Talk about some unwieldy wording there, buddy! Why not take the approach of the monk and simply have their BAB equal their level when flanking? And make this an inherent feature of the class, not a talent.
This is Trailblazer's solution. In addition, there is no such thing as crit immunity, and the rogue can sneak attack anything that can be flanked.
Precision Sneak
- A rogue adds their dex bonus to damage instead of their str whenever they deal sneak attack damage.Or in addition to? If you're going to take a talent it should probably be worth more than +2-3 damage, give or take.
How about... DEX -> damage?
This is what it's really all about. The rogue's role is skill monkey. STR rogues deal good damage, but virtually no one who wants to be a rogue wants to make a STR rogue. So rogues are forced to choose between being a crappy damage dealer or a crappy rogue. Most other classes aren't forced to jettison their utility if they want to deal damage. So how about not forcing that decision on rogues and just give them the tools they need.
What do you mean with Chameleon, a race or archetype? It escapes my mind, at least I cannot remember seeing it. Please enlighten me :P
I mean Chameleon the rogue's archetype. You could use both Chameleon and Burglar archetypes since they replace different powers. I also thought about sniper + bandit for crazy sniping as a rogue (attack + move and hide further after a ranged sneak attack from 40 ft in surprise round at level 4... sounds pretty annoying to me :P; add fearsome strike on a critical at level 8, now from 50 ft, still on surprise round...)
Highly situational, but in one of the campaigns I played in, we had a pair of rogues who took a bunch of teamwork feats that worked very well in combat.
|
Doesn't matter. Each character gets X gold from adventuring. The wizard spends X/2 on crafting scrolls, the rogue spends X on buying scrolls. The wizard can create twice as much as the rogue can buy.The wizard is creating his own scrolls at half cost while the rogue is buying them full cost when he can find them. The wizard still comes out ahead.Crafting doesn't effect WBL. You get X gold worth the items, no matter what source they're from.
That assumes, though, that the GM is giving enough downtime for the wizard to create scrolls AND the party is somewhere that allows the wizard access to proper materials on which to spend that gold. If the latter is the issue, both classes are SOL; if the former, the rogue can buy/steal more scrolls in a day than the wizard can create.
In the end, the rogue is more useful than the wizard for that stuff because he can do it without prep. A wizard has to cast knock, and then cast it again at the next locked door. A rogue can unlock doors (or disarm traps, or climb, or...) as many times as he is required to do so.
As for combat utility, yes, a rogue will come out the loser if pitted against primary combatants. So why would he go after those targets? Leave the fellas in the metal suits to the other fellas in the metal suits. If she has to fight one-on-one, the rogue is better off going after the opposing spellcaster or healer, or even picking on the opposing rogue types. If she needs to fight the heavies, do it as a flanker for the sneak attack damage. If you have put enough into Acrobatics, there is no reason not to be in flank as often as you can.
In the end a rogue isn't worse in combat, just different. You just need to fight like a rogue instead of trying to be a fighter type.
That's my two Canadian pennies. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That assumes, though, that the GM is giving enough downtime for the wizard to create scrolls AND the party is somewhere that allows the wizard access to proper materials on which to spend that gold.
The wizard can scribe scrolls while adventuring. Unless you just don't allow the party to rest.
If the caster is out adventuring, he can devote 4 hours each day to item creation, although he nets only 2 hours' worth of work. This time is not spent in one continuous period, but rather during lunch, morning preparation, and during watches at night.
|
|
That assumes, though, that the GM is giving enough downtime for the wizard to create scrolls AND the party is somewhere that allows the wizard access to proper materials on which to spend that gold.The wizard can scribe scrolls while adventuring. Unless you just don't allow the party to rest.
If the caster is out adventuring, he can devote 4 hours each day to item creation, although he nets only 2 hours' worth of work. This time is not spent in one continuous period, but rather during lunch, morning preparation, and during watches at night.
