So nearly my whole group thinks that the rogue (especially a TWF one) can WAY outdamage the fighter due to sneak attack being applied to all attacks of a full attack action, so the DM ruled that the sneak attack damage is applied (to each opponent) only to the first attack when you make sneak attacks due to a non-hidden reason.
Now i don't care about it, i don't play a rogue right now nor do i plan on playing one for a LOT of time, and it really helps me against enemies that have sneak attack.
But because i am ill right now, and frankly don't have a lot to do, please help me build a case (so to speak) that reinforces my point that rogues aren't that frightning and that they don't outdamage every full bab class all day long.
I recommend pointing them at men in black's dpr olympics.
The fighter does more damage per round every round then the rogue does when he is sneak attacking, which he wont always do. Fighter hits more often, has more static damage bonuses, and is far more consistent. A rogue wont hit as often (lower bab and fewer bonuses to hit) and wont always be sneak attacking. All of the fighter's bonuses are also multipled on crits, where as the rogues sneak attack isn't.
And further down the page, if you look at the archer fighter, it blows the rogue out of the water.
Well the actually they do outdamage every full bab class (except a cavalier using challenge, a guide using ranger focus or a paladin using smite).
The catch is they need to flank and find an opponent that is vulnerable to sneak attack.
|
Well, first I just want to say I'm having a sense of deja vu when reading this thread.
Now, if I remember the argument correctly, it comes down to the fact that the Rogue won't be hitting his mark as often due to his 3/4 BAB. There's also the inclusion of feats, such as Greater Weapon Specialization (and all prerequisites) and Critical Mastery, that only the Fighter has access to.
Also, there's the fact that certain enemies are going to be immune to a Rogue's Sneak Attack. It's less common for an enemy to be immune to the Fighter's Power Attack to the face seven times.
Anyway, hope that helps get the discussion started.
Edit: wow.. ninja'd twice..
So nearly my whole group thinks that the rogue (especially a TWF one) can WAY outdamage the fighter due to sneak attack being applied to all attacks of a full attack action, so the DM ruled that the sneak attack damage is applied (to each opponent) only to the first attack when you make sneak attacks due to a non-hidden reason.
Now i don't care about it, i don't play a rogue right now nor do i plan on playing one for a LOT of time, and it really helps me against enemies that have sneak attack.
But because i am ill right now, and frankly don't have a lot to do, please help me build a case (so to speak) that reinforces my point that rogues aren't that frightning and that they don't outdamage every full bab class all day long.
The way your GM'd ruled it is actually how it works in the game. If you are full round attacking by surprising someone (i.e. they lose their Dex mod), only the first hit counts because after that, they know you are there. The only way you can full attack with sneak attack damage is if you are flanking or find a way to have every attack hit them when they have lost their Dex bonus (Greater Invisibility or catching them on the surprise round).
From James Jacobs himself:
Nope; even two-weapon fighting doesn't let you sneak in an extra sneak attack. Essentially, once you make your first attack, the foe knows you're there and is no longer flat-footed after that. It takes things like greater invisibility that prevent a foe from noticing you even after you attack to get in a full round of sneak attacks.
That said... if it's the first round of combat and the assassin wins initiative, the victim is flat footed simply because the assassin goes before him. In this case, and assuming the assassin was in melee range, all 7 attacks would be sneak attacks. You really don't want to get jumped by a high-level sneak attacker and then roll low on initiative.
Source: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/howManySneakAttacksInAFullAttackAction&page=1&source=searc h#0
So nearly my whole group thinks that the rogue (especially a TWF one) can WAY outdamage the fighter due to sneak attack being applied to all attacks of a full attack action, so the DM ruled that the sneak attack damage is applied (to each opponent) only to the first attack when you make sneak attacks due to a non-hidden reason.
Now i don't care about it, i don't play a rogue right now nor do i plan on playing one for a LOT of time, and it really helps me against enemies that have sneak attack.
But because i am ill right now, and frankly don't have a lot to do, please help me build a case (so to speak) that reinforces my point that rogues aren't that frightning and that they don't outdamage every full bab class all day long.The way your GM'd ruled it is actually how it works in the game. If you are full round attacking by surprising someone (i.e. they lose their Dex mod), only the first hit counts because after that, they know you are there. The only way you can full attack with sneak attack damage is if you are flanking or find a way to have every attack hit them when they have lost their Dex bonus (Greater Invisibility or catching them on the surprise round).
How did you get that from what i wrote?
My DM ruled that when a rogue flanks a character and does a full round attack he can apply sneak attack damage only to the first attack.
Ah... I had misread that... Never mind then.
TWF Rogues can be respectable in terms of DPR when reliably getting Full Attack + Sneak Attack but those aren't reliable conditions.
Even when you can reliably get them the Fighter can simply outclass the Rogue in terms of raw DPR.
Keep in mind this is desirable behavior. The Fighter should outpace everyone else in 3.x/PF because fighting is his schtick. The other martial characters, particularly the Paladin and Cavalier can do more damage but it's more situational in nature.
The rogue as "skillmonkey" is intentionally designed to lag behind the martial classes in terms of raw DPR because honestly if the Rogues were better at fighting than the Martials and also had a ton of stuff to do out of combat then nobody would take one-trick ponies like the fighter.
The rogue works best as a teammate to a martial PC, an animal companion or a martial focused caster like a Cleric. With flanking bonuses up the Rogue's DPR increases both from having a better to hit and reliably getting sneak attacks. Some rogues can also supplement their DPR through various status effects and things like poison.
I think it would help (if you can) to see the rogue and fighter builds. That way we can better gauge at what the difference might lie in.
