If the alchemist is a beastmorph than TWF is irrelevant.
Oh, didn't realize beastmorph could stack with Vivisectionist. I can see how that gets really good at high levels, but at lower ones I'm not convinced it could outpace the standard rogue's sneak attack damage.
EDIT: Ah I see now. You're only thinking of the strike. You're not thinking of the ability that goes with it. No, you can't separate combat/strike. They both go together.
The argument made was "Investigator gets the same sneak attack damage AND an additional +10 to hit and damage." I'm trying to explain why that's wrong, and why Sneak Attack is a significantly larger bonus to damage than Studied Combat; not trying to say that it's useless altogether.
2 more to be exact. And why doesn't the rogue get more INT? The better question is why is he getting more int?
Sure, this is a good point. But I was responding to an earlier point of "the Investigator fights just as well as the rogue AND is better at skills" and I'm saying no, you can't have it both ways for two similar characters.
Give me one example of an Investigator talent better than Crippling Strike, because I can't think of any.
Combine Extracts, Eternal Potion, Elixir of Life, Empathy, Sapping Offensive.
Sapping offensive is a subtle one I'll admit. But I appreciate any ability which simply "turns off" a creatures reach advantage.
Eternal Potion is awesome, but somewhat limited in magnitude. Combine Extracts, Elixir of Life, and Empathy do things a rogue doesn't care about in combat.
Sapping Offensive only applies AFTER you hit your target, so you're not quite "turning off" its reach.
Meanwhile, Crippling Strike turns off a CREATURE. That's the thing about unsaveable ability damage—your full attack drains up to 12 strength from almost anything, and my point is that nothing the Alchemist does has a similarly powerful melee effect. (Some of the Critical Focus feats might approach it, but even then those require a save, while Crippling Strike does not).
Sure, but that's a two-feat chain.
That gives back the equivalent of two feats and adds more on top of that mind. People tend to forget the familiar provides Alertness and often the equivalent of Improved Initiative (that stacks with it). Worth it if you want it.
Right, but all I'm saying is the rogue gets a familiar without needing those two feats.
***
Your points are good ones, Tark, and they make sense, but they're missing some of the earlier context.
***
Without Studied Strike, an Investigator's damage output is laughable compared to a rogue'sI feel like you're significantly miscalculating the equation between +10 to accuracy and +20 to damage. Hell, if the inquisitor can actually get the full benefit of their accuracy bonus they actually get better DPR than the rogue even if they don't studied strike at all.
And I feel you're failing to notice what Sneak Attack actually does, which is add +35 damage per attack—a bit more, even with power attack considered, than your +6/+18
As for the actual numbers. This is the first time you've mentioned Two Weapon Feinting. So you're spending your first attack roll to do that.
Invisibility and Divine Favor being dropped lowers your To-Hit by 6 and your damage by 4. That leaves 5 attacks with the last two attacks at a 50% chance to hit an AC of 36.
Not counting possible displacement, concealment, mirror image, or otherwise.
Don't know what the comment about a creature spending it's turn to Greater Dispel Magic is for. Challenging encounters involve more than one enemy after all.
Sapping Offensive only applies AFTER you hit your target, so you're not quite "turning off" its reach.
Meanwhile, Crippling Strike turns off a CREATURE. That's the thing about unsaveable ability damage—your full attack drains up to 12 strength from almost anything, and my point is that nothing the Alchemist does has a similarly...
Now keep in mind that crippling strike also only applies after you hit your target and that 12 strength damage only applies after you hit your target 6 times. By that point if you are sneak attacking you've dealt around 168 damage on sneak attack alone. Which is more than enough to drop most critters at the level we're talking about in this case.
Honestly, I'd almost rather have Bleeding Attack. That talent can flat out kill some things.
Lastly, keep in mind this all comes with the weaknesses and glaring issues that sneak attack has from the start. To make sapping offensive go off all I have to do is attack and hit the target. To make crippling strike go off I have to be sneak attacking which can be tricky at times even with the most forgiving GM's ("Tark is not a benevolent god." ~a friend).
