| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We got confronted with Math last time I played my rogue. It was a tough fight, but through some fun combat, good roleplaying, a great GM and a really enjoyable group of peeps to play with we were able to beat it and get our +2 longswords.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Asheil: I'm being dense... why does the ranger get a bigger base die? Umm, what happens if the rogue gets PA as well?
Rangers are proficient with martial weapons, which means they get a glaive instead of a longspear (rogues stick with longspear or either burn a feat or eat a -4 to hit which would hurt more). Ninja have kusari gamas though which are good (lower die size but it has reach).
Assuming the Rogue burns a feat on PA, he can increase his DPR when sneak attacking by about +1. And his DPR when not sneak-attacking by about +2. However, in general loss of accuracy hurts a rogue's DPR more than it helps, and PA is fairly slow to get revved up unless your BAB advances quickly (though 7th level is the ideal level for this, since the rogue has the same -2 for +6 if using a 2 hander since he just recently hit the +4 BAB mark and just before the ranger hits the +8 BAB mark).
Of course, the Ranger meets the rogue's DPR without PA. And with PA crushes it. Now if the rogue's DPR increases by about 1 when sneak-attacking, that would bring his DPR up to roughly 14. For the same feat investment, the Ranger is still beating him by 2 points, and schooling him in all other cases.
If the rogue is your classic dual-wielding rogue, it's generally worse. The rogue in my example is optimized for hitting and damaging in all instances (he's squeezing hit and damage out of his ability scores like it was going out of style). Most rogues I've seen are not Strength-based rogues (going Strength-based is often undesired by most because of conceptual problems, or because unlike Ranger rogues have ACs as bad as mages if they don't have a good Dexterity), and thus tend to have lower to-hit and to-damage than the one in this example. Worse yet, most of them - due to having high Dex and low non-sneak damage - focus on dual-wielding or archery. A grave mistake in my humble opinion as the loss of accuracy only hurts worse and trying to sneak attack at range is a lost cause in terms of efficiency.
Repost: 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.
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.
Uh sort of. I mean the high BAB has multiple effects.
For starters full bab means you get more attacks and you get them faster which is important, it get's you access to certain feats like the crit line.
It's also a fact that even with buffs etc the Rogue falls far behind full BAB people in ability to land hits consistently, -2 from TWF -2 or more from 3/4 BAB and you're 20% more likely to miss than your fighter friends and that ignores the fact that said fighter friends only need to spend their money on one weapon instead of two and therefore probably have higher bonuses.
Now if you can expect your casters to drop group buffs for every fight and the monsters you're facing are already trivial to hit for the Fighter then yeah sure you're fine but you're fighting mooks so the value of that as a measure of equality in combat is limited.
Not a fan of twf rogues, they are not built for two weapon fighting. Leave that to the pure bab classes. Now some go, ha! I will put a sneak attack on all of my two weapon attacks, but the bab bites you there. So if you can sneak with almost all of them, or all of them, the combat is easy due to the wave of d6s that get thrown. If you can't you miss and don't do much. Very high risk for a battle ending reward, but the build is a bit cheasy and bounces off high acs. Rogues work much better if you get them polearm or two hander weapon proficiencies, traits, race, maybe sink feats, and go to town that way. Then the bab matters a bit less because you aren't on the twf proficiencies, and you have avoided sneak attack cheese and wasting everyone's time while you count up all the d6s. Win, win win.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Asheil: I'm being dense... why does the ranger get a bigger base die? Umm, what happens if the rogue gets PA as well?Rangers are proficient with martial weapons, which means they get a glaive instead of a longspear (rogues stick with longspear or either burn a feat or eat a -4 to hit which would hurt more). Ninja have kusari gamas though which are good (lower die size but it has reach).
Assuming the Rogue burns a feat on PA, he can increase his DPR when sneak attacking by about +1. And his DPR when not sneak-attacking by about +2. However, in general loss of accuracy hurts a rogue's DPR more than it helps, and PA is fairly slow to get revved up unless your BAB advances quickly (though 7th level is the ideal level for this, since the rogue has the same -2 for +6 if using a 2 hander since he just recently hit the +4 BAB mark and just before the ranger hits the +8 BAB mark).