So nearly my whole group thinks that the rogue (especially a TWF one) can WAY outdamage the fighter due to sneak attack being applied to all attacks of a full attack action, so the DM ruled that the sneak attack damage is applied (to each opponent) only to the first attack when you make sneak attacks due to a non-hidden reason.
Now i don't care about it, i don't play a rogue right now nor do i plan on playing one for a LOT of time, and it really helps me against enemies that have sneak attack.
But because i am ill right now, and frankly don't have a lot to do, please help me build a case (so to speak) that reinforces my point that rogues aren't that frightning and that they don't outdamage every full bab class all day long.The way your GM'd ruled it is actually how it works in the game. If you are full round attacking by surprising someone (i.e. they lose their Dex mod), only the first hit counts because after that, they know you are there. The only way you can full attack with sneak attack damage is if you are flanking or find a way to have every attack hit them when they have lost their Dex bonus (Greater Invisibility or catching them on the surprise round).
How did you get that from what i wrote?
My DM ruled that when a rogue flanks a character and does a full round attack he can apply sneak attack damage only to the first attack.
That is what you said and what he said applies.
Your GM says (for example) the two weapon fighter rogue swings with his primary weapon and applies sneak attack, and then hits with his secondary weapon and rolls normal damage. That IS how sneak attack works.
Conversely a rogue with sneak attack and multishot with a bow, sneak attack only applies to the first arrow.
Rapid shot: sneak attack only applies to the first arrow.
Sneak attack is situational damage at best.
The rogue can't toe to toe anything and do sneak attack damage (unless special conditions apply like invisibility, darkness etc).
rogues can be particularly nasty in pairs, because they can flank for each other.
I once tried to build a monk with some rogue levels so i could flurry with shuriken and sneak attack on all of the shuriken, but the rules don't allow that to happen, so it's basically only on sneak attack per action, and only if the situation allows the sneak attack to take place.
That is what you said and what he said applies.
Please tell me what i wrote wrong? What i meant was : My DM ruled that when a rogue flanks a character and does a full round attack he can apply sneak attack damage only to the first attack.
Your GM says (for example) the two weapon fighter rogue swings with his primary weapon and applies sneak attack, and then hits with his secondary weapon and rolls normal damage. That IS how sneak attack works.Conversely a rogue with sneak attack and multishot with a bow, sneak attack only applies to the first arrow.
Rapid shot: sneak attack only applies to the first arrow.Sneak attack is situational damage at best.
The rogue can't toe to toe anything and do sneak attack damage (unless special conditions apply like invisibility, darkness etc).
rogues can be particularly nasty in pairs, because they can flank for each other.I once tried to build a monk with some rogue levels so i could flurry with shuriken and sneak attack on all of the shuriken, but the rules don't allow that to happen, so it's basically only on sneak attack per action, and only if the situation allows the sneak attack to take place.
Please show me the rule that you use to come to that conclusion.
It's easy:
The better BAB also increases the bonus for Power Attack faster.
And if a warrior crits, pretty much all of his damage is doubled. The rogue will get something like 1d6+3 extra for his crits, which is just a small contribution. The warrior will do double damage. This figures greatly into statistical damage.
And with critical feats, the warriors will get extra effects on their frequent crits - and that's another thing they get sooner than the rogue.
A warrior, on the other hand, can dump most of his stuff into strength, getting only a bit of dexterity to max out their bonus for their heavier armours. That means that they get high strength scores. That helps attack rolls, but also damage - and since we're usually talking about two-handed weapons like the falchion, they get to add 1.5 x str to damage. And, as mentioned above, they're really good at power attack, too.
So statistically speaking (and that's the only thing that really matters), the damage warriors do will be better than what rogues do - and they get great AC and more HP, too.
Rogues are good at other stuff, too, and they're not exactly useless in a fight, but they can't really outperform warriors.
The way your GM'd ruled it is actually how it works in the game. If you are full round attacking by surprising someone (i.e. they lose their Dex mod), only the first hit counts because after that, they know you are there. The only way you can full attack with sneak attack damage is if you are flanking or find a way to have every attack hit them when they have lost their Dex bonus (Greater Invisibility or catching them on the surprise round).
The FAQ above is being quoted out of context. It was for hiding , not flanking, surprise rounds (where you can't twf anyway), or (as the faq mentioned specifically) improved invisibility.
What it means is that a two weapon strike is two weapons in quick succession, not two daggers simultaneously jabbed into the kidneys.
Robert Billingham wrote:
Thanks. The Assassin has hide in Plain Sight, but not greater invisibility. Plus the enemy had true seeing. However the PC is a two-weapon fighter, so it seems like he would get two sneak attacks right? Before the rest of his attacks kick in with normal damage.
Nope; even two-weapon fighting doesn't let you sneak in an extra sneak attack. Essentially, once you make your first attack, the foe knows you're there and is no longer flat-footed after that. It takes things like greater invisibility that prevent a foe from noticing you even after you attack to get in a full round of sneak attacks.
That said... if it's the first round of combat and the assassin wins initiative, the victim is flat footed simply because the assassin goes before him. In this case, and assuming the assassin was in melee range, all 7 attacks would be sneak attacks. You really don't want to get jumped by a high-level sneak attacker and then roll low on initiative.
-so sometimes you can full attack sneak attack and sometimes you can't.
The way your GM'd ruled it is actually how it works in the game. If you are full round attacking by surprising someone (i.e. they lose their Dex mod), only the first hit counts because after that, they know you are there. The only way you can full attack with sneak attack damage is if you are flanking or find a way to have every attack hit them when they have lost their Dex bonus (Greater Invisibility or catching them on the surprise round).The FAQ above is being quoted out of context. It was for invisibility , not flanking, surprise rounds (where you can't twf anyway), or (as the faq mentioned specifically) improved invisibility.
