| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been searching through the forums to try and see if anyone else has noticed this. The Rogue class in P2, seems to be completely and utterly broken. We have been testing out the system and getting familiar with it in my local group. We have been just rolling up characters at different levels and running them in pop up dungeons to see how they fair in battles against different types of creatures. We rolled up at 20th level Rogue character and optimized the feats taken around it's backstab ability. We gave it Anklets of Alacrity, a +2 Resilient Armor and a +2 Greater Striking short sword, with Flaming and Corrosive Properties. I know that is a lot of magic, but we wanted to see what a full powered rogue looked like. Through this test, we found that due to it's ability to always get it's sneak damage, coupled with it's ability to get an additional attack with sneak damage when ever another party member hits the enemy, if they rolled all crits they can do over 700 points of damage in a round. With the shortsword we gave them they get 9d6+2d10 persistent fire, and 3d6 additional acid damage that can be applied per hit. That is 184 points of damage ( 92 doubled after critical ) per strike and they technically get 4 strikes per encounter round equaling 736 points of damage in a single round of combat.
The fighter I created to go with it, with it's sword maxed out can do around 300 per round using the same metric with each attack being a critical.
It seems to me this disparity is pretty revealing. We even noticed during combat at lower levels, the rogue's ability to apply sneak damage any time a creature is flat footed, and then around level 10 it gets the ability to apply status effects with its strikes, and then at 16 it can even dispel magic. This all seems very over powered.
We took the 20th level character above and ran it against an Ancient Gold Dragon, and the Rogue, by itself with no assistance, almost killed it.
Is there something we are missing about sneak damage or how the flat footed condition works?
Has anyone else noticed how broken this class is?
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait. You're measuring maximum possible damage, assuming critting on every attack, instead of statistically expected damage? Why would anyone ever do that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because maximum damage is being used instead of average damage for some bizarre reason.
Instead of (9x6)+(2x10)+(3x6), this should more realistically be (9x3.5)+(2x5.5)+(3x3.5), which comes out to 53.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because maximum damage is being used instead of average damage for some bizarre reason.It still doesn't add up even then :D
It does.
12x6=722x10=20
72+20=92
It's not that the arithmetic is wrong. It's just that those aren't good numbers to use for evaluation.
In your example:
- What type of rogue is it?
- How did it apply flat footed to the dragon when alone?
- How did it get to the flying dragon?
- Where is the 4th attack when on it's own coming from (I don't know all the feats)
In short - what is the full build and how was this combat simulated?
|
Because maximum damage is being used instead of average damage for some bizarre reason.It still doesn't add up even then :DIt does.
12x6=72
2x10=20
72+20=92It's not that the arithmetic is wrong. It's just that those aren't good numbers to use for evaluation.
Ah, I forgot about 2d10 in my calc. Still, assuming max damage on every attack and every attack hitting is ... well.
But in this example the dragon ignores the fire portion of the damage.
It is also flying
Also what is the success change on frighten? The dragon has +39 will and a 49 will DC. That is not going to be a high failure chance
It also has golden luck once per turn to ignore the failure
I really want to see this simulation as I assume there are some crazy assumptions. Or the dragon is sitting on the ground asleep and not doing anything...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say the important thing is, with a game predicated on "rolling dice" as a core activated, one shouldn't make pronouncements on things without taking into account probability.
I mean, a 15th level raging giant barbarian adds +18 static damage to each of their attacks, a 15th level rogue adds +6 and potentially 3d6 sneak attack damage. Most of the time you'd rather have +18 than 3d6+6 (which is usually going to end up around 16.5), particularly since "qualifying for sneak attack is not automatic."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my 12th level party, the rogue does a good share of the big single-hit damage, but so does the giant instinct barbarian.
Assuming all crits, all sneak attacks, and all max damage is just the craziest version of this, though, especially at the apparent cost of zero actions and involving no other party members, somehow, despite the mention of a reaction that involves another party member hitting.
And like, what's the dragon doing this whole time?
And why are you including the corrosive damage being done to the armor as part of the damage? Why is persistent damage being included in the "damage per hit" when it doesn't stack?
