Slayer: no point to make a rogue anymore... why fulll BAB?


Product Discussion

101 to 114 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There hasn't been a point in playing a rogue for quite a while.

Urban Ranger (APG) and Trapper (UM -- really rather ironic considering they take away the spells) already gave you a full BAB that could do what the rogue did in terms of traps and locks. Two less skill points, full BAB, plus specials.

Bard has long been the jack of all trades and makes a good confidence man as well.

I like the idea of the rogue, but I can't see much reason to take the class past level 2 or 4.

You can still have a character that is a scoundrel and a rogue, just don't use the rogue class.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:
You can still have a character that is a scoundrel and a rogue, just don't use the rogue class.

Pretty much this puts everything in a nutshell. There are lots of good ways to make a rogue, but the list of good ways to make a Rogue is started small and has been swiftly dwindling for some time.

Scarab Sages

In the future, if they nerf the rogue, the ability to add 1/2 his level to other skills, like what Trapfinding does, would make him interesting. Maybe every 4 levels he can select another aspect of a skill--spy, pickpocket, pick locks, etc.

That would make him relevant again as a master of skill use, and let the Slayer be the more combatant form of the rogue.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly don't think that would be that much of an improvement. Other classes can already meet the necessities for skill use that the Rogue is supposedly master of - adding higher numbers to skills beyond what's necessary really won't fix the problem, I think. The Bard, at the very least, would likely still even then be the superior skill user.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
BretI wrote:
You can still have a character that is a scoundrel and a rogue, just don't use the rogue class.
Pretty much this puts everything in a nutshell. There are lots of good ways to make a rogue, but the list of good ways to make a Rogue is started small and has been swiftly dwindling for some time.

Total agreement, followed by a tangential digression ...

This is the downside to every packet of mechanics (class, feat, etc) having to have a catchy name; people tend to get hung up on it and forget about other potential options that may work better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thormind wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:


You're making a mistake here. Main hand and offhand take the penalties for TWF. You're at 18/18/18/13/13.

That being said, average AC for a CR 13 foe is 28. You need a 10 to hit on your highest attack. Aka, a 45% miss chance.

So, .55+.55+.55+.3+.3=2.25 hits per round against average AC of CR equivalent foe.

2.25*17.5 + 2.25*8.5*1.10=60.4125 before DR, miss chance, or other such things.

Average HP around this level is about 200 for monsters, meaning that it should take about 4 full attacking sneak attacks to kill a single opponent.

- No mistake, the numbers i gave included all penalties and bonus to hit (from Dex, from Swords, from weapon focus...).

- We are playing a premade module from Paizo (Jade Reagent). The average AC of foes we are facing is not 28. Plus as a rogue my main priority most of the time is to go after the casters/archers, they have lower AC.

-Again most foes we face dont have 200hp. And this is a module made by Paizo. I assume they created something appropriate for our lvl...

You're using the same weapon in main hand and offhand. You literally have to have the same bonus in them. The difference of 2 leads me to believe you are for whatever reason not taking your twf penalty on your main hand attacks.

The creatures I pulled were CR 13. 5 of the 7 of them had AC 28, with a couple of 27's in there.

There was only 1 with HP under 200 and he was at 188. The rest sat comfortably into the low 200's.

These are the very definition of CR 13 encounters, a modest encounter for your level. Unless you are somehow stating that things that are literally the basic CR 13 battle are not balanced for your level those numbers are good.


So, the problem is that the rogue can never get his sneak attack damage because it's so hard to get flanking, right?

As I recall, back in bygone days, this ability was called 'backstab.' And all it required was that you be behind your target. No flanking needed. Why not just restore that and re-introduce facing as a concept?

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Dealing with facing sucks.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calybos1 wrote:
So, the problem is that the rogue can never get is sneak attack bonus because it's so hard to get flanking, right?

No. There's also the issue of not being able to hit reliably even when flanking due to low BAB with no way to raise it.

Calybos1 wrote:
As I recall, back in bygone days, this ability was called 'backstab.' And all it required was that you be behind your target. No flanking needed. Why not just restore that and re-introduce facing as a concept?

Wouldn't help. Monsters are usually facing the party, and it's getting behind them to flank that makes it hard, not having someone in front of them to flank with. Actually...it'd be worse, since it would eliminate the possibility of someone with, say, flight, getting behind them to flank with the Rogue, or the Rogue and their ally moving onto both sides of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calybos1 wrote:

So, the problem is that the rogue can never get is sneak attack bonus because it's so hard to get flanking, right?

As I recall, back in bygone days, this ability was called 'backstab.' And all it required was that you be behind your target. No flanking needed. Why not just restore that and re-introduce facing as a concept?

Is turning around a free action? An immediate action? Does it provoke attacks of opportunity? Whats to stop the bad guy from just putting his back to the fighter? Do you have to be directly behind? Far as I know, beyond backstab, there are no benefits to being behind a person.

So we've gone from, "fly that I'm not going to bother swatting till the end," to "I need to keep my back to the fighter, hey look whose in front of me!"

Not to mention the arguments at the table that facing in general is sure to cause.


Hey look, Rogues suck post #789,538. The hits just keep on coming.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Simon Legrande wrote:
Hey look, Rogues suck post #789,538. The hits just keep on coming.

Hey, people like to talk about how the sky is blue. *shrugs*


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well the op was saying the slayer should be nerfed. We're just saying it doesn't.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Locking this one. We have plenty of rogue threads, and I'm not sure another one is going to end up all that productive.

101 to 114 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Slayer: no point to make a rogue anymore... why fulll BAB? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Product Discussion