For a very quick fix for the rogue, they should have full BAB (and d10 hp) as well as an ability that grants them a bonus on all skill checks equal to their rank in that skill or their class level, whichever is lower.
That way they can contribute meaningfully in combat without having to pour every. frakkin. resource. into it and they actually become good at skills.
Rogues can just be fun to play :P Gotta play them smart though, they definitely aren't that great toe-to-toe.
Well, Commoners can be fun to play.
That doesn't make it a strong class.
Interestingly enough, the person you replied to did not claim they where a strong class.
I mean, I get your response and agree with the sentiment that "fun" does not a balance argument make, but using that reply towards someone who did not make a balance argument seems kind of belittling.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Commoners can be fun to play.
That doesn't make it a strong class.
sigh
Taken in context of this thread your remark suggests that because someone finds the rogue fun to play, going so far as to concede an element of the overwhelmingly negative view (that some people have) of the class, that enjoying it and playing it is wrong or somehow bad or poor judgement or otherwise negatively viewed upon.You went so far as to make a comparison to the commoner class, associating the fun (and capabilities) of the rogue with the capacities of a commoner, which is typically viewed as the bottom of the barrel or laughing stock of adventuring concepts. This seemed more insulting and unnecessary than anything.
Furthermore, as it seems you have already responded as I write this post:
You make claim to a preemptive strike which was made in response to a statement. That is not preemptive. I do not think you are being honest about what you said.
What I notice and hear a lot of on these threads when someone speaks on a class that is not inherently amazing as an isolated entity is naysaying on virtually every positive point brought up. And even when someone wants to claim 'well, regardless of how the math or mechanics work out, even if you are correct, I still enjoy said thing and have seen them work with the right conditions', those responses are picked apart or attacked as though no right can possibly be done by playing that class.
this is unfair and heavily biased thinking and acting which polarizes these 'debates' and frustrates people (it frustrates me).
If he can't admit your right and still enjoy the class, that I feel, is asking far more than is within any hint of reason. He has read the thread. He concedes part of your point. He still thinks rogues are fun.
*note* by 'your' I mean the general idea shared by opposed parties who claim that the class is weak, etc. Your comment(s) imply you share some common ground with this philosophy so you were included within the group espousing it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
BBT was a bit too quick on the trigger back there, but I gotta say: After seeing countless "Rogues are fun! That means they are balanced!" arguments around, BBT's mistake is understandable.
I have rarely ever seen a comment similar to your quote, Lemmy. I have seen "rogues are fun, so the class works" or "rogue is fun to play, so the class isnt badly designed. but that is far from claiming they are balanced. It is a different perspective on good design, sure, and that might be discussed, but it is not claiming they are balanced because theyre fun, nor is BBTs response an argument against those claims.
|
|
I will admit that, in general, the rogue probably needs work and probably isn't where it should be. Most of my arguments come from hearing that the class cannot do anything well, at all, and if they somehow could do something even decently, any group will have people who clearly and consistently outshine them in those departments.
That I very much disagree with. There are things rogues can do that other classes simply have no mechanical capacity to perform (or most other classes). When people say that rogues are terrible at stealth and rangers do it better, I think, but there is fast stealth. Unless you take some special archetype or PRC, aren't you unable to move at full speed without penalty? Then people one up you with the 'well, let me switch classes now and drop invisibility now that I am a wizard or Sorceror and you are still a rogue'. And it is this bombardment of unfair attacks and comparisons that are what grinds my nerves.
It really boils down to an escalating war of who can come up with the most ways to outdo the other and when someone finally can show numbers that are superior in the hands of a minority class (albeit those numbers tend to be conditional or limited), people remark that choosing the thing that let you do that ruins the character and it is somehow invalidated as a counter argument.
Most of you guys on these forums are reasonably logical people. So perhaps I am more incited than normal when people with the knowledge and system mastery that you all have stop using those otherwise solid features on the other end of the argument table.
It is OK to admit that the other side has valid points and can acquire a few niche uses where they are *gasp* better than the more optimized classes. Though, it is not entirely niche for the rogue. We all know that not every party has a group of 4-6 skill point per level classes all with 3/4 and full Bab and spells that all cover the skills or specific elements of combat that a rogue can. It also does not mean that the rogue is amazing as a result either. I am just being fair.
If people approached the opposing argument the same way, we might learn a thing or two about the validating aspects (and the weaknesses) of a class and all come out the better for it.
Is sneak attack ever worth it? Absolutely.
Are rogues ever worth it? Of course.
