How many levels of rogue does it take.....


Advice


So I have this mild obsession with TWF rangers as it was the first class and build I ever made when I started playing 3.5 back in the day. I have seen the math and I know it's a little wonkey and 2h fighters always seem to win unless the dual blade wielder is a rogue. My question to all you mathletes out there is this.

How many Rogue levels do I have to add to ranger to get enough sneak attack dice added in to make me keep up with, and then exceed all those fighters and barbarians running around with a greatsword.

I know there will be alot of issues possibly waiting on getting those free twf feats from ranger but thats not the big problem so lets jsut assume fighter so feats come as they come and not at X ranger level.

Thanks in advance for whoever looks at the math and figures out the expected damage or whatever, I just havn't wrapped my head around that aspect of optimization yet.

Asta
PSY


Just play a TWF Fighter, with all of your feats and some smart ability selection you'll do better than a rogue.

One of the Big Bads in a recent campaign I ran was a TWF Mobile Fighter Archetype with the graveknight template that in it's first battle with the pc's absolutely wrecked their collective s~#* and made them run to their mamas.

The other thing fighters have over rogues, even with sneak attack is a full BAB


Rogue is not the way to pad your damage. Go Ranger 2 (for the first TWF feat), take 4 fighter levels, Weapon Master archetype to get Weapon Training 1 with your favored weapon, then go more ranger. You get Focus and Spec that way, full BAB, and two extra feats to play with. You can get Gloves of Dueling at higher levels.

Rogues lose in a straight up DPR race to fighters. Their damage is conditional and they hit significantly worse then fighters. Additionally, their bonus damage doesn't compare to the Spec feat chain + weapon training.

I realize you didn't bring this up at all, but be aware that TWF rangers are glass cannons. Their high Str/low Dex means they do a lot of damage, but their AC isn't very good and they don't have a whole lot of other defenses. If you're fine with that, or your DM won't take advantage of it, then go for it! But it's something to be aware of.


PSY850 wrote:


How many Rogue levels do I have to add to ranger to get enough sneak attack dice added in to make me keep up with, and then exceed all those fighters and barbarians running around with a greatsword.

Asta
PSY

Take at most 4 leves, more will hurt you BAB.


PSY850 wrote:
How many Rogue levels do I have to add to ranger to get enough sneak attack dice added in to make me keep up with, and then exceed all those fighters and barbarians running around with a greatsword

Probably around 5 more levels than they have total.

Rogue is the worst class in the game--they are absolutely not the way to raise your damage past a fighter or barbarian. If you really want Sneak Attack, go for a Vivisectionist Alchemist instead.

But honestly, I think a TWF Ranger can get comparable damage to a Fighter when you add a boon companion and fighting Favored Enemies or using the spell that lets you pretend they are.

And I don't think they're necessarily "glass cannons." Just because they can dump Dex doesn't mean they all will. I mean, what secondary stat do they want? They only really need 14 Wisdom, so that leaves Dex or Con, either one of which will solve the glass cannon problem.


This thread is like saying 'how many nerf guns do I need to keep up with a howitzer?'.

Adding more levels of less damage will not let you beat the classes with more damage, since they get more levels too, and then will keep on enlarging that gap between you and them.

a 2 weapon fighter is viable, you can even go ranger/fighter combo, but adding rogue only weakens your character overall, if damage is your goal. Rogue has other advantages, but damage ain't it.

Silver Crusade

Every one keeps saying rogues do less damage then fighters. But in every game I have run the rogues do more damage. Sneak attack damage is reliable if you use tactics. In a math game out side of game play fighters win. In game play with good tactics the rouge will win if they are smart about it. This comes from two things. Firsts I have found out how to make rogues. Second the group works to move enemy's in for flanking.

One of the best Rogue/Ranger spreads. Rogue 14/Ranger 6 This lets you get two weapon fighting, and improved two weapon fighting for free with out the Dex requirement. Starting with a 16 Dex so you can be a switch hitter and pick up Double Slice after you pick up combat style feat. This is the type of rogue you will see at my table or full rogue. Depending on what there built for. If your builing for damage Rogue14/Ranger6 is what your looking at.

BTW all the two handed fighters are glass cannons to after level 8. When there ability to increases there ac VS. the monsters to hit bonus. Is to limited to be effective unless you spend most of your WBL to get your AC in to the mid 20s low 30s. And on top of that at this level AC is the least important from of defence. It shifts to saves and special ability's related to the saves like evasion, or divine grace.

