| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think babaus have natural SA without class levels. The spiked chains were non-standard however.Correct.
They have 2d6 sneak attack, spears, and are CR 6 each.
In the situation described, a series of Babaus on either side flanking a corridor and a barbarian (4th level) running down the gauntlet, I doubt it was the sneak attack that killed him!Also he deserved to die for being so absolutely stupid. The player probably deserves a kick in the balls, too.
Regardless, this is about as weak evidence as could possibly be presented for the elimination of multiple sneak attacks by a rogue PC.
Here I was thinking the weakest evidence is "I DON'T LIKE ROGUE GETTING MORE THAN ONE SNEAK ATTACK, BECAUSE THEY ONLY GOT ONE BACKSTAB ALL THE WAY BACK IN 2ND EDITION.", but that's just me. Practically feels like someone is trying to say the Nintendo Entertainment System doesn't just hold up to modern consoles, but is actually superior.
|
Here I was thinking the weakest evidence is "I DON'T LIKE ROGUE GETTING MORE THAN ONE SNEAK ATTACK, BECAUSE THEY ONLY GOT ONE BACKSTAB ALL THE WAY BACK IN 2ND EDITION.", but that's just me. Practically feels like someone is trying to say the Nintendo Entertainment System doesn't just hold up to modern consoles, but is actually superior.
Hey, you back off my NES!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is true -- but the inherent +5 more to hit over 20 levels does make a huge difference too. ... ....as well as the extra attack from being a full BAB class. I'm not saying it's perfect, but the different between medium and huge BAB becomes a huge deal at later levels -- enough so to be the difference between missing a lot and not missing a lot.*Sigh*
First, who the hell plays a 20th level campaign?
Second, a 20th level rogue has a nearly god-like amount of money to throw at Use Magical Device; and will almost always have his opponent at a severe AC penalty (usually by his target being blind relative to the rogue). Once target's DEX-denied is taken into account, the differences in BAB between fighter and rogue are a wash.
Mike look at what I said -- not at level 20, but over 20 levels Granted it's only a +1 difference at level 5... but then at level 5 +1 is a lot... not quite as much as that +2 at level 6 though, and still nowhere near as much as the +3 at level 10, or +4 at level 13.
Honestly I'm trying to be nice here but it would really help if you would consider what is being said rather than what you want to hear.
At each of those levels the difference is significant -- never mind what happens at level 20 at level 10 allow it's still a huge difference and a big deal.
It is superior, in its own way. (I just find a lot of older games more fun than the new crap coming out.)
The concept of less is more escapes a lot of people, always has, always will.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to be able to beat Super Contra without dying.
Cheater.
+1 on the "who cares about lv20".
90% of games in my experience are lv1-15, where the game is fun for all. After 16 it is no longer fun for the GM IMO. Unless you get a kick out of scribbling for hours, and conceiving terrifying scenarios in hopes to challenge the drunken norse gods that are the PCs. Usually only to have the wizard win initiative, and reduce your finely crafted encounter to gibbering houseplants with his DC30, save twice take lower spells, for the martial character to tear into and compare peni- I mean damage outputs.
Seriously, I remember spending 8-10 hours preparing for 2 encounters, only so the characters might feel slightly challenged. No fun at all.
Which is why the real comparison levels should be 5, 9 and 12 IMO, which is late enough for characters to come into their own, and before they become the riders of the apocalypse, toying with the poor mortal fools that dare clutter their path.
+1 on the "who cares about lv20".
90% of games in my experience are lv1-15, where the game is fun for all. After 16 it is no longer fun for the GM IMO. Unless you get a kick out of scribbling for hours, and conceiving terrifying scenarios in hopes to challenge the drunken norse gods that are the PCs. Usually only to have the wizard win initiative, and reduce your finely crafted encounter to gibbering houseplants with his DC30, save twice take lower spells, for the martial character to tear into and compare peni- I mean damage outputs.
Seriously, I remember spending 8-10 hours preparing for 2 encounters, only so the characters might feel slightly challenged. No fun at all.
Which is why the real comparison levels should be 5, 9 and 12 IMO, which is late enough for characters to come into their own, and before they become the riders of the apocalypse, toying with the poor mortal fools that dare clutter their path.
So let me quote myself:
look at what I said -- not at level 20, but over 20 levels Granted it's only a +1 difference at level 5... but then at level 5 +2*edit* is a lot... not quite as much as that +2 at level 6 though, and still nowhere near as much as the +3 at level 10, or +4 at level 13.Honestly I'm trying to be nice here but it would really help if you would consider what is being said rather than what you want to hear.
