It would be nastier still if the Scout abilities worked with Vital Strike.
The 8th level one does, which is conveniently when a 3/4 bab class qualifies for vital strike
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nastier still if the Scout abilities worked with Vital Strike.
No, it wouldn't, because Vital Strike is a terrible waste of a feat for literally every PC except maybe Druids if they favor one-big-attack forms over (generally superior) lots-of-attacks-plus-pounce forms, or on the off chance that the GM lets you play a T-Rex or something.
Ninja are WAY more survivable than rogues, a point of con here and there or not.
1) Move, backstab, vanishing trick, then next round sneak attack again. You get at least a 50% miss chance.
2) Shadow clone jut.. shadow clone. There's 4 of you. 25% miss chance
Not getting hit> a few points of con.
I realized about 10 seconds after it was too late to edit my post that I meant to say Spring Attack, not Vital Strike.
Spring Attack is lousy, too. Sneak Attack isn't enough damage to get by on one attack per round. You're kind of obligated to get in as many attacks as possible to make it worth it (and it kind of never is even then, since dual wielding and stuff drops your accuracy so much).
However, using it with the Scout's level 8 ability may be one of the only times that Vital Strike is worth having.
No, because only the base weapon die damage is increased, not the sneak attack dice. It's a waste of a feat.
The scout ability is kind of wasted on a ninja anyway, since they can just turn invisible to get Sneak Attack, which is a lot easier and stronger than moving around a lot--and hey, being invisible also prevents AoOs, making Spring Attack pointless.
Except that with the Scout's level 8 ability, you only get 1 attack anyway, so you may as well use Vital Strike to double the weapon damage die.
Oh, let me be more clear, then:
The Scout's level 8 ability is a consolation prize, much like Vital Strike. It is not something you should actively try to use, it should be left for times when you can't otherwise make a full attack. Sneak Attack is so anemic, I bet there will be plenty of times when making a full attack without sneak attack that is more DPR than making a single attack with it.
Hence my whole point of not bothering to take Scout at all as a Ninja.
Yeah, Scout is quite unimpressive, I never understood why this board is so fascinated with it (I guess compared to rogue itself it looks nifty? just imagine if a rogue talent gave at will flight like 10th level Air specialty wizard; people would go nuts!) and it's mentioned so much.
In any case, I've always been of the opinion when playing a high dex PC that if I should have the option to gain Uncanny Dodge, then you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers. ;)
I suppose Defensive Strategist trait is a decent stand in... does almost all the stuff UD does. Man, traits are broken.
You really don't need sneak attack at that point, and indeed, it's not going to be multiplying. I'd rather have the full BAB for better to hit odds and faster power attack (which DOES multiply) improvement.
I'd also rather be a class that gets a mount that can actually take a hit if going that route.
You really don't need sneak attack at that point, and indeed, it's not going to be multiplying. I'd rather have the full BAB for better to hit odds and faster power attack (which DOES multiply) improvement.
I'd also rather be a class that gets a mount that can actually take a hit if going that route.
What she said.
Sneak Attack does not multiply with anything except the Sap feats. That's it. It's not a great source of damage, but if you're going to use it like it is, it is absolutely imperative that you attack as many times as possible, since the only way to multiply it is to attack more often.
I have to say part of the problem is that in modern D&D based games traps are rare and boring. Back in the day, when DMs eagerly perused Grimtooth's Traps, rogues were considered essential. It wasn't even the damage and the cruel torture, it was the fact that traps could divide the party, make the party's maps useless, or even send the party to a lower part of the dungeon before they were ready.
What Pathfinder really needs is an equivalent to Grimtooth's Traps, but that may be out of step with today's "Roll Perception, now roll initiative" attitude. Hell, mapping isn't even needed in modern PFS games, they show you everywhere you've been.
Of course we also need to fix the fact that everybody and their brother gets Trapfinding, increase the bonus from Trapfinding, and eliminate the problem that Detect Magic can find all traps after a certain level. But then again the best traps I've seen have been non-magical. Magic usually makes traps boring.