Leveling should go somthing like. For the Rogue14/Ranger6.
1 Rogue 1
2 Ranger 1
3 Ranger 2
4 Rogue 2
5-8 Ranger 3-6
9+ Rogue 3-14


Fighter is the way to go since you get all of those abilities/feats that add more damage based on how many times you hit.


calagnar wrote:
In a math game out side of game play fighters win.

This makes no sense--if Fighters win the math game, then how do Rogues win in real situations? If Sneak Attack were capable of dealing more damage than the Fighter, then Rogues would win the math game and it would be the challenge of getting sneak attack that would make the Fighters win. As is, the Fighters win the math game because their static modifiers deal more damage overall than Sneak Attack.

calagnar wrote:
One of the best Rogue/Ranger spreads. Rogue 14/Ranger 6 This lets you get two weapon fighting, and improved two weapon fighting for free with out the Dex requirement. Starting with a 16 Dex so you can be a switch hitter and pick up Double Slice after you pick up combat style feat. This is the type of rogue you will see at my table or full rogue. Depending on what there built for. If your builing for damage Rogue14/Ranger6 is what your looking at.

Ok, so you're getting Improved TWF without the Dex, meaning that you're not getting Greater TWF at all? How are you winning damage again?

But ok, let's go with this. Let's even assume the Fighter doesn't get Greater TWF (though I see no reason he shouldn't). Attributes, weapons, non-class specific items, and non-class specific feats and all that will be balanced out, so it's going to just class features, items and feats vs. class features, items, and feats, ok?

A Rogue/Ranger will have +16 BAB. You will have 7d6 Sneak Attack.

7d6 averages 24.5 damage. If you take a -2 to hit, you can use the Deadly Sneak Attack advanced talent to treat 1s and 2s as 3s, which changes the average damage to 28, a +3.5 increase in damage. However, a -2 to hit reduces your total damage by 10% of your average hit. That becomes a bad trade as soon as the average non-sneak attack damage you deal is 7+. I assume you're going to be dealing more than that or you'd never pretend you could compete.

So, then we'll go with the 24.5 average, since the Rogue would never nerf their own damage, right? No other talent deals more damage, because I'm being generous and assuming the Rogue can Sneak Attack 100% of the time.

If we compare this to a plain vanilla Fighter 20 (not even a Brawler or TWF fighter, just a regular one), they'll have a BAB of +20, four points higher. They'll get +5 hit and damage from Weapon Training, +4 damage from Weapon Specialization and Greater Specialization that the Rogue has no access to, +2 damage from Dueling Gloves that Rogues get no benefit from, and a +1 to hit from Greater Weapon Focus that a Rogue can never get. Oh, and the Fighter will be able to Power Attack/Pirhana Strike for an additional +2 main hand and +1 off-hand, since they have the full BAB.

All told, that's +9 more to hit and +14 damage to each swing. If we go for a Brawler Fighter, we can get 2 more points of damage. If we go for a TWF Figher, we get +2 more to hit (since they don't suffer even the -2 penalty for TWF) and the ability to hit twice on AoOs and non-Full Attacks.

So, the Ranger/Rogue deals ~10.5 damage more per hit, but the Fighter has +9 more to hit. Unless you can ensure that your Rogue/Ranger can hit the enemy on a 2 for at least the first two sets of iterative attacks, the Fighter is out-damaging you.

calagnar wrote:
BTW all the two handed fighters are glass cannons to after level 8.

Oh, you were trying to compare this to a Fighter with a Two-Handed weapon? Really? That seems like a foolish idea.

Alright. Let's be very favorable and say your Rogue/Ranger has the same Strength score as the two-handed Fighter. How about 34? 18 post racial, 5 level ups, 5 inherent, +6 item? Let's also say that you're using a pair of 1d6 weapons and the two-hander has a 2d6 weapon.

You'll both have 4 swings from BAB and one from Haste or Speed, right? Then you'll get two more for TWF and Improved TWF. 5 swings for him and 7 for you.

Those eight give you 171.5 Sneak attack damage. It's also 7d6 from pure weapon damage, for 24.5 more. I assumed you Power Attacked for full. With 5 main hand and 2 offhand attacks, that adds 60. Your Strength will apply fully to every swing, so that's +84 damage, too. That means you deal a total of 340.

