[3.5e] Competent rogue???

[Kaeso]

As we all know, the rogue isn't exactly well built for it's intended purpose. The main source of it's damage is sneak attack and most of the time it can only be achieved through flanking. Even if there's another way to catch an opponent flatfooted, sneak attack still requires you to be either in melee range or charging range (30 ft.) of your enemy. This, combined with a mere d6 HD and a medium BAB, makes an in combat rogue a complete liability. Are there any feats/ACF/multiclass/PrC's that make the rogue a more viable combatant?

[Flickerdart]

Spring attacking from the floor (through Blink or similar) is hilarious, but stops working when enemies begin to fly.

Stacking miss chance is also a popular way of increasing survivability. If you have concealment-granting items, you can also Hide, and deliver more sneak attacks like that.

[MyLifeMyMusical]

You could combine your Rogue level(s) with the Swashbuckler class (Complete Warrior) and the Daring Outlaw feat (Complete Scoundrel) to get a d10 hit die and full BAB (for the levels you devote to Swashbuckler) while maintaining your Sneak Attack progression. That would also add a Dodge bonus to AC, free Weapon Finesse and Int to hit.

I'd consider taking Able Learner to keep up your Rogue skills as well.

[gorfnab]

Are there any feats/ACF/multiclass/PrC's that make the rogue a more viable combatant?
Well there is this Rogue Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8711233) that does a decent job of explaining how to build a competent rogue. When building rogues for combat, what kind of combat (ranged, twf, spring attacking, spells, etc) you're looking for will determine what feats and whatnot you'll need.

[SamsDisciple]

Sniping rogues are amazing to do and even better for the while that invisibility is worth it because it is not that hard for a rogue to UMD a scroll of greater invisibility. The most powerful rogue I ever saw was a wand wielder sniper(6 touch attack sneak attacks while sniping or 12 full attack) it cost a bit of money to finance but really it ended up being less than the paladins greatswordand all of that goodness is still not optimized for wand wielding sneak attackers

[true_shinken]

The most powerful rogue I ever saw was a wand wielder sniper(6 touch attack sneak attacks while sniping or 12 full attack) it cost a bit of money to finance but really it ended up being less than the paladins greatswordand all of that goodness is still not optimized for wand wielding sneak attackers

Wonder how he achieved that?

[Flickerdart]

A CL6+ wand of quickened produce flame would have given him 6 shots with a ranged touch attack, except that Quicken is a +4 metamagic so some shenanigans would have to have been employed. Maybe he cast the spell on one round, and unloaded the next, too.

[RedSun]

Don't play a rogue?

[Boci]

A CL6+ wand of quickened produce flame would have given him 6 shots with a ranged touch attack, except that Quicken is a +4 metamagic so some shenanigans would have to have been employed. Maybe he cast the spell on one round, and unloaded the next, too.

There's an item that allows you to use 3 wands as a full round action, but I believe that drains 6 charges per round.

[Vaynor]

I made a class that works similarly to the rogue, but is based on psionics instead. Here's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139817) a link. They can get off their sneak attacks more easily.

[Flickerdart]

There's an item that allows you to use 3 wands as a full round action, but I believe that drains 6 charges per round.
Rod of wands or something, yeah. Maybe he was using it with Scorching Ray?

[SamsDisciple]

To get the extra attacks you use metamagic wandgrips which burn through charges to add metamagic then do split ray rays of seeking. Does require some multiclass into wizard to maximize potential but this is definitely a nasty combo for a Gestalt build.

[true_shinken]

To get the extra attacks you use metamagic wandgrips which burn through charges to add metamagic then do split ray rays of seeking. Does require some multiclass into wizard to maximize potential but this is definitely a nasty combo for a Gestalt build.

That's more of an Artificer combo, since they don't burn through charges so fast.

[prufock]

As we all know, the rogue isn't exactly well built for it's intended purpose.

You think the rogue's intended purpose is melee damage? :smallconfused:

[RedSun]

You think the rogue's intended purpose is melee damage? :smallconfused:
Pretty much this.

When I think of "rogue," I think of a guy who solves his problems by guile and isn't supposed to win (easily) by direct confrontation.

[SamsDisciple]

Very true but in the campaign where I saw it the DM banned artificers. Through the right feats you can make the wand more expensive but be splitray/empowered and burn charges for twinned or maybe even quickened but now we are laying on the cheese. Still sneak attack sniping with 12 touch attacks is insane.

[WarKitty]

While the thread is up, are there any good ways to ensure someone loses their DEX bonus? Aside from taking a level in sorc or bard.

[true_shinken]

Pretty much this.

When I think of "rogue," I think of a guy who solves his problems by guile and isn't supposed to win (easily) by direct confrontation.

This. I agree. That's the whole point of sneak attack - you have to set it up.

[Incanur]

I thought rogues were a solid tier 4. In my experience they do well enough when played carefully. A bit of multiclassing (such as swordsage) helps.

[Kaeso]

You think the rogue's intended purpose is melee damage? :smallconfused:

Kind of, he has a pretty decent damage output in the form of sneak attack, not using that would be wasting the rogue's biggest class feature.

