My wife and I are going to be playing in a new Pathfinder campaign soon. She’s playing a rogue who will be fighting with two daggers while I will be playing a combat oriented alchemist. We are starting making our characters (at level 2) and I decided to be a vivisectionist with feral mutagen and I realized that not only do I have 3 attacks to her 2, but mine do quite a bit more damage, and I also have a sneak attack just like hers, which I will get on three attacks when we can flank enemies. On top of that, I get other cool powers too like formulae. I can even do stealth, because I took a trait to give it to me as a class skill, though I’m not as good at it as her.
So I feel like I do her thing better than she does, plus a lot of other cool stuff. That being the case, I think I’ve decided not to be a vivisectionist so that at least she can have sneak attacks all to herself. Is there something I’m missing here or does a vivisectionist alchemist cut too much into the rogue’s role with sneak attacks?
My wife and I are going to be playing in a new Pathfinder campaign soon. She’s playing a rogue who will be fighting with two daggers while I will be playing a combat oriented alchemist. We are starting making our characters (at level 2) and I decided to be a vivisectionist with feral mutagen and I realized that not only do I have 3 attacks to her 2, but mine do quite a bit more damage, and I also have a sneak attack just like hers, which I will get on three attacks when we can flank enemies. On top of that, I get other cool powers too like formulae. I can even do stealth, because I took a trait to give it to me as a class skill, though I’m not as good at it as her.
So I feel like I do her thing better than she does, plus a lot of other cool stuff. That being the case, I think I’ve decided not to be a vivisectionist so that at least she can have sneak attacks all to herself. Is there something I’m missing here or does a vivisectionist alchemist cut too much into the rogue’s role with sneak attacks?
The Rogue is unfavored at level 2 but if you look closer that's only true on this level and only on specific circumstances.
First, you have to drink you Mutagen as a standard action, it last only 10 minutes per alchemist level and it takes 1 hour to brew a dose of mutagen.
If you would start at level 1 you would only have one attack and the Rogue had two. At level 3, the Rogue (if Unchained) get Dex to damage and later Debilitating Injury.
Natural attacks are favored in early levels but get weaker later.
I was a GM in a game with a Rogue and a Vivisectionist and they both have a lot of fun together. You always have your flanking partner, you can take Teamwork feats like Outflank and you could share your Greater Invisibility with your wife.
Yes, rogues get overshadowed pretty easily. If she's using the unchained rogue variant/optional rule it will help in combat at least. If she's using the core rulebook rogue then one of you really needs to change.
Mutagen is hardly an at-will thing, as pointed out earlier... though the relevance of the limitations vary wildly depending on the game's style and approach to combat.
But ultimately, the problem is not the Alchemist : Core Rogue is just not that great, to the point it's likely a big part of why Unchained is a thing at all.
And if I may : two weapon fighting on top of that is a gamble, at best. Iconic as it may be.
Unchained Rogue would help her, but if you're competing for a similar niche ? You'll come out on top more often than not.
Ditching Vivisectionist will at least take the Sneak Attack issue out of the matter, but you still might want to be careful how the both of you build your characters if you don't want to compete.
Or, you know, Slayer is a thing.
Yeah I agree, the vivisectionist will outshine the Rogue.
You can give a lot of your abilities to the Rogue by taking the Infusion discovery and giving her half your extracts, that'll solve almost all the differences in combat. Honestly aside from that if you just focus on different skills you'll probably both enjoy making mince-meat out of whatever comes between you.
The core rogue is the second most powerful NPC class. The adept is actually more powerful than the core rogue. The unchained rouge improves that and makes it the least powerful PC class. Skill unlocks are actually pretty good once you get high enough level but only a handful of them are useful and most of the useful ability are at 10th level and above. Ironically the unchained rogue actually gets more at 20th level than any other class, but most campaigns rarely get to that level.
Been a while since I heard that :) (but... yes)
It's less true nowadays, with all that's come out in the ten years of PF1. Plus URogue helps a lot, some archetypes are pretty good...
Rogue is mostly lacking a niche, I'd say.
There's nothing it does than someone else can't do better, which'd be fine if those others weren't also better at being jack of all trades.
If you're having both a rogue and an alchemist, and don't want to outshine the rogue : making sure you aim for different things should be enough.