Like...none of this is even vaguely related to gameplay.
I'm also not sure how your interpretation of the fighter's damage ended up so low. They have access to higher damage dice, which, if everything's a nat 20 and max damage anyway, means their 3d12 should automatically line up with 6d6 of the rogue's capabilities. You also left out weapon specialization damage, which the fighter gets a little more of due to legendary. If the fighter is wielding a hammer (Maul is d12 hammer) then every one of these magical crits will knock the target prone, and since level 10 fighters can get a second reaction for AoO, the fighter can reasonably be expected to get 2 AoOs per round in this incredibly favorable hypothetical, so they're getting 5 attacks per round to the rogue's 4 while making the dragon waste all three actions just standing up 3 times.
But again...this is all horribly wrong and in no way reflective of actual gameplay.
Yeah, getting 4 attacks per round is...worthless IMO.
After 2 attacks you're not going to hit, because of the MAP. My experience has been it's never worth making 3 attacks, let alone 4, because of the MAP. Like sure, you might hit occasionally if you're lucky enough to roll high.
A 20th level rogue is going to have around a 34 to a 37 attack bonus. An ancient gold dragon has an AC of 46. So in a best case scenario your 1st attack will succeed on a 9 (60% chance of success). Your second attack will succeed on a 13 (40% chance of success). Your 3rd attack will succeed on a 17 (20% chance of success). I've been assuming agile weapons, so third attack only had a -8 penalty, but MAP maxes out at -10. You're 4th attack will only succeed on a 19 (10% chance).
Basically the chance to hit on your last two attacks is so small that it's irrelevant.
Calculate damage per round without calculating average damage and including probability to hit makes it look a lot stronger than it actually is.
Calculate damage per round without calculating average damage and including probability to hit makes it look a lot stronger than it actually is.
I mean, it doesn't just inflate the numbers a bit. It's downright disingenuous.
Especially when the OP chooses to compare the rogue to a fighter, when the fighter's damage enhancer specifically exists to make them hit and crit more reliably than the rogue.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OP is basically ignoring the UTEML rule and all factors that impact to hit numbers to concentrate on the maximum potential damage.
No surprise that the Rogue comes ahead. Just as they would in PF1 with the same hypotheses. Which would include having the same number of attacks as the Fighter since that is covered in PF2 through to hit bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing about the Rogue that this white room simulation is missing, is that unlike the Fighter, Barbarian, Champion, and Ranger the Rogue can't really stand and bang, and unlike the Monk it doesn't have a readily available hit-and-run combat suite. Moreover the Rogue has less HP/level, can't hit the high AC numbers available to Monks and Champions, tops out at Mastery Will and Expert Fortitude, doesn't readily combine with shield use, and doesn't have a self-heal or Temp HP option.
The rogue has the offense of a frontliner, but very little of the defense. If you run up right next to a dragon and stay there attacking with your weapon, odds are this isn't going to go great for you once the dragon gets a turn.
|
Another thing about the Rogue that this white room simulation is missing, is that unlike the Fighter, Barbarian, Champion, and Ranger the Rogue can't really stand and bang, and unlike the Monk it doesn't have a readily available hit-and-run combat suite. Moreover the Rogue has less HP/level, can't hit the high AC numbers available to Monks and Champions, tops out at Mastery Will and Expert Fortitude, doesn't readily combine with shield use, and doesn't have a self-heal or Temp HP option.
The rogue has the offense of a frontliner, but very little of the defense. If you run up right next to a dragon and stay there attacking with your weapon, odds are this isn't going to go great for you once the dragon gets a turn.
As a player of a Halfling Thief 12, I agree with this 100%: Once I draw attention to myself with a crit or two (14d6+14 with Precise Debilitation is not exactly subtle) it's a safe bet I am going to either be down or keeping our cleric on his toes really quickly...
This is actually oddly appropriate for this character, who is basically a reincarnation of the first D&D 2.0 character I played back in the 90s that spent a notoriously large amount of time 'dead' (ah, the glory days of the TSR 'Ring of Regeneration').
