|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Far from good in most situations."
I am stunned. Having been part of a pair of rogues who were considered unbalanced and dominated combats, puzzles, traps, social encounters, and gasp even had a few points left for some knowledge skills.
Here's my question
Do you not just offer but plan and position flanks? Do you time your attacks to coincide? Do you have people who draw monsters into areas where stealthy friends await. Maybe one person moves to secure the flank giving a two weapon specialist an early Christmas present.
Have you used stealth to enter the enemy camp? Maybe you left those sleeping dogs "lie" and they never woke up. Did that guy in plate make his stealth check?
Did you bluff your way past the "less perceptive guards (fighters)". Or maybe impersonated one who went astry. Did you "pay a little extra" to the local constable looking with big eyes and saying..."for the kids." Maybe you also relieved him of a vital piece of magic (or information)? Maybe your buddy did it while you distracted him.
Do you wander the streets delving for coin in a sea of humanity. Do you avoid fights entirely and just take the prize instead of "fighting it out."
There is just no a use for someone who can read a scroll when the cleric has gone under because the foe chose to "drop the casters first" Maybe you've toyed around with lots of dex and combat reflexes?
Maybe your cleric was a little too "lawful" and wouldn't go into that kind of place. (But you did) Perchance you've purchased sniper's goggles? Maybe you bought a little stealth armor. Ever bought acid, just in case. Is concealment your friend, darkness, fast-stealth, and darkvision are most definitely my friend.
So in summary Rogue talents are irrelevant, - fast stealth / bleeding attack / combat opportunist / hide in plain sight / trap spotter / improved evasion? Simply not good. Simply too focused...on one thing. That thing may be survival.
But I do find it strange how the fighter wants sneak attack. He or she wants more skills... and for trapfinding (lets be honest now(traps)) to just disappear.
Seems like that fighter needs to go rogue. And my friend maybe you to go Rogue too.
Now sure, I've dipped my hand into 2 levels of barbarian once. And my present form is dabbling in magus on his way to arcane trickster. But originally, my buddy kept to the second story work (full rogue), while I was the enforcer. We purposely chose our skills, items, and feats to coincide.
Yet I doubt anyone who ever played with us...would say we were a liability...one best replaced with...a fighter...or a ranger...god save us - a cleric / or a paladin...or just something please anything but a Rogue.
You know you want to go Rogue.
it could be useful a full BAB and an ability that maximizes sneackattack's dices..
WHO DARES TO DISTURB MY ONE AND A HALF YEAR SLUMBER!?
Have you used stealth to enter the enemy camp? Maybe you left those sleeping dogs "lie" and they never woke up. Did that guy in plate make his stealth check?
Non-Rogues don't all wear plate. Anyone--anyone can make Stealth checks and do this. Literally every class has this capability. Rogues are not better at it.
Did you bluff your way past the "less perceptive guards (fighters)". Or maybe impersonated one who went astry. Did you "pay a little extra" to the local constable looking with big eyes and saying..."for the kids." Maybe you also relieved him of a vital piece of magic (or information)? Maybe your buddy did it while you distracted him.
See above. Every class can do this. Literally every one.
There is just no a use for someone who can read a scroll when the cleric has gone under because the foe chose to "drop the casters first" Maybe you've toyed around with lots of dex and combat reflexes?
What do you contribute by reading that scroll that another character--hell, even another cleric--reading that scroll wouldn't?
Maybe your cleric was a little too "lawful" and wouldn't go into that kind of place. (But you did) Perchance you've purchased sniper's goggles? Maybe you bought a little stealth armor. Ever bought acid, just in case. Is concealment your friend, darkness, fast-stealth, and darkvision are most definitely my friend.
Nothing you've talked about at all is Rogue specific--why are you acting like any of that has anything to do with your class choice? I could make a Bard that did everything you described better. Or a Magus. Or an almost anything.
So in summary Rogue talents are irrelevant, - fast stealth / bleeding attack / combat opportunist / hide in plain sight / trap spotter / improved evasion?
Correct, that is what we're saying. None of those things are worth being a Rogue to have.
