Should the Rogue have been full BAB?

So I was sitting at home thinking about what I wanted to do with my character and whether or not it was worth taking another level of rogue instead of fighter and what I would be getting from each level and sadly it came down to 1 point of BAB + a level of Armor Training versus a single solitary sneak attack die.

After that I started wondering why Rogues have 3/4 BAB to begin with and it struck me that every other melee class has full bab (except the monk and that is only if he isn't flurrying) and the ones which do not have full BAB have the ability to cast between 6 and 9 levels of spells, so what does the rogue have over the other classes don't to warrant lacking either 6 levels of spell casting or full base attack unfortunately I couldn't think of anything.

So I ask you all, do you think the Rogue should have been given full BAB when they released Pathfinder?

Sneak attack. That damage is huge and, if you're playing a rogue properly, you should usually be hitting when the enemy has his defences down. As a rogue, you should be focusing on flanking, feinting and generally hitting 'em where it hurts.

So I ask you all, do you think the Rogue should have been given full BAB when they released Pathfinder?

No.

- Rogues had 1/2 BAB in AD&D (Clerics had 2/3, Wizards had 1/3)
- Rogues had 3/4 BAB in 3.x, and PF didn't change the BAB for any base class
- PF hardwired the BAB to the HD (which I am not a fan of, but that's another story)

... I don't think that full BAB would have been a good idea.

What I think is a good change in PF was the drastic reduction of the plethora of sneak-immune opponents.

no. not a fighter. support class.

Yes. Every non-casting PC class should have had full BAB. If sneak attack was too much it would have been better to drop it to every 3 levels or to d4s and be able to hit reliably.

No. The problem with the rogue it is not his DPR. Nobody choose to play a rogue for his damage output.

For m the problems are

1)Rogue should be the master of skill way better than the rest, and in PF they are just not the better at skill.

2) Rogue talent are not that godd compared to rage powers, hexes, discoverys, misteryes...,

3) Rogue archetypes are mostly bad and unimaginative.

Sneak attack. That damage is huge and, if you're playing a rogue properly, you should usually be hitting when the enemy has his defences down. As a rogue, you should be focusing on flanking, feinting and generally hitting 'em where it hurts.

You could do all of that with full BAB. Is sneak attack equal to 6th or 9th level spells? Imo no not really.

No.

Full BAB and d10 HD is not the category they are meant to fill.

No.

Full BAB and d10 HD is not the category they are meant to fill.

Their category is non existent right now. There's a reason the only reason people play Rogues is for fluff it's because they lack mechanical advantages.

Cheapy wrote:

No.

Full BAB and d10 HD is not the category they are meant to fill.

Their category is non existent right now. There's a reason the only reason people play Rogues is for fluff it's because they lack mechanical advantages.

Exactly the problmes are others. The Real issue with rogue is his problmes filling his category, rogue have little mechanical advantages it, and BAB have nothing to do with it.

Exactly the problmes are others. The Real issue with rogue is his problmes filling his category, rogue have little mechanical advantages it, and BAB have nothing to do with it.

That's the thing though he's supposed to be a supporting melee combatant, a scout, and in theory a trap specialist.

But in practice the trap specialist role is largely discounted because many other classes can get it without sacrificing anything of major importance, the scout role is impossible due to the mechanics of stealth, and as a secondary melee he just does a poor job compared to other supporting fighters who can either get 6 spell levels or full BAB like cavaliers or bards.

In practice giving the rogue full BAB would have no issue he still has the benefit of sneak attack to make up for his low damage dice for simple weapons as well as the lower strength score since he prefers to build dex to bump up his lacking AC. On top of this Sneak attack is too situational to expect to get the bonus of if the DM uses any sort of tactical movement in combat.

The rogue and monk, as light combatants, should fall in between the weakest heavy non-casters and a Paladin or Ranger whose situational abilities don't apply.

