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

Lemmy's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 4,399 posts (5,107 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 3 aliases.


1 to 50 of 789 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a martial character forgets to pack a freaking longbow in a game where half the creatures can fly, he deserves to lose.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
mysticbelmont wrote:
I want to know why Paizo went in and specifically changed the feat to disqualify the monk from taking it.

Because Monks aren't allowed to have nice things, obviously.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another idea is to simply make CW scale with level...

Same as the pre-errata version, but instead of automatically deflecting attack, it would be something like this...

BAB/Monk level 1~6: Add +4 to AC.
BAB/Monk level 7~11: Add +8 to AC.
BAB/Monk level 12+: Automatically deflect 1 melee attack (but no touch attacks or natural 20s).

TA-DAAAA!!!

We get a new scaling Combat feat (something PF desperately needs!) and CW only gets the automatic deflection when everything is already making 3+ attacks and PFS modules are mostly over anyway (so those whiny GM crybabies don't cry foul).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Add a bonus to the rogues initiative, say one every other level, or every third level; make it nearly impossible to get the drop on a high level rogue.

There's a (revised) Rogue Talent for that. ;)

Lemmy's Homebrew Rogue wrote:
- Strong Impression: Add a bonus equal to your Charisma modifier to Initiative checks. At 9th level, you can roll for Initiative twice and take the better result. At 18th level, you can roll for Initiative three times and take the best result (Prerequisite: Rogue level 6)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

I've posted it quite a few times before, but I honestly like this homebrew. IMHO, it makes Rogues viable without removing the "feel" of the class.

My Homebrew Rogue Fix

My favorite part are the revised Rogue Talent. They are <GASP!> actually useful!

EDIT: Just noticed Scavion already posted it here. Thanks, dude.

That is a nice rogue. But my mind was just blown by the latest "Marvel: Agents of SHIELD" and can thus no longer think clearly... so do you mind summarizing your changes compared to the Core Rogue? (for ease of reference on this thread) thanks!

Well, the changes are actually pretty minor, for the most part.

Rogues get proficiency with bucklers and a few extra weapons, Poison Use, Shadow Strike, Trap Spotter and Improved Evasion for free. They also get to choose two of their class skills.

The real changes are the revised Rogue Talents.

Among other things, they allow Rogues to do stuff like...

- Apply Int instead of Str to damage rolls.
- Pull any potion/scroll they want from their backpack
- Roll a Reflex save instead of a Fort/Will save against some effects
- Get resistance (and, eventually, immunity) to disease and poison.
- Charm enemies by simply talking to them.
- Use your enemies to flank other enemies.
- Add Cha instead of Wis to all Will saves.
- Get a pretty big bonus to Acrobatics, and use Acrobatics instead of Escape Artist.
- Get free Combat Maneuver feats and use their Rogue level instead of BAB for the selected maneuver
- Get a big bonus on attack rolls against flanked opponents.
- Make a Bluff (or Sleight of Hand) check as a swift action in order to get a big bonus on attack rolls against any opponent they want (flanked or not).
- Automatically deal max SA damage against opponents who are surprised/helpless/unaware of your presence.
- Get a Climb (or Swim) speed.
- Make AoO against enemies that provoked AoO from one of their allies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
You do not plan to use those because they do not work in PF. If single BBEg worked people would use more of those.

Exactly. It's not a problem with CW. It's just an aspect of PF. CW didn't make those encounters trivial. They were trivial already.

Alexandros Satorum wrote:
But that is beside the point. Even if there are 4 T-Rex, it would be unlikely that they all attack one character. I still find the automatic nature of the old crane wing to be just wrong.

Is it? I dunno, I don't have such insight on T-Rex psychology. If just two of them decide to attack the guy with CW, the eat becomes pointless. If instead, they decide to attack other characters, the feat is even more pointless.

It was just "automatic" against one specific threat. i.e.: one melee attack. It could still be completely bypassed by ranged attacks, spells, surprise attacks, area of effects, multiple attacks, most combat maneuvers, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
I am ok With Pc having strong defenses agaisnt a particular attack, but when you can not use a encounter anymore because it woudl just be a trivial cave walk then something went wrong.
I guess weapons, shields, BAB and class feature should be removed, then. Because of those things, I can't use my "single unarmed commoner encounter" anymore.
A encounter you never ever planned to use, so it is pretty irrelevant.

