My biggest issue with the arcane trickster is that the special abilities it gets are too limited. They work fine in a fifteen minute adventuring day, but if you want to make serious use of your class features you are out of luck.And again I say the 15 minute day argument is bull. (I never ran into 15 minute days as a player, and I never would have permitted them as a DM) You're also forgetting that the AT would have the abilities from his base classes as well, his combat and spells, plus whatever what would come form wizard schools or sorcerer bloodlines. I did make a habit of reserving impromptu sneak attacks for the moments that they were really needed.
Also, at will cantrips and 1st level abilities of many wizard schools and sorcerer bloodlines lend themselves well to this class. Getting 1d3 damage plus 4d6 sneak attack for a freezing ray cantrip can make an AT last all day long.
15 minute adventuring day is primarily due to poor resource management on the part of the player.
me saying stuff...
And again I say the 15 minute day argument is bull. (I never ran into 15 minute days as a player, and I never would have permitted them as a DM) You're also forgetting that the AT would have the abilities from his base classes as well, his combat and spells, plus whatever what would come form wizard schools or sorcerer bloodlines. I did make a habit of reserving impromptu sneak attacks for the moments that they were really needed.
Ok but the fact still remains that the two unique abilities of this class, are one shot wonders most of the time. You get ranged legerdmain 1 per day at ninth level (at the eariliest), and you don't get Impromptu Sneak Attack until 11th level (at the eariliest). Everything else is something a straight Rogue/caster can do.
I just think giving these abilities a little more love would be a good idea.
An AT's abilities from his base class are still stuck at the lower end (they are only advanced by levels in the base class) so you have 1 rogue talent and the special stuff of a sorcerer or wizard of sixth level.
You can say the 15 minute adventuring day is bull , but other people have had a problem with it, and part of the stated purpose of pathfinder is to kill it completely. This tells me there must be some sort of problem there, even if you haven't ran into it yet.
Ok but the fact still remains that the two unique abilities of this class, are one shot wonders most of the time. You get ranged legerdmain 1 per day at ninth level (at the eariliest), and you don't get Impromptu Sneak Attack until 11th level (at the eariliest). Everything else is something a straight Rogue/caster can do.
I'm with you. An ability that says "you can do something kind of cool once per day" is generally not worth losing caster levels for (because spells allow you to do really cool things multiple times per day). Just my two cents.
It's true that the Arcane Trickster has a lot of resources at its disposal, especially with the Pathfinder rule changes. However, I also agree that you should have some extra fun stuff if you're going to take the level hits to get into a class. I know lowering the prerequisites seems to be guaranteed, but still. Keep Impromptu Sneak Attack, keep Ranged Ledgermain, but throw in a couple of extra toys (of whatever level-I've gone through this discussion way too much now) to make it fun.
I think a lot of good ideas were thrown around in the splatbooks, and while many may have been poorly executed, the fanbase that Paizo is reaching out to has enjoyed many of them. My thought for AT, as well as many of the core classes, is that the class should be the be-all, end-all for that theme. Spellwarp Sniper, Unseen Seer--you should be able to execute these themes with the new Arcane Trickster class. Same for Abjurant Champion/Duskblade with the Eldritch Knight. If Paizo is going to put out its own splatbooks later on, let the ideas within them be new and fresh--and necessary, not just a twist on an old theme, as we've seen before. I'm personally happier with module support and good stories, rather than more crazy classes.
Virtually no one ever complained about the Arcane Trickster until Wizards came out with it's lurching splatbooks and Paizo actually gave a minor buff to the class.
I've read a variety of complaints about the Arcane Trickster in Living Greyhawk (where splatbooks are fairly limited). Mostly it relates to how painful it is to work your way into from level 1 -- when you're a rogue 3/wizard 4, you really aren't contributing to your party nearly as much as a focused rogue 7 or a wizard 7, for instance. Obviously you've had different experiences with the Arcane Trickster, but that doesn't mean that "virtually no one" complained about it.