1d6 elemental is theoretically worth +1 to attack and damage, but in practice experienced optimizers seem to value accuracy a lot more than damage.

A Fighter taking the weapon specialization line but not counting the generally available first weapon focus gets a lifetime total of +5 attack +8 damage.

A dismounted Cavalier gets a lifetime total of +20 damage against a challenge target.

A Barbarian gets +4 attack and +6 damage (+8 if two weapon fighting with double slice).

Smiting Paladins, of course, have +chr (probably between +5 and +7 ignoring possible inherent bonuses since they appear suddenly at high level if they appear at all) attack and +20 damage and either +5 enhancement equivalent from weapon bond or an animal companion that can be summoned to places a Cavalier's mount couldn't get.

Rangers against top favored enemy (or using instant enemy) have +10 attack and +10 damage.

I suspect that given the lack of combat applicability in rogue talents compared to rage powers or combat feats that a lifetime total of 7d6 sneak attack is not unreasonable. That would be 1d6+1d6/3 levels. Damage output between the fighter, barbarian, and rogue would be similar, but the fighter would have vastly superior AC and weapon selection and the barbarian would have better mobility, DR, hit points, combat utility, weapon selection, and possibly saves. The cavalier's challenge would match 7d6 sneak attack for damage considering that it multiplies on crits and he'd have better armor and tactician and whatever he got from his order. Situational bonus martials in the right situation top out everyone else for offense and the Paladin has pretty solid defense as well using lay on hands as reserve HP.

I'd say that puts the rogue where he belongs: at the back of the noncasters. Even with competitive damage he'd still have the weakest defenses of anyone other than a full arcane caster. He'd still be a skirmisher.

I think rogue's should try and crit fish to deal good spike damage. I feel this way because it goes alongside the theme of how they deal damage(looking for weak points) and would make them more mechanically interesting. So I suggest changing their sneak attack damage to where it can be multiplied on a crit.

You could do all of that with full BAB. Is sneak attack equal to 6th or 9th level spells? Imo no not really.

If a GM giving enough combats a day and gives enough opportunity to use spells in role play. The level 9 and 8 slots are spended. Sneak attack always works.

And if you give a rogue a FUll BAB, why not a Figher 8 skill points and sneak attack?

I think they should not have different BAB for any class it should go up something like 4E (+1 every even level) and casters get a bonus every few levels to hit with spells, rogues get a bonus every few levels to hit when they can sneak attack, clerics get a bonus with spells and dieties favored weapon, and fighters get a bonus every few levels with all weapon attacks.

That so if at odd levels you got a bonus to hit with what you are supposed to do and a general bonus on even levels, essentially everyone would have full BAB and the math for the game would work out better.

This thread is functionally identical to this one despite the difference in title.

So I was sitting at home thinking about what I wanted to do with my character and whether or not it was worth taking another level of rogue instead of fighter and what I would be getting from each level and sadly it came down to 1 point of BAB + a level of Armor Training versus a single solitary sneak attack die.

After that I started wondering why Rogues have 3/4 BAB to begin with and it struck me that every other melee class has full bab (except the monk and that is only if he isn't flurrying) and the ones which do not have full BAB have the ability to cast between 6 and 9 levels of spells, so what does the rogue have over the other classes don't to warrant lacking either 6 levels of spell casting or full base attack unfortunately I couldn't think of anything.

So I ask you all, do you think the Rogue should have been given full BAB when they released Pathfinder?

No, but they should have full BAB when they sneak attack (same way a Monk has full when they flurry)

At table, as opposed to on-forum, I have never seen a rogue who wasn't able to contribute uniquely to the game: mainly though stealth, skills and sneak attack.

In my current RotRL, the rogue is having a blast.

No they should not, rogue is not a warrior class. But an archtype that would get full BAB with sneak attack could be ok, would need to do a whole lot of math. Mind you this archtype should not be a rogue anymore(Meaning fluff), but more specialized warrior that just uses rogue as template for it's mechanics.

