# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 >  Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Rogue (Chained) and Rogue (Unchained)

## pabelfly

I'm interested in starting work on a tier list for Pathfinder, in the same way that we have a tier list for 3.5 (link for reference).

There has been an informal attempt to do a tier list for Pathfinder, which I've also used in reference for this thread (link). But a formal collection of threads, where everyone discusses and debates how classes should be tiered, is something I think would be useful for Pathfinder, in the same way the tier list for 3.5 is.

This thread is for the two versions of *Rogue (Chained) and Rogue (Unchained)* and their various archetypes. If there are any archetypes that are significantly better than the others, they can be tiered separately.

_(edited)_

*Rogue (Chained)* - The informal thread originally pegged this at about a Tier 5. However, the forum seems to think this class is much more useful, rating it much closer to *Tier 4*. Good choice of archetypes can likely take this up half a tier.
*Rogue (Unchained)* - The informal thread pegs this at about a Tier 4. However, the forum seems to think this class is more useful, rating it around *Tier 3.5*. Good choice of archetypes can likely take this up half a tier. 
*Eldritch Scoundrel Archetype* - Losing a few class features in exchange for sixth-level Wizard spells takes both Chained and Unchained Rogue up to *Tier 3*, with Chained Rogue ranked slightly lower.
*Phantom Thief Archetype* - The general consensus is that this doesn't really change overall power of either Unchained Rogue or Chained Rogue.

Voting is still open, if you want to add your vote:

*Current Vote Totals:* 

*Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Unchained)
*Kurald Galain, Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna, Maat Mons, Totally Not Evil , Rynjin - 3.0

Average  3.0

*Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Chained)
*Maat Mons, Gnaeus, Totally Not Evil  3.0
Avatar Vecna  3.3
Kurald Galain  4.0

Average  3.26

*Rogue (Unchained)
*Kurald Galain, Gnaeus  3.0
Avatar Vecna  3.7
Maat Mons  3.8
Endless Rain, Rynjin  4.0

Average  3.58

*Phantom Thief Rogue (Unchained)
*Avatar Vecna, Kurald Galain, Gnaeus  3.0
Maat Mons  3.6
Endless Rain, Rynjin  4.0
Darvin  5

Average - 3.65

*Rogue (Chained)
*Avatar Vecna  3.7
Kurald Galain, Gnaeus, Endless Rain, Totally Not Evil - 4.0
Maat Mons  4.4
Rynjin  5

Average  4.15

*Phantom Thief Rogue (Chained)
*
Avatar Vecna  3.3
Kurald Galain, Gnaeus, Endless Rain, Totally Not Evil - 4.0
Maat Mons  4.6
Darvin, Rynjin  5

Average  4.23



*What are the tiers?*

The simple answer here is that tier one is the best, the home of things on the approximate problem solving scale of wizards, and tier six is the worst, land of commoners. And problem solving capacity is what's being measured here. Considering the massive range of challenges a character is liable to be presented with across the levels, how much and how often does that character's class contribute to the defeat of those challenges? This value should be considered as a rough averaging across all levels, the center of the level range somewhat more than really low and really high level characters, and across all optimization levels (considering DM restrictiveness as a plausible downward acting factor on how optimized a character is), prioritizing moderate optimization somewhat more than low or high.

A big issue with the original tier system is that, if anything, it was too specific, generating inflexible definitions for allowance into a tier which did not cover the broad spectrum of ways a class can operate. When an increase in versatility would seem to represent a decrease in tier, because tier two is supposed to be low versatility, it's obvious that we've become mired in something that'd be pointless to anyone trying to glean information from the tier system. Thus, I will be uncharacteristically word light here. The original tier system's tier descriptions are still good guidelines here, but they shouldn't be assumed to be the end all and be all for how classes get ranked.

Consistent throughout these tiers is the notion of problems and the solving thereof. For the purposes of this tier system, the problem space can be said to be inclusive of combat, social interaction, and exploration, with the heaviest emphasis placed on combat. A problem could theoretically fall outside of that space, but things inside that space are definitely problems. Another way to view the idea of problem solving is through the lens of the niche ranking system. A niche filled tends to imply the capacity to solve a type of problem, whether it's a status condition in the case of healing, or an enemy that just has too many hit points in the case of melee combat. It's not a perfect measure, both because some niches have a lot of overlap in the kinds of problems they can solve and because, again, the niches aren't necessarily all inclusive, but they can act as a good tool for class evaluation.

*Tier one:* Incredibly good at solving nearly all problems. This is the realm of clerics, druids, and wizards, classes that open up with strong combat spells backed up by utility, and then get massively stronger from there. If you're not keeping up with that core trio of tier one casters, then you probably don't belong here.

*Tier two:* We're just a step below tier one here, in the land of classes around the sorcerer level of power. Generally speaking, this means relaxing one of the two tier one assumptions, either getting us to very good at solving nearly all problems, or incredibly good at solving most problems. But, as will continue to be the case as these tiers go on, there aren't necessarily these two simple categories for this tier. You gotta lose something compared to the tier one casters, but what you lose doesn't have to be in some really specific proportions.

*Tier three:* Again, we gotta sacrifice something compared to tier two, here taking us to around the level of a vanilla Magus. The usual outcome is that you are very good at solving a couple of problems and competent at solving a few more. Of course, there are other possibilities, for example that you might instead be competent at solving nearly all problems.

*Tier four:* Here we're in Fighter, Paladin and Barbarian territory. Starting from that standard tier three position, the usual sweet spots here are very good at solving a few problems, or alright at solving many problems.

*Tier five:* We're heading close to the dregs here. Tier five is the tier of chained Monk, classes that are as bad as you can be without being an aristocrat or a commoner. Classes here are sometimes very good at solving nearly no problems, or alright at solving a few, or some other function thereof. It's weak, is the point.

*Tier six:* And here we have commoner tier. Or, the bottom is commoner. The top is approximately aristocrat. You don't necessarily have nothing in this tier, but you have close enough to it.

----------


## Maat Mons

Id like to invite discussion of the Eldritch Scoundrel archetype.  It gets spells of up to 6th level, drawn from the Wizard spell list.  That seems like it should automatically put it in Tier 3.  But Ive seen people calling it a bad archetype.  

Granted, the archetype gives up 4 skill points per level and half of Rogues sneak attack progression.  Which makes you just straight-up worse than a Sanctified Slayer Inquisitor, an Eldritch Poisoner Alchemist, or especially a Vivisectionist Alchemist.  But being clearly worse than several Tier 3 classes isnt incompatible with being in Tier 3 itself.  

I cant think of any reason, off hand, that anyone would ever play an Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue when Vivisectionist Alchemist is a thing.  But Im still getting lower-Tier-3 vibes from it.

----------


## Kurald Galain

Compared to the much-maligned 3E rogue, let's start by pointing out the extra things an unchained Pathfinder Rogue gets out of the box,Dex to hit and to damageSneak attack works on undead, plants, constructs and swarms without any investmentFree debuffs on every sneak attackGet a rogue-only feat (called "talent") every other level, which can include limited spellcastingThere's feats that let you teleport, use stealth while observed in bright light, or blind an enemy as part of a full attack

Aside from that, the rogue has a ton of archetypes, possibly more than any other class; and several of them can stack. Standouts include,Eldritch Scoundrel gains 6-level spellcasting from the wizard list, and can go invisible as a swift action.Guerrilla gets total concealment in dim light, and of course items exist that make it dim light around you.Skulking Slayer can replace sneak attacks by, among others, blinding enemies. Yes, this is as nasty as it sounds.Snoop adds a free +1d6 to certain skills all the time, and to any other skill a few times per day.Sylvan Trickster gets hexes from the witch class (i.e. at-will unlimited use spell-like abilities, which can include flight at level 5).Thug can frighten enemies to run away on any intimidate check, and there's ways to add intimidate checks to all your attacks.

So, where does this leave us? A dual-wielding rogue with either a flanking buddy or using dirty tricks to blind enemies can shred level-appropriate opponents with little trouble, and has good defenses due to high dexterity and debuffing attacks. Out of combat, the rogue has the best skill list and the most skill points in the game, and has talents and archetypes that can boost that further. Frankly, a decently-built rogue has an answer to every situation, and probably the most versatility of any non-caster class. Tier three is described as "very good at solving a couple of problems and competent at solving a few more"; or clasically, "capable of doing one thing well, while still being useful when that one thing isn't appropriate" and that description fits the rogue very well. So my verdict is *Tier 3*, maybe a low three but still a three.

What about the core rogue? It's not one of the better classes but it's much better than its reputation warrants. It still gets almost everything from the points above, except the debuffs on a sneak attack, and it has to spend a feat or item to get dex to hit and damage. It has a bit less power than a PF Fighter but heaps more versatility; so I'd rate it the same as the fighter: *Tier 4*.

----------


## AvatarVecna

I wanna give highlight to two particular archetypes.

*Phantom Thief*

Phantom Thief gives up sneak attack, trapfinding, and trap sense. In exchange, they have all skills as class skills, can take certain limited-number-available rogue talents any number of times (combat feat granting talents, but more importantly the magic-granting rogue talents). They gain an initiative bonus in an easy-to-control circumstance. Finally, arguably the most interesting thing about it, Phantom Thief has Refined Education. At every odd-numbered level, select any skill you want; that skill is unchained, you get a bonus to the skill equal to half your rogue level rounded down, and that same bonus counts as ranks for the purposes of determining when you unlock Unchained Skill benefits. Unchained Diplomacy allows for using Diplomacy in combat earlier than usual, or can make the benefits last much longer if you take your time. Unchained Intimidate combined with Dazzling Display can inflict more severe fear conditions on entire groups at once, up to a maximum of "cowering 1d4 rounds" at lvl 14. Unchained Heal with Healer's Hands is an easy way to cure ability damage starting at lvl 4; starting at lvl 7, the HP healing is starting to get pretty ridiculous too; combine both these with the right magic talents and you've got a really solid support rogue. Unchained Craft makes it a better source of money in the early levels (still not great though), but starting at lvl 14, your Unchained Crafts can make any magic item appropriate to the craft specialty in question - zero feats required. A Phantom Thief 14 who just picked 7 craft skills can probably make basically any magic item, which is most comparable to Artificer. Additionally, you craft at the speed you would craft nonmagic items - which is generally slower, yes, but your crafting speed increases with the square of your craft bonus, so as long as your bonus keeps improving, your speed keeps improving...whereas most crafters hit a point where they can't make magic items faster.

*TL;DR* Unchained Rogue, by default, is a very solid damage dealer who also has a good selection of skills and utility class features. Phantom Thief gives up the damage potential in exchange for slightly more magic than normal rogue can get, but massively improved skills. The flexibility Refined Education is arguably T3 all on its own (one option is diet artificer). If normal rogue is T3, I'm not sure this pushes it to T2, but I'm not sure it doesn't either - there's some really powerful abusable options here you could select, and while it's not as good as 9th lvl spells, it's still close to T2 definition, in a sense. If normal rogue is a high T4, though, then I think Phantom Thief giving up damage for magic/utility versatility/power is an easy tier up. Phantom Thief is also great for NPCs who don't expect to be fighting much - it's "better expert", essentially.

*Sapper*

Sapper gives up Trapfinding for the ability to destroy walls in a new way. Not a better way than just attacking with the right nonmagical nonmasterwork weapon...but a new way. Sapper gives up its first rogue talent for a bonus to finding/disabling traps, and a bonus to other people's strength checks to deal with barriers using pure physical force; the skill bonus will lag behind the trapfinding you gave up before too long, and you still can't find magic traps on your own. Sapper gives up its second rogue talent for the ability to sell garbage for pennies - specifically, 1d10 gp per level per dungeon. Assuming 14 encounters per level, and assuming each encounter is its own dungeon (after which you run back to town to sell the garbage you found for pennies), by the time you hit lvl 20, that's 2660d10 gp, or ~14630 gp...so, ~1.6625% of your WBL, if you're cheesing this ability to hell and back. If you have a more reasonable "1 dungeon per level", which is still arguably more than you'd actually get playing it out, that's 190d10, or ~1045 gp, or ~0.11875% WBL.

So, a rogue with this archetype still has sneak attack. That's not nothing But you're giving up your first two rogue talents for worthless garbage abilities, and you're giving up Trapfinding; the two rogue talents alone means you're gonna spend your whole career lagging behind the capabilities of other rogues. I'm not sure this is definitely enough for it to go down a tier (since...I mean it still has skills and SA, and that's most of the reason rogue is the tier it is), but losing two rogue talents, especially the first two, is...rough. Real rough.

----------


## pabelfly

> Id like to invite discussion of the Eldritch Scoundrel archetype.  It gets spells of up to 6th level, drawn from the Wizard spell list.  That seems like it should automatically put it in Tier 3.  But Ive seen people calling it a bad archetype.  
> 
> Granted, the archetype gives up 4 skill points per level and half of Rogues sneak attack progression.  Which makes you just straight-up worse than a Sanctified Slayer Inquisitor, an Eldritch Poisoner Alchemist, or especially a Vivisectionist Alchemist.  But being clearly worse than several Tier 3 classes isnt incompatible with being in Tier 3 itself.  
> 
> I cant think of any reason, off hand, that anyone would ever play an Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue when Vivisectionist Alchemist is a thing.  But Im still getting lower-Tier-3 vibes from it.


Eldritch Scoundrel archetype was pegged in the prototype thread as being about half a tier higher than regular rogue and Unchained Rogue when applied to each (3.40 for Unchained Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue versus 4.0 for Unchained Rogue, and 4.38 for Chained Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue versus 4.88 for Chained Rogue). I'm definitely interested in a further discussion as to what tier the archetype changes Rogue to.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> I cant think of any reason, off hand, that anyone would ever play an Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue when Vivisectionist Alchemist is a thing.  But Im still getting lower-Tier-3 vibes from it.


I can think of a reason: the wizard spell list is better than the alchemist's, or for that matter the inquisitor's.




> Unchained Crafts can make any magic item appropriate to the craft specialty in question - zero feats required. A Phantom Thief 14 who just picked 7 craft skills can probably make basically any magic item, which is most comparable to Artificer.


The difference is that PF crafting just gives you the items for half price, instead of the "XP is a river" loophole that 3E has. I don't think this is enough for tier two, really. I agree with the rest of your post.

----------


## AvatarVecna

> Eldritch Scoundrel archetype was pegged in the prototype thread as being about half a tier higher than regular rogue and Unchained Rogue when applied to each (3.40 for Unchained Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue versus 4.0 for Unchained Rogue, and 4.38 for Chained Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue versus 4.88 for Chained Rogue). I'm definitely interested in a further discussion as to what tier the archetype changes Rogue to.


If we want a comparison, the most direct to make is Magus, which is kinda the intent of the archetype design. ES Rogue gets half as much SA and rogue talents in exchange for magus casting, although they don't get spell combat. but 5d6 SA is still really solid bonus damage, and I think it competes well enough with the ability to cast a spell while getting attacks. Magus gets to cast in heavy armor (eventually), while ES rogue never gets to cast even in light, but rogues are kinda eh on armor anyway. Rogue gets (slightly) better skills overall, Magus gets better saves.

the two of them feel pretty on par with one another, but Chained ES Rogue is considered a low T4, while Magus is considered a mid T3? What??

----------


## pabelfly

> If we want a comparison, the most direct to make is Magus, which is kinda the intent of the archetype design. ES Rogue gets half as much SA and rogue talents in exchange for magus casting, although they don't get spell combat. but 5d6 SA is still really solid bonus damage, and I think it competes well enough with the ability to cast a spell while getting attacks. Magus gets to cast in heavy armor (eventually), while ES rogue never gets to cast even in light, but rogues are kinda eh on armor anyway. Rogue gets (slightly) better skills overall, Magus gets better saves.
> 
> the two of them feel pretty on par with one another, but Chained ES Rogue is considered a low T4, while Magus is considered a mid T3? What??


If I were to guess, it's because casting a spell means you have the versatility of casting whatever spell best suits you during combat - not to mention all the support the Magus class grants towards casting - while Sneak Attack is simply bonus damage that you might not be able to trigger. But I'm not really familiar with either. That's the reason I'm creating these threads - to spark more debate and get comparisons like this.

And Magus is the definitive Tier 3, apparently.

----------


## AvatarVecna

> I can think of a reason: the wizard spell list is better than the alchemist's, or for that matter the inquisitor's.
> 
> 
> The difference is that PF crafting just gives you the items for half price, instead of the "XP is a river" loophole that 3E has. I don't think this is enough for tier two, really. I agree with the rest of your post.


"XP is a river" loophole was essentially "XP costs for crafting items are actually lower than they seem on paper". PF crafting gets rid of XP costs entirely, so it's actually better than "XP is a river" loophole, in terms of the XP costs of crafting. Not worse, the way you're implying. The main thing that makes me hesitant to call it T2 (provided that base rogue is T3, which...apparently it's T5? What???) is that it's hard to get PF items for cheaper than 50%, while 3.5 had a litany of feats for reducing the prices even further; combine that with how artificer's specific method of crafting can craft stuff at much lower spell levels/caster levels than default to make things even cheaper, and it's easy to see why such 3.5 crafting is T1 on its own. I think "merely" double WBL is enough to get you much bigger and better toys than most people, but affording game-breaking spells built into items is a lot harder (and there's a lot fewer game-breaking spells in PF).

If you had the Phantom Thief ability in 3.5 and every craft skill could make magic items without needing a feat investment, I think it'd be T2 pretty easily. I'm just unsure if PF WBLmancy or spells are so easy to break that this ability is T2 on its own. It does feel like a pretty solid T3 though.

It's also worth mentioning: the ability is only "craft basically any magic item" if you took 7 crafts for your super-unlocks. That means you didn't take anything else before then, which...probably not a great idea if you have to play through the low levels, when the craft unlocks are just a slight money advantage rather than magic item creation. If I were playing in a real game, I'd probably pick other stuff for my first 6, and then my 7th one would be a craft of some kind, so I could make some magic items at lvl 14. If I were doing it...

Diplomacy, Heal, Perception, Intimidate, Bluff, Sense Motive, Craft/Woodworking is a solid first seven super-unlocks. That gets you a bunch of face skills (powerful on their own, even stronger unlocked, even stronger unlocked early), Heal for some serious ability damage recovery, and later serious HP recovery, and then a Craft skill that lets you make wands, staffs, and some rods. Maybe some wondrous items too, depending? You probably don't wanna be making magic wooden weapons/armor, but I guess if you make them ironwood it's viable? But in terms of "stuff to give up SA for", that's a really solid list. Combat-viable diplomacy, healing, and debuffing.

----------


## AvatarVecna

> If I were to guess, it's because casting a spell means you have the versatility of casting whatever spell best suits you during combat - not to mention all the support the Magus class grants towards casting - while Sneak Attack is simply bonus damage that you might not be able to trigger. But I'm not really familiar with either. That's the reason I'm creating these threads - to spark more debate and get comparisons like this.
> 
> And Magus is the definitive Tier 3, apparently.


I don't necessarily disagree with Magus being definitive T3. 6th lvl casting off the wizard list is really nice, and it gets a bunch of class feature that play off that. It's ES Rogue being like 1.5 tiers down that's baffling to me.

EDIT: I guess from my point of view: class features that synergize with spellcasting are nice to have, but they are strictly secondary. Outside of extreme cases, what tier you're in is basically determined by how much casting you get. T1 is prepared 9th, T2 is spontaneous 9th, T3 is 6th, T4 is 4th (or noncasters who are really good at what they do), T5 is noncasters that aren't particularly good, and T6 is noncasters that are hot garbage. All of this is basically regardless of what other features they do or do not have: unless you have extreme list limitations, like "a PrC specific spell list instead of copying the wizard list", or like "wizard list, but only the blasting spells" the way things like 3.5 warmage got...then 6th lvl spellcasting is still 6th lvl spellcasting. It's pretty freaking solid, and being a full 1.5 tiers down because of the other stuff you have being kind of lame is...questionable.

----------


## pabelfly

> I don't necessarily disagree with Magus being definitive T3. 6th lvl casting off the wizard list is really nice, and it gets a bunch of class feature that play off that. It's ES Rogue being like 1.5 tiers down that's baffling to me.
> 
> EDIT: I guess from my point of view: class features that synergize with spellcasting are nice to have, but they are strictly secondary. Outside of extreme cases, what tier you're in is basically determined by how much casting you get. T1 is prepared 9th, T2 is spontaneous 9th, T3 is 6th, T4 is 4th (or noncasters who are really good at what they do), T5 is noncasters that aren't particularly good, and T6 is noncasters that are hot garbage. All of this is basically regardless of what other features they do or do not have: unless you have extreme list limitations, like "a PrC specific spell list instead of copying the wizard list", or like "wizard list, but only the blasting spells" the way things like 3.5 warmage got...then 6th lvl spellcasting is still 6th lvl spellcasting. It's pretty freaking solid, and being a full 1.5 tiers down because of the other stuff you have being kind of lame is...questionable.


That sounds like a pretty reasonable argument to me. As I said, I'm definitely up for discussion about Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue's specific tier.

So here's the dirty list, and their current tentative "tier":

Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Unchained): 3.4
Rogue (Unchained): 4
Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Chained): 4.38
Rogue (Chained): 4.88

What's your current pick for how these should be rated?

----------


## Kurald Galain

> What's your current pick for how these should be rated?


In my view,
Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Unchained): 3.0
Rogue (Unchained): 3.0
Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Chained): 4.0
Rogue (Chained): 4.0

And that's because both kinds of rogue can also get spells or spell-like abilities from rogue talents, certain feats, and witch hexes. Eldritch Scoundrel is definitely one of the better archetypes but not a full tier up.





> (provided that base rogue is T3, which...apparently it's T5? What???)


I'd say that comes from people that assume the PF rogue has the same restrictions and limitations as the 3E rogue, the latter of which _is_ tier 5. (edit: I'm misremembering and 3E's rogue is actually T4; I am baffled why people think PF's version is somehow a downgrade to that).

----------


## AvatarVecna

> I'd say that comes from people that assume the PF rogue has the same restrictions and limitations as the 3E rogue, the latter of which _is_ tier 5.