I also never planned to use encounters composed of a single enemy with a single melee strike. So the "single T-Rex encounter" is irrelevant too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alceste008 wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

I'll say it again, if a deflecting a single melee attack per round is that much of a trouble, I seriously question the GM's competence.

"Oh no! My Vital Striking T-Rex is useless! If only I could use something else for the encounter..."

¬¬'

And to whoever mentioned ceilings, as being able to "block" flight, notice that to evade the PCs melee attack, all he needs is to hover 10~15ft in the air.

Besides, if "existence of a low ceiling", a specific encounter condition, is a valid counter to anything, then so is "attacking twice", which can be done by pretty much every creature in the f@~~ing game.

Because of the stupidly restrictive boundaries imposed to PFS GMs, the whole game suffers by removing options from martial characters, the ones who need versatility the most.

CW wasn't just nerfed... It was beaten, crippled, castrated and burned alive until it became a completely useless lump of shame.

Paizo dropped the ball really hard on this one. It's really uncanny how a company that makes such great books can publish such awful erratas...

Indeed, if CW needs to go, then all spells above lvl 3, and half of the lvl 2 spells need to go.
Yeah, most second & third level spells vastly out class the pre-obliterated Crane Wing. I really question the encounter design capabilities of those that had major issues with Crane Wing. My only problem was Master of Many styles made Crane Wing too easy to acquire.

Reading the complaints against CW fromf players and GMs makes me think those same players and GMs would be TPK'd by a couple Stryx with crossbows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
I am ok With Pc having strong defenses agaisnt a particular attack, but when you can not use a encounter anymore because it woudl just be a trivial cave walk then something went wrong.

I guess weapons, shields, BAB and class feature should be removed, then. Because of those things, I can't use my "single unarmed commoner encounter" anymore.

Tels nailed it:

Tels wrote:

It can't be stated enough, if your encounter involves a single monster that possesses a single attack in a round, it doesn't matter if the party has Crane Wing or not, it's a bad f**&ing encounter and you should feel ashamed of yourself for even thinking of it.

In such an encounter, the enemy is attacking once, and then he's done. The party, in return, is either attacking three times (divine, skill, martial) and casting a spell (arcane), or attacking twice (skill, martial) and casting two spells (divine, arcane).

Your encounter lasts 2 rounds at best and the monster might have made two attacks in those rounds.

There is no way around it, Nicos. A single enemy will always be a pathetic encounter. If all it has is a single attack, it's even more pitiful. CW or not.

EDIT: Funny anecdote: Just yesterday my group fought two T-Rex at the same time. No players has CW (or any other AC-boosting feat, for that matter).

Can you guess how many rounds the creatures lasted?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll say it again, if a deflecting a single melee attack per round is that much of a trouble, I seriously question the GM's competence.

"Oh no! My Vital Striking T-Rex is useless! If only I could use something else for the encounter..."

¬¬'

And to whoever mentioned ceilings, as being able to "block" flight, notice that to evade the PCs melee attack, all he needs is to hover 10~15ft in the air.

Besides, if "existence of a low ceiling", a specific encounter condition, is a valid counter to anything, then so is "attacking twice", which can be done by pretty much every creature in the f%+$ing game.

Because of the stupidly restrictive boundaries imposed to PFS GMs, the whole game suffers by removing options from martial characters, the ones who need versatility the most.

CW wasn't just nerfed... It was beaten, crippled, castrated and burned alive until it became a completely useless lump of shame.

Paizo dropped the ball really hard on this one. It's really uncanny how a company that makes such great books can publish such awful erratas...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That reminds me of a funny event...

My friend and his unlucky Paladin (guy has more natural 1s than every other player combined!) managed to roll 3 natural 1s in the same round an enemy rolls 3 natural 20s against him. LOL!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Speaking of Rogue Talents... Here is my attempt to fix Rogues without changing them too much.

