Uh, we are speaking of PFRPG here?
- 2nd level rogue talent for finesse, should be.
- Pathfinder duelist is much improved, albeit more of a fighter thing than a rogue thing. Should be fun with high-crit weapon.Pathfinder duelist is indeed better then 3.5 duelist.
It's still rubbish, unfortunately.
I disagree. I think the class is perfectly valid, even if it is not optimal for damage output. It has decent damage output that is on par with other melee characters and some unique ways of avoiding damage.
|
Some big differences between swashbuckler and duelist:
1. Swashbucklers get proficiency in all simple and martial weapons, which is better than rogues.
2. With the Daring Outlaw feat, swashbuckler levels stack with rogue levels for their sneak attack damage dice determination and the swashbuckler's grace class feature. This means that multiclassing between the two leaves you with a full SA bonus, potentially.
3. There's an alternate class feature called Arcane Stunt that replaces Grace (which is a lame Reflex save bonus), granting you the ability to use one of a few spells as a spell like ability a few times a day, such as swift expeditious retreat. I've found this invaluable for getting the character into position early in a fight for flanking and the like, even with movement penalties from Acrobatics or difficult terrain.
4. Swashbucklers get their Int bonus to damage rolls, which stacks with sneak attack, and applies even without needing to flank or attack a flat-footed target. The bonus damage is very nice, though it is not as good as a duelist's sadly (one place where the duelist has an advantage).
5. Swashbucklers get good Fort and Reflex saves, whereas duelists only get good Reflex saves.
Of course, swashbuckler is 3.5, not Pathfinder, so taking it (and Daring Outlaw and Arcane Stunt) are entirely up to your DM to allow. And there's no reason you couldn't do Rogue/Swashbuckler/Duelist.
Wow, thank you for all the great responses! Please keep them coming. For the record, I am the perception scout in front of the party in the wilderness and usually in the dungeon. I generally let the fighters open doors but it seems no one is willing to go first, so I should prepare to do so . . .I guess. I might have to play a 'survival rogue' but lets hope not. I tend to think of thieves as rather squishy.
What? You going in first is...dumb. Rogues should be the SECOND one in.
First one in should be the highest AC/HP character...your shield wall. If there are melee types in there, he's best equipped to handle them. Ideally this should be a Paladin, what with their nice saving throws.
Yeah, I know, but well, err, may not happen. *sigh*
As for the lack of rear guard, yeah, that's a problem. Archery fighters are usually the best choice for those, as they can contribute to the fight up front while still protecting the group's behind, and won't die instantly if ambushed.
I've noticed that the cute ms elf mage with bow is left by her lonesome.
Weapon Finesse is indeed important for you with STR10/DEX17. I'm not so sure about the Duelist though. It boils down more to campaign style than anything else - Duelists are great where you can't run around in heavy armor (most urban campaigns). It's a big hit to your skill progression and Sneak Attack dice though, so I'd suggest taking just enough Duelist to squeeze what you can out of Canny Defense.
Parry seems to be a trap. When you get it, you'd have +8 BaB (prerequisite +2 from Duelist levels), so 2 attacks (4 if you have Improved TWF). You probably won't parry crap with your iterative attacks (which are -7 from your full attack bonus), so you're giving up one of your two actual chances to hit and do damage, in return for what's probably less than a 50% chance to ignore one single melee attack coming your way. I haven't done the math on this, but it seems less good than it should be. It probably shines...
My head hurts! I'll have to study this . . .err, I don't suppose there is some easier way to determine these things?
|
TECHNICALLY, you cannot take Daring Outlaw and the Arcane Stunt class feature, because Grace is required for the Daring Outlaw feat. So, swapping it out means that you can no longer take the feat. I was very sad when I found this out, but I still wanted to play a Tiefling Swashbuckler/Rogue, I'd just have to settle for the stupid bonus to reflex... I still don't know why they didn't give that class a good reflex save instead of that stupid class feature
What would be a high crit duelist weapon?
A Rapier, a Keen Rapier to be more precise.
As for playing the Sherlock Holmes type it depends of the campaing type, your DM making it viable and mostly you having the ranks and the wits to pull it of.
On a side note the Bard actually is a great class to emulate a Sherlock Holmes type investigator. Is quite good at ALL knowdledge skills, has access to divination, ilusions make him a master of disguise and can be quite good with a violin.