[AslanCross]

You think the rogue's intended purpose is melee damage? :smallconfused:

Agreed. The rogue is not a skullbasher; the rogue is a problem-solving skillmonkey. That's why they have a massive class skill list, mid-range BAB, and lower HP.

That said, I have seen Rogues to really well in Sniper builds (Crossbow sniper, Deadeye Shot, Able Sniper) or melee builds (TWF with Swordsage).

Sneak Attack does exactly what it's intended to do: Deal massive situational damage. It's up to the player's creativity how he can get that to work for him. Sneak Attack is not "You hit hard, all the time." That's the Barbarian's job.

Actually, in 3.5, it's hard to find a class that does what it was exactly meant to do apart from the Rogue. For that reason it's considered well-balanced.

[true_shinken]

Actually, in 3.5, it's hard to find a class that does what it was exactly meant to do apart from the Rogue. For that reason it's considered well-balanced.
Well, it's not that hard.
In core I'd agree with you; only Rogue and Barbarian work as advertised. The casters are not as squishy as descriptions lead you to believe, Fighter does not make a good guard or general, Bard is kinda sucky at 'doing anything'...

[RedSun]

Kind of, he has a pretty decent damage output in the form of sneak attack, not using that would be wasting the rogue's biggest class feature.
WOTC pretty much said that it gave rogues something to do when they were play testing combat. I don't know that they meant that you should optimize it to the point that rogues become primary combatants. I wouldn't call it the "biggest class feature."

[awa]

the rogues primary function is not combat its skills they have a lot of skills (they can always use more but that's a problem of dnd not rogues). rogues are not druids able to do every thing better than people who specialize in them. the rogue specialize in skills, in opening locks, finding traps, scouting that's their specialty the fact that they can jump out of the shadows for extra damage is just a bonus.

edit
they had back stab in second edition it was just a lot harder to use

[WarKitty]

WOTC pretty much said that it gave rogues something to do when they were play testing combat. I don't know that they meant that you should optimize it to the point that rogues become primary combatants. I wouldn't call it the "biggest class feature."

Except most of the time I've seen rogues played, they only do two things: find and disable traps, and sneak attack things. Don't think I've ever seen anything else, and the trapfinding gets kind of boring.

[RedSun]

Except most of the time I've seen rogues played, they only do two things: find and disable traps, and sneak attack things. Don't think I've ever seen anything else, and the trapfinding gets kind of boring.
If you want to quibble, they're relatively less boring than if they didn't have the sneak attack option. That it wasn't well implemented isn't really a commentary of the intentions of the designers.

Really if all people want was a combat-oriented game, I'm suspecting somebody should've made one and left all the other elements by the house-ruling wayside. And to be snippy about it, I feel D&D has lost much of what made it an "exploration" game before third edition and modern gaming notions rolled around.

As for "backstab" in previous iterations of D&D, it wasn't so much of a problem of it being "less effective" as it was less clear about how you were supposed to use it. And I suspect that it generally worked however the roleplaying and individual house rulings made it.

[WarKitty]

If you want to quibble, they're relatively less boring than if they didn't have the sneak attack option. That it wasn't well implemented isn't really a commentary of the intentions of the designers.

Really if all people want was a combat-oriented game, I'm suspecting somebody should've made one and left all the other elements by the house-ruling wayside. And to be snippy about it, I feel D&D has lost much of what made it an "exploration" game before third edition and modern gaming notions rolled around. Your opinion really does nothing to ameliorate my view, I'm sorry to say.

As for "backstab" in previous iterations of D&D, it wasn't so much of a problem of it being "less effective" as it was less clear about how you were supposed to use it. And I suspect that it generally worked however the roleplaying and individual house rulings made it.

It's not so much that the rogue doesn't have other areas as someone else can usually do a better job. Scout? Wildshape druid, or the ranger. UMD? Why bother when you have casters. Social skills? Bard. Knowledge? Someone else already needs to take it for their class.

[HunterOfJello]

Swordsage 1 makes a massive difference. All you need is a single level dip into it to gain huge bonuses as a Rogue. It's really a rogue's wet dream.

~

You would automatically gain +1 to initiative, +1 to attack with your choice of weapon group, 1 stance and 6 maneuvers.

The Island of Blades stance allows you to constantly flank as long as you and an ally are standing next to an opponent, so you don't have to be on opposite sides of them.

Distracting Ember gives you the ability to use a Swift Action to create a small fire elemental that allows you flanking against an enemy for 1 turn.

Sudden Leap would let you take a jump action as a Swift Action so you could move on one turn and take a Full Attack Action.

Wolf Fang Strike would allow you to attack with 2 Weapons as a Standard Action with a -2 attack penalty. This is just like Two-Weapon Fighting, but without taking a Full Round Action.

Moment of Perfect Mind would let you use a Concentration Check instead of a will save as an immediate action.

~

And those are just level 1 maneuvers. If you had 4 levels in Rogue before you took a Swordsage 1 dip, then you would be able to access 2nd level maneuvers (there are 9 levels of them, like spells.)

[Incanur]

Rogues can always go for UMD if they get bored with tumbling around and flanking, sniping, or tossing alchemist's fire. Outside of combat they've piles of useful skills.