I mostly tweaked talents to be, you know, actually useful.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What you really shouldn't do, is force a player to play a Rogue so your party can have a trap finder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A better comparison would be one between a party + Bard and that same party + Rogue. Check which one is more effective... Or if you prefer, check how a Bard by himself fares compared to a Rogue by himself.

I'm very sure Bard wins both contests, at very least, from 6th level and beyond.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

Hey, I resemble that remark! ;-)

We call those "sorcerers" . What's wrong with having a Wizard with true Vancian and sorc and even other systems, all as choices? I don't get the Vancian haters- if you don;t have to play vancian, then why not let the rest of us have it? Can't we have 2-3-4+ systems?

Roleplaying. Droop one rank in there and it helps for background. Other than Seaman, none really mean much anyway.

They are getting away from that, but remember, tradition is something many of us like. I agree, dump "PF is backwards compatible", tho.

Well, here is something that doesn't happen every day...

I... Agree with DrDeth.

While I don't particularly care for tradition and I'm not a big fan of vancian spell casting, it's always better to have more options, so that more people can enjoy the game.

It doesn't have to be in the form of different classes, though. I'd be perfectly fine with having alternate spell casting system that every caster could use.

Hell, they don't even have to change anything! Just publish an alternate casting mechanic that allows Sorcerers to use the Psionics PP system and does the same for Wizards, but making it so they have to spend their PP when they prepare their spells. That'd be good enough for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Skills are not useless. They are just overrated.

Having a few extra skill points per level is simply not worth nearly as much as many players and game designers seem to think it is...

Some skills are useful the whole campaign, others are easily replaced by low level spells, and most are somewhere inbetween. There is even the odd case of Stealth, that is quickly replaced by Invisibility, but later on, becomes useful again when enemies start having more and more ways to detect invisible creatures.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roger Quigley wrote:
Does agile stack for the purposes of power attack? I'm level 3, and none of us have had to use power attack. Oddly, hitting is the problem, not damage in our group. At fourth level, I'll take power attack and increase my strength, but right now I don't really need it (as odd as that sounds).

It's not odd at all, actually. at low levels, accuracy is much more important than damage, as you usually kill everything in one or two hits anyway.

Personally, I always save Power Attack for 5th level, unless I need it to qualify for something else or if I'm not sure what feat to take.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Shain Edge wrote:
I play games along the lines of what is fun

ORLY? YOU DON'T SAY? HOW UNIQUE!

I, for one, hate RPGs and hate having fun. Unfortunately, I also despise everyone, myself included, so I play PF as a means to make my life more miserable.

/sarcasm

¬¬'


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Oh no! A martial class can move 10ft. and still be effective! HOW DARE THEY? NERF IT INTO NOTHINGNESS! Now excuse me while my Cleric teleports as a move action and then casts 2 different spells..."

Apparently, Pounce should be exclusive to 6th level Druids and 1st level Synthesists.

¬¬'

How, exactly, is a martial character being able to move without losing 80% of its effectiveness a bad thing? How does it break anything in the game?

Here is my idea:

Allow characters to use a full round action to move up to half their speed and make a full attack (maybe expand it to full speed at BAB +11, but still keeping it a full round action). This makes martials more mobile and still keeps Pounce as an useful ability to have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is my archer Bard...

Human Bard 10
Str 14, Dex 26 Con 10, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8
Haste +20 - 1d8+ 40 + 5 bleed
Rapid Shot +20 - 1d8+ 40 + 18
1st Attack +20 - 1d8+ 40
2nd Attack +15 - 1d8+ 40
Traits: Reactionary +2 inic. Eyes and Ears of the City +1 perception
Feats:Weapon Proficiense(Long Composite bow) Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Skill Focus(Perception), Deadly Aim.

He's always under effect of Haste, Greater Heroism and Greater Invisibility. Always.

How did he get those numbers? What? You want me to clarify? No, no... You go ahead and do some research.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tsuruki wrote:

All of the above naysayers are wrong. Period.

My rouge players routinely have the most fun and best moments in my games.
The objective in pathfinder is fun.
Therefor all your arguments against the rouge class are wrong.

Why do Rogue advocates keep parroting stuff like this? Who ever said Rogues can't be fun? All we said is that they are mechanically weak.

