What, exactly, is the difference between having a standard, a move, and a swift, and having a full round?Bandits can. I believe that there are archetypes of other classes that can get full round surprise rounds as well.No this is not possible for any class as you only get a single move or standard action in a surprise round.BTW
1)Is it really possible to full attack during the surprise round?
Ambush (Ex)
At 4th level, a bandit becomes fully practiced in the art of ambushing. When she acts in the surprise round, she can take a move action, standard action, and swift action during the surprise round, not just a move or standard action.
NO full attacks.
If you are a TWF rogue then with the move+standard+swift onlly allow you to move and attack once (unless you can full attack as a stnadar action wich is extremely rare)
You can't take a full attack with just a standard, move, and swift. You have to be able to take a full round action.
It seems odd to me to think of a full round action as being something other than a standard and move (with optional free and swift actions). But I guess the way that the "normal round" is defined there's some nebulous difference after all.
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.
I can't think of any other situation where the difference would matter, but I suppose that the Bandit's ability was intentionally written that way.
How well does he hold up at higher levels? The one sneak attack seems a little linear.That's why Scout is the best rogue.
Well, if you combine the skulking slayer, scout archetypes, with bludgeoner, sap master, and sap adept, also including vital strike, and a free feint, furious focus, power attack
At 20th that's 20d8 + 40 sneak attack damage + 9d6 earthbreaker + 12 power attack, + enchantments and stuff. Your looking at breaking into the 200's with a single attack.
But.... then you get to feel dirty about doing all that damage with an essentially rubber mallet that's only knocking people out. Congratulations, you're now [Well, if you combine the skulking slayer, scout archetypes, with bludgeoner, sap master, and sap adept, also including vital strike, and a free feint, furious focus, power attack
At 20th that's 20d8 + 40 sneak attack damage + 9d6 earthbreaker + 12 power attack, + 1 1/2 strength + enchantments, buffs, and hopefully enlarge. Your looking at breaking into the 200's with a single attack.
But.... then you get to feel dirty about doing all that damage with an essentially rubber mallet that's only knocking people out.
Congratulations, you're now this guy.
then again, a ninja could do this unarmed, using the skill that lets them mimick monk damage with monk robes, so that their base vital strike damage starts at 2d10, and can get knockout artist (another +20 damage), can spend ki to do other cool stuff, and just lose out on using the d8's..... So to answer the original posts questions.
yes... rogues suck. You can have fun with them, but they do not match the abilities that other classes get.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clerics:
I won't even type one up for this. Clerics as archers are just entirely, 100% not at all viable. Beyond gimped.
Heheheh...
Please, read feint again.You are skilled at making foes overreact to your attacks.
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Feint, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.
Benefit: Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus, he loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn, in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus against your next attack.
So, to be decent at feinting, you need a specific magic item (worth 20000gp), have 3 feats centered on feinting, have at least 1 combat feat/talent (finesse, and eventually TWF) and at least 13 intelligence.
I mean it's not something really useable by a rogue without the greatest investments (and it's somewhat not possible on 15 PB, which is supposed to be the norm for APs).
And all of that suppose you manage to succesfully bluff your ennemy.
|
So, to be decent at feinting, you need a specific magic item (worth 20000gp), have 3 feats centered on feinting, have at least 1 combat feat/talent (finesse, and eventually TWF) and at least 13 intelligence.
I mean it's not something really useable by a rogue without the greatest investments (and it's somewhat not possible on 15 PB, which is supposed to be the norm for APs).
And all of that suppose you manage to succesfully bluff your ennemy.
Can I take that to be an admission that you were wrong about it being only on one attack?
How well does he hold up at higher levels? The one sneak attack seems a little linear.That's why Scout is the best rogue.
Well, if you combine the skulking slayer, scout archetypes, with bludgeoner, sap master, and sap adept, also including vital strike, and a free feint, furious focus, power attack
At 20th that's 20d8 + 40 sneak attack damage + 9d6 earthbreaker + 12 power attack, + enchantments and stuff. Your looking at breaking into the 200's with a single attack.
But.... then you get to feel dirty about doing all that damage with an essentially rubber mallet that's only knocking people out. Congratulations, you're now [Well, if you combine the skulking slayer, scout archetypes, with bludgeoner, sap master, and sap adept, also including vital strike, and a free feint, furious focus, power attack
At 20th that's 20d8 + 40 sneak attack damage + 9d6 earthbreaker + 12 power attack, + 1 1/2 strength + enchantments, buffs, and hopefully enlarge. Your looking at breaking into the 200's with a single attack.