Of course, the Ranger meets the rogue's DPR without PA. And with PA crushes it. Now if the rogue's DPR increases by about 1 when sneak-attacking, that would bring his DPR up to roughly 14. For the same feat investment, the Ranger is still beating him by 2 points, and schooling him in all other cases.
If the rogue is your classic dual-wielding rogue, it's generally worse. The rogue in my example is optimized for hitting and damaging in all instances (he's squeezing hit and damage out of his ability scores like it was going out of style). Most rogues I've seen are not Strength-based rogues (going Strength-based is often undesired by most because of conceptual problems, or because unlike Ranger rogues have ACs as bad as mages if they don't have a good Dexterity), and thus tend to have lower to-hit and to-damage than the one in this example. Worse yet, most of them - due to having high Dex and low non-sneak damage - focus on dual-wielding or archery. A grave mistake in my humble opinion as the loss of accuracy only hurts worse and trying to sneak attack at range is a lost cause in terms of efficiency....
A fine demonstration of understanding there, and succinct too.
I think many want the full bab so the two weapon sneak spam is even easier to pull off. The rogue is more than that one build people.
In all honesty, what is a ranger without favored enemy? Pretty close to a warrior. I wonder how a warrior stacks up against rogues. Even if it turns out that the rogue out damages the warrior, its probably going to be embarrassingly close.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ashiel: rogues get 4d6 sneak at 7th :-) (Not that that invalidates your point)
Oh yes, my bad. That increases the DPR for the sneaking rogue by +2.275. So if the Rogue is getting his sneak attack on, and using PA, he could hit about the same DPR as the Ranger who was not sneak-attacking and also using PA.
Which brings us back to our problem here. Rogues then need another feat to deal with concealment (total concealment still ruins you). Then need to shore up their AC. Have damage issues when they cannot sneak attack (such as foes being unflanked).
Effectively, our goal at this point as Rogue players is spending feats and abilities to play catchup to our rival, the Ranger when he is using no abilities whatsoever. And the reason I picked the Ranger wasn't just because he has no really special combat abilities (which was part of it) but mostly because I think Ranger is the ideal striker/skill-monkey. They have 6 + Int modifier skills, Stealth and Perception, as well as a variety of options that make them very good in this field (longstrider increases their speed and thus stealth speed, and pass without trace is very good for a stealthy scouting type). Unlike a rogue, not only does a Ranger come with skills galore, but they can fight 24/7 without issues, and have serious out of combat usefulness as well as in-combat usefulness and problem-solving spells (which puts the rogue talents minor and major arcana to shame). The fact they also come with a free flanking buddy at 4th level is kind of icing at this point.
At high levels it only gets better. Rangers eventually can mark foes as quarries every hour, which means if you're not in constant combat, you can probably get it off several times per day and almost certainly repeatedly per adventure. When they get access to instant enemy they're now "Smite-Rangers", and if they are facing a foe that is just too hard to crack normally can open a can of swift-action whupass. :P
The next guy in line to steal the Rogue's cookies is the Bard. But where I think the Ranger is closer to the Rogue's role (not exceptionally magical stealthy melee type), the Bard basically has anything resembling party support on lockdown and has problem solving in spades (and can eat rogues for breakfast :P).
Effectively, our goal at this point as Rogue players is spending feats and abilities to play catchup to our rival, the Ranger when he is using no abilities whatsoever. And the reason I picked the Ranger wasn't just because he has no really special combat abilities (which was part of it) but mostly because I think Ranger is the ideal striker/skill-monkey. They have 6 + Int modifier skills, Stealth and Perception, as well as a variety of options that make them very good in this field (longstrider increases their speed and thus stealth speed, and pass without trace is very good for a stealthy scouting type). Unlike a rogue, not only does a Ranger come with skills galore, but they can fight 24/7 without issues, and have serious out of combat usefulness as well as in-combat usefulness and problem-solving spells (which puts the rogue talents minor and major arcana to shame). The fact they also come with a free flanking buddy at 4th level is kind of icing at this point
Sadly all true.
