[3.5] The Rogue Handbook: A Fistful of d6

[faceroll]

According to Curmudgeon here they do. No idea about the source though.

I'd really like to see a source on that.

It's on my to-add list (which is really really big right now). Are there any better shadow pouncer PrCs than Telflammar Shadowlord?

Not really. Crinti Shadow Marauder from Shining South gets it, but it's a mount-based class. Maybe some sort of scout/rogue build or something; who knows. I think Shadow Lord is 100x better, cause it's got spells.

[Curmudgeon]

You're intentionally choosing to read things in a way that invalidates a combination that you (apparently; I don't actually know you) don't like, but in doing so, you end up making a series of feats utterly pointless.

Likes and dislikes don't enter into it. Personally, I really like Rogues, and am always on the lookout for ways to make them more effective. But I try to read the rules as written, then figure out if and how to put things together in a useful fashion. There's nothing in the rules that says a bunch of feats, none of which are in a feat tree, need to work well together.

And you don't see any problem with that reading?

The rules are the rules. This particular feat has one stated use, and I'm just maintaining that that's what the RAW says. It works against the Darkness spell, but not other [Darkness] spells or effects. Warlocks already have an alternate solution with more capability in this regard: the Devil’s Sight invocation. Other classes have different ways of getting at a similar result, such as the Ebon Eyes spell. So complaining that At Home in the Dark doesn't duplicate Devil's Sight seems pointless to me. If the feat doesn't do what you'd like it to, don't take it; find another answer. D&D is just brimming over with options.

[ZeroNumerous]

If the feat doesn't do what you'd like it to, don't take it; find another answer. D&D is just brimming over with options.

Except the feat does what it's intended to do: It sees through a darkness spell.

A spell like ability, quoth the SRD...

Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A few spell-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described.

Bolding mine.

The invocation specifies that "you can use darkness as the spell".

If I am using Darkness as per the spell, and spell-like abilities function just like the spell of that name, then by RAW At Home In the Deep will allow me to see through it.

[DragoonWraith]

Curmudgeon, I have to agree with ZeroNumerous here. The rules for SLAs suggest that when an SLA mimics a spell, it counts as that spell for all purposes. You can qualify for prestige classes by having SLAs of spells. You can qualify for feats with SLAs of spells.

[Optimator]

Looking good thus far.

[Curmudgeon]

As you quoted, "Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name."

If I am using Darkness as per the spell, and spell-like abilities function just like the spell of that name, then by RAW At Home In the Deep will allow me to see through it.

Except, of course, when the feat says that it specifically works on the Darkness spell alone. The writers of the feat were clearly aware of this distinction, because the feat's prerequisite includes "Darkness as a spell-like ability", whereas the benefit is for "the Darkness spell" and not the Darkness spell-like ability.

You can't have it both ways. If the distinction isn't important, as you claim, then the feat wouldn't call out distinct versions of Darkness in the prerequisite and benefit sections. If the distinction does matter for the feat, then the benefit works only as stated.

[Defiant]

What about the pixie race? Isn't it awesome for a rogue?

[DragoonWraith]

As you quoted, "Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name."

Except, of course, when the feat says that it specifically works on the Darkness spell alone. The writers of the feat were clearly aware of this distinction, because the feat's prerequisite includes "Darkness as a spell-like ability", whereas the benefit is for "the Darkness spell" and not the Darkness spell-like ability.

You can't have it both ways. If the distinction isn't important, as you claim, then the feat wouldn't call out distinct versions of Darkness in the prerequisite and benefit sections. If the distinction does matter for the feat, then the benefit works only as stated.

The way I see it:

Things that affect spells affect SLAs of that spell.

Things that affect SLAs do not affect the spell that SLA mimics if cast as a spell.

[Akal Saris]

I'd suggest dropping the matter and letting Curmudgeon play it how he likes it, or starting a new thread on the SLAs vs. spells argument.

On a sidenote, one PC in a game I run is a 12th level warlock who went nuts with the darkness-themed feats and the house-ruled lesser invocation version of darkness (the one that includes a swarm of bats). Her character is an absolute pain in the butt to fight in most combats - flying around with immediate action deeper darkness+bats that grants her HiPS and a hide bonus. She's actually considering taking a level of rogue and the craven feat to boost her skills and damage vs. flat-footed opponents.

[Jarian]

*facepalms forever*

So, we have this spell-like ability. It functions, for all intents and purposes, as a spell of the same name.

But the ability that requires said spell-like ability doesn't actually let you use it.

Because you're coming up with... what? The lack of "-like ability" in the feat's description?

Ugh. I need a drink just trying to understand your thought processes.

