| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This suggestion is more of a joke, but...
Gestalt both of the classes together.
From the fighter perspective: How does that class stack up to Barbarians and Paladins?
From the rogue perspective: How does that class stack up to Bards, Alchemist, Inquisitors, and Rangers?
So...
You'd have:
HD: d10
Saves: Good Fort and Reflex
Skills: 8 per level.
Skill list: Rogue's.
BAB: Full
Armor/Weapon Prof: Heavy Armor, All Martials and Simples
+1d6 SA every other level.
+1 Rogue Talent every other level.
Gets Evasion, Improved Evasion.
Gets Weapon Training, Bravery, Armor Training, Armor Mastery.
Gets a Bonus Combat feat basically every other level, +1.
In terms of damage dealing, the additional SA damage probably isn't needed. Welcome, but not needed.
The improved saves helps.
It would definitely have far more flexibility then a fighter, and loads more offensive power then a rogue.
You'd still find that the vast majority of options for your feats and rogue talents are still vastly inferior to having spells, or similar stuff for other classes (i.e. compare to rage feats).
But the sheer number would probably make up for a lot, and yes, probably would STILL not be overpowered.
I'd probably drop the SA down to 1/3 levels, maybe even 1/4. SA + Full BAB + Weapon Mastery could get really sick really quick with a TWF.
Note that the Low Templar actually gets +4d6 SA over ten levels, and isn't overpowered. Basically, it's a reflection of teamwork and ganging up on demons like sensible people do.
==Aelryinth
But the sheer number would probably make up for a lot, and yes, probably would STILL not be overpowered.
Ouch. That's kind of sad when you think about it.
I would hope bonus feat + rogue talent could equal a rage power, but I have a feeling that they still don't.
Vivisectionist alchemist basically plays like a fighter with full sneak attack (mutagens makes up for full BAB, buffs make up for weapon training). I don't really think the full sneak attack would be that much of a problem.
Having actually built gestalt fighter/rogues (kind of my go-to for gestalt) and I've got to say the synergy is excellent. The access to numerous feats early on means that you are able to consistently apply your SA damage and the increased BAB, weapon focus trees and weapon training can also make up for the penalty attached to the powerful and deadly sneak rogue talents. Rogue and fighter can shore up each other's weaknesses nicely.
I think giving them full access to everything might be a little bit too much.
MAY be a little too much?
Since it's not very clear, I may house-rule in future campaigns I run that anyone who plays a fighter or rogues gets the class features of both.
I think giving them full access to everything might be a little bit too much.MAY be a little too much?
Since it's not very clear, I may house-rule in future campaigns I run that anyone who plays a fighter or rogues gets the class features of both.
Slayer sneak attack progression with full rogue talents and both class features might balance out nicely.
Would be a hilariously huge list of class features however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since you're doing this in a non gestalt game you'd have to do some balancing.
Remember the goal is a simple fix.
I'm still not convinced that this would be unbalanced compared to other classes. Rogue sneak attack is very situational and all it really does is give foes even more of a reason not to get flanked or flat-footed.
It's not like this class gets pounce or paladin level defenses.
Yeah I see no reason to lower the Sneak attack progression when both barbarian and paladin are still arguably better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would be a hilariously huge list of class features however.
[deadpan comedy] Still shorter than Cleric's spell list of "every divine spell ever published" [/deadpan comedy]
This suggestion is more of a joke, but...
Gestalt both of the classes together.
It is the simplest solution to a very complicated problem that is even complicated to acknowledge as a problem in a room with 10 different roleplayers...
What you'll probably see happening is other martial classes taking a 1 level dip to pick up BAB+1, REF/FORT+2, +8 skillpoints, bonus feat, trap finder, and sneak attack +1d6. I could see this class being better than a Ranger because of all the skill points+ sneak attacks. Paladin & Barbarian I'm not that familiar with. I get the feeling that Alchemist and Inquisitor are still overall more verstile than Fighter|Rogue.
I like the idea, I'd probably play as one for a game that doesn't go above level 10. I'm thinking this class's strength isn't as a melee bruiser though, but some kind of archery murder machine that full-sneakattacks.
If you feel Fighter|Rogue is still not strong enough, how about Fighter|Rogue|Monk? (This is half joking...)
|
Or you could just look at the Slayer from the Adv. Class Guide playtest.