The two-handed fighter hits 5 times. He has +11 damage to each swing that you don't have from Fighter stuff (Weapon Training, Dueling Gloves, Spec, Greater Spec, etc.), so that's 55 damage. His weapon is 2d6, so that's 35 from pure weapon dice. His Power attack is doubled for every swing thanks to Greater Power Attack (for 24 per hit) for a total of 120 damage. His Strength will apply x2 for his swings because of Backswing for a total of 120. That means a total of 330.

That means, assuming a perfect situation in which the Ranger/Rogue can Sneak Attack 100% of the time, and also hits on a 2 for all 7 swings, they deal 10 more damage than the two-handed weapon Fighter. Even if the final swing needs, I don't know, a 5 to hit, the Two-Handed fighter comes out on top. How silly.

Oh, and then, on top of all that, if you had been a Ranger/Vivisectionist Alchemist instead of a Ranger/Rogue, you'd have all the same stuff plus a Mutagen that would give you more Strength (and potentially more Dex and Con, too) as well as 5th level Elixirs.

I don't say this because I dislike the Rogue. I say this because I like the Rogue and want them to be improved. Rogues are the weakest class in the game and can never be optimized to out-damage any other non-Rogue character also optimized for damage. Hell, this is true if for no other reason that a Vivisectionist Alchemist gets the same Sneak Attack progression and replacing Rogue levels for Vivisectionist levels will always be a better choice--at least for damage purposes.


The rogue/ranges is not that bad, with the animal companion yo should be able to SA/full attack almost in every encounter.

If you star from level 1 a finesse TWf rogue/ranger would be dificult, but at higer level agile property will improve your damage a lot.


Play a ninja, instead of a rogue, it's a better class in every way, including damage output because of Vanishing trick. I played a ninja/ranger, but the ninja/inquisitor was more fun, even if it was crazy-MAD (mad-MAD?), it was totally worth it, and it's more effective.

Dark Archive

Go to: Treantmonk's Guide to Rangers in Pathfinder / The Switch Hitter


Blue Star wrote:
Play a ninja, instead of a rogue, it's a better class in every way, including damage output because of Vanishing trick. I played a ninja/ranger, but the ninja/inquisitor was more fun, even if it was crazy-MAD (mad-MAD?), it was totally worth it, and it's more effective.

You do realize that Rogues can get vanishing trick and pretty much anything else a Ninja can do by level 3 right? If you aren't the party face, going the Rogue route is better because you can pump your wisdom which is better for will saves and perception.


Oterisk wrote:
Blue Star wrote:
Play a ninja, instead of a rogue, it's a better class in every way, including damage output because of Vanishing trick. I played a ninja/ranger, but the ninja/inquisitor was more fun, even if it was crazy-MAD (mad-MAD?), it was totally worth it, and it's more effective.
You do realize that Rogues can get vanishing trick and pretty much anything else a Ninja can do by level 3 right? If you aren't the party face, going the Rogue route is better because you can pump your wisdom which is better for will saves and perception.

I'm well aware of that, but they need an 18 wisdom just to run Forgotten Tricks 1/day, whereas the ninja can do it with a 12 Cha, and unlike the rogue they will get more ki as they level up.


I'm not saying that Ninjas aren't good, I just disagree that they are better in every way. If you want to look at better in just about every way, I suggest Alchemist/Vivisectionist.


Oterisk wrote:
I'm not saying that Ninjas aren't good, I just disagree that they are better in every way. If you want to look at better in just about every way, I suggest Alchemist/Vivisectionist.

They are better in every way, because they have access to everything the rogue can do (except trapfinding which is incredibly situational, and they have to waste actual resources on evasion, instead of just getting it), but they get a fully-functioning ki pool, and a load more ki points to use on it.

This makes them objectively better, as they can make use of the powers that make them better more often, it's like the difference between a standard wizard, and a wizard who only got 1 spell each level, they both have access to the same abilities, but one can do a lot more of them.

Sovereign Court

Anything with static bonuses to damage is very healthy for TWF- for example the Guide archetype on a dual wielding ranger can be pretty deadly.

Paging STR Ranger to come weigh in on this...


PSY850 wrote:

So I have this mild obsession with TWF rangers as it was the first class and build I ever made when I started playing 3.5 back in the day. I have seen the math and I know it's a little wonkey and 2h fighters always seem to win unless the dual blade wielder is a rogue. My question to all you mathletes out there is this.

How many Rogue levels do I have to add to ranger to get enough sneak attack dice added in to make me keep up with, and then exceed all those fighters and barbarians running around with a greatsword.

I know there will be alot of issues possibly waiting on getting those free twf feats from ranger but thats not the big problem so lets jsut assume fighter so feats come as they come and not at X ranger level.

