Rogues for Balance

[Rowanomicon]

First off let me say that I tend to houserule (or ask the DM to houserule, depending on if I'm DMing or playing) that Rogues get another Special Ability at level 20, but that doesn't really matter either way for this thread.

I kind of figure that Rogues are a good basis for balance. They are neither uber nor crappy. They are useful from level 1 to level 20.

This is in contrast with Wizard, who start out crappy (if you don't sell your Spellbook), but get uber; Fighters, who start out quite powerful, but end up out-shone by others; Clerics, who start out good and get progressively more uber as they go; Druids, who often get accused of super-brokenness; and others.

The other reason I think Rogues are a good basis for balance is that they fill a specific party roll and fill it well while still being able to do just about anything if need be (even if it's not as well as others who specialise in it).

Agreements, disagreements, and discussion are very welcome.

[Doresain]

i agree whole-heartedly simply because i typically am party skill-monkey

[Skjaldbakka]

I agree. Rogues are pretty much the benchmark for a well-built class that does everything it advertises without overshadowing other classes. Bard and Ranger also stay pretty close to the benchmark, as does pre-expansion Barbarian.

[ocato]

I also agree, but I think its largely due to disable device and use magic item. Usually the big damage rogues have a few other things thrown in (scout levels, swift ambusher, ToB feats for a stance/maneuver around L12, whatever floats your boat), but even without all that extra tomfoolery, they are still pretty decent all around and useful. At higher levels straight rogues are still good, but a hunk of credit goes to those two skills.

[TomTheRat]

After playing the skill monkey in ToEE for over a year I am forced to disagree. The cleric, druid and wizard are able to produce massive, combat wide support. The warrior, ranger and paladin are able to provide consistent and powerful dps. I disarm the occasional trap and every now and again get a teensy bit of sneak attack damage.

I've died more often than any other party member. I do less dps than any other party member. I prevent less damage than any other party member.

Remember back in the day (read: 2nd ed) when rogues advanced in level 200-125% faster than wizards? Yeah... that was for a reason. Sneaking and disarming traps simply don't support the party as much as a full bevy of caster capabilities. 3rd ed seemed to forget that an extra rogue level is -never- equivalent to a wizard level.

[Rowanomicon]

Bard, Ranger, Barbarian, and Paladin are basically the middle classes (better than Monks and Fighter, but not as good as Full Casters), but I chose the Rogue for my pinnacle of balance as it is one of the "main four"

That's why I didn't mention those classes in my OP (I meant to mention the Monk as an example of under-poweredness).

[ocato]

After playing the skill monkey in ToEE for over a year I am forced to disagree. The cleric, druid and wizard are able to produce massive, combat wide support. The warrior, ranger and paladin are able to provide consistent and powerful dps. I disarm the occasional trap and every now and again get a teensy bit of sneak attack damage.

I've died more often than any other party member. I do less dps than any other party member. I prevent less damage than any other party member.

Remember back in the day (read: 2nd ed) when rogues advanced in level 200-125% faster than wizards? Yeah... that was for a reason. Sneaking and disarming traps simply don't support the party as much as a full bevy of caster capabilities. 3rd ed seemed to forget that an extra rogue level is -never- equivalent to a wizard level.

I mean this with the most respect possible, but was this an issue of the class or your character? I mean, I've seen wizards suck out loud. Sometimes gear, your other party members, or just a few silly mistakes can make you lag behind the rest of your party. Just food for thought.

[Rowanomicon]

Sorry, but what does ToEE stand for?

Also there is massive room for variation in character (especially with all the splat books out there). I'm assuming that one has decent stats and knows what Feats, Skills, etc. that are good to go for, but isn't choosing things that are obviously over-sights or game breaking.

