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

Khrysaor's page

1,307 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,307 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

This is a topic that's been discussed time and again. Pretty sure it was discussed somewhere that 'named' items weren't meant to be modified and were intended to be unique items that are balanced.

The reason this could create problems with the Mithral/celestial armors is in the reduction in armor types. Celestial armor is considered light armor. Making it out of Mithral now treats it as no armor at all but requires light armor proficiency. Now a monk could take light armor proficiency and wear Mithral celestial armor while enjoying everything about being a monk which is also a cheaper and better alternative to getting bracers AC 8. The Sohei gets every benefit of his class and archetype instead of having to make a choice of armored or not.

Stats for Mithral celestial armor are AC 9, max dex 10, armor check 0, arcane failure 5%(0% because it's treated as no armor)

With the celestial plate armor made of Mithral it's now considered a light armor, but requires medium proficiency. This suit allows for class abilities like evasion and improved evasion or anything else restricted to light armor.

Stats for Mithral celestial plate armor are AC 12, max dex of 8, armor check of 0, arcane failure of 10%.

These two suits of armor would be the only pieces of armor sought after by adventurers as they are now the best options and open up a lot of added viability. Although I'm all for Mithral options of celestial armors just realize it is a very potent adjustment.

Other than the points above fighters are also trivialized somewhat by this option. A fighter with armor training could improve these armors close to this level or even a suit of Mithral full plate to max dex 7, armor check 0. These armors make armor training useless.


Sallet

more armor videos


You've made three personal insults on one page. Take a break. It's a game.


You don't understand what I'm talking about Espy. There is obviously a change in the rules of feinting. What that change is is the duration for which it lasts. If there was a change from improved feint to greater feint that made it applicable to anyone's attacks it would say so. Rules integration means you figure out what is being changed.


Move action, not a standard. And if you get one extra attack you've doubled the effectiveness of feinting. A 100% increase in bonus. How much of a bonus must be provided to be considered worthwhile for you guys. Your claims of evaluation have unattainable goals apparently.

Since you all like arguing for the feat allowing everyone and twf builds let's give a scenario with one other character who benefits from this.

You and a TWF fighter are beside an enemy. You feint as a move action and strike once. Feint is fulfilled at 100% of its original bonus. Now the fighter unleashes 4 attacks at reduced AC making his iterative easily hit. A 400% increase in the value of the feinting. Now the creature does something to provoke an AoO drawing 1-2 more strikes increasing the overall gains to 500-600% of an ordinary feint.

This example is one ally with you. What if there's two allies? Or three allies? Suddenly the BBEG is destroyed because you've allowed a feat to have 1500% returns.

This is what evaluation is. You apply numbers like I have so many times before in this thread and many others like it. You guys expect too much from a single feat. You can't argue about the two feats to get to it. They all provide unique bonuses on their own. Cleave is a completely wasted feat once you get great cleave.


Many of the races have built in racism. Dwarves hate orcs. Not every dwarf will have been slighted by an Orc but it's a built in racial trait. Gnomes hate goblins and reptilian creatures.

Racism may be immoral but it is not inherently evil. Acting on your racism like committing genocide is evil. Being discriminatory is not.


@Espy Kismet

No, I'm saying there's nothing written that alters the rules of feint beyond the duration much like JJ said. If there was a change to the rules of feint being for the person that feinted it would say so. I'm not inferring anything. I'm not adding text to make it benefit my opinion like you guys are.

If there's any inference on my part it's "whenever you use greater feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus against your next melee attack" and not the way you've worded it. Since this is what feint does already it's not an inference. It also saved on word count. Since nothing has said there has been a change in the condition that feint only works for the person that used it there is no change and feint only works for the person that used it. This is how rules integration works.

@Tangent101

You seem to forget TWF is a dex based build and cannot be used by characters who fight with a single weapon or don't invest huge into dex. 5 attacks, one at your highest BAB the rest iteratives is not better than 3-4 at full BAB. Also being capable of having these attacks at an earlier level than a TWF build.

Just because you think it has no value doesn't mean it has no value. This is just you trying to yell your opinion loudest.

A rogue is better off making a shatter defenses build. Requires the same number of feats and doesn't have an entry feat most people argue as a feat tax. A bonus to hit, the easiest way to cause the shaken condition, followed by making things flat footed to your attacks.

The feint action is about losing dex to AC. Improved feint doesn't mention this because all it changes is the action required to use it. From a standard to a move. Greater feint references dex to AC because this is the part that's changing. In addition to your next attack. If it wasn't relative to the person using feint they wouldn't need to print the line in addition to your next attack.


That's exactly what it does say though.

"Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his dexterity bonus". What does this refer to? Using feint to make an opponent lose its dexterity bonus to AC vs your next attack. Exactly what feint does.

"He loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn, in addition to your next attack." This is what's extending the duration that is normally your next attack.

Saying it has no value because it doesn't fit your opinion doesn't make a valid argument. There's a build posted in here to get 3-4 attacks.


Tangent101 wrote:
Still can't prove a single line that says it's only against your own attacks. Inferences from previous feats need not apply.

Greater feint says whenever you use the feint action. The feint action is only vs your attacks. All the feat has changed is the duration that feint lasts. Nothing says otherwise.


Still can't provide a single line that says it's vs all attacks. Keep those inferences going.


Just tell me where it says anywhere that the feint action has changed and it is vs all attacks and I'll agree with you. Not just you inferring judgement because you want it to act the way you think it does. A specific statement that says feint now works vs all attacks from any person attacking the target.


