How does the Eldritch Scoundrel rogue compare to other 6th level roguish casters?

[swoosh]

Curious if anyone's done any sort of compare/contrast of the Eldritch Scoundrel rogue with other similarly flavored classes/archetypes like vivisectionist alchemists, magii, archaeologist bards, inquisitors and so on.

And sort of as an aside, how would the eldritch scoundrel look if you let them do precision damage on every attack of a multi attack spell?

[Calth]

I would place it on the weaker side of the spectrum of the 6th level casters, at least slightly. Not having a specialized spell list hurts, as most of the other 6th level casters have early spell access, which is a big bonus. If you don't care about arcane/divine, the sacred slayer is to me a superior version of the concept, but the scoundrel is a bit easier to make a dex build with. Its not bad by any means, and a major improvement over a non-scoundrel rogue, but the 6th level caster niche is already crowded with great options.

[Deadmanwalking]

The Sorcerer/Wizard list is way broader than any 6-level caster, and being a prepared caster is a pretty big advantage.

And an Unchained one does keep Dex to damage, and more importantly Debilitating Injury. Add in the Accomplished Sneak Attacker Feat and you can be pretty solid. Probably on par with an Archaeologist Bard in everything but social stuff and Saves, and probably a little better at damage.

Vivisectionists just don't do the same thing at all and don't seem really comparable. Ditto Magi and Inquisitors in many ways.

[swoosh]

I agree that they're difficult to compare directly, but I still think it's something worth discussing because there are five or six ways right now to play a character that fits the archetype of a lightly armored, roguish partial caster so comparing and contrasting what they do well is worth it.

Because, yeah, the sorcerer/wizard list is very, very strong and much broader than what most other classes get and prepared casting is awesome.

But on the flip side, partial casters often get earlier or greater access to certain spells ( Overwhelming Presence, just as an example, is a 9th level wizard spell but bards still get access to I ) that a caster that borrows a list like the scoundrel or hunter won't have.

Likewise, they get more utility spells, but have less ability to utilize their offensive spells than a class like the Magus by lacking spell strike or spell combat (and that atrocious rule that you can only get sneak attack once per spell).

And while they're much better than doing everything that isn't self buffs when compared to the vivisectionist, the vivisectionist gets full sneak attack and access to mutagen which are very, very powerful offensively.

So with so many different ways to realize a similar concept I think it's interesting to look at them.

[avr]

Wiz 3/rogue 1/arcane trickster 10 is a better caster by a mile, gets at least as much sneak attack, and isn't terrible with skills - ranged legerdemain is nice. Definitely worse in melee until the difference in spell power kicks in.

Vivisectionist is a more specialised caster (but not worse), gets more sneak attack, about the same on skills (-unlocks, +alchemy, either +poisons/-trapfinding or neither with the trap breaker archetype too), and is probably better in melee.

Archaeologist bard is another more specialised caster. They're hard to compare in sneak attack/melee prowess, and better at skills.

I think the other options are getting hard to compare. Magi aren't skill-monkeys by any stretch of the imagination, inquisitors get a very different spell list, both work very differently in combat.

If an eldritch scoundrel (and only them) had that change to precision damage, an arcane trickster would still be the best with ranged spell damage. Sorry. It would make them more different to arch. bards and vivi. alchemists, since neither is a powerhouse at ranged damage.