Why are these things worth it? situationally they can do well. They shine brightest in specialist groups that lack versatility. Because of their broad skill selection and skill points they can save valuable spell slots for casters (limited uses per day) and situationally benefit for not needing magic to do it. They can work alongside or aid other characters who have the same skills (which is anybody on the party) and they will almost always be competent at these tasks and can excellent at some. In the situations where they can be useful in a fight (these do come up reasonably often) such as flanking, sometimes darkness and possibly surprise rounds, they can be extremely effective. They also benefit from a mixed bag (in terms of quality) of abilities which have some very useful and strong gems.
Are there reasons why they are not worth it? Absolutely. They do fine against average enemies but lack built in enhancements to deal with significant threats. They are not the most innately durable of characters in combat and require heavy sacrifice to acquire the durability of a dedicated martial (but they can definitely get it). They have a few useful bonuses such as slippery mind and evasion, however, most of the time they are not excelling in the saving throw department so magic is always a threat when approaching things (like combat) the normal way. Rogues pool of special abilities has a large amount of lackluster choices and while some are quite strong, they all do not have synergy nor is there a guarantee that any given rogue will have a particular useful one. Rogues rely on wealth more heavily than most other classes and ultimately feel like the baseline from which average performance benchmarks are chosen. By being a jack of all trades and master of none, the lack of mastery can become painfully notable when facing substantially difficult encounters or when partied with versatile groups that are strong in a variety of areas.
Conclusion:
The rogue is an entirely playable class. They help demonstrate the variety of game play, being capable at all levels but much more useful at the lower end. They are a versatile and useful class but that versatility and usefulness become more situational as levels advance. Since the class is opportunity based, rogues that wish to stay relevant as the threats escalate are forced to narrow focus, develop specific strengths and create opportunities for themselves rather than relying on the ones being presented. Creating opportunities within the class itself is difficult and/or conditional and the class gets little useful support for this. The play style forced by the rogue design (having little control and adapting to the situation as opposed to creating the situation you want, mitigating the amount of adaption required) actually makes for a much more difficult class to play that requires more consideration than seems necessary at first glance. However, despite this, a well designed rogue, operating under the right circumstances (fickle fate or no) can be quite powerful under those conditions.
750gp is a 1st level wand with CL 1. Can't see many of those being useful in combat beyond, I dunno... 3rd level? Especially, considering the character must be holding the wand and then use a standard action to activate it.
Here, this is my quick attempt at creating a half-decent Dex-based TWF Rogue.
** spoiler omitted **...
If you can't see the use of Vanish wand to a rogue then you are just being contrary. This example of a rogue looks like one made by someone who has never played the class before. It looks like you were trying to build a sup-optimal rogue to prove a point. Either that or you should NEVER give rogue advice to anyone.
This thread of people saying SA is totally useless just makes 0 sense to me. I now leave you all to your rogue anger fest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, I made that build in under 5min. Literally. Under 5min. I never claimed to be a Rogue specialist. It's easy to criticize when you don't post any build. Go ahead. Man up and post your supreme Rogue, O, Great Master of Rogue-Building. Share your secrets for making Rogues so effective. Then you can complain. Otherwise, you're just saying empty words without giving any evidence to support them.
Vanish has a duration of 1 round per level, so yeah, I have a hard time seeing how a 750gp wand of the spell can be truly useful.
And BTW, no one said Sneak Attack is completely useless. Try actually reading our posts.
|
If you can't see the use of Vanish wand to a rogue then you are just being contrary. This example of a rogue looks like one made by someone who has never played the class before. It looks like you were trying to build a sup-optimal rogue to prove a point. Either that or you should NEVER give rogue advice to anyone.
This thread of people saying SA is totally useless just makes 0 sense to me. I now leave you all to your rogue anger fest.
Okay. Do better then. We'd all be overjoyed to see your badass Rogue build. Hell, if it's legitimately better than a Bard of the same level built to do the same stuff I will cheer. I love Rogues thematically and would be overjoyed for their mechanical effectiveness to be demonstrated.
Seriously, share your skills.
I never said I was some kind of badass rogue builder. However, even taking a 5 mins to build a rogue and dropping 12 in str makes no sense... and no other optimization.
What this thread has been about, and what I've said is that SA is not as hard to use as you guys make it seem. If you think you can't land a SA, then bards can out damage a rogue. If you think you can land a few, then the rogue will do more damage. Only you know how creative or skilled a player you are, and how well you work with whatever group you're playing with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
750gp is a 1st level wand with CL 1. Can't see many of those being useful in combat beyond, I dunno... 3rd level? Especially, considering the character must be holding the wand and then use a standard action to activate it.
Here, this is my quick attempt at creating a half-decent Dex-based TWF Rogue.
** spoiler omitted **...
If you can't see the use of Vanish wand to a rogue then you are just being contrary. This example of a rogue looks like one made by someone who has never played the class before. It looks like you were trying to build a sup-optimal rogue to prove a point. Either that or you should NEVER give rogue advice to anyone.