Nothing in the rules says it is for anyone but the person who uses feint. Nothing has changed this. If it had changed it would state it has changed. It doesn't need to say vs your attacks because feinting is only for your attacks.

You guys are making inferences. I am not. I am applying the feint rules which is vs your melee attacks. Until you can provide anything that says otherwise this thread is moot. FAQ it and move on.

Again, if it does not say it can do something. Nothing has changed the initial rule. There is no vs. all attacks clause. Only vs your attacks from feint.

This is like arguing dazzling display causes a target to be shaken, flat footed, sickened, and every other condition listed in all books because it doesn't say it doesn't cause those effects.


Elbedor wrote:
wall o words

Not every feat is applicable in all scenarios. This makes for terrible argument. You can't trip things with no legs and have a hard time vs things with lots of legs. Great cleave is pointless unless there's three people side by side. Greater overrun isn't working vs things bigger than you.

Feint:
Feint

Note: Though the feint action is located here, near the rules for combat maneuvers, and while it seems like it might BE a combat maneuver, feinting is NOT a combat maneuver. The Paizo PRD is organized with the feint rules located in the same placement.
Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff skill check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher. If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.

When feinting against a non-humanoid you take a –4 penalty. Against a creature of animal Intelligence (1 or 2), you take a –8 penalty. Against a creature lacking an Intelligence score, it's impossible. Feinting in combat does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Feinting as a Move Action

With the Improved Feint feat, you can attempt a feint as a move action.

Standard action. Only for the person that feints. If a monster moves away from you before your next turn and you can't strike your feint is wasted.

Improved Feint:
Improved Feint (Combat)
You are skilled at fooling your opponents in combat.

Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.

Benefit: You can make a Bluff check to feint in combat as a move action.

Normal: Feinting in combat is a standard action.

Move action. Only for the person that feints. Allows for an attack before your next turn to prevent a monster from moving away and nullifying your feint.

Greater Feint:
Greater Feint (Combat)
You are skilled at making foes overreact to your attacks.

Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Feint, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.

Benefit: Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus, he loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn, in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus against your next attack.

Normal: A creature you feint loses its Dexterity bonus against your next attack.

Move action. Only for the person that feints as nothing has stated this has changed. If there was deviance from the rules it would state as much. Allows an attack before your next turn and every AoO or bonus attack you can get before your next turn.

There's even a suggestion in this thread to get 3-4 attacks out of one round.

If it worked how you state it would tell you that's how it works. The rules of feint have not changed. If it was taken as a literal translation without applying it to the rules of feint greater feint now allows for any attack and not just a melee attack. Without something that says a rule has changed the rules have not changed. You're just making an inference.

The reason some abilities have clauses that state vs your attacks or vs all allies is because there is no rule or a change in the rules on which the ability is founded and it requires clarification. Greater feint is still using the feint action. The feint action applies only to the person making the feint.


Wand of blur costs 4500gp for 50 charges. 90gp per use. Blink could hinder you as much as it does your enemies.


Hawktitan wrote:

There is another build I once theory crafted that makes good use of Greater Feint, currently working on him in PFS, but he's still low.

Greater Feint then a single attack with felling smash into a provoking greater trip. Gain an advantage on your standard, a combat manuaver and a AOO all on your turn, and with combat reflexes an additional one if the enemy stands.

However it doesn't come into play until level 8 as a fighter. For the record I think greater feint should affect all attacks.

That's a sweet build. One level dip in monk for a free combat reflexes and take vicious stomp and you get your attack and two AoOs, a third if they stand, in one round.


Espy Kismet wrote:
It is a penalty. It just doesn't have a fancy name. But its mentioned over and over and over and over and over and over again in various things Also, apples and Oranges are still both fruit.

It's not a universal condition. I never mentioned that it's not a penalty. Just because two things are fruit does not make them the same.

Espy Kismet wrote:
JJ isn't the rules guy. He's mentioned that several times.

Thanks for saying exactly what I just said.

Espy Kismet wrote:
According to JJ, Only the gunslinger or swashbuckler that used Startling Shot or Superior Feint get enjoy the effect.

Got the quote of him saying this, or do you put words in the mouths of game designers? Pretty sure there's feats designed around feinting.

Espy Kismet wrote:
Even in the thing you hold up as the Holy Grail of "This is how it is!" he says that its something more for the rules team.

I never claimed this as some holy grail. I said a member of the design team thinks it works how I think it works. This means its questionable material and gives reason to the common question that's been asked since the feats inception.

Espy Kismet wrote:
The Normal rules of Feint are replaced by the rules of Greater Feint.

This is just your assumption. There is no validity until someone with authority says so.

Espy Kismet wrote:


Quote:


When you got to store to get candy, get eggs, in addition to the candy for your next party.
Again, you claim the eggs are candy for the next party.

This analogy didn't make sense the last time you used it. Why is it any better now.

Edit: lol deleted.


Elbedor wrote:
many words

If the feint action caused a condition like stun or prone or anything listed under conditions I might be inclined to agree. As it stands it does not. Denied dex to AC is not a condition listed anywhere in the book and as such you still apply all the rules of feint which is for the person who used the action. Arguing the penalty is comparable to universal conditions is arguing apples are comparable to oranges.

Jacob Saltband wrote:

If you do a search on these forum for greater feint, you will find that back in 2009 when the CRB came out the same questions were asked and most people who responded to the question said that the dex loss to AC was to all opponents in melee range.

