Come now Zurai, be reasonable, everybody makes a poor word choice when they're trying to sound professional now and again.
If it was just once, I'd maybe give him a pass. He's done it twice now, though. That makes it pretty clear that he's got issues with my conclusions.
You are taking this way way too personally. I don't think you SCHEMED anything and I didn't imply any such thing, I said it outright then rescinded it because I really don't think you are doing any such thing.
I've said it multiple times I simply don't think simple math is capable of analyzing the game system.
There is just entirely too many different variables to put up one manufactured scenario and say "Oh X is better".
You are taking this way way too personally. I don't think you SCHEMED anything and I didn't imply any such thing, I said it outright then rescinded it because I really don't think you are doing any such thing.
I've said it multiple times I simply don't think simple math is capable of analyzing the game system.
There is just entirely too many different variables to put up one manufactured scenario and say "Oh X is better".
That makes it pretty clear that he's got issues with my METHODS.
Fixed it.
I've said it multiple times I simply don't think simple math is capable of analyzing the game system.
That's curious, because simple math was used to build the system, and simple math was used by the designers to analyze the system to make sure it was doing what it was intended to do.
Full attacks versus standard attack
Not relevant to the discussion at hand, which was whether rogues should get sneak attack on every hit in a round. Full-attack is the only means to get multiple attacks in a round, thus standard attack is irrelevant.
Attacking flat footed targets (through hiding or feint)
Again not relevant, because they wouldn't grant sneak attack on every attack.
Player weapon choice
Greatswords are, mathematically, the most damaging weapon in core (unless one of the new exotics is better, havn't looked into that). I'll admit that I chose rapier instead of longsword for the dual wield rogue just so I could simplify the math (using two 1d6 weapons instead of a 1d8 and a 1d6), but that's only a difference of 1 damage on average, hardly enough to change the results.
Player feat choice
Thus why I left the vast majority of feats open. The more open the character builds are, the more valid the comparison; highly-processed builds tilt the comparison too much and open too much discussion on "why did you choose THAT feat? It sucks!!!!".
Haste and other buffs
Not relevant, because we're discussing fighter vs rogue, not whole party vs monster. Haste will favor the fighter, though, because he's far more likely to hit on the extra attack and because that extra attack is a greater percentage of his total offense for the round compared to the TWF rogue.
Equipment choices
Favored the rogue in the first scenario and were specifically requested to be set to standard nonmagical equipment for the later scenarios.
Mobility
Irrelevant when we're discussing whether rogues should be able to deal their sneak attack damage on every attack in a round, because mobility isn't an issue when you're full attacking.
Monster stats
Were determined as fairly as possible, with a random throw of the die. I also offered to let you (or anyone else, really) pick another monster.
oh ya, well i can pee farther than both of you!
Really.
The real damage dealing Rogue would be the one that has climbed the Point Blank/Precise/Rapid/Many shot tree, who has a high str/dex and uses a magic comp str bow with a band of fellow party members willing to always set up the flank for the Rogue's sneak attack.
In that scenario, who needs Bluff or Stealth?
The real damage dealing Rogue would be the one that has climbed the Point Blank/Precise/Rapid/Many shot tree, who has a high str/dex and uses a magic comp str bow with a band of fellow party members willing to always set up the flank for the Rogue's sneak attack.
In that scenario, who needs Bluff or Stealth?
Barring arrowmind or a friendly ranger with the Distracting Attack alternate class feature (both of which are non-core 3.5 material), there's no way for an archer rogue to flank an opponent with a bow. Now, he could get a friendly mage to cast greater invisibility on him and sneak attack because his opponents are flat-footed, but that's getting back into the party vs monster rather than fighter vs rogue scenario.
OK, not to derail this but I gotta ask...
1. A fighter is in melee with an orc. A bow using rogue is 30' directly behind the fighter. The orc is not flanked? The fighter does not get the +2 to hit and the rogue does not get a sneak attack?
