A Rogue in NPC Land


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, I have a weird question inspired by another thread (in fact, I posted that question there) as well as the general (if not universal) consensus* of rogues as "the weakest class", buuuuuuuuuuuut...

... how would a rogue fair in an NPC-based environment? Say, with a warrior, adept, and aristocrat?

I'd imagine it'd be comparatively and demonstrably stronger, and quite significantly so... but I'm not entirely sure, given the warrior's full BAB and the adept's access to spells, not to mention the general prevalence of higher will saves which kind of seem usually more important to negate character-ending abilities than a high reflex.

Additionally, I've seen some fairly well optimized warriors out there, to the point where a half-feat, half NPC-wealth-by-level was reliably hitting a pit fiend that Ashiel statted out when in melee (which is pretty ridiculous, though in the good way).

What would be the advantages? Disadvantages? How would such parties handle CR-based threats? In general, on adventures, which would you prefer? Why?

Again, I'd strongly imagine that rogues definitively come out on top here, considering they have, you know, class features, but it's interesting enough that I'd kind of like to have that discussion.

Of course, I may just be feverish/delusional. That's a possibility.

* This does not mean that rogues are not fun or are actively harmful to a party's composition. I am not making that argument.

EDIT: fixed a link


From the other thread:

Cap. Darling wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

Okay, this is a weird question (and maybe valid for another thread), but how would a rogue fair in an NPC-based environment? Say, with a warrior, adept, and aristocrat?

I'd imagine it'd be comparatively and demonstrably stronger, and quite significantly so... but I'm not entirely sure, given the warrior's full BAB and the adept's access to spells, not to mention the general prevalence of higher will saves which kind of seem usually more important to negate character-ending abilities than a high reflex.

I think they will be on par with the adept( from level 8)a bit better than the warrior and a bit more ahead of the expert and of cause the commoners will suck as always.

This is if the NPC classes have stats that are comparable to the rogue in question.
Edit: but who would want to play in that game?

EDIT:

Tacticslion wrote:
Okay, but why would they be on par? How would that suss out? The adepts have a pretty narrow spell list?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The adept gets invisibility, darkness and scorching Ray at level 4 but at level 8 he gets animate dead.
Animate dead will allow the unscrupulous adept to be worth somthing in battle and his other spells, few as they May be but among them healing, will earn him a place in most situations.
I assume they both have PC WBL and PC stats.
The adept will also have a familiar and some item creation options that the rogue cannot get.
Even if the rogue can get minor magic and the most powerfull creation feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And given that the aristocrat is just a expert with fewer skills and better weapons and shields i think the rogue is better than him as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is what I said in the other thread:

By comparison to the NPC class it might do well, but that does nothing to help it against the monsters. Actually it could be worse off since it would put more weight on the rogue since he may have to carry the team or at least be #2 on the team.

PS: Also getting a full BAB character to hit things is not that hard when using stock monsters barring crazy exceptions like white dragons that are buffed up.

+26 to hit by level 15 should be possible-->It can probably be higher, but that was me doing some quick math in my head.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
but that does nothing to help it against the monsters. Actually it could be worse off since it would put more weight on the rogue since he may have to carry the team or at least be #2 on the team.

This is actually covered, though I might not be clear: I mean, how should the CR be adjusted for such things? Presume (for whatever reason) this is something like a setting or a one-off game.

wraithstrike wrote:

PS: Also getting a full BAB character to hit things is not that hard when using stock monsters barring crazy exceptions like white dragons that are buffed up.

+26 to hit by level 15 should be possible-->It can probably be higher, but that was me doing some quick math in my head.

Oh, sure. But...

Quote:
a pit fiend that Ashiel statted out

... is the important part. Guy is scary-good at boosting AC (among other things). It was, as I recall, Lemmy that did so.

Point being, I've seen NPC-classes do interesting things. I'd like to compare those to the rogue and see how those things compare. Is the rogue on par with NPC classes? Is that it's power-level? What would that look like? The fighter, at least, is demonstrably better than it's comparative "rival" the warrior. I'm... curious.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rogue is weaker than the adept, and situationally better than the warrior, but about equal in most situations. It's better than any other NPC class.

