Yes, secondary effects like bleeding, poison or dazing assault. SA just add damage.
You add all the damage and then substract the DR.IIRC, there was a rule somewhere saying that secondary effects (such as SA) only take place if the initial hit deals at least 1 point of damage.
So if your Rogue deal 4 damage with his attack +5d6 SA, but the opponent has DR 5/-, he doesn't take SA damage because the attack itself failed to cause damage.
Yeah, that wasn't how it worked in 3.5. I was unaware that they changed it in PF.
|
Ok, but how much good is sneak attack when fighting an elemental, ooze, swarm, or ghost? All of which are quite common. What if you are fighting in an area that makes flanking impossible? What if you are fighting someone who cast a simple blur spell?
Sneak attack is far too situational to be relied upon as your primary mechanic for doing damage.
Ok, but how much good is sneak attack when fighting an elemental, ooze, swarm, or ghost? All of which are quite common. What if you are fighting in an area that makes flanking impossible? What if you are fighting someone who cast a simple blur spell?
Sneak attack is far too situational to be relied upon as your primary mechanic for doing damage.
UMD, feint, UMD
Ok, but how much good is sneak attack when fighting an elemental, ooze, swarm, or ghost? All of which are quite common.
Most swarms are often immune to all melee attacks.
Am I right in thinking you can sneak attack a ghost with a ghost touch weapon?
//Is each level of sneak attack worth an extra feat?//
I'll actually say yes, and no. If it was a feat that I can casually pick up from time to time, yeah, I'd probably take it as a fighter.
If it was a feat that then locked all of my bonus feats into having to take it, then it'd be a resounding no. Now if the rogue had the ability to take sneak attack, or a different combat feat every other level that'd be interesting. But the fact is that if you compare the sneak attack vs fighter bonus feats, the sneak attack is a locked in mechanic, and the fighter feats are versatile.
//Is a point of BAB and 4 health worth 24 skill points?://
depends on who I'm playing. As a fighter (since that's the comparison that were making) I'd say definitely not. I'll typically get 3-4 skill points as a fighter anyways which more then covers the weak skill list that I get anyway. Especially when you consider that skill points have diminishing returns.
Actually, one problem I've seen with skill points is that even if you have a ton, it doesn't necessitate that you are even the best at any given skill. Sure you might have maxed stealth, but the archer ranger is just as good (and can survive getting caught in a failed ambush). Sure you can max perception, but the cleric who took a perception trait will be far better at it then you. In other words in the other 3-4 players combined skills might not only match yours, but have the bonuses in the correct places so that your just the second best skill person on any given check except for maybe 1-2 skills.
Meanwhile, the extra health and to-hit will mean that you can survive longer, hit more often (killing the enemy quicker), and is always useful.
//Are the Rogue's miscellaneous features equal to the Fighter's miscellaneous features?//
depends. Sure you can stretch it to 4 bonus feats (but that assumes that you're making a non-trap rogue build with finesse).
Don't forget that the fighters weapon training can be improved with gloves of dueling (which is ridiculously powerful for a hand slot, since it's effectively a +2 enchant bonus).
So I'd even grant tie here, with it leaning towards the fighter.
Finally, I'll just say that I also agree comparing the rogue to the fighter is not the best comparison. They fill different roles. The fighter not very unique, has problems of their own, limited outside of combat, but they do fill their niche really nicely.
The rogue is a character who doesn't hold their own in combat as effectively (or to put it another way their skill set is super situational), their skills outside of combat can be done better by other classes, and so by comparison they don't fill their niche as well as the fighter fills their niche.
That doesn't mean that you can't have fun with the class, but that does in my opinion mean that you are hampering yourself when you pick it.
Ok, but how much good is sneak attack when fighting an elemental, ooze, swarm, or ghost? All of which are quite common.Most swarms are often immune to all melee attacks.
Am I right in thinking you can sneak attack a ghost with a ghost touch weapon?
Yes actually. I didn't know that.
Mythic weapon finesse and mythic arcane strike does a lot for rogues without being dependent on those mythic feats for the non-mythic build to work.
Mythic weapon finesse only lets you base your damage off of DEX instead of STR. Rogues can already go for an STR build. It really doesn't do thatmuch. I guess since you want high DEX to boost your skills that's good, but it's not really going to make you better compared to just a straight STR rogue.