And if you search for greater feint you'll notice this has been a common question asked since the creation of the feat. Just cause some fans state that's how the feat works doesn't mean it's true. One of the games developers, although not a true rules developer, JJ has said this works only for the person who used the feint action. Seems like it's still not clear to everyone hence the thread to FAQ it yet again.


Espy Kismet wrote:
Quote:

Allowing the interpretation of Greater Feint that works for EVERY party member breaks the feat. It becomes too powerful of a tool in that it can reduce a creatures AC drastically. I pointed out in the other thread about the CR 20 pit fiend that would become AC 29 and a joke to hit for anyone beyond the 1/2 BAB classes and even then they usually target touch AC with attacks and make that same pit fiend a Touch AC of 9. So the +10BAB wizard fails on a critical miss only.

Just use your brains and do the math. Check how it impacts CR appropriate encounters. Sometimes it won't offer much to the hulking creatures with low dex. More often than not it makes a CR appropriate encounter a joke and would in turn make it the most valuable feat in the game.

Quote:
20 ranks + 3 class + 6 feat(10 with 2 feats) + 1 trait + 3 circlet of persuasion (or +5 competence item) = 33(39) [Half elf favored trait gives another +10 and now you don't have to roll at all]

And again, I'll point out Startling Shot and Superior Feint. Ya know, the things that Gunslingers and Swashbucklers get. Sure they are not the feint manuver. But then again, they are not..

1) Spending 3 Feats on getting Combat Expertise, imp Feint, and Superior feint.
2) Spending another 1 or 2 feats to gain a +6/+10 on bluff checks.
3) Spending a trait on improving your feint.
4) Being Restricted to playing a Rogue that has to get up to level 10 in order to get Skill mastery and then spending a talent to get said talent
5) being restricted to being a Half elf to get the favored trait.
6) Spending a rather large sum of money just to get items to improve your feint Check
7) Spending 20 skill points to buff up your bluff even further.

No. You don't even spend a grit/panche point. You just simply make an attack roll you purposefully miss.

OF course, that is just too powerful. Bad mundane characters. Bad.

If you're making a bluff build you will do anything to increase your bluff. Arguing that you're forced into anything is by design of yourself. You wanted to use feint as a maneuver to make people lose dex to AC. Why are you arguing now that you have to make some investment? Every build requires investment.

Stop being the typical arbitrary people on these forums that argue for everything because you want a class that can do everything or you want your feats and items to do more. Every class has limitations. Every action has limitations. Not every facet of this game is optimal for every build. Not every action is optimal for anything. Much of this game is designed for flavor and not the power gamer.

Arguing that a mundane class can't have nice things while pointing out nice things that mundane classes get seems to be quite the failure. Your argument is for something that requires you to burn a standard action to intentionally miss, force yourself to have to reload the gun using yet another action, shoot money away, and use one of your deeds. Why is this better than 3 feats? You've turned a dpr class into a support class. Not an optimal choice. This is also one of the corner cases you guys like to argue. Your other argument is for something still being play tested. Completely invalid argument.

1) Spending 3/10 feats to do something well isn't investment. Everything in the game is like this. Combat Expertise is always argued as a feat tax regardless. This also applies to any build that requires it but I don't see you complaining on those options.

2) You want to use a skill well this is what you do. You cannot use acrobatics vs end game creatures without a similar investment. If you want to be the best you invest.

3) If you're making a character and not using a trait to enhance what you intend your main function to be you're doing it wrong. People do not grow up as survivalists and farmers to become astro-physicists. They had some trait that gave them an inclination to become what they are.

4) You're not restricted to a class. The argument in this thread is FOR the rogue. Why am I expected to give options beyond that?

5) There's no restriction to race either. Choosing half elf allowed you to bluff even the hardest of foes without rolling a die. Not being a half elf makes a roll required. Hardly forced.

6) A large sum of money? The example listed is a level 20 CR battle. You have the wealth of a level 20 character and are required to spend 4500gp on a circlet of persuasion. How is this a large sum of money? Even the other option of a +5 bluff item is 2500gp. Even less investment.

7) If you expect your skills to be worth a damn you better keep them maxed. The entire game scales including the DCs for skills.


Combat Reflexes +:

Greater Trip [provides one for the trip and one for getting up]
Greater Overrun [provides one for the overrun and one for getting up]
Step Up [stops archers and casters from 5 footing away and shooting or casting]

Also works if you're the feinter and have combat reflexes where an ally is the one doing those other maneuvers. That target takes negatives for going prone and is denied dex to you and you can get the AoOs listed above. Worked great for me in a campaign with an ally who used overrun all the time. He'd knock em down and I'd stab them a couple times.

Maybe the list isn't huge from CRB, nor do I want to do a full analysis as everyone is capable of doing the research themselves instead of complaining. The list for anything wasn't overly large either. It was the base of the system that's been improved upon for years now and more options have been given as time went on.

There's even several options to swift action feint now which gives you a full round attack every round with a swift feint and all your extra attacks until your next turn.


Elbedor wrote:
These are 2 exclusive effects. You can still Feint in Round 1 and make your Attack in Round 2 on your next Turn if you really wanted to since the "on...your next Turn" timetable is still there. Or you could Feint as a Move and then Attack. But this is no different than what Improved Feint offers you. So what would be the point of taking Greater then?

Exclusive effects that both relate to the feint action.

