|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned alchemists in here yet. Especially vivisectionists.
Because Alchemists are mediocre skill monkeys. They don't have the best skill list, no direct bonuses, and are significantly behind Investigators in skill points as well.
Vivisectionists are vastly better combat Rogues than Rogues are, but only about on par as skill monkeys (slightly less skills, several useful spells), which makes them mediocre ones at best.
In this thread people are suggesting either ways to make Barbarian Skill Monkeys, or actually good skill monkeys, not Rogue replacements in general.
Thanks for putting it in better words. The idea behind the plan relies on way to many variables. It requires the guy you disguise yourself to be someone that orders would actually be received from. It requires the people you take with you willing to follow you into a dangerous jungle. It requires said dangerous jungle to produce some creature or encounter that gives the dangerous jungle it's reputation for being dangerous. Then, it requires that same guy to head back and have no one question why he returned without the 'half the group' that left with him.
It was a definitely a chancy plan, but not one with a lot of huge risks for a PC, especially one with high social skills (to convince people to do things they might otherwise not)...and it working once seems plausible with good enough rolls/skills.
Some luck is clearly involved, but that hardly makes it inherently a bad plan.
If they bandits were being led by a werebaboon barbarian surrounded by his minions, why did half the minions just suddenly abandon their leader? Why would the werebaboon even allow it? How was no one even remotely suspicious?
High enough Bluff/Diplomacy can explain this, at least in theory. The timeframe might also have been such as he didn't notice they were gone (he was asleep, he was busy, whatever).
On top of that, none of what was done was completed via being a Rogue. It was done via simply being a character. Bard's, Rangers, Iquisitors, Alchemists, Investigators, Hunters, Slayers... the list goes on of what classes could have succeeded there, the Rogue is only one of them.
I feel like making a Ranger or Hunter with that many social skills is tricky and unusual. That aside, I obviously agree entirely. There are a few skills involved, but no actual class features.
Ooooh, I'm sorry dude. It sucks to have to come into conflict with those close to you with their own intolerance. :(
Congrats on doing the right thing anyway, though.
Well, at 20th level, when you get the capstone you can grab any Element's powers almost at will.
So, yeah, at 20th level you can do this. Which maps pretty well with the character concept you suggest...
Prior to that I think you're still limited to 3 Elements at a maximum.
Actually bringing an example from the world of Pathfinder to reinforce my comment above, I think it's rather unlikely that an organization such as the Wasp Queens managed to gain a reputation of being among the foremost thieves in Golarion by shunning concepts of personal discipline, cooperation and planning. It's true that adherents of Calistria have a greater appreciation of organization in comparison to the worshippers of other Chaotic gods but all the same that serves the argument that Chaotic characters aren't necessarily opposed to structure.
Cooperation and planning aren't Lawful traits. At all. Self-discipline is to some degree, but only to some degree.
Barachiel Shina wrote:
I feel like Tels got emotional and was overly harsh on this. Sounds like a reasonable plan to me.
That said...what part of that plan was helped by being a Rogue? It involved being good at 4 or 5 skills (Disguise, Bluff, Stealth, Knowledge-Nature, and maybe Diplomacy)...one of which isn't even on the Rogue list (Knowledge-Nature) and most of which Rogues aren't encouraged to have the related stat that high by the rules (Charisma. mostly).
A Bard could've done all that, only better (because of higher Charisma and things like Charm Person and Invisibility) and without needing to be a Changeling (Disguise Self being a thing). Ditto Investigator or Inquisitor. Slayer could've done it slightly better, too, due to Studied Target (though they'd have needed to be a Changeling or have a Hat of Disguise).
In short, that's the player succeeding due to cleverness, not any virtue of the Class they happened to be playing. Any class with social skills could've managed it equally well, including Expert or Aristocrat (whose damage would've been worse on the final attack, but that would've been the only difference...and the PC classes listed above likely would've done more damage).