Humbly,
Yawar
|
|
TECHNICALLY, you cannot take Daring Outlaw and the Arcane Stunt class feature, because Grace is required for the Daring Outlaw feat. So, swapping it out means that you can no longer take the feat. I was very sad when I found this out, but I still wanted to play a Tiefling Swashbuckler/Rogue, I'd just have to settle for the stupid bonus to reflex... I still don't know why they didn't give that class a good reflex save instead of that stupid class feature
Perhaps, but I had no trouble convincing my DM that subbing out Grace for Arcane Stunt wouldn't prevent me from taking Daring Outlaw. It's worth asking your DM, at least. Arcane Stunt is 1000% better than Grace.
Mr.Fishy has a question who is playing your rogue? If it's you then ask your buddy to take a step back as he is on you toe. Play your rogue as you see fit.
It's a game, GAME. Does he get mad if you pull a red in Candyland too?
As for combat not dying is pulling you own weight. Watch out for downed party members, cover the casters, hell, block a flank. If you did any of that stuff for Mr. Fishy, Mr Fishy would thank you.
Some players live to murder monsters. Some enjoy other parts of the game. Never let ANYONE tell you how to play your character. Unless they have the chips then play for bribes.
My head hurts! I'll have to study this . . .err, I don't suppose there is some easier way to determine these things?
Parry seems to be a trap.
Sorry! ^_^ It's very situational. I'm assuming that monsters/attackers will have at least as good an attack roll as you, the rogue/duelist, will. It's not ALL bad, as with TWF you can use one of your main attack to stop a potential iterative attack, but if you're trying to parry someone's main attack (esp. single attack), I'd give you 50% odds or less of success.
Also, you have to choose between Precise Strike and Two-Weapon Fighting. Best case rules wrangling suggests you can parry with the off hand 'attack' and still precise strike; confirm if you GM agrees before you commit to this path. Otherwise a Two-Weapon Fighting duelist is (sigh) pointless. What Precise Strike does offer is consistent damage; a duelist doesn't have to sneak attack, but the damage adds up more slowly than for a Rogue (3.5 per 2 levels). As for the defense side of things, Duelists do better than Rogues, but never nearly as well as the plate armor monkeys (fighters/paladins), and even they get hit. A lot.
ALL THAT SAID...I'd stay Rogue just for the skill ranks. You don't need the Duelist to do damage or stay alive (Spring Attack!), but gutting yourself of 1/2 your skill ranks means you're worse at all that out of combat stuff you're bringing to the table.
I disagree. I think the class is perfectly valid, even if it is not optimal for damage output. It has decent damage output that is on par with other melee characters and some unique ways of avoiding damage.Uh, we are speaking of PFRPG here?
- 2nd level rogue talent for finesse, should be.
- Pathfinder duelist is much improved, albeit more of a fighter thing than a rogue thing. Should be fun with high-crit weapon.Pathfinder duelist is indeed better then 3.5 duelist.
It's still rubbish, unfortunately.
So it's a character based on doing damage who can't do damage, and in return he can kinda supplement his ability to be hit, despite being built around lots of movement and keeping out of enemy range.
...Right.
On a side note the Bard actually is a great class to emulate a Sherlock Holmes type investigator. Is quite good at ALL knowdledge skills, has access to divination, ilusions make him a master of disguise and can be quite good with a violin.
True, but the word was out we needed a rogue to find the traps. Bards don't find traps, do they? Second, he needn't be good at all Knowledge rolls, just a few (really good at Local, so so at Nature and Geography). Third, I didn't want to be sterotyped as a flute and guitar one man band.
Mr.Fishy has a question who is playing your rogue? If it's you then ask your buddy to take a step back as he is on you toe. Play your rogue as you see fit.
It's a game, GAME. Does he get mad if you pull a red in Candyland too?
As for combat not dying is pulling you own weight. Watch out for downed party members, cover the casters, hell, block a flank. If you did any of that stuff for Mr. Fishy, Mr Fishy would thank you.
Some players live to murder monsters. Some enjoy other parts of the game. Never let ANYONE tell you how to play your character. Unless they have the chips then play for bribes.
Now, Mr Fishy, you know full well there is a social dynamic as well.
My head hurts! I'll have to study this . . .err, I don't suppose there is some easier way to determine these things?
Parry seems to be a trap.Sorry! ^_^ It's very situational. I'm assuming that monsters/attackers will have at least as good an attack roll as you, the rogue/duelist, will. It's not ALL bad, as with TWF you can use one of your main attack to stop a potential iterative attack, but if you're trying to parry someone's main attack (esp. single attack), I'd give you 50% odds or less of success.
