|
Or use Wave Strike. The point is that it is possible to build a character that can feint as a swift action and use Greater Feint to allow for doing a full attack of sneak attacks against an opponent who is denied his Dexterity until the start of your next turn (or the end of your turn if you go Improved Two Weapon feint instead).
Please, don't get me wrong. I would love to be able to debuff an opponent to all allies. I would love to have Shatter Defenses work the same way. Now Shatter Defenses specifically states that it is self only and Greater Feint does not. Which is the right interpretation? I don't know. I only know how I interpret it and use it in my games as a DM and player.
There are numerous threads dedicated to this specific question about Greater Feint with arguments on both sides. The threads have been FAQ flagged with no response yet from Paizo. The simple fact that there are numerous threads asking the same question only shows the ambiguity of the feat wording. Neither opinion is right or wrong on this topic. Until Paizo makes a ruling it is up for debate. Rule it as you see fit.
Or use Wave Strike. The point is that it is possible to build a character that can feint as a swift action and use Greater Feint to allow for doing a full attack of sneak attacks against an opponent who is denied his Dexterity until the start of your next turn (or the end of your turn if you go Improved Two Weapon feint instead).
Please, don't get me wrong. I would love to be able to debuff an opponent to all allies. I would love to have Shatter Defenses work the same way. Now Shatter Defenses specifically states that it is self only and Greater Feint does not. Which is the right interpretation? I don't know. I only know how I interpret it and use it in my games as a DM and player.
There are numerous threads dedicated to this specific question about Greater Feint with arguments on both sides. The threads have been FAQ flagged with no response yet from Paizo. The simple fact that there are numerous threads asking the same question only shows the ambiguity of the feat wording. Neither opinion is right or wrong on this topic. Until Paizo makes a ruling it is up for debate. Rule it as you see fit.
1) Non of those combos existed when Greater Feint was made and printed.
2) Link threads besides this one that actually debate this. I could not find them.
|
I can read it all day and come to the same interpretation I always do. Nothing says you grant this bonus to allies. The benefit of the feat is YOU, as per the rules of feint which is what the feat says, get the bonus of denying a target dexterity against all of your attacks until the start of your next turn.
Nowhere does it say that this bonus applies to anyone other than you.
Edit: if he just lost his dex to AC until your next turn the "in addition" line is entirely redundant and Paizo seems to cling to word count very dearly. Even still it has to be relative to the feinting ability which is where the restriction is.
First thing.. Feint does not cause a bonus. It causes a penalty.
It does not let you treat the situation as /if/ he lost his dex bonus. He's lost it. Its gone. Poof. Until your next turn. He's got no dex bonus.
Normally its to :your: next attack. But after greater feint, he is denied period.
|
|
Do a forum search for "Greater Feint" The first 8 or so are all different threads on the same topic.
As for combos not existing when Greater Feint was published what does it matter? There are plenty of feats in the CRB that are useless as written. Who is to say the original intent was not simply to allow for the target to be denied it's Dex for any AoOs? Personally I think it is stupid to not have an easier way to feint as a swift action. I believe Greater Feint should allow for a swift feint as part of the feat.
|
|
In my opinion, the fact that feinting does not confer the flat-footed condition is the problem. If a feinted target were flat-footed then yes, Greater Feint would (again, IMO) apply for all allies. However, feint is specifically not a flat-footed condition, nor is there a condition state in the rules that applies to someone who is subject to a feint. The target simply loses it's Dex to AC against your attack(s) for the time period listed.
The target simply loses it's Dex to AC against your attack(s) for the time period listed.
Greater Feint doesn't say that though...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With all due respect, Marthkus and many others have the right of it. They are not reading anything into the Feat, nor taking anything out of it. They have read it just as it is written down in the book and on the PRD.
Consider a Core Rule Only game. You CANNOT swift Feint. There is no option to do so. So now what is the purpose of Greater Feint under your interpretation?
You Move Feint and Standard SA in Round One. Then what? You can't SA him again, because his Dex is back AT THE START of your next turn, meaning BEFORE you act.
So what is the point of taking the Feat?
The point is to deny the target his Dex from your action in Round One to the start of your action in Round Two. Read the book. Read the PRD. It doesn't say he's denied his Dex to your attacks only. It says he's denied his Dex for the round IN ADDITION TO your next attack. That means his Dex is gone. Period. Nowhere to be found. So when your Fighter friend decides to smack him around during that Turn, he doesn't get his Dex bonus to AC. When your Ranger archer decides to put arrows into him, he doesn't get his Dex to AC. When your fellow rogue slides up and slips a knife into him, a SA occurs because he doesn't get his . . . guess what? . . Dex to AC. That is the entire purpose of the Feat!
