Are the older melee classes getting less attractive / obsolete?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 347 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

I'm looking at the swashbuckler's Precise Strike deed: +level to damage against most opponents, most of the time.

I'm not sure it's too much in itself, but it sure seems a lot compared to similar (full BAB, full warrior) classes that came before:

Paladin: +level to damage against up to 7 opponents per day, with bonuses to attack and AC.

Cavalier/samurai: +level to damage against up to 7 opponents per day, with somewhat conditional bonuses.

Ranger: up to +1/2 level to damage and attack, against some opponents.

Fighter: up to +1/4 level to damage and attack, all the time.

Slayer also looks pretty attractive, with up to +1/4 level to damage and attack, most of the time, with sneak attack on top.

Obviously, all those classes have all sorts of other abilities that make direct comparison difficult, but for all of them the ability to hit and deal damage is their bread and butter, and it seems difficult to get a new player enthusiastic at a glance about something like a samurai ("challenge key foes to get bonuses!") when they could be playing a swashbuckler or a slayer ("all bonuses, all the time").


5 people marked this as a favorite.

They were all obsolete by the time you finished reading the "Classes" chapter in the CRB.

After all, the last one in there is 'Wizard.'


I don't care much about the swashbuckler so far. But even if there are still some very attractive martial classes out there.
- Barbarian
- Paladin
- Ranger
For some builds the cavalier

Of the new classes at least the slayer is very attractive, too.
The bloodrager could have been but it seems he didn't get much love after the revised playtest. Sadly.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Swashbuckler is explicitly restricted to one-handed weapons and not TWF if he wants that damage bonus. Even assuming Dex-to Damage and a Fighter (pretty much the worst full BAB melee class) , let's compare those. Assuming Str 30 (or Dex 30 and a Dex-to-damage option on the Swashbuckler) the Fighter winds up with +18 to hit and 1d10+37 damage with Power Attack, while the Swashbuckler winds up with +18 to hit and 1d6+42 damage (also with Power Attack).

So...that's +3 damage for the Swashbuckler and 20 of that being Precision, which matters a lot since both are critical-ing on a 15-20. Now, the Swashbuckler probably has a buckler and thus better AC, but still.

That's a rough estimate, but basically, the Swashbuckler's required fighting style is rather limiting and suboptimal, which makes up for their Precise Strike class feature to some degree. They also have awful saves.

Now...the Daring Champion Cavalier Archetype can add Challenge on top of Precise Strike and has less awful Saves to boot. With it you might have a point. On the other hand, that's an Archetype, njot a whole class, and might easily get errataed out of existence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nope :)
I havnt had the luxury of reading the playtest, but plain old fighter and barbarian are my favorites, still and for a long time to come (alchemist a close 3rd ^_-). Would I like the new classes? Most likely :) Will I really like one or two? Very likely. Even then, they will, at best, tie those two for top spot. They are just rooted a little too deep to the heart to be that easilly replaced :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've got feral mutagen on my fighter now all arguments are invalid.


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.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I felt the same way Jasin, though not about the same issues. I have extraordinarily great difficulty justifying playing a fighter when I could just play a brawler- insofar as mechanical advantage and ability are concerned, as an example.

However, Even the core classes still have their respective merits which factor out better over time than in an given instance. If you exclude pfs (which new additions are not made exclusively for), then you have to consider the variety of ga!e tables, play styles, and adventures that can exist. In such a case, a very clear mechanical advantage can become a crippling class feature. Many people would, for instance, argue that the wizard is superior to the Sorceror. But played in a real game where that wizard cannot dictate future events such as having time to prepare, guaranteeing that he will have a particular spell or spell type to deal with a particular situation, etc, that wizard can become quite useless when the fourth, fifth, and sixth encounters crop up. Either they are nearly out (or completely out) of spells or they are withholding their magic for the long haul, limiting their capacity in any given encounter.

That Sorceror is still going strong if they selected their spells well. Never mind they have a plethora of useful passive and active abilities to fall back on or intermix in the encounter. Each encounter. Throughout the day.

Many argue that the wizard is likely more powerful than the cleric because They have a proactive spell list (and people around here love proactive +damage and sos over anything else), the largest and probably most flexible spell list and because magic is superior to any martial advantage a character might or could possibly ever have.

But clerics don't need rest to prepare their spells. They only need an hour to pray at a certain time of day (or a time within reason even if that specific time is not available). Despite what any one will tell you, a wizard is not likely to have every spell for every situation, no matter how many spells exist to cover any given circumstance. They don't have access to the entire spell list (let's ignore Paragon Surge, though). They have to research, study and otherwise encounter a particular spell.

Clerics literally do have access to their entire spell lost, alignment/deity restrictions permitting. And neutral clerics of those without a god have the entire list. Never mind a suit of additional powers with relative but generally relevant usefulness to any given party on any given adventure.

So when I compare an old class like the fighter to a brawler, I have to consider that there -are- games where a brawlers ability to use any qualifying feat a limited number of times a day becomes a liability as multiple encounters take place and those limit/day resources are expended.
A simple fighter has an unlimited use of the multitude of feats available to them, easier tools for increasing their defenses and usually earlier in their career and ways to become more effective with the armor and weapons of their trade, eventually negating the inherent penalties associated.

While I have not read every class in detail, this likely holds true across the boars. Though, I think I draw a line and make an exception at the Arcanist (and possibly the wizard archetype that copies it). That class seems to have decidedly replaced any need for a wizard. The addition of exploits every two levels more than makes up for the loss of metamagic feats and arcane bond while the spells per day are initially higher than a normal wizards are anyway, without having to make yourself worse in an entire area or two of magic. The arcane reservoir puts them well ahead of the arcane bond feature and the school abilities of the wizard, while useful, don't seem to make up for the difference in added value that every single other arcanist class feature has over whatever that weaker class um, oh right, wizard, can do. Wizards strike me as a niche class for very specific things while the arcanist is just the wizard, plus the Sorceror, plus more than it should have ever been. Sorceror, oddly enough, don't seem to lose as much to the arcanist as the wizard and even remain viable as a strong alternative to the class as their bloodline powers are numerous, potent, defining, and in many cases not readily duplicated or easy to acquire or scale to similar power. But wizards strike me as relics, the kind of item that used to be powerful and useful for its time and then was later replaced by a fundamentally superior device with all of the same capabilities, none of the drawbacks, additional features, and new (and better) options for use outside of the scope that the previous device was even designed for doing...and ways to refine 'those' as well.

