Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LGMoses 02-03-07, 10:56 PM	Which class is missing from most tables and NEEDED/DESIRED?
Eric Anondson 02-03-07, 11:33 PM	I've found classic rogues to be in short supply. Trap disarming, unlocking, etc. Not saying they aren't around, just that if any of the four archetypes might be missing from the collective PCs at a table, odds are it is the classic rogue. Frankly I think this is partly a response by players to adventure content, far too often a classic rogue is not necessary or particularly advantageous in LG adventures anymore. Such is my experience.
Morgen 02-04-07, 04:09 AM	It's very hard to survive as a rogue I think. The few times I've attempted it, I just ended up laying on the ground staring at the ceiling. I know some high level guys, but I'm not sure how they managed it.
SgtHulka 02-04-07, 09:30 AM	I'd concur with both of the responses. I have a mid-level, not a high-level rogue, and have survived so far by playing down. I often find myself in a position where I'm contributing little because melee combat is too dangerous (forcing me to jack up my armor class with fighting defensively + combat expertise in other words I can't hit) or the opponent is un-crittable and therefore I do a mere 1d6 damage per hit. In these situations I'm generally the fetch-it guy who digs through packs and delivers potions, or the aid another flanking buddy guy. Generally, the party would be way better off filling my slot with a hulking barbarian. Some of the things I've run into that negate sneak attack, and various ways I've considered dealing with them if I survive to high level are as follows: Undead: Undead Bane weapon or UMD + Wand CMW Constructs: Adamantine light mace Swarms: Use Magic Device + Scrolls of Fireball/Burning Hands Darkness: Use Magic Device + Scroll of Daylight Fog Clouds: Use Magic Device + Scroll Gust of Wind Plants: SoL Oozes: SoL As far as traps, there are never any traps. And the few that exist are better dealt with by the aforementioned barbarians armed with adamantine weapons who can smash them down and absorb the damage, or by dip-rogues who can be far better trap-springers than straight rogues can. (20 int. Gray Elf wizards with a level of rogue make awesome trap springers) So, yes, Rogues are generally not common, but they're also not really NEEDED, as per the original poster's comment. That all said, my rogue is my favorite LG character. Go figure. I find that true tanks are the least common characters, and the most desired at a table. There are lots and lots of light infantry and clerics, but characters with full BAB and sky high armor class and respectable hit points who can stand toe to toe with a full attacking enemy are quite rare. The few that I've seen are usually dwarves armed with waraxe and tower shield.
copper_wyrmling 02-04-07, 04:23 PM	I find that true tanks are the least common characters, and the most desired at a table. There are lots and lots of light infantry and clerics, but characters with full BAB and sky high armor class and respectable hit points who can stand toe to toe with a full attacking enemy are quite rare. The few that I've seen are usually dwarves armed with waraxe and tower shield. There is a LOT of regional variation on this one... in my original area, clerics were extremely rare and extremely desired at mustering, to the extent that I avoided taking any crafting feats (or any other options that cost a lot of TUs) because I felt bad about reducing the number of tables that could have APL-appropriate healing (it was bad enough as it was; she was generally out of TUs by about August, so I spent the latter half of every year apologetically turning down requests to "please, bring your cleric, we need healing"). My friends who played druids and bards got very tired of having to play primary healers, and I almost never got to play on the same tables as them, because having some healing on every table was considered a high priority at mustering. Otoh, I guess true tanks such as the ones you describe were also rare: my cleric's AC (mid-high 30's at L12, now high 30's - low 40's at L15, without needing to expertise or fight defensively) was usually easily the highest on the table, and she demonstrated on several occasions that she was much better at soaking full attacks than the people we called "tanks" (usually raging barbarians with AC in the 20's and HP ~200).
_m_ 02-04-07, 06:38 PM	bards. big, hardcore, seeker chanter style buffxrediculous bards.
JohnduBois 02-04-07, 08:45 PM	bards. big, hardcore, seeker chanter style buffxrediculous bards. I'm with you on this. It's lonely being the only Warchanter around at APL 10-12... I have so many barbarian friends, I can't keep them all happy... (the Spirited Charging Paladins also like me, but as my Warchanter worships Trithereon, the liking is rather one-sided...)
The_Jester 02-04-07, 09:16 PM	I love playing my bard. Everyone loves a free +2hit&dmg and I'm a decent back-up healer. Regular healers are too often rare as are rogues. A lack or rogues does hurt, especially in lower levels (pre-adamantine). Had a mod almost grind to a half yesterday because we couldn't get through the iron door (w/ spikes). Finally managed to pop it open with an inspire competence, two people with 16 str (one assisting) and a third person helping out while we took 20. And just hit the DC on the nose.
Bold 02-04-07, 10:35 PM	I've found classic rogues to be in short supply. It depends on the region. Verbobonc and Dyvers both have an abundance of rogues, and they seem to prosper more in those urban environments. More opportunities for shady dealings, some locks and traps, fewer combats with elementals/constructs/undead/golems/etc. In fact, so many adventurers from those regions are rogues that it's almost assumed. My "honest merchant" can't go anywhere in the Viscounty without being accused of thievery... I also witnessed this exchange at a table: "You're from Dyvers? Then you must be a rogue." "No, I'm a wizard! A master of the arcane arts." "Sure ya' are, Dyvers Rogue." later: "The door is locked. Open it, Dyvers Rogue." "But I'm a wizard! :weep:" Personally, I'd love to see more clerics. It seems like there's always a shortage of 'em no matter where I play.
LGMoses 02-04-07, 11:46 PM	It depends on the region. Verbobonc and Dyvers both have an abundance of rogues, and they seem to prosper more in those urban environments. I bet this is true. The Yeomanry is a very rural country, but we DO have a thieves guild. (Does every region have an obligatory thieves guild?) But I'd bet rangers, barbarians, and scouts do much better in the region. I know If I was playing and we were going into the Hool I'd much rather have a ranger than a rogue. But then Rangers Rock!!!
cetiken 02-05-07, 12:12 AM	In the BK the thieves guild was the first established MetaOrg. Although, now it seems most of those year one rogues have bit the dust (or retired) and there's a definate shortage of good rogeish skills. Thats one reason I hope the Beguiler gets to be a core class in the next LGCS update. I'm sick of being wacked by traps.
