|
Are people still posting rogue builds? I'm disappointed at the lack of Risky Striker halflings. That feat is basically made to combine with TWF.There are three reasons not to use that feat on a rogue.
1) It's situational and rogues don't have a lot of feats to spare.
2) It makes an already fragile class hopelessly so.
3) Halflings suck at being rogues. If you want to be a small rogue choose goblin or ratfolk so you can see without carrying a light source with you and thereby completely ruining any hope of stealth.
1) It requires fighting an enemy two sizes larger than you, which will happen a lot to small-sized characters.
1b) Rogues have more feats than a lot of classes, with the ability to grab things like Weapon Finesse and Weapon Focus as talents, along with the Bonus Feat and Feat talents.
2) -1 to AC does not bring a class from fragile to hopelessly so. For a small-sized race it merely levels the playing field.
3) Halflings suck at being rogues because they don't have darkvision? I'll let all the human rogues know.
Seriously, I'm not a fan of the rogue at all, but if you're going to do the TWF thing anyway, you had might as well grab a ton of extra damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no 3.5 material in the build I posted, and as far as I know it's PFS legal. If you see something that isn't, please let me know. Still digging into PF.
I'm not using whatever builder others seem to have so feel free to crunch the numbers if you like the idea. I also avoid giving a build magic items because you never know what a dm will allow. If you can buy anything, every build has access to the same equipment so it's a wash. Adding it just doesn't make a lot if sense to me.
Also, I wasn't saying my build was "so great," I was just showing that sneak attack in specific, and rogue combat in general, were not all bad. The build above totally locks a target down and does solid solo SA damage. You can decide if that is good or not for your style play.
The trait opportunistic gambler is from 3.5.
I don't use herolab either (i recently started using PCGen) but i can post a build, simply list the ability scores (after magic items), ac, saves, attack routine, feat and anything special to the character (like rogue talents for a rogue), then maybe say a couple of words about how to use the character (if it's nessecary).
No; magic items are important, and no they aren't the same in every build (although there are similarities), and since no character plays at 10th level without magic items they are important in order to gauge a character.
Yes it's true you don't know what they dm will allow, you also don't know if the dm doesn't allow rogues in his game, so what can you do? you can use the rules as they are and assume that the game won't deviate much from them. In the case of magic items, simply use anything that isn't in a 3.5 book (also it would be good to avoid AP specific items but it's not mundatory).
The thing is that until we can see the full build, we can't see in what way you think that sneak attack and rogues aren't that bad.
|
I know the combat effectiveness of Rogues and Ninjas is often debated, a lot of it hinging on Sneak Attack. The arguments against it are good; Sneak Attack is horribly conditional, you will very likely have a lowish hit chance, and (assuming 100% hit chance) other classes can get very close to the same bonus damage and DPR.
Personally, I like Sneak Attack. It forces me to play differently in combat. I'm encouraged to flank or employ interesting party tactics that come out of feat chains like Moonlight Stalker. I won't deny it: I'm also a sucker for a bunch of attacks. I've never actually played a Sneak Attack character though. The downsides always keep me away and I find my oddball character concepts can't afford squeezing it in.
Just play the character. Ignore the "arguments" that claim to prove Sneak Attack sucks or whatever; they may sound persuasive, but they're apparently made by people who believe that math is the key to omniscience, and unprejudiced observation of actual gameplay renders them meaningless.
|
No.
My first Pathfinder PC was a Rogue.
I have never gone back.
In fact, actual gameplay is what has shown me the faults of the Rogue.
This is amongst different groups, different DMs, different players, with varying levels of system mastery.
Do not presume that there is some "theorycraft only" group that is the only ones noting the Rogue's faults.
It is a time tested, informed opinion of many, supported by facts, and experience.
Are people still posting rogue builds? I'm disappointed at the lack of Risky Striker halflings. That feat is basically made to combine with TWF.There are three reasons not to use that feat on a rogue.