I really encourage looking at unchained, for an almost all-around buff.
|
Been a while since I heard that :) (but... yes)
It's less true nowadays, with all that's come out in the ten years of PF1. Plus URogue helps a lot, some archetypes are pretty good...Rogue is mostly lacking a niche, I'd say.
There's nothing it does than someone else can't do better, which'd be fine if those others weren't also better at being jack of all trades.If you're having both a rogue and an alchemist, and don't want to outshine the rogue : making sure you aim for different things should be enough.
I really encourage looking at unchained, for an almost all-around buff.
This.
You're making your characters together, so design them to do different things. If you're both trying to do the same thing then one of you will be better at it
Thanks for the advice everybody. Is the slayer that good? I'm not that familiar with it but from looking over it, it seems like it loses too many rogue abilities, including a much reduced sneak attack, to make the combat abilities gained worth it. I'm not sure though.
You know, both my wife and I completely forgot about the unchained rogue, but now that people bring that up, we will likely go with that. Making a character with the unchained rogue at 2nd level is already better than the original rogue and at 3rd level she will jump up massively in damage as she gets to use Dexterity for damage with her daggers - and she's a goblin so her Dexterity is very high and her Strength not so much.
We've also looked a bit at the vigilante class, does anybody know much about that one? It looks cool, maybe better than the standard rogue, but maybe not as good as the unchained rogue with the Dexterity bonus to damage at level 3.
Slayer is a well designed class. It has plenty of combat prowess and utility. I believe it to be superior to the Rogue in every possible way.
The comment about Core Rogue being the 2nd best NPC class is accurate. Adept is better than a Core Rogue. The NPC Expert can help a party as much as some Rogues I have seen. Unchained Rogue is better, way better in fact, but still...
I think the Investigator actually solves the need for Rogues. I understand that it's literally a hybrid class based partially on the Rogue, but just like the Slayer, it's superior to the Rogue in every way imaginable.
That all being said, the two of you could probably just pick different roles and keep your current characters... just build them to compliment each other and not overlap too much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the advice everybody. Is the slayer that good? I'm not that familiar with it but from looking over it, it seems like it loses too many rogue abilities, including a much reduced sneak attack, to make the combat abilities gained worth it. I'm not sure though.
It's a better class than unRogue. The main problem Rogue (and Ninja) has is that if the character can't sneak attack, it completely falls apart. In a way, unRogue even increases that (although it's still very much an upgrade and better even when not SAing). When not SAing, the class has no attack roll bonus (on medium BAB), no damage roll bonus, no defensive ability of any kind, and most good Rogue Talents stop working.
Slayer, on the other hand, has full BAB, d10 HD, and a boost to attac adn damage rolls independent of SA. It also has combat relevant talents independent of SA, most notably the Ranger Combat Style talent which allows grabbing feats without prerequisites.
What you should do is have your wife describe, without using class names, what she wants (and doesn't want) for her character. Many players think they need a specific class to make their concept work, when in reality a different class is often much more suited.
General concept in Pathfinder: Whatever it is you're trying to do, Rogue is not the best class for it. Even if you want to build a dex-based character without spells who's good at stealth and skills in general, can disable magic traps, and targets an enemy's vital points with their attacks and get extra d6 on damage rolls, Rogue is not the best class for that.
In addition to the Slayer, Investigator and Archaeologist Bard are very similar to Rogue, only much better at basically everything. The former especially is pretty close to Alchemist, so that may or may not be something undesireable, but it's generally what I'd suggest to people who want a character that is good at skills and especially stealth, and has as close to a backstab mechanic as you can get in a game without facing.
Doesn't mean you mustn't play a Rogue, or that one can't have fun with a Rogue, but no one should ever think they have to play a Rogue because it's either necessary, or the best, for their character concept. And while I'm sure there are exceptions to this, they're extremely rare, and propably tied to very specific concepts.
We've also looked a bit at the vigilante class, does anybody know much about that one? It looks cool, maybe better than the standard rogue, but maybe not as good as the unchained rogue with the Dexterity bonus to damage at level 3.