Japangirl 02-05-07, 12:25 AM	I am a year 3 rogue! Of course, I am now not far from retiring, but I played for a long time before that. They actually have two Thieves' Guilds in the BK right now, and the one I'm not in seems to be getting all the attention :weep: .
Redfist 02-05-07, 01:17 AM	What I see least of is clerics. That's why I created 2 low level clerics (although one just hit 9th, the other is at 2nd). My high level characters (15 & 12) aren't clerics so I felt it was time to give back...
bitznarf 02-05-07, 01:37 AM	I love playing my bard. Everyone loves a free +2hit&dmg and I'm a decent back-up healer. Smokefall?
Rerednaw 02-05-07, 11:29 AM	I actually like investigative/roleplaying as opposed to roll-playing. Not that I don't mind mixing it up after a work week. Sometimes I'm brain dead and can't get past the 'big thews big smash' concept. So my vote goes for bards and rogues. I don't think I have ever been in a mod in with a rogue (except for conventions.) Could be a regional thing. The Pale is lawful-paranoid. Bards seem to be the next-least played. I just started a bard and he just hit second. I can see why no one wants to play a rogue though. The few mods where a rogue is handy is vastly out-weighed by those where is rogue is not needed.
bitznarf 02-05-07, 11:57 AM	I actually like investigative/roleplaying as opposed to roll-playing. Not that I don't mind mixing it up after a work week. Sometimes I'm brain dead and can't get past the 'big thews big smash' concept. So my vote goes for bards and rogues. I don't think I have ever been in a mod in with a rogue (except for conventions.) Could be a regional thing. The Pale is lawful-paranoid. Bards seem to be the next-least played. I just started a bard and he just hit second. I can see why no one wants to play a rogue though. The few mods where a rogue is handy is vastly out-weighed by those where is rogue is not needed. I was at Crossing Paths in Vegas last year myself, and I found that I had pretty much the only rouge there (that I saw anyway). As for the combat effectiveness of a rouge, I've found that I do very well. 4d6+2 is not bad damage at all in my opinion. If for whatever reason the bbeg is/are not sneak attackable I can run cork fairly well (AC23+dodge) at lvl 6, letting me run around with my happy stick helping those who are taking hits. On a side note, in the area I play, the highest level cleric is about.. 6 or 7. Then a 5, a couple 3's, some 2's, a bunch of 1's... and thats about it between 20-30 people or so. The one high level druid in the area has been the primary healer for pretty much his entire career if I recall correctly. As such I would love to see more clerics in play up here.
Lomiat 02-05-07, 12:54 PM	As another poster from the Shield Lands, I have to agree with Eric and Morgen that rogues are in short supply and that they tend to get hosed. But so far as I can tell the issue stems from the writer's difficulty in managing obligations to various iconic character types while still making an adventure salvable without one of the iconic types. In other words, rogues shine when you NEED a rogue. Can't get through that door? Or that trap will not just hurt--but outright kill several party members? Yeah, you want a rogue. You need to pick-pocket a dignitary who will arrest the whole party if he sees through your disguise? Need a rogue. But an author can't write those situations in LG because they would hose 95% of all tables just in order to make the other 5% with the REAL rogues feel happy. Thus, traps tend to do some number of hit points, but not enough to inconvenience a party with a barbarian to soak the damage and a cleric or two to heal it. Social situations tend to devolve to a Diplomacy check with a DC out of the reach of a rogue anyway, so that all you need for social roll-playing is a marshal. And I've played at all too few tables that look for clever ways to interact with an adventure rather than just look for a way to get a foot in the door and smash the bad guys. It's hard to play a rogue when you're at a table featuring two paladins and a barbarian. The answer to any situations is foregone.... Thus, rogues get shafted. They're best when their massive amount of skill points can contribute to non-combat situations, but so few of those matter in LG that we see very few rogues. The answer? LG needs more authors who look for ways to STRONGLY ENCOURAGE rogues by presenting situations in which a party with a rogue finds itself greatly advantaged over a party without a rogue.
Some_call_me_Tim 02-05-07, 01:00 PM	I would say cleric. At most of the cons I've been to it seems to be the most requested class. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of clerics, but when was the last time a cleric got turned down at a table to make room for a bard? Then I would have to say comes old-school meat-shield BDFs. There are a lot of fighter-types, but few iconic fighters. While there are few rogues, and much fewer bards, I don't feel that most parties view them as essentials. They would likely trade them for a second cleric. In our area, I would say we usually lack arcane casting, but again it is a class parties want, but don't often feel they 'need' like a cleric or a fighter.
Iswald 02-05-07, 01:13 PM	At a con I went to last fall, there were precious few low level healing clerics. While I could have brought out a high level cleric, I preferred to follow the new story arc with a similarly new character. As a result, I altered the levels I'd planned to follow to put a level of druid in sooner. Although he could already use happy sticks due to a level of ranger, the added spellcasting seemed like it would be useful. It did indeed turn out to be important for the party two mods later that he could cast some druid spells. However, having a full cleric, would have been nicer.
SgtHulka 02-05-07, 01:40 PM	But an author can't write those situations in LG because they would hose 95% of all tables just in order to make the other 5% with the REAL rogues feel happy. I have a lot of sympathy for the authors in this regard. I'm not sure there's a way around it. If there is, I haven't figured it out.
UMiskatonic 02-05-07, 02:53 PM	Part of the rogue problem is, to be fair, shared by the players. I've seen too many rogues, and a few bards, who were so focused on their two trillion skill points that they had given NO thought on what their character might do if a fight broke out. If you are a rogue (and my primary is), you need to think about getting out of trouble first. THEN, go back and assign your skill points, which is the easy part of rogue building. Also, consider multiclassing. A little fighter, or ranger, or swashbuckler is invaluable for most rogue builds.
UMiskatonic 02-05-07, 02:56 PM	The solution to the rogue/skill monkey problem is to give the players more work to do. Don't hit them over the head with the hook, make them work for it. "We have to talk to my old mentor, but he moved out of town ten years ago...." It's a simple matter for someone with gather info and K(local) to take care of, but a rogue-free party could come up with a scrying spell that had a similar effect. Likewise, the complicated runes are only interpreted with a decipher script, or a legend lore spell. Failing both, the players don't know about the trap or the guardian.