Both original tier list and the re-tiered consensus say T4 for 3.5 rogue. Part of that is 3.5 having some very friendly feats like darkstalker and craven, part of it is the 3.5 ACFs for half SA against SA-immune targets, and part of it is "3.5 spell items are kinda borked, and rogue can access them cuz UMD is borked". I imagine people saw that PF made everybody better at skills, and made spells/spell items less broken, and made magic items in general harder to break, and figured rogue had been kneecapped. Which...is very strange.

My general thoughts on how martials shake out: to be T4, you need to do a thing well, or do a few things well enough. If you're only good-ish at one thing, or mediocre at a few things, you're T5. If you're total garbage, you're T6. 

*Spoiler: my thoughts on martial tiers*
Show

T4
PF unchained rogue
PF unchained barbarian
PF gunslinger
PF chained rogue
PF chained barbarian
PF unchained monk
adept
3.5 rogue
3.5 barbarian

T5
3.5 fighter
PF chained monk
3.5 monk
expert

T6
warrior
aristocrat
commoner


To me, chained rogue is middling T4. It has good damage, especially since there isn't a half-dozen creature types shutting down SA, and fortification is weaker across the board. No dex to damage or craven sucks, but it's not crippling. Rogue is still a good damage machine, with some solid skill utility (possibly magic utility, via talents and UMD). Unchained is, broadly speaking, a half-tier step up. And I feel that phantom thief is maybe a half step up, at least in terms of the versatility/abuse it opens up in a few different directions. I don't think anything it does except for maybe the crafting is ever capable of reaching T2, and you'd need to invest a lot in order to craft items that can bust out some powerful gamebreaking spells. More likely, you'll take maybe one craft that gets you access to good wands and that'll be it. Feels like a solid T3. It changes you from "good damage and skills" to "absurd skills and some magic".

Same deal with ES, it feels solidly T3 to me. Native 6th lvl casting, even if it doesn't have any bells and whistles, feels straightforward. Where PT is "absurd skills and some magic", this is "absurd magic and some skills and some SA".

Based on this...I think chained sapper is high T5. The downsides of remaining chained, and the loss of your first two rogue talents haunting your entire progression, is enough downside, I think, to knock it down. I think unchained sapper is probably still T4, just lower on the totem pole.

EDIT: Honestly, I currently have unchained rogue as high T4, but I wouldn't make any kind of serious argument if people wanted to say it was T3 instead. Doesn't get as many unlocks as PT does (or as soon), but skill unlocks are still powerful utility, and free dex to damage + debuffs on attacks is really solid.

----------


## Gnaeus

> Compared to the much-maligned 3E rogue, let's start by pointing out the extra things an unchained Pathfinder Rogue gets out of the box,


I agree with all this, and his rankings (Unchained 3, Chained 4). I would add that compared to 3.5 the chained rogue has a lower ceiling and higher floor. Most of the complaints of the rogue nerf were things I rarely saw in play anyway (like blinking flask rogues making full round touch sneak attacks. Which I don't think I ever saw in a game that wasn't some kind of convention competitive optimization challenge). Whereas the things that PF chained rogue gets are useful to every single optimization level.

----------


## pabelfly

> And that's because both kinds of rogue can also get spells or spell-like abilities from rogue talents, certain feats, and witch hexes. Eldritch Scoundrel is definitely one of the better archetypes but not a full tier up.


I'm not sure if I'm on-board with that comparison. Eldritch Scoundrel gets the benefit of learning new spells as a Wizard (limited to 6ths). Taking Rogue talents, feats and so forth to get specific spells and spell-like abilities is good, but it's not nearly as flexible and usually much more limited in how often you can use them.

----------


## pabelfly

> Same deal with ES, it feels solidly T3 to me. Native 6th lvl casting, even if it doesn't have any bells and whistles, feels straightforward. Where PT is "absurd skills and some magic", this is "absurd magic and some skills and some SA".


So how does Chained ES Rogue and Unchained ES Rogue compare?



Current votes, by the way. If I get more votes for Phantom Thief and Sapper I'll add them in too.

*Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Unchained)*
Kurald Galain, Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna - 3.0

*Rogue (Unchained)*
Kurald Galain, Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna  - 3.0

*Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Chained)*
Kurald Galain, Gnaeus - 4.0

*Rogue (Chained)*
Kurald Galain, Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna - 4.0

----------


## Maat Mons

Some nitpicks about Phantom Thief.   It doesnt have all skills as class skills.  It has all skills _except Fly_ as class skills.  And it doesnt let you make wands, staves, or rods.  The benefit of Unchained Craft is limited to magic armor, magic weapons, magic rings, and wonderous items.  

It may be worth noting that a weaker form of magic item crafting is available to mundane of any class starting at level 5.  Its weaker in the sense that it can only ever apply to one craft skill and in the sense that it cant be used to make magic rings.  Nevertheless, Craft (Jewelry) is still a strong choice.  It gets you amulets, bracelets, brooches, circlets, crowns, medallions, necklaces, and periapts.  Though Craft (Clothing) might be stronger.  It gets you body wraps, capes, cassocks, cloaks, corsets, dusters, gloves, hats, headbands, hoods, jackets, mantels, robes, shawls, shirts, slippers, stoles, vestments, and vests.  

*Edit:* My votes so far
Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Unchained): 3
Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Chained): 3
Rogue (Unchained): 4
Rogue (Chained): not sure

----------


## AvatarVecna

> I'm not sure if I'm on-board with that comparison. Eldritch Scoundrel gets the benefit of learning new spells as a Wizard (limited to 6ths). Taking Rogue talents, feats and so forth to get specific spells and spell-like abilities is good, but it's not nearly as flexible and usually much more limited in how often you can use them.


Building on this by giving the actual examples.

Rogue Talents That Give Magic
Gloom Magic: 2/day "Darkness"
Greater Gloom Magic: 1/day "Deeper Darkness"
Innocent Facade: 1/day "Innocence"
Major Magic: 2/day [wizard lvl 1 spell of your choice]
Minor Magic: 3/day [wizard lvl 0 spell of your choice]
Wild Magic: 3/day [druid lvl 0 spell of your choice]

None of these can be taken more than once. Unless you are a phantom thief, in which case you can take Minor Magic and Major Magic as many times as you want (talent options allowing).

This is the level of magic available to non-Eldritch Scoundrel rogues. A rogue can spend two rogue talents to get 1 cantrip known (which is 3/day instead of at-will), and 1 1st lvl spell known (for which they have two slots). That's it. Period.

Rogue (Eldritch Scoundrel) learns and prepares spells the way a wizard does, and gains slot as a magus. Presuming a mere Int 12 and only a single measly class level, ES Rogue knows 30 cantrips and 4 1st lvl spells. Each day, ES rogue can prepare 3 of those cantrips, which can be cast at-will, and can prepare two slots worth of 1st lvl spells.

This is already leaps and bounds ahead of what a non-ES rogue would get from Minor Magic + Major Magic. And we're only 1st lvl.

It is not inaccurate to say "non-ES rogues get some magic". It's is transparently disingenuous to pretend they are even remotely comparable. Non-ES Rogues have a couple parlour tricks. Eldritch Scoundrels are lesser wizards.





> So how does Chained ES Rogue and Unchained ES Rogue compare?


I think it barely matters. I'll put it this way.

Chained Rogue:Damage: 6/10Skills: 9/10Magic: 2/10 (more because of UMD than talents)

Unchained Rogue:Damage: 7/10Skills: 10/10Magic: 2/10

Chained ES Rogue:Damage: 4/10Skills: 5/10Magic: 7/10

Unchained ES Rogue:Damage: 5/10Skills: 6/10Magic: 7/10

Unchained Rogue has slightly better damage and slightly better skills than chained rogue does. Eldritch Scoundrel, unchained or otherwise, is a rogue who has sacrificed damage and skills for magic. And because of the way the system works, magic just weighs more heavily than most things. Chained ES Rogue is a lower T3 than Unchained ES Rogue is, but that's splitting hairs. Unchained Rogue gets dex to damage, but both of them get disintegrate, so who cares? Unchained Rogue gets better access to things like Unchained Diplomacy. But both of them get access to Dominate Person, so who cares? Unchained Rogue is taking a -1 to perception per 60 ft of distance, but both of them get scrying, so who cares? We have access to the wizard list, there's basically nothing you're doing with skills (even unchained skills) that can't be done better with a spell somewhere. The sole thing I think Unchained ES has over Chained ES is "Unchained Heal", because healing is one of those things the wizard list doesn't do so well.




> Some nitpicks about Phantom Thief.   It doesnt have all skills as class skills.  It has all skills _except Fly_ as class skills.  And it doesnt let you make wands, staves, or rods.  The benefit of Unchained Craft is limited to magic armor, magic weapons, magic rings, and wonderous items.  
> 
> It may be worth noting that a weaker form of magic item crafting is available to mundane of any class starting at level 5.  Its weaker in the sense that it can only ever apply to one craft skill and in the sense that it cant be used to make magic rings.  Nevertheless, Craft (Jewelry) is still a strong choice.  It gets you amulets, bracelets, brooches, circlets, crowns, medallions, necklaces, and periapts.  Though Craft (Clothing) might be stronger.  It gets you body wraps, capes, cassocks, cloaks, corsets, dusters, gloves, hats, headbands, hoods, jackets, mantels, robes, shawls, shirts, slippers, stoles, vestments, and vests.


These nitpicks are fair, although limited to making relevant wondrous items (and some other stuff) isn't all that limiting. Can't literally make wands, though, that's true. It's kinda fair, although I think it's weird that you can't use Unchained Craft/Alchemy to make potions.

----------


## Gnaeus

I am convinced by argument that Chained ES is also 3. Probably near bottom of 3. And with a very limited role that wouldn't be better done by something else (like wizard or magus). But its probably impossible to have 6 level casting from open access to cleric or wizard list and not hit 3.

----------


## AvatarVecna

> And with a very limited role that wouldn't be better done by something else (like wizard or magus).


I mean, a classes tier should be independent of whether others do their job better. We can't make "would this role be better filled by a wizard" one of our criteria, or basically everything would be tier 2 (where tiers are defined as "wizard" and "why aren't you playing wizard instead").  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Gnaeus

> I mean, a classes tier should be independent of whether others do their job better. We can't make "would this role be better filled by a wizard" one of our criteria, or basically everything would be tier 2 (where tiers are defined as "wizard" and "why aren't you playing wizard instead").


Not really. Can a wizard fight better than a magus, like by chain employing planar binding to call up 50 outsiders? yes. But a wizard can't really do what a magus does in a game as well as a magus. It isn't actually very good at mixing spells and melee combat. Chained ES is basically just a bad wizard. It doesn't actually seem to me to have a meaningful role, other than "Be a wizard if the DM has banned T1s and 2s." Thats pretty unusual for T3s, who usually carve out something they are good at. Is a Sorcerer better than my Silksworn Occultist? Yeah. But I can point to real meaningful things the Occultist does better. ES would also be a T3 as a commoner with 6 level wizard casting, and its change in 0 meaningful ways. If it were an expert with 6 level wizard casting, it would arguably be better.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Chained ES Rogue is a lower T3 than Unchained ES Rogue is, but that's splitting hairs. Unchained Rogue gets dex to damage, but both of them get disintegrate, so who cares? Unchained Rogue gets better access to things like Unchained Diplomacy. But both of them get access to Dominate Person, so who cares?


It strikes me that you're arguing from theory now and losing touch with actual gameplay. A 5th level Unchained Rogue gets dex to damage where 5th level chained ES does not, and _that matters_ because *neither of them* gets disintegrate. A 10th level Unchained Rogue gets unchained diplomacy and chained ES does not, and _that matters_ because *neither of them* has dominate person. This is not splitting hairs, it's taking account of the levels people commonly play at.




> Not really. Can a wizard fight better than a magus, like by chain employing planar binding to call up 50 outsiders? yes. But a wizard can't really do what a magus does in a game as well as a magus. It isn't actually very good at mixing spells and melee combat.


That's another example. At most levels that people actually play at, neither wizard nor magus can use chain planar binding. So that the magus can fight much better than the wizard _matters_. Maybe not at level 20, but campaigns don't usually play at level 20 anyway.

----------


## Gnaeus

> That's another example. At most levels that people actually play at, neither wizard nor magus can use chain planar binding. So that the magus can fight much better than the wizard _matters_. Maybe not at level 20, but campaigns don't usually play at level 20 anyway.


A wizard could PB 100 outsiders at level 11, or lesser PB 100 outsiders at 9. I don't think that is outside the levels that see play. Outside the table expectations that see play perhaps. But that includes most of the tricks that people point to for T1 supremacy. He can also fight better by employing 28+ HD of animated monster skeletons backed up by summons at level 7. What he can't do is gish nearly as well.

----------


## AvatarVecna

> It strikes me that you're arguing from theory now and losing touch with actual gameplay. A 5th level Unchained Rogue gets dex to damage where 5th level chained ES does not, and _that matters_ because *neither of them* gets disintegrate. A 10th level Unchained Rogue gets unchained diplomacy and chained ES does not, and _that matters_ because *neither of them* has dominate person. This is not splitting hairs, it's taking account of the levels people commonly play at.


The extreme examples are extreme, but the spellcasting doesn't just turn on and start being good at lvl 20, and you know it. The archetype moving the rogue in general away from focus as a melee damage dealer makes the melee damage it does get matter less. That's just a fact. All tiering is theoretical because we have to square with what the class is capable of. We can't say wizard is T4 because that one time my buddy played a wizard and just took all blasting spells. That's not the point of tiering things.

ES Rogue 5, regardless of chain status, has 2nd lvl spells. It's only a couple slots a day, but it's their highest level spells, and they're gonna get used for combat stuff. They have the same attack bonus, the same rapier, the same single die of SA. They're making one attack a round dealing 2d6 damage avg 7 (2d6+4 avg 11 in the case of the unchained). It's a ~57% damage boost at absolute best, and that's after we got rid of half the SA to give it a chance to matter, and it's sticking to low levels when the non-dex damage is at its lowest. And that's assuming no combat spells instead of attacks. Cast something like Flaming Sphere twice a day (which they can do, assuming Int 14 on an Int-based caster), and assuming 8 fights a day that are 5 rounds each (that feels generous), we've got 32 rounds of attacks and 8 rounds of attack+fire. 104d6 (avg 364) vs 104d6+160 (avg 524). Two combat spells and we're at the "damage +dex" being knocked down to ~44% extra damage instead. If the day is shorter (say, 6 fights of 4 rounds each, still a lil generous IME), it's 72d6 (avg 252) vs 72d6+96 (avg 348), and now it's ~38%. The unchained one can use Diplomacy in 5 rounds instead of 10? That's something? I mean, it's not combat viable, so it's still gonna happen in narrative time, where the difference between 5 rounds and 1 minute is negligible. Oh and you're a lvl 5 non-phantom thief, so that's your only unchained skill. You might have a second one if you took Signature Skill.

Fast forward to ES Rogue 7, when 3rd lvl spells come online. Now it's one attack dealing 3d6+1 or 3d6+6 per round (I think a +1 weapon and a Dex +2 item is quite affordable at this level). If we do no blasting, we're looking at a long 40-round day of 120d6+40 (460) vs 120d6+240 (660) for a 43% advantage. If we have a less long 24-round day, and we use a fireball (only one, Int 16 might be reaching, and let's say 4 targets each), we're looking at 97d6+23 (362.5) vs 97d6+138 (477.5), for a 32% advantage. If we've got the good Int, make that 122d6+22 (449) vs 122d6+132 (559), for a 24% advantage. Still no combat-viable diplomacy.

Fast forward to ES Rogue 10, when 4th lvl spells come online. Two attacks dealing 3d6+1 or 3d6+6 per round. 40-round day with no blasting is 240d6+80 (920) vs 240d6+480 (1320), 43%. 24-round with a blasting spell (say...Fireballing 4 people twice), and now it's 212d6+44 (786) vs 212d6+264 (1006), 28%. They've both got Charm Monster now, and the unchained one has combat-viable diplomacy! Sort of viable? It's at -10 to the check, but that's probably doable, Diplomacy isn't hard to break. You'll probably get better milage out of the duration boost to your normal diplomacy though, especially since the combat diplomacy is only shifting two steps (so you can make an enemy indifferent, but not friendly). It's still definitely an upside, though. You also have a second skill unlock from class. You could now have as many as 5 if that's what you aimed for! Of course most of them haven't gotten to the good stuff yet.

Blasting is generally awful, but for either build using a couple blasting spells each day is still a good idea.



And the part of all this that's the most "in theory instead of in practice" is how long the days are, which is currently in favor of the unchained. My experience has tended more towards a few short combats a day, because most DMs and players don't have the patience to do the song-and-dance for the half-dozen gimme encounters that the books assume you'll be doing...except skipping all those rebalances things in favor of casting, because they're actually supposed to be an endurance test chewing through HP and healing and low level blasts. Why bother doing tests of endurance against easy enemies, that's boring! Let's have one big fight today that uses all our resources. Oops looks like casting matters more than everything else combined.

You don't have to like it, but that's the reality for far more tables than it's not. Time is a precious resource and neither DMs nor players are going to feel a burning need to spend the vast majority of their gaming time fighting encounters whose mechanics are boring, outcomes are inevitable, and whose stakes are rock-bottom. Time is precious, and if we're gonna spend it on combat instead of roleplay, we need to go big. And in that kind of environment, the one I've seen at table after table, physical or digital, the fact that one of these middling casters has dex to damage on their melee attacks is, at absolute best, kinda neat. It doesn't change the fact that a basic bitch fighter build will be doing much better than you on daily damage (and will be, himself, doing much worse than a real rogue). Surprise surprise: when you gave up half your SA damage, you stopped mainly being a weapon user. You are now a middling gish with some secondhand spellcasting and a few good skills. Dex to damage doesn't substantially change what you do or how good you are at it. It makes you a bit better at the thing you do when you wanna save your spell slots for something more important. Congrats on dealing 3d6+6 damage to that bandit instead of just 3d6+1! I mean he's dead either way, but still! Congrats on dealing 3d6+6 damage per attack to that dragon instead of just 3d6+1! I mean, it has 200 hit points, and you've got two buddies who focus on damage, so you needed to deal 70. It only took you 5 rounds instead of 6, that's...something. Of course, would've taken 4 if you'd used a spell...maybe even 3.

Unchained skills are helpful but they improve slowly and you don't get that many of them: since Eldritch Scoundrels definitionally can't be Phantom Thieves too, they don't get skill unlocks 50% faster than normal, nor do they get anywhere near as many. Unchained Diplomacy can be used at lvl 10 to try and bump somebody's attitude two steps if you can hit the DC with a -10 penalty, but it really becomes combat viable at lvl 15, when your check is better and the penalty is completely gone. Except at lvl 15, both ES have access to Dominate Monster, and have had such access for a couple levels now. So actually yes, it's very comparable.

----------


## pabelfly

I probably should have made it that people can give votes other than straight 3, 4, or 5, in case people thought otherwise. When someone says, say, "mid tier 3" or "low tier 3" it's difficult to parse that into a concrete number, and I'd like to be able to. I also think it would be helpful when there will be a lot of entries in each tier.

----------


## Endless Rain

I vote that they both be put in Tier 4, with Core Rogue near the bottom and Unchained Rogue near the top. The Core Rogue isn't any worse than its 3.5 incarnation, which is generally agreed upon as Tier 4. The Unchained Rogue, while it's a strict upgrade, doesn't add enough new stuff to put it up to Tier 3.

----------


## pabelfly

Current votes and averages. If you want to give a more specific number than what I've recorded, feel free to let me know so I can update it:

*Rogue (Unchained)
*Kurald Galain, Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna - 3.0
Maat Mons, Endless Rain  4.0

Average  3.4

*Rogue (Chained)
*Kurald Galain, Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna, Endless Rain - 4.0

Average  4.0

*Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Unchained)
*Kurald Galain, Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna, Maat Mons - 3.0

Average  3.0

*Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Chained)
*Maat Mons, Gnaeus  3.0
Kurald Galain  4.0

Average  3.3

----------


## AvatarVecna

> I probably should have made it that people can give votes other than straight 3, 4, or 5, in case people thought otherwise. When someone says, say, "mid tier 3" or "low tier 3" it's difficult to parse that into a concrete number, and I'd like to be able to. I also think it would be helpful when there will be a lot of entries in each tier.


Part of it is just how few people care to participate in these threads. If we had a few dozen people weighing in, the balance between people thinking 3 and people thinking 4 would probably end up with each one about where they're supposed to be. But if it were just me, I'd wanna be as accurate as possible to my opinion on things - just saying "normal is T4 regardless of Chain, ES is T3 regardless of chain" isn't acknowledging the slight damage change, the debuffs on SA, or the utility of skill unlocks. If it were just me, I'd try to give a decimal. And while it's not just me, it's close enough to just me that I'll do that.




> Current votes and averages. If you want to give a more specific number than what I've recorded, feel free to let me know so I can update it:
> 
> *Rogue (Unchained)
> *Kurald Galain, Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna - 3.0
> Maat Mons, Endless Rain  4.0
> 
> Average  3.4
> 
> *Rogue (Chained)
> ...


Chained Rogue: 4.3
Unchained Rogue: 3.7
Chained Rogue (ES): 3.3
Unchained Rogue (ES): 3.0

Explanation: unchained Rogue goes harder on skills and meleeing than Chained Rogue does, so Eldritch Scoundrel kneecapping both means it's not boosting Unchained as much as it does Chained. End result: in my eyes, Chained is low T4, Unchained is high T4, Chained ES is low T3, and Unchained ES is mid T3.

EDIT: For the archetypes I suggested myself...

Chained Rogue (PT): 3.3
Unchained Rogue (PT): 3.0

Explanation: Phantom Thief grants the same number of skill unlocks to both chained and unchained, but there are two key differences. First, chained had no skill unlocks to begin with, so going from none to some is bigger than going from some to some more. Secondly, while the archetype doesn't technically take away Debilitating Injury, you can't use DI if you can't make sneak attacks, so Phantom Thief is more costly to the unchained rogue. In the early game, Phantom Thief will have better magic access than normal rogues (although still not as good as ES rogues), which should cover them until 7th/10th when they start getting the really good skill unlocks. With lvl 14 bringing some truly abusable unlocks (at-will* suggestion, AoE "cowering/panicked for several rounds" debuff, crafting your own magic items, absurd nonmagical healing if you can get around the action economy issue), it stays a strong support option in the late-game.