Really, that sort of logic is no more relevant to the discussion than the following quote:

CommonerLover wrote:

All of the above naysayers are wrong. Period.

My commoner players routinely have the most fun and best moments in my games.
The objective in pathfinder is fun.
Therefor all your arguments against the commoner class are wrong.

How much fun one can have with a class has no bearing on how effective and/or well-designed its mechanics are.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I made two claims...

1) A Bard by himself, does more damage than a Rogue by himself.
2) A party benefits much more from Bard than from a Rogue.

I'm not sure, what you want... Do you want me to build the Rogue?

Let's see... Save for Sneak Attack, a Rogue has the exact same damage as a Bard. And the same AC.

However, when alone, he can't flank. So he can't reliably use Sneak Attack, since feinting kills his action economy and often amounts to little more than a +2 or +3 to hit, since most creatures rely more on armor and/or natural armor than Dex for AC.

When fighting with his friends, all the Rogue offers are the occasional extra d6, which he's unlikely to get more often than once, maybe twice, a round (if that).

Can't flank? Too bad. No SA. Ally was grappled? Well, that's his problem. He failed a save and is now dominated? Let's hope the Cleric is paying attention. Enemy is invisible? Let's pray someone can pinpoint his exact location so we have a chance to attack (without Sneak attack, though).

Rogues depend on their allies just to be noticeable. In exchage, what do they bring to the party? Trapfinding and the occasional extra d6.

The Bard, OTOH, when alone, can still count on his spells and Bardic Performance. And by 6th level, he has just as many trained skills as a Rogue. He also has an increasingly superior chance to make those all-too-important will saves.

And when he's with his friends, he really, freaking shines. Everyone gets Haste and a free +2 to attack, damage and saving throws. Or maybe he casts Dimension Door so the Fighter can full attack.

Your ally got grappled? No problem. Bard casts Liberating Command as an immediate action. You ally failed a save despite Inspire Courage? Don't worry, saving finale will him him a 2nd chance. An invisible enemy? Glitterdust will reveal his position.

Bards bring all sorts of tools to the party, and are still quite independent when they have to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
<Something, something, Bards... Does it really matter?>

Didn't leave us yet? How quaint...

What exactly do you propose we do? Dow e want me to build a Rogue and show how weak he is? I can build a crappy character with any class, how does that prove any point?

you're the one saying you can build amazing Rogues who are irreplaceable and more effective than Bards, Inquisitors, Alchemists, etc. It's you who has to show what mysterious build you're using.

I have yet to see any Rogue advocate show a Rogue build that can't be easily replaced by half a dozen classes... They just parrot "Skills. Traps. Sneak Attack." and never ever show any evidence to backup their claims...

Then they accuse others of being unfair for comparing Rogues to other classes... r.g.: "You can't compare Party+Bard with Party+Rogue. That's unfair!".

Why it's unfair, though... I have no clue.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
I swear, it seems like the people arguing for the rogue being fine as is haven't actually read any other class...

C'mon, KC. you know how Rogue advocates go...

Stage 1:
Rogue Advocate: Rogues are the best strikers in the game! Sneak Attack deals a quadrillion damage every round!
Poster Who Actually Checks The Math: No, they aren't. They don't even hit often enough for Sneak Attack to be useful, and their awful saves, AC and CMD means they are likely to be neutralized before they even have a chance to try.

Stage 2:
Rogue Advocate: This game is not about combat! Rogues are not a combat class! You guys focus too much on DPR! Rogues are the kings of skill, and skills are awesome!
Poster Who Actually Checks The Math: Rogues are not that good out of combat either... Bards, Inquisitors, Rangers, Alchemists, every single full caster in the game and even a few Barbarian builds have better out of combat utility. And all of them are vastly superior in combat too.

Stage 3:
Rogue Advocate: SHUT UP! STOP OPPRESSING ME AND TELLING ME I'M HAVING BADWRONG FUN!!! YOU JUST HATE THE CLASS, YOU DPR-OBSSESSED ROLLPLAYER!
Poster Who Actually Checks The Math: Dude... I never said anything even close to that. And you're the one who brought up DPR. Oh, and you don't have to play a Rogue to role-play a roguish character.