1) It's situational and rogues don't have a lot of feats to spare.
2) It makes an already fragile class hopelessly so.
3) Halflings suck at being rogues. If you want to be a small rogue choose goblin or ratfolk so you can see without carrying a light source with you and thereby completely ruining any hope of stealth.
it those races also let you sneak attack in said darkness, because darkness grants partial concealment--guess what shuts down SA entirely?
|
Dude, nearly a decade of playing, and have only seen one person from noob to 30- something year gamers who has ever been good with a rogue. And that person annihilates campaigns no matter what she plays as.
Yeah, I've been gaming over a decade, too...and, somewhat coincidentally, have played more Rogues than I have any other class in Pathfinder.
Rogues are sub-par mechanically. Period.
My first Rogue actually did very well, but that had to do with some very nice stat rolls, a misunderstanding of TWF, it being a corebook only game because that's all there was at that point, and me being pretty good at optimization...not Rogue being an equally effective or useful class to, say, Bard or Vivisectionist.
You can have fun playing a marginal class, potentially lots of it...but 99 times out of 100, it'd be more fun if that class was on par with the others.
Perhaps it's due to my shallowness, but part of the fun of making a character for me is coming up with a thematically strong character and then optimizing him for his role.
I'm not sure if that really fits a powergaming label, but if it does so be it. If Sneak Attack isn't adding anything desirable mechanically or thematically, there's not too much of a point to pursue it from an optimization perspective.
That being said, I think if I were to make a character to fit a 'Roguish' role, I'd be hardpressed to not have some sort of Sneak Attack source.
If Sneak Attack isn't adding anything desirable mechanically or thematically, there's not too much of a point to pursue it from an optimization perspective.
Sneak attack is not the problem. The rogue class needs to be buffed. Sneak attack on its own is decent, and if it was something that when the rogue was able to do it meant that the rogue usually hit and did very good damage, it would be great. But that's not the case.
This can be fixed with house rules (what can't?) but instead of utilizing them, people like to spend more time complaining about RAW.
If Sneak Attack isn't adding anything desirable mechanically or thematically, there's not too much of a point to pursue it from an optimization perspective.Sneak attack is not the problem. The rogue class needs to be buffed. Sneak attack on its own is decent, and if it was something that when the rogue was able to do it meant that the rogue usually hit and did very good damage, it would be great. But that's not the case.
This can be fixed with house rules (what can't?) but instead of utilizing them, people like to spend more time complaining about RAW.
Oh, I agree that Sneak Attack isn't inherently weak. It has problems, but is obviously a strong added-damage component. It's a risk-reward feature that has more issues with the class associated with it (Rogue/Ninja) than the mechanic of it.
I trying to be a bit more hypothetical. If one did not think it was worth it mechanically/thematically, it's not worth pursuing from an optimization standpoint.
Are people still posting rogue builds? I'm disappointed at the lack of Risky Striker halflings. That feat is basically made to combine with TWF.There are three reasons not to use that feat on a rogue.
1) It's situational and rogues don't have a lot of feats to spare.
2) It makes an already fragile class hopelessly so.
3) Halflings suck at being rogues. If you want to be a small rogue choose goblin or ratfolk so you can see without carrying a light source with you and thereby completely ruining any hope of stealth.1) It requires fighting an enemy two sizes larger than you, which will happen a lot to small-sized characters.
1b) Rogues have more feats than a lot of classes, with the ability to grab things like Weapon Finesse and Weapon Focus as talents, along with the Bonus Feat and Feat talents.
2) -1 to AC does not bring a class from fragile to hopelessly so. For a small-sized race it merely levels the playing field.
3) Halflings suck at being rogues because they don't have darkvision? I'll let all the human rogues know.
Seriously, I'm not a fan of the rogue at all, but if you're going to do the TWF thing anyway, you had might as well grab a ton of extra damage.
It's not -1 AC. It follows the Power Attack pattern so at level 6 it's -2 AC and at level 11 it's -3. When you have light armor, no shield, no illusion based defenses, and d8 hit dice that's not good.