Hmm, some fair points. I realize now that I may also be slightly biased towards the rogue because it feeds into Arcane Trickster, my favorite PrC.
Basically, the Rogue is a class that gets what I consider to be its capstone (Crippling Strike, or equivalent) at level 10 instead of 20, leading to a lot of fun options while fighters just sit there and attack without, in my opinion (or at least my playstyle) sacrificing power.
On a slightly different note, is there any reason to ever play an Inquisitor? I've thought about this, and really can't figure out how to make them useful without gestalt.
No, I wouldn't say ACG and other new stuff made the old melee less attractive.
Just well, the old melee was generally weak to begin with for certain concepts. But it was all we had, so we tried to roll with it. Like making a Swashbuckler by alternating Rogue and Fighter. It kinda worked.
Or making a not-evil assassin by alternating between ranger/rogue. Again, kinda worked but overall something was missing.
Not saying the ACG filled that missing part though, because some of them still have parts missing or mechanics not matching up well. (Such as the swashbuckler using a swift action for /everything/ )
But we're getting a start to something greater, something beyond was we used to do. Like when making a fighter, typically one goes with an archetype to focus themselves on what their focus is on, such as Twohanded weapons.
|
This is exactly what I said. Studied Strike, which is what y'all are comparing to Sneak Attack, only lasts one hit. Without Studied Strike, an Investigator's damage output is laughable compared to a rogue's.
No it isn't. +6 to hit +22 damage (doable with Studied Combat and Power Attack plus a Longspear or other two-handed weapon) plus buff spells and other Class features is miles better than +35 damage with nothing to bolster it or let it hit in-class.
I'd personally argue that Studied Strike on it's own probably is better than Sneak Attack (+6 to hit being better than +13 damage on a 3/4 BAB class)...but I don't actually have to do that. I can add in +2 to hit and +3 damage from Mutagen, +1d6 to 1d8 to hit from Inspiration when they need it (and double that to damage from an Inspired Weapon) and all the various things they can do with Extracts as well.
So that totals at +12.5 to hit, +34 damage on average. Oh, and at 19th level, they can do it for free (via Improved Combat Inspiration). And that's not counting Extracts. And not including their capstone doubling Inspiration dice, which makes it +17 to hit, +43 damage at 20th vs. the Rogue's highly conditional +35 damage.
But that's not really a fair comparison, because a lot of it kicks in at 19th to 20th level. Let's do the 18th level version instead (which uses only stuff you can have by 9th level, just scaling numbers).
So, at 18th level, that's +11.5 to hit (+7 when not spending Inspiration),+33 damage (+24 when not spending Inspiration). Vs. the Rogue's +31.5 damage (when he gets Sneak Attack at all). So, unambiguously better when he spends, and trades 7.5 damage for +7 attack (an awesome trade) even when he doesn't spend anything.
Let's drop that to 10th level and skip the Mutagen, shall we? That makes it +7.5 to hit (+3 without Inspiration), +20 damage (+11 without Inspiration) vs. the Rogue's +17.5 damage. So, again, better when spending, and losing 6.5 damage for +3 to hit when not spending (a decent trade). And Mutagen would add another +2 to hit and +3 damage on top of that.
Now, all that is using various Investigator Talents (specifically, Amazing Inspiration, Combat Inspiration, and sometimes Mutagen, along with the obligatory Quick Study). So, like, 4 Talents. Oh, and a +2 equivalent weapon.
So...feel free to add 4 or so Rogue Talents an a +1 enhancement property on top of the Rogue. I can't think of any four that'll make up the difference...and even if they did, that's the Investigator not using any buff Extracts when he's a 6-level caster with a self-buff focused spell list.