At each of those levels the difference is significant -- never mind what happens at level 20 at level 10 allow it's still a huge difference and a big deal.
Oh look at that across meaning not just at level 20.
Again lets look at the actually difference at the levels you suggest -- oh wait I already did that.
level 5 = +2
level 7 = +2
level 10 = +3
level 13 = +4
Hm... yeah got to say that's a bit of a change throughout all the levels, significant even.
If the players aren't melee beatsticks, at 20th level you shouldn't be worrying about how they win encounters, but how they get there. You need to make the journey TO the encounter require their abilities.
Heck even if they are melee beatsticks at level 20 it should be if they win but how they get there. Melee beatsticks have some of the most surefire SoD's in the game -- it just takes a full round action beside the opponent to accomplish. There is no save throw or spell resistance either.
|
|
However, melee has far fewer resources to use getting to the encounter, so you have to tone the journey down a bit. An eldritch location requiring a combination of Gate, Teleport, Overland Flight, Gaseous Form, Commune, Disintegrate, and Telekinesis to get to is a bit beyond the internal capabilities of a party of Fighters and Barbarians.
It is superior, in its own way. (I just find a lot of older games more fun than the new crap coming out.)The concept of less is more escapes a lot of people, always has, always will.
There are a few games that I can always pick up and play on the NES. Chief among them is Punch-Out. I just never tire of that game for some reason. I feel the same way about the PlayStation 1, no matter how inferior the graphics seem compared to today's standards, or whatever else, there are too many memories and gameplay experiences to discard it or refuse to return to it.
However, melee has far fewer resources to use getting to the encounter, so you have to tone the journey down a bit. An eldritch location requiring a combination of Gate, Teleport, Overland Flight, Gaseous Form, Commune, Disintegrate, and Telekinesis to get to is a bit beyond the internal capabilities of a party of Fighters and Barbarians.
Which just proves your point more -- it's the journey not the enemy.
Which again points out to agreement with me that it's better to take two weapon fighting when not a rogue -- also an inquisitor can only use bane on one weapon at a time so he's not really fully up in comparison.
Which again points out to agreement with me that it's better to take two weapon fighting when not a rogue -- also an inquisitor can only use bane on one weapon at a time so he's not really fully up in comparison.
May I present to you Double Bane
Which again points out to agreement with me that it's better to take two weapon fighting when not a rogue -- also an inquisitor can only use bane on one weapon at a time so he's not really fully up in comparison.May I present to you Double Bane
I'm aware -- but you got to state it in play otherwise it's not.
Besides we were comparing a samurai to the rogue when it came to two weapon fighting. I'm still wondering what point you are trying to make:
My point was that rogue's really suffer for taking two weapon fighting, I even left point that other classes can (and do) use two weapon fighting better than rogues.
You've provided nothing but evidence that I am right... so was that your point or do we have a miscommunication?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No i agree with you i prefer reach weapon rogues myself. Just didn't know if you had seen the feat I'm not the person pointing out the many reasons for everyone but the rogue to have TWF.
Okay, if you check the last page that's exactly what I recommended, and exactly what I presented as being a better choice over the 'trap' of two weapon fighting rogues.
Which again points out to agreement with me that it's better to take two weapon fighting when not a rogue -- also an inquisitor can only use bane on one weapon at a time so he's not really fully up in comparison.May I present to you Double BaneI'm aware -- but you got to state it in play otherwise it's not.
Besides we were comparing a samurai to the rogue when it came to two weapon fighting. I'm still wondering what point you are trying to make:
My point was that rogue's really suffer for taking two weapon fighting, I even left point that other classes can (and do) use two weapon fighting better than rogues.
You've provided nothing but evidence that I am right... so was that your point or do we have a miscommunication?
High natural armour or high flat-footed ac can really shut down a rogue, no matter how many sneak attacks are potentially there, whether they are doing TWF or not.
They did something funny making the typically low ac barbarian immune to sneak at 5th, and in 3.5 also made the knight an anti-rogue character through difficult terrain causing abilities, bonus to shield ac and a d12 hit die. If it is d12, the rogue is going to have some problems. Even chunky fighters too, they can laugh at rogues sometimes if the rogue averages an 8 on attack rolls.
Talonhawke, I love reach rogues; reach out and touch-someone.
And as I pointed out giving yourself an extra penalty to hit and dealing less damage per hit isn't going to really help yourself out. People complain about the monk being a flurry of misses, the rogue was (and still is) even worse when it comes to hitting if he tries to two weapon fight.
