Straight Rogue or mix with fighter or ranger?

[Borg]

I have seem some discussions that allude to this, but wanted to net it out in it's own discussion. Essentially, I see fairly universal belief that a Rogue isn't that important because you can distribute it's skills in other classes (such as in a Rogue(1)/Bard(x)) and you pretty much only need the trap handling skills -- conversation skills aren't really that important in IWD2.

But, Rogues do get the backstab ablilities, which I read also works when you simply flank an opponent -- invisibility not required. That seems to be pretty cool. Since I went without a Rogue in my first party, I'm considering having one for my next (especially because it will be an evil party). But, I have to ask, is backstab that worthwhile to have a straight rogue? Or, assuming I want more of a fighter Rogue than a Bard or magical one, should fighter or ranger be mixed in?

If fighter or ranger should be mixed in, Magness has mentioned in a separate post that the Ranger mix is better for stealth and dual wield (and racial enemy), Fighter is better for the extra feats. Anything I'm missing? Any thoughts on how many levels is enough for a Rogue when mixing and why?

[Black Baron]

Rouge is weak, and do not deal a lot of damage. And someone will get him soon or later, due to his low hp.

use an arcane spellcaster instead, more damage, and knock is 100% fail proof.

[Bozos of Bones]

There is no Knock spell in IWD2. IMHO, rogues are excellent party members, but in my estimation a rogue character(a character that is supposed to do mainly what the rogue does) is best multiclassed with wizard or sorcerer. DO NOT MULTI WITH CLERIC - you loose backstab with dull weapons.
A fighter-rogue is not a bad idea, but a fighter is the character that carries the heavier armors, so it's not what I'd opt for. A rogue-monk can have excellent feats like cleave, envenom and hamstring. Wears no armor, and needs both dex and wis. Leave strenght and constitution on 12, leave charisma and intelligence on 10 and chreate a rogue with 14 wis, 16 dex. Start as rogue, multi into monk at level 3 or 4, then after 2 levels of monk take two of rogue.

[Magness]

Bozo, a "fighter" need not be thought of as a heavily armored tank. Think of a fighter-rogue as being similar to a BG2 swashbuckler, a rogue with improved fighting abilities at the expense of more advanced rogue-ish skills. How much improved fighting ability you want is proportional to the amount of rogue-ish ability you are willing to lose.

A fighter-rogue (a ftr 6/rogue 10 is a nice mix) is a very solid character. It will be capable of being very decent in the rogue skills and as a warrior, but don't expect a fighter/rogue to be the equivalent of a full blown tank. They can be nice light fighters (what I call a DEX based warrior that wears light armor and tends to use stealth, bow, and weapon-finessed melee). If you take at least 4 levels of fighter, the one specific thing that you'll be able to get is that 3rd point in weapons skills. Is it worth going with fighter-rogue over a ranger-rogue? It's kind of a matter of style.

Ranger-rogues are also solid rogue multiclass characters. Think of them as being a bit like BG2 "stalkers". Whereas fighter-rogues get few additional feats, ranger-rogues get access to a ranger's skills and spellcasting. However, ranger spellcasters for a R/R is not really worth the trouble. Not enough levels of ranger to make a difference. The primary benefit of a ranger-rogue is access to the ranger skills. This means access to the stealth skills, search, and wilderness lore. If you manage your skill points properly, a ranger-rogue is every bit as good a rogue as a pure rogue in terms of skills. Taking the first level of ranger will give you access to the free virtual dual wielding ranger ability. This is a fairly nice ability for any rogue, since well-built rogues tend to be low to medium STR and very high DEX and such charcters, when combined with weapon finesse, are perfect for dual wielding.


Ranger-rogues and fighter-rogues have a couple of things in common. Both will gain HP and BAB at a lightly improved rate over a pure rogue.


How many levels of Rogue? How capable with the rogue skills do you want to be? A rogue 10/fighter (or ranger) 6 (assuming a party of 6 and ending up at 16 levels) is a very capable rogue. A 50/50 mix is manageable, although there will be a couple of tougher traps later in the game that you may fail to disarm.

[Black Baron]

but i used knock, or some spell like that when opening chests. i am confused.

