In my experience, the rogue with Improved Feint is more dangerous (damage dealing wise) than the one relying on high Stealth.
I would agree with this in part. I think it is the best damage dealing combo IF you are an Invisible Blade and get the IF / GF feats. Why, because as a free action and with GF you Bluff and the enemy would stay flat-footed for the entire round, meaning you could get a full attack on him while he is flat-footed every round.
However, if you are not playing an Invisible Blade, the only time it would really prove to make much of a difference as far as damage is concerned is against other Rogues or Barbarians (anyone with Uncanny Dodge / Improved Uncanny Dodge).
The problem I saw with Invisible Blade when I was taking a look at it was IIRC they don't get to wear any armor. That seems a little counterproductive to me, the build seems like the type you would want to take right into the heat of battle yet they don't get any armor. Seems vulnerable, or at the very least expensive, since you will be making up for lack of armor with Bracers, Amulets, Rings, ETC.
The other thing that I feel makes them more vulnerable in combat than a Stealth based Rogue is that, chances are, the Stealth based Rogue is going to eventually PrC into a class with HiPS and will be virtually invisible for most of the fight.
When you can feint as a move action, with a high Bluff you have a good chance of using sneak attack most other classes every round. Not many load up on Sense Motive. This was one of the brutal things about the Invisible Blade prestige class...though eventually they could feint as a free action and take 10 on their bluff checks.
I agree with your logic. Most NPCs and even a lot of players don't put too much stock in Sense Motive. On the other hand, I have never seen a player and only rarely seen a hand full of NPCs that ever put enough into Perception to actually notice a Stealth specialist. So to be honest I wouldn't say that the Bluff/Feinting specialist has much of an advantage there. And the Stealth specialists definitely have the advantage when it comes to defense because they can just distract their opponent, get to cover and hide (or simply disappear if they have HiPS, which chances are they would). Plus the Stealth specialist can slip into places that someone with a low or even average Stealth probably wouldn't (or would have to rely on Invisibility, which is easily countered).
Worse still is the Rogue with high Stealth, Improved Initiative and Improved Feint. He is going to get an opening Sneak Attack from ambush, then probably one more when he goes first in the round and feints. He also has the chance of Sneak Attack at the beginning of every round.
If he is a Stealth specialist he could do the same thing, actually he could potentially do it better. The Stealth specialist with HiPS could sneak right up to their target and be the one who starts the ambush, getting an initial standard action attack with SA. Then if he goes first (or at least before his enemy) he can potentially get a full attack with full SA on the enemy he started the ambush against. Then he can take a 5-foot step and enter Stealth. If the enemies don't make their Perception checks then he is virtually invisible and even if they do attack the square he is in they suffer a 50% miss chance.
It is easy to say well they will probably make their Perception checks against him, but like I said I have only very rarely seen an NPC who could actually spot a Stealth specialist.
I don’t think there is really one build that is better by default. They are both quite devastating in combat and quite disorienting to their enemy. I think a lot of it boils down to personal preferences and how you envision / want to play your character. Personally I do think that the Stealth build Rogues have the versatility advantage because it is both and offensive and defensive skill set in combat as well as being very useful outside of combat in a lot of RP and adventuring scenarios.
Except that a pathfinder fighter (or just a non pathfinder well optimized fighter) deals just as much average damage per full attack as a rogue, so I don't see where your coming from with calling sneak attack every attack in a round excessive.
Shouldn't the fighter be dealing more damage not equal? I mean the way I see it he is the fighter and that's what he specializes in. That's where the concept that sneak attack every round is excessive.
Considering the fighter is good at one thing I kind of think he should be the BEST at that one thing.
Rogues are good at so many things shouldn't the fighter get to shine somewhere?
Ah, but you see, the fighter does shine. He's got the BAB, the feats, etc to apply so many more tactical options. I see no reason for the Fighter to need to outdamage the rogue when his only real contribution to combat is damage. Fighter has damage, Maneuvers, etc.
You get what I'm saying Dennis?
I get where you are coming from but I don't agree. Rogues get scaling damage capabilities built into the class and a ton of utility and combat capabilities. Fighters get more feats but many of those feats are burned to keep up with rogues damage dealing capability so ultimately do they really offer that much more utility?