I'm thinking due to this, a good compromise:
A hypothetically Ranger archetype who got sneak attack every 3 levels (starting at 1st: 1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 18th: 7d6 at 18th level) in exchange for favored terrain and wild empathy.
...@Asheil: I'm being dense... why does the ranger get a bigger base die? Umm, what happens if the rogue gets PA as well?Rangers are proficient with martial weapons, which means they get a glaive instead of a longspear (rogues stick with longspear or either burn a feat or eat a -4 to hit which would hurt more). Ninja have kusari gamas though which are good (lower die size but it has reach).
Assuming the Rogue burns a feat on PA, he can increase his DPR when sneak attacking by about +1. And his DPR when not sneak-attacking by about +2. However, in general loss of accuracy hurts a rogue's DPR more than it helps, and PA is fairly slow to get revved up unless your BAB advances quickly (though 7th level is the ideal level for this, since the rogue has the same -2 for +6 if using a 2 hander since he just recently hit the +4 BAB mark and just before the ranger hits the +8 BAB mark).
Of course, the Ranger meets the rogue's DPR without PA. And with PA crushes it. Now if the rogue's DPR increases by about 1 when sneak-attacking, that would bring his DPR up to roughly 14. For the same feat investment, the Ranger is still beating him by 2 points, and schooling him in all other cases.
If the rogue is your classic dual-wielding rogue, it's generally worse. The rogue in my example is optimized for hitting and damaging in all instances (he's squeezing hit and damage out of his ability scores like it was going out of style). Most rogues I've seen are not Strength-based rogues (going Strength-based is often undesired by most because of conceptual problems, or because unlike Ranger rogues have ACs as bad as mages if they don't have a good Dexterity), and thus tend to have lower to-hit and to-damage than the one in this example. Worse yet, most of them - due to having high Dex and low non-sneak damage - focus on dual-wielding or archery. A grave mistake in my humble opinion as the loss of accuracy only hurts worse and trying to sneak attack at range is a lost cause in
They sure are fun. Can be pushed by game or dm into being pure melee, it is not where they shine necessarily.
In all honesty, what is a ranger without favored enemy? Pretty close to a warrior. I wonder how a warrior stacks up against rogues. Even if it turns out that the rogue out damages the warrior, its probably going to be embarrassingly close.
Funny thing, if you balance the bread and butter basics warrior with other classes, say the warrior gets a free level every two times they level up (base classes are at level 2, warrior is at 3, base are on 4, he is at 6), the warrior really shines and can adventure with the rest. Their bab and hit die is nice, skills somewhat balance out as a human warrior too. Might want to give it a try, I've had great fun dming them. The pure bab class with no extra fluff!
It would be hilarious, I guess. Who was doing that then?
Oh, that straw guy over there...
As for popularity, out in the world I've seen probably more monks and rogues played than magii. There was a flood of inquisitors, but that seems to have dried up.
*shrugs*
My point was made quite coherently up ahead, do...
Lamontius, the guy you were agreeing with. As for your table that's definitely up to you but at my table we've had a Rogue on and off but the only pure Rogues were hireling NPCs who we only kept around to deal with traps before we figured out there were archetypes that could do that without having to be Rogues.
I tried to play one for a bit before realizing that it was not going to work and shifted him into a fighter multiclass before he could die. In my table experience the likelihood of getting sneak attack and more that one attack per round is negligible and the chances of the other melee's sacrificing their full attack to get you sneak attack is zilch.
Hell I eventually stopped trying to flank because occasionally the rest of the party would fall back and I had to eat a boat load of attacks or just defend and pray the enemies didn't want my guts.
I'm not saying my table is typical but that's why I don't count small data sets of anecdotal evidence as truth well that and it being bad scientific thinking. And Ashiel's math only makes it clearer that sacrificing the Ranger's/Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian's full attacks to let you get sneak attack isn't necessarily a winning proposition, it may make it look like the Rogue is doing the most damage but in actuality your net damage could be going down, not to mention the potential lost by the option of having another Ranger etc.
