In another thread it was posited that an Investigator could be simulataneously better at sleuthing and combat than a Rogue.
It was also posited that a Rogue could not simulultaneously be bested in both categories. That if the Investigator specced for combat he'd lose at sleuthing and vice versa.
This thread is to test that claim.
Build Guidelines
-Standard Elite Array for PCs
-2 traits
-submit builds at 5th and 11th level
-standard WBL
-prefer no archetypes since there were assertions made against them
Sleuthing defined: Your bonus on stealth, perception, sense motive, diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, disable device, and any relevant knowledges.
Combat is hard to define, so let's take a hollistic approach. Primary things to consider is how much damage you can do if you can't full attack, damage in optimal conditions, damage in standard conditions (full attack 1v1), and damage in bad conditions (enemy immune to precision, has DR, or both, no mutagen, buffs dispelled, ect). Also saves, AC, and initiative should be considered.
He're is a lv3 investigator. I'll try for the 5th and 11th later when I get time.
This guy is more focused on skills, but still is wanting to contribute to combat. I had done a write up of my 18 str 16 int Empiricist, which rocked combat hard and skill was right up there in skills with the rogue. But it was lost and I don't feel like redoing it right now.
human lv3
str 14, dex 10, con 11, int 16+2, wis 12, cha 12
HP: 21 (8+5+5+3)
traits: ?
feats: quick learner, improvisation, extra talent (Expanded Inspiration)
inspiration: 5 a day
Talent: Underworld Inspiration
Extracts, same as above, maybe preps more social ones a day.
damage
(2+2)=+4 for 1d8+3. DPR 3.65
flanking
(2+2+2)=+6 for 1d8+3. DPR 4.44
skills. He gets (6+4+1+1) 12 skills a level
we’ll put 2 ranks into all knowledge, and max perception, diplomacy, bluff, disable device, and sense motive and 1 rank into spellcraft. (3x5+10X2+1)=36 ranks used
this makes his perception, diplomacy, bluff and sense motive are (3+3+1+1d6)=+8-13
his knowledges are (3+2+4+1d6)=+10-15
his disable device are (3+3+1d6)=+7-12
his spellcraft is (3+1+4+1d6)=9-14
And he can add 1d6 to any skill for an inspiration point.
the rogue is using 1 shortsword since it can't TWF with a dex of 10.
It's damage is +3 for 1d6, DPR= 1.52
Flanking it's +5 for 3d6, DPR=5.66
So here his base damage is double the rogue’s and flanking is only 1 point behind the rogue. This is before the investigator uses any extracts or has studied target. Also not including any AoO you get because of reach. Also you can get mutagen later for more combat effectiveness.
skills the rogue has 9 out of ten knowledge checks maxed and perception, sense motive, diplomacy, disable device, and bluff.
His knowledges are (3+3+4)=10
his disable device is (3+3)=6
his other maxed skills are (3+3+2)=8
So here the investigator better at all the skills than the rogue and has 2 more good skills. Damage is definitely not behind the rogue, and is more constant and it will only get better for the investigator, as this is one of the weak levels for an investigator without the bonuses listed above. I’d also say he is safer since he doesn't need flanking to work and has a reach weapon, meaning he can be in safer spots and skill attack well.
The best levels to compare to help the rogue are odd levels, Even levels give an even bigger edge to the investigator.
And if you allowed the Empiricist it would easily win.
Rogue is just worst at both.
If you think the rogue can be better, then one of two things are happening.
1) Intentionally un-optimized Investigator
2) What you consider good at combat or skills is wrong.
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(dex) for range (Diminutive) [Undead anatomy III] {Diminutive skeleton}
Str 16, Dex 30, Con 20, Int 28, Wis 16*, Cha 16
*Stable mutagen vest
To hit: +15 BAB + 10 dex + 5 enh + 10 studied combat - 4 DA + 3 size + 1 WF = +40
Damage: +3 str + 1d2 short bow + 5 enh + 8 DA + 10 SC = 27.5
Transformation+UAIII+haste+heroism:
+46/46/41/36/31 for 1d2+32
UAIII+heroism
+42/37/32 for 1d2+28
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)[Giant Form I]
Str 30, Dex 18, Con 24, Int 28*, Wis 16, Cha 16
*Stable mutagen vest
To 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
Giant Form I + heroism
+35/30/25 for 2d6+44
Giant Form + transformation + heroism + haste
+41/41/36/31/26 for 2d6+50
7 feats and 8 talents left over for whatever else you want
Of course that is not a great comparison point nor was it what was asked for. But since I already had them. Here you go.