Strength rogues disgust me. Not so much that I'm against other people doing it, but I would personally never do such a thing.
No comment about mythic arcane strike?
"Rogues can be effective, just forget about Dex and max Str and two-hand a greatsword" is a much better argument that something is seriously wrong with the rogue class than anything I could ever come up with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All Mythic Weapon Finesse does is to duplicate the effect of a non-mythic feat (Dervish Dance) with weapons that make more sense than a scimitar and it let you use a shield without penalty. It should be a general feat available to everyone.
Well heck if we're going to go off topic, I'd say the mythic vital strike feats should also get general feats instead of the weak sauce that is the normal vital strike feats.
|
I like the math in the argument, but sadly it doesn't play out.
First, Fighter gets a lot of flexibility. Feat chains, more than individual feats, are what sets them apart. Charging a feat for 1d6 sneak attack is hardly fair; it has many targets that are ineligibile, requires a feat to be eligible to affect even a 20% miss chance target... and even in its best case, is hard to pull off. I'd say 1d6 of sneak attack is half a feat, at best.
Second, Levels 6-7, and 11+, the rogue is behind an itterative attack.
Third, Heavy Armor actually negates the need for dex; making fighters a less-MAD class. The "ignore the Dex, go for Str" route is suicidal for the already-restricted-to-light-armor rogue. They have enough issue when they only get the worst save in the game as a "good save".
Fourth, by 10th level a fighter will be about +5 higher to hit / +3 to damage relative a rouge; even if they somehow have the same strength. This is calculated at +2 from BAB, +2 hit/damage from gloves of dueling (which I augmented the cost of by making the rogue's weapon +1 higher), +2 from weapon training. This is going to mean a lot more damage.
Fifth, BAB qualifies you for feats; and rogues can't take the improved critical / good bow lines / anything else until much later than fighter archtypes.
If we're talking combat; look at the slayer. Most of the skill points, full BAB, and Ranger styles (which you can change out for Rogue talents if you want, but nobody would want to). In addition to the other assorted groups that were the death-blow of rogues, these guys really take the cake; anything that was special about them (even the sneak attack) all rolled up. It's the way rogues should be.
|
It has a 10ft cube. All you need is 5+Smoke sticks have too small an area.You mean Goz mask, sniper goggles, smoke stick?Keep in mind, UMD is the back-up plan not the primary (flank) or even the secondary tactic (feint).Goz mask, sniper goggles, obscuring mist.
However, you want more than that for maneuvering when things get close.
All Mythic Weapon Finesse does is to duplicate the effect of a non-mythic feat (Dervish Dance) with weapons that make more sense than a scimitar and it let you use a shield without penalty. It should be a general feat available to everyone.Well heck if we're going to go off topic, I'd say the mythic vital strike feats should also get general feats instead of the weak sauce that is the normal vital strike feats.
Exactly why I dislike Mythic vital strike. The feats are too weak without mythics. I generally consider it bad form to make a build that depends on mythics. There is nothing wrong with benefiting from mythics though.
No, because that bumps everyone up, and people with higher BAB or more attacks (like pounce, ranged or mounted combatants) even higher. It's a generic feat, it doesn't benefit Rogue's uniquely (or really, at all considering how easy it is to get caster levels).Strength rogues disgust me. Not so much that I'm against other people doing it, but I would personally never do such a thing.
No comment about mythic arcane strike?
Gives the rogue access to ghost touch and a bunch of other properties that they get more benefit from.
Bane is also a great bonus for rogues. Extra to-hit helps out rogues more than most because their base damage is so high and their to-hit so low. This probably helps out monks more than anyone else though, since they are lacking is to-hit and damage, but have plenty of attacks.
|
|
No, because that bumps everyone up, and people with higher BAB or more attacks (like pounce, ranged or mounted combatants) even higher. It's a generic feat, it doesn't benefit Rogue's uniquely (or really, at all considering how easy it is to get caster levels).Strength rogues disgust me. Not so much that I'm against other people doing it, but I would personally never do such a thing.
No comment about mythic arcane strike?
Gives the rogue access to ghost touch and a bunch of other properties that they get more benefit from.