Just so you know, effects that have a duration of 1 round end just before the start of your next turn.
So you can't even use Vanish as some cheap means of getting sneak attack through a wand.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never said I was some kind of badass rogue builder. However, even taking a 5 mins to build a rogue and dropping 12 in str makes no sense... and no other optimization.
Still, you say you can do better, give it a shot.
What this thread has been about, and what I've said is that SA is not as hard to use as you guys make it seem. If you think you can't land a SA, then bards can out damage a rogue. If you think you can land a few, then the rogue will do more damage. Only you know how creative or skilled a player you are, and how well you work with whatever group you're playing with.
That bolded part? That's the part we're arguing isn't true. A properly made Bard (for example) has higher DPR than a Rogue...even while the Rogue is Sneak Attacking. Good Hope + Bardic Performance + Power Attack or Piranha Strike + Arcane Strike is a total +2 to hit +10 damage at 7th level with a one-handed weapon (more if he's wielding a weapon two-handed). 4d6 Sneak attack is +0 to hit and +14 damage. Those are equivalent amounts...and Bards can add several other buffs on top of that (Haste being the most obvious). Rogues? Not so much.
Guess I had a permissive GM. Cast at the end of the round, it lasted until the end of the next.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
sigh
Taken in context of this thread your remark suggests that because someone finds the rogue fun to play, going so far as to concede an element of the overwhelmingly negative view (that some people have) of the class, that enjoying it and playing it is wrong or somehow bad or poor judgement or otherwise negatively viewed upon.You went so far as to make a comparison to the commoner class, associating the fun (and capabilities) of the rogue with the capacities of a commoner, which is typically viewed as the bottom of the barrel or laughing stock of adventuring concepts. This seemed more insulting and unnecessary than anything.
Woah full stop there matey. A lot of people DO say that the "Rogue is fine because it's fun." To us guys who feel they should be balanced based on "Hey Rogues aren't very efficient, look at all these rogue-like things you can do more effectively with other classes than the Rogue, I really think the Rogue could use a bit of power creep like everyone else," it's terrifying. Paizo won't consider these changes if theres a bunch of people blindly saying "Rogue is fun" regardless of how the mechanics of the game are actually going to play things out.
The Comparison to the Commoner wasn't the fact that it's bottom of the barrel or anything. The Commoner wasn't designed with balance in mind to the rest of the PC classes. The Rogue doesn't feel that way either, how could it when it seems so inefficient compared to other options?
Maybe you shouldn't jump to being offended and see what point he was trying to make. There's a reason why that statement is mentioned in every Rogue thread.
Do you honestly think we all just hate the Rogue? Because it's not true. Many of us want the Rogue to be better. Many of us tried the Rogue concept on the Rogue class and found it lacking when we tried other options to match the concept. It is disappointing when the iconic class doesn't match it's iconic image. The Cunning Rogue can't get through combat on wits alone, the Dextrous Rogue doesn't match up with the dude chugging potions, the Charmer has no synergy with his abilities or connects him back to combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never said I was some kind of badass rogue builder. However, even taking a 5 mins to build a rogue and dropping 12 in str makes no sense... and no other optimization.
+1 extra damage for 2 measly attribute seems like a good deal to me. Like I said, I don't like to depend on overspecific enhancements (such as Agile).
Ragdy has all the feats a TWF Rogue would want (minus Double Slice, but it's unnecessary for him). He uses cestus because those can't be disarm and are "always on".
Is it an amazing build? No, of course not. It was made in less than 5min. Even now I can think of a few ways to better it and still keep it close to what's expected from Rogues (i.e.: High Dex and above average Int and/or Cha) but it's not intentionally gimped as you suggest. I've seen very similar Rogue builds on these boards. P
Still, if you think it's such an awful build, share some of yours. Show us how to make Rogues effective.
Guess I had a permissive GM. Cast at the end of the round, it lasted until the end of the next.
So...? You spend a round casting a spell to get a single Sneak Attack on the next round? Doesn't sound much better... And being invisible for 6 seconds is hardly enough to matter in any significant infiltration mission.
Anyone can do better.
And still, you refuse to even try. I wonder why...
1) The Rogue can also get better from buffs, and that puts them further ahead of Bards.
Too bad Rogues can't buff themselves, so all they do is drain resources from their friends. Meanwhile, Bards bring more and more resources to the party, making all their allies more and more effective.
2) If the argument is that Bards can do it by themselves then great for your solo game, but I generally play in a group.
And as it was repeatedly pointed out, Bards are much better to the overall party efficiency than Rogues. Spells + Bardic Performance completely overshadow Sneak Attack.