The adept has spells and a familiar. Even with it's limited spell list, it's more effective in more situations than the rogue. If you give the familiar access to the familiar folio, it's more dangerous in a fight than the rogue.

The warrior's full BAB, good Fort save, and weapon and armor proficiency make it a better combatant than the rogue unless you are fighting a flanked or flatfooted opponent. Rogue has the clear win in skills, but skills aren't that great.


That's a pretty interesting assessment (and one that I don't directly disagree with). What about survive-ability? Would the rogue's various defensive abilities make up for it's moderately lower hp than a warrior? What about its rogue talents? Would those make up the space between itself and a warrior's DPR or an adept's severely limited spell selection?

Quote:

Adepts choose their spells from the following list:

0th Level: create water, detect magic, ghost sound, guidance, light, mending, purify food and drink, read magic, stabilize, touch of fatigue.

1st Level: bless, burning hands, cause fear, command, comprehend languages, cure light wounds, detect chaos, detect evil, detect good, detect law, endure elements, obscuring mist, protection from chaos, protection from evil, protection from good, protection from law, sleep.

2nd Level: aid, animal trance, bear's endurance, bull's strength, cat's grace, cure moderate wounds, darkness, delay poison, enemy's heart (ARG), invisibility, mirror image, resist energy, scorching ray, see invisibility, tremor blast, web.

3rd Level: animate dead, bestow curse, contagion, continual flame, cure serious wounds, daylight, deeper darkness, lightning bolt, neutralize poison, remove curse, remove disease, tongues.

4th Level: cure critical wounds, minor creation, polymorph, restoration, stoneskin, wall of fire.

5th Level: baleful polymorph, break enchantment, commune, heal, major creation, raise dead, true seeing, wall of stone.

They only get 3+ability score-based spells per day (so usually about 2/3 of a wizard's or half a sorcerer's). Do those spells make that big a difference? Some, probably. Would those spells be better put to augmenting the rogue instead of the adept or warrior? Would the rogue actually pull better (relatively) with a group of NPC classes (presuming relatively lowered CRs) than it does with a group of PC classes?

In other words, if you lower the CR of an encounter, then put (let's say) a rogue, an adept, and a warrior in a group, would that group be more functional and interdependent, or would the adept still be solo'ing things? How would they work together?

What about in a social game? How would the rogue function? What about a rogue attaining a familiar?

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What level? At each spell level, adept has very strong options even with the crap spell selection.

1st level adept has access to sleep, which will end the encounter, or obscuring mist to escape it.

At 2nd level they can web+burning hands/scorching ray to entangle and damage an area, or mirror image to avoid damage

3rd level bring animate dead for a meat shield, all the really important cleric condition spells, and lightning bolt for blasts. Combined with dazing, this will see a lot of use.

4th level has stoneskin and wall of fire.

5th level has baleful polymorph and heal.

Also, their spells are divine, and do not suffer ACP. Take armor prof with feats or a warrior dip, and they have better AC than a rogue too.

I've played an adept in 3.5 and was able to keep up with a party of PC classes. The spells per day is rough, but the spell list is a single class mystic theurge.


Would the adept's enforced 15-minute workday (limited spells per day) bring balance into a typical game (instead of clearing a dungeon, clearing a room), or would it just slow the game down? What was your experience there?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was very stingy with spells, and made use of a lot of wands to combat the 15 minute workday.


So how does that compare to, say, a counterfeit mage?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The counterfeit mage is a very good archetype. It keeps the important part of trapfinding, and has a massive bonus to UMD.

However, it is stuck using only wands. It needs them more than the adept, because the adept can still break out full caster level spells when needed. There is also always the chance the rogue will roll a one on the UMD check (except for the signature wand). The Adept never needs to roll UMD as the spells you need as wands are on your list. And as a final bonus, the adept can craft its own wands.

On my 3.5 adept, I would cast a spell to open the encounter - usually web, and then mop up with a cl5 wand of lightning bolt.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

Oh, sure. But...

Quote:
a pit fiend that Ashiel statted out
... is the important part. Guy is scary-good at boosting AC (among other things). It was, as I recall, Lemmy that did so.

