| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| SgtHulka11-28-05, 03:45 PM | This is sort of an off-shoot of the thread started about multiclassing between a Rogue and a Wizard. Is there any reason to play a straight rogue? A rogue's primary purpose in Living Greyhawk seems to be disarming traps. But Trapfinding is a first-level ability. A character with one level of rogue and every other level in ranger can be every bit as effective at trap-springing as a straight rogue can be. Sneak attack is the other rogue-only ability. But it's hampered by the number of things that are immune to it. In the past two mods I played, the first encounter was in magical darkness (concealment which negates sneak attack), the second encounter was a swarm (immune to sneak attack), the third encounter was an elemental (immune to sneak attack), the fourth encounter was diplomatic (non-combat), the fifth encounter was a puzzle (rogue skills helped), the sixth encounter was a construct (immune to sneak attack) and the seventh encounter was a group of mounted humans. So of five combat encounters, four were immune to sneak attack. Rangers get just as many skill points as rogues do. Barbarians get Trap Sense. So is there any compelling reason to go straight rogue instead of Rogue 1/Ranger X or Rogue 1/Barbarian X? The only thing I can think of is getting Skill Mastery at 10th Level. But you retire at 12th, right? So that means playing 10 levels of rogue just to get 2 levels of usefulness out of the character. What am I missing? |
| StormCrow4211-28-05, 04:14 PM | First, rangers get 6 skill points/level, rogues get 8. Since rangers don't get disable device, you'll be spending an awful lot of skill points if you want to keep up with your trapmonkey role, since able learner is a banned feat in LG. Second, LG retirement will be at level 16 after this year (it's currently at 18) and there will still be a few post-retirement play opportunities every year. Evasion is the primary reason to stay for at least rogue 2. Not taking that fireball damage whenever you make a save is definately something to stay for. If you stay in longer, uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge will save you a lot of pain in suprise situations, especially when the NPC rogues start coming out in force. |
| Sieylianna11-28-05, 04:56 PM | How many opponents you can sneak attack is widely variable depending on region and APL. I'm sure that I could pick two modules where the cleric couldn't turn undead or the archer couldn't use his bow or the barbarian couldn't charge if I wanted. Talk to other people in your region and see if this is the normal state of affairs. Ed |
| GreatSiron11-28-05, 08:49 PM | If you do the math, magic traps (which are usually the biggest pain) have a disable device check of 25+spell lvl, which means that a lightning bolt trap (which seems to be all too common in my region) has a disable device check of 27. To even have a 50% chance of disarming this, with a int of 16 and masterwork thieves tools, you would need 13 ranks. (27-3intbonus-2Mwtools-10) That's a lvl 10 rogue. (lvl-3) So there are defintely advantages to going straight rogue. |
| SgtHulka11-28-05, 09:47 PM | I'm mostly playing Devil's Advocate, here, but I am curious about continued counter-arguments: First, rangers get 6 skill points/level, rogues get 8. Since rangers don't get disable device, you'll be spending an awful lot of skill points if you want to keep up with your trapmonkey role, since able learner is a banned feat in LG. Second, LG retirement will be at level 16 after this year (it's currently at 18) and there will still be a few post-retirement play opportunities every year. My bad on the 6 vs. 8 skill points. Still, to be a trap monkey all you really need is "Search" and "Disable Device". The former is already a ranger class skill, you just need the first level of rogue to be able to find the traps. That means you're only paying double points for Disable Device. So now you're paying 3 points per level to max out Search and Disable Device. That still leaves you 3 skill points. With Survival, Spot and Listen you've got the basic ranger skills covered. So now you're a meta-tricked out bow jockey who finds and disables traps just as well as the party thief. Evasion is the primary reason to stay for at least rogue 2. Not taking that fireball damage whenever you make a save is definately something to stay for. Yeah, maybe, but it's more necessary for a Rogue with its paltry d6 hit die than a Ranger. Although Rangers only have a d8 so yeah I can see Rogue 2/Ranger X. If you stay in longer, uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge will save you a lot of pain in suprise situations, especially when the NPC rogues start coming out in force. Again, I almost consider this more a necessary survival skill for a rogue. Getting attacked flat-footed with a paltry d6 hit die will drop the rogue in round one. How many straight rogues are significantly contributing to combat, anyway? Couldn't the rogue just stand in the corner and twiddle his thumbs until the fight's over? At least a bard can sing songs. What do you guys think when there's a straight rogue in your party? Do you breathe a sigh of relief, or do you roll your eyes? What if there's a rogue and a bard? Do you immediately try and play down? How many opponents you can sneak attack is widely variable depending on region and APL. I'm sure that I could pick two modules where the cleric couldn't turn undead or the archer couldn't use his bow or the barbarian couldn't charge if I wanted. Of course you're right to an extant. But look at what the Archer or Barbarian can do when they CAN charge/use their bow. They put out massive amounts of damage. Even when a rogue can sneak attack he only contributes about what a normal fighter of his level would contribute with an attack. It's not sink or swim, it's sink or tread water. If you do the math, magic traps (which are usually the biggest pain) have a disable device check of 25+spell lvl, which means that a lightning bolt trap (which seems to be all too common in my region) has a disable device check of 27. To even have a 50% chance of disarming this, with a dex of 16 and masterwork thieves tools, you would need 13 ranks. (27-3dexbonus-2Mwtools-10) That's a lvl 10 rogue. (lvl-3) Just to be nitpicky: Disable Device is Intelligence-based, and Lightning Bolt (3rd Level Spell) would have a 28 Disable Device check. So it's even harder. A tenth level rogue with Skill Mastery: Disable Device would be able to disable it automatically (13 ranks + skill focus + masterwork tools) whereas a Rogue 2/Ranger 8 would still have that 50% chance of failure. To look at it differently, what do you guys think are the most important skills for a rogue to have? I don't mean from the perspective of the rogue's survival, I mean from the perspective of party contribution. When your party is saddled with a rogue, what are you looking to the rogue to help out with? |
| Calinon11-28-05, 11:00 PM | A good majority of traps are placed in ways that rogues will never find them. You can't search every square due to time constraints and with rare exceptions, traps seem to be in the middle of a ten foot wide, hundred foot long, hallway. That's an exageration of course, but my point is that situations involving traps are normally such that unless your party is taking ten hours to move a hundred feet, you are not finding the trap. In addition, non-criticable enemies run rampant through LG to avoid quick fights. A critable monster goes down fast to a focused rogue or a power attacking character who scores a lucky crit. While power attacking is still useful, the poor rogue is pretty much eliminated. "I'm sorry, rogue, but that stone golem has damage reduction of 10 and can't be sneak attacked. Do you want to poke it with your rapier again?" Our entire group has basically put rogues aside as useful, though a few members take a level or two here or there for evasion and sneak attack. We have found it FAR more effective to make characters with insane save bonus' and put those characters in front to eat the traps. We heal them after and buff them before. Of course, our most effective trap eaters have two levels in rogue for evasion. Anyway, general consensus from around here seems to be that rogue levels are only useful for evasion and sneak attack bonus'. |
| SIUlawdawg11-29-05, 12:45 AM | I have found that my straight rogue is very useful in regards to scouting ahead using his hide/move silently skills. My rogue gets 12 skill points a level and has a nice selection of knowledge, diplomacy, intimidate, use magic device (how about using a scroll of true strike with a UMD DC21 check and then having a +20 on your next attack...and have that weapon you use being a greataxe?), etc. Precise shot and some distance will allow you to fight and yet keep you out of harms way...and lets not forget the "charge/flank sneak attack" that gives you a +4 to hit. Add a spiked chain or another weapon that trips and the bonuses to attack keep on coming. It basically comes down to choices. If the goal is "I want to make the most powerful PC I can" then maybe straight rogue isn't the choice for you. If the goal is "I want to be the guy that everyone wants to play with because I am versatile, etc" then I'd give it consideration. I like being the utility guy who can help with spot/search/knowledge, etc, etc. And it is always nice being the only one who can make a jump/climb check because I am not wearing a turtle-shell set of full plate. |
| deusxmachina11-29-05, 02:54 AM | What do you guys think when there's a straight rogue in your party? Do you breathe a sigh of relief, or do you roll your eyes? I breathe a sigh of relief -- unless they're a goober who is trying to play an atypical rogue who has skill points and feats in everything except the things you'd expect a rogue to have. Rogues are expected to be trap-finders and disarmers first and foremost. If they can't do that, then they're just an alternate melee or ranged-weapon machine. Our party rogue started cross-classing into fighter so he could shoot a bow better. Now he shoots a bow well, but he also screws up on half the traps, and now he is annoying because the main job he is expected to do he can't do. My cleric is close to just walking straight into potentially trapped areas himself and then healing whatever damage may occur -- which happens sometimes anyway since the rogue can't disarm the traps or misses noticing them entirely. Having said that, if another class gets plenty of skill points and pumps them into the "rogue" skills, that's good enough for me. Point is, if you're the party rogue, you are expected to find the traps. If you can't do that and instead want to try to be a fancy "different" melee guy with your d6 hitdice, I'll do my best to trade you in on a rogue that actually does what he's supposed to do. |
| Sieylianna11-29-05, 07:30 AM | Having said that, if another class gets plenty of skill points and pumps them into the "rogue" skills, that's good enough for me. Point is, if you're the party rogue, you are expected to find the traps. If you can't do that and instead want to try to be a fancy "different" melee guy with your d6 hitdice, I'll do my best to trade you in on a rogue that actually does what he's supposed to do. I have a couple of rogues (the main one is my Living Kalamar) PC who are more focused on social skills than traditional rogue skills, but I let people know that ahead of time. Eventually, I'd like to get both of them into the Invisble Blade prestige class. I find that even when I can't sneak attack an opponent, the ability to tumble behind a foe, provide a flank and use the aid another action to give the party's fighter a +4 to his chance to hit, more than makes up for not having much of a chance of disarming traps (search is maxed out, disable device is not). My diplomacy is also maxed out, so I can also provide that for the modules where it matters. Ed |