[OneWinged4ngel]

This is in contrast with Wizard, who start out crappy

Whoever told you this is wrong. They just play wizards badly, plain 'n' simple. Wizards are awesome straight out of the box. They get even MORE awesome later. In fact, they can have more offensive power and out of combat utility than the party Rogue or Cleric straight off level 1. The Druid, of course, wins out by virtue of brining two useful characters to the table.

Anyone who tells you that wizards don't get powerful until after level 10 are very likely unskilled with mechanics themselves, and have just read too many rehashed Logic Ninja batman fanboy arguments. If you talked to more real optimizers instead of flunky clones, I'm sure you'd recognize that Wizards have a slew of advantages straight off level 1, and can even break the curve at that point.

I'm not going to go into making your overpowered low level wizard... just simply why the basic wizard is worthy of being feared in capable hands straight off level 1.

A level 1 core only wizard with, say, a hawk familiar will have access to area of effect save or loses, a scout more capable than a Rogue, the ability to make cheap scrolls of great and varied utility on a day's notice, good, versatile out of combat utility (especially if you take advantage of the ability to keep a slot open), spells like Silent Image that will win otherwise insurmountable encounters or even change the tide of a plot(!) with clever use, and doubled up skill checks (when you are getting around 24 skill points at level 1), including a second spot check with at least a +16 modifier, meaning that no darned Rogues are going to sneak by you

When you go out of core, it gets even better. That's nothing to sneeze at. And you get far better once you get access to level 2 spells. And so, your exponential power curve begins, and then you're just unstoppable when your levels reach the double digits.

I agree. Rogues are pretty much the benchmark for a well-built class that does everything it advertises without overshadowing other classes.

Rogues aren't actually very well built, by virtue of violating obvious elements of good class design like "actually have a reason to progress in the class." There is no reason to ever take a 20th level of Rogue. Other than that, though, they're pretty darn solid, and I usually recommend them as the best class for the newbies, since they gradually introduce a new player to the entire system and even if you totally screw your build you will still fill a useful function in the party.

[TomTheRat]

I mean this with the most respect possible, but was this an issue of the class or your character? I mean, I've seen wizards suck out loud. Sometimes gear, your other party members, or just a few silly mistakes can make you lag behind the rest of your party. Just food for thought.

Nono, none taken. The wizard is a brilliant and "outside the box" player. The only real noob in the group is the ranger (who had the wizard's player min/max her character) and the paladin (who got reincarnated as a half-celestial, and had a homebrewed 4 level progression to full half-celestial).

I like to think that I have the skill to make the absolute best of any situation. I watch for patterns in combat and out of combat, and consistently, I find that I contribute vastly less than the other characters to the overall success of the party. Yes, ToEE is a meat grinder, but I still think that in-character stuff aside no class should be the obvious weakest link. I'm that.

Sorry, but what does ToEE stand for?

Also there is massive room for variation in character (especially with all the splat books out there). I'm assuming that one has decent stats and knows what Feats, Skills, etc. that are good to go for, but isn't choosing things that are obviously over-sights or game breaking.

ToEE = Temple of Elemental Evil, or, as we're in 3rd ed days, Return to Temple of Elemental Evil.

There certainly IS room for min-maxing, but our DM took a fairly strict stand against that, and we're almost all core classes right now. I'm Rogue/Thief-Acrobat if anyone cares.

Bard, Ranger, Barbarian, and Paladin are basically the middle classes (better than Monks and Fighter, but not as good as Full Casters), but I chose the Rogue for my pinnacle of balance as it is one of the "main four"

I got you. What I'm trying to say is that I contribute less than the others. Definitely less than even the warrior.

[tyckspoon]

Sorry, but what does ToEE stand for?

Also there is massive room for variation in character (especially with all the splat books out there). I'm assuming that one has decent stats and knows what Feats, Skills, etc. that are good to go for, but isn't choosing things that are obviously over-sights or game breaking.

