Rogue tank?


Advice


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Can a rogue with the defensive offense talent be turned into a viable tank? With that talent, whenever you hit in melee, you can add a dodge bonus to your ac against that target equal to your number of SA die. Now then multiple hits mean multiple stacking dodge bonuses I would think.

Only problems is that you would only get this against targets you hit and specifically creatures who can be SA'd. What else would one do to shore up the weaknesses?


if you go with a buckler and shield focus and medium armor for mithril bp you can hit around late 27 to 30 around lvl 10 but lots lower hps than a fighter.

it's probably not a bad character and you can likely be a trap guy too.

The Exchange

Wow - just compared the Offensive Defense talent as printed in my version of the APG with the one in the PRD... Changes it from +1 (total) Dodge bonus Vs one creature to +SA dice worth of Dodge bonus (stackable) Vs all... that's one heck of an errata! I imagine every Rogue has this thing now, right?


Oh, wow. Yeah, wish I knew about that when I made my rogue, who happens to tank.
I took 6 levels of fighter (ending at Rogue10/Fighter6) to give her some more AC and HP, though, and more feats are nice to have.
With Combat Expertise she hits a 37 AC at level 16... it doesn't work against everything, but it does greatly cut down the number of hits she takes.
A lot of it will come down to gear.

Regarding that talent, a whole lot of things can be sneak attacked, so what you'll want is some way to get sneak attacks reliably. Invisibility, Stealth, or a high Initiative can help for the first round.

The Exchange

Quote:
Regarding that talent, a whole lot of things can be sneak attacked, so what you'll want is some way to get sneak attacks reliably. Invisibility, Stealth, or a high Initiative can help for the first round.

A friend standing the other side of the guy you're hitting helps too...

That talent does seem OP as it's written now. At level 10 (for example), with Improved Two-Weapon Fighting you can generate a nice +20 AC with a full attack action... That seems a little on the insane side... Hopefully, RAI they don't want each attack stacking the bonus (so 'only' a +5 AC), but it's not really worded that way...


Wow... Just... wow. That Rogue talent is awesome now!

I have been planning a Ftr/Rog demoralize bruiser for a while, and that just seems to put the idea over the top. With a shield basher, that is just some superior AC, and obscene with mithral full plate.

I almost wish my witch a gruesome death this Tuesday just so I can work this up... :)


Yeah, I'd say RAI you'd only apply it once per turn.
And a flanker could help, but then what's to stop your foe from attacking your buddy unless they have a high AC as well?

Silver Crusade

It's not even hard to make a Rogue in to a tank.
My group dose use over sized two weapon fighting. So at level 3 he will be dule wealding dwarven axes.
Dwarf 15 point buy
Rogue (Swashbuckler)
martal weapon dwarven axe
two weapon fighting ( dwarven axe, hand axe)
Str 17
Dex 15
Con 16
Int 8
Wis 10
Cha 5
Starting HP 12


CASEY BENNETT wrote:

Wow... Just... wow. That Rogue talent is awesome now!

I agree - is an example of a well made power. Is useful withou being OP, and scales with level.

Our rogue is planning now to use it in conjuction with combat expertise, combat defensively and maybe a defending weapon swithcing from one turn to another between a defensive and offensive "mode".


PRD quote:

Offensive Defense** (Ex): When a rogue with this talent hits a creature with a melee attack that deals sneak attack damage, the rogue gains a +1 dodge bonus to AC for each sneak attack die rolled for 1 round.

You have to /deal/ SA damage to get the bonus.. so you may get it on an opener and then you *have* to flank or otherwise get SA for it to work. Basically- it is exactly as situational as SA is except you also have to have something swinging at you (or the extra AC is meaningless).

-S

Liberty's Edge

Selgard wrote:

PRD quote:

Offensive Defense** (Ex): When a rogue with this talent hits a creature with a melee attack that deals sneak attack damage, the rogue gains a +1 dodge bonus to AC for each sneak attack die rolled for 1 round.

You have to /deal/ SA damage to get the bonus.. so you may get it on an opener and then you *have* to flank or otherwise get SA for it to work. Basically- it is exactly as situational as SA is except you also have to have something swinging at you (or the extra AC is meaningless).

-S

Well sure, but both of those are almost an every round occurrence for a melee Rogue. Especially one with Two-Weapon Fighting.


Selgard wrote:

Basically- it is exactly as situational as SA is except you also have to have something swinging at you (or the extra AC is meaningless).