All true, but the wizard can't carry an indefinite amount of scribing materials with him, even with the benefit of handy haversacks or bags of holding. Unless your GM is hand-waving the material requirements, the wizard can only be a a scroll-factory for so long. Even for something as low-level and cost as a single scroll of knock your wizard needs to have 75gp worth of special materials (half the cost of creating the scroll at the lowest possible spell/caster level).
As well, that 2 hours per day only nets a scroll if its base price is less than 250gp. Otherwise the wizard's production rate goes down considerably.
I'm not questioning whether the wizard can do it. I just question whether its the best use of his/her time. In general I think it is fine for the wizard to keep a few "rogue back-up" scrolls around just in case, but imo, focusing too much of his time on replacing the rogue diminishes the wizard's overall usefulness.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get why the Caster is not also creating scrolls for the Rogue to use. Then they both have more scrolls than normal.
How is the Caster getting by traps? Summon spells? All this saving of costs due to having scribed your own scrolls and it gets wasted for every area that may be trapped and locked. Not too efficient to me.
I just question whether its the best use of his/her time. In general I think it is fine for the wizard to keep a few "rogue back-up" scrolls around just in case, but imo, focusing too much of his time on replacing the rogue diminishes the wizard's overall usefulness.
That's not exactly a fair comparison.
You're essentially saying, if your choice is between "party with wizard and rogue" and "party with just wizard", option A is better. Well, sure. Two PCs can out-utility one PC.
But if an option C is "party with two wizards", it puts A and B both to shame, and even option D of "party with one wizard, and one something else that isn't rogue" probably looks better.
Combat-wise, the rogue is sub-par. People have done the math of it to death and I would have thought there's really no arguing about it anymore, although SKR certainly seems to disagree in this thread.
Utility-wise, it's pretty campaign dependent. Generally I think some other classes have more going on here than the rogue, but you can contrive some set of campaign parameters that make it look competitive if you try.
Mostly, I think a series of changes in Pathfinder have put the nail in its coffin on the utility front:
A) Other, mostly all-around stronger classes can get Trapfinding via archetypes, if you care, and
B) Listen, Spot, and Search becoming just Perception have made investing in Perception a lot more attractive, and
C) Class skills just amounting to a +3 bonus mean that investing in cross-class skills is a lot more attractive in Pathfinder.
D) While finding traps isn't the only cool skill-based thing the rogue can do, it's one of the only ones that (non-archetyped) other skill-heavy characters like the ranger and bard can't do.
Add that up, and across several campaigns with three completely different gaming groups, I've yet to see a Pathfinder PC in actual play that doesn't have Perception maxed regardless of whether it's a class skill or not. When the whole group is pretty great at Perception you need to start setting trap DCs insanely high (much higher than any module will set them, for example) to start justifying the value of Trapfinding. Being unable to disable magic traps can be costly, but in my experience usually isn't as costly as having a rogue in the party instead of something else.
|
A ranged rogue will get his sneak attack once.
At the beginning of a round when he goes first due to using Snap Shot.
The rest of the combat, he'll be doing weak amounts of damage compared to...well just about everyone else. Even a bard will be outdamaging them at range, due to all the buffs and arcane strike.
This is yet another one of those threads were 95% of the arguing rests upon the assumption that nobody multiclasses.
0X barb1 Extra Rage.
...problem solved.
All true, but the wizard can't carry an indefinite amount of scribing materials with him, even with the benefit of handy haversacks or bags of holding. Unless your GM is hand-waving the material requirements, the wizard can only be a a scroll-factory for so long. Even for something as low-level and cost as a single scroll of knock your wizard needs to have 75gp worth of special materials (half the cost of creating the scroll at the lowest possible spell/caster level).