2. Same example, but the rogue is in melee using a short sword. Both the fighter and rogue are flanking and the rogue can sneak attack.
3. 2 fighters are flanking an orc. The rogue is inline with 2 fighters but 30' away using a bow.. Thus the orc is flanked (by the fighters). Does the rogue get a sneak attack?
Thanks.
1. A fighter is in melee with an orc. A bow using rogue is 30' directly behind the fighter. The orc is not flanked? The fighter does not get the +2 to hit and the rogue does not get a sneak attack?
Correct.
2. Same example, but the rogue is in melee using a short sword. Both the fighter and rogue are flanking and the rogue can sneak attack.
Also correct.
3. 2 fighters are flanking an orc. The rogue is inline with 2 fighters but 30' away using a bow.. Thus the orc is flanked (by the fighters). Does the rogue get a sneak attack?
Nope, no sneak attack. (Although personally, I kind of think the rogue should based on the justification for flanking (your opponent is too distracted to defend themselves properly, because of the threat of being attacked should they turn their attention away from the other person they're fighting) It seems like it should apply anytime someone has another person attacking them and distracting them, regardless of whether or not you can threaten them, but that's not how it works according to the rules.
He's using finesse because he's using 2wf. The MAD introduced by the feat requirements of the 2wf chain if you try to focus on strength is extremely hard to deal with.
To be honest, it's not _that_ bad. A 15 starting dex, or a 13 with a racial bonus, is enough to get by with the addition of +enhancement to dex items. Now if you're playing in a low magic campaign, and you know that no one else in the party has any intention of taking Craft Wondrous Item, then you might be stuck buying a higher Dex at creation.
Zurai's rogue example had a 22 dex at 10 without equipment, meaning he had to have an 18 base with a +2 racial mod and both points from levelling in dex. Drop that down to a 15 base and with the racial bump you qualify for all but Greater Two Weapon fighting without equipment. Bump strength up to a 16 with the leftover points and you qualify for one of the better sources of melee damage in the game, power attack, you've got a significantly better CMD, and you just deal quite a bit more flat damage on every attack (especially once you take Double Slice).
If your goal is melee damage, it's really hard to just write off Strength and still be successful.
OK, not to derail this but I gotta ask...
1. A fighter is in melee with an orc. A bow using rogue is 30' directly behind the fighter. The orc is not flanked? The fighter does not get the +2 to hit and the rogue does not get a sneak attack?
2. Same example, but the rogue is in melee using a short sword. Both the fighter and rogue are flanking and the rogue can sneak attack.
3. 2 fighters are flanking an orc. The rogue is inline with 2 fighters but 30' away using a bow.. Thus the orc is flanked (by the fighters). Does the rogue get a sneak attack?
Brodigan has it right.
Broddigan's analysis of a Rogue pumping strength is correct as well. A rogue designed for dealing damage won't work with finesse, he'll get the base Dex he needs and then pump Strength for the rest.
A "Thug" build, if you wish to call it something.
If built with the intention of focusing on dealing damage, Two Weapon Fighting (whether Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, anyone as the base) did more damage in 3.5e than using only a Two Handed Weapon. Between two Fighters with all the feats for their specialties, TWF came out quite a bit ahead.
I don't see it changed much at all in Pathfinder, except that the Twohander can get more of his damage in a standard action now with Vital Strike, further making him the King of "one shots".
.
That being said, Zurai did touch on something that is very much correct: BAB and "to-hit" means a lot.
I had done the heavy math (using an excel sheet so I could pump numbers and get a lot of different scenarios figured in), and the Pathfinder Fighter's bonuses from Weapon Training pushed him over the edge to getting more out of TWFing than the Rogue.
So yeah, in 3.5e, two characters built similarly, only one is a straight Fighter and the other a straight Rogue, would have seen the Rogue topping out on higher damage than the Fighter on a consistant basis (short of extremely high ACs).
