|
| 2 people 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.
So the wizard isn't buffing the rogue because that drains resources. The alchemist is buffing himself because that is the way it should be. The wizard should basically not cast buffs on anybody in particular (unless it is himself, for the same reason he is not casting on the rogue, regardless of whether or not the rogue will benefit more and contribute more from the buffs than someone else. This means that buffs from a wizard are now restricted to being personal buffs or group buffs only. When a wizard is not casting a personal buff on just himself or a group buff for everyone, they must fulfill the other functions of the class (controlling, save or sucking, blasting-not allowed, etc).
This is what I am gathering from this. Essentially, this makes an entire swath of spells useless for the wizard class as they have no need to cast them on themselves but those spells are single target.
I personally do think I that certain classes benefit more from buffs and wealth than others, in general, and that there is likely some math to demonstrate it but doing so would be exhaustive. I believe that the rogue is definitely one of those classes but admit to not being able/willing to prove it. I also agree that self sufficiency is a good thing, but rogues are self sufficient in their own ways. I do not, however, agree that every character should be an individual bastion of solidarity and singlehanded effectiveness that doesn't actually need others assistance. I reserve that play style more for single player electronic games. The fun and realism and immersion of tabletop gaming (for me) comes when teammates have weaknesses, when one character can't dominate encounter after encounter (I am looking at you gunslinger). I enjoy having a combat where I get to use more than a single active feat or standard or full attack action because it went more then 1-2 rounds. I don't mind having to have my ac checked or to make a save. If I get polymorphed it sucks! But that is why I came with a group. Of adventurers and friends....so that someone could help undo such misfortune. Yes, mitigating these things to a degree is great-even necessary. But the tone on the forums assumes that every individual character needs to be devastatingly effective, so much so that alone, they can handle an encounter within 1-2 rounds and not be impacted at all by it because they have maxed saves, high hp, high (or no ac depending on which optimization camp you think is still thinking straight), and of course, no !after your build- deity calibur damage per round in melee or with a ranged weapon (because someone doing 100+ DPR to a group and not doing it with a ranged weapon or melee attack was considered to be doing it wrong in another thread).
I have characters who have weaknesses, strengths, roles to fill and options at hand. None of them meet the requirements of being remotely worthy of acknowledgement here on these boards. From this perspective, I am wasting table space. However, my experience in home games and in pfs has been the very opposite of what is so heavily espoused in the min/maxed philosophy camps. I have tanked with an ac lower than 30 on a character with fewer than 40 HP. I have played rogues and even monks...
I can count on one hand how many times my characters have been ineffective or useless (and it has happened). This is one of the reasons why I cannot subscribe to 'x and y are the only things that work and this class cannot do x or why sufficiently well so it does not work'.
Honestly I think the best Show of sneak attack damage comes from the Beastmorph Vivisectionist Alchemist with the Feral Mutagen discovery. With the HUGE bonus to hit from his Mutagen, the fact that he is swinging with 3 primary natural attacks, and the added bonus of rake, rend, and pounce makes the BM/VVS Alchemist a melee monster without sneak attack and with sneak attack, can become a very dangerous foe. Additionally, he is better at enabling SA than a rogue with his extracts for things like invisibility.
Is there a way to make feint better?
Having it use up a standard or even a move action seems like an utter fail.
Is the only option homebrew?
Sneak attack damage isn't situational if the Rogue has Quick, Great Dirty Trick. You can blind or deafen opponents with Dirty Tricks, then sneak attack them all you want.
Sneak attack doesn't work if the target has concealment, unless the shooter has True Strike or the Seeking enchantment. Then he'll want to throw Smoke Bombs or UMD Pyrotechnics wands, blind everyone in the cloud, use all those skill ranks for a high Perception, and use Ranged Sneak attack on those poor blind mice.
Greater Dirty Trick isn't going to come online until level 9, level 8 at the very least if you use Combat Trick for it (which you probably should). I generally like my characters to not be a total drain on the party for at least half the campaign. Want to use Dirty Trick? Cool. Just make sure you're doing something useful before it becomes a valid tactic.