The Slayer to me was a bit lacking, the mechanics were there, but it had the EXACT same problem as the Rogue, which was that the Slayer Talents were just god awful. The best ones again were feats, and that's the biggest problem that Rogue Talents had. I don't see why this is so common, I want talents that make me feel special, not make me feel like taking another class.
- Only give them the bonus feats but let them choose from feats and rogue talents.
- Let them choose two from weapon training, armor training, sneak attack
With those two limitations the gestalt fighter/rogue would be better balanced than the single classes. As is those two are to weak either in combat or out of combat.
About the slayer: For me it is less a rogue/ranger mix but more a good step towards fixing the fighter.
More skills, more versatility, better saves (if I remember right). And the ability to take feats without prerequisites through ranger combat style. And you can take enough feats as talents that it doesn't matter that the actual slayer talents are mostly weak.
All in all the slayer is still weaker than the ranger but stronger than both the rogue and the fighter.
But the sheer number would probably make up for a lot, and yes, probably would STILL not be overpowered.Ouch. That's kind of sad when you think about it.
I would hope bonus feat + rogue talent could equal a rage power, but I have a feeling that they still don't.
Vivisectionist alchemist basically plays like a fighter with full sneak attack (mutagens makes up for full BAB, buffs make up for weapon training). I don't really think the full sneak attack would be that much of a problem.
It probably wouldn't be overpowered from a broad perspective, at least in some games... but it would be unbalanced.
The distinction being that you still have a not that overpowered overall class, but you're suddenly much too good at damage in particular. So you end up lopsided as a class.
You could gestalt the two in other respects and have them pick either weapon training or sneak attack, if you wanted to preserve the simplicity of the fix without overloading the damage.
Does it match up to the highest end rage powers, Paladins with Unsanctioned Knowledge, etc? Perhaps not, but the two classes would still have a lot to add to one another without having to go nuts with the damage (more damage is not what fighters need), and I suspect you would compare pretty well to martial classes like the ranger.
The tradeoffs between rogue/fighter and ranger don't seem like they would be that lopsided.
I have a feeling if I offered fighter/rogue gestalt in a non-gestalt campaign I'd get a whole party of fighter/rogues.
I think giving them full access to everything might be a little bit too much.MAY be a little too much?
Since it's not very clear, I may house-rule in future campaigns I run that anyone who plays a fighter or rogues gets the class features of both.
Then your group is probably a more important audience to pitch this to than this forum. Fully merging two classes is a pretty heavyhanded (if simple) fix and some people may dislike it automatically for that reason, even regardless of any mechanical merits you feel it has. Or they may not!
I think giving them full access to everything might be a little bit too much.MAY be a little too much?
Since it's not very clear, I may house-rule in future campaigns I run that anyone who plays a fighter or rogues gets the class features of both.
I'd play it.
I'd call it the Adventurer class. Hell, good Fort and Reflex is enough for me to want to play it.
This suggestion is more of a joke, but...
Gestalt both of the classes together.
From the fighter perspective: How does that class stack up to Barbarians and Paladins?
From the rogue perspective: How does that class stack up to Bards, Alchemist, Inquisitors, and Rangers?
I can see reasons for and against.
In terms of "overpowered" I would say that the fighter/rogue needs to be compared to it's peers, and NOT to the full casters. I just wouldn't go there with caster/martial disparity myself.
1) Fighter/Rogue vs Other Martials
The fighter is not bad at fighting, he's a consistent performer who can hold his head up in a fight alongside his fellow martial classes. He doesn't need sneak attack, or rogue talents, to do this. What the fighter misses out on that other martials have is out-of-combat utility. He's just not got any, really, unless you take a Lorewarden or Tactician. The fighter/rogue gestalt gains this in spades with the rogue's skills and talents. Indeed, he gains rather a lot more than even the ranger can lay claim to. Fixing the fighter with more skills and proficiencies is a common theme, and this does that...but then it goes to far with sneak attack (fighters can deal out devastating damage as it is) and perhaps too many skills.