| SgtHulka11-29-05, 12:45 PM | I find that even when I can't sneak attack an opponent, the ability to tumble behind a foe, provide a flank and use the aid another action to give the party's fighter a +4 to his chance to hit...Ed Yes providing flanking bonus/aid another seems to be the primary roll of the rogue in combat. To that effect Combat Expertise and Attack Defensively seem to be the rogue's best friend. However, wouldn't your party rather have a monk doing this than a rogue? A monk can specialize in a number of things rogues can't -- stunning attack, tripping, grappling, and speed. Having said that, if another class gets plenty of skill points and pumps them into the "rogue" skills, that's good enough for me. Point is, if you're the party rogue, you are expected to find the traps. Yep, which brings me back to my original point...if the rogue's primary purpose is to disarm traps, he could be an all-around more effective party contributer by taking most of his levels in ranger (or even barbarian). A good majority of traps are placed in ways that rogues will never find them. You can't search every square due to time constraints and with rare exceptions, traps seem to be in the middle of a ten foot wide, hundred foot long, hallway. That's an exageration of course, but my point is that situations involving traps are normally such that unless your party is taking ten hours to move a hundred feet, you are not finding the trap. Point well-taken. However, a Rogue can still move at 1/2 speed and search every square in front of him. If that rogue has barbarian levels, that means 1/2 move is 20', which is the same as a dwarf, halfling or gnome moving at full speed. So in truth constantly searching isn't really slowing the party down. Technically the rogue has to roll for each square, but I think most reasonable judges just allow the rogue to roll once and use that roll if a trap happens to come up. Still, the rogue isn't taking 20, so that means there's still a good chance of missing a trap. And a multi-classed rogue can do this just as well (or better in the case of a barbarian or monk) than a straight rogue. I've begun to think that maybe a rogue's primary purpose is simply to escape. It seems like this is the only thing a straight rogue in Living Greyhawk can do better than anyone else. With a sky-high reflex save, evasion, maxed-out escape artist, and no armor check penalty, the rogue is unique in being able to escape entangle/web/evard's black tentacles/grapples/nets/ropes when the rest of the party is stuck tight. Even a DC 25 strength or escape artist check isn't too tough for a rogue with with maxed escape artist (even at 4th level that's a 7 escape artist plus dex bonus for a decent chance to escape). Though a Monk could do this too. If the party is trapped in a pit the rogue with maxed out climb can get out fairly easily. Though a Monk could do this too. If the party is surrounded by some impassable surface the rogue with maxed out jump might be able to get away. Though a Monk could do this too, and maybe better because he probably has a higher strength and an insane speed. If the party is trapped in a cage with adamantine bars the rogue can still pick the lock. A Monk couldn't do that. And, generally, I don't think a Monk can really specialize in all the above skills (a Monk has so many characteristics to focus on that Intelligence is often neglected, and he only gets 4 skill points). Maybe this means the rogue is the only one that can cut the line to the net/stab the wizard casting evards/use magic device on the happy stick to heal bleeding to death allies/escape the huge animated grappling stone fist and therefore get away in a situation that otherwise would be a tpk so he can come back later collect the bodies and give everyone the chance to get raised. |
| TheMagus11-29-05, 01:09 PM | Is there any reason to play a straight rogue? The only thing I can think of is getting Skill Mastery at 10th Level. But you retire at 12th, right? So that means playing 10 levels of rogue just to get 2 levels of usefulness out of the character. What am I missing? Retirement is at 16th, not 12th. Crippling Strike is probably the deadliest of the high level rogue abilities. Many players discount the use of rogues as melee combatants, but a TWF, ITWF 10th level rogue with haste and crippling strike can deal 10 strength damage out each turn along with 25d6 of sneak attack damage. This can dramatically increase the party's ability to survive against creatures that are big, strong and have large numbers of hit points. Oh, and by the way, Pit Fiends and Ancient Dragons both bleed. I've seen a high level rogue save an entire party from an encounter with buffed harpies. Everyone failed the initial save, but thanks to Slippery Mind he was able to break it in round two, and activate a stone of silence. Skill Mastery is excellent, especially since it lets you choose your own skills. Even the bonus feat option is nice since you can take any feat you qualify for since there is no list to limit the choices. Oh, and there is always the 8+Int per level in skill points; you can't beat that. There are a lot of modules out there that can leave a rogue feeling pretty useless, but when you run into things the rogue does well, there is nothing like having a real rogue around. David |
| solbergb11-29-05, 01:13 PM | Having actually played a monk and having played with a number of rogues who can contribute in combat....and who also plays two characters who "Scout" (an archer and a light infantry) Rogues simply do more damage than anyone else if they are focused on maximizing sneak attack opportunities...when they can sneak attack. Monks have similar issues maximizing their flurries, but the end result isn't nearly as powerful...but it works on more things. Both make decent scouts, monks are more durable, rogues tend to sneak better and be more alert by virtue of twice as many skill points. My archer does much more reliable damage than a rogue, but he is also far more likely to be spotted when scouting and isn't any more durable. The best rogues I've seen do pretty decent damage even when they can't sneak - either by doing lots of attacks (TWF, throwing styles or whatever) or by using a two-handed weapon, high strength, power attack and sometimes even a level of barbarian for rage. They can't compete with the party archer or barbarian for raw damage, but they do enough to not be ignorable (and they can do more if they bother to carry various weapons to penetrate DR etc than a so-called damage-focused character like an archer whose ammo load isn't optomized for DR penetration). A strong rogue can compete with a monk for damage dealing even vs uncrittable targets, and do most other skill based things better, while falling short on the mobililty/save/immunity front. Some other options exist to help with the unsneakables. I know some rogues with favored soul or wiz or sorc levels to get gravestrike or the golem spell (I like sorc level going with critical strike and the golem spell...the extra d6 you get with critical strike makes up for sneak attack dice you lost). In the higher levels, Imbue with Spell Ability can grant two gravestrikes and a divine insight to the party rogue, clerics should strongly consider this level of support. It isn't much worse than giving GMW to the fighter. One other thing. The level 10+ rogue special feats can be VERY powerful, but you gotta stick with rogue to get them. In the lower levels, staggering strike is very good. |
| rutrow42411-29-05, 01:43 PM | I tend to agree with the OP in that even moreso than a bard, a rogue can easily be feast or famine in LG. The emphasis on combat, and in particular, combat above the APL, easily puts the rogue into a precarious situation. In general, rogues lack the punch to last in melee - without sneak attack, forget it - and a smart foe should find the lightly armored rogue an easy target. Ranged combat is safer but lessens the impact of sneak attack. UMD and a couple social skills are a must. The prototype sneaky trapfinder will work in LG, but if there are no traps the PC has to fall back on combat or other skills, which may or may not be sufficient. Heaven forbid if the "I'll scout ahead" routine is a death wish in the mod you are playing, or if the party is imbalanced (3 fighters, 2 rogues), and/or the table unfilled. I might play a rogue in a home game, but would never try it in LG. I've seen them be effective, and seen the arcane tricksters be even better. |
| rutrow42411-29-05, 02:15 PM | Crippling Strike is probably the deadliest of the high level rogue abilities. Many players discount the use of rogues as melee combatants, but a TWF, ITWF 10th level rogue with haste and crippling strike can deal 10 strength damage out each turn along with 25d6 of sneak attack damage. This can dramatically increase the party's ability to survive against creatures that are big, strong and have large numbers of hit points. Oh, and by the way, Pit Fiends and Ancient Dragons both bleed. I've seen a high level rogue save an entire party from an encounter with buffed harpies. Everyone failed the initial save, but thanks to Slippery Mind he was able to break it in round two, and activate a stone of silence. I don't disagree - but you have to get to that point, which is easier said than done. A low-level rogue that enters melee frequently will die. At APL 2 there will be an EL4 or 5 encounter that a 2nd level rogue should avoid - often so should the 2nd level tank. The situation does not improve as APL increases. It is obviously not impossible to do, but is a lot riskier than even the normal melee PC. |
| Sieylianna11-29-05, 05:16 PM | Yes providing flanking bonus/aid another seems to be the primary roll of the rogue in combat. To that effect Combat Expertise and Attack Defensively seem to be the rogue's best friend. However, wouldn't your party rather have a monk doing this than a rogue? A monk can specialize in a number of things rogues can't -- stunning attack, tripping, grappling, and speed. IME, monks are very rare. I know one monk who is nearing retirement and the 2-3 others I know only have two levels for the feats and evasion. I don't know if it's the alignment restriction or some other reason that makes them unappealing. The lack of armor is also a problem since mithral chain shirts are readily available for rogues, once they have the money. The point system in LG is also harder for monk PCs, since they need good scores in Wisdom and Strength to be effective. (All my rogue PCs require sneak attack to do any real damage, so they get by with a 10 strength.) Ed |
| solbergb11-29-05, 06:15 PM | Well you CAN make an effective monk with just high strength and with wisdom dumped. Or at least I seem to have done so. But yeah, conventional wisdom says a monk needs decent scores in both to be effective, which means wood elf and half-orc monks are pretty good, actually. Most monks I've met who seemed unhappy with damage had starting strengths of 14 or less. I'm not convinced the weapon finesse/stunning fist oriented monk works very well in LG. There may be one out there, but all the successful monks in my region, whose players were happy with the result, are pretty strong. (one is retired. one will be retired in January. Mine is L11. I've seen L8, L4 and L2 monks that were all pretty strong too. I've met two monks with lower strength, one L9, one mid-level. Neither player was happy with them - or at least they felt they had to "play down") Both of the high level monks went monk all the way. My guy is going to quit after L12 and branch out into wizard and fighter levels, to get some feats and to make some use of his intelligence stat, and just to be a bit different (spell resistance conflicts with receiving buffs/healing - I see it as more of a hindrance than help the way he usually plays). My choice was to dump wisdom and put those points into intelligence, so I could have the luxury of being good at all the mobility skills while maxing my "perform acting" skill. This is not something most character-optomizer folks would recommend, but it worked for me. (I take this to indicate that if str is ok, there is more slack on the other attributes than you might think) |
