Yet more abuses of you are your own ally.
"Yet more?" Maybe I am missing something; could you elaborate?
-Matt
To put it succinctly, we've run the numbers and it's reflected in play with most DMs. A Rogue tends to not have the durability or saves to withstand the pressure of being in melee."Classic" Scenario.
Rogue tumbles into a flank with the Fighter. Fails acrobatics because CMD is so outrageous. Eats an attack of opportunity. Oh no! rider effect. The Rogue ate a negative level, poison, is paralyzed or any number of extremely nasty debilitating conditions because Reflex is the least valuable save in the game. So now he still isn't in position, lost his move action and took a nasty hit. Now Monsters are a nasty lot. When they get a hint of blood in the water what do you think they should do? Attack the yet unharmed most likely more heavily armored warrior or finish off the lightly armored skirmisher who tried to get behind it?
until you realize that any rogue with half a brain will take the feat gangup and not worry about flanking. shoot with gang up technically you can shoot at a creature in melee with 2 of your teammates and get your sneak attack damage.
also you count as an ally for meeting the 2 ally requirement. now you dont need to position into a flank, you only need to get to the target which shouldnt be too difficult for a rogue to do.
shoot with gang up technically you can shoot at a creature in melee with 2 of your teammates and get your sneak attack damage.
No:
Gang Up: Does this feat (page 161) allow you to flank a foe with ranged weapons?
The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent. The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat. (JMB, 8/13/10)
|
until you realize that any rogue with half a brain will take the feat gangup and not worry about flanking. shoot with gang up technically you can shoot at a creature in melee with 2 of your teammates and get your sneak attack damage.Flanking only applies to melee attacks.
oh thats right i forgot it stipulates melee strikes.
Two Weapon fighting with a kukri and a pick for butterfly sting crits for x4 damage for one. There are others.
I didn't know that was considered "abuse." Are there any others?
It just seems strange to me that Sneak Attack would get such a reputation for being such a terrible option, yet a two-feat chain which helps Sneak Attack trigger would be accused of being abusive. That's the board for you.
One thing to note: though I have not personally examined the text, I am told that there is a very game-changing rogue talent in Inner Sea Combat which could really put a Greater Feint build on the map. Just thought I'd point that out.
-Matt
until you realize that any rogue with half a brain will take the feat gangup and not worry about flanking. shoot with gang up technically you can shoot at a creature in melee with 2 of your teammates and get your sneak attack damage.also you count as an ally for meeting the 2 ally requirement. now you dont need to position into a flank, you only need to get to the target which shouldnt be too difficult for a rogue to do.
I'm not sure if there is official errata regarding it, but I do not believe Gang Up allows you to count yourself as an ally or ranged sneak attack consistently. If your GM allows it, I think it's a great boon and not overpowered, but it's a YMMV situation.
For me, sneak attack is worth it if and only if it is better than what you give up to get it, much like all class features. The problem is that the different classes give up different things to get it. The Vivisectionist gives up one damage ability for another, a fair trade. The Rogue gets it as a base feature, and there is no way to trade it for anything, so you can't compare a rogue to another rogue without it. In fact I find this to be very telling. Why are there no archetypes that trade sneak attack for bombs? Why are there no archetypes that trade sneak attack for anything?
I think one of the reasons why you don't see archetypes to give away Sneak Attack is two-fold. For one, it's iconic to the Rogue and almost defines their combat role. Secondly, I'm of the opinion that every class should have a combat-specific feature. As you said, the Vivisectionist giving up bombs works because you are trading one of your combat abilities for another. The Rogue's one and only combat class feature is Sneak Attack. Trading it away would have to give another combat ability. But at that point, why play the Rogue? Unless whatever you are trading it for is incredibly 'rogue'-y and wouldn't make sense in any other class. I think the Swashbuckler is a good example of this. It has a lot of Rogue flavor with the Gunslinger features, but with no Rogue features it just makes so much more sense to hybridize with Fighter.
I'm just curious if there is a generalized 'worth' cost players can mostly agree on. Should Sneak Attack be able to be given up for more feats, as a Rogue? Absolutely not, in my opinion. But putting some kind of cost on it could help third-party publishers and homebrewers come up with some fair trades, and stuff like hit bonuses and feats can be a good arbitrary measure of value. Class features need good design first, but for gameplay purposes, determining a value feels paramount.
The thematic part is me trying to be subtle asking if Sneak Attack feels fun or makes/breaks character concepts.