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing about the Rogue that this white room simulation is missing, is that unlike the Fighter, Barbarian, Champion, and Ranger the Rogue can't really stand and bang, and unlike the Monk it doesn't have a readily available hit-and-run combat suite. Moreover the Rogue has less HP/level, can't hit the high AC numbers available to Monks and Champions, tops out at Mastery Will and Expert Fortitude, doesn't readily combine with shield use, and doesn't have a self-heal or Temp HP option.
The rogue has the offense of a frontliner, but very little of the defense. If you run up right next to a dragon and stay there attacking with your weapon, odds are this isn't going to go great for you once the dragon gets a turn.
As a player of a Halfling Thief 12, I agree with this 100%: Once I draw attention to myself with a crit or two (14d6+14 with Precise Debilitation is not exactly subtle) it's a safe bet I am going to either be down or keeping our cleric on his toes really quickly...
This is actually oddly appropriate for this character, who is basically a reincarnation of the first D&D 2.0 character I played back in the 90s that spent a notoriously large amount of time 'dead' (ah, the glory days of the TSR 'Ring of Regeneration').
You know what they say... "They're not dead unless they're dead and ringless"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player of a Halfling Thief 12, I agree with this 100%: Once I draw attention to myself with a crit or two (14d6+14 with Precise Debilitation is not exactly subtle) it's a safe bet I am going to either be down or keeping our cleric on his toes really quickly...
This is actually oddly appropriate for this character, who is basically a reincarnation of the first D&D 2.0 character I played back in the 90s that spent a notoriously large amount of time 'dead' (ah, the glory days of the TSR 'Ring of Regeneration').
I think some of people not noticing that the rogue is kind of squishy is because there are a lot of GMs (guilty!) who don't like killing characters. But it's important to not let people abuse this by keeping their glass cannons in danger without fear constantly.
I mean, what are hero points but "the GM gets a warning shot" right?
Am I the only one who doesn't see the rogue as a fighting class but a jack the trades?
They are...ok. Sneak attack mostly there to make up for the fact that they are using small finesse weapons rather than greatswords.
The main advantage of a rogue is that their mechanics 'force' them to use the various number boosting strategies you 'should' be using anyway. Add on debilitation on top of that, and they serve well as "anvils" described under the old "Forge of Combat" guide.
They set things up so that an enemy is hit extra hard by the party's "hammer"- whether it is a raging barbarian, a sniping ranger, or a blasting caster, depending on the party and the rogue's build.
Dividing things into 'fighting' and 'casting' is often not sufficient in most situations. Rogues are good at being melee range debuffers, with skills used both as an alternative purpose and a tool for their primary purpose. Between athletics, intimidation, and deception, a rogue can target pretty much any stat on an opponent for debuffs. And it is not unreasonable to use two of those options in the same round.
...unlike the Monk it doesn't have a readily available hit-and-run combat suite.
I'll note that monks can have a decent lockdown suite that makes it so that opponents don't even have the actions to hit it, even while the monk gets off 3 attacks and an AoO. But then again.... rogues also lack that monk strategy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll note that monks can have a decent lockdown suite that makes it so that opponents don't even have the actions to hit it, even while the monk gets off 3 attacks and an AoO. But then again.... rogues also lack that monk strategy.
From my experience with the two classes (more monk than rogue, but I have played both) the rogue and the monk are kind of opposites in that rogue is in a bit of a bind with the action economy (if you want to feint/intimidate, then move you're down to one action) whereas the monk is basically the king of exploiting action economy differences- an 11th level monk with tiger style, stunning fist, brawling focus, and winding flow can stride 40', step 10', attack twice potentially inflicting slowed or stunned, then step 10' or stride 40' all in one turn without being quickened.
I'll note that monks can have a decent lockdown suite that makes it so that opponents don't even have the actions to hit it, even while the monk gets off 3 attacks and an AoO. But then again.... rogues also lack that monk strategy.From my experience with the two classes (more monk than rogue, but I have played both) the rogue and the monk are kind of opposites in that rogue is in a bit of a bind with the action economy (if you want to feint/intimidate, then move you're down to one action) whereas the monk is basically the king of exploiting action economy differences- an 11th level monk with tiger style, stunning fist, brawling focus, and winding flow can stride 40', step 10', attack twice potentially inflicting slowed or stunned, then step 10' or stride 40' all in one turn without being quickened.