I like arcane trickster, because it's the best build available (except maybe Unseen Seer) for a solo thief -- you flat-out can't competently steal stuff in D&D unless you can detect and dispel magic. Bumping the skill points to 6/level and/or expanding the use of ranged legerdemain wouldn't hurt (maybe leave RL x/day, but make it "at will" for characters who already have the hand of the apprentice ability), but IMHO, the trickster doesn't need a better BAB, etc.
I like arcane trickster, because it's the best build available (except maybe Unseen Seer) for a solo thief.
Do you really think that a Pathfinder rogue 3/wizard 5/arcane trickster 1 is a better solo thief than a Pathfinder rogue 1/wizard 8 (for instance)?
Do you really think that a Pathfinder rogue 3/wizard 5/arcane trickster 1 is a better solo thief than a Pathfinder rogue 1/wizard 8 (for instance)?
Unfortunately, at higher levels, nobody is a better anything than a wizard, so that's not really fair... <sigh>.
I like arcane trickster, because it's the best build available (except maybe Unseen Seer) for a solo thief.Do you really think that a Pathfinder rogue 3/wizard 5/arcane trickster 1 is a better solo thief than a Pathfinder rogue 1/wizard 8 (for instance)?
This is why I would like to see the fewer lost caster levels.
My biggest frustration with this class is that it seems that it's entirely about the sneak attack with rays and orbs (which personally I don't care for a whole lot) and not much at all about stealth, espionage and... stealing stuff.
I guess the whole game is has been becoming more about combat and less about this other stuff. *sigh*
Dennis, I agree with you. While this class was originally described in the DMG as a rogue with spells to supplement stealth and stealing ability, you don't include a full SA progression without intending for it to be used, and that's commonly through ray spells. My additions have addressed what most class features are about--combat. However, I don't think it should be limited to ray or touch spells, either. If it's going to be, then those spells should be effective--not constantly, otherwise the additional SA damage becomes ridiculous. However, you shouldn't have to wait until Level 10 (the common level for a Rogue 3/Wizard 5/AT 2 to get 4th level spells) to become effective.
More importantly, the class should be open to options and interpretation. What if you want to be a spy, and not a sniper? What about a melee combatant? The spells should help, and should let you be a spy, a sniper, a cat burglar---whatever you want. And the class features should add to this, whatever your build.
More importantly, the class should be open to options and interpretation. What if you want to be a spy, and not a sniper? What about a melee combatant? The spells should help, and should let you be a spy, a sniper, a cat burglar---whatever you want. And the class features should add to this, whatever your build.
That's a good point. In 3.5, the arcane trickster had a clear purpose -- it was a class that (a) advanced arcane spellcasting and (b) had rogue skills as class skills. The sneak attack was a nice bonus, too. But in Pathfinder, (b) is irrelevant (since cross-class skills aren't expensive any longer, and rogue skills have been greatly collapsed as well [Stealth, Disable Device, Perception]). So the only real advantage in Pathfinder is sneak attack (which some people don't care about).
Base abilities suck? With a good rogue/sorcerer build, a ray of frost can become an instrument of death when you're dealing with true mooks and saving your spell power for bigger fish. The beauty of a well-built AT is the synergy between his base classes, performing things that neither could do alone.I've been playing D+D since 1980 (with somewhat of a few years break during 2nd edition) and I never ran into the 15 minute day. I suspect it originated with players of Neverwinter Nights or the Baldur's Gate console series which would let you pull such things as sit down and rest and recharge all your spells and hit points on the fly. Virtually no one ever complained about the Arcane Trickster until Wizards came out with it's lurching splatbooks and Paizo actually gave a minor buff to the class.
I said stuck not suck. They are wonders, but they are still one shot. Using the various ray spells for sneak attack damage at this time still predicates finding some way to constantly deny you enemy his dex bonus since you can't flank with ranged attacks. This means that blink or greater invisibility become mandatory spells for the ray user.