Tunnel in the Sky. Great book. :)
Really fun skill-monkey Barbarian build I tried once:
Go Oracle 1, then Invulnerable Rager Barbarian from there. Pick the Lore Mystery and use your 1st level Feat for Extra Revelation (your 3rd level Feat is power attack, your other Feats are mostly Extra Rage Power). Take Focused Trance and Sidestep Secret.
Dump Dex, going Cha instead. Do not dump Int (you can dump Wis a little instead due to the extra Will Save from ) Maybe take a Trait to make Bluff a class skill. Put one Rank in all the Knowledges and max out the social skills. Go with the standard Superstition/Spell Sunder/Beast Totem Rage Power lineup. Be AM BARBARIAN as well as the party face and winning all the Knowledge checks forever outside of combat.
When I did this, I also went Half Orc for Sacred Tattoo (I also took Shaman's Apprentice and Skilled), took Divine Favor as a spell, and took Fate's Favored, plus the Human Barbarian FCB, but that's not really a skill-up, just a combat buff. Also, there's no reason not to pick the Lame Curse for this build.
This doesn't replace a Rogue, it's a different kind of skill monkey (more like a Bard), and it does basically give up Come And Get Me (though almost nothing else) but it sure sounds fun. Sadly, I only got to play it for the first few levels. It was a lot of fun for those levels, though.
The basic idea is that Monks are self-disciplined, and require that self-discipline to progress in their calling and powers. They're not precisely the heroes of martial arts movies (many of whom would be more Brawler than Monk), being more like idealized Shaolin Monks.
As Rynjin notes, however, some archetypes and concepts really don't quite work with that and sorta break up the in-game logic quite a bit. Personally, I'd be cool with a non-Lawful Monk, but them's the rules.
Also, for the record, none of the things you list are inherently non-Lawful, with the exception of lying, and even there it's sort of a hallmark of Lawful Evil. Lawful behavior isn't necessarily adherence to the actual law of land, merely a consistent code of behavior. Organized crime is a typical example of Lawful Evil in many ways, and is inclined to many of the behaviors you list...
You've done this thread before, Mathius. As was discussed then, there are...really a lot of reasons this doesn't work well or economically in many worlds.
Perpetual motion machines ala magical traps that Create Food and Water will absolutely screw up the game. That's also clearly not remotely how the rules are intended to work, and barring that or Blood Money (which is a lost secret of ancient Thassilon in Golarion), there's very little in the way of spells that makes widespread spellcasting like this in place of mundane options economically viable.
Which is basically my approach to the whole thing in game: As a GM don't set up contrived situations where you have to slaughter ever last adult in a town and you don't have to worry about dealing with the helpless kids.
But it still doesn't answer the larger question: Even without orphanages, if all the humanoid (and even other monster) races really do have free will and can make moral choices then there would be different cultures among them, some of which wouldn't be evil. I'm not willing to concede a race that is entirely evil, but only for cultural reasons.
Agreed again (at least partially, see below), but we have examples of non-evil members of a wide variety of races, just not a whole lot of them. There are indications of Orcs in the Mwangi Expanse being non-Evil, plus some tribes in the Darklands, plus isolated individuals, just only a few of them.
And so on and so forth for other races.
Also, as the premise of this thread indicates (primarily by the inclusion of special orphanages and unique needs), there's several indications that it's not entirely cultural. Some races have built in tendencies that tend to lead them to some degree in the direction of Evil. It's not insurmountable, but it's there.
I actually resolved this particular lgical conflict rather easily much earlier in this very thread.
In short, very rarely does a group small enough to all be Good aligned kill an entire tribe's combatants...and if everyone's not Good, odds of atrocities are really extremely high in this kind of war. So...it hasn't cropped up very often historically.
Plus, usually there are noncombatants to take care of the children, and people who kill them will usually kill the children, too...in which case, there's no need for orphanages.
Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:
That's because it's based on a specific spell, which (unlike item effects in and of themselves) have an inherent duration. The items I saw were rather definitively not based on such things.
I'm talking things like, oh hypothetically, a +2 weapon that became +4 and frost if you killed a troglodyte with it.
And then no further wording after a statement like that.
Jeff Lee wrote:
I really hate to see a good item where the author has missed an important detail in the mechanics. Sometimes its as simple as not assigning a DC. Other times its a new feature where the mechanics just aren't fully explained, and I get left wondering "Yes, but what happens under this circumstance, or if this comes up?"
Not just in otherwise good items, but I've noted a distinct trend in items not having a duration for abilities they provide, making said abilities conditional, but permanent...which is clearly not their intent.
So...those items got downvotes, and putting in a duration is important folks, don't forget about it.
James Raine wrote:
Yeah, if it's the one I'm thinking of, all it does is 'allow' something almost literally everyone can do anyway...
And I've seen at least two really cool Bard items.
The black raven wrote:
Eh, I find failure amusing. Or at least satisfying to crush...maybe I'm a bad person.
No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise.
Pretty much this. Though for slightly different reasons than Rorschach.
See, if they've already killed any of my friends and/or family, I will scorch the g!&@$$n Earth to avenge them. F~*# making deals. People don't get to hurt or threaten those I care about and get away with it. Ever. It's bad policy.
Besides which, even if they hadn't harmed those I care about, when left alone I'm a pretty nice guy, who mostly just wants to make the world a better place. If they've been opposing me to this extent (or I them), them ruling the world almost certainly makes it a really bad place. I'm not selfish enough to let the world pay in blood, pain, and tyranny for my own happiness.
So never, not in a million years.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
This is more or less my attitude as well. I require the item to have all the necessary rules information to make the item work. If it doesn't have that...what's the point in reading it?
If it has all the necessary info, though, formatting is a secondary concern at best.
I really like Paizo, and what I've seen of the people who work there. They aren't perfect or anything, but they seem to legitimately be pretty nice people and put in a lot of effort to make a really fun game that I've enjoyed immensely. They're also really friendly, approachable, and responsive on these boards. I've personally asked a variety of questions of the folks at Paizo and actually gotten full answer, which is really cool.
None of this is precisely unique (I've had similarly good experiences with other game companies), but they're not universal within the industry either, and are certainly worthy of approval and high regard.
Although the hooves would be at -5 as secondary attacks. Still, that sort of character could really dish it out pretty quick!
The rules are a bit less than 100% clear on this. Hooves default to secondary on monsters, but it's usually noted when an attack provided to a PC is secondary (see here for example).
Which it isn't here.
Unless fatigue pools include recovery from effects, some form of healing, and broader magical best, I'm not holding my breath with something so simplistic.
Healing and effect recovery or avoidance seem pretty possible. And the ability to have bursts of effectiveness seems almost inevitable (and definitely helps the Champion thing).
Yeah, this doesn't seem likely to change. :(
Slayers make excellent hunters sans spells and animal companion. They're also solid Warlords, Soldiers, and probably better Master/Teachers than a Fighter.
They're not any better as Champions (though they're equally good, IMO), and sorta fail as Guardians, but they do more of those roles well than the Fighter does.
Just for the record.
On a more on-topic note, if Unchained's fatigue pool for martial characters really is notably better for Fighters, that might well boost their ability to function as Champions, and possibly as Master/Teachers or Guardians. So that'd be a bit better.
Arcanic Drake wrote:
It's also a terrible Archetype whose unique abilities verge on uselessness (especially as compared to 6 level casting). Even the Spiritualist Archetype is better, and it's still many miles worse than the base class.
I agree with this. They are not the same game, but from past (anecdotal) experience, the definitions of 2nd edition can be successfully applied to 3rd edition and Pathfinder.
I'm sure you have. That doesn't mean that that's the correct thing to do or explains things well in-world.