But I do find it strange how the fighter wants sneak attack. He or she wants more skills... and for trapfinding (lets be honest now(traps)) to just disappear.
Seems like that fighter needs to go rogue. And my friend maybe you to go Rogue too.
I think you misunderstood--I want the Rogue and Fighter to be one class.
I think you misunderstood--I want the Rogue and Fighter to be one class.
Like give Rogues full BAB or giving rogues all the fighter training?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of agree with mplindustries here. I mean, I love rogues conceptually. I love them even more because they're not necessarily thieves. They can represent any kind of profession you want to. Plenty of skill points to throw at whatever you want to be good at.
See, the thing is: I don't come from a D&D background. I grew up with WFRP, which has all sorts of cool careers, and then GURPS, which has all sorts of cool skills. In those systems, you can play all sorts of characters that don't fit the traditional fighter/wizard/cleric/thief mold, and those characters work.
But in D&D they don't. D&D as a system revolves almost entirely around combat. Yes, you can do other things, but they don't really matter as much as combat does. They don't really matter as much as they do in other systems. So characters need a combat role, and that means the rogue has to be able to deal damage, even if your rogue represents a non-spellcasting sage or something. The Thief did start as the non-combat role (undermining the non-combat roles of the other classes), and the combat role of the rogue has always been somewhat problematic.
In the days of the Thief, I used to hate D&D for its inability to represent any characters outside the core 4. With the Rogue, I expected anything to be possible, but it really isn't, because play ultimately revolves around combat.
A fighter with more skill points would definitely be a better idea. Or make the rogue more like the fighter. If you can't do magic, you basically need full BAB to be meaningful in combat.
Then, to be blunt, you don't want to play Pathfinder. Filling dead levels was one of the core design tenets of Pathfinder. Your 3.5 books haven't magically vanished. The chance of Paizo rolling back what most of their customers consider one of the major improvements over 3.5 is so close to zero as to make no difference.Well if there was less class ability spam (look what I get this level, and the next and the next after that!) then the rogue would be considered less underpowered.
Lower the tacked on bull, even it out and we have a solution. It is the problem with getting excited in designing classes--let's give it this and this and this. Well then, how does that balance to the other classes? Oh wait, someone got left behind.
Class ability bloat, one of the biggest problems pathfinder has; and the source of a lot of arguments.
Yep, I yearn for simplicity.
I'm not wanting them to roll it all back, this is simply the problem they are faced with because of design choices.
If you want to get something special-ability-wise every level, an upgrade or something new, then balancing the classes becomes even more difficult. No dead levels? Okay? What class is left with almost dead levels in comparison to others classes. Some say the rogue, some say the monk.
The attempt to solve a problem only created more problems in a design sense--as sexy as all those new special abilities are.
"Far from good in most situations."
I am stunned. Having been part of a pair of rogues who were considered unbalanced and dominated combats, puzzles, traps, social encounters, and gasp even had a few points left for some knowledge skills.
Here's my question
Do you not just offer but plan and position flanks? Do you time your attacks to coincide? Do you have people who draw monsters into areas where stealthy friends await. Maybe one person moves to secure the flank giving a two weapon specialist an early Christmas present.
Have you used stealth to enter the enemy camp? Maybe you left those sleeping dogs "lie" and they never woke up. Did that guy in plate make his stealth check?
Did you bluff your way past the "less perceptive guards (fighters)". Or maybe impersonated one who went astry. Did you "pay a little extra" to the local constable looking with big eyes and saying..."for the kids." Maybe you also relieved him of a vital piece of magic (or information)? Maybe your buddy did it while you distracted him.
Do you wander the streets delving for coin in a sea of humanity. Do you avoid fights entirely and just take the prize instead of "fighting it out."
There is just no a use for someone who can read a scroll when the cleric has gone under because the foe chose to "drop the casters first" Maybe you've toyed around with lots of dex and combat reflexes?
Maybe your cleric was a little too "lawful" and wouldn't go into that kind of place. (But you did) Perchance you've purchased sniper's goggles? Maybe you bought a little stealth armor. Ever bought acid, just in case. Is concealment your friend, darkness, fast-stealth, and darkvision are most definitely my friend.