I'm sorry what page was the weights of magic item creation materials listed on?
paper has no weight
Scroll case holds 4 scrolls of any number of spells per scroll but lets assume no more than 4 per scroll .5 pounds
When something isn't given you might have to consider hand waiving it,as one interpretation of that could be that the dev's don't think the weight of it matters.
Yea not seeing a whole lot stopping a wizard from being a veritable Library of Alexandria.
Which only provides further proof that the rogue class cannot keep up in combat.
'I need to multiclass' does not equal 'I am a strong class'.
+1
When so much of Paizo's focus seems to have been making the core classes an attractive option for 20 levels to say "ohh you just need to take a level or 2 of X to make this class work" and you are not discussing a prestige class seems... wonky. I could be wrong, of course.
|
|
Flanker
- A rogue that is flanking an opponent gains a bonus to their BAB equal half their number of sneak attack dice rounded up. So a rogue with +5d6 sneak attack gains an additional +3 to hit when flanking.Talk about some unwieldy wording there, buddy! Why not take the approach of the monk and simply have their BAB equal their level when flanking? And make this an inherent feature of the class, not a talent.
Or in addition to? If you're going to take a talent it should probably be worth more than +2-3 damage, give or take.Precision Sneak
- A rogue adds their dex bonus to damage instead of their str whenever they deal sneak attack damage.
As for your first one: that feat will be useless until level 5, then it's even until level 9+, most games don't make it to level 9+. You should give them simply a flat additional +2 hit/damage when flanking, another +2 at 8th, and another +2 (for a total of +6) at 16th.
If you wanted to make then a combat class, it wouldn't be hard, I would suggest scaling back their non-combat shenanigans a little, like give them 2 less skill points or something.
|
|
Which only provides further proof that the rogue class cannot keep up in combat.
'I need to multiclass' does not equal 'I am a strong class'.
<shrug> ...so don't keep up on combat if it breaks your rogue heart to be slightly "impure" with the addition of a full-BAB dip.
I mean, it's not like the average pimply-faced burger-flipping teen never runs off to join the Army for a few years. :-P
==//==
In realistic (play) terms, a rogue only sucks when he MAD-stats. Jack his DEX and give him Agile weapons, and he's hell-on-wheels. Will easily out-damage clerics or bards TWFing, and off-sets lowered BAB by using a variety of methods to render opponents flat-footed.
Does he suck on-paper in a 20th-level mano-a-mano? <shrug> Don't know -- but then I don't play that game; and never, ever have.
The rogue can be great in certain types of situations. They are an effective class and can be played effectively. But they have certain limiations other classes don't and they have the most exploitable weaknesses of any class.
1. Weak Fort and Will Saves: This means you miss saves on dragon fear auras, medusa petrification gazes, insanity gazes, death gazes, domination gazes, charming voices, and so on and so on. Why put up with that when you can play one of the other BAB classes and have two good saves?
2.Sneak Attack is easy to defeat: Fortification armor. Immunity to crit and precision-based damage. blur spell. Darkness. elemental form 3 or higher. Not being flanked or flat-footed. Blindsight seeing through invisibility. Concealment from cloud spells.
3. Low BAB: You have +15 BAB. Maximum 3 attacks. Any AC a fighter can't hit, you probably can't hit. Since you already have your major form of attack possibly gimped, this can make you even more useless.
4. Relatively Low HPs and MAD: Relatively low hps and you generally need a good Dex, Con, and Int to make even a base rogue. If you want to feint, you need a decent Cha. If you want to be able to resist Will save spells, a good wisdom can help. Hard to focus on one stat and shine like a wizard, fighter, barbarian, or sorcerer.
You can build around these weaknesses. You do have a lot of skill points and they can be useful. There are some quality rogue talents. But often the sum of the rogue's weaknesses do not make the class very attractive, especially for a standard 15 point point buy campaign.
When you see classes like the magus, ranger, or inquisitor as a fourth class option doing much better than you, sort of makes you not want to play a class that is so much less effective in combat than the aforemetioned classes and requires a great deal more work to be even somewhat equally combat effective.