At table, as opposed to on-forum, I have never seen a rogue who wasn't able to contribute uniquely to the game: mainly though stealth, skills and sneak attack.

In my current RotRL, the rogue is having a blast.

In my experience almost all of what Rogues contribute uniquely is stuff that DMs allow because of what we feel like Rogues ought to be able to do instead of what the rules actually allow.

GeraintElberion wrote:

At table, as opposed to on-forum, I have never seen a rogue who wasn't able to contribute uniquely to the game: mainly though stealth, skills and sneak attack.

In my current RotRL, the rogue is having a blast.

In my experience almost all of what Rogues contribute uniquely is stuff that DMs allow because of what we feel like Rogues ought to be able to do instead of what the rules actually allow.

Aaaaannddddd.... it's a stealth thread!

Non?

gnomersy wrote:

GeraintElberion wrote:

At table, as opposed to on-forum, I have never seen a rogue who wasn't able to contribute uniquely to the game: mainly though stealth, skills and sneak attack.

In my current RotRL, the rogue is having a blast.

In my experience almost all of what Rogues contribute uniquely is stuff that DMs allow because of what we feel like Rogues ought to be able to do instead of what the rules actually allow.

Aaaaannddddd.... it's a stealth thread!

Non?

Partly yes I do believe stealth should be different/better I also think rogue talents should be more beneficial I think some of them should be rolled into the class as class features and I think some of the Rogue archetypes shouldn't give up trapfinding which most do.

But at the same time it's more about the fact that while the Rogue's thematic focus is on skills and utility that isn't really a good reason for him to lack full BAB as a purely melee class.

It's a double whammy effect, the Rogue can't use heavy armor which I'm okay with because thematically and mechanically it's bad for him, therefore he's building Dex to make up for his shoddy AC.

By building Dex he sacrifices damage in the form of static mods and smaller damage dice(unless the DM allows Agile weapons in which case he gets some back when he can afford +2 weapons) this damage is ideally replaced in most situations by Sneak attack but sneak attack is hard to get if your GM plays his monsters as though they aren't braindead since a 5ft step by a monster can almost always force a 10 ft follow for the player and that is only negated for a rogue after the acquisition of the Advanced Talents or whatever they're called.

On top of all this there's the fact that skills are generally not that great compared to spells, feats, or the other special powers like rage or performance. I mean after you have 6 per level you've got all of the important stuff maxed and there are plenty of classes who can get that many.

have you ever seen a umd rogue with an 11th level wand of scorching ray? first round a 10th level rogue can drop 9d6 to 3 different opponents or 17d6 to one. then factor in pressure points, bleeding damage, and any other crazyness you can pump out with archetypes. thats a pretty big chunk of damage, not to mention if they have spiked armor they can flank with it in melee, or improved feint targets.

rogue damage is not an issue at all. and they technically have a better chance to hit using spells then a wizzard or sorcerer do.

rogues are very awesome, could they be better, well who wouldnt want the class they love to the "the best"? if you say you wouldnt, you are most likely lying to yourself.

a 3/4 bab is more then perfect for a rogue

but with that being said, i like playing monks more then any other class, and with the way people diss monks on these boards... i guess im a different kind of gamer.

Using a particular wand is a corner case. It is not something all rogues will use. The wand still has to bypass SR, and assume no fire resistance.

What are pressure points? You also can't flank with ranged attacks, mean the rogue has to win initiative.

As for the question the rogue does not need full BAB, they do put out decent damage. The issue with the rogue is that they need to be better at scouting, skills, and/or social situations than they are.

PS:Nobody is pissing on monks. The people that complain the most are the ones that want them to work the most. "It works in my games" is not really a valid excuse. If you have a solution to the problems that other people have with monks we would like to hear it.