But let's say you're right. Let's say only you benefit from this. What is the purpose of Greater Feint now under the Core Rules where it was introduced? Because maybe just maybe if you're lucky and wish and hope hard enough you'll get an AoO? That is a very poor payoff for a 3-deep Feat.
House Rule it any way you want, but I'm keeping the RAW as is.
Anyway, this argument is really side-tracking the OP which is talking about how to optimize the Rogue. I apologize for my part in side-tracking it and would be happy to continue the Feint discussion in another thread of anyone is so inclined to start another one.
I do like many of the options posted here by Gray, Kaleb and many others; the builds as well as the strategy suggestions. I'm curious to know how well a Dex-based Rogue stacks up against the Dex-based Fighter, but I recall the OP suggesting we stick with similar classes for comparisons, such as the Bard and Ninja. Plus the point of the Rogue is not simply to match blow for blow with the Fighter. Scouting, trapping, disabling, debuffing, UMDing, and damaging are all roles the Rogue can fill. And it's not a question of him filling just some of them well. He can fill ALL of them well, as proven among many of the pages before this one.
Earlier I offered the idea of a finessing light spiked shield TWF touch rogue although I haven't had the chance to build him out. Low AC targets could be main attacked with the shield (preferably bashing and with Shield Master to get full use of it) with a Chill touch off-hand attack. Hard to hit targets would face the Chill Touch as the main attack with the shield as follow-up. This of course all assumes you can flank or control the field enough to deny Dex. Plus with the right shield and gear, your AC is through the roof and flanking isn't so dangerous.
Couple this with Feats like Greater Feint or talents like Dispelling Attack to debuff the enemy and you are going a fair way to help the party.
Let me see what I can come up with, but I'd certainly bow to greater builders than I.
|
also, I noticed a lot of people will complain about how the rogue cannot match up to a fighter. in my mind they are not supposed too in a straight up fight. Its why in books, movies and the like the rogue will always use dirty tricks and "sneak" attacks against a "fighter" type. Because he knows he wouldn't win in a straight up fight.
on the other hand, look at it this way, a rogue uses his guile and acrobatic prowess to out maneuver a fighter with terrain (not in grappling)
toe to toe, a "rogue" should very rarely stand up to and match a fighter.
|
|
also, I noticed a lot of people will complain about how the rogue cannot match up to a fighter. in my mind they are not supposed too in a straight up fight. Its why in books, movies and the like the rogue will always use dirty tricks and "sneak" attacks against a "fighter" type. Because he knows he wouldn't win in a straight up fight.
on the other hand, look at it this way, a rogue uses his guile and acrobatic prowess to out maneuver a fighter with terrain (not in grappling)
toe to toe, a "rogue" should very rarely stand up to and match a fighter.
Which is sad that Rogues don't get bonuses to dirty fighting maneuvers while there is a fighter archetype that goes more roguish in combat ability
Perhaps what the Rogue needs is a Rogue Talent letting him take a Swift Action to do what the new Investigator class gets to do - use precise damage for the rest of his attacks that round. You could, however, modify it so that the Rogue takes a -2 to hit in order to get the precise damage to reduce his chance of hitting with every attack.
Perhaps what the Rogue needs is a Rogue Talent letting him take a Swift Action to do what the new Investigator class gets to do - use precise damage for the rest of his attacks that round. You could, however, modify it so that the Rogue takes a -2 to hit in order to get the precise damage to reduce his chance of hitting with every attack.
The Rogue has the worst to hit out of any melee class in the game and you want to give him a penalty for damage? Theres a reason not a whole lot of folks use power attack on rogues.
|
|
but when you think about, there really isn't much "dirty" fighting to do in an actual duel. the dirty part comes before, its the rogue sneaking up on the fighter to get off a full attack while he is flat footed. its the Rogue, planning ahead and taking a wand or two. Its the rogue just plain our luring the fighter into an area where he has others take care of him, (or at least weaken him)
I do wish they had more ways to make an actual effective duelist rogue (rapier or the like) and a more "effective" twf rogue core wise, but I have a few homebrew feats and the like that help rogues out, but won't go into that as its homebrew).
as said, you don't play the rogue for the combat, thats icing, you play the rogue for the flavor, the flexibility, adaptability and the "rule of cool" Of course that said rogues only shine mechanically when min/maxed or the GM makes use of skills extensively. (like me)
Perhaps what the Rogue needs is a Rogue Talent letting him take a Swift Action to do what the new Investigator class gets to do - use precise damage for the rest of his attacks that round. You could, however, modify it so that the Rogue takes a -2 to hit in order to get the precise damage to reduce his chance of hitting with every attack.The Rogue has the worst to hit out of any melee class in the game and you want to give him a penalty for damage? Theres a reason not a whole lot of folks use power attack on rogues.