I know. I had misread the original post and thought he was just talking about Sneak Attack in general when in fact, he is talking about just flanking (the non-hidden reason he mentioned).
Basically the only way to full attack and get all of them with Sneak Attack is to attack while flanking, use Greater Invisibility, or attack before they have the chance to act in combat on the first round.
OP, it's because your GM sees a d6 and thinks it's a lot more damage than it actually is. This is a big problem with people who are inexperienced in the game.
The rogue hits less, needs to flank to reliably sneak attack, doesn't benefit from scaling damage modifiers like power attack or his strength going up.
Fighters will almost always out-damage rogues over the course of a game. Rogues can exalt and hit all of their attacks at level 5-- but after 5, when the fighter gets a second attack, the rogue can no longer keep up with him. God help the rogue when the fighter gets Improved Critical.
OP, it's because your GM sees a d6 and thinks it's a lot more damage than it actually is. This is a big problem with people who are inexperienced in the game.
The rogue hits less, needs to flank to reliably sneak attack, doesn't benefit from scaling damage modifiers like power attack or his strength going up.
Fighters will almost always out-damage rogues over the course of a game. Rogues can exalt and hit all of their attacks at level 5-- but after 5, when the fighter gets a second attack, the rogue can no longer keep up with him. God help the rogue when the fighter gets Improved Critical.
Maybe i could understand that for my DM (who was quite scared) but one of the other players, who has played a lot of DnD (from ADnD i think) and has DMed a large numbers of games, also seems to think that it is too much.
Maybe this is because we recently (very recently) switched to PF and neither of us has a chance to really check the new martial classes.
Honestly house-ruling anything until you are really cognizant of the underlying math and design assumptions can be a horribad solution. In this case the GM is making a class that many feel is right on the edge of being substandard completely and totally emasculated ;)
OP, it's because your GM sees a d6 and thinks it's a lot more damage than it actually is. This is a big problem with people who are inexperienced in the game.
The rogue hits less, needs to flank to reliably sneak attack, doesn't benefit from scaling damage modifiers like power attack or his strength going up.
Fighters will almost always out-damage rogues over the course of a game. Rogues can exalt and hit all of their attacks at level 5-- but after 5, when the fighter gets a second attack, the rogue can no longer keep up with him. God help the rogue when the fighter gets Improved Critical.
Maybe i could understand that for my DM (who was quite scared) but one of the other players, who has played a lot of DnD (from ADnD i think) and has DMed a large numbers of games, also seems to think that it is too much.
Maybe this is because we recently (very recently) switched to PF and neither of us has a chance to really check the new martial classes.
It really isn't. Play games with the rogue and you'll see that. The hoops the rogue needs to jump through to get sneak attacks really regulate the amount of damage he does. If their proof is like, "Oh, 1d6+2+3d6 is so much more than 2d6+16, see?" then your proof is like "And what did the rogue do to get there?" Likely the rogue has to tumble into flank or run through difficult terrain or endure AoOs to get where he's going... and the fighter is just going from one priority to the other with no real issue on moving.
A rogue who hits two attacks at level 5 can do a little more than the fighter can at 5. But then, the fighter can cleave. Then the fighter crits on 15-20. Then the fighter can permanently blind his enemies when he crits them.
Honestly house-ruling anything until you are really cognizant of the underlying math and design assumptions can be a horribad solution. In this case the GM is making a class that many feel is right on the edge of being substandard completely and totally emasculated ;)
I am not really bothered since (as i have already said) i have no intention of playing a rogue anytime soon, but i wanted to see the opinion of other people on this.
OP, it's because your GM sees a d6 and thinks it's a lot more damage than it actually is. This is a big problem with people who are inexperienced in the game.
The rogue hits less, needs to flank to reliably sneak attack, doesn't benefit from scaling damage modifiers like power attack or his strength going up.
Fighters will almost always out-damage rogues over the course of a game. Rogues can exalt and hit all of their attacks at level 5-- but after 5, when the fighter gets a second attack, the rogue can no longer keep up with him. God help the rogue when the fighter gets Improved Critical.
Maybe i could understand that for my DM (who was quite scared) but one of the other players, who has played a lot of DnD (from ADnD i think) and has DMed a large numbers of games, also seems to think that it is too much.
Maybe this is because we recently (very recently) switched to PF and neither of us has a chance to really check the new martial classes.It really isn't. Play games with the rogue and you'll see that. The hoops the rogue needs to jump through to get sneak attacks really regulate the amount of damage he does. If their proof is like, "Oh, 1d6+2+3d6 is so much more than 2d6+16, see?" then your proof is like "And what did the rogue do to get there?" Likely the rogue has to tumble into flank or run through difficult terrain or endure AoOs to get where he's going... and the fighter is just going from one priority to the other with no real issue on moving.
A rogue who hits two attacks at level 5 can do a little more than the fighter can at 5. But then, the fighter can cleave. Then the fighter crits on 15-20. Then the fighter can permanently blind his enemies when he crits them.
I can understand that, i can see and get on how much trouble a rogue has to get through to get that. Also i can see that it might be true for some circumstances at low levels but for mid+ levels the fighter outdamages the rogue.
If their proof is like, "Oh, 1d6+2+3d6 is so much more than 2d6+16, see?" then your proof is like "And what did the rogue do to get there?"If that is their proof, your proof is "Your math abilities are sadly lacking. The average damage of 2d6+16 is 23, while the average damage of 1d6+2+3d6 is 16..."
The rogue part should be 2d6+3+6d6 (he is TWF and full attacking while flanking at level 5) and that is... 31, BUT the rogue had to get into flanking position and flank someone and the fighter is simply making a standart action and has more chance to hit
I think the main difference is a rogue can dish out more damage than the fighter if he is lucky. That is the key. A fighter( and this has always been the str of the class) is that it is reliable for the most part.
