What would this actually change in play?
High level paladins would be immune to bluff and diplomacy.
While those skills can “mess with the targets emotions” that is not always the case.
Bluff is often about controlling your own emotions and presenting the case in a manner that is believable. It is also twisting the facts to support your point. It is often more about reading and understanding the target than changing his emotions.
Diplomacy is often about finding a mutually beneficial solution to a problem. It also involves understanding the target. It usually involves pointing out negative aspects of not doing what the speaker is suggesting and often uses reason instead of emotion to make its point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Debatably, a paladin isn't even immune to the half of diplomacy that can act like a hostile diplomacy to get him to take an action (e.g. "If you don't obey, more will die."). He is only immune to the shaken (or worse) condition which comes from select use of the intimidate skill.
Do you feel like you've been charmed when you have been given a fair option (diplomacy) or lied to (bluffed) irl?
Feinting relies on bluff, so high level paladins cannot be faked out?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bluff and Diplomacy are not charm or compulsion effect. Treating them as such is a mistake for numerous reasons. I have not seen the FAQ that states Intimidate is a fear effect, but I suspect it is talking specifically about demoralize, not the skill itself.
You can use this skill to frighten an opponent or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.
The or in the description is significant in that it makes clear you can do more than simply frighten someone. If the description had said and instead of or, that would be a different story.
A lawyer in court who is quoting legal precedence to get the other lawyer to back down is using intimidate. The other lawyer is not afraid of the other lawyer, he just realizes that unless he can counter the argument of the first lawyer he is going to lose. If he still presses on without countering the first lawyer, he may even damage his case and be in a worse situation.
Quoting from the CRB faq: "Fear effects include spells with the fear descriptor, anything explicitly called out as a fear effect, anything that causes the shaken, frightened, or panicked condition, and all uses of the Intimidate skill. Intimidate, in particular, is a mind-affecting fear effect, so fearless and mindless creatures are immune to all uses of Intimidate."
For sake of clarity.
If we follow the logic of that faq in the way the OP suggests it also means you cannot lie to a vampire or negotiate with a lich.
Related: feinting is impossible against a foe lacking an intelligence score. But it's not called out as being a mind-affecting effect. So you can feint a vampire but you can't feint a skeleton.
I find this super weird.
Not because it should be a mind-affecting effect and the vampire immune, but because if anything a mindless skeleton should be even easier to feint. It should be an auto-success.
Say you've got a shambling skeleton in front of your character. It has a Dex bonus to AC, which it can only have if it reacts to avoid the blow. So the Dex bonus means it is actively trying to dodge your attacks.
As a mindless creature it is actually incapable of determining which one of your attacks is a feint, a fake out. So it will try to dodge every attack, every feint.
...So why is it immune?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feinting is more than making a false attack. It is tricking your opponent into thinking you are out of position so are no longer a threat. Basically, you pretend you not only missed, but missed badly enough that they don’t have to worry about other attacks. They don’t dodge your next blow because they don’t think you can attack. As you said a mindless foe dodges all your attacks.
It makes sense both ways, you can't trick it into essentially making a dumb move, because it will just make the dumb move anyway, but if it's making the dumb move anyway why aren't you able to capitalize without making a feint? Well the answer is you *are* able to capitalize without feinting, in many many ways if a gm is playing a mindless creature properly, it will just take the most straight forward action, which means you can essentially kite it into hazardous areas like easy flanks, pits, areas it will be denied dex like a ledge, and so on and plenty of other ability specific things.
Also the reason feinting isn't able to be subbed for an attack is because it would make rogue/sneak attack busted. Feinting is already ridiculously easy because very few enemies have enough sense motive to matter against someone who has even the slightest investment into bluff (over just max ranks), and if we're being honest, the only one who ever bothers to feint is either someone with their own sneak attack or a very generous ally of someone with sneak attack. The whole idea of sneak attack is you are rarely meant to ever get it more than once a turn: sniping, one attack a turn; melee, gotta move to reach the enemy if you won initiative; not turn 1, still gotta move to get into a flank position, which now carries risk of AoO; your targeted enemy is still alive a turn of at least two (including you) of your allies attacking it and through a sneak attack, now if you're careful about positioning you might get a full attack with the sneak attack multiple times per round. Take a look at the iconic rogue: of all things she always has spring attack so she can at least guarantee safe passage into a flank to get her one sneak attack per round, and then hopefully 5ft step back into the flank on *the second turn*.
That completely changes if you can just walk straight into an enemy alone, feint with a full bab attack, then just hammer away on the same first turn with every other attack in sneak attack. It's even worse combined with ranged feint options so you don't need to just 5ft step. Admittedly, it sucks that there is a class that can more or less do this, *cough* Swashbuckler (oh except it doesn't need feint or flank or flatfooted enemies at all to get its damage), but that class is all around dumb power creep and I encourage its banning wherever I can.
@Mysterious Stranger
I dunno, that "out of position" reasoning seems to contradict both the dictionary definition of a feint and the common idea of a feint. If you feint while boxing or playing basketball it's so that your opponent reacts to the false movement, leaving their guard open. Tricking someone into thinking you're not a threat is something else entirely.