Bane is also a great bonus for rogues. Extra to-hit helps out rogues more than most because their base damage is so high and their to-hit so low. This probably helps out monks more than anyone else though, since they are lacking is to-hit and damage, but have plenty of attacks.
In general having Arcane strike last minutes is ok for non-mythic games. It's great for builds that have other uses for swift actions. But being able to grant weapon special abilities is way too good for non-mythic and may be too good for mythic, as it steps all over the class abilities of the Inquisitor and Paladin.
as it steps all over the class abilities of the Inquisitor and Paladin.
OH NO! We can't have that. Paizo would never make something that clearly steps all over another class's abilities.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't hate the Rogue.
I do, however, hate the few Rogue fans, that demand I admit the Rogue is not underpowered, or that my dislike of the class is a result of "munchkinism".
If you are going to defend the weakest kid on the team, don't be a jerk about it. Everyone will just end up hating you, and the kid you are defending, even if they did not before.
I really like minor magic, major magic, and dispelling strike...
It is my supposition that the dev that make the bard really cared about that class, really liked the class and really wanted them to shine. He take his time to improve the 3.5 bard. The same with later books, there is continuos effort to make bard really great class with tons of options.
When the rogue was updated to PF it seems to me that nobody really cared, nobody cared comparing it to the other classes. In later books, besides a couple of option, I It seems that nobody cared for the class. At least not in the way the barbarian get a lot of improvement in the APG.
Ironically enough, James Jacobs has hinted that he had a lot of influence on the Pathfinder bard. And he also likes rogues enough that he RPs as the Pathfinder Iconic Rogue on the messageboards.
I really like minor magic, major magic, and dispelling strike...
I like the idea behind them, but Minor and Major magic are probably among the weakest rogue talents. Barely replicating a spell and easily replicated by UMD for a really low cost. Never seen Dispelling Assault(strike is a magus arcana) used in combat to know how well it usually works out, but burning 2 rogue talents on things that may never help you doesn't look too hot. On the upside, you also qualify for familiar, and familiar's are pretty amazing for skill checks.
I really like minor magic, major magic, and dispelling strike...
Really? You like Minor Magic?
"Hey, spend a class feature to use a cantrip 3x a day. Great deal, huh?"
It actually annoys me how weak that talent is... Major Magic is still weak, but Minor Magic is downright offensive!
I don't remember how Dispelling Assault work, since I've never seen it in play.
I really like minor magic, major magic, and dispelling strike...Really? You like Minor Magic?
"Hey, spend a class feature to use a cantrip 3x a day. Great deal, huh?"
It actually annoys me how weak that talent is... Major Magic is still weak, but Minor Magic is downright offensive!
I don't remember how Dispelling Assault work, since I've never seen it in play.
Prestidigitation is the most OP spell. 3 hours of that buff is tons of fun.
Likewise major image for silent image
Dispelling Attack* (Su): Opponents that are dealt sneak attack damage by a rogue with this ability are affected by a targeted dispel magic, targeting the lowest-level spell effect active on the target. The caster level for this ability is equal to the rogue's level. A rogue must have the major magic rogue talent before choosing dispelling attack.
Which I believe that includes magic items as they are spell effects. Even if it doesn't it's great boon strip. That and crippling strike covers most monsters you will face.
Even if Prestidigitation is that good... You could simply be a bard and have it at will. And more! Including Silent Image.
Prestidigitation x3 a day is not worth a "feat", imo . Nor is Silent Image twice a day.
The only thing that makes these Talents Useful is the weird "SLA count as Spells" ruling that allows Rogues to use Arcane Strike.
Magic items cannot be targeted by dispelling attack, as they are neither an opponent nor a spell effect on the opponent. The spell is on the item, not the wielder. And it only targets the lowest-level spell effect. It also doesn't cover many supernatural abilities, as they tend not to be spells.
Even if Prestidigitation is that good... You could simply be a bard and have it at will. And more! Including Silent Image.
Or just UMD it. 0 level spells aren't known for being expensive. Heck, neither are 0.
Even if Prestidigitation is that good... You could simply be a bard and have it at will. And more! Including Silent Image.
Prestidigitation x3 a day is not worth a "feat", imo . Nor is Silent Image twice a day.
The only thing that makes these Talents Useful is the weird "SLA count as Spells" ruling that allows Rogues to use Arcane Strike.
