You need cha to feint.
You need int to have comparable skill points with alchemist and bards.
You can't dump wis for both saves and perception
You can't dump strength for damage and being able to carry things.
Half-elf, not human is a more optimal rogue race.
Why feint? At least in my experience, it's a trap that never works out correctly.
I don't generally dump Wisdom, that said, you can make a build that can fix it even if you do.
I've dumped Strength before, Dervish Dance can make it up. Or use Dazzling Display and Shatter Defenses on a scout.
Half-elf has a lot going for it, but all the various races bring something awesome and unique to the table. I never frown at 1 skill point a level and a free feat. Then again, Skill Focus perception with a racial bonus to boot is nice.
Skill focus(bluff) + deceitful + improved feint + greater feint + skill mastery (bluff) = auto feint anyone anywhere near your CR.
+ Opportunist and you get at-least 2 sneak attacks off per turn. When flanking you don't need feint, but flanking + haste + opportunist is 5 sneak attacks a round 3 of which are at highest bonus to-hit, an additional +3 to-hit, but not against flat-footed AC.
Side bonus is that your rogue is really good at bluff. Which can work a lot like dominate person if you work it right.
Best rogue is still subpar though.
If you go human and take the alternate race trait that give you three skill focus feats for free that puts you above a half elf, imo, for anything skill related. Which, I plan to do this tonight in my build. I'll probably go perception, stealth, and acrobatics with them.
You will really benefit from half-elf +2 to perception, +2 vs enchantments, and low-light vision.
Ivory Tower design is basically a philosophy that the designers of D&D intentionally filled the game with, essentially, crap or not as good options and that part of playing the game included you, the player, yourself, figuring out which options were "bad" and to take "good" ones. Pick the bad ones and get a bad character. Pick the good ones and, hey, good job, you don't suck.
That's one perspective.
Another is that players who are actualy "good" at the game of actually playing D&D, as opposed to just the mini-game of character optimization, might get bored of picking only the 'uber' powers, and want challenges that explore other corners of the game.Another is that any options is also available for NPCs. Last time I checked, NPCs weren't usually uber optimized. HOW CAN THAT BE if every option is supposed to be similarly uber and powerful?
Another is that you can in fact play the game with those options and a crack in the earth doesn't open to swallow you whole. Fixating on a comparison of good and bad options isn't the only way to play the game. I mean, this isn't a game you can win or lose to begin with, right? The closest thing to that is whether you can get thru a Paizo AP. Can a Rogue do that? Pretty sure they can.
+2s are nice. +6 to two additional skills is better. Thematically, a rogue doing his job right won't be seen to enchant.
|
Here's the thing when we talk about power.
I consider something powerful when it:
* Reduces an encounter/scene that I estimated would take 30-60 minutes and resolves it in 2 minutes.
* Reduces an encounter/scene that I expected to take coordinated efforts from 3-6 characters and resolves it with a single character.
There are lots of "powerful things" in Pathfinder:
* A smiting paladin critically hitting an evil outsider
* A slumber hex witch putting a powerful "boss" to sleep
* A hasted archer with the right arrows gunning down a powerful monster
When you see these, you think "wow, that's OP."
The important thing to remember is to add... "in this context."
I've seen rogues/ninjas at levels 3-4 before magic has radically affected the power curve...
* Poisoners sneak into a room alone, and with a single dose of drow poison, single-handedly end the life of an end-boss, before the rest of the party even knew the end-boss was in that room.
* Bandits gain surprise and high initiative and (some tengu natural attackers come to mind) utterly destroy an end-boss before the rest of their party even acted.
Certainly there's some bard and alchemist builds that can kind of accomplish these same feats. Not unlike the fact the archer in my above example could've been a ranger, fighter, dex-barbarian, inquisitor or paladin. It's not a Bad Thing that multiple classes can do the Same Thing.
In some contexts, some folks would rather have a mutagen and extracts to quaff. In other contexts, other folks would rather have Bluff/Diplomacy/Disguise/Intimidate as class skills (or two traits to play with) and simply use gold to buy the potions that the alchemist has in extract form. Averaging across all fields of play, the actual contest is not as disparate as it appears.
That's one perspective.
Another is that players who are actualy "good" at the game of actually playing D&D, as opposed to just the mini-game of character optimization, might get bored of picking only the 'uber' powers, and want challenges that explore other corners of the game.
Another is that any options is also available for NPCs. Last time I checked, NPCs weren't usually uber optimized. HOW CAN THAT BE if every option is supposed to be similarly uber and powerful?