Just expanding on my previous post a bit. Rogues are super useful to have in a party both inside and outside combat. Other than the casters it is probably the most versatile classes in the game. The fighter is a specialist, he is good in one place, with a sword in hand. Given all he gives up he should really shine in that one place.
To be honest the same applies to the monk and to some extent the barbarian. Paladins have enough out of combat abilities I'd be ok with them being equal to the rogues combat effectiveness.
Let's compare then, shall we? A level 20 fighter and a level 20 rogue flanking a Titan (CR 21). Both characters have 30 in their main combat attribute (strength for fighter, dex for rogue); the fighter is wielding a greatsword, the rogue is dual wielding a rapier and a shortsword. The fighter has full weapon focus and weapon spec in greatsword plus the penetration line; the rogue has finesse and the full dual wield line. Both have +3 double-energy-damage weapons (ie, +3 corrosive flaming, or whatever).
The fighter hits at +41/+36/+31/+26 (20 BAB, +4 weapon training, +2 greater weapon focus, +3 enhancement, +10 strength, +2 flanking) for 2d6+21+2d6 energy (+4 weapon training, +4 greater weapon specialization, +3 enhancement, +15 strength, -5 DR; average 35) each hit.
The rogue hits at +28/+28/+23/+23/+18/+18 (15 BAB, +3 enhancement, +10 dex, +2 flanking, -2 dual wielding) for 1d6-12+10d6+2d6 energy (+3 enhancement, -15 DR; average 33.5) each hit.
Titans have 38 AC. That means the fighter hits 3.05 times on average for 106.75 average damage, and the rogue hits 1.8 times on average for 60.3 average damage.
Where's the problem again?
I dont look at equipment outside of standard weapons when it comes to calculations (they automatically skew things and make assumptions about the average campaign that may not be accurate) and i never use the extremes as examples (because they are just that, extremes not norms). So this example doesnt really disuade my view.
Whatever. Level 10 fighter and rogue, 22 stat, the fighter has full weapon focus, basic specialization, and power attack, the rogue has finesse and improved TWF. Nonmagical weapons. They're flanking a stone golem (CR 11).
Fighter hits at +22/+17 (10 BAB, +2 weapon training, +2 greater weapon focus, +6 strength, +2 flanking) for 2d6+3 (9 strength, +2 weapon training, +2 weapon specialization, -10 DR; average 10.5) damage.
Rogue hits at +14/+14/+9/+9 (8 BAB, +6 dex, +2 flanking, -2 TWF) for 1d6-10+5d6 (-10 DR; average 11) damage.
The stone golem has AC 26. The fighter hits 1.45 times on average for 15.225 damage. The rogue hits 1.3 times on average for 14.3 damage.
Note that this scenario is intentionally skewed towards the rogue (level 10 instead of level 11, where the fighter gets a new iterative and the rogue doesn't, or level 12 where the fighter gets penetrating strike and the rogue doesn't), and the rogue is still behind the fighter in damage even with using sneak attack on every attack that lands. EDIT: Oh, and I even forgot to actually USE power attack. That changes the fighter's result to 22.425 average damage (1.15 average hits at 19.5 average damage). Also note that it is possible for the rogue to do ZERO damage on a hit in this circumstance, while the fighter will always damage the golem if he hits.
Whatever. Level 10 fighter and rogue, 22 stat, the fighter has full weapon focus, basic specialization, and power attack, the rogue has finesse and improved TWF. Nonmagical weapons. They're flanking a stone golem (CR 11).
Fighter hits at +22/+17 (10 BAB, +2 weapon training, +2 greater weapon focus, +6 strength, +2 flanking) for 2d6+3 (9 strength, +2 weapon training, +2 weapon specialization, -10 DR; average 10.5) damage.
Rogue hits at +14/+14/+9/+9 (8 BAB, +6 dex, +2 flanking, -2 TWF) for 1d6-10+5d6 (-10 DR; average 11) damage.
The stone golem has AC 26. The fighter hits 1.45 times on average for 15.225 damage. The rogue hits 1.3 times on average for 14.3 damage.
