FAQ on Errata

As opposed to having two creatures gain the effects of the charge while also gaining full round attacks (thereby gaining something for nothing for all intents and purposes). We already know that effort is a "thing" despite being unwritten yet implied. This just requires both creatures to "put in the effort" so to speak, and is completely in line with previous rulings.

Using abilities as intended is not an abuse. Far too many people cry "abuse!" when, in actuality, they just don't like it. It's a phenomena similar to that of "cheese."

Using abilities as intended is not an abuse. Far too many people cry "abuse!" when, in actuality, they just don't like it. It's a phenomena similar to that of "cheese."

Perhaps if people didn't constantly pry at the wording trying to shoehorn in more mechanical advantages....

As opposed to having two creatures gain the effects of the charge while also gaining full round attacks (thereby gaining something for nothing for all intents and purposes). We already know that effort is a "thing" despite being unwritten yet implied. This just requires both creatures to "put in the effort" so to speak, and is completely in line with previous rulings.

I'm not going to say that effort isn't a "thing", but the problem is the return in your investment.

I completely disagree on "gaining something for nothing". Aside from the specialization mentioned before, you risk eating an AoOs(if there are any enemies in line), subjecting yourself to a brace weapons too, and even simply getting to charge depends on fighting on favorable terrain(since your mount can't charge over difficult terrain). Your mount is also fairly vulnerable, PC mounts excluded. And you're lowering your AC for a single attack now.

I don't argue that charges can do too much damage under the old charge mechanic, but now they're just not worth the returns and investment. Especially when countered by a Second Level Spell.

Imbicatus wrote:

Devilkiller wrote:

@Ssalarn - What's the new mounted charge definition?

When making a mounted charge, both you and your mount are charging. It limits some options pretty severely.

"Is less abusable" I think are the words you are looking for ;)

Yeah, because allowing Barbarians to Pounce while mounted and get triple damage on their first attack in a complete full attack sequence is sooo much less abusable and better balanced than a cavalier getting an extra 3d8 damage if he takes all three Vital Strike feats. Archers can full attack while their mount performs a mounted charge at no penalty without spending a single feat, spellcasters can cast a spell during a mounted charge with a simple Concentration check using a lower DC than casting defensively, but heavens forfend that a Cavalier should be able to get 3d8 extra damage by 16th level if he spends three feats, or that anyone without an animal companion should be able to perform a mounted charge ever. It can't even be claimed that it was a simple clarification to match RAI either, because the FAQ requires you to delete an entire paragraph of text from the CRB.

It can't even be claimed that it was a simple clarification to match RAI either, because the FAQ requires you to delete an entire paragraph of text from the CRB.

Honestly, I saw this and I thought: OMG, what a great opportunity for complete rules!

Because the rules remain incredibly vague on exactly how mounted combat works, re: interaction of turns/actions.
SOMEWHAT it is imlied that "Riding" a mount works different than normal Handle Animal control, i.e. expectation of square-by-square control of mount's path... Even though it doesn't exactly state that anywhere. Also implied is a tying of initiatives as well as actions, which also isn't exactly spelled out...

Nor the difference vs. a creature simply "sitting on" another character (possibly a Familiar sitting on a Wizard or in their pouch) who maybe isn't using "Mounted Combat" rules and thus has independent Init/Actions... Unclear how that cleavage works, and if e.g. a mounted Fighter could just tell it's Mount to move/attack via Handle Animal, the mount does that on it's turn (no Ride checks required, nothing causes "worn" objects/passengers to fall off when you move), the Fighter can act freely on their next turn (after the Mount moved and carried them to new spot) without having to worry about impediments to Full Attack. (that just requires the "rider" to stagger the mounts' actions to their own/ forsee the mounts actions in order to command them ahead of time).

