How Does This Look as a Non-Gestalt (Fighter+Rogue)?

[Ziegander]

The Fighter

Alignment: Any
Hit Die: 1d10

Level|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|Special

1st|+1|+2|+2|+2|Bonus Feat, Sneak Attack +1d6, Trapfinding

2nd|+2|+3|+3|+3|Bonus Feat, Rough & Tumble

3rd|+3|+3|+3|+3|Sneak Attack +2d6

4th|+4|+4|+4|+4|Bonus Feat, Trap Sense +1

5th|+5|+4|+4|+4|Sneak Attack +3d6, Uncanny Dodge

6th|+6/+1|+5|+5|+5|Bonus Feat

7th|+7/+2|+5|+5|+5|Sneak Attack +4d6, Trap Sense +2

8th|+8/+3|+6|+6|+6|Bonus Feat

9th|+9/+4|+6|+6|+6|Sneak Attack +5d6, Improved Uncanny Dodge

10th|+10/+5|+7|+7|+7|Special Ability, Trap Sense +3

11th|+11/+6/+1|+7|+7|+7|Sneak Attack +6d6

12th|+12/+7/+2|+8|+8|+8|Bonus Feat

13th|+13/+8/+3|+8|+8|+8|Special Ability, Trap Sense +4

14th|+14/+9/+4|+9|+9|+9|Bonus Feat

15th|+15/+10/+5|+9|+9|+9|Sneak Attack +7d6

16th|+16/+11/+6/+1|+10|+10|+10|Special Ability, Trap Sense +5

17th|+17/+12/+7/+2|+10|+10|+10|Sneak Attack +8d6

18th|+18/+13/+8/+3|+11|+11|+11|Bonus Feat

19th|+19/+14/+9/+4|+11|+11|+11|Special Ability, Trap Sense +6

20th|+20/+15/+10/+5|+12|+12|+12|Bonus Feat, Master Strike


Class Skills (8 + Int modifier): Appraise, Balance, Bluff, Climb, Craft, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Disguise, Escape Artist, Forgery, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Hide, Intimidate, Jump, Knowledge (Any), Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Perform, Profession, Search, Ride, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Spot, Swim, Tumble, Use Magic Device, and Use Rope.

Proficiencies: A Fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons as well as all armors and shields.

Bonus Feats: As Fighter.

Sneak Attack: As Rogue.

Trapfinding (Ex): As Rogue.

Rough & Tumble (Ex): As Evasion, but also turns Fort Partial saves into Fort negates.

Trap Sense (Ex): As Rogue.

Uncanny Dodge (Ex): And Improved Uncanny Dodge. As Rogue.

Special Abilities: As Rogue. Can take a feat (any feat) or gain 1d6 Sneak Attack instead of the normal options.

Master Strike (Ex): Upon reaching 20th level, a Fighter becomes incredibly deadly when dealing sneak attack damage. Each time he deals sneak attack damage, he can choose one of the following three effects:

The target can be...

    put to sleep for 1d4 hours
    paralyzed for 2d6 rounds, or
    slain

Regardless of the effect chosen, the target receives a Fortitude save to negate the additional effect. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the Fighter's level + the Fighter's Intelligence modifier. Once a creature has been the target of a master strike, regardless of whether or not the save is made, that creature is immune to the effect for 24 hours. Creatures that are immune to sneak attack damage are also immune to this ability.


To me, it looks roughly comparable to a poorly-played Warblade, and as such, it should be fine at just about any game table. Sadly, I know of not a single DM that would allow the above class to be played in their game, other than myself.

[ImperatorK]

I would allow it. Or rather, I would point you to my "homebrewed" Fighter or Rogue.

[Tonymitsu]

Full BAB, d10's, all good saves, and 8 + Int skill points?
I'd disallow it for that alone.  Maybe I'd consider it if the entire rest of the party was playing full casters and you wanted to be the only melee.  Because with an option like that why would I bother playing any other melee class?