True Strike you can get early, but only if someone else is giving it to you. Becomes problematic if you're separated from the Wizard or if he is incapacitated somehow. It would be kind of ironic if you need to get a big bad guy off your wizard but you can't because he can't give you the buffs you require to be even marginally useful in combat. Worth noting is that True Strike is a level one extract for that Beastmorph Vivisectionist Alchemist...
As a side note, if I'm reading this right, True Strike removes the penalties for concealment but says nothing about actually removing the concealment. You won't miss, but you won't qualify for Sneak Attack, either. If I'm right this is certainly under the area of "this is stupid, ignore it" but others may not be so reasonable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sneak Attack is a good tool if all of the following statements are true:
A) It's not your one and only real offensive tool
B) You can reliably use it on your own. (i.e.: You don't depend on other party members to use it)
C) You have enough accuracy to land your strikes consistently.
D) Your defenses are good enough to survive melee combat against significant threats.
Rogues fail on all 4 prerequisites, that's why Sneak attack is awful for them, but significantly better for Vivisectionist Alchemists.
Still, it's not anything amazing... At the end of the day, Sneak Attack is just extra damage, and extra damage is cool, but very, very limited.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the wizard isn't buffing the rogue because that drains resources. The alchemist is buffing himself because that is the way it should be. The wizard should basically not cast buffs on anybody in particular (unless it is himself, for the same reason he is not casting on the rogue, regardless of whether or not the rogue will benefit more and contribute more from the buffs than someone else. This means that buffs from a wizard are now restricted to being personal buffs or group buffs only. When a wizard is not casting a personal buff on just himself or a group buff for everyone, they must fulfill the other functions of the class (controlling, save or sucking, blasting-not allowed, etc).
It sure is draining resources when you could otherwise have a party member either providing those resources himself and more(Alchemists and Bards) or not requiring them to be effective(Ranger).
The Wizard is in an interesting spot. In most cases he can,
A) Debilitate the foe and make it unable to pose an effective threat.
B) Boost the effectiveness of the party as a whole.
C) Kill the enemy(Blasting is a perfectly fine option and can be very effective, by insinuating blasting-not allowed, you kinda show how inexperienced you are with that facet, I recommend looking up the Blockbuster Wizard guide as it's quite good).
D) Spend a valuable action to buff one member of your team so that they might be able to contribute properly when they otherwise would have difficulty to do so due to a personal class choice.
I personally do think I that certain classes benefit more from buffs and wealth than others, in general, and that there is likely some math to demonstrate it but doing so would be exhaustive.
Eventually wealth solves all problems. Doesn't mean the Rogue isn't considerably less effective in the long term when compared to others and the challenges within the Bestiary.
I also agree that self sufficiency is a good thing, but rogues are self sufficient in their own ways.
Classic scenario part 2. Rogue scouts ahead, Rogue gets caught, Rogue's class features synergize least for the solo play his skills demand of him. A Bard or Alchemist have invisibility to fall back on and make better combatants solo. This isn't about self sufficiency, this is about fulfilling concepts. A Rogue is meant to be a scout but lacks features that help him do so.
I do not, however, agree that every character should be an individual bastion of solidarity and singlehanded effectiveness that doesn't actually need others assistance.
Neither did I. I said characters should be able to function effectively without support and with support. The Rogue tanks in effectiveness dramatically if caught without his party propping him up.
Anecdotal Stuff
Cool. You want to play a team game. Great, Thats why I'm here too. An Alchemist or many others can do so easily as well and bring far more to the team than the Rogue does. Claiming "TEAMWORK!" is a valid point if the Rogue suddenly gives more to his team in those cases but it just isn't so. A Bard is boosting his whole party all the time during combat. An Alchemist can hand out extracts beforehand with Infusion.
What "active" feats are you talking about? I tend to use feint pretty often. Combat Maneuvers are too dicey to risk with 3/4ths BAB.
Is there a way to make feint better?
Having it use up a standard or even a move action seems like an utter fail.
Is the only option homebrew?
The best feinting option I've seen and used is Two Weapon Feint in combination with Greater Feint.
You might look at Improved Two Weapon Feint.
