|
This has a few parts to the thread...
1. Are there ninja specific archetypes, if so where can I find them?
2. I've been looking at making a rogue, but am consistently being told ninja is the better choice, can I get some information as to how/why? ( prefer data, not opinions that will lead to a flame war)
3. Is the assassin PrC viable, or is it a waste of paper and ink?
4. For my home game I came up with a concept of an "assasin-y" melee class mixed with dark tapestry oracle. Is this viable, or can it be improved on?
( brief background of this toon;; she was raised in the ways of assassination, on a fairly difficult mission she was bestowed with divine abilities to aid her ( buffs, healing, etc)...)
|
Ninja/Rogue is famously the weakest class in Pathfinder.
You can find many 1000+ post threads on just that subject.
Basically, if you have really good system mastery, you can create a viable Ninja/Rogue.
Otherwise, you will be disappointed.
I suggest a Guide/Trapper Ranger.
You will have Full BAB, D10 hit die, two good saves, free feats, 6 skill points, trapfinding, and a more reliable addition to damage, along with a better Hide in Plain Sight late game.
Better, in, and out, of combat.
just adding in. Rogues/ninja's are playable, (play a ninja, call it a rogue) But they will usually be the weakest, unless you optimize and your table does not. Take a look into dipping shadowdancer for 3ishlevels.
^ this is a good start. I would just like to add on at the top.
WHO is your PC. WHY does he do what he does? - its easier to build from a concept, and usually allows for more fun overall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the subject of the Assasin PrC, it's terrible.
If you and your DM can work it in the game take a look at the red mantis assasin PrC.
|
|
Red Mantis Assassin is pretty bad itself, but slightly better than Assassin.
I am going to suggest going for "assassin" without any PrC, and just a good solid build.
I don't know why every "assassin" PrC is designed to suck, but with the way they changed many spells and abilities, the "save or die" thing seems to be something Pathfinder hates with a vengeance.
2. I've been looking at making a rogue, but am consistently being told ninja is the better choice, can I get some information as to how/why? ( prefer data, not opinions that will lead to a flame war) Both are perfectly fine classes - the ninja just has more 'wow' in general.
3. Is the assassin PrC viable, or is it a waste of paper and ink? Sadly, it's not great. It was made slightly better than 3.5 at doing what it does (killing people and making them stay dead), but they lost all their spellcasting in trade. Talk to your GM about whether it will be worthwhile. If you're playing in Golarion, also check out the Red Mantis Assassin from the Inner Sea World Guide.
4. For my home game I came up with a concept of an "assasin-y" melee class mixed with dark tapestry oracle. Is this viable, or can it be improved on? That should work pretty well actually - although unless I'm mistaken, a Death Attack does need to be melee. Assassin is easy to get into, easy to use.
Enjoy!
Red Mantis Assassin is pretty bad itself, but slightly better than Assassin.
That's what i meant.
The ninja is generally considered mechanically superior because of his ki pool and the ability to pick up Vanishing Trick which opens the door up for Sneak Attack a lot more often than the Rogue is normally capable of.
I recommend checking out the Slayer class from the ACG. If intended or not, that class is paizo's ultimate rogue fix attempt. Full BAB, partial sneak attack progression, "favored enemy," Ranger combat styles, and pretty much any rogue talent seen to be useful are all options for the Slayer.
Really, the only thing one could consider the rogue having on the slayer is 2+ skills per level and he gets to roll more dice for sneak attack, but what you get is well worth the trade.
|
i like ninja mixed with monk as an assassin character.
dastardly finish mixed with mantis style, sensei/martial artist, can be brutal. i played it as a level 12 character for a one shot, and it worked really well.
at 12 it would be 9 ninja/3 monk. using martial artist you gain +1 to your save dc, sensei gives you wisdom to hit, granting you the ability to stack the heck out of wisdom, then 9 levels of rogue to qualify for dastardly finish.
you provoke->stun->then your turn coup de grace-> move to the next target. its a near auto kill on every target you hit with a stunning fist.you have to take combat style mastery, and snake style chain so you can get Aoos to provoke your stunning fist attacks, letting you stun them on their turn and coup de grace them on yours.
it worked out much better then i thought it would, made me very happy. it was the best assassin character ive ever played in pathfinder.
If you want to call your PC a toon, go right ahead. Just be prepared to catch some flak from elitists.
The rogue/ninja/assassin debates will rage forever.
Personally I don't feel they are as horrible as many do. But if you or your fellows expect them to do as well in standard combat as a combat class, you will be disappointed. Generally speaking the things they get tricks/ki/sneak attack/+2 skill points are generally not considered worth what they give up especially in standard combat.
If you enjoy really working at setting up non-standard combats that work to your strengths or using your skills to avoid combat, then they can perform acceptably. But then it can seem you are not part of the team with the rest of the group. Some people don't like that.
Generally, some of the monk, bard, or ranger archtypes are usually proposed as better for the particular concept desired. With maybe a dip into the rogue/ninja/assassin for a particular ability.
As BBT and DCE said, it is easiest to help you if you state exactly what you want the PC to be able to do and what restrictions you have, then ask for a build that meets those requirements.
If you want to call your PC a toon, go right ahead. Just be prepared to catch some flak from elitists.It's not an "elitist" thing. Don't be a jerk.
I apologize if you inferred that I implied that you or anyone on this thread is an elitist.
What, exactly, is badwrongfun with calling your PC a toon?
|
|
If you want to call your PC a toon, go right ahead. Just be prepared to catch some flak from elitists.It's not an "elitist" thing. Don't be a jerk.I apologize if you inferred that I implied that you or anyone on this thread is an elitist.