But I confess, this is my knee jerk reaction still, even if I have looked over the class more than once. Everything else still seems balanced for overall play but for a while, the new classes will and should get a lot of love due to all of the new playthings that are now available and long waited for.


fighters never interested me. And rogues and monks are melee and pretty terrible. Once I discovered casters they all sort of pale but sometimes a mindless barbarian or paladin is still at least fun rather than the BSF or the WUR(weak useless rogue)


EsperMagic wrote:
And rogues and monks are melee and pretty terrible.

Then you're getting the wrong feats. A rogue with Improved Two-Weapon Feint and a good bluff check (or just some help in flanking) is adding +level/2 d6 damage to each attack, for an average of 1.75*level bonus precision damage on each attack—that's significantly more than the swashbuckler, and without archetypes the rogue is getting almost twice as many attacks.

Now monks? Monks are just broken, if you use style feats like Panther Parry or Pummeling Charge.

* * *

Meanwhile, Fighters get an incredible number of feats (which at least keeps them able to do *something*), and Paladins and Rangers both get spellcasting and animal companions and make far better tanks than the Swashbuckler.


LessPopMoreFizz wrote:

They were all obsolete by the time you finished reading the "Classes" chapter in the CRB.

After all, the last one in there is 'Wizard.'

True, but not the issue I'm interested in right now. :)


I've thought about it some more, and now it seems to me that the issue is perhaps with the cavalier/samurai, not the swashbuckler?

The swashbuckler's level to damage is very comparable to the fighter's and the slayer's +1/4 to attack and damage, if you convert the attack bonus to damage with Power Attack.

The paladin gets similar damage bonuses, and attack and AC bonuses on top, but doesn't get to use them all the time.

The ranger rangers is a lot more situational, but could be considered comparable, with better attack/damage bonuses than anyone if he hyperspecializes, and the easiest way to leverage them trough extrra attacks.

It's the cavalier/samurai that only gets level to damage, and weird little situational bonuses where the others get broadly applicable and significantly sized attack bonuses.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Now...the Daring Champion Cavalier Archetype can add Challenge on top of Precise Strike and has less awful Saves to boot.

You're right! The daring champion substitution is completely crazy: you trade in a marginal logistics ability for one that is the lynchpin of another class, and several other ones on top!

Liberty's Edge

jasin wrote:

I've thought about it some more, and now it seems to me that the issue is perhaps with the cavalier/samurai, not the swashbuckler?

The swashbuckler's level to damage is very comparable to the fighter's and the slayer's +1/4 to attack and damage, if you convert the attack bonus to damage with Power Attack.

The paladin gets similar damage bonuses, and attack and AC bonuses on top, but doesn't get to use them all the time.

The ranger rangers is a lot more situational, but could be considered comparable, with better attack/damage bonuses than anyone if he hyperspecializes, and the easiest way to leverage them trough extrra attacks.

It's the cavalier/samurai that only gets level to damage, and weird little situational bonuses where the others get broadly applicable and significantly sized attack bonuses.

That depends on your Order. Order of the Dragon gives you a better bonus to hit than a Fighter, and gives it to all your Allies as well. Other Order's Challenge bonuses are less cool offensively, but those Orders tend to grant other capabilities.

And don't forget Mount. Animal Companions are one of the single greatest damage enhancers in the game if you do the math...and one nobody on your list but Rangers gets (and they only really get one with a Feat.)

jasin wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Now...the Daring Champion Cavalier Archetype can add Challenge on top of Precise Strike and has less awful Saves to boot.
You're right! The daring champion substitution is completely crazy: you trade in a marginal logistics ability for one that is the lynchpin of another class, and several other ones on top!

In fairness, they also give up Mount (the lynchpin of their class) and most of their armor proficiencies, as well as several other things. They're kinda ridiculous, but it's not as simple as giving up 'only' Expert Trainer for Deeds and Panache.


jasin wrote:
It's the cavalier/samurai that only gets level to damage, and weird little situational bonuses where the others get broadly applicable and significantly sized attack bonuses.

Oh, but this is not quite right. Cavaliers are, to the best of my knowledge, the highest-damage class in the game, at least on open ground against single enemies.

A swashbuckler gets bonus precision damage; a Cavalier merely gets bonus damage. This means it's multiplied on a critical hit, and with a lance.

With spirited charge, you're getting 3x your level as a damage bonus (with a free Maneuver after every attack at level 11). At level 20, it's 4x as much. With Mounted Skirmisher, you're making a full attack on a charge; with Order of the Sword, you add your mount's strength to your own.

At level 20, with 30 Str, the Swashbuckler winds up with +18 to hit and 1d6+42 damage.

The cavalier, at level 20, with 30 Str and a 30 Str mount (easy to get through the right creatures or archetypes), power attack and a 2-H-wielded Lance (and the human favored class bonus of + to banner modifiers), is doing +40 to hit and 4d8+260 damage on each hit.

...that's a bit more than the Swashbuckler's going to get, as long as the cavalier keeps up his challenge (which is responsible for 80 points of that damage, although strength is contributing 120).


Deadmanwalking wrote:
jasin wrote:
It's the cavalier/samurai that only gets level to damage, and weird little situational bonuses where the others get broadly applicable and significantly sized attack bonuses.
That depends on your Order. Order of the Dragon gives you a better bonus to hit than a Fighter, and gives it to all your Allies as well.

I thought it only applies to allies, not the cavalier? Ah... the convention is that you are your own ally! I don't think that was the intent of the order? It would definitely make it comparable (and perhaps more!) to the other classes' main combat boosts, and by far the best order.

Quote:
Other Order's Challenge bonuses are less cool offensively, but those Orders tend to grant other capabilities.

Right, it's not as simple as comparing numbers, but I'd say that anyone wanting to stand in for the fighter in the typical fighter-wizard-cleric-rogue group needs fightin' bonuses, in a way that can't really be compensated by smallish specials.

Quote:
And don't forget Mount. Animal Companions are one of the single greatest damage enhancers in the game if you do the math...and one nobody on your list but Rangers gets (and they only really get one with a Feat.)

True, I did neglect the mount thinking about the cavalier, since Pathfinder has been demphasizing pets for the ranger, the paladin, and the wizard. But I guess you can't really consider the cavalier without letting him be cavalry.

jasin wrote:
In fairness, they also give up Mount (the lynchpin of their class) and most of their armor proficiencies, as well as several other things. They're kinda ridiculous, but it's not as simple as giving up 'only' Expert Trainer for Deeds and Panache.