Note that this scenario is intentionally skewed towards the rogue (level 10 instead of level 11, where the fighter gets a new iterative and the rogue doesn't, or level 12 where the fighter gets penetrating strike and the rogue doesn't), and the rogue is still behind the fighter in damage even with using sneak attack on every attack that lands. EDIT: Oh, and I even forgot to actually USE power attack. That changes the fighter's result to 22.425 average damage (1.15 average hits at 19.5 average damage). Also note that it is possible for the rogue to do ZERO damage on a hit in this circumstance, while the fighter will always damage the golem if he hits.
+1
Nice analysis Zurai.
Let's compare then, shall we? A level 20 fighter and a level 20 rogue flanking a Titan (CR 21). Both characters have 30 in their main combat attribute (strength for fighter, dex for rogue); the fighter is wielding a greatsword, the rogue is dual wielding a rapier and a shortsword. The fighter has full weapon focus and weapon spec in greatsword plus the penetration line; the rogue has finesse and the full dual wield line. Both have +3 double-energy-damage weapons (ie, +3 corrosive flaming, or whatever).
The fighter hits at +41/+36/+31/+26 (20 BAB, +4 weapon training, +2 greater weapon focus, +3 enhancement, +10 strength, +2 flanking) for 2d6+21+2d6 energy (+4 weapon training, +4 greater weapon specialization, +3 enhancement, +15 strength, -5 DR; average 35) each hit.
The rogue hits at +28/+28/+23/+23/+18/+18 (15 BAB, +3 enhancement, +10 dex, +2 flanking, -2 dual wielding) for 1d6-12+10d6+2d6 energy (+3 enhancement, -15 DR; average 33.5) each hit.
Titans have 38 AC. That means the fighter hits 3.05 times on average for 106.75 average damage, and the rogue hits 1.8 times on average for 60.3 average damage.
Where's the problem again?
Whatever. Level 10 fighter and rogue, 22 stat, the fighter has full weapon focus, basic specialization, and power attack, the rogue has finesse and improved TWF. Nonmagical weapons. They're flanking a stone golem (CR 11).
Fighter hits at +22/+17 (10 BAB, +2 weapon training, +2 greater weapon focus, +6 strength, +2 flanking) for 2d6+3 (9 strength, +2 weapon training, +2 weapon specialization, -10 DR; average 10.5) damage.
Rogue hits at +14/+14/+9/+9 (8 BAB, +6 dex, +2 flanking, -2 TWF) for 1d6-10+5d6 (-10 DR; average 11) damage.
The stone golem has AC 26. The fighter hits 1.45 times on average for 15.225 damage. The rogue hits 1.3 times on average for 14.3 damage.
Note that this scenario is intentionally skewed towards the rogue (level 10 instead of level 11, where the fighter gets a new iterative and the rogue doesn't, or level 12 where the fighter gets penetrating strike and the rogue doesn't), and the rogue is still behind the fighter in damage even with using sneak attack on every attack that lands. EDIT: Oh, and I even forgot to actually USE power attack. That changes the fighter's result to 22.425 average damage (1.15 average hits at 19.5 average damage). Also note that it is possible for the rogue to do ZERO damage on a hit in this circumstance, while the fighter will always damage the golem if he hits.
+1 from me too.
Well thought out examples.
Zurai ->
I'm not going to bang maths around all day long trying to prove anything because IMO it's a fools game. Basically you can make numbers do anything you want, politicians and the media have proved that over and over.
For example: the stone golem has a higher than average AC for the CR which favors the higher BAB character.
Regardless, I've never had problems with rogues out damaging the fighters and don't figure on changing anything unless I do. Which I guess I didn't communicate very well.
I personally find someone who can ambush me openly on the street and possibly sneak attack every round far far worse than the guy who has to sneak up on me to do it. If the rogue has a high enough Bluff to feint me, he probably has a high enough Bluff to conceal that he is about to strike in the open.