EDIT: I got giga-ninjad on the Gang Up stuff because I'm the slowest writer in the world, but one point I want to make is that Gang Up using altered rules may be a decent way for GMs to buff up Rogues that are lacking in damage due to system mastery or encounter types.
I'm not sure if there is official errata regarding it, but I do not believe Gang Up allows you to count yourself as an ally or ranged sneak attack consistently. If your GM allows it, I think it's a great boon and not overpowered, but it's a YMMV situation.
Having played a character with Gang Up from 1st through 19th in PFS, I can say that Gang Up is a bit of a grey area. The reason is because it appears that Paizo's definition of the word "ally" means one thing in the Core Rulebook, and another thing in the Advanced Player's Guide.
"Ally" including yourself works perfectly fine in the Core, but there is a lot of weirdness in the APG that spawns this use of the word "ally."
It's just like the inconsistencies related to the use of the word "wield." In the Core Rulebook, "wield" seems to imply "attack with," as evidenced by the defending weapon property, but in the APG, "wield" does not seem to require attacking, as evidenced by the merciful property.
In other words... Paizo may not have their own terminology straight, and there has not exactly been a push to clean up existing material.
-Matt
One thing to note: though I have not personally examined the text, I am told that there is a very game-changing rogue talent in Inner Sea Combat which could really put a Greater Feint build on the map. Just thought I'd point that out.-Matt
If the talent is Stealth Stunt, it definitely seems nice. However, the text doesn't directly call out the 'causing opponent to be flat-footed' as a feint and thus wouldn't be increased in duration by Greater Feint.
You may want to double check.
To put it succinctly, we've run the numbers and it's reflected in play with most DMs. A Rogue tends to not have the durability or saves to withstand the pressure of being in melee."Classic" Scenario.
Rogue tumbles into a flank with the Fighter. Fails acrobatics because CMD is so outrageous. Eats an attack of opportunity. Oh no! rider effect. The Rogue ate a negative level, poison, is paralyzed or any number of extremely nasty debilitating conditions because Reflex is the least valuable save in the game. So now he still isn't in position, lost his move action and took a nasty hit. Now Monsters are a nasty lot. When they get a hint of blood in the water what do you think they should do? Attack the yet unharmed most likely more heavily armored warrior or finish off the lightly armored skirmisher who tried to get behind it?
until you realize that any rogue with half a brain will take the feat gangup and not worry about flanking. shoot with gang up technically you can shoot at a creature in melee with 2 of your teammates and get your sneak attack damage.
also you count as an ally for meeting the 2 ally requirement. now you dont need to position into a flank, you only need to get to the target which shouldnt be too difficult for a rogue to do.
I don't really agree with his example, but the general thought of it is acceptable. To me, your "Classic Scenario" is an example of the rogue being stupid.
I agree the rogue can not stand for long periods in the heart of melee combat. But I don't believe he is meant to do so. He is primarily skills, sneaking, scouting, examining, disarming, etc...
When I played a rogue I rarely just tried to tumble past and those few times I did I usually made the acrobatics check. But normally I would go invisible or sneak into position.
Then in combat:
He is not the primary damage dealer, but he can contribute by sneaking into position and sneak attacking a squishy foe. The then fading away to do it again.
If the talent is Stealth Stunt, it definitely seems nice. However, the text doesn't directly call out the 'causing opponent to be flat-footed' as a feint and thus wouldn't be increased in duration by Greater Feint.
As I said, I haven't looked at the text yet. Off the top of my head, though, this Stealth Stunt would be pretty sweet when combined with Medusa's Wrath.
But if Stealth Stunt by itself lasts until the end of the turn... well, that's all you need, right?
-Matt
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't understand how anyone has issues getting off sneak attacks. Doesn't anyone feint?? At low levels: Improved Feint. By lvl 11: Greater Feint, 2 Wpn Feint combo will reliably get you 2 or 3 hits for 6d8, for an average of 39 per sneak attack with deadly sneak (that isn't even including weapon damage). If you still aren't hitting, or don't want to feint for some reason, get a familiar from a bloodline. Use it to flank until you get a party a party member to assist you or one you want to assist.
As for front line, your Use Magic Device... should be using magic devices to wand whip extra AC, extra HP, and emergency escapes.
Halflings are not built to be frontline melee rogues. Another thing that I can't see why they keep being brought up so often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sneak attack was nice in 3.5, when you could give a halfling rogue a ring of blinking and a sackful of acid flasks. In PF, it's not so good.