What, exactly, is badwrongfun with calling your PC a toon?
I am putting together a Special Sweeper starter with good Special/Speed IVs, and looking for advice on the common types to round out my moveset, to maximize type advantage. I plan to Supertrain all EVs in SA and Sp, with leftovers in HP. I will likely LifeOrb and seek to power past walls.
I was thinking I would put forth this on a weather team, but current changes cut effect off earlier now.
If you want to call your PC a toon, go right ahead. Just be prepared to catch some flak from elitists.It's not an "elitist" thing. Don't be a jerk.I apologize if you inferred that I implied that you or anyone on this thread is an elitist.
What, exactly, is badwrongfun with calling your PC a toon?
I am putting together a Special Sweeper starter with good Special/Speed IVs, and looking for advice on the common types to round out my moveset, to maximize type advantage. I plan to Supertrain all EVs in SA and Sp, with leftovers in HP. I will likely LifeOrb and seek to power past walls.
I was thinking I would put forth this on a weather team, but current changes cut effect off earlier now.
Ahhhh...then it's a problem with terminology. You don't want the lingo from one game to invade the other, else there might be confusion.
I wasn't confused by the term "toon." I could see how some would be, those who don't or haven't played WoW.
On the other hand, I like to think that most people would be able to figure out that "toon" meant PC; the context certainly supports that interpretation.
But, you're right. Using that one word certainly is a slippery slope...
Edit: I'll tell you what; rather than further derail the OP, I'll just make a new thread...
The problem is inherent to the game. Pathfinder exists because players wanted the classes to feel different and have different capabilities rather than feel like a game token with fluff. Rogue is the problem child because it had to be there for continuity. But with time comes insight. Most people would rather not have a sneaky, lying, thieving, borderline evil character in the group. The game was forcing us to accept that because Trapfinding. So over the evolution of Pathfinder the class has received no love, and other less antisocial choices were made able to replace the rogue. And now there is a big expectation gap, because this particular game punishes you for not being a team player in ways that earlier editions rewarded.
|
|
The problem is inherent to the game. Pathfinder exists because players wanted the classes to feel different and have different capabilities rather than feel like a game token with fluff. Rogue is the problem child because it had to be there for continuity. But with time comes insight. Most people would rather not have a sneaky, lying, thieving, borderline evil character in the group. The game was forcing us to accept that because Trapfinding. So over the evolution of Pathfinder the class has received no love, and other less antisocial choices were made able to replace the rogue. And now there is a big expectation gap, because this particular game punishes you for not being a team player in ways that earlier editions rewarded.
dafuk you talking about Willis?!
I'm trying to explain why rouges are weak from a design standpoint rather than a statistical standpoint. Others have proven over and over the statistical standpoint, I was trying to explain why they are bad rather than how they are bad.
I would love to see a redone assassin class that fill the niche of the full BAB class with 1-4 arcane casting, essentially amalgamating the rogue base class and the assassin PrC from 3.5.
In fact, I may need to hit the homebrewing forum real quick.
Well, there is an alternate combat system where if a creature takes more than half of its he in damage in one single attack, it must make fortitude check or die.
If your GM is willing to work with you on this. Then any class could theoretically work.
Seriously?
The DC15 fortitude save?
Well, there is an alternate combat system where if a creature takes more than half of its he in damage in one single attack, it must make fortitude check or die.
If your GM is willing to work with you on this. Then any class could theoretically work.
Seriously?
The DC15 fortitude save?
I have heard that many people modify the DC to be more difficult based on how bad the hit was. But I don't remember exactly how.
|
|
Are you using the same rule for PCs who take big hits, or just NPCs? Because if it's PCs also, expect some bodies to hit the floor. If you use the coup de gras rules, you might as well not grant a save: The _minimum_ save DC would be 60 since it takes 50 damage for the Massive Damage Rule to even take effect.
Also, the massive damage rule favors two handed weapons even more, making two weapon fighting relatively weaker, and THF doesn't need any help.
youre confusing massive damage and coup de grace which is an auto crit with a dc = to damage dealt + 10, so it could be dc 500 or, if a dagger and low strength, as low as 12.
It
What would you suggest for my concept? N why is it the rogue/ninja isn't good? Oo?
Multiclassing in general is difficult to pull off in pathfinder. Multiclassing with the rogue is espcially problematic. Mostly becasue the rogue doesnt know what it wants to be, and suffers because of it. Is it the sneaky assisnt? The skills theif? The dashing swashbuckling warrior? Indian Jones? It tries to be all, ends up being none.
The ninja is a little better in so much as it's ki power are pretty sweet, but it suffers from much the same division of focus that the rogue has.
If you want a mundane sneaky, killy, warrior, try the slayer from the advandced class guide playtest. It does this very well.
For your concept, if you want a sneaky, skilled divine killer, take the inquisitor class.
1. Nope
2. They're pretty similar, but the options that the ninja has are generally more versatile and useful. You miss out on trap stuff by playing a ninja over a rogue, and the rogue has the benefit of getting evasion (which is nice) much earlier. There's not much else of note that the rogue can boast to do that the ninja can't though, so it's a matter of theme, and whether you want to be able to do those specific rogue things that the ninja misses out on.
3. It's not great. Too easy to pass a Fort save on Death Attacks, I find.
4. I don't really have enough information about your homebrew stuff to give my opinion on it.
Other Stuff: Some folks are quick to fling the word 'unplayable' around in regards to the rogue. This is an exaggeration. The rogue is playable, it's just not the epitome of optimization.