Lomiat 02-05-07, 03:47 PM	I think it's simple enough to write adventures that make good use of rogues. After I posted, I devised one idea. It's just that most authors don't even bother.
_m_ 02-05-07, 05:02 PM	its just that its hard to design an encounter that a rogue is essential in. sure, other people cant disarm traps, but a high int wizard can cover the search and skills that the rogue would have, and simply dim door through a door she suspected was trapped.
clannagh 02-05-07, 06:06 PM	double post .. see below
clannagh 02-05-07, 06:13 PM	Overall there is too much emphasise on damage dealing in LG. In a recent game one young teenage druid player felt really bad becasue she had "let the party down" as her summons and animal companian all died first round and even the ones that got a chance to hit could not damage the monster (huge AC and high DR) and it also was immune to all her spells. In actual fact by flying above the combat out of harms way and burning all her summons (a lot for a level 8 druid) she kept the nasty critter busy for nearly 5 rounds and prevented at least one maybe two PC deaths by giving the arcane casters time to eventually whittle it down with orbs. as far as rogues go ..... i see two problems facing rogues (and scouts) in LG mods Firstly their seem an inordinant number of encounters where the whole "scout ahead" thing traditionally done by rogues and scouts to gain the party advantages pretty much just gets the scouting party killed (unless they have ludicrous stealth and spot are invisible and blinking and have prepared a DD scroll to get out if spotted) before the casters healers and tanks have a chance to even act. This MAY change a little now the FAQ has banned the BEBG from taking 20 on his hide ... we will see. There is a catch 22 with traps. Traps nasty enough to need rogues to disable can tend to be really nasty for the same rogues if they roll low and positively evil for any party unlucky enough to have no rogues or the wrong sort of rogues
_m_ 02-05-07, 06:35 PM	Overall there is too much emphasise on damage dealing in LG. In a recent game one young teenage druid player felt really bad becasue she had "let the party down" as her summons and animal companian all died first round and even the ones that got a chance to hit could not damage the monster (huge AC and high DR) and it also was immune to all her spells. In actual fact by flying above the combat out of harms way and burning all her summons (a lot for a level 8 druid) she kept the nasty critter busy for nearly 5 rounds and prevented at least one maybe two PC deaths by giving the arcane casters time to eventually whittle it down with orbs. as far as rogues go ..... i see two problems facing rogues (and scouts) in LG mods Firstly their seem an inordinant number of encounters where the whole "scout ahead" thing traditionally done by rogues and scouts to gain the party advantages pretty much just gets the scouting party killed (unless they have ludicrous stealth and spot are invisible and blinking and have prepared a DD scroll to get out if spotted) before the casters healers and tanks have a chance to even act. This MAY change a little now the FAQ has banned the BEBG from taking 20 on his hide ... we will see. There is a catch 22 with traps. Traps nasty enough to need rogues to disable can tend to be really nasty for the same rogues if they roll low and positively evil for any party unlucky enough to have no rogues or the wrong sort of rogues it just seems that rogues arent the best scouts. not even close. which is a pitty. they SHOULD be the best scouts... but they arent :/
_metz_ 02-05-07, 06:45 PM	I agree, need more rogues, LG adventures tend to kill the poor rogues, yet I think they are very useful and entertaining when they are around. I have a 7th (8th later on today) level Rogue who just does straight roguey stuff, and is going to be a spymaster for fun. Its risky playing it, often there is chance of death, but fun, and useful to good at a lot of things. Ialso totally agree that more high level Bards are needed, their buffs are great, they are decent backup spellcasters (come on, who loves lots of hastes and glitter dusts, I know I do) And they make fun skillmonkey characters too. There are lots of clerics, fighters, and wizards, so I would still say its ROGUE thats most often missed, and I would like to see more of them, only after playing with a high level rogue do people realise how useful and fun they are... they add a new element to the game. ((need passes you say, hang on while I forge some up...))
jstorrie 02-05-07, 07:00 PM	A well-played rogue shouldn't be that fragile. 14 Con and no need for a Wis periapt, plus you're hitting nearly the same AC as the 2h+plate guy with your chain shirt/mithril breastplate + dex + buckler, right? As long as you're careful with how many full attacks you open yourself up to, you should be good. Melee roguing is all about knowing when to take the risk in return for a full sneak attack. Archer roguing doesn't even have that trouble.
_m_ 02-05-07, 07:02 PM	I agree, need more rogues, LG adventures tend to kill the poor rogues, yet I think they are very useful and entertaining when they are around. I have a 7th (8th later on today) level Rogue who just does straight roguey stuff, and is going to be a spymaster for fun. Its risky playing it, often there is chance of death, but fun, and useful to good at a lot of things. Ialso totally agree that more high level Bards are needed, their buffs are great, they are decent backup spellcasters (come on, who loves lots of hastes and glitter dusts, I know I do) And they make fun skillmonkey characters too. There are lots of clerics, fighters, and wizards, so I would still say its ROGUE thats most often missed, and I would like to see more of them, only after playing with a high level rogue do people realise how useful and fun they are... they add a new element to the game. ((need passes you say, hang on while I forge some up...)) i just dont see where rogues are better than wizards unfortunately. i mean, with huge int, any wizard can forge without much trouble, especially with magical means at there disposal. it seems to me that at the moment, anything rogues can do, wizards can do better.
Grantor 02-05-07, 07:58 PM	When the rogue has the second highest hp total in an architype party, but is the only other character other than the fighter that is expected to stand next to the BBEG, players do not feel like it is a safe character choice, in my opinion. Especially if you do lots of sneak damage, but don't finish him off. The BBEG should generally say, "Ow! That hurt. Let's see how you like it!" and return the full-attack with one of his own. It always perplexed me that Rangers, Druids, and Clerics all had more hp than a Rogue. And they all have higher (or equal) ACs too. And equal BABs. But, to answer the question: we have less Clerics in the Duchy of Urnst than we have Rogues. There is a lot of meta-org support for Rogues and an Interactive every year that focuses on rogues.