I never said I was some kind of badass rogue builder. However, even taking a 5 mins to build a rogue and dropping 12 in str makes no sense... and no other optimization.Still, you say you can do better, give it a shot.
What this thread has been about, and what I've said is that SA is not as hard to use as you guys make it seem. If you think you can't land a SA, then bards can out damage a rogue. If you think you can land a few, then the rogue will do more damage. Only you know how creative or skilled a player you are, and how well you work with whatever group you're playing with.That bolded part? That's the part we're arguing isn't true. A properly made Bard (for example) has higher DPR than a Rogue...even while the Rogue is Sneak Attacking. Good Hope + Bardic Performance + Power Attack or Piranha Strike + Arcane Strike is a total +2 to hit +10 damage at 7th level with a one-handed weapon (more if he's wielding a weapon two-handed). 4d6 Sneak attack is +0 to hit and +14 damage. Those are equivalent amounts...and Bards can add several other buffs on top of that (Haste being the most obvious). Rogues? Not so much.
Anyone can do better. You give it a shot.
1) The Rogue can also get better from buffs, and that puts them further ahead of Bards.
2) If the argument is that Bards can do it by themselves then great for your solo game, but I generally play in a group.
I'm just getting into PF after a long lay off since 3.5. I'm still getting up to speed with all the rules, as well as sorting house from cannon. i have played one rogue since then and may have been given some house love. That being said, I still think that the SA hate is overblown.
If someone wants to start a thread and post their best bard builds and compare the rogue build that we can toss up, I might post some ideas. Really focused on Magus (and RL) atm, but it could be fun and enlightening.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) If the argument is that Bards can do it by themselves then great for your solo game, but I generally play in a group.
The idea behind it is that the Bard can do these things for himself AND then cast spells for their allies too. Bards are fantastic for group synergy.
I never said I was some kind of badass rogue builder. However, even taking a 5 mins to build a rogue and dropping 12 in str makes no sense... and no other optimization.+1 extra damage for 2 measly attribute seems like a good deal to me. Like I said, I don't like to depend on overspecific enhancements (such as Agile).
Ragdy has all the feats a TWF Rogue would want (minus Double Slice, but it's unnecessary for him). He uses cestus because those can't be disarm and are "always on".
Is it an amazing build? No, of course not. It was made in less than 5min. Even now I can think of a few ways to better it and still keep it close to what's expected from Rogues (i.e.: High Dex and above average Int and/or Cha) but it's not intentionally gimped as you suggest. I've seen very similar Rogue builds on these boards. PStill, if you think it's such an awful build, share some of yours. Show us how to make Rogues effective.
Guess I had a permissive GM. Cast at the end of the round, it lasted until the end of the next.So...? You spend a round casting a spell to get a single Sneak Attack on the next round? Doesn't sound much better... And being invisible for 6 seconds is hardly enough to matter in any significant infiltration mission.
The "always on" idea is cool, but you give up a dagger trait damage and a d8 sneak instead of a d6. I have always been of the mind that either you make a str rogue or you make a dex rogue.
The more you guys talk about it, the more fun it sounds. I will take a pass at making a rogue later tonight. You guys will be free to rip it apart (as I'm sure you will with mad glee). ;)
"Oh, rogues are great, you're all just building them wrong. Post an example? Who? Me? No way."
The idea behind it is that the Bard can do these things for himself AND then cast spells for their allies too. Bards are fantastic for group synergy.
2) If the argument is that Bards can do it by themselves then great for your solo game, but I generally play in a group.
I totally agree that the bard is great when in comes to improving group effectiveness. It's what they do.
"Oh, rogues are great, you're all just building them wrong. Post an example? Who? Me? No way."
I said that I have used SA effectively and it doesn't suck as much as was being presented. Why choose to be snarky when there is no call? I can do that too, but I wont.
The "always on" idea is cool, but you give up a dagger trait damage and a d8 sneak instead of a d6. I have always been of the mind that either you make a str rogue or you make a dex rogue.
I forgot about the Knife Master archetype. Still, I don't think 2 attribute points are that much of a burden on the character. Sure it could have an extra skill point per level or a +1 to Wisdom, which are nice, but wouldn't make that much of a difference on his overall effectiveness.
The more you guys talk about it, the more fun it sounds. I will take a pass at making a rogue later tonight. You guys will be free to rip it apart (as I'm sure you will with mad glee). ;)
I'd feel much more glee if you proved me wronged and actually showed me how to make Rogues a good class.
|
|
Anyone can do better. You give it a shot.
Did you miss me suggesting some basic amendments to that build? Because that happened...
1) The Rogue can also get better from buffs, and that puts them further ahead of Bards.
