Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Atarlost's page

4,244 posts (4,245 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 4,244 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Actually, only two or three of your characters are particularly good against undead. The paladin and cleric have smite and channel and the ranger can select undead as a favored enemy, but the inquisitor, oracle, and druid aren't anything special against undead.

You're running a little above par if the other four have the same ratio, but not by much. A "typical" 4 person party probably usually has a cleric and 1/2 to 2/3 of the time either a paladin or a ranger that can take favored enemy: undead if the campaign calls for it.

I still haven't seen anything that looks more fun than my idea. It's unique and not something other classes can practically take away. It has limitations without being either magic or a disassociated mechanic.

Yes, it's slow, but shouldn't really be much slower than the guy running a wizard, a familiar, and summoned monster if you have a big pile of d12s. And it's an excuse to have a big pile of d12s because you can't tell me dodecahedrons aren't the coolest platonic solid.

I've only read the guide, not the thread, so I don't know if these have been mentioned.

Evangelist Cleric: Your static damage comes from Inspire Courage and Divine Favor. Anything you lose in damage is arguably made up for in initiative in getting party buffs going.

Druid: If you have a source of oddly sized scimitars as you advance, air elemental forms give you size and dexterity. This is more backup on a caster, but for that reason initiative is again more valuable than it is to most.

Gallant Inspiration isn't that great because it overlaps with inspire courage or inspire competence. I don't know CoT, but I suspect something like invisibility or blur would be handy or maybe mirror image.

It might be better to masterwork your cestus, longsword, and shortbow than to +1 your longspear.

Elementals can take any shape subject to their weight, volume, and density limitations. If someone wants to polymorph into one with fingers they can have fingers. If they want to be shaped like a snake they don't have to have limbs at all.

I lent someone my bestiary, but I think the picture of the large earth elemental actually shows fingers.

Jiggy wrote:
And I'm sure the 20 minutes you spent pondering this yourself is likely to produce a far more accurate assessment of its practical effects than the months spent by teams of professional game designers and the years of actual gameplay from the entire community.

This might have some relevance if Paizo had a team of professional game designers. They don't. Paizo has no more system design credibility than any random GM. They are and have always been a world building and adventure writing company.

Paizo has a team of professional setting and adventure writers who had to wear game designer hats in the wake of the 4e licensing fiasco.

K177Y C47 wrote:
Or you can be an Arcanist and have the best of both worlds..

The arcanist still has delayed spell access compared to a wizard. It's not bad on even levels, but it's still not a wizard.

Byronus wrote:
shadowkras wrote:
So the superior melee BAB of humanoid melee combat would NOT apply.
Depending on the number of limbs, the humanoids are not that superior :P
I'd imagine the Polymorph spell would allow for MUCH better combat forms than Wild Shape, which is limited to Animals. :/

Yes and no. Form of the Dragon and Giant Form are pretty spiffy, but Elemental Body is also nice and is available to druids.

Accordingly you should probably take shaping focus. Shaping as level 8 is kind of important. It gets you rake from Beast Shape, the elemental size that can use your standard gear, and all day wildshape.

A wizard at any odd level other than 1 or 19 knows at least 2 spells of his highest level. If he's a specialist or has a bonus spell from int he can prepare both if he wants. A sorcerer knows zero spells of that level.

A wizard at any even level knows at least 4 spells of his highest level. If he's a specialist or has bonus slots he can prepare any 3. If he's a specialist with a bonus slot from high int he can prepare all 4 if he chooses. A sorcerer has one spell known. Feel that spontaneity.

A sorcerer can get pages of spell knowledge. They cost more than sixty times as much as a wizard would typically spend buying the spell from another wizard and scribing it or forty times as much as a scroll would cost.

Looked at another way, considering that pages of spell knowledge are not useful to the person who crafts them while pearls of power are a non-blasting wizard who isn't banned from crafting feats can have a flexible extra spell slot for the same price that a sorcerer can have a known spell. If the sorcerer is buying an appreciable number of utility spells as pages the wizard can have more casting endurance.