Edit: Above poster is correct. No sense derailing this thread with further pedantry.

[Thiyr]

As you quoted, "Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name."

Except, of course, when the feat says that it specifically works on the Darkness spell alone. The writers of the feat were clearly aware of this distinction, because the feat's prerequisite includes "Darkness as a spell-like ability", whereas the benefit is for "the Darkness spell" and not the Darkness spell-like ability.

You can't have it both ways. If the distinction isn't important, as you claim, then the feat wouldn't call out distinct versions of Darkness in the prerequisite and benefit sections. If the distinction does matter for the feat, then the benefit works only as stated.

This is a case of ovals and circles, I'd say. A circle is an oval, but an oval is not a circle. By the same token, SLAs act as spells of the same name. However, the spell does not act as an SLA. The distinction matters for the pre-req, because the spell will not qualify, only the SLA will. It does not matter in the description, as the SLA works as the spell does, and as such can be seen through.

Edit: drop'd

[ZeroNumerous]

As you quoted, "Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name."

If you had simply continued onward, past my bolding, you would notice this:

Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A few spell-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described.

Bolding, once again, mine.

Denoting that the 'Usually' qualifier applies only in cases where the spell-like ability in question specifies otherwise.

There is no specific case in Darkness(the invocation) that specifies that it functions in any way except as per Darkness(the spell).

Except, of course, when the feat says that it specifically works on the Darkness spell alone.

The only specification relevant to At Home in the Deep is that it does not function on other [Darkness] effects.

According to your logic, that qualification is irrelevant as Descriptors only apply to spells, which you clearly believe Spell-like Abilities are not.

As such, an SLA that "functions as per Darkness" will continue to function as per Darkness and an ability that sees through Darkness will see through such an SLA, as--again, according to you--such an SLA is not a [Darkness] spell.

Then again: Anyone else would say "That's bunk" and classify an SLA as a [Darkness] spell, even if strict RAW says otherwise. This is known as the "No, you cannot heal yourself by dunking your head under water" effect.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

What about the pixie race? Isn't it awesome for a rogue?

+6 LA says otherwise...

[Curmudgeon]

Curmudgeon, I have to agree with ZeroNumerous here. The rules for SLAs suggest that when an SLA mimics a spell, it counts as that spell for all purposes. You can qualify for prestige classes by having SLAs of spells. You can qualify for feats with SLAs of spells.

Sometimes yes; sometimes no.

... a prestige class with a spellcasting requirement of “Must know (or be able to cast) darkness” is met by a warlock who chooses darkness as one of her invocations, or by any creature with darkness as a spell-like ability.

... requirements for feats and prestige classes based on specific levels of spells cast (“Able to cast 3rd-level arcane spells,” for example) cannot be met by spell-like abilities or invocations—not even spell-like abilities or invocations that allow a character to use a specific arcane spell of the appropriate level or higher.

But a requirement can always specify exactly what's allowed and what's not. The Mindbender Prc, for instance (Complete Arcane, page 54)

Spells: Able to cast charm person, use charm person as a spell-like ability, or use the charm invocation.

... or the Arcane Mastery feat (Complete Arcane, page 73):

Prerequisite: Ability to cast arcane spells or use spell-like abilities (including invocations).

You can't acquire At Home in the Dark if you can cast the Darkness spell, because the prerequisite stipulates only the Darkness spell-like ability; contrast this with “Must know (or be able to cast) darkness” in the above example. Similarly, you can't see through the Darkness spell-like ability, because the benefit stipulates only the Darkness spell; again, see the above example for a form which would allow you to see through either.


By popular request, I guess I'm done here.

[PId6]

What about the pixie race? Isn't it awesome for a rogue?

It has some very good abilities, but the +4 LA really hurts. It could be decent in high level games though, as long as your DM isn't popping True Seeing on everything. I'll go over it in the LA races section I'll add eventually.

I'd really like to see a source on that.

Here you go.

[Akal Saris]

If the DM is giving away free LA, then pixie is good at +1 or even +2 LA, but I think +4 is probably too much for a rogue. Being 4 ranks below an ECL 5 human rogue's skills is probably just too much even for constant greater invis and the other nice stuff.

My personal favorite rogue race is probably strongheart halfling, followed closely by whisper gnome and human/azurin.

[Curmudgeon]

I'd really like to see a source on that.

This was asked in the "Simple Q&A" thread, and I cited the source there; it's straight out of the basic stacking rules in the Player's Handbook.

[faceroll]

Here you go.[/QUOTE]

This was asked in the "Simple Q&A" thread, and I cited the source there; it's straight out of the basic stacking rules in the Player's Handbook.