| JamesMaissen11-30-05, 03:26 AM | I think the problem you are having is two fold. First you are trying to play a light fighter rather than a rogue and find problems when the rogue doesn't meet your ideas of a light fighter. Sneak attack isn't the end all be all of what makes or breaks your ability to fight. Second is a general statement. There are many things that characters can bring to the table to help the party: Tanking, Healing, Damage dealing, Terrain control, tracking, trapfinding, turning undead, spotting, scouting, knowledges, diplomacy, etc. There are far more things there than there are characters at a table. Thus its best to bring far more that one to a table to pull your wieght as it were. Yes because trapfinding is limited to rogues, scouts and temple raiders (if I've forgotten a class that grants it mea culpa) it is as much a staple for them as healing is for the cleric. The 'party rogue' should be able to handle traps and should bring that to the table. If you don't bring it to the table, who will? And more to the point, what are you bringing in its stead? But that's not the only thing a rogue should bring to the table. They can easily take the scouting role. Scouting is something that is missunderstood, underplayed and worse at times missplayed. But done properly it is a great asset to the party. Knowledge and preparation time are priceless. An APL+2 encounter can feel like a flat APL encounter or an APL+4 encounter based on which side possesses these key factors. Don't discount scouting. Now a rogue, like all noncasters can augment themselves quite well by splashing a level or two in another class. This can help to focus on strengths or to shore up weaknesses. Done with a purpose this is just as helpful as when a fighter mutts himself; but just like one it does need to be done with care. Make sure you still deliver what you are bringing to the table and haven't sacrificed that for a 'hobby'. You seem to be somewhat focused on melee, so a more melee oriented rogue is probably your style. A friend of mine plays one. Atleast prior to the last conversion he was a Barb1/Ran2/Rog9 woodelf with an 18 starting strength. He dualwields a greatsword (or greatclub w/spikes.. now I guess brambles) and armor spikes. The party's druid would pair his companion bear with him. Whatever the bear grabbed would die forthwith (or if it wasn't sneak attackable it would take a decent hurt from 5 attacks).. they were quite a wrecking team. Now he had his weak points and always bemoaned them, but we all do. I knew when playing with his character I could count on reliable trap detection/removal, fair spotting, good scouting, and reasonable damage to be brought to the table. Take time to see what all you can bring to the table. Then see what else you can bring to easily augment yourself and to shore up weaknesses. It's not the less than stellar characters who I resent playing with, it's those that have given up before the game even starts that I wonder why they play them (and why I'm with them). Between tactics, consumables, and dirty tricks a decent rogue is as decent as anyone else in a fight and just as wanted at my table. -James |
| gizmonster11-30-05, 05:45 PM | Personally I *LOVE* to see a rogue being a rogue. It is great! I play a wizard with craft wand feat. There are great first and second level spells that help a rogue I have crafted several wands for that purpose. I hand them out to the party rogue at the start of the adventure. I have convinced him to max out his use magic device skill. True strike, shield, invis, glitterdust, and the various stat boost spells. These give the rogue great advantages in combat without him having to take away from his rogue skills to try to keep up in the combat arena. Those wands are so cheap to produce that it's insane not to. |
| Some_call_me_Tim11-30-05, 07:02 PM | Is there any reason to play a straight rogue? Sure, if have fun doing so. I personally think LG are often hobbled because of authors, other players, and sometimes even judges. My wife plays a Rogue 8/Shadowdancer 2 so we've seen our a straight rogue in a lot of situations. Authors don't write roguish encounters in the modules. I'm finding fewer and fewer traps as authors use their ELs on more 'challenging' combats. There is also a large number of sneak attack immune critters running about. We played one stretch of games where the rogue didn't have anything to sneak attack for three straight modules! A lot of players seem to view straight rogues as useless. Mainly because they don't let them do what they do best. I've seen my wife's rogue sneak forward to do a quick recon only to be followed by half the party to 'be close just in case.' She has a +20 move silently and hide check modifier. Yet these players think if they follow 15' back they won't give her away just because they have one rank in move silently. I'm sorry but my dwarven tank has to be 250' behind the rogue to make the same move silently check. My wife understands the risk in splitting the party but a good recon can let you have time to buff. Heck, I've even be at a table where another player said "We don't need a rogue--I'll open the chest, I got a gazillion hit points. [EARTH-SHATTERING KABOOM]. Hey cleric! Heal me. See we don't need a rogue." Gee, thanks, you just wasted 3 cure light wounds and a cure serious wounds spell--I hope we don't actually need those spells that the rogue could have avoided wasting by disarming the trap. I've also seen DMs not allow the rogue to gain any useful information when they scout ahead or spring the boxed text trap even though none of the NPCs had a chance to even spot the rogue. Given a chance to be employed properly rogues make good secondary fighters and support characters. If there is no opportuinties or they aren't allowed to use their skills they are weak. |
| SgtHulka12-01-05, 12:05 AM | First you are trying to play a light fighter rather than a rogue and find problems when the rogue doesn't meet your ideas of a light fighter. Sneak attack isn't the end all be all of what makes or breaks your ability to fight. Perhaps not, but it was one of the few things being a "straight" rogue preserves. Switching from Wizard to Fighter, for example, causes a character to lose spells and caster levels. Switching from a Rogue to Fighter causes a character to lose sneak attack progression. That's why I emphasized it. Second is a general statement. There are many things that characters can bring to the table to help the party: Tanking, Healing, Damage dealing, Terrain control, tracking, trapfinding, turning undead, spotting, scouting, knowledges, diplomacy, etc. There are far more things there than there are characters at a table. Thus its best to bring far more that one to a table to pull your wieght as it were. I don't have as much experience as most people on this board; my highest level character is 6th, the highest APL I've ever played is 8. That's part of the reason I raised the question here. In my limited experience Arcane Casters, Divine Casters, Tanks and even Bards have a distinct role to play (perhaps it's just my region, but social skills are extremely important). I haven't seen that same distinct role for Rogues (yet). Yes because trapfinding is limited to rogues, scouts and temple raiders (if I've forgotten a class that grants it mea culpa) it is as much a staple for them as healing is for the cleric. The 'party rogue' should be able to handle traps and should bring that to the table. If you don't bring it to the table, who will? And more to the point, what are you bringing in its stead? My issue is that to be an effective trap-springer you require only 1 level of rogue. If I'm a straight rogue, and all I'm bringing to the party is trap-springing, wouldn't the party rather have a rogue 1/barbarian x to bring some damage, too? But that's not the only thing a rogue should bring to the table. They can easily take the scouting role. Scouting is something that is missunderstood, underplayed and worse at times missplayed. But done properly it is a great asset to the party. Knowledge and preparation time are priceless. An APL+2 encounter can feel like a flat APL encounter or an APL+4 encounter based on which side possesses these key factors. Don't discount scouting. As "Some Call Me Tim" points out, many tables don't even allow scouting. It screams against conventional wisdom: don't split the party. And if scouting is really required, what about the mage with divinations like clairvoyance? Finally, I'm not sure a rogue makes a great scout. It requires four major skills: Move, Hide, Listen, Spot. Generally, I think rangers, with their emphasis on wisdom, do better there. Furthermore, it is difficult to scout too far ahead without darkvision. Dwarves make sub-optimal scouts because of their slow speed, and Half-Orcs make suboptimal rogues because of their low intelligence. Are you taking 10 on all your checks? If not, what if you roll a 1 and your opponent rolls a nat 20? That's far worse than taking a crit in combat, because you're 250' ahead of the party and about to take on the APL +2 EL encounter all by yourself, and you have is a d6 hit die. I'd be interested to hear other people's experiences on scouting, and your comments on how to do it "properly". Please don't take that as a sarcastic remark -- I'm serious; I'd like to learn. Now a rogue, like all noncasters can augment themselves quite well by splashing a level or two in another class. This can help to focus on strengths or to shore up weaknesses. Done with a purpose this is just as helpful as when a fighter mutts himself; but just like one it does need to be done with care. Make sure you still deliver what you are bringing to the table and haven't sacrificed that for a 'hobby'. This is basically what I'm getting at. My suspicion is the the rogue "focus" is really a "hobby", and that rogue is, essentially, a dip-class. Even a fighter in Living Greyhawk can still bring it at eighth level. Despite the fighter's bad rap on the WoTC optimization board, I've never been at a table where someone's showed up with a straight fighter and people have been anything but psyched to have one more damage-sponge. Bards and Rogues are not nearly as welcomed. Though, as I mentioned earlier, I think bards get a bad rap -- +25 diplomacy is extremely useful when the next highest party charisma is 8. Their players are usually quite amusing, too. You seem to be somewhat focused on melee, so a more melee oriented rogue is probably your style. A friend of mine plays one. Atleast prior to the last conversion he was a Barb1/Ran2/Rog9 woodelf with an 18 starting strength. He dualwields a greatsword (or greatclub w/spikes.. now I guess brambles) and armor spikes. The party's druid would pair his companion bear with him. Whatever the bear grabbed would die forthwith (or if it wasn't sneak attackable it would take a decent hurt from 5 attacks).. they were quite a wrecking team. Now he had his weak points and always bemoaned them, but we all do. I knew when playing with his character I could count on reliable trap detection/removal, fair spotting, good scouting, and reasonable damage to be brought to the table. Take time to see what all you can bring to the table. Then see what else you can bring to easily augment yourself and to shore up weaknesses. It's not the less than stellar characters who I resent playing with, it's those that have given up before the game even starts that I wonder why they play them (and why I'm with them). Between tactics, consumables, and dirty tricks a decent rogue is as decent as anyone else in a fight and just as wanted at my table. -James I've seen a halfling quick-draw throwing rogue lay the hurt on with sneak-attack alchemist fire (and even without sneak-attack rapid-fire alchemists fire is interesting to behold). So the consumables point is well-taken. But my counter to it is that rogues require a light load. That means they can't carry much, and consumables are generally heavy. Unless you're talking about magical consumables, in which case I admittedly don't have much experience. I have played with one rogue with use magical device (at APL 8), but he generally just handed out his wands to the party wizards because he only had about a 50% chance of activating them and the wizards had a 100% chance. |