Sounds like a lack of cooperation and teamwork is the real problem. The mighty must all be mighty on their own, and not help a team-mate out. For rogues, you don't have to get flank to sneak, there is also the front up option of improved feint, skill focus bluff, max out bluff, use your sneak attack after the feint with something like a bastard sword. Other feats should go into defences/mobility. Enjoy the build.
That is the problem there, two handed, + 1.5 str, + enchantment + sneak is seen as "a pile of suck".
It doesn't always have to be about the damage spam lad. Get a good sneak in, contribute, and if it doesn't work, try something else. Don't need to reliably be able to make five sneak attacks in one round; and if you are feeling the pressure that you just have to do this every combat, talk to the dm.
Yes you do have the feint option if you never intend to make more than a single attack and are okay with having your damage be a pile of suck.
If it were possible to reduce feint to a swift via sufficient feats then maybe but it isn't.
I don't know what kind of groups you play in but I never feel like everyone else is so competent as to warrant me playing a character who would immediately die without significant effort on the part of the others.
This is further expounded by the fact that we play with 4 players, of those you're never going to have more than 3 going melee, often it will be as few as 2 (like in the game I was playing Rogue) that means that there isn't always room for too much fancy pants teamwork in melee range particularly in the sense of wasting say a Barbarian's tremendously superior damage output on movement to net you sneak attack dice.
Why would the rogue "immediately die"?
Is that one of their special abilities I never heard of?
Why can't a rogue hit things? They are on 3/4 bab, high dex, often take finesse, can use magic weapons to shiv and are not on -10 to hit.
Not everything has a fantastic ac, if it is nothing but very high acs all the time, yeah, the rogue will feel a bit weak. Course if the acs are astonomical, even the melees may not hit if they don't get high rolls. No one hits this round, hmm, how fun, lol.
Ac should always be something that the players can hit, with the difficulty of this varying across battles. If there are rogues, a dm should go easy on the 30 ac monsters at level 4.
A dm should provide a challenge, but ac like dr can get a bit too keen and high if it isn't considered. Sure, ac 35, you guys will blast it. We are level six!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is the problem there, two handed, + 1.5 str, + enchantment + sneak is seen as "a pile of suck".
It's a question of using the Rogue in the most effective way (i.e. Spear/Longspear/Morningstar) two-handed with power attack) vs. the flavor people play rogues for.
Nobody (or very few people, at least) think, "I want to be a spear fighter--oh, I know, I'll be a Rogue!"
The standard image is dual wielding knives (note, I dislike the aesthetics of dual wielding, but it is seen as standard for knives and Rogues), and Rogues kind of suck at that.
So it's okay to be a rogue if you use a spear. Okay cool, I was freaking out thinking I was going to be kicked out of Pathfinder.
So it's okay to be a rogue if you use a spear. Okay cool, I was freaking out thinking I was going to be kicked out of Pathfinder.
No, you're still kicked out. Just less violently, since using a spear is the "best" way to play a bad class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Please don't mistake my posts for saying you must play a rogue with a longspear. Merely that is about the most effective way I've found a rogue to contribute to combat. By emphasizing reach and a focus on strength you have a much more agreeable time setting up flanking, and then a much better time hitting and dealing damage. Ideally, since the rogue doesn't do anything else special - and it appears Sneak Attack is the rogue's main feature - one would think a rogue is intended to be a tactical striker. He's not though. :(
The further you try to stick to the "rogue" as an archetype the less effective you will become. A fair mixture of Str / Dex, dual-wielding light weapons or using a rapier will only hurt you. Strait Dexterity hurts the most (it's commonly suggested that Rogues due to their lack of good armor should venture forth and go the Weapon Finesse route), which leaves you in a sneak or nothing situation.
My whole point was merely that even when trying to squeeze the most out of our rogue, he falls behind the Ranger at his job without the Ranger actually trying or using his class features. If that's with a tactic that is quite literally pushing for the best sneak-attack striker you can get, what is the normal rogue with the short sword or rapier to do?
On the rogue having issues with mostly being dex based, what is up with the halflings? Strength, size, and speed penalties? Yeah that just screams make me worse by running it as a rogue. A 1d3 dagger or 1d4 1handed weapon? Yippee now I'm 100% committed to a poorly scaling situational ability.