However, Weapon Training alone seems to have made the Fighter more than a contender, and if you want to talk about 20th level character, his "don't need to confirm criticals" ability really seals it (not that anyone plays at that level, really).
If anyone is interested in the excel sheet I made, I've put it up on my ISP webspace.
Click here to download it. (May have to right-click "save as" to get the file).
The only thing it doesn't compare is how Damage Reduction would affect things. I was using it to compare "apples to apples", so to speak, with a Fighter build vs a Rogue build both using TWF.
To adequately compare between a Twohander's damage and a TWFer's, you'd have to reduce final average damage by DR x # of attacks.
You could probably run through quite a few different ACs and character builds/levels/equipment fairly quickly to get an overall feel of what a Rogue vs a Fighter is capable of handling.
I personally used a spread of ACs from CR appropriate (within a few levels), picking a highest, middle ground and lowest AC, not forgetting that an enemy can have active spells occasionally too (especially if it's in their spell abilities).
Hey guys, I think Dennis' comment here has been misunderstood (unless he corrects me).
Regardless, I've never had problems with rogues out damaging the fighters and don't figure on changing anything unless I do. Which I guess I didn't communicate very well.
It seems like several on the thread have taken this to mean he is aware that Rogues routinely out-damage Fighters and is okay with it. However, from some other comments he has made I am pretty sure he actually meant that he hasn't encountered an issue where the Rogue has routinely out-damaged the Fighter.
.
I think that numerical comparisons are the only valid way to do a comparison. No, it doesn't take into consideration all the variables but I think it is a fair baseline, especially when you consider that any variables the Rogue has access to which would increase his damage output the Fighter probably has access to as well, whereas Fighters now have access to several feat selections that no one else has with PF. If they put a lot of stock in the Crit feats the Fighter becomes even more powerful at 20 because he no longer has to roll to confirm critical strikes with his favored weapon.
The only other valid way I can think of to test this comparison is play testing, which I am sure there has been plenty of. Play testing is really just a long term numerical comparison that will take into consideration more variables than a quick/basic comparison. Personally I have not seen a Rogue consistently out damage a Fighter in any game I have played. Generally the biggest reason for this is that the Rogue isn't going to hit near as consistently. Personally, I have never played a Rogue with TWF because they already have a low BAB and if they take a PrC chances are it will get even lower. Sure there is potential for extra damage, but at the cost of missing far more often on average?
There are always going to be extreme cases but I would say they are the exception not the rule. Far more often I see the Rogues trying to get into flanking positions to try and keep up with the Fighters and Barbarians who are plowing through enemies. I have seen a 3.5 core Barbarian with non-core feats do more damage in a single charge than a Rogue of equal level did with a full attack on a flat-footed opponent (SA every attack) and that was even a situation where the Rogue was Hasted and hit with all of his attacks.
.
Zurai's rogue example had a 22 dex at 10 without equipment, meaning he had to have an 18 base with a +2 racial mod and both points from levelling in dex.
Zurai also made a comparison with a Rogue who had a high Strength and it still favored the Fighter.
Drop that down to a 15 base and with the racial bump you qualify for all but Greater Two Weapon fighting without equipment. Bump strength up to a 16 with the leftover points and you qualify for one of the better sources of melee damage in the game, power attack, you've got a significantly better CMD, and you just deal quite a bit more flat damage on every attack (especially once you take Double Slice).
With a 22 in Dex and Weapon Finesse the Rogue has a BAB+6 to all attacks (With TWF that becomes a BAB+4). The Thug/Rogue Zurai posted had a 22 in Str without TWF so that is BAB+6 to all attacks and +6 to all Damage rolls. Your example has a character with a 16 Str and 15 Dex who uses TWF. That character only has a BAB+1 for every attack. You may have a +3 to damage from Str but you are going to very consistently miss your target. In addition with a 15 Dex this Rogue has at best a 16 in AC, calculating for available Armor and Dex bonus. You have to have at least a +4 Dex bonus to take full advantage of the light armor available to a Rogue. Sure if you focus on Str vs. Dex you may have a potential for higher damage, but you are also going to have a lower Dex bonus to AC (unless you have magical aid) and without access to the Fighter's higher HP and Armor selection this is not a good thing for the Rogue. And if you try to split the difference with a medium Str and medium Dex you are going to suffer greatly on both your offense and your defense.