Oh, and he has a +6 better Will Save. And, unless he wants poisons, can afford to not focus on Wis and Cha in a way a Rogue can't afford due to the Student of Philosophy Trait and the Empiricist Archetype (which combine to make almost everything based on those Int based)...allowing Int to be jacked high enough for better skills with basically no consequences.
|
|
Hmm, some fair points. I realize now that I may also be slightly biased towards the rogue because it feeds into Arcane Trickster, my favorite PrC.
You can get there with Vivisectionist, too!
Basically, the Rogue is a class that gets what I consider to be its capstone (Crippling Strike, or equivalent) at level 10 instead of 20, leading to a lot of fun options while fighters just sit there and attack without, in my opinion (or at least my playstyle) sacrificing power.
The thing is...Vivisectionists can also get Crippling Strike. And have most of those options. Plus Mutagen and other stuff. They can do everything in combat Rogues can, while being much more effective at it...while Investigators can be better combatants (in a different way) while simultaneously doing all the stuff that Rogues do out of combat plus more, and doing it all better.
On a slightly different note, is there any reason to ever play an Inquisitor? I've thought about this, and really can't figure out how to make them useful without gestalt.
I...what? What reason is there not to play an Inquisitor? Good spell list, awesome skills, great class features...what's not to love?
So that totals at +12.5 to hit, +34 damage on average. Oh, and at 19th level, they can do it for free (via Improved Combat Inspiration). And that's not counting Extracts. And not including their capstone doubling Inspiration dice, which makes it +17 to hit, +43 damage at 20th vs. the Rogue's highly conditional +35 damage.
Sure, but remember with a 2H weapon you're getting half as many attacks. (But I guess the +hit makes up the damage against a lot of enemies). You've also just wasted a few turns setting up buffs if you want mutagens or extracts, but I guess if the fight goes long enough the Investigator will wind up doing more damage.
On a slightly different note, is there any reason to ever play an Inquisitor? I've thought about this, and really can't figure out how to make them useful without gestalt.I...what? What reason is there not to play an Inquisitor? Good spell list, awesome skills, great class features...what's not to love?
What? You've got the skills of a bard, and I guess the spells are slightly more useful, but as far as I can tell the Inquisitor seems to have the lowest damage output of any martial class, and I have not yet been able to figure out how to build one capable of doing anything coherent in combat.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, but remember with a 2H weapon you're getting half as many attacks. (But I guess the +hit makes up the damage against a lot of enemies). You've also just wasted a few turns setting up buffs if you want mutagens or extracts, but I guess if the fight goes long enough the Investigator will wind up doing more damage.
You can do the TWF thing instead if you want, though that's a less than stellar plan given that two-handing a weapon is better for almost everyone almost all the time..though if comparing the numbers I presented to TWF, you need to add +2 more to-hit and more comparative damage (since you're adding Str x 1.5, which the Rogue isn't). +8 to hit on all attacks more than makes up for only having half as many.
And by those levels Mutagen lasts 3 hours...and is the only buff requiring an action other than Swift involved in that math.
What? You've got the skills of a bard,
Yeah, about. Plus a level-based bonus on tracking, Sense Motive, and Intimidate, and can add Wisdom to all your Monster Knowledge checks (which is excellent), and with Archetypes and Inquisitions can add it to a bunch of other stuff, too.
It's a very solid class, skill wise, one of the best in the game, second only to Bards and Investigators. Rogues get more per level, but aren't as good at them since they lack the bonuses to them the classes I mention get.
and I guess the spells are slightly more useful,
Uh...Bards have one of the best spell lists among 6-level casters. Good Hope, Haste, Glitterdust, Mirror Image, etc.
but as far as I can tell the Inquisitor seems to have the lowest damage output of any martial class, and I have not yet been able to figure out how to build one capable of doing anything coherent in combat.
Uh...take another look at Bane and Judgement. Combined, at 6th level, that's +4 to hit and +2+2d6 damage. Spend one turn buffing with Divine Favor, and you can manage +6 to hit and +4+2d6 damage (and that's with a single round of prep, and not even counting Feats and such). That's significantly more than a Rogue of the same level, and indeed more than almost anybody. They can't do it all day...but they can do it often enough to be very impressive.