Actually, it is a flat -1 AC. The damage goes up, the AC penalty is static.
I've been playing for 30yrs, even though I'm fairly new to PF. I've played with, as well as played rogues, that did very well. Also time tested experience with MANY different people.
It just isn't something that that's black and white.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not -1 AC. It follows the Power Attack pattern so at level 6 it's -2 AC and at level 11 it's -3. When you have light armor, no shield, no illusion based defenses, and d8 hit dice that's not good.
I'd consider it for a halfling fighter if it weren't for the fact that bosses are frequently classed or undead templated medium humanoids in order to avoid ruining the game for maneuver builds.
The last thing an already weak race (the second weakest after kobold IMO) running a weak class (the weakest PC class and in combat arguably weaker than warrior and adept) is for your primary damage source to evaporate when you need it, and often the nastiest things you'll meet are the carefully crafted high level NPCs with PC class levels...
While it's possible that the writers meant to make the AC penalty scale, the damage is the only part of it that scales currently. It's also pretty easy to bring some potions of reduce person along for those medium-sized boss fights. While it has its downsides, more damage without attack penalties is just what we need.
If you're going to be taking Weapon Finesse and making use of an agile weapon, halfling is an incredibly strong race. Not as strong as goblin, but most goblins aren't allowed in places where halflings are allowed.
Assuming a finesse build, what makes a halfling so weak? Is +1 to AC and +1 to hit not something you want? What about higher saves, or Adaptable Luck if you like? I am legitimately confused as to what problem you have with halflings.
|
|
So it seems like the only thing making halflings bad are their normal vision? Don't you find that most parties include ways for the entire group to see (ie. daylight), and that often means darkvision isn't really an issue? Also, there are potions for that. They last hours.
If we're going to call a bonus to charisma in exchange for strength a downside for a race that will end up using Weapon Finesse anyway, I'm more than a little confused.
As for losing flanking with reduce person, you're of course correct. Greater invisibility is the best option after mid-levels anyway. Two-Weapon Feint is also decent.
I'm not going to say they're the best choice, but I have a hard time buying your WORST RACE EVAR argument.
I've been playing for 30yrs, even though I'm fairly new to PF. I've played with, as well as played rogues, that did very well. Also time tested experience with MANY different people.
It just isn't something that that's black and white.
Actually, it is fairly black and white. They tend to do well in low power games, where the monsters are lower CR, so have less AC. GM's sometimes forget about concealment from light conditions if you don't play really rules heavy which is typical of low power games, thats another one for them.
Basically rogues do well anywhere there isn't a lot of optimization and some of the less looked at rules like light conditions and the old stealth rules were glossed over.
Believe what you like but I have seen proof to the cotrary on many occasions.
Light conditions... seriously? How ill prepd are the rogues you've seen?
|
|
Buy a wayfinder, boom...light problems solved. Seriously, that or a sunrod solves this whole light issue with no low-light/darkvision complaint for Halflings. If need be you can activate either of those and throw them in a spot in case you plan on using Invisible Blade or Vanishing Trick. The wayfinder should be a free action to activate I'd assume also, since it only requires a command word.
|
|
You started with "halflings suck at being rogues." I'm going to need more than just normal vision and small weapons.
The agile property means that the strength penalty is meaningless, and we're left with a race whose only disadvantages are 1d3 daggers rather than 1d4 (difference of .5 damage there) and needing a few potions or scrolls of darkvision.
Advantages include +1 to AC and attack rolls, bonuses to Stealth, Adaptable Luck, and access to the Risky Striker feat, which I still think you are underrating.
I've been playing for 30yrs, even though I'm fairly new to PF. I've played with, as well as played rogues, that did very well. Also time tested experience with MANY different people.
It just isn't something that that's black and white.
Actually, it is fairly black and white. They tend to do well in low power games, where the monsters are lower CR, so have less AC. GM's sometimes forget about concealment from light conditions if you don't play really rules heavy which is typical of low power games, thats another one for them.