Again, I sort of neglected the mount, which probably isn't fair: it's either very useful, or if it can't be expected to be useful, it's questionable whether the cavalier is an appropriate concept.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Swashbuckler is explicitly restricted to one-handed weapons and not TWF if he wants that damage bonus. Even assuming Dex-to Damage and a Fighter (pretty much the worst full BAB melee class) , let's compare those. Assuming Str 30 (or Dex 30 and a Dex-to-damage option on the Swashbuckler) the Fighter winds up with +18 to hit and 1d10+37 damage with Power Attack, while the Swashbuckler winds up with +18 to hit and 1d6+42 damage (also with Power Attack).

So...that's +3 damage for the Swashbuckler and 20 of that being Precision, which matters a lot since both are critical-ing on a 15-20. Now, the Swashbuckler probably has a buckler and thus better AC, but still.

That's a rough estimate, but basically, the Swashbuckler's required fighting style is rather limiting and suboptimal, which makes up for their Precise Strike class feature to some degree. They also have awful saves.

Now...the Daring Champion Cavalier Archetype can add Challenge on top of Precise Strike and has less awful Saves to boot. With it you might have a point. On the other hand, that's an Archetype, njot a whole class, and might easily get errataed out of existence.

It is in fact better to say that the bonuses to swashbuckler's damage is not meant to put him above other melee classes- it is meant to take a suboptimal style (using only 1 weapon in 1 hand) and make it on par with the other full BAB classes.

The scaling of precise strike actually about matches up to the bonuses one would get from power attack and a good strength score when 2 handing a weapon. So of course their damage applies to just about everything. But it is their weapon training class feature (or whatever they called it) that really does 'extra', since precise strike is just 'catch up'.

Despite the fact that it appears analogous to the cavalier's challenge, it is actually not anything that amazing (although making sword and board an optimal style is kind of amazing in itself....)

Liberty's Edge

jasin wrote:
I thought it only applies to allies, not the cavalier? Ah... the convention is that you are your own ally! I don't think that was the intent of the order? It would definitely make it comparable (and perhaps more!) to the other classes' main combat boosts, and by far the best order.

If it wasn't intended, they've had plenty of time to errata it...and they haven't. Like the Bard's Bardic Song bonus, I think this is intentional.

And yeah, it's really nice. It only applies when Challenging, of course, but that's still really great.

jasin wrote:
Right, it's not as simple as comparing numbers, but I'd say that anyone wanting to stand in for the fighter in the typical fighter-wizard-cleric-rogue group needs fightin' bonuses, in a way that can't really be compensated by smallish specials.

Sword adds to attack as well (only when mounted, but that's hardly uncommon), as does Blue Rose against most intelligent foes. and Star adds to Saves, while Lion adds to AC (both combat necessities as well). And most of those add other benefits that Dragon Order ones don't (their Challenge is amazing, but their other Order abilities are lackluster).

jasin wrote:
True, I did neglect the mount thinking about the cavalier, since Pathfinder has been demphasizing pets for the ranger, the paladin, and the wizard. But I guess you can't really consider the cavalier without letting him be cavalry.

You don't even have to let him be Cavalry. The Cavalier's mount is pretty cool even if you don't ride them. Especially with the Beast Rider Archetype (which a lot of them take). Who doesn't want a pet tiger?

jasin wrote:
Again, I sort of neglected the mount, which probably isn't fair: it's either very useful, or if it can't be expected to be useful, it's questionable whether the cavalier is an appropriate concept.

I think a lot of people overestimate how many situations a mount is useless in. Squeezing rules, man, squeezing rules.

lemeres wrote:

It is in fact better to say that the bonuses to swashbuckler's damage is not meant to put him above other melee classes- it is meant to take a suboptimal style (using only 1 weapon in 1 hand) and make it on par with the other full BAB classes.

The scaling of precise strike actually about matches up to the bonuses one would get from power attack and a good strength score when 2 handing a weapon. So of course their damage applies to just about everything. But it is their weapon training class feature (or whatever they called it) that really does 'extra', since precise strike is just 'catch up'.

All agreed completely, and more or less what I was aiming to say. :)

lemeres wrote:
Despite the fact that it appears analogous to the cavalier's challenge, it is actually not anything that amazing (although making sword and board an optimal style is kind of amazing in itself....)

It's solid, not spectacular, but solid. Adding Challenge on top of it, like Daring Champions do makes it ridiculous.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say that if there's a reason the older melee classes are becoming less attractive, it's because the new ones offer better character hooks for roleplay. The space of "Fighter" is an explored space, in terms of memes and character hooks - the space of "Slayer," not so much (and even less so the space of "AC/DC" - ok, I'll stop there).

For me, at this point, it's less about the potential for a fighter to be the peak damage dealer in the party and more about the fact that I can build a fighter in my sleep, without thinking too much about the things I'm putting into her.


Kittyburger wrote:
I would say that if there's a reason the older melee classes are becoming less attractive, it's because the new ones offer better character hooks for roleplay. The space of "Fighter" is an explored space, in terms of memes and character hooks - the space of "Slayer," not so much (and even less so the space of "AC/DC" - ok, I'll stop there).

I think that's a different discussion, but a very interesting one, and I'll disagree with you. In fact, that's my largest complaint about most of the ACG classes: they don't really create new space to explore in terms of memes and roleplay.

Other than the specific mechanical implementation, I don't really see the difference between the slayer and an appropriately built rogue: both are agile assassins. Similarly for hunter and ranger: wilderness archer with a pet. Arcanist and wizard: ultimate master of magic. Warpriest and cleric: holy spellcasting warrior.

To contrast, the bloodrager is different, modeling a concept that wasn't really available before outside of multiclassing. But that seems more the exception than the rule for ACG.

It mostly seems to explore new mechanics design space, in a way that reminds me of the tail end of 3E, and makes me think of Pathfinder 2.0 (or at least 1.5)...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think any classes are more or less obsolete than they were before.