They're admittedly slightly less impressive until level 5 when Bane kicks in, but hey, so are a lot of classes.
On a slightly different note, is there any reason to ever play an Inquisitor? I've thought about this, and really can't figure out how to make them useful without gestalt.
Inquisitor makes a really nice skillmonkey without losing a ton of combat power. I prefer it over the Warpriest for a divine halfcaster at any rate.
Also thanks to the ACG... the Inquisitor does Hunter and Slayer better than Hunter and Slayer with its two new archetypes.
Oh God investigators get mutagen too.
Well no contest then. (mutagen would be better than crippling strike)
Confusing strike is also better than crippling strike (auto confused)
I guess this isn't a fair comparison. The rogue should be judge by how they handle encounters not how they compare to other classes. In my experience though, the rogue has serious problems handling encounters, even out of combat ones.
|
|
Oh God investigators get mutagen too.
Well no contest then. (mutagen would be better than crippling strike)
They don't get Feral Muagen or any other mutagen enhancers...but yeah.
Confusing strike is also better than crippling strike (auto confused)
Confusing Strike doesn't kick in until 19th level...
I guess this isn't a fair comparison. The rogue should be judge by how they handle encounters not how they compare to other classes. In my experience though, the rogue has serious problems handling encounters, even out of combat ones.
I agree. But what we're measuring is whether other classes handle encounters better (which includes combat), not who'd win a straight fight.
Confusing strike is also better than crippling strike (auto confused)Confusing Strike doesn't kick in until 19th level...
Crap. I picked like one of the two.
Well Sickening Offense is pretty good, and blinding strike is a good Debuff, especially with the investigator pumping int (since they don't need to pump dex for to-hit with studied combat, mutagen, and extracts).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Fighter at 20th is....
A Fighter at 20th is...playing in very few games. ;-)
We should compare levels 1-10.
Found your problem. Play next to a good fighter and you'll see how his damage outpaces yours easily.
I, as the rogue, might have a bit more optimization in mind than the fighters.
Better yet, play as a Team with a good fighter and you'll find both of you get MUCH better. A Flanking buddy is a very Good Thing to have.
|
|
Confusing strike is also better than crippling strike (auto confused)Confusing Strike doesn't kick in until 19th level...
Crap. I picked like one of the two.
Well Sickening Offense is pretty good, and blinding strike is a good Debuff, especially with the investigator pumping int (since they don't need to pump dex for to-hit with studied combat, mutagen, and extracts).
Sickening Offense is great. Blinding Strike doesn't kick in until 17th level, though. Indeed, of the 'Strike' Talents only Toppling Strike kicks in before 13th (and even it waits until 9th).
Honestly, I find it funny when people go all " ROGUES ARE PERFECTLY FINE! YOU JUST DON'T KNOW THE SUPER SECRET FORMULA!!!!"
I'm sorry... the rogue has been out FOREVER. They have been investigated from every angle and every possible build. When it is just about universally aknowledged that the rogue is sub-par in combat, there is a reason for that...
It is by no means universally acknowledged that the rogue is sub-par. Sorry. Still a very popular class, fun to play and can contribute to any team.
Well, I have a good build for my Rogue, it just rolls over and dies against Undead.Honestly, I find it funny when people go all " ROGUES ARE PERFECTLY FINE! YOU JUST DON'T KNOW THE SUPER SECRET FORMULA!!!!"
I'm sorry... the rogue has been out FOREVER. They have been investigated from every angle and every possible build. When it is just about universally aknowledged that the rogue is sub-par in combat, there is a reason for that...
Undead can be sneak attacked in PF.
Ssalarn, builds or bust.
Please don't, guys? Builds prove little.
It is by no means universally acknowledged that the rogue is sub-par. Sorry. Still a very popular class, fun to play and can contribute to any team.Honestly, I find it funny when people go all " ROGUES ARE PERFECTLY FINE! YOU JUST DON'T KNOW THE SUPER SECRET FORMULA!!!!"