Stage 4:
Rogue Advocate: F&%! YOU! GO HOME AND TEAR YOUR BOOK APART! I'M OUT!
Poster Who Actually Check The Math: Drama queen...

Sometimes, Rogue advocates skip stage 1 or switch it around with stage 2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
And you cannot compare the damage output of two characters (whatever martial you want +bard) to that of rogue by himself-- you have to compare the same martial + bard to that martial + rogue if you want to be fair and I have yet to see the math to back up any of these claims.

We can compare "Party + Bard" and "Party + Rogue", though. And I'm betting on the Bard team being more effective.

Nathanael Love wrote:
But again, I'm undotting this post since its clearly just a spot for a particular subset of posters to scream loudly about how me/my players/ other players shouldn't enjoy rogues and how dumb we are if we do.

I'm still waiting for you to point an occasion where anyone in this thread accused you of having badwrong fun or called you dumb for playing a Rogue...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I gotta say, commoners are awesome. I love playing them. If their combat damage doesn't stack up *shrug*. When I play a commoner, I make him the star of the show. 'Nuff said.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Majuba wrote:

What can a Rogue do?

Ask Clinton J. Boomer.

So... Sneak Attack a 2~3rd level Expert and still see them get away without any significant injuries?

Yeah, I can see that happening...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
Wow I touched a nerve or something there.

Did you? Because they simply replied to you. They don't sound angry or even irritated at all.

Let me first say that it's clear we have different paradigms when it comes to playing a rogue. That's why I thought the comment about Int-dumping is revealing.

ryric wrote:
First, IMO, you shouldn't build your rogue for combat. We all know the rogue is pretty bad at straight up fighting, i.e., applying her numbers to the monster's numbers to win. So why emphasize that? It's like trying to build a wizard who fights in melee without using spells.

Here is the problem... Combat is a huge part of PF. Being bad at it means you'll be bad at at least 50% of a normal campaign (i.e.: A campaign not specifically designed about non-combat. No class should need a custom-made campaign just to be decent) and like it or not, the consequences for failing at combat are usually much steeper than the consequences for failing a skill check.

That sample build of yours... What's his AC, accuracy and saves? You can claim "Rogues are not meant for combat", but combat happens all the time, and the Rogue will either be involved and ineffective, or he will let his friends fend for themselves without his help, in which case he's completely useless.

Either way, the party is worse for having the Rogue come along. They have one less man to count on during those situations where it's a

The second problem is the fact that there are over half a dozen classes that are better than Rogues at everything. Out-of-combat utility included.

The 3rd problem, is that increasing skills doesn't really help much the Rogue... Int doesn't do anything particularly useful for them. The difference between having 2 and 4 skill points is much, much more significant than the difference between having 10 and 8 skill points, even though the numerical gap is the same.

And since every class can easily get 3~4 skill points by simply not dumping Int, its much easier for a party with no Rogues to cover all its bases on the skill department than it's for a party to be effective in combat with only characters.

Many skills only have to be covered by 1 party member. But very few combats end well when you can't rely on your whole party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

You are comparing apples to oranges then declaring oranges strictly better--

Rogue= damage dealer

Bard= party buffer

But without any damage dealers in the party, bard can stand there singing all day and haste/heroism to his hearts content and its meaningless.

You do realize that a Bard's buffs also affect the Bard himself, right? You also realize, of course, that a Bard can maintain a Bardic Performance with a free action, which means he can do other stuff while his Bardic Performance is up and buffing everyone in the party (including himself).

A Bard could very easily cast Haste and start a Performance in the same round. And make the whole party much more effective. Rogue advocates love to say "This not a solo game", but then, we mention how Bards are much, much better for a team game, and suddenly, "What if he's alone?" comes up. Then let's remember that if he's alone, he'd be miles ahead of any Rogue who is alone too (try and get Sneak Attack without flanking).

Nathanael Love wrote:

You are "thinking" that a hasted martial does more damage than a rogue?

Want to show some math on it?

Are you honestly saying a non-buffed Rogue that deals more damage than, say... A Ranger under effect of Haste and Bardic Performance? Or, to make the comparison more realistic... Does the Rogue deal more damage than a whole party who is under effect of Haste and Bardic Performance?