| ezreal200112-01-05, 07:21 AM | Sure, if have fun doing so. Heck, I've even be at a table where another player said "We don't need a rogue--I'll open the chest, I got a gazillion hit points. [EARTH-SHATTERING KABOOM]. Hey cleric! Heal me. See we don't need a rogue." Gee, thanks, you just wasted 3 cure light wounds and a cure serious wounds spell--I hope we don't actually need those spells that the rogue could have avoided wasting by disarming the trap. Yeah I've got a group who seem to specialize in that kind of stupidity - one time the group's Cleric accidently cracked off an Unholy Blight that nearly killed the party's rogue...more to the point, as an occaisional writter I love to use traps as an early warning system - set off the trap and the adjoining encounters get time to buff up and or set ambushes - evade the trap and the party gets the drop on the bad guys. Or better yet as ambush triggers... E who's still not sure about the Disjunction trap, even though at CR 10 it'd make an exiting stocking filler for a high level dungeon bash. |
| Some_call_me_Tim12-01-05, 02:04 PM | As "Some Call Me Tim" points out, many tables don't even allow scouting. It screams against conventional wisdom: don't split the party. And if scouting is really required, what about the mage with divinations like clairvoyance? Finally, I'm not sure a rogue makes a great scout. It requires four major skills: Move, Hide, Listen, Spot. Generally, I think rangers, with their emphasis on wisdom, do better there. Furthermore, it is difficult to scout too far ahead without darkvision. Dwarves make sub-optimal scouts because of their slow speed, and Half-Orcs make suboptimal rogues because of their low intelligence. Are you taking 10 on all your checks? If not, what if you roll a 1 and your opponent rolls a nat 20? That's far worse than taking a crit in combat, because you're 250' ahead of the party and about to take on the APL +2 EL encounter all by yourself, and you have is a d6 hit die. I'd be interested to hear other people's experiences on scouting, and your comments on how to do it "properly". Please don't take that as a sarcastic remark -- I'm serious; I'd like to learn. Well at the higher levels it is a little easier because you have all kinds of magical aids (to help hide, stay silent, communicate with the rest of party, etc.) As for darkvision, this is where shadowdancer really helps as now my wife's character can see in the dark as well as low light. Rangers are good scouts too, but generally don't have as good as hide and move silently modifiers (fewer skill points, less emphasis on DEX). It is better for a scout to remain hidden and miss a spot/listen check than the other way around as you have said its dangerous to be detected first. The key to good scouting is preparation. Number one rule is to have some way to communicate (a signal whistle only costs 8sp, thunderstones make a good signal as well) and a plan on what to do after a set period of time without a signal. If you have a second stealthy character, position them halfway between groups. The relay and rest of the party hide and prepare an ambush. If you are discovered, don't wait for the rest of the party to come to you, RETREAT! Whatever you do, don't initiate combat while you are alone no matter how good an idea it seems (wife did this once--survived by critically sneak attacking the half-dragon cleric--luckiest shot I can remember). Run to join the rest of the party, the rest of party can now try an ambush as you are likely being pursued. As for other methods of scouting, unfortunately clairvoyance and other arcane methods kinda suck. You need to be familiar with the area (or at least it has to be obvious) and it has a 10 minute casting time. Hardly, something to do while standing outside the door to the BBEG castle. Generally when moving and scouting use take 10 as a lot of things can't detect someone with very high hide and move silently check even with a natural 20. If everyone in the party does it, you can space out the characters based on their modifiers without fear of the guy in the back being detected first because of a poor roll; plus it makes it easier on the judge. Mathematically, you do a little better 10.5 vs 10 by rolling but if you have several rolls and the enemy only needs to beat the lowest chances are you will be found. |
| solbergb12-01-05, 03:15 PM | Yeah. My scout approach is 1. Everyone take 10. 2. The second best sneaker backs up the primary scout. Move silent is more important than hide, as the second guy will often be out of view of the enemy due to terrain/cover but both matter in more open terrain situations. 3. Many familiars hide well. They can hitch a ride on either the primary or secondary scout 4. If you spot something, and it doesn't spot you, back off and report to the party (which is far enough back that it doesn't lower your move silent checks). 5. If you spot something and it spots you, sometimes you fight and the party rushes up, sometimes you retreat. It depends on the situation, and how strong you and the secondary scout are compared to the opposition, whether there are terrain chokepoints, etc. If in doubt, pull back. I've had pretty good luck scouting this way with my archer. I've seen rogues and druids do this very well too. It requires explaining what is expected of the party, and it requires discipline (observe AND report dammit) on the part of the scout. This kind of scouting is more important in closed terrain (like forests/valleys/dungeons) than in open terrain, because in the latter you will simply spot the enemy a significant distance away. In closed terrain, you are far more likely to encounter something at close quarters that could not normally sneak up on you in a more open situation. The scout has a chance of seeing it at close range without being seen. The party as a whole normally has zero chance. The only time darkvision really matters is underground. Above ground, low light is actually better. |
| RLWilde12-01-05, 06:08 PM | one time the group's Cleric accidently cracked off an Unholy Blight that nearly killed the party's rogue Sorry to go off-topic... but I thought Unholy Blight was only available as a domain spell of the Evil domain, and that the "Alignment" domains could only be taken by a cleric of the corresponding alignment per the PH (I've checked the SRD which makes this statement, and seem to recall seeing it in the PH, but don't have the PH accessible at the moment)? |
| ezreal200112-01-05, 07:26 PM | Sorry to go off-topic... but I thought Unholy Blight was only available as a domain spell of the Evil domain, and that the "Alignment" domains could only be taken by a cleric of the corresponding alignment per the PH (I've checked the SRD which makes this statement, and seem to recall seeing it in the PH, but don't have the PH accessible at the moment)? That should have read "Unholy Blight" trap or was it "Horrid Wilting"?. Not to worry the Cleric didn't cast the spell - he was told that he could detect a strong magic arua of <insert type here> and he chose to run his hand over it and he detonated the trap. Anyway big area of effect, boatloads of damage all round. Had expected more from the player. E |
| Madfox1112-02-05, 09:24 AM | Sure, if have fun doing so. Authors don't write roguish encounters in the modules. I'm finding fewer and fewer traps as authors use their ELs on more 'challenging' combats. There is also a large number of sneak attack immune critters running about. We played one stretch of games where the rogue didn't have anything to sneak attack for three straight modules! Traps are very difficult to implement in LG - and even in home games btw. For rogues the best traps are the kind of traps that need to be disabled because they destroy whatever they are protecting or cause an alarm. At the same time people should be able to succeed in an adventure without a rogue. So only the alarm traps really work unless the trap only destroys some treasure or some minor clues in a mystery. Furthermore, traps are boring all-or-nothing type of encounters. If the rogue does find and disable the trap, it often does not even require a roll for the specialist trapfinder. It just comes down to two or three sentencess. Players forget when the rogue was successful and remember all too well when he failed. As for non-sneakable opponents, as an author and adventure reviewer I try to make very sure that no adventure consists only of encounters with non-sneakable opponents. I also try to make sure that skills are significant, but the real problem is a particular cleric spell that gives them a +15 on a skill check. That one spell just makes the cleric outshine the rogue. A lot of players seem to view straight rogues as useless. Mainly because they don't let them do what they do best. I've seen my wife's rogue sneak forward to do a quick recon only to be followed by half the party to 'be close just in case.' She has a +20 move silently and hide check modifier. Yet these players think if they follow 15' back they won't give her away just because they have one rank in move silently. I'm sorry but my dwarven tank has to be 250' behind the rogue to make the same move silently check. My wife understands the risk in splitting the party but a good recon can let you have time to buff. All too true. Heck, I've even be at a table where another player said "We don't need a rogue--I'll open the chest, I got a gazillion hit points. [EARTH-SHATTERING KABOOM]. Hey cleric! Heal me. See we don't need a rogue." Gee, thanks, you just wasted 3 cure light wounds and a cure serious wounds spell--I hope we don't actually need those spells that the rogue could have avoided wasting by disarming the trap. Which is why traps that actually destroy the contents of the chest are so fun to use :D I've also seen DMs not allow the rogue to gain any useful information when they scout ahead or spring the boxed text trap even though none of the NPCs had a chance to even spot the rogue. Shamefully this is not something we can do much about. As a player you can talk with the DM, or at the very least talk with the senior DM of the convention. I organize a big game day, but when I don't get any complaints about bad DMs, how do you expect me to only select good ones? ;) |
| Mommy was an Orc12-02-05, 12:32 PM | That's not how Search works - you can take 10 unless you're under the distraction of combat. It takes a Full Round Action to search a 5' square - which means you still get a 5' step. i.e. that 10 foot wide/100' foot long hallway has 40 squares, it takes 4 minutes to Search the entire thing. At 7th level, it is likely that my Rogue character will be able to auto-detect 9th level spell traps(DC 34) by simply taking 10. +24 = +5 from Dex(tactile trapsmith), +2 Elf, +2 Metaorg, +10 ranks in Search, +5 Lens of Detection. The only thing in doubt is that last one... A good majority of traps are placed in ways that rogues will never find them. You can't search every square due to time constraints and with rare exceptions, traps seem to be in the middle of a ten foot wide, hundred foot long, hallway. That's an exageration of course, but my point is that situations involving traps are normally such that unless your party is taking ten hours to move a hundred feet, you are not finding the trap. |