:3

Quote:
Point being, I've seen NPC-classes do interesting things. I'd like to compare those to the rogue and see how those things compare. Is the rogue on par with NPC classes? Is that it's power-level? What would that look like? The fighter, at least, is demonstrably better than it's comparative "rival" the warrior. I'm... curious.

The rogue is more or less better than the Aristocrat, Expert, and Commoner NPC classes. The warrior NPC class and Adept are more likely to rival or overshoot in in terms of general usefulness, but all in all the trio could make a decently good party of NPCs.

The keystone of the party is going to be the adept who is basically the party support. The adept would enable the team as they have utility spells such as detect magic, bless, cure light wounds, sleep, scorching ray, animate dead, heal, restoration, protection from alignment spells, stoneskin, polymorph, and so forth.

The adept also has a natural caster level which means that it can create magic items. If the rogue picks up Minor Magic, then the rogue can also grab some item creation feats and between the two of them they should be able to provide the items that will be needed to survive in the arena of adventuring. A lot of this party's innate drawbacks will need to be made up with magic items. :o

If the adept takes Eldritch Heritage (Arcane) and Improved Familiar, the adept's familiar can get very strong and tough, enough to support the Warrior and Rogue in melee if need be. The group will need to get staple buffs like heroism through magic items (a example magic item is spoilered here) because the adept cannot cast them herself.

Crown of Heroism:
Crown of Heroism
Aura faint enchantment (minor), moderate enchantment (major); CL 5th (minor), 11th (major)
Price 9,000 gp (minor), 52,800 gp (major); Weight 1 lb.
Description
A crown of heroism fills a character with unmatched resolve and spiritual power. A crown of heroism can grant the wearer the benefits of a heroism spell for 10 minutes as a free action, up to a total of 50 minutes per day. A major crown of heroism grants the benefits of greater heroism but only for 1 minute and up to 11 minutes per day.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Items, heroism (minor) or greater heroism (minor or major); Cost 4,500 gp (minor), 26,400 gp (major)

The rogue herself will typically serve as a combination of skill support and may use talents like Bleeding Attack on casting targets to force Concentration checks, Crippling Strike for debuffing, or Slow Reactions (typically via a ranged weapon) to support the warrior when possible. The rogue will be exceedingly reliant upon magic items (so she'll want to take minor magic to get her foot in the crafting door) like lesser cloaks of displacement so she can reliably use Stealth in combat. She'll also make things like elixirs of hiding to use against major enemies who have exceptional Perception checks (and they're cheap enough to drink at the beginning of a dungeon-like environment).

Whenever possible the rogue should be going for the sneak attack and should probably use either a mithral buckler or a mithral light shield with defensive buffs on it and a one-hander. A mithral breastplate would be a good idea as well (might cost ya a feat though). Ignore Two-Weapon-Fighting and go 1-hander for added accuracy. Maxing out Use Magic Device and picking up Craft Wand and getting scorching ray spells from your Adepts is a good way for a Rogue to push offense against low-touch AC foes (and increasing the DC to create the item by +5 can allow you to make metamagic wands, such as Elemental Spell (to change the damage type from fire). Since sneak attack is tacked on to each ray individually (as each requires a separate attack roll) which makes it a pretty solid option with a high CL wand (a CL 11th wand, costing 8,250 to create, lobs 3 rays at 4d6 + sneak attack each).

The warrior on the other hand is probably going to want to use a sword & board and be the party tank. As with the rogue, he should prioritize getting his to-hit bonuses up when possible (I'm not going to say weapon focus is a good idea, merely that he should pass on things like Power Attack). Things that rely on his BAB are generally good such as the Assault feats (Bloody, Dazing, and Stunning Assault) (you can retrain Bloody to Dazing ASAP) and pick up Ability Focus (____ Assault) to boost your DCs by +2 (retrain this feat when you upgrade as well). This gives the warrior a status ailment that he can deliver via attacks that should generally have a reasonable chance to land.

At high levels, the warrior should consider trying to get the rogue and/adept to craft him some armor that provides a death ward effect (truly everyone should have this as an x/day effect on their armor or something) and he should use a life-drinker remodeled as a 1-handed weapon so that he can debuff enemies with his weapon (which provides a -2 penalty to attack rolls and saving throws per hit, which is exceptionally good for fighting high-level foes who aren't immune to negative levels).