-S

My rogue has never had a problem getting things to swing at him after a successful sneak attack. It has always been the not getting hit by swing afterwards that has been the issue. :P

Greg


I might have missed it, but has anybody brought up the "bonuses from the same source never stack" thing yet? So the rogue won't get this bonus more than once.


KaeYoss wrote:
I might have missed it, but has anybody brought up the "bonuses from the same source never stack" thing yet? So the rogue won't get this bonus more than once.

Of course (otherwise, 2 defending weapons bonuses would stack too). But +1 AC per SA die is nice.


KaeYoss wrote:
I might have missed it, but has anybody brought up the "bonuses from the same source never stack" thing yet? So the rogue won't get this bonus more than once.

is the source "sneak attack bonus" or is the source " attacks that generate sneak attacks"

Nevermind, source is Rogue talent (offensive defense), so first attack gives the reward to AC. Second attack cannot because of Rogue Talent (offensive defense)was already used.

Okay, understand it now. Guess I had to start writing it out too see the difference.

Ya'd think a guy that loved HERO games could sort out effects from powers. DOH

Greg

The Exchange

Quote:
I might have missed it, but has anybody brought up the "bonuses from the same source never stack" thing yet? So the rogue won't get this bonus more than once.

I'm not sure it actually says this as such anywhere, although I wholeheartedly agree it's the intent. The closest bit seems to be in the Magic section, where it says that dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses are the exceptions to the 'same type doesn't stack' rule, and that bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source. Since Dodge bonuses do have a type, and are allowed to stack with their own type, then it seems to leave them in a weird loophole where they do stack from the same source... RAW, not RAI...

I hope I'm wrong on that, so if someone can point me towards the rules text which explicitely points out that dodge bonuses from the same source don't stack then I'd be grateful...

Dark Archive

it seems to be written as deal SA get doge bonus. doge bonuses stack.

it does seem to be a weird loophole


I ask again: you guys let defending weapons bonus stack :D?

Liberty's Edge

As mentioned in another thread, it specifically says that dodge bonuses from different sources stack. These are all from the same source and thus wouldn't.


Bonuses from the same source don't stack. I would provide a rules quote, but I don't have my books on me and I'm on a really slow line (as in 10 kbps) so I can't access the prd.

It's in there, though, specifically noted that bonuses from the same source don't stack. Exactly what constitutes a source is a little more fuzzy though, but in this case, it should be obvious.

The Exchange

Quote:
I ask again: you guys let defending weapons bonus stack :D?

It's not really what I'd allow or not allow... I'm just looking for the rules text...

The 'Dodge bonuses' bit in the combat section says, '... Unlike most other bonuses, dodge bonuses stack with each other...' no mention of 'source' at all, same or otherwise. The Magic section text features the weird loophole mentioned above... Where else is there text on this?


This is a hard one some times sources do stack. Example poison, more specifically for a good rogue example.

Crippling Strike* (Ex): A rogue with this ability can sneak attack opponents with such precision that her blows weaken and hamper them. An opponent damaged by one of her sneak attacks also takes 2 points of Strength damage.

Unless they have changing the damage from this stacks. Now I know that it isn't a bonus. But it shows the point that some effects do stack.

Bleeding Attack* (Ex): A rogue with this ability can cause living opponents to bleed by hitting them with a sneak attack. This attack causes the target to take 1 additional point of damage each round for each die of the rogue's sneak attack (e.g., 4d6 equals 4 points of bleed). Bleeding creatures take that amount of damage every round at the start of each of their turns. The bleeding can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal check or the application of any effect that heals hit point damage. Bleeding damage from this ability does not stack with itself. Bleeding damage bypasses any damage reduction the creature might possess.

Specifaclly states that it doesn't stack.

So now...
Offensive Defense** (Ex): When a rogue with this talent hits a creature with a melee attack that deals sneak attack damage, the rogue gains a +1 dodge bonus to AC for each sneak attack die rolled.

I would say it would stack, because it doens't mention that it does not. This is probably an ability that will get errata'd, but I think it isn't too powerful, just a way a rogue change a sneak attack or damaging effect or ability to allow him a moment to live.


KaeYoss wrote:
I might have missed it, but has anybody brought up the "bonuses from the same source never stack" thing yet? So the rogue won't get this bonus more than once.

He gets the dodge bonus to AC only once, dodge bonuses from same abilities/skills/sources dont stack, but stack from different ones.

The Exchange

Quote:
He gets the dodge bonus to AC only once, dodge bonuses from same abilities/skills/sources dont stack, but stack from different ones.