Though blink may not work so well for achieving ranged sneak attacks, tiny hut still does.
-Matt
|
|
I'm not sure if there is official errata regarding it, but I do not believe Gang Up allows you to count yourself as an ally or ranged sneak attack consistently. If your GM allows it, I think it's a great boon and not overpowered, but it's a YMMV situation.
i cant seem to find the quote, but you can always count as your own ally unless it says otherwise.
Though blink may not work so well for achieving ranged sneak attacks, tiny hut still does.
-Matt
im formally petitioning paizo to make a PFS legal magic item called ring of tiny hut,
LOL they can call it metal gear sneak ring it can look like a box marked "fragile".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i cant seem to find the quote, but you can always count as your own ally unless it says otherwise.
-Matt
If the talent is Stealth Stunt, it definitely seems nice. However, the text doesn't directly call out the 'causing opponent to be flat-footed' as a feint and thus wouldn't be increased in duration by Greater Feint.As I said, I haven't looked at the text yet. Off the top of my head, though, this Stealth Stunt would be pretty sweet when combined with Medusa's Wrath.
But if Stealth Stunt by itself lasts until the end of the turn... well, that's all you need, right?
-Matt
I'm just going off what someone else posted, but it apparently only works for the rogue's first melee attack until the end of your next turn. You give up an Attack of Opportunity to provoke a skill check and cause this effect.
I really don't understand how anyone has issues getting off sneak attacks. Doesn't anyone feint?? At low levels: Improved Feint. By lvl 11: Greater Feint, 2 Wpn Feint combo will reliably get you 2 or 3 hits for 6d8, for an average of 39 per sneak attack with deadly sneak (that isn't even including weapon damage). If you still aren't hitting, or don't want to feint for some reason, get a familiar from a bloodline. Use it to flank until you get a party a party member to assist you or one you want to assist.
Feints definitely help, but you're still giving up a good amount of feats to unlock it. Plus, you give up the ability to two-weapon fight early on, and so on. That being said, feint may be underrated among a lot of rogue players.
Feints definitely help, but you're still giving up a good amount of feats to unlock it. Plus, you give up the ability to two-weapon fight early on, and so on. That being said, feint may be underrated among a lot of rogue players.
It's really about "feat pacing." What worked out really well for me with my 1st-through-19th PFS character, and what I would recommend to others, was relying on Gang Up at low levels, Improved Trip in mid levels, then retraining away from Gang Up and into a feint chain at high levels. I actually went the full distance with Greater Feint combined with Feinting Flurry, so I could lower ACs for the entire party's attacks and take advantage of Opportunist sneak attacks.
I'm thinking about what I was told of Inner Sea Combat... is there a rogue talent in there which can grant concealment? If so... Moonlight Stalker Feint is looking really good.
-Matt
|
i cant seem to find the quote, but you can always count as your own ally unless it says otherwise.-Matt
I know it's the FAQ. I also think it is abusable.
I also think gang up states that you need two allies other than your self, and the clearification faq states that too.
I'm not saying it's against the rules. But I am saying that it's twisting the wording of the feat and a poorly thought out faq to apply feats to yourself that shouldn't be done.
By that logic everyone should have Solo Tactics. Since you are you own ally there is always an ally with a teamwork feat with you.
I don't really agree with his example, but the general thought of it is acceptable. To me, your "Classic Scenario" is an example of the rogue being stupid.
I agree the rogue can not stand for long periods in the heart of melee combat. But I don't believe he is meant to do so. He is primarily skills, sneaking, scouting, examining, disarming, etc...
When I played a rogue I rarely just tried to tumble past and those few times I did I usually made the acrobatics check. But normally I would go invisible or sneak into position.
Then in combat:
He is not the primary damage dealer, but he can contribute by sneaking into position and sneak attacking a squishy foe. The then fading away to do it again.
Hm I found my Classic Scenario rather to the point. What would you rather the Rogue do? Stay back and shoot with his pitiful ranged options? UMD and thus pretend to be a spellcaster for the round?
Skills are negligible when others can do it better than the Rogue. Sneaking, Scouting, Examining and Disarming are all things a Ranger can do just as well as a Rogue and be situationally better.
Where are you getting Invisibility from? Wealth? A Rogue doesn't sneak any better than anyone else with Stealth on their class skill list.
