Yes, I know, how novel. We never see these.
But I figure I criticize them enough, so I ought to offer a solution. This hews fairly close to the class as written with some improvements which make the class into more of an effective skirmisher.
So the changes amount to:
A) Give the rogue full BAB. They are a mundane class which doesn't get anything spectacular to compensate for a lack of magic. Hence they should at least be capable in combat. I don't mean fighter levels, but they should be on the level of a Ranger against non favored, or a Paladin without smiting. Yes, sneak attack is a decent bonus, but it is situational (and isn't as huge as a lot of people think).
B) Give the rogue a strong will save. Again, why is it that only the two most mundane classes (fighters and rogues) have the worst saves even though they have the least shiny abilities? Don't see this being fair, so a rogue being one that lives by their wits (IMO) ought to have a decent will save (if and when I do a fighter upgrade, they will also get an additional good save).
C) Canny Defense (Ex)
When wearing light or no armor and not using a shield, a duelist adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per rogue class level to her Dexterity bonus to modify Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a rogue is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus.
D) Combat trick may be taken as many times as desired as a rogue trick.
Now perhaps this is too much, but I will need to crunch some numbers to see how it works. I suspect it will be reasonable. I might need to limit sneak attack some because of edge builds making this too high in damage, but as I see it, it is something of a risk/reward class which trades durability for striking power and finesse. I added the canny defense to try to mix in a bit of MAD to the design so as to limit things a bit. I am also considering weapon finesse for free to lead people down another MAD path, but I'm not sure that is necessary.
|
To be honest i second this. i love playing Rogues and will forever, but they just aren't what they used to be. Although if rogues get changes like this Assassins will need it as well. Because lets face it they are similar in ways. But again it would make a significant difference if rogues got these, and i think the class would be played more often. I've got a level 4 rogue with Dervish dance. While that is a really nice ability I dont have a weapon in my off hand.
OK, ran some numbers on the DPR sheet to see how the new one stacks up against both the RAW rogue and some fighter builds.
Assumptions are level 20, maxxed out stat boosting after a reasonable set of stats (for fighter 18 str to start, for rogue 18 dex to start, but assume agile weapon) which amounts to a 34 for max stat (5 level, 5 book, 6 item). Both sides use max crit range weapons appropriate to build (scimitar or falchion for fighter, rapier or kukris for rogue) with improved critical assumed as well as +5 weapons. Rogues are assumed to be flanking (so get +2 and sneak attack). Target AC is 40 (Jabberwocky, I'm not going to think about the DR now)
Let's list off the status quo:
Rogue 20 one hand with sneak
70.21 DPR
Rogue 20 two kukris with sneak
94.37
Fighter 20 scimitar and board
168.72
Fighter 20 falchion
222.32
And people wonder why we pity rogues?
Now my rogues with same assumptions
Rogue 20 one hand with sneak
121.03
Rogue 20 two kukris with sneak
195.47
That's actually a better solution than I expected. It's fairly close, but doesn't surpass the fighter. It certainly puts rogues back in the running.
Let's compare ACs
Present day rogue 20 1H rapier
+8 bracers of AC, +5 ring, +5 amulet, jingasa, ioun stone, dodge = 43 AC
Rogue 2 kukri + 2 weapon defense (+ all of above)= 44 AC
Fighter (2H) +5 mithril plate, +5 ring, +5 amulet, jingasa, dodge, ioun stone, defender of the society = 45
Fighter scim+board= 54 AC
Revised rogue 20 1 rapier (assume same as above, as well as +7 int bonus) AC=50
Revised rogue 20 2 kukri AC 51
Hmm, might have to make the AC bonus only apply if off hand is free so there is some incentive to one wield one weapon. Otherwise 2 weapons is a no brainer, and that's a bad design policy.
So, a better fighter than the fighter? With full BAB and a fighter's bonus feats (except for the 1st level bonus, you'd be able to take a bonus combat feat every even level), I'm not sure you'd ever see another fighter. Bravery, armor training, and weapon training are all good abilities, but people play fighters for the bonus combat feats.