If your goal is melee damage, it's really hard to just write off Strength and still be successful.
Pretty much everything about a Rogue, from Initiative bonuses letting you catch opponents Flat-Footed in combat, to most of your Rogue specific Skills, and even your armor selection are built around the notion that you will have a very high Dex. If a Rogue intends to go with Str as his primary skill he needs to go all Str and get Medium or Heavy Armor proficiency to make up for loss of Dex. It is worth noting that such a Rogue will be pretty useless at many of his Rogue skills which are based on Dex and he will most likely be rolling around in Medium or Heavy armor which has a much higher armor check penalty. And he doesn't get too many feats to begin with so it is going to hurt him a lot more to get Medium/Heavy armor. Seems to me like a lot to give up just for getting a few extra points of damage each attack.
.
@ Kaisoku: That was a pretty interesting and well done spread sheet.
Greetings, nice work on some of the numbers, unfortunately, it is hard to see any validity in all but the lowest of CR categories.
A few of the new Rogue talents have not been taken in account Bleeding Attack; could have a greater benefit on larger groups. Opportunist will allow an additional single highest BAB attack. Master Strike will allow a save vs. death circumstance.
Bleeding attack will be accessed faster than weapon feats that require a higher BAB or level requirement. Fighters will have access to much more damage helpful feats.
I have mainly played rogues and there have been times when I have been envious of a fighter’s damage.
Situationaly a fighter should in all rights out perform a rogue against a single opponent. Again there are many variables that are too numerous to include, for instance what if the creature has any conditions preventing sneak attacks, How many rounds of combat lasts till the enemy dies from damage.
The builds were intentionally not optimized, because the more optimized they are, the more open to nit-picking they are. There aren't any rogue talents that significantly alter the numbers (remember that Bleeding Attack isn't cumulative, so at most it adds 10 damage once a round, giving us 100ish vs 70ish instead of vs 60ish), so I didn't include any of the talents. I also didn't include critical hits, mainly because they favor the fighter in the high level scenario (thanks to Weapon Mastery) and work out more or less equally in the mid level scenario. If we're talking multi-target situation, Great Cleave or Whirlwind Attack will do more than the rogue using iteratives can pray for.
EDIT: As far as Master Strike is concerned, the Titan only fails if it rolls a natural 1 on the die, unless the rogue has a 28 or higher Intelligence. It doesn't apply to the golem because the rogue isn't level 20, but even if it did the golem would be immune -- one, it doesn't have to make Fort saves unless the ability works against objects, and two, it's also immune to death effects, paralysis, and sleep.
Well unfortunately Zurai you do favor the fighter in both circumstances, with general feat selections. Lets look at the CR10
"Whatever. Level 10 fighter and rogue, 22 stat, the fighter has full weapon focus, basic specialization, and power attack, the rogue has finesse and improved TWF. Nonmagical weapons. They're flanking a stone golem (CR 11).
Fighter hits at +22/+17 (10 BAB, +2 weapon training, +2 greater weapon focus, +6 strength, +2 flanking) for 2d6+3 (9 strength, +2 weapon training, +2 weapon specialization, -10 DR; average 10.5) damage.
Rogue hits at +14/+14/+9/+9 (8 BAB, +6 dex, +2 flanking, -2 TWF) for 1d6-10+5d6 (-10 DR; average 11) damage.
The stone golem has AC 26. The fighter hits 1.45 times on average for 15.225 damage. The rogue hits 1.3 times on average for 14.3 damage."