Greater Feint has slightly better utility. It lets you spend your turn move action into place, move action feint and lets you get a sneak attack on the next turn in the event your two weapon feint may fail.
|
|
@Scavion, I have intentionally made a caster (due to far too many issues making my enjoyment of melee characters unenjoyable) and as I did research, I noted a similar slew of arguments stating that the blaster caster is the worst way, weakest way, least efficient way, failbadwrong way to play someone who has spell slots. It also seemed easy and simplistic.
So I made one for pfs. All I have to do is maneuver and expend a spell slot. No more gm arbitrary ruling that awesome!e feat combo's don't work, no errata. I can just lay down a fireball, scorching ray or burning hands and everybody understands how it will work. I love the idea of blasting. I personally think it can be readily as effective as any other form of spellcasting! In fact, I believe that it can be more effective, more often. If the enemies are dead, there is no need to worry about battlefield control, debuffing, buffing, healing, etc. Each action the blaster performs is directed toward ending a fight as quickly as possible. It is the same philosophy perennially applied to martials, especially when referencing monks.
Based on my research through the forums, making a spell caster whose primary focus and real strength was dedicated to blasting was the equivalent of making a low str, Dex or Wis monk designed for melee. Or a finesse built martial. That is why I said 'no blasting allowed'. People 'round these parts frown on certain things and that was one of them.
:)
@Scavion, I have intentionally made a caster (due to far too many issues making my enjoyment of melee characters unenjoyable) and as I did research, I noted a similar slew of arguments stating that the blaster caster is the worst way, weakest way, least efficient way, failbadwrong way to play someone who has spell slots. It also seemed easy and simplistic.
So I made one for pfs. All I have to do is maneuver and expend a spell slot. No more gm arbitrary ruling that awesome!e feat combo's don't work, no errata. I can just lay down a fireball, scorching ray or burning hands and everybody understands how it will work. I love the idea of blasting. I personally think it can be readily as effective as any other form of spellcasting! In fact, I believe that it can be more effective, more often. If the enemies are dead, there is no need to worry about battlefield control, debuffing, buffing, healing, etc. Each action the blaster performs is directed toward ending a fight as quickly as possible. It is the same philosophy perennially applied to martials, especially when referencing monks.
:)
From a pragmatic efficiency slanted view, a Blaster Wizard is amazing. It deals damage at rates higher than most martials are capable of putting out, does it from range, has decent variance with Admixture and 1 shots most monsters.
The best battlefield control is where you have put the creature in a position it can't effectively fight back in. For Blasters, this means dead. Or hurt so bad that intelligent creatures won't be thinking of anything but fleeing.
The issue more intelligent people have with Blasters is that they directly delegate martials to bodyguard roles. No one wants to feel invalidated and as soon as the Wizard's turn comes up, the Monster is either dead or right about to die.
But this is no surprise really. Casters are the best at whatever they want to do.
/digression.
I know everyone here says that they play rogues, but I really have to question the builds that are being put together.
If you don't have a:
- a full feint line
- a flanking familiar
- multiple wands
- a supportive bloodline
- a supportive group that wants to work together to kill bad guys efficiently
or
- a racial, talent, or multiclass way to cast a few low lvl concealment type spells
then you should not be on here complaining about how hard it is to get off sneak attacks that hit. In fact, if your build can't string together at least two of these, then you should be playing another class.
Rogues are very versatile and survivable in pathfinder. I don't wait for wizards to help my rogues. I walk up and stab the bad guy in the face... several times.
I walk up and stab the bad guy in the face... several times.And then he kills you. :)
:) Like I said, I don't know what kind of rogues you guys are playing if you can't kill most things before they kill you.
|
|
I keep hearing that rogues are no better at their skills than anybody else. Bards and other casters just drop a spell and bam! Better. Rangers are situationally better just because, skill-less classes with negative stat modifiers and no class skills or ranks are better because they are being compared to the rogue. OK, OK. So the class is disliked. But these arguments seem.....off.
But I see a camouflage talent which gives a +4 bonus in specific terrain.
I see canny observer granting a largely useful but still conditional +4 bonus on relevant perception checks.
Charmer let's a rogue, 2-3 times a day roll twice on diplomacy and take the better result.