I think a good Will save for the rogue is reasonable, though I'd rather they have some kind of mechanic for getting a bonus to any kind of save.
Canny Defense would be a good rogue talent or archetype ability.
Umm, well it's not actually a better fighter than the fighter. The fighter sits at higher AC (if he focuses on it), more damage, and more HP. (admittedly I would also add a bit of buffing to the fighter, 4 skill points per level, pick 3 more class skills, and the fighter could choose 1 extra good save).
I will be changing the rogue canny defense to
Canny Defense (Ex)
When wearing light or no armor and not using a shield or weapon in the offhand, a duelist adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per rogue class level to her Dexterity bonus to modify Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a rogue is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus.
Otherwise the 2 weapon style is simply too good. AC should have a cost (like in sword and board).
My two cents:
I like the idea of giving canny defense, but I think it ought to require a single finesse-able weapon. Less restrictive than the duelist, but not quite so broad as just "a melee weapon", still allows canny defense with pretty much every weapon that the rogue is proficient with.
I strongly disagree with rogues having full BAB. This is opinion, and based heavily on how you view "rogues" in your world, but a rogue that can go toe-to-toe against a town guard (warrior) of equal level without using any tricks isn't a rogue. A few suggestions I have seen that I prefer is allowing sneak attacks specifically function as if the rogue had full BAB, similar to Flurry for monks, and allowing the rogue to use his level instead of BAB for certain combat maneuvers like Dirty Trick.
Incidentally, I have a rogue in my current group who has been whining about rogues being too weak. I'd give him canny defense, but he decided to make a rogue with an intelligence of 10 :P
I see things a bit differently. I'm looking from the balance perspective rather than a flavor perspective. If a class is purely mundane, without any significant spell or supernatural abilities, they should have full BAB. You can justify it any way you like (the rogue can hit because he's effectively nimble, sneaky, or deceptive, but in any case the hit lands, that's just fluff).
I am pretty pleased with how the numbers work out especially since I ran them after deciding on the fixes.
Just tried something different, a 2 hander with a strength focus.
DPR goes to 146.
I was actually concerned that the rogue might be too good in that configuration. He would give up a good bit of AC like that, but the damage still lags the fighter a lot.
I will say I don't understand why you are fixated on rogue restrictions. Is there some reason they should be sub par in your mind?
Don't put words in my mouth. If I didn't agree that rogues need more love, I wouldn't have bothered posting. I just think there are better places to start than base attack bonus. Giving full bab, for example, does nothing to fix that the majority of rogue talents are significantly worse than feats. Why not start by fixing rogue talents like Powerful Sneak? Making that talent increase the damage by 1.5, ala empower spell, gives the rogue a damage boost with bothering with.
I'm in favor of fixing broken things. Rogue base attack isn't broken. Without underhand tactics, a rogue absolutely shouldn't come close to matching a fighter in combat. Because he's a rogue, and he's good at other things that the fighter isn't.
I should note that we obviously view rogues differently, and every suggestion I make comes with a giant "in my opinion" attached. Your house rules are your house rules. God knows I wouldn't make anyone else play with mine.
OK, you say it was "without underhanded tactics a rogue shouldn't do good damage" and I see it as a restriction. That's a matter of semantics. The fact is my DPR calculations assume the rogue gets sneak attack on all those hits.
Let's compare by full BAB 2 hander rogue vs. a 2 hander fighter. Identical weapon, strength, and power attack.
Fighter 222 DPR
My (str based)rogue 87 DPR (compare to 155 DPR with sneak attack). (yes these numbers are different from above, I had a few things wrong in the DPR calc)
By no means does my suggestion mean that the rogue is even in the ballpark without the ability to sneak attack. I think you simply do not have an appreciation for the negative impact of 3/4 BAB on a class with no real way to mitigate that.
Of course in the current rules that poor rogue does 54 DPR without sneak attack.
Yes, I suppose it would be nice if someone were to go in and figure out which rogue talents suck the most and then figure out how to balance them out to make the rogue competitive. Alternatively you could just go my route and put the rogue in the running of being useful in combat without nearly as much work. There would have to be a massive revamp of rogue talents before they became effective enough to balance out rogues.