I am not sure why you would think that a guy with Bluff could do this but a guy with Stealth could not. There are rules for using Hide/Stealth to blend into a crowd in the Complete (either Adventurer or Scoundrel I can't remember) so a guy focused on Stealth could absolutely come right up to you in a crowd and you wouldn't see him until he attacked. And that is even IF he didn't have HiPS (Hide in Plain Sight) which he probably would because for a Stealth guy that is pretty much the epitome of Stealth skill. So, if he has a high Stealth he absolutely can ambush you openly in a crowd; furthermore if he has HiPS he is absolutely capable of getting Sneak Attack on every round. And in between his attacks he will be completely safe because you aren't going to see him. And as you say most people don't load up on Sense Motive so even a Stealth focused Rogue probably has a high enough Bluff to Feint most others he runs into. So, if the Stealth Rogue does happen to run into someone who devoted enough skill ranks, feats, and magic items to Perception to be able to see him, he can just Feint that guy and still get SA. Whereas, in the opposite scenario, if you are devoted to such a degree to Bluff you probably haven't put feats or magic items into Stealth which leaves you only with your skill ranks. Skill ranks alone will not be enough to beat the average characters Perception.
If you are using Bluff to blend into a crowd then it sounds like a house rule to me because I have never seen any printed rules to let you do that whereas there are for Hide/Stealth.
A Stealth focused Rogue with one lvl of Shadowdancer, eight lvls of Assassin, or the Dark Creature template would have Hide in Plain Sight. And if none of those suit your purposes then there is even a magic item that gives you the Dark Creature template for 10 minutes per day.
I don't know how HiPS works in your game, if you are house ruling basic SA rules then you might be house ruling HiPS too. But a Rogue with HiPS could take a full attack on you and then make a 5-foot step and use Stealth. You roll your Perception check and if you don't beat his Stealth he disappears right in front of you. True he only took a 5-foot step so you probably know what square he is in, but you still have a 50% chance to miss him. And if he only takes a Standard Action attack he can take his whole movement under cover of Stealth and you will have no idea where he went until he stabs you again. And yes, if he attacks you from stealth he gets SA on the first attack.
It can be even worse to keep track of a guy with HiPS if he is attacking you from a ranged position. And if he is Sniping there is no contest, although it would be hard for him to Snipe within 30' and get SA because of the -20 to Stealth for Sniping. But if he pulled it off you would not see him at all and would never even know who was tearing you apart with arrows or where they were.
Two side notes: The Invisible Blade does not gain any armor proficiencies beyond what he entered the prestige class with. However, when not wearing armor they add their Intelligence bonus (up to their Invisible Blade level) as well as their Dexterity to their AC (Unfettered Defense). That is however the only class ability that is affected by wearing armor...their feinting abilities make no mention of armor affecting them.
Fair enough, I don't have access to my books right now or I would have verified what I remembered before I posted. I stand corrected on that point.
Second side note is entirely personal. This is also a case of long time rule for me and my group being remebered as actual rule. We only allow sneak attack damage on a rogues opening strike in a round against a target. I misremembered it as actual rule, sorry about that. Allowing it on every attack in the round seems extremely broken and excessive to me.
Well I will have to disagree with you here. I think Zurai did a fine job of demonstrating that a Fighter can not only keep up but easily surpass a Rogue's ability to deal damage (especially in a low magic setting) simply based on the fact that the Rogue isn't going to hit nearly as often. You also have to take into consideration that the Fighter has plenty of options to increase his damage even further with feats that are Fighter specific or at the end of a line of feats that the Rogue can't afford to take. And I don't think I would call a Rogue's SA, as presented in the Rules, broken or excessive in the face of a Fireball which cast from a lvl 10 Wizard will do 10d6 (or more with certain feats) of damage to everything in the area with one attack and that is only a 3rd lvl spell. It takes a Rogue 19 lvls to be able to do 10d6 in one attack. Sure Rogues get multiple attacks but so do Wizards with feats that let them cast more than one spell in a round and Rogues only damage one foe at a time, Wizards hit everything in the area of effect.
NOTE: Even with this house rule of yours, A Rogue with high Stealth and HiPS could get Sneak Attack every round just as easily as a Rogue with High Bluff and Feint. Your house rule actually decreases the damage dealing advantage an Invisible Blade with Bluff and Greater Feint would have because he is still only going to get one attack with SA under your system.
I see bluff the same way you see stealth. My group tends to use bluff for blending into a crowd not hide/stealth. So in many of our urban games, bluff has been equally useful as stealth for offense and defense. Bluff, Sleight of Hand and Disguise are favorite for urban rogues in past games for us, sometimes more often than Stealth.
