Enough Fighter vs. Wizard! What about Cleric vs. Rogue?

[Shinkuro]

there is another 2nd level spell in that player's handbook that shuts down sneak attack for a minute per caster level. sneak attack has no effect on targets with concealment, blur grants it's recipient, concealment, thus blur negates sneak attack. this also makes the penetrating strike ACF null and void. a fully charged wand of blur costs 4500 GP. or 90GP per charge. a wand of blur with 1 charge is a great way for a monster with use magic device to negate a rogue.

[zugschef]

sneak attack is made of fail... everybody knows it, yet you're still discussing it. reminds me of a monk thread.

[SorO_Lost]

there is another 2nd level spell in that player's handbook that shuts down sneak attack for a minute per caster level <snip>It's Blur</snip>

Depends on your personal interpretation of "immune" to Sneak Attacks. Personally, I don't favor it that way but you know if this was a discussion about Rogues for Rogues (not vs spellcaster) someone would claim such.

sneak attack is made of fail... everybody knows it, yet you're still discussing it. reminds me of a monk thread.

Or Fighter thread? Really anytime you start discussing mundane vs caster you get four types of people.

1. For Casters: Casters win, see this nothing less than these TO level tricks to prove it.
2. For Mundanes: Mundanes win, if A, B, C, D, and E, succeed!
3. For Balance/Information: X and Y are cheating cheap tactics. But what is the value of Z and how could you use it?
4. For lulz: I AM RIGHT!, I don't know how but I'll make crap up to prove it!

Nothing but the 3s are useful. They use these threads to gather and refine tactics for later usage, suggestions, and if they go so far as to make a Handbook they are decently informed on how to optimize a certain class.

So what number are you again?

[OutlawPhilosopher]

Planar Ally for Kelvezu?

[linklord231]

@ Soro:  That's rather like the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

[Shinkuro]

there is another 2nd level spell in that player's handbook that shuts down sneak attack for a minute per caster level <snip>It's Blur</snip>

Depends on your personal interpretation of "immune" to Sneak Attacks. Personally, I don't favor it that way but you know if this was a discussion about Rogues for Rogues (not vs spellcaster) someone would claim such.

you technically can't apply sneak attack to a foe with concealment, even penetrating strike doesn't bypass that. though i think blur is a heavy sledgehammer to the rogue's nuts. allowing penetrating strike on all attacks that don't qualify, is a house rule i would advocate in favor of using. only because the rogue is so weak a class, in both combat and skills, there are various classes that do much better in combat while not being too far behind in the skill department. the bard (both the 3.5. version and the pathfinder nerf), factotum, the inquisitor (a pathfinder class), the ranger, the scout, and the swordsage. the beguiler is also a better skill monkey.

sneak attack is made of fail... everybody knows it, yet you're still discussing it. reminds me of a monk thread.

  Or Fighter thread? Really anytime you start discussing mundane vs caster you get four types of people.

1. For Casters: Casters win, see this nothing less than these TO level tricks to prove it.
2. For Mundanes: Mundanes win, if A, B, C, D, and E, succeed!
3. For Balance/Information: X and Y are cheating cheap tactics. But what is the value of Z and how could you use it?
4. For lulz: I AM RIGHT!, I don't know how but I'll make crap up to prove it!

Nothing but the 3s are useful. They use these threads to gather and refine tactics for later usage, suggestions, and if they go so far as to make a Handbook they are decently informed on how to optimize a certain class.

So what number are you again?

i'm a camp 5. i want the mundanes to have a chance to be successful on their own merits, but i admit the superiority of spellcasters due to their huge amount of supernatural talents that noncasters lack. a TOB class has combat control options not available to most noncasters, but other than that, they are still limited to dealing damage, and are poor in the social department .plus there is the fact, that TOB classes are feat starved, even if you use Pathfinder's feat progression combined with 3.5. UA flaws. but then, anything is feat starved when you include a bunch of feat tax patches.

in fact, i am personally against the use of feats or items to patch a class. i understand that it is an easy patch to use, but i would prefer that the patch be made to the class itself. it is a lazy habit that even Paizo Publishing has adopted as well. but they have a lot of former WotC designers.

essentially. rogues suck. i doubt the class does much that cannot be replicated better by someone else. i like the concept, but while 3.5. offered them help through resource taxes, pathfinder offers an easier access to a large amount of rogue hate.