Also it could just stem from the whole 'figters suck' mentality that premeats most D&D games.
Anyway what arguements did you use? Or what are their arguements?
The problem with comparing raw damage potential is that it doesn't take into account miss percentages.
The THF Martial type typically has a much higher to hit bonus because he can focus his best stat in strength, does two-handed weapon damage, has full BAB, has no dual weapon penalties, and has plenty of feats to boost to hit and damage.
The TWF Rogue has a lower To hit and damage because he needs to invest in both strength and dex, needs to get weapon finesse, has dual weapon penalties, less feats and must buff two weapons.
Against this he gets highly situational sneak attack dice. No flat-footed or flanking? Sneak attack is disallowed. The bucket of dice might seem nice but in reality each +d6 only contributes +3.5 damage on a situational basis. In comparison the THF can generate massive static bonuses to hit and to damage.
In 3.x there were exploits such as doing sneak attacks off of touch attacks which can boost DPR up significantly (many touch ACs become hit on a 2+) but Pathfinder has closed down the bottle rogue nonsense.
If their proof is like, "Oh, 1d6+2+3d6 is so much more than 2d6+16, see?" then your proof is like "And what did the rogue do to get there?"If that is their proof, your proof is "Your math abilities are sadly lacking. The average damage of 2d6+16 is 23, while the average damage of 1d6+2+3d6 is 16..."
You missed the other attack with the rogues second weapon so his average damage is 32 if both attacks hit. Of course to counter that I'd say the fighter has Cleave and is doing 46 damage split targets that are adjacent.
Years ago on these boards during second darkness (when that was new) we had a TWF rogue. We used to do sneak attack on both weapons but about 90 people chimed in to say that you couldn't sneak attack with the off hand weapon and quoted a bazillion posts and rules.
that was like 2008 time frame.
I can't find those threads anywhere right now.
But as quoted above. The Target needs to remain flat footed, so for example in the suprise round where the assassin wins init, the target hasnt acted yet so remains flat footed, but the case in normal melee, that isn't so, as James Jacobs states, two weapon fighting doesn't get you an extra sneak attack in that situation.
|
It's difficult to 'prove' something when it's not entirely true.
In general, the better optimized character is going to be the nastier/ more deadly character. If your rogue is a TWF finesse rogue who focuses on sneak attacking all the time he is going to out damage the classic sword and board fighter who doesn't use power attack most of the time.
It doesn't matter how many DPR calculations you do if your groups experience is directly contradictory to the math then it's not really relevant.
In general in terms of damage:
Poorly built rogue < Poorly build fighter < Well build Rogue < Well Built fighter
In no way does the rouge outshine the fighter in melee combat. If I may, let me use an actual game comparison of the two classes. In my weekly Kingmaker campaign I play a level 5 TWF rogue, and another in our group plays a 2handed falchion fighter. An average combat goes something like this:
Round 1:
Fighter power-attack charges for 2d4+17
Rogue moves into position but is unable to get a flanking attack, attacks for 1d6+1
Summoner casts haste.
Round 2:
Fighter 5 foot steps to create flanking and power attacks twice for 2d4+17 each and hits ~1.5 times.
Rogue Sneak attacks 3 times for 4d6+1 each and hits ~1.7 times. (The times hit is guesswork based on half a dozen combats we have participated in recently.)
Repeat until bad guy is dead.
However there are a few important notes, most intelligent and some semi intelligent will not simply stand there letting a rogue stab them in the back. A creature that repositions so that I have to make a move action to get a sneak attack significantly decreases my damage. The fighter has +5 more to hit on his first attack (he has the feat that allows him to ignore the to hit penalty on the first power attack), and +3 more to hit on the second attack. These bonuses will only go up as we advance to higher levels. The fighter also has 30% more hp’s. While the rogue gets a lot more skills, and evasion. Finally the rogue crits on a 19-20 and does an extra 1d6+1 damage, while the fighter crits on a 18-20 and does an extra 2d4+17, this is huge. While it looks at first glance the rogue has the higher spike damage potential due to 3 sneak attacks, the fighter hitting twice and confirming 1 crit will blow the rogue’s damage out of the water.
In summation as a rogue I feel useful in combat but on average I do less damage, have less durability and am forced to put myself in a more vulnerable position in order to do a little less damage than our fighter. However I make up for this in having more options out of combat. At least in our group a 2WFighting rogue is useful, but in no way shape or form outshines the fighter in combat.
I think the main difference is a rogue can dish out more damage than the fighter if he is lucky. That is the key. A fighter( and this has always been the str of the class) is that it is reliable for the most part.
Also it could just stem from the whole 'figters suck' mentality that premeats most D&D games.
Anyway what arguements did you use? Or what are their arguements?
Let's see.... (it's been some time)
I was told: the rogue can do very very much damage.I told: yes it should do a lot of damage and it isn't that much
I was told: but if he goes WF and TWF the rogue can have a good AC and do a lot of damage.
I told: He is burning feats like crazy and must bump his DEX to godly levels.
I was told: The dex is doing him good, those are good feats.
I told: making full round attack and sneak attack isn't something easy to do and can't do that all the time.
I was told: It's child's play to do full attack action and sneak attack (by flanking) and can be done A LOT
I told: it isn't a reliable way to do damage
I was told: it is
I told: anyway the rogue's role in combat is that of the striker
I was told: the rogue's role is that of the skill monkey.