Thanks. I've wondered this for quite some time, and never bothered to look in an actual book. Never could find anything on the SRD, either way.

[Curmudgeon]

Thanks. I've wondered this for quite some time, and never bothered to look in an actual book. Never could find anything on the SRD, either way.

The full explanation is not in the SRD. The d20srd.org version adds the stack definition, because that was released separately for the online D&D Glossary. However, as I noted, this only provides (as examples) 2 of the 3 exceptions to the basic stacking rule (circumstance and dodge bonuses); it omits mention of the other exception: racial bonuses.

The SRD is very nice, and I use it a lot. But hauling out the actual books is the way to go when things aren't clear after you've exhausted the convenient (but sometimes misleading) online material.

[Thespianus]

As I see it, Two-Weapon Fighting is an expensive trap for Rogues. It's just not worth it.

And I assume this is one of the reasons that a magic enabled Rogue is very popular. Wraithstrike (especially in Extended or Persisted form) makes TWF fun even at very high levels.

Then again, when you can persist Wraithstrike, I guess you're more of an almost full caster than a Rogue. ;)

[PId6]

Then again, when you can persist Wraithstrike, I guess you're more of an almost full caster than a Rogue. ;)

I don't see how you can Persist it without either 1. significant levels in a full casting class, or 2. way too much effort to cheese it in without 1. Naenhoon Illumian with a cleric dip, a wizard dip, and Precocious Apprentice would qualify for 2, but you're better off just turning into a full caster in that case.

[PId6]

Update: I've added an LA races section with some of the suggestions. Marrulurks really are just awesome.

[Thespianus]

I don't see how you can Persist it without either 1. significant levels in a full casting class, or 2. way too much effort to cheese it in without 1. Naenhoon Illumian with a cleric dip, a wizard dip, and Precocious Apprentice would qualify for 2, but you're better off just turning into a full caster in that case.

Well, with Rogue/Wizard/Unseen Seer/(Other PrC), you can get significant levels in a full casting class without losing the Rogue feel, but yes, it requires crazy levels of caster and maybe some Metamagic-reducing feats as well.

I know, I know. Just saying that it's doable. ;)

However, if you go Rogue X/Focused Specialist Transmuter Y/Unseen Seer 2 , you don't need too many non-Rogueish levels to use Extend Spell, both for Wraithstrike and Hunter's Eye.

Anyway, great handbook! I forgot to say that, and I apologize. Awesome work!

[PId6]

Well, with Rogue/Wizard/Unseen Seer/(Other PrC), you can get significant levels in a full casting class without losing the Rogue feel, but yes, it requires crazy levels of caster and maybe some Metamagic-reducing feats as well.

I do love me some Unseen Seer. My current one has Persistent Wraithstrike running everyday, along with Persistent Hunter's Eye, Cloud of Knives, Golem Strike, Grave Strike, Guided Shot, and Sniper's Shot. I should probably add Easy and Practical Metamagic to the feats section; they're extremely helpful for all Unseen Seer-type builds.

Anyway, great handbook! I forgot to say that, and I apologize. Awesome work!

Thanks!

[Endarire]

Rogue! Every class handbook is better with a link to the original class!

Savage Progressions has LA0 versions of Aasimar, Drow, and Tieflings. Aasimar and Tieflings are still native outsiders!

Whisper Gnome Stats.

Dragonborn of Bahamut Template.

Goblin is probably worse than Air Goblin. Extrapolating other elemental races (+2 INT, -2 CHA for Races of Fire) may be viable.

Gray Elf.

Half-Elf.

There's controversy whether Action Before Thought allows Evasion. If so, this maneuver is slightly more viable. I also greatly recommend save swap maneuvers if your DM likes forcing saves. Having them handy is usually an auto-pass 1/encounter.

You reference Penetrating Strike (Dungeonscape 13) so often yet I didn't see the source or how to get it. Penetrating Strike is an alternative class feature (ACF) that replaces Trap Sense at Rogue3.

[Os1ris09]

That's because Two-Weapon Fighting isn't actually a good idea for Rogues.

The theory is that more attacks = more opportunities for sneak attacks. However, this only works if all of the following are true:

• you actually get more attacks
• more attacks = more hits
• you survive

Two-Weapon Fighting only gives you more attacks when you can make a full attack; the rest of the time this feat does nothing for you. Getting those extra attacks requires that you don't need to use a move action in any round, so it's quite situation-dependent.