Temple of Elemental Evil, I believe. The poster's complaint may well come from the fact that he was in an adventure setting whose theme enemies are immune to Sneak Attack. It's the same problem rogues have in the standard adventure environment of The Undead-Filled Catacombs, which is why a number of variant class features, magic items, and spells have been printed to let rogues Sneak Attack otherwise immune things.

[TomTheRat]

Temple of Elemental Evil, I believe. The poster's complaint may well come from the fact that he was in an adventure setting whose theme enemies are immune to Sneak Attack. It's the same problem rogues have in the standard adventure environment of The Undead-Filled Catacombs, which is why a number of variant class features, magic items, and spells have been printed to let rogues Sneak Attack otherwise immune things.

Yeah, it does suck when mobs are immune to my sneak attack, no question. But a lot of the time sneak attack isn't even an option. I work -hard- to be in the right place at the right time with the right unexpected item, with the right enemy targeted, and at the end of the day, a full attack at full BAB progression with a two handed sword will outshine my meticulous scheme. Or the wizard simply enervates the everliving hell out of the BBEG.

[The_Snark]

Whoever told you this is wrong. They just play wizards badly, plain 'n' simple. Wizards are awesome straight out of the box. They get even MORE awesome later. In fact, they can have more offensive power and out of combat utility than the party Rogue or Cleric straight off level 1. The Druid, of course, wins out by virtue of brining two useful characters to the table.

Wizards are awesome right out of the box... three times a day. They're not very good at level 1; they'll acquit themselves decently in the first couple encounters and then realize they're out of spells.

For that matter, most of the wizard's supposedly awesome 1st-level spells aren't that good. Color Spray is good, but has very short range, meaning a successful save by an enemy can get you killed. Charm Person is good, but once combat starts, not as useful. Sleep is good... no, wait, full-round casting time. Not very good. Grease is solid.

For that matter, if you want anything out of combat, or anything defensive, you just gave up a third of your combat ability at 1st level.

[ocato]

Okay! So you were a rogue in undeadsville! I certain would call that extraordinary circumstances. Don't feel bad about your character or the class in that situation, that's like being a barbarian in a heavy socialite mystery game. It's just a bad situation.

[TomTheRat]

Okay! So you were a rogue in undeadsville! I certain would call that extraordinary circumstances. Don't feel bad about your character or the class in that situation, that's like being a barbarian in a heavy socialite mystery game. It's just a bad situation.

Not even close. ToEE has plenty of every type of enemy, and after a year and a half of getting our butts stomped on by this damned adventure, I don't feel that I'm any more or less disadvantaged than any other character. At least with respect to the type of enemies we fight.

[OneWinged4ngel]

Wizards are awesome right out of the box... three times a day.

Wrong again. You ignore half of their capabilities at that level. You ignore their skills (often they get about as many points as the party bard), cantrips (don't underestimate them!), and resources (familiars can outscout the rogue early on, and that's only the start).

A level 1 core only wizard with, say, a hawk familiar will have access to area of effect save or loses, a scout more capable than a Rogue, the ability to make cheap scrolls of great and varied utility on a day's notice, good, versatile out of combat utility (especially if you take advantage of the ability to keep a slot open), spells like Silent Image that will win otherwise insurmountable encounters or even change the tide of a plot(!) with clever use, and doubled up skill checks (when you are getting around 24 skill points at level 1), including a second spot check with at least a +16 modifier, meaning that no darned Rogues are going to sneak by you

And not only that, even cantrips can be life-saving! A cleric's orisons simply don't compare. Like Silent Image and similar spells, Ghost Sound can actually WIN ENCOUNTERS when used creatively. Mage Hand can occasionally get you out of deadly situations with the flip of an unreachable lever or other situational uses. Prestidigitation can eliminate evidence of your recent brutal murders with a quick cleaning. Daze can actually take out an enemy's turn, if you've run out of spells.

This is just core only. You only get better with supplements.

[ocato]

Well, thems the breaks sometimes, eh? A wand of invisibility can sometimes make or break you.