Then there's metamagic. If you plan on using metamagic and are competent to play a wizard at all the wizard is better. Sorcerers can do unplanned metamagic, but if you don't have a plan to use metamagic why did you take the feat? If a wizard and sorcerer both take dazing spell with the intention of using it on reflex blasts the wizard prepares his dazing spells and the sorcerer sacrifices his move actions when both made the actual decision to cast dazing fireball (or whatever) when they leveled up and took the dazing spell metamagic feat. There's not much actual flexibility gain from spontaneous metamagic. There's a lot of flexibility gain from move actions. You can do things lie put your friends between you and people who want to shove three feet of sharpened metal through your precious kidneys or line up better shots with rays so you don't take cover penalties on top of firing into melee or direct spells that are directed as a move action or draw pearls of power or metamagic rods from your handy haversack.

For every level between 2 and 19 wizards are either more powerful or more flexible in their highest spell level. Even a cheese-elf doesn't really get around the issue.

As I go through:

1) Rogues aren't top strikers. Power Attack from full BAB is generally better than Sneak Attack. A rogue might outperform a TWF ranger while flanking, but fighters, barbarians, cavaliers, and paladins are going to tend to just hit harder.

2) The accuracy gap between TWF and brute is a big deal. With the need to enhance two weapons you're looking at missing 15% of the time as a TWF that the brute would hit.

3) You cannot dump strength on a Dervish build because of carrying capacity issues. Sorcerers and Wizards might be able to, but you need to wear armor and carry a weapon and your thieves' tools and you should really have a shortbow and some arrows for when melee isn't an option...

4) Convincing Lie actually makes you worse. Without it, if you convince someone that a lie is the truth they do not use bluff at all to spread it because as far as they know they are not lying.

5) Minor Magic is probably better than yellow now that SLAs give you a caster level. You can, in turn, use that to qualify for Arcane Strike. From level 5 it's as good as weapon specialization and it keeps improving.

I believe the plains domain lets you get pounce a few times a day without being a cat or dinosaur.

Pounce also lets you get a full attack in a surprise round (this was its original purpose).

Get a surprise round from within your move distance in a form that can wield a flame blade. Air elementals would be able to hit from 100' out.

Or convince your GM that a bipedal dinosaur can wield a scimitar for the same benefit.

Do not use those monsters.

You might reconsider removing ability damage, though. That can be treated with a spell that has no expensive material component and by sufficient rest. Leaving ability damage in while removing the drains gives you something to convert ability drain to.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

I'm not going to talk about specifics; most of what I'd want to see has been covered. But more than any of that, I'd like PF2 to feature a total change in the development mind set.

Instead of coming up with fluff and then grudgingly assigning crunch to it haphazardly, I'd like to see a system in which the mechanical stuff all works like a swiss watch, and then the cool flavor laid over it so that you can't see the gears beneath.

That means no more trap options or Timmy Cards. It means no more spending a feat on stuff that's worse than the stuff you get without a feat. It means no more of this "balance is for evil people with agendas" stuff. It means no more Martials Can't Have Nice Things. It means no more heavy reliance on Rule Zero to fix everything.

Contrary to the usual canard, this will NOT turn PF into 4e. It would simply make it a game that's simultaneously playable as a game AND as a storytime, because the rules would directly lead to the type of game people play, instead of working at odds to it.

I think what I hope to see in PF 2e is Kirth Gersen featured prominently in the credits.

The impact property it most 5.85 on a medium weapon for a +2 equivalent ability. That's terrible. It might be worth it for huge creatures, but it's absolute garbage for mediums until the sword is already at least +5. And then you probably want to look at high level properties like Nullifying or Spell Stealing.

You certainly never want to even consider impact dancing because that limits you to +4 (and is a +10 total weapon that you're using as backup, talk about Monty Hall.)

Making a property that is terrible at best slightly better is not worth the money and time to retrain probably three feats.

DR piercing almost never comes up compared to slashing and budgeoning. Still not worth the time to rebuild.

Falchion to Nodachi is a whopping 0.65 average damage after crits. It's not worth retraining.

Dancing is an effect for people that won't be holding a weapon. It's not for you.

Burst effects are not worth it. They just aren't worth the +2 equivalent over two +1 equivalent elemental 1d6 effects and those aren't great to start with.

Just get the biggest +X you can find a crafter with the caster level for and fill the rest with either holy or maybe spell storing if one of your casters has a good touch spell to stick in it. If frostbite gives multiple attacks with a spell storing weapon it's the best option, though chill touch is still better than a 1d6 elemental if multiple attacks from multitouch spells are allowed but you don't have a druid, witch, or magus willing to feed your sword.

