[PF] Full BAB Rogue

[Erock]

Would a Pathfinder Rogue with full BAB be too powerful? Especially in a solo campaign.

[Stux]

Solo campaign? Not at all. Go for it.

In a mixed party the fighter may get uppity with you.

[Urpriest]

There really isn't a meaningful notion of "too powerful" in a solo campaign, except perhaps whatever the DM's comfort zone is.

[Lanaya]

It's reasonable to declare Pun-Pun too powerful for a solo campaign, but anything which isn't essentially an omnipotent overdeity is fine.

[Carth]

Even with full BAB, rogue would still probably be in the 3 weakest classes, with monk and ninja.

[Psyren]

PF Ninja is certainly not weak. I would rank it above Ranger and Fighter, if not in sheer damage output then in everything else.

[Carth]

I probably shouldn't have veered. I've never been able to get any use out of ninja, I guess YMMV. But yeah, full BAB rogue, totally fine.

[Crasical]

PF Ninja is certainly not weak. I would rank it above Ranger and Fighter, if not in sheer damage output then in everything else.

Ninja Fight! Ninja Sneak! Ninja Socialize! Ninja not-trapfinding-for-whatever-reason! Ninja acrobatics! Ninja truly-ludicrous leaping! Ninja concealing weapons! Ninja using-guns-by-taking-the-firearm-tricks-from-the-rogue-list!

All this can be yours for only 9999.99!

[Spore]

Full BAB rogue would be fine. The only thing is that he would surpass the fighter then by a notch.

[Psyren]

Ninja Fight! Ninja Sneak! Ninja Socialize! Ninja not-trapfinding-for-whatever-reason! Ninja acrobatics! Ninja truly-ludicrous leaping! Ninja concealing weapons! Ninja using-guns-by-taking-the-firearm-tricks-from-the-rogue-list!

All this can be yours for only 9999.99!

I'm almost certain this is a reference to something but its flying right over my head.


Full BAB rogue would be fine. The only thing is that he would surpass the fighter then by a notch.

I think gestalting PF Fighter and PF Rogue could be interesting.

[Crasical]

I'm almost certain this is a reference to something but its flying right over my head.

A wonderful but defunct comic strip (http://keychain.patternspider.net/archive/koc0093.html), all the various stuff that it looks like a PF Ninja would be good at, and the 'Bucket 'O Nothing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU2OvtIbSXw)' bit from the old animated TV show Reboot.

[Incanur]

Wait, I thought the PF rogue received one of the largest upgrades of all core classes. These two (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=13392.0) assessments (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214108) put it in tier 3. Is that wrong?

[MeeposFire]

PF Ninja is certainly not weak. I would rank it above Ranger and Fighter, if not in sheer damage output then in everything else.

That is not much of an endorsement you know and remember just because it happens to not be the worst does not mean that it is strong. It can be weak and be stronger than those two classes.

[Psyren]

That is not much of an endorsement you know and remember just because it happens to not be the worst does not mean that it is strong. It can be weak and be stronger than those two classes.

I was responding to "three weakest," - and actually, Ninja is T3.

[137beth]

I think gestalting PF Fighter and PF Rogue could be interesting.

This is my recommendation as well. Every rogue I've ever seen has been desperately short of feats, and could have benefited greatly from increased BAB.

[MeeposFire]

I was responding to "three weakest," - and actually, Ninja is T3.

I am not sure hwy you quote me about the ninja I was just talking about how you think that the ranger and fighter are the weakest and the thief is just above them and how that is not much of an endorsement.

If all you can say it is better than two out of how many classes and it lacks its near exclusive job status as it did in other editions then it is not saying much positive for the class.

[Psyren]

If all you can say it is better than two out of how many classes and it lacks its near exclusive job status as it did in other editions then it is not saying much positive for the class.

I said it was T3, which puts it above more than just those two classes. I personally put it above Ranger, Fighter, Rogue, Cavalier, Gunslinger, and even Barbarian.

[MeeposFire]

I said it was T3, which puts it above more than just those two classes. I personally put it above Ranger, Fighter, Rogue, Cavalier, Gunslinger, and even Barbarian.