[awa]

just because a full caster can do it better does not mean that the class is bad. sure a druid is a better scout than a rogue but that does not make him a bad scout.
and a wild shape ranger might be better but you will note he is also a better tier and he has less ability to take care of traps

[WarKitty]

just because a full caster can do it better does not mean that the class is bad. sure a druid is a better scout than a rogue but that does not make him a bad scout.
and a wild shape ranger might be better but you will note he is also a better tier and he has less ability to take care of traps

Actually that was just a regular ranger. The only example I listed that required an actual caster was UMD (I'm ignoring the bard since none of the issues are with his casting). Plus most times we've needed sneaking end up requiring magic of some sort because we rarely seem to get a place where it's a good idea to send one person on ahead by themselves.

[Sindri]

For combat purposes, rogues are significantly less powerful. This was intentional. A Rogue is not all about hacking, slashing, and getting hacked and/or slashed in return.
A Rogue is about being able to lie, cheat, and steal your way into anything from a bank vault to the princess's bed, either stop a fight from happening or end it before the opponent can react, and have a shiny trick up your sleeve to UMD you out of trouble if all else fails.
If you can't win with a Rogue, you aren't smart (or lucky) enough to play a real Rogue, and you should go back to the classes that come with an instruction manual, like druids and barbarians.

[true_shinken]

If you can't win with a Rogue, you aren't smart (or lucky) enough to play a real Rogue, and you should go back to the classes that come with an instruction manual, like druids and barbarians.

This. So many times this. Heed Sindri's words, because they are overflowing with wisdom!

[Greenish]

he has less ability to take care of trapsA ranger can get Trapfinding just fine.

[WarKitty]

From what I've seen, rogues end up being the classic jack of all trades and master of none. Usually I've seen them used as a dip, or to get to a PRC, rather than taken straight. It's a great class if you're doing a solo mission, but in a diverse party tends to lose everything but the trapfinding to classes actually designed to fill the other roles.

[Psyren]

I think "combat rogue" is best modeled by Daring Outlaw

[Incanur]

Once everybody started powergaming, the rogue in the party I DMed for the longest did fine in combat. Of course, the same goes for the party paladin. I did liberally allow strong templates such as saint for the non-casters which probably explains much of what I saw. The sorcerer and cleric still undoubtedly had the most raw power but the two aforementioned characters and the fighter/barbarian/pious templar rarely if ever felt useless.

[true_shinken]

From what I've seen, rogues end up being the classic jack of all trades and master of none. Usually I've seen them used as a dip, or to get to a PRC, rather than taken straight. It's a great class if you're doing a solo mission, but in a diverse party tends to lose everything but the trapfinding to classes actually designed to fill the other roles.

I really think you just never got a good Rogue player. Rogue is not just about mechanical abilities - it's about a mindset. Yes, it's hard to play a good Rogue, because you have to think even more outside the box than usual.
Rogues are the quintessential scoundrels. They are the worlds' Han Solos and Indiana Jones. They can perform great things if the load on tools and act smartly. Yeah, most classes can do that, but the Rogue is focused on it - sneak attack depends on deception, they got skills to be stealthy/social/mobile and stuff.
Of course Rogues are weak out front. That's the idea! They shine when they pull their gambit on you. Then you're screwed.
The design failure of 3.5 is making spellcasters as much (or even more) this than Rogues.

[WarKitty]

I really think you just never got a good Rogue player. Rogue is not just about mechanical abilities - it's about a mindset. Yes, it's hard to play a good Rogue, because you have to think even more outside the box than usual.
Rogues are the quintessential scoundrels. They are the worlds' Han Solos and Indiana Jones. They can perform great things if the load on tools and act smartly. Yeah, most classes can do that, but the Rogue is focused on it - sneak attack depends on deception, they got skills to be stealthy/social/mobile and stuff.
Of course Rogues are weak out front. That's the idea! They shine when they pull their gambit on you. Then you're screwed.
The design failure of 3.5 is making spellcasters as much (or even more) this than Rogues.

So...basically a bard without spells?

[true_shinken]

So...basically a bard without spells?

A bard without spells and with more skill points, the ability to detect and disarm traps, an ability to deal more damage on unprepared foes and two abilities that make it harder to get the drop on him.
Sounds a lot different.

[Frenchy147]

I find that if played correctly, rogues can be some of the best non-casters out there. All they need is creative thinking, the right skills, and a bit of luck.

[Otherworld Odd]

My PF rogue is fairly competent. I picked up a pseudo-dragon buddy in the campaign we're doing (CoCT), and use him for flanking. Gave him sorcerer levels so he could buff our ac's, etc etc. I flank with him and go full TWF power attack, usually out-damaging the party's fighter with my weapon damage and sneak attack.

I mainly focus on buffing my ac and attacks with feats, and for now my rogue talents are focused in my melee as well (of course you don't get those in 3.5.)

[ShneekeyTheLost]

A bard without spells and with more skill points, the ability to detect and disarm traps, an ability to deal more damage on unprepared foes and two abilities that make it harder to get the drop on him.
Sounds a lot different.