Any builds are fine, I mean I prefer the guidelines mainly for multiple peolple submitting and creating builds. Since you built both then we can asssume you tried to make a real comparison.
If you don't like the terms then propose different terms and see if the opposition will agree to them.Otherwise someone will have an excuse which defeats the purpose of this thread.
|
If I change 14 STR to DEX, I have a higher AC and I am going to use TWF since I can't take Extra Talents, and I'm really going to beat out the Investigator.
With a 14 Dex? That seems unlikely. (And by "unlikely" I mean "illegal.")
Don't bother with 5th and 11th level. These comparisons involve too many variables and too many contingencies to have any universal validity.
Um. The only way you're going to even potentially get more damage out of a rogue than an investigator is at levels 1-3. Levels 4+ are investigator all the way.
Shis, while I agree with your assertions I would really prefer that such assertions be made with real evidence.
I want to see level 5 or 11 builds that will give us sleuthing skill and combat viability in good, neutral, and bad situations.
Um. The only way you're going to even potentially get more damage out of a rogue than an investigator is at levels 1-3. Levels 4+ are investigator all the way.
And that's assuming the investigator isn't built for early game combat out of the gate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is how the classic Rogue defense goes. I would know, I have been there.
1) Always flanking for a full attack of sneak attacks.
2) Have heroism on because it is a standard buff, that any party with TEAMWORK would use.
In actuality a rogue's life is an follows.
1. One sneak attack per round, if you are lucky. And you may miss.
2. Party member dump buffs on you because you literally have no strong points, therefore every buff is maximally effective.
Idk how someone can even begin to argue Rogues being better out of combat than any investigator. Investigators have more skill points and higher bonuses to all skills that is further enhanced by extracts.
If a vanilla investigator ignored their extract feature, the rogue has a small chance of maybe doing ONE particular thing almost as well as an investigator.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once again, provide builds then make assertions. I'm not interested in Schrodinger's build! I wanna see some characters!
C'mon N N 959 I even gave you several advantage for the Rogue! You were the one who said that Investigators could only be better at one or the other, but not both!
No, TWF is not illegal with a DEX of 14. The FEAT is illegal. I don't need the TWF feat to use TWF. With Weapon Finesse, and a 14 dex, the penalties are -2 / -6 with a light weapon With flanking, you've got that to 0/-4.
-4 is a 20% reduction in expected damage for 3d6 attack which means your down 2 points of your EPV 10.5 points with the off-hand. And if I'm not getting a flank opportunity, I don't use TWF so I don't suffer any major penalties.
You think a 4+ is a total win for the Investigator? You're entitled to your opinion. I have no interest in trying to prove you wrong.
Omg are you serial?
TWF without the feat.
NOTE: Totally called it on the assuming flanking part.
Here is a newsflash. If you are ever flanking + full attacking with any sort of consistency, then your GM is being NICE.
I deny that you can assume flanking. What can your rogue do now?
Here is how the classic Rogue defense goes. I would know, I have been there.
1) Always flanking for a full attack of sneak attacks.
2) Have heroism on because it is a standard buff, that any party with TEAMWORK would use.In actuality a rogue's life is an follows.
1. One sneak attack per round, if you are lucky. And you may miss.
2. Party member dumb buffs on you because you literally have no strong points, therefore every buff is maximally effective.Idk how someone can even begin to argue Rogues being better out of combat than any investigator. Investigators have more skill points and higher bonuses to all skills that is further enhanced by extracts.
If a vanilla investigator ignored their extract feature, the rogue has a small chance of maybe doing ONE particular thing almost as well as an investigator.
While I agree with you, I've never seen proof of this before. I've seen plenty of theorycraft, but the first comparison I've ever seen was that level 20 comparison from earlier.
If you can make something using the OP post guidelines it would really put a nail in the coffin for this argument.
Rogue
It is level 12. 26 point buy. Over WBL. Has two mythic tiers and some extra stat boost due to a reincarnation ruling.
Now make a half-way competent level 11 investigator with the elite array and normal WBL.
I would assume that the investigator wins out.
EDIT: The only way to make this fair is to give rogue the overwhelming advantage and have it still lose.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once again, provide builds then make assertions. I'm not interested in Schrodinger's build! I wanna see some characters!
C'mon N N 959 I even gave you several advantage for the Rogue! You were the one who said that Investigators could only be better at one or the other, but not both!
Yeah, we kind of need builds here, let's not just talk about 'what ifs' and everything.
Maybe later I'll snag something from my Investigator guide, slap it over here, although lack of Empiricist is always a hard pill to swallow.
Much like every confrontation the rogue is in against a class that tries to claim the same niche, this isn't going to end well for them.