But if you like the rogue play style, you can make an effective rogue. But most groups don't spend much time helping the rogue set up. They would much rather do the killing themselves than wait for the rogue to properly position.
All true, but the wizard can't carry an indefinite amount of scribing materials with him, even with the benefit of handy haversacks or bags of holding. Unless your GM is hand-waving the material requirements, the wizard can only be a a scroll-factory for so long. Even for something as low-level and cost as a single scroll of knock your wizard needs to have 75gp worth of special materials (half the cost of creating the scroll at the lowest possible spell/caster level).
I'm sorry what page was the weights of magic item creation materials listed on?
paper has no weight
Scroll case holds 4 scrolls of any number of spells per scroll but lets assume no more than 4 per scroll .5 pounds
When something isn't given you might have to consider hand waiving it,as one interpretation of that could be that the dev's don't think the weight of it matters.
Yea not seeing a whole lot stopping a wizard from being a veritable Library of Alexandria.
Yeah, but the thing about libraries is that you need a Dewey Decimal System to find anything. If you've got a veritable library of scrolls (or say just quite a collection) hanging off you then I'm going to rule that there's a chance you pick the wrong one in a fight. Admittedly as a wizard you're probably a smart guy, but this is war and a lot can go wrong in the heat of battle. This particularly holds true if you're carrying 4 scrolls in the same case. Thus you need a Handy Haversack because everything is at hand as required. Unfortunately it follows that your haversack can be pretty vulnerable, so if its destroyed then your veritable library is gone.
Yeah, but the thing about libraries is that you need a Dewey Decimal System to find anything. If you've got a veritable library of scrolls (or say just quite a collection) hanging off you then I'm going to rule that there's a chance you pick the wrong one in a fight. Admittedly as a wizard you're probably a smart guy, but this is war and a lot can go wrong in the heat of battle. This particularly holds true if you're carrying 4 scrolls in the same case. Thus you need a Handy Haversack because everything is at hand as required. Unfortunately it follows that your haversack can be pretty vulnerable, so if its destroyed then your veritable library is gone.
Thats cool but as only until a person begins putting more than 4 in a scroll case does is make it a full round(i would assume to represent you searching for the right one) rather than a move action to extract. You have now fully moved into the realm of house rules if you do so. And, if you have to house rule it that way then you hurt the UMD rogue as much or more by hindering what a lot of people are claiming is the rogues saving grace.
It seems to me the rogues biggest problem is the the rogue is a skill monkey. It was always meant to be the guy with lots of skills. The game assumes the dm will give the rogue use for those skills, and in those situations guys like the fighter and paladin (big combat guys) are likely sitting around twiddling their thumbs.
But really I am very disappointed in paizo's support for skills. Besides the rules in the core book there has been almost no material support for skillful characters(made evident by Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat but no Ultimate Skills or Ultimate Adventuring). The idea (if not completely the execution) of skill tricks in 3.5 complete scoundrel really was an gread idea. The biggest rogue fan in my group had a TON of fun with the 3.5 skill tricks back when they came out. I really think the best answer to the rogues power is to allow them to use their bigest asset (their skills) in better ways relating to combat.
It seems to me the rogues biggest problem is the the rogue is a skill monkey. It was always meant to be the guy with lots of skills. The game assumes the dm will give the rogue use for those skills, and in those situations guys like the fighter and paladin (big combat guys) are likely sitting around twiddling their thumbs.
But really I am very disappointed in paizo's support for skills. Besides the rules in the core book there has been almost no material support for skillful characters(made evident by Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat but no Ultimate Skills or Ultimate Adventuring). The idea (if not completely the execution) of skill tricks in 3.5 complete scoundrel really was an gread idea. The biggest rogue fan in my group had a TON of fun with the 3.5 skill tricks back when they came out. I really think the best answer to the rogues power is to allow them to use their bigest asset (their skills) in better ways relating to combat.