Lomiat 02-05-07, 08:12 PM	i just dont see where rogues are better than wizards unfortunately. i mean, with huge int, any wizard can forge without much trouble, especially with magical means at there disposal. it seems to me that at the moment, anything rogues can do, wizards can do better. Generally, I agree. This is why my rogue is currently a Rog 2/Wiz 5, headed for Arcane Trickster. I would LIKE to see straight rogues benefit from module design and from player behavior at tables. The first requires that traps become more common and sophisticated. The difficulty, here, is that a lot of authors really want to emphasize their BBEGs, and the utilization of traps takes away from the available EL for the mod. That's a shame, especially when you consider that a lot of authors who actually deign to use traps use only one or two because they STILL want 3 combat encounters. Imagine the uproar of a table (especially one without the rare rogue) that plays a mod and faces 6 traps but only one combat encounter at EL = APL. 5/6 to 6/6 of the table just spent most of the mod finding their characters useless. Yet, it's the very same scenario that spawned the 2E rogue; each dungeon is trapped, by an unknown number of traps. Don't count your ELs; just keep checking for traps. The second difficulty (player behavior) stems largely from the unavoidable time constraints on the mods. It's much easier to run a rogue or a face in a home game than in a 4-hour convention slot where the rest of the party wants to make certain to bash through each encounter to hear the end text before the DM looks at the clock and decides there's only time enough to provide an out-of-character wrap-up. Therefore, players don't much tolerate role-playing in the extremes. All the clever ideas that make a rogue that person who goes beyond the normal (and... rogue-ish) and the scouting, etc.--they're denied by the 4-hour limit. Authors looking to promote scouting and skill-use have an extraordinary challenge before them: How do you promote the roleplay of one or two characters at the table while still writing the mod so that the EL utilization doesn't result in: A) a TPK or B) a timed-out game. It's tough, but not impossible. In the meantime, though, rogues with magic gain the necessary skills to do "rogue" stuff, but also have the versatility to be wizards (playing down) in combat. But, basically, for now, all that LG offers to make real rogues integral, or iconic, are traps. And, so far as that goes, in order to heighten the importance of rogues, LG would need to implement more non-dispel-able traps with search DCs of 20+ and disable device DCs that are cake for good rogues, pretty easy for mediocre rogues, and still likely for a halfway decent rogue playing up. Meanwhile, these traps would have to result in really nasty stuff that the cleric can't just heal before the next bad thing sets upon the party. That's the difficulty: It's a fairly specific set of circumstances that makes a rogue useful (or vital), and it's not friendly to any other class (except the scout... duh).
LGMoses 02-05-07, 10:34 PM	I think rogues will be played more come Greyhawk Ruins. Just a feeling
Japangirl 02-05-07, 10:35 PM	I second Grantor. D6 hit dice on a primary melee character whose focus is damage (thus money mostly spent on weaponry and offense and less on armor and defense) makes for very unpleasant combat encounters sometimes. I hear people complaining about wizards doing faceplants every mod, but at least they are expected to hide behind party members. Rogues get to stand in front of the high AC guy looking for traps and get charged, full attacked, etc for doing exactly what they were supposed to be doing, when they were supposed to be doing it, where they were supposed to be doing it. I really think that is one of the big reasons people don"t play rogues, the high mortality rate. Add to that fact that half your opponents you are useless against, your party has to really work with you for you to ever be effective (fighters have to flank, wizards have to use actions giving you buffs), and you have to stand next to big things that if you do not manage to kill them, they will almost certainly drop or kill you, well, it is not very surprising that rogues are in short supply. Ranged rogues are generally far inferior combat specs, because of how hard it is to get ranged sneak attacks in, so that is not a great solution either.
LGMoses 02-05-07, 10:38 PM	Rogues get to stand in front of the high AC guy looking for traps and get charged, full attacked, etc for doing exactly what they were supposed to be doing, when they were supposed to be doing it, where they were supposed to be doing it. I really think that is one of the big reasons people don"t play rogues, the high mortality rate. That is what makes rogues great though. Anyone can be a young sneakthief. It takes skill and experience to be an old sneakthief :D
clannagh 02-05-07, 10:59 PM	That is what makes rogues great though. Anyone can be a young sneakthief. It takes skill and experience to be an old sneakthief :D I think you have hit the nail on the head .. and newer players often choose rogues because they feel they can be tricky, show off, annoy other players on the table and maybe even fool the GM ... none of which are traits that lead to longevity in a character.
copper_wyrmling 02-05-07, 11:01 PM	I really think that is one of the big reasons people don"t play rogues, the high mortality rate. Add to that fact that half your opponents you are useless against, your party has to really work with you for you to ever be effective (fighters have to flank, wizards have to use actions giving you buffs), and you have to stand next to big things that if you do not manage to kill them, they will almost certainly drop or kill you, well, it is not very surprising that rogues are in short supply. Ranged rogues are generally far inferior combat specs, because of how hard it is to get ranged sneak attacks in, so that is not a great solution either. I love playing my cleric on tables with rogues and watching their eyes light up when she hands them a gemstone and says, "This grants greater invisibility once per day. It lasts for seven rounds. Have fun!" It also means they don't run off in the first round after beating her on initiative, because they're busy activating the gemstone, which suits her just fine as it means the spellcasters in the group have a chance to get buffs up :) She also used to imbue rogues with divine insight + two gravestrikes for those tricky traps and nasty undead, but no more divine insight sadly :weep: I really enjoy playing with rogues in cases where the party is well-equipped to help them out, because they tend to be sooooo much more effective with just a bit of support from their team-mates. However, at high-APL, it's a lack of arcane casting that I really fear - mobility is just so important, and barring the occasional cleric with the travel domain and domain spontaneity, nobody can match an arcanist for boosting party mobility. At APL 10+, I would much prefer to play my sorc on a table with no divine casting than my cleric on a table with no arcane.