Chained Rogue (Sapper): 4.7
Unchained Rogue (Sapper): 4.0

Explanation: The loss of your first two rogue talents to nonsense will haunt you your whole career, and you will spend the entire campaign playing catch up. The piddling abilities this archetype grants do not make up for what they cost you. Eldritch Scoundrel stole 5 of your rogue talents across the whole 20-level spread, but gave you 6th lvl casting. That's a pretty good deal, even if it cost other things too. Sapper rogue stole 2 of your talents and literally gave you pocket change. It's absolutely terrible. Unchained Rogue is already on the verge of being T3 instead of T4, so being slightly worse isn't gonna give it a tier change. But chained rogue was on the edge of being T5 instead of T4, and I think Sapper takes it over that edge.

----------


## TotallyNotEvil

Going to say both versions are *3.0* if Eldritch Scoundrel, unarchetyped Unchained is *3.5*, baseline is *4.0*.

If no-decimal isn't allowed, I will say Unchained is T4.

IMO, baseline Chained Rogue is definitely *not* T5.

----------


## pabelfly

> EDIT: For the archetypes I suggested myself...
> 
> Chained Rogue (PT): 3.3
> Unchained Rogue (PT): 3.0
> 
> Explanation: Phantom Thief grants the same number of skill unlocks to both chained and unchained, but there are two key differences. First, chained had no skill unlocks to begin with, so going from none to some is bigger than going from some to some more. Secondly, while the archetype doesn't technically take away Debilitating Injury, you can't use DI if you can't make sneak attacks, so Phantom Thief is more costly to the unchained rogue. In the early game, Phantom Thief will have better magic access than normal rogues (although still not as good as ES rogues), which should cover them until 7th/10th when they start getting the really good skill unlocks. With lvl 14 bringing some truly abusable unlocks (at-will* suggestion, AoE "cowering/panicked for several rounds" debuff, crafting your own magic items, absurd nonmagical healing if you can get around the action economy issue), it stays a strong support option in the late-game.
> 
> Chained Rogue (Sapper): 4.7
> Unchained Rogue (Sapper): 4.0
> ...


Anyone else want to weigh in on these two archetypes? I'd like a few votes on specific archetypes before I specifically start tiering them.



Updates on votes:

*Rogue (Unchained)
*Kurald Galain, Gnaeus  3.0
Avatar Vecna  3.7
Maat Mons, Endless Rain  4.0

Average  3.54

*Rogue (Chained)*
Avatar Vecna  3.7
Kurald Galain, Gnaeus, Endless Rain, Totally Not Evil - 4.0

Average  3.9	

*Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Unchained)
*Kurald Galain, Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna, Maat Mons, Totally Not Evil - 3.0

Average  3.0

*Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Chained)
*Maat Mons, Gnaeus, Totally Not Evil  3.0
Avatar Vecna  3.3
Kurald Galain  4.0

Average  3.26

----------


## Darvin

Phantom Thief belongs in tier 5 in my view. It does have some cool things going for it with skill unlocks, and I can see the reasoning for why it would be worthy of attention here, but ultimately it's a 3/4 BAB non-caster with no class features to help it be an effective combatant. It's going to be a liability to the party in _way_ too many situations, and the fact that it has some unique problem-solving tools doesn't compensate for that. 

For Eldritch Scoundrel with chained Rogue, I actually don't even see it as a Rogue. I'd more view it as a gimped Wizard who was given a few Rogue class features as compensation. And a Wizard who is gimped down to 6-level casting is still a T3 class in my view.

----------


## pabelfly

> Phantom Thief belongs in tier 5 in my view. It does have some cool things going for it with skill unlocks, and I can see the reasoning for why it would be worthy of attention here, but ultimately it's a 3/4 BAB non-caster with no class features to help it be an effective combatant.


You can pick up a Combat Trick every time you can pick a Rogue Talent though. So you've basically traded full BAB and the various combat-related stat bonuses Fighter has for 3/4 BAB, a better skill list, much more skills, and really decent skill bonuses. That sounds more like a Tier 4 than Tier 5 to me, but I'm willing to listen to other opinions.

----------


## Kurald Galain

For archetypes that are really bad, I'm more inclined to open a different thread to "poke fun at archetypes that suck" or something. I don't think they deserve the extra attention of having a whole different line to themselves in a list of classes.

----------


## AvatarVecna

> You can pick up a Combat Trick every time you can pick a Rogue Talent though. So you've basically traded full BAB and the various combat-related stat bonuses Fighter has for 3/4 BAB, a better skill list, much more skills, and really decent skill bonuses. That sounds more like a Tier 4 than Tier 5 to me, but I'm willing to listen to other opinions.


I can kinda see where they're coming from regarding it possibly being T5. Phantom Thief's upside is at lvl 7, 10, and 14, it gets really really cool abilities with the right choices. The downside to Phantom Thief is, if you're not starting at lvl 7 or higher, there's not really anything to do. If the only thing you really have going for you is skill bonuses, those skill bonuses need to be utterly absurd. And at lvl 6, all you really have is +3 to three different skills from class, and the first skill unlock level for 3 skills (4 if you're an unchained PT). Assuming unlocked Heal and Healer's Hands, you have a 6/day full round action "heal a party member for 12 HP and also for 2 ability damage per attribute". But 72 HP of healing per day is less than it sounds, and even if you do that as often as possible during combat, that still leaves quite a few combat rounds where you're essentially a Fighter will medium BAB and d8 HD. For comparison, a NG cleric 6 with Wis 17 who happens to convert all their slots to cures is looking at healing 27d8+79 damage per day, average 200.5 damage. This is without touching Channel Energy, which gives probably 3 uses of an AoE 3d6 heal. In a typical five-man band, that's gonna be another 45d6 healing avg 157.5, bringing your daily average as high as 358.

Sure, that gets better at lvl 7, and then better again at lvl 10. PT 7 can try to use diplomacy in 1 round (at a -10 penalty, but still). They've got a low chance of removing one combatant from the fight each turn - that's not nothing. But until 7th lvl, they can't do that. It's fine to say that a PT 14 has the equivalent of a bunch of crafting feats with good skill bonuses and can craft magic items thrice as fast as normal, and they have at-will suggestion, but before then, they've just made craft a slightly less awful way of making money, and bluffs are easier to pull off against people who have already caught you lying. At lvl 10, you can talk someone down each round without a penalty on the check (so you'll probably succeed), and you have a 10/day full round action to heal someone for 60 HP and 6 ability damage per hit die. That's some solid burst healing. NG Cleric 10 with Wis 20 is looking at 73d8+100d6+390 (average 1068.5). That's honestly doing pretty great, if a cleric has to spend most of their spell slots on healing to outpace you. And that's all well and good...at lvl 10.

If the game starts at lvl 1, phantom thief is gonna be a drag on the party. If the game starts at lvl 4, they can do some mild participation, but they're still dead weight in a fight (especially since we're not high enough level for UMD to matter yet). At lvl 7, unlocks are starting to get good, and group might have some good wands. At lvl 10, you're coming into your own as a solid support character with some UMD. At lvl 14, you have item crafting, multiple at-will mind control options, AoE debuffs, and are putting up tryhard cleric numbers for healing; you're essentially a caster by a different method.

But those first 6 levels are rough.

----------


## Kurald Galain

Regarding the Phantom Thief, I'm not convinced that making him craft at level 14 is substantially better than any caster taking Craft Wondrous Item at level 3.

And unfortunately, the diplomacy rules mention that it's "generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future", and the skill unlock doesn't override that.

Really, if you want to remove one enemy from combat each round, I'd go with Sylvan Trickster with the Sleep hex at level 2 and Ice Tomb at level 10; the latter isn't even mind-affecting.

----------


## AvatarVecna

> Regarding the Phantom Thief, I'm not convinced that making him craft at level 14 is substantially better than any caster taking Craft Wondrous Item at level 3.
> 
> And unfortunately, the diplomacy rules mention that it's "generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future", and the skill unlock doesn't override that.
> 
> Really, if you want to remove one enemy from combat each round, I'd go with Sylvan Trickster with the Sleep hex at level 2 and Ice Tomb at level 10; the latter isn't even mind-affecting.


"Generally ineffective"

Sounds like a case of general vs specific. There's little point to diplomacy that can be used in 1 round instead of 5 if they're both happening in narrative time, unless the intent is to allow the possibility of in-combat Diplomacy. Being an at-will option is also nice.

----------


## pabelfly

> For archetypes that are really bad, I'm more inclined to open a different thread to "poke fun at archetypes that suck" or something. I don't think they deserve the extra attention of having a whole different line to themselves in a list of classes.


Sounds like a fun thread idea, so here you go: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...pes&p=25589202

----------


## AvatarVecna

> Regarding the Phantom Thief, I'm not convinced that making him craft at level 14 is substantially better than any caster taking Craft Wondrous Item at level 3.
> 
> And unfortunately, the diplomacy rules mention that it's "generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future", and the skill unlock doesn't override that.
> 
> Really, if you want to remove one enemy from combat each round, I'd go with Sylvan Trickster with the Sleep hex at level 2 and Ice Tomb at level 10; the latter isn't even mind-affecting.


As far as the crafting goes, "casters do it better" isn't a good argument for tiers, because rogue can't do it normally. Casters can always do it better, that doesn't make everything T6.

If you wanna compare to how rogue could sink two feats into Master Craftsman (Craft Wondrous) and do it at lvl 5 for a small section of items, that's a better comparison and there's an argument to be made. However, even then there's something in Phantom Thief's favor: Master Craftsman crafts magic items at normal crafting costs (50% up front, 1000 gp/day of progress), while Unchained Craft rank 4 lets you use the nonmagic craft rules as the guide for making magic items. That means crafting for 33% up front, and making ([check result] x [DC] x 1.4) gp/day. This is slower than normal magic item crafting up until you hit +60, then every additional +1 is making you faster. Not that +60 is impossible to hit, but it's also definitely not the kind of thing you'll be doing for 7 different craft skills. Still, paying 1/3 market price instead of 1/2 market price for items you make/upgrade yourself is pretty nice, and if you get a good enough bonus, you'll be crafting them even faster than normal.

Coming online at lvl 14 is a big downside though. Before that, master craftsman is the way to go, and two feats is a hefty price. And, once again, phantom thief is kinda having that problem where until it gets MC and can theoretically craft items (which the casters can too, but they can only go so fast, so another person crafting magic items is of value anyway), the first four levels still really suck. And then when you hit lvl 14, the two feats are essentially wasted because unchained craft is better. Does PF have retraining rules?

----------


## Maat Mons

Pathfinder does have retraining rules.  Im especially fond of the HP retraining rules.  If youve got enough downtime, youll eventually get your HP up to what it would have been if youd rolled max on every die.  Archetype retraining could also be nice, if there are archetypes youre interested in that are only good in certain level ranges.  

On the subject of using Phantom Thief with Chained Rogue, all the skill unlock stuff is in a sentence that starts if the Phantom Thief is an Unchained Rogue, so the Chained Rogue just doesnt get as much out of the archetype.

----------


## spectralphoenix

As a practical matter, I think most would-be Eldritch Scoundrels would be better off taking a single level of Unchained Rogue for the SA die, trapfinding, class skills, and Weapon Finesse, then just going Magus.

----------


## Gnaeus

> Pathfinder does have retraining rules.  Im especially fond of the HP retraining rules.  If youve got enough downtime, youll eventually get your HP up to what it would have been if youd rolled max on every die.  Archetype retraining could also be nice, if there are archetypes youre interested in that are only good in certain level ranges.


That's true, but that if you have the downtime (and spend it on this rather than something else) is not always a trivial qualification. Retraining to me seems like something you should be aware of but not rely on in tier discussions.

----------


## Kitsuneymg

> In my view,
> Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Unchained): 3.0
> Rogue (Unchained): 3.0
> Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Chained): 4.0
> Rogue (Chained): 4.0
> 
> And that's because both kinds of rogue can also get spells or spell-like abilities from rogue talents, certain feats, and witch hexes. Eldritch Scoundrel is definitely one of the better archetypes but not a full tier up.
> 
> 
> ...


Its a bunch of small things. Tumble dc is higher in PF, so youre flanking less easily. skill consolidation means 8 skill points are not as valuable in PF as they are in 3.5 (4 + FCB is enough.) its easier to break trap finding niche protection. Grease/balancing doesnt flat foot and acrobatics/athletics consolidation means more monsters make the grease check anyway. Explicit splash damage doesnt proc sneak attack. Explicit first attack breaks stealth. These minor changes make the base rogue just kinda too tilted towards skills (over invested) at the cost of other things. 

Or so the reasoning goes.

----------


## Darvin

> You can pick up a Combat Trick every time you can pick a Rogue Talent though. So you've basically traded full BAB and the various combat-related stat bonuses Fighter has for 3/4 BAB, a better skill list, much more skills, and really decent skill bonuses. That sounds more like a Tier 4 than Tier 5 to me, but I'm willing to listen to other opinions.


Pathfinder Fighters are more than just BAB plus bonus feats. Advanced Armor Training and Advanced Weapon Training alone make the unarchetyped Fighter a force to be reckoned with, and with powerful archetypes of his own the Fighter is bringing _a lot_ to the table. For instance, with the Lore Warden archetype plus Versatile Training AWT, a Fighter can effectively reach 6+Int skills with a good class skill list. Very little investment and you've got a skill monkey Fighter.




> I can kinda see where they're coming from regarding it possibly being T5. Phantom Thief's upside is at lvl 7, 10, and 14, it gets really really cool abilities with the right choices.


I just don't see those abilities as being good enough to carry the entire class. Having an at-will 3rd level spell at level 14 is fine, but the DC is mediocre and if you're up against enemies with strong will saves it's going to fail most of the time. These are great options to have, but they don't carry a whole class.




> As a practical matter, I think most would-be Eldritch Scoundrels would be better off taking a single level of Unchained Rogue for the SA die, trapfinding, class skills, and Weapon Finesse, then just going Magus.


Magus has a _significantly_ worse spell list, easily the worst 6-level list in the game. You could spend every Magus Arcana on poaching spells from the Wizard list and you'd barely be scratching the surface of all the good stuff you're missing. We're talking stuff like Protection from Evil, Ears of the City, Shadow Conjuration, Silent Image spell line, literally any Enchantment spell (seriously, Magus spell list has _no_ Enchantment), Animate Dead, Scrying, Lesser Planar Binding, etc

You also don't get Ninja Tricks by doing that, you'd need 3 levels of Rogue to get to Deadly Finesse, and 4 to get to Debilitating Strike. You're also locked into a one-handed weapon going the Magus route (whereas Unchained Rogue can go with something like Estoc or Elven Curve Blade). Magus is definitely the better choice if you just want a strong combatant, but Eldritch Scoundrel offers _a lot_ of stuff that Magus just doesn't do.

----------


## Rynjin

> I'd say that comes from people that assume the PF rogue has the same restrictions and limitations as the 3E rogue, the latter of which _is_ tier 5. (edit: I'm misremembering and 3E's rogue is actually T4; I am baffled why people think PF's version is somehow a downgrade to that).


It's "worse" because you're not comparing how much stronger Rogue got between 3.5 and Pathfinder, you're comparing it to the other classes in the game.

While the Pathfinder Core Rogue is notably better than the 3.5 Core Rogue, it is also completely and utterly pointless in PF compared to 3.5. While the class is miserable in 3.5 at least it arguably has a reason to exist as resident Trapfinder and general skill monkey.

Core Rogue doesn't even have that, as class skills in general are easier to acquire and Trapfinding is available via multiple means, from archetype abilities to spells to even a (Campaign specific) Trait.

Core Rogue is a class nobody should play for any reason, similar to an NPC class, hence why it belongs in tier 5. It genuinely has no redeeming qualities. It was awful when Core was the only rulebook, and got worse over time as more books were released, unlike Core Monk which started off as the worst class in the game and actually got enough splat support to dig itself out of the gutter with enough optimization. Core Rogue never got that. Instead it got literally replaced.

Core Rogue, arguably, shouldn't even be considered a class. It was basically errata'd out of existence. For all its flaws, you can't say that about the 3.5 Rogue.

...Also I think in part it got bumped down from T4 because a T6 was added for...some reason? I'm pretty sure "Commoner tier" was Tier 5 in 3.5, not sure why a T6 was added to the Pathfinder list.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Grease/balancing doesnt flat foot and acrobatics/athletics consolidation means more monsters make the grease check anyway.


I've never seen anybody use Grease for enabling sneak attacks, except in theory op. Rogues usually sneak attack by flanking (both in 3E and in PF) and in most parties that isn't hard to set up. But yes, if you have a small party and/or are the sole frontliner, then you shouldn't bring a rogue.




> While the class is miserable in 3.5 at least it arguably has a reason to exist as resident Trapfinder and general skill monkey.


While I agree that "skill monkey" shouldn't be considered a party role, to me the rogue's saving grace is its Sneak Attack mechanic (which is both fun and pretty effective), certain rogue talents, and a long list of archetypes with some rather unusual abilities.
Frankly, I'd rather have a chained Rogue in the party than, say, a chained monk, gunslinger, or kinny.




> Magus has a _significantly_ worse spell list, easily the worst 6-level list in the game.


It's much better than you think" the Magus's list probably the most diverse of all 6-level casters. You get anything from Dispel, Silent/Minor/Major Image, the full Polymorph line, Teleport, Mount, Shared Training, True Seeing, and Mask from Divination. That's second only to the wizard's in terms of overall utility, and there's archetypes that add psychic spells or the full bard list if you want more.
Sure, the wizard list is stronger; but in terms of spellcasting I'll take a Magus over a hunter or investigator any day.

----------


## Darvin

> It's much better than you think" the Magus's list probably the most diverse of all 6-level casters. You get anything from Dispel, Silent/Minor/Major Image, the full Polymorph line, Teleport, Mount, Shared Training, True Seeing, and Mask from Divination. That's second only to the wizard's in terms of overall utility, and there's archetypes that add psychic spells or the full bard list if you want more.


I keep forgetting that Hunter exists. Definitely a forgettable class, and the spell list does it no favors. So I'll retract my statement about Magus being the worst 6-level caster (with regards to extracts, I wouldn't consider that proper spellcasting in the first place. Due to being in potion form their effects are necessarily much more limited). 

Still, calling it "second only to the Wizard" is a gross overstatement. At very minimum the Chained Summoner has the best 6-level list by a significant margin, and personally I'd put Bard, Inquisitor, and Occultist well ahead of Magus for utility options. While it definitely does have good utility options that are relatively harder to come by, I wouldn't put Dispel Magic or Shared Training on that list. Those have fairly wide distribution.

As to the archetypes you're referring to, the Puppeteer in particular exchanges the Magus list for the Bard list rather than doing any mergin. However, it's not really a Magus at all since it trades out almost every class feature. No spellstrike, no spell combat, no arcane pool weapon boosts, no casting in medium/heavy armor. Pretty much the _only_ thing that's left is Magus Arcana. It's really more of an NPC option, since its class feature gimmick is _really_ specialized. Falls into the trap of "if you want Bard spellcasting _that_ badly, then be a Bard"

----------


## Gnaeus

> ...Also I think in part it got bumped down from T4 because a T6 was added for...some reason? I'm pretty sure "Commoner tier" was Tier 5 in 3.5, not sure why a T6 was added to the Pathfinder list.


Absolutely untrue. T6 has always been a part of the tier system from its inception. In the original JaronK list it was commoner, warrior, aristocrat and CW Samurai.




> While the Pathfinder Core Rogue is notably better than the 3.5 Core Rogue, it is also completely and utterly pointless in PF compared to 3.5. While the class is miserable in 3.5 at least it arguably has a reason to exist as resident Trapfinder and general skill monkey.


There were better Trapfinders and general skill monkey in 3.5 (see beguiler) that didn't prevent rogue from being T4. There are also worse skillmonkeys in 3.5 which still broke T4 (scout, ninja, arguably spellthief) despite the presence of rogue.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> At very minimum the Chained Summoner has the best 6-level list by a significant margin,


Fair point about the chained summoner; everywhere I play that class was hard-banned seven years ago (when Unchained came out) so I forgot about its specifics.

But overall, looking at the spells that _aren't_ on a class list isn't a good indicator of how good that class is. Sure, the Magus doesn't get Charm Person, but then the Bard doesn't get Color Spray, and Inquisitor gets neither of them. Magus doesn't get Animate Dead, but Occultist doesn't get Monstrous Physique, Bard doesn't get Fly, Inquisitor doesn't get Haste, and so on.

Looking over the spells that _are_ on a class's list, I find it far easier to compile an effective and versatile spell list for a Magus than for a Bard or Inquisitor. Occultists have a good list on paper, but in practice they are sharply limited by their implements (e.g. an 8th-level occultist has to _ban four entire schools_ and can't even use scrolls for those).

----------


## AvatarVecna

> It's "worse" because you're not comparing how much stronger Rogue got between 3.5 and Pathfinder, you're comparing it to the other classes in the game.
> 
> While the Pathfinder Core Rogue is notably better than the 3.5 Core Rogue, it is also completely and utterly pointless in PF compared to 3.5. While the class is miserable in 3.5 at least it arguably has a reason to exist as resident Trapfinder and general skill monkey.
> 
> Core Rogue doesn't even have that, as class skills in general are easier to acquire and Trapfinding is available via multiple means, from archetype abilities to spells to even a (Campaign specific) Trait.
> 
> Core Rogue is a class nobody should play for any reason, similar to an NPC class, hence why it belongs in tier 5. It genuinely has no redeeming qualities. It was awful when Core was the only rulebook, and got worse over time as more books were released, unlike Core Monk which started off as the worst class in the game and actually got enough splat support to dig itself out of the gutter with enough optimization. Core Rogue never got that. Instead it got literally replaced.
> 
> Core Rogue, arguably, shouldn't even be considered a class. It was basically errata'd out of existence. For all its flaws, you can't say that about the 3.5 Rogue.
> ...