The rogue still has the same problems it always did, it's relative position hasn't changed. Now, there is just another class (Slayer) that can do most of what the rogue does, but better because it gets things like the Ranger Combat Style and full BAB. But honestly, I built one and the only thing that the Slayer has to make a Ranger envious at all is Sneak Attack damage. The Ranger gets more Combat Style feats, which means more ability to ignore prereqs. Which can be very important for TWF or Archery builds. I honestly felt like the Slayer was feat starved compared to an equal level Ranger (when I built them at level 9, though admittedly the Slayer was a TWF and the Ranger was an Archer).

And with the loss of the animal companion and spell casting I still feel like the Ranger has a solid edge (especially when they are targetting a favored enemy, and more so when they get Instant Enemy).

So no, at this time I do not feel that the new classes invalidate the old, anymore than they were already invalid.

Fighter, rogue, and core monk are still at the bottom of the barrel (for various reasons) where they always were, now there are just more classes in the middle between them and the wizard.


The only class I see losing its shine is the fighter. The monk is what it has always been, an interesting idea but lacking the focus to make a primary anything (combatant, skill monkey, scout, utility magic guy). Its a little bit of alot of things.

The rogue basically has now just been divided up into its core concepts as base classes. Sneak assasin? Ninja, Skilled sherlock holms type? Investigator. Dashing fencer? Swashbuckler. Back alley murderer? Slayer. The rogue isnt obsolete, its just been made the way it probably should have been originally.

The barbarian, ranger, and paladin all hold up well, and still are just about the best at what they do. The middle of the row classes are still right about in the middle. Thats a pretty good track for the game I think. Maybe the ranger lost a bit of its luster with the slayer, but it still has the nature theme that the slayer doesnt have and the martial power the hunter doesnt have.

The fighter on the other hand, has more or less been placed in the 'use if you want an ultra simple character to run'. Though it pretty much was that out of the core rulebook. All the other fightery classes could fight just about as well as the fighter and do lots of other things right out of the core rulebook. So the fighter is exactly where he was from the beggining, most of the classes besides the rogue are where they were in the core rulebook. The monk is actually a bit better off with the style feats and some of the archetypes actually being pretty darn good.

In the last 3 pathfinder games my group played the melee characters have been: Fighter/ranger/monk, Barbarian/paladin, and fighter/barbarian/rogue, all played by different members of the group. So at least in my game, the core classes havent lost their luster. They use all sorts of additional option for those classes including 3rd party material, but they are still seeing plenty of use.


No, they are still viable and alive, the swashbuckler does less damage than a cavalier and a fighter, so i don't see the point, it has pros and cons, as many classes, stop the drama. The arcanist au contraire is crazy, he is a sorcerer, a wizard and a magus, AHOY! perfect class for making a gish, hey Brokenness, here i come!


Assuming monks can use monk weapons with Pummeling Style (Temple sword/Sansetsukon), I think they just got fixed. I wouldn't call them weak at this point. A single style line gives them pounce in combination with the ability to crit fish effectively AND avoid the impact of DR. You'll still need to work hard to keep your hit bonus up but the monk is no slouch at this point.


Lastoth wrote:
Assuming monks can use monk weapons with Pummeling Style (Temple sword/Sansetsukon), I think they just got fixed. I wouldn't call them weak at this point. A single style line gives them pounce in combination with the ability to crit fish effectively AND avoid the impact of DR. You'll still need to work hard to keep your hit bonus up but the monk is no slouch at this point.

Even without using it with weapons I'd call it a fix(albeit a lesser one). Basically solves 2 of their 3 issues in one feat line.

Really, monks have been getting significant power boosts for a while now, with styles and Qi Gong. They still lack an inherent way to boost their to hit, but Pummeling solves most everything else, and they are useful outside of combat (albeit in a rather limited roll, but better than nothing)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To the OP, nope.

I think it is mostly a case of Look at my shiny new toy! rather than them being all that much more powerful.

I see a lot of them being very good for very specialized builds. After all, they are hybrids. So it could be thought of as a specialized multiclass build.

But if you want something other than those particular specialties, you might be better off going back to one of the parent classes.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

[off topic]
i know gestalt rules aren't widely used, but since zilfrel mentioned gishes can we take a second to consider a gestalt pally/eldritch scrapper sorc... a pally with martial flexibility and full casting, that's sick.
[/off topic]

i was never a big rogue fan, and can't even imagine playing one now. other than that i think the base classes hold up well. yeah the fighter's pretty straightforward but sometimes a guy who has devoted himself to mastering physical combat is exactly what you want. plus creative players have always (well, since APG, at least) had options for taking the base classes outside of their simplest form- traits let you add new class skills, extra Int (or race) can get you more skills, feats like eldritch heritage open up all kinds of flavorful options, and even without much Cha dangerously curious and skill focus [UMD] give any character some magical abilities.

i don't see anything in ACG that makes any of that obsolete. in fact, with feats that grant inspiration or panache i think the base classes have even more options now. (and did anyone else notice that the 2 new fighter archetypes are clearly stackable?)


Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Lastoth wrote:
Assuming monks can use monk weapons with Pummeling Style (Temple sword/Sansetsukon), I think they just got fixed. I wouldn't call them weak at this point. A single style line gives them pounce in combination with the ability to crit fish effectively AND avoid the impact of DR. You'll still need to work hard to keep your hit bonus up but the monk is no slouch at this point.

Even without using it with weapons I'd call it a fix(albeit a lesser one). Basically solves 2 of their 3 issues in one feat line.

Really, monks have been getting significant power boosts for a while now, with styles and Qi Gong. They still lack an inherent way to boost their to hit, but Pummeling solves most everything else, and they are useful outside of combat (albeit in a rather limited roll, but better than nothing)

Eh, I know of at least one archetype that has decent inherent boosts- Sohei. It has weapon training (fairly close to the fighters, and appears to qualify for gloves of dueling) and they can flurry in light armor (brawling armor!).

Oddly, that doesn't mean they end up with better defense than an unarmored monk with similar starting stats (2 stats to AC, and they can grab bracers of armor), but soheis come ahead in offense since they can get a total of +7 to attack and damage that normal monks never see.

And with pummeling style and charge as an option, the whole '3/4 BAB but acts like full during full attack' business is not much of an issue once you get to mid levels.

Overall, they are fairly close to the brawler offensively. I guess the difference is whether you want ki powers and perfect saves or feat stuff (martial flexibility does seem appealing).