2) Fighter/Rogue vs Other Scouts
The rogue, like the fighter, can do his job. Like the fighter he suffers from the fact that other classes can do his job with added extra. In fact, all the high-skills classes with 3/4 BAB have 2/3 spell-casting, and the ranger, the rogue's biggest core-class challenger for the role of scout, has full BAB and is more effective in a stand-up knock-down fight. If 2/3 casting is better than the rogue, it's better than the fighter/rogue as well. On the converse, if the ranger beats the rogue, the rogue now beats the ranger on all fronts with the fighter's attack bonus and combat feats making him a better fighter and a superior scout.
3) Theme:
The fighter is one theme, the rogue is another completely different one, and all that relates them both is that they are "everyman" heroes who are completely non-mystical in any way. Blending the two makes a character than can fulfil either role, but doing both is problematic - you can't creep around and pick locks in plate armour, and you don't really want to take on a dragon toe-to-toe with a toothpick wearing a few scraps of leather. It's two concepts that while they compliment one another, aren't overly synergistic. From an RP concept, it's not something I would want to play.
So how to fix either? While straight-up merging the two classes may not work, elements of the other certainly can help them.
Fighter: Giving the fighter more skills and proficiencies (what sentry wouldn't have Perception as a class skill? what strategist would not study History?) would resolve his major problem when compared to other martial classes, and either changing Bravery to a net bonus to Will saves, or else dropping it and giving the fighter a strong Will save (it takes a lot of self-discipline to gain all that martial skill) would not hurt either. This balances the fighter with his peers nicely. He does not need sneak attack, and he does not need rogue talents; these things do not compliment his main focus, or else they compliment it too well.
Rogue: There are two ways you can fix the rogue, depending on how you look at him. The first is to increase his combat ability: full BAB is not a bad idea, and makes him more useful in a fight. However it also places more emphasis on combat in what is in many ways a non-combat class. Personally, what I feel the rogue really needs are talents that bring up his role and his nature more strongly - or else, award the rogue a talent at every level rather than every other level. He's competing with 2/3 casters for the most part, he needs more zip and zing and pizazz to do this and keep his "everyman" feel.
What both classes (fighter and rogue)need is better saves. The barbarian for example has several ways to up his saves or to get rid of stuff affecting him. The fighter and rogue don't have those options.
Because of that to function properly both need at least a second good save.
What both classes (fighter and rogue)need is better saves. The barbarian for example has several ways to up his saves or to get rid of stuff affecting him. The fighter and rogue don't have those options.
Because of that to function properly both need at least a second good save.
I agree, Will for the fighter, Fort for the rogue I would suggest...
The fighter is not the DPR King.
Realistically, a barbarian with Pounce and Come and Get Me will get far more attacks then any fighter, and totally outperform him in the DPR contest. IF everything is stacked in the fighter's favor, sure, or it's just archery.
==Aelryinth
I would agree that the class is unbalanced with full sneak attack, but it's still not overpowered.
In that same vein the barbarian is horribly unbalanced.
Ranger is still not useless. They still have an animal companion and spells.
The ability to pick your best FE bonus on demand does wonders for Rangers' staying power.
==Aelryinth
The ability to pick your best FE bonus on demand does wonders for Rangers' staying power.
==Aelryinth
True but compared to Weapon Training + Sneak attack it's not going to stack up. The reason Ranger's are a good choice in combat is because they have okay consistent fighting, with excellent spiking ability thanks to situational bonuses, combined with spells that let them make that situation a reality. A fighter is strong because he is consistently superior at fighting, however he doesn't spike. This new amalgam will have superior consistent fighting and a large situational damage booster that he can set up for relatively well thanks to his surplus of feats.
@ Marthkus - Both of which are reasons to play a Druid they're less impressive on the Ranger who gets the scaled down version of both of these things.
A class will always be on the bottom. I am not troubled by Rangers being the suck class (see my simple monk fix for why monks are not at the bottom), Rangers make for a far better s$!$-tier than fighters and rogues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter is not the DPR King.
Realistically, a barbarian with Pounce and Come and Get Me will get far more attacks then any fighter, and totally outperform him in the DPR contest. IF everything is stacked in the fighter's favor, sure, or it's just archery.
The barbarian does indeed beat the fighter for DPR when raging, but the fighter is still a solid performer, and rage doesn't last forever (OK, it's rare for the barbarian to run out, but it can happen, especially if the DM springs on encounter on you before the barbarian has rested from the last).