Rough and Tumble is basically a physical version of Mettle...
and the real kicker:  Special Ability can choose for another 1d6 sneak attack or any feat.

So right out of the box, at level 20, I can take nothing but the full TWF chain... and swing with 84d6 (before weapon and Strength damage), and force seven Fort save-or-die's per round.   That works out to, what, a 30%-ish minimum chance every round of instantly killing what I'm attacking?

Bring on the Tarrasque guys.  I got this.

[JohnnyMayHymn]

Add monk and I'd allow it   

[Halinn]

Add monk and I'd allow it

Why do you want to make it weaker?

[Ziegander]

So is the consensus that, yes, this would perform about as well as a poorly-played Warblade, and that, yes, most DMs wouldn't go near this class, because... because? That's more what I wanted to discuss here.

Like, personally, I have a real-life DM that allows Tome of Battle, but who wouldn't allow this class ever. That seems to fly in the face of reason, to me.

[sirpercival]

Why the weird sneak attack progression?

I'd allow it, though not with the name Fighter.  Clearly just wrong. 

+8d6 sneak attack and a death effect (do you want to include a descriptor?) < 9th-level maneuvers.

A d10 hit die is much less interesting than a high Con.  Basically, don't look at this as a better fighter, look at it as a less squishy and more effective Rogue.  I'd say less than a Warblade, it's more comparable to a Factotum but still comes out behind due to versatility.

[Ziegander]

Why the weird sneak attack progression?

Because of how I allowed Special Ability to pick up extra Sneak Attack dice.

I'd allow it, though not with the name Fighter.  Clearly just wrong. 

Yeah, I don't know what to call it other than Fighter. Because Rogue isn't right either. The Professional was the only other thing I thought of.

[sirpercival]

Why the weird sneak attack progression?

Because of how I allowed Special Ability to pick up extra Sneak Attack dice.

I'd allow it, though not with the name Fighter.  Clearly just wrong. 

Yeah, I don't know what to call it other than Fighter. Because Rogue isn't right either. The Professional was the only other thing I thought of.

Operative.  Boom!  Done.

[Tonymitsu]

So is the consensus that, yes, this would perform about as well as a poorly-played Warblade, and that, yes, most DMs wouldn't go near this class, because... because? That's more what I wanted to discuss here.

Like, personally, I have a real-life DM that allows Tome of Battle, but who wouldn't allow this class ever. That seems to fly in the face of reason, to me.

Oh.  You're serious.   

Well that's fair.


My first question as a prospective DM would be on what basis do you compare this to a "poorly-played Warblade"?

Warblades only have good fort saves, medium armor, and martial melee weapons only for starters.


Secondly, rather than do some sort of new progression that combines skill monkey with a full fighter benefits and proficiencies, it seems like you kind of just combined both classes and used whatever was better for each category.
...And then buffed it.
Basically it's blatantly superior to ever other melee character, so if I allow it what would be the point of playing any other melee class?

[sirpercival]

So is the consensus that, yes, this would perform about as well as a poorly-played Warblade, and that, yes, most DMs wouldn't go near this class, because... because? That's more what I wanted to discuss here.

Like, personally, I have a real-life DM that allows Tome of Battle, but who wouldn't allow this class ever. That seems to fly in the face of reason, to me.

Oh.  You're serious.   

Well that's fair.


My first question as a prospective DM would be on what basis do you compare this to a "poorly-played Warblade"?

Warblades only have good fort saves, medium armor, and martial melee weapons only for starters.


Secondly, rather than do some sort of new progression that combines skill monkey with a full fighter benefits and proficiencies, it seems like you kind of just combined both classes and used whatever was better for each category.
...And then buffed it.
Basically it's blatantly superior to ever other melee character, so if I allow it what would be the point of playing any other melee class?

Better in what way?  Do you really think these features are superior to maneuvers?  Even with the chassis?

[Tonymitsu]

Well... sort of, yeah.

