Rogue? If you need the Rogue to be expert on traps, a good scout, a social chameleon AND a light-fighter, then yes he obviously fails at being good at all that. But nothing says he has to, in fact I have seen plenty of Rogues dumping charisma and wisdom in favor of Con and Dex, and even getting some Str. Such a character is obviously better at melee, and will have only marginally fewer hit points than a fighter. His AC will not be as good, but with the high dex and best light armors he will be comparable to any other class than the fighter.



Exactly, Rogues have many options open to them, but if they try to do everything the class offers, they will spread themselves too thin. For a feat based class it is fairy clear cut, but since the rogue class is closer to a point buy class than most others, it is tempting to take all the options, because it looks like you _could_.


----------



## prototype00

I'm partial to using the scout archetype to gain SA everytime I charge (and eventually, every time I move 10 ft in a round). That it automatically activates Sap Adept and Sap Master is delicous icing on the cake.

Combined with the thug archetype and the bludgeoner feat, you can automatically make foes frightened for one round, which is almost as good as auto stun, without a save. 

Granted, I'm not saying that rogues are top tier, but they can be not bad.

prototype00


----------



## EUBanana

prototype00 said:


> I'm partial to using the scout archetype to gain SA everytime I charge (and eventually, every time I move 10 ft in a round). That it automatically activates Sap Adept and Sap Master is delicous icing on the cake.
> 
> Combined with the thug archetype and the bludgeoner feat, you can automatically make foes frightened for one round, which is almost as good as auto stun, without a save.
> 
> Granted, I'm not saying that rogues are top tier, but they can be not bad.
> 
> prototype00




Thats pretty cool.  

Tier is kinda lame IMHO, and usually fairly artificial in actual play I think.  You don't generally fight in an arena against other PC-like characters.   certainly it shouldn't be much of a factor when choosing a character.

Are you able to contribute somehow and are you having fun, thats the main thing.


----------



## Kaisoku

EUBanana said:


> Tier is kinda lame IMHO, and usually fairly artificial in actual play I think.  You don't generally fight in an arena against other PC-like characters.   certainly it shouldn't be much of a factor when choosing a character.
> 
> Are you able to contribute somehow and are you having fun, thats the main thing.




What sticks in my craw (grinds my gears? curdles my milk?), is when people completely misunderstand what classifying classes into Tiers actually means.

If you read this post, you'll see that the idea of arena combat or PC vs PC is entirely the opposite of what grading the classes in Tiers does, and in fact it's absolutely about how well the class is contributing.

However, ultimately, it's a DM tool on managing his group, not a PC tool for choosing a character. Create your character that you'll have fun with. The DM can use the class Tiers to know how to balance his encounters to make sure you get your fun.

I personally like to run and play Tier 3 games, usually with characters that have a wider range of options with maybe one thing they are pretty good at.


----------



## EUBanana

It is presumptuous to assume someone who disagrees does not understand.  I understand _If your party is Fighter, Rogue, Healer, Barbarian, then Tier 4 or 5 is going to be the best.  If your party is Sorcerer, Beguiler, Crusader, Swordsage, then Tier 2-3 will be best.  _ perfectly, and think it's rubbish.

Our group is a wizard-eldritch knight, sorcerer, oracle specced in healing, cavalier, paladin and rogue.  So all over the shop on that tiering system.  Who do you think is the always the one who comes away having contributed the most and is generally the one the DM complains about most, with mutterings about house rules and various contrivances to try and keep them in check?

It's not the wizard.  It's not even the sorcerer.


----------