Then there is stat/skill synergy with coax information which can then be rolled twice with charmer...
False friend is suspiciously like an out of combat charm person.
Fast Getaway looks useful for not getting creamed by sticking around in melee.
They can climb quite well with wall scramble, getting two dice each time and no limit on the use.
They get trap spotter and terrain mastery, and several talents that make them better at sleight of hand than anyone else and then talents they can use to apply sleight of hand perks to sneak attack.
Looking at Underhanded, I see the rogue doing exactly what rogues are notorious for doing...sneaking things in they shouldn't be-like weapons. +4 bonuses were pretty large the last time I checked. A +4 bonus with +3 from a class skill, +3 to +5 from stats and then the application of ranks, rolling twice and be I g able to do this with several skills, all before using feats or magic items...and yet somehow the wizard, fighter, paladin, ranger is just as good or better at all of these things....?
/frown. This is not me even looking at advanxed talents.
PS. Rogues have several talents that increase their survivability making them capable of hanging in the front lines 2-3x longer than normal, which is more than long enough for an encounter to be completed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't have a:
- a full feint line
- a flanking familiar
- multiple wands
- a supportive bloodline
- a supportive group that wants to work together to kill bad guys efficiently
or
- a racial, talent, or multiclass way to cast a few low lvl concealment type spells
A lot of these options are found outside of the rogue class. Making a good rogue shouldn't require you to go outside of the rogue class to do so.
I think the rogue class its self need to be buffed. If you use the house rule that changed flanked to a condition, it is a good start. Second, I think rogues should get an increasing luck bonus to AC & saves, perhaps +1/3 levels.
Lastly, rogue talents need to be buffed to make them better - a lot of them now feel like picking from the bargain bin.
These changes would give rogues a bit more survivability, as well as increase their damage output somewhat, two changes that are desperately needed.
I'll take these out of order.
...
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? ...
Quite possibly. I agree he is not a major melee combatant. But I don't believe he was ever intended to be one.
... 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. ...
Sure. Why not? He was never intended to be a major melee combatant. But sometimes, with care and planning, he can still make a significant contribution.
... He counts on the DM feeding him opportunities rather than creating them himself. ...
I would more say he counts on working as part of a team rather than a "this is me, I don't care what you are doing" group of individuals. When it becomes a standard part of team activities, I usually see rogues get lots of fairly effective sneak attacks without interfering with everyone else's activities.
... 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. ...
Many/most campaigns have huge amounts of humanoids. You don't have to be great at every single kind of enemy to contribute. There are many classes/builds/styles that have trouble with different categories of enemies. That still get a lot of love from many players. Bard, illusionists, and witches have troubles with undead. Some/many maneuver builds have trouble with non-humanoids. Gunslingers and barbarians often have trouble with flying and distance archery opponents. Etc...
... Where are you getting Invisibility from? Wealth? ...
Now this is just petty. Allies, rogue trick, potion, wand, tiny dip into another class, some races, ring, etc... Yes, wealth is a tool to use. Just like every single other class or build.
... A Rogue doesn't sneak any better than anyone else with Stealth on their class skill list.
...
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. ...
In my opinion, this is the real issue. The rogue is not and was never intended to be a major melee combatant. He is, and was always intended to be, the skill monkey. However, many other classes had their non-combat/skill capability greatly increased and the rogue did not. So the rogue has fallen to not much better than many other classes at the skill monkey role. (I still think they are better, but not enough to justify them with just that.)
|
I keep hearing that rogues are no better at their skills than anybody else. Bards and other casters just drop a spell and bam! Better. Rangers are situationally better just because, skill-less classes with negative stat modifiers and no class skills or ranks are better because they are being compared to the rogue. OK, OK. So the class is disliked. But these arguments seem.....off.
The argument is not inherently that a Bard, Urban Ranger, or Alchemist does everything a Rogue does, it's that they do enough of it that a Rogue is unnecessary and are vastly more useful than a Rogue in other ways.
Also...Rogue Talents aren't exclusive to the Rogue. Archaeologist Bards get them, too, as do a handful of other things, I believe. So...using Rogue Talents as an argument why Rogues are good has actually become a bad argument.