All creatures have Inits by default, so usually the Rider and Mount will have different Init... There's no rule covering how Ride's prompting of actions (up to and including Charge? what if the Mount has special abilities e.g. Smite?) deals with the fact that the Mount may still be Flat-Footed... Or if the Mount's Init came first, and it had valid commands to act upon (or is intelligent) so that it took it's round of actions... What happens when the Rider's turn comes up and tries to Ride: Charge/whatever?

What if the Mount only has 1 Attack trick, i.e. can't attack "un-natural" enemies, and the Rider tries to Charge an "un-natural enemy"? IF the mount can't/won't attack the target, should it really take the AC penalty for "Charging"? When Mounted Charging, and provoking an AoO by movement, can a single enemy with 2 AoOs available (Combat Reflex etc) make AoOs vs BOTH Mount and Rider, or only one? Seems like the AoO provocation should be exactly simultaneous, i.e. you shouldn't be able to do both (unless you have 2WF Fighter AoOs or something, certainly not with the same weapon).

The only characters who can actually mounted charge are ones with animal companions right? Because it is a move action for a fighter to handle his mount?

No, there is NPCs and even classes based off of mounted combat with non-Companion mounts.
Ride has rules for Guide With Knees/ Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount, which seem to supercede need for Handle Animal.
(without negating validity of Handle Animal, or the animal's normal independent init/turn/etc)

I probably am wrong on a few details, but there clearly isn't any "harmonization" of the Handle Animal/Ride rules,
or the different/parallel paradigms of distinct Init and shared Init, certainly nothing on how to handle transitioning between those models as the need arises...

How do you tell your mount to attack though. Fight with a combat trained mount is for the rider, not the mount.

It was fine before the FAQ though.

Somebody mentioned the lack of penalties for Casters riding a Mount + Casting...
Well, they do exist albeit the DCs are only a worry at low levels, maybe to mid levels... (if no Combat Casting and/or low casting stat)

People do forget to call for those checks even at those levels where it matters.
(like Survival vs Getting Lost is forgotten, although limited Confusion is pretty serious)

I think the lack of relevance at higher levesls comes down to lack of compounding of Concentration checks, which have been ruled to simply trigger multiple checks, instead of increasing DCs, which I believe they should do.

IMHO, even the caster THEMSELF moving around with their own actions should carry over to Concentration check when Casting on same turn.
(which would achieve a real trade-off for Move Action + Standard Casting vs. not using Move Action)
...Similar/related to issue o"f on-turn Riding vs. "sitting on Mount you Handle Animal to Move off-turn.
I.e. similar if you claim the mount movement happened on different Init and now you don't need that Concentratoin check, or that
"I was moving thru Difficult Terrain in first part of my turn, now I am stationary and don't take Concentration Check for casting".

EDIT: Honestly, I'm unsure about a major Concentration check, namely "When affected by a spell".
The damage one is clear (it works just like normal damage re: Conc),
but for others, I just can't be sure of the grammatical construct "when affected by a spell":
Does it apply to ON-GOING spells, i.e. whose duration overlaps with your casting,
or does it only apply to "interrupt"/readied/contingencied spells targetting you during your casting? .

The wording is also a bit off, in that it tells us we make a Conc check if affected by "a spell", i.e. any spell, plausibly including beneficial ones... It follows that up with a specified DC for spells that "interferes with you or distracts you in some other way," without actually defining "interfere/distract" very clearly (Slow? Bane? Arcane Mark on your forehead? maybe a Readied Cure is distracting? or an on-going Bless?)
...But still leaves us with the missive that "a spell", i.e. any spell, possibly beneficial, and not "interfering/distracting", affecting us while casting provokes a Concentration check, albeit we don't have a DC for non-damaging, non-interfering/distracting spells.