Sovereign Court

Dark Immortal wrote:
Though, I think I draw a line and make an exception at the Arcanist (and possibly the wizard archetype that copies it). That class seems to have decidedly replaced any need for a wizard. The addition of exploits every two levels more than makes up for the loss of metamagic feats and arcane bond while the spells per day are initially higher than a normal wizards are anyway, without having to make yourself worse in an entire area or two of magic. The arcane reservoir puts them well ahead of the arcane bond feature and the school abilities of the wizard, while useful, don't seem to make up for the difference in added value that every single other arcanist class feature has over whatever that weaker class um, oh right, wizard, can do. Wizards strike me as a niche class for very specific things while the arcanist is just the wizard, plus the Sorceror, plus more than it should have ever been. Sorceror, oddly enough, don't seem to lose as much to the arcanist as the wizard and even remain viable as a strong alternative to the class as their bloodline powers are numerous, potent, defining, and in many cases not readily duplicated or easy to acquire or scale to similar power. But wizards strike me as relics, the kind of item that used to be powerful and useful for its time and then was later replaced by a fundamentally superior device with all of the same capabilities, none of the drawbacks, additional features, and new (and better) options for use outside of the scope that the previous device was even designed for doing...and ways to refine 'those' as well.

Well, there are a few downsides to the Arcanist.

  • Delayed spell progression - this is a big one. At every odd level, a wizard will have access to a whole level of spells the Arcanist lacks.
  • MAD - most of the Arcanist's exploits are Charisma-based, making the Arcanist dependent on two stats of which NEITHER improves saves, AC, or HP. This makes him even more ill-suited to combat than the wizard, who can dump charisma in exchange for increased Con, Dex, or Str.
  • Reduced range of spells - While the Arcanist's ability to prepare a few spells and cast any of them spontaneously does allow him a lot of flexibility in certain respects (i.e. spamming one good spell), it DOES come with a sacrifice. A wizard can prepare a wide variety of spells; a 4th level Wizard with 18 Int and a school can prepare up to 5 different 1st level spells and 4 different 2nd level spells, compared to an Arcanist who can prep only 3 and 1 respectively (and cast 5 and 3). Granted, the Quicky Study exploit helps with this, but it still constitutes a full round action, the use of a limited resource, and an exploit choice.
  • Through schools, Wizards still have access to unique abilities. An arcanist can borrow some, but not all, of these for just a few rounds with the School Study exploit and the use of arcane reservoir.

That said, I'm super excited to play an Arcanist. I really, really love versatility in casters, and the Arcanist definitely has that in spades. The ability to combine Bloodlines and School Abilities for short durations has a lot of potential waiting to be unlocked, I'm sure.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

thunderbeard wrote:

With spirited charge, you're getting 3x your level as a damage bonus (with a free Maneuver after every attack at level 11). At level 20, it's 4x as much. With Mounted Skirmisher, you're making a full attack on a charge; with Order of the Sword, you add your mount's strength to your own.

***

The cavalier, at level 20, with 30 Str and a 30 Str mount (easy to get through the right creatures or archetypes), power attack and a 2-H-wielded Lance (and the human favored class bonus of + to banner modifiers), is doing +40 to hit and 4d8+260 damage on each hit.

That math is actually all messed up with the current FAQs. Mounted Skirmisher does not mesh with a mounted charge; both rider and mount have to spend a full-round action to charge. Even if you had another ability that allowed you to make all of your attacks, only the first one would get charge bonuses for the big damage boost.

That being said, Cavalier is still really solid. Daring Champion is actually very well balanced to the core Cavalier since he sacrifices his mount; that's a lot of bonus damage you're giving up for the precision damage precise strike gives you.

There are actually very few classes or archetypes in the ACG that I would say are really more powerful or effective than pre-existing options:

The Slayer and Investigator each take over a major facet of the Rogue and do what he did much better, but the Slayer is a little bit worse at skills and the Investigator does get a slower start in combat. Still, I think they both qualify as superior Rogue replacements.

The Arcanist and Exploiter Wizard archetype are really powerful, but I think only the Exploiter will actually prove out as a true upgrade. The Arcanist may be a bit stronger in theory due to his versatility but I've yet to see an instance in game at any level where he was truly capable of outperforming a wizard. The Exploiter on the other hand just wrecks town.

Most of the other materials are actually very well balanced, or in some instances even underpowered (looking at you Feral Hunter) compared to their core counterparts.


Claxon wrote:
The rogue still has the same problems it always did, it's relative position hasn't changed. Now, there is just another class (Slayer) that can do most of what the rogue does, but better because it gets things like the Ranger Combat Style and full BAB. But honestly, I built one and the only thing that the Slayer has to make a Ranger envious at all is Sneak Attack damage. The Ranger gets more Combat Style feats, which means more ability to ignore prereqs. Which can be very important for TWF or Archery builds. I honestly felt like the Slayer was feat starved compared to an equal level Ranger (when I built them at level 9, though admittedly the Slayer was a TWF and the Ranger was an Archer).

Uh... Rangers and Slayers actually have the same number of bonus feats, but the Slayer gets them earlier. You can take Weapon Focus and any combat feat as a Slayer Trick.

Not to say the Slayer is better than the Ranger (it isn't) but the Slayer definitely has the edge for feats, at least in the first ten levels.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Ssalarn wrote:
thunderbeard wrote:

With spirited charge, you're getting 3x your level as a damage bonus (with a free Maneuver after every attack at level 11). At level 20, it's 4x as much. With Mounted Skirmisher, you're making a full attack on a charge; with Order of the Sword, you add your mount's strength to your own.

***

The cavalier, at level 20, with 30 Str and a 30 Str mount (easy to get through the right creatures or archetypes), power attack and a 2-H-wielded Lance (and the human favored class bonus of + to banner modifiers), is doing +40 to hit and 4d8+260 damage on each hit.

That math is actually all messed up with the current FAQs. Mounted Skirmisher does not mesh with a mounted charge; both rider and mount have to spend a full-round action to charge. Even if you had another ability that allowed you to make all of your attacks, only the first one would get charge bonuses for the big damage boost.

Ehhh kinda sort of. You don't get the full damage on every attack but you do on the initial charge based on pounce/lance rulings. The feat itself states only that your mount moves its speed or less. I can see it going either way though tbh so a clarification might be worth asking about.

*faq's post*

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Arachnofiend wrote:


Uh... Rangers and Slayers actually have the same number of bonus feats, but the Slayer gets them earlier. You can take Weapon Focus and any combat feat as a Slayer Trick.

Not to say the Slayer is better than the Ranger (it isn't) but the Slayer definitely has the edge for feats, at least in the first ten levels.