| Sieylianna12-02-05, 12:38 PM | +24 = +5 from Dex(tactile trapsmith), +2 Elf, +2 Metaorg, +10 ranks in Search, +5 Lens of Detection. The only thing in doubt is that last one... Every meta-org bonus that I've seen was tied to a region, so that one could be in doubt depending on where you were playing. Ed |
| Mommy was an Orc12-02-05, 12:47 PM | Keoland has essentially two meta-orgs that are really the same thing - and you can't join both, but they both grant unrestricted circumstance bonuses to Search - the local militia and the city guard. And they're post-no more magic item access... Every meta-org bonus that I've seen was tied to a region, so that one could be in doubt depending on where you were playing. Ed |
| SgtHulka12-02-05, 12:52 PM | At the same time people should be able to succeed in an adventure without a rogue. Why should this be so? No one ever assumes you can succeed in adventure without a cleric. No one ever assumes you can succeed in adventure without a melee fighter. No one would have evered enter Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain without a "thief" and presume they would succeed. Furthermore, you need a table of at least 4 characters just to legally run a module. Why doesn't it make sense that you should try and have those four characters be the traditional magic-user, thief, cleric and fighter? At the very least, shouldn't the gencon special be designed in this way? My commentary is a bit disingenuous, because it's clear there just aren't enough rogues out there to have one for every table. But that's a bit of a chicken and an egg. Part of the problem is that a large part of the rogue's raison d'etre -- stealing things -- is off-limits in LG. Combine that with the fact that modules don't emphasize rogues, in general, and they become an unappealing class to play. Furthermore, traps are boring all-or-nothing type of encounters. If the rogue does find and disable the trap, it often does not even require a roll for the specialist trapfinder. It just comes down to two or three sentencess. Players forget when the rogue was successful and remember all too well when he failed. What about traps that are part of the larger encounter itself? An encounter that consists of lightning-immune opponents, with a pressure pad in the middle of the room that sets off a lightning bolt trap, makes that encounter much more dangerous. A couple of glyphs of warding rigged with Summon Monster III could add significantly to the difficulty of an encounter with out adding xp reward (especially if the enemy were the same cleric who cast the glyphs, making it an aspect of the class and not adding to the EL of the encounter at all). An encounter with goblins where nets fall from the ceiling and entangle the PC's is much more dangerous. An encounter with pit traps opening up beneath the feet of the front-line fighters so that they fall into pools of water and suddenly the enemy archers have a clear line of fire to the spell-casters in the back is also much more dangerous. Each of these encounters could be made much easier by the presence of a rogue. And the traps could be really simple CR 1 affairs, since players aren't generally in the habit of even looking for traps during combat. A CR 1 portcullis trap or a CR 1 pit trap would do little to increase the EL of an encounter, but could have a profound effect on just about any combat (regardless of APL) by dividing the battlefield in the favor of the enemies. I like the idea of traps destroying treasure. I'm not sure why I haven't seen these before; perhaps I have but have just been oblivious to their effects. They don't have to destroy the MacGuffin or a major clue. All they have to do is destroy the gold pieces. Any party that ends a mod with 1/2 gold because their treasure was destroyed by a trap will look for a rogue to join their table the next time they play. As for non-sneakable opponents, as an author and adventure reviewer I try to make very sure that no adventure consists only of encounters with non-sneakable opponents. I also try to make sure that skills are significant, but the real problem is a particular cleric spell that gives them a +15 on a skill check. That one spell just makes the cleric outshine the rogue. I don't know that cleric spell but I've heard about the favored soul ability. Kind of screws up bards, too. |
| kenobi6512-02-05, 01:19 PM | Why doesn't it make sense that you should try and have those four characters be the traditional magic-user, thief, cleric and fighter? At the very least, shouldn't the gencon special be designed in this way? Because the vagaries of table mustering, particularly at a big convention, mean that making that kind of assumption is just really risky. If you've got a home group that plays LG modules together, odds are that a certain level of coordination has gone on regarding character classes, and the table will have a reasonably well-rounded mix of classes. You simply can't be assured of having that sort of coordination at a convention or game day; people gotta play what they have, and don't be surprised if that mix doesn't contain one of the archetypes. I've played at a lot of tables where we didn't have a rogue, or an arcanist (though we almost always have some source of healing). I think it's fine to design a module where a party's going to have a harder time of it without a particular skill-set or archetype; I think it's a big mistake to design a module in which the party is doomed to failure without a particular archetype. |
| Sieylianna12-02-05, 06:08 PM | Why doesn't it make sense that you should try and have those four characters be the traditional magic-user, thief, cleric and fighter? At the very least, shouldn't the gencon special be designed in this way? My commentary is a bit disingenuous, because it's clear there just aren't enough rogues out there to have one for every table. But that's a bit of a chicken and an egg. Part of the problem is that a large part of the rogue's raison d'etre -- stealing things -- is off-limits in LG. Combine that with the fact that modules don't emphasize rogues, in general, and they become an unappealing class to play. This is pretty much something you have to accept in order to play a living campaign. A group of players creating PCs for a home game are going to make sure that they cover all the bases. I played the Gen Con special and it definitely called for a rogue (ours was turned to stone while scouting). You can't mandate balanced parties in living greyhawk. The players should try to muster in balanced groups, but rogues and clerics are frequently in short supply. The APL rules also make it more difficult to muster a compatible group. Not only do you need the right classes, but you also need the PC levels to be within a small range or the PC is penalized. IME, 90% of PCs with rogue levels are mutts of some sort, so they don't really help with traps and such. Clerics also tend to be unpopular because players don't want to be stuck in the role of walking bandaid. There are also regional preferences, paladins are more common in the pale than in the bandit kingdoms. Without an inifinte number of players, there is no way to guarantee the party composition. Ed |
| waerlinga12-02-05, 09:58 PM | But yeah, conventional wisdom says a monk needs decent scores in both to be effective, which means wood elf and half-orc monks are pretty good, actually. I started my character for LG in 2000 under the "new" 3.0 rules and foolishly became a halfling monk at 2nd level for roleplaying flavor. I found out right away that the loss of strength plus Small damage was going to be a hinderance. Over time, my build took a route that depended less on physical attacks, and more on finesse and arcane knowledge (Rog 1/Mnk 2/Wiz 3/Enabled Fist 4). It may not be the uber-damage character that many parties want/need, but it definitely is versatile enough to fit different niches depending upon what the party desires. High Dex and Wis plus AC/buff spells can allow my character to act as a tank, casting Shocking Grasp and other touch spells as part of a flurry (E.F. ability) for increased damage while the archers/arcane casters safely work from back ranks. He has also played 'support' by defensively casting buff spells on the party's tank while also filling a front-line spot. If traps are suspected, his trapfinding skills are usually adequate, and spells like Mage Hand, Open/Close, Detection spells, Knock, Dispel Magic, and Resonating Bolt (for those doors that you end up just BLOWING through) can help fill in for rogue skills. When all else fails, the words "send the tester-monk forward" have been uttered many times. Strength and "swinging for the bleachers" in combat is great, but many times a character with versatility, creativity, and a little subtlety has a place as well. As far as progressing as a straight thief goes, there is much to be said for it. However, one multiclass variation I have not seen mentioned very much in this thread is a thief/arcane caster. Mage Armor/Shield makes up for not wearing armor, and with a good intelligence you would normally get at least 10 skill points per rogue level. If you start out as rogue and alternate levels, you have a base of rogue skills to use, plus at least 5 of those skills can be brought to character level max at each alternate level by spending two points. There are many arcane spells to complement your rogue skills, plus you can have damage spells for when sneak attack doesn't work. Speaking of sneak attack, many people forget that spells requiring an attack roll to deal damage can also add sneak damage under the regular circumstances just like a physical attack. This sneak damage takes the form of the energy of whatever spell you cast (ie, Scorching Ray deals fire sneak damage). Definitely right up a rogue's alley. |
| jhorred12-03-05, 03:10 PM | This is basically what I'm getting at. My suspicion is the the rogue "focus" is really a "hobby", and that rogue is, essentially, a dip-class. Even a fighter in Living Greyhawk can still bring it at eighth level. Despite the fighter's bad rap on the WoTC optimization board, I've never been at a table where someone's showed up with a straight fighter and people have been anything but psyched to have one more damage-sponge. Bards and Rogues are not nearly as welcomed. Though, as I mentioned earlier, I think bards get a bad rap -- +25 diplomacy is extremely useful when the next highest party charisma is 8. Their players are usually quite amusing, too. Interesting. My main character is a straight fighter. I was encouraged to take a level or two fof barbarian but I decided to stay focused on fighter for the feats. He's an 8th level fighter that uses a greatsword and power attack. Things generally die very quickly when he's standing next to them. The odd thing about him is that I decided his 2 skill point a level really didn't do much for him and at a few lower level use dhis skill points to learn languages. Later I took the leap attack feat. Recent;y I found out that it is restricted and removed it and 8 of his jump ranks, which I put into languages. He now speaks 8 languages. I've turned him into the party linguist. Bards. We have a bard/wiz character that will be taking loremaster in our group. This character rocks. Granted he is extremely well played. His skills are almost always helpful to the party. In combat he doesn't provide a whole lot of direct damage, but he's saved the party on several ocasions with a well timed nondamaging spell. Ok, he's not a straight bard but as well played as this character is I'm sur ehe'd be just as useful. He just doesn't sing as much as he used to. |
| Mommy was an Orc12-03-05, 04:32 PM | I actually think that's one of the natural places for a Fighter to put skill points if they're not aiming for a particular prestige class - Fighter has very few truly valuable class skills and languages are some of the most important skills in a lot of mods. The odd thing about him is that I decided his 2 skill point a level really didn't do much for him and at a few lower level use dhis skill points to learn languages. Later I took the leap attack feat. Recent;y I found out that it is restricted and removed it and 8 of his jump ranks, which I put into languages. He now speaks 8 languages. I've turned him into the party linguist. |