[SorO_Lost]

@ Soro:  That's rather like the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

Only in that my post was as far as optic as any moron jumping in here to shout their opinion without any backing to it.

In which case, I'd invite you to join but you already brought your self in.

[linklord231]

My opinion that just because a cleric can be a better rogue, doesn't mean they should?  The opinion that I backed up by pointing out that a Cleric can get Sneak Attack if he wants, after it had already been noted that clerics already do the skillmonkey thing better?

Consider a Human Paragon 1/Cloistered Cleric 19 with Martial Stance: Assassin's Stance and the Sacred Outlaw feat from Dragon 357 pg 86.  He gets full rogue sneak attack plus 2d6, 7 + int skill points/level (martial study in a shadow hand maneuver gets you Hide as a class skill, Human Paragon gets you one other rogue-y skill that your domains don't grant), and only loses one caster level.  His base BAB is worse, but you can fix that with a spell.  He can still take all those fun Ambush feats and Craven.  If you wanted to, you could trade Human Paragon and 2 levels of Cloistered Cleric for 3 levels of real rogue (or, if you were super cheesey, Feat rogue) to grab Penetrating Strike.  You would delay 9th level spells, but you'd still get them by 20.  You wouldn't have to spend any WBL on wands of Gravestrike because that's on the cleric list.  You have the option to grab the Magic domain and get wands of golem strike, or you can just decide not to sneak attack them.  You're still a full caster, after all.

But, the above build loses out on the opportunity to take any PrC's because Sacred Outlaw only stacks Cleric and Rogue levels.  It also loses at least one caster level.  And most significantly, the above build isn't using his combat actions as efficiently as a cleric who isn't pretending to be a rogue.  Presumably, he's invested several feats and maybe a few levels into being a Sneak Attacker, so he damn well is going to sneak attack.  Which means he isn't Save or Die-ing, buffing, debuffing, or BFCing.  A real rogue can Sneak Attack, but he can't do any of those other things particularly well.  The rogue has a comparative advantage to sneak attacks and skills because the cleric has to give up more in order to do those things.  Economics teaches us that everyone should specialize in the things they have comparative advantage in, so that we all share the maximum benefit. 


Soro, I honestly can't tell which type of person you consider yourself to be.  Presumably, you think you're a Type 3, because that's the one you seem to ridicule least.  But from your behavior in this thread, I'd put you at either Type 2 or Type 4 (especially when talking to certain people).  If you think that collecting information for handbooks is the best use of our collective time, then go for it!  But so far the majority of your posts in this thread seem to be regarding cleric vs rogue arena style combat, which is absolutely useless for handbooks.

[Unbeliever]

Most of these threads have an arena style approach, which I (and Veekie, I believe, above, and a lot of other people I'm sure) contend are pretty useless:  D&D isn't built for arena-style conflict.  It's built for troupe play v. monsters. 

Is it contentious to say that the Cleric can, if it so chooses, fill the Rogue's role but with significant opportunity cost?  That's setting aside hybrid Cleric/Rogue builds supported by PrCs and feats that combine the two. 

I'd also think that to the extent you think the Rogue has certain niche advantages -- I'd consider the potential for serious debuffing through sneak attack riders (when it works, caveats all around, but still some quite effective stuff) and some always on advantages like Evasion that come up a lot -- it has something that a Cleric can't easily replicate.  The poor Cleric only has spells and divine and devotion feats (note the sarcasm) to fall back on.  But, at that point it's a sneaky Cleric -- a perfectly badass and viable character archetype -- and not so much a full Rogue substitute. 

[SorO_Lost]

Soro, I honestly can't tell which type of person you consider yourself to be.

Yes 3, it's no secret I use you all in my own little ways and I'm also that I'm argumentative as well.

Most of my anti caster finds (belt of battle counters celerity if you won init) stems from these threads and I've made several efforts to share the information. Same can be said for the 7th level Monk Sub that gives that game-breakingly open ended Concealment. I can't say I've learned anything here (yet), CJ's spell was unknown before coming into this but is too weak to be of any real use (argued reasons were sa is bonus damage, potentially it fails anyway, it doesn't last long enough, backing veekie's rogue should have if cleric does, etc).