Stalker Vigilante is pretty weak, and while the class gets many cool things that make you wonder why a Rogue doesn't get them (like hide in plain sight, free tumbling, dragging enemies into the shadows, fighting extra quiet, preventing an enemy from calling for help, making the enemy unconsious with a single attack, or making one extra precise strike), it seriously lacks abilities that really impact normal combat. Stalker Vigilante is more geared to a solo campaign with Splinter Cell style gameplay, and many of the cool abilities don't work when in a party (just like the whole Dual Identity thing, although you can just ignore that part, no hassle). Some spotlight should, however, be put towards the Teisatsu archetype. It's basically an upgraded Ninja, and definitely worth consideration if the campaign isn't too difficult combat-wise, and low-key magical abilities are of interest. Like the ability to fly, move through walls, and be invisible while doing so, at 4th level.
While the slayer may have reduced sneak attack it has full BAB. That is important for two reasons. The first reason is that you can pick up a lot of combat feats at first level. Second is that several feats allow you to trade away accuracy for extra damage and they are based on your BAB. This means the full BAB character is doing +2/3 extra points of damage per 4 levels while attacking with the same accuracy of a rogue. Add in studied target and you add an addition +1 to damage and that goes up by one for every 5 levels. So at 5th level the Slayer is +2 to hit and +6 to damage above the rogue of the same level. The rogue at that point has an extra d6 on sneak attack compared to the slayer which averages out to 3.5 points of damage. So the slayer is actually doing 2.5 points of damage more than the rouge at the same level. The rogue can of course take the feat to increase damage, but with the lesser BAB they get less return and will be a hit a lot less often. So their damage per round is going to be a lot less.
What it comes down to is if you want a combat focused rogue a slayer is the better option. If you want a rogue who avoids combat but can survive it an unchained rouge may be the way to go.
The only core Rogue I have played was a strength-based Tengu Rogue [Scout] that used a Greatsword, via Swordtrained.
I played flanking buddy to the Half-Orc Fighter, and we slayed for days and days. We would both charge into our flanking positions and just hack things apart.
It was all about strategy and positioning. We were going to start taking teamwork feats, but the Fighter caught the curse of consumption, or some such crap, that slowly turned him into a mindless construct piece by sad piece.
I use UnRogue for LOTS of NPC's in my campaigns. And Ninja/UnRogue are both awesome for gestalt. UnRogue is worth a 4 level dip for a lot of builds... the Dex-to-DMG alone, but also the skills, Rogue Talents that you can spend on Weapon Focus and a combat feat if you want, a bit of Sneak Attack, and the ability to apply that Sneak Attack damage on a charge.
However, I find that the Alchemist is still going to offer more than the average Rogue. I place VERY LITTLE value in Sneak Attack. Even the Alchemist with Sneak Attack can do it better than the Rogue. Yet, the Rogue with Alchemy [Underground Chemist], while better than the Rogue without Alchemy, still doesn't hold a candle to the basic Alchemist.
It's easy to overvalue Sneak Attack.
But while it does get you huge damage numbers on paper (or at least, many many dice to throw), actually using it in practice and doing so efficiently is not that easy.
Often, you will have to put yourself in dangerous positions you're ill equipped to deal with, and you'll pretty much always be relient on your party mates.
With no accuracy boosters in the core rogue's kit (URogue at least has potential AC debuffs) and a 3/4 BAB, it can and will get tricky.
Which, btw, is why I'm wary of TWF on rogues : the damage potential is very attractive, but it's not worth much if you miss half your strikes.
All of which can be mitigated if your party's working with you, of course, which is clearly the case here.
The curse of the rogue still stands : others do it better.
So, in short : it can work, it's just not the easy way to do it.
(Though I do want to try the spellcasting archetype at some point.)
Strictly from the standpoint of Rogue vs Vivisectionist Alchemist. Yes they do both fulfill the same roll in combat, and the Alchemist will outshine the rogue early on. However, when it comes to a sneak attack combatant, it is actually advantageous to have an ally fulfilling the same combat roll. Two sneak attack combatants will almost always team up to maintain flanking positions with each other at all times, and can build into teamwork feats that make them both more effective at what they do. Outside of combat however, they fulfill vastly different roles. The rogue fulfills the role of a scout, making sure the way ahead is clear of any traps and getting the party through any locked door that may stand in their way, depending on character morality possibly even a source of extra wealth and key items; while the alchemist is more of a repository of information (similar to the Wizard and Bard), a crafter during downtime, and a potion supplier.
While the vivisectionist "CAN" fulfill the same roll as the rogue, even in downtime, they will never be as effective at it as the rogue. And while there are other classes that can do all the same things as the rogue, some arguably better, that doesn't mean that the rogue can't still be useful. Before deciding full on if she should change class or if you should change archetypes, check what the rest of the party are making and see if any of them overshadow the rogue in areas that you don't.