The trio, possibly with an additional warrior, rogue, or adept could work well together with some good planning and careful magic item selection to make up for there inherent lack of options (mostly to replace staple buffs and the like). Unfortunately, unlike true martial PC classes, the warrior nor the rogue are going to be able to get to-hit bonuses that are super high (most core martials can get upwards to +8 to +16 from in-class buffs in addition to BAB + Str), which is why I strongly suggest favoring anything that can give +hit over +damage whenever possible.


Some things that I'd asked before that I don't think were directly addressed, though Ashiel's breakdown is pretty great (thanks, buddy!).

Tacticslion wrote:

That's a pretty interesting assessment (and one that I don't directly disagree with). What about survive-ability? Would the rogue's various defensive abilities make up for it's moderately lower hp than a warrior? What about its rogue talents? Would those make up the space between itself and a warrior's DPR or an adept's severely limited spell selection?

<snip>

What about in a social game? How would the rogue function? What about a rogue attaining a familiar?

I'm curious if the highly skilled nature of rogues would push them over the adept in a social game.

Carnivalist grants a familiar... but would that be worth it to bring the rogue "up" to the adept's level?

Is that even a statement we're making: the adept is "more" useful than a rogue?

My impression of the general impression of ranking based on power/utility:

1) adept ['cause spells]
2/3) rogue/warrior [depending on circumstance]
4) aristocrat
5) expert
6) commoner [... never questioned this, as it is literally the weakest class possible without entering excessively weird design space]

Is that the general take? Is there anywhere that a rogue can definitely shine over the other top two, by comparison? Or is the rogue (deceptively, due to an abundance of class features) firmly within the spectra of NPC-class power (not something I really expected)? Or are we just giving the rogue a poor shake?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will look at the adept again. I am not sure its spells will put it ahead of the rogue. As for scorching ray and sneak attack I thought a dev said you only got sneak attack once with scorching ray.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dont Think the adept is better than the rogue .5 levels of spells based on wisdom, 2 skill points and the physicallity of a sorcerer. Is not that great but animate dead allow them to have a place in combat and with the rigth corpses that Can be quite powerfull. And some of the spells allow them to fill a role that the rogue cannot. I Think because of spells is not really enough when we talk 14 spells +3 cantrips +bonus spells at level 20.
And if warriors are on par with rogues, and i dont Think they are, at what levels? Full Bab, armor and weapon proffs are IMOP not worth it at low levels where it is only one or two to hit that is the difference and at higher levels the class features make up for more than the Bab difference. I would need some concrete builds to convince me otherwise.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
I will look at the adept again. I am not sure its spells will put it ahead of the rogue. As for scorching ray and sneak attack I thought a dev said you only got sneak attack once with scorching ray.

It wouldn't be the first time a dev was wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Some things that I'd asked before that I don't think were directly addressed, though Ashiel's breakdown is pretty great (thanks, buddy!).

You're welcome. <(^_^)>


Ashiel wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I will look at the adept again. I am not sure its spells will put it ahead of the rogue. As for scorching ray and sneak attack I thought a dev said you only got sneak attack once with scorching ray.
It wouldn't be the first time a dev was wrong.

I was speaking of official answers. There is an FAQ on it IIRC but I hate searching from my phone.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I will look at the adept again. I am not sure its spells will put it ahead of the rogue. As for scorching ray and sneak attack I thought a dev said you only got sneak attack once with scorching ray.
It wouldn't be the first time a dev was wrong.
I was speaking of official answers. There is an FAQ on it IIRC but I hate searching from my phone.
FAQ wrote:

Sneak Attack: Can I add sneak attack damage to simultaneous attacks from a spell?

No. For example, scorching ray fires simultaneous rays at one or more targets, and the extra damage is only added once to one ray, chosen by the caster when the spell is cast.
Spell-based attacks which are not simultaneous, such as multiple attacks per round by a 8th-level druid using flame blade, may apply sneak attack damage to each attack so long as each attack qualifies for sneak attack (the target is denied its Dex bonus or the caster is flanking the target).


