I goofed on the monk, I keep thinking they have uncanny dodge for some reason. I went with the dwarven defender in 3.5 since it isn't in the prestige class PDF.
A note on the items, if you aren't seeing them, or allowed to have access to them the problem is somewhere in the DM. These items are straight from the DMG, and pathfinder beta. They are all there, nothing I listed was from a splat book. IF your DM isn't going to allow those things he is artifically improving the rogue. It isn't the developer's fault.
Here are some links to fighter builds I've used for comparisions in pathfinder:
Now in a regular game, where you can get magic items from the DMG and use spells from the PHB (a core game) benny is going to have, at level 16 AC: 50.
13 from armor (+5 mithral, Mod. Fort.)
4 from class abilities while wearing armor
7 from shield (heavy adamantine "bashing" spiked shield)
6 from dex (gets it all becuase of fighter armor training)
5 from ring of protection
5 from amulet of natural armor
and a minor cloak of displacement.
With about 60,000 gp left to spend.
About your build, there are some problems with the build itself, you don't use all the fighter's feats. If you don't use them it's like saying, "well the rogue doesn't need these last 5d6 sneak attack damage I'm just going to leave them off." If you are going to present a build for critique as an "Overpowered" build you need to present all elements of it, and explain why that particular build is so powerful, otherwise it's just another claim with no argument to back it up. Becuase anything someone will say about it will be met by, "Oh well I didn't tell you about this part." Which is very frustrating.
Having said that, I missed the part in the thread when you said you where going to present something specific, and that it would include fighter levels. You did say it, I missed it, that's my fault, I'm sorry.
Honestly Gallileo you are not, and I'm not catholic. I'm not attacking you, I'm pointing out that your arguments against the stuff I'm presenting is lacking.
"My DM doesn't allow it becuase it gimps the rogue." Points to the fact that these DO indeed gimp the rogue, and that he's not that powerful in a regular D&D campaign. His inability to let something affect what seems to be his favorite class is a flaw on his behalf, not the games.
Now I realise this is a long post, but please read it all, I address several parts of Addy's concerns here, and admit where I had made some flaws.
Great post Abraham, helpful as well. You've given me things to think about. Thanks
Am I off base? What does everything think about the power level of the current sneak attack ability, is it ok or too much?
It was about OK when used in conjunction with various non-core things that allow you to bypass immunities. Therefore, it could have been about OK now. BUT, as I had noticed recently, PF Beta destroyed most of the ways to keep the opponents continually flat-footed (certainly blink, as about invisibility, the text of the Blind-Fight feat and the ability's description contradict each other). Unless this is fixed/cleared in the final version, sneak attack is seriously weak. Between the weak important saves and necessity to set up flanks (entering melee, probably sucking up AoOs and highly likely ending one's turn next to a critter with an awesome full attack, before you can unload your own), playing the new rogue, as well as any and all SA-dependent prestiges, at mid-high levels will be ugly. Very ugly. "Spending most of the game waiting for resurrection" ugly.
Personally, I don't think SA is broken.
Alot of folks do though- and to me, if it were to be adjusted, it should be in the "prerequisites" rather than in the damage.
SA should be something that is relatively common, but somewhat time consuming to setup. The problem is that by 10th level every rogue on the planet has 10 ways to SA every creature, every attack, every round. While the rules are fairly stringent for the rogue operating alone- D&D is a group game and *many* are the rogue who run around under Imp Invis tossed out from the friendly mage. Imp Invis turns "sometimes SA" to "automatic SA for every attack, every round, on every creature".
Should we maybe fix SA so that it really only works while flanking, or during the "surprise" round or the truly unaware opponent? (such as with a feint, or the first attack while invisible).
It seems, that PF Beta already attempts to do so. This is a bad thing. "The last nail in the coffin of everyone who is not a primary caster"-level bad, in fact. By level 10, unless you have a potential to unload your 80-10 damage per round (nonoptimized TWFing rogue can reasonably expect to inflict, on average, something in that range, IF he hits with all attacks - remember, that even 20d6 sneak attack total does only about 70 damage, and his base damage is likely to be very poor, because Str is not his primary stat, and his to-hit chance is not great), you suck. That's not even enough to reliably one-shot CR 10 monsters from MM I, by the way. Many of which stand a decent chance of wasting rogue's weak-important-saves, low-HP, low-AC ass in a single round. Or at least inflict something disabling. Also, should I remind you, what exactly you encounter at that level in Paizo's APs? How the heck a 10th level PF Beta core rogue is supposed to contribute, for example, in a fight against 3 stone giants and two dire bears (that's immediately preceded and followed by some more giants and a dragon, without an opportunity to rest)? With SA all the time the rogue has a chance to deal decent damage, possibly without risking melee (his chance to hit with multu-SA options wouldn't be that...
Which is why I said.
I DO NOT think they are broken :)
Rogues are about right. Good when they are good, sometimes mediocre, and sometimes crappy. They take the spotlight sometimes, and sometimes they give it to others. Perfecto.
why?
It's not like SA is powerful, as I demistrate above. It's entirely too easy to discount all together in fact.
The fighter (read lenny) is going to clobber the damage just as often as a rogue, and general survive longer too.
Once a round? ouch.
Why not just relegate wizards to single target damage spells while we're at it?
Oi!
-S