Then in combat: So he taps a "squishy" foe before presumably withdrawing hoping it doesn't have reach and trying to find cover or some kind of concealment to do it all again. So he has dead rounds where he is simply not contributing to the combat. He counts on the DM feeding him opportunities rather than creating them himself.
Mind you, yeah the Rogue won't have too much trouble if all it is dealing with is humanoids and monstrous humanoids, but as soon as you look at the grander picture of foes an adventurer may face it really, really doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
And please, my criticism is born of the love of the concept of Rogues, I'm just disappointed by their implementation in the Rogue base class.
Note. since I've only seen it in one game and I wasn't the rogue (though they aren't outshadowing anyone but me. but I'm a weird character)
They read the sneak attack and flanking bonus a bit different than others (the gm and player)
They read Flanking as a condition on the foe; resultant from them being in threatened range of any in melee. Now Melee combatants get the +damage or hit (i forget what it gives), but the foe is flanked (because his attention is almost completely on the guy with the sword who wants to stab his face) so the ranged ninja rogue guy gets his sneak attack on him if he's in 30ft.
I haven't seen anything broken in this, and its not a ton of damage compbared to the others (no one is that optimised; at least not compared to my usual play group). and i guess it kinda fits my mental view of what sneak attack is..
Kinda like various media with sword fighters being covered by a sniper who times the shots for when the melee guy moves etc.Not really sure if this adds to the discussion since this is someones interpretation of the rules
That rather devalues Gang Up, inasmuch as this house rule set is strictly superior to having that feat. Not that I'm complaining--unless the GM is throwing rogues at us, anyway.
I'm going to start GM a game soon, and I have a player who really loves Rogues. However, I'm also not one to force things in favor a particuarly place just so his class feature works.
I've been trying to think how to replace or provide an alternate option for him, even if it's just a house rule I create.
Would trading out the rogue's sneak attack progression for the ranger's favored enemy progression on the rogue base class be fair? It would essentially give us the slayer, though there would still be mechanical differences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to start GM a game soon, and I have a player who really loves Rogues. However, I'm also not one to force things in favor a particuarly place just so his class feature works.
I've been trying to think how to replace or provide an alternate option for him, even if it's just a house rule I create.
Would trading out the rogue's sneak attack progression for the ranger's favored enemy progression on the rogue base class be fair? It would essentially give us the slayer, though there would still be mechanical differences.
Check out Lemmy's Revised Rogue. He put a lot of effort into it and as far as I have tested seems well balanced.
Honestly, Zwordsman's house rule would do a whole lot to patch any concerns you may be having. It preserves the flavor, teamwork, actions required to achieve flanking, while relaxing the exactness of the positioning.
-Matt
Claxon, one thing to be wary about is 'empty levels'. Favored Enemy only kicks in every 5 levels, so the Rogue 7/11 would be giving 1 BAB and no other bonuses, while Rogue 13 would give nothing.
I would recommend something a bit more diverse than Favored Enemy, too. It's one of the few things that can be more situational than Sneak Attack and can make the character feel awful early.
If the player is okay with Slayer, he'll probably be happier with it overall. Sneak Attack isn't huge and it's something he should make use of occasionally. I don't think you would feel the need to replace it all together on Slayer and he'd be getting enough other stuff (Favored Target, full BAB, etc.) to feel strong without it. You could probably drop off Slayer Sneak Attack for some skill-monkey stuff, too, if that's more appealing for the player. Slayer has enough other combat bonuses that I can afford to lose Sneak Attack imho.
|
|
I'm going to start GM a game soon, and I have a player who really loves Rogues. However, I'm also not one to force things in favor a particuarly place just so his class feature works.
I've been trying to think how to replace or provide an alternate option for him, even if it's just a house rule I create.
Would trading out the rogue's sneak attack progression for the ranger's favored enemy progression on the rogue base class be fair? It would essentially give us the slayer, though there would still be mechanical differences.
they have 50 builds in the thread "lets make the rogue work", that will be a powerful character that is also functional as a group member. one person even compiled them in a google doc.
I'm thinking about what I was told of Inner Sea Combat... is there a rogue talent in there which can grant concealment? If so... Moonlight Stalker Feint is looking really good.-Matt
I don't believe I've heard anything about that, but there are some magic items that can give consistent concealment. Mistmail is a good example of that. You'd still need Greater Feint, however.