So in summary Rogue talents are irrelevant, - fast stealth / bleeding attack / combat opportunist / hide in plain sight / trap spotter / improved evasion? Simply not good. Simply too focused...on one thing. That thing may be survival.
But I do find it strange how the fighter wants sneak attack. He or she...
You get rogues I think good sir.
I kind of agree with mplindustries here. I mean, I love rogues conceptually. I love them even more because they're not necessarily thieves. They can represent any kind of profession you want to. Plenty of skill points to throw at whatever you want to be good at.
See, the thing is: I don't come from a D&D background. I grew up with WFRP, which has all sorts of cool careers, and then GURPS, which has all sorts of cool skills. In those systems, you can play all sorts of characters that don't fit the traditional fighter/wizard/cleric/thief mold, and those characters work.
But in D&D they don't. D&D as a system revolves almost entirely around combat. Yes, you can do other things, but they don't really matter as much as combat does. They don't really matter as much as they do in other systems. So characters need a combat role, and that means the rogue has to be able to deal damage, even if your rogue represents a non-spellcasting sage or something. The Thief did start as the non-combat role (undermining the non-combat roles of the other classes), and the combat role of the rogue has always been somewhat problematic.
In the days of the Thief, I used to hate D&D for its inability to represent any characters outside the core 4. With the Rogue, I expected anything to be possible, but it really isn't, because play ultimately revolves around combat.
A fighter with more skill points would definitely be a better idea. Or make the rogue more like the fighter. If you can't do magic, you basically need full BAB to be meaningful in combat.
Whether you need high bab is entirely dependent on the foes you are facing and bonuses from items or party members. There are some truly low acs out there, slimes, oozes, animals, archers or light infantry. An ogre is pretty low even with natural armour and hide armour. If you have a bard or spellcaster buffing others, pure bab is needed a lot less.
While its true that you don't actually need full BAB, 3/4 progression I've found ends up needing a 10 or 11 to hit after a normal amount of mods. Looking at CR 8 monsters the average AC is about 21. BAB for 3/4th classes at 8th level is +6. Probably a +4 added to that from ability scores. So you need an 11 to hit without any buffing or situational bonuses. You need a lot of buffing/situational bonus to get those numbers to be more reliable (though you are only 3 behind full BAB classes, that is missing out on 15 percent of the d20, and the full BAB classes can also get the same bonuses so you never catch up).
Rogues are squishy. If they miss (and as above they do so frequently) they face the prospect of retaliation. Monsters at that CR often have multiple nasty attacks (+14 on the first attack) They also have a large health pool (mid 90s) which means that 4d6 sneak attack combined with a likely 1d6 weapon and the typically lowish static bonus damage is going to merely tickle or annoy the above monster. (5d6 averages out to only 17.5 damage) 5d6 is also the amount of damage the wizard who doesn't even specialize in blasting was doing to multiple targets 3 levels ago (yippee fireball/lightning bolt). 18.5 damage to a single target is what a FIRST level barbarian averages with a greataxe and 18 strength with the duh power attack/rage default.
The main thing rogues are supposed to be good at is spike damage, but in all honesty they aren't very good at actually doing that. Sneak attack scales slowly, magic damage and what fighters/barbarians/rangers/paladins do scales faster. To get the most out of sneak attacks you need multiple attacks, but the slow BAB progression delays that. So you go for twf... 2 weapon fighting requires light (read low damage dice) weapons, feat taxes, and actually lowers your to hit roll (a -2 is a big deal when you are starting out behind and falling behind as you level). Getting full attacks is also a challenge, I've found that its often a mistake for a squishy light armor character to stand toe to toe with enemies, and to full attack that is exactly what you are doing.
And the bard or spell-caster buffs mentioned above? More effective classes can also benefit from the buffs. Sure, the rogues get more value (if they need a 18 to hit, going to a 16 doubles their effectiveness compared to a fighter who needs a 15 to hit going down to needing a 13 to hit) but the fighter is still going to be more effective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether you need high bab is entirely dependent on the foes you are facing and bonuses from items or party members. There are some truly low acs out there, slimes, oozes, animals, archers or light infantry. An ogre is pretty low even with natural armour and hide armour. If you have a bard or spellcaster buffing others, pure bab is needed a lot less.