Well that is starting to sound more of an endorsement at least though I do think rogues are still too easy to screw over to be tier 3 even with their minor additional benefits. Granted I do not think it is worth arguing on that level though.

[Dienekes]

Wait, I thought the PF rogue received one of the largest upgrades of all core classes. These two (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=13392.0) assessments (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214108) put it in tier 3. Is that wrong?

Yeah probably. The short version is, the rogue class looks like it gained cool new stuff on paper, but because a lot of the underlining mechanics of the game are changed in miniscule ways that add up, the rogue takes a lot of hits that drop it down.

[Psyren]

Well that is starting to sound more of an endorsement at least though I do think rogues are still too easy to screw over to be tier 3 even with their minor additional benefits. Granted I do not think it is worth arguing on that level though.

I'm talking about Ninja, not Rogue. PF Rogue is still T4.

[Zrak]

Wait, I thought the PF rogue received one of the largest upgrades of all core classes. These two (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=13392.0) assessments (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214108) put it in tier 3. Is that wrong?

I'd certainly disagree with them. A lot of the rogue's "upgrades" amount to a loss of niche protection. Since cross-class skills aren't nearly as penalized in pathfinder, it's relatively easy to add skills to the last skill lists anyway, and the skill list was consolidated, it's a lot easier for other classes to basically "cover the bases." Basically, the rogue got better at what it used to do, but so did every other class. Everything else is basically a wash, with changes to other mechanics essentially negating the upgrades to the rogue: you could use sneak attack on more creatures, except that now you can't get into flanking position without dying because of nerfs to tumble and, if you did before, you can't use splash weapons to sneak attack; the improvements to your combat abilities from rogue tricks are offset by the crippling feat-tax added to combat maneuvers for an already feat-starved class; and so on.

Ninja's a little better, but really it's just not that great to play a skill-focused class in Pathfinder. Changes that were, I think, supposed to make them more dominant skill-users instead just took away their ability to shine in that area compared to other classes.

[MeeposFire]

I'm talking about Ninja, not Rogue. PF Rogue is still T4.

Ahh well that explains our disconnect since I was talking about and thought you were talking about the rogue lol.

Though since I don't know the PF rogue what does it get that the standard rogue does not that makes it tier 3 considering I thought the ninja was mostly a rogue? Clearly it must get something but I have not looked closely enough yet to see it.

[Kane0]

If you're playing solo you should be able to gestalt a Rogue|Swashbuckler no problem.

Wait, pathfinder. Does PF have a Swashbuckler archetype? No matter, just use the 3.5 one. Should be simple enough.

[Devronq]

A wonderful but defunct comic strip (http://keychain.patternspider.net/archive/koc0093.html), all the various stuff that it looks like a PF Ninja would be good at, and the 'Bucket 'O Nothing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU2OvtIbSXw)' bit from the old animated TV show Reboot.

first thing that popped into my head was mike the TV from reboot :p

[Zrak]

Ninja tricks are generally better than rogue tricks, and can offset some of the misfortunes that have befallen the class. The improved vanish ninja can take after level ten is helpful for getting sneak attacks without having to suicidally tumble, for example, though it's still undone by true-seeing and all sorts of other junk. Otherwise, they just get a few neat-but-not-gamechanging mobility options; stepping through doors, running on lava or an impossibly narrow surface, walking on air, &c. They also lose trapfinding for poison use.

[Vanitas]

Slayer is pretty much a Rogue with full BAB.

[Prince Raven]

I'm pretty sure the answer to "is [non-caster] too powerful?" is always no in D&D.

[137beth]

I'm pretty sure the answer to "is [non-caster] too powerful?" is always no in D&D.

Well pun-pun can give himself any ability as an (Ex), making him a non-caster...

[Spore]

I think gestalting PF Fighter and PF Rogue could be interesting.

Uh that thing could be useful. Careful what you wish for!

[ericgrau]

Overpowered is relative to the party. It's solo. You could gestalt a fighter rogue wizard cleric if you wanted and it'd be totally fine. Maybe easier on the DM since he wouldn't need to worry about you missing anything.

In a party a full BAB rogue depends how well your DM handles skills. If he does them well it's too much b/c you can both fight and outskill the other melee. If not then in a campaign when only fighting matters you're about par.