SA in use can be a thing of bloody beauty. At 3.5 additional damage per two hit dice, per weapon, it provides a hefty bonus damage...though as a trade-off, it does not provide a bonus to-hit (which in turn lowers it back down).
In play, SA is similar to other, limited bonus types. They rock when they're in use, but they are not in use all of the time. When they aren't in use, the rogue still contributes some to combat, and has a sizable out of combat role.
Much of the grump occurs from wanting SA to be active all of the time, or possible I imagine, frustration at not possessing control of a character's aspect.
I think really, if you changed it to a mechanic similar to say, Challenge or Uses Per Day But Always Succeeds, there would be less grumbling because the player would feel in control, and have better acceptance that it is a more limited, though bloodily effective when active, resource.
My main gripe with SA, as always though, is the misleading image it presents to newer players. "This is a lot of damage, so this class is obviously meant to be a leaner, sexier fighter. I can be awesome and on the front lines, kicking butt!" ...when in fact the rogue is squishy, much as design-wise, the monk suggests a wisdom and dexterity focus, when what you really need is strength. The impression of A does not match B.
Paizo has done a great job in ironing the perception = reality out with new classes, though which makes them easier to bring to the table (*with the exception of summoner, which was all about trying so many new things).
Smokestick. 20 gp. Core book.I don't believe I've heard anything about that, but there are some magic items that can give consistent concealment. Mistmail is a good example of that. You'd still need Greater Feint, however.
I'm thinking about what I was told of Inner Sea Combat... is there a rogue talent in there which can grant concealment? If so... Moonlight Stalker Feint is looking really good.-Matt
Smokesticks are not very mobile and will grant opponents concealment if they are in the cloud, meaning you can't Sneak Attack them. You can get around that with goggles/Kobold racial trait, but it's still annoying lighting them every time you want to prepare to Sneak Attack.
Enemies can walk away from the cloud or walk into it. It can work, but it's not a very good strategy in the long-term.
Scout archtype and Gang Up.....skip 2 wpn fighting (IMO - I wasted feats on it but rarely used it...was nice when I could w/ Haste though!)
I was regularly the 2nd dmg dealer (Cleric, Paladin, Wizard, and me the Scout)...and in some battles I out-classed the Paladin! While I could not "hold the line" for more than 1 or 2 rnds, unless I went Full Defense, but more than once I "saved" the Paladin when she went down, standing over her until the Cleric could heal. And, I was the only one with a decent (actually obscene) Perception, and did ALL the scouting, was the Knowledge monkey, and did most of the item/NPC recovery...
Rogues are tricky to play, but I find them very rewarding. Unless high DPS is the only thing that turns you on....
Rogues tend to suck when they don't synergize well with a party. The more rogue syergizes with the party and team work is involved the better the rogue is.
To give an example in on game I played a bard along with a rogue, monk and inquisitor. The rogue did very well in the group. We all got into melee so lots of flanking to be had. The out flank team work feat worked with the Inquisitor who also had it and used it all the time with solo tactics so it natural for rogue to grab that when the could. My bards buffs made the rogue a killing machine though the monk and inquisitor actually did better but the rogue was still very capable. The Inquisitor used Shared Judgement on the rogue as well to boost him with +2 to hit or +3 to damage depending on the situation. As well since all the class had decent skills and class skills we could do the stealth missions as party. It worked well, we even all took the Stealth Synergy and my Bard and the rogue had team pickpocketing where I'd bluff the rogue lifted items. It was great fun.
Another game I played a Barbarian with a Rogue, Wizard evoker and Oracle of fire. The rogue here did very poorly. The synergy just wasn't there. The rogue has lot of skills but they weren't of much use. He could stealth but no else could. There was little buffing going on as the wizard and oracle where blasting everything with fire so they never entered combat. The rogue had my barbarian as flanking partner. So the damage was directed at 2 instead for 4. The rogue in this game didn't feel like they were bringing much to the party. They lacked offense and defense the rogue above had. Combat was dangerous and typically dropped the rogue to negative as well as my barbarian because once the rogue went down I was quick to follow. This game seem to lack team work and it was more self focused.
So I always advice if the party wants a rogue as part of the party they need to synergize well with the rogue. It can be done with a little team work and working with rogue to improve their effectiveness. With good teamwork and synergy sneak attack is deadly.
The more rogue syergizes with the party and team work is involved the better the rogue is.