Bold 02-06-07, 01:24 AM	these traps would have to result in really nasty stuff that the cleric can't just heal before the next bad thing sets upon the party. In a mod I wrote, I tried to reward well-balanced tables with a rogue (or perhaps some clever players) by using a low-EL trap not to damage the PCs, but to alert the BBEG. Parties who quietly unlocked the door to the lair and then disabled the trap could initiate the final encounter against unprepared enemies. Parties who bashed in the door and set off the trap would instead face enemies who had been thoroughly buffing themselves. Still, I never count on those kind of situations when I play my own rogue; as a result, I usually only run him in investigative mods, or in his home region where his "family" connections will enable him to contribute. And I play down. :D Of course, my hesitancy to play this rogue may explain why a character begun in 2003 just reached 6th-level...
_metz_ 02-06-07, 02:05 AM	THis isn't a which class is better m, this is which class you would like to see more of in the game. There aint any issues finding wizards, (except in Armidale really) Rogues add an element of fun to the adventure through wacky roleplaying like spymasters, Temple raiders and so on. I donn't desire to see more wizards cos there are plenty, but as the only rogue in a lot of the games I have played recently, including at cons, etc I find its something that is often appreciated when the rogue isn't annoying the party (or at least mine isn't) Rogues are really fun out of combat, and so hence I like them as well, in line with an earlier post as to LG being too combat oreinted, Rogues ahve skills and abilities that ar eoften not combat based, and straight out of the PHB are one of the few classes that do their thing well. Don't hate the idea of the rogue cos your wizard can DD.
sylvermyst 02-06-07, 02:51 AM	More less combat focused characters (who are still useful in combat) would be really nice. There are plenty of battle clerics and healer clerics, how about some more investigative clerics? They're still clerics, so they can still do healing, but they're also more interesting. Just as an example, what I'm getting at here is putting a new (non combat orientated would be nice) spin on a more commonly played class. This is sort of turning a little away from the topic so.... I'd like to see more scouts and rogues. I'd also love to see more characters who are choosing not to multiclass, because the poor things seem to be a rare breed.
cycloptic_squirrel 02-06-07, 02:58 AM	I'd enjoy seeing a PC with multiple levels of barbarian. I might be a little nervous if he was the only melee, but I think the roleplaying benifits would negate that. As far as combat effectiveness? More team players: healing clerics, buffing wizards, and bards who flank with reach weapons.
Sieylianna 02-06-07, 07:54 AM	I second Grantor. D6 hit dice on a primary melee character whose focus is damage (thus money mostly spent on weaponry and offense and less on armor and defense) makes for very unpleasant combat encounters sometimes. Rogues are not primary melee characters. You can tell the primary melee characters by their +1 BAB/level. Unfortunately, many LG modules emphasize combat and rogues can't take advantage of their class abilities. Ed
SgtHulka 02-06-07, 09:25 AM	Well, another problem is that every rogue is different. My rogue is human with a 14 intelligence, granting 11 skill points per level. That seems like an awful lot. But let's look at the list of "must have" maxed-out skills a rogue needs: Disable Device: No brainer Search: No brainer Hide: Come on, you're a rogue Move Silently: See above Spot: You want to act in the surprise round Listen: You want to listen through doors Tumble: No brainer That's 7 of a rogue's base 8 skills right there, and the rogue doesn't even have Open Lock, Climb, and Sleight of Hand yet. My rogue is a feinting rogue, so I have to add Bluff to the above list. Use Magic Device isn't on the list above. Escape Artist isn't on the list above. And note there are NO "face" skills like Gather Information, Diplomacy or Sense Motive. How an individual player uses the rogue's remaining 1-4 skill points/level will be very different player to player. For me, I've used three of those extra 4 skill points for Bluff, Open Lock and Escape Artist. My remaining skill point/level has been building up a variety of skills. 5 ranks in Jump to help my Tumble. 5 ranks in Climb. And now I'm looking at seventh level and realizing I only have two ranks in Use Magic Device and that's a liability. I don't have any ranks in Balance, relying on natural dexterity and Uncanny Dodge for when I get Greased. The reason I point this out is to show that Rogue's aren't all "faces". And they aren't all necessarily very good at helping investigations. My Rogue's only face skill is a sky-high bluff. And he can help investigations by breaking into buildings and stealing or planting evidence, but that's rarely a valid option in a mod. Meanwhile, that's just my rogue. Some other player's rogue may not have hide/move silently. That rogue may be "Inspector Catchyouredhanded" with maxed out Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Bluff, Forgery, Gather Information, and other investigative skills. Such a rogue would be no help at all to a party who finds themselves in need of a scout. I point this out to say, again, I have sympathy for the authors. What they can write into a mod to make one "sort" of rogue feel useful still might not make all rogues feel useful. I also agree with a previous poster regarding hit points. A d6 hit die is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as the Monk's d8 hit die. Con can make up for it, but Rogues suffer a bit from MAD (intelligence is almost more important than dexterity, charisma is very useful). Finally, as (I think...maybe I deleted it) I mentioned earlier, many things that rogues do well they do alone. I mentioned my Rogue would be pretty good at stealing/planting evidence. In this case he wouldn't want the party cleric along. That's a good half-hour to forty-five minutes during which the rest of the table is "looking out for the city watch". Even the iconic disable trap is a rogue-only activity. The rest of the party pretty much hides around the corner down the way a bit while the rogue does his or her thing. Scouting is pretty much the rogue, the ranger and the monk off alone together. The solitary nature of these activities makes them both relatively boring for the rest of the table and extremely dangerous for the rogue. I do think well-built and well-played rogues contribute to 75% of current mods. They just don't contribute quite as much as the other iconic classes. Again, as I mentioned, a barbarian is usually a better fit than a rogue if you're mini-maxing your party. But I love playing my rogue. They are able to do silly unexpected things. And they are able to fail spectacularly. So in truth the fact that a rogue isn't "essential" to a table doesn't bother me so much, so long as the other players at the table aren't bothered that I'm potentially bringing a knife to a gunfight.