Basically rogues do well anywhere there isn't a lot of optimization and some of the less looked at rules like light conditions and the old stealth rules were glossed over.
Believe what you like but I have seen proof to the cotrary on many occasions.
Light conditions... seriously? How ill prepd are the rogues you've seen?
Right....
I think the YEARS of contrary antedoctal evidence saying the contrary proves you wrong...
And yes, light conditions do affect rogues. He is now either dependent on getting goggles of darkvision (whihc takes away his diminishing pool of money), buying potions/wands (which get expensive), depending on his party members (so... again, the rogue begging his team-mates to waste their precious resources on him so he can feel useful), or being pigeoned-holed into being certain races.
Even then, a simple 1st level spell crushes the poor rogue (Obscuring Mist)
Bardic response to Lemmy's posted character, intentionally designed to be as similar as possible in the sense of entirely subsuming the Rogue's role, and using similar tactics:
That's a really solid build you posted there, Deadman. It's got a high base damage, has access to 15-20 crits, and can get its attack bonus up to Level+14.
If I get some time today at work, I'll see if I can push a Rogue to that level, and try to do a side-by-side comparison.
But first, I'll need to research the viability of Minor Magic + Craft Wondrous Item.
-Matt
I have to say, I think it's pretty silly that a Core Rogue can't sneak attack someone in a dark alley. I definitely believe in houseruling such that only total concealment prevents Sneak Attack from triggering.
Unfortunately, as we have seen quite a few times in Pathfinder, Paizo seems unable to adjust previously-published material, and when they do (such as with Crane Wing), the boards explode. So why adjust?
Additive solutions, such as Shadow Strike or the Quick maneuver feats, seem to be all they want to do, and that's totally understandable. The boards don't explode, and they get to sell a new book. Unfortunately, additive solutions come with their own problems and limitations (now a Rogue needs to spend a feat to sneak attack someone in a dark alley), so we're basically left waiting for Second Edition if we want to see adjustment of existing material.
-Matt
I've been playing for 30yrs, even though I'm fairly new to PF. I've played with, as well as played rogues, that did very well. Also time tested experience with MANY different people.
It just isn't something that that's black and white.
Actually, it is fairly black and white. They tend to do well in low power games, where the monsters are lower CR, so have less AC. GM's sometimes forget about concealment from light conditions if you don't play really rules heavy which is typical of low power games, thats another one for them.
Basically rogues do well anywhere there isn't a lot of optimization and some of the less looked at rules like light conditions and the old stealth rules were glossed over.
Believe what you like but I have seen proof to the cotrary on many occasions.
Light conditions... seriously? How ill prepd are the rogues you've seen?
Right....
I think the YEARS of contrary antedoctal evidence saying the contrary proves you wrong...
And yes, light conditions do affect rogues. He is now either dependent on getting goggles of darkvision (whihc takes away his diminishing pool of money), buying potions/wands (which get expensive), depending on his party members (so... again, the rogue begging his team-mates to waste their precious resources on him so he can feel useful), or being pigeoned-holed into being certain races.
Even then, a simple 1st level spell crushes the poor rogue (Obscuring Mist)
You can play that game with any class.
Barbarians: What are they going to do against flyers?
Wizards: Steal their spell books and the aren't bending much to their wills.
Fighter: How useful are they when you drop him and his heavy armor in water.
etc...
No class has the answer for everything. No matter how self sufficient a class is, sometimes they need help, which is why they are in an adventure party.
...and your assumption that a rogue can't be useful at those moments when SA isn't available is a broad assumption. That is a build issue, not a rogue issue.
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.
I'd like to add that, Bladelock, your build really isn't bad. I especially like how you're taking advantage of the morale-bonus-extending traits, and how you've leveraged your superior feat access to take some feat chains.