And as others have mentioned before, check with her as to exactly what she wants her character to do... it could very well be that rogue is the wrong choice for her character...
|
No, a Rogue isn't meant to stand toe-to-toe in combat with melee martial types, but neither are Vivisectionist Alchemists, Investigators, some Slayer builds, the Ranger that gets Trapfinding, etc.
Investigators can be very good at standing toe-to-toe with melee martial types. With a mutagen, high dex and extracts, they can have an outstanding AC.
Okay enough with the Rogue bashing! I have played Rogues for ages first in First Ed D&D then in Pathfinder. I have been hearing more and more about people whining, yes whining about the base Rogue. The base Rogue is a great class. But it's not meant to stand in combat next to a fighter in melee. If built and used correctly it can be devastating in combat. I have seen one player take two rounds before getting into combat then one shot a monster. Another player who worked with the fighter to slaughter monsters within one round of combat. I'm talking about the base Rogue not the unchained one.
Truthfully when I first heard and read about the unchained classes my first impression was someone designed them because people couldn't grasp how these classes were played. After having read them more don't see a reason for them except to sell more books. Seriously after reading them I'll stick with the base classes.
While it is possible to play a core rogue and be somewhat effective it is a lot harder to do than with any other character. What it really comes down to is often that the player’s experience and tactics play a large role in how effective any character is.
From the fact that you have been playing since first edition D&D, I would assume that you are a very experienced gamer. A lot of us old-timers can play just about anything and be more effective than a newbie. Just because someone with a lot of experience and good tactics can make a less powerful character seem more powerful than a better class played by someone without the same advantage does not mean that he imbalance does not exist.
While the vivisectionist "CAN" fulfill the same roll as the rogue, even in downtime, they will never be as effective at it as the rogue. And while there are other classes that can do all the same things as the rogue, some arguably better, that doesn't mean that the rogue can't still be useful. Before deciding full on if she should change class or if you should change archetypes, check what the rest of the party are making and see if any of them overshadow the rogue in areas that you don't.
And as others have mentioned before, check with her as to exactly what she wants her character to do... it could very well be that rogue is the wrong choice for her character...
I think that she primarily likes rogue skills. Being able to sneak around and that sort of stuff. She wants to be a two weapon fighter too, but I think that is less important to her.
The other party members are a gnome cleric, who will likely not be that combat oriented aside from healing, and a paladin tank, most likely human.
Healer Cleric... as long as they have Combat Reflexes and carry a Longspear, they should be alright. That's whatever, like a lot of Clerics turn out to be. Maybe the Gnome will grab an animal friend to help out in combat. We can always hope.
Paladin tank, another classic role and class for the role. Tank or not, the Paladin won't be able to hold the front line alone.
The Rogue will probably be able to sneak into position and get flanking with the Paladin quite easily... Paladins aren't known for moving around the battlefield a whole bunch, so they are pretty reliable for positioning purposes.
Flanking is like Voltron, the more you hook up, the better it gets. And that being said, I think you should keep the Vivisectionist and your Sneak Attack, and add to the flanking frenzy mosh-pit.
Unless you want to really lean into Bombs, because the party apparently has zero battlefield control...
I think that she primarily likes rogue skills. Being able to sneak around and that sort of stuff. She wants to be a two weapon fighter too, but I think that is less important to her.
Well, rogue certainly does do all of that... another option that can be considered as well if ya'll do decide rogue isn't the right class is Brawler with the Snakebite Striker archetype it'll give her Sneak Attack, many of the same skills as Rogue, the complete Two-weapon fighting progression via Brawler's Flurry... the only restriction being that she would have to pick a weapon from the Fighter's Close weapon group or a Monk weapon... it would also give her an alternative role in combat instead of just "sneak attack damage dealer" she can contribute to some battlefield control via Knockout and Awesome Blow... downside though is with her low strength as a goblin, she'll need to pick up Weapon Finesse and get the Agile enchantment on her weapons ASAP...
An investigator is sneakier than a rogue and has her own magic. Being able to exchange formulas with an alchemist is a bit of synergy, and they can do TWF though their own main combat bonus (studied combat) doesn't start until level 4 for some reason.