So we could save word count and be more precise if the "header sentence" only applied to "distracting/interfering" spells that don't cause damage, thus not implicating "a/ any spell" ...And the saved word-count can then be used to more precisely define what qualifies as distracting/interfering. (pragmatically, if "on-going" non-interrupt spells trigger this, I don't think on-going beneficial spells would count, but a Readied Cure spell seems like it just possibly might be distracting/interfering)

Skylancer4 wrote:

As opposed to having two creatures gain the effects of the charge while also gaining full round attacks (thereby gaining something for nothing for all intents and purposes). We already know that effort is a "thing" despite being unwritten yet implied. This just requires both creatures to "put in the effort" so to speak, and is completely in line with previous rulings.

I'm not going to say that effort isn't a "thing", but the problem is the return in your investment.

I completely disagree on "gaining something for nothing". Aside from the specialization mentioned before, you risk eating an AoOs(if there are any enemies in line), subjecting yourself to a brace weapons too, and even simply getting to charge depends on fighting on favorable terrain(since your mount can't charge over difficult terrain). Your mount is also fairly vulnerable, PC mounts excluded. And you're lowering your AC for a single attack now.

I don't argue that charges can do too much damage under the old charge mechanic, but now they're just not worth the returns and investment. Especially when countered by a Second Level Spell.

Note that there are ways to deal with difficult terrain pretty easily. My favorite is to get the mount to 3 int, have it take unarmed strike and then Dragon Style - charge wherever you want. Though the rules are a bit unclear on if the rider needs Dragon Style as well.

Most mounts can wear a belt slot, so you can instead get it a Minotaur Belt which is almost as good. If it wears normal shoes (rare, I'll admit) it's even easier - Feather Step slippers are ridiculously cheap.

Or, counter it with a 1st level spell.

Ive removed some more posts and replies. Remember, not everyone has the same play style and that's okay! Just because your way is right for you, does not make their way wrong for them. Be civil when you disagree with someone's post and remember to debate the subject, not fight with other community members.

I'm not clear on what the intent of the new ruling is. I mean, I can tell that if you want double damage from your lance or want to increase your damage with Spirited Charge then you (the PC) need to charge along with the mount. What I'm not sure about is whether you are flat out required to charge when the mount charges.

For instance, could a PC with Mounted Skirmisher choose between making a full attack or charging, or would he be forced to charge? Could a mounted Summoner or Sorcerer cast a spell when his mount charges, or would he be forced to charge too? If forced to charge would he be required to make a melee attack at the end? (I'm imagining a Sylvan Sorcerer who might not even have a weapon in hand)

Note that there are ways to deal with difficult terrain pretty easily. My favorite is to get the mount to 3 int, have it take unarmed strike and then Dragon Style - charge wherever you want. Though the rules are a bit unclear on if the rider needs Dragon Style as well.

Most mounts can wear a belt slot, so you can instead get it a Minotaur Belt which is almost as good. If it wears normal shoes (rare, I'll admit) it's even easier - Feather Step slippers are ridiculously cheap.

Or, counter it with a...

I'll give you the Dragon Style option, that's honestly a clever work around albeit weird imo because 3 INT brings loads of other weirdness for mounts.

The other options I'm not a fan of because of the reliance on magic items and or spells considering most charging classes are NOT spellcasters, though they do address the problem also, as would a flying mount. I would still say that those are mostly option I don't see chosen that often(flying mount aside).

People keep saying "double barrels", as if fixing it was big and complicated, but if it was just once per attack cycle, all you were doing was adding a weaker (because each shot is much weaker than a bow's) manyshot as a special ability on weapons that have near-magical-weapon prices to them before they're even magic.

You got one extra bullet out per full attack, or made vital strike almost halfway worth taking, in exchange for an extra -4 to hit (sure, guns, but with rapid, deadly aim and this, it's starting to add up). Done. Didn't match bow, but did decent work.

Only problem we've had using what is quite unfortunately a houserule like this is that it did nothing for the other guns not being even less competitive a ranged option.

(unrelated note I spoke to two people who were convinced the kineticist is massively overpowered today, and that makes me very very sad about the state of our education system)

People keep saying "double barrels", as if fixing it was big and complicated, but if it was just once per attack cycle, all you were doing was adding a weaker (because each shot is much weaker than a bow's) manyshot as a special ability on weapons that have near-magical-weapon prices to them before they're even magic.