As much as you don't like the ruling that is the rules and arcane strike is very good for rogues.
It also is a nice excuse to get dispelling attack.
And it's not like the spells aren't useful. This constant comparison to how the bard does minor things better than the rogue is annoying. Until the bard can pull out something like skill mastery or an extra +9 to 3+int mod skills the rogues maintains something special to them.
Does this make up for everything the bard can do? Probably not, unless you can really milk skill mastery. But as this thread has pointed out, just matching class features together is a fallacious way to gauge classes.
Until the bard can pull out something like skill mastery or an extra +9 to 3+int mod skills the rogues maintains something special to them.
Umm... Bardic Knowledge/Jack of All Trades?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Minor things? Bards do pretty much everything better than Rogues. Including, but not limited to: skills.
Until the bard can pull out something like skill mastery or an extra +9 to 3+int mod skills the rogues maintains something special to them.Umm... Bardic Knowledge/Jack of All Trades?
Yeah at lvl 19 the bard completely destroys that special niche. But that is a rare occurrence.
Bardic knowledge doesn't count because that is for knowledge skills, which is not what you use skill mastery for.
Minor things? Bards do pretty much everything better than Rogues. Including, but not limited to: skills.
Eh dex rogue smashes bard in dex skills. Bards are MAD. Overall they are better skill monkeys, but rogues are still better at rogue things. Even if those things are not longer exclusively rogue.
(Also why strength rogues disgust me. Being able to be dex focused is the one the rogues biggest strengths)
Until the bard can pull out something like skill mastery or an extra +9 to 3+int mod skills the rogues maintains something special to them.Umm... Bardic Knowledge/Jack of All Trades?Yeah at lvl 19 the bard completely destroys that special niche. But that is a rare occurrence.
Bardic knowledge doesn't count because that is for knowledge skills, which is not what you use skill mastery for.
I was just pointing out he does eventually get exactly those two things. I know it comes a bit late. Actually though, it should probably be noted bards actually come out on top with skill points. Bardic Knowledge is effectively 5 skill points per level, and versatile performance is 5ish(depending on how you count performances/allocate skill points. Rebuilding old skill points with it is pretty crazy). They then have performance to enhance skill checks even further, and spells, and their casting stat is also the attribute that goes into UMD. Lots of goodies with all those things working pretty well together, or at least I think. (not sure if its fair to call skill mastery a free +9. The difference between it making an average and giving an actual +9 is pretty big).
The only thing I have trouble comparing is combat between the two, but bard is weird to measure combat with because he affects others while he does it and how much he does so changes over time pretty radically. His archetypes can also radically change the way his performance works. archaeologist luck and devising both are personal only, and pretty different. Thundercaller can spam CC. He also has casting, and I'm not keen on how well it works.
In other news, what happened to fighters? A lot of the post relating to "wait, why fighters?" were tossed, but the thread still goes back to talking about the rogues issues with being overshadowed by others. Maybe its just me.
Until the bard can pull out something like skill mastery or an extra +9 to 3+int mod skills the rogues maintains something special to them.Umm... Bardic Knowledge/Jack of All Trades?Yeah at lvl 19 the bard completely destroys that special niche. But that is a rare occurrence.
Bardic knowledge doesn't count because that is for knowledge skills, which is not what you use skill mastery for.
You are forgetting versatile performance that give them 2 skill for the price of one.
Another thing is that taking 10 in UMD is not that interesting when ou already are an arcane spellcaster.
I didn't forget versatile performance. It's just irrelevant to bards not having skill mastery.
Exactly why UMD is so good for rogues. There is also plenty of things bards won't/shouldn't do with an inconstant UMD check. This allows rogues to be one of the few classes that really take advantage of this skill.
What's stopping a bard of focusing on Dex too? All he needs is Cha 14 and he's good to go. Hell, he can start with Cha 12 and be fine. He can also reduce his Wisdom to 8 without problem, since he has a good will save and can use Cha on Sense Motive checks.
"Able to be Dex-based" is not exclusively Rogue.
Until the bard can pull out something like skill mastery or an extra +9 to 3+int mod skills the rogues maintains something special to them.Umm... Bardic Knowledge/Jack of All Trades?Yeah at lvl 19 the bard completely destroys that special niche. But that is a rare occurrence.