PS2:I would post in in an already existing monk thread so as not to derail this one though. :)

have you ever seen a umd rogue with an 11th level wand of scorching ray? first round a 10th level rogue can drop 9d6 to 3 different opponents or 17d6 to one. then factor in pressure points, bleeding damage, and any other crazyness you can pump out with archetypes. thats a pretty big chunk of damage, not to mention if they have spiked armor they can flank with it in melee, or improved feint targets.

rogue damage is not an issue at all. and they technically have a better chance to hit using spells then a wizzard or sorcerer do.

rogues are very awesome, could they be better, well who wouldnt want the class they love to the "the best"? if you say you wouldnt, you are most likely lying to yourself.

a 3/4 bab is more then perfect for a rogue

but with that being said, i like playing monks more then any other class, and with the way people diss monks on these boards... i guess im a different kind of gamer.

Uhhhh using an example where you "disprove" me by using a wand which costs 25% of the Rogue's total wealth is questionable at best particularly if your GM is the sort who doesn't just give you extra money for buying disposable items.

Rogues really aren't awesome I'm sorry but they're decidedly mediocre at best. Now some people would like to say that they're awesome at being mediocre(also false imo but much closer to true) but the Bard does it better with the same BAB and is just as capable of using a wand to throw money at the enemy for just as much damage.

I'm really not sure how you think spiked armor and improved feint are improving your argument but I know all about feint, in fact this is one of the reasons Full BAB makes more sense on the Rogue by giving the Rogue full BAB you accelerate the speed at which he gets a second attack in which case you expand the means in which he can accomplish Sneak attacks by having the extra attack to use for dirty tricks or Two weapon feint without crippling his ability to deal damage.

As for the question the rogue does not need full BAB, they do put out decent damage. The issue with the rogue is that they need to be better at scouting, skills, and/or social situations than they are.

+1

Monks have full BAB when flurrying.

Rogues should have full BAB when attacking flat-footed, Dex-denied, surprised or flanked opponents.

Using a particular wand is a corner case. It is not something all rogues will use. The wand still has to bypass SR, and assume no fire resistance.

What are pressure points? You also can't flank with ranged attacks, mean the rogue has to win initiative.

As for the question the rogue does not need full BAB, they do put out decent damage. The issue with the rogue is that they need to be better at scouting, skills, and/or social situations than they are.

PS:Nobody is pissing on monks. The people that complain the most are the ones that want them to work the most. "It works in my games" is not really a valid excuse. If you have a solution to the problems that other people have with monks we would like to hear it.

PS2:I would post in in an already existing monk thread so as not to derail this one though. :)

Pressure points are a Ninja trick where you do 1 point of strength damage per sneak attack which can be fixed with a super easy heal check or something like that.

But unrelated to that I can understand the desire for better alternative skills I'd like that too and if they were there I honestly might not want the BAB. But sadly they aren't there, also the BAB just helps the rate at which Rogues land hits and get extra attacks which gives them a touch more consistency which would be nice since sneak attack already feels so chancy.

Uhhhh using an example where you "disprove" me by using a wand which costs 25% of the Rogue's total wealth is questionable at best particularly if your GM is the sort who doesn't just give you extra money for buying disposable items.

Rogues really aren't awesome I'm sorry but they're decidedly mediocre at best. Now some people would like to say that they're awesome at being mediocre(also false imo but much closer to true) but the Bard does it better with the same BAB and is just as capable of using a wand to throw money at the enemy for just as much damage.

I'm really not sure how you think spiked armor and improved feint are improving your argument but I know all about feint, in fact this is one of the reasons Full BAB makes more sense on the Rogue by giving the Rogue full BAB you accelerate the speed at which he gets a second attack in which case you expand the means in which he can accomplish Sneak attacks by having the extra attack to use for dirty tricks or Two weapon feint without crippling his ability to deal damage.

ok so using a wand as your main attack form doesnt sit well with you fine, lets change it to magic missle. first level spell 9th caster level use ki pool and invisibility then hit 5 targets for 5d6+1d4+1 each. that wont eat into your WBL.