Am I the only one who noticed that oozes are immune to sneak attack? In this case you have a foe you can hit but can't damage effectively compared to people who can hit and damage effectively vs everything. >_>
Then there are things like concealment/cover>sneak attack. Animals aren't traditionally major enemies. They can be dangerous, but they are generally dangerous from a sudden-shock standpoint. A CR 4-5 tiger is likely to murder 1/4th a level appropriate party, but couple of martials will have him down or on the run before you can even get properly set up to flank him. Archers tend to have pretty decent ACs due to emphasis on Dexterity, and are the least likely to find themselves on the receiving end of a sneak attack quickly (worse yet, if the archer is a martial character such as a warrior, fighter, paladin, ranger, or even bard, the rogue is probably going to get his ass kicked by them in melee too). Ogres are very bad foes for rogues to deal with. Even if their AC isn't that great, they have a massive reach and high CMD, which means that flanking is not going to be easy. They also have fairly high to-hit modifiers and heavy damage, which means poking the ogre may be your last poke. Same with light infantry. Rogues in the traditional sense aren't well equipped for fighting anyone who is better at fighting than they are, which would likely include infantry.
For example. A small patrol of 3 CR 1/3 NPC warriors. Studded leather, longspears and slings, and perhaps a potion as backup. Each likely only has a 14 AC. But they have reach. They have flanking advantages on the rogue. Their damage is probably comparable to the rogue's. Possibly better (if they have Power Attack, when they flank an opponent they can simply take only a +1 to hit and add +3 to damage, bringing their damage to around 1d8+6). If the rogue can't flank them (say they stand in a formation that makes it difficult or impossible) the rogue loses. If the rogue flanks, then one can move to flank the rogue and the rogue looses (they get a +2 to hit the rogue's lightly armored butt too). And so on, and so forth.
The best results I've had with rogues involve stepping outside the rogue's archetypal shoes and being a brute rogue. Talking a rogue that wield's a longspear (they are proficient), has a high Strength score, emphasizes flanking and beating people down, and maximizing their to-hit in almost any way they can. They can fight decently when not flanking and murderously when they are flanking. Problem is, this is nothing special to the rogue other than having sneak attack.
And the thing is, sneak attack is super balls. Power Attack is better. 1d6 is 3.5 average damage. Power attack with a 2 hander is +3 static damage (multiplies on crit, has higher minimum damage). A Ranger can power-attack on every attack he or she makes and essentially meet the Rogue's to-hit while achieving similar damage, except the damage applies versus everything, isn't lost due to cover/concealment, and is multiplied on critical hits. Meanwhile, the Ranger has features that can further increase to-hit and to-damage, while a rogue can't even get features to mitigate the further loss of accuracy in trying to dual-wield.
For example. A 1st level Ranger with 18 Strength (16 base, +2 race) wielding a longspear has 1d8+6 damage and a +5 to hit. A rogue with the same strength has a +4 to hit and 1d8+6 damage. Now the ranger can take a -1 to hit to add +3 damage, so now he's at 1d8+9. The rogue cannot. The rogue can get a +2 to hit and +1d6 (average 3.5) when flanking bringing him to +6/1d8+6+1d6, but the Ranger when flanking has +6/1d8+9, so virtually no gain on the rogue. Meanwhile, if the pair are fighting in or against a fog/smoke/mist/obscuring mist/smokestick/darkness/blurred foe/ooze/elemental/incorporeal, the rogue loses the bonus damage, the Ranger does not.
Furthermore, the Ranger can do something the rogue cannot. If the ranger encounters a high AC enemy, such as a 1st level orc warrior in splint mail with a shield (AC 19), the ranger can choose to not power attack and keep the +1 to hit. The rogue cannot. So the Ranger is better here as well. And he's probably doing so with a higher AC than the rogue (the Ranger has proficiency in things like chainmail and brestplates, and so he doesn't need an 18+ Dex to survive being in melee).