Here's a concept I've been thinking about for rogue:
Human Ranger 1/Rogue (Scout) 8
str 20 (16 +2 racial +2 level), dex 12, con 12, int 12, wis 12, cha 12
feats/rogue talents (marked with a *): Power Attack, Furious focus, combat expertise, *improved feint (combat trick), skill focus (bluff), *weapon focus - greatsword (weapon training), vital strike, *trapspotter, greater feint, *fast stealth
Greatsword: +13 to hit, 4d6+16 damage (always power attacking, always vital strike), +4d6 from sneak attack. If he needs to move, he gets the sneak attack from skirmisher scout ability. If not, he can feint as a move, and get it anyway (along with causing the target to lose his dex bonus for an entire round). He also has favored enemy and can use wands of ranger spells (along with his UMD). And he gets to wear medium armor too.
On the rogue having issues with mostly being dex based, what is up with the halflings? Strength, size, and speed penalties? Yeah that just screams make me worse by running it as a rogue. A 1d3 dagger or 1d4 1handed weapon? Yippee now I'm 100% committed to a poorly scaling situational ability.
Halflings are actually a pretty solid race, though I generally prefer goblins or gnomes. While they take a Strength hit, you can still begin with a 14 Strength without much trouble, and the +2 Dex and small size actually can help out pretty well with a lot of classes (if anything, the +2 Dex can justify having a lower base Dex to raise other things). The +2 Charisma is dirt useless for a rogue though, so they make better sorcerers/bards IMHO, but they can do really well as a martial too (I really like halfling rangers, see below).
The small size gives +1 to hit and AC (this is a pretty big deal), +4 to Stealth (also a big deal), and they get +2 to Acrobatics (not a good deal as you have -4 to acrobatics due to 20 ft. speed), a +2 Climb (only a net +1 since you have -2 Str), and +2 Perception (always welcome). The biggest boon halflings get is the +1 to all saves (whee!).
Halfling rangers are cool. You can very easily begin with stats such as: 14, 14, 14, 10, 12, 9 after racial modifiers. The +1 to hit and AC means you'll actually do pretty good in the hitting and avoidance department, the +1 to all saves is nice. At 4th level you can get an animal companion, and from that point on you can ride around on your animal companion shooting arrows at everything (move+full-attack) and use a lance with power attack.
However, Goblins are my favorite small race. They're small size, 30 ft. speed, +4 dex, +4 Ride, +4 Stealth, and Darkvision 60 ft. Lil' suckers are pretty much a dream come true to me. Halflings got them beat on saving throws (+1 to everything) and the Perception checks (+2 Perception is nice really), but goblins are much better sneaks (even in heavy-ish armor, the +4 racial combined with the Dex bonus means goblins tend to be sneaky without trying), and they're naturally gifted on riding stuff. Thus they make great rangers as well. Small sized characters + medium sized animal companion mount = very mobile attacker.
Also, the small size and dex modifier will offset the damage penalty if you're ranged-prime. As an example, the +4 Dex and small size equate to a net +3 to hit over a human. When you factor in your +2 Strength modifier with a composite bow, and feats like Deadly Aim, Rapid Shot, and Manyshot, you get plenty of damage. The fact you can move AND full-attack with a little investment is just golden. :D
Acording to the mosnter creation table a expected AC for a Cr 9 monster is 23. Yor build is missing 50% of the time. But your idea is interesting.Here's a concept I've been thinking about for rogue:
Human Ranger 1/Rogue (Scout) 8
str 20 (16 +2 racial +2 level), dex 12, con 12, int 12, wis 12, cha 12
feats/rogue talents (marked with a *): Power Attack, Furious focus, combat expertise, *improved feint (combat trick), skill focus (bluff), *weapon focus - greatsword (weapon training), vital strike, *trapspotter, greater feint, *fast stealthGreatsword: +13 to hit, 4d6+16 damage (always power attacking, always vital strike), +4d6 from sneak attack. If he needs to move, he gets the sneak attack from skirmisher scout ability. If not, he can feint as a move, and get it anyway (along with causing the target to lose his dex bonus for an entire round). He also has favored enemy and can use wands of ranger spells (along with his UMD). And he gets to wear medium armor too.