Have you checked out 101 New Skill Uses? A few are more combat oriented!
Have you checked out 101 New Skill Uses? A few are more combat oriented!It seems to me the rogues biggest problem is the the rogue is a skill monkey. It was always meant to be the guy with lots of skills. The game assumes the dm will give the rogue use for those skills, and in those situations guys like the fighter and paladin (big combat guys) are likely sitting around twiddling their thumbs.
But really I am very disappointed in paizo's support for skills. Besides the rules in the core book there has been almost no material support for skillful characters(made evident by Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat but no Ultimate Skills or Ultimate Adventuring). The idea (if not completely the execution) of skill tricks in 3.5 complete scoundrel really was an gread idea. The biggest rogue fan in my group had a TON of fun with the 3.5 skill tricks back when they came out. I really think the best answer to the rogues power is to allow them to use their bigest asset (their skills) in better ways relating to combat.
I have in fact, I bought it last week. Now I am just trying to decide how I am going to introduce it to my game, as it is quite a bit of additional rules material to just staple onto the rule section. I may require a character to spend 1 skill rank to pick up one of the new uses similarly to the way 3.5 skill tricks worked.
<shrug> ...so don't keep up on combat if it breaks your rogue heart to be slightly "impure" with the addition of a full-BAB dip.
Point being, if you absolutely need to multiclass to make it work, that indicates a problem that should be addressed in the game's design even if there's sort of a workaround for it.
I mean, in 3.5 straight fighter or straight barbarian was completely awful. The work-around was to mutt the hell out of full-BAB classes to make a good melee character. (Or to play cleric or druid, heh.) But the fact that you could do that doesn't mean that Pathfinder isn't a better game than 3.5 in that respect for having straight-class fighters and barbarians that are dramatically more powerful/viable/interesting.
I kind of feel the same way about Agile weapons, but maybe my view is colored by the fact that I likely will never play in a game in which they're legal, possibly excepting PFS. It shouldn't take an semi-obscure weapon enhancement to make a whole class viable. (If Agile was in the Core book I'd probably feel differently there, too.)
The problem with the rogue is they have some MAD issues.
A rogue needs
-Str for damage
-Dex for AC(since they cannot wear heavy armor)
-Con for Survival(since they generally have to get in melee and have weak fort saves)
-Int for Skills(Rogues don't need a ton, but they can't dump int either)
-Wis for Will saves, and certain key skills like perception and sense motive(so you can't dump this either)
-Chr for social skills(can't dump this one)
The rogue really doesn't have a dump stat. Every stat is important to some degree.
I would add a bit to the rogue's weapon finesse talent that also lets them add dex to damage. Also, a series of talents that lets rogues use alternate stats for certain skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO it's best to balance in combat and out of combat utility separately. They really should have given each class the ability to contribute meaningfully in either situation, so that every class is useful no matter what sort of campaign you run.
Otherwise, they force you to choose between role-play and roll-play, which bothers me.
It seems to me the rogues biggest problem is the the rogue is a skill monkey. It was always meant to be the guy with lots of skills. The game assumes the dm will give the rogue use for those skills, and in those situations guys like the fighter and paladin (big combat guys) are likely sitting around twiddling their thumbs.
The reason Thief was not as good in combat (so skill monkey effectively) was avoiding monsters was possible for XP since GP =XP.
The focusing Rogue as only skills when combat became important for XP (since GP no longer is XP) is this makes it look weak (as it is then).
Rogues are the weakest base class in the game. That doesn't mean they are useless or unplayable. It just they are the bottom of the list. So basically they could handle adding something to them or keep them the same. It's not like the rogue is so weak it's broken but if they added to the rogue it wouldn't break things either.
Yeah, but the thing about libraries is that you need a Dewey Decimal System to find anything. If you've got a veritable library of scrolls (or say just quite a collection) hanging off you then I'm going to rule that there's a chance you pick the wrong one in a fight.