This all assumes the ranger isn't vs his favored enemy, and is using the same weapon (he could use a glaive and outpace the damage of the sneak attacking rogue by .5). Now if we were to take a rogue that is more "traditional", the situation gets worse. If we're not Strength focused and take Two Weapon Fighting + Weapon Finesse, we lack A) reach, B) to-hit, C) damage. In short, all around inferior.
It doesn't get better as we level either. By high levels, a ranger has a +10 to hit and damage more or less on demand (if he needs it, he pops a swift action and gets it for the rest of battle), and his power attack damage is up to +18, and he has more attacks that are more accurate (which means he lands hits more often resulting in a steadier damage flow), while rogues are pretty much stifled by anything that is blurred, fortified, etc.
IMHO The problem with the rogue class is due to their mechanics in conjuction with the whole system do not make them shine in their concept.
If with a reasonable invesment a rogue could be a much much better con man/assasin/thief than any other class then it woudl not matter if other classes can handle the same fluff.
Rogues can not do that but this is a problem of mechanics not fluff.
As I see it the issue which has deep sixed the rogue is the archtypes which allow other classes to do the rogue's schtick. Their only really unique service was disabling magic traps, and there's a number of options to get that elsewhere now. All of those classes will add more to a party when you factor in combat and out of combat situations.
You seem to think that a major rules revision is what is needed to fix the rogue, and perhaps your method would work (though I doubt it). It sounds like you want to make rogues uniquely good at skills. I'm not sure how that would work, or even if it is worth it. Skills aren't permitted to have much combat effect (a basic tenet of d20 from the beginning), so it would be a purely out of combat effect. Even then you would likely be up against spells which can do even more impressive out of combat actions (dominate, charm, invisibility, teleport, telekinesis, etc).
I think a reasonable stopgap would simply to accept that a rogue should be made into an effective skirmisher. This means full BAB. They can remain with weaker HP, armor and saves. Yes, combat isn't everything, but in this system it is a major thing, and certainly the easiest thing to attempt to balance.
Not so true, In some 3.0 and 3.5 spaltbooks there was some new use for skills some of them in combat. For example examining your opponet with sene motive to gain a bonust to attack or something.
Yes, and even core did some such violations (acrobatics affecting defensive fighting, and tumble with AOOs), but they were fairly minor and didn't much affect DPR. I would have to check the Complete Adventurer to check on that, but I don't recall them being particularly powerful effects.
I would like rogue talenst to not be lackluster in combat and ouf of combat. roll two times climb and the te best result once a day is like an insult.
It somewhat seems like you want a separate skill system for rogues and for the rest. That is a fairly major rules revision.
I would play and probably enjoy such skirmisher class, but personally that is not what I would like for rogues.
Honestly I don't think I understand your idea of a rogue then. They already are a skirmisher. They just don't happen to be very good at it.
In a game where combat is central, it is pretty important to have a defined combat role. The rogue is the skirmisher. However he shares that role with the more effective ranger and (somewhat) monk. Yes, he is the skill monkey out of combat, but so are a bunch of other classes.
I guess rogues already do have some skill advantages others don't share (taking 10 all the time), but those are not sufficient to make them stand out enough.
I'd like to see a class that successfully merges rogue and monks. Ideally it'd bump them both up enough that they'd be better overall.
After all this crying about Rogues, I can't understand why Paizo has done absolutely nothing to enhance them since the Core rulebook came out. Every single class has gotten more good stuff and the rogue has gotten nothing but worse.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is this still going on when I've learned from this forum that every other class can do everything a rogue can do in every situation?
If everyone just did what the forums said we could avoid all this, and really, just avoid rogues in general because I now know that they're just super bad and you're super bad for playing one ever.
I try to always keep in mind that the stuff from the forums is a completely accurate representation of the entire playerbase as well as every pathfinder game being run anywhere at anytime and that really helps to establish what I need to be doing in order to win.
Why is this still going on when I've learned from this forum that every other class can do everything a rogue can do in every situation?