Thanks. That is the FAQ I was referring to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After looking at the adept, assuming no multiclassing because I don't know about every PrC out there I think it is ok in support, but it won't be better than the rogue. There are some good spells on its list, but many are also situational. I would definitely avoid anything calling for a save, other than at low levels.

The warrior will be doing rogue level damage. Yeah I ran some numbers, and he won't be dependent on sneak attack

Ouch-->Once I gave him the +2 for flanking and haste for "best possible conditions" like I did for the rogue in the other thread he actually pulls ahead. This was a two handed build with power attack and weapon focus.

However that won't hold up against boss fights so Ashiel's idea of sword and board may be the best route. In that case I know the rogue will be the lead damage dealer, which is not good for the rogue. If the GM does not scale things down the rogue will suffer, but he should still be the party MVP unless someone(like Ashiel) with very high system mastery is running the warrior or the adept.


Very cool! Thanks!

What about the various rogue archetypes? How do those play out?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Thanks. That is the FAQ I was referring to.

And unfortunately the FAQ is wrong.

Core Rulebook wrote:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)

If you cast scorching ray you make 1, 2, or 3 attacks. If the target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC against the attack, the rogue deals sneak attack damage.

There is nothing in the rules that says otherwise. What the FAQ says is a strait up house rule.

EDIT: For example. If a rogue/sorcerer casts scorching ray during the surprise round and targets 3 orcs, one of whom has acted and two of which are flat-footed, the rogue deals 4d6 fire to one orc, and 4d6 + sneak attack to two different orcs. If the rogue ambushes a troll and hits it with all three rays, the troll was denied Dex vs each attack made by the rogue and thus suffers sneak attack damage for each attack.

There is no rule that says multiple attacks made as part of a single action do not get sneak attack more than once per action.


Ashiel wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Thanks. That is the FAQ I was referring to.

And unfortunately the FAQ is wrong.

Core Rulebook wrote:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)

If you cast scorching ray you make 1, 2, or 3 attacks. If the target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC against the attack, the rogue deals sneak attack damage.

There is nothing in the rules that says otherwise. What the FAQ says is a strait up house rule.

EDIT: For example. If a rogue/sorcerer casts scorching ray during the surprise round and targets 3 orcs, one of whom has acted and two of which are flat-footed, the rogue deals 4d6 fire to one orc, and 4d6 + sneak attack to two different orcs. If the rogue ambushes a troll and hits it with all three rays, the troll was denied Dex vs each attack made by the rogue and thus suffers sneak attack damage for each attack.

There is no rule that says multiple attacks made as part of a single action do not get sneak attack more than once per action.

I dont see a point in figthing the FAQs here. You and i May think the FAQ is b*+%%+&s but to say it is wrong is silly. It is a made up thing and we can talk to the guys that made it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's more of an errata than FAQ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cap. Darling wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Thanks. That is the FAQ I was referring to.

And unfortunately the FAQ is wrong.

Core Rulebook wrote:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)

If you cast scorching ray you make 1, 2, or 3 attacks. If the target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC against the attack, the rogue deals sneak attack damage.

There is nothing in the rules that says otherwise. What the FAQ says is a strait up house rule.

EDIT: For example. If a rogue/sorcerer casts scorching ray during the surprise round and targets 3 orcs, one of whom has acted and two of which are flat-footed, the rogue deals 4d6 fire to one orc, and 4d6 + sneak attack to two different orcs. If the rogue ambushes a troll and hits it with all three rays, the troll was denied Dex vs each attack made by the rogue and thus suffers sneak attack damage for each attack.

There is no rule that says multiple attacks made as part of a single action do not get sneak attack more than once per action.

I dont see a point in figthing the FAQs here. You and i May think the FAQ is b*&#*#*s but to say it is wrong is silly. It is a made up thing and we can talk to the guys that made it.

It's not about being BS or silly, it's about the rules. The rules say "If X, then Y", there is no rule calling an exception. Someone asked a question, the FAQ guys at the time said "No" but didn't cite a rule or reason why. They just said it does or doesn't. But that's not how the game actually works. Stuff like that is also why the FAQ is internally inconsistent.

It's not a rule clarification, it's a rule fabrication. There's a major difference.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
It's more of an errata than FAQ.

Beat poetry...

Rogues are OP.

Aroden's Spellbane.