Yes, but you can also trip, get off agile flurry of blows (even with MAP, this can hit a flat foot opponent about as well as a dragon stance user's straight flurry), get stunning fist, and then hit them again when they try to stand up. Between the stunning fist and standing up, the enemy can barely get a hit off.
Monks are great at exploiting action economy in various ways, basically. You still have the mobility options, even if you go for a trip build, so you can switch between in fighting and out fighting as needed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Rogue offense is, taking actual probabilities into account, about on par with other martial offense. Not worse, but not better either.
And, obviously, they're great at skills and immensely versatile outside combat, which, as many people have noted, they pay for with a mediocre defense at best, definitely worse than other martials generally possess.
Yeah, getting 4 attacks per round is...worthless IMO.
After 2 attacks you're not going to hit, because of the MAP. My experience has been it's never worth making 3 attacks, let alone 4, because of the MAP. Like sure, you might hit occasionally if you're lucky enough to roll high.
You're obviously right in the general case.
You can also build around making the case for taking the third attack, which wouldn't factor in with this "all crits for max damage." Aside from flurry rangers, who can have small multiple attack penalties, fighters have some situational options. My level 5 PFS fighter has a backswing weapon and exacting strike, so if he misses with his second attack his third attack is actually at only a -4. He uses a meteor hammer, so reach reduces how often he needs to move, both his hands are full 'cause it's a 2-hander, and if he crits he knocks the enemy prone which happens fairly often due to fighter's master proficiency. So he tends to take that third swing even against a tough enemy where he'll be at -10 because he is already in a good position and he's fishing for AoOs to get another attack and lacks relevant other options because those were the trade-offs with his overall build.
But like, that's what fighters are for. And even +16/+12/+12 at level 5 doesn't matter if they're on rolls of 1/1/3, which happened to me earlier today.
736 points of damage in a single round of combat
So, it sounds like we should roughly halve that to get average damage dice rather than maximum damage dice. 368 damage. I'll round that up to 400.
Oh, and since we shouldn't assume they're all crits, we'll halve that again. 200 damage.
Oh, and since one hit per round is a more likely average than four hits per round, we'll quarter that. 50 damage. Assuming no fire or acid resistance.
So overpowered...
One other problem with the analysis is that a single character can only demoralize an enemy once every 10 minutes. You can instead assume they archetype Bard to get Dirge if you want to make the frightened assumption every turn.
I do think theif rogues have the highest active turn effect on the game of any level 20 character. Master Strike is insane for taking out even level enemies. Scare to Death is another single shot kill. For larger targets, Dirge+dread striker+debilitation causes nearly as much damage as a fighter due to their self setup of flat footed. Cloud Jump gets rogues to where they need to go almost as fast as a monk.
What's missing from the rogue compared to the other classes is a more defensively inclined reactive turn and durability. The rogue's access to basically all of the legendary skill feats is really incredible starting at about level 16, but they are a bit lackluster compared to the full martials in combat before that. They also don't accept support as well as a fighter. If you build a party around a 2 weapon fighter, they can start making 6 effective attacks versus a hard target every turn. Rogues also miss whirlwind strike from fighter and barbarians that can be used to clear crowds with the help of haste.
Ultimately, I'd say the rogue is just a bit over balanced as far as scaling with levels.
Edit: Also, precision damage isn't universally applicable, which makes them a poor carry. You wouldn't want more than one rogue in a party while multiple fighters would be fine.
I mean we could just do the DPR calculation against AC 46 with a rogue build vs a fighter build, and show the OP how the rogue will lose on average to the fighter (primarily due to hit chance).
Let's assume the target is flat-footed (flanking) so both will get to go against lower AC, and the rogue will get sneak attack without having to do anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I always crit, I'm going to roll a heavy pick rogue! Who cares about sneak attack?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean we could just do the DPR calculation against AC 46 with a rogue build vs a fighter build, and show the OP how the rogue will lose on average to the fighter (primarily due to hit chance).