You got one extra bullet out per full attack, or made vital strike almost halfway worth taking, in exchange for an extra -4 to hit (sure, guns, but with rapid, deadly aim and this, it's starting to add up). Done. Didn't match bow, but did decent work.

Only problem we've had using what is quite unfortunately a houserule like this is that it did nothing for the other guns not being even less competitive a ranged option.

(unrelated note I spoke to two people who were convinced the kineticist is massively overpowered today, and that makes me very very sad about the state of our education system)

What your house rule did was effectively give the user of a double barrel weapon the use of a slightly worse version of manyshot for firearms. Not a horrible trade off since you don't have to spend a feat on it.

People keep saying "double barrels", as if fixing it was big and complicated, but if it was just once per attack cycle, all you were doing was adding a weaker (because each shot is much weaker than a bow's) manyshot as a special ability on weapons that have near-magical-weapon prices to them before they're even magic.

You got one extra bullet out per full attack, or made vital strike almost halfway worth taking, in exchange for an extra -4 to hit (sure, guns, but with rapid, deadly aim and this, it's starting to add up). Done. Didn't match bow, but did decent work.

Only problem we've had using what is quite unfortunately a houserule like this is that it did nothing for the other guns not being even less competitive a ranged option.

(unrelated note I spoke to two people who were convinced the kineticist is massively overpowered today, and that makes me very very sad about the state of our education system)

Actually, as written the double barrel rules allow you to many shot your entire full attack.

(unrelated note I spoke to two people who were convinced the kineticist is massively overpowered today, and that makes me very very sad about the state of our education system)

god not this, it makes me remember they guy who said rogues were broken

Jamie Charlan wrote:

(unrelated note I spoke to two people who were convinced the kineticist is massively overpowered today, and that makes me very very sad about the state of our education system)

god not this, it makes me remember they guy who said rogues were broken

The 'guy' (as in singular, not masculine)? I don't want to derail this too much, but there are plenty of threads I've seen where people complain about how a rogue's damage is breaking their game or a rogue can do overpowered things. I've seen more people go beyond defending the rogue and into stating the rogue is overpowered than I can remember.

There is an issue of perception. More dice = more good to a lot of people, ignoring the fact that flat bonuses can easily overtake a fistful of d6s. 'Oh man, you can add 5d6 to every attack?! That's crazy, my Fighter only does 2d6 damage with his attacks' ignoring the fact that the Fighter adds 12 flat damage that IS multiplied on a crit.

There is an issue of perception. More dice = more good to a lot of people, ignoring the fact that flat bonuses can easily overtake a fistful of d6s. 'Oh man, you can add 5d6 to every attack?! That's crazy, my Fighter only does 2d6 damage with his attacks' ignoring the fact that the Fighter adds 12 flat damage that IS multiplied on a crit.

This. People remember big numbers, and when you roll four sixes and a five then that sticks in their mind, nevermind the time you rolled 8 points of damage on 5d6.

That´s exactly the reason i say bloodragers are overpowered.

Xethik wrote:

There is an issue of perception. More dice = more good to a lot of people, ignoring the fact that flat bonuses can easily overtake a fistful of d6s. 'Oh man, you can add 5d6 to every attack?! That's crazy, my Fighter only does 2d6 damage with his attacks' ignoring the fact that the Fighter adds 12 flat damage that IS multiplied on a crit.

This. People remember big numbers, and when you roll four sixes and a five then that sticks in their mind, nevermind the time you rolled 8 points of damage on 5d6.

Critical math and how it affects DPR also gets overlooked a lot. For example, the Fighter's potential DPR when Weapon Mastery comes online spikes crazy high, but I've seen a lot of people who think the Rogue is all OP completely write that capstone off as not particularly useful.