Brilliant Energy has serious problems. It's ludicrously expensive and makes your weapon useless against certain foes. It also does nothing against most monsters since they tend to have their AC coming from dexterity, natural armor, and spells.

Other than that Ascalaphus has the right of it. Your bog standard +X is the best thing you can put on a sword outside keen and some class specific UC stuff unless Holy would let you get through alignment DR when you otherwise wouldn't (ie. because you can't get +5 for love or money because of caster level requirements).

Skills 4+int. Nobody except possibly an int based caster should have 2+int skill points and frankly it's harder to argue with a 4+int minimum applying to them as well.

Saves fort/will. No non-caster should have only one strong save. I suggest will for the civilized martials (fighter, cavalier, samurai, and paladin already has it), reflex for the less civilized martials (barbarian and ranger already has it) and will for rogues because nothing says rogueish like failing your save against Zone of Truth every single censored time.

Merge some of the overlong feat chains and get rid of pure tax prerequisites. Combat Expertise can pretty much die and nobody would miss it and improved unarmed strike is a silly feat tax to use the weakest simple weapon in the game.

The question is if the Temple Sword is a monkish weapon by EP's standards. It's really what makes the "standard" monk work. If a repackaged longsword isn't monkish then none of the good monks are true scotsman except maybe the Tetori. And the Tetori has issues with high level bestiary opponents because CMD is broken.

Because of the skill point requirements I would consider clerics, fighters, paladins, and non-sage sorcerers off the table.

You want a bard. All the benefits of silence with almost none of the penalties.

Or possibly a Samsaran witch or wizard to get the spell in question at level 7 rather than level 10. The lack of darkvision is a problem, though.

The bard under Zone of Silence does not need to silence his spells (which is a good thing since bards can't). He can use message to talk to people so he never has to dismiss it. The wizard standing next to him doesn't have to silence his spells either. He can use audible inspire competence on people standing next to him while stealthing, which means he can boost the party's stealth skill if needed. Since the radius is only 5' and it centers on a corner of the bard's square he can shift it around so he can also stand next to someone without letting them into the zone. From the silence spell, though ZoS doesn't reference it directly, we know that magically inaudible people get +4 to stealth checks, and again ZoS can cover multiple people.

Bards also have most of the other stealth spells, but wizards get them sooner. Still, having them on spontaneous cast eventually lets the wizard prepare other things.

TheSideKick wrote:
andreww wrote:
TheSideKick wrote:

a 12 sohei/ 8 druid will crush a 20 druid is a straight fight.

I seriously doubt that.

glad to know you dont know how good going in surprise, having a +20 to your inititive, and being able to kill a 200 hp characte rin one hit is.

before the first druid would even be able to act you would be on him and have killed him.

Nothing can charge across 1105 feet, which is standard minimum cruising altitude because a composite longbow can reach 1100. Then you're in the air and visible and will be for at least three more rounds. At this point initiative is worth a grand total of a couple hundred feet.

Kazumetsa Raijin wrote:
LazarX wrote:

Monks and Druids have a slight synergy, the person who makes the most of it might very well have an advantage over the singleclasser, especially if he uses ambush tactics. Environment as it should will play a major factor.
I would have to say "slight" is an extreme understatement. :P Seriously. I don't know who would win, or with what tactics, but the synergy is impressive. All I study and optimize are Monks and Monk/Druids, and they are SO much fun to use!

On the other hand your narrow focus does not include pure druids. With the monk emphasis I doubt it includes even primary druids. If you paid more attention to other classes you might realize monk isn't really all that good and that druid is good on its own apart from being a way to make a monk bigger.

10/10 is terrible. The wildshape breakpoints are 4 and 8 with shaping focus or 8 and 12 without it or 6 without it on a shaman. The BAB rounding and monk AC breakpoints are 4, 8, 12, and 16. The flurry breakpoints are 6, and 11. The druid casting breakpoints are odd levels up to 17.

Druid/Monk splits of 19/1, 18/2, 16/4, 12/8, 9/11, 8/12, 6/14, and 4/16 are excusable. 10/10 is not. 19/1 is probably the best multiclass, though using MoMS or possibly Maneuver Master can make 18/2 worth it. Monk level 1 is where all the synergy lives unless that second bonus feat is particularly precious.