IC and DFI would disagree with the 'deal more damage' portion, disposable minions or a handy toy takes care of traps, and Uncanny/Improved Uncanny Dodge are less than useful anyways. Wear a Lesser Cloak of Displacement to be Immune to Precision-Based Damage (due to concealment).

[Tvtyrant]

Well, it's not that hard.
In core I'd agree with you; only Rogue and Barbarian work as advertised. The casters are not as squishy as descriptions lead you to believe, Fighter does not make a good guard or general, Bard is kinda sucky at 'doing anything'...

Can't say I agree with you there friend. A well played Bard kicks a Monk or Fighter to the curve. A rogue with crappy spellcasting they may be, but still they get it. They get a lot of the cheesy low level spells like Alter Self and glitterdust, and healing spells, and reasonable combat abilities. They aren't their counterpart the Druid, but they do just fine.

[Psyren]

Can't say I agree with you there friend. A well played Bard kicks a Monk or Fighter to the curve.

In core-only though, a lot of their offensive options are stripped away, which is what he was saying. (That includes things like DFI)

[WarKitty]

The other thing with the rogue is that in core there really isn't another good option for playing a precision-damage character. There's Swordsage if your group uses ToB. If not - well, if I want to play a precision damage melee, rogue it is.

[Maho-Tsukai]

Yeah, the rogue is built the way it is on purpose. The rogue is not a fighter and while they can be built to dish it out in melee they still can't take hits very well and that's because the rogue dose not take hits. Playing a rogue is actually not as easy as one may think. It takes a lot of creative thinking, as some people here have said. It's not as easy as people may think and many times may take more thinking then even a wizard, which is often cited as the "need to be smart to play correctly" class. Playing a rogue involves taking on a certain mindset and playing it smart. If you don't want to play it smart then be a fixed list caster like a Dread Necromancer or a sorcerer....I find, personally, those classes are the easiest to play if you don't want too much thinking.(Fighters, despite the old cliche' of "giving the new guy the fighter" take more a lot of thought and require an understanding of rules like grappling, tripping ect.. Thus I personally feel that fixed list casters and sorcerers with advice on spell choice from experienced players/The DM are the best classes for beginners and people who don't like a lot of thinking.)

[VirOath]

If there is any real issue with the rogue, it's that in the basic 4 man party idea (Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric) direct combat is almost a certainty. The rogue can get creative all he wants and do well, but almost every single design or idea for performing well in direct combat relies on sneak attack. Precision based damage is far to easy to cripple, basically anything without a con score, immune to critical hits, strange anatomy, or able to get Miss %s against them. There are class features, spells, and even feats if the DM takes one side of the ruling for it, but all of these are an investment to fill a crippling hole in the mechanics, one which no one option will cover. Yet, immunity to precision damage is rather easy to come across.

And many of the rogue things to do to cover for that don't fit well into the classic party dynamic or shift to having the rogue alone deal with it, which is unfortunate as it breaks the rule "Don't go off alone" as well as puts the DM into the position of dealing with the occurrences of two separate groups, something that from my experience they don't like all that much.

True, many skills work if just one member of the party has them high. Spot, listen, bluff and even disguise. But almost all of the physical skills mean nothing if the rest of the party isn't up to the same level as the rogue for them, and in a party they will generally scoff at the idea of you sneaking about even on your own.

Then comes the player's conventions of normally not wanting to pass on combat because it means giving up if not EXP then treasure. And the issue with some DMs having one smart player bypassing plenty of planned content.

In the hands of a great player, that can all be overcome. But in the hands of a great player, straight monk 20 can be awesome. It is still my favorite class, and as said before requires more free thinking than the other base classes. But larger parties and strong railroading really cut and trim on the options of the rogue more so than other classes.

A rogue is about always being prepared, moreso than a wizard even. In smaller groups, or groups with fewer clanking masses, the skills and quick thinking required for the rogue really make them shine, exponentially moreso with a more freeform DM or one that is willing to allow the completely "from left field" stuff fly, and even being able to do this without stealing the spotlight from other players. This just becomes harder to do without stepping on toes the larger the party gets.

Though, my best experience with the rogue is when I was lucky enough to get everyone to play a rogue for a short campaign the DM had set up, all different styles too which was cool. It was loads of fun, but painfully clear that the rogue isn't a class for all.

[Tvtyrant]

In core-only though, a lot of their offensive options are stripped away, which is what he was saying. (That includes things like DFI)

Indiana Jones Bard; Greater invisibility, a sword in one hand and a wand of scorching ray (better with orbs or Lightning Lance, but that can't be helped) in the other. Has a whip for disarming and a scroll of Transformation for if things get bad. Also has a scroll of Planar Ally because he has high charisma and Glibness, which gets him +30 on his negotiations. I'm not arguing he is equal to a full-caster, but he beats most of the core classes just by being a caster at all.

Essentially a Bard is a Rogue with spell casting; treated as such they do quite well. Alter Self is useful even in core; for obvious reasons (like getting flight as a bard while still using your equipment).

[Incanur]

I've DMed for a rogue who scouted alone all the time. She would even sometimes attempt to assassinate NPCs solo, consistently with poor results such as being transformed into a turtle. But as a scout she was effective.