Which btw, was the real thing I was arguing against. With little side points like having SA or not doesn't 'auto-fail' the Rogue no more than lacking Metamagic Feats on a spellcaster would. You still hit them in the face hurting them so obviously you've got the mobility and hit areas working, you still have Trapfinding & the skills to support it, etc. In fact, I may have even mention SA may be junk against a Player Character, but it works on most monsters as is which is something Unbeliever would back. But really all that cycles back to trying to push you people onwards instead of being bogged down. Because otherwise, what would I stand to gain?

[linklord231]

I can get behind those ideas.  So moving on:

I think to fully understand the paradigm here, we need to step back momentarily and answer a few questions about the nature of the Rogue and his role in the party.  Then, we can examine the Cleric's capabilities and consider whether the Cleric can be a 100% effective Rogue replacement, and if so at what cost that comes at. 

So, what is the Rogue's role in the party?

• Burst damage (sneak attack) - do lots of Hit Point damage to things in a short period of time.
• Trap Finder/Disabler - also includes opening locks
• Stealth/scouting (I'm lumping them because the rogue tends to use them together, but they can be separated if you guys want)
• Debuffing (sneak attack + crippling/maiming/whatever else strike)
• Information Gathering
• Party Face - I'd prefer a more precise definition of this, if possible
• User of Niche Skills - sometimes you need to forge a document or know exactly how much that lump of Kryptonite is worth

Anything else that I'm missing?

[ImperatorK]

Face/Info Gathering?
Something with niche skills (Decipher Script/Forgery/Appraise)?

[linklord231]

Added.

[zugschef]

stealth/scouting ==> partyrole: the corpse

[veekie]

Far from it though, most monsters are terrible at perception/stealth, and stealth has a pretty strong advantage given any distance penalties to use. Given a 100ft headstart before the party is usually enough to cover up the rest's lack of stealth, the rest of the group remains in range for interventions and retreat. Presuming they invest wealth in it of course, but that is the bane of most mundane characters.

Just that the ones who ARE good at it, are really really good at it with long range, perfect senses like blindsense. And they tend to be full party challenges to boot.

[ImperatorK]

My fix to the Rogue is to combine him with Factotum.

[Unbeliever]

Far from it though, most monsters are terrible at perception/stealth, and stealth has a pretty strong advantage given any distance penalties to use. Given a 100ft headstart before the party is usually enough to cover up the rest's lack of stealth, the rest of the group remains in range for interventions and retreat. Presuming they invest wealth in it of course, but that is the bane of most mundane characters.

Just that the ones who ARE good at it, are really really good at it with long range, perfect senses like blindsense. And they tend to be full party challenges to boot.

Pretty much this.  There was a thread a while ago, I believe Basket Burner was involved, where the argument was that stealth was completely useless b/c there was always a list of (relatively high-OP) options to avoid it.  In a practical optimization world -- i.e., one where the opponents are monsters with straightforward tweaks and that sort of thing -- scouting can be an extremely powerful tactic.  The most obvious application is for short-term buffing. 

I think Stealth/Scouting and Debuffing are the ones the Rogue (and Rogue-types) are most apt to.  They can do the other, skill-based stuff, of course, but they have less niche protection there.  I think their burst damage is not fantastic, but I could be wrong.  And, I also play games where there aren't many simple "roll Disable Device" traps, so ymmv. 

[LordBlades]

Far from it though, most monsters are terrible at perception/stealth, and stealth has a pretty strong advantage given any distance penalties to use. Given a 100ft headstart before the party is usually enough to cover up the rest's lack of stealth, the rest of the group remains in range for interventions and retreat. Presuming they invest wealth in it of course, but that is the bane of most mundane characters.

Just that the ones who ARE good at it, are really really good at it with long range, perfect senses like blindsense. And they tend to be full party challenges to boot.