FAQ is infallible God.

Except for when Monks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Thanks. That is the FAQ I was referring to.

And unfortunately the FAQ is wrong.

Core Rulebook wrote:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)

If you cast scorching ray you make 1, 2, or 3 attacks. If the target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC against the attack, the rogue deals sneak attack damage.

There is nothing in the rules that says otherwise. What the FAQ says is a strait up house rule.

EDIT: For example. If a rogue/sorcerer casts scorching ray during the surprise round and targets 3 orcs, one of whom has acted and two of which are flat-footed, the rogue deals 4d6 fire to one orc, and 4d6 + sneak attack to two different orcs. If the rogue ambushes a troll and hits it with all three rays, the troll was denied Dex vs each attack made by the rogue and thus suffers sneak attack damage for each attack.

There is no rule that says multiple attacks made as part of a single action do not get sneak attack more than once per action.

I dont see a point in figthing the FAQs here. You and i May think the FAQ is b*&#*#*s but to say it is wrong is silly. It is a made up thing and we can talk to the guys that made it.

It's not about being BS or silly, it's about the rules. The rules say "If X, then Y", there is no rule calling an exception. Someone asked a question, the FAQ guys at the time said "No" but didn't cite a rule or reason why. They just said it does or doesn't. But that's not how the game actually works. Stuff like that is also why the FAQ is internally inconsistent.

It's not a rule clarification, it's a rule fabrication. There's a major difference.

But, as you very well know, all the rules are fabrications, some one made them. And now that some one tell us, that some of them are different from what you and i think they should be.

We can house rule it, and i do just that, but since the rules are there fabrication, we cannot really tell them it is wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Thanks. That is the FAQ I was referring to.

And unfortunately the FAQ is wrong.

Core Rulebook wrote:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)

If you cast scorching ray you make 1, 2, or 3 attacks. If the target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC against the attack, the rogue deals sneak attack damage.

There is nothing in the rules that says otherwise. What the FAQ says is a strait up house rule.

EDIT: For example. If a rogue/sorcerer casts scorching ray during the surprise round and targets 3 orcs, one of whom has acted and two of which are flat-footed, the rogue deals 4d6 fire to one orc, and 4d6 + sneak attack to two different orcs. If the rogue ambushes a troll and hits it with all three rays, the troll was denied Dex vs each attack made by the rogue and thus suffers sneak attack damage for each attack.

There is no rule that says multiple attacks made as part of a single action do not get sneak attack more than once per action.

It is not really wrong, just another example of bad rules writing. This matters because to most people the rule is what Paizo intends for it to be, not the words in the book .

An example is the "evil spells are actually evil" idea that you don't like. They could errata it to make it clear, but most people arguing against that are really against the language since fire and evil are both subtypes with dramatically different effects. It basically boils down to how much precision you need while reading the book to be satisfied.

PS: I do understand where you are coming from ....Stops now before useless rant starts....

edit: edited to avoid derail on another issue I did not like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
It's more of an errata than FAQ.

Beat poetry...

Rogues are OP.

Aroden's Spellbane.

FAQ is infallible God.

Except for when Monks.

FAQs can be changed. But it is not you, or even me, that change them. I am sure that it is possible to convince Jason and his party to change this one but until they do. It is not wrong it is a given FAQ that you can look up if ever you have a dispute over the subject.

( dont expect i will have this dispute so i will keep playing how i like, just like i use the old crane style)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally I think some FAQ's should just be called out as errata because that is what they are. I don't think too many people mind as long as the rules are clear.

This would work.

PDT: Sorry guys we can not change the wording in the book without pushing the text over to the next page, so from now on we will use an "e" subscript in the online FAQ's to denote errata that is in the FAQ area.


wraithstrike wrote:

Personally I think some FAQ's should just be called out as errata because that is what they are. I don't think too many people mind as long as the rules are clear.

This would work.

PDT: Sorry guys we can not change the wording in the book without pushing the text over to the next page, so from now on we will use an "e" subscript in the online FAQ's to denote errata that is in the FAQ area.