solbergb 02-06-07, 09:37 AM	Rogues are not primary melee characters. You can tell the primary melee characters by their +1 BAB/level. Unfortunately, many LG modules emphasize combat and rogues can't take advantage of their class abilities. Ed No, but they can be very strong melee contributors. Nobody does as much damage as a rogue built to get a lot of attacks vs something that bleeds (or is made to bleed with imbued gravestrike or whatever). Some rogues are also light infantry. Theyr'e just more nerfed-by-content than the TWF rangers and monks are (other classes that rely on number of attacks to make up for inferior per-attack damage and whose effectiveness to some extent depends on who they are fighting). Rogues can usually get high AC but not high HP. They're kind of like Eldritch Knights in that regard, but with fewer defenses, made up for with higher damage potential. One problem though is that a rogue built all out to be a melee contributor often mutts out and loses his skill advantage. As Hulkas pointed out, it takes a LOT of skill points to do a "normal" rogue job. Having a lot of 2 or even 4 skillpoint classes mutted in pretty much leaves you with no discretionary skill points and you get the choice of being medeocre at everything rogues do, or doing just trapfinding and letting your "scout", mobility or "face" skills fade away.
jstorrie 02-06-07, 10:48 AM	You don't really need Hide/Move Silently in LG, though. So that's two more skill points per level for most Rogues. A 14-Int human Rogue could pick up UMD Tumble Search Disable Device Spot Listen (Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Sense Motive) or (Bluff, Disguise, Forgery, Open Lock) or whatever.
GrahamWills 02-06-07, 10:59 AM	Rogues have lousy hits and are meant to melee. That, in itself, is a serious drawback in LG. Even worse, they are meant to melee in a way that means they usually don't have friends nearby them. Apart from locks and traps, they don't have skills that are absolutely needed by a party. The face role is often covered by the bard/marshal/paladin/sorceror/hexblade. The spot/listen is better done by a monk/ranger/scout type. Move silent/hide can be covered by them too, but is better handled by spells. (+8 hide for a shrunk halfling works quite well). I play a monk, and manage the rogue role quite often. At level 8, his spot and listen are in the 20s. A decent wizard sends his hawk familiar in with very good spot and good hide / move silent (and EXCELLENT getting away fast!). The monk method of trap detection works pretty well - set them off and make the reflex save. Or the fort save for poison. Or just soak the damage since he gets 8 hits / level. So I strongly sympathize with rogues -- they make jobs easier, but in combat they are too often nerfed and even when not nerfed, a BDF or another blaster will do way more for the group. Out of combat, if there are traps and locks, they are definitely useful. For everything else, someone else will likely do just as well. One poster suggested the arcane trickster route. I think that is an excellent way to go. A few levels of rogue gives you the basic skills, and then you get the wizard levels to be effective. My son plays a (currently 3-3) character aiming for that and it is suprising how little better a rogue 6 is over a 3-3. One more d6 sneak damage and some secondary skills (but the locks and traps are the same as the level 6 rogue). There isn't even a hit point difference as the toad familar took care fo the 3 point difference. So for a loss of a few skills/level, you get a third level wizard in the party. It seems a great trade.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-06-07, 12:27 PM	There is a LOT of regional variation on this one... in my original area, clerics were extremely rare and extremely desired at mustering, to the extent that I avoided taking any crafting feats (or any other options that cost a lot of TUs) because I felt bad about reducing the number of tables that could have APL-appropriate healing (it was bad enough as it was; she was generally out of TUs by about August, so I spent the latter half of every year apologetically turning down requests to "please, bring your cleric, we need healing"). My friends who played druids and bards got very tired of having to play primary healers, and I almost never got to play on the same tables as them, because having some healing on every table was considered a high priority at mustering. Yeah, this one's a function of regional variation, and it also seems to run in waves for some reason. 3 years ago in my region, when I started, we had a real problem with lack of Clerics. Now, we've got plenty of Clerics, but our percentage of Rogues has dropped to near-zero. Arcane Casters and Tanks have stayed pretty steady throughout, but I think that's because there's more possible variation for those two types than there is for Clerics and Rogues as a function of how many viable PrC's and base classes there are. A Tank could be a Barbarian (possibly), or a Paladin, or a Fighter, or a "Cleric" who went into a non-spell-advancing PrC, or any number of other options. Arcane casters have at least a dozen variants. Clerics? We have the Radiant Servant, the Straight Cleric, and that's pretty much it. Rogues? Most Rogue PrC's start dropping off in skill points, or lose Sneak Dice, or have other problems. I think on the whole, if you averaged them out, you'd find no real worldwide dearth with one exception: I can point to the modules themselves as the reason the Rogues died out. Put simply, Rogues weren't needed, either in Core or Regional mods around here for too long. The most they ever got to do was unlock a door, there were no traps to be found (it seemed), and a fighter with an adamantine weapon did just as well with opening doors. I found this to be a pretty common complaint as to why either (a) Rogue players were bored or (b) nobody rolled Rogues in other regions I visited, too. Now, we're hitting the reverse; some of our mod writers are putting in traps, but they're jacking the DC's so high that a maxed-out Rogue can't make them most of the time. And I'm not talking just a "trap monkey", I'm talking a level 10 Rogue with max ranks (13), an 18 Int (+4), Skill Focus (+3), and a Lens of Detection (+5) needing a 15 on the dice to make the Search DC of some of these traps. At that point, the Rogues are looking at this - and they're not underpowered, just never took Skill Focus in Search or never found access to the Lens - and wondering why they didn't just make a Barbarian, who'd be able to walk right through the trap, eat the damage, and get healed up by the Cleric.
SgtHulka 02-06-07, 01:31 PM	And I'm not talking just a "trap monkey", I'm talking a level 10 Rogue with max ranks (13), an 18 Int (+4), Skill Focus (+3), and a Lens of Detection (+5) needing a 15 on the dice to make the Search DC of some of these traps. Ouch. Imho, trap search DC's should be set at 23+APL. That lets a rogue mutt with maxed out Search find it with a take 20. Superior intelligence, skill focus, and magic items are a "bonus" that lets rogues either "play up" and still contribute or have a chance of finding traps without having to take 20. (taking 20 is a major hassle in LG, where everyone's got a time limit on their buff spells) Disable Device checks should be much lower, since you can never Take 20 on them. It stinks to "reward" a rogue mutt for finding a trap by blasting him out of existance with said trap. 15+APL seems reasonable, since an average rogue mutt with maxed out Disable Device and Masterwork Tools would only get blasted out of existence on a roll of a 5 or less, and high level rogue non-mutts with skill mastery would be rewarded with automatic success. Again, rogues who have invested heavily in feats, intelligence or magic items are rewarded with the ability to bypass the trap without disabling it. But that's just the humble opinion of someone who doesn't bother to even try and write mods.