@wrathstrike: how exactly do you need to win init. to get sneak attack with a wand?

PS: wrath strike your post didnt contribute anything but telling me that a wand is an effective tool in the hands of a class with sneak attack, and a 3/4 bab. but then saying that it doesnt work on targets with SR. well guess what you flank those targets, and then stab them with a magic dagger.

ps2: spiked armor treats you as threatening for flanking, using the wand will not provoke so you will get your sneak attack damage for shooting while in melee. if you dont like spiked armor then grab a boot blade.

ok so using a wand as your main attack form doesnt sit well with you fine, lets change it to magic missle. first level spell 9th caster level use ki pool and invisibility then hit 5 targets for 5d6+1d4+1 each. that wont eat into your WBL.

@wrathstrike: how exactly do you need to win init. to get sneak attack with a wand?

PS: wrath strike your post didnt contribute anything but telling me that a wand is an effective tool in the hands of a class with sneak attack, and a 3/4 bab. but then saying that it doesnt work on targets with SR. well guess what you flank those targets, and then stab them with a magic dagger.

ps2: spiked armor treats you as threatening for flanking, using the wand will not provoke so you will get your sneak attack damage for shooting while in melee. if you dont like spiked armor then grab a boot blade.

The magic missles aren't attacks and therefore can't be sneak attacked upon at all so no. As for the wand not provoking while you flank with spikes then yes however that only works on the target which you're flanking and since the wand lets you cast a spell that makes ranged touch attacks you also provoke an AoO for each bolt.

It's a bad concept in my opinion for many reasons.

you dont provoke when casting from a wond reguardless of the spell being cast. unless its been faq'd

you dont provoke when casting from a wond reguardless of the spell being cast. unless its been faq'd

There's a separation between casting a spell and making the attacks granted by the spell according to dev posts and simple mechanics.

I have played a rogue or two in my day and I don't feel that they need the full BAB of a fighter or one of the other melee types. Rogues have always been Skill characters and support characters. They wait to strike when the time is right and when the odds are in their favor. Any old hack can swing a sword, but it takes a special touch to aim your blade so that it fits snuggly between the ribs and punctures the lung of the poor sap who found himself on the wrong side of the fight today.

Could the class be tweaked for more performance, sure they all could. I just don't think it needs to be. If you are wanting to play a character with a few different skills, the ability to be sneaky, and a higher BAB, then just play a Ranger.

Getting back to the title question.
No. I agree with Nicos.

And would add maybe give the rogue an extra +2 skill points per level.
1 or 2 extra talents to start with.

Or, you could give the rogue a fighting style like rangers.

Or, some kind of ranged sneak attack that improves in range with levels.

Getting back to the title question.

No. I agree with Nicos

Great :)

Getting back to the title question.

No. I agree with Nicos.

And would add maybe give the rogue an extra +2 skill points per level.
1 or 2 extra talents to start with.

Or, you could give the rogue a fighting style like rangers.

Or, some kind of ranged sneak attack that improves in range with levels.

Eh with 8 skill points per level you're already at the point of limited returns anything more just incentives dumping the Int stat imo.

I do think having more starting talents, a fighting style, or ranged sneak boosters would all be a good option although as I said before I think the overall value of the talents is too low when compared to comparable abilities like rage powers or bonus combat feats for fighters

Yes, the rogue should have been full bab. I've played a rogue with full bab. It still wasn't that impressive.

The flaw is that after a certain point, flanking gets to be hard or the creature is already dead by the time you would be able to flank it. You are also tied to 5 foot stepping into a flank and full attacking, which sucks. Gang up is a work around to the last problem, but it still isn't perfect.

Yes, the rogue should have been full bab. I've played a rogue with full bab. It still wasn't that impressive.