The barbarian does indeed beat the fighter for DPR when raging, but the fighter is still a solid performer, and rage doesn't last forever (OK, it's rare for the barbarian to run out, but it can happen, especially if the DM springs on encounter on you before the barbarian has rested from the last).The fighter is not the DPR King.
Realistically, a barbarian with Pounce and Come and Get Me will get far more attacks then any fighter, and totally outperform him in the DPR contest. IF everything is stacked in the fighter's favor, sure, or it's just archery.
Druid says hi (can out perform the fighter with only wildshape). Vivisectionist says hi (still better than a fighter/rogue gestalt).
Fighter may be solid, but so are rogues and monks. Doesn't mean they still don't suck in comparison to other options.
I did say initially that I was excluding the casters from the equation for just that reason. As for monks being "solid" you already know our opinions on that are decidedly different.
At low levels (1-4), fighters are quite good and rogues adequate. At mid-levels (5-9) fighters are adequate and rogues weak. At higher levels, they both fall further behind until they're obsolete at 15-20th. This is essentially because the save disparity at low levels is small, skills are still meaningful and spells can't do everything. At high levels that ain't so.
So I expect the gestalt would kick ass all over the pitch at low levels, look good at mid levels and be weak past 14th.
I did say initially that I was excluding the casters from the equation for just that reason. As for monks being "solid" you already know our opinions on that are decidedly different.
I also threw them under the same bus as the rogue.
In future games that I run the monk gets their progressive monks armor bonus (not changing the effect of wis) to AC, CMD, CMB, attack rolls, and damage rolls.
Also fighters and rogues are not PC classes. If you want to play one you have to play the "adventurer" class which is just fighter and rogue gestalt-ed together.
I've had a sleight change in opinion after my experience in a compaign that I'm playing (5 man party, was playing a rogue, was offered a full respect via plot that made me really analyze which class could actually offer something to our group of Wizard, Druid, Synthesist, Inquisitor).
EDIT: Also alchemist is not a spell caster :P
If you want to play one you have to play the "adventurer" class
Where do I sign up?
Where do I sign up?If you want to play one you have to play the "adventurer" class
It's pending.
I'm still worried about the adventurer being underpowered.
Where do I sign up?If you want to play one you have to play the "adventurer" class
It's pending.
I'm still worried about the adventurer being underpowered.
Want me to write up a stat block as you intend for it to be? I have so much free time @_@
Want me to write up a stat block as you intend for it to be? I have so much free time @_@Where do I sign up?If you want to play one you have to play the "adventurer" class
It's pending.
I'm still worried about the adventurer being underpowered.
Sure. A buddy oh mine is already doing that too. He's building an Adventurer like a dex rogue.
From what I see there are 3 basic ways to build an adventurer: Like a fighter (high str), Like a rogue (high dex), or Like both (Similar dex and str).
Some 20 point arrays for a human as an example
Like rogue: 10 18 14 14 10 10
Like fighter: 18 14 14 10 10 10
Like both: 17 15 14 14 8 8 (at 4 put 1 into strength, then rest into dex)
Just spewing some thoughts. Any kind of stat block would be welcomed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
dex 18
con 14
int 14
wis 10
cha 10
race:
immune to magic sleep, +2 bonus against enchantments
+2 bonus to perception
low-light vision
traits:
deathtouched: +2 will saves vs. mind-effecting
elven reflexes: +2 trait bonus to initiative
skills: acrobatics, bluff, disable device, linguistics, perception, sense motive, stealth, UMD,
saves: +4 fort, +6 reflex, +0 will
initiative +6
class features
1 trapfinding, SA 1d6
2 evasion, bravery
3 trap sense +1, armor training 1, SA 2d6
4 uncanny dodge
5 weapon training 1 SA 3d6
6 trap sense +2
7 armor training 2 SA 4d6
8 improved uncanny dodge
9 weapon training 2, trap sense +3 SA 5d6
11 armor training 3 SA 6d6
12 trap sense +4
13 weapon training 3 SA 7d6
15 armor training 4, trap sense +5 SA 8d6
17 weapon training 4 SA 9d6
18 trap sense +6
19 armor mastery SA 10d6
20 weapon mastery, master strike
feats:
1 skill focus (bluff)
1 weapon finesse
1 two-weapon fighting
2 decietful
3 combat expertise
4 improved feint
5 arcane strike
6 improved two-weapon fighting
7 improved two-weapon feint
8 combat reflexes
9 iron will
10 skill focus (stealth)
11 greater two-weapon fighting
12 hellcat stealth
13 staggering critcal
14 critical focus
15 blinding critical
16 agile maneuvers
17 sneaking precision
18 improved steal
19 greater steal
20 critical mastery
rogue talents:
2 trap spotter
4 minor magic
6 fast stealth
8 major magic
10 skill mastery
12 crippling strike
14 dispelling attack
16 familiar
18 improved evasion
20 hard to fool
Hilariously you took Arcane Strike exactly the same time I did. Still working on my build.