It should be clear that full BAB does not make a rogue as good as a fighter. There's weapon training, greater focus, and the specializations which up fighter DPR. The rogue with full BAB ends up in the ballpark of non smiting Paladins and non favored enemy fighting rangers. I don't see that as such a bad thing since those classes really have some nice toys (and at high level, they get to use their nice toys quite often).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can't we have flavor AND balance?
Turning the rogue into a fighter, with full BAB and just as many fighter feats as fighters, but still having all the rogue stuff too, just makes the concept into a melee brute who gets bonus damage from flanking.
That sounds like an archetype or a prestige class, but not like a "rogue".
If we want to fix rogues for combat, then we should give them "rogue" enhancements to help them out. Create a few rogue talents that make them more stealthy in combat (i.e., a greater talent to feint as a swift action) or simply to use some of their skills in combat (i.e. a talent to let them apply 1/4 of their bluff ranks to their AC vs. one foe, or 1/4 of their sense motive ranks to one attack roll each round, or 1/4 of their stealth ranks to their AC vs. AoOs, etc.) or rogue talents to let them deny DEX mods to opponents more often (e.g. a talent that lets them try a bluff check vs. Sense Motive or CMD to treat their next attack against that target as if the target is flanked, even if it is not).
This would let combat-oriented rogues use more talents to get better at combat, but non-combat rogues can still use the talents toward non-combat options.
If you really want automatic melee options that they get just by reaching certain levels, then give them something like the fighter's weapon training but make it rogue-ish by limiting it to finessable weapons or something or it only works when they begin their round with cover or concealment, or at least put something on it that makes it feel like they're still rogues rather than just a different kind of fighter.
+1 DM_Blake
drbuzzard, can you explain the formula you're using for damage per round? No hate, I promise, I'd just like to follow your math.
kyrt-ryder
See point D in the original post. Part of the proposal is that combat trick can be taken as many times as you want.
People seem to have issues with the concept of full BAB for some reason. It's a simple fix which mathematically works. I don't see why it bothers people. It doesn't make them any less of a rogue as I have taken nothing away. They still are restricted to light armor, and still have inferior hit points.
You don't have to take any of the rogue talents as combat feats. It is an option. You don't need to optimize stats like I did to get my DPR numbers.
Look, you seem to like gimmicks, but unless you stack up one heck of a pile of gimmicks you are not going to transform that 3/4 BAB rogue into a legitimate combat threat at high levels.
If that's the solution which floats your boat feel free, but it will be a lot of work, and I doubt you'll have anywhere as simple a time balancing it as my method.
Lets be clear here, my modifications do not require a rogue to make a 'melee brute'. They can spend their options elsewhere.
Here's a question for people who don't like full BAB rogues, is there some constituency that favor rogues missing most of the time? It's not like I'm handing out 'hit every time' cards. I'm merely making the class competitive.
SteelDraco, Rogue Talents can only be taken once unless otherwise specified. That means the 'Combat Feat' talent can only be taken once.
Now sure, if a Rogue actually wanted Weapon Focus (poster boy for bad feats) and if the Rogue chose to take the Finesse Path, they'd be getting three feats 'for free' but they aren't for free. Those are costing them class features which would otherwise be spent elsewhere.
Item D on the original poster's suggested fix was "take combat trick as many times as you want". Combat trick = a bonus combat feat. That's why I said that.
Admittedly, there are all the fighter bonus feats a rogue wouldn't qualify for, which do a lot to add to DPR, but not much to add to interesting combat options.
I keep thinking that drbuzzard is overvaluing pure DPR here, which is only marginal in comparison to my problems with the rogue - offensively useless talents, no defensive abilities to speak of, and limiting the already-poor talents to once per day for no real reason.
+1 DM_Blake
drbuzzard, can you explain the formula you're using for damage per round? No hate, I promise, I'd just like to follow your math.
damage = chance to hit *(average damage +average sneak attack damage) +chance to hit *(average damage* critical chance * confirmation chance * (critical multiplier-1) )
I could see an argument for limiting the combat trick business, but honestly I can't imagine that many of the non fighters ones are so great as to matter. Yes, it does enable the TWF possibly too much (and now that I tried TWF without power attack, but with sneak, that may be too powerful an edge case, really gives a DPR spike, beats even the THF).
