|
Why not just go straight Inquisitor? The combination of Bane and Judgment is better than Sneak Attack for most purposes. Throw on their extensive list of personal buffs and, well, why go Rogue at all?
I mean, you can't TWF that way, but your damage will be on par despite that and you'll have actual spell casting to boot, as well as all sorts of other cool stuff.
I mean, let's look at this, 7 levels of Rogue gains you four Rogue Talents, +2/+5/+2 for saves, Evasion, 14 skill ranks and 4d8 sneak attack (average: 18 damage).
7 more levels of Inquisitor gives you (over the rogue version): +1 BAB, 4th level spells instead of 2nd (and +3 each to hit and damage from Divine Favor), 12 HP or skill points (Favored Class bonus), +4/+3/+4 Saves, Second Judgment, 4 Judgments per day instead of two (netting a +3 to hit and +5 damage when used over the +2 to hit the Rogue/Inquisitor can manage), +2d6 damage from Greater Bane, Stalwart (which is better than Evasion in many ways), a lot more uses of Bane, and +4 each on Intimidate and Sense Motive. In combat, given one round to buff (and you can move on it, so you're only giving up one attack), the Inquisitor can manage +5 more to hit and do +2d6+8 damage (average 15) to the Rogue's +4d8 (average 18). So he's trading three damage for +5 to hit. I'd make that trade.
And that's entirely ignoring 3rd and 4th level spells...which are pretty cool. Greater Invisibility, Heroism, Prayer, Freedom of Movement and Stonekin, just for example.
You lose a couple of Class skills, but nothing Traits can't get you back, and nothing integral to the concept as presented.
I think that the character could be built many ways. When I read people's concept and then find at the end that they want some specific mechanical thing that has nothing to do with the concept, I get confused. Is this character someone who is sneaky and enchantment focused? I can see it as a Bard, lots of good archetypes for Bard. Is this character someone who is sneaky and love focused? A Cleric of Calistria, probably with a Ranger, Rogue or Bard dip, is that nicely. Inquisitor of Calistria works well too. Rogues do not have a monopoly on being sneaky in pathfinder (they are way worse than most actually, magic > skills in this game) nor do they have one on social skills (this is what Bards are the best at) nor do they have enough access to magic to consider for a magical trickster type (though an Arcane Trickster would be very good, maybe Rogue/Sorcerer.)
I find it helps to figure out what you want to do before you figure out what you want to be. This way you don't end up with a hot mess character who is not quite good enough at any one thing to be useful, but seems to be very useful before you start rolling dice.
Dude. Inquisitors are sneaky. They can also wield or even dual wield daggers. Now I'm not a rogue hater, just be aware inquisitors are superior mechanically. Flavor away friend! BTW loved WoW but hated the general mentality there which couldn't seem to break its own negative stereotype. Moar kewl powerz for my legacy 90 to own the noobs!
|
|
Combat wise i think i want to try and get that sneak attack but when i can't i try to buff myself or, even better, my allies.
This is very possible with a straight Inquisitor, and even easier with a Bard...the buffing yourself or others is actually really hard with only a few levels of Inquisitor, though.
Role playing wise She wants to try and get everyone to fall in love but she doesn't want anyone to know its her hence the stealthy part.
Stealth is a Class Skill for Inquisitors. What does Rogue grant beyond that?
Also the campaign does not have the gods as pathfinder knows them so I'm free to choose whatever domains I like.
Noted. Social stuff sounds important to the concept...which means, IMO, Conversion Inquisition is the way to go.