I really don't like the Empiricist archetype because it's a straight class upgrade, like a lot of ACG archetypes. I want to see which class wins by its own strength, not because of a poorly edited archetype (multiple errors in its entry) that may or may not have been viewed by a developer.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, TWF is not illegal with a DEX of 14. The FEAT is illegal. I don't need the TWF feat to use TWF.
Annnnnnnnnd dotted for interest! :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, TWF is not illegal with a DEX of 14. The FEAT is illegal. I don't need the TWF feat to use TWF. With Weapon Finesse, and a 14 dex, the penalties are -2 / -6 with a light weapon With flanking, you've got that to 0/-4.
-4 is a 20% reduction in expected damage for 3d6 attack which means your down 2 points of your EPV 10.5 points with the off-hand. And if I'm not getting a flank opportunity, I don't use TWF so I don't suffer any major penalties.
Against an AC 15 opponent (Bestiary guideline for a CR3 foe), that's a DPR of 2.12 without flank (no TWF) and 7.60 with (and using TWF). The investigator with the longspear has a DPR of 4.33 without flank and 5.12 with it. (I'm assuming masterwork weapons on both sides.) That's a draw at best - if you assume you get a flank and a full attack 50% of the time (and I kinda feel that's being generous), that's a DPR of 4.86 for the rogue and 4.73 for the investigator.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
These challenges always end up a horrible waste of time. Even if the OP is on the level and wants a fair challenge (which they often don't), someone else in the thread won't be and the entire thing will quickly devolve into an exercise in strawmen and moving goalposts that would make your head spin. What few honest attempts there are will be too difficult to read with the headache the others gave you.
Anyone who hasn't already learned this lesson, I caution you: Please stay away from these "challenge" threads. Your sanity will thank you.
These challenges always end up a horrible waste of time. Even if the OP is on the level and wants a fair challenge (which they often don't), someone else in the thread won't be and the entire thing will quickly devolve into an exercise in strawmen and moving goalposts that would make your head spin. What few honest attempts there are will be too difficult to read with the headache the others gave you.
Anyone who hasn't already learned this lesson, I caution you: Please stay away from these "challenge" threads. Your sanity will thank you.
I couldn't agree further. This thread was born out of necessity to get an off topic conversation out of a different thread.
Also because people in the last thread kept on asking for real, non-schrodinger, builds.
I see an Investigator build. Kinda hoping for a Rogue.
|
|
Please, the investigator won far before this unless for some reason they're not allowed to use extracts. Investigator talents are easily better than rogue talents, studied strike may not do as much damage as sneak attack but will hit more often (due to boosting accuracy), and as stated before, extracts beat not having extracts. I don't even know how this is a competition.I agree wholeheartedly, but (tongue in cheek here) that's not what I asked for! I wanna see real proof and not some... Some... Theorycrafting!
Yeah, I apologize for not putting a build with that, I'm half working on a lv 5 build, but you'll pry an 11th level build from my cold, dead hands. I don't like working past 5th level on builds for theorycraft, although personally with Studied Combat and 2nd level extracts online, not really sure there's much else that's needed unless there's some great major rogue talent that evens the playing field (there isnt') and makes this entire comparison fair.
For clarity's sake, does Potion Glutton work on extracts for the purpose of this experiment? I'd lean towards no to make it more fair, but it was something I planned on using.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see an Investigator build. Kinda hoping for a Rogue.
Eh, pick one.
I've been in this rodeo too long to put much effort in.
Nah, no potion glutton. Either way the potion/extract will probably be downed for "best conditions" anyway.
Every once in a while we get someone who's like "why does everyone say X? Why is this commonly accepted knowledge?" I'm thinking of starting a document that acts as an archive of evidence for common assertions.
ex:Barbarian vs Fighter by Rynjin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
959 a claim is not proof. Anyone can make a claim. I dont care for the rogue and I have never looked at an investigator so I was interested in the results so I could avoid doing any leg work. I will post a rogue and investigator when I get home if nobody else does. That will also get rid of the system mastery excuse sincere it will be the same person making both characters. I can also do DPR and DPR vs DR 10 and DR 5 with and without buffs and when precision damage is and is not in play. Someone else can handle decide anything else such as specific monsters that fly or made to do a lot of damage in melee such as giants. They can also look at the "sleuth" aspect. If this is unfair to someone then say why. I will not be home for a few hours however.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my 5th level comparisons:
Rebecca the Rogue
N Medium humanoid (human)
Init +2; Senses Perception +9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC 18, touch 13, flat-footed 16
(armor +5, deflection +1, Dex +2)
hp 36 (5d8+10)
Fort +3, Ref +7, Will +3
Defensive Abilities evasion, trap sense +1, uncanny dodge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFENSE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spd 30 ft.