Because then you're giving him the ability to do a full attack and get sneak attack damage with every attack that hits. There is a reason why Rogues don't have Sneak Attack for every attack as it is. So if you give the Rogue the ability to "focus" on a foe to get Sneak Attack damage, much like the Investigator, you have to compensate either by reducing the amount of sneak attack damage (the Investigator only getting Sneak Attack damage at level 4 and maxing out at 9d6 at level 20) or reducing the chance of hitting.
The Rogue Talent could be an Advanced Rogue Talent... but that still means a Rogue risks being too powerful at high levels. (Conversely, you could also have "focused" sneak attacks reduced in damage by 1d6 so it would be in line with the Investigator. If you flank someone you don't use the "focus" and thus get the full damage.)
Perhaps what the Rogue needs is a Rogue Talent letting him take a Swift Action to do what the new Investigator class gets to do - use precise damage for the rest of his attacks that round. You could, however, modify it so that the Rogue takes a -2 to hit in order to get the precise damage to reduce his chance of hitting with every attack.The Rogue has the worst to hit out of any melee class in the game and you want to give him a penalty for damage? Theres a reason not a whole lot of folks use power attack on rogues.Because then you're giving him the ability to do a full attack and get sneak attack damage with every attack that hits. There is a reason why Rogues don't have Sneak Attack for every attack as it is. So if you give the Rogue the ability to "focus" on a foe to get Sneak Attack damage, much like the Investigator, you have to compensate either by reducing the amount of sneak attack damage (the Investigator only getting Sneak Attack damage at level 4 and maxing out at 9d6 at level 20) or reducing the chance of hitting.
The Rogue Talent could be an Advanced Rogue Talent... but that still means a Rogue risks being too powerful at high levels. (Conversely, you could also have "focused" sneak attacks reduced in damage by 1d6 so it would be in line with the Investigator. If you flank someone you don't use the "focus" and thus get the full damage.)
You do know that 10d6 sneak attack damage at even the highest level is paltry compared to the static damage bonuses other folks get right?
Heck at 10th level the Barbarian and Magus are hitting for around a hundred points of damage while the Rogue puts out on average 15 extra on a sneak attack.
You know that you can sneak attack multiple times in a round right? Flanking lets you sneak attack full attack as does Greater Invis.
5*3.5 = 17.5
You're both equally wrong!
5*3.5 = 17.5
You're both equally wrong!
Yeah I only got like 6 hours of sleep so I didn't feel like doing the actual math.
Still, that damage plus their TERRIBLE to hit is nothing compared to what anyone else is doing at that stage.
Then make it a talent that sacrifices 1d6 SA to work. easy enough to do.
Also kindly note that if the Rogue got full SA all the time, he's still going to be doing less damage on average then the full BAB types, simply because he's -2 to -5 behind in To Hit, at very least.
==Aelryinth
At level 10, a Barbarian with a 20 Strength prior to Raging while wielding a +1 Bastard sword two-handed and Power Attacking would do 3d10+60 damage if he hits all three times. A rogue with a Strength of 14 and +1 Rapier or short sword with Power Attack would do 12d6+10 assuming everything hits. This is a damage range of 22-130 damage, compared to 63-90 damage if all of the barbarian's attacks hit.
So. A level 10 character who can do 130 damage with lucky die rolls without a critical hit. And yet the Rogue is underpowered and should get Sneak Attacks all the time? Riiiiight.
Addendum correction: I multiplied wrong. 12d6+10 would be a maximum of 82, not 130.
True. The Thief probably has a high dexterity and took Weapon Finesse to take advantage of that, giving him (assuming a 20 Dex) a +5 to hit for each attack. And hey, if the Thief has two-weapon fighting, two-weapon feint, and improved two-weapon fighting, then he can at level 10 feint and then get three attacks with sneak attack damage, for 27-102 damage.