===
@AwesomenessDog
Maybe my real beef with mindless creatures is that thematically speaking they shouldn't even get a Dex bonus to AC. The undead mindless horde is usually depicted as just ignoring any attacks while focusing on their task.
I disagree with your overestimation of Feint (and Sneak Attack). Feinting is far from ridiculously easy since enemies get the better of 10+Sense Motive and 10+BAB+Wis. Additionally, most get what's effectively +4 to this since they're non-humanoids. A quick glance at CR 8 enemies puts the DC at 25+, while max ranks as a rogue with +1 Cha mod gives you a +12 bonus (remember that Dirty Fighting doesn't work so you need 13 Int in addition to all other stats).
And being viewed as a non-combat stat means some monsters have incredibly inflated Sense Motive scores because they're supposed to be socially competent.
That completely changes if you can just walk straight into an enemy alone, feint with a full bab attack, then just hammer away on the same first turn with every other attack in sneak attack.
Uh, well, feinting doesn't magically grant the rogue pounce so they're still on par with someone who spent the first turn moving into a flanking position in this scenario.
Maybe my real beef with mindless creatures is that thematically speaking they shouldn't even get a Dex bonus to AC. The undead mindless horde is usually depicted as just ignoring any attacks while focusing on their task.
They absolutely should, intelligence is what determines mindlessness, and you may be unable to make tools or reason through a problem, but you still have intuition that will tell you how to fight (and lo, the defense against feinting is a wisdom skill when not just your innate fighting skill). Again, it's not just "running in blindly without care to dodge to preserve your own life" as even vermin are not suicidal (mindless undead and constructs similarly may not be self aware but certainly be programmed with some level of self preservation; otherwise why would they have hp if they were just fine with taking any hit no matter how impactful instead of just roll fort saves treating every attack against them as a coup de grace?). It just so happens that things that don't have the capacity to reason can also not have said capacity influenced.
I disagree with your overestimation of Feint (and Sneak Attack). Feinting is far from ridiculously easy since enemies get the better of 10+Sense Motive and 10+BAB+Wis. Additionally, most get what's effectively +4 to this since they're non-humanoids. A quick glance at CR 8 enemies puts the DC at 25+, while max ranks as a rogue with +1 Cha mod gives you a +12 bonus (remember that Dirty Fighting doesn't work so you need 13 Int in addition to all other stats).
And being viewed as a non-combat stat means some monsters have incredibly inflated Sense Motive scores because they're supposed to be socially competent.That completely changes if you can just walk straight into an enemy alone, feint with a full bab attack, then just hammer away on the same first turn with every other attack in sneak attack.Uh, well, feinting doesn't magically grant the rogue pounce so they're still on par with someone who spent the first turn moving into a flanking position in this scenario.
To quickly address your second quote, it was sort of already explained (in a sentence that came later than your quote) that yes you may have to move in melee, you may not have to move or only take a 5ft step; ranged feinting can straight up skip this. You're also still missing my point where without investment in feinting, you're going from having to take a risk to get a single SA per turn to getting a sneak attack every other turn, at best once per turn with a feat and change of investment, but then skipping to all of your attacks per turn -1 if feinting was an attack action even without that first feat.
*Some* enemies are immune to feinting, some are resistant to anyone who hasn't invested at least moderately, and some will just completely fall for it most if not every time. Even if we only look at monsters, the BAB+Wis option floats around 20-22 average, and yes some do have sense motive that would put that higher, but there are still plenty of monsters with sub 19 (meaning said 0 investment rogue still has a 70% chance to succeed) let alone plenty of NPCs which will varriably but certainly most not have any sense motive whatsoever. Even if we assume a cleric, arguably the highest DC to feint with maxed ranks, a CR 8 NPC cleric will have a DC of 26 (10+9ranks+3class+4Wis) while the fighter will maybe have a DC 20 (10+9bab+1wis). I will also argue and of course ymmv, that the -4 for "non-humanoids" isn't referring to literal types/subtypes, but the form of the creature. I.e. you can feint Basilee angel without penalty, you do take a penalty against a quickwood or a behir, but you take the -8 against the giant squid for its low intelligence (I would also argue you probably should just be taking the -4 against say a humanoid that got feebleminded; but these are all edge cases for a two sentence rule). Give the rogue skill focus bluff, deceitful, another +2 to CHA, all perfectly viable on its own for a FoP rogue, and without anything even expressly for feinting, and this rogue has +18 instead of +12 and only fails to feint>sneak attack your fighter on a 1.
It's an interesting proposal and I can see some value in it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An example of feinting is making what appears to be an obvious attack that can easily be blocked, that when blocked leaves you at a disadvantage. Your opponent anticipating gaining the upper hand blocks the attack instead of dodging it. Since the attack is not real when your opponent goes to block there is nothing there and his sword keeps going leaving him in a vulnerable position. You also only start the false attack so when he goes to block you reverse your attack and attack from a different angle. He is over extended and cannot block your actual attack. The mindless opponent does not see the opening that blocking would cause so simply dodges the attack. This is also why feinting against animals is so difficult.