Mommy was an Orc 02-06-07, 02:28 PM	Rogues have lousy hits and are meant to melee. That, in itself, is a serious drawback in LG. Even worse, they are meant to melee in a way that means they usually don't have friends nearby them. That can be debatable - if you're in the right party, rogue archers are nasty Take as an example the following build Str 16, Dex 17, Con 12, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 8 1: Rogue 1: PBS 2: Ranger 1: Track 3: Rogue 2: Precise Shot 4: Ranger 2: Rapid Shot(to level up Survival a little more): Dex 18 5: Rogue 3 6: Rogue 4: Tactile Trapfinder 7: Rogue 5 8: Rogue 6: Dex 19 9: Rogue 7: Woodland Archer At 9th level, the character is likely winning initiative against someone - he does 1d8+3+4d6+1+1+1d6(+1 magical bow of +1d6 energy damage) per shot at PB range. That's an average of 27 damage per shot. Assuming Haste, he gets 4 shots - he likely hits with 3 of them for 81 hp of damage. Even if the opponent isn't sneakable, that's still 39 hp of damage - respectable if not overwhelming and that's with a mere +2 bow/Boots of Speed at 9th. He's a solid Rogue despite the low Int because he effectively has a 20-22 Int for purposes of Search/Disable Devices If he's in the right party with a caster throwing some kind of magical concealment on him, he's doing that every round - if the opponent is sneakable, does your wizard cast Greater Invis on him for an extra +8-16d6 of damage a round or do you cast Orb of X for 9d6 damage at that point? There's three real problems with Rogues in LG: They're tricky to play/build right. You want as many attacks as possible, which either means generating AoOs through a Spiked Chain and maintaining concealment, doing lots of attacks with TWF via flanks, or shooting while maintaining concealment. As maintaining concealment is difficult, Spiked Chain and Archers should make sure to be decent at regular damage of some kind. Spring Attack, especially without mutting, is usually too difficult and relatively insignificant. A Rogue doing Spring Attack or Improved Feint is only doing 1 attack for maybe 7-8d6 of damage at 8th level. Which is insignificant even if it works. Too many people forget that their melee builds ought to have a superhigh AC anyway - a Rogue doesn't do damage based on an expensive weapon, it does it based on being able to survive their speciality. So magic item purchases should reflect that. That's another advantage of an archer - they don't need as much defense, so they can concentrate on offense. A Rogue with a 22 Dex, Mithril Chain, and MW Buckler should have the same AC as a Tank wearing Full Plate and Heavy Shield. LG itself - one of the big problems of LG is that the concentration of sneak attack immune opponents is pretty high. And some regions go out of their way to make a Rogue's life miserable - Bissel 595, as an example, not only had mostly undead as opponents, but they had at least two unbelievably anti-Rogue curses - one that made beneficial concealment impossible(as a result of successfully completing a mod, Pelor cursed you for helping him out. Yeah, he called it a blessing, but with friends like Pelor, who needs enemies) and another that required will saves, or open up doors without first checking for traps.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-06-07, 04:46 PM	Ouch. Imho, trap search DC's should be set at 23+APL. That lets a rogue mutt with maxed out Search find it with a take 20. I suppose you've never tried to take 20 all the way down a 200 foot corridor, have you? Superior intelligence, skill focus, and magic items are a "bonus" that lets rogues either "play up" and still contribute or have a chance of finding traps without having to take 20. (taking 20 is a major hassle in LG, where everyone's got a time limit on their buff spells) See above. Disable Device checks should be much lower, since you can never Take 20 on them. It stinks to "reward" a rogue mutt for finding a trap by blasting him out of existance with said trap. 15+APL seems reasonable, since an average rogue mutt with maxed out Disable Device and Masterwork Tools would only get blasted out of existence on a roll of a 5 or less, and high level rogue non-mutts with skill mastery would be rewarded with automatic success. Again, rogues who have invested heavily in feats, intelligence or magic items are rewarded with the ability to bypass the trap without disabling it. If only it were so... mods today are written "to challenge the min/maxers", which also means "to auto-tpk the non-min-maxers."
jstorrie 02-06-07, 05:26 PM	If you look at the trap guidelines in the DMG, Bob_the_Theurge, an APL10 trap is actually pretty nasty. If a CR 11 trap has that high of Search and Disable Device DCs, it could still be a magic trap that drops a level six spell and be perfectly within guidelines. The only way in which Search 40 traps are broken is that the CR modifier table in the DMG lists '30 and higher' DCs as all one category, when it'd be more reasonable to just put a flat +1 CR per 10 DC. But a single level six spell is not going to TPK a party, even a party of 'non-min-maxers.' It might TPK a party of people who put no points in Con, or did something else similarly unwise, but you're both overestimating how much character optimization actually pays off and how much power creep is occuring.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-06-07, 05:51 PM	If you look at the trap guidelines in the DMG, Bob_the_Theurge, an APL10 trap is actually pretty nasty. If a CR 11 trap has that high of Search and Disable Device DCs, it could still be a magic trap that drops a level six spell and be perfectly within guidelines. The only way in which Search 40 traps are broken is that the CR modifier table in the DMG lists '30 and higher' DCs as all one category, when it'd be more reasonable to just put a flat +1 CR per 10 DC. But a single level six spell is not going to TPK a party, even a party of 'non-min-maxers.' It might TPK a party of people who put no points in Con, or did something else similarly unwise, but you're both overestimating how much character optimization actually pays off and how much power creep is occuring. For instance, a pit trap in the middle of a long hallway (a situation annoying the players into taking 10 just to get through without rolling 30-40 times for search checks or making the judge do same), with the Search DC that I just described, which then has a reflex save of Ridiculous as the pit opens, a 100-foot fall, and then which triggers 3-4 spells (say, Blade Barrier, Fireball, and Stinking Cloud) centered on the bottom of the pit and for which the trigger is a pressure plate on the bottom of the pit. Drop a couple spells if it's lower APL (say down to 6), but even at higher APL, that thing is patently ridiculous. But similar have been allowed and seem to be the norm lately. And we went over it, and the only way we can see them justified is to claim that it's two different traps... the pit trap (really freaking hard to find/evade) and then the pressure trap on the bottom (like a DC 10 to Search for, not that it matters when you're falling from 100 feet up onto it) considered as "one encounter" of two, say, CR 8 traps for a total of EL 10. The other favorite I've loved seeing was the 15-foot-long Pit Trap (so that it was far enough that you can't search the other side before jumping to it) with a pressure trigger trap just behind it. I think I saw someone say in another thread earlier, "How about we don't auto-kill the PC's." And I think that's why Rogues are so scarce, those who play them are tired of being the target of the auto-kill nonsense.