-Matt
I have to say, I think it's pretty silly that a Core Rogue can't sneak attack someone in a dark alley. I definitely believe in houseruling such that only total concealment prevents Sneak Attack from triggering.
Unfortunately, as we have seen quite a few times in Pathfinder, Paizo seems unable to adjust previously-published material, and when they do (such as with Crane Wing), the boards explode. So why adjust?
Additive solutions, such as Shadow Strike or the Quick maneuver feats, seem to be all they want to do, and that's totally understandable. The boards don't explode, and they get to sell a new book. Unfortunately, additive solutions are pretty weak ones (now a Rogue needs to spend a feat to sneak attack someone in a dark alley), so we're basically left waiting for Second Edition if we want to see adjustment of existing material.
-Matt
Crane wing wasn't an adjustment. They nuked it from orbit.
The only things that needs to be nuked are black mold (my house has that sadly), Tarrasque, and demonlords.|
|
Bardic response to Lemmy's posted character, intentionally designed to be as similar as possible in the sense of entirely subsuming the Rogue's role, and using similar tactics:That's a really solid build you posted there, Deadman. It's got a high base damage, has access to 15-20 crits, and can get its attack bonus up to Level+14.
Thanks. :)
It's not really optimal, having been designed specifically to do basically everything another build did only better, but I like to think it worked out alright.
If I get some time today at work, I'll see if I can push a Rogue to that level, and try to do a side-by-side comparison.
Sounds cool, hope you have time.
But first, I'll need to research the viability of Minor Magic + Craft Wondrous Item.
-Matt
I think, per current rulings, that's valid. It's a Rogue Talent tax, of course, but it does open up Major Magic as well...
My initial notes have Deadman's archaeologist in a rather commanding position. There are just too many stackable buffs the Bard can use, and the talents-for-feats advantage is lessened by the fact that the archaeologist receives two talents. Instead of a Rog10 getting five talents (six if a Human) and a Bard getting zero, this Bard is getting two, both of which are being used for bonus feats.
But I'll see how close I can get, and I'll try to analyze what happens when the Rogue is partied up with Deadman's archaeologist, due to party buffs. My instincts are telling me that a Rogue gets a really strong return on party buffs, higher than quite a few other classes.
I might at least be able to demonstrate that Matt's Rogue and Deadman's Archaeologist have a higher combined DPR than two Deadman's Archaeologists.
EDIT: If anyone feels like saving me some time searching, could someone post the DPR Formula, as well as the assumed AC used to calculate DPR? Also, since I'm kicking around using Trip, is there an established assumed CMD for me to target? I'd be very grateful for the assist.
Also, is there a trait out there that gives Spellcraft as a class skill?
-Matt
You started with "halflings suck at being rogues." I'm going to need more than just normal vision and small weapons.
The agile property means that the strength penalty is meaningless, and we're left with a race whose only disadvantages are 1d3 daggers rather than 1d4 (difference of .5 damage there) and needing a few potions or scrolls of darkvision.
Advantages include +1 to AC and attack rolls, bonuses to Stealth, Adaptable Luck, and access to the Risky Striker feat, which I still think you are underrating.
halfling bonuses to stealth are pretty irrelevant when you need a light source to do anything with that stealth.
The ARGs fast movement option let them flank at least.
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.I'd like to add that, Bladelock, your build really isn't bad. I especially like how you're taking advantage of the morale-bonus-extending traits, and how you've leveraged your superior feat access to take some feat chains.
-Matt
Thanks. I'm also sure it can be optimized further with a little effort. :)
|
|
My initial notes have Deadman's archeologist in a rather commanding position. There are just too many stackable buffs the Bard can use, and the talents-for-feats advantage is lessened by the fact that Deadman receives two talents. Instead of a Rog10 getting five talents (six if a Human) and a Bard getting zero, this Bard is getting two, both of which are being used for bonus feats.
Yeah, Archaeologist is a big part of the reason Roggues are legitimately considered obsolete. It's very good at Being A Better Rogue.