I'm sorry... the rogue has been out FOREVER. They have been investigated from every angle and every possible build. When it is just about universally aknowledged that the rogue is sub-par in combat, there is a reason for that...
1) I just just about, i.e. there are still those that desperately cling on to the rogue...
2) Popular does not mean it is any good... The rogue is popular because a lot of people still have this idea in their mind that class name=concept and the rogue CONCEPT is popular. A lot of people don't realize that you don't have to run around in pajamas because you are a ninja or you have to be a woodsy guy because you are a ranger...
3) Fun to play has no baring on capability. I can have fun playing an adept... does not mean they are still a sub-par class compared to the actual PC classes...
4) Sure they can bring SOMETHING to the table, but that something is less than what MANY other classes can bring. Again, if you bring a Warrior to a table he is still bringing something to the group (a BAB meatshield... i.e. fighter) but that does not mean he is perfectly fine when everyone else (the other classes that can fill your role) is bringing the same thing you are AND some more stuff... the rogue is literally worse that every other alternative...
Undead can be sneak attacked in PF.Well, I have a good build for my Rogue, it just rolls over and dies against Undead.Honestly, I find it funny when people go all " ROGUES ARE PERFECTLY FINE! YOU JUST DON'T KNOW THE SUPER SECRET FORMULA!!!!"
I'm sorry... the rogue has been out FOREVER. They have been investigated from every angle and every possible build. When it is just about universally aknowledged that the rogue is sub-par in combat, there is a reason for that...
Still immune to non-lethal damage though.
It is by no means universally acknowledged that the rogue is sub-par. Sorry. Still a very popular class, fun to play and can contribute to any team.
A recent thread might disagree with you. While it's not the only measure, when most people would not retain the rogue as one of eight classes they carry forward, and indeed, rogue doesn't even come close, very popular may be a stretch, even if the other claims are still valid enough. Interestingly, for the purpose of this thread, the fighter wouldn't have made it, and even the ranger and paladin struggled, so there's no real clear concensus on what people want from a martial or skill based class. For the OP, I would say it's less they are becoming less favored, and more that people are willing to explore other ideas to see what ultimately works best. The same is true for casters, as well. Clerics and wizards both struggled in that other thread, but bards, sorcerers, and oracles all did well, mostly on the grounds of flavor. Based on what I saw on that thread, having a generic class that everyone builds from is likely to be replaced with more focused, flavorful classes that have archetypes to allow for different concepts within the same basic framework.
If the alchemist is taking a combat style other than 2WF, he's dealing half as much damage with his sneak attacks, and that negates all the bonuses there. The Invisibility thing is nice, if you're planning on using rapid shot with a bow, but plenty of things see invisible at high level.
Ok. Except all of that works for the Vivisectionist Beastmorph Alchemist... Except the alchemist will have more feats since it's combat style doesn't have tons of feat taxes. And more gold because it doesn't need to buy two weapons. And a 24/7 Greater Invisibility. And free stat buffs. And free immunities. And...
Not really. Alchemists are famous for their natural attack builds, which could easily get as many attacks as TWF (feral mutagen can give 3, and they could grab the form of a monstrous humanoid with monstrous physique, which can lead to who knows what), but with most of their attacks hitting at full BAB (thus, they are more likely to hit).
Their mutagens also allow them to greatly boost a physical stat, which further increase their chances to hit. They also can work entirely with their strength stat since none of their natural attacks require a certain DEX (dex vivisectionist build are also valid, but I am making a point; also, those tend to have terrible will saves). Since primary natural attacks hit with full STR and power attack, a vivisectionist alchemist could also do great even when they are denied sneak attack.
If the alchemist is taking a combat style other than 2WF, he's dealing half as much damage with his sneak attacks, and that negates all the bonuses there. The Invisibility thing is nice, if you're planning on using rapid shot with a bow, but plenty of things see invisible at high level.