[Torvon]

i'm playing a rogue/swordsage. it's ridicously strong. probably weaker than pure swordsage, but still insane.

without a lot of optimizing, even without a magical weapon (!), my full attack (sneak) at level 8 does:
3*
1d4+2d6+8 (craven feat gives) +6 (dex, shadow blade feat)
= 72 damage

swordsages can basically always sneak. there are so many ways to flatfoot your enemy.

soaring raptors strike (standard action!) at level 8 does
8d6+8+d4=40 damage

i'm currently rogue4/swordsage4 and will continue swordsage.


EDIT: i know that the damage is a joke compared to any caster class. but it is very substantial in a non-optimization group.
also, damage isn't everything, but i understand this thread to be about being efficient with a rogue, so i only touched that aspect.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

A two-level dip in Swordsage is quite powerful for any Rogue build, if the dips come at the right time. Pouncing Strike is clearly made of Win for any TWFing Rogue. Assassin's Stance is obvious, but Island of Blades is more useful after the first round. Mongoose boosts are also, likewise, clearly useful to any Rogue. Shadow Blade makes Str a dump stat.

The Concentration Check For X Save set are... well... if you have the spare skill points to put into Concentration, and can find a way to make it a class skill before your dip into Swordsage, then I can see it for Fort or even Will, but it's a waste for your Reflex save.

Wis to AC is a free bonus if your Wis is higher than 11. If not, meh.

Really, though, Nightmare Blade series which declares an opponent flat-footed for the attack is made of win for Rogues, when you absolutely and positively have to make that attack happen, and can find no other way to make it happen.

Failing that, a one-level dip into Lion Totem Barbarian is also made of win for Pouncing.

[Torvon]

ofc, rogue/swashbuckler also rocks ("daring outlaw" feat lets you stack rogue and swashbuckler levels for sneak attack and grace, i think).

[Thespianus]

A bard without spells and with more skill points, the ability to detect and disarm traps, an ability to deal more damage on unprepared foes and two abilities that make it harder to get the drop on him.
Sounds a lot different.
True that. A Rogue won't play a friggin Mandolin in the middle of a dungeon crawl, either. :smallsmile:

[SamsDisciple]

So overall it seems that we can agree that in its niche the rogue rocks, you just have to know how to get out of your "Charge and blast the enemy!" Mindset and enter the sneaky manipulative planning aspect. Wizards need to plan ahead but for the most part they can plan once for most occasions, rogues have the flexibility and with the right player the ability to plan for each situation as it arises and adjust as the situation changes. Also I just have to point out another tidbit, many are using Indiana Jones as a benchmark rogue, what did he do when someone confronted him with a sword? He quickdrawed his gun and did a sneak attack to the face before the big bad fighter could say "oh ****"

[Thurbane]

Are there any feats/ACF/multiclass/PrC's that make the rogue a more viable combatant?
There is the Sneak Attack Fighter variant in UA, who trades his bonus feats for Sneak Attack damage. If you're not worried about being a skillmonkey, you've got a d10 HD, full BAB, fully armored sneak attacker. Of course, SA is about the only thing he's likely to be competent at...

[Incanur]

There is the Sneak Attack Fighter variant in UA, who trades his bonus feats for Sneak Attack damage. If you're not worried about being a skillmonkey, you've got a d10 HD, full BAB, fully armored sneak attacker. Of course, SA is about the only thing he's likely to be competent at...

Daring Outlaw seems like a better option. You sacrifice only a point of BAB and few hp in exchange for various goodies.

[grimbold]

well or me the rogue was never to be used in combat. However casting spider climb on a rogue is really useful for activating sneak attacks. Invest in a wand of spider climb and prepare to have fun.

[WarKitty]

I'm wondering if some of the issue is the amount of time D&D spends on combat. Most of the D&D rules are combat-oriented, and even a single combat can easily swallow a large chunk of an evening. Sure the rogue is good for traps, but it all too easily turns into "the rogue's time" and "everyone else's time."

[AslanCross]

I'm wondering if some of the issue is the amount of time D&D spends on combat. Most of the D&D rules are combat-oriented, and even a single combat can easily swallow a large chunk of an evening. Sure the rogue is good for traps, but it all too easily turns into "the rogue's time" and "everyone else's time."

Well, that is the unfortunate reality of D&D. Casters tend to be able to do things outside of combat, though, and with interaction, so can charismatic paladins, crusaders, or warblades. Rangers and barbarians can help navigate through a wilderness, but that's pretty much all they can do out of combat.

[Torvon]

Well, that is the unfortunate reality of D&D. Casters tend to be able to do things outside of combat, though, and with interaction, so can charismatic paladins, crusaders, or warblades. Rangers and barbarians can help navigate through a wilderness, but that's pretty much all they can do out of combat.

My barbarian is doing lots of stuff outside combat. Do I need skills or rules or dice for that? Of course not.

Does CHA10 decrease my roleplaying experience, or the degree I can play the character? Of course not. He has as much fun as all the others, so do I have as much fun as the player of the CHA22 bard.

If you just think in terms of achievements though, and completely ignore roleplaying, then you might have a point.

That being said, I'm not sure if D&D was meant to be a tabletop.