Improved Feint does not offer you the bonuses beyond 1 attack. Greater Feint is designed for builds to take advantage of AoOs or any means of getting extra attacks like opportunist. Also note that nothing says this is a rogue only feat line. A fighter that takes this along with a few other key feats can feint as a move action, trip an opponent for an AoO, use vicious stomp as an AoO, smack him again when he gets back up, and everything else he can do for extra attacks.

Mujaba wrote:

The investment required for Greater Feint (three feats, one probably the most complained about entry feat), plus many many ranks in Bluff makes it a very reasonable value. STRONG - but not too strong.

As for the Pit Fiend? At DC 43 to feint, he doesn't have all that much to worry about if someone's going to walk up to him for that. It's a DC 23 Will save to even get that close (which probably is a mistake, I think it should be DC 28).

20 ranks + 3 class + 6 feat(10 with 2 feats) + 1 trait + 3 circlet of persuasion (or +5 competence item) = 33(39) [Half elf favored trait gives another +10 and now you don't have to roll at all]

By this level you'll have skill mastery to take 10 on bluff checks if not other means of increasing your bluff. This is the point of your build after all. All totals up for a whopping 43(49)[53-59 for the half elf]. Beats that pit fiends DC.

You also work with a party. I'm going to assume you're not taking on all of Hell by yourself. There will be buffs to help you with the fear effect along with your +5 resistance cloak to boost you up to +11 on will saves with no wisdom bonus. That's a 12 to beat with no help. Or possibly an 8 once the party buffs up or just the wand of remove fear that you can easily UMD to get you to 8. Maybe have a 14 wisdom (or wand of Owl's wisdom) to drop it to a 6 or lower.

A paladin with the right feats makes this a moot point as they provide immunity to fear.


Scavion wrote:
Ched Greyfell wrote:
No, GF does not allow ranged, or for your allies to get the benefit. As far as being a useless feat, what about the rogue talent Opportunist?
A feat that is obtained at 6th or 7th level isn't used till 10th? Eh.

Not obtainable until level 8 with combat trick or level 9 with your regular feat. Only out 1-2 levels until opportunist. This doesn't address that creatures provoking AoOs are still denied dex to AC vs your attacks and any other means you can get of another attack until you get to Opportunist. This is the benefit of the feat regardless of how small you think this benefit is.

Scavion wrote:
And two feats along the same chain are invalidated. Improved Two Weapon Feint is meaningless and Improved Feint is rendered useless through Two Weapon Feint. Improved Feint doesn't even give you a +2 on bluff checks made to feint!

Improved Two-Weapon Feint:
Improved Two-Weapon Feint (Combat)

Your primary weapon keeps a foe off balance, allowing you to slip your off-hand weapon past his defenses.

Prerequisite: Dex 17, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: While using Two-Weapon Fighting to make melee attacks, you can forgo your first primary-hand melee attack to make a Bluff check to feint an opponent. If you successfully feint, that opponent is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC until the end of your turn.

Improved Feint:
Improved Feint (Combat)
You are skilled at fooling your opponents in combat.

Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.

Benefit: You can make a Bluff check to feint in combat as a move action.

Normal: Feinting in combat is a standard action.

Greater Feint:
Greater Feint (Combat)
You are skilled at making foes overreact to your attacks.

Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Feint, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.

Benefit: Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus, he loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn, in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus against your next attack.

Normal: A creature you feint loses its Dexterity bonus against your next attack.

Two-weapon feint isn't even a prerequisite for any of the feats. So the fact that you're taking it and complaining about it invalidating itself is on you.

ITWF is allowing you to lose your highest BAB attack with your main hand to give yourself the rest of the round worth of attacks as sneak attacks. As it requires Improved Two-weapon Fighting that's 3 attacks (4 if hasted) until the end of your turn.

Improved Feint allows you to use a move action to feint. Its unfortunately a pre-req for the next one IF you wanted to go greater feint. The bonus provided by ITWF is enough for a feint rogue build if you like TWF.

Greater Feint in combination with ITWF allows the rest of your round of attacks as sneak attacks(3-4 attacks) AND every other attack you get via AoOs or opportunist or any other means of extra attacks. Someone trips the creature allowing AoOs, the creature moves away from you, casts a spell or uses a SLA, uses a ranged attack, any of the plethora of ways to provoke an AoO.

There is clearly a benefit to Greater Feint by choosing either route. Claiming that there is no benefit is just you tooting your own horn about your opinion.

Allowing the interpretation of Greater Feint that works for EVERY party member breaks the feat. It becomes too powerful of a tool in that it can reduce a creatures AC drastically. I pointed out in the other thread about the CR 20 pit fiend that would become AC 29 and a joke to hit for anyone beyond the 1/2 BAB classes and even then they usually target touch AC with attacks and make that same pit fiend a Touch AC of 9. So the +10BAB wizard fails on a critical miss only.

Just use your brains and do the math. Check how it impacts CR appropriate encounters. Sometimes it won't offer much to the hulking creatures with low dex. More often than not it makes a CR appropriate encounter a joke and would in turn make it the most valuable feat in the game.


But under my logic I wasn't allowed to argue for ranged attacks.

It'll always be something with you Marthkus. Losing on the internet is a rough deal. All those strangers.

Happy New Year bud. Go have some drinks with some friends and let it go.


That's a weird interpretation that James made on Greater Feint. Is that 4 people that view it the same way now?

