I see no reason why you would want a rogue in the party over an adept or a warrior.
What about with the following rule in place instead of sneak attack:
Any time a creature is flat-footed, flanked, denied their dexterity bonus to AC for any reason, are suffering a condition, or have received a negative status effect of any kind (including things like curse, disease, energy drain, poison, and so on) you may add damage equal to your level in classes that grant opportune strike +1. This is precision damage, and otherwise follows the rules for similar abilities like Opportunities Aplenty, or Sneak Attack.
Would this change the position of the rogue by a significant margin? By a small margin? By nothing at all?
(And I, for one, would play the rogue instead of adept for the social skills. I love me some social skills.)
Sure, but part of it is also the difficulty of getting those attacks off. Hitting has its own issues, yes, but part of that is getting him into the position where setting up his extra damage is hard in the first place, besides - and even harder to get there and have the conditions to be correct. Hence a large increase in the "conditions" that are allowed to set the damage off.
Also: debating whether or not it should multiply on a critical.
The one "hard" game I've tested it in (a PbP) has not been too conducive to final answers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This reminds me that I really need to get my rogue rewrite into a legible alpha playtest stage. I've got a lot the crunch down already but haven't actually put a table in the document and I've barely scratched the surface of intended rogue talents (though I do have talents for poisoning, assassinations, fencing, and team coordination).
My favorite set of talents for my rogue revision is the tactical rogue which allows the rogue to buff and provide teamwork feats to nearby allies. It drastically changes the dynamics of how the rogue plays and how you might wish to build one. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see no reason why you would want a rogue in the party over an adept or a warrior.
A core only rogue does equal damage, and had more options than the warrior. The adept is only bringing support for the most part.
This reminds me that I really need to get my rogue rewrite into a legible alpha playtest stage. I've got a lot the crunch down already but haven't actually put a table in the document and I've barely scratched the surface of intended rogue talents (though I do have talents for poisoning, assassinations, fencing, and team coordination).
My favorite set of talents for my rogue revision is the tactical rogue which allows the rogue to buff and provide teamwork feats to nearby allies. It drastically changes the dynamics of how the rogue plays and how you might wish to build one. :P
At that point it is really a new class, and if it stays too close to home you already have the slayer who also needs more talents that are worth taking.
I see no reason why you would want a rogue in the party over an adept or a warrior.A core only rogue does equal damage, and had more options than the warrior. The adept is only bringing support for the most part.
The warrior will have a better AC and fort save.
He is also not dependent on a situational flank or situational sneak attack in general.The Rogue's additional options are just more skill points. Which the party of adapts/warriors can cover if they coordinate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And familiars are dang good at stealthy recon. :)
I see no reason why you would want a rogue in the party over an adept or a warrior.A core only rogue does equal damage, and had more options than the warrior. The adept is only bringing support for the most part.The warrior will have a better AC and fort save.
He is also not dependent on a situational flank or situational sneak attack in general.The Rogue's additional options are just more skill points. Which the party of adapts/warriors can cover if they coordinate.
I doubt that. Neither of them have the skills to cover social situations. That is at least 2 out of their 4 combined skills assuming you wish to ignore one of them. Then you need perception. Sense Motive is also nice to have.
Yeah the warrior can or adept can put some points in charisma and/or take skill focus(X), but they are both far enough below normal adventurer status that doing so won't help them.
The adept can't summon monsters so he won't be using those to handle any traps. He might have dispel magic, but he does not have enough spells to be wasting considering who he is supporting.
Neither of them are scouts. Ok so the adept has invis, but I don't know if he has enough spells to waste on that while being the team bandage, and holding this group together. You can go with two adepts, but I don't think you are killing anyone like that, which leaves the enemy alive longer.
Flanks are not that hard to get, and by the time the CMD's get high enough that the rogue can't flank without taking an AoO the party will be dead anyway.
CRB rogue vs warrior is a bit of a toss up but later books bumped up the power of the rogue enough that it's the definitive winner. Still less versatile than the adept, but at least it guarantees second place instead of being a toss up.
Yes there are good rogue builds, like sap master scouts with offensive defense or ogre ninjas with savage critical and counterfeit mages are pretty solid, but the adept spell list is strong enough that until rogues get a significant overhaul (hopefully Pathfinder Unchained is enough) they will be second best in NPC land.