But.... then you get to feel dirty about doing all that damage with an essentially rubber mallet that's only knocking people out.
Congratulations, you're now this guy.
then again, a ninja could do this unarmed, using the skill that lets them mimick monk damage with monk robes, so that their base vital strike damage starts at 2d10, and can get knockout artist (another +20 damage), can spend ki to do other cool stuff, and just lose out on using the d8's..... So to answer the original posts questions.
yes... rogues suck. You can have fun with them, but they do not match the abilities that other classes get.
At 20th level this rogue would have trouble hitting CR appropriate encounter.
Take a 15 pt buy rogue starting with a 16 Dex after racial. So that's 15 BAB and 26 Dex for +8 bonus, add +6 magic, + 1 weapon focus. +30 then add +2 for flanking and -2 for TWF. Power Attack for -4. So +26. Average AC at CR 20 is 33-36 and that considered average encounter. Go for for CR 23 encounter with AC 41-44 the rogue will really struggle to hit. So good luck achieving all that damage. I'd skip the power attack.
How well does he hold up at higher levels? The one sneak attack seems a little linear.That's why Scout is the best rogue.
Well, if you combine the skulking slayer, scout archetypes, with bludgeoner, sap master, and sap adept, also including vital strike, and a free feint, furious focus, power attack
At 20th that's 20d8 + 40 sneak attack damage + 9d6 earthbreaker + 12 power attack, + enchantments and stuff. Your looking at breaking into the 200's with a single attack.
But.... then you get to feel dirty about doing all that damage with an essentially rubber mallet that's only knocking people out. Congratulations, you're now [Well, if you combine the skulking slayer, scout archetypes, with bludgeoner, sap master, and sap adept, also including vital strike, and a free feint, furious focus, power attack
At 20th that's 20d8 + 40 sneak attack damage + 9d6 earthbreaker + 12 power attack, + 1 1/2 strength + enchantments, buffs, and hopefully enlarge. Your looking at breaking into the 200's with a single attack.
But.... then you get to feel dirty about doing all that damage with an essentially rubber mallet that's only knocking people out.
Congratulations, you're now this guy.
then again, a ninja could do this unarmed, using the skill that lets them mimick monk damage with monk robes, so that their base vital strike damage starts at 2d10, and can get knockout artist (another +20 damage), can spend ki to do other cool stuff, and just lose out on using the d8's..... So to answer the original posts questions.
yes... rogues suck. You can have fun with them, but they do not match the abilities that other classes get.
At 20th level this rogue would have trouble hitting CR appropriate encounter.
Take a 15 pt buy rogue starting with a 16 Dex after racial. So that's 15 BAB and 26 Dex for +8 bonus, add +6 magic, + 1 weapon...
Furious Focus mean Power attack only lowers 2nd-5th attack a round, never the first. So if just uses the Vital Strike move: he takes no penalty.
How well does he hold up at higher levels? The one sneak attack seems a little linear.That's why Scout is the best rogue.
Well, if you combine the skulking slayer, scout archetypes, with bludgeoner, sap master, and sap adept, also including vital strike, and a free feint, furious focus, power attack
At 20th that's 20d8 + 40 sneak attack damage + 9d6 earthbreaker + 12 power attack, + enchantments and stuff. Your looking at breaking into the 200's with a single attack.
But.... then you get to feel dirty about doing all that damage with an essentially rubber mallet that's only knocking people out. Congratulations, you're now [Well, if you combine the skulking slayer, scout archetypes, with bludgeoner, sap master, and sap adept, also including vital strike, and a free feint, furious focus, power attack
At 20th that's 20d8 + 40 sneak attack damage + 9d6 earthbreaker + 12 power attack, + 1 1/2 strength + enchantments, buffs, and hopefully enlarge. Your looking at breaking into the 200's with a single attack.
But.... then you get to feel dirty about doing all that damage with an essentially rubber mallet that's only knocking people out.