I can see your point. I am aware of the usefulness of these skills I have used them myself to get enemies blamed for the things I am doing. I can see how Disguise and Bluff could let you get close to a party but to disappear into a crowd is a Stealth skill not a Bluff. As stated above, the rules for it is in Complete (I believe Adventurer or Scoundrel). It has to do with tailing someone through a crowd or losing people in a crowd IIRC.
Dennis, that was more my point about rogues.
Looking through the core book at class features and feats, if a rogue gets their sneak attack on every attack against someone denied their AC or whom they flank (according to the rules), then I dont see how fighters can match the potential for damage that a rogue has. By the rules if an 8th level rogue flanks an opponent they can take 2 attacks per round dealing 5d6 (assume short sword for main weapon). With two weapon fighting it becomes 3 attacks at 5d6.
Which is why I see allowing a rogue to sneak attack every attack in a round against vulnerable targets to be excessive.
My group will probably house rule it as a full round action to sneak attack or a move-action to set up the strike (aiming for the vitals) and thus limit it to one sneak attack per round.
-Weylin
I house ruled that sneak attack was only possible on the first attack, because I thought that rogue are not meant to be as much damage dealers than fighters, and are more useful for their stealth and disable devices abilities.
But it's really a preference for a style of game, not really balance.
Weylin, you may also want to consider the new rules for Feint as it occured to me that you are likely going on the 3.5 rules due to the way you worded some things.
Feint
Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff skill check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher. If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.When feinting against a nonhumanoid you take a –4 penalty. Against a creature of animal Intelligence (1 or 2), you take a –8 penalty. Against a creature lacking an Intelligence score, it's impossible. Feinting in combat does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
I bolded the relevant text in the description. So if you are trying to Bluff a Melee character with a full BAB you better be amazing at it because they no longer have to keep up with you via sense motive if you are using PF rules.
Example:
lvl 10 Rogue with an 18 in Charisma. Full Bluff ranks would give you a 10 + 3 for class skill + 4 for Charisma. You are sitting at d20 + 17. (That is IF you put an 18 in Charisma, most Rogues I have known put the highest score in Dex, followed by Int for the skill bonus and after that it is a toss up between Cha and Con. For the purposes of the example, however, I am giving the Bluff/Feint Rogue the benifit of the doubt by saying he put his highest score in Cha for a good Bluff.)
lvl 10 Fighter with 10 in Wisdom and NO ranks in Sense Motive gets 10 base + 10 BAB + 0 Wis mod. Sitting at +20. And if he had a higher Wisdom, which is possible for Will Saves, it could scale up a little.
lvl 10 Fighter with a 10 in wisdom and full ranks in SM would be the same because the 10 ranks would replace the 10 BAB which would give you the exact same DC.
Now, a DC 20 isn't going to be difficult to beat at all for a guy with a +17 to Bluff, but if you roll anything less than a 3, which will be 20% of the time, you won't be catching the Fighter off guard. Since you are using Bluff in place of Stealth as the focus for gaining SA you will probably put some feats into it but the point is that there is no such free bonus to Perception, you either have it or you don't, with Sense Motive you can rely on your BAB and Wis mod to pull you through. By the way, that same lvl 10 Fighter with the same stats, even if he maxed out Perception would only have a d20 +10 and the average Stealth specialist will have enough boosting his Stealth that he will be able to beat that Fighters Perception 100% of the time. So I would say a Stealth specialist's has at least equal if not higher chances of avoiding sight with Stealth and getting SA as a Bluff/Feint specialist's chances of getting it under the new system. In addition, the key ability score for Stealth is also the key ability score for defense (AC) and offence (Initiative, Attack Bonus with Weapon Finesse, and even bonus damage with the Shadow Blade feat from Bo9S) so a Stealth specialist is able to be more focused on one ability score that will boost all of his combat abilities rather than having to spread out over many.
Also consider this:
When feinting against a nonhumanoid you take a –4 penalty. Against a creature of animal Intelligence (1 or 2), you take a –8 penalty. Against a creature lacking an Intelligence score, it's impossible.
A Stealth specialist with HiPS suffers no such dilemma.