Happy New Year and happy gaming.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
leo1925 wrote:

Khrysaor please stop flaming or the thread is going to be locked. I am really interested on what this thread might uncover but you are not helping.

Again please stop flaming, you make this thread very hard to read for me.

Flaming

Flaming refers to the use of rude or profane language in interactions between Internet users. It can be caused by any subject of polarizing nature. For example, there is an ongoing debate between users of Windows and Mac OS as to which is "superior". Historically, the act of flaming has been described as an intrinsic quality of emails due to an absence of visual and auditory cues in computer-mediated communication (CMC).

Rudeness is subjective as people take insult at varying degrees. I've yet to use profanities or derogatory comments directed at others unlike the people who boast the rogue is not functional. Maybe you're confusing your internet terminology or maybe just ignoring the responses coming from the other side.

My first post was 5 pages into this thread after at least 5 people said this thread is a waste of time and the class is functional. Apparently I'm not the only one that thinks the class is functional (including the Pathfinder game designers and the large part of the community that play tested it) and posting a title to a thread with implications that it isn't requires some proof from the creator and anyone who thinks other than the current system. We've yet to see anyone prove the rogue isn't functional.

My first post was asking for more information about the parameters and was met with ignorance.

The majority of my other posts were critiquing builds, offering advice on builds, or advice to counter scenarios like not having dark vision. These were all met with more ignorance mixed with hostility because someone didn't agree with someone on the internet.

Since I started posting more people have joined to say the rogue is functional only to be met with smug answers of "Post a build and prove it". Many functional builds have been posted. Many functional builds were told "you have no useful ranged attack" or any other reason where a flaw could be found. All builds have flaws. This is why adventurers band together. You can't win the game alone.

If you want to know what this thread will uncover use the search function and look up rogue builds. You will find over 17000 threads with many posts in each to give you everything you need. Every build offered here is in them. Search the guide to the guides for rogues and look at what other people who have already collaborated on this have determined to be optimal choices for rogue builds.

I'm sorry I don't follow like a sheep when someone on the internet says to do something. I choose to think for myself and put faith in the words of greater minds, free thinkers, and revolutionaries that tell me to do so.

The advice forums are for seeking advice. Not telling people a class is broken and needs to be fixed and to post builds that do so. Take it to home brew or take it to gamer talk.


This hasn't been about what the rogue can offer. The title of the thread boasts that rogues are not functional. Followed by an initial post restricting many of the things that make the class functional. Everyone has stated many things the rogue brings to the table, but because it's not the best at something you and Marthkus have both dismissed the class as a commoner. Others posted ways of being useful only to be shot down with lines like, I guess you could do that but so can a commoner or ya that could work but you should be trying to do damage. The must do DPR mentality is video game RPGs not table top.

If you have a racing team you rely on every member, not just the weakest link to step up. Not everyone can be the best despite what we learned in kindergarten. Everyone plays to the strengths of every member to cover the weaknesses of the group. Just because a member isn't the best hurdler, sprinter, or distance runner does not make their contribution as minimal as you claim the rogues to be. You do not have to be the best to contribute to anything.

I didn't fly off the handle. I asked legitimate questions that affect character building. I watched as my post got ignored and was told to "post builds". I asked for more datum. Was told everything I needed was in the first post. The first post is entirely too vague. How much DPR is considered noticeable? How successful and to how many skills makes a skill monkey? What is "functional"? None of these were answered. Then you set the bar to a commoner where no class could fail. There's been several posts from several posters other than me saying the same thing. The only reason I've shown intolerance to this is because this is the second thread Marthkus has made on this and the third I've seen him posting the same things in. These boards are filled with functional rogue builds and the means of getting sneak attacks. Just gotta use the search option instead of making threads with controversial titles.

A rogue that can't use his sneak attack still has rogue talents, d8 hit dice, 3/4 BAB(many of the better feats are +6 BAB. Lv. 8 for a rogue and Lv. 12 for a commoner), a good reflex save, evasion, and anything else the class does that I'm forgetting.


Espy Kismet wrote:

Its the same thing K.

But here's the thing, we never said the party had to burn 3 aid other actions to make the commoner hit as well as a rogue.

At level 10, a Rogue only has 2 Bab over a Commoner.

With enough support even a commoner can rise to be a functional part of the party. Especially when they rely less on whatever there class is, and more on the player's own imagination.

It's not the same thing, K.

The intent of your whole argument is you want the rogue to be as competent as a fighter in combat. This is why your expectations fail and will always fail. A rogue is not a full BAB combatant. Does this make the rogue non-functional? No, far from it. Maybe the problem lies in your ability to build a functional rogue. Much like Marthkus' first sample build which had a lot of sub optimal choices.

Options have been posted already to rely less on your party as a rogue. You guys dismiss them to uphold your complaints.


Espy Kismet wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Espy Kismet wrote:
Because the rest of the party supported the commoner to be able to do so.
So 3 people had to burn actions to aid another just to make the commoner capable of hitting as well as the rogue? Seems like good comparison.

So 3 people had to burn actions to aid another just to make the rogue capable of hitting as well as the fighter?

Why is the party willing to help the rogue be better than the fighter but won't help the fighter do anything?

Lol.

Why does the rogue need to be as good in combat as the fighter. This isn't his niche. Come up with a competent argument and get back to me.


Espy Kismet wrote:
Because the rest of the party supported the commoner to be able to do so.

So 3 people had to burn actions to aid another just to make the commoner capable of hitting as well as the rogue? Seems like good comparison.