But I see a camouflage talent which gives a +4 bonus in specific terrain.
Rangers can get a few better things than that. Alchemists and Bards get Invisibility.
I see canny observer granting a largely useful but still conditional +4 bonus on relevant perception checks.
Canny Observer is exceedingly overspecific, and Archaeologists get a better bonus on everything but traps without even taking it. As do Wisdom based characters in general. A '+4 to find Traps' is not sufficient to build a class around.
Charmer let's a rogue, 2-3 times a day roll twice on diplomacy and take the better result.
Honeyed Tongue is a Bard spell, does the same, and can be used significantly more often than that by high levels.
Then there is stat/skill synergy with coax information which can then be rolled twice with charmer...
Coax Information is a lot less useful on a non-Charisma based class than it is on an Archaeologist (especially since an Archaeologist can combine it with Glibness), and much less useful than an Inquisitor's +1/2 level to Intimidate just in general (well, unless it's in the hands of an Archaeologist).
False friend is suspiciously like an out of combat charm person.
As opposed to actually having Charm Person, which a Bard can casually do.
Fast Getaway looks useful for not getting creamed by sticking around in melee.
I hate to bring up the archaeologist, but...
They can climb quite well with wall scramble, getting two dice each time and no limit on the use.
Spider Climb is better. And an Alchemist spell.
They get trap spotter and terrain mastery, and several talents that make them better at sleight of hand than anyone else and then talents they can use to apply sleight of hand perks to sneak attack.
Again, Archaeologist can get all that. And Sandman gets to add 1/2 level to Sleight of Hand.
Looking at Underhanded, I see the rogue doing exactly what rogues are notorious for doing...sneaking things in they shouldn't be-like weapons. +4 bonuses were pretty large the last time I checked. A +4 bonus with +3 from a class skill, +3 to +5 from stats and then the application of ranks, rolling twice and be I g able to do this with several skills, all before using feats or magic items...and yet somehow the wizard, fighter, paladin, ranger is just as good or better at all of these things....?
And again, as Charisma based, a talent the archaeologist is better at.
/frown. This is not me even looking at advanxed talents.
The Archaeologist gets those, too.
PS. Rogues have several talents that increase their survivability making them capable of hanging in the front lines 2-3x longer than normal, which is more than long enough for an encounter to be completed.
Bards have Mirror Image. Alchemists have more buff spells than you can shake a stick at. Rangers are front-line melee by default.
Now, a non-Rogue can't do all the things you list better than a Rogue, but frankly neither can a Rogue. It's too many different specialties. What they can do is any of the things you list better than a Rogue and have spells and superior combat potential to boot.
And that's not even bringing up Ninjas, who are 'Rogues, only better.'
If you don't have a:
- a full feint line
- a flanking familiar
- multiple wands
- a supportive bloodline
- a supportive group that wants to work together to kill bad guys efficiently
or
- a racial, talent, or multiclass way to cast a few low lvl concealment type spellsA lot of these options are found outside of the rogue class. Making a good rogue shouldn't require you to go outside of the rogue class to do so.
I think the rogue class its self need to be buffed. If you use the house rule that changed flanked to a condition, it is a good start. Second, I think rogues should get an increasing luck bonus to AC & saves, perhaps +1/3 levels.
Lastly, rogue talents need to be buffed to make them better - a lot of them now feel like picking from the bargain bin.
These changes would give rogues a bit more survivability, as well as increase their damage output somewhat, two changes that are desperately needed.
The first 4 of my examples are either feats or fully rogue abilities
Feint line: Feats that rogue can take the most advantage ofFlanking Familiar: Rogue Talent in UC, or Arcane Bloodline
Wands: Rogue is one of few classes that gets this as a class skill and the only non-caster
Bloodline: Eldritch Heritage is a feat. Yes the powers are not rogue based, but they are helpful and much easier for a rogue to get than many other classes because many builds have more Cha than a lot of characters.
I just don't understand complaining about talents. Have you looked at the full list?
Crippling Strike: a debuffing dream! a stacking, no save, -2str, with every hit, plus regular damage. Two rounds to make hitters puppies and casters paralyzed.