Zurai ->
I'm not going to bang maths around all day long trying to prove anything because IMO it's a fools game. Basically you can make numbers do anything you want, politicians and the media have proved that over and over.
For example: the stone golem has a higher than average AC for the CR which favors the higher BAB character.
Thanks for the accusation of number-fixing. <rolls eyes>
Thanks for the accusation of number-fixing. <rolls eyes>Zurai ->
I'm not going to bang maths around all day long trying to prove anything because IMO it's a fools game. Basically you can make numbers do anything you want, politicians and the media have proved that over and over.
For example: the stone golem has a higher than average AC for the CR which favors the higher BAB character.
I'm not accusing you of fixing anything I'm saying numerical analysis in general is crap. If you want to say I'm "Accusing" you of something at least get it right. I'm 'accusing' you of using a crappy methodology.
Happy?
*rolls eyes*
Whatever. Level 10 fighter and rogue, 22 stat, the fighter has full weapon focus, basic specialization, and power attack, the rogue has finesse and improved TWF. Nonmagical weapons. They're flanking a stone golem (CR 11).
No offense, but your analysis is already starting on a bad note. You're comparing an offensive fighter (high strength, two handed weapon, feat choices designed to add damage) to a mixed-defensive rogue (low strength/high dex, finesse) and the non-magical weapons will really hurt the rogue much, much more. Especially for a finesse build you need extra sources of flat damage from effects like flaming or vicious.
Try doing the same comparison with a high strength offensive rogue, that has also taken feats that add to damage (such as power attack).
Whatever. Level 10 fighter and rogue, 22 stat, the fighter has full weapon focus, basic specialization, and power attack, the rogue has finesse and improved TWF. Nonmagical weapons. They're flanking a stone golem (CR 11).No offense, but your analysis is already starting on a bad note. You're comparing an offensive fighter (high strength, two handed weapon, feat choices designed to add damage) to a mixed-defensive rogue (low strength/high dex, finesse) and the non-magical weapons will really hurt the rogue much, much more. Especially for a finesse build you need extra sources of flat damage from effects like flaming or vicious.
Try doing the same comparison with a high strength offensive rogue, that has also taken feats that add to damage (such as power attack).
Fine, whatever (though note that the non-magical weapons thing was a specific request, not my choice). It's even worse in that scenario: fighter as above, rogue with 22 strength, weapon focus, power attack, greatsword.
Fighter deals 22.425 average damage.
Rogue hits at +14/+9 (7 BAB, +6 strength, +1 weapon focus, +2 flanking, -2 power attack) and deals 2d6+5+5d6 (9 strength, +6 power attack, -10 DR; average 29.5) damage. He hits 0.45 times on average and deals an average of 13.275 damage.
@Dennis: You were b!!~~ing that rogues were soooo good in combat that the fighter had to burn all his feats just to break even. I disproved that, and you can set up any reasonable challenge you want, the fighter will STILL be ahead while spending a smaller proportion of his feats than the rogue does. Numerical analysis is the only analysis that is possible if you want an accurate, biasless comparison. I choose the Titan because it was the only CR21 creature in MM1, and I chose the Stone Golem by rolling a die among CR11s. Pick another monster if you're so terribly upset.
I like the numerical analysis. What it points out to me is that, over time, the offensive fighter will outdamage the rogue. I find that to be consistent with my experience in the games I have played in. The fighter consistently does good damage in most combat situations.
The TWF rogue is more situational, and, depending on rolls, can have significant burst damage. That's what makes playing a rogue fun.
If you look at the maximum output of both situations, the rogue is substantially higher. Over time, the fighter will definitely outdamage the rogue. But there is the potential for the rogue to have significantly higher damage in any given combat round. It keeps things exciting for the rogue. *grin*
Basically, what I find is that people really dramatically undervalue BAB. Everyone thinks "WOW, that's a lot of d6s!" and completely ignores that the rogue hits half as often (or less) than the fighter does.
@Dennis: You were b*!#@ing that rogues were soooo good in combat that the fighter had to burn all his feats just to break even. I disproved that,
Is there some reason you feel the need to be so confrontational? You seem to think this is some sort of adversarial match. Note, the polite non-confrontational conversational tone in the dialog between Kyrt and I?