My main point being that other than raising both sneak attack damage and spellcasting at the same time the AT doesn't provide much for regular use. Yes the two base classes senergise well but they would do that without a prestige class too.
I would like to see more to make the Arcane trickster a bit more unique than just "I'm advancing my casting and sneak attack at the same time."
The ranged legerdmain is a nifty ability, but why should it be so limited? 1~3 times a day doesn't make that much sense to me when it's basically a glorifed "mage hand spell". I would like to see it useful more often even if it is at the espense of a spell slot or something.
Inpromptu sneak attack is great for use with rays... but you'll only be able to do it twice a day at max. I would rather have something where I can feint at range. It would have the same effect, but make use of existing rules (cutting down on word count) and allow unlimited usage at the expense of either move or standard actions (depending on wiether or not the character has improved feint).
Saying no one complained about the AT before splat books is a bit of a red herring and not true. I've complained about the way they choose to do this prestige class since I first saw it in 3.0. Didn't get my anywhere then but I did complain about the limits on the two things that make it more than a magic using rogue.
The beauty of a well-built AT is the synergy between his base classes, performing things that neither could do alone.The peril of a well-built AT is his/her fragility. Even a straight-classed wizard has a batter fortitude save.
AT has always had problems. After playing an obscene amount of 3.0 and 3.5 in the last eight years, the trouble with AT is how they advance.
At 2nd level, an AT has the highest AC in the game. Shield, studded leather, and a good dex go a long way. Then, things go steadily downhill until about 10th level. That's a LONG time.
And look at the low level comparisons...
A 6th level fighter just grabbed two more feats, and now has two attacks a round. Against appropriate enemies, say ghouls, the fighter will do quite well. Straight casters got 3rd level spells at 5th level, and can now fly or fireball, to say nothing about crafting magic items.
In comparison, a rogue 3/wiz 3 can cast glitterdust as his/her best spell, and then try to sneak attack with a +3 Bab. If the save is made, the AT wannabe is out of luck. It's tough to scrape up enough feats to be a decent ranged attacker, and melee is worse. Weapon Finesse helps, but the damage just isn't there. And if the AT gets hit, there's real trouble, since the AT has half the hit points of a same-level fighter.
When we compare characters of 9th-14th level, we risk losing sight of the work it takes to get there. Fighter is viable all the way through, dropping off a bit at the highest levels. However, Arcane Trickster is terrible for over half the characters life, and that's just bad design.
And skill points should be at LEAST 6/level, if not 8. After all, the AT takes the rogues job, and then has to be good at Spellcraft and Knowledge Arcana as well. It was worse still in 3.5, with spot, listen, concentration, etc.
A 9th-level rogue with max ranks in Use Magic Device, a +5 Use Magic Device item, and a wand of scorching ray (wand of acid splash if you're cheap) has an 85% chance to do exactly what an Arcane Trickster does. Add two levels, a positive charisma modifier, or a bigger item, and you'll have a 95% chance. Before that, use acid flasks or *gasp* daggers.
Missing out on other spells? Get more wands. Want invisibility? Buy scrolls. In exchange for buying this stuff, you get a boatload of Rogue Talents, better skills and no Int dependency.
Besides, this isn't even close to achieving optimal damage for a rogue. The best damage you're going to do as a rogue is with Two-Weapon Fighting and flanking something with the party's fighter.
Even if I wanted to do something sub-optimal to bring a character concept home, I would much rather spend a little wealth to do it rather than more than half my class levels. This class fails at what it does best (damage) and it was already shown that it woefully fails at anything other than combat.
I'm curious. Simple vote:
Would you trade 3rd level spell prerequisite for only 2nd level prereq, in exchange for one caster level at 1st level?
Oh, and btw:
Before that, use acid flasks ...
Acid flasks can't be used for sneak attack anymore.
How is it the only measure of a class' usefulness is its potential damage output? That says very sad things about D&D, via-a-vis other systems that maybe support more RP than simply hack and slash.