This is probably the silliest thing I've ever read. I've played four 3.5 rogues across an average of about ten levels each, and my experience was not "miserable", it was "haha sneak attack and skill points go BRRRRRRRR". I got to be awesome in and out of combat, while the barbarians and fighters got to be awesome during the fight but had very little to contribute otherwise. Rogue is probably a whole lot worse in a solo environment, where you have to work your ass off to get sneak attack reliably, but if you just stop being an edgy loner and get one (1) friend, you can have sneak attack forever, because the easiest way is just...flank. Just flank the enemy and you're golden. "Having friends" is the core conceit of the game, so assuming a rogue who never has buddies to flank with seems kinda silly to me. The only exception was one of the campaigns was undead-heavy for the second half, which did make me a whole lot less combat effective. When combat is such a big part of the game, losing your main source of damage really sucks, if only the game was change so that half the creature types in existence weren't immune to sneak attack...oh wait.

Rogue's always been tier 4 because it's a usually-reliable damage dealer and can have one of a number of skill roles (scout, trapmonkey, face) that are highly useful to the party. T4 in the original tier list, high T4 when dozens and dozens of people averaged their opinions on all the 3.5 classes.




> I've never seen anybody use Grease for enabling sneak attacks, except in theory op. Rogues usually sneak attack by flanking (both in 3E and in PF) and in most parties that isn't hard to set up. But yes, if you have a small party and/or are the sole frontliner, then you shouldn't bring a rogue.
> 
> While I agree that "skill monkey" shouldn't be considered a party role, to me the rogue's saving grace is its Sneak Attack mechanic (which is both fun and pretty effective), certain rogue talents, and a long list of archetypes with some rather unusual abilities.
> Frankly, I'd rather have a chained Rogue in the party than, say, a chained monk, gunslinger, or kinny.


I've had a lot of fun with a gunslinger, but otherwise I agree with this. And the reason for that was mostly that gunslinger was so effective at delivering damage reliably, that I didn't have to go 100% into delivering damage to be effective, I could branch out and take some fun feats and things to give him non-combat stuff. Otherwise though, I agree with this: most of the stuff I see people talking about on the forum as "the only way for 3.5 rogue to function" is stuff I've literally never seen in game, and yet still rogues have tended to be combat dominant in my experience. After accuracy is taken into account, they deal about as much damage as fighters and barbarians do (maybe a little less sometimes?), but it doesn't feel that way at the table, it feels like the barbarian is picking up one piddly little d12 and I, the rogue, cannot hold all the dice I need to roll for my damage roll.




> It's much better than you think" the Magus's list probably the most diverse of all 6-level casters. You get anything from Dispel, Silent/Minor/Major Image, the full Polymorph line, Teleport, Mount, Shared Training, True Seeing, and Mask from Divination. That's second only to the wizard's in terms of overall utility, and there's archetypes that add psychic spells or the full bard list if you want more.
> Sure, the wizard list is stronger; but in terms of spellcasting I'll take a Magus over a hunter or investigator any day.


Agreed. Magus has a strong list that mostly doesn't get too much attention in theorycrafting cuz people are chasing stupid-high damage, but there's a lot of powerful utility in there, and spells that can dominate combats if you're creative.

----------


## Gnaeus

> Rogue is probably a whole lot worse in a solo environment, where you have to work your ass off to get sneak attack reliably, but if you just stop being an edgy loner and get one (1) friend, you can have sneak attack forever, because the easiest way is just...flank.


Agree with everything else. But in general I think Rogue is great for solo play. Sneaking past things you don't want to fight is also a win and not usually a thing a standard party of 4 can do. (even a party of 4 rogues, given the power of the RNG). Not to mention the added benefit to skills like disguise and UMD.

----------


## AvatarVecna

> Agree with everything else. But in general I think Rogue is great for solo play. Sneaking past things you don't want to fight is also a win and not usually a thing a standard party of 4 can do. (even a party of 4 rogues, given the power of the RNG). Not to mention the added benefit to skills like disguise and UMD.


I think a party of four rogues with stealth skills could sneak past enemies if they wanted to. To your point, a solo character probably has an easier time succeeding, but my point is more that failure hits harder on the solo rogue. I was also mostly talking about the sneak attack stuff: rogue's damage is dependent on either 1) abusing some niche parts of the system to reliably render somebody flat-footed for rounds on end so you can get your good damage while playing solo or playing way ahead of the party, or 2) having one friend in melee with you. All the stuff I see of people complaining about how hard it is to reliably get sneak attack for rounds on end are leaving out the part where it's only hard if you're looking at a solo rogue in a vacuum.

EDIT: Part of the issue with solo rogue is that while yeah, sneaking past is an option you have, it's generally gonna be your default. I feel that if a straight-up fight just isn't an option you can seriously consider, you're a good deal worse off. There is fun to be had playing a serial killer stalking people from the shadows, having to plan out a combat so that the surprise round is the only round. It can be fun playing the unseen danger lurking in every shadow. It is harder than the default, though.

EDIT: Final edit, rogue definitely has a better time in solo play than basically anybody else, I'll say that much.

----------


## Drelua

I don't really get the claim that Rogues are worse off in PF because skill points are less valuable, in 3.5 even 8+INT often wasn't enough to get all the skills it seems like a Rogue should have. You need hide and move silently to be a rogue, you should be aware so you need listen, search and spot, gotta be able to talk your way out of things, so bluff and diplomacy, probably want gather information too if you want to able to learn about targets, should be streetsmart so Knowledge (local). Being able to climb up to windows is great for a thief, and so is balance, and jump and tumble. Oh, and I almost forgot disable device and open locks, can't do without those.

That's 15 skills. [I forgot escape artist and sleight of hand, and am too tired to rewrite] A human rogue with 14 INT gets 11 per level, so they can either pick 4 of those to do without, or maybe pick 8 to put at half ranks. In PF, that list becomes 8 skills, so just about any Rogue can max all of those, and likely has skills left over for whatever they want. How is that not an improvement?

----------


## Rynjin

> if you just stop being an edgy loner and get one (1) friend, you can have sneak attack forever, because the easiest way is just...flank. Just flank the enemy and you're golden.


You can have 7 buddies who surround the enemy on all sides and you'll never flank your way out of not being able to Sneak Attack undead and constructs.




> In PF, that list becomes 8 skills, so just about any Rogue can max all of those, and likely has skills left over for whatever they want. How is that not an improvement?


It is.

The thing is, everyone else can do that too.

----------


## Drelua

> You can have 7 buddies who surround the enemy on all sides and you'll never flank your way out of not being able to Sneak Attack undead and constructs.


Except in PF, you can sneak attack undead and constructs. Only things immune to sneak attack are swarms, elementals, incorporeal, and oozes. That's not nothing, but it is a pretty small list. So that's a huge buff to Rogues.




> It is.
> 
> The thing is, everyone else can do that too.


Disagree, not everyone can max bluff, diplomacy, stealth, perception, disable device, knowledge (local), sleight of hand, sense motive (forgot that one too), and UMD, with ranks to spare. Most of my PF characters would benefit from more skill points, including my ranger. 

Even if they can, I'd rather be better at something other classes can do too than come up short on skills that feel like basic rogue abilities. And I think tiers are defined more as "what can you do?" than "what can you do that no one else can?" Skill consolidation and vastly reduced SA immunity made Rogues more effective in more situations, so as far as tiers are concerned I'm only seeing upgrades.

----------


## Rynjin

> Except in PF, you can sneak attack undead and constructs. Only things immune to sneak attack are swarms, elementals, incorporeal, and oozes. That's not nothing, but it is a pretty small list. So that's a huge buff to Rogues.


We were talking about 3.5 Rogues. PF Rogues have other issues, like their overall DPR being bad even with Sneak Attack.




> Disagree, not everyone can max bluff, diplomacy, stealth, perception, disable device, knowledge (local), sleight of hand, sense motive (forgot that one too), and UMD, with ranks to spare. Most of my PF characters would benefit from more skill points, including my ranger. 
> 
> Even if they can, I'd rather be better at something other classes can do too than come up short on skills that feel like basic rogue abilities. And I think tiers are defined more as "what can you do?" than "what can you do that no one else can?" Skill consolidation and vastly reduced SA immunity made Rogues more effective in more situations, so as far as tiers are concerned I'm only seeing upgrades.


Again, tiers are relative. You know what other Core class can do all that with ranks to spare? Bard.

Except a Bard also brings party-wide buffs, 6 levels of casting, and consolidation of a lot of skills to key off their primary stat (Cha). At a minimum.

Rogues got upgraded. They didn't get upgraded as much as other classes. The power floor of Pathfinder is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the power floor for 3.5, and Rogue doesn't make the cut.

The problem is that Rogues don't do anything "better" than other classes. They get nothing unique or interesting that makes them worth taking over another class. They are worse at skills than other skill monkeys. They're worse at damage than other damage dealers. They bring no additional utility that would make up for these deficits.

Their saves suck ass their accuracy is in the gutter, their general d8 HD/3/4 BaB chassis is ill-suited for being a primary melee combatant, they require specific aid to meet a baseline level of damage dealing matched or exceeded by other damage dealers, and on average fair worse against any CR appropriate monster than most other classes in the game.

Both from a comparison standpoint and a standalone "how does this fare against published content" standpoint, Rogues are subpar to say the least.

They're certainly nowhere near the level of a Fighter, which even in Core was able to perform at a high level in its one niche (whackin' monsters with a stick) and got a lot of support later to make them a more well-rounded and powerful class.

You know what Rogue got outside of Core? Replaced.

And that's something that, again, can't be ignored. There's at least one class in the game that does every single thing a Rogue can do, no exceptions, AND MORE. There's no slight value variation of "Well sure the Investigator gets better skills, better saves, magic, and better combat ability but the Rogue at least gets full progression Sneak Attack" to fall back on.

The Unchained Rogue has, quite literally, access to the exact same class features and options as a Core Rogue, but also has additional class features on top.

Core Rogue is a deprecated class. It has no reason to exist or, again, to even really be mentioned on a tier list except as a novelty. It was _replaced_. Not even the other Unchained classes do that.

----------


## Gnaeus

> Core Rogue is a deprecated class. It has no reason to exist or, again, to even really be mentioned on a tier list except as a novelty. It was _replaced_. Not even the other Unchained classes do that.


Is unchained rogue better than basic rogue? Unquestionably. That doesn't speak to the tier of Rogue, except to say that unchained rogue is better. What if you are playing in a game with core only? It should still be evaluated. What if you are in a limited gestalt where you can gestalt low tier classes? The existence of unchained rogue is entirely irrelevant to the tier of the chained one. Bard and Investigator are both (almost certainly, haven't gotten there yet) T3. They can be better while not precluding Rogue from being T4.

----------


## Rynjin

That's sort of the thing though. Even in those hypothetical scenarios, Rogue is as weak as a PC class can get. The only class in Core that's weaker than Rogue is the Core Monk, and even that only holds if you're running a TRULY Core game, because Monk actually got pretty good with enough splat support; Rogue never did until UnRogue came out.

There is no reasonable argument for tiering Rogue higher than ANY other class in the game. Tiering them higher than eg. a Kineticist is absolutely absurd. It is exactly the baseline for how bad a PC class can be. There is no class in Core or splat that matters as little as a Rogue.

----------


## Drelua

> That's sort of the thing though. Even in those hypothetical scenarios, Rogue is as weak as a PC class can get. The only class in Core that's weaker than Rogue is the Core Monk, and even that only holds if you're running a TRULY Core game, because Monk actually got pretty good with enough splat support; Rogue never did until UnRogue came out.
> 
> There is no reasonable argument for tiering Rogue higher than ANY other class in the game. Tiering them higher than eg. a Kineticist is absolutely absurd. It is exactly the baseline for how bad a PC class can be. There is no class in Core or splat that matters as little as a Rogue.


You're telling me a core rogue is worse than a shifter? The class that can wild shape, but only into 1+1/5 levels animal forms? Granted, I can't think of any other worse classes of the top of my head, but I don't know most classes. It may be the second weakest core class, but I've found every core class to be quite playable in PF, just monk needs to be thought out to work well. I've seen rogues contribute plenty, haven't played many PF campaigns, but in PFS play I've seen even the iconic pregen played effectively.

Yeah, bards are more powerful, and better at social skills, otherwise worse skill monkeys, but you're comparing a 2/3 caster support character to a mundane skill monkey/damage dealer. They're mostly doing different things, and one or the other could be better for different groups. In a group with multiple martials, I'd rather have the bard, but if there's no martial characters a rogue would be more help. Overall, yeah, the casting class is stronger. You could say the same thing about magus and fighter, and they have a more similar role in combat.

And yes, unchained rogue is objectively better, because it doesn't really take anything away and adds some great features. Of course the same class but with extra cool stuff is strictly better, doesn't mean the original is irrelevant in all situations. Lots of people play core, or play PFS and don't want to shell out for the book just so they can have a few extra features. The core rogue's tier did not shift in any way when Unchained came out, I don't think that's what tiers are. So honestly, I have to disagree with the statement that they got replaced, and that "can't be ignored." In a discussion of the tier of the chained rogue, unchained can be ignored. Looking at a class and asking 'how well does this work compared to other classes?' is a good way to make casters seem like the only classes that matter.

----------


## pabelfly

Updates on votes:

*Rogue (Unchained)
*Kurald Galain, Gnaeus  3.0
Avatar Vecna  3.7
Maat Mons, Endless Rain, Rynjin  4.0

Average  3.62

*Rogue (Chained)*
Avatar Vecna  3.7
Kurald Galain, Gnaeus, Endless Rain, Totally Not Evil - 4.0
Rynjin  5

Average  4.12	

*Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Unchained)
*Kurald Galain, Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna, Maat Mons, Totally Not Evil , Rynjin - 3.0

Average  3.0

*Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Chained)
*Maat Mons, Gnaeus, Totally Not Evil  3.0
Avatar Vecna  3.3
Kurald Galain  4.0

Average  3.26

*Phantom Thief Rogue (Chained)*
Avatar Vecna  3.3
Darvin  5

Average  4.15

*Phantom Thief Rogue (Unchained) 
*Avatar Vecna  3
Darvin  5

Average  4

Wouldn't mind a few more votes on Phantom Thief because we just have two very varied votes for its power.

----------


## Rynjin

> You're telling me a core rogue is worse than a shifter?


By a wide margin. Shifter is pathetically weak compared to its potential, but even gimped Wildshape is better than most class features. Plus it has a few key archetypes that act as stealth buffs to the whole class, kinda like Core Monk.




> Yeah, bards are more powerful, and better at social skills, otherwise worse skill monkeys, but you're comparing a 2/3 caster support character to a mundane skill monkey/damage dealer. They're mostly doing different things, and one or the other could be better for different groups. In a group with multiple martials, I'd rather have the bard, but if there's no martial characters a rogue would be more help. Overall, yeah, the casting class is stronger. You could say the same thing about magus and fighter, and they have a more similar role in combat.


Rogues are about equivalent to Bards in the damage dealing role. People highly overvalue how good Sneak Attack is.  Each die of Sneak Attack adds 3.5 damage. 3 damage is accepted as roughly equivalent to +1 to attack rolls by system math (see: Power Attack) and overall DPR calcs.

An 11th level Rogue is throwing out 6d6 damage (~21 damage) and a Bard is providing +3 attack/damage (or 12 damage per character).

So literally only in the extremely contrived scenario of "the Rogue is the only character making attack rolls" does a Rogue outperform a Bard damage-wise. If there is one other even vaguely martially aligned character in the party in addition to the Bard, they provide superior damage.

In terms of skills: no, a Bard is not only better at social skills. They are better at all skills. Assuming stats are equivalent (which is generous for the Rogue), everything is pretty much equal in terms of skill bonuses. The Bard gets more effective ranks starting at level 6 (baseline 10 skill ranks/level), and has access to Pageant of the Peacock alongside Bardic Knowledge.

Core Rogue doesn't even have SKill Unlocks to give them a slight edge on skill usage over other classes. Their ONLY saving grace is having marginally more ranks per level.




> And yes, unchained rogue is objectively better, because it doesn't really take anything away and adds some great features. Of course the same class but with extra cool stuff is strictly better, doesn't mean the original is irrelevant in all situations. Lots of people play core, or play PFS and don't want to shell out for the book just so they can have a few extra features. The core rogue's tier did not shift in any way when Unchained came out, I don't think that's what tiers are. So honestly, I have to disagree with the statement that they got replaced, and that "can't be ignored." In a discussion of the tier of the chained rogue, unchained can be ignored. Looking at a class and asking 'how well does this work compared to other classes?' is a good way to make casters seem like the only classes that matter.


Even if I agreed with this, that doesn't take away from the fact that even at a baseline level Rogue is abjectly ****ing awful. Taken in a complete vacuum where no other classes exist, a Rogue has:

-A medium chassis; not a combat focused full BaB chassis
-The worst class saves in the entire game; Reflex only is irredeemably bad
-A large number of skill points per level
-The ability to disarm magical traps
-A couple of bonus Feats (the only Rogue Talents really worth taking)
-A generic damage booster with impressive numbers on paper, but lackluster performance in practice
-Genuinely terrible proficiencies, save the Rapier

I have played a lot of Pathfinder campaigns. Literally hundreds at this point. I have observed many more.

Do you know what the highest body counts for characters I've seen is? Low level Wizards (or Psions) and Rogues.

Because a lot of people play Rogue as you expect. As a "mundane damage dealer". Unfortunately their damage is meh because their accuracy sucks (and they can't get Dex to damage until 3rd level at ABSOLUTE EARLIEST), and their defenses are even worse. So they die. They die to damage, because they only have d8 HD and wear light armor. They die to Will saves, because their Will saves suck. They die to Fort saves for the same reason. They can't choose to do ranged damage, because their ability to deal damage at all relies on melee attacks.

Look through the Obituary threads for various Pathfinder Adventure Paths and you'll see a lot (and I mean A LOT) of dead Rogues. Pathfinder Society scenarios do not do the reality of the situation justice because (with a few VERY notable exceptions), they are complete softballs and are designed for everyone to be able to win every time.

@Pabelfly: if you wanna record my vote on UnRogue, it's a strong tier 4. Tier 3 sounds waaay generous to me (that's the realm of Bards, Inquisitors, and other very strong classes), but mid-tier 4 seems just right. Scoundrel does probably jump to low tier 3 just on account of having 6 levels of spells, which is pretty much automatic entry into that echelon.

Except for maybe the Occultist as an exception since their spell list is so limited.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Both from a comparison standpoint and a standalone "how does this fare against published content" standpoint, Rogues are subpar to say the least.


Sure, but "subpar" means "below average" and does not mean "worthless" or "unplayable". Everything in tier 4 is subpar.




> Wouldn't mind a few more votes on Phantom Thief because we just have two very varied votes for its power.


You should probably assume that everybody who voted for the class-as-a-whole and didn't vote for one particular archetype believes that that archetype simply doesn't change its tier.

----------


## pabelfly

> You should probably assume that everybody who voted for the class-as-a-whole and didn't vote for one particular archetype believes that that archetype simply doesn't change its tier.


Was what I was thinking.

----------


## Rynjin

> Sure, but "subpar" means "below average" and does not mean "worthless" or "unplayable". Everything in tier 4 is subpar.


I'll again reiterate that I cannot think of a single player class in the game weaker than core Rogue. It is the absolute baseline for player power. Of course it's not unplayable. Nothing is unplayable. But it is the least useful single class.

----------


## AvatarVecna

> I'll again reiterate that I cannot think of a single player class in the game weaker than core Rogue. It is the absolute baseline for player power. Of course it's not unplayable. Nothing is unplayable. But it is the least useful single class.


If the game was only the full casters, would this make sorcerer and its ilk T5 too? Since they'd be far and away worse than cleric/druid/wizard? Easily the "least useful class"?

----------


## Rynjin

> If the game was only the full casters, would this make sorcerer and its ilk T5 too? Since they'd be far and away worse than cleric/druid/wizard? Easily the "least useful class"?


Assuming everything else was identical, no. Though I'd say in that case where you have a bunch of classes of roughly the same power, you don't...need a tier list at all. There's no point to having one.

I feel like there's some miscommunication here, because this is all stuff I've covered already. I've given three interconnecting reasons for why Rogue should be T5. Let me reiterate so every argument is in one post:

1.) They perform poorly compared to other classes in similar niches.
2.) They are individually terrible at dealing with standard challenges presented by the game.
3.) They have been replaced by an updated version of the same class, and are deprecated as a result.

I'm not sure why everyone is picking exactly one of these points to argue against and then disregarding the other two as factors as if that invalidates my entire thought process.

In this hypothetical where Sorcerer is the worst class in the game with all of its current capabilities, and the bestiary and overall adventure design being identical, it would trip point 1 but not points 2 or 3. Which is pretty much how it was determined that Sorcerer is Tier 2 _in the first place_. Is it good? Yes. Is it AS good as a Cleric/Druid/Wizard? No. Is it flexible? Yes, but not as much as these other options. T2, not T1.

Tier lists by their nature are a comparative list. They compare in one facet the character against a nebulous abstraction of "the game". They compare in a second facet in how they compare to other classes, particularly other classes in the same general niche. There's wiggle room here, it's not a science, but I don't see any value in exploring EVERY factor for why a class is considered bad. If an argument against playing a class can be summed up as "this other one does the same thing but better", that should be noted and taken into account.

I feel like this argument wouldn't be so heated-feeling if we were talking about another class, because people have a lot of emotional investment in Rogue as a "classic" class. Swashbuckler is in the dumpster of T5 for good reasons as well and a big part OF that reason is that multiple other classes do its schtick better than it does.

(I'd actually argue that's the ENTIRE reason, as in a pure combat sense it's exactly as good as the supposedly T4 Fighter, but has better skills and general problem solving.)

----------


## Kurald Galain

> 1.) They perform poorly compared to other classes in similar niches.


But they don't. Their damage, armor class, and hit points are solid. Not the best in the game, but solid.




> 2.) They are individually terrible at dealing with standard challenges presented by the game.


But they aren't, because of skill-boosting rogue talents and archetypes. They're no Investigator, but still one of the better skill users in the game.




> 3.) They have been replaced by an updated version of the same class, and are deprecated as a result.


But not every game allows all books.

----------


## Rynjin

> But they don't. Their damage, armor class, and hit points are solid. Not the best in the game, but solid.


Compared to an Adept? Sure, that's why they're a tier up. Compared to both other classes and the bestiary? No, I don't agree. The only martial-oriented class they effectively beat in damage is Monk, and it's superior in terms of defensive qualities so they kinda balance out.