Another is that you can in fact play the game with those options and a crack in the earth doesn't open to swallow you whole. Fixating on a comparison of good and bad options isn't the only way to play the game. I mean, this isn't a game you can win or lose to begin with, right? The closest thing to that is whether you can get thru a Paizo AP. Can a Rogue do that? Pretty sure they can.
You make a point. However, when you look at the options through the lens of a rogue versus one of, say, a paladin or even a ranger things look different compared to the class. As rogues do not have obviously "good" options, the ideal of the ivory tower is accentuated compared to the others.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen Rogues at level 3-4 too.
I have literally never seen a Rogue survive past level 5 in any game I've run or played in. It's hilarious.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing when we talk about power.
I consider something powerful when it:
* Reduces an encounter/scene that I estimated would take 30-60 minutes and resolves it in 2 minutes.
* Reduces an encounter/scene that I expected to take coordinated efforts from 3-6 characters and resolves it with a single character.There are lots of "powerful things" in Pathfinder:
* A smiting paladin critically hitting an evil outsider
* A slumber hex witch putting a powerful "boss" to sleep
* A hasted archer with the right arrows gunning down a powerful monsterWhen you see these, you think "wow, that's OP."
The important thing to remember is to add... "in this context."
I've seen rogues/ninjas at levels 3-4 before magic has radically affected the power curve...
* Poisoners sneak into a room alone, and with a single dose of drow poison, single-handedly end the life of an end-boss, before the rest of the party even knew the end-boss was in that room.
* Bandits gain surprise and high initiative and (some tengu natural attackers come to mind) utterly destroy an end-boss before the rest of their party even acted.Certainly there's some bard and alchemist builds that can kind of accomplish these same feats. Not unlike the fact the archer in my above example could've been a ranger, fighter, dex-barbarian, inquisitor or paladin. It's not a Bad Thing that multiple classes can do the Same Thing.
In some contexts, some folks would rather have a mutagen and extracts to quaff. In other contexts, other folks would rather have Bluff/Diplomacy/Disguise/Intimidate as class skills (or two traits to play with) and simply use gold to buy the potions that the alchemist has in extract form. Averaging across all fields of play, the actual contest is not as disparate as it appears.
To be fair the ninja is significantly more powerful than the rogue even at lower levels. They get access to their ki pool quite early, and from that point on the rogue just falls further and further behind. Lumping them in together only serves to elevate the rogue in a way that the class does not presently deserve. Can you make a working rogue? You certainly can but it takes a good amount of system mastery. The "average" rogue is closer to being an adept than it is a player class.
I've seen Rogues at level 3-4 too.
I have literally never seen a Rogue survive past level 5 in any game I've run or played in. It's hilarious.
I got one to 9 where he died like a b#*&% due to a crap acrobatics check to move into melee versus a giant who happened to crit with a x4 weapon, iirc, on the AoO. Went from full health to CON dead instantly. It was all circumstantial, though, and one of those things you only see very rarely.
So how, mechanically, is a rogue inferior to class X? Are we talking just flat DPR? Even then, what conditions are we talking? Is it a resource driven class? If we're talking flat DPR, are conditionals allowed to apply? This argument that rogue is mechanically inferior seems a little odd to me.
Intentionally choosing an inferior class over a mechanically superior one is entirely within your purview. If you can make it work, good on ya! I can choose to play a Warrior. That doesn't stop the Warrior from being a worse class than the Fighter.
Mechanically there are classes that are just flat out better than a Rogue.
Build a Rogue to do X. I can show you an Alchemist who can do X(just as well if not better) while also doing y and providing resource z.
Its already proven that Rogues are on the bottom end of DPR so a comparison there hardly proves anything since people tend to dismiss DPR as even a comparison point among many. Not to mention if the Alchemist builds for DPR, he wins hands down without trying very hard.
Conditionals can be applied, just know that this works both ways. Buffs you don't bring can apply as well just know that the Alchemist brings his own buffs thus isn't a drain on other party member's resources. These are important factors to keep in mind.
10th level is probably THE best comparison point as it is the level before Gold solves all the problems inherent in a class and allows time for builds to come together as a whole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
His Rogue Talents should be objectively better than feats or at least comparable not objectively worse.
This is really the issue for me. If we look at Barbarian, I think most people accept that they are a strong class for what they do. Yet Rogue Talents just largely fail that test.