I told: this isn't a combat role
I was told: rogues shouldn't be good and/or contributing much at combat, their strenght lies outside of combat
I told: it's a striker
I was told: it's a skill monkey, always has been
I told: it's avarage BAB class
I was told: it's enough, it's not like it's poor
I told: maybe the rogue has potentially greater damage, if a lot of die bring high results, if he manages to get a good position into a fight or has a lot of help from others in order to flank more often but still the fighter has a lot of other advantages in combat, the primary being that he is more reliable
I was told: it's very easy to get the above
I was told: the damage of the fighter doesn't scale as good as the rogue's does
I told: a THW fighter's damage doesn't scale as good?
I was told: not all fighters are THW, many are sword and board
I told: they should be if they want to do a lot of damage
I was told: the THW isn't the regular for a fighter, the sword and board is.
I was told: The rogue can deal damage better than a wizard (with a spell) at equal levels.
By that point i was quite weary of the debate and since it doesn't affect me directly i decided to drop it.
In order to be clear, those arguments were with two people and due to the time passed, the late hour, the headache and the translation, so the arguements might not be what exactly was told but i think that it's a good representation.
The major flaw in a rogue damage dealer is that his AB is low, he doesnt have the feats to support his TWF skills very well and even if he has the feats his AB suffers even more. Aside from that his SA are situational.
In my experience a rogue only shines when his opponents are easy to hit, otherwise he is just sorely lacking as DPR monster.
You missed the other attack with the rogues second weapon so his average damage is 32 if both attacks hit. Of course to counter that I'd say the fighter has Cleave and is doing 46 damage split targets that are adjacent.If their proof is like, "Oh, 1d6+2+3d6 is so much more than 2d6+16, see?" then your proof is like "And what did the rogue do to get there?"If that is their proof, your proof is "Your math abilities are sadly lacking. The average damage of 2d6+16 is 23, while the average damage of 1d6+2+3d6 is 16..."
According to one of my co-players the cleave isn't such a good feat since it's highly situational and won't be doing an extra attack often so it isn't a reliable way to do damage.
Years ago on these boards during second darkness (when that was new) we had a TWF rogue. We used to do sneak attack on both weapons but about 90 people chimed in to say that you couldn't sneak attack with the off hand weapon and quoted a bazillion posts and rules.
that was like 2008 time frame.
I can't find those threads anywhere right now.
But as quoted above. The Target needs to remain flat footed, so for example in the suprise round where the assassin wins init, the target hasnt acted yet so remains flat footed, but the case in normal melee, that isn't so, as James Jacobs states, two weapon fighting doesn't get you an extra sneak attack in that situation.
I am talking about the target being flat-footed (by any reason) or flanked by the rogue.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Give the fighter Furious Focus and TWF and compare notes. Let them know for every build anyone could some up woth to jsutify a change in the rules, someone else can come up with a build diffusing the theory. It's silly to go changin rules based on projected arguments about DPR. Is the character fnu to play? Does a crafty rogue player do enough DPR that no one is stuck playing a mere tank?
If nothing else, build an antipaladin with a conductive weapon or Channel Smite, and DPR your way to infamy. Pretty much after that, no one should be complaining about cheesy melee damage.
In no way does the rouge outshine the fighter in melee combat. If I may, let me use an actual game comparison of the two classes. In my weekly Kingmaker campaign I play a level 5 TWF rogue, and another in our group plays a 2handed falchion fighter. An average combat goes something like this:
Round 1:
Fighter power-attack charges for 2d4+17
Rogue moves into position but is unable to get a flanking attack, attacks for 1d6+1
Summoner casts haste.Round 2:
Fighter 5 foot steps to create flanking and power attacks twice for 2d4+17 each and hits ~1.5 times.
Rogue Sneak attacks 3 times for 4d6+1 each and hits ~1.7 times. (The times hit is guesswork based on half a dozen combats we have participated in recently.)
Repeat until bad guy is dead.However there are a few important notes, most intelligent and some semi intelligent will not simply stand there letting a rogue stab them in the back. A creature that repositions so that I have to make a move action to get a sneak attack significantly decreases my damage. The fighter has +5 more to hit on his first attack (he has the feat that allows him to ignore the to hit penalty on the first power attack), and +3 more to hit on the second attack. These bonuses will only go up as we advance to higher levels. The fighter also has 30% more hp’s. While the rogue gets a lot more skills, and evasion. Finally the rogue crits on a 19-20 and does an extra 1d6+1 damage, while the fighter crits on a 18-20 and does an extra 2d4+17, this is huge. While it looks at first glance the rogue has the higher spike damage potential due to 3 sneak attacks, the fighter hitting twice and confirming 1 crit will blow the rogue’s damage out of the water.
In summation as a rogue I feel useful in combat but on average I do less damage, have less durability and am forced to put myself in a more vulnerable position in order to do a little less damage than our fighter. However I make up for this in having more options out of combat. At least in our group a 2WFighting rogue is...
Me and my group also play kingmaker nowdays and we also are at 5th level, the thing is our TWF rogue managed to do only a couple of full round attacks in the entire game so far(not that he really tries to go for full round attacks), on the other hand i (switch hitter ranger) managed to use cleave only 2 times thus far (only two times the enemies were adjacent) and also our summoner doesn't have picked up haste yet, maybe those are the reasons that i can't prove my point about the rogue.
Bear again attacks (with -2 from being flanked) rogue (rogue looks tastier without a big tin can for armor), dealing an average of 9 points of damage, possibly not enought to take the rogue out.
-There is no attack penalty from being flanked. Go bear go!
@leo1925: I think your problem( that is not much of one) is that the people you are argueing with have a perception....and won't let go. I don't think you can win this arguement. It was back in 3.5 when I was playing a Psion....there was a player who hated psionic. After the first two sessions he made a mild complaint that psionic is broken...I was doing too much damage. The thing was I was lucky and rolled two crits with a power. That was his only basis of arguement anbd the lousey and broken build of psionic up to 3.5. I think it is best just to let it go.