[Bozos of Bones]

Originally posted by Magness: Bozo, a "fighter" need not be thought of as a heavily armored tank. Think of a fighter-rogue as being similar to a BG2 swashbuckler, a rogue with improved fighting abilities at the expense of more advanced rogue-ish skills. How much improved fighting ability you want is proportional to the amount of rogue-ish ability you are willing to lose. A fighter-rogue (a ftr 6/rogue 10 is a nice mix) is a very solid character. It will be capable of being very decent in the rogue skills and as a warrior, but don't expect a fighter/rogue to be the equivalent of a full blown tank. They can be nice light fighters (what I call a DEX based warrior that wears light armor and tends to use stealth, bow, and weapon-finessed melee). If you take at least 4 levels of fighter, the one specific thing that you'll be able to get is that 3rd point in weapons skills. Is it worth going with fighter-rogue over a ranger-rogue? It's kind of a matter of style. Ranger-rogues are also solid rogue multiclass characters. Think of them as being a bit like BG2 "stalkers". Whereas fighter-rogues get few additional feats, ranger-rogues get access to a ranger's skills and spellcasting. However, ranger spellcasters for a R/R is not really worth the trouble. Not enough levels of ranger to make a difference. The primary benefit of a ranger-rogue is access to the ranger skills. This means access to the stealth skills, search, and wilderness lore. If you manage your skill points properly, a ranger-rogue is every bit as good a rogue as a pure rogue in terms of skills. Taking the first level of ranger will give you access to the free virtual dual wielding ranger ability. This is a fairly nice ability for any rogue, since well-built rogues tend to be low to medium STR and very high DEX and such charcters, when combined with weapon finesse, are perfect for dual wielding. Ranger-rogues and fighter-rogues have a couple of things in common. Both will gain HP and BAB at a lightly improved rate over a pure rogue. How many levels of Rogue? How capable with the rogue skills do you want to be? A rogue 10/fighter (or ranger) 6 (assuming a party of 6 and ending up at 16 levels) is a very capable rogue. A 50/50 mix is manageable, although there will be a couple of tougher traps later in the game that you may fail to disarm.

Just for the record, I resent you calling me Bozo.
Now, the issue: I do not picture a fighter necceserilly as a tank, but think of this: there are 6 slots. There is a fighter tank with the coolest armor. There is a fighter. There is a spellcaster. There is a cleric. There is a rogue. There is a monk. There are no more spaces. This is the most used combination. I do not use it. Why I wouldn't opt for rogue-fighter is that the fighter is the only character who can use armors with NO penalties. Why ruin that with someone who can only be ussefull in a chain mail? Why ruin rogue abilities with fighter's health? Why have only one character in the party who can use an armor fully? YOu get several GREAT armors that are available in one time. The only thing that can make this worthwhile is weapon specialisation. Try to get the penalties to be roughly the same, and the feats and abilities diverse. A ranger/rogue is a whole other thing. He is an extremely usefull character when wearing light armors and dual short or bastard swords. Just don't dabble into rogue spells, they're too weak. A 5-11 combo is best. not 6-10 because then you have to choose between envenom and hamstring, and they're both great.

[Magness]

Originally posted by Bozos of Bones: Just for the record, I resent you calling me Bozo.

Oh, chill out. I meant nothing by it. Some people use overly long names that I just will not bother to retype.

Now, the issue: I do not picture a fighter necceserilly as a tank, but think of this: there are 6 slots. There is a fighter tank with the coolest armor. There is a fighter. There is a spellcaster. There is a cleric. There is a rogue. There is a monk. There are no more spaces. This is the most used combination. I do not use it.

Having a monk in a party is "the most used combo"??? I think not. IMHO, the standard combo for a 6 character party is 2 tanks, 1 rogue, 1 arcane spellcaster, 1 healer (cleric or druid), and 1 utility character (basically anything you want).