Caster Level matters even for combat builds, which is going to give the split build problems. The split build can't rely on buffs at all because dispel magic is a caster level check. The pure druid can. The split build has a caster level not higher than 12 for a dispel DC of 23. The pure druid can cast Greater Dispel Magic and if he rolls at least 3 will take out 5 buffs per casting. If the split build does not have the +2 caster level trait the pure druid cannot fail to dispel his buffs.

Just ban all non-LoS teleportation. It's a setting killer quite apart from its influence on adventure design.

I'd certainly bet on the druid if the druid is a caster build. It's about dazing spell and reflex saves. A caster druid should be built like a blockbuster wizard and the monk/druid will have a weak reflex save. The monk levels help, but combat druids (except finesse elemental builds) have the worst reflex saves of any PC because of the size penalty to dex. Something like Dazing Call Lightning Storm or Persistent Dazing Call Lightning or possibly Persistent Ice Spears if the monk/druid tries to shape into a non-flying form. And then there's spell perfection abuse...

Facing rules.

With facing rules a rogue can sneak up on inattentive guards without cover.

With facing rules a rogue can shoot people in the back without needing to worry about not being able to flank with ranged weapons.

With facing rules a lone rogue that can get free movement (off hand I know kirin path, the accelerate wordspell, or a quick runner's shirt can work) can slip behind an enemy and stab them in the back.

I would avoid animal companions. First, you're already in a six man party. Second, they've been nerfed into the ground in Animal Archive by the division of a small number of nonspecific tricks into a large number of overly specific tricks. I would not even consider an animal companion that you won't be controlling with the ride skill if your GM uses AA tricks.

What's your group like? Your best bet might be a force multiplier. Bards and Evangelist Clerics are easy to operate and tend to turn mediocre combatants into good combatants. Witches do well at bringing big solo opponents or opponents that can be fought serially down to size.

If everyone else is hopeless a quick kill barbarian, quadruped synth, or druid/martial multiclass may be what you need. A bipedal synth is not worth the complexity.

If you just had a near TPK and can convince another player to work with you sticking a Sohei Monk or Mounted Fury Barbarian on a druid's back gives a very nasty combo.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I love this. Dumb rogues should be able to be cowards too! :)

Cowardly adventurers don't really work. A coward is the load in the most lethal part of the game and should not be encouraged.

Marthkus wrote:
Sure probably not the same effect as the bard's supporting powers, but far from useless.

Perhaps not useless (except against sneak attack immune or significantly resistant* opponents) but not enough to make up for not having spells.

Zone of Silence no sells tremorsense, and Ex blindsight and blindsense except from adjacent opponents with an hour/level duration while also giving the bard the stealth benefits of silent spell. That's three stealth banes the rogue has to worry about that the bard doesn't after level 10 for one spell per day.

Then there's the Alarm spell. Unlike the Symbol spells it doesn't refer to the trap rules and as such requires detect magic to see and dispel magic to remove. Because of the caster level dependence of dispel, UMD is of small benefit. If you have some reason to believe the alarm is audible it can be countered with silence, which is wandable, but I'm not sure how the rogue is going to get detect magic at will to see the spell.

And then there's the message cantrip, which combos well with Zone of Silence. The bard can stay in communication more safely since he's the one controlling the cantrip.

Spells are just too handy for scouting. The rogue would have to be unambiguously better in one of her other roles to compete.

* like, say, moderate or heavy fortification armor, which is going to be popular for the crit negation alone.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Synth/Monk might make the best dimensional build. You get DD at level 7 as a summoner and, with Pounce, Dimensional Assault at level 9 is all you really need.

Synth helps with the monk's MAD issues and by grabbing pounce also fixes the monk's mobility paradox. Synths already have solid AC and adding the untyped monk AC bonus would make a very difficult to hit character. Since with Flurry there's no need to spend evolutions on natural attacks or lots of arms all the evolutions are available for utility and defense.

Feinting isn't an end, it's a means to an end (damage). No one else cares about feinting. It either eats your whole feat load or ruins your full attack and everyone else hits better than the rogue anyways.

Having bluff is nice, of course, but feint is absolute garbage for anyone who doesn't have sneak attack and lack invisibility and that it's "good" for them is a signal of how difficult it is to make sneak attack work.