| Madfox1112-05-05, 04:09 AM | I actually think that's one of the natural places for a Fighter to put skill points if they're not aiming for a particular prestige class - Fighter has very few truly valuable class skills and languages are some of the most important skills in a lot of mods. Not really. Comprehand languages is a first level spell that can be cast by virtually any spellcaster, and around here most people carry around a scroll of the spell. Granted, it does not help when you need a two-way communication, but since (a) adventures should not fail simply because a character does not speak a particular language and (b) most intelligent creatures tend to speak Common that rarely is more then an irritation. Besides, considering the amount of Swim and Climb checks I had to roll with my characters I would consider those skills more important then languages. There is nothing more fun that the look on the face of a DM then stating you are taking 10 with your fighter in full plate and with a heavy shield while swimming across a lake ;) |
| Prochytes12-05-05, 10:13 AM | Not really. Comprehand languages is a first level spell that can be cast by virtually any spellcaster, and around here most people carry around a scroll of the spell. Granted, it does not help when you need a two-way communication, but since (a) adventures should not fail simply because a character does not speak a particular language and (b) most intelligent creatures tend to speak Common that rarely is more then an irritation. Comprehend languages does help to solve a lot of problems. However a) there are and have been adventures where not speaking a particular language DOES cause severe impediments. In one retired Core, the adventure ended with a choice between three doors. Taking one of these meant that your PC was taken away (no saving throw, no SR, no appeal). The other two were safe, but you only learned which was which by talking to an ancient statue... which only spoke Draconic. In another Core, the PCs had to interact with a group of outsiders, none of which spoke Common, and which lacked the tongues ability more powerful outsiders often have. Neither adventure became impossible because of the possible language gap, but both became harder (and the former meant a 1-in-3 chance of character loss). b) there is one contemporary Oerth language where, at least in a current Core module, comprehend languages does not work on the written form. I am not saying which in case of spoilers. The point about Climb and Swin is well made, though. My primary PC (a sorcerer) is envious of the fact that one of her fighter acquaintances can indeed swim better in full plate than she can without impediment. |
| Mommy was an Orc12-05-05, 01:56 PM | If two or more party members know language X, you can communicate in it, not Common. You can then talk among yourselves in combat with significantly less fear of being understood. Example: both the party summoner and this Fighter speak Celestial(a common language for Summoners). The Fighter went slightly before the caster and moved up to engage the opponent. The summoner says to the Fighter(after the Fighter goes), "Summoning, then cast Haste. Wait until that happens." Without metagaming in the slightest, both the Summoner and Fighter will know what is going to happen next and the Fighter can then choose to delay a couple of ticks until the haste spell and his new flanking partner appear. Or when you communicate to the Fighter that Cold Iron is a particular monster weakness. You can also prevent tactical manuevering by monsters. Monsters can't usually just magically do the correct tactics; one of the monsters needs to be giving direction for that to happen. If you understand their direction, you can do actions designed to hamper them. A lot of the time, DMs skimp over this unless you've got a language expert in the party pointing out that he should be able to understand what the monsters are saying... Or you see something that looks like a Celestial. So you greet it in Celestial. Or when deciding what to do in front of a suspicious NPC. In Core Specials, almost nothing speaks Keolandish. Not to mention, you save cash for the spellcasters as you're not usually the one asked to carry around scrolls of Comprehend Languages - something which is really helpful when asking for that special buff spell...there's mods where hours or days pass between needing to read say some ancient dead tongue, but it happens several times - or there's so much writing that you'd have to cast it multiple times or you don't want to cast it - a scroll will let you read about ten pages of text and you have to touch the text to use it - suppose you have a 40 page book or a scroll almost crumbling into dust? Also, Comprehend gives literal meaning, not the meaning that someone who speaks the language might give it... Not really. Comprehand languages is a first level spell that can be cast by virtually any spellcaster, and around here most people carry around a scroll of the spell. Granted, it does not help when you need a two-way communication, but since (a) adventures should not fail simply because a character does not speak a particular language and (b) most intelligent creatures tend to speak Common that rarely is more then an irritation. |
| Madfox1112-06-05, 03:57 AM | I am not saying that speaking particular languages cannot be beneficial, I was merely saying that the original poster was doing certain skills of a fighter injustice while placing too much value on languages. My experiences with languages are simply not that good. Besides, in Cores you do fine by just speaking Ancient Sueloise, Draconic and Ur-Flan ;) |
| jhorred12-07-05, 02:24 AM | I am not saying that speaking particular languages cannot be beneficial, I was merely saying that the original poster was doing certain skills of a fighter injustice while placing too much value on languages. My experiences with languages are simply not that good. Besides, in Cores you do fine by just speaking Ancient Sueloise, Draconic and Ur-Flan ;) Perhaps, but I have yet had to worry about swimming or climbing. They aren't nearly as useful as Spot and Listen. In a way I did it to make him unique. It's also about the only way I can think of to make him useful in noncombat situations. Ancient Sueloise? Don't have that one, sounds like his ninth language. (He has the other 2 ;) ) |
| Madfox1112-08-05, 04:07 AM | Perhaps, but I have yet had to worry about swimming or climbing. They aren't nearly as useful as Spot and Listen. In a way I did it to make him unique. It's also about the only way I can think of to make him useful in noncombat situations. It definitely makes your character unique ;) There have been at least two, if not more, aquatic based cores and even more regionals (in my case Onnwallian) and meta-regionals (set in the VTF meta-region) and the Swim skilled of my character made things a LOT easier in those scenarios. I admit that Climb has not been as important. Ancient Sueloise? Don't have that one, sounds like his ninth language. (He has the other 2 ;) ) Ancient Sueloise is the same as Sueloise. It is the language the Scarlet Brotherhood speaks. |
| Mommy was an Orc12-08-05, 09:37 AM | Back to subject... One interesting 'straight' rogue possibility now is that you get a level of Monk at 9th level and at the same time pick up Ascetic Rogue. Then go back to taking Rogue levels. That gets you a 1d10+ punch, +2 to all saves, flurry, some interesting weapon choices, and a decent feat. |
| Itsa_Trika12-11-05, 10:51 AM | Back to subject... One interesting 'straight' rogue possibility now is that you get a level of Monk at 9th level and at the same time pick up Ascetic Rogue. Um, hate to break this to you. But once you take a level of monk, you're no longer a straight rogue. Odd how that works. :) |
| Itsa_Trika12-11-05, 11:24 AM | How many straight rogues are significantly contributing to combat, anyway? Couldn't the rogue just stand in the corner and twiddle his thumbs until the fight's over? At least a bard can sing songs. I've held off for awhile commenting in this thread, but to be honest, it has become so (unintentionally) insulting that I just had to jump in. To begin with, a number of people have offered valid reasons as to why to play a straight rogue, and you've discarded them out of hat (while still admitting you have limited play experience). Well here's the true answer to your question. D&D is not just combat. Perhaps the adventures you have played have offered little role playing or investigation, but eventually you will find others that do. A rogue is a multi-purpose character. If you want to measure a rogue's abilities simply by comparing damage output, of course the barbarian is superior. That is the primary purpose of a the barbarian. The primary purpose of a rogue is to fit into multiple situations. In Dyvers (the home of the rogue in LG--where it's not unheard of to have tables of 5 or 6 rogues at a time), we don't have rogues. We have thieves, diplomats, trap/lock specialists, acrobats, scouts, pirates, etc. The rogue is versatile in that it can be applied to so many different types of characters and offer the skill points necessary not just to be adequate but to excel in those situations. A ranger could take one level of rogue and be an adequate trap disarmer. But that's all he'll ever be good at (and not even play to his Wis strength that you feel is so important). However, a rogue can be a trap disarmer, a locksmith, an infiltrator, and a look-out all at the same time. I am 3 adventures from 16th level. When I level, I will take my 16th level of rogue. "Doing the math" (meaning that there are no bumps to make it extra tough without basis in the rules, such as randomly increasing the DC of a trap), I don't have to roll on most of my skills. I can find and disarm any trap. I can unlock any non-magical lock. I can tumble through ten opponents, I can lie, I can detect lies, I can escape grapples and on and on. That, and I get 8d6 sneak attack dice with each of my 4 attacks. One of my closest friends took a different route. You can't see him, you can't hear him, and when he strikes, you'll lose 10 points of strength (crippling strike) and 4 points of con (wounding weapon) when he's done. When you lose 10 points of strength in a round, the big scary heavy isn't as scary as he was 6 seconds before. There are instances where a rogue is unnecessary. Once adamantine was found to be the most abundant metal in the world, no one feels they need a locksmith. Of course, if you don't want your enemies to know you're there, perhaps just letting the man open the door quietly would be a better idea. (That's just a little pet peeve of mine.) There are instances, however, where each class can have its primary role negated. So, as has been said, giving an instance where the rogue may be less effective isn't saying much, as instances can be given for all the classes to prove equally ineffective. (Regarding undead and other big scary monsters that can't be sneak attacked, I have improved combat expertise and often play the "come hit me" guy while allowing the rest of the party to focus on one single opponent even with my "paltry d6" hit die [incidentally, that's only 2 hit points less than a fighter each level. It makes a difference, but not as much as you seem to make out]). I can't speak for all rogue players out there (as I've seen some bad ones), but when I sit at the table I don't expect you to groan or sigh with relief. I expect you to cheer, because you were very fortunate to have my character adventuring with you. As an addendum, Use Magic Device is perhaps the most overlooked skill in the game. And given its high DCs, taking it as a cross-class skill isn't very useful. |