I totally agree with your post, Voska, because this has been my PFS experience as well. My best tables for my Rogues were the ones where the party worked together, and my worst tables were the ones where we were merely a group of individuals. When every man is an island, the Rogue tends to have trouble, but when the party works together, the Rogue seems to be the one who benefits most from each additional cooperative party member.
It's something the board wisdom has no way of accounting for in the quest for Solo DPR Uber Alles.
So, the takeaway here: In PFS, buff your party's Rogue. Prepare a heroism just for him or her, and keep him hasted. It'll pay off immensely, and you'll make a player's day.
-Matt
The more rogue syergizes with the party and team work is involved the better the rogue is.I totally agree with your post, Voska, because this has been my PFS experience as well. My best tables for my Rogues were the ones where the party worked together, and my worst tables were the ones where we were merely a group of individuals. When every man is an island, the Rogue tends to have trouble, but when the party works together, the Rogue seems to be the one who benefits most from each additional cooperative party member.
It's something the board wisdom has no way of accounting for in the quest for Solo DPR Uber Alles.
So, the takeaway here: In PFS, buff your party's Rogue. Prepare a heroism just for him or her, and keep him hasted. It'll pay off immensely, and you'll make a player's day.
-Matt
I think this is a good point I failed to mention before. Sneak attackers benefit more from a lot of buffs than most other damage-dealers. Usually, optimized builds have so much to-hit that the concept of missing is absurd, while builds like rogues can get really consistent damage increases from +hit buffs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a good point I failed to mention before. Sneak attackers benefit more from a lot of buffs than most other damage-dealers. Usually, optimized builds have so much to-hit that the concept of missing is absurd, while builds like rogues can get really consistent damage increases from +hit buffs.
Debatable really.
Sneak Attack doesn't benefit from crits. Static modifiers get a huge DPR boost from it.
At the end of the day, it's better if everyone can function effectively in a vacuum AND work together rather than only functioning effectively when working together. There are situations that break up party tactics like fear effects, getting isolated for a few rounds from a wall of force or party members getting locked down by enemy controllers.
An Alchemist(My favorite Rogue replacement) brings his own haste and heroism to the party. A Rogue takes them from others.
Does a Rogue benefit more from buffs than an Alchemist? Possibly, but the Alchemist toting full sneak attack and his own Greater Invisibilities, Heroisms and etc is going to look much much better for the party in the long run rather than the Rogue who requires the Wizard to feed him those buffs and thus isn't using those slots for something else.
One character is self-sufficient. The other is being carried.
I think this is a good point I failed to mention before. Sneak attackers benefit more from a lot of buffs than most other damage-dealers. Usually, optimized builds have so much to-hit that the concept of missing is absurd, while builds like rogues can get really consistent damage increases from +hit buffs.Debatable really.
Sneak Attack doesn't benefit from crits. Static modifiers get a huge DPR boost from it.
At the end of the day, it's better if everyone can function effectively in a vacuum AND work together rather than only functioning effectively when working together. There are situations that break up party tactics like fear effects, getting isolated for a few rounds from a wall of force or party members getting locked down by enemy controllers.
An Alchemist(My favorite Rogue replacement) brings his own haste and heroism to the party. A Rogue takes them from others.
Does a Rogue benefit more from buffs than an Alchemist? Possibly, but the Alchemist toting full sneak attack and his own Greater Invisibilities, Heroisms and etc is going to look much much better for the party in the long run rather than the Rogue who requires the Wizard to feed him those buffs and thus isn't using those slots for something else.
True on the part of the crits. I wasn't considering threat confirms or multiplications.
You're right that the Sneak Attacker should be able to provide his or her own buffs, in no way do I disagree with that. It's actually one more reason to go Vivisectionist or multiclass heavily into some form of a caster. A Vivisectionist can also buff others with proper feats/discoveries, so he provides even more combat utility than a straight Rogue.
I'm trying to divorce the Sneak Attack feature from the Rogue somewhat. I'm personally really interested in what people think of Sneak Attack, not necessarily the Rogue class.
EDIT: Rerednaw
Smokesticks are still a really useful option, don't get me wrong. I just wanted to ensure people realized they aren't perfect. Mistmail is a really great item for the Moonlight Stalker chain due to it's uptime and versatility, which is why I brought it up. Sucks that it takes up a armor slot, but I believe there are rings/cloaks that can kick in later.
Why doesn't everybody play wizard? They're the most powerful characters. Why would anybody want to play anything else?
: /
And another thread ends up in the "omg rouge sux" bin.