Ok. Except all of that works for the Vivisectionist Beastmorph Alchemist... Except the alchemist will have more feats since it's combat style doesn't have tons of feat taxes. And more gold because it doesn't need to buy two weapons. And a 24/7 Greater Invisibility. And free stat buffs. And free immunities. And...Not really. Alchemists are famous for their natural attack builds, which could easily get as many attacks as TWF (feral mutagen can give 3, and they could grab the form of a monstrous humanoid with monstrous physique, which can lead to who knows what), but with most of their attacks hitting at full BAB (thus, they are more likely to hit).
Their mutagens also allow them to greatly boost a physical stat, which further increase their chances to hit. They also can work entirely with their strength stat since none of their natural attacks require a certain DEX (dex vivisectionist build are also valid, but I am making a point; also, those tend to have terrible will saves). Since primary natural attacks hit with full STR and power attack, a vivisectionist alchemist could also do great even when they are denied sneak attack.
Oh Alchemists get REDICULOUS....
Just combine Vivisectionist with Beastmorph to get REAL nasty.
With this combo you get:
Full Sneak Attack
your choice of 4: burrow 60 feet, climb 90 feet, fly 120 feet (good maneuverability), swim 120 feet, blindsense 60 feet, darkvision 90 feet, low-light vision, scent, tremorsense 60 feet, breath weapon, constrict, ferocity, grab, jet, poison, pounce, rake, rend, roar, spikes, trample, trip, and web
Combine that with Feral Mutagen to get 2 claws and a bite attack, Elemental Mutagen for a few resistances, Mummification for immunities, and a couple of Tentacle Discoveries to round out his wall of natural attacks... all this combined makes the Vivisecionist Beastmorph one of the most terrifying melee monsters...
Yeah... beastmorph vivisectionist was something I wasn't aware of until this thread.
That said, part of the draw of rogues, I think, comes in having a character who's consistently fun to play. Sure, the alchemist and investigator are pretty fun too, and a well-roleplayed barbarian has his moments, but fighters and slayers and similar things, if you don't have much planned outside combat, tend to just get a little boring to someone of my play style.
There's also fighters and rogues and barbarians in every world and every army. Alchemists and investigators and warpriests—while they might well be part of a party of unusual adventurers—strike me as potentially less common in the world of Golarion, and less tied to its world and roles. But maybe that's just nostalgia talking.
The Fighter having nothing to its name other than DPR is one of the primary criticisms of the class... But the Slayer has six skill points, a great class skill list, and Studied Target's bonus to attack and damage applies to several skill checks that are useful outside of combat. It's a solid class in and outside of combat and definitely Pathfinder's premier mundane.
The Fighter having nothing to its name other than DPR is one of the primary criticisms of the class...
To many Fighter fans: The Fighter having nothing to its name other than DPR is one of the primary benefits of the class...
"I wanna kill something!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't know what to say to people who elect to sit out of large chunks of the game. Especially when the Slayer, Barbarian, Paladin, etc. can fulfill the "I wanna kill something" need while still contributing in ways other than straight DPR.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't know what to say to people who elect to sit out of large chunks of the game. Especially when the Slayer, Barbarian, Paladin, etc. can fulfill the "I wanna kill something" need while still contributing in ways other than straight DPR.
I know, I dont get it either, I prefer Ranger & paladin. But PF has 30-40 classes now, so let's just leave the Fighter to those people. There's room for every type. Choices!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swashbuckler doesn't really obsolete any melee class that I can see, maybe the fighter going into duelist but that's about it. Now Slayer however, well the rogue was bad enough but I cannot see any reason to take a rogue when slayer is available.
I'm playing a Slayer now, it's no rogue that's for sure. I can fill the place of rogue by taking disable traps but that's really it. When I make rogue I'm not making a damage dealer. I find making rogue that can fight to be a trap. No matter how much I try it never works. So I focus on non combat stuff like picking talents to augment what I can do with feats and skills. So really all the slayer replaces is the fighting rogue which never worked well to begin with.
