Talk:Starting a Rogue

Vekx! You edited the Damage Build, reducing it's intelligence from 14 to 12 and then saying the skills of Jump and Tumble had more priority than Search and Disable. And then you go and "Caveat" to warn people away from the version that YOU JUST GIMPED. The point of the damage build was that a rogue COULD do acceptable damage with rapid-fire sneak attacks, and still have decent abilities against traps (but not in other roguey things, like sneaking, spotting, and locks). Meanwhile, you are doing the "skills build" weird. Skills means intelligence, but you have it raising dexerity for some incomprehensible reason. The two core rogue builds are skills/int and damage/dex. You just broke the page, so maybe I'll roll back your changes... don't wanna fight, though.24.62
 * IMO any rogue that focuses on damage more than on skills is gimped, period. Hence the caveat, and the suggestion to go fighter or ranger base and splash a few levels of rogue for sneak attack. In any regard, a rogue going damage is probably going to want to splash fighter or ranger into the build, meaning a lot of his skills aren't going to be kept at maximum anyway. If you want to make an argument for 14 int go ahead, but all I'm seeing in your post is complaining instead of counterarguments. As for the skill build, you get diminishing returns from intelligence after 14 (50% and then 33% returns), and a human with 14 int can keep every skill he needs (and more) at their maximum. Meanwhile dex increases your survivability so that you can even live long enough to disarm traps for the party. Besides, just because you're not a DPS-machine doesn't mean that you should be doing /sit during combat. Again, if you want to make counter-arguments, feel free. I'm not adverse to rolling the page back either if a majority of posters here want to do so. -- Vekx 07:14, February 18, 2006 (PST)
 * Futhermore, the previous "skill" build had 16 int, but it was also an elf because of their bonus to spot, search, and listen. I didn't see you crying gimp then. -- Vekx 07:14, February 18, 2006 (PST)

I'd like to have some comments on my current rogue build, and possibly post it as a more fleshed out balanced build for this page. As far as I'm concerned, regarding the build comments, strong warnings should be given in the assassin build (against doing it) because, as has been said, if you are not qualified at finding and disarming traps, PUG's will be very upset with you. Perhaps a link to a ranger/fighter or fighter/rogue build would be better than a straight rogue assassin build. AFAIK, rogues DPS will never break a fighter that is spec'd for DPS (particularly on quests that are filled with monsters that cannot be sneak attacked), and if they're not bringing the utility of a rogue along with them, then all they are is broken, stealthing fighters. It doesn't seem fair to new players that will be using this site as a utility to label a build assassin (which sounds cool enough that a lot of new people might roll it) without giving all the caveats. -- Vekx 15:04, February 15, 2006 (PST)


 * As far as I'm concerned, I have no problem with a rogue unable to detect/disarm traps. Everyone is welcome to tweak his character as he wants to. As long as there is a warning that you're not playing a conventional rogue and should advise your party about it, I'm fine with it. -- Tihocan 07:40, February 16, 2006 (PST)


 * Agreed. People can do whatever they want. However, any non-orthodox rogue build should have included in it that you will not be wanted in groups. Rogues are considered a non-stacking class for a good reason - they really don't bring much to a group beyond their specifically rogue utility. If you skimp on that utility, I think you're creating a gimped character (which again, you're free to do). The build should also include that good courtesy entails "advis[ing] your party" that you are playing a non-conventional rogue. -- Vekx 08:41, February 16, 2006 (PST)

Builds are suggestions, based on someone's experience and opinion. Is it necessary to modify someone's suggested build in such an argumentative fashion? Instead, why not post an alternative build to express your opinion, and keep the tone more of an informative one? Use forums or messages boards as a place to dispute what is best. Dedridd 12:14, February 9, 2006 (PST)
 * A person who doesn't even know that you can't advance one level in DDO without spending all skillpoints has demonstrated zero experience with DDO. I am simply trying to protect new players from rolling broken characters.  Do you have a better suggestion for how to flag something with "This is wrong, here's why" ?
 * I agree that obvious mistakes should be pointed out. Just keep it warm and friendly, and do not destroy someone else's build because you don't like it (note: I'm not saying this is what you did, just a general answer to Dedridd's question). Try to keep your comments to a separate section at the end of the build (unless something is obviously wrong and should be fixed) -- Tihocan 12:29, February 9, 2006 (PST)
 * By the way Dedridd, I see you just did a complete rollback: I think you should keep the useful bits of information given by the previous anonymous edit, as comments -- Tihocan 12:32, February 9, 2006 (PST)


 * This is a community site that many people contribute to. All I'm saying is, be respectful. There's no requirement that everything be absolutely correct before adding it. A page full of information that's 80% accurate is better than a blank page. If you see something that is factually wrong, then just correct it. If you have a different opinion, however, that's another matter - if you disagree that a Rogue isn't a Rogue without certain skills, feats, or stats, create a new build entry that includes those skills and say 'this is the typical build that most parties will be looking for. If you're going to run with a lot of pick up groups, this may be a good choice for you.' Dedridd 12:38, February 9, 2006 (PST)
 * Actually Dedridd did more than a rollback, large portions of the previous page are completely gone. To summarize the misleading suggestions: 1. It said that Spot is useful for trapfinding, which given the repetition of DDO quests, it really isn't. 2. It said that a rogue who can't find traps might be viable.  They're not. Wanting to survive traps is the A-number-1 reason anyone adds a rogue to a party. A sorc specced to buff/repair won't be popular either. 3. It said that a high charisma and low intelligence would help with Bluff and Diplomacy.  They won't.  The skill points from int far outweigh the ability bonus of cha. 4. It said an "assasin" backstab-themed rogue should have 16 str and 14 dex. That disqualifies you from Two Weapon Fighting, which is how an actual assasin PC gets an effective sneak-attack bonus of 9d6 instead of 5d6.


 * Ok, I'll take care of that within the next 30 mins, unless one of you wants to do it (btw, dear anonymous user, feel free to register ;) -- Tihocan 12:52, February 9, 2006 (PST)


 * No, Tihocan was right. I went back to the revision previous to the one made by 24.62.107.222. Nothing was removed except for what was added/edited during that revision. However, now I've done some editing and combined in the useful information, as requested. Dedridd 12:59, February 9, 2006 (PST)


 * Thanks for the edits. When I started writing the page, it was blank, so I figured someone would come in and correct me, and I was not disappointed.  :)  I've never multiclassed, so I didn't know about the skill points.  I also haven't played DDO to the endgame, but it's apparent that some folks here have.  In my defense, I'm assuming that the rogue player hasn't been through every dungeon enough to memorize all the trap locations.  While I'm sure that some have, my memory simply isn't that good.  Call me a n00b on my User Talk page if you really feel the need.  I'm sure the assassin build posted works better than what I threw in, so I'm taking mine down.  Glad to see there's some tested information up now - hopefully other edits and comments will continue to improve it.  Nic 08:30, February 10, 2006 (PST)


 * Nice to see such discussion. Nic, are you the aforementioned anonymous editor? I don't think so, you sounded much less argumentative than his edits did. 09:46, February 16, 2006 (PST)


 * No - all my edits were logged as me in the history. I try to stay logged in. --Nic 05:49, February 17, 2006 (PST)