Also, you have to choose between Precise Strike and Two-Weapon Fighting. Best case rules wrangling suggests you can parry with the off hand 'attack' and still precise strike; confirm if you GM agrees before you commit to this path. Otherwise a Two-Weapon Fighting duelist is (sigh) pointless. What Precise Strike does offer is consistent damage; a duelist doesn't have to sneak attack, but the damage adds up more slowly than for a Rogue (3.5 per 2 levels). As for the defense side of things, Duelists do better than Rogues, but never nearly as well as the plate armor monkeys (fighters/paladins), and even they get hit. A lot.
ALL THAT SAID...I'd stay Rogue just for the skill ranks. You don't need the Duelist to do damage or stay alive (Spring Attack!), but gutting yourself of 1/2 your skill ranks means you're worse at all that out of combat stuff you're bringing to the table.
I think I'll ask the players and GM for POSTIVE feedback on these issues. This is actually signifcantly more complex than I first thought.
The game is about combat, huh?
So, if my character sneaks his way into an enemy camp, steals some guard uniform, bluffs his way into the kitchen, poisons the food, and sneaks out again to wait, is that combat? He hasn't drawn his sword in this entire mission.
From a strategic perspective, drawing your sword is often your first mistake.
True, but what is the rest of the party doing while you sneak around?
Combat is most often the answer to a problem where everyone in the party has something to do...If you can solve all problems by being sneaky the fighter, cleric and most likely the wizard felt left out...
The game is about combat, huh?
So, if my character sneaks his way into an enemy camp, steals some guard uniform, bluffs his way into the kitchen, poisons the food, and sneaks out again to wait, is that combat? He hasn't drawn his sword in this entire mission.
From a strategic perspective, drawing your sword is often your first mistake.
True, but what is the rest of the party doing while you sneak around?
Combat is most often the answer to a problem where everyone in the party has something to do...If you can solve all problems by being sneaky the fighter, cleric and most likely the wizard felt left out...
Conversely, if the rogue is forced to fight, the rogue is likely felt left out . . .there is a balance and social dynamic to the game and it varies with the GM. But if you guys want to start another thread about that, feel free, just don't hijack my thread, pweeze. :D
Ah, sorry bout that.
But i thought your questions are all answered.
To sum it up:
Absolutely take Weapon finess at soon as pssible (level 3) and you are set.
All else really depends on how you want to continue, but i personal would get one more level of ranger for more hp and the two weapon fighting and then only rogue level to max out my sneak-damage.
Ranger 2/Rogue 18 is a very solid build and can be lots of fun.
Hmm, now that i think of it, due to the ranger level you are able to use shields now...
Why not use a shield as your offhand weapon and take:
3 Weapon finesse
5 Agile Maneuvers
7 Improved Shield Bash
9 Shield Slam
11
13
15 Shield Mastery
as feats.
Your Damage should be good due to Sneak-attack-damage, your AC should rise through the roof, and to push enemies to the ground with your shield is always fun.
Hmm, now that i think of it, due to the ranger level you are able to use shields now...
Why not use a shield as your offhand weapon and take:
9 Shield Slam
Your Damage should be good due to Sneak-attack-damage, your AC should rise through the roof, and to push enemies to the ground with your shield is always fun.
I'm trying this with my Cohort (Rogue/Fighter), at the next level she'll get Shield Slam. Mind you, I'm planning on using Improved Feint/Shield Slam when I can't flank.
However, she's designed to be more of a bodyguard/spy for my wizardly behind, so pushing enemies back is a good thing.
I haven't played in many years and a friend of mine talked me into playing PF. I am playing a rogue and have been told more than once that I need to 'step up more'. I did't get much of a response back when I asked what that meant. I have by far the best perception in the party, stealth, and the usual thiefly abilities but I am no mondo melee creature.
We recently hit level 2 and I switched over to Ranger for a level . . .taking human as a favored enemy is too rich, considering the NPCs we interact with. I justified the switch as saying, I've been closely watching the ranger in party.
So my question is, how does a rogue step up more? Is there a typical combat sequence that I am missing? Am I supposed to be the Grey Mouser by any other name?
Uh, first off, I think you need to tell the guy who said to "step up" to explain what he wants more succinctly or shut the hell up.
You were FIRST LEVEL ( now second ) and therefore still a fragile flower, just like the rest of the party, probably with worse AC than the other frontliners. Your first duty is to survive to second level, where you get some life into you with your second hit die.
Honestly, if the other guy(s?) who told you to "step up" can't specify what they mean, they shouldn't sass you at all. It's disingenous.
|
|
Have you tried talking to the DM? What did he say? Perhaps the lot of you can talk it out, you know, real civil-like. Maybe he has a better insight as to what the other players' concerns are...