I was willing to accept Paragon Surge being limited to one selection as a clarification. Spells Known however was clearly errata, considering that was the language used even in most cases where the ability really *did* add to your "spell list". While Improved Eldritch Heritage (Arcane) to get new spells may have been OP, I hate that it presently does nothing for non-Sorcerer/Wizards who take it.


So! About rogues and NPC classes...?
(The FAQ/Errata is a worthy conversation to have, but probably not this thread?)


Tacticslion wrote:

So! About rogues and NPC classes...?

(The FAQ/Errata is a worthy conversation to have, but probably not this thread?)

I was done after I made that comment, and I knew the rogue was ahead of all NPC classes except maybe the adept as soon as this thread was made. There is not too much else to add other than my slight disagreement with Ashiel about how good the adept is, but that would also be off topic. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't matter if it's a FAQ or a stealth errata, is the thing. The devs said that you get one sneak attack on one ray per casting. End of story.

I don't know if that says anything definitive about the Rogue's powerlevel in this hypothetial NPC campaign, but there it is.


EDIT: (internet, why you no like stay on?)

wraithstrike wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

So! About rogues and NPC classes...?

(The FAQ/Errata is a worthy conversation to have, but probably not this thread?)
I was done after I made that comment, and I knew the rogue was ahead of all NPC classes except maybe the adept as soon as this thread was made. There is not too much else to add other than my slight disagreement with Ashiel about how good the adept is, but that would also be off topic. :)

Eh, if it makes it clearer, I'm game for it. I'd be interested in seeing breakdowns of why. I always tended to think that it was superior myself, but... I'd be curious to see why people feel one way or the other.


Gr... curse the vageries of intermittent internet access!

*shakes fist*

DominusMegadeus wrote:
I don't know if that says anything definitive about the Rogue's powerlevel in this hypothetial NPC campaign, but there it is.

It's less "an NPC campaign" and more "at what point does the rogue cease to be substandard to most forms of play", though the idea of a campaign with the rogue class and (maybe slightly modified) NPC classes is certainly an interesting one...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@ Wraithstrike - Part of the reason I view the adept is such high regard in this little scenario is because the adept enables the ability of the other two and makes dealing with more challenging encounters easier.

For example, adepts get access to spells like stoneskin and polymorph, both can be cast on the warrior or rogue. Now since a rogue's SA isn't tied to its weapon, using polymorph to mimic beast shape II and provide the rogue with a lot of natural attacks and pounce (meaning the rogue, now a tiger or whatever, can rage-lance-pounce on enemies with sneak attack), while stoneskin can allow both the rogue and the warrior to survive against a lot of punishment (because most creatures will not have adamnantine weapons so it's a huge damage buffer).

Once the Adept gets animate dead at 8th level, he now provides flanking buddies to the rogue and warrior and also frees them up from covering his squishy butt (allowing the warrior and rogue to be more aggressive rather than protective). Before that, invisibility + rogue = effective scout. Really, it's just about enabling the party (and in many cases the rogue especially) to succeed.

I'd dare say the trio would fit very well together.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the campaign is at normal(PC) difficulty then I think the rogue is not as able to hide behind his PC counterparts because they are not here, so his problems show up sooner.

IF we run things at a -1 CR then the rogue is still in trouble. I am too lazy to do any in depth analysis, but I am guessing between levels 5 and 7, and by 11 at the latest the rogue and his party is in deep trouble if they make it that far.

Honestly unless someone has really good system master and/or a nice GM I don't see this party of a rogue, warrior, adept, and repeat one of those 3 making it to level 11.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

Gr... curse the vageries of intermittent internet access!

*shakes fist*

DominusMegadeus wrote:
I don't know if that says anything definitive about the Rogue's powerlevel in this hypothetial NPC campaign, but there it is.
It's less "an NPC campaign" and more "at what point does the rogue cease to be substandard to most forms of play", though the idea of a campaign with the rogue class and (maybe slightly modified) NPC classes is certainly an interesting one...

NPC campaigns can be pretty fun. They're very simple and a great way to introduce people to a lite version of the game. That said, I'd recommend just putting all the core spells on the adept's spell list (all the ones up to 5th or 6th level, that is, don't shove 9th level spells into their progression).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

If the campaign is at normal(PC) difficulty then I think the rogue is not as able to hide behind his PC counterparts because they are not here, so his problems show up sooner.