EDIT: I will restate my earlier point though, regarding the combat feats (so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle.) I'm of the opinion Rogue Talents should be raised to the level of Rage Powers, rather than introduce a mechanic to bypass them for as many combat feats as the Rogue's Player wants.
I'm looking for a quick and dirty approach. That would be a major system overhaul and require a whole lot of testing to find the sweet spot.
Though I am definitely looking down on the multiple combat trick thing now.
TWF + sneak attack is where the rogue wants to be. Using Power Attack in that situation is going to be a terrible deal, damage-wise. TWF already brings in enough attack penalties that you want to maximize your attack bonus, not bring in a static damage bonus that doesn't work that well with TWF.
I agree with Witch's Knight that full BAB doesn't fit well for the rogue conceptually. When I did my rogue revision, I tried to make sure they could inflict conditions and penalties on their opponent to enable them to hit their opponent, rather than just increasing the rogue's attack bonus. I think that encourages clever skill and ability use in a way that just having a higher BAB doesn't, and fits better with my conception of a rogue. It takes a bit longer to play out, but I think it's more fun for everybody, and more in line with what people want when they decide to play a rogue.
Improving rogue talents helps quite a bit. That's where I focused my efforts when I did a rogue revision - I ended up rewriting or eliminating about half of them.
I do generally think that a rogue should be in trouble in a one-on-one fight against a combat-oriented opponent of equal level, particularly in a generic "flat plain no allies no clever business" kind of fight that DPR calculations assume (even if you're assuming sneak attack at all times). I'm sure it's showing my bias, but when I think rogue I think "I'm going to outwit and outmaneuver my opponents to beat them" rather than "I fight as well as a trained warrior".
If we're assuming sneak attack, then some tactic had to be employed to gain that action. It's just something which comes out in the wash of a DPR calculation because it is raw math.
It can be positioning, Gang Up, or some means of feinting (though I don't know that there's a sustainable feint method).
The giving of full BAB doesn't come close to solving the damage issue, as you need to be landing sneaks as well to really bring on the pain.
But I will have to think about a resolution to the TWF edge case. While I am not fundamentally opposed to a light fighter doing the most damage in some cases, I don't like the idea of it for sustained DPR.
Are you taking the capstone abilities into account? In the dpr calculations, the fighter should have automatic confirmation on critical threats, and an increase of +1 to his critical multiplier. On the other hand, the rogue gets to force a save or die every time he hits with sneak attack.
I prefer to do my comparison at levels 13-17, but that's neither here nor there . . .
I'm actually hosting an "Improvement to Feint" thread as well, because I think the rogue doesn't have nearly enough good ways to get sneak attack. Cheers.
pass
I do take into account the fighter capstone. I don't take into account the rogue one since it is more variable, and at that level often won't work anyway (lots of things at those levels are probably immune to lots of the options and their fort saves are usually huge). Instant death doesn't really work in DPR anyway.
Though actually it's not a save or die every time he sneaks, it's save or die the first time he sneaks that target per 24 hours. A perusal of the CR 20 critters (which is on the low end of challenges at 20) shows that fort saves seem to start at +23. So there's a 15% of an outright kill (assuming a 24 Int). That's not bad by any means, but that's the best case.
I suppose I could do comparisons at 11th (which is my norm since I generally compare for PFS max level) but I don't have my normal incentive since this only likely to see daylight in a home game, not PFS. I suppose I should do the math for 17th level since that would be the max level gained during the APs.
Fair point, I missed that 1/24 hours thing. Significantly less scary. Alright, I'm trying to squeeze this is between classes, so these are by no means complete builds. I'm mostly just throwing them up to see if I'm doing the math right. I'm not sure I trust the formula entirely . . . For instance, with an Improved Critical Falchion, if the hit chance is 30% or below, then every hit is also a critical threat, and it seems like that should alter the formula somehow. Anyway, here's for checking the math.