Thanks in advance for whoever looks at the math and figures out the expected damage or whatever, I just havn't wrapped my head around that aspect of optimization yet.

Asta
PSY

It takes no levels. Just play Ranger or guide.

Unlike the fighter yiou don't need a high dex so more str means more damage.

Remember the spell instand enemy. It will help you (unless you play a guide).
AC is no problem. You can use medium armor and barkskin. At higher levels get your self a mithral fullplate.

You want to play a ranger? Play a ranger. A guide or a ranger with instand enemy will outdamage any TWF fighter or TWF rogue.

Multiclass will hurt you. It means you will get spells and most imprtant all the bonus feats later (Improved and great TWF).

If you multiclass just pick one level fighter for armor prof and the feat.
Have fun :-)

Liberty's Edge

PSY850 wrote:
How many Rogue levels do I have to add to ranger to get enough sneak attack dice added in to make me keep up with, and then exceed all those fighters and barbarians running around with a greatsword?

First consideration of being a melee rogue: "What is my plan to render my opponent routinely vulnerable to sneak-attack?"

-- If you don't have a plan, then you will always be worse than a fighter.

If you do have a plan, then you may become better than a fighter.

Zark wrote:
You want to play a ranger? Play a ranger. A guide or a ranger with instand enemy will outdamage any TWF fighter or TWF rogue

Nonsense. -- You have a "trick" which increases your damage versus select opponents a few times a day; they have feats and talents which do the same thing.

(Playing a ranger with Instant Enemy as your goal from 1st level is a grueling slog.)


Mike Schneider wrote:

Nonsense. -- You have a "trick" which increases your damage versus select opponents a few times a day; they have feats and talents which do the same thing.

(Playing a ranger with Instant Enemy as your goal from 1st level is a grueling slog.)

Never said it was the only "trick". A ranger should get help from his/her DM choosing his favored enemies so it fits with the enemies in the campaign. Paizo has been very explicit with this.

Even when not fighting his favored enemies he still have a higher Str score than a TWF fighter and spells to help him and "more out-of-combat problem-solving utility" than a fighter.
Pure ranger is indeed a good option.

The Exchange

At 20th level a Ranger who's sunk all his Favoured Enemy bonuses into one favoured enemy gets +10 to attack and damage Vs that enemy. Compared with the level 20 Rogue they also get 1 extra attack per round.

At 20th level a Rogue gets 10d6 Sneak Attack damage (average of 35 points per attack) on every hit (assuming he's figured out how to fight like a Rogue by then). So, on an average hit, he's doing 25 points of damage more than the Ranger.

Assuming both Ranger and Rogue have Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, the Ranger gets 7 attacks per round, the Rogue six.

Assuming all other bonuses (from Strength, magic weapons, etc.) are equal, and that all attacks hit, and none are criticals, the Ranger needs to be doing an average of 150 damage per attack to equal the Rogue's damage per round.

Of course, assuming that all attacks hit is a massive bias towards the Rogue. The Ranger has a +15 chance to hit over and above the Rogue, thanks to his higher BAB and the Favoured Enemies bonus. When fighting anything vaguely level-appropriate, the Ranger will be hitting with more attacks than the Rogue (over and above the extra attack he gets anyway). If, for example, the Rogue hits with 3 attacks in a round, and the Ranger hits with 5, then the Ranger only needs to be averaging 37.5 damage per attack to be equalling the Rogue's DPR, anything higher than that and he's beating it.

DPR calculated by average damage per attack and number of attacks that hit is also, in and of itself, only the start of what you need to consider. Thresholds also have to be taken into account - that is to say, one needs to factor in that any damage above and beyond that needed to drop a foe is essentially wasted, and shouldn't really be taken into account when working out DPR. For example, if character A hits 1 time in 20, for 100 points of damage, and character B only misses 1 time in 20, but each hit is for a mere 5 points of damage, then character A is actually ahead if you look at standard methods of calculating DPR. However, if A and B happen to be facing off against opponents with 4 Hit Points each, then after 20 rounds A has still only dropped one, whilst B has dropped nineteen of the blighters. Frequency of hits is generally more important than the amount of damage done per hit (although, obviously, it's better to have high scores in both, if possible).

So yes, to sum up: a TWF Ranger designed with damage in mind doesn't have to worry about competing with his TWF Rogue counterpart. Even if his average damage per hit can't match the average damage per hit of a Sneak Attacking Rogue, his greater frequency of hits will more than make up the difference.