IF we run things at a -1 CR then the rogue is still in trouble. I am too lazy to do any in depth analysis, but I am guessing between levels 5 and 7, and by 11 at the latest the rogue and his party is in deep trouble if they make it that far.

Honestly unless someone has really good system master and/or a nice GM I don't see this party of a rogue, warrior, adept, and repeat one of those 3 making it to level 11.

Well the bestiary defines the CR of an NPC-classed character as +1 / 2 levels, which is pretty accurate, then throw another +1 onto them since they're presumably be getting PC wealth over the course of their campaign.

Simplified to CR 1/2 (1st level + WBL adjustment) + 1/2 for each additional level (rounded down) would mean that at 6th level they would be considered on par with 3rd level characters, and that seems a pretty good baseline for what sorts of challenges you could throw at them. A 6th level warrior, adept, rogue, and so forth going on a 3rd level adventure. I'd play/GM it. A CR 6 encounter would be truly epic for them, and CR 4 enemies would be formidable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

@ Wraithstrike - Part of the reason I view the adept is such high regard in this little scenario is because the adept enables the ability of the other two and makes dealing with more challenging encounters easier.

For example, adepts get access to spells like stoneskin and polymorph, both can be cast on the warrior or rogue. Now since a rogue's SA isn't tied to its weapon, using polymorph to mimic beast shape II and provide the rogue with a lot of natural attacks and pounce (meaning the rogue, now a tiger or whatever, can rage-lance-pounce on enemies with sneak attack), while stoneskin can allow both the rogue and the warrior to survive against a lot of punishment (because most creatures will not have adamnantine weapons so it's a huge damage buffer).

Once the Adept gets animate dead at 8th level, he now provides flanking buddies to the rogue and warrior and also frees them up from covering his squishy butt (allowing the warrior and rogue to be more aggressive rather than protective). Before that, invisibility + rogue = effective scout. Really, it's just about enabling the party (and in many cases the rogue especially) to succeed.

I'd dare say the trio would fit very well together.

I do have to admit this looks promising, but my Wraithsense is still tingling.

Poly last 1 min per level and stoneskin is 10 min per level. You can clear out a dungeon in 10 min time or less if the GM does not fast forward time, and I think they will do well vs mooks, but against APL+2 or higher fights, and/or the fights they were not expecting which don't allow them to buff up they will be in trouble. Now once the get to "undead horde" phase the undead can eat some of the attacks from the unexpected combats, but they will go down.

I realized I was arguing a point you did not make so now I will be back on target-->I do agree that the adept makes life a lot easier, and that support could be the difference, so maybe the adept while not the best at contributing to each individual fight the most can be the most important for overall team success, kind of like a bard in a PC party.
Ok, I am swayed adept for MVP :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

Gr... curse the vageries of intermittent internet access!

*shakes fist*

I have had the problem before. I feel your pain.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Now once the get to "undead horde" phase the undead can eat some of the attacks from the unexpected combats, but they will go down.

This is why you make bloody skeletons. They're not as dangerous as fast zombies but they are renewable. :)


Is everyone but the rogue an NPC class? Because I think at that point the adept is the king at 8th level. By a huge margin. Say it with me, bloody burning skeletons. The rogue is by far the best off in this situation (evasion) but has no defense to protect from the slow death of fiery aura.

Of course, at this point the adept is a supervillain, but they're a supervillain who can rule the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Now once the get to "undead horde" phase the undead can eat some of the attacks from the unexpected combats, but they will go down.

This is why you make bloody skeletons. They're not as dangerous as fast zombies but they are renewable. :)

True. A good way to save money on onyx. I found out while playing a dread necromancer in 3.5, those 25gp/HD can and up if your minions keep dying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:

Is everyone but the rogue an NPC class? Because I think at that point the adept is the king at 8th level. By a huge margin. Say it with me, bloody burning skeletons. The rogue is by far the best off in this situation (evasion) but has no defense to protect from the slow death of fiery aura.

Of course, at this point the adept is a supervillain, but they're a supervillain who can rule the world.

Yeah the rogue is the only PC class for this scenario.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my settings, rogue is a NPC class.

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / A Rogue in NPC Land All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.