It would be nastier still if the Scout abilities worked with Vital Strike.No, it wouldn't, because Vital Strike is a terrible waste of a feat for literally every PC except maybe Druids if they favor one-big-attack forms over (generally superior) lots-of-attacks-plus-pounce forms, or on the off chance that the GM lets you play a T-Rex or something.
I disagree. I have recently become a champion of the imp feint + vs + SA. I generally place it with a nodachi and lead blades for the 4d8 goodness. I think it hits better with a str > dex rogue against touch AC than a TWF rogue as it is less feat intense, and can be pulled off more often, and doesn't worry about decreased iterative a that start off at penalties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want the rogue's role to be defined by traps. I play a lot of rogues, I try to avoid being the trap-monkey as much as possible by swapping trapfinding for other features. Being the trap finder is a really horrible role.
You're up in front, trying to disarm the trap that could kill you if it goes off yet is only CR 5 because that's the bs way trap CR's work (I guess because they figure traps are isolated and you just heal up afterwards before the next fight?) while the party looks on from a safe distance. You fail, life sucks/ends for you. You succeed, hurray...moving on. Everyone gets xp and gold for "overcoming" the trap, and you just feel like the poor chump deemed "most expendable party member" stuck looking for land mines with a wooden stick.
I hate hate HATE having to do trap duty. It is the most punishing, unrewarding freaking task there is in the game. I hope to gods the rogue is never given a niche focused on traps (and then traps are made a bigger part of the game to justify said niche)!
I disagree. I have recently become a champion of the imp feint + vs + SA. I generally place it with a nodachi and lead blades for the 4d8 goodness. I think it hits better with a str > dex rogue against touch AC than a TWF rogue as it is less feat intense, and can be pulled off more often, and doesn't worry about decreased iterative a that start off at penalties.
Show me a Rogue that blew feats on Improved Feint and Vital Strike and I'll show you a Rogue that would deal more damage by full attacking.
And on the other issue, I actually like traps and miss the days when they were a big deal. But I don't like Rogues being "the trap guy" because of the way traps work now. As it was stated above, you roll to find it, then roll to disarm it. Either you succeed and nobody cares, or you fail and get mauled and everyone complains about healing you or whatever. Blah.
I like it when traps are weird and interesting and you play out the encounter with them. You don't just roll disable device, you figure out the trap like a puzzle and avoid it or bypass it with ingenuity and actually figuring out how it works.
To hit chance is rogue bane! -2 from TWF + decreased itterative, or just plain decreased itterative from a med BaB class... Does more dmg, if you hit. 1 solid hit that maxed dmg potential wether you start off toe to toe, or have to tumble into flanking wins out more often in more scenarios. If you find someone immune to flank, you are boned while I can still feint, and if you run into someone immune to SA, you are STILL boned, while I am still getting 4d8 + static dmg and power attack.
To hit chance is rogue bane! -2 from TWF + decreased itterative, or just plain decreased itterative from a med BaB class... Does more dmg, if you hit. 1 solid hit that maxed dmg potential wether you start off toe to toe, or have to tumble into flanking wins out more often in more scenarios. If you find someone immune to flank, you are boned while I can still feint, and if you run into someone immune to SA, you are STILL boned, while I am still getting 4d8 + static dmg and power attack.
If you actually do the math, I think you'll see that is not the case. You really need a really bad attack bonus and/or really low static damage mods to make Vital Strike worth while. It just isn't. Ever. Honestly, show the character, we'll do the math, and if you're right, I'll tip my nonexistent hat to you.
Ok, what are the parameters you want to work with?
I don't want the rogue's role to be defined by traps. I play a lot of rogues, I try to avoid being the trap-monkey as much as possible by swapping trapfinding for other features. Being the trap finder is a really horrible role.
You're up in front, trying to disarm the trap that could kill you if it goes off yet is only CR 5 because that's the bs way trap CR's work (I guess because they figure traps are isolated and you just heal up afterwards before the next fight?) while the party looks on from a safe distance. You fail, life sucks/ends for you. You succeed, hurray...moving on. Everyone gets xp and gold for "overcoming" the trap, and you just feel like the poor chump deemed "most expendable party member" stuck looking for land mines with a wooden stick.
I hate hate HATE having to do trap duty. It is the most punishing, unrewarding freaking task there is in the game. I hope to gods the rogue is never given a niche focused on traps (and then traps are made a bigger part of the game to justify said niche)!
I have to agree that making the rogue the designated trap disarmer is just a bad way of handling things. On top of the the issues Stream raised, Lethal and common traps that only the rogue can deal with makes rogues required party members. Flat-out requiring one specific class to be in every single party is bad game design. It creates a nasty cycle of traps only existing so rogues can be useful, and rogues only being useful because traps exist.
On top of that, in my personal experience players have a lot more fun when they're up against traps and puzzles that can't be solved by the rogue's disable device roll. Finding creative solutions to get around hazards is a lot more fun than having one PC roll a d20 to figure out if you're safe or screwed.
Ok, what are the parameters you want to work with?
It honestly doesn't matter--most of the time, I've found that Vital Strike is worse than full attacking without even changing anything, but ideally, I'd be able to switch a feat or item or something. Pick any level, whatever. Just remember higher point buys favor me in this ;)
If Vital Strike would just work with Spring Attack I think I would consider using both of those, but as is both suck. They probably would still suck even together, but they would be more interesting.
But on topic, Ninja is what the base Rogue should have been and a million rounds of Greater Invisibility per day that you activate as a swift action at level 10 makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.
Ok, 20pt buy PFS half elf with ancestral arms (nodachi). Threatening defender, and blade of mercy.
Str: 14 (+2, +2 @ 4 and 8)
Dex: 13
Con: 14
Int: 13
Wis: 12
Cha: 12
1) combat expt, skill focus: bluff*
2) ninja trick: pressure points*
3) imp feint
4) weapon trick (focus nodachi)*
5) power attack
6) whatever floats your boat*
7) furious focus
8) combat trick: Vital Strike
What I am buying is a mst wk nodachi (360 gp), and a wand of lead blades (750 gp)
To hit: 6 BaB + 4 str + 2 weapon focus and mst wk - 1 combat expt = 11 vs flat footed AC.
Dmg: 4d8 (20) + 4d6 (12) + 12 (str and power attack) +1 (blade of mercy) +1 str or dex = 45 avg dmg + str/ dex dmg, with a crit on 18 (math may be off a bit)
When can I do this? When I start off toe to toe, or when I move more than 5ft into flank position.
What did I spend? 1,110 gp
What do I expect? I expect you to do alot more dmg when you are able to line up a full attack that actually all hits against an opponent who is completely susceptible to flanking and SA.
What I don't expect? I don't expect you will get your full attack and have them all hit near as many times in as many situations that even allow you to SA to come close to my average dmg in an encounter/ ap.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so what I'm really hearing from all of you is that ALL of my fears are hugely confirmed.
Rogues/Ninjas are collectively seen as completely fungible, mostly useless in combat and therefore unwanted, and nobody likes a character with a well-rounded set of abilities because apparently min/maxing is the only way to go.
This does not sound like a tabletop RPG I would enjoy.
Which is a pity, this game sounded like it would be awesome.
Don't give up so soon.
These boards are heavily populated with people who are deeply into optimization and very judgmental about anything less than completely optimal, usually in a purely mechanical, heavily combat-focused sense.
Some of the optimizers are broad-minded enough to realize that the way they play is not the only way there is to play, while others are stubbornly resistant to the radical concept that different groups can and do play the game in diffewrent ways and love to throw around terms like "MAD", "gimped", "useless", etc. about anything that doesn't meet their own definition of a strong character.
They are useful to listen to only if you intend to play in/run an optimized game, or if your existing group begins to optimize. If you aren't, ignore them.
Be assured it is still more than possible to play PF in any style you and your group wants, and many, many people out there are playing rogues, fighters, monks and other less than optimal characters happily and could care less that their choice was "not optimal". Many times, those characters end up being the most effective and memorable in their games because in the end, it is a how a character is played that truly determines its success, not the numbers on the stat sheet.
most of the time, I've found that Vital Strike is worse than full attacking without even changing anything
You can't always full-attack. If you're an enlarged ranger with a greatsword, and your enemies are using hit and run tactics, vital strike is a nice thing to have. There are far worse feats.
Oh yeah... I almost forgot... I also expect to go "WHEEEE DIIICE!!!!!" When I roll.
Pretty much hate all around. Forums seem to hate rogue/ninja. I'm finding it's all about meta-gaming with most of these people and forget the simple fact it's a ROLE-PLAYING game. Is max health/damage output so important that actually having to act out a situation and maybe talking your way out of a fight such a fallacy? Maxing health/damage output is only ONE aspect of the game, and apparantly the ONLY aspect forums seem to focus on.
I put that down to the influence of Pathfinder Society Organized Play. The scenarios I've seen for PFS have been mostly dungeon crawls with little room for social stuff or role-playing. Granted, my beginning mage once did manage a lucky Diplomacy roll that turned a group of kobolds to our side, but that was a rare occurrence.
I disagree. I have recently become a champion of the imp feint + vs + SA. I generally place it with a nodachi and lead blades for the 4d8 goodness. I think it hits better with a str > dex rogue against touch AC than a TWF rogue as it is less feat intense, and can be pulled off more often, and doesn't worry about decreased iterative a that start off at penalties.Show me a Rogue that blew feats on Improved Feint and Vital Strike and I'll show you a Rogue that would deal more damage by full attacking.
And on the other issue, I actually like traps and miss the days when they were a big deal. But I don't like Rogues being "the trap guy" because of the way traps work now. As it was stated above, you roll to find it, then roll to disarm it. Either you succeed and nobody cares, or you fail and get mauled and everyone complains about healing you or whatever. Blah.
I like it when traps are weird and interesting and you play out the encounter with them. You don't just roll disable device, you figure out the trap like a puzzle and avoid it or bypass it with ingenuity and actually figuring out how it works.
One of things I liked about 4E was how traps worked. You didn't find a trap in a hallway by itself gods no it was a series of vents spewing flames while you fought hellhounds. Trap guy is fun when you feel like stopping the trap means more than not breaking out the clw wand again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so what I'm really hearing from all of you is that ALL of my fears are hugely confirmed.
Rogues/Ninjas are collectively seen as completely fungible, mostly useless in combat and therefore unwanted, and nobody likes a character with a well-rounded set of abilities because apparently min/maxing is the only way to go.
This does not sound like a tabletop RPG I would enjoy.
Which is a pity, this game sounded like it would be awesome.
Stormwind Fallacy, my good man. Having a well-built character doesn't make your roleplaying worse. That a lot of people here are able to recognize that the Rogue/Ninja ( and, yes, the Monk ) are mechanically worse built than the other classes doesn't make them worse roleplayers nor the game less capable of delivering interesting roleplaying challenges.
Mechanical concerns over those classes mostly come from people who like those classes and want to love to play them, but feel that they are not contributing enough to party advancement when they do. After all, if your party dies because your character failed on his job, the campaign is over. And adventure paths can be pretty brutal when played as they should be ( 15 pts buy, 4 characters ).
Quite honestly, as of this moment you sound more like you are actively seeking reasons to not play Pathfinder, rather than coming at this with an open mind. If you think we are collectively unable of roleplaying, I'd invite you to peruse, say, some of the frequent alignment threads, where you will see a lot of discussion of the roleplaying aspects of the game.
Ok, 20pt buy PFS half elf with ancestral arms (nodachi).:Threatening defender, and blade of mercy.Str: 14 (+2, +2 @ 4 and 8)
Dex: 13
Con: 14
Int: 13
Wis: 12
Cha: 121) combat expt, skill focus: bluff*
2) ninja trick: pressure points*
3) imp feint
4) weapon trick (focus nodachi)*
5) power attack
6) whatever floats your boat*
7) furious focus
8) combat trick: Vital StrikeWhat I am buying is a mst wk nodachi (360 gp), and a wand of lead blades (750 gp)
To hit: 6 BaB + 4 str + 2 weapon focus and mst wk - 1 combat expt = 11 vs flat footed AC.
Dmg: 4d8 (20) + 4d6 (12) + 12 (str and power attack) +1 (blade of mercy) +1 str or dex = 45 avg dmg + str/ dex dmg, with a crit on 18 (math may be off a bit)
When can I do this? When I start off toe to toe, or when I move more than 5ft into flank position.
What did I spend? 1,110 gp
What do I expect? I expect you to do alot more dmg when you are able to line up a full attack that actually all hits against an opponent who is completely susceptible to flanking and SA.
What I don't expect? I don't expect you will get your full attack and have them all hit near as many times in as many situations that even allow you to SA to come close to my average dmg in an encounter/ ap.
Ok, first, you spent your point buy really strangely. Why bother with the 12s in Wis and Cha? And I guess this is a no wealth game? Because a masterwork weapon at 8th is a joke. No matter, I'm still confident.
Let's start by analyzing what you can do, and that requires some average numbers to fight against.
From doing a little research on "monsters by CR," the average monster's AC at CR 8 is 21--most are dead on that number. A small number have Flat-footed ACs in the 15 range, and others have 21 flat out (i.e. 0 AC from Dex), but the majority have about 18 Flatfooted AC.
When talking about Feint Defense, you also have to consider Base Attack, Wisdom mod, and/or Sense Motive bonus. While a small number of enemies had an 8 (Bodaks, Stag Beetles) total to resist, the average was about 13. That means, with your +12 Bluff (you don't get a free skill focus if you take Ancestral Arms), you need to beat a 23. That's only a 50% chance to succeed. And that's being generous and ignoring the -4/-8 penalty you get from the enemy inevitably not being humanoid or having animal intelligence.
Oh, and Blade of Mercy does not apply to Sneak Attacks. You cannot choose to deal nonlethal damage with a sneak attack unless the weapon only deals nonlethal.
"She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty."
Your average damage is 4d8 (18 average) + 6 (Strength) + 6 (Power Attack) + 1 (Blade of Mercy--I'll pretend non-lethal damage is always applicable) = 31 normally.
When you can Sneak Attack, you add 4d6 more (14 average) but you lose the +1 from Blade of Mercy, for 44 total.
On a crit, that's 6d8 (27 average) + 12 (Str) + 12 (PA) + 2 (BoM) = 53.
When you crit on a sneak attack, you're dealing 65 (the 14 SA doesn't multiply and you lose BoM).
On an unsuccessful feint, you crit .15 * .55 = 8.25% of the time. That makes your DPR (damage per round):
(.0825 * 53) + (.4675 * 31) = 18.865 dpr
If you successfully feint, then you're looking at a 10.5% crit rate, which makes your DPR:
(.105 * 65) + (.595 * 44) = 33 dpr
Unfortunately, you only Feint 50% of the time, so your actual average damage overall (assuming you try and feint every turn) is:
(.5 * 18.865) + (.5 * 33) = 25.9325
Now, the first thing I'll try is to take the exact same build you have, use the open trick on Vanishing Trick, not bother using Combat Expertise, and full attack.
Remember, you get a +2 to hit for being invisible, too, which puts my hit chance at 85%. I crit, then, 12.75% of the time.
Damage is 9 lower, from losing 2d8 from Vital Strike. That's 35 when Sneak attacking (56 on a crit), 22 when not (44 on a crit).
My total DPR for the first swing is:
(.1265 * 56) + (.7235 * 35) = 32.4065 dpr
The second swing hits regular AC (35% chance to hit) and so crits 5.25% of the time.
(.0525 * 44) + (.2975 * 22) = 8.855 dpr
All told that's 41.2615 dpr.
I could run the numbers when you're flanking, but I don't really see how two flanking attacks could possibly do worse than one with flanking. What it really comes down to is that Vital Strike with a Lead-Blades No-Dachi adds 9 damage and that's it. Not worth it.
And keep in mind this was a build to maximize the power of Vital Strike by taking very low attack stats and very, very low wealth to cut down on static damage mods. It was a valiant effort :)
Do you want me to bother moving stats and feats around and show you how much a better use of your build resources could turn out?
Blade of Mercy not working for nonlethal sneak attacks is news to me. I normally agree with you, mpl, but I think you're taking too harsh a definition of "normally" here.... If you have blade of mercy, your slashing weapon normally deals lethal or nonlethal, just as much as a weapon that can deal blungeoning OR piercing "normally" deals bludgeoning.
Do you think the Bludgeoner feat does not work with sneak attacks, either? I'm not sure how it's much different from the trait, other than blundgeoning instead of slashing, and not getting a +1 damage bonus.
Blade of Mercy not working for nonlethal sneak attacks is news to me. I normally agree with you, mpl, but I think you're taking too harsh a definition of "normally" here.... If you have blade of mercy, your slashing weapon normally deals lethal or nonlethal, just as much as a weapon that can deal blungeoning OR piercing "normally" deals bludgeoning.
Do you think the Bludgeoner feat does not work with sneak attacks, either? I'm not sure how it's much different from the trait, other than blundgeoning instead of slashing, and not getting a +1 damage bonus.
Blade of Mercy does not allow you to normally deal nonlethal, it only removes the penalty for dealing nonlethal.
"When striking to inflict nonlethal damage with any slashing weapon, you do not take the normal –4 penalty on your attack roll, and gain a +1 trait bonus to any nonlethal damage you inflict with a slashing weapon."
The Bludgeoner feat uses the same wording as Blade of Mercy:
"You take no penalty on attack rolls for using a lethal bludgeoning weapon to deal nonlethal damage."
However, it adds a Special line:
"Special: A rogue with this feat can use a lethal bludgeoning weapon to deal nonlethal damage with a sneak attack."
Without that special line, no, you could not deal sneak attack damage with it.
The thing that makes me sad about this thread is that after that reply of his that this is a minmaxer's game he has not been back, which to me points to him leaving the system in general.
It's not minmaxing to point out that Rogues are weak and need improvement.
Nobody said, "you are a bad person for playing a rogue." People only said they were mechanically weak (they are) and you should know that before you play one. Ideally, they'd fix rogues to be more powerful. That has not happened yet.
|
The thing that makes me sad about this thread is that after that reply of his that this is a minmaxer's game he has not been back, which to me points to him leaving the system in general.
This makes me sad too. If you're coming back to read this thread OP and can find the sense between the rogue build argument going on, take this bit of anecdotal evidence:
I'm currently running a campaign for three people with very limited RP experience. They decided to play Monk, Rogue, Sorcerer, and I'm currently filling out the party with a Druid NPC. They've had very little issue running against encounters of appropriate CR (except for when they split and got ambushed around a blind corner, but that was just dumb). Two MAD classes and no TPK yet.
As long as you're not playing PFS where you need to follow RAW for inter-table compatibility, you don't need to worry anywhere near as much about optimization vs. building for concept (and I've even heard a couple stories about helpful non-optimized PFS characters). I can't speak for the APs (haven't had a chance to play them yet), but if you're GMing or you have a decent GM, it's not hard to see where the party is at and make simple adjustments.
PF is a great replacement for 3.x. Plus, it's still in print and you can convert 3.x resources to PF. I've purchased 6 of the hardbound volumes (CRB, APG, UE, UC, UM, GMG) and I'm saving up to get the bestiaries. I also really enjoy having the PRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/) And the PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com) as information sources for when everybody at the table wants reference material, but can't afford the books.
Don't give up on PF from what you read on the forums. There are those of us out here that don't focus on that aspect of the game. (even though it is fun to make optimized builds from time to time. Helps give better insight into what the system is capable of.)
You are still not accounting for the frequency of getting off SA or full attack. I can do it even if I don't have a flank buddy, and if I need to move more than 10ft to get in flank, I still do my max dmg potential. Not using VS always wins if you get full itterative in the best possible flank. But that doesn't happen even 25% of the time. Use the math to factor in all the other variables that make up > 75% of all combat. Math in a vacuum without variables is no math at all.
I built this character cheap to show that it can be viable and cheaper than TWF. Given wbl I can hit almost every time. Lower iterations for a med BaB class fall off much more sharply from here out, and if you want to TWF, you are hurting even more.
I can't help but think that I still proved my case here, even though I do respect and appreciate your input.
You are still not accounting for the frequency of getting off SA or full attack.
Actually, I assumed no flanking. I assumed only Improved Feint vs. Vanishing Trick.
Then wouldnt vs still get more dmg when moving more than 10ft?
Then wouldnt vs still get more dmg when moving more than 10ft?
First, can we establish that the Improved Feint is kind of worthless at this point? Is that ok with you? So, now the issue is Vital Strike or no Vital Strike.
Vital Striking:
We know from above that you have a 55% chance to hit normally. Since moving 10' doesn't give you any benefit or make the enemy flatfooted or anything, it just adds Sneak Attack damage dice, your damage is going to be:
(.0825 * 65) + (.4675 * 44) = 25.9325
Note that this is actually exactly the same dpr as when you Feint.
I turn invisible with Vanishing Trick, then make a regular attack. This is the same as before without the second swing:
(.1265 * 56) + (.7235 * 35) = 32.4065 dpr
So, still better.
Now, you might be saying, "but I had something open, so couldn't I just Vital Strike after using Vanishing Trick?" And, well, yeah, you could. So let me show you how a couple of feat changes could improve your character significantly.
If you used Vanishing Trick just before your normal thing, you're looking at:
(.12 * 65) + (.68 * 44) = 37.72 dpr
That's pretty awesome, right? Of course, being a Scout was pointless, but that's ok.
Now, let's say instead of Improved Feint, you take Blind Fight and instead of Vital Strike, you take Moonlight Stalker. Oh, and if you like feinting, Moonlight Stalker Feint is so much better than Improved Feint, it's ridiculous.
That gives you +2 to hit and damage when you have concealment. Your normal hit then, would be 95% accurate, and your crit rate is 14.25%.
(.1425 * 60) + (.8075 * 37) = 38.4275 dpr
Even better!
Damn, I didn't even need to pull out a "it's better to make a ranged full attack than it is to move and then make one attack" card.
Really, though, Vital Strike needs to be buffed or removed, because now, it's just hurting people by making them think it's good when it's not.
To answer the OP: (avoiding the vital strike mess...seriously, that feat...what a mess...)
I simply don't allow Ninjas in the majority of my campaigns for the same reason that I ban monks, samurai, gunslingers, etc. They don't fit a medieval swords and sorcery style game. Having ninjas in a "standard" Pathfinder game would be like having an illiterate, technophobic, smashing stuff-prone barbarian in a steampunk game. Or a wizard in a Star Trek game. Or whatever.
As to balance, first you must fix the fact that the wizard makes the rogue redundant before you can get around to balancing rogue vs. ninja. To give you some examples:
Invisibility eliminates Stealth. Feather Fall, Levitate, and Fly eliminate Acrobatics. Knock hurts Disable Device. Fly + Invisibility destroys trapfinding. Detect Secret Doors hurts Perception. Comprehend Languages destroys Linguistics. Summon Monster I destroys trapfinding. Freedom of Movement destroys escape artist.
I could go on, but you probably get the point. Why be like Jack Sparrow or Robin Hood and make a risky, daring attempt to infiltrate the castle, when you could just cast fly, invisibility, and use a wand of knock, and completely eliminate the castle. Or maybe just use arcane eye and dimension door to pop right into the evil bad guy's lair, bypassing all his minions.
I personally would prefer to be Jack Sparrow, but then again, playing Jack Sparrow isn't optimized, is it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MaestroVolpe, allow me to give you some advice that is both completely off topic and somehow completely spot on. That advice is this:
If you judge a character in a single aspect of the game, you are never going to be happy. Ever.
99% of forum members will tell you how to optimize your PC's combat effectiveness. They'll give you hundred of pages of theorycrafting, fill spreadsheets with numbers and statistics, and write hundreds of GoogleDocs on exactly what everyone should do in order to make the most effective character they possibly can.
And in my experience, 99% of that advice will fall flat on its face when you realize that you're up for a Stealth mission. Or a diplomatic mission. Or any similar situation. The guides will tell you that Profession checks are terrible to invest in, but then you're the one frowning when everyone else in your party is raking in gold from Day Job checks. The guides will tell you that Charisma is your dump stat, but then you find yourself completely unable to help in any sort of social situation; you can't order a pint to drink without offending the bartender and getting your party thrown out of the bar. And when you dump that Intelligence score, boy will you feel sad when you're watching the rogue or bard do somersaults across a minefield and then you take one step into it and explode.
Ultimately, what I'm trying to say is that its more important to A) pick a character theme that you like and B) try to design a character who fits that theme as closely as possible. If that means go Ninja, then do it. I just got a Ninja cohort myself and its an excellent class to play. At the same time, I've seen rogues excel too; I have a player who swears by the rogue class as a matter of fact. The strength of the skill-based class is, in my opinion, that you're really only limited by what you can imagine your character doing with those skills. If you aren't a creative problem solver, you might struggle with the rogue or ninja. If you are though, you're going to have a blast.
Gosh, I want to just agree with you, but I can't. Vanish is great, but limited/day and foiled by see invis. And I like imp feint. I wish rogues got it for free, but it is what it is. I have a ninjadin with this set up who uses imp feint, vs, smite, and SA to pretty devastating effect. She only uses vanish when she can't move into a flank position. Saves on ki, and gives me that many more tools. It is a super effective build, so I have to say that vs may be situational, but it IS usefull.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As to balance, first you must fix the fact that the wizard makes the rogue redundant before you can get around to balancing rogue vs. ninja. To give you some examples:
Personally, I would rather my wizard prepare spells or spend gold on spell trigger items that another class couldn't do all day long; for example, why waste a spell on knock when you know the party rogue is pretty darn good at Disable Device? Comprehend languages is hardly a replacement for Linguistics; after all, you can't speak any language unless you waste a 2nd level spell slot on tongues in addition to comprehend languages, plus you can't expect the wizard to have those spells active on every party member all the time; even if you somehow could afford that, now your "skills" are at the mercy of things like antimagic field and dispel magic. Personally, I'd take the rogue and ask the wizard to do things like banishment or sleet storm or baleful polymorph; amazing pieces of utility that can't be replicated with ease by a non-spellcaster.
Or as Haley Starshine shows in Order of the Stick, why keep the amazing skill buffs to the character who isn't very good at that skill in the first place? Why not make the rogue invisible, or give them detect magic or, gosh, detect secret doors? Instead of one character becoming proficient at something, now you've used your magic to turn someone who was already good into a god.
As I mentioned above, Pathfinder is a team sport. Pass the buffs to the people who will go from "pretty likely," to "why am I even rolling this?" on their skill checks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues can actually take a ninja's ki pool and an unlimited number of non-advanced ninja tricks as rogue talents.Pretty sure rogues can only take any rogue talent, including "ninja trick", only once.
Or are you talking about something else?
You are mistaken on both accounts. "Ki Pool" is not a Ninja Trick; it is a Rogue Talent, so it does not count against the number of Ninja Tricks you can take. Also, a rogue can select as many Ninja Tricks as he (or she) wishes in place of Rogue Talents. The Ninja may do the same. The only real different between them is that some talents are more appropriate for the alternate class, which is why they have a different name. In addition, it is easier for a Ninja to gain the Ki expending talents because she gets her Ki Pool for free, and its better in all ways than the Rogue's Ki Pool talent.
if i had to choose between a rogue, ninja, or bard. i'd rather have the bard.
my reasons for a bard.
the 3 big group buffs, inspire courage, good hope, and haste, are all features the bard can reliably access and even the combination of haste and inspire courage in the same round is bound to outdamage sneak attack.
the skills don't start too far behind and eventually grow higher
the good will save progression makes wis dumping more affordable and allows a better distribution of damage dealing and skill capacity
spells like blur and mirror image make constitution less neccessary
bards can access a variety of utilitarian spells without blowing large amounts of money
bards have access to battlefield control
lack of the sneak attack trap opens up the ability to focus on archery without the drawback of a gimped range
trapfinding isn't the only way to beat magical traps, a wand of mount can do the job as well in most cases.