True, but this is without magic equipment or buffs. At 9th, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a +2 greatsword and a belt of +2 strength. And the target is denied their dex, which I'm sure will subtract a couple more points of AC.
and they get +2 to Acrobatics (not a good deal as you have -4 to acrobatics due to 20 ft. speed)
consider
Fleet of Foot Some halflings are quicker than their kin but less cautious. Halflings with this racial trait move at normal speed and have a base speed of 30 feet. This racial trait replaces slow speed and sure-footed.
I'll be honest. Powergamer that I be, I honestly don't pay much heed to alternate racial traits or racial favored class benefits. While most of the alternate racial traits aren't bad, I find most of them fairly useless/pointless (Heart of the Fields springs to mind, as honestly it's pretty useless as a racial feature for PCs, and just added clutter for NPCs). Call it a weakness of mine.
When it comes to favored class options, I just don't like most of them, and I feel they're more unbalanced than all the genie-binding, magic item crafting, and rings of sustenance in the world. Mostly because they often make certain races just clearly superior in a given class. It's pretty much to the point that we're kind of idiots if our sorcerers aren't all humans with extra spells known, because it's just that damn good. +1 spell known every sorcerer level trumps almost any other option you could find.
That being said, Fleet of Foot is more or less a no-brainer. You'll likely never regret taking it. Ever. Heck, halflings can't even sneak effectively without it, since the -5 penalty for moving at greater than half speed entirely negates both their Dexterity and size modifiers to Stealth. So unless you'd want to be inching around at 10 ft. / round, you'll need it unless you have Fast Stealth.
So it's okay to be a rogue if you use a spear. Okay cool, I was freaking out thinking I was going to be kicked out of Pathfinder.
Seen both rogues and ninja use glaives quite well, plenty of damage, contributing to the fight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I totally agree that archetypal rogues have serious problems contributing.
The Scout archetype is an incredible boon to the two-handed rogue, especially if you can find a way to full attack after moving. One build I'm fond of but haven't had an opportunity to play is a Scout+Thug Rogue/Cavalier with the Horse Master feat. A halfling classed like that could be a very mobile fighter with lance charge sneak attacks that sicken enemies. Once you qualify, Mounted Skirmisher would make you an absolute terror.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But doesn't all of this come down to: full BAB classes are better at hitting things than 3/4 BAB classes?
I like rogues. They're fun.
This is true but the point is if the Rogue can't hit things, and can't cast, and is barely better than his competition in skills who can hit things and cast. Then why be a Rogue?
For me the point of this whole thing hasn't been I hate Rogues and they're stupid, badwrongfun. It's that would Rogues be more, or less fun if they could hit things and do what they do now?
Oh man, why does EVERYTHING have to be in shades of black and white.
Its not that the rogue CANT hit things, its that it isn't as good as a fighter, and now people are going to whine and cry and complain about how "broken" they are.
I have yet to see the party wherein a full rogue hasn't done a butt-ton of damage when played tactically correct. Between charges, flanks, buffs, flat footed-ness, sometimes hitting a prone guy (thank you monk/fighter buddy for help here) and other tactics, the rogue is a solid hitter and easily one of the best.
Its never just black and white, yet that is all that seems to be thrown about anymore.
Rogues CANT hit.
Monks are broken and unfixable
Paladin's alignment restrictions are BOGUS
Its so old its not even funny anymore.
|
|
Acording to the mosnter creation table a expected AC for a Cr 9 monster is 23. Yor build is missing 50% of the time. But your idea is interesting.Here's a concept I've been thinking about for rogue:
Human Ranger 1/Rogue (Scout) 8
str 20 (16 +2 racial +2 level), dex 12, con 12, int 12, wis 12, cha 12
feats/rogue talents (marked with a *): Power Attack, Furious focus, combat expertise, *improved feint (combat trick), skill focus (bluff), *weapon focus - greatsword (weapon training), vital strike, *trapspotter, greater feint, *fast stealthGreatsword: +13 to hit, 4d6+16 damage (always power attacking, always vital strike), +4d6 from sneak attack. If he needs to move, he gets the sneak attack from skirmisher scout ability. If not, he can feint as a move, and get it anyway (along with causing the target to lose his dex bonus for an entire round). He also has favored enemy and can use wands of ranger spells (along with his UMD). And he gets to wear medium armor too.