Ok, so I see you make these posts a lot, and they're kind of funny sometimes. However, even though you are trying to be sarcastic, this time your words are actually true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The forums also taught me that ignoring a problem means it doesn't exist.
These forums things are great!
And the thing is, sneak attack is super balls. Power Attack is better. 1d6 is 3.5 average damage. Power attack with a 2 hander is +3 static damage (multiplies on crit, has higher minimum damage)Sneak attack increases its damage by 3.5 every 2 levels.
Power attack increases its static damage by 3 (and its penalty to hit let's not forget) every 4 levels.So...
Err...
Why is Sneak Attack worse than Power Attack again?
Because it doesn't multiply on a crit (or anything else), it only works in specific situations (instead of all the time forever), it is a single feat instead of literally half of everything your class ever gets....
Why is Sneak Attack worse than Power Attack again?
Because power attack is not situationally dependent (and rogues have lousy to hit). Perhaps with full BAB rogues might keep up on damage due to sneak attack. As it is now, they really don't.
If rogues had an easier time sneak attacking I think the argument would be over.
As for Power Attack being a feat... rogues can take feats.
Half of what your class gets ever... hmmm... how do fighters get to take Power Attack again?
Sneak Attack is half of what the Rogue gets. Every odd level, they get Sneak Attack, and something else on the even levels. Sneak Attack scaling is part of the Rogue class.
Meanwhile, Power Attack scales on its own at the cost of one single feat.
One single feat is 1/20th of what Fighters get, while Sneak Attack is 50% of what Rogues get.
Do peple genuinely think Sneak Attack is a weak ability? Like, really think that?
Yes. Having Sneak Attack is better than not having Sneak Attack, but it is not a strong ability in general, especially when compared to what other classes get (spells, for example, or even just bonus feats).
(I also tend to find the "but you have to be flanking" argument a bit odd... you should always be trying to get into a flanking position all the time anyway... good tactical combatants should be flanking on at least half of their attacks anyway...)
I agree you should be trying to flank all the time, but making full attacks from flanking even 3/4 of the time (which I think is unrealistic) is not often enough to make Sneak Attack worth it.
Fair enough - I've stated this before, but I've always seen rogues as some of the more effective characters *in actual play*... hence my bemusement at the received wisdom.
Discussions like this are always YMMV. People see different things at different tables.
I play a good amount of PFS, and by and large rogues are the bottom of the food chain in my experience. In combat they are particularly incapable of pulling weight. Sure, out of the combat the skills can be useful, but once the grid hits the floor, they vanish in significance.
Honesty, when I'm playing one of my melee guys, I always love the encounters based on lots of enemy rogues because I know those will be a cakewalk.
And the thing is, sneak attack is super balls. Power Attack is better. 1d6 is 3.5 average damage. Power attack with a 2 hander is +3 static damage (multiplies on crit, has higher minimum damage)Sneak attack increases its damage by 3.5 every 2 levels.
Power attack increases its static damage by 3 (and its penalty to hit let's not forget) every 4 levels.So...
Err...
Why is Sneak Attack worse than Power Attack again?
It's not terrible. If you could put sneak attack on a Ranger or Bard you'd have more love. However, when Power Attack is on a martial, it provides a more noticeable boost in DPR than sneak attack provides Rogues. A very heavy reason for this is BAB and features. See, martials hit more. That's a big deal. They get more attacks and hit more often. Even when taking the penalties to hit from Power Attack, they have more accuracy when they need it, or can just turn it off if they're golden, and have good damage when it's not being used.
Power Attack does progress slower. +3 / 4 levels as opposed to +1-6 / 2 levels. That's true. But as I pointed out, the Ranger begins ahead of the Rogue, all things being equal. A "traditional" rogue who isn't focused entirely on Strength will not keep up well at all. At higher levels, the BAB difference is mostly all that's needed to put the last nail in the coffin between the two. Often while rogues are becomming less-accurate, rangers are becoming more accurate.
That's again before considering that rogues need a setup that is very easily countered. There used to be a gag in a group I played in that went something like this.
"How do you defeat 4 20th level rogues ready to flank you?"
"With 10 gold pieces."