BTW, I was off on the above rogue damage. My apologies. The Rogue would have done a maximum of 82 damage. I accidentally multiplied 12 by 10, not 6.
So your argument has more merit. But the Rogue is not powerless by any stretch of the imagination.
When you start subtracting out the Rogue's -2 to -7 to hit penalty behind the barbarian, those damage numbers drop FAST.
The rogue has tons of potential damage. At level 20, he's -9 to hit behind a raging barbarian, assuming Dex = Str. That is a HUGE hit to damage potential.
==Aelryinth
I will admit I'm going to retrain the Arcane Trickster NPC in my Runelords campaign to take away Improved Feint and go with Two-Weapon Fighting, and then perhaps go with Two-Weapon Feint. But if you want a Duelist-type, you'll have to go with the Swashbuckler in the Advanced Class rules coming out in August next year.
But then, if you look at swashbucklers in the Three Musketeers and the like, they often would have a main gauche in their off hand to catch the enemy's weapon... or even a pistol. The main gauche was used more as a form of shield and to break enemy rapiers and foils.
By the way, there IS two Rogue Talents I would recommend for an effective Rogue for both flanking and working with others: Positioning Attack lets you move after a successful attack to flank the person you just attacked - 30 feet of move without attacks of opportunity against you, so long as you're adjacent to the foe at the end of the move, and Assault Leader - when one of your attacks DO miss, your flanking companion gets an immediate action attack of opportunity.
Rogues are not front-line fighters, despite fighting on the front line. They're flankers and finesse fighters who help their companions improve their effectiveness.
When you start subtracting out the Rogue's -2 to -7 to hit penalty behind the barbarian, those damage numbers drop FAST.
The rogue has tons of potential damage. At level 20, he's -9 to hit behind a raging barbarian, assuming Dex = Str. That is a HUGE hit to damage potential.
==Aelryinth
Not true actually.
Rogue is 5 BAB behind and the Barbar is +4 to hit ahead do to raging. But the barbar is also losses -6 do to power attack. That brings the difference down to +3. A TWF rogue is 5 behind.
EDIT: There is a reason why rogues tend to avoid power attack and deadly aim though.
When you start subtracting out the Rogue's -2 to -7 to hit penalty behind the barbarian, those damage numbers drop FAST.
The rogue has tons of potential damage. At level 20, he's -9 to hit behind a raging barbarian, assuming Dex = Str. That is a HUGE hit to damage potential.
==Aelryinth
Not true actually.
Rogue is 5 BAB behind and the Barbar is +4 to hit ahead do to raging. But the barbar is also losses -6 do to power attack. That brings the difference down to +3. A TWF rogue is 5 behind.
EDIT: There is a reason why rogues tend to avoid power attack and deadly aim though.
The difference is a lot bigger than that though. With Reckless Abandon you don't really see those penalties. So we're back to being +9 ahead that is obviously even greater due to the Barbarian having access to weapons that benefit him more than a rogue's does.(Furious, Courageous)
Why in god's name is that Barbarian in the example using a Bastard Sword? Greatsword/Falchion/Greataxe is the way to go lol.
Benefit: While raging, the barbarian can take a –1 penalty to AC to gain a +1 bonus on attack rolls. The AC penalty increases by –1 and the attack roll bonus increases by +1 at 4th level and every four levels thereafter.
*eyeroll* Ah yes more barbarian h#+~*&+$~. Let's put that right next to their +6 nat armor to AC (which isn't enhancement so it stacks with the amulet), their pounce, their +7 to saving throws, and anything else I forgot to mention.
Benefit: While raging, the barbarian can take a –1 penalty to AC to gain a +1 bonus on attack rolls. The AC penalty increases by –1 and the attack roll bonus increases by +1 at 4th level and every four levels thereafter.*eyeroll* Ah yes more barbarian h%&+@+&&@. Let's put that right next to their +6 nat armor to AC (which isn't enhancement so it stacks with the amulet), their pounce, their +7 to saving throws, and anything else I forgot to mention.
All martials classes should be toting that h$&&#!&@! in comparison to what casters can do heh. As far as class balance is concerned, I feel the Barbarian stands well with the Ranger and Paladin without overshadowing them too much. And he does stuff out of combat too with dem 4 skill points a level. This really makes the Fighter/Rogue/Some Monks looks really bad in comparison when we have some martial class functioning perfectly well in a world full of magic and some that are *functional*, but hardly much to write home about.