If the base investigator isn't distinct enough in flavour from the vivisectionist there are lots of different archetypes for the investigator.
I think that she primarily likes rogue skills. Being able to sneak around and that sort of stuff. She wants to be a two weapon fighter too, but I think that is less important to her.
Rogue is not good at skills! Seriously, despite 8 ranks per level and plenty class skills making it look that way, Rogue is not really good when it comes to skills, as the class has no bonuses to skills, no alternate means of bypassing skill challenges (for example, your Alchemist could drink an extract of Monkey Fish and be better than a Rogue at climbing and swimming even if the latter has put ranks into it and you haven't), and also has a high demand of certain ability scores just to function and not die, and thus in effect can't have as high an Int or Cha as others.
For skills, Investigator is is the best class in the game, hands down, although Bard is also very good. TWF doesn't actually work too well on a dex-based character, as those tend to already require higher investment or have accuracy issues, and that're exactly the problems TWF increase.
It this your wife's first character?
The other party members are a gnome cleric, who will likely not be that combat oriented aside from healing, and a paladin tank, most likely human.
Urgh. Talk about wasted potential...
Rogue can disarm magical traps, but for the most part core rogue is just vivisectionist without mutagen ability bonuses, AC bonuses, a worse fort save, and without the 6th level casting.
Actually, Alchemist can disarm magical traps, too.
From the fact that you have been playing since first edition D&D, I would assume that you are a very experienced gamer. (...) Just because someone with a lot of experience and good tactics can make a less powerful character seem more powerful than a better class played by someone without the same advantage does not mean that he imbalance does not exist.
I think there's more at work here than you realize. In my experience, when someone starts a post with "I've been playing since <insert past D&D edition>", that's codeword for "how dare you threaten my nostalgia!". So while it's true that such a player is likely better at building and especially playing a character than a first-timer, such players tend to actually have a very poor understanding of Pathfinder, because they let nostalgia cloud their perception of what is real. Way to often are the long-time players unwilling to accept the fact that most of what they learned from playing past D&D editions (including 3.5!) is just plain worthless for Pathfinder, with the result that their understanding of the game is actually pretty meager.
Of course, Derek Dalton's purely anecdotal 'evidence' doesn't impress anyone with actual system mastery - two rounds of preparation to to kill a monster (and the way he wrote it that sounded like it was a noteworthy occasion) doesn't exacly present Rogue in a good light. Likewise, if another PC is helping, I can make a freaking Commoner realibly one-round-kill average enemies of CR=level, even when they are not adjacent.
It this your wife's first character?
Urgh. Talk about wasted potential...
Not my wife’s first character, though her first rogue (or similar) character since 3rd edition.
Why wasted potential?
I have no Idea on how much system mastery Derek Dalton has and it really does not matter. My point is that more often than not it is the player not the class that makes an effective character. Your statement about building a commoner who can one round a CR appropriate enemy only goes to reinforce my point. Just because someone can better utilize a less powerful character and make it seem more powerful than a character that if properly played is more powerful does not mean the original character is not less powerful.
I have personally played characters that should be less powerful than the rest of the party, but end up dominating the game. This is because I know what the character can do, and utilize it more efficiently than the other players did. When the paladin forgets about his spells, and does not use any class abilities other than smite evil and lay on hand it is not hard to be more effective than he is.
Why wasted potential?
In general: Pathfinder is geared towards hybrids and generally flexible or versatile characters, and the "traditional party roles" are/should be split among multiple characters. You don't have a character with one role, but a character with multiple jobs, none of which have to be exclusive in a party. Healing, skills, damage, buffs, debuffs, battlefield control, melee presence, social stuff, overworld-challenges - no character should be exclusively focussed on one of those, but rather each character should do multiple of these to some degree. That not only leads to more efficient parties, it also reduces the situations where some players are left out because their characters are useless.
In specific: Infight healing is very weak because the math simply doesn't work out - the average damage output of an enemy (or multiple of them if fighting agaisnt a higher number of enemies) is generally higher than what a healer can heal*. That means a healer uses their actions to undo only part if the enemies actions, which in turn means the healer has to keep healing to stay relevant. Meanwhile, a buff, debuff, summoning, or battlefield controll spell does something multiple rounds for the cost of only one turn worth of action, leaving the character free to do other things in subsequent rounds while having the same overall effect on the combat (plus what the character does in those subsequent rounds).Tanking simply doesn't really exist in Pathfinder because there is no good way to force enemies to attack a tank. That means building a tank is basically not doing the party much good. If an enemy is attacking, say, the Cleric, it doesn't help in any way if the Paladin is super tough - what's needed is the Paladin doing damage (or otherwise incapitating the enemy). Note that "tank" is only an appropriate term if the character is mainly focussed on defense - literally every character spends something on defense, that doesn't make them a tank. In this case, I'd expect an actual tank Paladin to buy a belt of +con rather than +str, and take multiple defensive feats.