Now saying that, if you play a game where you need a rogue who can fight take the slayer. If you play a game where GM plays up opportunities for the rogue go with rogue, the slayer doesn't that well. Also if you compare the slayer to the CRB rogue only the slayer replaces that rogue easily. It's the stuff in the APG and UC that make the roguish in my opinion.
I like talents like Black Market ties, convincing lie, Charmer, hard to fool, honeyed words, quick disguise, and stuff like that. Not very usuful in combat but very useful in campaign where the GM lets you use that. As GM I want a rogue that can do these thing, never see it though. They always go the combat route.
Or play an investigator and be able to both fight and vastly outclass the rogue in skills.
^^^ Pretty much that...
Honestly the rogue has NO justification anymore... There is no trope you can do with the rogue that the Bard/Investigator/Ranger/Slayer/Alchemist/monk does not do better...
^^^ Pretty much that...
Honestly the rogue has NO justification anymore... There is no trope you can do with the rogue that the Bard/Investigator/Ranger/Slayer/Alchemist/monk does not do better...
Generalist Human investigator starting stats 20 point buy:
Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 16, Wis 10, Cha 10
At max with items and +1 inherent bonus to int
Str 20, Dex 20, Con 20, Int 28, Wis 16, Cha 16
Stats after extrat buffs and mutagen for melee (Large)
Str 30, Dex 18, Con 24, Int 28*, Wis 16, Cha 16
*Stable mutagen vestTo hit with buffs: +20 BAB(transformation) + 10 str + 5 enh + 10 studied combat - 6 PA - 1 large = +38
Damage: +15 str + 2d6 spear + 5 enh + 18 PA + 10 SC = 55
So: +38/33/28/23 for 2d6+48
Without transformation
+33/28/23 for 2d6+42With transformation + heroism + haste
+41/41/36/31/26 for 2d6+50Conclusion: Investigators are awesome.
Skill points by 20? 16 per level without favored class bonus. At 1? 10.
AC by 20? 9+9AC+9nat+5def+4shield+4dex = 40 or 41 with haste. 43 if mutagen stacks with giant form.
EDIT: The above requires 1 investigator talent and 1 feat. You could be adding 2d8 to all attack rolls and saves if you wanted too.
^^^ Pretty much that...
Honestly the rogue has NO justification anymore...
Did it ever?
I mean, before reaching the Rogue entry in the CRB, you gotta go through Bards and Rangers.
Well, the problem is that skill points don't really matter.
Don't get me wrong, but there is very little that looks to how many ranks you have in something instead of looking to see what is your overall bonus + 1d20.
Skill Synergy was one of the things that helped a rogue back in 3.5, as they could easily spend ranks on different skills, easy peasy. Skill Tricks kinda helped a little bit more.
Might not have been enough though, but it was something.
If Rogues are to take a position in something, they need something that is tied to how many ranks are in skills, cause as far as I know, they are the only ones with 8 skill points.
Something like 5 jump 5 climb = You gain access to some sort of jumping climb ability.
5 jump 5 acrobatics = jumping acrobatic ability.
But keep increasing the number of ranks needed for this of course.
Well, the problem is that skill points don't really matter.
Don't get me wrong, but there is very little that looks to how many ranks you have in something instead of looking to see what is your overall bonus + 1d20.
Skill Synergy was one of the things that helped a rogue back in 3.5, as they could easily spend ranks on different skills, easy peasy. Skill Tricks kinda helped a little bit more.
Might not have been enough though, but it was something.
If Rogues are to take a position in something, they need something that is tied to how many ranks are in skills, cause as far as I know, they are the only ones with 8 skill points.
Something like 5 jump 5 climb = You gain access to some sort of jumping climb ability.
5 jump 5 acrobatics = jumping acrobatic ability.
But keep increasing the number of ranks needed for this of course.