Deadly Sneak: 1's and 2's rolled become 3's. It may only push the average damage above 4, but it makes for some really big SA's more often than not.
Offensive Defense: It is fully stackable dodge, and lots of it, for rogues that want to go toe to toe.
Bleed: It equals your SA dice, and keeps going until they waste a round to make it stop.
Weapon Snatcher: Are you kidding me!! Bargain bin!!! The cheapest magic item makes ALL of YOUR WEAPONS MINE.
With a little focus, and smart play, rogues are no joke.
I keep hearing that rogues are no better at their skills than anybody else. Bards and other casters just drop a spell and bam! Better. Rangers are situationally better just because, skill-less classes with negative stat modifiers and no class skills or ranks are better because they are being compared to the rogue. OK, OK. So the class is disliked. But these arguments seem.....off.
Negative stat modifiers and no class skills? Is the Ranger different from what I've read? Last time I checked the Ranger has a great skill list. He gets all the scouting skills and then some. Rangers are situationally better at those skills because of Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy, not just because.
A Rogue doesn't get bonuses like that without crippling his build. 2 Extra skill points doesn't make the Rogue better at the skills he has already. I'm going to reiterate this because it's important. Having more skills doesn't make you good at those skills.
Bards are better at face, knowledge and situationally better with scouting skills. Why? Because Bards are charisma based and have class features that synergize his choices with these options. Versatile Performance gets him skill points back for a 1 to 2 basis. If he chooses Skill Focus(Perform) he gets the bonus to the 2 skills from Versatile Performance. Situationally better with scouting skills because he can cast invisibility.
But I see a camouflage talent which gives a +4 bonus in specific terrain.
I see canny observer granting a largely useful but still conditional +4 bonus on relevant perception checks.
Bonuses to stealth and perception are only good to a certain point. A Trapfinder needs only to beat a 34 DC at most by written Paizo standards. Camouflage is useful to a certain degree. Once per day Skill Focus Stealth that gets destroyed by AoE. Great talent apparently.
Charmer let's a rogue, 2-3 times a day roll twice on diplomacy and take the better result.
Then there is stat/skill synergy with coax information which can then be rolled twice with charmer...
Three times per day at 10th level. Two times per day at 5th level. Wow. Such value. Mechanically a reroll amounts to a +3/-3. Coax Information is worthless if you have diplomacy. Why use intimidate to alter their attitude to friendly when you can use Diplomacy? Completely pointless ability. "Gee whiz let me use my diplomacy as intimidate to alter your attitude to friendly instead of JUST USING DIPLOMACY."
False friend is suspiciously like an out of combat charm person.
+4 to a Bluff check to do something you can already do. -_- You can get Skill Focus to get a +3 to everything bluff can do.
Fast Getaway looks useful for not getting creamed by sticking around in melee.
Situationally useful but worthless if you want to full attack.
They can climb quite well with wall scramble, getting two dice each time and no limit on the use.
Climb is fairly specific. In situations where the game demands you to climb, I'd depend on Spider Climb which just flat out grants you a climb speed than a reroll...or you know...Fly.
They get trap spotter and terrain mastery, and several talents that make them better at sleight of hand than anyone else and then talents they can use to apply sleight of hand perks to sneak attack.
Which talents are you taking then? 2nd, 4th, and 6th level talents are already slotted with Finesse Rogue, Weapon Training and Combat Trick. If you aren't taking those then I would very much like to see this character.
Looking at Underhanded, I see the rogue doing exactly what rogues are notorious for doing...sneaking things in they shouldn't be-like weapons.
"This talent may only be used a number of times per day equal to your Charisma Modifier(Minimum 0)" So either once per day or at most twice. The cute thing about the +4 bonus is that it only negates the +4 bonus people get for searching you.
/frown. This is not me even looking at advanxed talents.PS. Rogues have several talents that increase their survivability making them capable of hanging in the front lines 2-3x longer than normal, which is more than long enough for an encounter to be completed.