Fighter has feats 4 the rogue has 3 Lets see one extra feat for the rogue could be opportunist. So lets add an additional attack for the rogue whenever the fighter attacks at +16 for 1d6+5d6-(10dr) (also note the BAB for the rogue is incorrect but lets just give him some masterwork weapons.)
Additionally this CR (10) enocounter actually favors the fighter not the rogue, unless you advanced the characters to level 11 left the rogue 2 feats behind forgot the extra 1d6 sneak attack and the needed +1 BAB for the rogue vs the fighters tertiary attack.
Now lets look at the CR (20)
"The fighter has (2)full weapon focus and (2)weapon spec in greatsword plus the (2)penetration line; the rogue has (1)finesse and the full dual wield line(?). Both have +3 double-energy-damage weapons (ie, +3 corrosive flaming, or whatever).
The fighter hits at +41/+36/+31/+26 (20 BAB, +4 weapon training, +2 greater weapon focus, +3 enhancement, +10 strength, +2 flanking) for 2d6+21+2d6 energy (+4 weapon training, +4 greater weapon specialization, +3 enhancement, +15 strength, -5 DR; average 35) each hit.
The rogue hits at +28/+28/+23/+23/+18/+18 (15 BAB, +3 enhancement, +10 dex, +2 flanking, -2 dual wielding) for 1d6-12+10d6+2d6 energy (+3 enhancement, -15 DR; average 33.5) each hit.
Titans have 38 AC. "
So to look at the feats 6-warrior 4-rogue since you didnt include double rend I am sure that the rogue wouldnt want double slice. So we could easily take the pentration feats out, or keep things simple and to keep the rogue at 6 feats lets give him opportunist and bleeding. So opportunist adds a attack at +30, as well as a 10 damage a round auto bleed attack. As far as weapon master you have 10% chance per attack to get a critical and the rogue with the same talents has 5% chance per hit to get an auto kill.
And here is the simple problem, when considering math and averages it is easy to set up situations where all things are not created equal. Like if one person creates a situation and sets in to play a series of game theory he can easily convert the outcome. Besides of which the idea of all of this is a bit silly, how long till the titan kills either character.
Well unfortunately Zurai you do favor the fighter in both circumstances, with general feat selections. Lets look at the CR10
I don't believe so. Also, for the record, that's a CR11.
Fighter feats 4 rogue 3
Translation: Fighter gets 40% of his feats, rogue gets 60% of his feats.
Lets see one extra feat for the rogue could be opportunist.
Opportunist isn't a feat. It also doesn't grant an unconditional extra attack, meaning that it doesn't always apply, meaning it's a pain in the ass to model and thus not included. Even modeling it as an automatic extra attack every round, it's still only +4.95 damage, bringing the rogue up to ~19 vs the fighter's ~22.
Additionally this CR (10) enoc~!!er actually favors thet fighter not the rogue, unless you advanced the characters to level 11 left the rogue 2 feats behind forgot the extra 1d6 sneak attack and the needed +1 BAB for the rogue vs the fighters tertiary attack.
Fighter didn't get a third attack. I'm not sure what the hell you're saying here. I didn't spend 100% of the feats because very, very few characters spend 100% of their feats on best-case combat feats, and because, as I've already covered more than once in this thread including in the post immediately before yours, I wasn't presenting complete builds because there's simply too much "but why didn't you" when you do complete builds.
Now lets look at the CR (20)
CR 21.
So to look at the feats 6-warrior 4-rogue
Or, put another way, 30% fighter, 40% rogue. Note how in both scenarios the fighter is spending a smaller portion of his feats? That's intentional. If I'd been biased towards the fighter, he'd have used 8 feats to the rogue's 4, since he gets twice as many feats as the rogue.
since you didnt include double rend I am sure that the rogue wouldnt want double slice.