As I pointed out (though feel free to dispute those numbers if you think they're too harsh on Rogue), they also fail to stand out appreciably in the damage department compared to _support_ classes like Bard. They can beat a Wizard in a fist fight but I don't call that "solid".

My typical experience with Rogues is that they struggle against the average CR appropriate monster because they either struggle to hit (due to going TWFing) or struggle to deal damage (due to not going TWFing).

You harp on the Kineticist a lot for being one of the worst classes in the game as a damage dealer...but they deal roughly identical damage to a Rogue, except from a safe distance and with a more consistent hit rate.




> But they aren't, because of skill-boosting rogue talents and archetypes. They're no Investigator, but still one of the better skill users in the game.


By the barest technicality of stuff like Rumormonger taking away basic skill function from others, I guess? but skills aren't a particularly strong niche to begin with, and having a marginal increase to them over non-skill focused classes is not a powerful feature.




> But not every game allows all books.


Which isn't really relevant to a tiering discussion, unless we're not tiering non-Core classes.

In which case we probably shouldn't be taking into account the splat boosts core Rogue got over the years that make them slightly better.

We are, presumably, covering the full game. That's the value of tiering these classes NOW when the game is feature-complete. Otherwise we'd have to re-tier every class for, generously, all of the reasonably common table variants out there: Core (and PFS Core), PFS, "anything goes", "hardcovers only", etc.

----------


## pabelfly

> 3.) They have been replaced by an updated version of the same class, and are deprecated as a result.


I don't know if this is true. How well, or how poorly Chained Rogue can solve problems is the question. Other classes can solve problems better, and they might even be called (Unchained) Rogue, but I don't think that has any bearing on tiering Chained Rogue itself.

----------


## Rynjin

> I don't know if this is true. How well, or how poorly Chained Rogue can solve problems is the question. Other classes can solve problems better, and they might even be called (Unchained) Rogue, but I don't think that has any bearing on tiering Chained Rogue itself.


Sure. As mentioned though, if you disagree with one point I still think you can come to the same conclusion with a combination of the other two points I've gone over.

ETA: Ultimately though, this does illustrate why the voting system is important, because people can have wildly different opinions on all THREE points. I figure it'll average out somewhere, whether I end up being an outlier or not.

----------


## Kurald Galain

Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that a 10th-level rogue dual-wielding Agile weapons deals about the same damage as a raging power-attacking barbarian, assuming a flanking buddy. So yeah, the rogue is really fine.

----------


## Rynjin

> Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that a 10th-level rogue dual-wielding Agile weapons deals about the same damage as a raging power-attacking barbarian, assuming a flanking buddy. So yeah, the rogue is really fine.


Here I can crank out those numbers with a bit more than napkin math. I don't doubt they'll come out relatively similar, but for posterity.

*Spoiler: Damage formula*
Show

The damage formula is h(d+s)+tchd.

h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is again assumed.
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.


10th level we can assume something like: +7 primary stat baseline, +3 equivalent weapons (+2 Agile for Rogue, +2 Furious for Barbarian), Rogue using Kukri, Barbarian using Falchion, flanking with each other, no other buffs. They are aiming against CR 11 enemy with AC 25, 145 HP. Rogue has Feats Weapon Finesse, TWFing line. Barbarian has Power Attack, Furious Focus. Unoptimized Barb vs semi-optimized Rogue in other words.

*Spoiler: Calcs Rogue*
Show

Rogue DPR with TWFing (+16 ATK, +9 damage): .6(11.5+17.5)+.15*2*.6*11.5 = 17.4+2.07 = 19.21 DPR for each "full" BaB attack.
---Off-hand: .35(11.5+17.5)+.15*2*.25*11.5 = 10.15+.8625 = 11.0125 DPR for off-hand attacks


Total DPR: 60.45
TTK vs average CR 11 enemy: 3 (2.39 round up)

--------------------------------------------------------

*Spoiler: Calcs Barb*
Show

Barbarian DPR with Rage, Power Attack (+23 attack, +26): .9(31)+.15*2*.9*31 = 27.9+8.37 =36.27
---Iterative: .65(31)+.15*2*.65*31 = 20.15+6.045 = 26.195


Total DPR: 62.465
TTK: 3 (2.3 rounded up)

So yeah, numbers match up. Mind you, this is a Rogue who has invested 4 Feats to the Barbarian's 2 for this slightly lower damage (adding in Cornugon Smash and Hurtful boosts the Barbarian's DPR by an additional 50% at the same investment), gets a bigger boost at both 11 AND 12, is better at lower levels, is more durable, faster, doesn't require a partner, etc.

...which is really the Rogue story in a nutshell.

It works harder for lower reward in any conceivable category.

I'll leave off on this: If Rogue doesn't deserve to be in T5, what does? Because if you run the numbers on any of the other classes currently listed they'll come up about the same as these. Do they all move up to T4? Is there no T5 in Pathfinder?

If we're abolishing T5 entirely (or deleting T6 and moving Commoner et al. to T5), then sure, Rogue is T4.

----------


## AvatarVecna

If Chained Rogue is T4 in core, Unchained Rogue coming into existence in T3 doesn't knock Chained Rogue down to T5. "Other classes exist that can do the same job but better" doesn't change how well you do the job if you're the person present instead. Sorcerer is T2, and they don't slip down to T3 just because Arcanist came into existence. If you subscribe to that line of thinking, the end result is what I talked about earlier, where there's only two tiers: "T1 caster", and "why are you griefing by playing something other than a T1 caster". It's not a helpful mindset for anything other than a binary model of "best in category" and "not best". If you're not playing cleric, druid, or wizard, you are to some degree sacrificing power and versatility for characterization, no less than if a rogue spent all their skill points on different Professions. The question is to what degree do are the various classes throwing away power/versatility, and to what extent the archetypes throw harder or softer. And rogue isn't throwing as hard as you pretend they are.




> ...which is really the Rogue story in a nutshell.
> 
> It works harder for lower reward in any conceivable category.


The barbarian here has slightly better damage, even more if he invests a couple more feats. Rogue has better AC and far, _far_ better skills. That barbarian 10 is probably looking at no more than 6 skill points per level (maybe as few as 2 depending on specific build). Disable Device and Perception are the bare minimum for a trapmonkey, but Acrobatics/Climb/Stealth/Swim would help make them a more fully fleshed-out dungeon explorer. That Int 12 human barbarian lacks some class skill bonuses, the trapfinding bonus, and the ability to deal with magic traps. Meanwhile, the human int 12 rogue has another 4 skills to play with - UMD for some magic backup, Bluff or Diplomacy for talking their way out of things, a relevant knowledge skill or two. The rogue can take those without sacrificing the ability to maneuver through dungeons and deal with traps; the barbarian has to stop at "trapmonkey+scout", and depending on build might very well just have to stop at "trapmonkey", or just abandon that skill role entirely and do something more fun and Barbarian-y with his skill points.. Skill Consolidation and the changes to how class skills allows everyone to count as having more skills than they would've been able to get in 3.5, and be far better at them, but this doesn't actually punish the rogue for being more skilled than others.

Chained Rogue damage is fine. Not competitive with the best damage dealers in the game, but sneak attack is solid burst damage that is, by your own calcs, not exactly lagging far behind. And the rogue makes up for it by covering skill roles other classes are a bit worse at covering, and where covering those roles would prevent those classes from investing in the skills they really want. Fantastic damage with little else going on (fighters, gunslingers, most barbarians) is T4. Good damage and utility (paladins, rangers, rogues) is T4 as well. It's a different kind of T4, but still. T5 is when you've got one thing you do okay-ish but it's not keeping pace properly, and you're nowhere near keeping pace anywhere else. T5 is, alternatively, when something is trying to do so many things at once that it doesn't really excel at any of them.

Monk is T5: medium BAB and locked into TWF-equivalent for max damage potential, but no bonus damage helping make up for their lowered accuracy (the "flurry of misses" phenomenon); enough skill points to fill a skill role...if they didn't need to dump Int/Cha to keep their other stats on pace to keep accuracy/damage up; ki gives access to some magic...none of which they get to choose by default, so they end up stuck with not enough points to spend on a weird mish-mash of abilities pulled from kung fu movies and eastern mythology. Now, if they got full BAB, and got to pick their ki powers, they would be a whole lot better.

Tier 5 is for people who are underachieving - not compared to the other things you could be playing, but compared to what you're fighting against. There is a level of damage that is "expected" from a frontliner, that is around what a straightforward fighter build is putting out. If you're putting out numbers like this, you're on par for the course. The fact that some people are hitting "holes in one" at every hole doesn't make you a worse golfer than you are: you're still on par, you're still doing sufficiently. T5 is for people who are over par in damage, and don't really make up for it in significant ways elsewhere. Adept cannot meet par, they're not that good a golfer, but prepared 5th lvl casting from the whole of the cleric list is some strong utility, so they eke into T4 despite not passing the damage check. They can contribute in small ways to a number of categories, or can choose to specialize hard enough to be really good at something that isn't damage. Rogue, even Chained Rogue, is passing the damage check, is meeting par. And they're doing other useful things too.




> I'll leave off on this: If Rogue doesn't deserve to be in T5, what does? Because if you run the numbers on any of the other classes currently listed they'll come up about the same as these. Do they all move up to T4? Is there no T5 in Pathfinder?


You're making out like this is some silly idea, but..._yes_. That's the ****ing point. If the whole game was cleric/druid/wizard, there would be nobody in T2-6. Those tiers existing and having definitions for what fits in them doesn't mean there has to be classes that fit into the definition. If PF gave everybody 9th lvl casting, T3/T4/T5/T6 would, in fact, be empty. PF didn't do that, they made smaller changes to each class improving them, and then made systemic changes to the skill system. I would go ahead and hazard a guess to say that "every PC class is at least T4" is one of the core design goals of Pathfinder: to make everything not inherently intended for NPCs to be at least passable, so that everybody can play the class they like the feel of without feeling like they're definitely dragging the group down. The PF design goal is that everybody meets par well enough - maybe not on damage, but everybody has a sport they can contribute with.

----------


## Kitsuneymg

> Here I can crank out those numbers with a bit more than napkin math. I don't doubt they'll come out relatively similar, but for posterity.
> 
> *Spoiler: Damage formula*
> Show
> 
> The damage formula is h(d+s)+tchd.
> 
> h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
> d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
> ...


Dont forget the rogue needs to invest in acrobatics items to get that flank, because CMD is harder to hit with a skill check than dc 15 tumble, and it starts to grow faster than dex+1rank/level. Its not *hard* to do, but it does take investment you could have spent elsewhere. 

And all the rogues damage evaporates in dim lighting, fog, or any other concealment. Blur kills all sneak attack damage! This necessitates items to overcome concealment. 

The barbarian still hits the same. 

Unchained rogue fixes a number of issues. From not needing to pay for agile, free finesse, and sneak attacking through concealment, all the way to giving a bunch of skill boosts for free and debuffs on sneak attack. With the money you save on not needing to buy agile twice, you can easily keep acrobatics high enough to make getting flanking safely not a problem.

Tier 5 means sub optimal. Not useless. Ive played a lot of 3.5 fighters and had great fun. But its undeniable that fighter is less useful than a druid.

----------


## Maat Mons

I've decided to try to give more nuanced ratings.  It took me a while, but I think I've worked out a way of assigning non-integer values that I won't overthink too hard.  

*Spoiler: Table*
Show

*0.6*
*High Tier 1*


*0.8*
*Mid-high Tier 1*


*1*
*Mid Tier 1*


*1.2*
*Mid-low Tier 1*


*1.4*
*Low Tier 1*


*1.6*
*High Tier 2*


*1.8*
*Mid-high Tier 2*


*2*
*Mid Tier 2*


*2.2*
*Mid-low Tier 2*


*2.4*
*Low Tier 2*


*2.6*
*High Tier 3*


*2.8*
*Mid-high Tier 3*


*3*
*Mid Tier 3*
Chained Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue, Unchained Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue

*3.2*
*Mid-low Tier 3*


*3.4*
*Low Tier 3*


*3.6*
*High Tier 4*
Unchained Phantom Thief Rogue

*3.8*
*Mid-high Tier 4*
Unchained Rogue

*4*
*Mid Tier 4*
Fighter

*4.2*
*Mid-low Tier 4*


*4.4*
*Low Tier 4*
Chained Rogue

*4.6*
*High Tier 5*
Chained Phantom Thief Rogue

*4.8*
*Mid-high Tier 5*


*5*
*Mid Tier 5*


*5.2*
*Mid-low Tier 5*


*5.4*
*Low Tier 5*


*5.6*
*High Tier 6*


*5.8*
*Mid-high Tier 6*


*6*
*Mid Tier 6*


*6.2*
*Mid-low Tier 6*


*6.4*
*Low Tier 6*

----------


## Rynjin

@Avatar Vecna: If we're abolishing a tier, fine as I said. But that idea was not exactly made clear from the outset. Given that the tiers are not rigidly defined in any case, it's not exactly self-evident that this eould happen.

As-is, Tier 5 is "the worst tier for player classes", which Rogue goes into. If T4 becomes that instead, sure.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Dont forget the rogue needs to invest in acrobatics items to get that flank,


No he doesn't; 5' steps do that just fine.




> And all the rogues damage evaporates in dim lighting, fog, or any other concealment. Blur kills all sneak attack damage!


There's a feat for that. Practically speaking, you never fight in dim lighting because parties bring their own light; and Blur is very rare. Fog _is_ annoying, but is annoying to numerous classes and not just the Rogue; e.g. archers aren't suddenly tier 5 just because Obscuring Mist exists.




> Tier 5 means sub optimal.


Since the optimal tier is one, _every other tier_ means suboptimal  :Small Amused:

----------


## Kurald Galain

> I've decided to try to give more nuanced ratings.  It took me a while, but I think I've worked out a way of assigning non-integer values that I won't overthink too hard.


Since the tiers go by specific descriptions and not popularity rating, it should not be possible for anything to go above 1.0 or below 6.0; so I suggest you cut off your table there, as the rankings don't go from 0 to 7.

----------


## pabelfly

> @Avatar Vecna: If we're abolishing a tier, fine as I said. But that idea was not exactly made clear from the outset. Given that the tiers are not rigidly defined in any case, it's not exactly self-evident that this eould happen.
> 
> As-is, Tier 5 is "the worst tier for player classes", which Rogue goes into. If T4 becomes that instead, sure.


Looking at the preliminary tiering, it appears that only the NPC classes are at tier 6, and chained Monk and chained Rogue were thought to be at the bottom of the player classes in tier 5. But in thus thread people are able to discuss how things are tiered and make their own conclusions. It appears a lot of people think Chained Rogue is closer to a weak tier 4 than a solid tier 5.

It's also perfectly fine if people don't think tier 5 classes exist in Pathfinder. It just means people aren't as thoroughly handicapped with a low-tier choice in PF compared to 3.5

----------


## Kurald Galain

> As-is, Tier 5 is "the worst tier for player classes",


No, tier 5 is "sometimes very good at solving nearly no problems, or alright at solving a few, or some other function thereof"; or as JaronK puts it, "capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute."

In other words, classes are not graded on a curve. I'm inclined to think that T5 classes _do_ exist in Pathfinder, but the rogue isn't one of them.

----------


## Maat Mons

But if I bound it at 1 and 6, the range will only be 5 Tiers wide (6-1=5), and Tiers 1 and 6 will only be half the width of the other Tiers.  Bounding it instead at 0.5 and 6.5 makes the range 6 Tiers wide (0.5-6.5=6), and makes all Tiers the same width, from int-0.5 to int+0.5.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> But if I bound it at 1 and 6, the range will only be 5 Tiers wide (6-1=5), and Tiers 1 and 6 will only be half the width of the other Tiers.


Yes, and why would that be a problem?

----------


## AvatarVecna

> As-is, Tier 5 is "the worst tier for player classes", which Rogue goes into. If T4 becomes that instead, sure.


No, it's not. {scrubbed}

----------


## AvatarVecna

> Given that the tiers are not rigidly defined in any case, it's not exactly self-evident that this eould happen.


For your reading pleasure, _have some definitions._




> Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.
> 
> Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and easily world shattering, but not in quite so many ways.  Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.
> 
> Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so.  Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.
> 
> Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribute to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.
> 
> Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.
> ...

----------


## Maat Mons

If you don't understand why things not all being the same size is a problem, then you clearly don't have OCD, and I don't know how to explain it to you.

----------


## Rynjin

Yes, I'm aware of the original definitions laid out. I'm also aware of how very loosely they are applied and taken by people, especially in this thread.

I had figured there was some definitional shift going on given that the T5 "definition" describes Rogue to a tee, but people have been repeatedly arguing with me that it doesn't fit.

Even people arguing for T4 Rogue admit it does nothing especially well, which immediately disqualifies it from T4 if we go by strict definitions. They do exactly two things (combat and skills) kind of okay, and neither exceptionally.

But the definitions of 4 and 5 are so close as to be nearly identical, hence us having a discussion about which fits better and (potentially) whether both are needed at all. The level of granularity from 4-6 is much higher than 1-3.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Even people arguing for T4 Rogue admit it does nothing especially well, which immediately disqualifies it from T4 if we go by strict definitions. They do exactly two things (combat and skills) kind of okay, and neither exceptionally.


Math earlier on this page shows they do pretty much the same damage as a raging PA barbarian. That's well above "kind of okay".

----------


## Unavenger

> Even people arguing for T4 Rogue admit *it does nothing especially well, which immediately disqualifies it from T4 if we go by strict definitions*. They do exactly two things (combat and skills) kind of okay, and neither exceptionally.


Le sigh.

"Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, *or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining*. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribute to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well."

----------


## Gnaeus

> 10th level we can assume something like: +7 primary stat baseline, +3 equivalent weapons (+2 Agile for Rogue, +2 Furious for Barbarian), Rogue using Kukri, Barbarian using Falchion, flanking with each other, no other buffs. They are aiming against CR 11 enemy with AC 25, 145 HP. Rogue has Feats Weapon Finesse, TWFing line. Barbarian has Power Attack, Furious Focus. Unoptimized Barb vs semi-optimized Rogue in other words.
> 
> *Spoiler: Calcs Rogue*
> Show
> 
> Rogue DPR with TWFing (+16 ATK, +9 damage): .6(11.5+17.5)+.15*2*.6*11.5 = 17.4+2.07 = 19.21 DPR for each "full" BaB attack.
> ---Off-hand: .35(11.5+17.5)+.15*2*.25*11.5 = 10.15+.8625 = 11.0125 DPR for off-hand attacks
> 
> 
> So yeah, numbers match up. Mind you, this is a Rogue who has invested 4 Feats to the Barbarian's 2 for this slightly lower damage (adding in Cornugon Smash and Hurtful boosts the Barbarian's DPR by an additional 50% at the same investment), gets a bigger boost at both 11 AND 12, is better at lower levels, is more durable, faster, doesn't require a partner, etc.


Is it tho? Rogues have talents, which are generally quite a bit better than rage powers. As I see it, that rogue didn't invest 4 feats, he invested 2 feats and 2 rogue talents. Assuming that you have a rogue fully invested in combat (because the barbarian is fully invested in combat, not being good at anything else), He also has Weapon focus, bleeding attack, and did 8 str or dex damage out of that attack routine, and has still only spent 2 feats. Or he could be where you listed him and have utility the barbarian can't match, like trap-spotter and familiar, still without using more than 2 feats.

----------


## Rynjin

> Is it tho? Rogues have talents, which are generally quite a bit better than rage powers. As I see it, that rogue didn't invest 4 feats, he invested 2 feats and 2 rogue talents. Assuming that you have a rogue fully invested in combat (because the barbarian is fully invested in combat, not being good at anything else), He also has Weapon focus, bleeding attack, and did 8 str or dex damage out of that attack routine, and has still only spent 2 feats. Or he could be where you listed him and have utility the barbarian can't match, like trap-spotter and familiar, still without using more than 2 feats.


I... genuinely don't understand how someone could think Rogue Talents are better than Rage Powers. In either combat or utility.


If we're at the point where we're are listing Trap Spotter (frequently considered one of the most pointless abilities in the game) as one of the big draws of Rogue, I feel like my experience with the game differs far too much from most people here.

For reference, Trap Spotter here is competing with stuff like mostly at-will flight and Dispel.




> Le sigh.
> 
> "Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, *or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining*. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribute to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well."


The word "many" here is key to me. Rogue does exactly two things to a reasonable degree of competence.  Combat and skills. Two does not constitute, to me, "many".

----------


## Gnaeus

> I... genuinely don't understand how someone could think Rogue Talents are better than Rage Powers. In either combat or utility.
> 
> 
> If we're at the point where we're are listing Trap Spotter (frequently considered one of the most pointless abilities in the game) as one of the big draws of Rogue, I feel like my experience with the game differs far too much from most people here.
> 
> For reference, Trap Spotter here is competing with stuff like mostly at-will flight and Dispel.


I genuinely dont understand how someone could think rage powers are better than rogue talents. Show me how you get at will flight at level 2 from a rage power. Getting to auto check to not get hit by traps is freaking amazing. Lets run that fight with the barbarian at 20% hp because he just ate a trap. Rogue talents are AT LEAST as good as feats, given that you can take feats with rogue talents. Rage powers are generally not. This "at will flight" isn't a rage power, it is the end of a chain of 5 rage powers most of which stink, culminating at level 10 and requiring 2 rounds of rage per round of use. So why not run those barbarian numbers again without rage, given that you won't have enough rage to go more than a combat at that rate. Or go ahead and assume that you will be taking other feats to keep your rage going, so that 2 feats is back up to 4+. That entire chain of 5 rage powers is less useful than the single advanced rogue talent: familiar. Oh, and rogues get a vastly better at will dispel magic than barbarians, usable once per sneak rather than once per combat, and not requiring you to make saving throws against allies trying to buff you when you use it.

----------


## Rynjin

> I genuinely dont understand how someone could think rage powers are better than rogue talents. Show me how you get at will flight at level 2 from a rage power. Getting to auto check to not get hit by traps is freaking amazing. Lets run that fight with the barbarian at 20% hp because he just ate a trap. Rogue talents are AT LEAST as good as feats, given that you can take feats with rogue talents. Rage powers are generally not. This "at will flight" isn't a rage power, it is the end of a chain of 5 rage powers most of which stink, culminating at level 10 and requiring 2 rounds of rage per round of use. That entire chain of 5 rage powers is less useful than the single advanced rogue talent: familiar. Oh, and rogues get a vastly better at will dispel magic than barbarians, usable once per sneak rather than once per combat, and not requiring you to make saving throws against allies trying to buff you when you use it.