Yeah, Slayer isn't better than the Ranger, but feats aren't the factor there. Hunter's Bond, true Favored Enemy, and spellcasting are the biggest factors in the Ranger's favor.

jasin wrote:

Other than the specific mechanical implementation, I don't really see the difference between the slayer and an appropriately built rogue: both are agile assassins. Similarly for hunter and ranger: wilderness archer with a pet. Arcanist and wizard: ultimate master of magic. Warpriest and cleric: holy spellcasting warrior.

To contrast, the bloodrager is different, modeling a concept that wasn't really available before outside of multiclassing. But that seems more the exception than the rule for ACG.

It mostly seems to explore new mechanics design space, in a way that reminds me of the tail end of 3E, and makes me think of Pathfinder 2.0 (or at least 1.5)...

I have to agree with this. A lot of the ACG material isn't really introducing new thematic elements, it's just bringing in new mechanics that come at existing concepts from a different angle. There's not a lot in there that is truly new, which is probably why it's been such a contentious topic. These are basically classes built to optimize certain tropes, and anyone already playing those tropes won't be able to help but see how the ACG does it better. The fact that the Arcanist's trope has so much overlap with its two parent classes is one of the biggest issues there. It really is just testing new mechanical territory in a way that makes the existing classes feel a little cramped.

That being said, while the Arcanist is probably more powerful than the Wizard or Sorcerer in any given encounter, I think it's notably weaker over the course of a day than either class since most of its best abilities (like its Counterspell line) involve a massive expenditure of limited resources and cause it to burn through its abilities much more quickly.

TarkXT wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
thunderbeard wrote:

With spirited charge, you're getting 3x your level as a damage bonus (with a free Maneuver after every attack at level 11). At level 20, it's 4x as much. With Mounted Skirmisher, you're making a full attack on a charge; with Order of the Sword, you add your mount's strength to your own.

***

The cavalier, at level 20, with 30 Str and a 30 Str mount (easy to get through the right creatures or archetypes), power attack and a 2-H-wielded Lance (and the human favored class bonus of + to banner modifiers), is doing +40 to hit and 4d8+260 damage on each hit.

That math is actually all messed up with the current FAQs. Mounted Skirmisher does not mesh with a mounted charge; both rider and mount have to spend a full-round action to charge. Even if you had another ability that allowed you to make all of your attacks, only the first one would get charge bonuses for the big damage boost.

Ehhh kinda sort of. You don't get the full damage on every attack but you do on the initial charge based on pounce/lance rulings. The feat itself states only that your mount moves its speed or less. I can see it going either way though tbh so a clarification might be worth asking about.

*faq's post*

There's already a new FAQ addressing this, as a result of this thread. You have to be using the full round charge action to gain the benefits of a mounted charge, and that is not compatible with Mounted Skirmisher. They did reopen the door for pouncing mounted fury barbarians though, and in that instance only the first attack gets charge benefits.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

To the OP, nope.

I think it is mostly a case of Look at my shiny new toy! rather than them being all that much more powerful.

I see a lot of them being very good for very specialized builds. After all, they are hybrids. So it could be thought of as a specialized multiclass build.

But if you want something other than those particular specialties, you might be better off going back to one of the parent classes.

Yes, I agree, good post. They are flashy and new and getting a lot of attention.

Mind you, I'd like to see some dev love sent out to The Fighter and the Rogue with cool new talents and Fighter feats.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Claxon wrote:
The rogue still has the same problems it always did, it's relative position hasn't changed. Now, there is just another class (Slayer) that can do most of what the rogue does, but better because it gets things like the Ranger Combat Style and full BAB. But honestly, I built one and the only thing that the Slayer has to make a Ranger envious at all is Sneak Attack damage. The Ranger gets more Combat Style feats, which means more ability to ignore prereqs. Which can be very important for TWF or Archery builds. I honestly felt like the Slayer was feat starved compared to an equal level Ranger (when I built them at level 9, though admittedly the Slayer was a TWF and the Ranger was an Archer).

Uh... Rangers and Slayers actually have the same number of bonus feats, but the Slayer gets them earlier. You can take Weapon Focus and any combat feat as a Slayer Trick.

Not to say the Slayer is better than the Ranger (it isn't) but the Slayer definitely has the edge for feats, at least in the first ten levels.

So Slayer gets no actual bonus feats, but they do get Slayer Talents. Slayer Talent can get get them the Ranger Combat Style at 1st, 6th, and 10th level. Which works out the same as the Ranger. He gets the edge in the sense that he can pickup weapon focus (meh, but sometimes required for certain feats) and another combat feat. Which does give him a slight edge in the feat department, up to 10th level. But he loses out looking forward where the ranger continues to gain combat style feats and continues to ignore prereqs and he doesn't. And this was mostly relevant when I was attempting to build a TWF slayer and just couldn't figure out how to make him effective without having to pickup dex to damage in some way (which I really hate). The TWF ranger can straight out ignore dex and pickup all the desired TWF feats through his combat style, and thats the advantage I was really referring to, though I admit this probably was unclear.

I will also add, my perception was also partially due to trying to figure out how have Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, Two Weapon Feint, and Improved Two Weapon Feint, while getting around prereq, which wasn't possible.


thunderbeard wrote:
EsperMagic wrote:
And rogues and monks are melee and pretty terrible.

Then you're getting the wrong feats. A rogue with Improved Two-Weapon Feint and a good bluff check (or just some help in flanking) is adding +level/2 d6 damage to each attack, for an average of 1.75*level bonus precision damage on each attack—that's significantly more than the swashbuckler, and without archetypes the rogue is getting almost twice as many attacks.

Now monks? Monks are just broken, if you use style feats like Panther Parry or Pummeling Charge.

* * *

Meanwhile, Fighters get an incredible number of feats (which at least keeps them able to do *something*), and Paladins and Rangers both get spellcasting and animal companions and make far better tanks than the Swashbuckler.

That is cute...

He thinks monks are broken...

And rogues are still no where near as strong as full martials or even the other 3/4 bab classes...


Quote:
You have to be using the full round charge action to gain the benefits of a mounted charge, and that is not compatible with Mounted Skirmisher.

Okay, I get it now but it helps to state the full reasoning.

The reasoning you can't do it is not because of mounted skirmisher which states only that the mount moves its speed or less.

But only because you can't full attack while charging based on the full round action rule.