As usual, that's not a "you must not play this!", but, well, a "this is wasting (a character's) potential". If the players actually enjoy playing such character, they should do so (just like your wife should play a Rogue if that is what she really wants). It's just that often, people play such things because they think or were told that they were a necessity - and in Pathfinder, that's just plain wrong, always. You don't need a healing-focussed character. You don't need a defense-focussed character a.k.a. "tank". You don't need a skill-focussed character. You don't even need a class with more than 2+int skill ranks per level. You don't need a primarily damage focussed character. You don't need a full BAB class. You don't need a melee character. You don't need a divine caster. You don't need an arcane caster. You don't need a buff-centric character. You don't need a debuff-centric character. You don't need a battlefield controll-centeric character. You don't need a dex-based character. You don't need a strength-based character. You don't need a charisma-based character.
Many of these things can make the game easier, or the party more efficient, but literally none of these are required to make a group work, not even in hard campaigns. On the flip side, overlap between characters is not only not-bad, it's actually desirable (so that if one character is unable to function for some reason, someone else can pitch in) - redundancy is not just good in engineering. Because of that, and because most classes in the game can be played in drastically different ways, having more than one character with the same class in the party is not a problem. Even something presumably straight forward as a Fighter could be a damage-focussed character in light armor with one skill rank per level, or a melee warrior in full plate and heavy shield who nonetheless is good at dealing damage and not only has high charisma and all the "face" skills, but also heals the party after a fight.
*) Exceptions are Channel Energy with notable investment, and the Heal spell. The former is okay-ish but still far behind what a Cleric can do (they have access to one of the strongest spell lists in the game!), while the latter only kicks in late, and is obviously only situational.
@Mysterious Stranger: To be clear, I didn't disagree with anything you said!
|
|
Why wasted potential?In general: Pathfinder is geared towards hybrids and generally flexible or versatile characters...
Except with a little system mastery one can do all these things extremely well if desired. PF1 has many ways to hyper specialize. So much that it is possible to have a party where one character does all the fighting, one character does all the talking, one character does all the sneaking, etc (and that party could be well balanced and capable of completing any published scenario).
I pretty well agree with everything else you said.
In the end it comes down to the players. I'm currently playing in a game where we're all a bunch of knights in service to our lord. We all essentially fulfill the same roll, we're soldiers, some are straight up better at it than others too. Doesn't matter to us though, it's more about the narrative than the combat, and we're all having fun. On the other hand I've also played with many players who would not enjoy that type of game.
Except with a little system mastery one can do all these things extremely well if desired. PF1 has many ways to hyper specialize. So much that it is possible to have a party where one character does all the fighting, one character does all the talking, one character does all the sneaking, etc (and that party could be well balanced and capable of completing any published scenario).
To use an analogy, in this example, you have a machine that requires 4 specific parts to function. The pressure on each piece is much higher. If one of these parts breaks, the machine explodes. This is your classic Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard group.
A Seeker Oracle, Paladin, Witch and Trapper Ranger for example would be a machine that requires 4 parts, except these parts distribute the load between each of them more equally. If a part breaks down, the machine can still run. Perhaps not as effectively, but say if your Paladin dies, the Oracle, Ranger and Witch are still deadly combatants in their own right. If the Oracle dies, the Witch and Paladin can still provide emergency healing and condition removal. If the Ranger dies, the Witch still has many nature related skills or the Oracle still can cover trapfinding.
There's nothing inherently wrong with either group, but I find the second more interesting(and easier to GM for).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I decided to go with being a gun chemist, since this is a setting where guns are common. My wife is an unchained rogue. Maybe not quite as optimized as we could be, but I think we both have distinct flavor and she doesn't seem underpowered to me. In one more level, she will be doing 1d3+7 damage with each dagger stab, +2 for piranha strike, then sneak attack on top in some situations.