[Rowanomicon]

Yes, Rogues are definitely majorly nerfed when up against opponents who are immune to Sneak Attack.

On a side not, OneWing, can you please explain to me why Wizards are uber at level 1? I guess I exaggerated by saying that they are crappy, but I feel that Wizards and Sorcerers are the least powerful classes at level 1 (I'm not really sure about Bards though as I haven't ever played a Bard... Oh my gods, I've never played a Bard!). Oh, that's probably excluding Monks.
The fact remains that Level 1 Wizards and Sorcerers are OHKOs.

[OneWinged4ngel]

Yes, Rogues are definitely majorly nerfed when up against opponents who are immune to Sneak Attack.

On a side not, OneWing, can you please explain to me why Wizards are uber at level 1? I guess I exaggerated by saying that they are crappy, but I feel that Wizards and Sorcerers are the least powerful classes at level 1 (I'm not really sure about Bards though as I haven't ever played a Bard... Oh my gods, I've never played a Bard!). Oh, that's probably excluding Monks.
The fact remains that Level 1 Wizards and Sorcerers are OHKOs.

A level 1 core only wizard with, say, a hawk familiar will have access to area of effect save or loses, a scout more capable than a Rogue, the ability to make cheap scrolls of great and varied utility on a day's notice, good, versatile out of combat utility (especially if you take advantage of the ability to keep a slot open), spells like Silent Image that will win otherwise insurmountable encounters or even change the tide of a plot(!) with clever use, and doubled up skill checks (when you are getting around 24 skill points at level 1), including a second spot check with at least a +16 modifier, meaning that no darned Rogues are going to sneak by you

And not only that, even cantrips can be life-saving! A cleric's orisons simply don't compare. Like Silent Image and similar spells, Ghost Sound can actually WIN ENCOUNTERS when used creatively. Mage Hand can occasionally get you out of deadly situations with the flip of an unreachable lever or other situational uses. Prestidigitation can eliminate evidence of your recent brutal murders with a quick cleaning. Daze can actually take out an enemy's turn, if you've run out of spells.

This is just core only. You only get better with supplements.

When I've played low level casters, I've found myself being one of the most valuable members in the party, regardless of whether the game was combat-heavy or not. And I tend to play with at least decent optimizers, and at most uncon optimization prizewinners and superbuild contributors.

[Skjaldbakka]

Rogues aren't actually very well built, by virtue of violating obvious elements of good class design like "actually have a reason to progress in the class."

By that logic, wizard and cleric fail as well. For that matter, no class does. I haven't seen a straight X character in an actual game in years, due to PrCs.

That being said, yeah, rogue should have a pinnacle ability, and it isn't perfect. That doesn't change the fact that it is the benchmark for class balance. Classes that are more powerful are overpowered, and classes that are less powerful are underpowered.

[Chronos]

I've died more often than any other party member. I do less dps than any other party member. I prevent less damage than any other party member.

DPS and damage prevention are tools for winning a fight. If you're looking at the game in terms of combat, then it's no wonder that you're having problems with a rogue. Rogues aren't for winning fights; they're for winning adventures. You sneak ahead of the party, and scout out where the guards, traps, and alarms are. You sneak past or go around the guards, disarm or avoid the traps and alarms, and head for the objective (villain, artifact, or whatever). If the goal is to retrieve some item, you just go grab it, and sneak back to the party. If it's to defeat a villain, then you steal or disable whatever he has that makes him effective (a holy symbol, a spellbook, material components, magic items, whatever). If he doesn't have anything to steal or disable, you can still at least bring intelligence back to the rest of the party. If you do it well and the dice smile upon you, it doesn't matter one whit that your Sneak Attack doesn't work on some targets, because you never enter combat at all.

To the OP, I think the general consensus is that rogues are the most balanced of the classes (and they should be, what with having it as a class skill, and a high dex! ). So you're not alone.