True...but who's providing said buffs? The Wizard? That's not exactly an argument in favor of the Rogue as much as it is the Wizard. The Bard on the other hand, is not only providing his own buffs but providing them to everyone else.
2) If the argument is that Bards can do it by themselves then great for your solo game, but I generally play in a group.
Uh...given that the Bard provides all of his buffs (many of which are unique to that class) to everyone...looking at them sans party is to the Rogue's advantage, not the Bard's. I mean, a little math strongly indicates that the Barbarian getting +4 to hit and damage is a significant DPR upgrade, and if we tack that extra damage on to the Bard's damage...the Rogue starts falling even further behind.
I'm just getting into PF after a long lay off since 3.5. I'm still getting up to speed with all the rules, as well as sorting house from cannon. i have played one rogue since then and may have been given some house love. That being said, I still think that the SA hate is overblown.
Nobody hates Sneak Attack. Sneak Attack is fine, if situational. It's the Rogue chassis the ability is tacked onto that's the problem. Look at Vivisectionist Alchemists. They have Sneak attack and nobody hates on them. You know why? Unlike Rogues, they're actually pretty good even without Sneak Attack and really good with it.
If someone wants to start a thread and post their best bard builds and compare the rogue build that we can toss up, I might post some ideas. Really focused on Magus (and RL) atm, but it could be fun and enlightening.
People have done this sort of thing. rogues don't look very good compared to, well, almost anyone. Take a waltz with the search feature and see some examples (the DPR Olympics thread comes to mind, though Bards don't do especially well there either, if I recall).
2nd try at a sneaky Rogue:
Male Tengu Rogue (Scout) 10
CG Medium humanoid (tengu)
Init +6; Senses low-light vision; Perception +16
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 24, touch 17, flat-footed 18 (+6 armor, +6 Dex, +1 natural, +1 deflection)
hp 68 (10d8+20)
Fort +10, Ref +17 (+3 bonus vs. traps), Will +9
Defensive Abilities evasion, trap sense +3
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee silver moon (+3 silversheen scimitar) +18/+13 (1d6+9/18-20) and
. . +1 silversheen scimitar +16/+11 (1d6+7/18-20) and
. . bite +9 (1d3)
Ranged +1 shortbow +15/+10 (1d6+1/×3)
Special Attacks scout's charge, skirmisher, sneak attack +5d6
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 10, Dex 22, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 10
Base Atk +7; CMB +9 (+19 trip); CMD 24 (26 vs. trip)
Feats Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Dervish Dance, Fury’s Fall, Greater Trip, Improved Trip, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (scimitar)
Traits indomitable faith, resilient
Skills Acrobatics +19, Bluff +13, Diplomacy +13, Disable Device +24, Escape Artist +19, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +15, Linguistics +17, Perception +16 (+21 to locate traps), Perform (dance) +5, Sense Motive +14, Stealth +21, Use Magic Device +13; Racial Modifiers +4 Linguistics, +2 Perception, +2 Stealth
Languages Abyssal, Aklo, Aquan, Auran, Azlanti, Celestial, Common, Drow Sign Language, Dwarven, Elven, Giant, Halfling, Ignan, Infernal, Orc, Protean, Sylvan, Tengu, Terran, Undercommon
SQ rogue talents (combat trick, finesse rogue, offensive defense, opportunist, weapon training), trapfinding +5
Other Gear +2 mithral chain shirt, silver moon (+3 silversheen scimitar), +1 shortbow, +1 silversheen scimitar, amulet of natural armor +1, belt of physical might (dex & con +2), cloak of resistance +3, feather step slippers, ioun stone (pale green prism (cracked, attack), ioun stone (pale green prism (cracked, saves), ring of protection +1, 55 gp
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Combat Expertise +/-2 Bonus to AC in exchange for an equal penalty to attack.
Combat Reflexes (7 AoO/round) Can make extra attacks of opportunity/rd, and even when flat-footed.
Dervish Dance Use Dex modifier instead of Str modifier with scimitar
Evasion (Ex) If you succeed at a Reflex save for half damage, you take none instead.
Feather step slippers Ignore difficult terrain as though affected by feather step.
Fury’s Fall When making a trip attack, add your Dexterity bonus to your CMB.
Greater Trip Foes you trip provoke AoO when they are knocked prone.
Improved Trip You don't provoke attacks of opportunity when tripping.
Low-Light Vision See twice as far as a human in low light, distinguishing color and detail.
Offensive Defense (Ex) Sneak attack grants a +1 dodge bonus to AC for each die rolled vs. that foe.
Opportunist (1/round) (Ex) A foe who takes a melee hit from another provokes an AoO from you.
Scout's Charge (Ex) Charge attacks deal sneak attack damage as though foe is flat-footed.