If the only working rogue is scout and social then the bard is better. The bard has the various invisibility, silence, charm, and illusion spells to reinforce his stealth and stealths as well as a rogue without them. The bard can interpret what he sees without needing to ask the wizard (and hope he describes what he saw in enough detail). The bard is at least as good a face. And in combat the bard buffs.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

People talk about rogues because people want to like them. Most of the rogue threads are either about dissuading new players from playing the rogue, having a poor experience, and abandon the game; or fixing the rogue so people can play the rogue and have a good experience.

Nobody even wants to like the summoner.

The summoner's problems are manifold.

1) The Eidolon rules are complicated, clumsy, poorly balanced with a very high optimization floor, and the limits are hidden or confusing while the options are an easy to see menu leading to a rash of ridiculously overpowered eidolons by people who misread the rules. I think it was almost a year from publication before many people started posting eidolon builds that everyone agreed were rules legal.

2) The spell list causes ripple problems in item pricing and availability.

3) The fluff was just not there. It's a concept that takes a lot of fluff to sell because it isn't anchored in preexisting character concepts and until Balthazar's story was published there was none at all. Paizo needed Balthazar up before the APG hit the shelves to sell the new class and they held him back for years until the interest had died down.

#1-2 get the summoner banned at rules oriented tables and #3 gets it ignored at roleplaying tables.

SNA has one advantage: SM1 has nothing lingual. SNA1 has mites.

This means that to summon a disposable scout that can communicate or something that can spring a trap that is designed to catch sophonts a wizard uses a second level spell while a druid uses a first level spell.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The mental stats are really seriously messed up.

INT governs memory, but is named for intelligence.
CHA controls erudition and the form of spellcasting where spells don't take 15 minutes to cast.
WIS measures holiness and perception.

INT is not int. CHA is int. WIS is bogus.

There's really no basis for having three stats the way they work right now. Since WIS is bogus it can go. Since CHA is int it should be folded into INT.

If you're going to have multiple mental stats the first thing to do is throw out everything associated with the current stats.

I would never build organically unless I knew I was in a strongly and consistently themed campaign.

The way most APs are written no sooner are you used to fighting one kind of enemy than the next book comes along with a different writer and a different theme and you're fighting a completely different kind of enemy or in a completely different environment and anything you chose to deal with previously common situations is obsolete because those situations won't come up again.

Building organically is preparing to fight the last battle. That's a good way to get stabbed through the Belgium.

Better to prepare generically and stick to your generically useful choices no matter what.

The fundamental problem is that Conan and Merlin and Moses never ever have to talk to anyone when Taliesin can do it for them.

Combat is a team effort, but skills are mostly solo and skills are all charisma is good for for most classes.

Fix skills and you fix charisma.

TritonOne wrote:
Is using the term Oriental-themed adventure, or the product name Oriental Adventures, offensive to Asians in American English? Is the use of Asian-themed, East Asian-themed, or Far East-themed adventure much more acceptable in American English? I am aiming for precision, but also do not wish to offend.

Too late. Internet forumgoers as a population find necromancy extremely offensive.

Okay, the power level is ridiculous and the game is not going to function properly at that level, but that's your GMs problem.

Casters will have stacking problems. You're not going to be able to land any offensive spells with saves no matter what you do. Even if you manage to stack 29 levels of casting using a prestige class you won't be able to get higher than 9th level spell slots with 9th level save DCs. Forget casters unless this is to be a mook stomp.

You need, therefore, as much martial power as possible without having weak saving throws.

Monk 20 Paladin 10 Ranger 10 using zen archer on the monk and building wis/cha as an aasimar will have about the best saves possible and functionally 40 BAB.

Someone's going to have to bite the bullet and be the utility caster, but offensive casting is a fools game above level 20 the way spell DCs work in 3.x.

MattR1986 wrote:

In America its a common mistake for people to use a c I.e. like posters at a sports game: defense is spelled with a c since its pronounced "D-fence" when its a noun.

This is why I asked because in the U.S. that's incorrect. "Your" language is largely just a bastardisation of french and others so no need to get butthurt.

French is just a bastardization of Latin.

I wouldn't make the martial monk a traditional caster. If you're going to turn ki into a full psionics-like system for the ki monk you should use the same system at reduced progression for the martial monk.

Plan. Character planning is fun.

I generally plan out the important things.

I have sitting around a TWF rogue plan from just after the SLA caster level FAQ that I never used. It has all rogue talents and all feats up to level 15 planned.