(10 gp = cost of a smokestick)
The joke being that without sneak attack the rogues are pansies (they're a 3/4 BAB class that does cruddy damage and has no magic or special tricks to speak of). If they can't sneak attack you, you can destroy them at low levels unless they have enough magic gear to out-power you through items (which is unlikely if they're NPCs).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The minute you start talking about decimals we are using the same system but we are just not playing the same game anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Asheil - not sure the ranger comparison is that interesting, given the ranger's main ability is situational too...
Which is, humorously, why I left favored enemy out of it barring the comment concerning doing it on demand at higher levels. The comparisons I was doing was of a Ranger with no class features applying. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Not a single class feature. Just him and his weapon. It was also in the rogue's favor in terms of highest +hit and +damage he could muster relatively speaking.
That's more or less my point. We have an example of how without the class feature, the Ranger pumps damage (while also being stronger, tougher, and with more options, which weren't even looked at) and that merely to "keep up" to the non-class-featured Ranger he must be sneak attacking.
Here's another example, in the Rogue's favor - theoretically - since sneak attack advances faster than Power Attack. At 7th level, when the rogue has hit +3d6, while the Ranger won't get the next +3 from PA until 8th level.
Now since I'm actually trying to optimize the Rogue's to-hit and damage to show the high-end, I'm going to give them both identical statistics, favoring Strength: 16, 14, 14, 7, 13, 7. +2 Racial to 16 for 18.
I'm going to use the average AC from monster creation vs a CR appropriate foe.
To Hit
Level 7 Rogue w/Mwk Weapon: +5 BAB, +4 Str, +1 enhancement = +10 to hit (55%).
Level 7 Ranger w/Mwk Weapon: +7/+2 BAB, +4 Str, +1 Enhancement = +12 to hit (65%/30%).
To Damage
Level 7 Brute-Rogue Damage (Non-Sneak): 1d8+6 (10.5 = 5.775 DPR)
Level 7 Ranger Damage (No-PA): 1d10+6 (11.5 = 10.925 DPR)
Level 7 Ranger With PA: 1d10+12 (17.5 = 13.125 DPR)
If Flanking (+2 Hit)
Level 7 Brute-Rogue Damage (Sneak): 1d8+6+3d6 (21 = 13.65 DPR)
Level 7 Ranger Damage (No-PA): 1d10+6 (11.5 = 13.225 DPR)
Level 7 Ranger With PA: 1d10+12 (17.5 = 16.625 DPR)
Conclusion
RANGER WINS
Now if you want to show me a Dex-based Rogue who can compete in damage, show me. The above is not using favored enemy, nor buffs. It also assumes that there is no concealment, cover, immunity, or other influences to negate or reduce sneak attack. It is getting the most bang for its buck in terms of ability scores (+4 to hit, +6 to damage from ability score alone, and in the rogue's favor we're only evaluating damage, not things like HP, Armor, Saves, or options).
Shadow Striker would negate your Smokestike, by the way. Although that is a feat. I could certainly see an argument for rogue talents getting beefed up somethwat so they're as tasty as rage powers or magus arcana etc.
Yes, I am aware that you can spend a feat to make your main feature harder to negate (not much harder, total concealment still works just fine, and it does nothing vs elementals, incorporeal, oozes, fortification, etc). Something that is very humorous is the fact that the Ranger almost matches the Rogue when not using any feats at all (13.225 vs 13.65 DPR) and towers over him when PA is used. This is vs the Rogue's main class feature while the rogue is using it tactically (flanking his opponent).
I think this is enough for now. Also keep in mind, I didn't do anything cool or limited in scope. I didn't cast lead blade to raise my weapon damage from 1d10 to 2d8 (that would increase my av. damage by 3.5).
EDIT: That's also not taking into account criticals. On a critical, the ranger's damage practically explodes in his enemy's face. The ranger's damage goes from 1d10+12 to 3d10+36. The ranger is adding +2d10+24 damage on a critical. The rogue is only adding +1d8+6 on a critical. A substantial difference. If critical hits are taken into account, the Ranger crushes the rogue even further.