But where does it say that? Seriously, I want to know... it's just bugging me now... ;)

Quote:
I would say it would stack, because it doens't mention that it does not. This is probably an ability that will get errata'd, but I think it isn't too powerful, just a way a rogue change a sneak attack or damaging effect or ability to allow him a moment to live.

+20 AC at level 10 with not a lot of effort? That's not including extra stacked dodge bonus from any AoO the Rogue may get which happen to qualify as Sneak Attacks... No, I'd say that stacking breaks it badly, and agree that it's not really meant to stack... I just want to find the text which says that now...


Yeah looking at the ability perhaps it is a bit powerfull. Granted plus 20 ac means you have to hit 2x, at that level hitting may be a bit harder than full bab classes. Overlooking all the other talents, I didnt see many that a rogue may want other than that. +10 bleed -2 str dispelling attack, only to mention that it is a low lever rogue talent.

I guess that is a pretty good ability that needs errata. Mabee changing to give an ac bonus against the target of the attack.

Liberty's Edge

It's in the general Bonus rules on p. 208 of the Core Book. Specifically, it's stated repeatedly that Bonuses from the same source never stack, not even when they're untyped. So it's not a rule about Dodge bonuses, but bonuses in general.


Haste provides a +1 dodge bonus for the whole party. Do you think you can pop of half a wand before the BBEG for a +25 AC/reflex bonus for everyone? That's far easier to abuse, methinks.


stringburka wrote:
Haste provides a +1 dodge bonus for the whole party. Do you think you can pop of half a wand before the BBEG for a +25 AC/reflex bonus for everyone? That's far easier to abuse, methinks.

well actually since haste lasts rounds, I would think that it is not easier to abuse. Especially if you are not maxing out the caster level of the wands.

But anyway, a supremely strict raw would read it as stacking.

pg 208 core rule book text:

Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates
how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of
bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses,
most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the
better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical
Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a
character taking two or more penalties of the same type
applies only the worst one, although most penalties have
no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type
always stack, unless they are from the same source.

so typed bonuses normally don't stack. with the exception of dodge bonuses. Then scan down, bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source. Meaning the same source rules only apply to bonuses without a type. Though I might be wrong. Where are the other areas mentioning dodge bonuses and stacking?
This reading could be seen as a loophole.

Even read this way, I do not see this as supremely broken as you get this ability from a 3/4 bab class(less likely to hit), and by lvl 10 you can have at most 5 attacks( 3 attacks at full hit bonus-2 and 2 attacks at full hit bonus -7) if hasted, and if you are either flanking or making the target flat-footed some other way. Also this will only work when you have Targets to use SA against. Its good but not broken. I think you are likely averaging 10 ac a round with this method which is nice since you can't wear heavy armor like fighters and you have low hp.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
It's in the general Bonus rules on p. 208 of the Core Book. Specifically, it's stated repeatedly that Bonuses from the same source never stack, not even when they're untyped. So it's not a rule about Dodge bonuses, but bonuses in general.

+1 i was searching this you found it good job, but still some will refuse to accept this because it comes from the magic category.

stringburka wrote:
Haste provides a +1 dodge bonus for the whole party. Do you think you can pop of half a wand before the BBEG for a +25 AC/reflex bonus for everyone? That's far easier to abuse, methinks.

haste description specifically states that does not stack if used multiple times

Guys in page 208 of the Core, as Deadmanwalking said, states :

Bonus Types:
Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates
how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of
bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t
generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses,
most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the
better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical
Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a
character taking two or more penalties of the same type
applies only the worst one, although most penalties have
no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type
always stack, unless they are from the same source.

I take that that dodge bonuses stack from different sources but not the same. Its really logical to me and the last sentence supersedes everything.

If dodge bonuses from same sources stack then a Red Mantis Assassin with +5 Con modifier can use her Red Shroud ability 5 times and gain 25 dodge bonus..... But i dont recal anyone bringing this up cause it was pretty obvius that dodge bonuses from the same source do not stack.

The whole "dodge stacking thing" came from the ability

Offensive defense:
When a rogue with this talent hits a creature with a melee attack that deals sneak attack damage, the rogue gains a +1 dodge bonus to AC for each sneak attack die rolled for 1 round.
and excuse me for that i dont wanna be rude or offensive, but rogue players (at least my rogue players) tend to be a little... you know... munchkins...