(I get your point ... but from a balancing point of perspective, it's good to put down the other perspective here)

ta-ta
T

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Another dip that Rogues find handy is Warlock. Unlimited use Eldritch Blast to snipe with, Eldritch Glaive for flanking with, and yanno what... Touch Attack + Flat Footed = AC 10 + Size and Misc. modifiers. Go ahead, TRY to miss that.

Or, if you don't like to Glaive around, pick up Spiderwalk and snipe at people from out of reach. Dark One's Own luck is also handy for shoring up that poor Fort or Will save.

Darkness + Devil's Sight is okay, but unless you have HiPS, it's not as spectacular as you might think it is, as it doesn't block line of sight, so you still have to get under cover before hiding again.

[AslanCross]

My barbarian is doing lots of stuff outside combat. Do I need skills or rules or dice for that? Of course not.

Does CHA10 decrease my roleplaying experience, or the degree I can play the character? Of course not. He has as much fun as all the others, so do I have as much fun as the player of the CHA22 bard.

If you just think in terms of achievements though, and completely ignore roleplaying, then you might have a point.

That being said, I'm not sure if D&D was meant to be a tabletop.

(I get your point ... but from a balancing point of perspective, it's good to put down the other perspective here)

ta-ta
T

I guess I should have clarified my point. I meant that from the point of mechanical support. Certainly your character can do a lot outside of combat. It would be quite tragic to have Mark the Red as an actual PC.

[WarKitty]

Well, that is the unfortunate reality of D&D. Casters tend to be able to do things outside of combat, though, and with interaction, so can charismatic paladins, crusaders, or warblades. Rangers and barbarians can help navigate through a wilderness, but that's pretty much all they can do out of combat.

It would also be more interesting if so many of the rogue's abilities weren't single-player activities. Trapfinding and disable device? You don't need the rest of the party for that. Sneaking? Best to leave the heavy armor dude behind. So it tends to get glossed over in favor of activities in which most or all players can participate.

[JaronK]

Factotum was the later replacement of Rogue. You can try using that instead.

JaronK

[true_shinken]

IC and DFI would disagree with the 'deal more damage' portion, disposable minions or a handy toy takes care of traps, and Uncanny/Improved Uncanny Dodge are less than useful anyways. Wear a Lesser Cloak of Displacement to be Immune to Precision-Based Damage (due to concealment).

I'm not saying Rogues are better than Bards or anything. I'm just saying they are different. WarKitty said Rogues are 'bards without spells'. I explained why I disagree.

[WarKitty]

I'm not saying Rogues are better than Bards or anything. I'm just saying they are different. WarKitty said Rogues are 'bards without spells'. I explained why I disagree.

On reflection, that may be in part related to what I said in the last post. Bards just feel like a better team player. The rogue seems to be primarily useful in parts where the other PC's aren't useful at all, and conversely not useful in the parts where the rest of the group is handy.

[true_shinken]

On reflection, that may be in part related to what I said in the last post. Bards just feel like a better team player. The rogue seems to be primarily useful in parts where the other PC's aren't useful at all, and conversely not useful in the parts where the rest of the group is handy.

I believe you are correct, yes.

[WarKitty]

I believe you are correct, yes.

I tend to take the gaming philosophy that any encounters where only one player can be involved should be avoided wherever possible. Hence my dislike of the standard trapped hall, and a few other of what I would consider single-player encounters.

[true_shinken]

I tend to take the gaming philosophy that any encounters where only one player can be involved should be avoided wherever possible. Hence my dislike of the standard trapped hall, and a few other of what I would consider single-player encounters.

I don't think that's a problem. D&D is a storytelling game and in most stories you have characters doing stuff by their own, even if they are originally in a group.
But to each his own, I see no problem with your point of view, actually.

[WarKitty]

I don't think that's a problem. D&D is a storytelling game and in most stories you have characters doing stuff by their own, even if they are originally in a group.
But to each his own, I see no problem with your point of view, actually.

It would probably be less of an issue if we had a smaller group. I'm used to groups of 6-8. Letting players do stuff by themselves quickly either leads to boredom on the part of the other players, or DM overload from trying to keep up. If it were a group of 3-4 I'm not sure if I would mind.

[Curmudgeon]

I tend to take the gaming philosophy that any encounters where only one player can be involved should be avoided wherever possible.
I find that many players inject such metagame considerations into their D&D experience, and get upset when their expectations aren't met. For instance, the Dungeon Master's Guide says that fully 5% of all encounters should be of overpowering force, and yet players get upset if all their PCs get killed when they attempt to stand and fight instead of run away. And if the PC party doesn't include a competent trapsmith, the players expect the dungeon will have very few traps. Or if the PCs sunder all the magic weapons in sight, those enemies must always be carrying gems of comparable value to the broken weapons. :smalltongue:

I've heard many times: "Don't split the party!" ─ and yet, many times the smart thing to do is to let the Rogue or Scout character reconnoiter solo. In metagame terms, it's boring to the other players to twiddle their thumbs while the Rogue does all the interesting stuff; yet in-character that's the right approach.