Elemental Blood: Air is flight. And no, Rogue Talents are not "at least as good as Feats" by sny stretch. There's a reason the ones typically considered most useful are the one's that give bonus Feats.

Trap Spotter is singularly useless because a party will be traveling at half speed to make Perception checks relating to everything that's not traps anyway. 

I...quite honestly don't feel like rehashing an argument THIS basic again ATM. I haven't seen somebody get trapped by Trap Spotter good in at least half a decade at this point.

----------


## Unavenger

> The word "many" here is key to me. Rogue does exactly two things to a reasonable degree of competence.  Combat and skills. Two does not constitute, to me, "many".


Skills are many things. You might as well say that wizards aren't good at many things because magic is their only forte.

----------


## Maat Mons

I think the real problem with Trap Spotter is that you _already_ get reactive Perception checks to notice things.  You don't need a special ability, that's just how the base mechanics work.

----------


## AvatarVecna

Good to see the backpedal.exe is still working.  :Small Sigh:

----------


## Rynjin

> Skills are many things. You might as well say that wizards aren't good at many things because magic is their only forte.


The difference is that magic has unique problem solving capability, skills don't. Everyone gets skills. Skills do the sane thing for everyone that takes them.

Rogues get slightly more skills than others. That's their only boon.

Unchained Rogues, by contrast, actually get to do things other people can't with skills. They have a much clearer niche there.

----------


## Unavenger

> The difference is that magic has unique problem solving capability, skills don't. Everyone gets skills. Skills do the sane thing for everyone that takes them.
> 
> Rogues get slightly more skills than others. That's their only boon.
> 
> Unchained Rogues, by contrast, actually get to do things other people can't with skills. They have a much clearer niche there.


Spells also do the same thing for everyone who takes them, but some classes getting more spells, better spells, or being able to swap out their spells, still puts them a tier or more up from those who don't.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Rogues get slightly more skills than others. That's their only boon.


Plus, you know, the skill-boosting rogue talents and archetypes mentioned several times in this thread  :Small Amused:

----------


## Rynjin

> Plus, you know, the skill-boosting rogue talents and archetypes mentioned several times in this thread


Again, stuff like Rumormonger is...suspect in its value, even though it technically lets the Rogue do something others can't.

Archetypes...are complicated. I'm not sure which ones you're talking about, or whether they "count" as Rogue, in the same way we've similarly split off Eldritch Scoundrel. What are some good "not total overhaul" archetypes for this? I have to do hurricane evac but when I get resettled I can look at them.

This'll be an issue when tiering Monk, too. The basic premise behind optimizing Monk is "stack all the archetypes you can" lol.

----------


## Kurald Galain

"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a freshwater system, and public health... WHAT have the Rogues ever done for us?

/thread

----------


## Gnaeus

> Elemental Blood: Air is flight. And no, Rogue Talents are not "at least as good as Feats" by sny stretch. There's a reason the ones typically considered most useful are the one's that give bonus Feats.
> 
> Trap Spotter is singularly useless because a party will be traveling at half speed to make Perception checks relating to everything that's not traps anyway. 
> 
> I...quite honestly don't feel like rehashing an argument THIS basic again ATM. I haven't seen somebody get trapped by Trap Spotter good in at least half a decade at this point.


You are right, that is a better flight power. You can only spend 3 rage powers for flight for maybe 20 rounds per day. I guess since you didn't mention it you are admitting that the rogue dispel magic is superior.

So the point is that you hit traps moving more slowly? You only get to roll to see a trap if you are searching every 5 foot square, without trap spotter. 

The only guide I find that doesn't rate trap-spotter blue or green is the one which says that it is a feat tax because you can't operate without it.



> The difference is that magic has unique problem solving capability, skills don't. Everyone gets skills. Skills do the sane thing for everyone that takes them.
> 
> Rogues get slightly more skills than others. That's their only boon.


But it isn't a bad boon at that. Yes, everyone gets skills, which isn't to say that skills aren't useful. 

My RoTRL group was pretty standard Tank (BB) Div Cast (Dru) Arc Cast (Sor, me) and SkillMonkey (Rog) So yes, we all had skills. Everyone had Perception, the Druid had Know Nature, Religion, survival and Handle Animal, Barbarian had Survival and Athletics. I had Arcana, Spellcraft, Intimidate and UMD (for my familiar). Rogue covered everything. Party face, Trapfinder, "Whats that monster?/Who is the badguy", Scout. I literally could not have handled his knowledge skills. I could have taken an archetype to give myself trapfinding, but I wouldn't have done it as well and I would have had to give up basic stuff to do it (except scout, my familiar was a good scout). Those skills were helpful and he provided them competently. Could an Investigator or Bard have done it better? Yes, a T3 class could have done it better. But we needed someone to do the rogue job and a rogue can do that.

----------


## Maat Mons

Do you have a source on this "only get to roll to see a trap if you are searching every 5 foot square" thing?  Because I've spent time specifically looking for anything in Pathfinder that says that, and I've come up empty.

----------


## Rynjin

> You are right, that is a better flight power. You can only spend 3 rage powers for flight for maybe 20 rounds per day. I guess since you didn't mention it you are admitting that the rogue dispel magic is superior.


I didn't mention it because I was too busy packing my **** up to stay where the weather's not as bad to do more than a quick post.  :Small Sigh: 

Anyway, you might wanna read the fine print on Dispelling Attack. Instead of a CMB check (which the Barbarian has a BIGLY mod too, even without taking into account Strength Surge), you make a standard Dispel with caster level equal to your level. You also only get to dispel the _lowest level spell_ on the target.

And for all your talk about spending multiple talents to do a thing...Dispelling Attack takes three Rogue talents to access as well, and a minimum of level 10. And Minor Magic and Major Magic are a hell of a lot worse than Superstition and Witch Hunter, that's for sure.

It's also very odd that you A.) Think Barbarian Rage Rounds cap out at around 20/day (you hit that at like level 7 or 8) and that B.) You don't think having access to constant in-combat flight is powerful, for some reason.

Elemental Blood: Air isn't the strongest chain in the world, but you have a lot of Rage Powers to spare (it's reasonable to spend A LOT of your Feats on Extra Rage Power), and the two lesser powers aren't actually that bad. Some chains are absolute stinkers, but getting a bit of extra damage a few times/day and Resist 10 Electricity aren't terrible.

And that's really my point in a nutshell: at-will-ish Flight (fast flight too, with good maneuverability) is NOT the strongest Rage power chain. And it still dwarfs a lot of what Rogue Talents can do. To add insult to injury, one of the things Rogue Talents used to be able to do really well got nerfed (Terrain Mastery). For a while there Rogue/Horizon Walker was actually pretty cash money (though Slayer was still better at it).




> The only guide I find that doesn't rate trap-spotter blue or green is the one which says that it is a feat tax because you can't operate without it.


Then the people who wrote those guides are extremely overvaluing an ability that does very little. It's a Talent that can be entirely replaced by simply...making Perception checks. It doesn't give you any capability except not having to actively do it.

It is, at best, a quality of life feature if you're playing with a GM who's a complete ******* and requires a step by step, second by second description of everything the players are doing instead of the party declaring "we move at half speed and make Perception checks".




> Do you have a source on this "only get to roll to see a trap if you are searching every 5 foot square" thing?  Because I've spent time specifically looking for anything in Pathfinder that says that, and I've come up empty.


Yeah, this is a myth. You do have to spend a Move action to roll Perception; that's why I mention "move at half speed", and your effective search range is a _10_ foot square before you start taking penalties for distance, but trap DCs are static (they cap at DC 34), so getting a +24 Perception mod makes traps trivial to spot outside of combat.

People for some reason think Pathfinder ported over EVERY SINGLE 3.5 rule and don't bother to doublecheck, so they end up doping stuff like overvaluing Trap Spotter.

Because in 3.5, where you DID have to make a Search check on every single 5 ft. square, as a FULL ROUND ACTION, yeah Trap Spotter would be great. You'd burn through all of your minute/level buffs just searching for traps.

But in Pathfinder? No. You can afford to move at half speed to search.

----------


## Darvin

> In this hypothetical where Sorcerer is the worst class in the game with all of its current capabilities, and the bestiary and overall adventure design being identical, it would trip point 1 but not points 2 or 3. Which is pretty much how it was determined that Sorcerer is Tier 2 _in the first place_. Is it good? Yes. Is it AS good as a Cleric/Druid/Wizard? No. Is it flexible? Yes, but not as much as these other options. T2, not T1.


It will be _very_ interesting to see the tiering discussion for the Pathfinder Sorcerer. The 3.5 Sorcerer is practically the definition of T2, but the Pathfinder Sorcerer is a _league_ above its 3.5 counterpart. Significantly more spells known, lots of great class features from bloodlines, and great item support for spontaneous casters (particularly in the area of getting around spells known limitations). While I'm sure some will disagree, it's definitely deserving of discussion as a Tier 1 candidate.

----------


## Rynjin

> It will be _very_ interesting to see the tiering discussion for the Pathfinder Sorcerer. The 3.5 Sorcerer is practically the definition of T2, but the Pathfinder Sorcerer is a _league_ above its 3.5 counterpart. Significantly more spells known, lots of great class features from bloodlines, and great item support for spontaneous casters (particularly in the area of getting around spells known limitations). While I'm sure some will disagree, it's definitely deserving of discussion as a Tier 1 candidate.


I thonk the ONLY thing that keeps Sorcerer from being T1 in Pathfinder is the nerf to Paragon Surge. Even then I agree the line is... blurry. It's definitely like the TOP of T2, Pathfinder Sorcerer is great and I actually prefer it to Wizard overall.

----------


## pabelfly

New thread up. This week, tiering Cleric, Druid and Wizard:

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...ard&p=25594498

I thought that tiering what are clear Tier 1 classes would be difficult to engage with, so I've also asked about overpowered things that DMs should watch out for, and if there are any really weak archetypes.



Current Vote Totals for Rogue: 

*Rogue (Unchained)
*Kurald Galain, Gnaeus  3.0
Avatar Vecna  3.7
Maat Mons  3.8
Endless Rain, Rynjin  4.0

Average  3.58

*Rogue (Chained)
*Avatar Vecna  3.7
Kurald Galain, Gnaeus, Endless Rain, Totally Not Evil - 4.0
Maat Mons  4.4
Rynjin  5

Average  4.15

*Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Unchained)
*Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna, Maat Mons, Totally Not Evil , Rynjin - 3.0
Kurald Galain - 3.5

Average  3.08

*Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Chained)
*Maat Mons, Gnaeus, Totally Not Evil  3.0
Avatar Vecna  3.3
Kurald Galain  4.0

Average  3.26

*Phantom Thief Rogue (Chained)
*Avatar Vecna  3.3
Maat Mons  4.6
Darvin  5

Average  4.3

*Phantom Thief Rogue (Unchained)
*Avatar Vecna  3
Maat Mons  3.6
Darvin  5

Average  3.96

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Current Vote Totals for Rogue:


Thanks for the compilation. For the sake of clarity, could you add these numbers to the first post in the thread too (and ditto for the Fighter thread)? Thanks!

----------


## pabelfly

> Thanks for the compilation. For the sake of clarity, could you add these numbers to the first post in the thread too (and ditto for the Fighter thread)? Thanks!


Okay, finished editing the OP for Rogue and will do so for Fighter. Thanks for the suggestion.

----------


## Kurald Galain

Thanks. And possibly you should sort them high to low?





> You should probably assume that everybody who voted for the class-as-a-whole and didn't vote for one particular archetype believes that that archetype simply doesn't change its tier.


What I meant by that is that (e.g.) phantom thief counts as 
Avatar Vecna  3.3
Maat Mons  4.6
Darvin  5
Kurald Galain, Gnaeus, Endless Rain, Totally Not Evil - 4.0
Rynjin  5

So everybody who didn't specifically vote for this archetype counts their regular rogue vote.

----------


## zlefin

So the new votes for chained rogue are significantly higher than the votes from the old thread for chained rogue?

It looks like all of them have very small sample sizes; which means high variance risk.

I'd be interested to hear how people compare them ranking-wise to the other list;  ie do they think it should go higher on the list, or is it more that a lot of things move up.

I wish I could help by voting; but I feel I don't have enough playtest experience (by which I mean almost none), and don't have a strong enough grasp to confidently vote without one on this.

----------


## Maat Mons

I recall some people saying we shouldnt give separate listings for archetypes within 0.5 Tiers of the unarchetyped class.  

Chained and Unchained Rogue are 0.57 apart.  Listing both seems to make sense.  

Unchained Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue and Unchained Rogue are 0.58 apart.  And Chained Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue and Chained Rogue are 0.89 apart.  But Unchained Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue and Chained Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue are only 0.26 apart.  This suggests to me that while its worth giving Eldritch Scoundrel a listing separate form both Chained and Unchained Rogue, its not worth giving two separate listings for Eldritch Scoundrel.  Id suggest merging the Chained and Unchained version of Eldritch Scoundrel into a single listing.  

Unchained Phantom Thief Rogue and Unchained Rogue are only 0.38 apart.  And Chained Phantom Thief Rogue and Chained Rogue are only 0.15 apart.  Alternately, if the people who abstained from voting on that one are considered to have voted that it doesnt change the Tier, the differences drop to 0.07 and 0.09.  Either way this suggests to me that Phantom Thief shouldnt have its own listing.

----------


## pabelfly

> I recall some people saying we shouldnt give separate listings for archetypes within 0.5 Tiers of the unarchetyped class.  
> 
> Chained and Unchained Rogue are 0.57 apart.  Listing both seems to make sense.  
> 
> Unchained Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue and Unchained Rogue are 0.58 apart.  And Chained Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue and Chained Rogue are 0.58 apart.  But Unchained Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue and Chained Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue are only 0.26 apart.  This suggests to me that while its worth giving Eldritch Scoundrel a listing separate form both Chained and Unchained Rogue, its not worth giving two separate listings for Eldritch Scoundrel.  Id suggest merging the Chained and Unchained version of Eldritch Scoundrel into a single listing.  
> 
> Unchained Phantom Thief Rogue and Unchained Rogue are only 0.38 apart.  And Chained Phantom Thief Rogue and Chained Rogue are only 0.15 apart.  Alternately, if the people who abstained from voting on that one are considered to have voted that it doesnt change the Tier, the differences drop to 0.07 and 0.09.  Either way this suggests to me that Phantom Thief shouldnt have its own listing.


I've finished editing the OP. Here's my thoughts, but I'm open for feedback:
When I add the information to the complete thread, what will be ported over will look like this:

3 - Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue
3.58 - Unchained Rogue
4.15 - Chained Rogue

I think this is the key information from this thread, or what you'd want to know if you only wanted to spend a minute or two to skim read a bunch of information.

The detail listing of Rogue's tiering will have more information: Eldritch Scoundrel is Tier 3, and about a quarter of a tier weaker when applied to Chained Rogue. Phantom Thief was generally agreed to be roughly on-par compared to regular versions of Rogue.I'll keep the individual voting numbers here in this thread, in case anyone is interested in themI can begin the full tiering thread now we have three classes completed, and edit it weekly as we keep getting more votes. Definitely beats doing hours upon hours compiling all the information when everything is complete and will be of interest for comparison purposes while working on other threads. I'll likely start it this weekend.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Chained Rogue has to worry about balancing DEX and STR


By the way, there are numerous feats (and a weapon enchantment) that allow you to use dex for damage rolls, and are commonly taken by chained rogue and other dex-based melee characters. Chained rogues don't need str.




> So the new votes for chained rogue are significantly higher than the votes from the old thread for chained rogue?


Not exactly. Assuming you mean the "old thread" from a couple weeks ago, that one was not created from a single vote thread, but by one user who compiled opinions from a handful of older threads, but omitting numerous other older threads. I'm unclear on what criteria he used.




> I'd be interested to hear how people compare them ranking-wise to the other list;


Intuitively, I'd say the older list relies on a number of people who assume that 3E tiers are the same in PF.

----------


## pabelfly

> By the way, there are numerous feats (and a weapon enchantment) that allow you to use dex for damage rolls, and are commonly taken by chained rogue and other dex-based melee characters. Chained rogues don't need str.


But you're still spending resources to get what Unchained Rogue gets for free. I'll be sure to edit the text though.

----------


## Kurald Galain

I'll adjust my vote for Unchained and U-Eldritch Scoundrel to low tier three, or 3.5; that's because the archetypical tier three class (the bard) is noticeably more effective than either.

----------


## pabelfly

> I'll adjust my vote for Unchained and U-Eldritch Scoundrel to low tier three, or 3.5; that's because the archetypical tier three class (the bard) is noticeably more effective than either.


I'm happy to change your vote.

The question I'd ask... if Pathfinder Bard is notably stronger than 3.5 Bard, and 3.5 Bard is T3, wouldn't that mean Pathfinder Bard should have its tier increased instead? Like, we worked out that Sorcerer is high T2, maybe Bard becomes high T3 or low T2 instead?

Edit: Vote changed.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> The question I'd ask... if Pathfinder Bard is notably stronger than 3.5 Bard, and 3.5 Bard is T3, wouldn't that mean Pathfinder Bard should have its tier increased instead? Like, we worked out that Sorcerer is high T2, maybe Bard becomes high T3 or low T2 instead?


I suggest that _some_ of the six-level casters are tier 2 or 2.5, but the bard isn't one of them. Chained summoner is definitely T2, and I could make a good case for any of the 6-level casters that have powerful action economy; in particular Magus, Mesmerist, and maybe Hunter.

----------


## Thunder999

> I'm happy to change your vote.
> 
> The question I'd ask... if Pathfinder Bard is notably stronger than 3.5 Bard, and 3.5 Bard is T3, wouldn't that mean Pathfinder Bard should have its tier increased instead? Like, we worked out that Sorcerer is high T2, maybe Bard becomes high T3 or low T2 instead?
> 
> Edit: Vote changed.


Basically every pathfinder class is better than the 3.5 equivalent, but not generally in a way that implies a higher tier and tiers are relative anyway, if you argue Pathfinder bard is tier 2, then sorcerer, clearly a tier up, is tier 1 and we suddenly need a tier 0 for the classes like wizard and druid that clearly outdo that etc.

----------


## spectralphoenix

Did PF Bard really gain that much? I mean, everybody got something nice, but I don't think Bard got improvements on par with the Paladin's Lay on Hands/Smite/Auras or Sorcerer bloodlines.

----------


## Drelua

> Did PF Bard really gain that much? I mean, everybody got something nice, but I don't think Bard got improvements on par with the Paladin's Lay on Hands/Smite/Auras or Sorcerer bloodlines.


They did gain versatile performance, which effectively gives them more skill ranks than any other class, effective at level 6. Obviously that's nothing compared to all the Paladin upgrades, and I don't think it's quite as good as some have made it sound.

At level 2, it effectively gives you 2 free skills, putting you at 8+int same as a rogue. You might have put one rank in those skills if you weren't planning ahead, or didn't want to do without for a level, but that's just one skill rank. You also kinda have to take at least one perform skill to be a bard, so you would have put that rank there anyway. At level 6, you've probably got close to 5 ranks in 1 or both of the skills you're taking that are now effectively doing nothing, not a big deal yet but at level 10 you'll have a lot of wasted skill ranks.

You also may have taken a second perform skill just for this, and almost certainly wouldn't have taken a 3rd otherwise, so it's really just 1 free skill at this point. There's also a tonne of overlap between which perform skills can be used for what, so by the 5th time you're probably going to overlap somewhere, at which point you might as well not bother. Unless it's just so you can use your charisma mod, which is kinda strange for acrobatics and fly, and especially good for sense motive since wisdom is probably one of your lowest stats. And if you don't plan ahead, you might get stuck with overlap.

It is a good class feature, and it does still give them more skills than any other class. But it's not 2 free skills every time you get it, and the skills it gives are almost all class skills, with the exception of fly and handle animal. Not that it really matters if it's a class skill in PF, but they are mostly skills you probably don't want to go 5 or more levels without putting ranks in them as a bard. Your party would probably be annoyed with you if you were supposed to be the face but didn't have diplomacy until level 6 because you were waiting to use perform (oratory) for that. Being able to effectively train the fly skill with perform (dance) is really good though, since you have to be able to fly regularly to be able to put ranks directly into it.

They did also get a few more performances, including one of the lamest capstones I can think of. A single target save-or-die is useful I guess, but it's not much compared to what some other classes get.

----------


## Ramza00

I know this is not what the thread is for, so please do not count this reply as votes or numbers, just oversharing  :Small Tongue: 

Unchained Rogue (Eldritch Scoundrel, Hidden Blade) is pretty neat.  Hidden Blade is a Path of War / Dreamscarred Archetype that makes rogue have PoW maneuvers similar to ToB.

You already mentioned Eldritch Scoundrel as a Tier 3 in the first post.  So what does Hidden Blade change?
This ability replaces the rogue talents gained at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 20th levels. This ability does not cause the hidden blade archetype to be incompatible with other archetypes that alter the rogue talents class feature, so long as it still has a rogue talent at each of these levels to give up.In sum stacking both archetypes means no rogue talents.
In return you gain the benefits of Hidden Blade which is Stances, up to 6th level maneuvers via class (1 feat allows up to 9th level Maneuvers) in 4 disciplines (3+1), Gambits (swift / immediate action abilities), Quick Draw including able to retrieve weapons from Hidden Spaces as a free actions, Portable Hole Specialist where Portable Holes and Bags of Holding take a move action to retrieve something.

So in sum a level 7 Rogue has 2d6 Sneak Attack and other Unchained Rogue abilities.  A 3rd level stance allows you to quickly add 1d6 plus Int or 2d6 which means you are doing comparable damage to a single class tradition rogue, same amount of spells as a magus but off the wizard list (so 4/3/1 plus bonus at level 7), and 3rd level maneuvers and due to how the advanced study feat works take it at HD 07 and you have 2 4th level maneuvers.

=====

Still tier 3 like a normal Eldritch Scoundrel Unchained Rogue but that is a lot of Jack of All Trades stuff, a true Arcane Trickster!