Why is the party willing to help the commoner be better than the rogue but won't help the rogue do anything? You guys make some truly absurd arguments.


Marthkus wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Commoners are also not playable by PCs, d6 hit die, 3 bad saves, 1/2 BAB, proficient with one simple weapon, not proficient in armor, gain feats only on every odd level, 2 skill points +int per level.

Exactly. Now you should understand that the situations where the rogue could trade out his class levels for commoner and still contribute just as much need to be kept to a low low rate of frequency.

NOTE: I said situations. When fighting a monster in a corner, the rogue is not better than a commoner-who-rolls-high because he can disable traps. He has to be better because of reasons that apply to the situations.

Rogue is 3/4 BAB where commoner is 1/2. Rogue wins.

Rogues can use shatter defenses to get sneak attack without flanking. Feint does the same. Commoners get no sneak attack. Rogue wins.

Rogues get enough skills to be able to feint, intimidate, move via acrobatics, stealth, use diplomacy to deflate a heated scenario, dance a jig. A commoner gets 6 skills less per level. Rogue wins.

Monster hides in a corner, rogue laughs and loots the room or just moves on. Let the real DPR classes go toe to toe with it. Rogue wins.

Marthkus wrote:
NOTE2: It is a commoner-who-rolls-high not a commoner. As in rolls high on the d20. We're assuming this commoner hits with the same frequency as the rogue for base weapon damage. It doesn't matter that actual commoners aren't that accurate. The low bar is set a little higher than that.

A commoner who rolls high is still bound by the trappings of a commoner. He is not on par with a rogue. How does a class with the BAB of a wizard hit as frequently as a rogue? This is a terrible assumption and the reason for your logical fallacy.


Marthkus wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
You're obviously comparing it to the damage of another class.

That class is a commoner-who-rolls-high. As I have stated.

Our rogue has dropped several nasties with the combo of sneak attack then bleed. How does the commoner get those?

This is a comparison for all situations. This is a low bar (as in avoid matching this).

Situations being: Can't flank and need to do range actions

Base weapon damage is unacceptable because it is easily doable by a commoner-who-rolls-high.

How's the commoner doing good damage? No strength builds, no sneak attack, poor and can never afford magic.

Commoners are also not playable by PCs, d6 hit die, 3 bad saves, 1/2 BAB, proficient with one simple weapon, not proficient in armor, gain feats only on every odd level, 2 skill points +int per level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Espy Kismet wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
rorek55 wrote:
Its scout archetype.
No archetypes is one of the goals here.

Umm, but why? One of the concepts here is that the rogue isn't functional because archetypes from other classes can do the rogues job. I don't entirely agree with that, but that's one of base tenets here, isn't it? but they you don't allow the rogue his archetypes but want to shoehorn him into a DPR role.

Not cricket, wut?

Not shoe horning him into a DPR roll. Making sure the rogue can get his sneak attack on a normally consistent basis without having to rely on others constantly to do so.

If I was to play a commoner, I could do wonderfully in combat if I've got lots and lots of support from other team members.

That's one way to look at and is essentially what I'm asking with the restriction on no strength rogues and archetypes. But, it is not like I'm am not open to other ideas that meet the goals.

For example, a viable range option does not have to be a range sneak attack or anything related to DPR. Nor does sneak attack need to be what you do when not in flanking.

Damage is dependent on strength, magic, and sneak attack for a rogue. You've restricted all three and are asking for DPR builds.


Marthkus wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
rorek55 wrote:
Its scout archetype.
No archetypes is one of the goals here.
Umm, but why? One of the concepts here is that the rogue isn't functional because archetypes from other classes can do the rogues job. I don't entirely agree with that, but that's one of base tenets here, isn't it? but they you don't allow the rogue his archetypes but want to shoehorn him into a DPR role.

The title of the thread is "CAN YOU MAKE THE BASE ROGUE CLASS FUNCTIONAL?" meaning vanilla rogue class. The reasons have already been stated multiple times.

This thread also has nothing to do with other classes getting trap finding through archetypes. The rogue's dysfunction comes from an apparent reliance on melee flanking to do more the base weapon damage (aka commoner-who-rolls-high DPR). Which is why these builds can't assume flanking and must have a viable range option.

And the options to making an opponent flat footed or denied dex to AC, gaining flanking, winning initiative in surprise and the first round of combat have already been mentioned here and two other threads that you've spouted about the rogue being broken and non functional.

You cannot prove the rogue is not functional but you still cling to this idea because your idea of a rogue is not the rogue in pathfinder or any story I've ever read.


Espy Kismet wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
rorek55 wrote:
Its scout archetype.
No archetypes is one of the goals here.

Umm, but why? One of the concepts here is that the rogue isn't functional because archetypes from other classes can do the rogues job. I don't entirely agree with that, but that's one of base tenets here, isn't it? but they you don't allow the rogue his archetypes but want to shoehorn him into a DPR role.

Not cricket, wut?

Not shoe horning him into a DPR roll. Making sure the rogue can get his sneak attack on a normally consistent basis without having to rely on others constantly to do so.

If I was to play a commoner, I could do wonderfully in combat if I've got lots and lots of support from other team members.

The rogue does rely on others. This is what a support melee class does. And you guys are shoehorning the class into a DPR role, except you're removing his main functions of damage. No flanking, no strength, not allowed to rely on magic items and become a "loot monkey".

If you think a rogue is comparable to the commoner you're not playing the same game or you're doing something seriously wrong.