Fighter 20
Feats: Power Attack, W.Focus and Greater W. Focus, W. Spec and Greater W. Spec
Offense
attack (+20 BAB, +12 Str bonus, +5 weapon enhancement, +2 G. Weapon Focus, +5 weapon training, -6 power attack) +38
damage (+18 str bonus, +5 weapon enhancement, +4 G. weapon spec, +5 weapon training, +18 power attack) +50
+5 Falchion +38/+33/+28/+23 (2d4+50, 15-20/x2) avg=59
(.95*59)+(.95*59*.3*2)=89.68
(.7*59)+(.7*.59*.3*2)=66.08
(.45*59)+(.45*59*.3*2)=42.48
(.2*59)+(.2*59*.3*.2)=18.88
187.12
(Standard) Rogue 20
Feats: Power Attack, W.Focus
Offense
attack (+15 BAB, +12 Str bonus, +5 weapon enhancement, +1 Weapon Focus, -6 power attack, +2 flank) +29
damage (+18 str bonus, +5 weapon enhancement, +18 power attack) +41
+5 Falchion +29/+24/+19 (2d4+50, 15-20/x2 plus 10d6 SA) avg=50 plus 35
(.5*85)+(.5*50*.3*.5)=46.25
(.25*85)+(.25*50*.3*.25=22.18
(.05*85)+(.05*50*.3*.05)=4.28
72.71
(Your) Rogue 20
Feats: Power Attack, W.Focus
Offense
attack (+20 BAB, +12 Str bonus, +5 weapon enhancement, +1 Weapon Focus, -6 power attack, +2 flank) +34
damage (+18 str bonus, +5 weapon enhancement, +18 power attack) +41
+5 Falchion +34/+29/+24 (2d4+50, 15-20/x2 plus 10d6 SA) avg=50 plus 35
(.75*85)+(.75*50*.3*.75)=72.19
(.5*85)+(.5*50*.3*.5=46.25
(.25*85)+(.25*50*.3*.25)=22.18
140.62
Am I on the right track?
You are very close. Weapon training only goes to +4. However every fighter buys gloves of dueling which takes that up to +6, so that's a minor change.
Also I did the formula wrong, it's
damage = chance to hit *(average damage +average sneak attack damage) +(average damage* critical chance * confirmation chance * (critical multiplier-1) )
Didn't need the second to hit multiplied in, just the confirmation. This has all your numbers discounting the criticals some. My bad.
On the standard rogue I don't see how the falchion is doing 9 damage on average. That weapon has an average of 5, so average damage for the formula is 46. Also I assume that in all cases the character has critical focus (if you're going to have a big threat range, make sure you confirm).
By removing the chance to hit from the second part, we make your initial question moot.
Though checking your math did lead me to take a closer look at my DPR spreadsheet and correction some errors, so I do thank you. Always good to hone the product.
After reviewing this thread I noticed you have forgotten to take into account the huge class skill list that the rogue has when compared to the fighter. The rogue is very likely to be able to feint in combat with bluff as a class skill (losing their dex bonus and increasing their DPR considerably). Not to mention they have trapfinding, evasion and uncanny dodge. They might not do as much damage in your theoretical scenario, but your scenario doesnt take everything about the class into account. 8+Int skill ranks as opposed to 2+Int. Way bigger class skill list. You might as well complain that bards don't do as much damage as fighters. They fill a completely different role and the class reflects that perfectly IMO.