How is it the only measure of a class' usefulness is its potential damage output? That says very sad things about D&D, via-a-vis other systems that maybe support more RP than simply hack and slash.
Unfortunately, it seems this whole class is built around the concept of rays and orbs doing sneak attack damage.
I would suggest that being a 6th level spellcaster has some value of it's own which makes it as valuable as the 9th level rogue. Being able to cast spells that don't cost money is quite nice for starters.
How is it the only measure of a class' usefulness is its potential damage output? That says very sad things about D&D, via-a-vis other systems that maybe support more RP than simply hack and slash.Unfortunately, it seems this whole class is built around the concept of rays and orbs doing sneak attack damage.
Not exactly; as I pointed out above, it's also built around the concept of an arcane caster class with rogue-like skills on its class list. But since Pathfinder has thrown cross-class skills out the window, that part is now obsolete.
Not exactly; as I pointed out above, it's also built around the concept of an arcane caster class with rogue-like skills on its class list. But since Pathfinder has thrown cross-class skills out the window, that part is now obsolete.
If Arcane Trickster nixed the sneak attack progression completely, and instead gave 6 skill points/level and full access to rogue talents (including advanced talents at character level 10), then I think it would neatly fill the "solo thief" character niche instead of the "ray sneak attacker" combat niche.
(For a great literary example, see Kiera the Thief's burglary of Lord Fyres' offices, in Steven Brust's Orca.)
Not exactly; as I pointed out above, it's also built around the concept of an arcane caster class with rogue-like skills on its class list. But since Pathfinder has thrown cross-class skills out the window, that part is now obsolete.If Arcane Trickster nixed the sneak attack progression completely, and instead gave 6 skill points/level and full access to rogue talents (including advanced talents at character level 10), then I think it would neatly fill the "solo thief" character niche instead of the "ray sneak attacker" combat niche.
Having rogue talents instead of sneak attack would be neat. I don't really care about 2 skill points either way, but I know some people are into that.
I've always thought of the rogue as the skill class. it is made to use thought and cleverness to find answers the other classes would not. this is the real reason they get sneak attack. the arcane trickster should be a class that does the same, except with spells and skills.
i would change Ranged Ledgermain to being usable when ever you cast mage hand or any tk spell. this means using skills and spells together. if this is the focus it would allow those that don't whant to fight there way out of everything an option, and those that do, also an option.
example: a stealth check combined with an invisibility or nondetection would allow the AT to stealth its way past a creature with blind sense or other senses.
it combines a skill check and a spell, using both classes.
how about instead of reducing the requirements you keep them but make the class worth taking at 9-10th level. compare it to the base classes at those levels, not other prestage classes.
you have to raise the skill points from 4 to 6.
the above person is right about class skills, in the nice pathfinder system they don't mean as much all the offered class skills you should have already from taking the classes, do not think of them as a bonus.
Impromptu Sneak Attack is crap, it's a ability that anyone playing the class right well never use. remove it
Not exactly; as I pointed out above, it's also built around the concept of an arcane caster class with rogue-like skills on its class list. But since Pathfinder has thrown cross-class skills out the window, that part is now obsolete.If Arcane Trickster nixed the sneak attack progression completely, and instead gave 6 skill points/level and full access to rogue talents (including advanced talents at character level 10), then I think it would neatly fill the "solo thief" character niche instead of the "ray sneak attacker" combat niche.
(For a great literary example, see Kiera the Thief's burglary of Lord Fyres' offices, in Steven Brust's Orca.)
This is an intriguing idea, however more than half the rogues talents relate to combat or to sneak attack directly. On the other hand some of the other rogue talents would be great for the AT.
This is an intriguing idea, however more than half the rogues talents relate to combat or to sneak attack directly. On the other hand some of the other rogue talents would be great for the AT.
Well, my opinions on the need for mechanics for things other than combat are clear from the "RP is more than combat!" thread -- although the majority there seem to feel that any game mechanics outside of combat are both unwanted and somehow injurious to the game as whole. So the chances of getting more non-combat rogue talents -- or a non-combat oriented class, for that matter -- are probably vanishingly small unless I design them myself.
Well what they feel and what Jason feels can be two seperate things... and the rest of us that realise that combat isn't everything might just stay out of said conversations becuase it's like discussing politics... you just shouldn't do it in public.
This is an intriguing idea, however more than half the rogues talents relate to combat or to sneak attack directly. On the other hand some of the other rogue talents would be great for the AT.Well, my opinions on the need for mechanics for things other than combat are clear from the "RP is more than combat!" thread -- although the majority there seem to feel that any game mechanics outside of combat are both unwanted and somehow injurious to the game as whole. So the chances of getting more non-combat rogue talents -- or a non-combat oriented class, for that matter -- are probably vanishingly small unless I design them myself.
I do think it's important that classes have some value in combat but I think the Arcane Trickster you describe would still be useful in combat due to spells. He would also be the ultimate tool/ skill guy.
I don't know how many people are reading this thread anymore, because we've strayed pretty far off topic (including me) in that we've suggested some radical changes--some that Jason may not be able to include. I did want to put my two bits in on this, though--it's about balance and flexibility. Whether we should be doing more ROLEplaying or ROLLplaying isn't really a decision you make as a game designer (unless you're making Cyberpunk). YOUR job is to make the game as flexible, accessible, and fun as possible. The team that made 4e executed this concept, and stuck to it--they just went in a direction that Pathfinder core players don't prefer.
Making it specific: Arcane Trickster shouldn't be combat-heavy. It shouldn't be skill and trick heavy. It should have a nice blend so that you can create any number of different concepts while using the same rules and not feel cheated. What we love about this game is that we can run any crazy concept we want and have simple rules to do it with. This should be the same--not a sniper or trickster totally, but a host of options that revolve around a general theme--the magical rogue.
Just my cents here: Make the AT more able to do tricks.
Sneak attack, and spells already make it very able to take on combat. Lowering the requirement to 2nd level spells makes it on par with the "Multiclass" casters like fighter/mage (you actually lose two levels of "mage"), priest/mage, barbarian/mage, whatever/mage.
My opinion is that the class abilities should go on the way to let you do some cool things outside combat that could save your butt. You know, RL can save your butt outside combat. Impromptu Sneak is already there, and somehow is part of the class. If you can cast mage hand at will and Sneak Attack someone at will with your ray of frost, why not some more cute abilities to save your butt outside combat? I'm thinking with things like "you can be more than a ranged sneaker with spells" thing. Spells are already the top of versatility, but you could gain some other things too, something on par with RL -something nice, combat-useless (almost), but could save your life outise it.
My two cents, as said...
you guys are missing it, some abilities that combine skills with spells!!!!!!!!! then they could be used in combat and out.
Impromptu Sneak Attack is crap, it's a ability that anyone playing the class right well never use. remove it
Being able to declare an attack on a non-flanked, non-flatfooted, etc. opponent as a Sneak Attack is huge.
OT> Changing the requirement from +2d6 Sneak Attack to +1d6 Sneak Attack and Evasion might work. It would bring the spellcasting progression in line with that of the eldritch knight (down 2 from a single-classed caster).
Impromptu Sneak Attack is crap, it's a ability that anyone playing the class right well never use. remove itBeing able to declare an attack on a non-flanked, non-flatfooted, etc. opponent as a Sneak Attack is huge.
OT> Changing the requirement from +2d6 Sneak Attack to +1d6 Sneak Attack and Evasion might work. It would bring the spellcasting progression in line with that of the eldritch knight (down 2 from a single-classed caster).
Being able to only do it once at level 11 is not though. Beyond that a simple greater invisibility spell can do the same thing (or hiding behind an illusion of a wall). The lengths you have to go through to get it and then the few number of times you can use it see a bit much for this ability. If it was something where it was an arcane sneak attack that could punch through fortification or sneak attack immunity I would agree once a day would be enough, however as it is now... just seems like a lot of work for something that gets burned up quickly.
An example:
My wife is playing a sorcereress arcane trickster. She got in as quickly as she could and is now sorc 6/ rogue 3/ arcane trickster 3. Compared to my wizard 8/ loremaster 4. If she gets her sneak attack with her scorching ray she does 14d6 damage... compared to my 12d6. My vampiric touch does 6d6, hers does 7d6. On first level spells she is much better off damage wise than me but that's only becuase of the damage caps on the spells. However my caster level is 3 higher than hers so I actually connect with my spells more often when spell resistance is an issue (and we have come across a good amount of that in our current campaign). She doesn't typically use her Impromptu Sneak attack becuase she either has Greater Invisibility going, or is flanking (she when aberrant for her bloodline). The few times she had a chance to use the Impromptu she lost it becuase she didn't get past the SR of the monster she was facing. It's a problem similar to paladin's smite evil at level 1.
Lowering the prereqs so the class could be entered earilier would also mean that the capstone would be available sooner, not a huge deal at the level of play we are talking about when the capstone becomes available, but still worth noting. I'm not against doing this, but how soon do you want sneak attack meteor swarms raining down?
Being able to only do it once at level 11 is not though. Beyond that a simple greater invisibility spell can do the same thing (or hiding behind an illusion of a wall).Impromptu Sneak Attack is crap, it's a ability that anyone playing the class right well never use. remove itBeing able to declare an attack on a non-flanked, non-flatfooted, etc. opponent as a Sneak Attack is huge.
Once per day is better than nothing against a foe with true seeing.
The few times she had a chance to use the Impromptu she lost it becuase she didn't get past the SR of the monster she was facing.
So, because the SR was high, the ability to Sneak Attack was useless? Apples and oranges. The Impromptu Sneak Attack can apply to any directed (as opposed to area) attack: melee, ranged, or spell. Against a high SR opponent, casting true strike and shooting a bow or crossbow (or using acid arrow, which is not affected by SR) with Impromptu Sneak Attack can still cause decent damage.
Being able to declare an attack on a non-flanked, non-flatfooted, etc. opponent as a Sneak Attack is huge.
yes, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time it's great. but if you run when you should, hide when you should, ect. you well never use this. if you enter combat one on one and you are a rogue/wizard(sorcerer) you have failed, you have the worst bab, the worst hp and choose poorly. your character should die. you should create a fighter, hit something real hard.
a rogue/wizard(sorcerer) is all about thinking tactics. if you rely on spells alone to hide you well loose there is always a dm that gives true seeing to everything. you want to help the class make it's magic non-detectable, remember even detect magic, a oth level spell, well tell you if there is someone in the room with invisiblity on.
maybe a stealth check at the casting of the spell and someone has to roll a perception, and beat the stealth to see the magic of the spell with a detect magic or like.
maybe a disguise(or bluff) check to hide a spell as a different spell, allows for some creativity on the players part. think a protection against arrows spell that looks like a improved resistance to fire. brings in some good old fashioned role-playing.
silent spell on every spell is great but also the equivilent to 2-3 epic level feats. however a stealth check (against a perception) to cast something effectively still and silent is amazing but not as bad.
Impromptu Sneak Attack is crap, it's a ability that anyone playing the class right well never use. remove itBeing able to declare an attack on a non-flanked, non-flatfooted, etc. opponent as a Sneak Attack is huge.
At the time you get it (as a rogue 3/wizard 5/arcane trickster 3, say), it's worth at most +3d6 sneak attack damage, once per day. On the other hand, a rogue 1/wizard 10 (say), can cast 5th level spells three times per day (at a bare minimum).
I wouldn't call that a huge advantage.
Being able to only do it once at level 11 is not though. Beyond that a simple greater invisibility spell can do the same thing (or hiding behind an illusion of a wall).Impromptu Sneak Attack is crap, it's a ability that anyone playing the class right well never use. remove itBeing able to declare an attack on a non-flanked, non-flatfooted, etc. opponent as a Sneak Attack is huge.Once per day is better than nothing against a foe with true seeing.
The few times she had a chance to use the Impromptu she lost it becuase she didn't get past the SR of the monster she was facing.So, because the SR was high, the ability to Sneak Attack was useless? Apples and oranges. The Impromptu Sneak Attack can apply to any directed (as opposed to area) attack: melee, ranged, or spell. Against a high SR opponent, casting true strike and shooting a bow or crossbow (or using acid arrow, which is not affected by SR) with Impromptu Sneak Attack can still cause decent damage.
If you can hit with that crossbow. My wife is sitting on a total bonus with a crossbow of +12, 6 BAB 5 DEX 1 Point Blank Shot. Granted they are denied their dex bonus (if they have one) but it still is far from a garantueed shot. Beyond that my point still stands: IF you miss you burned the ability for nothing. Your one shot a day is dead in the water, something you spent over half your levels getting goes off once and has a very real chance of doing nothing. Granted this is not an everytime thing. But it is frustrating all the same.
I would prefer that the arcane trickster gets tricks instead of RL and ISA -- Impromptu sneak attack becomes something like a metamagic feat that can be choosen as one of the AT's tricks and so could RL. Add in some more of the tricks from rogue and I think it would work fine.
So, because the SR was high, the ability to Sneak Attack was useless? Apples and oranges. The Impromptu Sneak Attack can apply to any directed (as opposed to area) attack: melee, ranged, or spell. Against a high SR opponent, casting true strike and shooting a bow or crossbow (or using acid arrow, which is not affected by SR) with Impromptu Sneak Attack can still cause decent damage.If you can hit with that crossbow. My wife is sitting on a total bonus with a crossbow of +12, 6 BAB 5 DEX 1 Point Blank Shot. Granted they are denied their dex bonus (if they have one) but it still is far from a garantueed shot.
Note the "casting true strike and shooting a bow or crossbow." Also, acid arrow from a sorcerer 6/rogue 3/arcane trickster 3 will do 2d4 +3d6 on the first round (with the Impromptu Sneak Attack) plus 2d4 for three additional rounds (8d4 +3d6 total).
Being able to declare an attack on a non-flanked, non-flatfooted, etc. opponent as a Sneak Attack is huge.yes, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time it's great. but if you run when you should, hide when you should, ect. you well never use this. if you enter combat one on one and you are a rogue/wizard(sorcerer) you have failed, you have the worst bab, the worst hp and choose poorly. your character should die. you should create a fighter, hit something real hard.
a rogue/wizard(sorcerer) is all about thinking tactics. if you rely on spells alone to hide you well loose there is always a dm that gives true seeing to everything. you want to help the class make it's magic non-detectable, remember even detect magic, a oth level spell, well tell you if there is someone in the room with invisiblity on.
Yes, but the amount of counter-magic available needs to be taken into account, as well. Unless you can guarantee the ability to Sneak Attack every round of every combat in a world with dispel magic, glitterdust, see invisibility, etc. (or just being surprised or unprepared), being able to declare any attack as a Sneak Attack (even on a limited basis) is a big deal.
Yes, but the amount of counter-magic available needs to be taken into account, as well. Unless you can guarantee the ability to Sneak Attack every round of every combat in a world with dispel magic, glitterdust, see invisibility, etc. (or just being surprised or unprepared), being able to declare any attack as a Sneak Attack (even on a limited basis) is a big deal.
what about using non-magical means when facing a magical opponent, or is magic the only way to deal with things? remember rogue/wizard(sorcerer).
this is why i would increase the influence of the rogue in the class beyond sneak attack. if the oppenent can't detect the magical effect with detect magic, i've got a great advantage.