Bardic knowledge doesn't count because that is for knowledge skills, which is not what you use skill mastery for.
I was just pointing out he does eventually get exactly those two things. I know it comes a bit late. Actually though, it should probably be noted bards actually come out on top with skill points. Bardic Knowledge is effectively 5 skill points per level, and versatile performance is 5ish(depending on how you count performances/allocate skill points. Rebuilding old skill points with it is pretty crazy). They then have performance to enhance skill checks even further, and spells, and their casting stat is also the attribute that goes into UMD. Lots of goodies with all those things working pretty well together, or at least I think. (not sure if its fair to call skill mastery a free +9. The difference between it making an average and giving an actual +9 is pretty big).
The only thing I have trouble comparing is combat between the two, but bard is weird to measure combat with because he affects others while he does it and how much he does so changes over time pretty radically. His archetypes can also radically change the way his performance works. archaeologist luck and devising both are personal only, and pretty different. Thundercaller can spam CC. He also has casting, and I'm not keen on how well it works.
In other news, what happened to fighters? A lot of the post relating to "wait, why fighters?" were tossed, but the thread still goes back to talking about the rogues issues with being overshadowed by others. Maybe its just me.
Yeah bards are overall a better skill monkey. That's why I'm defending the value of skill mastery not skill points.
Bards are difficult to measure combat abilities with. Rogue and Bard fight very differently. Bard is probably more effective.
I think most people get annoyed trying to compare two classes that are "functional".
I'd wouldn't say the Rogue is "functional" past 10th level or so... He has too much trouble trying to survive to be actually useful in combat, and by then, they are far from being the most useful out-of-combat class.
What's stopping a bard of focusing on Dex too? All he needs is Cha 14 and he's good to go. Hell, he can start with Cha 12 and be fine. He can also reduce his Wisdom to 8 without problem, since he has a good will save and can use Cha on Sense Motive checks.
"Able to be Dex-based" is not exclusively Rogue.
Bard would just be gimping herself with anything less than 14 and not putting most of their leveling points into cha. Their combat damage is about 1/3 of their kit. 1/3 being spells. 1/3 being skills with bard stuff adding to all of that. Focusing too much on one wrecks the triple threat.
I'd wouldn't say the Rogue is "functional" past 10th level or so... He has too much trouble trying to survive to be actually useful in combat, and by then, they are far from being the most useful out-of-combat class.
Not really. You just have to build them right.
Bard would just be gimping herself with anything less than 14 and not putting most of their leveling points into cha. Their combat damage is about 1/3 of their kit. 1/3 being spells. 1/3 being skills with bard stuff adding to all of that. Focusing too much on one wrecks the triple threat.What's stopping a bard of focusing on Dex too? All he needs is Cha 14 and he's good to go. Hell, he can start with Cha 12 and be fine. He can also reduce his Wisdom to 8 without problem, since he has a good will save and can use Cha on Sense Motive checks.
"Able to be Dex-based" is not exclusively Rogue.
On the other hand, they can go dervish dance and work pretty well. Bi stat dependency ftw?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd wouldn't say the Rogue is "functional" past 10th level or so... He has too much trouble trying to survive to be actually useful in combat, and by then, they are far from being the most useful out-of-combat class.Not really. You just have to build them right.
When I hear build it right it always makes me cringe.
On the other hand, they can go dervish dance and work pretty well. Bi stat dependency ftw?Bard would just be gimping herself with anything less than 14 and not putting most of their leveling points into cha. Their combat damage is about 1/3 of their kit. 1/3 being spells. 1/3 being skills with bard stuff adding to all of that. Focusing too much on one wrecks the triple threat.What's stopping a bard of focusing on Dex too? All he needs is Cha 14 and he's good to go. Hell, he can start with Cha 12 and be fine. He can also reduce his Wisdom to 8 without problem, since he has a good will save and can use Cha on Sense Motive checks.
"Able to be Dex-based" is not exclusively Rogue.
Bards should probably have some int too.
For archer bard you need dex, cha, con, int...
For melee bard you need str, dex, con, int, cha...
Rogues definitely can afford int, so if you are "dumping" (as in 10) int then a rogue is now 4 skill points and bards have to wait until their third versatile performance before they overtake the rogue. (not counting knowledge skills because that was never within the rogues sphere of skills and is probably being done better by the wizard).