You might start by rereading my previous post right before you started complaining about me suggesting you fixed the results. EDIT: (The part you decided to edit out because apparently it was more important to take offense at what I said)
I completely disagree with you on the value on numerical analysis in talking about game mechanics. There are simply too many variables and all the situations are contrived.
You chose randomly among CR 10 creatures but it is a sample of 1 out of how many? You have 2 characters builds out of potentially an infinite number. Nor do the character builds necessarily reflect what the typical player will create.
b. jumps out of the barrel, tiptoes over and pierces the nearest ogres kidneys?Depends, do the spaces she is moving through provide cover or concealment? If not, then she is not using Stealth, and the ogres are immediately aware of her. If so, then she can move using Stealth, and if successful make a sneak attack against her target.In core PF? Your right, though if Valeros were on the opposite side of the Ogres from her I'd let her make a simple stealth check to sneak up on them, he's the only threat/victim/whatever they see.
However, as was linked earlier, complete adventurer does have rules for this. For every 5 ranks of stealth you have (ranks would include the Pathfinder class skill bonus of course, due to conversion issues), you can sneak through 5 feet of open ground without being noticed by taking a -5 penalty to your stealth check.
Personally, I am deffinitely taking this rule into my games, BUT, instead of ranks, O would use virtual ranks (Ranks + Class skill bonus + any feats that apply) though I'm strongly contemplating removing the distance limit and instead just flat apply the -5 penalty per 5 feet travelled.
I am not sure there needs to be a ranks limit on the distance travel-able, when there is already a cumulative -5 penalty per 5 feet travelled. If joe, the craptastic rogue wants to try his luck for that extra 5 feet, i say let him.
Rogues on average do not out damage fighters. All those d6's just look pretty. This was proven more than once on the WoTC CO boards.
Another point that needs to be looked at is overall effectiveness, not just one area. The rogue, assuming the fighter build is a competent one will not have the fighter's AC. Now if the rogue just becomes better at front lining that would be an issue.
Another point, which has always been pointed out is that the rogue misses more.
Can a rogue out damage a fighter in any given campaign sure, but almost any other class can also depending on the class's build compared to the fighter. It's not like Zurai went through every splatbook to out damage the rogue.
I completely disagree with you on the value on numerical analysis in talking about game mechanics. There are simply too many variables and all the situations are contrived.
You chose randomly among CR 10 creatures but it is a sample of 1 out of how many? You have 2 characters builds out of potentially an infinite number. Nor do the character builds necessarily reflect what the typical player will create.
Then how do you propose to compare them? Because you HAVE compared them, and you DID say that the rogue was too good in comparison to the fighter's damage dealing:
Shouldn't the fighter be dealing more damage not equal? I mean the way I see it he is the fighter and that's what he specializes in. That's where the concept that sneak attack every round is excessive.
Considering the fighter is good at one thing I kind of think he should be the BEST at that one thing.
Rogues are good at so many things shouldn't the fighter get to shine somewhere?
If you can't compare them with numerical analysis, how do you compare them? Anecdotal evidence? Completely worthless. Intuition? Completely worthless (and I say this as an INFP). When you're analyzing a system built with math, the only valid analysis IS math.
More Mono-v-mono confrontational stuffs
Since you can't be bothered to read my posts I'm not much interested in replying to you. I already talked about this and referred you back to the post once.
If you can't compare them with numerical analysis, how do you compare them? Anecdotal evidence? Completely worthless. Intuition? Completely worthless (and I say this as an INFP). When you're analyzing a system built with math, the only valid analysis IS math.
When you are dealing with a system that has as many variables as this one trying to boil it down to one PVP scenario tells you nothing. Of course I already pointed this out but since you don't read my posts other than to pick and choose bits to pounce on you probably didn't see that.
More Mono-v-mono confrontational stuffsSince you can't be bothered to read my posts I'm not much interested in replying to you. I already talked about this and referred you back to the post once.
The post you referred me back to was in direct opposition to the post I just quoted, and contained nothing about the question I asked you: How can you compare and analyze a math-based system if math-based analysis is invalid?
The post you referred me back to was in direct opposition to the post I just quoted, and contained nothing about the question I asked you: How can you compare and analyze a math-based system if math-based analysis is invalid?