One character is self-sufficient. The other is being carried.
I don't usually say this, but Rogue v Vivisectionist isn't a very good comparison, because Vivisectionist really does make the Rogue seem terrible. Giving it a full-progression Sneak Attack was a terrible idea, creating an Easy Mode monster.
At least on the surface, in very straightforward combat-centric games.
On the other hand, the two tables at PaizoCon 2012 in which my Rogue6/Monk2 (I must have had the worst character ever, according to the board!) was alongside a Vivisectionist9, I did manage to leverage my larger number of feats to stay relevant and be much more versatile than the Vivisectionist. He was built entirely for AC, to-hit, and DPR in a flank, with all his extracts focused on these three, while I had things like Gang Up, Improved Trip, Combat Reflexes, Stealth, Acrobatics, and Use Magic Device.
And on top of that, I handled the non-combat scenes while his 7-Cha (the dumpstat of champions, right?) self had nothing to do.
-Matt
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One character is self-sufficient. The other is being carried.I don't usually say this, but Rogue v Vivisectionist isn't a very good comparison, because Vivisectionist really does make the Rogue seem terrible by comparison. Giving it a full-progression Sneak Attack was a terrible idea, creating an Easy Mode monster.
At least on the surface, in very straightforward combat-centric games.
On the other hand, the two tables at PaizoCon 2012 in which my Rogue6/Monk2 (I must have had the worst character ever, according to the board!) was alongside a Vivisectionist9, I did manage to leverage my larger number of feats to stay relevant and be much more versatile than the Vivisectionist. He was built entirely for AC, to-hit, and DPR in a flank, with all his extracts focused on these three, while I had things like Gang Up, Improved Trip, Combat Reflexes, Stealth, Acrobatics, and Use Magic Device.
And on top of that, I handled the non-combat scenes while his 7-Cha (the dumpstat of champions, right?) self had nothing to do.
-Matt
I'll just point out that even the potential replacements without Sneak Attack like the Bard and Ranger potentially(Depends on what you're shooting for) compete easily with the Rogue while not relying on a situational mechanic. They also have significantly better ranged options.
7-Cha was likely a build sacrifice because he didn't care for out of combat situations involving charisma. My own Vivisectionist is a great bluffer and has loads of OoC utility. As a Vivisectionist, all you really need spell-wise for damage capability is Heroism and possibly Greater Invisibility when you get it. Depending on how far apart encounters are spaced, Heroism probably eats maybe 2 of your slots. Any more than Heroism and people are most likely trying to eke out more damage over optimizing their character overall.
People tend to forget that you can leave extract slots open and prepare them in a minute.
As a Vivisectionist, all you really need spell-wise for damage capability is Heroism and possibly Greater Invisibility when you get it.
If those two spells really are all you need for damage capability, then the Rogue has a shorter chasm to cross than I had thought. As I posted above, heroism is an excellent spell to share with a Rogue, and its long duration means that sharing it won't take up precious actions in combat.
Thanks for sharing that tidbit, Scavion.
-Matt
Alchemists are Int primary partial casters right. The student of philosophy trait turns him and any other Int based class into a better face than pretty much any rogue will ever be. It really is quite obscene.
That's a pretty bold statement there, andreww. Keep in mind that Rogues can dump Charisma and boost Intelligence, too.
-Matt
I would rather not go back and forth on this tangent, because that is a fast way to kill a thread, but I'll say that those three classes you mention there do not have Diplomacy as a class skill, and only the Sorcerer has Bluff. So, unless the Int-maxer spends his second trait on making only one of the two a class skill, that is +3 for the Rogue on both skills, making a 14-Cha Rogue the equivalent of your 20-Int caster when it comes to the modifiers. And the Rogue didn't have to spend a trait, leaving room for a different "obscene" trait.
And that's before we bring up the fact that there is more to social skills than what is covered by Student of Philosophy. Your wonder-trait can't cover them all.
Unless, of course, you play in games where skill functionality is very, very narrow. I have experienced a few of these tables, under GMs who ran their game as if skills essentially did not exist unless there was a specific use listed in the scenario. Those were sessions where Student of Philosophy would probably cover everything a social character would ever need. They were terrible sessions.
-Matt
Whoever "we" are. I happen to like having a decent gather information check, and in a well-run game Diplomacy and Bluff can end up used for more than just the specific uses in the CRB. ("Characters can sometimes use skills for purposes other than those noted here, at the GM's discretion.")