Why I wouldn't opt for rogue-fighter is that the fighter is the only character who can use armors with NO penalties. Why ruin that with someone who can only be ussefull in a chain mail? Why ruin rogue abilities with fighter's health? Why have only one character in the party who can use an armor fully? YOu get several GREAT armors that are available in one time. The only thing that can make this worthwhile is weapon specialisation. Try to get the penalties to be roughly the same, and the feats and abilities diverse. A ranger/rogue is a whole other thing. He is an extremely usefull character when wearing light armors and dual short or bastard swords. Just don't dabble into rogue spells, they're too weak. A 5-11 combo is best. not 6-10 because then you have to choose between envenom and hamstring, and they're both great.

We see fighters vastly differently. Just because the fighter class allows you to wear heavy armor without penalty, does not mean that you have to wear it. All fighters are not necessarily plate-wearing tanks.

If you have a low to mid STR, high DEX character, why wouldn't you wear the best light armor you can? Heavy armor is meant for low DEX characters, not high DEX characters. There are some great light armors in the game as well. IIRC, there are some +5/+5 and +6/+6 light armors that are every bit as good as the best heavy armors. Why would I want to wear chain mail (except for Drakkas' Chain)? It has a max DEX bonus of +2 and also has an armor check on skill rolls.

Having a fighter-rogue does of course weaken the rogue skills of such a character, but with a decent mix of levels, you can make a F/R that has rogue skills that are more than capable enough to be very useful. But as always with multiclassed characters, there are trade offs. A fighter-rogue trades off some higher level rogue abilities for some fighter abilities. I think that it's a fair trade off. I tend to play my rogues as swashbucklers and feel that a fighter-rogue multiclass matches this well.

I don't look at fighter-rogue as taking a fighter's slot in a party. That's not how I look at it at all. A fighter-rogue fills the "rogue" slot. The fighter-rogue is just a different type of rogue, a different flavor. Just like the different flavors created by the rogue kits in BG2. (Once again, I think that the fighter-rogue compares to the the BG2 swashbuckler kit. And the ranger-rogue compares to the BG2 Stalker kit.)

There's really nothing wrong with a lightly armored, high DEX fighter/rogue. You just have to understand how to get the most out of it. They are not assassin type rogues. They are more of a warrior rogue. Perhaps the good hearted swashbuckler. They will probably eschew the more "assassin" like rogue feats in favor of the more up front combat skills.


I agree that ranger-rogues are good. I think that you meant "ranger" spells, but I agree that they're not really worth worrying about in a ranger-rogue. You just won't have enought ranger levels to get enough ranger spells to be useful.

In a macro sense, fighter-rogues and ranger-rogues are not all that much different. Both can be very decent rogues and solid light "fighters". From a role playing perspective, ranger-rogues are more woodsy than fighter-rogues, while fighter-rogues are somewhat more skilled in the martial skills. Both are very good and solid choices for a "rogue" character for any party.


Bozos, I think that you're stuck in the paradigm of a fighter being a heavily armored tank and that you are undervaluing the light armors in IWD2. You can make a highly capable high DEX, lightly armored warriors in IWD2. Just don't confuse them with heavily armored tanks.

[ 09-23-2003, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Magness ]

[Bozos of Bones]

Very well, I shall not bear grudge.
The thing about me seeing fighters as tanks is true... mostly. But my biggest remark for the combo is the loss of rogue skill points. If you want to use a rogue in IWD2, he must be VERY proficient to use him effectively. A ranger/rogue gives a bit higher amount of skill points than the fighter/rogue, and needs less levels of ranger for effectiveness. The ranger's armor penalty is negated because of rogue's higher penalty and you can freely use dual weapons. Advanced search is very cool, and free. Couldn't find a use for wilderness lore, but I know it must do something.

[Magness]

Originally posted by Bozos of Bones: Very well, I shall not bear grudge. The thing about me seeing fighters as tanks is true... mostly. But my biggest remark for the combo is the loss of rogue skill points. If you want to use a rogue in IWD2, he must be VERY proficient to use him effectively. A ranger/rogue gives a bit higher amount of skill points than the fighter/rogue, and needs less levels of ranger for effectiveness. The ranger's armor penalty is negated because of rogue's higher penalty and you can freely use dual weapons. Advanced search is very cool, and free. Couldn't find a use for wilderness lore, but I know it must do something.