I agree with this as well... In 2nd edition, if you want a character that can pick a lock as well as pick a pocket with any reasonable degree of success, then your choice is pretty limited, as these abilities are not "skills" available to all like they are in 3rd edition and Pathfinder.
Indeed. which means that anyone with some Craft and Disable Device can have a 'locksmith' profession without the need for a specific Rogue variant to do that. Which is sorta my point.
There are some verisimilitude issues with the training thing. Does the trainer need to have all the skills they raise higher than they do at higher ratings than them? Do they need to purchase Feats the trainer also knows? As Ashiel notes, who trained the trainer? Eventually, if you go back far enough, someone had to be first.
What if I want to play, say, a prodigy without meaningful training? Is that just not an existent thing in your world?
Or, heck, any spontaneous spellcaster? Having them need training to advance makes just about zero sense.
There are also verisimilitude issues with the ability of NPCs (or anyone) to clearly distinguish between more mundane classes. Spell-casters are clearly distinct in-world due to the nature of their spells, as are some Barbarians due to the nature of their Rage Powers...but everyone else? Not so much.
Bloodrager seems workable. Alternately, if he's willing to do some casting (which seems to be the case) basically all of the 6-level casters can make rather potent melee characters if built properly.
What thematic elements does he seem interested in exploring? That'd make a single class recommendation much easier to make.
I always thought one of the things that made PF appealing to so many players was that they were so heavily playtested. It seems to me turning that tradition aside would be like the creators of Savage Worlds coming up with a complex version...contrary to that which makes it so appealing.
The only thing that's ever been heavily publicly playtested since the game actually came out have been the character classes. Not other rules elements.
And in regards to Unchained's classes, well, I think the Paizo folks have a point. Do a search on threads about Rogues, Monks, or Summoners, and you'll see a ridiculous amount of 'playtest fedback' in regards to how to make those Classes better balanced. Years worth, not weeks.
Barbarian not quite so much, but I'm willing to roll with it until we see what they came up with there.
Seriously, the last several years isn't a multi-stage playtest, but it's sure a long and thorough one of the problems with the current version. And multi-stage playtests are far from universal for Paizo classes.
Secret Wizard wrote:
No snippets. Paizo even said they would not be play testing the thing. You can tell it's the kind of thing they imagined would bring problems among the community. Perhaps they thought people would be too quick to judge?
Nah, they've gone on record as saying it had more to do with the entire game up until this point being a play test for the Classes, and them generally only play testing new classes in open play tests.
I agree pretty much completely with Ashiel on this one. I understand where DigitalElf is coming from in terms of 2E, but much as I love the Archetype/Kit comparison, Pathfinder and 2E are not the same game, and are not designed with the same definitions in mind.
The very existence of skills as a meaningful and expanding thing profoundly alters the dynamic between Class and in-world Profession. And makes Class Abilities several orders of magnitude less essential in defining one's in-world role.
In short, applying the standards of 2E to Pathfinder in this area is inappropriate, and a mistake.
Male Lashunta also make excellent Empiricist Investigators (+2 Str, +2 Int, -2 Wis), and are thematically well-suited to the role of alien warrior-scientist that the class allows. I really want to play this in an Iron Gods game if I can just get somebody to run one...
Ratfolk and Androids also work quite well.
I think it's likely that Unchained will be PFS - legal, just because Paizo generally wants to encourage PFS players to buy stuff.
I agree. At least in terms of the new classes, and possibly some new Feats. That'd be enough to justify PFS players buying the book, and a lot easier to integrate than most of the rest of the Alternate Rules stuff.
If your planning to use mutagen at all. Take note that str bonus removes INT which loweres Studied combat.
This is true, but note that it only lowers the duration, and most foes aren't going to last too many rounds of focused fire anyway.
Still not my favorite choice at low levels, but absolutely valid a bit later on (once you've got a Headband of Intelligence).