Sometimes it's not just a misunderstanding of the math of course- theoretical potential isn't as relevant as exercised potential. If everyone in your group/area plays a type of game where the exercised system mastery is kept at a low threshold, or the average damage dealt by the characters everyone is making is at about 40% of theoretical potential, then guy who shows up with a character swinging at 80% or higher of the threshold for those play levels is going to seem crazy powerful by comparison. I find that even then the "OP Rogue" perception is still just a matter of perception of course. I can distinctly recall a PFS game where I was building a Thunder and Fang Shoanti Fighter at first level, and none of my feats had really come together yet so I was basically a 16 STR Fighter with a two-handed weapon and Weapon Focus. I was consistently dropping enemies in one round, absolutely wrecking things. Then our Rogue miraculously gets off two sneak attacks in one round after like 5 misses (which together didn't do as much damage as 1 of my attacks), and suddenly people are like "Whoah, can you sneak attack twice in one round?!?! OP!!!" I probably did 10x as much damage during that session, but the focus was on that one time the Rogue got two sneak attacks in.

Wait, Ssalarn actually plays the game? And here I thought he was some sort of no good armchair theorycrafter! ;p

Did they ever get an FAQ on the Beast Bond Witch at level 10 and its Twin Souls ability?

There is an issue of perception. More dice = more good to a lot of people, ignoring the fact that flat bonuses can easily overtake a fistful of d6s. 'Oh man, you can add 5d6 to every attack?! That's crazy, my Fighter only does 2d6 damage with his attacks' ignoring the fact that the Fighter adds 12 flat damage that IS multiplied on a crit.

Well, if you just want to do a basic comparison, you can use the average, with a huge honking asterisk representing that you're seeing really different values depending on the standard deviation of the possible values.

As a quickie rule of thumb, though, 2d6 = +7. I'd call the 5d6 roughly a 17 point equivalent, with the 2d6+12 fighter being a 19 point equivalent. I would note, though, that the fighter is probably doing more consistent damage due to lack of variability, while the rogue sneak attacking is more feast or famine.

At that point, we can start including multipliers in our analysis and things shift more.

Wait, Ssalarn actually plays the game?

Pretty much every chance I get :D

And here I thought he was some sort of no good armchair theorycrafter! ;p

Inorite?

Speaking of...
@JAMRenaissance

Rogue caps out at an average of 35 extra damage per sneak attack at 19th level, none of which multiplies in a crit. He's a minimum of 9 points of attack bonus behind the Fighter, 11 more if the Fighter has grabbed Weapon Focus / Greater Weapon Focus. The Fighter can pop Power Attack and still have a 6 point lead, which is up to 30% more accuracy than the Rogue. Weapon Specialization / Greater Weapon Specialization means the Fighter's "class features" are giving him an extra 23 damage per hit, all of which is multiplied on a crit. Assume a weapon like the greatsword with Improved Crit (yet another Fighter "class feature") that means the Fighter is dealing roughly an extra 28 damage per hit compared to the Rogue's 35, but with up to a 30% higher accuracy bonus. Reducing that 35 by that lower likelihood of connecting means that, assuming the Rogue can Sneak Attack as often as the Fighter can Power Attack, the Fighter is dealing 28 extra damage per hit to the Rogue's 25. Now, we can start getting into how difficult it is for a Rogue to actually set up and maintain sneak attacks compared to the Fighter setting up and maintaining Power Attack...
I don't know that I'd even call the Rogue "feast or famine" it's more like "basic competence or jack all".