You aren't really saving any "Feats" by going Minor Magic-Major Magic-Familiar Trick, you're actually spending MORE than Eldritch Heritage route, albeit with a tiny bit more utility. You're apparently supposed to spend Tricks for just the most minor, weak abilities: crawling without provoking AoOs. (Why that couldn't be combined with the Stand-Up without Provoking Trick is beyond me) Rogue Tricks seem to be balanced vs. Feats with no Pre Reqs... Bad design there. Giving them Rogue Level PreReqs (at all level ranges) is a decent way to have "Pre Reqs" to structure/stagger ACTUALLY STRONG ABILITIES.
Strangely, there are only 2 Tiers of Tricks, which means Rogues can't really have Level-appropriate Tricks at all levels, there's basically two small level bands where the Tricks might be seen as level appropriate. Now, if all the abilities scaled well that might be OK, but that's not that the case.
That feeds into why Tricks tend to be underwhelming, because with only 2 Tiers (not more granular Rogue Level based Pre Reqs ala Rage Powers), anybody who dips 2 levels in Rogue can now take ANY normal Rogue Trick with a Feat, i.e. up to 9th level Rogue abilities. As is, dipping into a Rogue Archetype to get the lower level ability (that is often decently good) is about the most you are really advised to do, after that you're better off multiclassing into Ranger or Barbarian or whatever.
If you start looking at Archetypes, then you start to see nice abilities show up. (As well as laughably weak ones: Sanctified Rogue get's a +1 bonus on Fort and Will Saves... Was that a type-o that left out the level scaling? Come on!) Of course, most of them are mutually incompatable - which is fine, that's how Archetypes for most classes are. But that is basically the only decent thing you will get with Rogue, the Tricks available to everybody are just underwhelming.
Hardly anything they get SCALES adequately. Pretty much any other 'martial' PC class gets some sort of attack roll boost (important for martials whose effect depends on weapon attacks connecting), even if conditional - NOT Rogue, so their supposed in-built scaling of Sneak Attack x Full Attack Iteratives just doesn't work very well. Never mind the action economy limitations on Full Attack, which Rogues get no way to bypass. AoO's seem kind of like a Rogue-y sort of thing, right? Nope, they get nothing of signifigance there, even though AoO's at Full BAB are a plausible way to counter their 3/4 BAB and no other attack bonuses. Ninjas of course can get extra Ki Attacks which sort of addresses that issue, but that just points out the problem with non-Ninja Rogues: if it's an issue worth such a mechanic for Ninjas, why not for other Rogues? Rogues also don't get anything to deal with Concealment Miss Chance, another Rogue-y type ability, right? Nope, they can spend a Trick so that Concealment doesn't uniquely shut down their Sneak Attack, but they still have the same Miss Chance. Why doesn't that Trick also grant Blind Fight?
Rogues are nearly forced to uber-optimize Stats around attack/damage, but they just don't get as much from that proportionate to other classes, yet they end up with the forseeable weaknesses if they do. Some Tricks and Archtypes introduce "Secondary Stat" abilities based on CHA, INT, or WIS. But there is just lacking a comprehensive enough "subsystem" based around those, synergistic with the Rogue's combat role, to really make such a diversion pay off on the whole - Ninja's CHA based Ki is the exception that just shows the normal Rogue options to be as poor as they are. If Rogue was a strong class, then those diversions to other stats might work fine, but they are not so strong.
I've seen Rogues at level 3-4 too.
I have literally never seen a Rogue survive past level 5 in any game I've run or played in. It's hilarious.
I've made it to 7 by the skin of my teeth. Silly TWF build.
I've made it to 7 by the skin of my teeth.I've seen Rogues at level 3-4 too.
I have literally never seen a Rogue survive past level 5 in any game I've run or played in. It's hilarious.
I had a really cool Rogue that made it to level 6 before being eaten by a Demon. The DM threw me a bone by reviving me when the party was 12th and bumped me up to it. Still had 6th level gear. That game...was not a whole lot of fun. That was in 3.5. I enjoyed playing the Cleric in the meantime far more.
The level 9 I had has a standing invitation to be freely rezed because my GM is a huge fan of rogues. If my lycanthrope master summoner dies (LOL, right) I will likely bring him back.
I've seen Rogues at level 3-4 too.
Rogues work great at low levels. Picking up a nice Archetype ability around there, Rogue Tricks are fine at 2nd level, at low levels they get disproportionate benefit from the large number of skills and the fact that both BAB hasn't diverged much yet, AND other martials haven't gotten further attack/damage boosts. There's really not much problem there.