Me as a DM would never allowed this, not because its overpowered but because it does not make sense (to me again)


wild_captain wrote:


and excuse me for that i dont wanna be rude or offensive, but rogue players (at least my rogue players) tend to be a little... you know... munchkins...

well they gotta be because their main ability is pretty situational and they are one of 2 non-casters(rogues and monks) who do not get help in the act of hitting. I find people utilize their munchkining powers most when they are trying to maximize the potential of suboptimal classes.


Plz dont change the subject. This thread is about dodge stacking issues.

You are free to create your own thread about the thing you mentioned. :) Cu there :P

The Exchange

Quote:
+1 i was searching this you found it good job, but still some will refuse to accept this because it comes from the magic category.

I, for one, aren't 'refusing to accept it because it's from the magic section'... rather just pointing out that, RAW, there is a loophole in the text when it comes to stacking dodge bonuses from the same source... if this is the only text we have on the subject.

The problem is...

Quote:

... The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the

better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects)....

So we know that: a) generally, dodge bonuses do stack...

and...

Quote:
... Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source...

So we known that: b) untyped bonuses from the same source do not stack.

The issue being that a) + b) doesn't mean that dodge bonuses from the same source don't stack. It's a loophole. I'm sure it's not intended to be so, but RAW it is there...

... Again, unless there's some text I'm missing somewhere (and I hope there is).

Liberty's Edge

Untyped are the most stackable bonuses, if even they can't stack with each other, nothing can.

Technically you're correct, RAW, nothing keeps Dodge bonuses from the same source from stacking. But RAI it's very clear that that's not how it works.

Still, feel free to note it for errata, if you feel it necessary.


I am not seeing the loophope or the confusion. The plain reading of pargaph states, that bonus from the same source never ever stack regardless of the type.

untype bonus stack unless they are from the same source

dodge bonus,racial bonuses, and most circumstanical bonuses stack if they are from different sources

all other bonuses, the greater overlaps the lesser

The Exchange

Oh, I agree that RAI is that they don't stack...

Quote:
... The plain reading of pargaph states, that bonus from the same source never ever stack regardless of the type...

That's the point, the plain reading of the paragraph says nothing of the sort - it just says that untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack, it's the only time the 'source' of the bonus is mentioned at all. If it said something like 'even untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack' then at least there'd be some wiggle room... but it doesn't...


wild_captain wrote:

Plz dont change the subject. This thread is about dodge stacking issues.

You are free to create your own thread about the thing you mentioned. :) Cu there :P

It is my thread and thus I can change the topic/introduce new things. Also I would not be so keen on enforcing specific topics in an forum thread. If people find things they wish to rant about, great. :p Though I didn't really change the subject, I replied to a comment you made. People can of course handle a little side tracking in a thread. Also, the discussion of dodge stacking is not the main purpose of this thread.

The main purpose of the thread is about what other defensive options a rogue can take after defensive offense(which I think is a neat ability in general). Though I do not mind continued discussion of stacking dodge bonuses from the same source.


ProfPotts wrote:

Oh, I agree that RAI is that they don't stack...

Quote:
... The plain reading of pargaph states, that bonus from the same source never ever stack regardless of the type...
That's the point, the plain reading of the paragraph says nothing of the sort - it just says that untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack, it's the only time the 'source' of the bonus is mentioned at all. If it said something like 'even untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack' then at least there'd be some wiggle room... but it doesn't...

just plain silly, to write the way your suggesting would make the whole point of paragraphs pointless and make writing extremely tedious. If i state that Daimonds are the worlds hardest substance but can only be cut be a laser. and in the same paragraph i talk about extemely hard substances like say steel and list a few things that can cut steel but exclude from that list a laser, are you going to believe that merely because i did not state that lasers could cut steel in that particular sentence, that therefore lasers can't cut steel. the whole point of paragraphs is that a group of sentences refer and relate to each other, working together to form a cohesive whole.

Seriously, the Greater including the lesser has been the basis for law , writing,and philosophy since man could memoralize thier rational thought. i mean come on, this is stuff we learn in grade school. there is nothing confusing about that paragraph.

all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.


ikarinokami wrote:
ProfPotts wrote:

Oh, I agree that RAI is that they don't stack...

Quote:
... The plain reading of pargaph states, that bonus from the same source never ever stack regardless of the type...
That's the point, the plain reading of the paragraph says nothing of the sort - it just says that untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack, it's the only time the 'source' of the bonus is mentioned at all. If it said something like 'even untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack' then at least there'd be some wiggle room... but it doesn't...

just plain silly, to write the way your suggesting would make the whole point of paragraphs pointless and make writing extremely tedious. If i state that Daimonds are the worlds hardest substance but can only be cut be a laser. and in the same paragraph i talk about extemely hard substances like say steel and list a few things that claim that merely because i did not state that lasers could cut steel, that therefore lasers can't cut steel.