Another metagame belief is that all the PCs will have comparable amounts of wealth at the same level. In the case of the Rogue, this is balderdash. The Rogue has the skills to both sneak into a dangerous place and get through obstacles to obtain the loot, whereas approaches available to other characters would both require more effort and forfeit all chances of subtlety. (The difference between blowing up the bank and cracking the safe without damaging it so the theft goes undetected for a whole extra day.)

In addition to the requisite skills, the Rogue also has extra time to put them to use. Every single day the spellcasters need to rest for 8 hours and prepare spells for another hour. An Elf Rogue: 4 hours for trance, and the rest is free time. (Or get a Breath of the Waves graft, and you won't even need the 4 hours.) 35-63 extra hours a week is enough for a whole second income. Only metagame considerations would keep the Rogue from being able to turn those skills and free time into greatly more wealth than the spellcasters in the party will earn. That wealth can buy the Rogue considerable extra gear, so they'll be better equipped for situations that involve solo work.

Such gaming philosophies as in the above quote are just a way of saying: I want the DM to put on blinders and skip over some of the situations that make Rogues fun to play. My philosophy is: that stinks. :smallyuk:

[WarKitty]

I find that many players inject such metagame considerations into their D&D experience, and get upset when their expectations aren't met. For instance, the Dungeon Master's Guide says that fully 5% of all encounters should be of overpowering force, and yet players get upset if all their PCs get killed when they attempt to stand and fight instead of run away. And if the PC party doesn't include a competent trapsmith, the players expect the dungeon will have very few traps. Or if the PCs sunder all the magic weapons in sight, those enemies must always be carrying gems of comparable value to the broken weapons. :smalltongue:

I've heard many times: "Don't split the party!" ─ and yet, many times the smart thing to do is to let the Rogue or Scout character reconnoiter solo. In metagame terms, it's boring to the other players to twiddle their thumbs while the Rogue does all the interesting stuff; yet in-character that's the right approach.

Another metagame belief is that all the PCs will have comparable amounts of wealth at the same level. In the case of the Rogue, this is balderdash. The Rogue has the skills to both sneak into a dangerous place and get through obstacles to obtain the loot, whereas approaches available to other characters would both require more effort and forfeit all chances of subtlety. (The difference between blowing up the bank and cracking the safe without damaging it so the theft goes undetected for a whole extra day.)

In addition to the requisite skills, the Rogue also has extra time to put them to use. Every single day the spellcasters need to rest for 8 hours and prepare spells for another hour. An Elf Rogue: 4 hours for trance, and the rest is free time. (Or get a Breath of the Waves graft, and you won't even need the 4 hours.) 35-63 extra hours a week is enough for a whole second income. Only metagame considerations would keep the Rogue from being able to turn those skills and free time into greatly more wealth than the spellcasters in the party will earn. That wealth can buy the Rogue considerable extra gear, so they'll be better equipped for situations that involve solo work.

Such gaming philosophies as in the above quote are just a way of saying: I want the DM to put on blinders and skip over some of the situations that make Rogues fun to play. My philosophy is: that stinks. :smallyuk:

See, I consider some metagaming a good thing. I've seen parties that were strictly anti-metagame, and frankly it sucked. No one made any effort to keep the party even loosely together, which led to long stretches of boredom and players tuning out and having to be called back. Some players ended up being able to solve everything, and some players ended up being practically useless because another PC was filling their spot. I've seen a good game ruined by a frazzled DM who couldn't keep up with PC's in five different areas. Metagaming to make the game more fun is a good thing in my opinion. It only bothers me when players metagame to cheat the system.

If you bring a trap-focused rogue to my table, I'll tell you up front that I don't put in a lot of straight traps and you should roll something else. If you build a character that focuses primarily on a solo skill, your character is not going to get a lot of screen time, because I can't afford to have all the players get solo time and still get anywhere in the game. I make trapfinding available to all skillmonkey characters so no one has to play a devoted trapfinder.

[Thurbane]

FWIW, I believe that, with the exception of SA, both Beguiler and Factotum
"out-rogue" the Rogue in what are usually considered his primary roles (trap detection/disarming, faceman, skillmonkey, stealth/scouting).

IMHO, the Factotum's Inspritation Point abilities, and the Beguiler's casting more than compensate for any unique abilities that the Rogue gets. YMMV.

[amaranth69]

I play a rogue/swashbuckler in the return to the temple of elemental evil. He works out quite well as long as I can keep it pounded into the fighter and the barbarians heads that they do not need to flank with each other, one of them needs to flank with me. I am going to dip into shadowdancer for hide in plain sight and take cunning evasion since our wizard, who has an arcane reserve feat that lets her blast a mini fireball at will, drops said mini fireballs on me about half the time anyway for a free hide chance. Knowing that I was going to be in melee a lot, I went with the shield of blades ACF from PbhII. Works pretty well for me.

[neoseph7]

It's a bit on the cheesy side, so some DM's may object, but to begin hiding a character need only have concealment of some variety, and to then move. Blur and Displacement both give a character said concealment. It basically comes down to a hide check vs a spot check as part of a move. If successful, sneak attack.