Rogue caps out at an average of 35 extra damage per sneak attack at 19th level, none of which multiplies in a crit. He's a minimum of 9 points of attack bonus behind the Fighter, 11 more if the Fighter has grabbed Weapon Focus / Greater Weapon Focus. The Fighter can pop Power Attack and still have a 6 point lead, which is up to 30% more accuracy than the Rogue. Weapon Specialization / Greater Weapon Specialization means the Fighter's "class features" are giving him an extra 23 damage per hit, all of which is multiplied on a crit. Assume a weapon like the greatsword with Improved Crit (yet another Fighter "class feature") that means the Fighter is dealing roughly an extra 28 damage per hit compared to the Rogue's 35, but with up to a 30% higher accuracy bonus. Reducing that 35 by that lower likelihood of connecting means that, assuming the Rogue can Sneak Attack as often as the Fighter can Power Attack, the Fighter is dealing 28 extra damage per hit to the Rogue's 25. Now, we can start getting into how difficult it is for a Rogue to actually set up and maintain sneak attacks compared to the Fighter setting up and maintaining Power Attack...
I don't know that I'd even call the Rogue "feast or famine" it's more like "basic competence or jack all".

Just a note: This is for Rogue but not Unchained Rogue. Unchained Rogue has a little bit better accuracy (if he can hit once, which hopefully will happen).

Can always (Unchained) Major Magic into a True Strike if you're desperate.
Unchained Rogue has a little more supportive utility which is great, it makes it less damage-y damage-y and more clever tools to suit the situation. Though I hope Dirty Tactics Toolbox has a few more tricks in it (haven't had the pleasure yet).

Xethik wrote:

There is an issue of perception. More dice = more good to a lot of people, ignoring the fact that flat bonuses can easily overtake a fistful of d6s. 'Oh man, you can add 5d6 to every attack?! That's crazy, my Fighter only does 2d6 damage with his attacks' ignoring the fact that the Fighter adds 12 flat damage that IS multiplied on a crit.

Well, if you just want to do a basic comparison, you can use the average, with a huge honking asterisk representing that you're seeing really different values depending on the standard deviation of the possible values.

As a quickie rule of thumb, though, 2d6 = +7. I'd call the 5d6 roughly a 17 point equivalent, with the 2d6+12 fighter being a 19 point equivalent. I would note, though, that the fighter is probably doing more consistent damage due to lack of variability, while the rogue sneak attacking is more feast or famine.

At that point, we can start including multipliers in our analysis and things shift more.

The other thing to consider in all this is that Rogues are the iconic class to Two-Weapon Fight... to the point that Rogues really SHOULD get Two-Weapon Fighting, ITWF, and GTWF as Rogue Talents along with their built-in Finesse Training.

Those extra dice start adding up when you're clocking in more hits than a Fighter.

But then accuracy starts to get involved, too, which throws a wrench into the matter, as does the fact that the TWF only ends up netting 2 more Attacks per Full Attack than normal.

Realistically, you need to look at a Rogue being (damage)+1 at lv1, (damage)+2 at lv3, (damage)+3 at lv5, etc., because that's what you can actually count on. Anything above that is just theoretical and should be considered icing on the cake.

So at lv19, you're doing (damage)+10 per each attack that hits. Which is still nice, but it's nowhere NEAR "broken", especially considering that the Fighter is getting 2 more damage than your baseline, AND it's multiplied on a Critical, which Sneaks aren't.

So, yeah - Rogue SEEMS super spamtastic for Damage, and it sometimes IS, but it's more often just good damage, not freakish.

Ssalarn wrote:

****
I don't know that I'd even call the Rogue "feast or famine" it's more like "basic competence or jack all".

Just a note: This is for Rogue but not Unchained Rogue. Unchained Rogue has a little bit better accuracy (if he can hit once, which hopefully will happen).

Yeah, I was going to mention UnC Rogue, but he's very different than the Core Rogue, and is almost at his best when he's focusing on debuffs rather than trying to keep up on damage, something which unfortunately isn't really true of the Core Rogue.

Can always (Unchained) Major Magic into a True Strike if you're desperate.

Unchained Rogue has a little more supportive utility which is great, it makes it less damage-y damage-y and more clever tools to suit the situation. Though I hope Dirty Tactics Toolbox has a few more tricks in it (haven't had the pleasure yet).