Feinting like anything else in combat has been abstracted to allow the game to be played. If you really wanted to get realistic you would be gaining a bonus to hit based on how much you beat the targets sense motive and it would explicitly gain other benefits including allowing sneak attack to be used. The problem with this is that this level of realism will slow down the game. If you want that level of realism, there are games better suited to it. The Hero System would be a good example of a more detailed combat system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Some* enemies are immune to feinting, some are resistant to anyone who hasn't invested at least moderately, and some will just completely fall for it most if not every time.
Here's some data from CR 5 enemies.
Out of 205 monsters there were 23 immune to feinting.
Among the 182 that can be feinted, the average feint DC was 21,95 and 60.4% of them had a feint DC above or equal to 22.
"Feinting is already ridiculously easy because very few enemies have enough sense motive to matter against someone who has even the slightest investment into bluff (over just max ranks)"
At level 5 you'd be sitting at 8+[Cha mod] to bluff/feint. The 'slightest investment' already includes not dumping charisma and having 13 Int but let's add Skill Focus to that. 11+[Cha mod] barely puts you over the 50% chance of success mark against what you're likely to meet. I don't think it's fair to call it ridiculously easy.
Is that DC including the -4/-8 for different monster/animal categories? Because again monsters usually aren't even half of the enemies you will face in a game or campaign, even if we ignore my earlier point about some "monsters" maybe aren't meant to get that -4. Said fighter from above at CR 8 had less than that average of a feint DC. An NPC with reduced bab, no investment in sense motive, and variably low wisdom will have less. This also doesn't account for the fact that you are often thrown monsters below your level in CR more often than you are thrown ones above your level (especially when there's multiple enemies in a single fight and you can't rely on flanking for your SA as consistently).
Even if we agree I was intentionally or not exaggerating with "ridiculously", you're missing the core point that making feint be just a replacement for an individual attack in a full attack breaks a core class feature of 3 (and a half if you count ninja) classes and plenty of archetypes, a spell, and a lot of other incidental class features/abilities.
Is that DC including the -4/-8 for different monster/animal categories?
Yes. Otherwise the data wouldn't provide an accurate assessment if you had to manually modify the values. There are however multiple humanoids among those data points. 29 of them.
Even if we agree I was intentionally or not exaggerating with "ridiculously"
What a weird way to phrase this. Either you agree, or you don't. Either you intentionally exaggerated, or you didn't. You are speaking about yourself. You know the answers to both hypotheticals.
====
you're missing the core point that making feint be just a replacement for an individual attack in a full attack breaks a core class feature of 3 (and a half if you count ninja) classes and plenty of archetypes, a spell, and a lot of other incidental class features/abilities.
I didn't want to get into this because it's not relevant to the tread discussion in any way. But it doesn't break anything. The idea that the rogue would be balanced around one sneak attack per round is both antiquated and a consequence of 5e's influence.
Instead of getting riled up over nothing I urge you to actually inspect your molehill. You're a lv 8 Rogue that gives up their most accurate strike to maybe successfully feint and get a damage boost that elevates you from "wet noodle" to "on par". If you manage to actually hit your opponent. And this costs you the equivalent of around 5 feats. Or more.
Compare this with other options, run the numbers, and you'll see what I mean.
I don't think I intentionally exaggerated, but there may be some assumptions that were intentional that weren't meant to create an exaggerated perception on my part, but then there's also the possibility I am wrong and thus unintentionally exaggerating. I still think most any NPC will be super easily (read >75% chance) feintable by anyone who wants to do it, and we also shouldn't be balancing for the people who aren't going to be good at a thing, you should balance for those who make it their thing.
The idea that the rogue would be balanced around one sneak attack per round is both antiquated and a consequence of 5e's influence.
This is laughably incorrect. Maybe it's antiquated by here Paizo took 1e's design, as evident by my earlier comments about swashbuckler and precise strike, but I further do not think that is in any way a good shift for the game and thus completely disagree with such a change that would further it like making feint a single attack replacement. The "one sneak attack a round" has been a part of the indirect and subtle design of the game since AD&D by the nature of action economy, it was so in 3e, it was at the onset of pathfinder, and even still reasonably is. Even with UC Rogue, if you ever are given the opportunity (via flank or invisibility or otherwise) to make multiple sneak attacks in a round, the fight is over (for that target), especially when the UC rogue can just drop your AC by 4-8 for follow up hits. That -4 btw, is also the difference between to hit for a level 8 rogue and a fighter (assuming the fighter maxes to hit with GWF and isn't power attacking), the fighter will do marginally more damage on a regular hit, but the rogue will trounce the fighter for damage on a sneak attack (even if we give the fighter back his power attack). Literally 5e has nothing to do with this besides it's hilarious they have such a poorly designed game they had to make it elicit that a rogue can only sneak once because the game doesn't break without it, it collapses.
So again, yes, it very much is good for design and balance to *not* let a rogue get a full attack (sans one attack) on the first round of face-to-face melee combat, with zero help for a flank (which is harder to establish and maintain for a round than you think), with zero magical utility (see greater invis, also assuming the enemy doesn't have any countermeasures, e.g. see invis, true sight, blindsense, uncanny dodge, etc.), and so on. If you give the rogue who put even just 2 feats (said +5 from skill focus and deceitful) and the ability to feint in a full attack, they will win solo against a solo fighter for damage on target every time they aren't fighting one of those ~10% immune enemies.