Seriously, the Greater including the lesser has been the basis for law , writing,and philosophy since man could memoralize thier rational thought. i mean come on, this is stuff we learn in grade school. there is nothing confusing about that paragraph.

all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.

The main problem is that, none of this ranking you have thought up is mentioned in the text.

Facts
1. Typed and untyped bonuses work differently. They are 2 different groups.
2. Typed bonuses do not normally stack(dodge bonuses are an exception).
3. Untyped bonuses do stack unless they are from the same source.


thepuregamer wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
ProfPotts wrote:

Oh, I agree that RAI is that they don't stack...

Quote:
... The plain reading of pargaph states, that bonus from the same source never ever stack regardless of the type...
That's the point, the plain reading of the paragraph says nothing of the sort - it just says that untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack, it's the only time the 'source' of the bonus is mentioned at all. If it said something like 'even untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack' then at least there'd be some wiggle room... but it doesn't...

just plain silly, to write the way your suggesting would make the whole point of paragraphs pointless and make writing extremely tedious. If i state that Daimonds are the worlds hardest substance but can only be cut be a laser. and in the same paragraph i talk about extemely hard substances like say steel and list a few things that claim that merely because i did not state that lasers could cut steel, that therefore lasers can't cut steel.

Seriously, the Greater including the lesser has been the basis for law , writing,and philosophy since man could memoralize thier rational thought. i mean come on, this is stuff we learn in grade school. there is nothing confusing about that paragraph.

all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.

The main problem is that, none of this ranking you have thought up is mentioned in the text.

Facts
1. Typed and untyped bonuses work differently. They are 2 different groups.
2. Typed bonuses do not normally stack(dodge bonuses are an exception).
3. Untyped bonuses do stack unless they are from the same source.

1. they are not different groups. they are of the same group- bonuses

untype bonus are the most stackbable, they always stack unless the same source.

Type bonus are less stackable not unstackable,- circumstancical bonuses will usally stack, racail bonuses will stack, dodge bonuses will stack, all others do not stack.

3. Untyple bonus always stack- greater- the rectanles, the daimond, all other bonus will be less than these-

this is how rules books are written whether there lawbooks or science books. to write the paragraph the way you are suggesting would be unworkable. The book would require 1000's of pages because sentences would have to be self contained. No one reads the way your suggesting, not even Justice Black the most literal justice ever to sit on the supreme court would agree. RAW does not mean read without comprehension, no literalist would support this, otherwise it would be impossible to write complex rules.

There is no way that is paragraph is an example of RAW VS RAI or letter of the law vs. the spirit. The letter and intent of this paragaph is absolutely crystal.

RAI means that you have to go beyond the four corners of the page to grasp the meaning. The is not the case here, clearing within the pargaph are all the ideas, neccassary to undertand the rule. could it have been ordered differently prehaps, but never the less, once does not need to appeal to anything beyond the four corners. what you are doing is ignoring how the ideas within the paragraphs relate to each other, and instead demanding that each idea be a complete whole without need to reference another, which is simply no pratical , or even how the human mind operates.


Well actually the rules for pathfinder and other role playing systems are 1000's of pages long so it seems we already have that problem. There are a few reasons your argument isn't terribly convincing.
1. These bonuses are not ranked from least to most stackable. There is no hardest/most stackable bonus listed(unless perhaps we go with dodge, which is the most stackable bonus under a strict reading). The concepts you are bringing to the discussion do not exist in the text.

2. The sentences specifically state what happens.
a. Typed bonuses do not normally stack.
b. Dodge bonuses stack.
c. Typed bonuses stack unless from the same source.

The previously quoted text treats typed and untyped bonuses as two separate groups. If the text had said, bonuses from the same source do not stack, this would have applied to both typed and untyped bonuses.

See how simple solving this problem would be. I think it is fair and sound to say that same source dodge stacking is RAW but not likely RAI.


Kaiyanwang wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
I might have missed it, but has anybody brought up the "bonuses from the same source never stack" thing yet? So the rogue won't get this bonus more than once.
Of course (otherwise, 2 defending weapons bonuses would stack too). But +1 AC per SA die is nice.

It sure is.


Red-Assassin wrote:

ifically for a good rogue example.