Let's assume the target is flat-footed (flanking) so both will get to go against lower AC, and the rogue will get sneak attack without having to do anything.
It's actually more beneficial for the rogue to assume no flat-footed since they probably invested in a way to make something flat footed cheaply
It's actually more beneficial for the rogue to assume no flat-footed since they probably invested in a way to make something flat footed cheaplyI mean we could just do the DPR calculation against AC 46 with a rogue build vs a fighter build, and show the OP how the rogue will lose on average to the fighter (primarily due to hit chance).
Let's assume the target is flat-footed (flanking) so both will get to go against lower AC, and the rogue will get sneak attack without having to do anything.
Yeah, but the fighter also has options to cause flat-footed.
The comparison needs to be equal unless there's good reason to assume the rogue can cause a relevant condition that the fighter cannot.
In this case, both can likely achieve flat-footed condition on the enemy relatively easy so it would be disingenuous to give the rogue an effective +2 to hit without giving the fighter the same.
Wow, a lot of good feedback here. Sorry its taken me so long to respond. I do agree that what I posted was a "white room" situation. I know that measuring max damage is not a good indicator, it just seemed really strange to me that the rogue class can do that much damage in a round compared to what a Fighter or Champion can do.
As to MAP, we may be doing something wrong there. I mean with a finesse weapon the MAP is a -8 to all attacks after the second. So it goes
Attk. 1: No penalty
Attk. 2: -4
Attk. 3: -8
All subsequent attacks -8.
At 20th level this rogue had a +37 to hit, so you are looking at a +29 to hit. When you apply the Flat Footed, which the thief applies very easily, it's a +31. Rolling a 15 or higher for an AC of 46 is not that high. Am I doing MAP wrong? Is it supposed to be going up on each subsequent attack?
As to the questions about Flat Footed, during our dungeon crawl, we played 2 fighters and a rogue. We applied flat-footed by positioning one fighter in front of the creature and then position the rogue in a flanking position behind. The two fighters in the group were able to position in a way that with a simple stride action you can easily position the rogue into a flanking position, giving them their sneak attack on virtually every attack. According to the book, the flat-footed from flanking doesn't go away until someone moves. So if you use it with abilities or spells that keep the enemy from moving ( ie. Hold Person, Immobilize, Paralyze, Stunned, etc ) the rogue can quickly decimate and opponent.
I just think it's broken because they also get so many feats and skills, and can do a ton of damage. And this rouge we played at 20th had 192 HP which is not a small amount, and a 36/38 armor class ( the 38 applied with nimble roll ) so it's not super easy to hit.
I posted this with the understanding that I think we are misunderstanding something, but the more I look at the rules, i don't think we are doing anything incorrectly.
|
|
If you're comparing high-level Characters you want to be sure you're looking at a suitably high-level creature so I'm going to posit some numbers you should be comparing against.
A level 18 Magma Dragon is actually below the sample Characters level so in a situation like this you'd typically be facing more than just the 1 enemy in a group of 4 but for now, we'll just assume 1v1.
Claw - Melee +36/+32/+28; Does about 30 damage on average per hit and with 36/38 AC that means that the first attack is ALWAYS going to Crit your Rogue on the first attack unless they roll a 1. The Second attack similarly has something like a 80% chace to crit as well. Each crit JUST from its claw will range in damage from 24 - 100 damage PER HIT. You're WAY WAY off in terms of the survivability of your Rogue, this isn't even an even level NPC to your Character and I cannot imagine that the Rogue would be left standing there trying to make sneak attacks in melee range very long.
Rogues can indeed be setup to deal a lot of damage but they are quite fragile compared to every other Martial Class in terms of actual AC.
Rolling a 15 or higher with your agile weapon (finesse does not affect MAP) is a 70% chance of missing. That's significant.
But your rogue''s damage there, in this perfect circumstance (where you spend your turn in position, quickened, with a flank and someone has kept this dragon in place successfully through a means other than paralyze, since dragons are immune to that), is more accurately:
53 average points of damage x (0.9 + 0.55 + 0.35 + 0.35) for the probability of hitting and critting with each if your 4 attacks.