I mean when they said not all fighters are ThW fighters (which is true)...my resaponse would not all rogues are going to be TWF and WF rogues...but I really don't think it would have matter.
Just let it go...unless you are playing a fighter than just show them.
According to one of my co-players the cleave isn't such a good feat since it's highly situational and won't be doing an extra attack often so it isn't a reliable way to do damage.Sounds like someone is thinking of 3.5 Cleave. Pathfinder Cleave allows a new attack if you HIT the first target, not if you down it (By someone I'm meaning your co-player, not you)
How useful it is is still very campaign/dm dependent. The opinion may be based on valid evidence given the other player's experience. I know that its rare when i play for two foes to stand next to each other, especially after the first cleave.
@leo1925: I think your problem( that is not much of one) is that the people you are argueing with have a perception....and won't let go. I don't think you can win this arguement. It was back in 3.5 when I was playing a Psion....there was a player who hated psionic. After the first two sessions he made a mild complaint that psionic is broken...I was doing too much damage. The thing was I was lucky and rolled two crits with a power. That was his only basis of arguement anbd the lousey and broken build of psionic up to 3.5. I think it is best just to let it go.
I mean when they said not all fighters are ThW fighters (which is true)...my resaponse would not all rogues are going to be TWF and WF rogues...but I really don't think it would have matter.
Just let it go...unless you are playing a fighter than just show them.
Yes you are right, most of my group (me included) are pretty strong minded and nearly neither of us will back off into any arguement any we have a strong opinion. I am not really bothered by that and yes i know that it isn't a big problem.
Yes i won't press the rogue issue with them anymore (until i want to play a rogue) and i will only hope that they will see their error.
According to one of my co-players the cleave isn't such a good feat since it's highly situational and won't be doing an extra attack often so it isn't a reliable way to do damage.Sounds like someone is thinking of 3.5 Cleave. Pathfinder Cleave allows a new attack if you HIT the first target, not if you down it (By someone I'm meaning your co-player, not you)
No we can all see that the PF cleave is much better than the 3.5 cleave, their point about the weakness of the cleave is the adjacent enemy thingy.
According to one of my co-players the cleave isn't such a good feat since it's highly situational and won't be doing an extra attack often so it isn't a reliable way to do damage.How useful it is is still very campaign/dm dependent. The opinion may be based on valid evidence given the other player's experience. I know that its rare when i play for two foes to stand next to each other, especially after the first cleave.
Yes i can tottally understand you, in 5 levels of play i have cleaved only two times (one of them didn't really mattered and the other one was a miss), one was with 3 mites when the APL was 4 and the other with 5 shock lizards.
@leo1925:
You're group is simply not understanding the mathematics well. If you take an equally optimized fighter (that is not flanking) and rogue (assumed to be flanking for an extra +2 bonus to hit and sneak attack that applies to all attacks) - then the fighter *still* out-damages the rogue.
The DPR Olympics on the board will quickly illustrate this for you. The math doesn't lie; it really is that simple.
If, however, you need us to: please provide the rogue build that is under scrutiny by the GM (including level and gear and other details) - and we will provide you with the fighter build at that level that will run DPR circles around the rogue, complete with full statistical analysis.
Me and my group also play kingmaker nowdays and we also are at 5th level, the thing is our TWF rogue managed to do only a couple of full round attacks in the entire game so far(not that he really tries to go for full round attacks), on the other hand i (switch hitter ranger) managed to use cleave only 2 times thus far (only two times the enemies were adjacent) and also our summoner doesn't have picked up haste yet, maybe those are the reasons that i can't prove my point about the rogue.
Of course everyone's combat experience will differ based on numerous variables. Our group is larger than normal(5-6 players per game session), and is very melee focused. Both my rogue and the 2handed falchion fighter are both highly optimized for melee combat and we work very well together and enter every combat with the plan to create flanking opportunities as soon as possible. Our summoner casts haste as his first action every major combat (As a second level spell for summoners it is too good not to have), and often I will delay till after the haste goes off in order to use the extra movement to put myself in the best position for a second turn 5 foot step into a flanking position. Even with all of that and getting full attacks once or twice per combat the fighter does more damage and has more options during combat.
Lets face it the 2 weapon sneak attack rogue is a one trick pony, that while good, can be faced with many situations where his trick is unusable. The fighter can do his thing against just about everything assuming he can reach it.
@leo1925:
You're group is simply not understanding the mathematics well. If you take an equally optimized fighter (that is not flanking) and rogue (assumed to be flanking for an extra +2 bonus to hit and sneak attack that applies to all attacks) - then the fighter *still* out-damages the rogue.
The DPR Olympics on the board will quickly illustrate this for you. The math doesn't lie; it really is that simple.
If, however, you need us to: please provide the rogue build that is under scrutiny by the GM (including level and gear and other details) - and we will provide you with the fighter build at that level that will run DPR circles around the rogue, complete with full statistical analysis.
The thing is that the whole thing about sneak attack appling to all attacks isn't about a specific build (the TWF is just used as an example), their belief is that the rogue isn't meant to be able to do so much damage so easily and be able to outdamage the full bab classes, whether those attacks come from haste, speed weapons or more easily the TWF feats, they just aren't supposed to be able to do so much damage.
I can't even blame rogue hate since one of those players LOVES rogues and really enjoyes and wants to be playing rogues.
"So much damage"?
Rogue's certainly help with decent damage output - but they do *less* damage than a fighter. Significantly less. All the full-bab classes out-damage a rogue. The sneak-attack simply allows the rogue to be *relevant* in combat. Not dominate it.
"So much damage"?