-Until your player points out the main advantage of the hewards handy haversack
When the wearer reaches into it for a specific item, that item is always on top. Thus, no digging around and fumbling is ever necessary to find what a haversack contains. Retrieving any specific item from a haversack is a move action, but it does not provoke the attacks of opportunity that retrieving a stored item usually does.
So you don't need to worry about getting the charmin when you need charm person.
|
|
The rogue was never meant to be the primary damage dealer. Ever since D&D was invented this wasn't the role they played. I think video games, WOW, Assassin Creed etc have given a view of what the rogue 'should do' which is at odds to what the D&D rogue was 'designed to do'. Back in 1e they had the Assassin, that was you damage dealer - well roll and kill = all hp damage in one shot.
Sounds like you want a Ranger rather than a Rogue - as suggested.
Sure you can use a wrench to bang in a nail, but it's easier with a hammer...
S.
The rogue was never meant to be the primary damage dealer.
That's not the point.
The point is that (and god help me, I don't love 4E this is one thing they got right) being a class with good utility shouldn't mean you're terrible in combat. A game that's as typically combat-centric as D&D and its variants are shouldn't have any character hoping combat will be over quickly so he gets to do something again.
It's not about doing the most damage; it's about being useful on par with the other characters in the party. A well-played bard might never do a single point of damage or even incapacitate a single enemy (although they could be built to do either) and still be a huge help in battle.
The rogue? Basically needs other members of the team to sacrifice better options and go out of their way to help him, just so he can, as part of an unparalleled team effort... still do subpar damage. And damage is all he does. (Yeah, he could be built to do other things. He's even worse at those things.) And his defenses are crap (sorry, I'd trade evasion for a fast track Will OR Fort in a heartbeat as a rogue).
That's not fun for anyone who knows better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The class features of the rogue should be better (or he should have more of them) and the problem would be solved. There's no need of a full BAB progression if the class is done right.
Uncanny Dogde should add he Rogue's Wisdom modifiers as a bonus to his Armor Class, like the Monk or the Swordsage from Tome of Battle. Since the Rogue his designed to fight in melee (archer Rogues suck), he really needs to have a decent AC, so a class feature similar to Scoundrel Luck in KotOR (+2 AC at 1st level, +4 at 6th, and +6 at 12th.) would be welcome.
Rogue Talents should always (instead of just once) let you take a feat instead or a Rogue Talent. Skill Focus (Acrobatics) is a very "roguish" feat, so why can't I take it instead of a Rogue Talent? Speaking of Rogue Talents, some Alchemist's Discoveries are stronger than feats, so why most Rogue Talents are weaker than feats?
Something more: in almost all fantasy settings and games, the Rogue is always portrayed as the "quick" character. In D&D/Pathfinder, he his slower than the big bulky Barbarian and he act after the old grumpy Diviner. Give the Rogue a scaling bonus to his base speed and initiative!
Those are my suggestions on how the Rogue could be fixed.
What if Rogues could add condition effects to their Sneak Attacks, much as a Paladin REMOVES condition effects with their Mercies?
Giving the rogue the Anti-Paladin's Cruelty mechanic actually might be a good start. *ponders*
I'd give the rogue their intelligence bonus to AC/hit and the option of picking a good will or fort save.
How about Intelligence bonus to damage (cruel anatomist), Wisdom bonus to AC (danger sense) and Charisma bonus to saving throws (rogue's luck)? I like MAD classes. :P
|
|
More like that -5 hit is the most crippling part, not having the -15 iterative is just the twist of the knife.3. Low BAB: You have +15 BAB. Maximum 3 attacks.Well goodness, gracious -- how will they ever live with being cheated out of that -15 iterative?
Unlike the INT7 tank, you have the sky-high Acrobatics to get into flank and make that Greater Feint ....and that -5 apparent disparity melts away.