So never mind how you invalidated the feat line for feint, never mind how they aren't going from noodle to on par (more like slightly blunted to handedly winning), never mind any of the established conventions of the game's design or why they were the way they were, never mind trying to help the rogue and build teamwork to establish opportunities for them to get a full round sneak attack that pays itself off and is rewarding for said teamwork, just let the rogue be stronger on its own as a complete and utter side effect of a change to make an intentionally suboptimal option for anyone else be on par with everything that is already optimal for most everyone else.
Say it with me, we don't balance things for their least optimal use, we balance them so that things don't become more powerful than other optimal use cases.
Intimidation being a fear effect is perfectly fine since in all uses, that is exactly what it is… you incite fear to either demoralize your foes or to coerce them into doing what you want through intimidation… it is in all ways a fear effect.
While I can see an argument for diplomacy to be a charm or compulsion effect, there are greater arguments against it. To start with, a compulsion effect forces the affected individual to perform an action against their will. Diplomacy doesn’t have that sort of power over someone. It doesn’t matter how high you roll on your diplomacy, if someone is completely unwilling to perform a certain action, you are not going to make them do it with diplomacy. You will have better luck coercing them into performing that action through intimidation.
As for charm effects… charm effects magically alter an individual’s attitude. While the outcome of a charm is the same as diplomacy or intimidation, the effect is not. While you do “charm” someone into being your friend with diplomacy, you don’t place them under the effect of a charm. Immunity and resistance to charm effects is immunity and resistance to the magical effects of charms. An individual’s natural charm and persuasiveness is not affected my such immunities or resistances. This also applies with Bluff, when you bluff someone you are using your natural charm and wit to deceive them, you are not placing them under a charm effect.
The idea that the rogue would be balanced around one sneak attack per round is both antiquated and a consequence of 5e's influence.This is laughably incorrect. Maybe it's antiquated by here Paizo took 1e's design, as evident by my earlier comments about swashbuckler and precise strike, but I further do not think that is in any way a good shift for the game and thus completely disagree with such a change that would further it like making feint a single attack replacement. The "one sneak attack a round" has been a part of the indirect and subtle design of the game since AD&D by the nature of action economy, it was so in 3e, it was at the onset of pathfinder, and even still reasonably is.....
The 1 Sneak Attack per round limitation was a thing in 1e and i believe 2e, but it was NOT an actual limitation in the rules for 3e initially. It only ever became a limitation in 3e after the Sage FAQs declared “precision damage applies only once per round” in response to a question regarding the Manyshot feat. An FAQ so many people on 3e forums LOVE to quote any time someone dares to make a rogue… and also one that many groups throw out because of its implications. I’ve been in many MANY debates about that FAQ back in my 3e days.
The 1 Sneak Attack per round limitation was a thing in 1e and i believe 2e, but it was NOT an actual limitation in the rules for 3e initially. It only ever became a limitation in 3e after the Sage FAQs declared “precision damage applies only once per round” in response to a question regarding the Manyshot feat. An FAQ so many people on 3e forums LOVE to quote any time someone dares to make a rogue… and also one that many groups throw out because of its implications. I’ve been in many MANY debates about that FAQ back in my 3e days.The idea that the rogue would be balanced around one sneak attack per round is both antiquated and a consequence of 5e's influence.This is laughably incorrect. Maybe it's antiquated by here Paizo took 1e's design, as evident by my earlier comments about swashbuckler and precise strike, but I further do not think that is in any way a good shift for the game and thus completely disagree with such a change that would further it like making feint a single attack replacement. The "one sneak attack a round" has been a part of the indirect and subtle design of the game since AD&D by the nature of action economy, it was so in 3e, it was at the onset of pathfinder, and even still reasonably is.....
From what I understand, the way they changed action economy from 1/2e to 3e is the 3e was the first time such a declaration was no longer necessary to be made for a majority of combat occurrences. Of course, nothing wrong with rewarding those rare occurrences when someone being able to punch above their weight class can be valuable and it gets properly set up, but for example just pit two 3e rogues against another. They have d6's for hit die so, ignoring Con mod or damage die+other bonuses, they are dealing half each other's hp in a single sneak attack. Add those other bonuses back in and they may need more than just two sneak attacks on average to kill each other, but certainly not more than three. So even if rogue 1 moves up on turn one to get a flank, come turn 2, even if he is technically getting a sneak attack on his iterative, the other rogue will probably drop without the extra damage.
Feint is perfectly fine where it is, requiring a little tempo cost to with greater feint get the second round of full sneak attack instead of getting it immediately whenever you don't need more than a 5ft step to reach your target or to even let you pivot after killing one thing into immediately sneak attacking the next.