Skirmisher (Ex) After move 10 ft, first attack deals sneak attack damage as though foe is flat-footed.
Sneak Attack +5d6 +5d6 damage if you flank your target or your target is flat-footed.
Trap Sense +3 (Ex) +3 bonus on reflex saves and AC against traps.
Trapfinding +5 Gain a bonus to find or disable traps, including magical ones.
His Trip CMB with his main scimitar is... +28. That's pretty good, actually. And Trip gives him a free AoO. The natural attack is unlikely to hit, but a free attack is a free attack. His AC ranges from okay to pretty good (against opponents who are hit by his Sneak Attack, and I suppose he could use Combat Expertise, but hitting stuff is kinda important in combat), but his saves are pretty weak (as expected) and his HP and CMD are not anything to write home about either. (Toughness and Defensive Combat Training are pretty good feat choices for him, but Paizo decided to split maneuver feats in two and didn't remove that awful Combat Expertise from the list of prerequisites, so... c'est la vie).
DPR Against AC 24:
Without Sneak attack: 20.97
Sneak Attack On The 1st Strike: 35.10
Sneak Attack On All Strikes: 48.10
Flanking: 56.82
Well, he's better than Ragdy, and he can move to make sure he gets at least 1 Sneak Attack a round, so there is that. Even so, not particularly impressive for a class that supposedly has amazing damage output.
Idk maybe the Rogue is pretty poorly powered, but the Ninja alternate class looks like it makes up those deficiencies by giving it invisibility as a swift action (ninja trick) as long as it still has ki. And that's going to work 9/10 times given the only thing that defeats it is precision immune creatures and a few select spells or abilities (See Invisible/Glitterdust/Invis Purge/Special vision senses like tremorsense). Plus the ninja gets proficiencies with Wakizashis that are like shortswords but with better crit range, slap keen on that and the ninja auto hits 1/4 of the time and nearly always SA with it.
Well yeah, but then you're playing a Ninja, not a Rogue.
I've had enough bad experiences with being unable to convince a DM to let me use an eastern-styled class for a western-styled concept to be wary of that.
Idk maybe the Rogue is pretty poorly powered, but the Ninja alternate class looks like it makes up those deficiencies by giving it invisibility as a swift action (ninja trick) as long as it still has ki. And that's going to work 9/10 times given the only thing that defeats it is precision immune creatures and a few select spells or abilities (See Invisible/Glitterdust/Invis Purge/Special vision senses like tremorsense). Plus the ninja gets proficiencies with Wakizashis that are like shortswords but with better crit range, slap keen on that and the ninja auto hits 1/4 of the time and nearly always SA with it.
(normal) invisibility and vanish only applies SA damage to the first attack. Autohit is only on a nat20, not any threat. A single SA isn't much damage, really.
Idk maybe the Rogue is pretty poorly powered, but the Ninja alternate class looks like it makes up those deficiencies by giving it invisibility as a swift action (ninja trick) as long as it still has ki. And that's going to work 9/10 times given the only thing that defeats it is precision immune creatures and a few select spells or abilities (See Invisible/Glitterdust/Invis Purge/Special vision senses like tremorsense). Plus the ninja gets proficiencies with Wakizashis that are like shortswords but with better crit range, slap keen on that and the ninja auto hits 1/4 of the time and nearly always SA with it.(normal) invisibility and vanish only applies SA damage to the first attack. Autohit is only on a nat20, not any threat. A single SA isn't much damage, really.
It's certainly a good start. I think Ninjas are fine for the most part. Once See Invisibility starts rolling around though they tend to lose effectiveness till they can get access somehow to Mindblank.
Rogues can just be fun to play :P Gotta play them smart though, they definitely aren't that great toe-to-toe.
this is annoying, and more than a little insulting. It implies that everyone not having fun with the rogue (or finding them ineffective) isn't playing them smart. What exactly, and specifically, are you suggesting by playing them smart?
Idk maybe the Rogue is pretty poorly powered, but the Ninja alternate class looks like it makes up those deficiencies by giving it invisibility as a swift action (ninja trick) as long as it still has ki. And that's going to work 9/10 times given the only thing that defeats it is precision immune creatures and a few select spells or abilities (See Invisible/Glitterdust/Invis Purge/Special vision senses like tremorsense). Plus the ninja gets proficiencies with Wakizashis that are like shortswords but with better crit range, slap keen on that and the ninja auto hits 1/4 of the time and nearly always SA with it.(normal) invisibility and vanish only applies SA damage to the first attack. Autohit is only on a nat20, not any threat. A single SA isn't much damage, really.
There's nothing saying you only get SA damage on the first hit; the invisibility spell ends when you attack a target but a full round attack is one action (even if it's many attacks) they're still denied their dex until your attack is over. Also my DM rules that any critical threat is an auto hit even if you don't confirm.