I didn't include Double Slice because I only modeled one stat per character (to avoid character generation criticism). I didn't include Two-Weapon Rend because it doesn't add a notable amount of damage to the rogue (1d10 damage IF both hands hit, which isn't very likely in a scenario where the rogue doesn't even average two hits total combined between both hands) and is a royal pain to model.
So we could easily take the pentration feats out, or keep things simple and to keep the rogue at 6 feats
Only if you want to intentionally skew the numbers towards the rogue. Fighters get twice as many feats as rogues do. It's one of their class features. Forcing the fighter to spend the same number of feats as the rogue is adding an intentional bias to the equation, which is fine as long as you admit it.
lets give him opportunist and bleeding.
Again, those aren't feats.
So opportunist adds a attack at +30
Not always. Two examples: the fighter could miss all his attacks, and the titan could provoke an AoO itself during its round. Also, the attack is NOT at +30, it's at +28. TWF penalties apply to AoOs.
as well as a 10 damage a round auto bleed attack.
Not always. If the rogue misses all of his attacks, there's no bleed damage the next round.
Also not to dismiss the 5% chance to kill per sneak attack from master strike.
It isn't 5% per sneak attack, it's 5% per creature. Once they make the save once, they're safe for 24 hours.
I am not sure why you included the energy weapon damage since it more than likey would favor the fighter, or if you considered the fighters auto confirm damage or even why you chose DR pen and had a dr monster.
of this was included elsewhere in the thread. If you're going to accuse me of bias and shoddy methodology, you could at least be courteous and read my methodology.
EDIT: I'll also note that giving the CR 20 rogue both opportunist as an automatic extra attack every round and assuming that bleeding attack triggers every round still only does 87.25 damage vs the fighter's 100+.
I think that it is funny how you rationlize yourself. If you take the fact that a "rogue talent" can be used as a feat then the difference between a level 20 fighter and a 20th level rogue is in fact one feat.
I do concede your bad math to you.
I think that it is funny how you rationlize yourself. If you take the fact that a "rogue talent" can be used as a feat then the difference between a level 20 fighter and a 20th level rogue is in fact one feat.
Rogues cannot take all of their talents as feats. At most, they can get Weapon Focus, Weapon Finesse, one combat feat, and one feat that they qualify for. Why? Because you cannot choose a particular talent more than once. That's four feats, not nine.
I'll amend my suggestion in the post above to: if you're going to accuse someone of bias and shoddy methodology, you could at least have the courtesy to read the person's methodology and to have a firm grasp on the rules of the game involved in the discussion.
Well lets consider what feats I have actually included and keep it in mind. Bleeding attack used as a rogue talent, Finnesse rogue gains weapon finesse feat, Combat Trick gains a combat feat, Opportunist and "feat", and I forgot to mention weapon training. Considering these along with basic character feats. It was funny to see how your "modeling" lacked many of these, and I do agree it would be wasted to focus all of ones feats on combat talents.
I also think that it is funny how you point out the fact that opportunist may not hit when your fighter's Attack bonus is higher than the targets ac, granted we are talking about a less than 5% closer to a 2 % chance that your fighter will miss. Or the fact that a rogue would need to hit to cause bleeding damage. But what is actually funny is how you indead did "model" these to your situation. It is actually like you have read an article or two that points out that two fighting suffers the higher the opponents AC.
What is actually the most signifigant thing to notice is how you claim to "model" something that is fair. Next time you try one of the experiments, how about you put in a note saying you are tring to be biased, and then if someone brings something up you do actually have a reason to get confrontational about it.
The fact is you use circular logic, let any argument you pose refute that.
Well lets consider what feats I have actually included and keep it in mind. Bleeding attack used as a rogue talent, Finnesse rogue gains weapon finesse feat, Combat Trick gains a combat feat, Opportunist and "feat", and I forgot to mention weapon training. Considering these along with basic character feats. It was funny to see how your "modeling" lacked many of these, and I do agree it would be wasted to focus all of ones feats on combat talents.