(Also I'll just state this extra plainly because I think people are missing what I mean. 1e does not have "1 sneak attack per round" as a hard line rule. What it does have is an action economy and system design that sets a very high set of hurdles to get more than one sneak attack a round. It's done that way so that getting over the hurdles will require more effort than just taking move actions to guarantee a single sneak attack per round. This wasn't unique to pathfinder, it was part of the same design even before pathfinder dropped the hard rule (debatably even if it existed in 3e, or if 3e dropped it). Even as Temperans pointed out, if all you're looking for is some easier AC to target and some extra attacks, trip is a clear and obvious better option, but feint is designed mainly for and around sneak attack, not for the random fop without the class feature who just wants to find a use for his high bluff stat (he can have fun too, but letting him have as much mechanical room as the rogue normally does with flank means the rogue is now having way more mechanical room that it needs). Making a difficult but highly rewarding thing to do easy makes the reward too good. End of any balance discussion ever.)
Back to the topic at hand...
@Chell, how do you reconcile things like the Unchained use of the bluff skill, albeit only relevant at level 20, where you can influence some as by a suggestion? I would assume that's just a mundane copy of rules text from a spell, meaning it isn't really a compulsion effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Chell, how do you reconcile things like the Unchained use of the bluff skill, albeit only relevant at level 20, where you can influence some as by a suggestion? I would assume that's just a mundane copy of rules text from a spell, meaning it isn't really a compulsion effect.
The level 20 Unchained use of bluff is akin to quick hypnotism. You engage the target in seemingly idle chatter and confuse their senses until they are easily manipulated. You then plant the suggestion in their head and wait. There are two things to note though in the ability. First is that it is “as the spell” meaning it not only follows the rules for the suggestion spell but is subject to all the normal limitations of it as well unless specifically called out. Suggestion is a charm and compulsion effect, so as a result so is this specific use of Bluff. Second is the final line, even if you were to ignore the fact that it is a charm and compulsion effect, you cannot ignore that it is explicitly mind-affecting. It being an extraordinary effect simply means it isn't stopped my antimagic or dispel and cannot be countered.
20 Ranks: As a full-round action, you can make a suggestion (as the spell, maximum duration 1 hour) to a creature within 30 feet (Will negates, DC = 15 + your Charisma modifier). A creature that saves against your suggestion is immune to further uses of this effect for 24 hours, and whenever the suggested creature is specifically confronted with proof of your manipulation, it receives another saving throw. This is an extraordinary mindaffecting compulsion.
That all said, I know why you asked me that specifically… my claim that charm and compulsion are specifically magical, and this ability being explicitly non-magical. All I can say is things don’t always fit into a perfect little box.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
words
Please do yourself a favor and actually compare the real numbers instead of what you imagine the numbers to be. Legitimately, compare a normal fighter with Power Attack and a 2h weapon at lv 8 with the Rogue that gives up their first strike to feint.
The Fighter uses a +2 Greatsword, has Power Attack, a belt of Str, and nothing else.
Full-attacks:
Their average DPR vs a CR 6 foe is 37.8 and 46.2. (Fighter to the left)
Their average DPR vs a CR 8 foe is 32.2 and 43
Their average DPR vs a CR 8 foe when hasted is 56 and 63.8.
I'm assuming that the UnRogue's first strike always connects to trigger Debilitating Injury, and we're ignoring critical hits. Both assumptions favoring the UnRogue.
And this is all relying on that you actually get to full-attack, that the enemy can be feinted, that you succeed on the feint, and that the enemy doesn't have total concealment/immunity to sneak attack.
This is the result. Compared to a fighter that has spent one feat (one, 1) you deal one third more damage in the best case. You've spent more feats than you have available, your entire build, to be better than the bare minimum fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ignoring a +2 weapon costing 4k more than 2 +1 weapons, ignoring how you gave them daggers instead of shortswords but didn't give them knife master, ignoring you did nothing to show how you go from "average damage on a hit" to "DPR", ignoring how you're statistically wrong about ignoring critical actually being in the rogue's favor (unless maybe you took improved crit at 8 instead of GWF), ignoring how you failed to realize that average difference in the rogue and fighter *is the fighter's power attack again*, ignoring how you miss the entire point that it should cost this much for the rogue to get to TWFeint, ignoring how you forget the fighter is (or at least was at the start of the PF1e) meant to be the best at just dealing damage and it takes a perfect storm for the rogue to come out ahead *because they aren't just meant to be good at fighting*, your point is what? That I'm right and the rogue is easily ahead of this fighter after you effectively gave them free feinting as an attack replacement? I fail to see how any of this is an argument for why the benefit of something like TWFeint should be just given for free to everyone and not gate kept behind a bunch of feats (oh yeah, and why would you ever take Imp TWF when you can take Greater Feint and it's better).