Rogues get tons of talents to choose from but only can pick few. If any of them want any hope of contributing meaningfully in combat that means 3 out of 5 of the basic talents taken. Any 2 of the talents you mentioned doesn't magically make the Rogue better overall for their skills. It doesn't make up for the Rogue being so much weaker overall in combat to begin with. Even the slightly added skill ability from choosing those talents is negligible when compared to the Rogue being broken up and his bases covered by two others who are actually more effective in their duty.
A Rogue is useful when he's the only guy with skills. When your party has tons of guys who are more versatile than say..a Fighter.. then you suddenly realize, "Hey...all the Rogue can really do is skills, but those aren't even that great."
Negative stat modifiers and no class skills? Is the Ranger different from what I've read? Last time I checked the Ranger has a great skill list. He gets all the scouting skills and then some. Rangers are situationally better at those skills because of Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy, not just because.
A Rogue doesn't get bonuses like that without crippling his build. 2 Extra skill points doesn't make the Rogue better at the skills he has already. I'm going to reiterate this because it's important. Having more skills doesn't make you good at those skills.
Bards are better at face, knowledge and situationally better with scouting skills. Why? Because Bards are charisma based and have class features that synergize his choices with these options. Versatile Performance gets him skill points back for a 1 to 2 basis. If he chooses Skill Focus(Perform) he gets the bonus to the 2 skills from Versatile Performance. Situationally better with scouting skills because he can cast invisibility.
No class is best at everything. In fact, some better classes are simply good at a number of things. That would be rogues. Rangers should be the best scouts. Rogues should be good scouts, but they don't need to be the best.
Rogues do not have a few talents, they have 10. Some are weaker versions of things that other classes can do for diversity. Others are very potent. A few of them are listed above and are better at what they do than any other classes version of them.
Bards can't do anywhere near the damage that a rogue can do, so they should be able to almost keep pace with rogues in the skills arena. Nor do they have the survivability of a rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LOL! If that's what Dark Immortal considers "useful" talents, then we have very different standards for usefulness.
Bards can't do anywhere near the damage that a rogue can do, so they should be able to almost keep pace with rogues in the skills arena. Nor do they have the survivability of a rogue.
There is so much wrong with this statement that it's almost funny.
Dirty Tricks last for an extra round for every 5 your combat maneuver check exceeds your opponent's CMD by. If you use True Strike in conjunction with Improved Dirty Trick, you will may often exceed your opponents's CMD by quite a lot quite often, so Improved Dirty Trick combined with Sneak Attack can be quite worthwhile well before level 9. Also, when you blind someone, you blind them for all your allies, too.
Dirty Tricks is a maneuver, and that is pretty tough on a 3/4 BA class. It can work with a spell assist (go go UMD) but it just isn't as dependable to me as feint, invis, or a flanking familiar or friend.
I do not disagree that a Rogue can be functional. I do have concerns with the fact that it seems at least to me (I could be wrong) that the Rogue class and the Rogue class alone has her primary offensive ability (on topic: Sneak Attack) completely negated far easier, more often, and by far more items, monster abilities, spells, and situations then any other class.
Leaving aside that the paladin has a lot of effective secondary offensive options, I'd mark the paladin for a near-tie. A lot of potential opponents aren't evil.
You're misreading his post. It's a comparison exclusively between Smite Evil and Sneak Attack; both are powerful, class-defining tools that are often times locked out by circumstances outside of your control. It's a fair comparison.
The fact that the Paladin has options other than Smite Evil is what separates it from the Rogue.
So leaving aside the fact that the paladin doesn't need to enemies to be evil to be a very strong fighting force, the paladin is a near tie to the rogue when fighting non evil opponents?I do not disagree that a Rogue can be functional. I do have concerns with the fact that it seems at least to me (I could be wrong) that the Rogue class and the Rogue class alone has her primary offensive ability (on topic: Sneak Attack) completely negated far easier, more often, and by far more items, monster abilities, spells, and situations then any other class.Leaving aside that the paladin has a lot of effective secondary offensive options, I'd mark the paladin for a near-tie. A lot of potential opponents aren't evil.
Sure, that's what I said.
No, the Paladin has her primary offensive ability completely negated nearly as easily, often, and by nearly as many * than the rogue.