Yes, but the amount of counter-magic available needs to be taken into account, as well. Unless you can guarantee the ability to Sneak Attack every round of every combat in a world with dispel magic, glitterdust, see invisibility, etc. (or just being surprised or unprepared), being able to declare any attack as a Sneak Attack (even on a limited basis) is a big deal.what about using non-magical means when facing a magical opponent, or is magic the only way to deal with things? remember rogue/wizard(sorcerer).
this is why i would increase the influence of the rogue in the class beyond sneak attack. if the oppenent can't detect the magical effect with detect magic, i've got a great advantage.
Unless flanking, that only works for one attack before the rogue loses the advantage. Impromptu Sneak Attack lets the arcane trickster Sneak Attack in any situation, even one where it would otherwise be impossible.
Unless flanking, that only works for one attack before the rogue loses the advantage. Impromptu Sneak Attack lets the arcane trickster Sneak Attack in any situation, even one where it would otherwise be impossible.
This is a good point. So for example using Impromptu Sneak Attack you could have 2-3 rays in your scorching ray attack do sneak attack damage.
Maybe the wording on this power could be cleared up a bit, at first glance it looks kind of meh, but giving the AT the ability to do 2+ sneak attack spells in a round is pretty good. Rogue 3/Wizard 5/ AT 3 would do 3 scorching rays, the first 2 at 8d6 the last at 4d6, potentially 20d6 energy versus a single target in one round. Energy Substitution would make it pretty effective against targets with energy vulnerabilities (dragons for example).
Overall I think the whole ranged offense end of things is covered quite well. More utility/ non-combat rogue oriented abilities would be nice...
Even so that sneak attack with the rays would affect all the rays regardless of how the sneak attack is achieved.
Personally I think just making it an improved feint sort of deal would work better than a once a day or twice a day power.
My Reason:
1. It wouldn't be a "miss and lose" situation to anymore, as you could use it multiple times.
2. It could be opposed with a sense motive check, giving a form of resistance to it.
3. The classes special ability could see more action which is good: You take the class for the special abilities (yes and for advancing both sneak attack and spell casting, but the EK and mystic theurge established that just advancing twin tracks is boring back in 3.0 and 3.5).
Unless flanking, that only works for one attack before the rogue loses the advantage. Impromptu Sneak Attack lets the arcane trickster Sneak Attack in any situation, even one where it would otherwise be impossible.
Impromptu Sneak Attack: Beginning at 3rd level, once
per day an arcane trickster can declare one melee or rangedattack he makes to be a sneak attack (the target can be no
more than 30 feet distant if the impromptu sneak attack
is a ranged attack). The target of an impromptu sneak
attack loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, but only against
that attack. The power can be used against any target, but
creatures that are not subject to critical hits take no extra
damage (though they still lose any Dexterity bonus to AC
against the attack).
At 7th level, an arcane trickster can use this
ability twice per day.
Just like invisibility, or feinting only it always works (and in the case of feinting can be used at range). It still doesn't allow sneak attack damage in every case.
Even so that sneak attack with the rays would affect all the rays regardless of how the sneak attack is achieved.
Unfortunately there are no real guidelines in the core for how sneak attack works with spells. The rules laid out in Complete Arcane are pretty good and I would love to see some simple guidelines like that in PfRPG (It's a paragraph long).
In Complete Arcane: If a spell has multiple rays or attacks you only apply sneak attack damage to the first. Sneak attack damage is of the same type as the spells damage type... etc.
I think most of what is spelled out in Complete Arcane makes sense but it's good to see it spelled out. Without some sort of guidelines in the core rules how sneak attack works with spells or even if sneak attack damage applies to spells.
If you use the Complete Arcane version then the impromptu SA makes sense. If all rays do sneak attack then not so much.
You know, Ive thought about this alot over the past few years, on and off and the arcane trickster would be a better Prc if it didnt require so many arcane spell caster levels to qualify for.
Take the NPC character in 3.5 DMG 2, in Salt Marsh, shes extremely high level and is barely even an arcane trickster.
The arcane trickster would be a better Prc if a bard could go into it after level 4-5 without any other classes. (or you could still be a multi class rogue as well)