But let's do some at least halfway baked clown math to really show how wrong who's assumptions are:
CR 6: AC 19; BAB +7; Dex +2, Wis +1; Feint DC 20
CR 8: AC 21; BAB +9; Dex +2, Wis +1; Feint DC 22
CR 10: AC 24; BAB +12; Dex +3, Wis +2; Feint DC 26
Attack Stat=18 post racial, +2 from level 4/8, +2 belt; 22 Dex (rogue)/Str (fighter)
Human level 1 bonus feat (since that seems to be what you're using)
Rogue (knife master, hey you chose dagger and not shortsword):
2 +1 daggers (1d6/19-20)
Talents: 2: Weapon Training (shortswords), 4: Honeyed Words, Free 6: Talent, 8: Combat Trick (Greater Feint)
Feats: 1: Two-Weapon Fighting, Combat Expertise; 3: Skill Focus (bluff), 5: Two-Weapon Feint; 7: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (technically we have to retrain but whatever, it's not like the math doesn't become even more in favor of rogue at level 9 instead of 8)
We'll assume the rogue is moderately invested in Charisma without having to sack too much of their other stats for a 14
Wealth Spent: 23,604gp/33,000gp
Items: Headband of Ninjutsu (15k), +1 dagger (2, 2,302gp), Belt of Dex +2 (4k)
6BAB+6Dex+1WeaponFocus+1enhancement-2TWF
Melee +1 dagger +12/+7 (1d4+7/19-20), +1 dagger +12/+7 (1d4+4); Modifiers +2 atk if feint successful, +4d8 sneak attack, +4 effective to hit after first sneak attack.
Feint 8ranks+3class+2Cha+3SkillFocus+2headband=+18
We will show the rogue's chance to get a feint successfully off with Honeyed Words in parenthesis after the actual percentage for a single roll, e.g. 50%(75%), but for the sake of math, we will assume they aren't using the 1/day swift, but simply rolling twice on the feint with their 2/day (at this level) honeyed words. This percentage in parenthesis will determine the weighting for the Rogue's Sneak Attack damage vs normal damage for DRP. For simplicity of diverging attack bonuses we will assume our >50% feint succeeded and for iterative that the first attack hit, though we will still reduce damage accordingly for miss chance.
VS:
CR 6: Feint% 90%(99%); Off-hand hit chances 90%/85%, main-hand 85%, each hit has a 10% critical chance at x2 giving us an effective bonus plus 9%/8.5% off and 8.5% main-hand damage. Then we apply average damage per category at 9.5 for main-hand and 6.5 for offhand to get a total 1.75*6.5+.85*9.5, and our 18 average damage per sneak attack at 2.3(hits not including crit)*.99 to get a final damage at 21.4base+46.3sneak equals 67.7 damage a round.
CR 8: Feint% 80%(96%); Following the same, we can simplify the process to show the % average hit at main-hand Feint/82.5%, off-hand 88%/82.5% for 18.9 base damage and 39.7 sneak for 58.6 total.
CR 10: Feint% 60%(84%); Feint/71.5, 77%/71.5% for 16.4 base and 32.5 sneak at 48.9 total.
Fighter:
+2 Greatsword (2d6/19-20)
Feats: 1: Weapon Focus, Power Attack, 2: Furious Focus, 4: Weapon Specialization, 8:Greater Weapon Focus, 3 free feats
Wealth Spent: 27,350/33,000gp
Items: Gloves of Dueling (15k), +2 Greatsword (8,350gp), Belt of Str +2 (4k)
8BAB+6Str+3WeaponTraining+2WF+2E+1Haste-3PowerAttack
Melee +21/+13 (2d6+26/19-20); Furious Focus means no power attack on the first swing
CR 6: This one is fairly easy with a deceptively high 33 damage. The top hit is just .95/.75, except we still have to add critical of 10% and its simpler this time without sneak, so 1.045/.825 for a collective 1.97 hits and 61.7 damage
CR 8: .95/.65>1.76 for 58.1 damage
CR 10: .9/.5>1.54 for 50.8 damage
CR 6: Rogue is +6
CR 8: Rogue is +0.5
CR 10: Rogue -1.9
So with stuff published up to 2012, not only have we shown how Rogue if given free reign is still better, its more better when left to its job of trash cleaning, but the rogue is better as the class not designed exclusively for fighting.
So, I'll ask again, what is your point? We take away the requirement for a rogue to spend these feats to get to the point it is at, as you are suggesting, and this just becomes what virtually any rogue can regularly do in virtually every situation. A rogue should not have a chance of getting this close to a Fighter's fighting potential a majority of the time, just like a fighter shouldn't come close to the rogue's out of combat utility.
AwesomenessDog. Instead of being so confrontational you could have let me answer your objections first. You're just muddying the waters by spewing so much word vomit.
The dagger is a good versatile weapon with two damage types and can be thrown. I didn't take Knife Master because I'm not optimizing the fighter in the slightest.
Obviously I am using the exact same table you're using, which is the base for the Bench-Pressing blog, which is praxis for all DPR calculations and the assumption unless told otherwise.
Not counting critical hits is favoring the Rogue because 70% of your damage is precision and not multiplied on a crit. The dmg increase in percentage is higher for the Fighter than the Rogue.
I'd answer the rest but it just devolved into rambling.
But let's do some at least halfway baked clown math to really show how wrong who's assumptions are:
Your Feint DC assumptions are heavily skewed in your favor. The previous DC I showed for CR 5 creatures was DC 22. Which is the same you've assigned a CR 8 creature. And you're seriously using a twice/day reroll ability as the baseline? Very biased. Not to mention that Honeyed Words isn't an UnRogue talent and not a legal choice.