Congratulations, you're now this guy.
then again, a ninja could do this unarmed, using the skill that lets them mimick monk damage with monk robes, so that their base vital strike damage starts at 2d10, and can get knockout artist (another +20 damage), can spend ki to do other cool stuff, and just lose out on using the d8's..... So to answer the original posts questions.
yes... rogues suck. You can have fun with them, but they do not match the abilities that other classes get.
At 20th level this rogue would have trouble hitting CR appropriate encounter.
Take a 15 pt buy rogue starting with a 16 Dex after racial. So that's 15 BAB and 26 Dex for +8 bonus, add +6 magic, + 1 weapon focus. +30 then add +2 for flanking and -2 for TWF. Power Attack for -4. So +26. Average AC at CR 20 is 33-36 and that considered average encounter. Go for for CR 23 encounter with AC 41-44 the rogue will really struggle to hit. So good luck achieving all that damage. I'd skip the power attack.
First, did you read what this build is doing? He's definitely not a twfing rogue, nor does he take power attack penalties. That is one of the few benefits he has.
He actually has 16 strength since it's a strength based rogue, also, no power attack penalty due to furious focus, and no twf since you are always moving 10 ft to cause flat footed.
so 15 (bab) + 5 (weapon enchant) + 8 (strength) + 1 (weapon focus) + 2 (flanking) + 2 (charge, but only when needed)+ 2 (headband) = 33-35 (the ninja will be 35-37 since he can wear brawler armor). (he'd probably also have an ion stone if the GM allows them).
add in common buffs and he'll hit reliably with his single hit.
not saying it's the best rogue ever, or even competitive against a fighter, but it does do really good single hit damage (for a rogue).
|
so 15 (bab) + 5 (weapon enchant) + 8 (strength) + 1 (weapon focus) + 2 (flanking) + 2 (charge, but only when needed)+ 2 (headband) = 33-35 (the ninja will be 35-37 since he can wear brawler armor).
I think you forgot the fact that the ninja can take the Eldritch Heritage [Orc] tree and get up to +14Str from it.
so 15 (bab) + 5 (weapon enchant) + 8 (strength) + 1 (weapon focus) + 2 (flanking) + 2 (charge, but only when needed)+ 2 (headband) = 33-35 (the ninja will be 35-37 since he can wear brawler armor).I think you forgot the fact that the ninja can take the Eldritch Heritage [Orc] tree and get up to +14Str from it.
why thank you Evil, I did forget about that.
How do you figure? I see +6 inherent and +6 size.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@XMorsX
Rangers DO NOT get full animal companion, they choose from a limited list that denies the better options and the animal companion is at -3 level on the progression table.Don't get me wrong, they are better than the rogue but you are wrong on that.
What is Boon companion.
What is Boon companion.@XMorsX
Rangers DO NOT get full animal companion, they choose from a limited list that denies the better options and the animal companion is at -3 level on the progression table.Don't get me wrong, they are better than the rogue but you are wrong on that.
I'm pretty sure it's a feat tax for a class that gets loads of bonus feats
*plays rangers*
Please, read feint again.You are skilled at making foes overreact to your attacks.
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Feint, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.
Benefit: Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus, he loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn, in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus against your next attack.
I've read it. Feint is still a move action so only one attack, or am I Reading it wrong?
You will get one more attack if the opponent provokes AoO, but that is it.
This is why I thing rougues should be able to Feint as a Swift action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heheheh...Clerics:
I won't even type one up for this. Clerics as archers are just entirely, 100% not at all viable. Beyond gimped.
LOL.
Now, find for yourself who is supposed to have the most charisma out of the two.
The rogue.
No wonder you guys think they suck. You don't even remotely build them to their strengths. You try to force them to be what they're not.
Why would the rogue have higher charisma?
The rogue has higher need of str (needs to carry more, doesn't want a penalty to damage especially at low levels)
The rogue has higher need of dex (AC for front-lines, potentially attack bonus; both need Init
The rogue has higher need of con (Less access to spells that solve fort-save induced issues, needs more HP for the frontlines, less access to False Life)
The wizard has more need of Int (obvious)
The rogue has more need of Wis (Low will save)
Both benefit about equally from Cha (rogue has a few talents, wizard has charm and binding spells)The rogue thus has fewer points to put into it.
A human rogue I would say would have these minimum stats for a build that relies on dex in combat (and one that relies on str is even more MAD):
Str 10 Dex 16+2 Con 12 Int 7 Wis 12 - That's 10 points right there, allowing for a 14 cha. But note that this is with 6 skill points per level.