When I DM, I usually only need rogues for their trapfinding/disable device abilities. And a first level rogue gets those. You could take Rogue1 FighterX to become a competent melee combatant with the skill selection (though not the points) of a rogue. Drop hide and move silently but keep search, disable device, use magic device, and now you have a character one level behind a fighter for bab, in heavy armor, who deals with any traps as a full classed rogue, and will eventually be able to use wands and staves with impunity. That extra 1d6 when flanking is nice too. But that's just me.

[Curmudgeon]

You could take Rogue1 FighterX to become a competent melee combatant with the skill selection (though not the points) of a rogue. Drop hide and move silently but keep search, disable device, use magic device, and now you have a character one level behind a fighter for bab, in heavy armor, who deals with any traps as a full classed rogue, and will eventually be able to use wands and staves with impunity.
Fighters get 2 + INT mod skill points per level, and you're going to spend 2 skill points per round for each of Use Magic Device, Search, and Disable Device (all cross-class skills). So that Fighter of yours has to have a minimum 18 INT just to do a tiny fraction of what a Rogue can do.

Not exactly what I'd call a competent Rogue.

[WarKitty]

Fighters get 2 + INT mod skill points per level, and you're going to spend 2 skill points per round for each of Use Magic Device, Search, and Disable Device (all cross-class skills). So that Fighter of yours has to have a minimum 18 INT just to do a tiny fraction of what a Rogue can do.

Not exactly what I'd call a competent Rogue.

I have however found that a single level of rogue on another skillmonkey class works quite well. Roll it into an artificer build or something.

[Greenish]

It's a bit on the cheesy side, so some DM's may object, but to begin hiding a character need only have concealment of some variety, and to then move.That only works if you're not being observed (or have HiPS).

I have however found that a single level of rogue on another skillmonkey class works quite well. Roll it into an artificer build or something.Artificer already come with Trapfinding, the relevant skills and skill points to burn.

[Psyren]

FWIW, I believe that, with the exception of SA, both Beguiler and Factotum
"out-rogue" the Rogue in what are usually considered his primary roles (trap detection/disarming, faceman, skillmonkey, stealth/scouting).

IMHO, the Factotum's Inspritation Point abilities, and the Beguiler's casting more than compensate for any unique abilities that the Rogue gets. YMMV.

Don't forget Psychic Rogues, who have decent SA progression themselves, UPD and lots of innate tricks.

I'm not 100% sure how Spellthieves, Lurks and Ninja measure up though. (For what it's worth, Lurks can get 2d6 sneak attack at level two, 3d6 with Overchannel)

[Greenish]

I'm not 100% sure how Spellthieves, Lurks and Ninja measure up though. (For what it's worth, Lurks can get 2d6 sneak attack at level two, 3d6 with Overchannel)Lurks and ninja are more like rogue's poorer cousins. Spellthief has a slightly different paradigm.

[true_shinken]

Lurks and ninja are more like rogue's poorer cousins. Spellthief has a slightly different paradigm.
Poor Lurk is always underestimated. His nova potential is probably the highest in all sneak attack classes because of the lurk augments.
Spellthief is just better, though.

[classy one]

You think the rogue's intended purpose is melee damage? :smallconfused:

QFT
Rogues are skill monkeys with some (decent) combat capabilities. I've won whole encounters with just a good forged document, bluff and disguise check.

If your DM isn't allowing you to use your skills to benefit the campaign then that's a different story. Or maybe you are not suited for skill monkey if you prefer combat.

[classy one]

Don't forget Psychic Rogues, who have decent SA progression themselves, UPD and lots of innate tricks.

I'm not 100% sure how Spellthieves, Lurks and Ninja measure up though. (For what it's worth, Lurks can get 2d6 sneak attack at level two, 3d6 with Overchannel)
Psychic rogue is a solid alternative.

I don't think overchannel, which deals 1d8 points of damage, is wise for the squishy lurk. Isnt there feat that (lurk master?) that let's you play as lurk 2 levels higher? Maybe that would be more appropriate?

[true_shinken]

Psychic rogue is a solid alternative.

I don't think overchannel, which deals 1d8 points of damage, is wise for the squishy lurk. Isnt there feat that (lurk master?) that let's you play as lurk 2 levels higher? Maybe that would be more appropriate?

You could have both.
They call it nova for a reason. :smallamused:

[Psyren]

Psychic rogue is a solid alternative.

I don't think overchannel, which deals 1d8 points of damage, is wise for the squishy lurk.

Talented (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#talented) goes well with Overchannel to prevent the damage... though on second reading it seems that neither of them would be applicable to Lurk Augments anyway (they aren't powers.)

[true_shinken]

Talented (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#talented) goes well with Overchannel to prevent the damage... though on second reading it seems that neither of them would be applicable to Lurk Augments anyway (they aren't powers.)

No?! I always thought they would.
Maybe that's why the Lurk player in my game never took those feats, even though I suggested them.

[Psyren]

Overchannel does raise your ML... but like Wild Surge, must be activated as part of manifesting a power, which augments aren't. :smallfrown:

You can still raise your ML by other means, and that will boost your augment cap.

[Tytalus]

Factotum was the later replacement of Rogue.

That your claim. In fact, it replaced nothing but rather offered an alternative.