I have an EK I planned for a friend that wound up locking up every single feat, but no spells.

I have a Battle Herald planned to 13 with partial spell planning that has unselected feats at levels 5 and 7 because there wasn't anything critical that he could meet the prerequisites for at those levels.

Dex to AC is a lie.

Full Plate has the highest armor including max dex of any armor. Unless your dex build has 18 more dex than a str build would and is running around in his street clothes he would have more AC in celestial fullplate than any other armor. All that dex doesn't actually add to AC.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
You could also say that the DM can simply make a judgment call, freeing the player from taking the chandelier feat. It's a matter of whether you prefer rules-heavy (as you clearly do) or rules-light, and slant your argument to subtly or not-so-subtly favor one over the other.

This strikes me as something important.

We see a false dilemma because Pathfinder's publishing paradigm pushes feats.

You can have rules heavy chandelier swinging without trap feats. All you need is DCs. Preferably in the PHB so players can judge whether their character can swing on chandeliers with confidence as well as the character himself would be able to, but in the GMG or written into the module* will do in a pinch.

post cut off for time.


Why would anyone ever write a chandelier into a room description if it wasn't meant to be swung on?

HarbinNick wrote:

Why is there no essence?

Why can't it be agreed upon?
I mean the essence of NASCAR is hoping a car crash happens. Nobody really watches cars go in circles over and over
The essence of American Italian cooking is Basil, Tomato, and Cheese
The essence of Russian Literature is a dark brooding over moral questions, or at least serious ideas
The essence of Chinese Painting was a taoist belief system, where humans were little and mountains were big

There is no essence because there is no old school. There couldn't be. Conventions are not enough to unify an international "community" in less than decades.

This thread is proof enough that gaming is no exception.

Cartigan wrote:
TheSideKick wrote:
Cartigan wrote:

In games where people dislike the game and cap it roughly at "just starts to get interesting," this MIGHT be a worthwhile feat for crossbow enthusiasts. It is still useless for bow users because they can take Rapid Shot and Manyshot. However, if you are a crossbow enthusiast, you can just get Crossbow Mastery.
i would argue that the ranged power attack feat would be better then this one, and vital strike with gravity bow will make this feat worthless.
In an E6 game, this might be marginally useful for crossbow ranged combatants. Above E6, it's crap.

Even in an e6 game for crossbow enthusiasts it's a trap. Vital Strike with a light crossbow adds 4.5 damage. They can't be used together because vital strike can't be used with *anything* except flyby attack because only monsters and casters can have nice things. You must have at least 20 int for focused shot to be better than vital strike. If you're also small vital strike still adds 3.5 damage which is better than focused shot at less than 18 int.

Since an e6 game spends a lot of time at level 6 (otherwise it's just a normal game that gets cut short) it's probably not worth the feat.

Scavion wrote:
Sen Bloodtalon wrote:

Yes, I see your point. What I'm trying to say is not that these people don't know what they're doing, it's more of looking at what the rogue has to offer and then looking at how to augment it. Like I said, the Scout and Knife Master archetypes are the perfect compliment to the sneak attack, and it's only aided by Improved Feint. From what I've seen, they compare it to other classes, and that's when the problem arises. You have to isolate the rogue on its own, look at its potential exclusively, and that's when it begins to shine. I revoke my prior statement about the rogue being the best class, as each class is the best in its own right. The key is to isolate it and not force it into unfair comparisons. A fighter or a barbarian is clearly going to outdo a rogue in head-on combat, and the ninja clearly outclasses the rogue for stealth. But when you realize that this class has strategic potential, that's when it becomes useful.
The only niche the forums have been able to absolutely factually prove for the Rogue is it's skill power through level 1-5. After that and besides that, they lose out in effectiveness to other classes.

If you count +1/2 to level abilities bards out-skill rogues from level 1. Even counting only monster ID knowledges the rogue's ahead from level 2.

Avh wrote:

@Atarlost : you should compare things that are comparable : compare to-hit, and the fact that the whole group benefits from the bard inspire/buffs, not only the bard.

Bards are really much more powerful in combat than rogues, and out of combat the difference is even greater.

Atarlost wrote:
So absent spells the rogue usually does more damage. Putting Keen on that longsword would help a bit. Playing a tengu or half-elf or half-orc and using a scimitar or falchion with keen would help more. Having one martial or semi-martial friend (or questioning how the rogue can consistently sneak attack without one) would blow the rogue away based on what he does for his allies' hit rates.