Why go through the trouble of finding an apple grove? Try a 20gp consumable.
Alternatively, you could just carry some apples and maybe even use them as an weapon against said Rogue... You're likely o still outdamage him. lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No class is best at everything. In fact, some better classes are simply good at a number of things. That would be rogues. Rangers should be the best scouts. Rogues should be good scouts, but they don't need to be the best.
No, No class is good at everything, unless you're a wizard who can do it a few times per day. Anyways, the point being is that unless you have very few diverse characters, the Rogue's ability to be okay at his skills is worthless. A Rogue is okay when his party has no skills and doesn't need him for combat. This makes sense in the old age party group of Wizard, Fighter, Cleric and Rogue. The Fighter and Cleric only get 2 skill points and the Wizard most likely spends his toward other skills than the Rogue's. The moment you consider a far far more versatile party is where the Rogue drops dramatically in usefulness.
Rogues do not have a few talents, they have 10. Some are weaker versions of things that other classes can do for diversity. Others are very potent. A few of them are listed above and are better at what they do than any other classes version of them.
You get 5 basic talents and 5 advanced. 3 of those basic talents are spent on near mandatory ones such as Finesse Rogue, Weapon Training, or Combat Trick unless your party is okay with you being near worthless in combat.
Bards can't do anywhere near the damage that a rogue can do, so they should be able to almost keep pace with rogues in the skills arena. Nor do they have the survivability of a rogue.
Here I recommend you go look up some builds. Bards can easily put out more damage than Rogues do. The fact the Bard's damage isn't situational makes him more valuable in combat. And by almost keep pace with the Rogue I hope you mean catches up to him by level 6. A Bard gets an extra pseudo skill point at 2nd, 6th and every 4 levels thereafter. Or earlier depending on how you value knowledge skills. Bardic Knowledge is quite useful.
Survivability-wise, a Bard is completely identical to a Rogue except gets shield proficiency and defensive spells. So hes just flat out better than a Rogue survivability-wise.
Well, Smite Evil is hard countered by moral ambiguity. I'm sure this isn't the standard but I know my GM's love to throw around Neutral enemies, even Good enemies that are just Good differently.
The difference is that a situation that shuts down Smite Evil doesn't shut down the Paladin.
Bards can't do anywhere near the damage that a rogue can do, so they should be able to almost keep pace with rogues in the skills arena. Nor do they have the survivability of a rogue.This is comically untrue and is generally a sign of someone who massively inflates the value of sneak attack or the general ability of the rogue to actually get their sneak attack dice on a consistent basis.
But hey, I could be wrong, why don't you show us this rogue of your with great damage, decent skills and high survivability. How about level 10 standard WBL, no 3rd party sources. Maybe we have all been wrong all this time and you have something new to bring to the table.
I can think of a few builds that could fit that description. I usually like crippling build but you can also have a simple Knife Master that does burst damage. At lvl 10, with two maximized Underhanded SA's attacks followed by two regular 5d8 ones. Thats 80+ an avg of 45 +an avg of 14 wpn dam (with no magic items). With gp these numbers get higher.
1st lvl Feat: Combat Expertise, Imp. Feint
2nd lvl talent minor magic
3rd lvl Feat: wpn Finesse
4th lvl talent major magic (1st lvl vanish)
5th lvl Feat: 2 wpn fighting
6th lvl talent deft palm
7th lvl Feat: 2 wpn Feint
8th lvl Underhanded
9th lvl Feat: Imp 2 wpn fighting
10th lvl Familiar
Did they ever fix Underhanded so it works?
Edit: Ah, nevermind. Yeah, that's pretty messed up.
Did they ever fix Underhanded so it works?Edit: Ah, nevermind. Yeah, that's pretty messed up.
Just so he knows what you all mean.
Drawing a hidden weapon is a standard action and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.
In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round.
You will never be able to use Underhanded.
Survivability-wise, a Bard is completely identical to a Rogue except gets shield proficiency and defensive spells. So hes just flat out better than a Rogue survivability-wise.You forgot a second good save, the most important one, the will save.
Woops. Yeah. Probably one of the most important aspects.