Robert Matthews 166 Yeah, that was something that I mentioned, too. I do like some of these ideas, because they fit my idea of the rogue better, but as I've said before the rogue only ought to be so good at DPR because he's got plenty of other toys to play with, including skills and evasion. How good that "so good" ought to be is what's in question. Some would argue that rogues actually make significantly better mage-killers than fighters do, thanks to evasion and slippery mind. As to your comment about feint, it's generally considered to be a sub-par option, especially against larger enemies that have no dex bonus to lose, and the OP is already calculating DPR as if the rogue is full-attack sneak attacking every round, which is as high as his DPR will get.
drbuzzard My bad on the math errors, I was rushing. If I get a free hour or two tonight I'll throw together a few builds and do the math properly on my own just for kicks. I think, for me, I'll keep your suggested Canny Defense, probably as a selectable rogue talent, and your suggestion that Combat Trick can be taken without limit. The combat feats available to rogue aren't so amazing that that would be terrible, and until someone fixes the combat-oriented rogue talents it's an alright band-aid. I also think I'll stick with my original suggestion of rogue's having full BAB when sneak attacking, which should boost their DPR but wouldn't let the rogue be as skilled at attacking as a fighter without using tricks, which works just fine for me. Very interested to see what other suggestions come up in this thread!
I like the general idea, but would try to emphasis the theme. Of course you might have a different theme in mind.
I'd allow multiple combat tricks, but restrict them to Roguey feats. Notably Imp/Gtr TWF, Feint, Steal, Dirty Trick, Dodge, Agile Maneuvers, Dastardly finish. Deadly Sneak becomes +1 per die, no penalty. Very Deadly Sneak (advanced) is another +1.
I wouldn't go with full BAB, but I would give full BAB for CMD like the monk. And +4 to hit when flanking rather than +2.
Unsure about canny defence. Something like that is needed, possibly as a talent.
Good Will is OK, but I'd go more thematic, a bit like the fighter's Bravery. But that's weak too, so:
Cynical: a rogue is inherently distrustful. At 3rd level he gains a +1 bonus to saving throws against charms and illusions. This increases by +1 every 3 levels (6th, 9th, etc).
And to allow the rogue to be the best skill monkey like God intended, talents include:
* Skill Focus (any, multiple times)
* +2/+2 skill feats (any, multiple times)
* Jack of All Trades (Ex): He can use any skill, even if the skill normally requires him to be trained.
* Polymath (advanced): He considers all skills to be class skills.
Robert, I'm well aware of the disparity in class skills. I'm also not really done with the fighter as it needs revisions as well (think I mentioned them in the OP).
However this thread isn't about the deficiencies of the rogue, that's been discussed elsewhere ad nauseum. The general consensus is that you can do the work of the rogue with other classes that also bring more to the table. They either buff the party more, do the skills better, add magic, or do more damage.
As for feint upping their DPR, well it will some, but that is quite variable, and I don't think it's as good as you think.
Feint without the proper feats is a standard action. With improved feint it goes to a move action. Your best bet is improved two weapon feint, but that costs you your first attack with your main weapon (and has a hefty feat tax).
On a rogue as currently constituted that's fairly rough as your max BAB only gets to 15 so sacrificing half of your main damage dealing attacks is fairly rough.
Given my preconditions for DPR calculations, I'd say the output is higher than for feint given that I already assume a flank.
But I have digressed. The point of this thread is to suggest a method for ameliorating the perceived deficiencies of the rogue, not to debate if those deficiencies exist in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game is not just about DPR.
The game is not just about DPR.
Nice strawman. Like the plaid shirt.
To be honest I haven't figured out why people are coming into this thread to have the 'do rogues measure up?' debate. It is posited as a given for the point of the revisions, it is not a point of discussion as it has been addressed innumerable times.
But since people persist-
How about we ask ourselves "how much of the game is combat"?
I'd say the answer is >50% (easily)
So if a class is massively deficient in combat, they have recused themselves for half the game. Now of course that percentage is variable dependent on the game. Home games can be more focused on interaction, puzzles, or other skill based activities. That's fine. However if you go through the APs, or PFS scenarios, combat is a very large chunk of your time. One PC getting to sit in the corner and wait while combats are run because they are simply ineffective is not a way to make a game system.
Now a point which you could have made which actually is valid would be "DPR is not the only way of measuring combat utility." That would be completely fair. However rogues don't really have any other tricks up their sleeves. They have a hard time mustering much CMB for maneuvers (owing to the weak BAB like Artalost mentioned). They have a very minimal spellcasting ability. Skills don't have much effect in combat except to demoralize (and feint, and that one is situational again). Those are pretty much it for debuffing options. They have no party buffing options (aid another isn't much, and is certainly not unique to the class).