But I'll see how close I can get, and I'll try to analyze what happens when the Rogue is partied up with Deadman's archeologist, due to party buffs. My instincts are telling me that a Rogue gets a really strong return on party buffs, higher than quite a few other classes.
I might at least be able to demonstrate that Matt's Rogue and Deadman's Archeologist have a higher combined DPR than two Deadman's Archeologists.
Oh, they will. But that really doesn't prove anything. The point I (and others) were trying to make was that you should play something else instead of a Rogue, and that it would replace and subsume the Rogue's role in the party completely. The fact that Rogues get better with a Bard in the party is...sorta irrelevant, really, since the point is that you're better off having a Bard (or whatever) to do all the out-of-combat stuff and still do vastly better as a party in-combat. If there's already another Bard, you go with something else (Alchemist leaps to mind) to fill that role, but it's still not a Rogue, and you'd never play a Rogue and the Bard I just posted in the same party.
I'd actually request you not do this, as it results in highly misleading results. Instead, add a generic (and identical...say Wizard, Cleric, and Fighter...full stats wouldn't be needed, just rough DPR/effectiveness) party around them both and see how each party does. That gives a much better example of how this works in play. The party could give buffs...but combining the Rogue with buffs he has no way to get (because you'd never play a Rogue and this Bard in the same group) is counterproductive. Including a Bard in the generic party is possible, but if so my Bard would need to be replaced with a Vivisectionist Alchemist or someone else without redundant capabilities to properly demonstrate things.
EDIT: If anyone feels like saving me some time searching, could someone post the DPR Formula, as well as the assumed AC used to calculate DPR? Also, since I'm kicking around using Trip, is there an established assumed CMD for me to target? I'd be very grateful for the assist.
AC is 24. Don't know the rest, sorry. Maybe look up the DPR Olympics thread, that had a whole set of numbers.
Also, is there a trait out there that gives Spellcraft as a class skill?
-Matt
Probably. Don't know it off the top of my head, though.
I'd actually request you not do this, as it results in highly misleading results. Instead, add a generic (and identical...say Wizard, Cleric, and Fighter...full stats wouldn't be needed, just rough DPR/effectiveness) party around them both and see how each party does. That gives a much better example of how this works in play.
I see your point. If I get to this stage, I'll use a Wizard and/or Cleric, and the buffs they tend to provide.
-Matt
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... You can play that game with any class.
Barbarians: What are they going to do against flyers?
Wizards: Steal their spell books and the aren't bending much to their wills.
Fighter: How useful are they when you drop him and his heavy armor in water.
etc...No class has the answer for everything. No matter how self sufficient a class is, sometimes they need help, which is why they are in an adventure party.
...and your assumption that a rogue can't be useful...
You are upside down. The Rogue, among a host of other problems, has trouble setting up its principal damage dealing attack, i.e. sneak attack.
The Barbarian has full BAB, rage powers for defense and offense, and a million hit points to contribute in battle. A Fighter has weapon and armor training and bonus feats to do the same.
If you find the Wizard gimped in Pathfinder, if you feel that the poor things just can't be meaningful time after time, then you have my sympathy.
The Rogue has profound trouble doing what they were designed to do and taking advantage of their strengths perpetually. Other classes fill their niche more effectively. That doesn't even exhaust the problems of the Rogue. Every character can be thwarted situationally, but the everyday, built in problems of the Rogue stand out like no other class in Pathfinder.
|
|
You started with "halflings suck at being rogues." I'm going to need more than just normal vision and small weapons.
The agile property means that the strength penalty is meaningless, and we're left with a race whose only disadvantages are 1d3 daggers rather than 1d4 (difference of .5 damage there) and needing a few potions or scrolls of darkvision.
Advantages include +1 to AC and attack rolls, bonuses to Stealth, Adaptable Luck, and access to the Risky Striker feat, which I still think you are underrating.
halfling bonuses to stealth are pretty irrelevant when you need a light source to do anything with that stealth.
The ARGs fast movement option let them flank at least.