Pretty much this.  There was a thread a while ago, I believe Basket Burner was involved, where the argument was that stealth was completely useless b/c there was always a list of (relatively high-OP) options to avoid it.  In a practical optimization world -- i.e., one where the opponents are monsters with straightforward tweaks and that sort of thing -- scouting can be an extremely powerful tactic.  The most obvious application is for short-term buffing. 

I think Stealth/Scouting and Debuffing are the ones the Rogue (and Rogue-types) are most apt to.  They can do the other, skill-based stuff, of course, but they have less niche protection there.  I think their burst damage is not fantastic, but I could be wrong.  And, I also play games where there aren't many simple "roll Disable Device" traps, so ymmv.

A question that bears asking is :how threatening are those things that are vulnerable to stealth? Odds are that if you push practical optimization past a certain point, anything that lacks the ability to cover such a gap in it's defenses also lacks the ability to cover other gaps in it's defenses and/or truly hurt the party.

[Unbeliever]

^ I think that's unlikely.  The question, as I see it, is:  "would the party, especially one geared to take advantage of it, benefit from getting the drop on the monsters?"  Getting the drop on the monsters tends to allow for, at the very least, a bit of pre-buffing and sometimes a surprise round, although the latter is hard for the entire party b/c it's rare for the entire party to be stealthy. 

For any encounter worth its salt, i.e., one that is any challenge at all, stuff like that should really help.  And, that's in addition to any kind of "intangibles" like planning tactics, pulling monsters, and so on.

2 rounds of pre-buffing in D&D can be enormously powerful.  It can turn a challenging encounter into a trivial one.  Just think of how powerful the War Weaver is if reasonably well-optimized.  And, these kind of advantages are general ones.  Sometimes it won't matter, if you're facing something like a Golem, which are pretty terrible at Spotting but also pretty easy to out-tactic to begin with, then it's a wash.  But, that's true with regards to a lot of things. 

And, the vast majority of monsters are vulnerable to sneaking.  There are exceptions:  Vrocks, Succubi, and Beholders, all have huge bonuses to finding people.  But, that's what it takes for them even to be competitive.  I don't have any hard numbers, mostly just my gameplay experience, but I don't think Spot/Listen scores are particularly high among the monster manuals, and only a few special abilities (also pretty rare) shut scouting down, and even then most of those can be countered by a reasonable optimization or a minor commitment. 

I'm just ballparking it, but I think anyone who wants to can comfortably sneak past 80% of the monsters printed in books. 

There are two caveats to that.  First, it won't always work.  I don't think that's a damning fact with any tactic, but some monsters will have great rolls or great scores or some ability like Blindsight.  So, you'll need a fallback plan.  Second, it requires a DM that isn't going out of their way to constantly thwart you.  Again, I think you can say this about anything in D&D.  But, if a DM really wanted to stop you from sneaking, he probably can. 

It's just that relatively few monsters come pre-equipped with the means to do so, and those monsters are still as threatening as anything else at their CR. 


EDIT:  it may get a bit harder at higher levels.  Monsters HD tend to scale up meteorically, which means their skills can sometimes, too.  But, you also have a lot more resources available to you -- it might just require a bigger commitment. 

[Shinkuro]

the big problem i see with the rogue, is that it's niche in the skills department is easily usurped by the ranger, the bard, the factotum, the beguiler, and any intelligence based spellcaster who decides to focus in that direction. the above mentioned classes are actually better, because in addition to the skills, they either have better combat ability (the ranger), have nova potential (all of the above) or have supernatural talents (the bard, factotum beguiler and any intelligence based caster)

Pathfinder makes this even easier by making expenditure of skill points require even less resources. allowing int based casters to be better rogues than rogues, minus a mere +3 class skill bonus that can be easily replaced. class skill bonuses can be acquired from a trait (get 2 for 1 feat), a feat that treats any 2 cross class skills as class skills (2 big ones, one of which grants 2 languages, the other grants +1 to all skill checks with a chosen attribute),  the fact that favored class can be used for additional skill points (or even additional spells known), and the increase to racial bonuses makes affording more intellect easier.

either way. the rogue has been obsoleted. and there are easier ways of dealing with traps, such as summoned monsters, dispel magic, or even sending the big beefy barbarian to take the hit and poking him with the lesser vigor wand over and over.