Ah, but we're staring down from above at 20th level on-paper numbers again, aren't we?
-- Who actually plays at that level?
|
|
I'd give the rogue their intelligence bonus to AC/hit and the option of picking a good will or fort save.How about Intelligence bonus to damage (cruel anatomy), Wisdom bonus to AC (sixth sense) and Charisma bonus to saving throws (rogue's fortune)? I like MAD classes. :P
I suggested the int to hit, because they are based on precision damage, so why not give them some flat precision? They are amongst the least precise classes in the game and are THE least precise melee-based class, in fact, they are one of the only class that's almost exclusively melee-based. The only other classes like that are the barbarian and cavalier. Even the ninja gets shenanigans that allow it to strike at range for decent amounts of damage.
More like that -5 hit is the most crippling part, not having the -15 iterative is just the twist of the knife.3. Low BAB: You have +15 BAB. Maximum 3 attacks.Well goodness, gracious -- how will they ever live with being cheated out of that -15 iterative?Unlike the INT7 tank, you have the sky-high Acrobatics to get into flank and make that Greater Feint ....and that -5 apparent disparity melts away.
Ah, but we're staring down from above at 20th level on-paper numbers again, aren't we?
-- Who actually plays at that level?
That's only for one attack. Even the ninja can't make that work better. Now, if Improved Feint made it a free action, then we could talk about some serious numbers.
I suggested the int to hit, because they are based on precision damage, so why not give them some flat precision? They are amongst the least precise classes in the game and are THE least precise melee-based class, in fact, they are one of the only class that's almost exclusively melee-based. The only other classes like that are the barbarian and cavalier. Even the ninja gets shenanigans that allow it to strike at range for decent amounts of damage.I'd give the rogue their intelligence bonus to AC/hit and the option of picking a good will or fort save.How about Intelligence bonus to damage (cruel anatomy), Wisdom bonus to AC (sixth sense) and Charisma bonus to saving throws (rogue's fortune)? I like MAD classes. :P
Yeah but don't you think that precision is more related to Dexterity than Intelligence? Knowing where to hit to hurt your opponent (Intelligence) won't help you if you don't have the Dexterity to actually hit where you wanted to hit. ;)
|
|
Yeah but don't you think that precision is more related to Dexterity than Intelligence? Knowing where to hit to hurt your opponent (Intelligence) won't help you if you don't have the Dexterity to actually hit where you wanted to hit. ;)I suggested the int to hit, because they are based on precision damage, so why not give them some flat precision? They are amongst the least precise classes in the game and are THE least precise melee-based class, in fact, they are one of the only class that's almost exclusively melee-based. The only other classes like that are the barbarian and cavalier. Even the ninja gets shenanigans that allow it to strike at range for decent amounts of damage.I'd give the rogue their intelligence bonus to AC/hit and the option of picking a good will or fort save.How about Intelligence bonus to damage (cruel anatomy), Wisdom bonus to AC (sixth sense) and Charisma bonus to saving throws (rogue's fortune)? I like MAD classes. :P
Yes/no. Odds are you already have weapon finesse on most rogues, so there's your dexterity. However, there comes a great deal of advantage from knowing where to place your strike, and knowing how your enemy will move.
Knowledge is power, use it well.
Yes/no. Odds are you already have weapon finesse on most rogues, so there's your dexterity. However, there comes a great deal of advantage from knowing where to place your strike, and knowing how your enemy will move.
Knowledge is power, use it well.
Taken like that, it's hard to disagree with you. :P
Thinking about it, Alchemists add their Intelligence modifiers to the damage of their Bombs. Rogues should be able to do the same with their Sneak Attacks.
|
|
Yes/no. Odds are you already have weapon finesse on most rogues, so there's your dexterity. However, there comes a great deal of advantage from knowing where to place your strike, and knowing how your enemy will move.
