Trouvere
Explorer
Yeah, I know. But consider four builds:
(1) a Rogue, who takes the usual combat supporting feats... the TWF tree, Weapon Finesse, and so on... there's the classic baseline sneak attacker
(2) a Feat Rogue who doubles up on combat feats... so equivalent to a fighter in feat load (though unable to qualify for a couple of Fighter only feats)... chances are, though, his nifty combat tricks don't work quite as often because he's a few points of BAB down on the real fighter, and he's probably a Dex build so does less base damage. He also has much less combat durability, but at least he has more and better skills than the Fighter
(3) a Feat Rogue who uses the bonus feats either to put together a simple combat role, or uses them for Improved Initiative and the like, and then uses regular feats to enhance her roguishness - a couple of Skill Focus feats, Deft Hands, Stealthy, Negotiator, a Natural Talent in a Knowledge skill, or whatever. The simple combat role's not going to be very useful, because it's not backed up with bonus d6s. To that extent, she's close to being a non-spellcasting non-singing bard. So the skills and roguishness take centre stage
(4) a Rogue who decides to focus solely on his roguishness, with the same set of regular feats as (3). He's less combat capable than (1) or (3), but he's still lumbered with an eventual 10d6 sneak attack, which doesn't fit his persona. There's nothing you can do about that, except pretend you don't have it, and act surprised when you do gut something with a single dagger stab for 40 instead of 4, then try to forget about it for the next combat. (4) just doesn't work conceptually.
I agree that the fluff for the feat rogue states that they're more martial, and you certainly can use it to build a (2). But I also maintain that without Feat Rogue you can't build any kind of (3), which is a common character archetype, because (4) is not an adequate substitute, due to that damn sneak attack.
With probably two dozen useful choices for Skill Focus and a whole slew of rogue-related +2/+2 feats available, and a handful of other feat possibilities (...although Jack of All Trades, which springs to mind, is, though in the SRD, not LEW-approved, I think?) could you clarify why you say there aren't enough roguish feats for (3) to provide a valid solution to a build type?
(1) a Rogue, who takes the usual combat supporting feats... the TWF tree, Weapon Finesse, and so on... there's the classic baseline sneak attacker
(2) a Feat Rogue who doubles up on combat feats... so equivalent to a fighter in feat load (though unable to qualify for a couple of Fighter only feats)... chances are, though, his nifty combat tricks don't work quite as often because he's a few points of BAB down on the real fighter, and he's probably a Dex build so does less base damage. He also has much less combat durability, but at least he has more and better skills than the Fighter
(3) a Feat Rogue who uses the bonus feats either to put together a simple combat role, or uses them for Improved Initiative and the like, and then uses regular feats to enhance her roguishness - a couple of Skill Focus feats, Deft Hands, Stealthy, Negotiator, a Natural Talent in a Knowledge skill, or whatever. The simple combat role's not going to be very useful, because it's not backed up with bonus d6s. To that extent, she's close to being a non-spellcasting non-singing bard. So the skills and roguishness take centre stage
(4) a Rogue who decides to focus solely on his roguishness, with the same set of regular feats as (3). He's less combat capable than (1) or (3), but he's still lumbered with an eventual 10d6 sneak attack, which doesn't fit his persona. There's nothing you can do about that, except pretend you don't have it, and act surprised when you do gut something with a single dagger stab for 40 instead of 4, then try to forget about it for the next combat. (4) just doesn't work conceptually.
I agree that the fluff for the feat rogue states that they're more martial, and you certainly can use it to build a (2). But I also maintain that without Feat Rogue you can't build any kind of (3), which is a common character archetype, because (4) is not an adequate substitute, due to that damn sneak attack.
With probably two dozen useful choices for Skill Focus and a whole slew of rogue-related +2/+2 feats available, and a handful of other feat possibilities (...although Jack of All Trades, which springs to mind, is, though in the SRD, not LEW-approved, I think?) could you clarify why you say there aren't enough roguish feats for (3) to provide a valid solution to a build type?
) Suppose we were to houserule that, just as you can't combine Cleric with Cloistered Cleric or Ranger with Urban Ranger, or Fighter with either Thug or Sneak Attack Fighter, or Feat Rogue with Rogue, you also can't combine Feat Rogue with Fighter, because they're essentially the same thing?