Rogue's certainly help with decent damage output - but they do *less* damage than a fighter. Significantly less. All the full-bab classes out-damage a rogue. The sneak-attack simply allows the rogue to be *relevant* in combat. Not dominate it.
Yes that the thing, they are of the opinion that a rogue can quite easily make so much damage, and that this amount of damage might be enough to outdamage a fighter.
Now that i think about it the problem might lie with a misplaced underestimation of the damage output of the fighter (or full bab classes in general).Edit: i think that the bolded words are the operative words.
I'll virtually bump into that conversation you posted:
Let's see.... (it's been some time)
I was told: the rogue can do very very much damage.
I told: yes it should do a lot of damage and it isn't that much
I was told: but if he goes WF and TWF the rogue can have a good AC and do a lot of damage.
Yeah. That's true. But a warrior (i.e. any class with good BAB and lots of abilities that improve attack and damage) will do even more damage unless the stars are just right for the rogue. And being able to potentially sneak attack with all attacks is not enough. Warriors will outperform rogues even then. What you need is enemies with crappy ACs so the rogue can hit reliably.
And many of those warrior types have better ACs, too. And more HP.
Look at a fighter. They can wear all kinds of armour (and when they are the right level, they can do it without slowing down! Level 3 for medium armour, level 7 for heavy), with medium and heavy armours in Pathfinder being better than in 3.5e (+1 AC across the board). Add armour training and they can even add more dex into the mix. Combine with mithral if you must and you get great armour + dex combos! Rogues just can't compete.
I told: He is burning feats like crazy and must bump his DEX to godly levels.
I was told: The dex is doing him good, those are good feats.
Well, the points he has to sink into dex, the fighter will sink into str. Warriors will probably have some dex, but they don't need that much. A pure heavy hitter type fighter will probably start with 12 or 14 and get more via items. The rest they'll dump into strength. That increases their attack bonuses AND their damage bonuses. Damage is a double investment, since you get 1.5times strength for heavy weapons.
Rogues only increase their attack bonuses. If they want more damage (beyond sneak attack), they need to blow points on strength.
And the feats arenot exactly "good" feats. They're feats to get close to what a fighter does all by himself, without any feats at all. The feats the fighter saves that way (and those he gets as class abilities) will go toward increasing attack and damage bonuses even more, as well as doing other fightery stuff.
I told: making full round attack and sneak attack isn't something easy to do and can't do that all the time.
I was told: It's child's play to do full attack action and sneak attack (by flanking) and can be done A LOT
It's not that hard, unless the enemies are smart. But it's not enough for rogues to draw even. Their statistical damage per round is below that of a similarly optimised fighter even if you figure that they get sneak attack with everything. And take SA away and they're down to nothing.
Getting all those attacks and possibly SA on all attacks that hit doesn't mean that enough of these attacks will hit.
I told: anyway the rogue's role in combat is that of the striker
I was told: the rogue's role is that of the skill monkey.
I told: this isn't a combat role
I was told: rogues shouldn't be good and/or contributing much at combat, their strenght lies outside of combat
Ignoring that "striker" stuff, what game that isn't anything like D&D/Pathfinder have these guys been playing? Combat is a very important part of the game, and all classes are supposed to contribute to it.
Sure, a rogue is not a warrior. But that doesn't mean that they can't contribute to a fight at all. It just means that they're not as good as a warrior. And that's true: Rogues can't consistently deal the kind of damage a warrior can. Unless you guys fight wimps in your campaigns all the time.
They're skill monkey, true, but they're far from useless in a fight, and that's intentional.
I told: it's avarage BAB class
I was told: it's enough, it's not like it's poor
Exactly. It's average BAB. Not the best, but not the worst. That means they're supposed to be able to do well enough in a fight. It's wizards and their ilk who are useless with weapons (but even they contribute to fights, using their magic)
I was told: the damage of the fighter doesn't scale as good as the rogue's does
The damage doesn't scale as well? That's true, if by that you mean it scales better:
I told: a THW fighter's damage doesn't scale as good?
I was told: not all fighters are THW, many are sword and board
But rogues are all two-weapon fighters?
It might be true that shield users won't deal as much damage as two-handed weapon users, naturally, but their AC is even better.
And two-weapon fighting is not just for rogues. Rangers aren't that bad with it - they get the feats as bonus feats and don't have to care about prerequisites, so they can max out strength. Add in double slice to get full strength to off-hand attacks, their favoured enemy bonuses (to attack and damage to all attacks against such enemies) and the better BAB and you have a two-weapon fighter that can use Power Attack and still have a better chance of hitting with all their attacks (of which they have often more, since their better BAB lets them have iterative attacks earlier)
Fighters are in a similar position. They do need the dexterity, but even so, they can have a decent strength. And better attacks. And all their fighter bonuses apply to all attacks, too. And they have better attack bonuses than those rogues. And they have better AC, since they can wear medium or heavy armour and still make use of all their dex.
Even paladins can make two-weapon fighting work, and be totally frightening while doing so. They have a harder time with the feats, but the way smite evil works these days, they can set up devastating Power Attacks against their enemies. Sneak attack? No thanks, I'd rather have both strength and charisma added to my already better BAB (so Power Attack is more fun) and strength and my frikking class level to damage.
Sure, the paladins do need strength and charisma in addition to dexterity, but since they can use both strength and charisma for attacks and get their class to damage, they can get similar bonuses for less points, as it's easier to have two decent stats than one really good stat. Or they do the Weapon Finesse routine with just enough strength for Power Attack, and become really, really, pretty.
I told: they should be if they want to do a lot of damage
I was told: the THW isn't the regular for a fighter, the sword and board is.
What kind of logic is that? "Rogues are better because we arbitrarily decide that a less optimised choice is normal for fighters?"