Also, no weapon training.
Fighting-oriented Rogue with Dex 18 Vs basic 2H Fighter with Str18:
Lv3: (assuming masterwork weapons)
Rogue: BAB+2, Dex+4, MW+1, WF+1 = +8 (+6 dualwielding) Dam: 1d6+0(+2d6SA) Average damage on hit: 3.5(10.5) AC:19 (Chain Shirt+1, Dex+4)
Fighter: BAB+3, Str+4, MW+1, WF+1 = +9 (+8 Power Attack) Dam: 2d6+6/9 Average damage on hit: 13/16 AC:20 (MW Fullplate, Dex+1)
Lv6: (Assuming +1 weapon)
Rogue: BAB+4, Dex+4, +1wpn+1, WF+1 = +10 (+8 dualwielding) Dam: 1d6+1(+3d6) Average damage on hit: 4.5(15) AC:20 (Chain Shirt+1, Misc protective item+1, Dex+4)
Fighter: BAB+6/+1, Str+4, +1wpn+1, WF+1, WT+1 = +13 (+11 power attack) Dam: 2d6+10/16 Average damage on hit: 17/23 AC:22(Fullplate+1, Misc protective item+1, Dex+1)
Lv9: (assuming +2 stat gear and +2 weapon, +1 agile for rogue for damage)
Rogue: BAB+6/+1, Dex+6, +1wpn+1, WF+1 = +14 (+12 dualwielding) Dam: 1d6+7 (+5d6) Average damage on hit: 10.5(28) AC:24 (Mithril chain shirt+2, ring+2, Dex+6)
Fighter: BAB+9/+3, Str+6, +2wpn+2, GWF+2, WT+2 = 21 (+18 Power attack) Dam: 2d6+15/24 Average damage on hit: 22/31 AC:24 (Fullplate+2, Ring+2, Dex+1)
Note that I put the sneak attack damage in paranthesis as it is optional for when the rogue actually gets in flank or otherwise qualifies for it. Fighter does not need to qualify for his damage. Only at lv9 does the rogue's sneak attack outdo the BASIC fighter damage, no power attack. At all times, the fighter with power attack outdoes the rogue average, with sneak attack. AC remains somewhat similar, as this is not a defensive fighter build, and the rogue invests as heavily in armor class to remain viable in melee.
In my experience, every third or so attack from a rogue can be reliably called a sneak attack, unless you are heavily supported by magic (in which case the fighter math takes on another guise as well). This means the fighter deals around 4 times as much damage as the rogue.
Builds used:
Rogue LV1: Weapon Finesse, LV3: Weapon Focus (use lv2 rogue talent to get 2Wfighting if desired)
Fighter: Lv1: Weapon Focus, Power Attack, LV4: Weapon Specialization, Lv8: Greater Weapon Focus
Obviously, you have a LOT of leeway with feats here, which can change the end results dramatically.
I'm a fan of TWF rogues but I've never really had a problem with monsters around my level (which was 10 last we played). To me it's not a trap, but a questionable choice of resources allowed. With 4 to 5 attacks per full-attack round (haste spell included) I was usually making 3 to 4 of them and dealing 6d6+8 and 7d6+9 per hit. Fighters tend to deal single weapon die damage + Modifier but often land that last hit or two. I think the rogue still comes out better on the average DPR vs. the Fighter. I'd like to note that I use ALL sources for the character and not exclusively PFRPG material so that probably has a lot to do with it.
I'm a fan of TWF rogues but I've never really had a problem with monsters around my level (which was 10 last we played). To me it's not a trap, but a questionable choice of resources allowed. With 4 to 5 attacks per full-attack round (haste spell included) I was usually making 3 to 4 of them and dealing 6d6+8 and 7d6+9 per hit. Fighters tend to deal single weapon die damage + Modifier but often land that last hit or two. I think the rogue still comes out better on the average DPR vs. the Fighter. I'd like to note that I use ALL sources for the character and not exclusively PFRPG material so that probably has a lot to do with it.
The math would disagree, considering how large the fighter's bonus is. No rogue is dealing 1d8+15 (20 str +7, power attack +6, weapon spec +2) at level 4, certainly not on every hit. Typically speaking a rogue will have 6d6 at 4, but they won't have anywhere near the amount of hit.
Let's do the breakdown shall we:
Aforementioned fighter: +4 BAB, +5str, +1 weapon focus no minus from power attack because of Furious Focus, +2 flanking (if we are going to give it to the rogue, we ought to give it to the fighter) so +12 total.