Marthkus wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

One more question before I work up my build to contribute...

Does this include builds where most of the damage a rogue does comes from no weapon damage at all? Because I have an old 3.5 build I can update that did fairly well in dealing damage, but primarily through tactical means.

Doing noticeable damage does not require using a weapon. BUT you can't assume flanking, and must have a viable range option.

You still haven't told anyone what noticeable damage is. You're obviously comparing it to the damage of another class.


rorek55 wrote:

Lvl 20 duelist rogue human

1-combat expertise
1-dodge
2- weapon finesse (talent)
3- improved unarmed strike
4- twf (combat trick)
5-mobility
6 offensive defense
7-iron will
8-weapon training
9-shadow strike
10- crippling strike
11-crane style (duelist PRC)
12-parry
13- crane wing
15- crane riposte
17- lunge
19- uuuhh not sure lol

Use a ninja trick to get improved unarmed strike with a talent and use your regular feat for TWF. Combat trick is a very valuable talent when building rogues. You can also take a style feat this way. Combat expertise isn't worth it unless it's a prerequisite.


Marthkus wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Seems like it allows for a ranged attack to cause sneak that you wouldn't get with improved feint.
You can't say greater feint doesn't apply to allies AND that greater feint applies to range attacks.

Why can't I? Still only applies to the person that did the feint allowing them to get a ranged sneak attack that they can't get with improved feint. Gives the opening volley feat more utility.

Reread your arguments.

If feint only applies to your attacks, then it only applies to your melee attacks as per what you have been quoting.

This is your logic. Feel free to disagree with it.

I never said it only applies to your melee attacks. I've only ever said it applies to the person making the feint. You might want to read the argument yourself.


Marthkus wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Seems like it allows for a ranged attack to cause sneak that you wouldn't get with improved feint.
You can't say greater feint doesn't apply to allies AND that greater feint applies to range attacks.

Why can't I? Still only applies to the person that did the feint allowing them to get a ranged sneak attack that they can't get with improved feint. Gives the opening volley feat more utility.

Feats aren't designed to break encounters. Your interpretation of the feat belittles any dex based creature.


Greater feint still had an additional effect under the other interpretation. It just didn't turn the CR 20 pit fiend into an auto hit for the wizard to swing his staff unless that wizard used the feint.

Greater feint move action at a distance > shoot with an arrow from 30 feet and get sneak attack > following round stab it for sneak again.

Seems like it allows for a ranged attack to cause sneak that you wouldn't get with improved feint.

Greater feint move action > sneak attack melee > AoO sneak attacks > opportunist sneak attacks > hero points to get a free standard action > step up and strike

Seems like a lot of other attack options you wouldn't get with improved feint.


MrSin wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
His implications is that you want the rogue to go toe to toe with monsters. This isn't what rogues do. Play a fighter or other full BAB class.
To be fair, your likely to go into combat. Some time ago there was a whole thread on the value of a rogue that actually devoted himself to skill monkeying instead of combat. Familiar faces.
And yet the sentence before you chose to quote I stated the rogue is a support melee class.
That would be awesome! If he actually did melee support as a class ability in combat. There might be a class that excels at that but its not the rogue.

Absorbing hits, front loading damage with Str/Dex penalties in the first couple rounds, helping flank or reposition enemies, granting attacks after missing, gaining attacks when allies hit, denying AoOs so your allies can move into position, setting traps? None of those fall into melee support?

The problem isn't the rogue. It's your expectations.


MrSin wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
His implications is that you want the rogue to go toe to toe with monsters. This isn't what rogues do. Play a fighter or other full BAB class.
To be fair, your likely to go into combat. Some time ago there was a whole thread on the value of a rogue that actually devoted himself to skill monkeying instead of combat. Familiar faces.

And yet the sentence before you chose to quote I stated the rogue is a support melee class.


Marthkus wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
His implications is that you want the rogue to go toe to toe with monsters. This isn't what rogues do. Play a fighter or other full BAB class.
The purpose of this thread is not to conclude that all rogues should play the loot monkey in "Dragon Crown".

So state no strength builds, then demand a dex build capable of dealing high damage? Dex is inferior to Str for combat. It requires feats and magic to be competent. Strength does not. Strength provides bonuses to two handed weapons, dex does not.

All classes are loot monkeys. Everyone gets wealth as they level up. You follow the WBL table for most adventures. You have to spend your money wisely much like the feats and talents you take. The race you pick affects the items you need. Everything in the game already expects this and is built into the framework.


Marthkus wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Potions of Darkvision cost 300gp and last 3 hours. The rogue relies on items a lot. Potions work for everyone and for the things that don't the rogue has UMD.
I prefer the wand option. It's only 90 gold per use instead of 300.

And until you can drop 4500gp on the wand you may have to rely on a potion or two. So why is not having Darkvision or low light vision an issue. You say this is the problem then say a reasonable solution completely invalidating your initial argument.


Marthkus wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
You could change the race back to human on your sample and take focused study to gain two more skill focuses. One at 8, one at 16.

Most of the build here require at least two skill focus feats before level 10. So this is tempting.

But that has to be balanced against not having low-light or darkvision as a racial ability. Which is very important to rogues.

Potions of Darkvision cost 300gp and last 3 hours. The rogue relies on items a lot. Potions work for everyone and for the things that don't the rogue has UMD.


Marthkus wrote:
Rushley son of Halum wrote:
It's not a dungeon bashing class.