Well, I have another claim: "Sorcerers are better warriors than barbarians, since barbarians naturally must blow all their points on constitution and wisdom, as well as charisma, and have crappy stats in strength and dexterity"
If you're going to compare stuff, do it properly: Optimised build against optimised build.
And those two-handed fighters will still have better ACs than the rogues...
And in my book, fighters are fighters because they can do every fighting style. "Whatever the heck they want" is their standard. But if I had to state a trend, I'd go with two-handed weapons. Definitely.
I was told: The rogue can deal damage better than a wizard (with a spell) at equal levels.
And a Porsche has a better acceleration than a fighter jet. So what? It might be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the fighter jet will just take off and then blow the Porsche and all the Porsches around him to hell.
Wizards are like fighter jets. Fighter jets with all kinds of outlawed biological and chemical weapons. And brain control rays. They're more like sci-fi fighter spaceship thingies.
Wizards are not very good when it comes to dealing lots of damage (as in, reduce HP) to a single target. Their strength is more in the "do damage against many" department. But their real strength is "ignore HP and just ruin that sucker's s*#@". Baleful polymorph doesn't care how many HP you have.
I was playing in a high-level 3.5 game as a druid in a party that had a high-level rogue (among other things). One time the rogue managed to land 7 sneak attacks on some poor sap in a round and had a lot of fun rolling 70d6 damage. Was it broken? No. He never, ever got to do that again due to circumstances or dice rolls or whatever. He only managed it once.
Rogues have high burst damage potential, but it is rare. Meanwhile, the THW or archery fighter are laying down consistent, heavy damage. We've had a strong, THW barbarian or fighter in every game for the past 5 years, and I've seen them lay the smack down consistently in every game, level after level.
Too bad you're not from around here. I'd have joined the campaign. I'd have played a fighter or paladin. Fast forward a couple of sessions where I regularly reduce that GM to tears of despair, and they rethink the rogue damage thing.
They're not the first to have this way of thinking stuck in their head. Some of the people I play with were/are still stuck in the old belief where warriors don't do that much damage.
It's interesting. We had a couple of campaigns before the current one, all with PF rules, all with proper warrior types, and they still act surprised when a warrior just obliterates something they were led to believe could survive a long time by deceptively high HP numbers.
"Ooh, ooh, 100 HP! That fight will last FOREVAR!"
....
"OMGWTFBBG???? How did that fighter hit three times, two of them crits, for over 100 damage? They're only level 9!!!1!!!!!!1oneoneeleven"
At level 8-9, your usual fighter's weapon damage reads something like 2d4+20/15-20 when using power attack. That's 25 points of damage per hit, or 50 on a crit (and they're not that uncommon with that range).
And I'm not talking about a super-optimised character there. Just a fighter focused on (surprise:) fighting. If you really crunch the numbers, you can easily get another couple of points.
And then pray the party's buffing department is not too good. Fighter + Bard = rivers of blood, fields of gore.
@KaeYoss
WOW... lots of stuff.
leo1925 wrote:
I told: they should be if they want to do a lot of damage
I was told: the THW isn't the regular for a fighter, the sword and board is.What kind of logic is that? "Rogues are better because we arbitrarily decide that a less optimised choice is normal for fighters?"
Well, I have another claim: "Sorcerers are better warriors than barbarians, since barbarians naturally must blow all their points on constitution and wisdom, as well as charisma, and have crappy stats in strength and dexterity"
If you're going to compare stuff, do it properly: Optimised build against optimised build.
And those two-handed fighters will still have better ACs than the rogues...
And in my book, fighters are fighters because they can do every fighting style. "Whatever the heck they want" is their standard. But if I had to state a trend, I'd go with two-handed weapons. Definitely.
I might not have been very clear about that, it's just one of the things i was told (and it wasn't really one of the major points) and that's is that if rogues can apply sneak attack damage to all attacks then it would be best for them to be TWF and that fighters are at best/should be sword and board and not THF but that's another issue, one of them thinks that sword and board fighters are a better option than the THF.
Ignoring that "striker" stuff, what game that isn't anything like D&D/Pathfinder have these guys been playing? Combat is a very important part of the game, and all classes are supposed to contribute to it.
A lot of other games (and so have i), to name a few oWoD, nWoD, exalted, something about Warhammer.
The thing is that i was told that with that house rule the rogue will be contributing as much as they should.
+bucket of dice always seems big.
A ton of the power in martial classes result in having a bunch of static bonuses to everything.
At 5th level the Fighter is pretty much even with the rogue unless the TWF rogue hits with both sneak attacks.
Level 5 Fighter
Str-18 Dex-13 Con-14 Int-10 Wis-12 Cha-8
BaB +5
Feats- Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Furious Focus, Cleave, Iron Will, Weapon Specialization
Attacks +10 Greatsword +1 2d6+8 19-20/x2
Level 5 Rogue
Str-14 Dex-18 Con-13 Int-10 Wis-12 Cha-8
BaB +3
Feats- TWF, Imp Init, Weapon Finesse (From RT), Weapon Focus, Double Slice
Attacks +6/+6 Short Sword +1 d6+2 19-20/x2 +3d6 sneak attack
If you just look at 2d6+8 vs 2d6+4+6d6 then the Fighter seems to be struggling to keep up. However the Fighter can power attack with furious focus and do 2d6+14 which narrows the differential alot.
The major difference is that the fighter has a +20% chance of hitting with his attack and does a significantly larger amount of damage on a crit. And that's assuming that the rogue is in position to get a full attack + sneak attacks.
Add a single level to the fighter and the fighter simply pulls away. Yes the iterative attack kinda sucks initially but it does help a ton long term vs CR appropriate foes.