Knowledge is power, use it well.
Taken like that, it's hard to disagree with you. :P
Thinking about it, Alchemists add their Intelligence modifiers to the damage of their Bombs. Rogues should be able to do the same with their Sneak Attacks.
I still think they should get it to hit more than damage, especially since more hit=more damage. They need something to bump their hit rating up.
Yeah, but the thing about libraries is that you need a Dewey Decimal System to find anything. If you've got a veritable library of scrolls (or say just quite a collection) hanging off you then I'm going to rule that there's a chance you pick the wrong one in a fight.
-Until your player points out the main advantage of the hewards handy haversack
When the wearer reaches into it for a specific item, that item is always on top. Thus, no digging around and fumbling is ever necessary to find what a haversack contains. Retrieving any specific item from a haversack is a move action, but it does not provoke the attacks of opportunity that retrieving a stored item usually does.
So you don't need to worry about getting the charmin when you need charm person.
That is the Haversack's great advantage, which was why I made the point 'Thus you need a Handy Haversack because everything is at hand as required. Unfortunately it follows that your haversack can be pretty vulnerable, so if its destroyed then your veritable library is gone.'. People might argue - perhaps legitimately - that an enemy targeting a bag is meta-gaming. On the other hand, its equally legitimate for smart beings to observe and then adapt to the strengths and weaknesses of those trying to kill them (i.e. the PCs).
|
|
[q]That's only for one attack.[/q]Anybody who has to move only gets one attack (barring pounce, of course).
[i]"Well, what about NEXT turn???", the peanut-gallery whines.
Fighter: stands toe-to-toe and full-attacks. Then monster full-attacks.
Rogue option 1: Greater Feint/I-TWF/sneak. Then monster full-attacks.
Rogue option 2: Feint/sneak/Fast Getaway. Monster pursues; gets one attack.
What matters in either case is who's going to win the war-of-attrition. The rogue has more options if he thinks he's going to lose.
|
|
[q]That's only for one attack.[/q]Anybody who has to move only gets one attack (barring pounce, of course).
[i]"Well, what about NEXT turn???", the peanut-gallery whines.
Fighter: stands toe-to-toe and full-attacks. Then monster full-attacks.
Rogue option 1: Greater Feint/I-TWF/sneak. Then monster full-attacks.
Rogue option 2: Feint/sneak/Fast Getaway. Monster pursues; gets one attack.What matters in either case is who's going to win the war-of-attrition. The rogue has more options if he thinks he's going to lose.
First off: nice name-calling, real mature second off: you can't move if you use that feat, it replaces your move action, and most of the builds that use move actions on a regular basis are incredibly powerful.
Even using two-weapon feint, you are trading your most accurate attack for sneak attack, you are taking a -5 hit, something a rogue desperately needs in the first place, just hit harder. So not only are you missing the point, you are missing the monster, you might give him a cold with all that air you are moving around, that might kill it, but not before it eats you.
Many monsters don't have a very good dex, there are few exceptions to this, but those are incredibly rare, so you aren't really making up for the -5 you just took to hit your target.
The combat scheme you suggest has the monster hitting you an average of 4 times to 1. That is a losing strategy, especially since most monsters are better at hitting than the rogue is, typically because of a difference in strength.
Also: aside from the barbarian, who has pounce? Are you really willing to take several levels in a class that is basically the opposite of the rogue, just to get pounce? You might as well stay barbarian at that point, you'll probably hit harder.
On the other hand, its equally legitimate for smart beings to observe and then adapt to the strengths and weaknesses of those trying to kill them (i.e. the PCs).
There's no raw that destroying the haversack destroys everything in it , so at that point its not the NPCs targeting the character its the DM.
The "you have been under observation" bit is also metagamey. Did you give the party opposed perception rolls to spot the rogue hiding in the bushes? Did you give sense motives to notice the barmaid spying on them while serving drinks?