At level 10, a Barbarian with a 20 Strength prior to Raging while wielding a +1 Bastard sword two-handed and Power Attacking would do 3d10+60 damage if he hits all three times. A rogue with a Strength of 14 and +1 Rapier or short sword with Power Attack would do 12d6+10 assuming everything hits. This is a damage range of 22-130 damage, compared to 63-90 damage if all of the barbarian's attacks hit.
So. A level 10 character who can do 130 damage with lucky die rolls without a critical hit. And yet the Rogue is underpowered and should get Sneak Attacks all the time? Riiiiight.
Addendum correction: I multiplied wrong. 12d6+10 would be a maximum of 82, not 130.
10th level, no one has three attacks yet. Barbarian has no reason to use a Bastard Sword so he gets a Greatsword instead. Using WBL guidelines he's got a +2 Furious Greatsword and a +2 Belt of Giant's Strength as notable damage increasing items. He's always raging in combat since he has the rounds to do it.
He deals,
7(Avg Greatsword Damage)
10(Strength is a 26 while raging and using a 2hander)
9(Power Attack)
4(Weapon Enhancement)
Total: 30 points of damage a hit.
His chance to hit the avg AC of 24, a CR10 Monster.
He has a +21/+16 to hit.
10th level Rogue. Hes got a +2 Agile Shortsword now. He acquired a belt of Dex. Hes got a 20 Dex before the Belt.
He deals,
3.5(Avg Shortsword Damage)
6(Dex from Agile)
4(Power Attack)
2(Weapon Enhancement)
17.5(Sneak Attack)
Total: 33 damage.
He has a +13/+8.
That hit chance is pretty awful in comparison. In order to hit the target AC, he needs to roll better than a 10 each time. Then when you remember that Sneak Attack is really situational and that you won't have it half the time, it looks REALLY bad.
also, ROGUES DON'T POWER ATTACK
hahaha. Don't you know? The best rogues dip one in fighter, wear fullplate and pump strength over dex.
Sadly that I'm only being a little sarcastic.
Wow, 33 pages...this is way too much to read through...
So did anyone manage to come up with a rogue only build that is decent in combat?
I think so... Depends on what you mean by decent.
1 |Combat Expertise, Skill Focus(Bluff)
2 |Finesse Rogue
3 |Deceitful
4 |Combat Trick(Improved Feint)
5 |Skill Focus(UMD)
6 |Minor Magic(Prestidigitation)
7 |Arcane Strike
8 |Major Magic(Silent Image)
9 |Greater Feint
10|Skill Mastery(Bluff, UMD, Stealth, Disable Device, Acrobatics)
11|Extra Rogue Talent(Opportunist)
12|Familiar
13|Improved Familiar(Small Air Elemental)
14|Crippling Strike
15|Extra Rogue talent(Dispelling Attack)
16|Feat(Combat Reflexes)
17|Extra Rogue Talent(Hard to fool)
18|Unwitting Ally
19|Quick Draw
20|Skill Mastery
*If mythic*
Mythic Feats: Weapon Finesse, Arcane Strike, Improved Familiar, Combat Expertise, Deceitful
Mythic Path: Longevity, Impossible Speed, Fleet Warrior, Precision, Precision, Limitless Range, Unstoppable Shot, Perfect Strike, Critical Master, Critical Master
EDIT: An Ifrit with firesight and smoke sticks makes for a pretty devastating range rogue.
How to use:
Before fight (you scouted first, right) Shield wand, Enlarge person wand to increase reach to 15’ if large group
Surprise round: buff or charge, your choice
Round 1: Choose: buff yourself (while keeping the fighter’s charge lane clear), delay for the fighter, move in to attack (single opponent), or use dazzling display (multiple opponents).
Round 2: Get into position where you can reach multiple opponents if you haven't already. Back to back with the fighter works exceptionally well.
At this point your opponents are shaken, sickened and unable to move even a 5’ step without drawing an AoO that deals SA damage. -2 Strength, -4 to all d20 rolls -3 damage and your AC goes up +6 for a total of +11AC. Keep moving to force them to move. Laugh maniacally as you and your besty the fighter mop them up.
On the rare occasion that your opponent goes first, they still have to get past your reach. As they charge in, use your AoO’s to make them shaken and set up for sneak attacks.