That kills the damage on a cavalier at really high levels sadly.


Rogues are broken bad. This was true in the CRB.

Monks are super solid with Qinggong. There are so many good monk builds out there that it is ridiculous.

Martial flexibility and Mutagens on a fighter is pretty sexy. There bonus feats go great with Martial flexibility chains and the mutagen keeps to-hit where it needs to be and gives them small things like WINGS!

Rangers and Paladins are still super sexy and barbarians still have the one true barbar build that disgust me but I assume it quite fun to play.

Cavaliers are apparently swashbucklers now? Magi, Bards, and inquisitors are still fun in melee.

This new book improved the game. Even the parts that further killed the rogue, because that is one train-wreck of a class and needs to die to make room for Rogue 2.0


K177Y C47 wrote:

That is cute...

He thinks monks are broken...

And rogues are still no where near as strong as full martials or even the other 3/4 bab classes...

Well, monks are broken a lot more with ACG, thanks to things like Pummeling Charge and Jabbing Style. But even Panther Parry and Medusa's Wrath, combined with a guided amulet of mighty fists, have let the monks I've played outpace party fighters for damage output and versatility, especially against human-sized enemies.

And people keep saying this about rogues, but I just don't see it. Assuming they can make a full-attack of their sneak attack (which isn't that hard to do at higher levels), I don't know of anything that outpaces a rogue for damage, and they've got decent AC and an insane number of skills to back them up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thunderbeard wrote:
And people keep saying this about rogues, but I just don't see it. Assuming they can make a full-attack of their sneak attack (which isn't that hard to do at higher levels), I don't know of anything that outpaces a rogue for damage, and they've got decent AC and an insane number of skills to back them up.

How?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thunderbeard wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

That is cute...

He thinks monks are broken...

And rogues are still no where near as strong as full martials or even the other 3/4 bab classes...

Well, monks are broken a lot more with ACG, thanks to things like Pummeling Charge and Jabbing Style. But even Panther Parry and Medusa's Wrath, combined with a guided amulet of mighty fists, have let the monks I've played outpace party fighters for damage output and versatility, especially against human-sized enemies.

And people keep saying this about rogues, but I just don't see it. Assuming they can make a full-attack of their sneak attack (which isn't that hard to do at higher levels), I don't know of anything that outpaces a rogue for damage, and they've got decent AC and an insane number of skills to back them up.

Um... you must not be playing with highly skilled players... or a veyr low optimization level...

A Rogue getting in an entire full attack AND having sneak attack proccing is actualy rather rare... most creatures in the higher level are beyond the rogue's iteratives to hit reliably/....

Paizo Employee Design Manager

K177Y C47 wrote:
thunderbeard wrote:

Well, monks are broken a lot more with ACG, thanks to things like Pummeling Charge and Jabbing Style. But even Panther Parry and Medusa's Wrath, combined with a guided amulet of mighty fists, have let the monks I've played outpace party fighters for damage output and versatility, especially against human-sized enemies.

And people keep saying this about rogues, but I just don't see it. Assuming they can make a full-attack of their sneak attack (which isn't that hard to do at higher levels), I don't know of anything that outpaces a rogue for damage, and they've got decent AC and an insane number of skills to back them up.

Um... you must not be playing with highly skilled players... or a veyr low optimization level...

A Rogue getting in an entire full attack AND having sneak attack proccing is actualy rather rare... most creatures in the higher level are beyond the rogue's iteratives to hit reliably/....

Yeah... I hate to go to "You must be doing it wrong", but the higher levels are where it is hardest to pull off a full attack in the first place, let alone land all of those attacks with a Rogue's 3/4 BAB and no in-class boosters, and flanking conditions are often very hard to meet if enemies are actually playing to their full capabilities. Flight, teleportation, concealment, etc. all factor in (or should), and most enemies should have at least one of those capabilities in addition to level appropriate defenses.

Even Jason Buhlman was quoted as saying "We all know the Rogue needs help" at a GenCon event, and Unchained is billed as specifically fixing the Rogue.

Optimization is, of course, a factor. If the player with the highest system mastery is running the Rogue and the GM's own system mastery isn't equivalent, you can have some artificially inflated performance on the Rogue's part.


K177Y C47 wrote:
thunderbeard wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

That is cute...

He thinks monks are broken...

And rogues are still no where near as strong as full martials or even the other 3/4 bab classes...

Well, monks are broken a lot more with ACG, thanks to things like Pummeling Charge and Jabbing Style. But even Panther Parry and Medusa's Wrath, combined with a guided amulet of mighty fists, have let the monks I've played outpace party fighters for damage output and versatility, especially against human-sized enemies.

And people keep saying this about rogues, but I just don't see it. Assuming they can make a full-attack of their sneak attack (which isn't that hard to do at higher levels), I don't know of anything that outpaces a rogue for damage, and they've got decent AC and an insane number of skills to back them up.

Um... you must not be playing with highly skilled players... or a veyr low optimization level...

A Rogue getting in an entire full attack AND having sneak attack proccing is actualy rather rare... most creatures in the higher level are beyond the rogue's iteratives to hit reliably/....

Yeah, I play rogues quite often and am very fond of the class, but not for its damage output. Rogues really aren't very good at that compared to full BAB classes. They aren't terrible at it, if you try hard enough, but you'll sacrifice some of their survivability in doing so. But a fighter takes less work to hit just as hard and take more, and a barbarian can hit even harder.


Rogues are the only melee martial class that have no inherent pump to their too hit outside the monk and now the brawler. But brawler is full BAB at least and monk functions as a full BAB with flurry at least. A TWFing rogue on the other hand functions at 5 less than the monk/brawler, and at 11 less than a fighter. Generally, that means you aren't going to be hitting very much. To make matters worse they are only the 4th or 5th best skill monkey, so the thing their supposed to excel at they aren't even the best at. Poor Rogues. Don't worry, PF unchained is coming!


Claxon wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Claxon wrote:
The rogue still has the same problems it always did, it's relative position hasn't changed. Now, there is just another class (Slayer) that can do most of what the rogue does, but better because it gets things like the Ranger Combat Style and full BAB. But honestly, I built one and the only thing that the Slayer has to make a Ranger envious at all is Sneak Attack damage. The Ranger gets more Combat Style feats, which means more ability to ignore prereqs. Which can be very important for TWF or Archery builds. I honestly felt like the Slayer was feat starved compared to an equal level Ranger (when I built them at level 9, though admittedly the Slayer was a TWF and the Ranger was an Archer).