It's certainly a good start. I think Ninjas are fine for the most part. Once See Invisibility starts rolling around though they tend to lose effectiveness till they can get access somehow to Mindblank.
It is, and I agree with you. Honestly, while I think the rogue is lacking, I do not really share the view some here espouse that it's some grand failure. I think in a standard difficulty game (say an AP), a rogue can be viable if it has an at least basic level of optimization. It has a lower floor and a lower roof than most classes, but the roof is higher than my head so it's acceptable. If I want to climb up a ladder (play a harder campaign) it isn't enough though.
And I really really hate rogue talents. I mean, barbarian minus rage powers is stronger than rogue minus talents. So talents should be _at least_ as strong as rage powers. Preferably a bit stronger. And the good rage powers are far better than feats. The best rogue talents are feats.
There's nothing saying you only get SA damage on the first hit; the invisibility spell ends when you attack a target but a full round attack is one action (even if it's many attacks) they're still denied their dex until your attack is over. Also my DM rules that any critical threat is an auto hit even if you don't confirm.
Once invisibility ends you are no longer invisible and have no clause to sneak attack. This is the same whether you use iterative attacks, or even two weapon fighting to stab someone at the same time.
Once invisibility ends you are no longer invisible and have no clause to sneak attack. This is the same whether you use iterative attacks, or even two weapon fighting to stab someone at the same time.There's nothing saying you only get SA damage on the first hit; the invisibility spell ends when you attack a target but a full round attack is one action (even if it's many attacks) they're still denied their dex until your attack is over. Also my DM rules that any critical threat is an auto hit even if you don't confirm.
Frankly, if you want to think like that, why should you even get SA on the first attack anyways? After all, if Invis drops immediately when you attack, your first attack doesn't hit while you're Invis. so why should you get the benefit under RAW?
RAI if you attack with invis you get the benefit even if you lose invis; including iterative attacks that come at the same time.
I have no idea how you guys are deciding what equipment you allow, and not really interested in pushing this further, so I will skip that part of the build. I will assume one +4 bonus to str. So this is my swipe at a rogue that is self sufficient and can do a lot of damage.
The build can apply the conditions Flatfooted, Prone, and Sickened in the first round while delivering 2x 1d10, +17, +5d6, +magic (4d6 on the first att) damage.
While his AC will not be insane, he can still apply a +5 dodge vs anyone he has hit and/or an AC of d20 +22 against one att.
Human: 1Unarmed Fighter/9Rogue Thug, 20pt buy
str 16 (+2 human, +2lvl up, +4item or spell) 24
dex 12
con 12
int 13
wis 10
cha 13
Traits: Campaign: Optimistic Gambler, Region:Community Minded
1st lvl unarmed fighter-1
feats: IUA*, all monk wpns(seven branched sword)*, snake style*, combat expertise, Focused study(skill focus: Survival)
2nd lvl Rogue(thug)-1
talent: weapon focus - seven branched sword
Rogue: evasion, 1d6SA
3rd lvl Rogue(thug)-2
talent: combat trick- improved trip
feat: fury's fell
4th lvl Rogue(thug)-3
brutal beating: -1d6SA for sicken for 5r at lvl 10
Rogue: uncanny dodge, 2d6SA
5th lvl Rogue(thug)-4
talent: Minor Magic Talent
feat: arcane strike (+3dam at lvl 10)
6th lvl Rogue(thug)-5
Rogue: 3d6SA
7th lvl Rogue(thug)-6
feat: eldritch heritage-orc (+4 att/dam/will at lvl 10 for 3+1d4r)
talent: offensive defense
8th lvl Rogue(thug)-7
Focused study(skill focus: Sense Motive)
Rogue: 4d6SA
9th lvl Rogue(thug)-8
feat: greater trip
talent: powerful sneak
Rogue: imp uncanny dodge
10th lvl Rogue(thug)-9
Rogue: 5d6SA
There's nothing saying you only get SA damage on the first hit; the invisibility spell ends when you attack a target but a full round attack is one action (even if it's many attacks) they're still denied their dex until your attack is over. Also my DM rules that any critical threat is an auto hit even if you don't confirm.
The invisibility spell ends when you attack a target, not when you have completed an action against a target that involves an attack.
By a strict reading of the RAW, you don't get the bonus even on the first attack (because it ends when you attack, not when you have attacked) but devs have rules that it applies on the first attack.
And yeah, sure, you GM can house rule anyway they wont. It seems a silly house rule and doesn't really have any bearing on balance discussions (as it is a pure house rule and not even a liberal interpretation) however.