Crippling Strike* (Ex): A rogue with this ability can sneak attack opponents with such precision that her blows weaken and hamper them. An opponent damaged by one of her sneak attacks also takes 2 points of Strength damage.

Unless they have changing the damage from this stacks. Now I know that it isn't a bonus. But it shows the point that some effects do stack.

It's damage. Damage doesn't "stack". It reduces something and then the effect is over. Being damaged repeatedly will increase your damage further, but it's not exactly something that "stacks".

Bonuses and penalties are temporary effects. You get the bonus only as long as the effect persists.


Yeah Kae I should of been a little more clear.

This reminds me of the classic Speed weapon enhancement bonus. But lets not discuss that here.

So incase developers read this what do you think is wrong and how could you fix it.

Dodge stacks, but not if its caused by the same ability.

1 A rogue hits and does sneak attack damage with his greatsword. And gets sneak attack damage/dodge

2 So in the same round a rogue hits with; short sword A1 does sneak attack damage and dagger A2 does sneak attack damage do these stack with this talent or not.

3 So a ranged rogue hits and does sneak attack damage with a ray of frost, he gets the bonus.

4 A ranged rogue hits 2 creatures in 1 round he gets the bonus.

So 2,4 and really are the points where this feat has a problem, so on point 2 at level 1 does a dodge bonus of +2 seem broken, what about level 20.

It appears that their is definately a sort of power curve to characters that attack more than once at least when they are higher levels.

I think errata should say only with one attack a round.

Liberty's Edge

Red-Assassin wrote:


Dodge stacks, but not if its caused by the same ability.

This isn't an actual change, it's a clarification. It's clearly how it already works at just about everyone's table, and in the intent of the rules. They just need to make that clearer.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Red-Assassin wrote:


Dodge stacks, but not if its caused by the same ability.
This isn't an actual change, it's a clarification. It's clearly how it already works at just about everyone's table, and in the intent of the rules. They just need to make that clearer.

+1, Or they can state that dodge bonuses from the same source dont stack :)

I ask everyone to answer to this :

Is it logical to let a Red Mantis Assassin use his Red Shroud ability multiple times to get stacking dodge AC ?

People who say that dodge bonus from same source stack have this in mind : at 20 lvl and twf with haste on him a rogue has 7 attacks, in a flanking situation when 3 attacks hit he gains 30 dodge bonus to AC.... And thats if only 3 attacks hit.... Compared to anything else (ok almost everything else) this thing is annoying and has a chance (if all his attacks hit) to give 70 dodge bonus to AC....

Balance? noooo..... Really searching for this kind of loopholes is when the munchkin disease begins, and its spreading and there is no saving throw vs it

I dont think Paizo wanted this to happen and i'm sure a new official answer/errata or something will solve this.

off-topic:

thepuregamer wrote:
well they gotta be because their main ability is pretty situational and they are one of 2 non-casters(rogues and monks) who do not get help in the act of hitting. I find people utilize their munchkining powers most when they are trying to maximize the potential of suboptimal classes.

Their main ability for what? Damage? Plz explain it to me because i think that rogue's and monk's role is not the damage dealing thing, they are far better used for their utility abilities as some kind of support.

The typical 4 member party consists of a Priest, a Wizard, a Fighter and a Rogue. And guess what ? Rogue is not in it for the damage....

To play the second (or first for some) most versatile and utility class in the game just for the sneak attack its a waste of time, the party is at -1 member if you do this.

But thats me again, and me maybe am weird or something


anyway... all this same source dodge bonus dialogue is both pointless and off topic. Everyone can agree on what makes the most sense in regards to that.

On topic, things that are good for a defensive rogue.
talents I might like:
Befuddling strike- when you SA an opponent, they get -2 to hit you for d4 rounds.

Slow reactions- targets his by SA damage can't make AoOs for a round.

For archetypes, I like rake or thug as they help you demoralize your target and thus add the shaken(-2 to attack) penalty to your opponent.

If I was designing a party around this, I would aim for outflank and paired opportunists and possibly precise strike.

Osyluths guile- add charisma mod to ac as dodge bonus against one enemy when fighting defensively or taking total defense action.

What else would one do to improve their tank rogue? dodge, make their tank rogue a dwarf/half-orc and pick up ironhide into imp natural armor?

Enforcer could work well with intimidation. Main problem is that the mindless, uncrittable enemies are still immune to many of your tricks(fear, SA, increasing AC through SA) etc. What else can one do?

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Rogue tank? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.