Lomiat 02-06-07, 06:27 PM	As an author, I consider my PCs to be slightly ahead of the grade, and I write slightly below their abilities. My rogue, headed for Arcane Trickster, has a Search skill of +19 at 7th level (+4 INT, +2 Elf, +5 Goggles of Minute Seeing, +8 ranks). He could have more ranks, but then again, he could have a lower INT (+2 is reasonable), not be an elf, and not have found access to the Goggles. It's reasonable to expect a +12 Search modifier for a 7th level character. A 6th level character with a +11 Search skill that plays up to APL 8 should still have a reasonable chance of finding traps. That's my opinion. In other words, I would expect trap Search DCs no higher than 21 - 28. 4th level spells as traps at APL 8? Yeah, it can be done, but it's silly. Give a trap a Search DC of 30+ just to spite a party? Again, it can be done (and with a ridiculously low EL), but it's not very sporting on the author's part. Unless, I have a reason to do otherwise, I just have my rogue take 10 on Search checks (thus not slowing the party's progress), and I would expect most players to do the same unless they found something to indicate that a trap is likely. That's another thing about LG traps that's somewhat infuriating; they're placed in arbitrary, senseless positions. The dungeon won't have a trap near its sanctuary, but there'll be a rock slide trap along the pathway through the jungle. What gives? It's like the campaign needs a short seminar on Standard Trap Guidelines 101.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-06-07, 06:44 PM	Unless, I have a reason to do otherwise, I just have my rogue take 10 on Search checks (thus not slowing the party's progress), and I would expect most players to do the same unless they found something to indicate that a trap is likely. That's another thing about LG traps that's somewhat infuriating; they're placed in arbitrary, senseless positions. The dungeon won't have a trap near its sanctuary, but there'll be a rock slide trap along the pathway through the jungle. What gives? It's like the campaign needs a short seminar on Standard Trap Guidelines 101. Uhm... taking 10 on search checks, you're moving 5 feet a round. It takes a Full-Round Action to search a 5-foot by 5-foot square. Normal movement for a party (double move per round) is 40-60 feet. There go your minute-per-level buffs and maybe your 10-minute buffs, and forget it if you're on a time constraint.
copper_wyrmling 02-06-07, 07:33 PM	Personally, I think one potential problem with rogues is that they're one of the classes that is most dependent on support from other party members - and this might be overlooked, since to a certain extent self-sufficiency is part of the rogue archetype. I will always be happy to have a rogue on the table, and the ones I've played with tend to be pretty effective in combat and get good use out of scouting and trapfinding, but maybe that's just because my PCs will do stuff like lend out greater-invis items, give them invis+fly+message if they want to scout, use Grease as battlefield control and remind the rogue that it makes enemies flat-footed, run detect magic to spot magical traps, be ready to featherfall people who fall in pit traps, actively help set up flanks, etc
Mommy was an Orc 02-06-07, 07:33 PM	Uhm... taking 10 on search checks, you're moving 5 feet a round. It takes a Full-Round Action to search a 5-foot by 5-foot square. Normal movement for a party (double move per round) is 40-60 feet. There go your minute-per-level buffs and maybe your 10-minute buffs, and forget it if you're on a time constraint. I think he's more talking about taking 10 and therefore not rolling 5000 dice.
Lomiat 02-06-07, 07:38 PM	I think he's more talking about taking 10 and therefore not rolling 5000 dice. Yeah, pretty much. No one wants to wait for the rogue to roll every 5 ft. square. "I search for a trap." (roll dice) "I search for a trap." (roll dice) "I search..." Ad nauseum. It's much, MUCH easier if you can simply tell the DM what your result is when you take 10 and then suggest that you take 10 all the time when you're taking point in a dungeon. (Also, it's nice to be a rog/wiz to get the Greater Mage Armor and Alter Self [troglodyte]. Invisibility, too, is pretty sweet. I haven't yet had the opportunity to scout a dungeon for traps while the party stays safely behind... but it's coming.)
bitznarf 02-07-07, 12:18 AM	use Grease as battlefield control and remind the rogue that it makes enemies flat-footed There is a rouge out there who actually has to be reminded of that? :OMG! Although I suppose not everyone follows the rules that come down from above like I do.
copper_wyrmling 02-07-07, 12:31 AM	There is a rouge out there who actually has to be reminded of that? :OMG! It was only a L3 rogue ;) I was playing my L3 sorcerer, and she ran out of spells ('cause when nobody can hit the undead in the first encounter, and the second encounter is incorporeal and nobody has magic weapons, you go through magic missiles REALLY fast), so she pulled out a scroll of Grease and said, "You have one round to unleash stabbity doom" (or some paraphrasing of that). The ape didn't fail its DC 11 Ref save, but the rogue DID manage to kill it with the flurry of stabbity doom, so it was all good :)
clannagh 02-07-07, 12:32 AM	That's another thing about LG traps that's somewhat infuriating; they're placed in arbitrary, senseless positions. The dungeon won't have a trap near its sanctuary, but there'll be a rock slide trap along the pathway through the jungle. What gives? . haha That reminds me of a cartoon i saw once with the caption "surely no sane person would put magic traps on every single door in there own mansion"
Japangirl 02-07-07, 01:59 AM	Just wait for the traps at APL 14. 100 foot drop with multiple spells at the bottom AND a Wail of the Banshee at the top for anyone who made the reflex save/wasn't in the area to fall. Now that's some uber nastiness. Only search check DC 34 though to find! THAT is why my rogue is always searching for traps even in wilderness areas . . .