So where does that leave us?
We can compare the only real ability the rogue has during a combat - to dish out damage and sneak attack is their schtick. I grant them it in my assumptions, and that truly is a generous assumption. Given a reasonably optimized rogue, they don't measure up in DPR. This leaves them sitting in the corner for combats. This is why I have suggested changes which put them back at least in sight of combat classes in combat, while trying not to make them eclipse the dedicated warrior types. I still have some points to address to my satisfcation, but I'm thinking of options.
In the interest of discussion diversity, what is the general opinion on the improved Will save? We've had one poster mention that they'd rather it be a situational scaling bonus, and one say that rogues should have some kind of bonus to all saves. Other thoughts?
The game is not just about DPR.Nice strawman. Like the plaid shirt.
To be honest I haven't figured out why people are coming into this thread to have the 'do rogues measure up?' debate. It is posited as a given for the point of the revisions, it is not a point of discussion as it has been addressed innumerable times.
But since people persist-
How about we ask ourselves "how much of the game is combat"?
I'd say the answer is >50% (easily)
So if a class is massively deficient in combat, they have recused themselves for half the game. Now of course that percentage is variable dependent on the game. Home games can be more focused on interaction, puzzles, or other skill based activities. That's fine. However if you go through the APs, or PFS scenarios, combat is a very large chunk of your time. One PC getting to sit in the corner and wait while combats are run because they are simply ineffective is not a way to make a game system.
Now a point which you could have made which actually is valid would be "DPR is not the only way of measuring combat utility." That would be completely fair. However rogues don't really have any other tricks up their sleeves. They have a hard time mustering much CMB for maneuvers (owing to the weak BAB like Artalost mentioned). They have a very minimal spellcasting ability. Skills don't have much effect in combat except to demoralize (and feint, and that one is situational again). Those are pretty much it for debuffing options. They have no party buffing options (aid another isn't much, and is certainly not unique to the class).
So where does that leave us?
We can compare the only real ability the rogue has during a combat - to dish out damage and sneak attack is their schtick. I grant them it in my assumptions, and that truly is a generous assumption. Given a reasonably optimized rogue, they don't measure up in DPR. This leaves them sitting in the corner for combats. This is why I have suggested changes which put them back...
Then every class should have full BAB, access to all the Feats, access to all the spells, access to all the class special abilities. There should be no skills, no noncombat spells, nothing that doesn't add to DPR.
A rogue is fine just the way it is.
Then every class should have full BAB, access to all the Feats, access to all the spells, access to all the class special abilities. There should be no skills, no noncombat spells, nothing that doesn't add to DPR.
A rogue is fine just the way it is.
If that is supposed to pass for a reasoned argument, I'll just move along. Go find a rogue discussion thread or make suggestions about this re-design. Otherwise I'll accept your 'nay' vote and ignore the rest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to be a troll, go post in a Bestiary thread.
Your wild leap from the suggestions of this discussion to the abomination you just posted was ignorant and antagonistic. This is a Homebrew/Suggestion thread, where we have discussions about what people would find interesting to implement in their home games to address what they see as fundamental balance issues. The view that "the rogue is fine just the way it is" is your opinion, one which is not shared by a fairly large portion of the Pathfinder player community. Kindly keep your suggestions constructive or post somewhere else.
Ok, I'm starting to consider solutions to the issue of full BAB making TWF sneak too damned good.
Options:
A) change sneak attack (reduce number of dice, limited number of weapons usable, etc)
B) change feat qualification
C) change number of iterative attacks available to the full BAB rogue
D) Make the attack bonus for sneaks reflect full BAB, but without the rest of the implications (feat qualification, iterative attacks)
I'm not overly in favor of A. I want to have as little fiddling as possible. C feels a bit wonky because it breaks a core rule which is general. B feels like it is too much trying to address just a specific situation (like I found a hole and am trying to patch it, which while true seems tacky).
I think we may run with D. Now I don't like that it makes a rogue out of sneak just as useless as they are now.
Not really sure how to run with this one. I see it being between B and D.