IMHO, most Advanced Tricks could be brought down to a 6th Rogue Level Tier, and better tricks be created for new 10th and 16th level Tiers. Something to be on-par for level no matter what Archetype you have.
Huh... the funny thing is... one of my builds that made it to high level in 3.5 was in fact a mostly Rogue character. A Scout 3/Rogue 16/Shadowdancer 1 to be precise, though that was largely because Swift Ambusher from Complete Scoundrel let me stack my rogue levels to determine my Skirmish Bonus. Also heavy UMD use... very heavy UMD use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I loved those feats, wish PF had some of those laying around.
Ya, they were one of the great ideas that 3.5 had late in its life. Really a shame they hadn't gone in that direction (and with actual ToB stuff) rather then 4E.
|
|
Swashbuckler/rogue with the feat that allowed them to stack to determine your sneak attack damage was an extremely nasty combination. Allowed you to add your int to your damage, made it a lot easier to get off sneak attacks, and quite honestly you were a lot tougher due to the old swashbuckler having d10 HD.
Rogues are fine as a dip, certainly with Archetypes, that's not really a big complaint of anybody AFAIK.
Possibly it even works 50/50 with Swashbuckler, I'm not familiar with that.
But Pathfinder is supposed to be about single class builds being viable and strong.
We're talking about the 3.5 Swashbuckler and the Daring Outlaw feat that let you stack Rogue and Swashbuckler levels to determine Sneak attack damage. Let you take levels in a d10 HD class with full BAB while picking up the regular Sneak Attack Progression.
With Dueling Gloves, you can take 6 levels of Commoner and still be OK.
In 3.5, I GM'd for a lvl 32 divine rank 5 rogue with an ever dancing chain as a flanking buddy.
The deity party was lost wandering in an illusion dungeon castle operated by a 20 bard/10 seeker of the song/10 sublimechord. (This was because I had to move away so the campaign had to end)
I got one to 9 where he died like a b%!+! due to a crap acrobatics check to move into melee versus a giant who happened to crit with a x4 weapon, iirc, on the AoO. Went from full health to CON dead instantly. It was all circumstantial, though, and one of those things you only see very rarely.I've seen Rogues at level 3-4 too.
I have literally never seen a Rogue survive past level 5 in any game I've run or played in. It's hilarious.
No that sounds about how all rogues die, because...
All rogues die.I know a rogue that died from rubble falling on him AFTER the fight.
It was a reflex save.
Huh... the funny thing is... one of my builds that made it to high level in 3.5 was in fact a mostly Rogue character. A Scout 3/Rogue 16/Shadowdancer 1 to be precise, though that was largely because Swift Ambusher from Complete Scoundrel let me stack my rogue levels to determine my Skirmish Bonus. Also heavy UMD use... very heavy UMD use.
Well, that was one Rogue schtick that was given to everybody in Pathfinder, because your Ranks in UMD no longer critically depend on how many levels of a Class that has it as a Class Skill... They got rid of the Double Cost unless a Class Skill for that level's Class rule. A Fighter can max UMD if they want, and can instantly do so by grabbing a Headband of +2 INT at the point their HD would provide sufficient Ranks to make it work reliably.
Besides that the 'norm' for non-casters especially was quite a bit different in 3.5, and Rogues' didn't have the attack bonus problem they do vs. other martials in PRPG, that Shadowdancer dip also seems pretty damn relevant.How Paizo's changes in Pathfinder ended up appling to the Rogue's balance seems a topic not often addressed specifically. Basically, their structural benefits were diluted and given away for free to everybody, and nothing they were given compared to what everybody else got. The latter is obvious enough, but the other part of the equation is also important IMHO.
Ya, the change to the skill system has really brutalized the Rogue, especially since going from "pay twice for 1 rank" to "you don't get +3" is a pretty bleh penalty comparatively.
I've seen Rogues at level 3-4 too.
I have literally never seen a Rogue survive past level 5 in any game I've run or played in. It's hilarious.
We have a rogue in our 13th level game. I see them often at drop in games at stores.
That being said, the bard seems quite a bit more popular.
No that sounds about how all rogues die, because...
All rogues die.I know a rogue that died from rubble falling on him AFTER the fight.
It was a reflex save.
That character had a few falls himself including once where he fell then had things fall on him. He could make saves though. I generally game my skills like acrobatics to need a 5 or so to be able to hedge bets to spread skill points. Iirc, he rolled like a 1 or 2. It was really low.