Rogue 5 dex, 3 BAB, -2 TWF, +2 flanking, so +8.
6d6 vs 1d8+15
The problem is: the rogue genuinely has issues hitting basically anything, having a full 20% less chance to hit. What makes the fighter there really bad is this: That is a dragoon, it has mounted combat and spirited charge, making it do triple damage, so in reality its +14 hit 3d8+45, something the rogue could critical with both strikes, roll maximum, and fall flat of the static number alone.
Even if the fighter were small, so it could fit in most dungeons, it will still have most of that static damage. A small player species would most likely have -2 hit -2 damage, which would still leave it at +12 hit 3d6+42, still nigh-impossible for the rogue to match.
The math would disagree, considering how large the fighter's bonus is. No rogue is dealing 1d8+15 (20 str +7, power attack +6, weapon spec +2) at level 4, certainly not on every hit. Typically speaking a rogue will have 6d6 at 4, but they won't have anywhere near the amount to hit.
Let's do the breakdown shall we:
Aforementioned fighter: +4 BAB, +5str, +1 weapon focus no minus from power attack because of Furious Focus, +2 flanking (if we are going to give it to the rogue, we ought to give it to the fighter) so +12 total.Rogue 5 dex, 3 BAB, -2 TWF, +2 flanking, so +8.
6d6 vs 1d8+15
Ok the Rogue break down: +3 BAB, +5 Dex, +1 weapon focus, +2 flanking and -2 from TWF equals +9 (didn't know about Furious Focus). Add in some feats that add Dex to damage, Intelligence to damage, some assassinating weapons and I still feel it holds up and often breaks the damage thresholds over Fighters.
The problem is: the rogue genuinely has issues hitting basically anything, having a full 20% less chance to hit. What makes the fighter there really bad is this: That is a dragoon, it has mounted combat and spirited charge, making it do triple damage, so in reality its +14 hit 3d8+45, something the rogue could critical with both strikes, roll maximum, and fall flat of the static number alone.Even if the fighter were small, so it could fit in most dungeons, it will still have most of that static damage. A small player species would most likely have -2 hit -2 damage, which would still leave it at +12 hit 3d6+42, still nigh-impossible for the rogue to match.
Wow that's some scenario. I guess I could throw out a scenario that favors the Rogue but what'd be the point? I feel it's not a trap, I feel it's a good way to reach pretty decent to good DPR.
Um... no it doesn't fail the fighter at all.
Even at level 20 when it's -6 for +12~18 per attack the fighter has more than enough bonuses to be hitting without any trouble at all and still deliver more hurt than the rogue can even dream about at that stage.
The fact that strength adds to damage doesn't hurt his case either.
Lets say level 20 strength 30 for the fighter (easy to do, starting 18 +4 level adjustments +6 from a belt and only a +2 inherent bonus) with a +5 speeding weapon that he's got greater specialization in and weapon training fully in. Also he's got gloves of the duelist.
That means:
+20 BAB +10 Strength +2 (greater weapon focus) +5 (weapon) +6 (weapon training) - 6 power attack
He's +37 to hit, off the bat.
Damage: +10/15 (strength) +4(greater weapon specialization) +5 (weapon) +6 (weapon training) +12~18 power attack
He's got +37/48 and that's not counting his critical hits which will triple that (since he's a weapon master now and increases the critical multiplier).
Now he could have this while still two weapon fighting, doing so will reduce his attack bonus to only +35, and his off hand damage is going to be +31. Just to have some fun we'll say he's a Kukri master.
So he'll have:
+35/+35/+35/+30/+30/+25/+25/+20 (d4+37 main hand/ d4+31 off hand 15~20/x3)
He'll critical hit about twice a round and deal an average of 39 or 33 damage a hit, 118 on a critical with the main hand and 98 on a critical with the off hand.
The rogue is much more anemic. Assuming flanking and that he has +5 sword of subtlety with a haste effect like speeding or boots of speed, with the same 30 Dex and we'll say 14 strength:
+15 (bab) +1 (Dex)+5 (weapon enhancement)+4 (subtlety)-2 (two weapon fighting) +1 (weapon focus)
Meaning: +24/+24/+24/+19/+19/+14/+14
For:
1d6 +2 (strength) +5 (enhancement) +4 (subtlety) +10d6
puts him at 11d6+11, or an average of 47.5 damage per hit.