Considering the parent system to Pathfinder was called "Dungeons and Dragons" you want to reconsider building a class that has trouble in dungeons.

As Espy Kismet pointed out "I tend to find 1-2 melee fighters get to stand at a door or choke point to fight, while everyone else stands back." as rogue doing suicidal tumbles past the choke point so that you can do noticeable damage makes you a liability to the group not an asset.

There are times when you can't flank and there are times when you shouldn't flank.

And in those dungeons the rogue provides trap finding, trap disarming, reconnaissance, skill monkeying, support via UMD, support melee.

His implications is that you want the rogue to go toe to toe with monsters. This isn't what rogues do. Play a fighter or other full BAB class.


What are the parameters on combat duration?

Most combats last 2-4 rounds. A high initiative gives you sneak attack on all attacks in a surprise and the first round before opponents are able to act. That leaves 1-3 rounds to do some more damage, get into position to flank, perform some debuffing action, UMD. A rogues main focus usually isn't swinging his weapon.

Do you assume some certain party?

Each build will vary in functionality based on the classes they play with. The tactics vary drastically based on the party.

You claim at high levels a rogue can't freely maneuver to get flanking which is why we can't assume flanking. What about a a bard using spells like bards escape? A monk with crane wing who can get into flanking position to help you easily. Battle clerics with the travel domain. Throwing invis on yourself and just moving. Using feint + slow reactions + just move. Most caster classes being able to summon a flank buddy.

Expected DPR to be considered "functional"?

How much is the minimum damage count? Does it have to be lethal? Piercing? Slashing? Bludgeoning?

You could change the race back to human on your sample and take focused study to gain two more skill focuses. One at 8, one at 16.

You claim all this experience with rogues at all levels. What campaigns have you played a rogue in or had friends playing a rogue? Most campaigns don't reach high levels. Rogues vary in effectiveness depending on the campaign.

List some of the action economy you use to give people insight to your play style. Maybe the reason you don't have functional rogues is you don't use functional strategies.


Notice it doesn't say loses dexterity vs all opponents attacks. It says in addition to your next attack. Nothing has changed YOU as the variable. You can't have it both ways to make the feat you want it to be.

I'm not assuming. Im reading text verbatim. You're assuming it allows more than the text says.


The intent of massive weapons is to reduce the penalties of using weapons not sized for a character and jotungrip is for using weapons appropriately sized for you in one hand. You cannot use weapons not sized for your character in one hand.

Large sized bastard sword incurs a -2 penalty to medium creatures which is reduced by massive weapons.

2 handed medium weapons can be one handed with jotungrip.


See now you're getting somewhere. Nothing has changed the feint rules. When the target is successfully denied dex (not flat footed) using greater feint, it lasts until the start of your next turn in addition to your next attack. So if you move into position then use feint that target is denied dex vs your AoOs and any other attack you make until the start of your next turn.

Doesn't say it's considered flat footed. Doesn't say denied dex vs other players attacks. You interpret this with the feint rules that only apply to the feinter.


Espy Kismet wrote:

Actually, it says in addition to your next attack. you know, Like In case you for some reason couldn't take a standard action to attack that turn.


Which means, You could feint against two enemies. Then next turn attack both of them.

You make the enemy flat footed. Period. Until the beginning of your next turn. This is in addition to being able to make your next attack against them with them being flat footed.

As its rather hard to understand.. Lets break this down.

When you feint without any feats, it is a standard action. The next melee attack against the target, taken on this turn or the next, does not allow him to use his Dex bonus to AC.

Improve Feint makes it so now

As a Move action you can feint. The next melee attack you use on the target This turn or next, denies the Dex bonus as well.

Now Greater Feint -

As a move action, you can make the enemy flat footed with a feint action, while still being able to deny Dex mod on your next melee attack against them this turn or next turn.

The next attack cannot be made during the next turn. It says it in feint. You guys keep adding inferences. You assume too much. Just like how they've now become flat footed.


Gray wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:

Benefit: Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus, he loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn, in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus against your next attack.

Normal: A creature you feint loses its Dexterity bonus against your next attack.

The bold parts explain what is being modified. The rest of the greater feint feat lists the duration for which it is being altered. This does not say the target is denied dex to everyone as the rules of feinting are what govern this. It alters the duration that feint affects your attacks.

Just to play devil's advocate, I'd expect the rules to state the following if the opponent's dex penalty only applies to the rogue who feinted.

"Benefit: Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus, he loses that bonus to your attacks until the beginning of your next turn, in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus against your next attack."

I can see everyone's point, but it is just a really pointless feat if it doesn't help the rogue's allies.

The three words you added in bold would invalidate the following sentence of "in addition". It would become redundant wording and would get removed. Instead they left it like that so you know it's in addition to YOUR next attacks. The argument is that it doesn't say anywhere that the opponent is losing his dex to anyone other than you. This is why there's an argument.

The Paizo staff have said repeatedly that not all feats are made equal. Not all feats are designed to be optimal. Many feats are designed for flavor. The feat still provides you with a flat footed target vs any future attacks until your next turn.

This includes things like:

AoOs from moving
AoOs from using a ranged attack in melee
AoOs from casting
Step up and strike
snake fang
crane riposte
opportunist advanced talent
A full attack from having feint as a swift action
A pathfinder chronicler giving you an extra move or standard action
Fighter two weapon archetype that let's you swing both weapons as a standard action
Many, many other things that offer added action economy

The feat is far from useless.

1 to 50 of 1,307 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.