That being said, the bard seems quite a bit more popular.
That's cause bards are amazing. Even more so, if you are not trying/succeeding to/at be/being a rogue.
|
It's not hard to see why imo the Bard is more popular. Inspire Courage and Compatence. A decent set of skills with points to spread out amongst them. Spells. Versatile Performance. Class features that make you the skill money of the group. Thanks to Paizo making Trapfinding a trait I can disarm traps like a Rogue. Yes I know the trait is limited to a AP. It still exists. I see no reason short of a Ninja to not take a Bard over a Rogue. All the Rogue gets is sneak attack which has to be done ranged or get torn apart in melee. Rogue talents that are a mixed bag to say the least. They do have a decent skill list.
The "skill list" is acquired with a 1 level dip. Same with Trapfinding if you can't/don't want to use the Osirion Trait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trait schmait. 750 gp for a wand of summon nature's ally 1 will disarm more traps than you'll see in a campaign.
|
|
To be fair the ninja is significantly more powerful than the rogue even at lower levels. They get access to their ki pool quite early, and from that point on the rogue just falls further and further behind. Lumping them in together only serves to elevate the rogue in a way that the class does not presently deserve. Can you make a working rogue? You certainly can but it takes a good amount of system mastery. The "average" rogue is closer to being an adept than it is a player class.
I have not seen this in our region. I've run 80ish scenarios and played a number of AP's and never encountered a good ninja. Rogues meanwhile, I know at least 5-6 builds on our region that outstrip many traditional martial for versatility and combat effectiveness.
Trait schmait. 750 gp for a wand of summon nature's ally 1 will disarm more traps than you'll see in a campaign.
No GM I know personally would give you the trap XP if you cheaped out like that and made a summon set it off.
Trait schmait. 750 gp for a wand of summon nature's ally 1 will disarm more traps than you'll see in a campaign.No GM I know personally would give you the trap XP if you cheaped out like that and made a summon set it off.
Awful GM then.
Why do the PCs know what their XP totals are? There is no mechanic that interacts with XP for them to need to know it.
I think you're being pedantic on that one, Marthkus. Different characters can easily have different XP totals. I've never seen a game run where a GM tracks XP if XP is used. It's always been incumbent on the player regardless of system played (pathfinder, star wars d20 and saga, shadow run, etc).
Every group, table and campaign is different.
LIES!
I think you're being pedantic on that one, Marthkus. Different characters can easily have different XP totals. I've never seen a game run where a GM tracks XP if XP is used. It's always been incumbent on the player regardless of system played (pathfinder, star wars d20 and saga, shadow run, etc).
Unlike 3.5 though, there is no way for people to catch up.
I thought he was commenting on PC knowledge vs player knowledge, and the PC would have no reason not to use a decent tactic, in-character. The player wanting XP only over-rides that if they are over-riding actual roleplaying. Your games may vary on that aspect.
|
|
Evidence on groups, tables, campaigns being different.
The halfling rogue that snuck through a dungeon at level 2 and killed the big, bad level 5 sorcerer in his lair?
I absolutely gave him full XP for soloing that big evil. This later caused him to level up a full session before the rest of the players.
This is the Kingmaker AP. Played Friday nights at 4 hours a piece.
If someone can't make the session due to real life issues, their character stays "in town" and gains no XP that night.
I also give folks bonus XP all the time when they go off the printed track and solo roleplay encounters in their town(s).
This is the first group/campaign I've run or seen run this way in about a decade. It's been fun. Variety is fun.
(It also reminded me of the "good old days" when the party rogue was 2 levels higher than the wizard)
|
|
I have not seen this in our region. I've run 80ish scenarios and played a number of AP's and never encountered a good ninja. Rogues meanwhile, I know at least 5-6 builds on our region that outstrip many traditional martial for versatility and combat effectiveness.
To be fair the ninja is significantly more powerful than the rogue even at lower levels. They get access to their ki pool quite early, and from that point on the rogue just falls further and further behind. Lumping them in together only serves to elevate the rogue in a way that the class does not presently deserve. Can you make a working rogue? You certainly can but it takes a good amount of system mastery. The "average" rogue is closer to being an adept than it is a player class.
That sounds more like a problem with players than the ninja class itself. I've seen a ninja that managed to wholesale slaughter the entire (oversized) party in Rise of the Runelords.