Action economy makes True Strike not that great for rogues. You are giving up one round to hit on the second. I'd rather take Major Magic (chill touch) to go against touch AC for the entire fight and increase accuracy that way.

Hubaris wrote:

Can always (Unchained) Major Magic into a True Strike if you're desperate.

Unchained Rogue has a little more supportive utility which is great, it makes it less damage-y damage-y and more clever tools to suit the situation. Though I hope Dirty Tactics Toolbox has a few more tricks in it (haven't had the pleasure yet).

Action economy makes True Strike not that great for rogues. You are giving up one round to hit on the second. I'd rather take Major Magic (chill touch) to go against touch AC for the entire fight and increase accuracy that way.

Also, if your fights are anything like the ones we get into, spending that standard action to cast true strike in the first round means there's a good chance you'll lose your opportunity to get any sneak attacks, let alone multiple sneak attacks, in on the second round.

Generally my group has a priority list

1. Geek the mage
2. Kill it before it full attacks

Charging something past level 9 is usually a less useful unless you have pounce or something making charges emphasized or can burst the target down. Retaliatory full attacks hurt.

Here is the thing about the Rogue, Unchained or otherwise. The fact that it is a bit (or even a lot, depending on your views) less effective at DPR than the Fighter is ok, because the Rogue is not and has never been a martial class.

That has never been the intent with the Rogue. Up until Pathfinder, it had a d6 HD, and Pathfinder only switched it to a d8, which puts it pretty solidly in the backup warrior, second string area. But, to compensate for that, Rogues do get a lot of other abilities, notably ones that make it very useful in the other half of the game, Not Combat.

Here is the thing about the Rogue, Unchained or otherwise. The fact that it is a bit (or even a lot, depending on your views) less effective at DPR than the Fighter is ok, because the Rogue is not and has never been a martial class.

That has never been the intent with the Rogue. Up until Pathfinder, it had a d6 HD, and Pathfinder only switched it to a d8, which puts it pretty solidly in the backup warrior, second string area. But, to compensate for that, Rogues do get a lot of other abilities, notably ones that make it very useful in the other half of the game, Not Combat.

Except it's not really that great at Not Combat either. It gets a ton of skill points, but no real bonuses to using them. It's outclassed at skills by the bard, skald, investigator, ranger, inquisitor, and slayer, and nevermind the fact that skills are invalidated by spells.

Unchained threw the skills a bone with skill unlocks, but they are too little too late.

Rogues need to be good in combat, and at least Unchained finally makes them so.

Hell, a 1st/2nd edition rogue was better in combat than a 3.x/ crb pathfinder rogue, because at least the AD&D rogue was twice the level of everyone else to make up for their terrible stats.

Here is the thing about the Rogue, Unchained or otherwise. The fact that it is a bit (or even a lot, depending on your views) less effective at DPR than the Fighter is ok, because the Rogue is not and has never been a martial class.

That has never been the intent with the Rogue. Up until Pathfinder, it had a d6 HD, and Pathfinder only switched it to a d8, which puts it pretty solidly in the backup warrior, second string area. But, to compensate for that, Rogues do get a lot of other abilities, notably ones that make it very useful in the other half of the game, Not Combat.

Yea, bards don't need to do the most damage, fighters to that fine. Even without the highest damage output possible, bards are still better combatants overall than fighters or rogues, plus they have great out of combat abilities for when you aren't in combat. It's a shame rogues don't have anything to offer outside of hitting things in a fight.

Hubaris wrote:

Can always (Unchained) Major Magic into a True Strike if you're desperate.

Unchained Rogue has a little more supportive utility which is great, it makes it less damage-y damage-y and more clever tools to suit the situation. Though I hope Dirty Tactics Toolbox has a few more tricks in it (haven't had the pleasure yet).

Action economy makes True Strike not that great for rogues. You are giving up one round to hit on the second. I'd rather take Major Magic (chill touch) to go against touch AC for the entire fight and increase accuracy that way.