Uh... Rangers and Slayers actually have the same number of bonus feats, but the Slayer gets them earlier. You can take Weapon Focus and any combat feat as a Slayer Trick.

Not to say the Slayer is better than the Ranger (it isn't) but the Slayer definitely has the edge for feats, at least in the first ten levels.

I will also add, my perception was also partially due to trying to figure out how have Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, Two Weapon Feint, and Improved Two Weapon Feint, while getting around prereq, which wasn't possible.

Yeah, trying to get the feint feats was the problem. They're not worth it for a Slayer, you do enough consistent damage without sneak attack that you shouldn't build around using it. All you really need are Two-Weapon Fighting, ITWF, and Two-Weapon Rend. All of which you can get with the combat style feats as a Slayer; after that you're best bet is building around criticals. The Slayer edges out here with level 8 Combat Trick potentially getting Improved Critical earlier; nothing else on the TWF style list is any big help to you so the Ranger continuing to get feats at 14th and 18th isn't much of a gain.


K177Y C47 wrote:


Um... you must not be playing with highly skilled players... or a veyr low optimization level...

A Rogue getting in an entire full attack AND having sneak attack proccing is actualy rather rare... most creatures in the higher level are beyond the rogue's iteratives to hit reliably/....

I, as the rogue, might have a bit more optimization in mind than the fighters.

But: A rogue, fighting without power attack, has the same effective BAB as a fighter. If you always move to flank, and move after the fighter, you're negating the to-hit penalty for TWF. If you can successfully feint with improved 2W-feint (or if you've got greater invisibility, or something similar), you're dealing with an enemy denied their dex bonus to AC, which usually is just as big a bonus to hit as any weapon training the fighter gets.

Since you're using Weapon Finesse, you don't need to worry about strength at all, reducing your #AD, and meaning you'll probably have slightly higher dex than the fighter's str.

Plus, a single sneak attack (from, say, a charging scout-archetype rogue) does 10d6 damage at level 20, for an average of weapon+35, about the same as the fighter.

***

That said, against creatures not vulnerable to sneak attack, you'd better have some good UMD and a lot of wands.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If anything I'd say an opposite is happening. New options for Fighter, Monk and Rogue actually make me take a second look at them when they've always generally been on the low end of the totem pole (indeed, if the newer martials focused on not upsetting the older one they'd probably all be really weak).

Paizo Employee Design Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thunderbeard wrote:

I, as the rogue, might have a bit more optimization in mind than the fighters.

But: A rogue, fighting without power attack, has the same effective BAB as a fighter.

Umm, no? Totally aside from the fact that that's only true at a couple levels it puts the lie to-

thunderbeard wrote:

Plus, a single sneak attack (from, say, a charging scout-archetype rogue) does 10d6 damage at level 20, for an average of weapon+35, about the same as the fighter.

A Fighter at 20th is getting +18 from Power Attack, at least +10 from STR, +4-6 from Weapon Training, +4 from GWS, and probably a few other bonuses, with the big kicker being that even though on the surface those numbers look kind of similar, the Fighter is multiplying that damage on every crit, unlike the Rogue, with a class ability that is auto-confirming his crits for him. This annihilates the Rogue's damage.

thunderbeard wrote:


If you can successfully feint with improved 2W-feint (or if you've got greater invisibility, or something similar), you're dealing with an enemy denied their dex bonus to AC, which usually is just as big a bonus to hit as any weapon training the fighter gets.

ITW Feint requires you to give up your best attack (still not as good as the Fighter's, even with PA penalties) in exchange for a chance to get your sneak in and target a potentially lower defense (it won't be any lower at all for iconic enemies like golems and dragons). If you're thinking those feints have a chance to succeed though, that means you have at least a 13 Int and probably invested in CHA as well putting the lie to-

thunderbeard wrote:


Since you're using Weapon Finesse, you don't need to worry about strength at all, reducing your MAD, and meaning you'll probably have slightly higher dex than the fighter's str.

It doesn't make you less MAD when your lowered reliance on one physical stat means you are more reliant on two mental stats.

thunderbeard wrote:


If you always move to flank, and move after the fighter, you're negating the to-hit penalty for TWF.

Again, big assumptions here. You're assuming that every fight is going to be a nice linear little deal where the Fighter moves up to an enemy 20 feet away and you can tumble into flanking. This doesn't account for flight, burrow, teleportation, ranged enemies, your flank buddy being incapacitated, difficult terrain, etc.

There's also a host of other things, like the fact that your Rogue build is eatign up a lot of feats, even with Rogue talents helping pick up some of the slack. Did you grab the feat so that dim light and concealment don't automatically negate your sneak damage? The Fighter's been picking up Weapon Focus, Furious Focus, and all kind of other to-hit boosters in addition to Weapon Training, have you had any resources available to do so? The Fighter only needs to enchant one weapon to keep up his damage, you have to enchant two, how does that figure into the equation?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
thunderbeard wrote:


I, as the rogue, might have a bit more optimization in mind than the fighters.

Found your problem. Play next to a good fighter and you'll see how his damage outpaces yours easily.


thunderbeard wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:


Um... you must not be playing with highly skilled players... or a veyr low optimization level...

A Rogue getting in an entire full attack AND having sneak attack proccing is actualy rather rare... most creatures in the higher level are beyond the rogue's iteratives to hit reliably/....

I, as the rogue, might have a bit more optimization in mind than the fighters.

But: A rogue, fighting without power attack, has the same effective BAB as a fighter. If you always move to flank, and move after the fighter, you're negating the to-hit penalty for TWF. If you can successfully feint with improved 2W-feint (or if you've got greater invisibility, or something similar), you're dealing with an enemy denied their dex bonus to AC, which usually is just as big a bonus to hit as any weapon training the fighter gets.

Since you're using Weapon Finesse, you don't need to worry about strength at all, reducing your #AD, and meaning you'll probably have slightly higher dex than the fighter's str.

Plus, a single sneak attack (from, say, a charging scout-archetype rogue) does 10d6 damage at level 20, for an average of weapon+35, about the same as the fighter.

***

That said, against creatures not vulnerable to sneak attack, you'd better have some good UMD and a lot of wands.

Alrighty, gauntlet thrown. Now prove it. :)

1 to 50 of 347 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Are the older melee classes getting less attractive / obsolete? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.