Or 113.95 damage. It's a good bit of damage, but not that crazy for an ideal circumstance at level 20.
EDIT: The 4th attack being a reaction, not from being quickened does bring this up to 143.1 damage
OTHER EDIT: How did you get an armor class that low on a level 20 rogue? 10 (base)+20 (level)+6 (Master) would get you to 36 with no DEX mod and no armor.
I assure you, the numbers in PF2E are extremely tight. All Martial classes (or non-martial character in 'martial mode' via Battle Forms or similar) deal effectively similar damage within a relatively tight band, with Fighters solidly at the top and other classes coming in right behind.
How they deal this damage varies, as does the specific requirements and restrictions involved.
AC is similar - its a relatively tight band, and unless I'm missing something a rogue should come in about 3 AC below a Heavy armor fighter or a Champion (without considering Shields). A rogue's AC isn't bad, but its not stealing anyone's thunder by any stretch.
Small differences matter a lot.
Nope. I haven't noticed it.
Rogue does a lot of damage, as they should. If the BBEG turns on them, they go down hard. Though that super stealth at lvl 20 might help them defensively more than the sneak attack all the time to stay alive.
I assure you, the numbers in PF2E are extremely tight. All Martial classes (or non-martial character in 'martial mode' via Battle Forms or similar) deal effectively similar damage within a relatively tight band, with Fighters solidly at the top and other classes coming in right behind.
How they deal this damage varies, as does the specific requirements and restrictions involved.
AC is similar - its a relatively tight band, and unless I'm missing something a rogue should come in about 3 AC below a Heavy armor fighter or a Champion (without considering Shields). A rogue's AC isn't bad, but its not stealing anyone's thunder by any stretch.
Small differences matter a lot.
Rogue also gets master armor proficiency, so it's only 1 point behind the fighter in plate and 3 behind the Champion.
5 behind the shield using champion, or Mountain Style Monk.
Unlike the monk (and the barbarian a little bit), the rogue doesn't have actions to spare for defensive purposes, and unlike the champion and fighter it doesn't get an "always on" option for +2 AC.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So let's compare a Fighter with a Greatpick making four attacks (Weapon Supremacy at Level 20 grants a Quickened Strike) plus a Brutal Finish action via Desperate Finisher. A Greatpick has Fatal d12, meaning on a crit it deals d12s instead of the normal d10s and adds a bonus die of damage. In addition, Picks have the critical specialization effect of adding +2 damage per weapon die. Your calculation didn't add DEX or weapon specialization, but the Fighter would be dealing 2 more damage per hit with them counted, so I'll just add +2 damage per strike. Also, damage from property runes is multiplied on a crit, except for the bonus Persistent damage which only applies on a crit already.
Strike Maximum Damage - 9d12(pick + fatal) + 2d6 (greater flaming) + 2d6 (corrosive) + 10 (crit specialization) + 2 (weapon specialization) = 144
Brutal Finish adds 2 bonus weapon damage die, causing the last attack each round to deal an extra 4d12+4 damage (the bonus die are doubled, and the crit specialization adds 2 damage per die).
Assuming 5 crits, that's 144 x 5 + 2d10 Persistent Fire (Greater Flaming) + 4d12+4 = 792
Now, this isn't the best way to determine how much damage a build will deal on a typical turn or against a normal enemy, but even assuming the maximum possible damage the Fighter can still be built to outpace even the Rogue in the same calculation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lunias that's a good comparison to the OP's initial situation.
The take away here is "garbage in, garbage out".
Minor note @LuniasM, which doesn't affect the point you are making at all:
A greater flaming rune and the like don't increase the damage dealt on a hit, so it's not 2d6 fire. It's 1d6 that ignores fire resistance.
The 2D6 is because he's assuming crit.
However, it's missing a 3rd Property Rune, or 4th if Orichalcum. Corrosive is not the best rune for Max Damage either. The total number could be substantially higher.