For a human wizard relying on spells in combat the minimum would be something like:
Str 7 Dex 12 Con 12 Int 16+2 Wis 8 - That's 8 points, leaving 7 points for Cha, and the wizard gains 6 skill points per level, so as many as the rogue.
Lol... you clearly don't know how to build either a rogue or a wizard.
Int 7? Roflmao. Uhm... no thanks. That is intentionally reducing the strength of the class. Who does that?
Only Int 16 base Int on the wizard? They're SAD yo. You want an 18. 17 if you absolutely must.
If you're willing to take ALL of those feats, yeah. But mechanically the rogue is undetpowered. I agree, but its not the worst class. There os only preferences for personal game play.I'm pretty sure rogue is the worst PC class.
At what? Every class is better or worse at some things than other classes. What are you speaking to?
At what? Every class is better or worse at some things than other classes. What are you speaking to?If you're willing to take ALL of those feats, yeah. But mechanically the rogue is undetpowered. I agree, but its not the worst class. There os only preferences for personal game play.I'm pretty sure rogue is the worst PC class.
I am pretty sure he means at contributing in resolving the challenges that the party faces.
I find the fighter comparisons amusing. The fighter is leaps and bounds more competent than a rogue. I have to grab one feat (intimidating prowess) to have a noticeable out of combat presence. With the rogue, I have to build my entire character around combat to even be noticeable.
Does the fighter still have problems? Yes. Are they rogue level problems? Not a chance in hell.
Noticeable out of combat presence? You mean pissing off everyone you meet? Haha, yeah, sure is noticeable...
I am pretty sure he means at contributing in resolving the challenges that the party faces.At what? Every class is better or worse at some things than other classes. What are you speaking to?If you're willing to take ALL of those feats, yeah. But mechanically the rogue is undetpowered. I agree, but its not the worst class. There os only preferences for personal game play.I'm pretty sure rogue is the worst PC class.
That... depends entirely on what those challenges are, doesn't it?
At what? Every class is better or worse at some things than other classes. What are you speaking to?If you're willing to take ALL of those feats, yeah. But mechanically the rogue is undetpowered. I agree, but its not the worst class. There os only preferences for personal game play.I'm pretty sure rogue is the worst PC class.
He was speaking in general. The rogue is the wors at combat and is not even the best at skills (not to mention far awy from out of combat in general)
That... depends entirely on what those challenges are, doesn't it?I am pretty sure he means at contributing in resolving the challenges that the party faces.At what? Every class is better or worse at some things than other classes. What are you speaking to?If you're willing to take ALL of those feats, yeah. But mechanically the rogue is undetpowered. I agree, but its not the worst class. There os only preferences for personal game play.I'm pretty sure rogue is the worst PC class.
Any kind of challenges, because for any kind of challenge you built a rogue for; there is another class that can contribute more. The same goes for groups of challenges, any set of challenges you built your rogue for; there is another class that can be built that will contribute more (to the set of challenges) and maybe to a wider set of challenges.
People complains because they choose a 8 skill point class in games that GMs make a poor use of skills and then try to make the rogue face monsters like barbarians do to compensate this fact.I´m not saying that the rogue can´t contribute to the combat, it is just the class concept isn´t make to compare rogue vs monsters 1x1 at a open fight.Fortunately, no one here is thinking of x1 battles.Poor use of skills? You can only do so much with skills. Are you going to talk the lich out of finishing his evil plan? Stealth up on a dragon, something you can't do with a +infinity stealth. Once you've disabled that trap, then what? You going to use that climb skill when everyone else is flying?
Skills are used. Some of the most important skills are better accomplished by an intelligence based class or a bard. How about all those knowledge checks to gather useful information? You the best at that? Those checks are extremely common in and out of combat. Diplomacy is often better accomplished by a bard or paladin.
How do you feel when you reach high level and the opponent targets you with hold, mind control, polymorph, or petrification effects because you're the weakest person in the group?
How does that rogue archer do when the opponent is invisible to start the battle or has total cover in preparation of an ambush? Or if they have heavy fortification armor negating your sneak attack 75% of the time? Or cast a blur spell to completely negate your sneak attack? Blur potions are extremely cheap. They get passed around like candy when an opponent knows a rogue or sneak attack class is present. Make them absolutely useless.