Thanks, Kaleb,
I think my eyes had glazed over while trying to keep up with this thread. For some reason, I thought you were tripping opponents and found a way to raise your CMB. I'd like a rogue that can adequately pull off Dirty Trick or Tripping, but can't seem to find the right combo.
Saves aren't everything."The last words of world famous thief "Ima Gunnashankya" before petrified by a medusa. His memorial still stands here bearing the exact expression of shock on his face before being petrified."Much like "saves are everything," could be the last words spoken by Ima Gunnashankya before the medusa slays him with an arrow to the knee. Works both ways.
For every argument there will be a counter.
I'm 4 pages late, but thought i'd bring up: isnt "arrow to the knee" a turn of prase for getting married? I mean I wont judge Ima and the lady medusa's love across species, but...
|
|
Alot of the problems with a rogue stem from a number of factors..
1) They are a Mundane Class - Typically if you are a mundane class it generally means you cannot have nice things. Period. You have to resign yourself to playing in the mud instead of being in the higher towers. Paizo has done some good though in improving some of the mundane classes a bit here and there, but Rogues continue to fall behind.
2) A great number of their talents are traps, or just plain suck. Powerful sneak for example is a trap, due to lowering an attack bonus that was already pretty low with no real reward, and difficult conditions to make the attack in.
Then you have ones like Esotric Scholar that is terribly worded and compleately worthless as a talent due to the fact you have to not be trained in the knowledge skill to use it, which means you've got a rather low chance of making it when you have no int bonus. IF you have a high int bonus its pretty much better to put a point into the knowledge skills if your so worried about making knowledge checks that you'd take the talent.
Survival adds Heal and Survival as class skills with no other added bonuses. There is a feat that could do the same thing. And gives you a few languages called Cosmopolitian. Or if your this worried about those being class skills (Basically giving you a +3 bonus to each) you could take traits that give them or better yet Self-Sufficient which would eventually give you a +4 if your putting ranks into those two skills.
3) They are easily dispersed amongst other classes. They don't really have much in the way of class features of their own anymore other than a handful of measly archetypes that replace trap finding. An Archaeologist Bard can easily mimic the entire trap finding skill monkey aspect of a rogue.
They don't have that thing that really makes them feel.. Unique.
@Espy Kismet
1) This isn't really a problem.
2) God yes. There are way too many non-functional rogue talents. But there are enough talents to make several decent rogue builds.
3) This isn't a problem unless you are playing with those classes who step on your toes. I like that rogue is not a mandatory class anymore.
|
|
1) is a pretty big problem from the design aspects of the class of what they give it. It can't be anything too outlandish like all the magical classes can get because the rogue is mundane.
2)There is about six or so. Many just give you a feat. The firearm 'tree' though is one of the better sets of that as it gives armature gunslinger, fire arm prof and a free grit feat for 2 talents.
3)Sure, except well.. That class could do it better. There is always that lingering feeling there.
I'm 4 pages late, but thought i'd bring up: isnt "arrow to the knee" a turn of prase for getting married? I mean I wont judge Ima and the lady medusa's love across species, but...Saves aren't everything."The last words of world famous thief "Ima Gunnashankya" before petrified by a medusa. His memorial still stands here bearing the exact expression of shock on his face before being petrified."Much like "saves are everything," could be the last words spoken by Ima Gunnashankya before the medusa slays him with an arrow to the knee. Works both ways.
For every argument there will be a counter.
I see you've not played Skyrim. "Arrow to the Knee" has become the catchphrase for adventurer retirement. As in "I used to be an adventurer like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee!"
1) is a pretty big problem from the design aspects of the class of what they give it. It can't be anything too outlandish like all the magical classes can get because the rogue is mundane.
2)There is about six or so. Many just give you a feat. The firearm 'tree' though is one of the better sets of that as it gives armature gunslinger, fire arm prof and a free grit feat for 2 talents.
1) That's not issue depending on your definition of outlandish.
2) I see 7-9 in my build alone that aren't feat talents and have nothing to do with what you are talking about. Feat talents are still good talents for a feat starved class.
Hastur is a rogue :P
|
So, quick thought input, wouldn't the rogue be the smart guy in the group? While a wizard has high int too, the rogue has many more skill points to actually use those knowledge skills...
So, if your group is good about not meta gaming, your rogue would be the go-to guy about information about various monsters, if you went with an int based build. So, team leader wewt wewt? Who would ever trust the fighter as the leader anyways?
Um the wizard is book smart the rogue is street smart.
There is no reason for a rogue to know that chain devils are not actually devils.