I really don't think that's true, but if so, it's something cured with a 300 gp potion or a 150 gp scroll; either option lasts 3 hours. Is this really the make-or-break part of a race?
I really don't think that's true, but if so, it's something cured with a 300 gp potion or a 150 gp scroll; either option lasts 3 hours. Is this really the make-or-break part of a race?
Depends on your level and the campaign
You need to level to the point that a 150 or 300 gp purchase is really affordable.
If your campaign is low on the magic mart scale you may not be able to always secure a dealer for your drug.
If your campaign involves a lot of travel and ambushed while camping its not really feasible to have it up all the time, so there goes a standard action to put it on.
If the dungeons are very large and you can;t do the 15 minute work day you can't have it up all the time.
|
|
I really don't think that's true, but if so, it's something cured with a 300 gp potion or a 150 gp scroll; either option lasts 3 hours. Is this really the make-or-break part of a race?
Depends on your level and the campaign
You need to level to the point that a 150 or 300 gp purchase is really affordable.
If your campaign is low on the magic mart scale you may not be able to always secure a dealer for your drug.
If your campaign involves a lot of travel and ambushed while camping its not really feasible to have it up all the time, so there goes a standard action to put it on.
If the dungeons are very large and you can;t do the 15 minute work day you can't have it up all the time.
If the campaign has magic item rules that are different from the high-magic expectation that the Core Rulebook sets forth (WBL and city-based magic item purchases) then of course inherent darkvision becomes more powerful. Luckily, it's pretty easy to ask your GM about house rules prior to starting.
I don't know of a character that isn't better off with consumables. If your shtick is to ambush at night and you haven't spent a small portion of your WBL on potions/scrolls to make that happen, then you screwed up. At level 3, having a scroll with two castings of darkvision is a tenth of WBL.
Three hours, by the way. That's significantly more than a fifteen-minute adventuring day. Not to mention that use of consumables, by WBL suggestion, should be made up for in future treasure hoards. So using a few scrolls is a non-issue in the long run.
I get your argument that having darkvision by default is preferable. However, I don't see a lack of human rogues out there. If your next argument is regarding the bonus feat, I would spend a feat on +1 to AC and attack rolls.
Unfortunately, as we have seen quite a few times in Pathfinder, Paizo seems unable to adjust previously-published material, and when they do (such as with Crane Wing), the boards explode. So why adjust?
There were a lot of issues with the Crane Wing update than what was at the surface.
If they buff the Rogue, I really doubt anyone is going to make a big deal out of it except congratulating them on finally doing it.
Human Mindchemist Vivisectionist Alchemist 9/Pathfinder Delver 1 20 Pointbuy
Traits: Deathtouched, Reincarnated
Str:10
Dex:18(20)(Ability score increases +2)
Con:14
Int:16(18)(+2 Human)
Wis:10
Cha:10
Feats:
1: Combat Expertise, Skill Focus(Bluff)
3: Weapon Finesse
5: Two Weapon Fighting
7: Two Weapon Feint
8: Skill Focus(Perception)
9: Improved Feint
Discoveries: Whatever you want, take infusion and Mutagen at some point though.
Gear:
+1 Agile Light Mace
+1 Agile Dagger
Cloak of Resistance +3
Eyes of the Eagle
Trapspringer's Gloves
+3 Shadow Mithril Chainshirt
Belt of Incredible Dexterity +2
Headband of Vast Intelligence +2
Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier
Ring of Protection +1
Wayfinder equipped with Clear Spindle
Approximately 900 gold remaining
Special Abilities:
Sneak Attack 5d6
Bardic Knowledge +1
Cognatogen
Alchemy
Brew Potion
Perfect Recall
Master Explorer(Trapfinding but better) +1
Skills(112 points):
Consider all abilities at an extra +2 over what is noted to account for Heroism.