I do like Chill Touch as well but the SR sort of is a downer and True Strike does allow you to ignore Concealment; not to mention the ability to make some pretty nasty Dirty Tricks / Trips / Etc if you want more support capabilities.

Here is the thing about the Rogue, Unchained or otherwise. The fact that it is a bit (or even a lot, depending on your views) less effective at DPR than the Fighter is ok, because the Rogue is not and has never been a martial class.

That has never been the intent with the Rogue. Up until Pathfinder, it had a d6 HD, and Pathfinder only switched it to a d8, which puts it pretty solidly in the backup warrior, second string area. But, to compensate for that, Rogues do get a lot of other abilities, notably ones that make it very useful in the other half of the game, Not Combat.

If only they weren't so mediocre at "Not Combat". Bards are better skill monkeys by far, Rangers give the Rogue a pretty serious run for its money in the skill monkey department, Alchemists are better skill monkeys, Inquisitors are arguably better skill monkeys, all of the classes mentioned so far are superior to the Rogue in combat, and we haven't even left the first two core product line books.

As to combat having "never been the intent" of the Rogue- 16 of the 23 Rogue Talents presented in the CRB are combat related. 5 of the 7 non-Talent class features a Rogue gets are also combat specific. That's more than 2/3 of the classes features dedicated to that thing that isn't its intent. Compare to the Bard's 19 class features, 10 of which are solidly non-combat abilities, or the Inquisitor's 17 class features, 6 of which are solidly non-combat and an additional 3 of which can support non-combat functions just as well as combat. Even the Ranger's 17 distinct class features feature 5 out of combat abilities and 4 abilities that are as useful out of combat as in. So there's at least three other classes, just in the first 2 books, who have as many or more resources dedicated to out of combat activities as the Rogue, but they're simultaneously better at both aspects of the game. We haven't even touched on classes that just outright obsolesce the Rogue, like the Investigator. So it's great to say "combat wasn't the point", but then the question becomes "What was the point, really?"

We're probably way off topic at this point though. Wasn't this thread about the Ultimate Combat errata, which I don't think actually affected the Rogue at all?

Ooh, wait, tie in!

Since Gun Twirling is an available option, and the errata removed the options for negating misfire or getting free use of Up Close and Deadly, the best thing you can do with those Gunslinger levels after 5th is take 15 levels of Rogue. You're not going to miss the 4 BAB much since you're targeting Touch AC, and that +8d6 Sneak Attack damage per shot is going to be pretty sweet. A little Greater Feint and some TW Feint should allow you to get enough damage off to consistently refill your grit pool...
Hmmmm... I almost wonder if a level or two of Mesmerist is worth it for the Consummate Liar ability and maybe a splash of other goodies.

I'll give you Inquisitors, but at the same time its pretty excepted that Inquisitors are an extremely well built class.

I do disagree though with the Bard and Ranger. Both are better in some arenas, and in the Rangers case under the right circumstances, but I would not say they are better overall or in general. Both Bards and Rogues have a lot of potential outside of combat, and while similar, it's not the same, and each can shine.

And I didn't say that Rogues couldn't be combative, I said that being a mainline combatant dpr tank wasn't their intent.

Context is Gunslingers

FLite wrote:

At 7 you can render any one opponent flatfooted, no save, no to hit, no nothing. Yeah, it doesn't help you, but it can let your friends really go to town with power attack and sneak attack and manuevering for one round. Or for a touch attack, you can auto disarm or auto trip.
At 8 you get a free feat, that is pretty nice.

so you get the ability to feint, which you always had anyway, and pumped manuevers as a fullround action about 3 times a day(which is nice, but not even close to a dealbreaker)

Except feint doesn't do a gunslinger any good, because feinting only denies them their DEX bonus against your next melee attack.

Also, flatfooted is better than "denied DEX" and applies to attacks made by other people (which feint also doesn't allow).

Trust me...I love a good feint build, but Startling Shot is much better than feint.