----------


## Gnaeus

> bard stuff.


That's like rogue. Versatile performance is a class feature that made them easier to play. But what did they lose that was relevant to 3.5 bard? DFI? Snowflake wardance? All those easy buffs to bardic inspiration? Seems like higher floor, lower ceiling again

----------


## Thunder999

Pathfinder bard grants a competence bonus rather than morale, so stacks with basically every other buff.   
Masterpieces offer many excellent options no 3.5 bard had. You can still get an excellent inspire courage bonus (+6 with feats), can add 1d6 sonic damage to all weapon attacks on top of that with another feat, an item will get you another +1 to inspire, oh and you can get up to a +10 effective level for performance with items easily enough.   
If you really want to do cha-to-hit then you can trade your 1st versatile performance for Desna's Shooting Star and get cha to hit and damage on starknives.

----------


## Ramza00

> That's like rogue. Versatile performance is a class feature that made them easier to play. But what did they lose that was relevant to 3.5 bard? DFI? Snowflake wardance? All those easy buffs to bardic inspiration? Seems like higher floor, lower ceiling again


Adds PF Bards get more real world spells known and spells per day.  For example at 7th level

PF. Bard has 5/4/2 Spells Known before Items.  Take the right race and you can get 3 additional 1st level and 1 additional 2nd level spells known by 7th level and 3 other levels of a favored class benefit.
3.5 Bard has 4/4/2 Spells Known.

PF. Bard has 4/3/1 Spells per day plus Bonus Spells.
3.5 Bard has 3/2/0 Spells per day plus Bonus Spells.

I argue these extra spells known and 1 extra spell of every level makes Bards more consistent due to higher versatility built into the chassis (higher floor like you said Ganesh.) Higher power is dependent on how well your spell selection is, how good of a gamer one is at separating the wheat from the chaffe, and if you are allowing PF bards access to 3.5 Spells then it is a pure buff on the spellcasting front even if there are changes to the other parts of the 3.5 vs Bard Chasis.

----------


## Drelua

> That's like rogue. Versatile performance is a class feature that made them easier to play. But what did they lose that was relevant to 3.5 bard? DFI? Snowflake wardance? All those easy buffs to bardic inspiration? Seems like higher floor, lower ceiling again


I don't know a tonne about how bards play in either edition, but I have played a few PFS games with someone else as a bard. This was below level 10 I believe, and they were handing out +5s to everyone thanks to a feat and a flag they waved around, if I'm remembering that right. DFI can be a fair bit of damage, but it doesn't seem like a huge upgrade to effectively trade 1 attack bonus for 2.5 damage, (3.5 for a d6, minus the 1 from inspire courage) especially with it being fire damage. I might rather have 1 in 4 attacks hit because of the +5 than do average 17.5 fire damage (an extra 12.5 over regular inspire) if I do hit, at least if I'm playing a dedicated damage dealer whose hits do more than that. And PF bard has the inspire courage bonus improve 3 levels earlier, FWIW.

If I'm a TWF rogue, I'd take the d6s, especially when I'm not able to sneak attack. But for a fighter or barbarian with a 2-hander, I'd take the +5 to hit. Though it also depends how hard they are to hit, if I'm fighting something with a super high AC and I'm only hitting on a 17, a +5 just to-hit more than doubles my damage. If I hit on an 8, as fighters often do by mid levels, hitting on a 3 instead adds less than half. I don't know, DFI seems like it'll sometimes be better, but not a huge upgrade.

Of course, it's possible, likely even, that I'm missing something about how these abilities interact and it's better than I think. I never paid much attention to the 3.5 bard, because my group happened to switch to PF around the time I learned enough to realize that bards didn't remotely deserve their reputation.

----------


## Kaouse

Base Rogue (Chained) - Tier 5
Archetyped* Rogue (Chained) - Tier 4.5
Base Rogue (Unchained) - Tier 4.2
Archetyped* Rogue (Unchained) - Tier 3.8

Archetypes don't include Phantom Thief, Eldritch Scoundrel or Hidden Blade.

Phantom Thief (Chained) - Tier 4
Phantom Thief (Unchained) - Tier 3.5

Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue - Tier 3.2
Eldritch Scoundrel + Hidden Blade Rogue - Tier 2.5
Spheres Eldritch Scoundrel + Hidden Blade Rogue + GM allows you to take FCB that gives Rogue Talents - Tier 2.1

I actually played the latter, and it was pretty kickass. That said, without casting or initiating, the class is pretty terrible, IMHO. Chained Rogue is the poster child for Tier 5, IMHO. Literally one of the worst classes in the game. I wouldn't put it above the Chained Monk in any capacity. 

Terrible BAB, terrible saves, large number of skills but few bonuses to said skills outside of Trapfinding (and an archetype that neuters your offensive capability). Your only damage steroid requires you to flank to make the best use of it, but you get no real survivability in the class itself to make that work. You don't even get anything in class to make Stealth work. 

Rangers are better Rogues than Rogues are, since Rangers get Stealth-based class features, a free flanking buddy, Full BAB, better saves, free combat feats and spellcasting to boot. The only niche a Rogue has is Trapfinding and there are numerous other classes that can get that now. 

If Tier 4 is defined by the Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin, then the Rogue (and Fighter) is nowhere close, IMHO.

----------


## Drelua

> If Tier 4 is defined by the Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin, then the Rogue (and Fighter) is nowhere close, IMHO.


The consensus seems to be that Paladin is Tier 3, if not by much, and the debate with Ranger is whether they're 3 or 4, so I don't think Tier 4 is defined by these classes at all [edit to clarify] in Pathfinder.

----------


## Kaouse

> The consensus seems to be that Paladin is Tier 3, if not by much, and the debate with Ranger is whether they're 3 or 4, so I don't think Tier 4 is defined by these classes at all [edit to clarify] in Pathfinder.


In the old days, the tiers were defined as:

Tier 1 - prepared full casters (Wizard, Cleric, Druid)
Tier 2 - spontaneous full casters (Sorcerer, Oracle)
Tier 3 - mid casters (Bard, Magus)
Tier 4 - Low Casters / Great Martials (Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian)
Tier 5 - Mediocre Martials (Fighter, Rogue, Monk)
Tier 6 - Class just doesn't function (N/A, maybe pre-errata Shifter)

That's basically still the definition I go by. When I give partial tier ratings, my Tier 1 basically looks more like (0-1), Tier 2 = 1-2, Tier 3 = 2-3, and Tier 4 = 3-4. So when I give something a rating of 3.8 like I gave the Ranger, I still consider it in Tier 4, IMHO. 

Paladin has made it to Tier 3. I totally agree. But I think it's the only one that's truly worthy of the tier jump. It was always at the top of Tier 4 so between that and the bottom of Tier 3 is more of a question of statistical significance, IMHO. 

The only other class I can accept jumping tiers in 1pp would perhaps be the Occultist. If you're allowed by your GM to take Mage's Paraphernalia on a Silksworn Occultist, then as far as I'm concerned, that's instant Tier 2.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Terrible BAB, terrible saves, large number of skills but few bonuses to said skills outside of Trapfinding (and an archetype that neuters your offensive capability).


I really don't get how you're getting to that conclusion.

Rogues don't have terrible BAB; they have the standard average BAB.
They also don't have terrible saves: the standard average is two good saves, rogue gets one good save plus Evasion plus Emboldening Strike. Again, that's pretty average.
Rogues can get numerous bonuses to skills from rogue talents and archetypes.
And finally, since this is a team game, you're allowed to flank with your teammates. We're not rating characters for solo campaigns.

----------


## Rynjin

> I really don't get how you're getting to that conclusion.
> 
> Rogues don't have terrible BAB; they have the standard average BAB.


They are just about the only 3/4 BaB class in the game with no innate accuracy booster, and as far as I know the only non-caster without one. Even Monk gets (fairly awful, TBF) accuracy booster.




> They also don't have terrible saves: the standard average is two good saves, rogue gets one good save plus Evasion plus Emboldening Strike. Again, that's pretty average.


The average is two good saves...and they get only one, making them below average, yes. To boot it's the WORST save to have a good bonus in because Ref saves are in general less impactful than Fort and Will saves.




> Rogues can get numerous bonuses to skills from rogue talents and archetypes.


True.




> And finally, since this is a team game, you're allowed to flank with your teammates. We're not rating characters for solo campaigns.


The big issue is no other class in the game requires flanking as a core part of their kit. It's just a nice extra.

Even other classes with Sneak Attack won't be angling to flank as desperately as the Rogue, since they typically have ways to get Sneak Attack without it (eg. in-class Greater Invisibility, like the Vivisectionist) or don't really care because it's just a nice extra not a necessary component of their damage dealing (like Slayer).

Sometimes flanking isn't super feasible. Unlike other characters with a situational damage boost (eg. Ranger), Rogue doesn't get to be a competent combatant without Sneak Attack. They go from reasonably good damage dealers to worse than an NPC class like Warrior without it.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> The average is two good saves...and they get only one


They get one plus two in-class saving throw boosters (Evasion and Emboldening Strike). So that's about average.




> (eg. in-class Greater Invisibility, like the Vivisectionist)


The rogue does have in-class Greater Invis (and as a swift action, no less), from the Invisible Blade talent.




> Sometimes flanking isn't super feasible. Unlike other characters with a situational damage boost (eg. Ranger), Rogue doesn't get to be a competent combatant without Sneak Attack.


The rogue definitely needs a way to add dex to damage rolls, but that's fairly easy to get in PF (and free for the u-rogue). Once he has that, his DPR should be decent (but not amazing) even without sneak attack.
Being one of the most SAD classes in the books helps here: using a single score for attack _and_ damage _and_ AC _and_ initiative _and_ your most prominent skills? Yeah, that's really good once magic belts and tomes come into play.
And of course it helps to invest in way to get sneak attack without flank. For instance, dirty tricks; or the aforementioned greater invis.

----------


## pabelfly

> In the old days, the tiers were defined as:
> 
> Tier 1 - prepared full casters (Wizard, Cleric, Druid)
> Tier 2 - spontaneous full casters (Sorcerer, Oracle)
> Tier 3 - mid casters (Bard, Magus)
> Tier 4 - Low Casters / Great Martials (Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian)
> Tier 5 - Mediocre Martials (Fighter, Rogue, Monk)
> Tier 6 - Class just doesn't function (N/A, maybe pre-errata Shifter)
> 
> ...


Remember that our tiering system came from 3.5 and Pathfinder made a bunch of changes to classes, including significant buffs to a lot of lower-end classes. You cite Fighter as T5, for example, but nearly everyone else thinks Fighter is a straight T4 class, rather than the 4.5 it was tiered as in 3.5. I'm not saying you can't disagree with what everyone else thinks, but if you're one of the few people that disagrees with something, it might be worth taking a minute or two to see the alternate viewpoint and see if you're persuaded.

----------


## pabelfly

*Voting Update:*

*Rogue (Unchained)
*Kurald Galain, Gnaeus  3.0
Drelua - 3.4
Avatar Vecna  3.7
Maat Mons  3.8
Endless Rain, Rynjin, Kitsuneymg, Firechanter  4.0
Kaouse  4.2

Average  3.71

*Rogue (Chained)
*Avatar Vecna  3.7
Kurald Galain, Gnaeus, Endless Rain, Totally Not Evil, Drelua - 4.0
Maat Mons  4.4
Rynjin, Kaouse, Kitsuneymg, Firechanter  5

Average  4.37

*Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Unchained)
*Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna, Maat Mons, Totally Not Evil , Rynjin - 3.0
Kaouse  3.2
Kurald Galain  3.5
Kitsuneymg  3.6

Average  3.16

*Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Chained)
*Maat Mons, Gnaeus, Totally Not Evil  3.0
Kaouse  3.2
Avatar Vecna  3.3
Kurald Galain  4.0

Average  3.25

*Phantom Thief Rogue (Chained)
*Avatar Vecna  3.3
Kaouse - 4
Maat Mons  4.6
Darvin  5

Average  4.23

*Phantom Thief Rogue (Unchained)
*Avatar Vecna  3
Kaouse  3.5
Maat Mons  3.6
Darvin  5

Average  3.78

----------


## Rynjin

> They get one plus two in-class saving throw boosters (Evasion and Emboldening Strike). So that's about average.
> 
> 
> The rogue does have in-class Greater Invis (and as a swift action, no less), from the Invisible Blade talent.
> 
> 
> The rogue definitely needs a way to add dex to damage rolls, but that's fairly easy to get in PF (and free for the u-rogue). Once he has that, his DPR should be decent (but not amazing) even without sneak attack.
> Being one of the most SAD classes in the books helps here: using a single score for attack _and_ damage _and_ AC _and_ initiative _and_ your most prominent skills? Yeah, that's really good once magic belts and tomes come into play.
> And of course it helps to invest in way to get sneak attack without flank. For instance, dirty tricks; or the aforementioned greater invis.


You're assuming access to A LOT of very specific Rogue Talents for all of this.  It takes 3 Talents just for Invisible Blade (which makes them more MAD), Emboldening Strike, Crippling Strike (which is mutually exclusive with Emboldening), etc. 

And even this "one true build" is still fairly lackluster.

I don't think an argument that a class can be good if it's built one very specific way is an argument for the class being a higher tier. The ceiling for Rogue here is T4, and it's usually less. You spend a lot of build real estate mitigating weaknesses rather than compounding strengths.

----------


## Kitsuneymg

Chained rogue: 5. Its barely playable. Its damage is crap unless youre fighting all medium sized creatures forever. Or you have another actual melee character to flank with. Hot garbage. Niche protection of disarming magic traps is literally the only reason to play a rogue. If your GM lets detect magic and just destroying the item the trap is cast on work, then there is no reason at all to play a rogue. 

Unchained rogue: 4. It has many of the same issues rogue has, except it allows sneak attack vs concealment, and natively has dex to damage starting at level 3. Signature skill intimidate is one of the few unlocks that matters and rogues will get it at level 5 for free. They are still bad, but at least they arent wholly eclipsed by other classes. 

Eldritch scoundrel is 3.6. Its not tier 3 imo. It gets an amazing spell list, but all of its spells come online 2-5 levels after you needed them, and it lost much of its combat numbers. Maybe theres a spell/sneak attack build someone made that turns scorching ray into a delete button, but if need to see numbers to properly evaluated it and Im too tired to do that myself now. 

Phantom thief is a downgrade to rogue. Not sure if its a full tier down, but its awful. Skill boosts arent worth it when magic obviates skills.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> You're assuming access to A LOT of very specific Rogue Talents for all of this.


Why exactly would you not have _access_ to any particular talents? Allowing all first-party material (since it's freely available on aonprd and d20pfsrd) is the default for Pathfinder.




> fighting all medium sized creatures forever.


Why would the size of your enemies matter? I'm aware that 2E has a rule that large creatures cannot be sneak attacked, but that's _decades_ ago.




> Or you have another actual melee character to flank with.


I see no problem with flanking with your teammates. This _is_ a team game, after all.

----------


## Thunder999

Assuming you have another melee character to flank with isn't a limitation, it'd be a really weird group that didn't.  

Most groups with a rogue will have some other melee character (a martial or one of the many 3/4 BAB casters that play well in melee) and some casters who can probably summon flanking creatures or just make things flat footed.

And most of the things that trigger sneak attack are beneficial already, so the party isn't even going much out of their way to help out.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Assuming you have another melee character to flank with isn't a limitation, it'd be a really weird group that didn't.


Yes, that. The rating for (say) bards also assumes that you have allies to buff with inspire courage, because in pretty much all adventuring parties you _will_ have allies to buff with inspire courage.

----------


## Drelua

Oh, did I forget to vote on this one? I'm gonna give chained rogues a *Tier 4.* They're not the best at anything, but they're fairly effective in combat, exploration, (of wilderness or dungeons) social situations, investigations, really anything that doesn't require magic I think. I'd say "alright at solving many problems" from the definition of T4 describes them pretty well.

Unchained Rogue got a significant combat boost and some skill unlocks that make them more effective in the same wide range of scenarios. I'll give them a *vote of 3.4.* I'm not convinced it's a massive upgrade outside of very specific options, but it is much easier to play and as good or better at everything, since it didn't really lose anything so it's just a straight upgrade. FWIW, the goblin rogue companion in the Kingmaker cRPG was an absolute killing machine, one of the deadliest in my party.

Not gonna vote on specific archetypes, just because I'm not very familiar with them.

----------


## Rynjin

> Why exactly would you not have _access_ to any particular talents? Allowing all first-party material (since it's freely available on aonprd and d20pfsrd) is the default for Pathfinder.


Probably misphrased. My point was you're seemingly saying "Rogue is good if they fill all of their Rogue Talent slots with these very specific Rogue Talents".

I've never been of the opinion that a specific build of a class tiers the class. It's more the aggregate sum of all the builds of the class.

----------


## Firechanter

Imho the default Rogue ("chained") without very specific archetypes carries the red lantern in PF, bringing up the rear even behind the Monk. It has to spend several feats to be even marginally functional in combat, and its main vector of attack is utterly negated by a range of low-level spells (darkness, blur, etc).

Unchained is certainly a lot better as it fixes most of these problems, but I think that still only puts it at the baseline.

Certain archetypes like ES are a different story, but you've discussed all that already.

So for the basic class without those ATs, I vote

Rogue, chained: 5.0
Unchained Rogue : 4.0

----------


## pabelfly

If Chained Rogue slides down much further I'm going to have to rewite the class summary.

----------


## Kitsuneymg

> Why exactly would you not have _access_ to any particular talents? Allowing all first-party material (since it's freely available on aonprd and d20pfsrd) is the default for Pathfinder.
> 
> 
> Why would the size of your enemies matter? I'm aware that 2E has a rule that large creatures cannot be sneak attacked, but that's _decades_ ago.
> 
> 
> I see no problem with flanking with your teammates. This _is_ a team game, after all.


When I pointed out that tumbling into flank position was harder in PF due to the higher dc, I was given herp durrrrrr five foot step!!! As the response. Enemies with reach exist. And failing to acrobatics does happen (unlike 3.5 past the lowest level.) Which means its harder to safely flank. This makes it harder to get sneak attack. Which is the only real thing a rogue has going for them.

----------


## vasilidor

I am going to say tier 4 for rogues. Against most CR=level opponents they do ok as long as they are part of a group and this is a team game. Outside of that they have plenty of utility skills that allow them to be useful. I have no experience with unchained rogues, but a few rogue archetypes that have made rogues better in certain niches.

----------


## pabelfly

*Voting Update:*

*Rogue (Unchained)
*Kurald Galain, Gnaeus  3.0
Drelua - 3.4
Avatar Vecna  3.7
Maat Mons  3.8
Endless Rain, Rynjin, Kitsuneymg, Firechanter  4.0
Kaouse  4.2

Average  3.71

*Rogue (Chained)
*Avatar Vecna  3.7
Kurald Galain, Gnaeus, Endless Rain, Totally Not Evil, Drelua, Vasilidor - 4.0
Maat Mons  4.4
Rynjin, Kaouse, Kitsuneymg, Firechanter  5

Average  4.34

*Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Unchained)
*Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna, Maat Mons, Totally Not Evil , Rynjin - 3.0
Kaouse  3.2
Kurald Galain  3.5
Kitsuneymg  3.6

Average  3.16

*Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Chained)
*Maat Mons, Gnaeus, Totally Not Evil  3.0
Kaouse  3.2
Avatar Vecna  3.3
Kurald Galain  4.0

Average  3.25

*Phantom Thief Rogue (Chained)
*Avatar Vecna  3.3
Kaouse - 4
Maat Mons  4.6
Darvin  5

Average  4.23

*Phantom Thief Rogue (Unchained)
*Avatar Vecna  3
Kaouse  3.5
Maat Mons  3.6
Darvin  5

Average  3.78

----------


## Kaouse

I keep hearing a lot about these "skill-boosting rogue talents," but I don't really see a lot of examples...

----------


## Rynjin

> I keep hearing a lot about these "skill-boosting rogue talents," but I don't really see a lot of examples...


You can just take a quick look at the Rogue Talent list perhaps?

Many, such as Acrobatic Stunt or Deft Palm are of dubious usefulness, but they certainly exist.

Others, such as Expert Cypher are a lot spicier.

They don't change the fact that Rogue is trash, but they are pretty great for their UnRogue brethren who simply have a stronger base chassis.

----------


## Drelua

> I keep hearing a lot about these "skill-boosting rogue talents," but I don't really see a lot of examples...


Most of them are pretty bad, there's a couple that sounded good for a second until I thought them through. Like Convincing Lie, people can use your bluff skill to tell the lie you told them. But if they believed you, why would they be rolling bluff? I don't know, maybe this talent makes it so that they believe the person, instead of just believing that they believed you?

Or Nimble Climber, rerolling a climb check so you don't fall sounds kinda useful when it comes up. Except the talent activates when you fail by 5. And it lets you reroll at the DC+10. So at best, you rolled a 1 and failed by exactly 5, so with this talent you won't fall if you roll at least a 16, so a 1 in 4 chance. If you failed by 5+ on a roll of at least 6, this talent does nothing. I guess if you have some way to add a bonus to a skill roll before you roll it, it could be okay.

Rapid Perception seems kinda good though, when it comes up at least. If invisible enemies are common, searching for them as a swift action and halving their bonus from invisibility is kinda good. Although it does say "a specific item or creature," so I don't know if you have to know who's invisible for it to work. So it may be basically worthless, if you read it that way.

There's a lot of roll twice and take the better for a specific skill options, which could be useful but they are limited to 1+1/5 levels uses per day though. And some of the Quick [whatever skill] talents are decent, I guess. Not great, but potentially kinda useful. Sleight of Hand Stunt is hilarious, just plucking someone's arrow as they shoot it would be funny. Won't likely work on the same person twice though, and doing it instead of an attack might not usually be worth it.

I hope I missed some, taking a quick look through them was kinda depressing. Expert Cypher is pretty good, though, as Rynjin said.

----------


## Coeruleum

I would rate the unchained rogue as definitely higher, but only if you're a particular build that uses the skill unlocks. Some of the skill unlocks are busted though. Sense Motive, Intimidate, Perception, Stealth, Diplomacy, and Craft (Poison) especially. Granted, anyone can use one skill unlock if they take the Signature Skill feat. If you're using Dreamscarred Press materials take Inquisitor (Psionic) and Unknowable Fear to really bust Sense Motive and Intimidate.