Don't forget, the special fun of the Scout archetype is the charging, so the build would get a +2 bonus from that, these numbers do not factor a magical weapon of some sort, nor are there any other buffs or flanking or a variety of other tactical advantages to get the combo off, all of which are easily available and easy to do at this level.
Starting off at needing a 10 or better to hit an equal CR creature is pretty good, IMHO. Is it the best? Nah, but for a 3/4 BAB guy, its pretty good.
|
|
If you haven't seen a rogue not do a butt ton of damage then your GM is almost certainly playing down your opposition or letting Rogues cheat when they play.Oh man, why does EVERYTHING have to be in shades of black and white.
Its not that the rogue CANT hit things, its that it isn't as good as a fighter, and now people are going to whine and cry and complain about how "broken" they are.
I have yet to see the party wherein a full rogue hasn't done a butt-ton of damage when played tactically correct. Between charges, flanks, buffs, flat footed-ness, sometimes hitting a prone guy (thank you monk/fighter buddy for help here) and other tactics, the rogue is a solid hitter and easily one of the best.
Its never just black and white, yet that is all that seems to be thrown about anymore.
Rogues CANT hit.
Monks are broken and unfixable
Paladin's alignment restrictions are BOGUS
Its so old its not even funny anymore.
Black and white again. Sure, the occasional round of poor dice luck, or the first few rounds wherein combat is set up and the enemy has the drop on us or surprised us or something....but with good movement and solid flanking and other feats geared towards getting the SA damage to go off, rogues do well.
I usually also GM, and I don't cheat the system nor do I let the players.
I don't know what else to say...if the player is too ignorant of the combat system to understand how to get a sneak attack to go off as often as possible, the class may seem hopeless.
If however, you have someone versed in the rules and who understands what is necessary, and isn't soloing the adventure for some cockamamey reason, then yeah...SA happens, and rogues do a butt-ton of damage.
|
|
True, but this is without magic equipment or buffs. At 9th, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a +2 greatsword and a belt of +2 strength. And the target is denied their dex, which I'm sure will subtract a couple more points of AC.Acording to the mosnter creation table a expected AC for a Cr 9 monster is 23. Yor build is missing 50% of the time. But your idea is interesting.Here's a concept I've been thinking about for rogue:
Human Ranger 1/Rogue (Scout) 8
str 20 (16 +2 racial +2 level), dex 12, con 12, int 12, wis 12, cha 12
feats/rogue talents (marked with a *): Power Attack, Furious focus, combat expertise, *improved feint (combat trick), skill focus (bluff), *weapon focus - greatsword (weapon training), vital strike, *trapspotter, greater feint, *fast stealthGreatsword: +13 to hit, 4d6+16 damage (always power attacking, always vital strike), +4d6 from sneak attack. If he needs to move, he gets the sneak attack from skirmisher scout ability. If not, he can feint as a move, and get it anyway (along with causing the target to lose his dex bonus for an entire round). He also has favored enemy and can use wands of ranger spells (along with his UMD). And he gets to wear medium armor too.
THIS.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues also tend moreso than any other class to get Surprize round attacks, and act first in every combat practically, more AoO's, and more Crits, and I doubt that the math accounts for that. That's the difference between Seen it wit my own two eyes, (ie actual experience with the subject matter) and crooked spreadsheets. One doesn't acount for the whole big picture, and it's easy to ignor things that don't paint the picture you want seen.
Rogues are still a very popular class, PFS and not. Rogues are just fine, fun, far from useless, far from being unable to contribute and shine, and far from being a burnder, in or out of combat. They are not Fighters, however, so expecting them to be is probably going to leave you disappointed.
That's the difference between Seen it wit my own two eyes, (ie actual experience with the subject matter) and crooked spreadsheets.
No, "seen it with my own eyes" is due to cognitive bias.