Why, aren't they?
I admit, Tome of Battle was a great read, and I think it's an excellent book, but I don't have much experience putting it to use in actual games.

Off the top of I can't think of any combination of maneuvers that would equate to a 30% chance every round , minimum, of immediately killing whatever I'm fighting.

[ImperatorK]

There's a maneuver that is an instakill. Tiger Claw 8th or 9th level. Don't remember the name.
There's also a lower level maneuver called Finishing Move that, IIRC, autokills if the enemy has less than half health.
There's a 8th or 9th level maneuver that deals +100 damage.
There's a 8th or 9th level maneuver that allows to make two full attacks.
I would say that maneuvers, especially the higher level ones, are equally as good, if not better, than this class feature.

[sirpercival]

Honestly, think about it this way.  Warblade is tier 3.  Rogue is tier 5.  How much better is this than a rogue?  It has some bonus fighter feats (so not much that's useful, probably just the TWF tree), a better hit die (so somewhat less squishy), and a better BAB which equates to 1 more attack at 20th level.  Is any of that enough to bring it up to tier 3?  I don't think so.  I think it's a pretty solid tier 4.

[JohnnyMayHymn]

Ninja'd, comment no longer relevant.

[ImperatorK]

Rogue is tier 4.

[Maat Mons]

… force seven Fort save-or-die's per round.   That works out to, what, a 30%-ish minimum chance every round of instantly killing what I'm attacking?

The ability does say that any given creature is only subject to it once in any 24-hour period.  As written, it could be construed as once per each of the 3 selectable effects, but I assume it's meant to be once for the ability as a whole. 

Bow of the solars (Book of Exalted Deeds) makes every arrow it fires into a slaying arrow of any type the wielder chooses.  Using the splitting property (Champions of Ruin) and either haste or the speed property, you can potentially hit a target with 10 arrows per round, resulting in a 40% chance to roll a 1 on at least one of those saves. 

[sirpercival]

Rogue is tier 4.

Yes, my mistake.  Either way, this still isn't tier 3.

[ImperatorK]

Rogue is tier 4.

Yes, my mistake.  Either way, this still isn't tier 3.

Well. With a Fighter//Rogue gestalt, one class rounds up weaknesses of the other class. Fighter lacks skills, Rogue gives them. Rogue is squishy, Fighter makes him tougher. Rogue is feat intensive if you want him to really shine, Fighter gives feats.
Factotum is tier 3 partly because it's really that good, but also because it's that much better than a Rogue. So maybe instead of comparing this to tier 3 lets look how it fares in comparison to a other tier 4s?
Rogue is already tier 4. Look at "Why Tier 4s are in Tier 4". Cons:
"Finally another failure in Sneak Attack comes from the fact that the rogue isn't really meant to be in the middle of combat and using Sneak Attack with ranged attacks requires a lot of effort." - it's dealt with by making the Rogue more tough and giving him enough feats and good BaB for archery to work.
"A straight rogue is also pretty MAD, or must use precious feats to make himself more SAD." - you have the feats now.
Considering all this I would say that this Fighter//Rogue is a weak tier 3.
And I would change its name to Commando or something.

[Zionpopsickle]

While powerful enough to maybe be a weak tier 3 I must say that this class is really, really boring.  It also does very little about the mundane problem of linear progression.

I would say that instead of sneak attack/bonus feats you should choose one or the other (personally I would keep sneak attack) and then give it a "combat style" choice every other level which would include things like +stat damage, +stat AC, +stat saves, +stat to certain skills, small chunk of feat chain without prereqs, for lower levels and then "advanced combat" at higher levels which give SLAs (especially the necessary spells), pseudo-maneuvers (like its capstone), high-end feats w/o prereqs.

The character could come out looking largely the same if a player chose that way, but could be used to represent a huge variety of different Professional Soldier archetypes from sneaky commandos to knights templar to duelists to big, tough beatstick.