Just to give an example of what an actual comparison would look like with average damage and accuracy factored in, I've done my first DPR post in, like, a year or more. Frankly, I don't think DPR really matters as much in PF2 as it did back in PF1 since anything past the second attack is often wasted, but this was fun regardless.
Rogue Attack Bonus - 26 Proficiency + 7 DEX + 3 Potency = +36
Chance to Hit AC 46 = 0.55 / 0.35 / 0.15
Chance to Crit AC 46 = 0.05
+3 Greater Striking Greater Flaming Corrosive Shortsword - 4d6 + 1d6 Fire + 1d6 Acid + 7 DEX + 6 Greater Weapon Specialization = 6d6+13 (34)
Bonus Crit Damage = 6d6+2d10+13 (45)
Sneak Attack Damage = 10d6+13 (48)
Bonus Crit SA Damage = 10d6+2d10+13 (59)
Chance to Hit AC 46 = 0.65 / 0.4 / 0.15
Chance to Crit AC 46 = 0.15 / 0.05
+3 Greater Striking Greater Flaming Corrosive Greatpick - 4d10 + 1d6 Fire + 1d6 Acid + 7 STR + 8 Greater Weapon Specialization = 4d10+2d6+15 (44)
Brutal Finish Damage = 6d10+2d6+15 (55)
Bonus Crit Damage = 5d12+2d6+25+4 (68.5)
Bonus Brutal Finish Crit Damage = 7d12+2d6+25+6 (83.5)
NOTE: The extra 4-6 bonus damage on a crit comes from the base weapon die increasing from a d10 to a d12.
DPR = (chance to hit x damage) + (chance to crit x bonus damage dealt on a crit)
For attacks against Flat-footed creatures, the enemy AC drops by 2 and accuracy increases by 0.1 with critical hits becoming more likely if this increases accuracy over 0.55.
Rogue DPR vs AC 46 = (0.55x34)+(0.05x45) + (0.35x34)+(0.05x45) + 2x((0.15x34)+(0.05x45)) = 49.8
Rogue SA DPR vs AC 44 = (0.65x48)+(0.15x59) + (0.45x48)+(0.05x59) + 2x((0.25x48)+(0.05x59)) = 94.5
Fighter DPR vs AC 46 = (0.65x44)+(0.15x55) + (0.4x44)+(0.05x55) + 2x((0.15x44)+(0.05x55)) + (0.15x55)+(0.05x83.5) = 88.325
Fighter DPR vs AC 44 = (0.75x44)+(0.25x55) + (0.5x44)+(0.05x55) + 2x((0.25x44)+(0.05x55)) + (0.25x55)+(0.05x83.5) = 116.925
What you wind up seeing is that the Rogue only deals more damage if they get to Sneak Attack a Flat-footed target and the Fighter has to attack normal AC, and even then the Rogue only does about 7% more damage. If the Rogue doesn't get Sneak Attack then the Fighter blows them out of the water, doing about 77% more damage. If they both attack a Flat-footed target then the Rogue closes the gap, but the Fighter still deals about 23.7% more damage.
Minor note @LuniasM, which doesn't affect the point you are making at all:
A greater flaming rune and the like don't increase the damage dealt on a hit, so it's not 2d6 fire. It's 1d6 that ignores fire resistance.
That's a subject of debate at the moment, because the critical hit rules only call out the following exception:
Benefits you gain specifically from a critical hit, like the flaming weapon rune’s persistent fire damage or the extra damage die from the fatal weapon trait, aren’t doubled.
The damage from Property Runes that aren't specifically added from a critical hit are not called out here. PF1's critical hit rules explicitly stated that bonus damage from things like Flaming and Frost aren't multiplied, but PF2 only makes the distinction between damage that's added on regular hits and damage that's added specifically as a benefit of critting. That's why I multiplied the Property Rune damage for Greater Flaming and Corrosive, but not for the Greater Flaming Rune's 2d10 Persistent damage, the Greatpick's Critical Specialization damage, or the bonus weapon damage die from the Greatpick's Fatal property (although I did decide the bonus die from Fatal counted for determining how much damage the crit specialization deals, which in retrospect is a questionable choice... But it only adds +2 damage per crit, so shrug. )