Melee +1 rapier +7 (1d6+3, 18-20/x2)
Ranged +1 light crossbow +6 (1d8+1, 19-20/x2)
Special Attacks sneak attack +3d6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATISTICS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Str 8, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 18, Wis 13, Cha 10
Base Atk +3; CMB +2; CMD 14
Feats Fast Learner, Fencing Grace, Improvisation, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (rapier)
Skills Bluff +9, Diplomacy +9*, Disable Device +14, Intimidate +9, Knowledge (arcana) +9, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +12, Knowledge (engineering) +9, Knowledge (local) +12, Knowledge (nature) +9, Knowledge (planes) +9, Knowledge (religion) +9, Knowledge (all others) +6, Perception +9 (+11 vs traps), Sense Motive +10, Stealth +10; *can reroll once per day and take the better result
Languages Common plus four
SQ charmer, weapon training
Gear +1 rapier, +1 light crossbow, +1 mithral shirt, cloak of resistance +1, ring of protection +1, rogue’s kit, masterwork thieves’ tools, 660 gp.
Ivan the Investigator
N Medium humanoid (human)
Init +2; Senses Perception +9*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC 18, touch 13, flat-footed 16
(armor +5, deflection +1, Dex +2)
hp 36 (5d8+10)
Fort +5, Ref +7, Will +6; +2 vs poisons
Defensive Abilities trap sense +1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFENSE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spd 30 ft.
Melee +1 rapier +7 (1d6+3, 18-20/x2) or
+1 rapier +3 (1d6+3, 18-20/x2) and +1 rapier -1 (1d6+3, 18-20/x2)
Ranged mw light crossbow +6 (1d8, 19-20/x2)
Special Attacks mutagen, studied combat +2 (4 rounds), studied strike +1d6
Extracts Prepared (CL 5th):
2nd – cat’s grace, focused scrutiny, investigative mind
1st – cure light wounds, heightened awareness, keen senses, shield, true strike
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATISTICS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Str 8, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 18, Wis 13, Cha 10
Base Atk +3; CMB +2; CMD 14
Feats Fencing Grace, Great Fortitude, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (rapier)
Skills Bluff +9, Diplomacy +9*, Disable Device +14, Intimidate +9, Knowledge (arcana) +9*, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +9*, Knowledge (engineering) +9*, Knowledge (geography) +9*, Knowledge (history) +9*, Knowledge (local) +9*, Knowledge (nature) +9*, Knowledge (nobility) +9*, Knowledge (planes) +9*, Knowledge (religion) +9*, Perception +9 (+11 vs traps)*, Sense Motive +10*, Stealth +10; *adds +1d6 to each roll
Languages Common plus four more
SQ expanded inspiration, poison lore
Gear +1 rapier, +1 rapier, masterwork light crossbow, +1 mithral shirt, cloak of resistance +1, ring of protection +1, rogue’s kit, masterwork thieves’ tools, 350 gp.
These are two skills-oriented PCs, designed intentionally to mirror each other. I thought the idea of using TWF without the feat was kind of funny, but the accuracy add from studied combat actually made it a better idea for the investigator than the rogue - in fact, with this stat array, DPR actually went down for the rogue using TWF, even with flanking and +3d6 sneak. The rogue has better (most of the time) bonuses on Knowledge (local) and Knowledge (dungeoneering) - the investigator is equal or better everywhere else, skillwise. The investigator has better saves, although the rogue does have evasion and uncanny dodge, so there's that.
Damage-wise, the target is AC 18 ("default" for CR5).
Rebecca's melee DPR:
Best and most favorable conditions (flank, no relevant DR): 10.59
average conditions (no flank): 4.29
worst possible condition (no flank, DR 5): 1.11
Ivan's melee DPR:
Best and most favorable conditions (flank, no relevant DR, Dex mutagen, cat's grace, studied combat, full attack): 13.66
average conditions (no flank, single attack, studied combat): 5.87
worst possible condition (no flank, no studied combat, DR 5): 1.11
As a sidenote, Rebecca's probably better off at this point trying for a ranged build instead; if we drop Weapon Focus, Weapon Finesse, Fencing Grace and charmer for Rapid Reload (light crossbow), Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot and combat trick (Rapid Shot), we get the following numbers:
Rebecca's ranged DPR:
Best and most favorable conditions (flat-footed target, within 30 feet, full attack, no relevant DR or cover): 14.12
average conditions (full attack, soft cover, within 30 feet): 2.86
worst possible condition (beyond 30 feet, soft cover, single shot, DR 5): 1.51
Rebecca gets one very good round - and then utterly fails to contribute to the combat afterward.