Uh...you can't TWF with Dervish Dance, nor do you have the Feat to TWF at all, so it's the one scimitar plus the bite, no more. Unless I'm missing something...2nd try at a sneaky Rogue:
** spoiler omitted **...
Well, yeah. He isn't a TWFer, just sneaky.
It's certainly a good start. I think Ninjas are fine for the most part. Once See Invisibility starts rolling around though they tend to lose effectiveness till they can get access somehow to Mindblank.It is, and I agree with you. Honestly, while I think the rogue is lacking, I do not really share the view some here espouse that it's some grand failure. I think in a standard difficulty game (say an AP), a rogue can be viable if it has an at least basic level of optimization. It has a lower floor and a lower roof than most classes, but the roof is higher than my head so it's acceptable. If I want to climb up a ladder (play a harder campaign) it isn't enough though.
And I really really hate rogue talents. I mean, barbarian minus rage powers is stronger than rogue minus talents. So talents should be _at least_ as strong as rage powers. Preferably a bit stronger. And the good rage powers are far better than feats. The best rogue talents are feats.
I really do think it is a grand failure of a class though. Currently the only real effective Rogue builds are STR and Thuggish builds that focus on bludgeoning people unconscious.
Wheres my Cunning Rogue or Charmer at? Conceptually the Rogue doesn't fit many of the Rogue iconic images well. Hell, they don't even get proficiency with whips or other iconic Rogue weaponry.
Ditto on Rogue Talents.
I have no idea how you guys are deciding what equipment you allow
Standard WBL.
|
|
Well, yeah. He isn't a TWFer, just sneaky.Uh...you can't TWF with Dervish Dance, nor do you have the Feat to TWF at all, so it's the one scimitar plus the bite, no more. Unless I'm missing something...2nd try at a sneaky Rogue:
** spoiler omitted **...
He has two separate scimitar attacks listed (the second without iterative)...which is weird.
There's nothing saying you only get SA damage on the first hit; the invisibility spell ends when you attack a target but a full round attack is one action (even if it's many attacks) they're still denied their dex until your attack is over. Also my DM rules that any critical threat is an auto hit even if you don't confirm.And yeah, sure, you GM can house rule anyway they wont. It seems a silly house rule and doesn't really have any bearing on balance discussions (as it is a pure house rule and not even a liberal interpretation) however.
My group comes from 4th edition (and the other older members also from 3rd edition) where a critical hit was a critical hit, no "confirm" roll. To come from that going to PF's "by the way even if you crit threat you might not crit or even hit" is pretty much not going to fly with my group.
We're used to throwing out RAW sometimes because it doesn't make sense or makes things easier/more fun.
I have no idea how you guys are deciding what equipment you allowStandard WBL.
What is WBL? ...and after all the demands that I post a build, is that the only comment on it?
He has two separate scimitar attacks listed (the second without iterative)...which is weird.Well, yeah. He isn't a TWFer, just sneaky.Uh...you can't TWF with Dervish Dance, nor do you have the Feat to TWF at all, so it's the one scimitar plus the bite, no more. Unless I'm missing something...2nd try at a sneaky Rogue:
** spoiler omitted **...
Second one is just a backup weapon (never leave home without one), but HeroLab says "and" instead of "or".
What is WBL? ...and after all the demands that I post a build, is that the only comment on it?I have no idea how you guys are deciding what equipment you allowStandard WBL.
Pop open Game Mastering and pull up the Character Wealth by Level chart.
Or you can go here. Wealth is the last column.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is WBL? ...and after all the demands that I post a build, is that the only comment on it?I have no idea how you guys are deciding what equipment you allowStandard WBL.
Why not spare us the work and calculate its AC, CMB, CMD, saves, to-hit and damage?
- Dipping other classes to make it work doesn't speak well of the Rogue class. Your proficiency with your main weapon and 2 bonus feats come from the Fighter level. How about trying a pure Rogue?
- That Eldritch Heritage is pretty meh. Spend a standard action buff someone for... 1 round. Basically, you can't use it on yourself.
- Fury's Fall boosts his Trip CMB by a grand total of... +1.
- That Belt of Str +4 means you can't raise Con or Dex for quite a while. Let's hope you don't need AC, saves or HP.
- Powerful Sneak hurts your DPR more than it helps. It's a horrible talent in a long line of horrible talents.
- Minor Magic is garbage. Yet another useless prerequisite.
- Thug is a nice archetype, too bad it removes one of the iconic Rogue class features.
- You're assuming you'll catch your opponent by surprise, even though your initiative is pretty low (+1, maybe +3 with a trait).
Ahem...
"This example of a rogue looks like one made by someone who has never played the class before. It looks like you were trying to build a sup-optimal rogue to prove a point. Either that or you should NEVER give rogue advice to anyone."