That's just how it is. You don't get magical level ups just because you decided to not play for a bit. That cheapens the effort others have gone through. Likewise, it can reward players for extra participation if there's a split in group consensus.
They can actually catch up but not in terms of having equal XP. If you have 1.3M XP or 1.7M XP you're still a 17th level character on medium track. For an extreme example, if you take a 1st level character and put them in CR 20 fight and they survive and just "exist" through it behind cover, that alone brings them up to level 9. Just one more fight and that's level 11. One more and that's level 12. It adds up by quickly. You'll even out around levels 15, 16 after a half dozen encounters or so. That's nothing. By then you can contribute as well. Maybe not as well as the others but you still have a noticeable impact.
I've never seen someone complain about levels either. Legitimate life events are different. I've seen players given free levels if they've been out due to a death in the family or somesuch. But just because you're lazy or throwing a fit and want that XP? No way.
That's just how it is. You don't get magical level ups just because you decided to not play for a bit. That cheapens the effort others have gone through. Likewise, it can reward players for extra participation if there's a split in group consensus.
They can actually catch up but not in terms of having equal XP. If you have 1.3M XP or 1.7M XP you're still a 17th level character on medium track. For an extreme example, if you take a 1st level character and put them in CR 20 fight and they survive and just "exist" through it behind cover, that alone brings them up to level 9. Just one more fight and that's level 11. One more and that's level 12. It adds up by quickly. You'll even out around levels 15, 16 after a half dozen encounters or so. That's nothing. By then you can contribute as well. Maybe not as well as the others but you still have a noticeable impact.
I've never seen someone complain about levels either. Legitimate life events are different. I've seen players given free levels if they've been out due to a death in the family or somesuch. But just because you're lazy or throwing a fit and want that XP? No way.
I see... If your rogue has 8 levels on the party or at least an XP advantage from solo-ing traps perhaps they appear better than they are.
|
|
That sounds more like a problem with players than the ninja class itself. I've seen a ninja that managed to wholesale slaughter the entire (oversized) party in Rise of the Runelords. ** spoiler omitted ** The copy won initiative, dropped into greater invis and began tearing the party apart. The only individual that was capable of casting see invisibility at that time died almost immediately. The rest of the party were picked off at the ninja's leisure. It had been given access to deeper darkness as a spell-like ability (and the ability to see in magical darkness) by that point, and thus even seeing invisibility really wouldn't have done any good. Note that this was a party of fully optimized characters in a game where the GM had been gong full throttle to kill us from the getgo.
Ah. We carry Smog Pellets, some have scrolls of glitterdust and the like. I think that deeper darkness thing is a home rule as the ability to see in it unless they are a fetchling or the like. Most of those creatures would also have light sensitivity to boot. I can not argue about anything having to do with mechanical balance when you bring home rules to the table.
That's just how it is. You don't get magical level ups just because you decided to not play for a bit.Depends on the GM. I absolutely do.
Yeah, with the exception of our current PFS campaign, both of my groups have started using fiat leveling. It works better for more casual groups because people have lives outside of gaming (much to my chagrin).
Heck, even in PFS, if your party finishes the module you get XP; no one gets bonus for doing traps.
So, @Buri, leveling by fiat tends to be cleaner and cause less party strife, in my no inconsiderable experiences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, we use fiat leveling too. We're busy professional adults, with families. It's just not right to penalize a player for his kid being sick or that big business trip.
Fiat levelling doesn't necessarily mean that all PCs level up simultaneously, or irrespective of play time.
Tracking XP precisely is not the only way to achieve differential levelling.
Unless it REALLY REALLY matters to your group that PC A levels up at end of Session 10, PC B levels up 10% thru Session 11, PC C levels up 60% thru Session 11, and PC D levels up half way thru Session 12, precise XP tracking doesn't really bring much benefit vs. the work. Most people using don't really track it DURING game play to allow differential level up at different times within the same session. So why bother tracking XP that closely?
If you're not interested in that level of detail, fiat XP can approximate any degree of differential levelling you want, with recognition of GM fiat vs. blind invocation of 'authority' of a generic rule printed in a book. If a PC consistently does more XP type stuff, then they can level up one or two sessions earlier.
Or since the game is predicated on a meta-gamey correlation of CR to APL, just level everybody up equally, good players know they're good and already gain satisfaction from that without 'XP advantage'. If there is some huge discrepancy in player skill and approah to the game, an XP advantage isn't going to counter any potential disatisaction with the game.