The flaw is that after a certain point, flanking gets to be hard or the creature is already dead by the time you would be able to flank it. You are also tied to 5 foot stepping into a flank and full attacking, which sucks. Gang up is a work around to the last problem, but it still isn't perfect.

Is this not an issue that can be solved with an Acrobatics check? The Rogues I have played in the past have made it into flanking position quite quickly simply by making an Acrobatics check once the enemy is engaged with one of my allies. As an extra layer of protection (and as a Rogue who doesn't like that) I would typically have the Mobility feat to back me up if the Acrobatics check somehow failed.

Is this not an issue that can be solved with an Acrobatics check? The Rogues I have played in the past have made it into flanking position quite quickly simply by making an Acrobatics check once the enemy is engaged with one of my allies. As an extra layer of protection (and as a Rogue who doesn't like that) I would typically have the Mobility feat to back me up if the Acrobatics check somehow failed.

If you did so in 3.5 I'm sorry to say those glory days are gone. Tumble DCs are higher except at very low level now and scale with your opponents' BAB and stats.

Monks have full BAB when flurrying.

Rogues should have full BAB when attacking flat-footed, Dex-denied, surprised or flanked opponents.

No they shouldn't. Their damage is very high with full BAB, too high.

It also does not take care of the problems areas. Rogues are not meant to be the top damage dealer. They are meant to take care of various other issues that come up.

gnomersy wrote:

Uhhhh using an example where you "disprove" me by using a wand which costs 25% of the Rogue's total wealth is questionable at best particularly if your GM is the sort who doesn't just give you extra money for buying disposable items.

Rogues really aren't awesome I'm sorry but they're decidedly mediocre at best. Now some people would like to say that they're awesome at being mediocre(also false imo but much closer to true) but the Bard does it better with the same BAB and is just as capable of using a wand to throw money at the enemy for just as much damage.

I'm really not sure how you think spiked armor and improved feint are improving your argument but I know all about feint, in fact this is one of the reasons Full BAB makes more sense on the Rogue by giving the Rogue full BAB you accelerate the speed at which he gets a second attack in which case you expand the means in which he can accomplish Sneak attacks by having the extra attack to use for dirty tricks or Two weapon feint without crippling his ability to deal damage.

ok so using a wand as your main attack form doesnt sit well with you fine, lets change it to magic missle. first level spell 9th caster level use ki pool and invisibility then hit 5 targets for 5d6+1d4+1 each. that wont eat into your WBL.

@wrathstrike: how exactly do you need to win init. to get sneak attack with a wand?

PS: wrath strike your post didnt contribute anything but telling me that a wand is an effective tool in the hands of a class with sneak attack, and a 3/4 bab. but then saying that it doesnt work on targets with SR. well guess what you flank those targets, and then stab them with a magic dagger.

ps2: spiked armor treats you as threatening for flanking, using the wand will not provoke so you will get your sneak attack damage for shooting while in melee. if you dont like spiked armor then grab a boot blade.

After the first round you have no way to get sneak attack so if you don't win initiative or get a surprise round there is no sneak attack damage. My post points out that you came up with a corner case that only works in certain cases. It is not much different than saying archetype X can do something. That may be nice, but if you have the archetype or if you did not want UMD then the wand idea is not of much help.

Eh with 8 skill points per level you're already at the point of limited returns anything more just incentives dumping the Int stat imo.

I do think having more starting talents, a fighting style, or ranged sneak boosters would all be a good option although as I said before I think the overall value of the talents is too low when compared to comparable abilities like rage powers or bonus combat feats for fighters

+2 skill points would help keep the rogue the skill monkey.

If you think that the value of rogue talents compares unfavorably to the comparable abilities for other classes.
Then do you think that rogues should get more talents than barbarians get rage powers or fighters get bonus combat feats?

Something like a rogue talent at almost every level then?

Furious Kender wrote:

Yes, the rogue should have been full bab. I've played a rogue with full bab. It still wasn't that impressive.