Anyway, if there is dissatisfaction in the players, it won't be long before it bleeds into the game. If it spawns good RPing, great, but if it becomes a detriment, it's got to be dealt with...
Now, Mr Fishy, you know full well there is a social dynamic as well.
Yes... "I need you to watch my back. I would like you to flank the big guy, please cover the mage." Suggestions are one thing.
"Step up," sounds like an order.
Your playing a game. I another player offers advice or a suggestion thats one thing. But no one has the right to dictate your character. Build or actions, play your rogue, your way. If some one has a problem then they need to talk to you, not inform you.
Your playing a game. I another player offers advice or a suggestion thats one thing. But no one has the right to dictate your character. Build or actions, play your rogue, your way. If some one has a problem then they need to talk to you, not inform you.
Very true, though I did have to have a long discussion with people when we converted to Pathfinder, about how to make their characters 'effective' in the direction they desired (one was a DEX/Armor fighter, the other a ranged Rogue). It got heated, which is probably my bad, but they quickly admitted they were glad I did it once the actual results played out.
Because it is VERY easy to build an ineffective fighting character in Pathfinder, though you CAN make a somewhat effective fighting character in a multitude of directions. But it can be tricky. I hope NeonParrot gets some good ideas from this thread, without killing his 'vision' of the character.
Duelist can work for you. The prerequisites are things you'll probably want anyways, so if it doesn't pan out like you wanted, you'll know before you took too many levels of it. Even then, the first three levels of it give you +3 damage, +3 AC (Int 16 required), +2 Initiative and +4 AC vs attacks of opportunity. It's arguably better than taking 3 levels of straight Fighter...which gives you 2 feats, +1 vs fear and a touch of armor training. Yes, you have to be wearing Light Armor to pull all this off, but if you're a Rogue, you're going to be wearing Light Armor.
I'm guessing the other player may have wanted to suggest using the "5' Step" (allowing Full Attack/2WF and avoiding AoO's) more often. Solid knowledge of that rule and the rules for AoO's is a basic reality of playing the game competently, for better or worse. That said, even ignoring the fact that most of the people here had no clear idea what that meant, it's a pretty bad sign if they weren't willing to explain what they meant. But making clear you're open to tips or explanations of areas you may be missing is the best way to learn the game quickly. You shouldn't have to put up with ass-holes to do that, though.
Thanks for all the great posts . . .I think its a matter of me figuring out what a rogue does and does well, then putting a little extra spin on it. For instance, figuring out a routine that suits my character concept and exceeds the expectations of the more experienced players in the party.
I'have the basic book. Outside of combat and associated rules, is there anything else I should read up on?
I'm don't think I am going to get any particular help from the rest of the party in terms of a character build or expectations. If anyone has any suggestions, please feel free to post them here, or email them to me at NeonParrot2 at yahoo dot com.
I have skimmed this thread; your concept and build looks like a lot of fun and effective at what you want him to do. Mechanically, the only advice I would echo is to take Weapon Finesse as suggested.
But this is VERY IMPORTANT: What anyone HERE thinks your character SHOULD do is, frankly, entirely irrelevant. Of course their advice may be useful and kept in mind, but taken in the wrong context could hurt more than it could help.
You need to be having this conversation--and hopefully you are--with your fellow players and your GM. And not just the guy who thinks your character isn't "stepping up" but all the players. Do the other players feel like you are playing an adequate role? Do YOU feel like you are playing an adequate role?
Players need to work out their character's tactics together. A rogue's role in a party can vary incredibly considerably depending on who else is in the party and their particular tactics (the fun of playing a rogue is that they can adapt to these tactics more easily than other classes). If you take a lot of advice from people on a message board who do not and cannot get a full sense of the play style of yourself, your fellow players, and your GM, and the general feel for the campaign (is it low magic, high magic, urban, wilderness, all of the above, none of the above) you could really throw your group for a loop, even if technically you are bringing the most effectively built rogue evar to the table.
By the way: you've picked an incredibly versatile class, which can be built a variety of ways, all effective both in and out of combat (note of course that I say "effective"--i.e., you should consistently feel like your character is contributing usefully to the party whether in or out of combat--not OMG UR ROCKIN' TEH DPS). The best way to learn how to "play a rogue" is to do what you're doing: play one, and adapt him to the party's needs as you go and get a feel for the game and the character, because rogues are that adaptable. There is no one right way to play a rogue; there's no three or four right ways to play a rogue, and anyone who suggests otherwise is, in my humble opinion of course, entirely missing the point of the character class.