Meaning he has: +24/+24/+24/+19/+19/+14/+14 (1d6+11+10d6 17~20/x2)
He has less swings, hits far less often has less chance of critical hitting and less critical damage to boot.
Assuming an average AC of 36 like is suggested by the bestiary the rogue is in trouble. The fighter is practically guaranteed his first 3 hits, the rogue... not so much. He needs instead to focus more on getting solid hits instead of simply swinging a lot.
The rogue is much more anemic. Assuming flanking and that he has +5 sword of subtlety with a haste effect like speeding or boots of speed, with the same 30 Dex and we'll say 14 strength:
+15 (bab) +1 (Dex)+5 (weapon enhancement)+4 (subtlety)-2 (two weapon fighting) +1 (weapon focus)
Meaning: +24/+24/+24/+19/+19/+14/+14
For:
1d6 +2 (strength) +5 (enhancement) +4 (subtlety) +10d6puts him at 11d6+11, or an average of 47.5 damage per hit.
Meaning he has: +24/+24/+24/+19/+19/+14/+14 (1d6+11+10d6 17~20/x2)
He has less swings, hits...
+15 (bab) +10(Dex) +5 (weapon enhancement) +4 (subtlety) -2 (two weapon fighting) +1 (weapon focus)+ 1 haste +2 flanking -4 piranha
So
+30/+30/+30/+25/+25/+20/+20
and if we add agile in the sword of subtlety.
Damage:
1d6 +10 (Dex) +5 (enhancement) +4 (subtlety) +8/4 piranha +10d6
65.5/61.5 (96/88) on critical hit.
See I knew something wasn't quite right but I didn't think it was that off thanks for the find.
Agile is an option I guess -- I've not seen it yet.
Yeah and if we add on haste instead of speed to the fighter and flanking he would be that much better off too.
But I'm seeing a +32/+32/+32/+27/+27/+22/+22 for the rogue's attack line.
Compared with a fighter using haste and flanking being at
+38/+38/+38/+33/+33/+28/+28/+23
Of course same fighter could instead go for Agile as well and get just as much use out of it, the subtlety not so much though. I'm not even going to bother with that though, we'll stick to the haste flanking two weapon kukri fighter compared to the two customized agile swords of subtlety rogue.
So at the end of the day:
IF the rogue has two special made custom weapon that is also a specific weapon manages flanking and haste he can stay close to what the fighter can do, at much higher cost.
With the formula we see:
h(d+s)+tchd.
h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage. Remember, this will never exceed .95 or go below .05.
d = Average damage per hit.
s = Average precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit).
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.
With the 'average CR 20 AC' of 36 we have:
Fighter: 393.36
.95(39)+.3*2*.95*39 first hit primary
.95(39)+.3*2*.95*39 haste hit
.95(33)+.3*2*.95*33 first off hand
.9(39)+.3*2*.85*39 second hit primary
.9(33)+.3*2*.85*33 second hit off hand
.65(39)+.3*2*.65*39 third hit primary
.65(33)+.3*2*.65*33 third hit off hand
.4(39)+.3*2*.4*39 Final hit primary
Rogue: 309.98
.85(65.5)+.2*1*.85*30.5 first hit primary
.85(65.5)+.2*1*.85*30.5 haste hit
.85(65.5)+.2*1*.85*26.5 first hit off hand
.65(65.5)+.2*1*.65*30.5 second hit primary
.65(65.5)+.2*1*.65*26.5 second hit off hand
.35(65.5)+.2*1*.35*30.5 third hit primary
.35(65.5)+.2*1*.35*26.5 third hit off hand
So hardly bad -- don't get me wrong this will still take an average CR 20 monster from it's full HP of 370 to down to just 60 points left... but the fighter is going to kill it, and drop it to -23 hit points with the same full round action.
So what killed the rogue? Those 'low' to hit numbers. He starts with a 85% chance to hit and drops from there. The fighter starts with a 95% chance to hit (because rolling a 1 still fails) then only drops to a 90% for his second set of swings and then starts to fall off. Have 4 out of 7 attacks be almost guaranteed to hit really helps... that and the 15~20/x3 critical modifiers.
So the obvious solution is to give the Rogue a full-BAB progression ;). I'm OK with that.
I don't see so much problem with that drp. Yes, is 80 points lower than the fighter, but that is all than the fighter can do, damage. In general the rogue have more skills and abilities with the talents that can make a difference.
I don't see so much problem with that drp. Yes, is 80 points lower than the fighter, but that is all than the fighter can do, damage. In general the rogue have more skills and abilities with the talents that can make a difference.