The flaw is that after a certain point, flanking gets to be hard or the creature is already dead by the time you would be able to flank it. You are also tied to 5 foot stepping into a flank and full attacking, which sucks. Gang up is a work around to the last problem, but it still isn't perfect.

Is this not an issue that can be solved with an Acrobatics check? The Rogues I have played in the past have made it into flanking position quite quickly simply by making an Acrobatics check once the enemy is engaged with one of my allies. As an extra layer of protection (and as a Rogue who doesn't like that) I would typically have the Mobility feat to back me up if the Acrobatics check somehow failed.

I assume you mean that you used it to tumble past them to get behind and catch a flank. You can do that but you will never keep up with the enemies flank in combat with 5 ft steps which means you never get full attacks. Sadly if you only get 1 attack per round your damage is going to be choppy as heck.

+2 skill points would help keep the rogue the skill monkey.

If you think that the value of rogue talents compares unfavorably to the comparable abilities for other classes.
Then do you think that rogues should get more talents than barbarians get rage powers or fighters get bonus combat feats?

Something like a rogue talent at almost every level then?

I can see why but honestly I don't think anyone would say the Rogue isn't a skill monkey already. I just think that after 4 or so skills per level per character you've got all the important stuff the rest goes into fluff or marginally useful stuff. This is particularly true since the scaling nature of so many of the checks like escape artist and acrobatics require unusually high investment above and beyond skill points to make for successful rolls.

As for whether I think the Rogue should get more talents than other classes get things ... eh it might be too powerful in that case. I think right now the talents are in the sour spot between being weak enough to warrant 1 each level or being good enough to justify only getting one every other level. On the other hand I think the Rogue talents of combat value are sufficiently limited to the point that even if you gave them 1 every level it probably wouldn't break the game or make them frontliner equivalents while possibly expanding the Rogues other roles.

It certainly bears thinking on if anybody does some theorycrafting on DPR for a cheesed out say 8th level rogue with a talent per level I'd be interested to see the results.

Getting back to the title question.

No. I agree with Nicos.

And would add maybe give the rogue an extra +2 skill points per level.
1 or 2 extra talents to start with.

Or, you could give the rogue a fighting style like rangers.

Or, some kind of ranged sneak attack that improves in range with levels.

I give my rogues dirty fighting as a free feat.

After the first round you have no way to get sneak attack so if you don't win initiative...

wraith i think you misunderstand what hes saying...

using invisibility, eithe a ring or a potion, or rouge tricks converted into ninja tricks, you can do that every round if you were able to. i played a character like that in pfs, but i used shocking grasp. i like it and it did quite a bit of damage.

Yes, but add a clause into Sneak Attack that it can't be combined with Power Attack to keep the damage in check.

Then add a talent that improves Combat Expertise by 50%. To me it would feel very Roguish as a combat style.

wraithstrike wrote:

After the first round you have no way to get sneak attack so if you don't win initiative...

wraith i think you misunderstand what hes saying...

using invisibility, eithe a ring or a potion, or rouge tricks converted into ninja tricks, you can do that every round if you were able to. i played a character like that in pfs, but i used shocking grasp. i like it and it did quite a bit of damage.

Only way to do that is vanishing trick since the ring or potion both take standard actions.

3/4 BAB should have been eliminated when PF rewrote the rules. Then BAB would have matched the Good/Poor paradigm of saving throws.

3/4 BAB should have been eliminated when PF rewrote the rules. Then BAB would have matched the Good/Poor paradigm of saving throws.

I like 3/4 BAB existing but solely for hybrids.

So essentially you get full BAB and few or no spells but some abilities, 3/4 BAB and 6 levels of spells, and 1/2 BAB but 9 levels of spells. This would also bump Clerics down a notch but I feel like it's the best way to go about it and if the hit was too large just change some of the Divine touch spells to Save spells or some alternative therein.