Acrobatics: +18(10 ranks)
Bluff: +21 (10 ranks)
Perception: +29 (10 ranks)
Kn.(History): +15 (4 ranks)
Kn.(Nature/Heal sub): +22 (10 ranks)
Kn.The rest: +9(Untrained)
Disable Device: +25 (10 ranks)
Stealth: +23 (10 ranks)
UMD: +13(10 ranks)
Fly: +18(10 ranks)
Spellcraft: +17(10 ranks)
Escape Artist: +18 (10 ranks)
Swim: +11 (8 ranks)
DEFENSES
HP: 78
AC: 24(31 with Mutagen boosting Dex and Barkskin)
CMD: 25
Fort:+11(+6 vs Poison) Ref:+14 Will:+6(Immune to possesions and mental control)
Buffed Saves are: Fort +13 Ref +16 Will +8(+2 vs Mind Affecting)
+2 vs Death Effects
OFFENSES:
This guy gets completely outrageous with buffs.
Melee Attack Bonus: +10/+10/+5 (+6 BAB +1 Wpn +5 Dex)
Ranged Attack Bonus: +12/+6
Full Buffed Attack Bonus: +15/+15/+15/+10 Breakdown: 6(BAB)+7(Dex)+1(Wpn)+2(Morale)+1(Haste)
Buffs: Heroism, Mutagen, Haste, (He can supply himself with all of these)
Damage: 1d6+8+5d6, 1d6+8+5d6 and 1d4+3+5d6 or 1d4+8+5d6, 1d4+8+5d6 and 1d6+3+5d6 Two Weapon feint eats up the extra attack from haste till your allies get into a flank where you can then let it rip.
EDIT: I totally forgot he was missing one of his attacks. Basically the idea behind this is to Two Weapon Feint your way till your allies can get into position.
A couple of questions/points about this build, Scavion:
-How are you getting up to +10 base damage? I'm only seeing +7 from mutagenned Dex and +1 from the weapons' enhancement bonuses. Where is the other +2 coming from?
-Note that Agile replaces Strength with Dexterity for damage rolls. This means that your off-hand Dex damage is halved, unless you have Double Slice.
-Also note that the effect of Two-Weapon Feint only lasts for one attack. It's Improved Two-Weapon Feint which lasts until the end of your turn.
-Matt
A couple of questions/points about this build, Scavion:
-How are you getting up to +10 base damage? I'm only seeing +7 from mutagenned Dex and +1 from the weapons' enhancement bonuses. Where is the other +2 coming from?
-Note that Agile replaces Strength with Dexterity for damage rolls. This means that your off-hand Dex damage is halved, unless you have Double Slice.
-Also note that the effect of Two-Weapon Feint only lasts for one attack. It's Improved Two-Weapon Feint which lasts until the end of your turn.
-Matt
Heroism. Good catch on Offhand thing. I'll adjust that now. It's my pet build so I'm still working on optimizing it further.
I'm aware of Improved Two Weapon Feint. I personally believe Greater Feint is better in combination with Two Weapon Feint. I also don't consider Improved Two Weapon Fighting to be worth it on a 3/4ths BAB class, but thats personal preference.
Heroism.
I see. Note that heroism does not actually add to damage rolls, only attack rolls, skill checks, and saving throws.
-Matt
Heroism.I see. Note that heroism does not actually add to damage rolls, only attack rolls, skill checks, and saving throws.
-Matt
Really? Oh dear. Well I was actually missing my attack from haste in my write up. Editing.
Unfortunately, as we have seen quite a few times in Pathfinder, Paizo seems unable to adjust previously-published material, and when they do (such as with Crane Wing), the boards explode. So why adjust?
There were a lot of issues with the Crane Wing update than what was at the surface.
If they buff the Rogue, I really doubt anyone is going to make a big deal out of it except congratulating them on finally doing it.
** spoiler omitted **...
This is a good looking build Scavion. The only thing about buffing builds that give me pause is that 75% of the time, there is no time to buff before a fight. Beyond that, very nicely put together. I'm going to take a closer look at that Archetype.