1. 10 or 11 levels of rogue are enough to be a very proficiently skilled rogue. (FYI, I never put any SP into pick pocket skill.) A Fighter 6/Rogue 10 is a very capable rogue and a solid warrior.

2. I agree that a ranger/rogue will generally be a more skilled rogue than a fighter/rogue. No argument there at all.

3. "The ranger's armor penalty is negated because of rogue's higher penalty and you can freely use dual weapons." I don't see there really being any such thing as an "armor penlty". (I'm assuming that you're talking about the fact that ranger's only start with 2 armor feat points and rogues only start with 1 armor feat point.) Rogues are really meant to be high DEX characters and high DEX characters are meant to wear light armor.

The best heavy armor, IIRC, has a +10 AC bonus and +1 or +2 Max DEX bonus for a total of +11 or +12. The very best light armor has a +6 AC bonus and a +6 max DEX bonus for a total of +12. That means that they are EQUAL in terms of protection. Furthermore, if you took the armor feats and put that +10/+2 heavy armor on your rogue, you'd lose all of his additional DEX bonus and you'd take a heavy armor check penalty. Not worth it. AND heavy armor is just that ... heavy. Many high DEX rogues (or ranger-rogues or fighter-rogues) do not have high STR's to match. Wearing heavy armor would strain their limited carrying capacity.

Rogues (and fighter-rogues and ranger-rogues) are MEANT to wear light armor, plain and simple.

4. Wilderness Lore. There is a very good use for WL. The Fell Wood. WL makes finding your way thru the Fell Wood a snap. WL is a good skill for any ranger, barb, or druid to take. Also note that WL is a WIS based skill. If by chance, you don't have a ranger, barb, or druid in your party, have your CLERIC take a point of WL. As a WIS based skill, your cleric's high WIS will increase the effectiveness of WL.

Also, Wilderness Lore can be used anywhere to try to scope out what enemies might lie ahead in the area. Other than the Fell Wood, is it necessary? No. But if you're just starting IWD2 and haven't played all the way thru, it can give you a heads up to the trouble ahead. If you have already played all the way thru, it can still be a nice little little role-playing bene.


BoB, I've played IWD2 all the way thru a few times in both Normal and HOF mode. And I've played both ranger-rogue and fighter-rogue MC combos. Both are very good multiclass combos. I'd suggest taking the combo that best fits your vision of the character. You want a swashbuckling fighting rogue, play a fighter-rogue. You want sneaky scout type of rogue that's more at home in the forest, play a ranger-rogue. If played to their strengths, both are very good MC combos that should serve any party well.

[Bozos of Bones]

Originally posted by Magness: 3. "The ranger's armor penalty is negated because of rogue's higher penalty and you can freely use dual weapons." I don't see there really being any such thing as an "armor penlty". (I'm assuming that you're talking about the fact that ranger's only start with 2 armor feat points and rogues only start with 1 armor feat point.) Rogues are really meant to be high DEX characters and high DEX characters are meant to wear light armor. The best heavy armor, IIRC, has a +10 AC bonus and +1 or +2 Max DEX bonus for a total of +11 or +12. The very best light armor has a +6 AC bonus and a +6 max DEX bonus for a total of +12. That means that they are EQUAL in terms of protection. Furthermore, if you took the armor feats and put that +10/+2 heavy armor on your rogue, you'd lose all of his additional DEX bonus and you'd take a heavy armor check penalty. Not worth it. AND heavy armor is just that ... heavy. Many high DEX rogues (or ranger-rogues or fighter-rogues) do not have high STR's to match. Wearing heavy armor would strain their limited carrying capacity.

Rogues in heavy armors are about as usefull as mages in full plate. And the DEX AC calculation is plain wrong. In ac, a 10 AC armor with max Dex of +2 will have 11 protection, not 12. A 6 AC armor with 6 max Dex will have ) protection.(dex bonus halves to calculate AC bonus). A very proficient rogue with all his skills at 80 or more is useless if he's wearing full plate mail. If you have 12 dex and lockpick skill of 60 and encounter a door with lockpick difficulty of 40, you can't pick it. Ranger's penalty on armors is that he gains free ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting feats if wearing light or no armor. Anything heavier than the second leather armor will negate this bonus.