Lots of ways to make a rogue useless that don't exist for other classes.
Out of combat skill use seems low in a lot of this thread's poster's games.
Probably why they don't see the extreme strength of the rogue. The rogue is by FAR the best at being decent at everything. Always good to have one around.
Any kind of challenges, because for any kind of challenge you built a rogue for; there is another class that can contribute more. The same goes for groups of challenges, any set of challenges you built your rogue for; there is another class that can be built that will contribute more (to the set of challenges) and maybe to a wider set of challenges.That... depends entirely on what those challenges are, doesn't it?I am pretty sure he means at contributing in resolving the challenges that the party faces.At what? Every class is better or worse at some things than other classes. What are you speaking to?If you're willing to take ALL of those feats, yeah. But mechanically the rogue is undetpowered. I agree, but its not the worst class. There os only preferences for personal game play.I'm pretty sure rogue is the worst PC class.
I disagree wholeheartedly. By default the rogue has more skill points than the other classes. While some classes may be able to out specialize the rogue, the rogue can more easily specialize in being a generalist.
I disagree wholeheartedly. By default the rogue has more skill points than the other classes. While some classes may be able to out specialize the rogue, the rogue can more easily specialize in being a generalist.Any kind of challenges, because for any kind of challenge you built a rogue for; there is another class that can contribute more. The same goes for groups of challenges, any set of challenges you built your rogue for; there is another class that can be built that will contribute more (to the set of challenges) and maybe to a wider set of challenges.That... depends entirely on what those challenges are, doesn't it?I am pretty sure he means at contributing in resolving the challenges that the party faces.At what? Every class is better or worse at some things than other classes. What are you speaking to?If you're willing to take ALL of those feats, yeah. But mechanically the rogue is undetpowered. I agree, but its not the worst class. There os only preferences for personal game play.I'm pretty sure rogue is the worst PC class.
Bards.
And for a rogue that dies from a cold, or by sneezing.
Such a character is too fragile for a group of adventurers.
What are you even talking about?
The whole debate is pretty interesting, but I think the value of rogues (and monks if you'll let me roll them in) is that they have a niche. This niche is not open combat and it's pretty clear that they weren't ever meant for that.
I'm currently playing in an urban gang war campaign. (In Sharn. We're doing an eberron conversion.) We're playing criminals with hearts of gold (Sorta but not really. At least we're better than the other gangs.) who deal in fencing and smuggling and thievery and gambling. We have to deal with the law all the time and subterfuge and misdirection are absolutely key. As such, our party has 2 rogues, a monk, and an alchemist. I'm playing one of the rogues and I'm a sap adept underhanded rumormonger who uses improvised weapons exclusively. The other rogue fights unarmed. This is all critical because it means our party never wears visible armor or carries any weapons. We can get into parties, clubs, police stations and generally never be suspicious. Even when we do get into serious altercations, we can all talk our ways out. The monk even contributes to our ruses with monstrous sense motive rolls to read body language. Together we keep everything close to the chest. If we ever slip up, the alchemist just burns it all to the ground. It's working for us.
We can also outrun or easily hide from things that are serious threats (of which there are many) and I honestly can't see too many other classes working out as well. We're up against huge organizations so individual combats aren't about defeating our enemies so much as surviving and then hiding bodies or making it look like somebody else killed them or even faking our own deaths. Maybe some cheeky spellcasters would fit into our party, but anybody who relied on ranged would be boned in these tight streets and anybody in heavy armor is just bait for the griffin rider guardsmen.
I think in this situation, rogues are perfect. They're gonna suck in open honest combat, but here they are kings.
Well put!
Great, the Rogue has been demoted from NPC to Summoned Monster and is still found to be lacking.
Man, I just cannot get over it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like Commoners 'as is'.
I haven't read a single thing about build-craft, but I can't find the problem with Commoners.
I do however houserule some of the other 'very powerful' (YMMV) classes like Mystic Theurges and player Munchkins who insist on being Kobalds...
A lot depends on the DM and I let all classes and players shine.So no, they don't suck. Their DPS (or whatever that cr@p is called) is 'low', everything they do some other class does better, but I let them shine in other ways (skills, social, ...) because shining is wonderfully insubstantial and thinking about what a character does is too concrete and difficult.
But that's just me!
I wish I could favorite this post twice...