I miss skill synergy and skill tricks... you could do some cool and fun stuff with them :)
I really don't know what to say to people who elect to sit out of large chunks of the game. Especially when the Slayer, Barbarian, Paladin, etc. can fulfill the "I wanna kill something" need while still contributing in ways other than straight DPR.
I have never felt the need to do so. In fact, if a player feels the need to do so, I'd say the GM is failing at the job.
I really don't know what to say to people who elect to sit out of large chunks of the game. Especially when the Slayer, Barbarian, Paladin, etc. can fulfill the "I wanna kill something" need while still contributing in ways other than straight DPR.I have never felt the need to do so. In fact, if a player feels the need to do so, I'd say the GM is failing at the job.
It's not the GM's job to make a PC competent.
The audacity of people to feel like their 7 strength 7 dexterity skill focus(basket weaver) fighter needs encounters tailored to their abilities is flabbergasting.
I really don't know what to say to people who elect to sit out of large chunks of the game. Especially when the Slayer, Barbarian, Paladin, etc. can fulfill the "I wanna kill something" need while still contributing in ways other than straight DPR.I have never felt the need to do so. In fact, if a player feels the need to do so, I'd say the GM is failing at the job.
If you made a gimped character that is your fault. The GM has no obligation to tailor eveyrthing just for your fighter with no skills and no abilities that do not revolve around "hit with a stick"
If you made a gimped character that is your fault. The GM has no obligation to tailor eveyrthing just for your fighter with no skills and no abilities that do not revolve around "hit with a stick"I really don't know what to say to people who elect to sit out of large chunks of the game. Especially when the Slayer, Barbarian, Paladin, etc. can fulfill the "I wanna kill something" need while still contributing in ways other than straight DPR.I have never felt the need to do so. In fact, if a player feels the need to do so, I'd say the GM is failing at the job.
True. But if the rest of the party are happy taking over when it's time for social skills, etc and you are OK waiting for combat- and so you are HAVING FUN, what is wrong with that?
True. But if the rest of the party are happy taking over when it's time for social skills, etc and you are OK waiting for combat- and so you are HAVING FUN, what is wrong with that?If you made a gimped character that is your fault. The GM has no obligation to tailor eveyrthing just for your fighter with no skills and no abilities that do not revolve around "hit with a stick"I really don't know what to say to people who elect to sit out of large chunks of the game. Especially when the Slayer, Barbarian, Paladin, etc. can fulfill the "I wanna kill something" need while still contributing in ways other than straight DPR.I have never felt the need to do so. In fact, if a player feels the need to do so, I'd say the GM is failing at the job.
Oh no, if he is willing and understands that then sure, all the more power to him. But to say that the GM is failing at his job like Blahpers claimed because he is not worthing around your horrid, combobulated character who has no place in an adventuring party, it is horridly wrong...
... your horrid, combobulated character who has no place in an adventuring party,...
......
I really don't know what to say to people who elect to sit out of large chunks of the game. Especially when the Slayer, Barbarian, Paladin, etc. can fulfill the "I wanna kill something" need while still contributing in ways other than straight DPR.I have never felt the need to do so. In fact, if a player feels the need to do so, I'd say the GM is failing at the job.
So should a GM completely remove the non-combat aspect from the game just because this one guy keeps making Fighters and getting mad when he doesn't get to do anything?
So should a GM completely remove the non-combat aspect from the game just because this one guy keeps making Fighters and getting mad when he doesn't get to do anything?I really don't know what to say to people who elect to sit out of large chunks of the game. Especially when the Slayer, Barbarian, Paladin, etc. can fulfill the "I wanna kill something" need while still contributing in ways other than straight DPR.I have never felt the need to do so. In fact, if a player feels the need to do so, I'd say the GM is failing at the job.
Actually what I said is that some guys are perfectly happy sitting out non-combat stuff as long a they get to kill something fairly often. Which pretty much describes a LOT of PF campaigns, so they are happy- and what's wrong with that?