That being said, I've never played a rogue and I probably wouldn't play one without taking levels in something else (I'm probably just spoiled by full casting classes,) but unchained looks functional, especially if you're allowed to take the psionic archetype for it and you get Unknowable Fear (and hopefully some form of psychic sensitivity) to use with Intimidate Unchained so you can sneak around and intimidate people at the same time.

----------


## Rynjin

> I would rate the unchained rogue as definitely higher, but only if you're a particular build that uses the skill unlocks. Some of the skill unlocks are busted though. Sense Motive, Intimidate, Perception, Stealth, Diplomacy, and Craft (Poison) especially. Granted, anyone can use one skill unlock if they take the Signature Skill feat. If you're using Dreamscarred Press materials take Inquisitor (Psionic) and Unknowable Fear to really bust Sense Motive and Intimidate.


...No love for innate Dex to damage and Debilitating Injury?

----------


## Bucky

> Many, such as Acrobatic Stunt or Deft Palm are of dubious usefulness, but they certainly exist.


Deft Palm is dubious in a fun way.

GM: The rogue strikes you for 12 piercing damage.
Player: I thought you said the rogue was unarmed.
GM: Indeed, you still don't see any weapons on him.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Many, such as Acrobatic Stunt or Deft Palm are of dubious usefulness, but they certainly exist.


I'd say that's about on par with "you gain +2 to perception, but only while you're in a mangrove forest"  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Rynjin

> I'd say that's about on par with "you gain +2 to perception, but only while you're in a mangrove forest"


True, but every Ranger at least has the option of taking Favored Terrain: Underground, which functions explicitly in dungeons. That's a pretty good chunk of the game lol.

(That said I don't really like Favored Terrain and try to trade it out whenever a class has it, unless I'm going Horizon Walker.)

----------


## spectralphoenix

Skill Mastery is a big one, since most skill checks are pass/fail, ensuring that you never tank a roll counts for a lot.

Founder's Blessing lets you essentially become fully trained in any skill you want, one a day.

Stuff like Charmer gives rerolls to various skills, while Canny Observer just gives a flat +4 bonus to perception.

If you really like Favored Terrains, the rogue can take one as a talent. Same with Hide in Plain Sight as an advanced talent.

----------


## Kaouse

I don't think most people realize exactly how terrible most of these Rogue talents being listed actually are. Most of them only give bonuses in conditional and niche situations. Canny Observer is conditional. Acrobatic Stunt is EXTREMELY conditional. 

The Rogue's Favored Terrain & Hide in Plain Sight are infinitely worse than the Ranger's since both only function in ONE terrain and BOTH require you to spend more Rogue talents in order to gain more terrains. Compare to the Ranger, who gets 4 free terrains and Hide in Plain Sight in all of them. 

Most of them aren't even worth a feat. The best part of Expert Cipher can be replicated with a trait (Pragmatic Activator, for INT to UMD in place of CHA). The rest of Expert Cipher is either extremely niche (need to translate text, but don't have more than a few rounds), or completely worthless in practice (you can emulate a minimum casting stat with another UMD check...AT THE EXACT SAME DC AS DECIPHERING A SCROLL).

Founder's blessing points to heart of why I don't consider the Rogue a good skill monkey. Simply having ranks in a skill doesn't actually make you good a skill. You need a high bonus to be considered good at a skill. This is why Bards are great skill monkeys - they get a ton of skill bonuses (Bardic Knowledge alone is literally a +10 bonus to 10+ skills) and the ability to consolidate skills (and thereby multiply the effectiveness of boosting those consolidated skills). Even a Wizard with no spells is likely to be better at knowledge checks than a Rogue, because they're a super SAD class that's likely to have an insanely high INT, which a Rogue can't really afford since they a melee class with nothing more than light armor and have medium BAB with no accuracy booster. 

Far and away the best Rogue Talent that's been brought up in this thread is Skill Mastery, and even that is only really useful for skills that can be used in combat, since you can almost always Take 10 on skills outside of combat anyway. Seriously, the Rogue (and by extension, the Slayer to a lesser extent) is the only class that gets a pool of talents that's notably *worse* than just taking feats. Outside of Skill Mastery, the best talents on the Rogue's list of talents are the ones that give them feats.  

Compare this to a real Tier 4 class, the Barbarian. I've literally traded every applicable feat for Extra Rage Power on Barbarian. I'd never do the same for a Rogue. You could give the Rogue Full BAB and I'd probably still rather play a Fighter. Boring as bonus combat feats may be, they're infinitely better than the incredibly niche and overly conditional Rogue Talents. And when you think about it, doesn't that describe everything about the Rogue? What is Sneak Attack but a niche and overly conditional damage buff? The Rogue itself is niche and overly conditional. That's why it's Tier 5.

----------


## Drelua

> Skill Mastery is a big one, since most skill checks are pass/fail, ensuring that you never tank a roll counts for a lot.
> 
> Founder's Blessing lets you essentially become fully trained in any skill you want, one a day.
> 
> Stuff like Charmer gives rerolls to various skills, while Canny Observer just gives a flat +4 bonus to perception.
> 
> If you really like Favored Terrains, the rogue can take one as a talent. Same with Hide in Plain Sight as an advanced talent.


Skill Mastery is good, and Founder's Blessing could be very useful. I could definitely see using it for say, knowledge (planes) when you're about to fight some outsiders. Kinda seems like all the good talents are advanced though. Charmer would be good, but one talent to roll twice for one single skill a very limited number of times per day is kinda steep. Canny Observer is conditional, so it's worse than Skill Focus even before you have 10 ranks and the bonus doubles.

I don't think anyone here really likes favoured terrains, at least not without the spell that lets you treat any terrain as favoured, which of course rogues don't have, and hide in plain sight being locked to favored terrains really ruins it. You'd be better off paying the feat tax to qualify for shadowdancer. FT (Underground) is pretty good, my PFS Ranger had that and it came up just about every scenario, but it's still not going to be working as often as just being within 10 feet of dim light.

----------


## Thunder999

Rogues don't really have much good for boosting skills, but at least unchained rogues are a solid combat class, pretty much SAD on dexterity with some really solid on-hit debuffs from debilitating injury and some of the sneak attack-based options are nice too, like getting free dispel attempts or access to the Flensing Strike feat.  

Skill unlocks are a bit meh honestly, intimidate and heal are both nice, fundamentally changing the skills (intimidate goes from minor debuffs to sending enemies fleeing, heal becomes one of the better in-combat healing options, not bad for just skill ranks), but the rest tend to be fairly irrelevant.

----------


## Bucky

My table experience with Rogues is heavily colored by the fact that the only player who would bring one was the same flavor-over-power guy who tended to bring characters like a pyrokineticist or a cavalier. That said, both his pyrokineticist and his cavalier performed substantially better than his rogues. The cavalier was better at flanking, the kineticist had a more reliable bucket of d6s, and we never particularly missed the trapfinding, rogue talents or extra skills while he was playing the other characters. This leads me to believe the vanilla Rogue belongs in *Tier 5*.

This opinion does not apply to either Unchained Rogue or Eldritch Scoundrel. I am abstaining in both cases due to lack of relevant table experience.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Sapper gives up its second rogue talent for the ability to sell garbage for pennies - specifically, 1d10 gp per level per dungeon. Assuming 14 encounters per level, and assuming each encounter is its own dungeon (after which you run back to town to sell the garbage you found for pennies), by the time you hit lvl 20, that's 2660d10 gp, or ~14630 gp...so, ~1.6625% of your WBL, if you're cheesing this ability to hell and back.


Right. Since this thread has come back up, I'd like to vote tier 5.0 on the Sapper archetype because of how idiotic it is - and the price you pay for taking it makes it a pretty big downgrade.

----------


## AvatarVecna

> Right. Since this thread has come back up, I'd like to vote tier 5.0 on the Sapper archetype because of how idiotic it is - and the price you pay for taking it makes it a pretty big downgrade.


*nods*

It's only two rogue talents, but it's your first two. It haunts you forever.

----------


## pabelfly

*Voting Update:*

*Rogue (Unchained)*
Kurald Galain, Gnaeus  3.0
Drelua - 3.4
Avatar Vecna  3.7
Maat Mons  3.8
Endless Rain, Rynjin, Kitsuneymg, Firechanter  4.0
Kaouse  4.2

Average  3.71

*Rogue (Chained)
*Avatar Vecna  3.7
Kurald Galain, Gnaeus, Endless Rain, Totally Not Evil, Drelua, Vasilidor - 4.0
Maat Mons  4.4
Rynjin, Kaouse, Kitsuneymg, Firechanter, Bucky  5

Average  4.34

*Rogue (Unchained) (Sapper)*
Gnaeus  3.0
Drelua - 3.4
Maat Mons  3.8
Endless Rain, Rynjin, Kitsuneymg, Firechanter  4.0
Kaouse  4.2
Kurald Galain, Avatar Vecna  5

Average - 4.04

*Rogue (Chained) (Sapper)*
Gnaeus, Endless Rain, Totally Not Evil, Drelua, Vasilidor - 4.0
Maat Mons  4.4
Rynjin, Kaouse, Kitsuneymg, Firechanter, Bucky, Avatar Vecna, Kurald Galain 5

Average  4.56

*Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Unchained)
*Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna, Maat Mons, Totally Not Evil , Rynjin - 3.0
Kaouse  3.2
Kurald Galain  3.5
Kitsuneymg  3.6

Average  3.16

*Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (Chained)
*Maat Mons, Gnaeus, Totally Not Evil  3.0
Kaouse  3.2
Avatar Vecna  3.3
Kurald Galain  4.0

Average  3.25

*Phantom Thief Rogue (Chained)
*Avatar Vecna  3.3
Kaouse - 4
Maat Mons  4.6
Darvin  5

Average  4.23

*Phantom Thief Rogue (Unchained)
*Avatar Vecna  3
Kaouse  3.5
Maat Mons  3.6
Darvin  5

Average  3.78

----------


## Drelua

Looking at the totals for some of these archetypes, I wonder if votes should be counted differently when someone didn't vote on a certain archetype. I voted 4 for Rogue, which isn't being counted for Eldritch Scoundrel or Phantom Thief, but it is being counted for Sapper. How do you decide whether or not someone's vote for the base class should apply to an archetype? 

I'd agree that trading trapfinding and your first 2 talents for the ability to blow something up by staring at it for a few hours and some pocket change is a significant enough downgrade to drop your rank, not sure by how much though. But I feel like I should figure out a vote for that if it's going to use my vote for base Rogue.

----------


## pabelfly

> Looking at the totals for some of these archetypes, I wonder if votes should be counted differently when someone didn't vote on a certain archetype. I voted 4 for Rogue, which isn't being counted for Eldritch Scoundrel or Phantom Thief, but it is being counted for Sapper. How do you decide whether or not someone's vote for the base class should apply to an archetype? 
> 
> I'd agree that trading trapfinding and your first 2 talents for the ability to blow something up by staring at it for a few hours and some pocket change is a significant enough downgrade to drop your rank, not sure by how much though. But I feel like I should figure out a vote for that if it's going to use my vote for base Rogue.


This was an early tiering thread where I was still working out how to deal with separate archetypes. I'm not entirely happy with either method mentioned but counting original votes for specific archetypes seems to work better.

----------


## Drelua

> This was an early tiering thread where I was still working out how to deal with separate archetypes. I'm not entirely happy with either method mentioned but counting original votes for specific archetypes seems to work better.


Yeah, if you count all the votes the archetype isn't being considered in most votes, but if you only count votes for that archetype then it's usually only being decided by a few people. Not great either way. Maybe you could weigh votes more heavily for specific archetypes, like count them twice? Not sure how well that would work or how much work it would be though.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> I voted 4 for Rogue, which isn't being counted for Eldritch Scoundrel or Phantom Thief, but it is being counted for Sapper.


My original view was that everybody who doesn't explicitly rate an archetype should be assumed to use the same rating as for the base class.

But, what I'm seeing throughout this thread is that most people don't notice (or don't want to respond) to archetypes mentioned by other people. The clearest example is the Investigator, where the base class is a spellcaster and some archetypes are not (and in the near future, we'll get the Vigilante, which does the opposite). As with Eldritch Scoundrel, it's the most blatant example of a (potential) tier switch if an archetype switches between 6/9 casting or zero casting.

So the approach from my original view isn't working. Perhaps we should try the opposite, i.e. that archetype ratings only count those people who explicitly rate them, and that this may encourage more people to speak up about them.

----------


## pabelfly

> My original view was that everybody who doesn't explicitly rate an archetype should be assumed to use the same rating as for the base class.
> 
> But, what I'm seeing throughout this thread is that most people don't notice (or don't want to respond) to archetypes mentioned by other people. The clearest example is the Investigator, where the base class is a spellcaster and some archetypes are not (and in the near future, we'll get the Vigilante, which does the opposite). As with Eldritch Scoundrel, it's the most blatant example of a (potential) tier switch if an archetype switches between 6/9 casting or zero casting.
> 
> So the approach from my original view isn't working. Perhaps we should try the opposite, i.e. that archetype ratings only count those people who explicitly rate them, and that this may encourage more people to speak up about them.


I've had a think about this, and this is the compromise I've come up with:
Archetypes are tiered separately. You need to specifically vote on an archetype for that vote to count for an archetype.I need at least three votes for a specific archetype before I tier it separately. It's only going to be added to the master list if the average is more than 0.5 of a tier away from the general class.

If people think this is a reasonable solution, I'll do this going forward and get around to fixing up prior tier votes.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> If people think this is a reasonable solution, I'll do this going forward and get around to fixing up prior tier votes.


Sounds reasonable, and I'd like to addIt would really help if you make a new thread listing archetypes that had one or two votes (say, a thread covering four or five archetypes), to see if they attract more attention. Or at least, archetypes where you can make a good case that they probably tier differently (like the aforementioned non-casting investigator)To keep the main list clear and accessible, I suggest having _no_ separate ratings for build options that _aren't_ archetypes, such as "Sorcerer (draconic bloodline)" or "Bard (spheres masterpiece)" or "Slayer (half-orc)".By RAW, "alternate classes" (ninja, antipal and samurai) count as archetypes (they were printed before the term "archetype" was coined).

----------


## pabelfly

> Sounds reasonable, and I'd like to addIt would really help if you make a new thread listing archetypes that had one or two votes (say, a thread covering four or five archetypes), to see if they attract more attention. Or at least, archetypes where you can make a good case that they probably tier differently (like the aforementioned non-casting investigator)To keep the main list clear and accessible, I suggest having _no_ separate ratings for build options that _aren't_ archetypes, such as "Sorcerer (draconic bloodline)" or "Bard (spheres masterpiece)" or "Slayer (half-orc)".By RAW, "alternate classes" (ninja, antipal and samurai) count as archetypes (they were printed before the term "archetype" was coined).


After the main tiering threads are done I think I'll do a round 2 for individual archetypes and copy some quotes as to why people thought they deserved a separate vote.

If we get a significant amount of archetypes to be tiered separately, I'll also do a short "class only" list and the expanded "class and significant archetypes" list.

No tiers for non-archetype build options, agreed.

I'll consolidate the alternate classes later. 

Thanks for the suggestions.

----------


## Rynjin

> [*]By RAW, "alternate classes" (ninja, antipal and samurai) count as archetypes (they were printed before the term "archetype" was coined).[/list]


Hm? No, the APG came out the year before Ultimate Combat.

----------


## exelsisxax

Since this floated back up and i apparently didn't vote:

Unchained: T4
Chained: T5
Chained rogue is an aristocrat with evasion and sneak attack. You can do a lot of damage... while flanking a flat-footed enemy after your spellcaster debuffed it enough you can TWF mulch it because you have no combat steroids to boost your mediocre BaB, and your rogue talents are spent either desperately shoring up the giant holes in the class or abandoning hope and being a skill monkey - i.e. nearly useless.
Unchained is a strict upgrade - get free dex to attack/damage+, a powerful and flexible debuff instead of an attack steroid, and unchained skills which makes skillmonkey actually good instead of a near useless thing to do. Repertoire is still limited and somewhat narrow, but undeniably has significant punch now and contributes easily to problem solving.

Eldritch scoundrel: T3/T3.5
Scoundrel is the worst kind of casting - full caster list without any early/discount options. But it's the best list in wizard, so obviously it's useful for everything. Chained still sucks because you're just the worst half wizard ever but that's still better than martials.

----------


## Drelua

> My original view was that everybody who doesn't explicitly rate an archetype should be assumed to use the same rating as for the base class.
> 
> But, what I'm seeing throughout this thread is that most people don't notice (or don't want to respond) to archetypes mentioned by other people. The clearest example is the Investigator, where the base class is a spellcaster and some archetypes are not (and in the near future, we'll get the Vigilante, which does the opposite). As with Eldritch Scoundrel, it's the most blatant example of a (potential) tier switch if an archetype switches between 6/9 casting or zero casting.
> 
> So the approach from my original view isn't working. Perhaps we should try the opposite, i.e. that archetype ratings only count those people who explicitly rate them, and that this may encourage more people to speak up about them.


Yeah, I think ignoring my vote for archetypes I didn't specifically vote on is fair. Without looking at every single skill unlock, I can't tell how good Phantom Thief is for an Unchained Rogue. I looked at a few, Intimidate's the only one I saw that looked good. Whether or not it's a good trade depends how many good skill unlocks I'm missing. Sense Motive and Heal aren't bad, but are they worth completely losing Sneak Attack? For Chained Rogue it seems like a downgrade. The skill bonuses are nice, but what do you do in combat?

Eldritch Scoundrel I'm also unsure about, I'm inclined to say it's weaker than Bard but I'm not sure by how much. I feel like the Sor/Wiz list is better, but I don't feel familiar enough with either list to say how much better it is. And half sneak attack seems much weaker than Bard's combat buffs, but it's so different from base Rogue that it feels like a completely different class that I've never seen in action. I'd rather not have my vote count at all than put in a vote I'm not confident in.

Sapper, though... I don't know how anyone could ever think it was remotely worthwhile. I can almost imagine someone playing one, (except why would anyone ever do that) and the party never even letting them use Destructive Dismantle. "You want us to wait around for 2-5 hours so you can do 10 damage per level to this door? This door that the fighter can smash down in under a minute, guaranteed?" And then the other 2 abilities are somehow even worse. I don't think losing trapfinding and 2 talents is a full tier drop, at least not at mid to high levels, but it probably is at low levels.

So yeah, ignore my vote for the first 2. For Sapper... I'll say Chained Sapper is a 4.6. At least you still have SA and your skills intact. For Unchained, 3.8. You still get Finesse Training which is probably better than 2 talents, so combined with your other features you're still a bit ahead of Chained Rogue, but way behind an Unchained Rogue that passed on this horrible archetype.

----------


## pabelfly

If I've missed your vote or counted it wrong, let me know.

*Vote Update*

New procedural update:
Archetypes are tiered separately from classes. Three votes are required for an archetype for it to make it to the master list, and the archetype needs to be more than half a tier stronger or weaker than the base class to be added to the list. 

*Rogue (Unchained)*
Gnaeus  3
Drelua  3.4
TotallyNotEvil, Kurald Galain  3.5
Avatar Vecna  3.7
Maat Mons  3.8
Endless Rain, Rynjin, Exelsisxax, Kitsuneymg  4
Kaouse  4.2

_Average  3.74_

*Rogue (Chained)*
Kurald Galain, Endless Rain, TotallyNotEvil, Drelua, Gnaeus  4
Avatar Vecna  4.3
Maat Mons  4.4
Rynjin, Kaouse, Bucky, Exelsisxax, Kitsuneymg  5

_Average  4.48_



*Rogue (Unchained) (Eldritch Scoundrel)
*Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna, Maat Mons, TotallyNotEvil, Exelsisxax, Rynjin  3
Kaouse  3.2
Kurald Galain  3.5
Kitsuneymg  3.6

_Average  3.14_



*Rogue (Chained) (Eldritch Scoundrel)
*Maat Mons, Gnaeus, TotallyNotEvil  3
Kaouse  3.2
Avatar Vecna  3.3
Exelsisxax  3.5
Kitsuneymg  3.6
Kurald Galain, Gnaeus  4

_Average  3.4_



*Rogue (Chained) (Phantom Thief)
*Avatar Vecna  3.3 
Kaouse  4
Maat Mons  4.6
Bucky  4.75
Darvin, , Kurald Galain  5

_Average  4.44_



*Rogue (Unchained) (Phantom Thief)*
Avatar Vecna  3.0
Kaouse  3.5
Maat Mons  3.6
Kurald Galain  4
Darvin  5

_Average  3.82_



*Rogue (Chained) (Sapper)
*Drelua  4.6
Avatar Vecna  4.7
Kurald Galain, Bucky  5

_Average  4.83_



*Rogue (Unchained) (Sapper)
*Drelua  3.8
Avatar Vecna  4.0
Kurald Galain  5

Average  4.27

----------


## Bucky

In that case, I'm going to register an explicit *Tier 5* for Chained Sapper, as well. An ability to "quickly breach" obstacles in 2+ hours isn't enough to put them _up_ to tier 4.5 given my tier 5 rating for the base rogue, and the two talent replacements are of questionable value.

*Tier 4.75* for Chained Phantom Thief, for reasons completely unrelated to my other ratings in this thread. Unlike the base Rogue, they actually have some skill utility beyond the Expert baseline. Also unlike base rogue, they fight worse than an aristocrat. So they can lean into that by playing pacifist, dumping combat attributes and pumping Int and one skill specialty attribute. The tier definitions used here should put that into tier 4 because they're about what the character can solve, not about problems the character can't solve but will frequently be forced into participation anyway. But 1st level spells and pumped skill checks can only keep up with magical utility abilities for a minority of the Phantom Thief's carrier, so this rating reflects that they're tier 5 most of the time and peak into tier 4.

----------


## Kurald Galain

Ok, I hadn't voted on Phantom Thief yet. It loses sneak attack, making it largely useless in combat; and skill unlocks aren't great overall. Yes it can craft magic items (at level 14!) but any rogue with the Minor Magic talent can take Craft Wondrous Item at level 3. So this strikes me as an overall downgrade, and I'll say 4.0 (unchained) or 5.0 (chained).

----------