Are you incapable of reading my reasoning, or are you just trolling?
I also think that it is funny how you point out the fact that a rogue would need to hit to cause bleeding damage.
What's funny about this? There's a very real chance that the rogue won't hit (roughly 1/8 the time against the titan and more often against the golem).
But what is actually funny is how you indead did "model" these to your situation.
What on earth are you talking about? Unless you meant that I modeled them by assuming perfect circumstances for the rogue (the fighter always hits, the rogue always hits and deals damage, and the enemy never provokes other AoOs), which is a hack and not true modeling of the abilities.
It is actually like you have read an article or two that points out that two fighting suffers the higher the opponents AC.
Or maybe that I have two brain cells to rub together and can come to the conclusion that twice as many attacks at -2 to hit is more damage in the general case? Are you seriously suggesting that NOT two-weapon fighting would improve the rogue's numbers here? And you have to nerve to call my math bad?
Next time you try one of the experiments, how about you put in a note saying you are tring to be biased, and then if someone brings something up you do actually have a reason to get confrontational about it.
Oh, you mean like I did here?:
Note that this scenario is intentionally skewed towards the rogue (level 10 instead of level 11, where the fighter gets a new iterative and the rogue doesn't, or level 12 where the fighter gets penetrating strike and the rogue doesn't), and the rogue is still behind the fighter in damage even with using sneak attack on every attack that lands. EDIT: Oh, and I even forgot to actually USE power attack.
The fact is you use circular logic, let any argument you pose refute that.
Please cite an example of me using circular logic in this thread. I suspect that, just like your grasp of the rules, you don't actually know what it means.
Your idea being that X will out damage Y is used to prove it self, do the construction of the failed exercise.
What is worse is your idea of math, its just simple probability or the fact that you will not take a simple critisism.
But I guess it shows that some people can take up a whole thread to argue with themselves.
Right, so you're trolling, then. Thanks for stopping by. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
|
Ok, I don't believed this was covered in the thread previously, so can I just ask, assuming we're in a combat situation already and the Rogue has been seen:
I understand about Bluffing in order to get the opportunity to hide behind a barrel or whatever, but what if the Rogue actually goes out of the room, can he then attempt Stealth around the door, so to speak?
To elaborate: we're in a 20' square room with two entrances. The Rogues moves out through one and then hides just outside. Is that possible without a Bluff?
If not, will it never be possible? What if he stands next to a second Rogue who hasn't been seen yet? What if he works his way around a corridor to the other doorway - can he hide there?
If he can hide, and he succeeds on Stealth vs Perception against the adversary in the room, do we then need to add an extra "surprise" round in the middle of combat to accomodate just the Rogue's movement out of cover / swipe if within reach or charge?
Richard
A rogue is more of a target seeker in combat. If you have ever seen movies like "The Hunted" or some similar ones, that is how I see the Rogue's Sneak Attack, pin pointing vital organs because you have been trained to precisely target them.
Eh, to me this sounds a whole lot more like a fighter's Crit feats (Improved Crit, Crit focus, etc.) than a standard ability that every run of the mill burglar and pickpocket would universally be assumed to have mastered. Rogues are not necessarily ninjas, and even ninjas are not "Ninja movie" ninjas; in my opinion, it's not a combat class. A rogue that comes anywhere close to approximating a fighter, barbarian or paladin in combat effectiveness is completely out of character for the class. Somebody that agilely avoids blows while landing devastating stabs into the vital organs is a dex/finesse/crit focus fighter; not a rogue (again, in my opinion).
Remember, ALL rogues, no matter what their build/focus/etc., have the sneak attack ability; to me that suggests that it is something any cat burglar, pickpocket or safecracker would have as well as the ambushers, bushwhackers and assassins.
Now, if it were an optional class talent, then I would be more understanding of this application as a thug/enforcer-type build.