I like d personally, it fits my view of the rogue. b sounds excessively complicated to me, but what would you change, as an example?
I like d personally, it fits my view of the rogue. b sounds excessively complicated to me, but what would you change, as an example?
It would be something like For feat qualification, rogue BAB only counts for 3/4 of it's value (or maybe 1/2). This would put off some of the higher end feats. I'm not really sure that would completely solve the problem, so I might well have to do the 1/2.
Ok, I'm starting to consider solutions to the issue of full BAB making TWF sneak too damned good.
Options:
D) Make the attack bonus for sneaks reflect full BAB, but without the rest of the implications (feat qualification, iterative attacks)I think we may run with D. Now I don't like that it makes a rogue out of sneak just as useless as they are now.
Not really sure how to run with this one. I see it being between B and D.
You're not sure because your initial premise is flawed.
Don't turn the rogue into a fighter. Don't give him full BAB.
Tweak him to make ROGUE stuff more useful. Give him rogue tricks that let him apply sneak attack and/or flanking more frequently, feint faster, stealth more easily in combat, etc. Give tricks to improve his sneak attack effects (for example, if he could feint, sneak attack, and blind an opponent for a round, that opponent loses efficiency and can be further sneak attacked too). Make sneak attacks a little stronger.
That's what rogues do. Or should do. Or could do.
Turn him into a stealthy, tricky, sneaky, debuffing rogue, rather than just a different kind of fighter.
The Full BAB while sneak attacking should do the trick. Especially in later levels, when flatfooted doesn't do anything to reduce AC.
What about this, instead of a full BAB?
Cunning Strike: At 1st level, when the rogue is making a sneak attack, he gains a +1 bonus on the attack roll. This bonus increases by +1 at 5th level and every four additional levels, to a maximum of +5 at 17th level.
That gets him the same attack bonus as a full-BAB class when he's making a sneak attack, without adding any iteratives.
I'd also consider making a rogue talent that reduces TWF penalties by 1, and another advanced talent that does the same thing, so you could in theory negate the penalty entirely. Great talent for fighter/rogues that want to mix it up in melee and maximize sneak attack.
You're not sure because your initial premise is flawed.
Well damn, I'm glad my net genius has show up to clear me up on the error of my ways.
I'll be sure to file your following suggestions in the appropriate circular bin with the rest of what you have offered.
To sum up, I've seen you say this before and responded to it, re-stating it doesn't offer me anything new or interesting. If you don't like my suggestions, fine I understand it. Here's a hint, I don't like yours either. We've been over this before. I see balance differently than you. You are no more going to change me, than I change you, so wasting your time trying is just being a pest.
What about this, instead of a full BAB?
Cunning Strike: At 1st level, when the rogue is making a sneak attack, he gains a +1 bonus on the attack roll. This bonus increases by +1 at 5th level and every four additional levels, to a maximum of +5 at 17th level.
That gets him the same attack bonus as a full-BAB class when he's making a sneak attack, without adding any iteratives.
I'd also consider making a rogue talent that reduces TWF penalties by 1, and another advanced talent that does the same thing, so you could in theory negate the penalty entirely. Great talent for fighter/rogues that want to mix it up in melee and maximize sneak attack.
I do like that first suggestion. It does codify the notion nicely.
I am completely against the second one however for the simple reason, that I really hate it when people are shoehorned into an obvious best build. If anything I would put a penalty on two weapon fighting so that it wasn't the best build by miles. I prefer when people have to actually make choices between good alternatives. It promotes variety in character builds.
Decent point. My trouble with the TWF rogue is that you're trying to play a melee class with a medium BAB, not a lot of ways to get an attack bonus, and then using a fighting style that further penalizes your attack bonus. If you're going to add other ways of increasing the attack bonus of the rogue, they're not necessary.
Trust me, once you are at full BAB values, sneak attack puts you well into the area where damage is good. I probably need to do some more work at other level ranges to be sure on modifications though. 20 is rather rarified to be encountered much.
Yeah, my games usually end around 13th, so 20th level DPR math is pretty meaningless to me.