[OneWinged4ngel]

By that logic, wizard and cleric fail as well. For that matter, no class does. I haven't seen a straight X character in an actual game in years, due to PrCs.

That being said, yeah, rogue should have a pinnacle ability, and it isn't perfect. That doesn't change the fact that it is the benchmark for class balance. Classes that are more powerful are overpowered, and classes that are less powerful are underpowered.

A wizard actually gets a caster level by advancing a level, even if a PrC would replicate that. A Rogue does not get ANYTHING for advancing to level 20. Not even the promise of an ability to be gained AFTER that, unless you're taking the Epic route. The Rogue's 20th level is a critical, glaring error in design that any decent game designer would notice instantly. This indicates to me that WotC does not exactly have fantastic game designers or playtesters, along with endless other evidence. Either that, or they purposely make it flawed in order to spur on supplement sales.

[Rowanomicon]

Yes, they can be useful, but I'd hardly call them Uber at level one. Especially considering that a Fighter will usually have three times the HP and the ability to OHKO many opponents an unlimited time per day with absolutely no player creativity.

[OneWinged4ngel]

Yes, they can be useful, but I'd hardly call them Uber at level one.

Did anyone say uber? No, I didn't say uber. Though I *could* make that claim and provide specific builds proving it (since I actually know how to optimize worth a damn), I don't believe in making such arguments about general balance based on specific cheese tactics.

What I actually said was "they're very useful even at low level, and anyone who tells you that casters are weak at low level is wrong."

[ocato]

I like rogues.

[Rowanomicon]

Well, they are uber at high levels.
They are not useless, but power-wise they are out-shone at level 1.

Also the lack of a reason to take Rogue 20 is a design flaw, but other than that they are the benchmark for balance at all levels.
Even at level 20 (if one took it) they would be useful as a level 20 character. The problem is that they could do better even by dipping one level into Fighter for a Bonus Feat and HP.

[OneWinged4ngel]

I like rogues.

Me too, but doesn't that comment basically amount to spam?

Well, they are uber at high levels.
They are not useless, but power-wise they are out-shone at level 1.

By what? Druids? Seriously, a level 1 Barbarian (or what have you) will not show up a level 1 wizard, since the wizard covers so much utility that the Fighter can't even touch, as I've already demonstrated. In fact, the average barbarian probably won't show up 8d6 damage as a touch attack, and a level 1 wizard can do that a few times per day with no optimization or build effort.

[tyckspoon]

Yes, they can be useful, but I'd hardly call them Uber at level one. Especially considering that a Fighter will usually have three times the HP and the ability to OHKO many opponents an unlimited time per day with absolutely no player creativity.

And a lot of his opponents can one-shot him right back. Like anything that carries a two-handed weapon; a single standard MM orc can shred a first-level party with minimal cooperation from the dice. The wizard's ability to perform his effects from range is significantly safer than a melee'ing fighter at 1st.

Also, I've seen it said somewhere that Shadowdancer 1 is the actual Rogue 20. I don't know who decided to put Hide in Plain Sight at the first level of that class..

[Mewtarthio]

A wizard actually gets a caster level by advancing a level, even if a PrC would replicate that. A Rogue does not get ANYTHING for advancing to level 20. Not even the promise of an ability to be gained AFTER that, unless you're taking the Epic route. The Rogue's 20th level is a critical, glaring error in design that any decent game designer would notice instantly. This indicates to me that WotC does not exactly have fantastic game designers or playtesters, along with endless other evidence. Either that, or they purposely make it flawed in order to spur on supplement sales.

A lack of a capstone ability is a small but annoying error. It's not a horrific oversight that has ruined the Rogue class and could only have been caused either by horrific incompotence of the highest order or outright malicious plotting to sell more supplements.

[ocato]

Too subtle? My mistake.

Let's get this thread back on topic, this is not the Wizards in the Playground forum and every thread is not "zomg wizards 4tw"