If someone thinks Rogues deal lots of damage, they remember all the times Rogues did lots of damage, but subconsciously reject and forget all the times they didn't.
It's the same phenomenon that led to people thinking more babies are born during full moons. Ask any delivery nurse, and they'll tell you how true it is because they remember full moons where tons of babies were born. But they'll also conveniently never talk about all those full moons when normal numbers, or even below average numbers of babies were born. Fun Fact: Statiscally, babies are most likely to be born on a Tuesday, but no other temporal factors play into it.
There's also the fact that Rogues throw around fat handfuls of d6s. Go to any spellcaster thread and you'll hear stories about how great blasting is (and I don't mean optimized blasting), for the same distorted "fistsfuls of d6s are awesome!" reason.
It's hard for people to think of d6s as 3.5 damage, rather than "potentially 6!" It's why people hate 2d4 weapons, even though it averages more than 1d8.
But doesn't all of this come down to: full BAB classes are better at hitting things than 3/4 BAB classes?
I like rogues. They're fun.
This is true but the point is if the Rogue can't hit things, and can't cast, and is barely better than his competition in skills who can hit things and cast. Then why be a Rogue?
For me the point of this whole thing hasn't been I hate Rogues and they're stupid, badwrongfun. It's that would Rogues be more, or less fun if they could hit things and do what they do now?
Oh man, why does EVERYTHING have to be in shades of black and white.
Its not that the rogue CANT hit things, its that it isn't as good as a fighter, and now people are going to whine and cry and complain about how "broken" they are.
I have yet to see the party wherein a full rogue hasn't done a butt-ton of damage when played tactically correct. Between charges, flanks, buffs, flat footed-ness, sometimes hitting a prone guy (thank you monk/fighter buddy for help here) and other tactics, the rogue is a solid hitter and easily one of the best.
Its never just black and white, yet that is all that seems to be thrown about anymore.
Rogues CANT hit.
Monks are broken and unfixable
Paladin's alignment restrictions are BOGUS
Its so old its not even funny anymore.
Agree. Repetitions of repetitions ad nauseam.
That's the difference between Seen it wit my own two eyes, (ie actual experience with the subject matter) and crooked spreadsheets.No, "seen it with my own eyes" is due to cognitive bias.
If someone thinks Rogues deal lots of damage, they remember all the times Rogues did lots of damage, but subconsciously reject and forget all the times they didn't.
It's the same phenomenon that led to people thinking more babies are born during full moons. Ask any delivery nurse, and they'll tell you how true it is because they remember full moons where tons of babies were born. But they'll also conveniently never talk about all those full moons when normal numbers, or even below average numbers of babies were born. Fun Fact: Statiscally, babies are most likely to be born on a Tuesday, but no other temporal factors play into it.
There's also the fact that Rogues throw around fat handfuls of d6s. Go to any spellcaster thread and you'll hear stories about how great blasting is (and I don't mean optimized blasting), for the same distorted "fistsfuls of d6s are awesome!" reason.
It's hard for people to think of d6s as 3.5 damage, rather than "potentially 6!" It's why people hate 2d4 weapons, even though it averages more than 1d8.
Confirmation bias.
I love 2d4s, and so does a friend of mine, but maybe I have weighted d4s because 3-4 seem to come out so consistently.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Use agile weapon and Dex becomes your bonus. Your 7th level example ignores typical items on hand. Its phrased towards your advantage. Honestly the whole dpr is the only lacking issue why not skip role playing and just war game Minis.
Just give me one item. For level 6, 12, 20 what is the minimum required damage per round and three situations and well see if my rogue can hit the #. The statement that rogues are incompetent in combat is too general. Oh and if other classes can't hit that # they in turn are equally incompetent.
Eg mass combat 12 enemies.
Single high AC opponent
And usual 4 man team
Honestly in those situations the mage and cleric can't do that damage each and every round forever either. They run out of spells and run out faster if they need summoned monsters for trap springing, etc
Finally I noticed noone countered my statements that rogues are good in a wide variety of situations. Yes others can do these things but that does not negate a rogue's role. It made me laugh thinking the of a cleric fighter paladin and wizard putting on ninja costumes because the rogues were on strike.