Your actual feint % would be in the ball park of 75, 65, and 45 but you've put them as 99, 96, and 84.And the entire reason why I used the bare minimum unoptimized Fighter, was because I didn't want a pissing contest about whose optimized build is better than whose. Min-maxing your rogue and putting it up against a fighter you've spent 10 seconds assembling isn't fair.
For absolute starters, you don't take Weapon Specialization on a 2H build and Weapon Focus has never been good. Go on, give the Fighter the Mutation Warrior archetype (to reflect the Rogue having Knife Master) and some Boots of Speed instead of their Gloves of Dueling. Then maybe build for Hurtful with all the feats you have, and you'll see it outclass the Rogue real quick.
But such a comparison wouldn't make you agree with me because then the focus moves to the optimization aspect.
So with stuff published up to 2012, not only have we shown how Rogue if given free reign is still better, its more better when left to its job of trash cleaning, but the rogue is better as the class not designed exclusively for fighting.
You've shown that an unoptimized fighter is effectively on par with your optimized rogue. That's not the great "got yah!" you think it is. And with real feint values the fighter is better. You've also completely forgotten that you don't always get to full-attack. And that the rogue can only focus one target at a time, so the fighter is better cleaning trash because they waste less damage.
So, I'll ask again, what is your point? We take away the requirement for a rogue to spend these feats to get to the point it is at, as you are suggesting, and this just becomes what virtually any rogue can regularly do in virtually every situation. A rogue should not have a chance of getting this close to a Fighter's fighting potential a majority of the time, just like a fighter shouldn't come close to the rogue's out of combat utility.
Turns out, classes in pathfinder are actually designed around combat. The rogue was given Sneak Attack because they're supposed to use it in combat. An unreliable combat drug that's meant to eclipse the reliable fighter when you set up everything. The idea that the rogue shouldn't deal comparable damage is laughable. Another example would be the Ranger or Slayer. Both have loads more skill ranks than the Fighter (and better saves), but you wouldn't bat an eye if they deal comparable damage.
As for what I'm suggesting, which you haven't actually asked me about thank you very much, I would do this:
Special: This benefit may be used with Spring Attack and similar abilities.
Normal: A Feint is either a move action or in place of an attack.
A)I'm aware of the difference in relative cost, are you aware it's still an assumption that gives double the investment to fighter?
B) DR/piercing is so rare it really doesn't matter to take daggers over a shortsword or a machete or a gladius (for an extra 5gp to have P/S), *unless you're taking this archetype that was published before 2012.*
C) Ignoring crits really isn't the benefit you think it is, but as I already have so much else to explain just about the game itself below, I won't add a math stats lesson to it
D) Funny how using the average stats from an empirical table (for monsters only) is somehow less objectively correct than you with a potential massive sampling error (sorry, I said no math stats lesson). Never mind how you will almost never see a CR 6 NPC with 22 sense motive DC or any of the stuff established in above posts.
E) You're objectively wrong about how UnRogue talents works, so I'll just quote from the Unchained book:
This chapter
includes unchained versions of the barbarian, monk, rogue,
and summoner, as well as subsystems that alter character
advancement. These classes can be used alongside their
original counterparts (although individual characters must
use one version or the other exclusively). Some feats, rage
powers, rogue talents, and other rules might not work with
the unchained classes, and such rules should be reviewed
before being used with the new versions. Finally, with the
exception of the monk, these classes should work with any of
the archetypes from previous books as long as the classes still
have the appropriate class features to replace.
F) I don't think it's biased at all when the ability is effectively 4/day between Honeyed Words and the headband to get an extra feint roll, especially when the headband is slightly better and lets you wait to see the results of the first roll and potentially offers you the ability to get back your first main hand attack, you won't need to make a feint check to get sneak attack every round, and you can save the ability for when it's absolutely necessary in difficult encounters/when you are alone and without support
G) The reason it took me 10 seconds to come up with the build is because I have played *a lot of fighter through 1e's time* and those are all parts of what any fighter can take using content published on or before 2012 to increase DPR through feat choice and "reasonable" affordance of items.
H) Boots of speed, like haste is an overpower/underpriced item, also if we are doing the "already hasted" comparison which I didn't include for brevity, helps the fighter none. While in reality for an actual campaign, it's kind of absurd for a fighter to have that item that basically boosts everything about his character this early, it's at least modestly tamer on the rogue being it boosts a skill check that has to be made before it's main value can shine.
I) You're just objectively wrong about weapon focus and specialization being useful. +1 to hit *is always useful*, it's even more valuable than the +2 to damage, because it's 5*(1+[crit threat percentage])% of your average damage on a hit, but you then essentially multiply that damage times the number of attacks you make in a turn. Even in a late stage PF game, when it's really easy to get your top attacks to hit on a nat 2, it's still useful to keep you there and get more % to hit on your iterative. Specialization works in the opposite side, just straight up increasing your damage by 2 per hit (never mind how those weird people who play fighters as ranged characters need it for Point Blank Master), which in the above calculation was worth ~5 extra DPR. Are these feats just increasing your final numbers instead of giving you more options for how to fight, yes, but that's A what we are comparing, B you accused me of being unoptimal, and C other options like Cornugeon Smash>Hurtful haven't been published yet because we are talking pre-power creep era.
