Take the 2-minute tour ×
Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Coming from traumatic experiences in 3.5 with rogues, I would like to ask you if sneak attack is viable in Pathfinder.

In 3.5, at level 10 and above, one would hardly ever get a chance to do any sneak attack. Most creatures we fought were immune to sneak attack (and crits) and the ones that didn't hardly ever noticed 2-3 weapon attacks without strength to back them out from my finess rogue.

I convinced my DM to allow me to override sneak and crit immunities using oposite energy types for creatures, like sneak attacking with a wand of cure on an undead, ice daggering a fire elemental, etc. But still the effort put it was not worth the bother. Eventually one dude made a ranger that had Distracting Shot or something of the sort that gave my first attack a flanking attack to give me some consistency. But by then the campaign was over.

I would like to know if a rogue can be a valuable melee beast or if he is still just a skillmoney with sharp-ish claws.

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 7 down vote accepted

Fewer Creatures are Immune to Sneak Attack

Constructs, plants, and (corporeal) undead are no longer automatically immune to Sneak Attack. That’s a very big deal, since constructs and undead are such common enemies. Elementals and oozes remain immune, as are the new proteans, but those are often not as common. Incorporeal undead are immune unless you have ghost touch (or similar, presumably).

Notably, the 3.5 rogue could Sneak Attack these things, but it was kind of a pain to do so, requiring particular wands.

It’s Harder to Trigger Sneak Attack

Recent errata to the Stealth rules finally allow those to be used to get a Sneak Attack, or multiple with Hide in Plain Sight, but aside from that most abilities that a rogue had to trigger multiple Sneak Attacks per round solo are gone. Most of the time grease doesn’t work (and the cases in which it does work are very ambiguously-described), blinking doesn’t work (and even if it did, Pierce Magical Concealment doesn’t exist any more), alchemical weapons can no longer be used for sneak attacks, and so on.

Fortification still exists

The fortification armor property still means a ton of high-level enemies are going to be immune, or have a chance of ignoring, your Sneak Attack.

Rogues still cannot stand and fight, and optimal damage is still low

Despite how hard it is to actually get full Sneak Attack damage on the rogue, since they can’t just stand there flanking someone and dishing it out most of the time, that damage is still lackluster. A typical barbarian or fighter will out-damage a typical rogue every time. This isn’t so bad (after all, the rogue has all those skills to play with, particularly Use Magic Device), but where before the rogue could get his Sneak Attack and remain relevant despite the superiority of the straight-martial types, a lot of the time in Pathfinder he cannot get Sneak Attack and therefore does barely anything at all.

The general consensus among optimizers is the rogue was stealth-nerfed

Sneak Attack was improved, but the various subtle ways in which melee was shafted in Pathfinder, combined with the various subtle ways rogues in particular were nerfed (the Sneak Attack nerfs above combined with the watering down of Trapfinding, which is almost pointless with the way so many things have detect magic at-will in Pathfinder), have resulted in a more difficult time for rogues trying to carve out a niche for themselves.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Rogues are plenty viable, depending on the kind of campaign and mode of play.

Like monks, rogues aren't the best at a lot of things. But not all campaigns are alike. My pirate campaign has a strong focus on skills and on-ship mobility, so our rogue and monk do very well. If you're playing a game which is in 4e tactical combat mode where it's basically one combat after another with slight bridging, you'll be less happy with the rogue.

A Rogue Isn't Just Sneak Attack

Mainly because Pathfinder isn't just combat. If your campaign has significant political or exploration elements, the skill focus of the rogue can be very strong. Sure, casters can nova some of those things better (find traps, invisibility, etc. ) but you can do them all day every day. Traditional old school style dungeon crawls are very conducive to the rogue.

If you take cues from the Paizo Adventure Paths, you'll notice that while there's combat there is often quite a bit of diplomacy and faction interaction, exploration, skill use, etc. Kingmaker for example is a campaign where you can kick all the butt you want but still fail in building a kingdom.

In real dungeons there's a lot of gimmicks. There's a hostage chained to the altar while people fight you. There's a big soul gem thing on a pedestal while the mage attacks you. There's an interplanar gate being opened while people fight you. Often, the fight isn't the goal - stopping the bad thing is the goal. In Pathfinder, the rogue can go stop the bad thing before the fight with the local goons is 1/4 over.

In our Carrion Crown campaign today, we talked our way out of a big werewolf fight. Because our characters aren't psychos whose goal is "harvest souls for the master," we have a goal that we sometimes have to fight people to achieve but we'd prefer not to. Rogues are good at social skills. (Sure, a bard is better - if you have one...)

A Rogue Is Clever

Your bestest skill is Use Magic Device. You're not a caster, but you can be! A lot of what you need to do is talk and sabotage and scout and go behind enemy lines. A lot of this is careful thought, but some is using all the tools available! Buy a wand of invisibility, stroll into flanking, and go to town.

Your fighting has a lot to do with sneak attacking, which in turn has a lot to do with flanking and/or making your opponent lose their DEX bonus. There's a lot of magic item abilities, spells, etc. out there that help you do that - see In what situations would a target be denied a Dex bonus to AC? Then, use things that will create one or more of these conditions. There's also a lot of movement abilities out there, from Step Up to the advancing weapon property to the entanglement of blades rogue talent (and plain old Acrobatics) that can get your rogue into flanking or other good situations the vast majority of the time. There's a billion combos, pick ones that suit you, your party, and the opponents. Obscuring Mist + Fogcutting goggles. Darkness + darkvision. Whatever. It's not as simple as "grease them!" any more but there's plenty of ways to impose those conditions. You are certainly gear dependent, but you can really shine if you look outside the box of "best weapon!" and get the weirder stuff that might normally be "for oracles" or "for cavaliers" but that if you UMD it, is perfect for you.

Also note that all the ninja talents are available as rogue talents - there's a lot there.

A Rogue Needs Cooperation

A rogue's a good solo character, but in a group the rest of the party can make or break the rogue. Your battlefield control casters and your other fighters can either be always looking for an opportunity to set up the flanks etc. or they can be always screwing it up. You need to help them into teamwork. You're a narrowly aimed cannon and if the group isn't playing as a team you can be ineffective. If they are playing as a team there should be little excuse to not be flanking etc. If the monk is stunning the guy next to you instead of the guy three squares away from you, for example, you are a lot more effective. Figure out what they can do and what you need to do. Dirty Tricks,

Being a combat monster isn't all there is to life, but even in combat the rogue can do pretty well for himself with smart play.

share|improve this answer
    
This is a fantastic, well-thought-out answer. –  Jacob Proffitt Oct 14 '13 at 15:45
1  
This answer ignores the fact that the question-asker found 3.5 rogues “traumatically” underpowered. The Pathfinder rogue is weaker, relatively speaking, than the 3.5 one, so if that was true in 3.5, it’s only going to be worse in Pathfinder. It’s certainly true that the rogue is playable in the right Pathfinder campaign, but the querent makes it clear his group isn’t playing the kinds of low-power campaigns where the rogue can “do pretty well for himself.” –  KRyan Oct 14 '13 at 21:08
1  
I'm pointing out a) how Pathfinder play may differ from 3.5e play especially the more APs and Pathfinder-minded stuff you use, and b) I disagree with "weaker" since you can SA more creatures and you seem to be basing "you can SA less" on the lack of grease and blink, and ignoring all the PF movement powers that help you get into flank. –  mxyzplk Oct 14 '13 at 22:34
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.