A fighter can be built to do more than fight. It is just that most people don't do it. He won't be as skilled as a rogue, but to say all he has going for him is damage is far from true.
I don't see so much problem with that drp. Yes, is 80 points lower than the fighter, but that is all than the fighter can do, damage. In general the rogue have more skills and abilities with the talents that can make a difference.A fighter can be built to do more than fight. It is just that most people don't do it. He won't be as skilled as a rogue, but to say all he has going for him is damage is far from true.
Ok, it's true, but the primary function of the fighter is to do damage. That the rogue do rougly 80% that the fighter damage is not a bad thing, more if we only view sneak attacks and no other abilities.
So the obvious solution is to give the Rogue a full-BAB progression ;). I'm OK with that.
A rogue talent giving the rogue +1hit/2d6 of sneak attack would also greatly boost it, without giving more iterative attacks. Giving it a gun is also a viable option, but it only works if the gun is advanced.
Yeah we just about gave the rogue the world with this one -- custom magic items (two weapons at that), the agile weapon enhancement, piranha strike, flanking, haste, and such.
If the subtlety alone was taken away the rogue would be hosed, his attack bonus dropping to a scant +28/etc simply would ruin his ability to be a threat at all when it comes to melee damage.
I approve of this. Maybe an advanced talent to turn that into real BAB?So the obvious solution is to give the Rogue a full-BAB progression ;). I'm OK with that.A rogue talent giving the rogue +1hit/2d6 of sneak attack would also greatly boost it, without giving more iterative attacks.
No, because the end result is the rogue will have a +20 hit anyway. Another option would be you get the aforementioned +1hit/2d6, but you can exchange 1d6 for a +1hit but you could only do half your dice.
I approve of this. Maybe an advanced talent to turn that into real BAB?So the obvious solution is to give the Rogue a full-BAB progression ;). I'm OK with that.A rogue talent giving the rogue +1hit/2d6 of sneak attack would also greatly boost it, without giving more iterative attacks.
See this is what I'm completely against.
The fighter deals damage -- lots of it. Good for him, that doesn't mean it's what everyone needs to do. Instead lets have the rogue actually act like a rogue instead of a fighter with a different gimmick.
Crazy idea I know but still, we've shown that while not a great option and requiring lots of investment the rogue can deal a lot of damage -- that should be good enough.
Let's have the rogue instead of being chief damage dealer be 'chief set up for the fall' or 'chief you didn't see that coming did you?'
I approve of this. Maybe an advanced talent to turn that into real BAB?So the obvious solution is to give the Rogue a full-BAB progression ;). I'm OK with that.A rogue talent giving the rogue +1hit/2d6 of sneak attack would also greatly boost it, without giving more iterative attacks.See this is what I'm completely against.
The fighter deals damage -- lots of it. Good for him, that doesn't mean it's what everyone needs to do. Instead lets have the rogue actually act like a rogue instead of a fighter with a different gimmick.
Crazy idea I know but still, we've shown that while not a great option and requiring lots of investment the rogue can deal a lot of damage -- that should be good enough.
Let's have the rogue instead of being chief damage dealer be 'chief set up for the fall' or 'chief you didn't see that coming did you?'
My vision for that talent is that it only works with sneak attack and it never gives them more iterative attacks.
Yep. Sounds like Trailblazer. :)
Kind of, but giving a rogue more +hit and a higher BaB unbalances the system, and they would still get their regular iterative attacks, unlike in Trailblazer.
All of which, while cute, does nothing to refute my point that the rogue needs something different than just dealing damage in a different way.
|
|
Yep. Sounds like Trailblazer. :)Kind of, but giving a rogue more +hit and a higher BaB unbalances the system, and they would still get their regular iterative attacks, unlike in Trailblazer.
That's not how Trailblazer does it. The rogue (and monk) get situational bonuses to hit, that make up the difference between medium and full BAB without granting an extra attack.
All of which, while cute, does nothing to refute my point that the rogue needs something different than just dealing damage in a different way.
That was just baseline, the optional parts are on the opposing levels of the +1hit you get a status effect. So, at level 1 you get +1hit/+1d6. 3rd +1hit/+2d6/+1 status effect added. So on and so forth, end result is a +5hit/+10d6/+5 status effects. You get 1/2 your bonus when you don't qualify for sneak attack, rounded up, to make moving less crippling.
But before I would allow this I'd have to think of some things to add to different types of weapons for the fighter. Snazzy moves and what not.