| Mommy was an Orc12-11-05, 11:32 AM | Hence the quotes :) Um, hate to break this to you. But once you take a level of monk, you're no longer a straight rogue. Odd how that works. :) |
| jhorred12-12-05, 04:11 PM | It definitely makes your character unique ;) There have been at least two, if not more, aquatic based cores and even more regionals (in my case Onnwallian) and meta-regionals (set in the VTF meta-region) and the Swim skilled of my character made things a LOT easier in those scenarios. I admit that Climb has not been as important. Not very many large bodies of water in the Pale. Ancient Sueloise is the same as Sueloise. It is the language the Scarlet Brotherhood speaks. Either way, I don't have that one... yet. ;) |
| solbergb12-12-05, 06:06 PM | Not very many large bodies of water in the Pale. ;) No, but the Troll Fens are sometimes not frozen over, there are some rivers and such. Swimming had its uses in year 3. In year 4-5, most of the water sources seem to be frozen, but that may not last. There seem to be less sewer-oriented adventures than in Nyrond. Perhaps the Pale does a better job of keeping the sewers clear of monsters :) I've used swim skill mostly in core and metaregional mods. It is one of those things that if you don't have it, you can be kinda sorry. I like a minimal level of climbing, especially on light infantry and archer types. Heavy infantry should just carry knotted rope and grappling hooks. |
| jhorred12-12-05, 08:03 PM | I like a minimal level of climbing, especially on light infantry and archer types. Heavy infantry should just carry knotted rope and grappling hooks. Have rope, will climb. He also carries a number of other tools like his lockpick (10 pounf sledge). ;) |
| Madfox1112-13-05, 05:01 AM | Just as with Swim, it can be fun as a player to tell the DM the character in full plate take 0 to climb that slippery ditch wall at double climb speed ;) Then again, you do not see that many adventures that actually use environments where Climbing becomes useful... |
| Moryath12-13-05, 07:10 PM | One of my closest friends took a different route. You can't see him, you can't hear him, and when he strikes, you'll lose 10 points of strength (crippling strike) and 4 points of con (wounding weapon) when he's done. When you lose 10 points of strength in a round, the big scary heavy isn't as scary as he was 6 seconds before. I have to agree. My secondary character (primary is Sorceror/Cleric/Mystic Theurge, another commonly scoffed at build) is Rogue6/Bar1/Wiz1. Yeah, I know. I'm not "Pure" Rogue. But I'm primary rogue. Rogue6 gives me plenty to work with - uncanny dodge, evasion, 3d6 sneak attack per. Barbarian gives me the ability to rage (if I'm really, really in need of the HP's to stay on my feet or going into combat). The one level of Wizard gave me an "extra" hitpoint and Alertness to offset my 8 Wisdom score for Spot/Listen checks, and going into it as a Divination specialist means I can cast 3 spells per day. That's a Fist of Stone, Arrow Mind, and Swift Expeditious Retreat (to be replaced with something else now that I have my boots of speed). Rogue levels are by far the best for skill points, and with 12 per level and my synergies taken care of, I'll have everything caught up back to max in one level. The bonus? Versatility. If we need someone to be light infantry, I can tumble around combat for a treat (that +10 movement from Barbarian helping considerably), I can Fist of Stone/Rage to get to 20 strength for pretty much the fight's duration. FoS/Rage/Haste and I've got three attacks per round, right now. Haste or Boots of Speed into the mix and I can Rapid Shot/Arrowmind for 3 bow-based sneak attacks per round, too. At level 12, I won't be quite as tricked out as his friend the TWF/ITWF Rogue, but I'll be a crazy trapspringer, good recon artist, see things coming a mile away, and the versatility for about any combat. If it's crittable? Great. Arrowmind + Rapidshot + Haste/Boots of Speed and I'm taking away 8 points of strength per round. If it's not? Fine. I start lobbing consumables for effect. Or once I get my Holy bow, perhaps I start shooting anyways. Or I tumble in, grant flank, and start working like crazy to Aid the fighter so that he connects with his full power attack. No, I'm not the party's primary damage dealer, not ever. Do I worry about a party saying "we don't want you, you're just a rogue"? Of course not. |
| Sieylianna12-13-05, 09:47 PM | I have to agree. My secondary character (primary is Sorceror/Cleric/Mystic Theurge, another commonly scoffed at build) is Rogue6/Bar1/Wiz1. Yeah, I know. I'm not "Pure" Rogue. But I'm primary rogue. Rogue6 gives me plenty to work with - uncanny dodge, evasion, 3d6 sneak attack per. Barbarian gives me the ability to rage (if I'm really, really in need of the HP's to stay on my feet or going into combat). If you're raging to go into combat, you need to remember that the bulk of your rogue skills aren't usable any more. The big loss is Tumble. I have a barbarian/wizard who is going for Eldritch Knight and my usual tendency is just to charge into melee and hack away. Ed |
| jhorred12-14-05, 12:46 AM | Just as with Swim, it can be fun as a player to tell the DM the character in full plate take 0 to climb that slippery ditch wall at double climb speed ;) Then again, you do not see that many adventures that actually use environments where Climbing becomes useful... My fighter has a -2 armor check penalty in full Plate.... |
| IH8Halflings12-14-05, 07:13 PM | Keoland has essentially two meta-orgs that are really the same thing - and you can't join both, but they both grant unrestricted circumstance bonuses to Search - the local militia and the city guard. And they're post-no more magic item access... Yeah that was a sore kick in the pants. Good thing I got my Gloves and Armor as soon as I heard that was going away. Now if Keoland could only come out with energy weapons OTHER than flaming and frost. STILL can't find acidic burst anywhere. MWAO: Do you play in Keoland? You sound like you're speaking from experience. |
| Mommy was an Orc12-15-05, 09:52 PM | Yup. Neutral Ground in NYC usually. Yeah that was a sore kick in the pants. Good thing I got my Gloves and Armor as soon as I heard that was going away. Now if Keoland could only come out with energy weapons OTHER than flaming and frost. STILL can't find acidic burst anywhere. MWAO: Do you play in Keoland? You sound like you're speaking from experience. |
| BillKronick12-18-05, 08:47 AM | There are instances where a rogue is unnecessary. Once adamantine was found to be the most abundant metal in the world, no one feels they need a locksmith. Of course, if you don't want your enemies to know you're there, perhaps just letting the man open the door quietly would be a better idea. (That's just a little pet peeve of mine.) There are instances, however, where each class can have its primary role negated. I can barely count the number of times that I, as a player, have been presented a handout for a "puzzle" that the party is required to solve to open a door, negate a trap, etc.,. I point out that if the lock/trap exists, my character should be able to make a skill check to open/disable it. The answer always comes back, "No". My character becomes useless by edict. How would other classes feel if they were treated similarly? If the party were unable to proceed in the adventure because the mage's player was unable to produce a real fireball at the gaming table, using magic? Ridiculous? Exactly my point. One of the benefits of the rogue class is the skill points, yet it seems to be common practice in module authoring to take that away, so to speak. Sorry for ranting. Bill Kronick |
| solbergb12-19-05, 02:20 AM | Well, Bill, if it is any consolation, I've seen several mods lately where sufficiently high skill checks can bypass the stupid puzzle. I have a similar pet peeve with respect to encounter distances (spot/listen vs hide/move silent+terrain as per PHB/DMG) - the module usually says nothing, assuming the Judge will use the rules. The Judge rather than using the rules plops the monsters down wherever they fit on the battlemap. In my area, this has become pretty rare, probably because I'm not the only player who rolls their eyes when their +19 spot character misses the perfectly ordinary dire bear sneaking up on them in an open plain. I'm pretty ok with a judge who says "Yeah I know I'm skipping that, but we're behind and you guys will crush it anyway" - ie, "I'm ignoring the rules for pacing reasons, is that ok with you guys?" approach. If I author a puzzle into a mod (not likely, I hate puzzles) you can be damn sure that anything that would reasonably bypass it skillwise or bruteforecewise (they tunnel or D-Door past it, say) will work in my mod, explicitly so judges don't feel empowered to take away abilities characters have for no ingame reason. When the mod DOES insist that the puzzle is a plot device, I fall back on the tried and true "they used at least one wish to create this. It takes similar power to bypass it" approach, discovered with sufficiently high kn arcane or spellcraft rolls. |
| flametounge12-19-05, 09:35 PM | In one retired Core, the adventure ended with a choice between three doors. Taking one of these meant that your PC was taken away (no saving throw, no SR, no appeal). Thank god it's retired: what APL was this? Also, mabye it's just my elven heritage granting me a long sword, but I play a cleric and feel anything but a "walking bandaid." Although I do heal, I also use a wide vareity of spells. My STR of 14 is enough to make me a rather powerful secondary fighter, although I never charge into direct melee. |
| draxynnic12-19-05, 10:13 PM | What do you guys think when there's a straight rogue in your party? Do you breathe a sigh of relief, or do you roll your eyes? What if there's a rogue and a bard? Do you immediately try and play down? Grin, then cast Greater Invis on the rogue. :D In LG, bards and rogues have a similar problem - they have little to justify their existence at low levels, which makes it hard to get to the high levels. For bards, this is because they have a rather jagged power curve - Inspiration Boost helps, but overall the impact of a bard in combat changes little between level 3 (able to Inspire Courage in every combat in most LG mods) and level 7, where it all starts to pile on at once (Haste at level 7, boosted Inspire Courage at level 8, and Inspire Greatness at level 9 letting you use all those excess bardsong uses, 4th-level spells at 10). Rogues, on the other hand, are undervalued at low levels because traps tend to be survivable at low levels, and to counter the previous poster who pointed out that patching up the meatshield costs resources - if the person you would otherwise replace with a rogue is another healer, you still have more healing resources overall. However, once you start getting to the traps that can actually kill you, one starts to feel a little exposed without the friendly local trapspringer. Furthermore, the relative damage output of a rogue does increase as the APL goes up, as the rogue gets an extra d6 every two levels while without upgrading equipment (which a rogue can also do just as easily) the tank is generally restricted to having the option to power attack for an extra point or two Admittedly, most of the trapspringers I know are arcane tricksters or arcane trickster wannabes - equally good if not, with the high Int bonus, better at finding and disabling traps, with the added versatility of having spells. However, just as rogues can be nerfed by non-sneak-attackable creatures, the magic-user can also be made useless in some circumstances. Ultimately, the trick to playing a rogue (or similar light-infantry types to a lesser extent, like swashbucklers and scouts) is to have a backup plan for when you can't dish out the damage, whether it's pushing your AC through the roof and soak attacks, provide flanking and assistance, utilise alchemical or magic items (using UMD - wands of magic missile and wands of healing are especially recommended. Do pick them up if you get a chance) or some other strategy I haven't mentioned. Be imaginitive - such characters are supposed to survive by their wits, after all. It can be easier said then done, but if you do perservere you will also find times where the circumstances are right and you can do your thing and absolutely destroy an encounter - or, even more rewarding, when you manage to save the party despite being hampered by the lack of sneak attack opportunities. Of course, there is a limit to this argument - there can still be such a thing as too many rogues (especially if your region has an undead problem), and I'd certainly think twice before letting a high-level rogue argue a party into playing up when it would otherwise play down. However, there have been times when I've been very glad to have had a pure rogue around. There have also been times when the pure rogue has contributed little to the party, but that can happen with any class and a certain amount of ingenuity can go a long way towards limiting the frequency of this occurance. |