Don't spread your Favoured Enemy bonuses too thin, take Ranger spells to help up your damage (hello lead blades, hello instant enemy!), relish the opportunity to build a Strength-based TWF character, and let the carnage ensue! ;)


Rogues are only bad in the eyes of min/maxers. If you want to be viable in AND out of combat, and enjoy the pleasures of being the only person in your group able to reliably find and disable traps, barter, steal, make perception checks/basically succeed on all skill checks, then rogues are the way to go. If you're obsessed solely with dealing damage, then yes, rogues suck and you should go with fighters. Just don't bother making any skill checks. You'll fail.

The Exchange

Rogues are great! Doesn't mean that the TWF Ranger should worry about competing against their damage, though... ;)


hippononymous wrote:
If you want to be viable in AND out of combat, and enjoy the pleasures of being the only person in your group able to reliably find and disable traps, barter, steal, make perception checks/basically succeed on all skill checks, then rogues are the way to go.

Or Bards.

Or Rangers.

Or Alchemists.

Or Inquisitors.

Spoiler:
They have magic too.


hippononymous wrote:
Rogues are only bad in the eyes of min/maxers. If you want to be viable in AND out of combat, and enjoy the pleasures of being the only person in your group able to reliably find and disable traps, barter, steal, make perception checks/basically succeed on all skill checks, then rogues are the way to go.

Wrong on several accounts. A ranger who dips into the trapper archetype can do this.

Even more importantly those having issues with rogues, had nothing to do with min-maxing. The issue is that you can combine other classes to do the job better. You can also take one level of rogue to get the trapfinding, and then go ranger the rest of the way, and maybe even bard.

I am not saying don't play a rogue, by the way. I just don't agree with the min/max generalization. The advice on the ranger was just icing on the cake.

Sczarni

To the OP: I'm currently playing a Ranger (Guide)/Rogue 'Switch Hitter' with a slight tweak - my 'normal' feats and Rogue talents are being used to take the TWF tree.

I went straight Guide to level 6 gaining the free feats in Archery. At level 7 I've just switched to Rogue (Scout/Sniper).

As a half-elf my character took the Ancestral Arms class feature and has been using a Sawtooth Sabre (2 handed) thus far. It's a great weapon for this type of build as you still get 1.5 STR bonus to DMG and 3:1 ratio on power attack when using it in 2 hands (which has helped me be the top melee damage dealer in the party to this point).

I don't really know if my damage output is going to go up or down from here on out but I'm not in an optimized game so I really couldn't care less - I too have been bitten & smitten by the 'Drizzt' bug and wanted to play TWF Ranger/Rogue so I'm doing it.

Use the advice given by the above posters if you truly want to optimize, otherwise do whatever you want - consider the archetypes and stack them however you can until you get the flavour you want.

- The Guide archetype gives 'Rangers Focus' which is nice as your 'Favoured Enemy' basically becomes the enemy you're facing right now.
- The Sniper archetype will help my character sneak attack at range and it works well with the 'Switch Hitters' archery abilities.
- The Scout archetype will give me more scenarios in which to use my sneak attack so I'm not confined to standing in harms way 100% of the time to get the extra damage dice.

Just make sure the archetypes all work together (I'm pretty sure Sniper/Scout do work - but I don't have my books in front of me and at the end of the day my GM allowed it so I'm doing it).

For the last 6 levels our combat encounters have pretty much allowed for the following tactics;

- Start combat at Range. Deadly Aim + Comp. Longbox is great for dealing hefty damage.
- As enemies close, charge into melee two handing my sabre. Power attack (@ 3:1) & 1.5 STR keeps the damage high.
- 'Ranger's Focus' gives much needed bonuses to attack & damage to offset the minuses you take using power attack & deadly aim.
- Get into 'flank' position... This is when I will draw the 2nd sabre and go to town dual weilding & sneak attacking. My static damage will suffer at this point but the extra sneak damage will help to offset it.

It may not do the most damage but it does make for good times. At the end of the day that's all the matters to me.

Dark Archive Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games

Come on, guys. Haven't we already had the Rogue vs. Fighter DPR debate already? Let's try for something new...


Haven't we had enough of the 'Rogues suck in all circumstances - play an urban ranger/archaeologist/ninja' debate too? We get it - you don't like rogues.


Not everybody was around for it. We are running a replay. :)


Not true, Rogues are awesome at starting rumors. That can't be replicated with other classes to the level that rogues can do it.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / How many levels of rogue does it take..... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice