Ladies and Gentlemen: It's time we made the rogue work.


Advice

1,351 to 1,400 of 2,211 << first < prev | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | next > last >>

There's been several successful dex builds posted in here already. Why is this still being contested. Get a +1 Agile weapon with a good crit range. Buy a bow, take the bandit archetype and boost your initiative so you get a full attack in the surprise round and the first standard round. That's two full attacks with sneak attack on everything within 30ft. Take the sap adept and master feats and deal ridiculous non lethal damage. Dazzling display and shatter defenses. Don't want to burn the full round to use dazzling display, take power attack and Cornugun smash. Buy a smoke stick and use the 10 foot cube of smoke as a means to get cover for stealthing. Be creative. Stop complaining.


There were three components to the viability of the rogue in 3.5.

There was the ring of blinking for high level play. There was the ability to apply precision damage to splash weapon attacks against touch AC. There were a whole load of PrCs people went into from rogue that were better than rogue.

Right, you get it? A 3.5 rogue could sneak attack 4 people with one alchemist's fire because the precision damage exclusion on splash weapons is new.

And at that a 3.5 rogue might only have one rogue level. Go search for 3.5 rogue builds. They often involve very few actual rogue levels. Instead they're built around prestige classes with rogue featurers that are vastly better than rogue. In 3.5 all a non-casting base class had to do to be acceptable was be able to qualify for powerful prestige classes. In Pathfinder they have to stand on their own because there aren't any good prestige classes.


Khrysaor wrote:
There's been several successful dex builds posted in here already. Why is this still being contested. Get a +1 Agile weapon with a good crit range. Buy a bow, take the bandit archetype and boost your initiative so you get a full attack in the surprise round and the first standard round. That's two full attacks with sneak attack on everything within 30ft. Take the sap adept and master feats and deal ridiculous non lethal damage. Dazzling display and shatter defenses. Don't want to burn the full round to use dazzling display, take power attack and Cornugun smash. Buy a smoke stick and use the 10 foot cube of smoke as a means to get cover for stealthing. Be creative. Stop complaining.

As far as the bandit archetype goes, was there a faq on that? I've heard arguments from both sides, with people contending the RAI, and RAW. Some GM might allow full attacks, others, not so much.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Werebat et al: Your persecution complex notwithstanding, nobody is explicitly dodging your question about Blink. Yes, Blink to Sneak Attack in the days of yore certainly did offer rogues an additional option which could be easily capitalized upon. The rogues in this system however existed alongside a bevvy of other, substantially flawed, martial classes. Pathfinder has tried to equalize martial/caster disparities, to a commendable effect, but unfortunately while classes like the Monk, Fighter, and Barbarian have received a host of useful new toys, the Rogue has been left considerably behind the new power curve. At this point, for both you and for any future rogue apologists or naysayers still confused about the purpose of this thread, please reread the old pages. As it stands we're debating back and forth on several issues.

1) Whether the rogue can achieve DPS comparable to other martial classes, with the precise metric additionally sliding from Fighter to ranger, from Inquisitor to Bard.

2) Whether or not the rogue can fill some essential out of combat role which can ameliorate its generally poor combat performance. Again, suggestions range from versatile skill monkeys to super-stealth scouts, to jacks-of-all-trades.

3)(and perhaps most importantly) Whether or not these two concepts can be married into a build which reaches effective compromises on both without sacrificing vital survivability and/or skills. Yes, the rogue is mechanically weak, as compared to the other pathfinder classes (which is, I would humbly suggest why other basic optimization threads don't run as long nor generate such impassioned or diverse and creative responses) There are quite a few builds in the past 1000+ posts highlighting the strengths and shortcomings of Pathfinder Rogues in a variety of circumstances and hypothetical roles. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that we all are continuing this discussion simply because we either believe the rogue is viable in its role (whatever that may be) or that we want to believe same. I certainly would not dare speak for the rest of the participants in this thread, but I would nevertheless confidently postulate that both the smug certainty that there are obvious home rules (or previous) fixes and/or that we've forgotten fundamental rules, such as flanking = good or that ninjas exist, is offensive to everyone in this thread who has contributed builds or even offered yardsticks for a mediocre class with aspirations of awesomeness.

If you can't be bothered to read the above: 1) Do so. 2)/B/Whatever: We aren't talking about PF changes or old roles; we're talking about what makes PF rogues unique and useful to a party. A lot of complicated math has been done in the early stages suggesting that rogues can't casually compete with the standard skirmishers and melee combatants of Pathfinder rules. If you can't contribute builds, concepts, valid benchmarks, or non ninja classes/archetypes/whatevers-helps-you-sleep-at-night,you're probably not needed to further this thread.

We thank you for keeping us grounded in plausibility (because we won't always fight humanoids/ the gravity-constrained/ the flankable, or the ambush-able) but reasonable optimization means we can secure those roles in our party, and from there we can make general assertions. So consider this a heartfelt plea from a rogue aficionado to stop the ninja builds and the rogue-is-perfectly-balanced ideology. But if a thread has run this long, pretend Occam's Razor must suggest we've weighed the obvious fixes and kept going for something more satisfying, yeah?

Cheers,
Shaman Bond


Sub_Zero wrote:
As far as the bandit archetype goes, was there a faq on that? I've heard arguments from both sides, with people contending the RAI, and RAW. Some GM might allow full attacks, others, not so much.

Generally adding actions together does not make a full-attack, but the ability states that the bandit no longer has the limitation of just a move or standard action in the surprise round. But for that to be justification you have to assume that the surprise round is like a normal round with a restriction on actions. But the additional flat-footed mechanics would suggest otherwise.

To conclude, someone should have been arsed to add a line clarifying whether or not you can full-attack. I would lean on the side of yes you can full attack.

Now you still give up scout, which means the rogue is back to having no viable ranges options in exchange for situational surprise round damage.


Marthkus wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
As far as the bandit archetype goes, was there a faq on that? I've heard arguments from both sides, with people contending the RAI, and RAW. Some GM might allow full attacks, others, not so much.

Generally adding actions together does not make a full-attack, but the ability states that the bandit no longer has the limitation of just a move or standard action in the surprise round. But for that to be justification you have to assume that the surprise round is like a normal round with a restriction on actions. But the additional flat-footed mechanics would suggest otherwise.

To conclude, someone should have been arsed to add a line clarifying whether or not you can full-attack. I would lean on the side of yes you can full attack.

Now you still give up scout, which means the rogue is back to having no viable ranges options in exchange for situational surprise round damage.

I completely agree. I just wanted to make it clear, that this issue is most likely muddled in a weird state. Some will say that the move + standard = full attack, and others will say that it doesn't explicitly grant the right to sneak attack. Either way were left on unsure footing for this to work. If it did, sign my dashing archer up to be a bandit and call him robin hood.


Oh can anyone make a Carnivalist build? If that can be viable at all it sounds like great fun. (Give yourself a flanking buddy, AND replace rogue talents, AND actually justify charisma rogue!)

Oh you can combine it with scout too. Hmmmmmm


Scout provides sneak attack on a charge and later after moving 10 feet. Either way it's one attack a round. Throw a smoke stick on the ground. Move action to pass behind it or through it, activate stealth, shoot enemy. Scout is not as good as you claim it is.


Khrysaor wrote:
Scout provides sneak attack on a charge and later after moving 10 feet. Either way it's one attack a round. Throw a smoke stick on the ground. Move action to pass behind it or through it, activate stealth, shoot enemy. Scout is not as good as you claim it is.

Scout is excellent... if you dig through this very thread you will see a ton of builds that make liberal use of it. Firstly, it allows the easiest possible activation of Sap Master, which is a big deal. Secondly, it is the most predictable way of getting sneak attack.

The other real truth is that most other options for getting sneak attack have the same sorts of limitations. You move to flank, you spend a move action to feint, you snipe, or you pop out of stealth.... any of those options give you exactly 1 sneak attack, and none of them are as dependable as Scout.

Stealth and a smoke-stick can work, but you have to spend an action planting the smoke-stick. You still have a check to deal with. Probably most importantly, you are blocking the vision of your allies. If you are behind the smoke stick, say goodbye to your sneak attack because they have concealment too (until level 11/12 when you can afford a headband of ninjitsu). If you are in the smoke cloud, same problem. And of course this still requires a stealth check that is opposed. OH and an acrobatics check for moving while you can't see.

So scout is just better... and easier. It isn't the only way to play, two-weapon feint can work... intimidate/shatter defenses builds don't explicitly need Scout. But it is the most dependable sneak attack enabler available.


Lord_Malkov wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Scout provides sneak attack on a charge and later after moving 10 feet. Either way it's one attack a round. Throw a smoke stick on the ground. Move action to pass behind it or through it, activate stealth, shoot enemy. Scout is not as good as you claim it is.

Scout is excellent... if you dig through this very thread you will see a ton of builds that make liberal use of it. Firstly, it allows the easiest possible activation of Sap Master, which is a big deal. Secondly, it is the most predictable way of getting sneak attack.

The other real truth is that most other options for getting sneak attack have the same sorts of limitations. You move to flank, you spend a move action to feint, you snipe, or you pop out of stealth.... any of those options give you exactly 1 sneak attack, and none of them are as dependable as Scout.

Stealth and a smoke-stick can work, but you have to spend an action planting the smoke-stick. You still have a check to deal with. Probably most importantly, you are blocking the vision of your allies. If you are behind the smoke stick, say goodbye to your sneak attack because they have concealment too (until level 11/12 when you can afford a headband of ninjitsu). If you are in the smoke cloud, same problem. And of course this still requires a stealth check that is opposed. OH and an acrobatics check for moving while you can't see.

So scout is just better... and easier. It isn't the only way to play, two-weapon feint can work... intimidate/shatter defenses builds don't explicitly need Scout. But it is the most dependable sneak attack enabler available.

I never said it was bad. I said it's not as good as everyone claims. I even used it in a build I used. It is the easiest way to enable sneak attack. That doesn't make it the prerequisite everyone claims it is.

Smoke sticks make 10 ft cube of smoke. Make a DC 15 jump check and go. It's not hard. Don't be dumb and block your team. Walk into it 5 feet, stealth, walk out. Do not move full speed and avoid the acrobatics. The check is DC 10. Also not hard should you move full speed. Even a creature with a 20 ft base move can do this.


Smoke Sticks need to be lit on fire in order to do anything. They're actually a huge pain in the ass.

I had a few on my Batman Inquisitor and I never got the chance to actually use the damn things.

Of course at this point we're comparing a silly alchemical item to an 8th level ability. Just get Greater Invis somehow and quit screwing around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:

Oh can anyone make a Carnivalist build? If that can be viable at all it sounds like great fun. (Give yourself a flanking buddy, AND replace rogue talents, AND actually justify charisma rogue!)

Oh you can combine it with scout too. Hmmmmmm

I'm not positive, but I think all the familiars are tiny.

Tiny creatures don't threaten like small or larger creatures so they make pretty lousy flank buddies.

Edit: I'm full of crap, there are a couple small options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
As far as the bandit archetype goes, was there a faq on that? I've heard arguments from both sides, with people contending the RAI, and RAW. Some GM might allow full attacks, others, not so much.

Generally adding actions together does not make a full-attack, but the ability states that the bandit no longer has the limitation of just a move or standard action in the surprise round. But for that to be justification you have to assume that the surprise round is like a normal round with a restriction on actions. But the additional flat-footed mechanics would suggest otherwise.

To conclude, someone should have been arsed to add a line clarifying whether or not you can full-attack. I would lean on the side of yes you can full attack.

Now you still give up scout, which means the rogue is back to having no viable ranges options in exchange for situational surprise round damage.

Just want to point out that you can, in fact, use Shatter Defenses with ranged weapons.

If you grab Performing Combatant and Hero's Display, and play a small character, you can get a swift action Dazzling Display any time you crit or max out your damage die (only a d4 on a small shortbow). You need to be in 30ft for sneak attack anyway, so this is not a big deal.

To add to that, you can use sap master feats with a bow by using blunt arrows. So there is at least that option.


Lord_Malkov wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
As far as the bandit archetype goes, was there a faq on that? I've heard arguments from both sides, with people contending the RAI, and RAW. Some GM might allow full attacks, others, not so much.

Generally adding actions together does not make a full-attack, but the ability states that the bandit no longer has the limitation of just a move or standard action in the surprise round. But for that to be justification you have to assume that the surprise round is like a normal round with a restriction on actions. But the additional flat-footed mechanics would suggest otherwise.

To conclude, someone should have been arsed to add a line clarifying whether or not you can full-attack. I would lean on the side of yes you can full attack.

Now you still give up scout, which means the rogue is back to having no viable ranges options in exchange for situational surprise round damage.

Just want to point out that you can, in fact, use Shatter Defenses with ranged weapons.

If you grab Performing Combatant and Hero's Display, and play a small character, you can get a swift action Dazzling Display any time you crit or max out your damage die (only a d4 on a small shortbow). You need to be in 30ft for sneak attack anyway, so this is not a big deal.

To add to that, you can use sap master feats with a bow by using blunt arrows. So there is at least that option.

Now we just need some sort of shuriken launcher.


ChainsawSam wrote:

Smoke Sticks need to be lit on fire in order to do anything. They're actually a huge pain in the ass.

I had a few on my Batman Inquisitor and I never got the chance to actually use the damn things.

Of course at this point we're comparing a silly alchemical item to an 8th level ability. Just get Greater Invis somehow and quit screwing around.

The point is viability until you can afford things to get greater invisibility. Smoke sticks are cheap and last long enough for a single combat.

Most people are complaining because of the difficulty of getting sneak attack.

Wand of grease + UMD
Stealth through cover, spells, alchemical items.
Flanking
Gang up and you don't need to flank
Scout archetype
High initiative and go before others can go so they're flat footed
Feint along withe the moonlight stalker line to feint as a swift action
Having allies conscious of your skills and willing to work with you like every party should

This list goes on and on.


Lord_Malkov wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
As far as the bandit archetype goes, was there a faq on that? I've heard arguments from both sides, with people contending the RAI, and RAW. Some GM might allow full attacks, others, not so much.

Generally adding actions together does not make a full-attack, but the ability states that the bandit no longer has the limitation of just a move or standard action in the surprise round. But for that to be justification you have to assume that the surprise round is like a normal round with a restriction on actions. But the additional flat-footed mechanics would suggest otherwise.

To conclude, someone should have been arsed to add a line clarifying whether or not you can full-attack. I would lean on the side of yes you can full attack.

Now you still give up scout, which means the rogue is back to having no viable ranges options in exchange for situational surprise round damage.

Just want to point out that you can, in fact, use Shatter Defenses with ranged weapons.

If you grab Performing Combatant and Hero's Display, and play a small character, you can get a swift action Dazzling Display any time you crit or max out your damage die (only a d4 on a small shortbow). You need to be in 30ft for sneak attack anyway, so this is not a big deal.

To add to that, you can use sap master feats with a bow by using blunt arrows. So there is at least that option.

i know, in fact I have a dashing archer build 1 page back that takes advantage of this very fact. If the bandit archetype actually does give full attacks it makes the build even better. (and people thought I was only here to hate on the rogue :P)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Big post incoming so here we go.

Regarding Ninja is a Rogue

Don't care. I expressly said that's not what we're here to talk about. It's got it's own statblock, it's own iconics, it's own set of class features, it's a very different class from the rogue in many different ways. The line about the class being an advanced archetype was trying to explain alternate classes in general to a community who felt they were unnecessary from the start. Even based on this technicality enough people treat it as its own entity that it's essentially not worth talking about in terms of working on the rogue. The game supports this view even by including npc's that have levels in "Ninja" not "Rogue(Ninja)" or "Ninja Rogue" just "Ninja".

Simply put, I, and many many others it seems, don't share this view that the ninja is a rogue archetype and thus valid for discussion. It's annoying actually given the anger surrounding the ninja for being better than a rogue to suggest to those working on the rogue to work on ninjas instead. So all in all I'm not going to waste anymore time on this sophistry and RAWgic. Subject dropped.

Regarding "Goalposts"

There are none. They can't move because they do not exist. If such existed there'd be more than worth counting. We have PFS to consider, home games to consider, pure RAW to consider. We've settled for a middle ground where we acknowledge common houserules (leadership is banned in most games and consequently in PFS as well) I've even asked people that if they post a build they're using to include any relevant houserules their game uses to give us a firm grasp on how their rogue functions. My only real goal in this thread to see if it was at all possible to build a rogue that can entirely overcome it weaknesses without fear of being replaced by the friendly neighborhood bard.

The only goal you should honestly worry about is your own. If you're here you either wish to find help with your rogue, want to help others with their rogues, or have something to prove and thus bring your rogue to prove it. I stated early on my above goal may be impossible and I'm okay with that for in the trying we better our optimization and work towards a better rogue.

Regarding "Baselines"

I stated early on I was not interested in comparisons with wizards or fighters or summoners or the like. When we talk about general skillmonkey, harasser/harrier, hammer roles we talk about rogues and their 3/4 bab brethren in the alchemist, inquisitor, investigator, and bard. I even provided a single build of archaeologist bard that's fairly unoptimized as a start.

But if you want a baseline you should probably just provide your own. There's a wealth of information, builds, and quite literally everything you can imagine. Maybe compare your rogue to an iconic, maybe compare him to one of Ravingdork's umpteen billion builds in his thread. The point in all this is that you yourself can provide the baseline for your rogue. Or don't.

Regarding unpleasantness

Some of you sound really douchey. Seriously, "QQ"? "Circlejerk"? What part of that is a civil discussion about rogues? What part of that is helpful? When would any of that be acceptable in polite company? In fact if this is your response to criticism why should you be taken seriously?

These are all rhetorical of course, because the point is that attitude was unwelcome from the start. If you have a personal problem with another poster take it to the PM's or better yet just not post. And in turn please don't respond to these people. Thank you.

Regarding silliness.

Here are some things that have been said in this thread repeatedly that really need to go away.

"The problem isn't the rogue it's the game." - Sorry, but if you take your pinto to a bmx rally the problem isn't the bmx bikers for not including you in their fun. GM's should adjust the game so you can have fun but their is a point where if it becomes easier for you to change classes than for the gm to adjust literally every encounter so you can feel good about yourself than the problem is not the game.

"People are just playing it wrong" - In some cases I'd have to agree. But there are some rather blanketing statements like this that are really just pretentious sounding. Someone can play a rogue absolutely perfectly and still be easily overshadowed or completely negated by the silliest of situations.

"People are only here to complain" - Yes, yes they are. I've observed that certain people are only here to complain....about the people who don't think the rogue is up to par with his peers. Which is ironic given that the people who "hate" the rogue have been the same people who have contributed it's best options. It's almost as if they actually like the rogue but are disappointed it does not meet their expectations.

Regarding an Observation: Over the course of, what, thirty pages? I've noticed an odd trend. Those who believe the rogue is fine and balanced seem to have contributed less in terms of tips and numbers than those who don't, or those who don't but enjoy them anyway. One would think that the opposite would occur. It makes one wonder about who actually cares about the class.

Maybe I'm wrong but that's just what it seems like to me.

Regarding what a Rogue is.

I think the general consensus about the rogue is that he is a character that's part charmer part thug. A charming kid with a shiv who will happily rob your house as take you on a date (and steal your wallet). He's in the group because the rest of the guys are fairly conventional and an unconventional thinker is damn handy in an unpredicatable adventuring environment. He has a number of skills they generally don't have and fights dirty enough to fend for himself.

Mechanically speaking it's difficult to pin down this concept effectively, because the rogue has more or less been dissected into other classes. Lot's of classes have access to his talents, at least three classes otehr than the rogue get sneak attack, nearly everyone can get trapfinding and trap sense, uncanny dodge is pretty common. In truth the trouble with the rogue is that not only are his peers doing his job better they're stealing all his class features too. Given the existence of the slayer adn the investigator it becomes exceedingly difficult to mechanically justify the rogue's existence outside of a sense of nostalgia, self challenge, or just a stubborn inability to notice the discrepancies.

Regarding the future.

I would like to kindly ask a mod to close this thread. Not so much because some of it has gotten out of hand but because it has become so large people no longer bother to read the whole thing before making a post. It's clumsy and difficult to reference and makes it hard to not retread ground already covered. So, it's time to put the old bird down.

With this in mind I will open up a new either before or after christmas. I'm adding a couple of things to this new version.

First I'll be going into google drive and making a document wiht links to other documents with material contributed by posters on this board.

HOWEVER I do not wish to do this alone. I already have guides I did myself and I already have a ton on my plate (RPG superstar, participating in another contest, plus I really have to get back to freelancing in general because tactics articles and threads like this do not feed my daughter) So after this initial consolidation of Info I'll be accepting people to share the doc with so that they can add info onto their own pages or edit the main doc to add links to other docs on the main one.

In this way we allow the next thread to expand in a more organized and easy to reference fashion. If you are interested in such a thing please send me a PM.

And a warm thanks

And a sincere thank you to everyone who contributed whether it was honest criticism, some actual builds, advice, or pointing out talents and magic items previously ignored. I've certainly learned a couple of thigns in this thread and no doubt others have as well. I think for a 30 page thread the overall feeling is positive and those endeavoring to address the critics rather than the criticism are few. I'd like to think that these 30 pages have done more to improve the rogue than several hundred pages of pointless bickering about how they stand in terms of balance. But, it's only a start.

So there we go. If a mod would kindly close this I can scoop things into a bucket and start a new more easily managed cooperative thread.


it's not that rogues are useless, it's that they are the class with the second lowest contribution, only exceeded in weakness by the monk.

while the rogue and monk both have poor combat ability outside of a few unique and specialized builds or archetypes designed to fix the issue. at least the rogue can make skill checks and pretend to contribute something useful. the monk doesn't even have that, just a flurry of misses.

yes, rogues attacks miss a lot too. just as often as a monk misses, but at least a rogue can make skill checks to pretend to be useful. neither class has a means to reliably boost their attack bonus, and a defensively oriented monk, has the downside of lowering their ability to contribute by means of becoming a stone wall with no offense that is easy to ignore.

rogues at least have the scout/sap master build to deal decent damage if they are strength based. gaining accuracy by ignoring a portion of enemy AC. all they need to do is move 10 feet and inflict nonlethal bludgeoning damage with a strength based power attack. it won't drop a foe, but it will irk them quite badly. though irk doesn't translate to wound, merely annoy or frustrate.

monks are stuck with their flurry of misses, and a Zen Archer's flurry, is still a flurry of misses, it's just a flurry of ranged misses instead.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

it's not that rogues are useless, it's that they are the class with the second lowest contribution, only exceeded in weakness by the monk.

while the rogue and monk both have poor combat ability outside of a few unique and specialized builds or archetypes designed to fix the issue. at least the rogue can make skill checks and pretend to contribute something useful. the monk doesn't even have that, just a flurry of misses.

yes, rogues attacks miss a lot too. just as often as a monk misses, but at least a rogue can make skill checks to pretend to be useful. neither class has a means to reliably boost their attack bonus, and a defensively oriented monk, has the downside of lowering their ability to contribute by means of becoming a stone wall with no offense that is easy to ignore.

rogues at least have the scout/sap master build to deal decent damage if they are strength based. gaining accuracy by ignoring a portion of enemy AC. all they need to do is move 10 feet and inflict nonlethal bludgeoning damage with a strength based power attack. it won't drop a foe, but it will irk them quite badly. though irk doesn't translate to wound, merely annoy or frustrate.

monks are stuck with their flurry of misses, and a Zen Archer's flurry, is still a flurry of misses, it's just a flurry of ranged misses instead.

While I can agree with most of what you said, I still think a rogue should have no problem hitting a target. If you missed too much, maybe you are not picking the right target at the right time, or just pure bad luck. Same goes for monk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

in my history of playing rogues and monks. i pretty much depended on a flanking buddy and an ally to provide inspire courage if i wanted a chance to hit anything level appropriate past level 8.

haste, good hope, herosim, prayer, bless, greater herosim, heroes feast, and the various summons all affect attack bonuses in a pretty positive way before we open 3.5 material

but the only 3 classes i can think of that offer inspire courage are

the bard, where it is a baseline ability

the cleric, where it can be gained with the evangelist archetype

and the monk, where it can be gained with the sensei archetype

rogues and monks aren't that bad off at levels 6 and below, but once they reach 9 and up, is when accuracy issues really tend to hurt.


Update to my post on page 22.

2nd night of playing my re-introduced 11th level rogue.

In the Gray Wastes, our party was attacked by 3 leukodaemons (and an additional one that was summoned in).

My rogue is officially a support rogue in this environment. Without flying ability (and none of the other party members buffing him to do so), he got in 2 total attacks against the, mostly, flying daemons over ~8 rounds of combat. First attack was with a dart...I intended to just be "funny" and distract the daemon I attacked as really, a dart? But I scored a crit and luckily happened to get sneak attack in the situation so even after damage reduction I did 20+ points of damage. After several rounds of maneuvering and positioning, I acrobatic-tumbled into flanking another one of them with the monk. She hit it then I hit it and dealt the killing blow with ~30 damage.

But the majority of the combat my rogue just spent his round comedically mimicking the monk's standing jumps to reach the low-flying daemons with his running jumps.

Essentially he's "role-play morale support" while the bard was attack/damage support with his singing and his cohort was ranged damage support with her pistol and the wizard was one shot with a lucky-to-make-both-range-touch-attack-and-spell-resistance-and-failed-daemo n-Fort-save disintegrate while being wand of shield support and the monk was melee damage support while the paladin was primary melee damage (has a magic item that gives him flight) and the sorcerer was primary ranged damage.

Save for the one lucky ranged sneak attack my rogue was out of options for the majority of the combat as the daemons were largely flying higher than 30 ft. and using their bows or magic. The only thing that would have allowed my rogue to be effective would be flying (spell, boots of flying, etc.). With a main weapon +16 to hit and a non-magical ranged base of +14, against a 23 AC, attacking was always a better-than 50% chance.

Any suggestions as to what would have made my rogue a more effective combatant (other that the already mentioned flying ability)?


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

it's not that rogues are useless, it's that they are the class with the second lowest contribution, only exceeded in weakness by the monk.

while the rogue and monk both have poor combat ability outside of a few unique and specialized builds or archetypes designed to fix the issue. at least the rogue can make skill checks and pretend to contribute something useful. the monk doesn't even have that, just a flurry of misses.

yes, rogues attacks miss a lot too. just as often as a monk misses, but at least a rogue can make skill checks to pretend to be useful. neither class has a means to reliably boost their attack bonus, and a defensively oriented monk, has the downside of lowering their ability to contribute by means of becoming a stone wall with no offense that is easy to ignore.

rogues at least have the scout/sap master build to deal decent damage if they are strength based. gaining accuracy by ignoring a portion of enemy AC. all they need to do is move 10 feet and inflict nonlethal bludgeoning damage with a strength based power attack. it won't drop a foe, but it will irk them quite badly. though irk doesn't translate to wound, merely annoy or frustrate.

monks are stuck with their flurry of misses, and a Zen Archer's flurry, is still a flurry of misses, it's just a flurry of ranged misses instead.

If that is your interpretation of the monk, you are building them HORRIBLY wrong. However let's not drift this place even further off topic than it already has been.

P.S. No comments on my Rogue Build some odd posts back?
A possible 174 average damage a turn is not bad. It also is just a base Rogue, no archtype, no multi class just like people were mentioning.


Whisperknives wrote:

P.S. No comments on my Rogue Build some odd posts back?

A possible 174 average damage a turn is not bad. It also is just a base Rogue, no archtype, no multi class just like people were mentioning.

Just looked it over. Looks good, but I'm not understanding 2 things:

1. How'd the character get Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat without Two-Weapon Fighting feat?

2. How does the character reload both hand crossbows? I get the once-both-are-loaded gain the full attack with both weapons...but then, even with Rapid Reload, "...there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for [a] free [action], as decided by the GM." So I don't see rapidly reloading two crossbows when you need a free hand to do so for one (even if only 2 free actions) as being reasonable. If your GM allows, cool, but I personally wouldn't. I'd step up rapid reloading two crossbows in one round as a move action if I were GM. I'm assuming the listed gear of "Necklace of the Mage" is the "HAND OF THE MAGE" neck item found in Ultimate Combat. But "It allows the wearer to utilize the spell mage hand at will." and "Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, unless the use involves performing an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself. If the use of the item takes time before a magical effect occurs, then use activation is a standard action. If the item's activation is subsumed in its use and takes no extra time use, activation is not an action at all."

Given that mage hand requires concentration and a standard action casting time I'd say this doesn't help to do things faster. I may be wrong, but as far as I can reason, it's a standard action to use the necklace for its effect which negates attacking, rapid reloading, etc.

And a clarification, the Rapid Shot feat allows 1 extra attack with a full round action at highest attack and all attacks that round suffer a -2 penalty.

So attacks should be (with +6/+1 9th lvl rogue, +6 Dex, +1 magic, -2 light Two-Weapon, -2 Rapid Shot, +1 Point Blank Shot (within 30 ft. so as to get sneak attack): Main Hand +10/+10/+5, Off Hand +10/+5

But again, as a DM, I would not allow the rapid reloading of two crossbows (hand or otherwise) to make such a full round attack even if both were loaded at the start of the characters round (in which case I would allow a Main hand +10/+10/+5 and Off Hand +10 if after the first off hand shot that crossbow was dropped to allow a free hand to reload the main crossbow) and with the use of the necklace.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
it's not that rogues are useless, it's that they are the class with the second lowest contribution, only exceeded in weakness by the monk.

No. I've played both monks and rogues. The monk was hands down easier to play and some cases even a better skill monkey (stealth + acrobatics + additional move speed). And that was all with a core monk. When I'm playing my rogue, I remember fondly of my days as a monk where everything was just so much easier.

Now the monk does have some issues: They need strength, but wear no armor. Meaning low level AC suffers. No bonuses to-hit makes power attack a poor option. Move+attack is worse than most. Enemy CMDs are impossible by mid levels.

Now my issues with the rogue: My core mechanic is situational and works poorly in dungeons where my skills are needed the most. My range combat is awful, even with "snipping goggles" my awful ranged combat extends beyond 30ft. The inquisitor keeps making fun of me.


Fizzygoo wrote:

Update to my post on page 22.

2nd night of playing my re-introduced 11th level rogue.

In the Gray Wastes, our party was attacked by 3 leukodaemons (and an additional one that was summoned in).

My rogue is officially a support rogue in this environment. Without flying ability (and none of the other party members buffing him to do so), he got in 2 total attacks against the, mostly, flying daemons over ~8 rounds of combat. First attack was with a dart...I intended to just be "funny" and distract the daemon I attacked as really, a dart? But I scored a crit and luckily happened to get sneak attack in the situation so even after damage reduction I did 20+ points of damage. After several rounds of maneuvering and positioning, I acrobatic-tumbled into flanking another one of them with the monk. She hit it then I hit it and dealt the killing blow with ~30 damage.

But the majority of the combat my rogue just spent his round comedically mimicking the monk's standing jumps to reach the low-flying daemons with his running jumps.

Essentially he's "role-play morale support" while the bard was attack/damage support with his singing and his cohort was ranged damage support with her pistol and the wizard was one shot with a lucky-to-make-both-range-touch-attack-and-spell-resistance-and-failed-daemo n-Fort-save disintegrate while being wand of shield support and the monk was melee damage support while the paladin was primary melee damage (has a magic item that gives him flight) and the sorcerer was primary ranged damage.

Save for the one lucky ranged sneak attack my rogue was out of options for the majority of the combat as the daemons were largely flying higher than 30 ft. and using their bows or magic. The only thing that would have allowed my rogue to be effective would be flying (spell, boots of flying,...

What kind of terrain were you in? Taking some kind of cover could force them to land to continue attacking. Aid another actions to help other characters hit. Maybe holding your action until someone casts and shoot at them with a bow to break their concentration?

Digital Products Assistant

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts and the replies quoting them. Telling others in the conversation to "QQ" doesn't help. Leave personal insults out of the conversation, please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
1300 posts and no designed-by-committee criticism-proof Rogue class that puts everything else to shame? Gentlemen and Ladies, I ar disappoint.

Such is the nature of the paizo boards

Though I did state such an ideal might be impossible to achieve.

I've got the document started now. I want to reiterate that once it's up I'm keeping my hands off of it. So anyone who wishes to contribute and maintain it should send me a PM.


krevon wrote:
What kind of terrain were you in? Taking some kind of cover could force them to land to continue attacking. Aid another actions to help other characters hit. Maybe holding your action until someone casts and shoot at them with a bow to break their concentration?

Hehe, it was "Gray Waste hopeless" terrain. Flat, save for a 10 ft. deep, 10 ft. wide, 30 ft. long ravine that ran in line-of-sight direction of the daemons. Near the end I took cover from behind the monk as her arrow deflection abilities seemed like my best defense. The party, other than the spellcasters, are terribly limited in their ranged attacks but I'll keep in mind the aid another, that's a good idea (as is seeking cover to force them to land, just wasn't any). The hold action to break concentration is a great idea, but my pirate-captain rogue is magically geared to survive at sea and is lacking on the ranged (regular short bow, so if beyond 30 ft. only 1d6 damage...only on a nearly max damage crit would I bypass their DR by 1-2 points, concentration check DC 11-12+Spell level...not even near adequate but it at least would have been something). Thank you for the pointers.


Fizzygoo wrote:
krevon wrote:
What kind of terrain were you in? Taking some kind of cover could force them to land to continue attacking. Aid another actions to help other characters hit. Maybe holding your action until someone casts and shoot at them with a bow to break their concentration?
Hehe, it was "Gray Waste hopeless" terrain. Flat, save for a 10 ft. deep, 10 ft. wide, 30 ft. long ravine that ran in line-of-sight direction of the daemons. Near the end I took cover from behind the monk as her arrow deflection abilities seemed like my best defense. The party, other than the spellcasters, are terribly limited in their ranged attacks but I'll keep in mind the aid another, that's a good idea (as is seeking cover to force them to land, just wasn't any). The hold action to break concentration is a great idea, but my pirate-captain rogue is magically geared to survive at sea and is lacking on the ranged (regular short bow, so if beyond 30 ft. only 1d6 damage...only on a nearly max damage crit would I bypass their DR by 1-2 points, concentration check DC 11-12+Spell level...not even near adequate but it at least would have been something). Thank you for the pointers.

The Ravine would have given you cover (a place to stealth). If any did see you, they would have had to fly to the other side of the ravine or deal with concealment penalties. From there ready an action for when they fire an arrow or spell to dive to the other side of the ravine.

Rinse and repeat until it loses interest or descends to get a better shot.

Either way you've eaten up enemy actions allowing the rest of the group some respite form being ganged up on.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fizzygoo wrote:
krevon wrote:
What kind of terrain were you in? Taking some kind of cover could force them to land to continue attacking. Aid another actions to help other characters hit. Maybe holding your action until someone casts and shoot at them with a bow to break their concentration?
Hehe, it was "Gray Waste hopeless" terrain. Flat, save for a 10 ft. deep, 10 ft. wide, 30 ft. long ravine that ran in line-of-sight direction of the daemons. Near the end I took cover from behind the monk as her arrow deflection abilities seemed like my best defense. The party, other than the spellcasters, are terribly limited in their ranged attacks but I'll keep in mind the aid another, that's a good idea (as is seeking cover to force them to land, just wasn't any). The hold action to break concentration is a great idea, but my pirate-captain rogue is magically geared to survive at sea and is lacking on the ranged (regular short bow, so if beyond 30 ft. only 1d6 damage...only on a nearly max damage crit would I bypass their DR by 1-2 points, concentration check DC 11-12+Spell level...not even near adequate but it at least would have been something). Thank you for the pointers.

a rogue is a melee combatant.

Ideally, you should have a way to fight:
In a grapple (range 0) - Generally light weapons, such as a knife/dagger. Also applies when swallowed whole.
At range 1, in melee.
at range 2, at reach and This can be throwing things or a reach weapon.
At short distance, 30' or less, but out of melee threat.. This can be throwing a heavier weapon, like a javelin or spear, or using a bow or sling.
at long range. This is usually using a bow.

If you can't always find a way to attack, a positive action to take, you're doing something wrong. You're not thinking like a melee.
That means getting the enhancement bonus on your weapons high enough to bypass material DR, at the least. If that means using a magic oil or wand of Align weapon, then you do it, or you buy some magic arrows. Or you're useless.

Being useless is not a good feeling.

The Aid ANother action generally has to be done as a touch attack, but you might be able to talk the DM into allowing the bonus to AC or To Hit with an otherwise ineffectual arrow bouncing off the ear.

You must be able to get to the enemy. If that means stocking up on potions of fly or scrolls of same, or splurging on 1/day flight item, then you DO it. Standing around being useless is useless.

A very simple thing you could have done to piss off the daemons and bring them down is simply cover the ground in smoke or fog. They can't shoot what they can't see.

Build up an arsenal of toys so that every round you can do SOMETHING.

If you're playing a rogue, you have problems. So you have to play SMART. You can't play brutal, you can't play agile. You have to play smart. The game is not in your favor and you have to pull out the clever tricks the other PC's don't have to use in order to do what must be done.

So do it, and wow them for when you have the perfect trick on hand for the problem. If that's all you can do, then it's still SOMETHING...even if it isn't smiting a daemon for 100+ dmg.

==Aelryinth


Lord Markov Dwarf figther1 /rogue 11 is pretty good and strong. (I personally feel that the enforcer/ sap aster combo is silly, but that is not a mechanical problem so no problem here).


Atarlost wrote:

T There was the ability to apply precision damage to splash weapon attacks against touch AC. There were a whole load of PrCs people went into from rogue that were better than rogue.

Right, you get it? A 3.5 rogue could sneak attack 4 people with one alchemist's fire because the precision damage exclusion on splash weapons is new.

And at that a 3.5 rogue might only have one rogue level. Go search for 3.5 rogue builds. They often involve very few actual rogue levels. Instead they're built around prestige classes with rogue featurers that are vastly better than rogue. In 3.5 all a non-casting base class had to do to be acceptable was be able to qualify for powerful prestige classes. In Pathfinder they have to stand on their own because there aren't any good prestige classes.

Bah. That was a crazy loophole which no DM I knew of would allow. So, this was a “fix” not a “nerf”.

But yes, many folks just used rogue as a stepping stone to Shadowdancer, assassin, etc. You still can, and also enter quite a few great archetypes.

Usu you'd have at least TWO rogue levels, for Evasion.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be fair in 3.5, the idea was to go from any and every straight class into a PrC. Because, they were, like, better then base classes.

The classes where you didn't need to PrC? Full casters, of course. But not so amazingly, there were PrC's that granted full casting in addition to extra abilities for caster classes.

==Aelryinth


Fizzygoo wrote:

Without flying ability (and none of the other party members buffing him to do so), he got in 2 total attacks against the, mostly, flying daemons over ~8 rounds of combat.

Essentially he's "role-play morale support" while the bard was attack/damage support with his singing and his cohort was ranged damage support with her pistol and the wizard was one shot with a lucky-to-make-both-range-touch-attack-and-spell-resistance-and-failed-daemo n-Fort-save disintegrate while being wand of shield support and the monk was melee damage support while the paladin was primary melee damage (has a magic item that gives him flight) and the sorcerer was primary ranged damage.

Save for the one lucky ranged sneak attack my rogue was out of options for the majority of the combat as the daemons were largely flying higher than 30 ft. and using their bows or magic. The only thing that would have allowed my rogue to be effective would be flying (spell, boots of flying,...

Well, there’s no doubt, a melee character that can’t fly is always at a disadvantage vs flying opponents. Even if you are a hyper-optimized rage killing BBN with 1000 DPR, you suck if you can’t reach. This is not a issue with a rogue. After all the paladin had a magic item that game him fly, and you had no less than TWO spellcasters who should have helped you fly in this case. Not doing so was foolish. So bad tactics on their part, and you didn’t have the item. This isn’t a rogue problem, it’s a teamwork issue combined with melee vs flying.


Whisperknives wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

it's not that rogues are useless, it's that they are the class with the second lowest contribution, only exceeded in weakness by the monk.

while the rogue and monk both have poor combat ability outside of a few unique and specialized builds or archetypes designed to fix the issue. at least the rogue can make skill checks and pretend to contribute something useful. the monk doesn't even have that, just a flurry of misses.

yes, rogues attacks miss a lot too. just as often as a monk misses, but at least a rogue can make skill checks to pretend to be useful. neither class has a means to reliably boost their attack bonus, and a defensively oriented monk, has the downside of lowering their ability to contribute by means of becoming a stone wall with no offense that is easy to ignore.

rogues at least have the scout/sap master build to deal decent damage if they are strength based. gaining accuracy by ignoring a portion of enemy AC. all they need to do is move 10 feet and inflict nonlethal bludgeoning damage with a strength based power attack. it won't drop a foe, but it will irk them quite badly. though irk doesn't translate to wound, merely annoy or frustrate.

monks are stuck with their flurry of misses, and a Zen Archer's flurry, is still a flurry of misses, it's just a flurry of ranged misses instead.

If that is your interpretation of the monk, you are building them HORRIBLY wrong. However let's not drift this place even further off topic than it already has been.

P.S. No comments on my Rogue Build some odd posts back?
A possible 174 average damage a turn is not bad. It also is just a base Rogue, no archtype, no multi class just like people were mentioning.

i went Strength Primary, Wisdom Secondary, Onispawn, 5 charisma, used power attack and the dragon style line, the DM conviently ignored a section of the ultimate equipment errata and thus by ignoring that piece, i was able to get my monk unarmed strike damage with gauntlets.

she also had brawling bracers of armor and a mage armor spell from the party sorcerer at all times. buying her own 1st level pearl for the sorcerer to buff her with

she did quite nasty damage at levels 5-8 IF she hit, but enemy ACs were so high she couldn't expect to land many hits without flank and inspire courage

she also had the downside of facing a lot of enemies with either flight, reach or some kind of ranged attack, usually all 3, which made it harder to do her role.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

went Strength Primary, Wisdom Secondary, Onispawn, 5 charisma, used power attack and the dragon style line, the DM conviently ignored a section of the ultimate equipment errata and thus by ignoring that piece, i was able to get my monk unarmed strike damage with gauntlets.

she also had brawling bracers of armor and a mage armor spell from the party sorcerer at all times. buying her own 1st level pearl for the sorcerer to buff her with
she did quite nasty damage at levels 5-8 IF she hit, but enemy ACs were so high she couldn't expect to land many hits without flank and inspire courage

she also had the downside of facing a lot of enemies with either flight, reach or some kind of ranged attack, usually all 3, which made it harder to do her role.

Conversely, I played a human CRB-only monk and rocked enemies. If your monk was really having problems hitting, I'm guessing your GM was pumping the AC too high. My would miss on low roles too. Not that big of a deal. They're not fighters auto-hitting the first attack.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
i went Strength Primary, Wisdom Secondary, Onispawn, 5 charisma, used power attack and the dragon style line, the DM conviently ignored a section of the ultimate equipment errata and thus by ignoring that piece, i was able to get my monk unarmed strike damage with...

uh, you cant brawling enchant on bracers of armor. the enchant specifically says you can't.


Before we close this up I think I have an idea.

The synthesist summoner. It looks like a two level dip will get you iffy but not hopeless physical stats, claws, and pounce (quadruped, claws, pounce, and ability increase strength)

From there you go scout rogue. At level 6 you'll be a synth 2 scout 4 who can charge and get three primary natural sneak attacks off with no set up.

4 levels of synth are potentially worth it for shielded meld and more evolution points, but I think two are adequate. Adding limbs (arms) for the ability to use manual skills without dropping the eidolon and slam to round out his 4 possible attacks seems a good use of the extra evolution points. This may be too much non-rogue for this thread.

Con and Dex can't be hard dumped because the rogue needs to drop the eidolon to use his hands, and getting back into fighting trim after doing so takes a minute, but I believe the summoner can summon and unsummon his eidolon an unlimited number of times so long as it was unsummoned voluntarily. Strength, though, probably can be hard dumped since it only effects carrying capacity out of combat and a medium load is not the end of the world outside combat. Most buy points can go into mental stats and the higher int will compensate for the lower skill points on the summoner levels in the long run.


AndIMustMask wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
i went Strength Primary, Wisdom Secondary, Onispawn, 5 charisma, used power attack and the dragon style line, the DM conviently ignored a section of the ultimate equipment errata and thus by ignoring that piece, i was able to get my monk unarmed strike damage with...
uh, you cant brawling enchant on bracers of armor. the enchant specifically says you can't.

DM specifically allowed it in that game.

it's not normally allowed

i also had monk unarmed strike in gauntlets. which was also errataed to be disallowed, despite being allowed in that game


pouncing rogue? might be cool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
i went Strength Primary, Wisdom Secondary, Onispawn, 5 charisma, used power attack and the dragon style line, the DM conviently ignored a section of the ultimate equipment errata and thus by ignoring that piece, i was able to get my monk unarmed strike damage with...
uh, you cant brawling enchant on bracers of armor. the enchant specifically says you can't.

DM specifically allowed it in that game.

it's not normally allowed

i also had monk unarmed strike in gauntlets. which was also errataed to be disallowed, despite being allowed in that game

ah, carry on then.

honestly though i've always thought that bit banning it was a slap in the face to the monks (since it seems tailor-freaking-made for them, but using it would kill your class abilities).


Atarlost wrote:

Before we close this up I think I have an idea.

The synthesist summoner. It looks like a two level dip will get you iffy but not hopeless physical stats, claws, and pounce (quadruped, claws, pounce, and ability increase strength)

From there you go scout rogue. At level 6 you'll be a synth 2 scout 4 who can charge and get three primary natural sneak attacks off with no set up.

4 levels of synth are potentially worth it for shielded meld and more evolution points, but I think two are adequate. Adding limbs (arms) for the ability to use manual skills without dropping the eidolon and slam to round out his 4 possible attacks seems a good use of the extra evolution points. This may be too much non-rogue for this thread.

Con and Dex can't be hard dumped because the rogue needs to drop the eidolon to use his hands, and getting back into fighting trim after doing so takes a minute, but I believe the summoner can summon and unsummon his eidolon an unlimited number of times so long as it was unsummoned voluntarily. Strength, though, probably can be hard dumped since it only effects carrying capacity out of combat and a medium load is not the end of the world outside combat. Most buy points can go into mental stats and the higher int will compensate for the lower skill points on the summoner levels in the long run.

Scout's charge and Skirmisher both only work on one attack, so pounce doesn't really have the oomph that you think it might.

Synth can still be a good dip though... I just usually avoid any build that involves that class because it is probably the most widely banned class/archetype combo out there.


Lord_Malkov wrote:
Atarlost wrote:

Before we close this up I think I have an idea.

The synthesist summoner. It looks like a two level dip will get you iffy but not hopeless physical stats, claws, and pounce (quadruped, claws, pounce, and ability increase strength)

From there you go scout rogue. At level 6 you'll be a synth 2 scout 4 who can charge and get three primary natural sneak attacks off with no set up.

4 levels of synth are potentially worth it for shielded meld and more evolution points, but I think two are adequate. Adding limbs (arms) for the ability to use manual skills without dropping the eidolon and slam to round out his 4 possible attacks seems a good use of the extra evolution points. This may be too much non-rogue for this thread.

Con and Dex can't be hard dumped because the rogue needs to drop the eidolon to use his hands, and getting back into fighting trim after doing so takes a minute, but I believe the summoner can summon and unsummon his eidolon an unlimited number of times so long as it was unsummoned voluntarily. Strength, though, probably can be hard dumped since it only effects carrying capacity out of combat and a medium load is not the end of the world outside combat. Most buy points can go into mental stats and the higher int will compensate for the lower skill points on the summoner levels in the long run.

Scout's charge and Skirmisher both only work on one attack, so pounce doesn't really have the oomph that you think it might.

Synth can still be a good dip though... I just usually avoid any build that involves that class because it is probably the most widely banned class/archetype combo out there.

half-elf wild callers should be right there with them, honestly.


AndIMustMask wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
i went Strength Primary, Wisdom Secondary, Onispawn, 5 charisma, used power attack and the dragon style line, the DM conviently ignored a section of the ultimate equipment errata and thus by ignoring that piece, i was able to get my monk unarmed strike damage with...
uh, you cant brawling enchant on bracers of armor. the enchant specifically says you can't.

DM specifically allowed it in that game.

it's not normally allowed

i also had monk unarmed strike in gauntlets. which was also errataed to be disallowed, despite being allowed in that game

ah, carry on then.

honestly though i've always thought that bit banning it was a slap in the face to the monks (since it seems tailor-freaking-made for them, but using it would kill your class abilities).

i got to keep my class abilities with magic gauntlets because there was no percieved difference between wearing a gauntlet and wearing a freaking glove.

i also got to use brawling bracers of armor as a workaround via DM approval

if i require a particular rules tweak, homebrew, piece of 3rd party material, or houserule, i usually pitch a concept together and ask the DM if it is allowed, advantage of a home game.


Lord_Malkov wrote:

Scout's charge and Skirmisher both only work on one attack, so pounce doesn't really have the oomph that you think it might.

Synth can still be a good dip though... I just usually avoid any build that involves that class because it is probably the most widely banned class/archetype combo out there.

Scout's Charge (Ex): At 4th level, whenever a scout makes a charge, her attack deals sneak attack damage as if the target were flat footed. Foes with uncanny dodge are immune to this ability.

As written it assumes a single attack for grammatical convenience because that's all that is normally possible, but there is no actual restriction. It is as reasonable to exclude pounce as to deny the ability wholesale to scouts who happen to be male because the writers decided to use the pronoun suited to the iconic rather than some clumsy gender neutral construct.


Hey Lord-Malkov why can't I send you a PM?

For that matter I can't send one to ChainsawSam either and I'd like to.

Liberty's Edge

I assume the pouncing with scout's charge should be ruled as pouncing while diving (flying dive), it's effect is only added on the first hit!


Aelryinth wrote:
Fizzygoo wrote:
krevon wrote:
What kind of terrain were you in? Taking some kind of cover could force them to land to continue attacking. Aid another actions to help other characters hit. Maybe holding your action until someone casts and shoot at them with a bow to break their concentration?
Hehe, it was "Gray Waste hopeless" terrain. Flat, save for a 10 ft. deep, 10 ft. wide, 30 ft. long ravine that ran in line-of-sight direction of the daemons. Near the end I took cover from behind the monk as her arrow deflection abilities seemed like my best defense. The party, other than the spellcasters, are terribly limited in their ranged attacks but I'll keep in mind the aid another, that's a good idea (as is seeking cover to force them to land, just wasn't any). The hold action to break concentration is a great idea, but my pirate-captain rogue is magically geared to survive at sea and is lacking on the ranged (regular short bow, so if beyond 30 ft. only 1d6 damage...only on a nearly max damage crit would I bypass their DR by 1-2 points, concentration check DC 11-12+Spell level...not even near adequate but it at least would have been something). Thank you for the pointers.

a rogue is a melee combatant.

Ideally, you should have a way to fight:
In a grapple (range 0) - Generally light weapons, such as a knife/dagger. Also applies when swallowed whole.
At range 1, in melee.
at range 2, at reach and This can be throwing things or a reach weapon.
At short distance, 30' or less, but out of melee threat.. This can be throwing a heavier weapon, like a javelin or spear, or using a bow or sling.
at long range. This is usually using a bow.

If you can't always find a way to attack, a positive action to take, you're doing something wrong. You're not thinking like a melee.
That means getting the enhancement bonus on your weapons high enough to bypass material DR, at the least. If that means using a magic oil or wand of Align weapon, then you do it, or you buy some magic arrows. Or you're...

Aid another on attack isn't without precedence. Star Wars for example used a combined fire rule that gave the primary attacker +2 to hit for each additional attacker participating in combined fire. There's no reason why aid another can't do something similar.


Serum wrote:
Espy Kismet wrote:
and that they needed to force down the idea that playing fighters with lower bab and more sneak attack into peoples throats is a good idea.
The posted fullplate rogue does rogueish things just fine. WAY better than most fighters would be capable of.

I really should get around to making full plate skill monkey feint rogue.

1,351 to 1,400 of 2,211 << first < prev | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Ladies and Gentlemen: It's time we made the rogue work. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.