Current damage potential in a round is 150. I built more of a Fighter like Adventurer though hes still quite skillful.
Hilariously you took Arcane Strike exactly the same time I did. Still working on my build.
Current damage potential in a round is 150. I built more of a Fighter like Adventurer though hes still quite skillful.
Well I didn't build it my buddy did.
5th level is great for arcane strike. For this class it's basically weapon specialization for all weapons. At 15 its greater weapon specialization for all weapons.
What level is that 150 coming from?
Hilariously you took Arcane Strike exactly the same time I did. Still working on my build.
Current damage potential in a round is 150. I built more of a Fighter like Adventurer though hes still quite skillful.
Well I didn't build it my buddy did.
5th level is great for arcane strike. For this class it's basically weapon specialization for all weapons. At 15 its greater weapon specialization for all weapons.
What level is that 150 coming from?
10th. It assumes getting two crits and Sneak Attack. But Sneak Attack is pretty easy to get with Shatter Defenses.
And why I said it was potential =P
Ah that explains it.
Okay here it is.
Darius Kestor
Level 10 Half-Elf Adventurer (20 Point buy)
Traits: Deathtouched, Indomitable Faith
Str:18(20)(+2 Human, +2 Ability Score Increase
Dex:14
Con:14
Int:10
Wis:10
Cha:10
Feats/Talents:
1: Power Attack, Cornugon Smash
Half-Elf: EWP(Falcata)
2: Weapon Training(Falcata), Dazzling Display
3: Iron Will
4: Minor Magic(Prestidigitation), Weapon Specialization(Falcata)
5: Arcane Strike
6: Shatter Defenses
7: Inimidating Prowess
8: Combat Trick(Improved Critical), Greater Weapon Focus(Falcata)
9: Dodge
10: Mobility, Offensive Defense
Gear:
+2 Falcata
Cloak of Resistance +3
Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier
Belt of Strength +4
+3 Mithril Breastplate
Amulet of Natural Armor +1
Ring of Protection +1
Eyes of the Eagle
Gloves of Dueling
Trapspringer's Gloves
Skills(90 points):
Perception +19(+24 vs Traps)
Stealth +15
Disable Device +20(+25 vs Traps)
(60 points remaining)
DEFENSES
HP: 89
AC: 25(30 vs Sneak Attacked Target)
Fort:+12 Ref:+12 Will:+7(+2 vs Mind Affecting)
OFFENSES:
Attack Bonus Calculation: 10(BAB)+6(Str)+3(Wpn.Training)+2(Wpn Focus)+2(Wpn. Enhance)=+23
Attack Bonus with Power Attack: +20/+15
Damage: 1d8+21 17-20x3 plus 5d6 if Sneak Attack applies. Shatter Defenses and Cornugon Smash make this likely.
@Scavion
Trait bonuses don't stack, so Indomitable Faith is only useful for will saves that are not mind effecting.
Isn't that a human not a half elf?
Aside from that it's a decent build. I have a distaste for things like Blood money, dervish dance, and Cornugon Smash considering their source, but even with that this class isn't too imbalanced provided magical Falcatas drop.
@Scavion
Trait bonuses don't stack, so Indomitable Faith is only useful for will saves that are not mind effecting.
Isn't that a human not a half elf?
Aside from that it's a decent build. I have a distaste for things like Blood money, dervish dance, and Cornugon Smash considering their source, but even with that this class isn't too imbalanced provided magical Falcatas drop.
Half elf who took Ancestral Arms.
1st level Feat: Power Attack
Half-Elf Ancestral Arms EWP: Falcata
1st level Fighter feat: Cornugon Smash
Drop Indomitable Faith for Reincarnated then I suppose.
K cool stuff.
Looks like a strength rogue that just does an ass-ton more damage.