J) Speaking of powercreep, just get any cheese from the late training/AAT/AWT out of your head before we continue
K) Go back and reread the start of this conversation. I agree that rogue without a way to guarantee as many Sneak Attacks as it can possibly have in a round, is underpowered by the time of 2017+ or even all the way back to 2014 Pathfinder because things like swashbuckler exist and don't have to work for their equivalent methods of damage output. We are talking about pre-unchained (admittedly we can take away some damage from the rogue build for dex to damage), pre-hybrid classes, early stage pathfinder when Paizo was beginning to realize archetypes don't have to objectively suck but they still aren't regularly even good at their main stick in comparison to even just an unarchetyped class. Rogue was fine in this time period, the time period before free bonus attacks a round were like candy to receive, there was a million ways for every stat to be boosted, and damage numbers started soaring even more ungoddly high than they are now.
L) Isn't it interesting that one of those things is a combination fighter and rogue, the other is literally a fighter with a specialization not in weapons and armor, but against specific enemies. I have no problem with a ranger beating a fighter against their favored enemy, there would be no real reason over fluff to play a ranger if there wasn't. A good game should encourage you through fluff and crunch to pick something, never just one or the other. I just so happens that rogue's crunch incentive (a majority of the time) is to be good at other things that don't have to be "beat-sticking" in combat while also having a mechanic that makes them not just an utterly useless Expert NPC class in a fight. It's the same with early wizards and clerics, yes, you really could dump all your utility in trying to be as good as the fighter in raw damage and combat potential, but man is that resource intensive over hitting minimum competency to not be a liability and saving the rest for *out of combat utility* like exploration or status removal magics.
So I think what we've more shown is more your inability to comprehend and retain compartmentalized information in a discussion than my point, in that rogue does not (or more accurately should not) need the change you originally stated, and I quote: "Also, feinting is literally a fake attack so you should be able to replace an attack with a feint, like a trip/sunder/disarm, from level 1 without feats." The other changes you may have actually made are fairly superfluous, but I was never commenting on them.
Rather than using +2 Two-handed & 2x +1 One-handed… which is a huge price skew giving the Two-handed build 2x the cost investment in their weapon you should use +3 & 2x +2… the price gap is only 2k at 18k & 16k… a far more equivalent baseline… this does unfortunately mean if you’re using level 8 for your comparisons that your using about half your WBL on weapon… another alternative is to ignore magic items and just use ABP to determine your bonuses for these comparisons, which at level 8 would put both builds using +1 weapons.
@willuwontu
Nice! That feint table is very handy to have. I'll be sure to refer to it in the future. Looks like my earlier calculation wasn't too far from the truth.
@AwesomenessDog
It's incredible that you've (allegedly) spent so much time playing Pathfinder, according to G), and yet every post you've made in this thread made me mistake you for someone new to the system. And someone who has a troubled relationship with math.
One: The UnRogue came with UnRogue Talents. You can see them on Archives. Just as with the UnBarb, you use the unchained talents exclusively if you choose to play the unchained rogue.
Two: If you expect to actually perform feint attempts regularly, which you should if you've invested so much in it, then three extra feint rolls per day are nowhere enough. It's extremely disingenuous to use this very limited resource as the baseline in your calculations. Which you did.
Three: Your overestimation of Weapon Focus is quaint. This with the apparent ignorance of not knowing how the Feint DC is calculated, the "one sneak attack per round" sentiment, the unfamiliarity with basic DPR calculations, and just general missteps makes me doubt you actually are experienced with the system. I simply don't believe you.
Four: You're telling me to go back and reread? Alright.
We're starting off with you making wild claims about the success rate of feints with nothing to back it up. This was disproved. Especially now with the actual feint values supplied.
Then when you realized this wasn't the case you pivoted into how feinting in place of an attack would break the game. (Nowhere was it ever implied or suggested that this change would give the benefit of Greater Feint.) Again, you did not back up your claim and I had to do your homework for you. Which proved that replacing an attack isn't actually all that strong.
To this you made your own calculations based on faulty and biased assumptions, but still actually just ended up proving yourself wrong in that there wasn't any huge difference in DPR even with all that. So you immediately tried the angle of "the rogue should deal much less damage even when optimized because it has more skill ranks".
And when I showed how that was a ridiculous sentiment, you're now trying to make the conversation about pre-2012 content when we've been talking about the UnRogue released in 2015.
===
In brief. You are an exhausting person whose opinion I do not respect because of your incessant moving of goal posts and very evident lack of system knowledge. This has been a lot of wasted time and I hope we never do this again.
It's a fun idea, but not something you could slot into Pathfinder without changing tons of other things. The idea that immunity to charm spells would also make you impossibly stubborn is a fun sort of drawback to that kind of ability.
"You can't be charmed or reasoned with."
Bluff can impact emotions indirectly, but it seems to hit what a person perceives more than what they feel. If you tried to blend mundane and magic abilities like this, I'd suggest making immunity to illusion immunity to bluff as well.
You'd probably also want to make tracking and knowledge checks subject to scrying protection.
But if you're redesigning the game so that mundane effects are indistinguishable from super natural effects, you'd probably also want to give skills more super natural abilities.