Please actually read posts before commenting on them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:
fictionfan wrote:
So if someone really maxed on one skill they could do everything with it. Say profession: animal husbandry?

Only if the GM is a pushover.

This was used as an argument loads of times vs the skill challenge idea, but I think many of the people doing so would have condemned WotC if they'd brokered world peace, and farted rainbows and gold.

Well of course. Farting gold would seriously mess up the precious metals market. That's an important hedge currency devaluation for many investors.

Kthulhu wrote:
Also, a Paizo 4E clone is not gonna happen. The reason that Pathfinder exists is that Paizo didn't really like 4E.

I thought the reason Pathfinder exists is that 4e is a closed system and Paizo would have had to pay WotC to publish 3rd party material using it.

Of course this also makes it difficult to publish a clone of it, but WotC may decide keeping it closed isn't worth the trouble when they're no longer supporting it anyways.

K177Y C47 wrote:
SPCDRI wrote:

With Bards, at what point DPR wise is their Inspire Courage and Spell buff output worth more than the comparable Sneak Attack?

Could it be level 7? Heroism for over an hour, Haste, +2 Inspire Courage?

+5/+2, +2 Save Bonus (+3 on Reflex), Extra Attack on Full Attack, +1 to AC, +30 Feet Movement...

I mean, that is a pretty beefy buff sequence to drop on a guy.
Is that stronger than 4d6 damage? I mean, I think it might be.

The thing about sneak attack and rogues that you have to remember is, the rogue needs to HIT the guy AND rogues need to reliably get sneak attack. Both of those things the rogue has a hard time doing, meaning sneak attack is actually not that great of an ability as a DPR increaser for the rogue. Do note, however, how I pointed out that I specifically called out the rogue. The best example showing the true strength of sneak attack comes not from the rogue but from the Alchemist. The Beastmorph Vivisectionist Alchemist shows that, if you apply buffs with sneak attack and have reliable ways to get sneak attack (invisibility potions ftw), you can actually output HUGE amounts of damage with SA.

The accuracy gap essentially means bards power attack and rogues don't. TWF is a trap for both. The bard has at least a 19-20 crit range for 10% extra on static damage.

This gives the rogue 3.5 damage every odd level. Simple.
The bard has a bunch of sources that have complicated scaling. First there's Arcane Strike, which is a nice simple 1 damage plus 1 per 5 levels. Then there's power attack for 3 damage per 4 BAB, then there's Inspire Courage offsets the Power Attack penalty and gives 1 damage plus 1 per 6 levels starting at 5th. Then all of that's multiplied by 1.1 for crits. At level 11 Discordant Voice adds a non-critting 1d6.

1-2) 2.2<3.5 but bard hits more. Bard would blow rogue away if power attack didn't have a BAB prerequisite.
3) 5.5<7 The extra sneak die adds more than power attack.
4) 6.6<7
5) 8.8<10.5 Inspire Courage outpaces Power Attack so the bard hits more again.
6) 11>10.5 Power Attack catches up with Inspire Courage and the bard does more damage not counting spells or benefits to allies. Briefly.
7-8) 12.1<14
9) 12.1<17.5 This is the rogue's high point.
10) 13.2<17.5
11-12) 21.1>21 Inspire Courage and Power Attack both bump and Discordant Voice comes online for a whopping 8.1 damage boost.
13-14) 21.1<24.5 Rogue pulls ahead again.
15) 22.2<28
16) 25.5<28 Power Attack outpaces Inspire Courage putting the bard behind on accuracy.
17-18) 26.6<31.5 Inspire Courage catches up with Power Attack and accuracy is equal again.
19) 26.6<35
20) 27.7<35

So absent spells the rogue usually does more damage. Putting Keen on that longsword would help a bit. Playing a tengu or half-elf or half-orc and using a scimitar or falchion with keen would help more. Having one martial or semi-martial friend (or questioning how the rogue can consistently sneak attack without one) would blow the rogue away based on what he does for his allies' hit rates.

Squirrel_Dude wrote:
What are theses "skill synergies" you speak of?

Getting a bonus on diplomacy because you have knowledge (nobility). They were in 3.5. They are not in Pathfinder.

1 to 50 of 4,244 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.