Choosing TWF reduces your chances of hitting in several ways:

• It applies at minimum a -2 penalty to all attacks.
• Using it either doubles your costs for weapons, or has you using weapons with lower enhancement (so even less likely to hit).
• Feat cost: Selecting Two-Weapon Fighting means you didn't select something that would provide greater benefits (like Knowledge Devotion, which increases both hit chance and damage). And the returns on further feats in the TWF tree are worse: same cost (1 feat), but less chance of hitting with each one.
• The ideal main hand Rogue weapon is the rapier. Off hand weapons Rogues are proficient with can't match the rapier's threat range, which means you'll make fewer critical hits. (Or you'll incur a -4 penalty using dual rapiers, or a feat cost for Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting instead.)
• At the start of every encounter you must be equipped with a ranged weapon, or waste vital chances to sneak attack flat-footed foes: once in the surprise round (if your Spot and Listen are good), and for a full attack in the first regular round. But Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't help if you use a two-handed ranged weapon, like a bow. So you'll only benefit from TWF if you throw things (or grab loaded hand crossbows, which amounts to the same thing). Every thrown weapon the Rogue is proficient with will incur a range penalty within the 30' sneak attack limit, so you're less likely to hit. Plus when you get to BAB +6 you'll need Quick Draw or you'll be unable to full attack with your thrown weapons: more feat cost.

Because you're going to make full attacks, you're probably going to be in melee a lot, and thus at greater risk of being killed by full counterattacks. (The other option is to take Quick Draw and throw javelins or use many hand crossbows. Though a safer approach, range penalties and poor threat ranges cause you to lose on both regular and critical hits.) Heavy melee combat means you'll want to increase your CON score, which isn't normally useful for the Rogue's class abilities. Boosting CON comes at the expense of some other ability that is useful to the class (like INT for more skill points, or WIS to boost Spot and Listen so you won't be surprised).

As I see it, Two-Weapon Fighting is an expensive trap for Rogues. It's just not worth it.

maybe it has already been mentioned. But the kukri has the same threat range as the rapier. Just 1 dice lower. 1d4/1d3 (M/S respectively)

[Greenish]

maybe it has already been mentioned. But the kukri has the same threat range as the rapier. Just 1 dice lower. 1d4/1d3 (M/S respectively)

Yes, but his point was that "[o]ff hand weapons Rogues are proficient with can't match the rapier's threat range, which means you'll make fewer critical hits".

[PId6]

Links

That is a good idea. I'll add the links later.

There's controversy whether Action Before Thought allows Evasion. If so, this maneuver is slightly more viable. I also greatly recommend save swap maneuvers if your DM likes forcing saves. Having them handy is usually an auto-pass 1/encounter.

There's no reason by RAW why it wouldn't work with Evasion. Action Before Thought replaces the roll with a Concentration check "to determine the save's success." Evasion says that if the rogue "makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage." If Action Before Thought reports success, then Evasion prevents all the damage.

I dislike Action Before Thought on rogues, however, because your Reflex saves are already high enough. You have to choose to use it before you know whether you've rolled a natural 1, so the only point is to prevent a 5% chance of failure, expending an action to do so. You also have to spend points on Concentration, and it prevents you from taking a better maneuver like Mind Over Body, since Fortitude actually is a problem.

You reference Penetrating Strike (Dungeonscape 13) so often yet I didn't see the source or how to get it. Penetrating Strike is an alternative class feature (ACF) that replaces Trap Sense at Rogue3.

You must have missed it then. It's in the ACF section, under "Replaces Trap Sense."

[Parra]

I was just looking at the Swordsage dip advice; it says that a 1 level dip (ideally taken at level 9) allows you to take 'Assassins Stance', but that stance requires 3 levels of Swordsage to take. Is there something Im missing?

[Greenish]

I was just looking at the Swordsage dip advice; it says that a 1 level dip (ideally taken at level 9) allows you to take 'Assassins Stance', but that stance requires 3 levels of Swordsage to take. Is there something Im missing?

You're missing the rules about how initiator levels for maneuvers function. "Swordsage 3" in the maneuver description means that it's a 3rd level maneuver for swordsages, so a swordsage can take it at (initiator) level 5. Non-martial adept classes (ie. non-ToB ones) advance your initiator levels at 1/2 ratio, so level 8 something/1 swordsage would have initiator level 5 (8/2+1) for swordsage maneuvers and could thus take 3rd level maneuvers. Savvy?

[dextercorvia]

There is a debate over the line 'begins play with...' means exactly. Some people do believe that a Rogue8/SS1 is limited to 1st level stances because of that line, and others believe that it only applies to taking your first character level as Swordsage. I am ambivalent, (and could have the details of the debate wrong) due to lack of ToB.