Looking over this comparison, I can't help noticing how much more the investigator could throw at a particular fight if he really, really needed to; mutagen + extract + class ability makes for a much, much more impressive package than rogue does alone.
This is a character I've started and I'll progress him up to lv3.
half-elf (dual minded) Empiricist lv3
str 16+2, dex 13, con 14, int 16, wis 7, cha 7
HP: 24 (8+5+5+6)
traits: Student of Philosophy, ?
feats: extra inspiration, power attack
inspiration: 7 a day
Talent: mutagen
Extracts: enlarge persona and then there's a bunch of bonus to skills ones.
damage
normal
(2+4)=+6 for 1d8+6. DPR 6.21
normal power attack
(2+4-1)=+5 for 1d8+9. DPR 7.28
mutagen
(2+6)=+8 for 1d8+9. DPR 9.4
mutagen and power
(2+6-1)=+7 for 1d8+12. DPR 10.62
enlarge person normal
(2+5-1)=6 for 2d6+7. DPR 8.28
enlarge person power
(2+5-1-1)=5 for 2d6+10. DPR 9.16
enlarge person mutagen normal
(2+7-1)=8 for 2d6+10. DPR 11.83
enlarge person mutagen power
(2+7-1-1)=7 for 2d6+7. DPR 12.87
skills. He gets (6+3) 9 skills a level
we’ll put 1 ranks into all knowledge, and max perception, diplomacy, bluff, disable device, and sense motive and 1 rank into spellcraft. (3x5+10+2)=27 ranks used
this makes his disable device, diplomacy, bluff and sense motive are (3+3+3)=+9
his perception is (3+3+3+2)=11
his knowledges are (3+1+3+1d6)=+8-13
his spellcraft is (3+2+3+1d6)=9-14
And he can add 1d6 to any skill for an inspiration point.
skills the rogue has 9 out of ten knowledge checks maxed and perception, sense motive, diplomacy, disable device, and bluff.
His knowledges are (3+3+4)=10
his disable device is (3+3)=6
his other maxed skills are (3+3+2)=8
So the investigator has a much higher perception. Has higher diplomacy, sense motive, bluff, and disable device. HAS spellcraft, and his knowledge is on average just barely better than the rogue. SO I Say that here, the investigator definitely didn't "lose the sleuthing by a country mile" and has a higher normal damage than your rogues sneak attack.
Also next level I activate the first half-elf FCB to a +1 do all my inspired die rolls Causing it to be even better at all the knowledge checks.
Great comparison from Shisumo!
So far it seems that we have at level 5, using a Int/Dex based build, the Investigator is definitely better at sleuthing, mostly comparable to better in terms of damage, and with better saves.
Some numbers to back up claims!
No, TWF is not illegal with a DEX of 14. The FEAT is illegal. I don't need the TWF feat to use TWF. With Weapon Finesse, and a 14 dex, the penalties are -2 / -6 with a light weapon With flanking, you've got that to 0/-4.
-4 is a 20% reduction in expected damage for 3d6 attack which means your down 2 points of your EPV 10.5 points with the off-hand. And if I'm not getting a flank opportunity, I don't use TWF so I don't suffer any major penalties.
You think a 4+ is a total win for the Investigator? You're entitled to your opinion. I have no interest in trying to prove you wrong.
-4 is not a 20% reduction in average damage. If you're hitting on an 11+ before the -4 it is a 40% reduction, for example. If the single weapon user can flank as easily as the TWF guy the relative difference really is -2 with the primary, -6 with the off hand too.
Shisumo calculated the damage in greater detail, but I'm not sure you read or perhaps understood his numbers.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Love it, or hate it, they can still be outdone by another class, at everything.
This is really what it comes down to. Anyone who checks my posting history will see that I have a tendency to defend fighters as still having a niche and, when built properly, able to contribute to an overall party's success better than most people give them credit for, even with the slayer et al around.
I don't do that with rogues.
Love it, or hate it, they can still be outdone by another class, at everything.This is really what it comes down to. Anyone who checks my posting history will see that I have a tendency to defend fighters as still having a niche and, when built properly, able to contribute to an overall party's success better than most people give them credit for, even with the slayer et al around.
I don't do that with rogues.
Fighters are not actually weak.
They get great AC and an amazing full attack before any sort of buff spell.
Fighters are unbalanced because it is pretty easy to go around AC, buff to a higher AC, and negate the full attack. Then there comes the issue of having some of the worst out of combat features.
Rogues just are not good at anything. They are both unbalanced and weak.