| ezreal200112-19-05, 11:58 PM | Thank god it's retired: what APL was this? Hmmm.. Sounds like Echo from 592 - of course that only occured if one in the party spoke Draconic or someone was congenitally stupid And the PC didn't vanish forever - they either resurfaced in Escape from Tenh or they were rescued by a group of Etherial Filchers - the latter being particularly unfortunet since the Filchers hung arround a stole what ever took their fancy, preventing the PC from earning favours. Don't supose anyone knows if this effect was ever lifted? E |
| Itsa_Trika12-27-05, 09:57 PM | I can barely count the number of times that I, as a player, have been presented a handout for a "puzzle" that the party is required to solve to open a door, negate a trap, etc.,. I point out that if the lock/trap exists, my character should be able to make a skill check to open/disable it. The answer always comes back, "No". Although that tactic is certainly overused (the author wants to make it more difficult than just a die roll, typically because he or she doesn't have a proper appreciation for the rogue), just because the door exists doesn't necessarily mean you should be able to roll a d20 and open it, disarm it, or unlock it. There are numerous examples of traps and doors in various sources that wouldn't allow you a roll. It reminds me of an adventure where if you figure the puzzle out, you set off the trap. The trapsmith intentionally set it wrong to outfox any transgressors. Only dumb luck or a rogue searching the trap would find the way through. NPCs can be intelligent too and don't necessarily need to design things to play to your strengths. |
| BillKronick12-28-05, 02:38 PM | just because the door exists doesn't necessarily mean you should be able to roll a d20 and open it, disarm it, or unlock it. There are numerous examples of traps and doors in various sources that wouldn't allow you a roll. It's a interesting take/perspective you bring, but I still disagree. I would whole heartedly agree that there are some things that should not necessarily be solved by a skill check or die roll, but that opinion quickly gets thrown out the window when the party BDF beats the snot out of the trapped door with his adamantine greatsword. If no die roll will allow you to get past, then *no* die roll should let you get past. It shouldn't just be the rogues skill check that gets nerfed. Just my opinion, and in no way meant to be inflamatory or harsh. Bill K. |
| Itsa_Trika12-28-05, 08:46 PM | And there are a large number of adventures where those puzzles lead to a magical portal and digging through it with a sword won't do the party any good. |
| jhorred12-31-05, 02:29 PM | It's a interesting take/perspective you bring, but I still disagree. I would whole heartedly agree that there are some things that should not necessarily be solved by a skill check or die roll, but that opinion quickly gets thrown out the window when the party BDF beats the snot out of the trapped door with his adamantine greatsword. If no die roll will allow you to get past, then *no* die roll should let you get past. It shouldn't just be the rogues skill check that gets nerfed. Just my opinion, and in no way meant to be inflamatory or harsh. Bill K. I agree, even though I play the said party's BDF. (Though I would never use a weapon on a door. Must use the right tool for the job. The reason he carries a 10 lb sledge.) |
| Reylance01-04-06, 04:56 PM | The reason to play a straight rogue? Do so if you're uncomfortable playing one who's not straight. Seriously, straight-class rogues are powerful, at least in my region. (I ran six modules recently, with one undead encounter, one construct encounter, and everything else sneak-attackable.) Locally, there were two PCs who rose to 13th level rogue, and it was always good to have them along. One now-retired regional was supposed to end with a fight against one sorcerer. The enemy was supposed to hear the PCs approach, go invisible, fly into the air, and begin summoning monsters. Instead, said two rogues sneaked up, rolling well enough to get next to the enemy. Sap sneak attack from one, sap sneak attack from the other, triggering Opportunist for each other... it was over. Most rogues are capable of tanking with Combat Expertise and fighting defensively. They can aid another against high DR creatures. But everyone has problems against these creatures. A rogue is not a substitute for a two-handed power-attacker, but can really whittle down most big enemies. And when the traps come up, you'll be glad the rogue is present. (Even better if the cleric imbues two Grave Strikes and one Divine Insight into the rogue.) Good single-level splashes for characters who are otherwise rogues include: Cleric1: Luck domain reroll, Grave Strike, bumps to Fort and Will saves, perhaps Divine Vigor Wizard1: Rat familiar, access to the Not This Time card, bump to Will saves, Golem Strike, Critical Strike, ability to use Wands of Magic Missile vs. incorporeal undead at lower level. Monk1: +2 to all saves, Improved Grapple, Ascetic Knight PiousTemplar1: Mettle, bumps to Fort and Will saves, Lesser Restoration or Bless Weapon Ranger2: Bump to Fort saves, Track, Martial Weapons, free Two-Weapon Fighting |
| SgtHulka01-04-06, 05:07 PM | The reason to play a straight rogue? Do so if you're uncomfortable playing one who's not straight. :rofl: I want to thank everyone who contributed to this thread. I've found it both interesting and enlightening. |
| Itsa_Trika01-04-06, 05:23 PM | The reason to play a straight rogue? Do so if you're uncomfortable playing one who's not straight. Seriously, straight-class rogues are powerful, at least in my region. (I ran six modules recently, with one undead encounter, one construct encounter, and everything else sneak-attackable.) Locally, there were two PCs who rose to 13th level rogue, and it was always good to have them along. One now-retired regional was supposed to end with a fight against one sorcerer. The enemy was supposed to hear the PCs approach, go invisible, fly into the air, and begin summoning monsters. Instead, said two rogues sneaked up, rolling well enough to get next to the enemy. Sap sneak attack from one, sap sneak attack from the other, triggering Opportunist for each other... it was over. By the sounds of it, you're referring to my region and your example is my module. Which is extremely disappointing. It's actually a wizard who summons monsters and scrys on the party to learn their tactics. He then teleports in flying, invisible, and begins silent casting to lure the party outside to kill his chosen NPC target. I've heard some DMs don't care for the slow-down the summoned monsters cause, but it does a great disservice to both the region, the villains we chose, and the players to present it in such a simple fashion (the guy had a 28 intelligence, come on now). |
| solbergb01-05-06, 02:30 AM | 28 intelligence or not, unless they scry on the rogue directly a wizard is unlikely to see the average mid-high level rogue if he's the kind who routinely hides in shadows/underbrush/etc. In my experience this is about half the stealthy types out there. If the party has become aware of the scrying (it is not uncommon for a wiz to have detect scrying always up, or a sorc to have see invisible always up in the level 10+ range, plus anyone with really good spot checks can see the sensor, etc) it would be fairly easy for them to turn the tables, "obviously" approaching slowly while the rogues scout about looking for the wizard or anything else dangerous. Should the rogues find the wizard without being detected, he's toast. (a familiar with scent or blindsight is probably required, given the usual wizardly spot/listen abilities and the short duration of most spells that would give away the hiding rogue. Something like an empty room with no shadows would also help) Anticipate teleport may or may not mess up the described scenario. Pre-cast circles of prot evil might also hose it, due to their effect on summoned monsters (anything that bounces off a prot evil indicates a caster nearby). |
| Itsa_Trika01-05-06, 09:14 AM | Knowing the dimensions, location, and circumstances, what I said is still correct. What you listed above is mostly accurate but in this case wasn't an issue. (Although spotting a scrying sensor still requires an Intelligence check, not a spot check, as per the spell.) |
| Reylance01-05-06, 05:40 PM | By the sounds of it, you're referring to my region and your example is my module. Which is extremely disappointing. It's actually a wizard who summons monsters and scrys on the party to learn their tactics. He then teleports in flying, invisible, and begins silent casting to lure the party outside to kill his chosen NPC target. I've heard some DMs don't care for the slow-down the summoned monsters cause, but it does a great disservice to both the region, the villains we chose, and the players to present it in such a simple fashion (the guy had a 28 intelligence, come on now). Sorry, Joe, you need to cross the river. I'm referring to the now-retired VER4-02 A Costly Gamble. |
| Itsa_Trika01-06-06, 05:55 PM | Sorry, Joe, you need to cross the river. I'm referring to the now-retired VER4-02 A Costly Gamble. ...I think I played that one. But after all this time, I honestly can't remember. |
| mowaca01-07-06, 10:22 PM | Yeah. My scout approach is 1. Everyone take 10. 2. The second best sneaker backs up the primary scout. Move silent is more important than hide, as the second guy will often be out of view of the enemy due to terrain/cover but both matter in more open terrain situations. 3. Many familiars hide well. They can hitch a ride on either the primary or secondary scout 4. If you spot something, and it doesn't spot you, back off and report to the party (which is far enough back that it doesn't lower your move silent checks). One recent adventure we had a rogue/thief-acrobat and a fighter/rogue which made me think rogue's skills were essential. The rogues used your formula above, but for #4, our wizard cast Message (a simple level 0 spell), so the rogues could report back without moving back and forth. The fighter-rogue just auto-assisted the acrobat, and they found all the traps along the way. Then we got to the final encounter and the acrobat did 4 tumbles and sneak attacked while the fighter rogue flanked the first monster while the rest of us stumbled foward. I think between the two of them they killed half the bad guys before anyone else got in the room. In reference to the original question, we didn't have a straight rogue, and based on this I'd have to say I don't see a reason. Some of you brought up a monk as a good rogue alternative, and a thief-acrobat seems like a multiclass rogue/monk to me. |