Just like any scientist does, through observation.
Um, you're aware that scientists that observe mathematical systems (AKA "mathematicians") use mathematical analysis to make their observations, right?
Um, you're aware that scientists that observe mathematical systems (AKA "mathematicians") use mathematical analysis to make their observations, right?
You are not making sense.
You are not observing anything. You are CONTRIVING a situation and making conclusions based a sample of 1.
Um, you're aware that scientists that observe mathematical systems (AKA "mathematicians") use mathematical analysis to make their observations, right?You are not making sense.
You are not observing anything. You are CONTRIVING a situation and making conclusions based a sample of 1.
So you believe that on average the rogue would do more damage if sampled against every monster?
Um, you're aware that scientists that observe mathematical systems (AKA "mathematicians") use mathematical analysis to make their observations, right?You are not making sense.
You are not observing anything. You are CONTRIVING a situation and making conclusions based a sample of 1.
contrive
–verb (used with object)1. to plan with ingenuity; devise; invent: The author contrived a clever plot.
2. to bring about or effect by a plan, scheme, or the like; manage: He contrived to gain their votes.
3. to plot (evil, treachery, etc.).
Now you're accusing me of scheming and making evil plots. You're also lying; at the very minimum, I've got a sample of 3 (geared level 20 fighter and rogue vs titan, ungeared level 10 fighter and rogue vs stone golem, ungeared level 10 fighter and thug-rogue vs stone golem).
contrive
–verb (used with object)
1. to plan with ingenuity; devise; invent: The author contrived a clever plot.
2. to bring about or effect by a plan, scheme, or the like; manage: He contrived to gain their votes.
3. to plot (evil, treachery, etc.).Either the word doesn't mean what you think it means, or you're sniffing glue.
You are right, shouldn't have used that word.
Sample of 1... oh wait 3 I guess all manufactured and none of them from actual play.
Sample of 1... oh wait 3 I guess all manufactured and none of them from actual play.
What I find amusing about all of this is that you're simultaneously arguing that rogues don't do more damage than fighters, that rogues do so much damage that fighters have to spend all their feats just to keep up, and that I'm "CONTRIVING" mathematical results that show that your first argument is correct.
So you believe that on average the rogue would do more damage if sampled against every monster?Um, you're aware that scientists that observe mathematical systems (AKA "mathematicians") use mathematical analysis to make their observations, right?You are not making sense.
You are not observing anything. You are CONTRIVING a situation and making conclusions based a sample of 1.
No. That's what I was trying to point out to Zurai three or 4 times. If he'd bothered to read my post that I've pointed to three or 4 times.
Here I'll quote it ->
Regardless, I've never had problems with rogues out damaging the fighters and don't figure on changing anything unless I do. Which I guess I didn't communicate very well.
That was in my original comment about his 'mathematical' scenario. He chose to edit it out when he replied and has ignored it since in spite of the fact that I pointed back to it.
Sample of 1... oh wait 3 I guess all manufactured and none of them from actual play.What I find amusing about all of this is that you're simultaneously arguing that rogues don't do more damage than fighters, that rogues do so much damage that fighters have to spend all their feats just to keep up, and that I'm "CONTRIVING" mathematical results that show that your first argument is correct.
What?
I stopped making any comments about damage dealing some time ago. We've been chatting about how pointless simplistic mathematical analysis is with regards to highly complex systems.
Dennis, what would it take to show you that, on the average, the Fighter deals more damage than the rogue?
Apparently, only anecdotal evidence is enough to satisfy him. Which is extremely curious for one who compares himself to a scientist.
What?
I stopped making any comments about damage dealing some time ago.
Yes, you stopped overtly saying so when I showed that fighters do roughly 50% more damage than rogues. However, you've continued to state and imply that I'm scheming to show through simple mathematics that fighters in fact outdamage rogues, which implies that you think otherwise. If you didn't think that rogues do too much damage, you wouldn't attribute such negative intentions to me showing that they don't do too much damage.
Dennis, what would it take to show you that, on the average, the Fighter deals more damage than the rogue?
Why do I need to be 'convinced' of anything? I've already said I don't perceive a problem.