Because if you are, you're the one who should bring evidence.

Nathanael Love wrote:
And sorry, but if a player wants to kill things, he is not going to be choosing between Rogue and Bard-- because the player who is likely to choose rogue isn't thinking "ahh, but I could never make an attack myself and let other people do all the killing while I sing". . .

Again, maintaining a Bardic Performance is a freaking free action. A. Free. Action.

Nathanael Love wrote:
And I don't see how dealing lots of damage and throwing lots of dice-- two things rogues can do that bards can't are mutually exclusive?

Rogues are not very good at causing lots of damage... Sure they'll occasionally hit every attack and deal Sneak Attack wiht all of them, but, much more often than not, that occasion will preceded and followed by many rounds where he doesn't hit anything and/or can't use Sneak Attack... Which turns him into an expert with better WBL (and worse saves).

Nathanael Love wrote:
A question was asked and the answer is Yes and Yes. So the answer is Yes?

I don't even know what you're talking about here...

Nathanael Love wrote:
All these posts that are just places for people to bash classes really need to stop-- you don't like the class, don't play it and move on, you aren't going to convince everyone else that they are having badwrongfun playing the class by trying to make false comparisons.

HAH! There we are! We got the the stage 3 of a Rogue's advocate argument...

Can't think of a real argument, so goes the victim route. "Stop telling me I'm having badwrong fun! Stop oppressing Rogue players!". Let's just ignore the fact that I never, not even once, accused anyone of "having badwrong fun" for any reason, much less for playing Rogues.

Honestly, I have seen very few instances in this forum where anyone did that. What I do see a lot, though... Is people (who can't make fact-based arguments) say others are accusing them of having badwrong fun, despite no one having done that.

Go ahead. Point me one instance where I said anything close to "If you're playing a Rogue, you're not having fun". One instance. Just one.

I like the concept for Rogue class. In fact, I like it so much, that I spent a lot of time and put a lot of thought on how to make it better while keeping its flavor, including revising many Rogue Talents, instead of just giving simple upgrades such as full BAB and good Fort saves. Do you think I'd bother to do something like that if I hated the class? (I'd link my homebrew Rogue fix here, but Giant in the Playground is offline for maintenance right now). Hell! Ignore "hating" the class... Do you honestly think I'd put that much effort if I didn't really like the class?!

The difference between our takes on this subject, Nathaniel, is that I don't delude myself into believing the Rogue is perfect just because I like the class. I know the Rogue's flaws and I accept them. I've seen them in play too often to ignore.

I don't hate Rogues. I hate its mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

36d6 damage every round

/thread

Is this "throw lots of dice each round" or "do a bunch of damage each round" in intent and meaning?
Pretty much. . . Rogue can sneak attack with ever attack essentially every round since it is so easy to flank with anything. Bards can't do that.

How does Sneak Attack compare to casting Haste and/or Great Heroism on the whole party while maintaining a Bardic Performance to boost them even more?

I'm thinking a Hasted martial character has a much better damage in combat than a Rogue.

That's probably the greatest difference... While Rogues depend on team work and situational conditions to make themselves somewhat useful and not give anything in return to their flanking buddy, a Bard makes the whole group more effective and not only does not rely on situational bonuses but is also a much better team player than any Rogue.

Rogues need their friends to be barely noticeable... Bards make their friends much more effective (all of them at the same time too, not just their flanking body who would benefit just as much from any other flanking buddy). Rogues implores his friends to flank, Bards use Dimension Door and Freedom of Movement (among other spells) to help their friends get wherever they want to go. Rogues beg Wizards and Clerics to buff them so they have at least a small chance of surviving CR-appropriate encounters. Bards buff everyone (including themselves) and let their full caster friends prepare different spells, since they don't have to worry about casting Haste or Greater Heroism.

Again, Rogues are a huge drain on resources... Bards are a great source of resources.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Leonardo Trancoso wrote:
What a bard can do that a wizard can't?

"Rogues do not suck because Wizards are overpowered" is a terrible argument.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Karl Hammarhand wrote:
I can understand magic being limited. It's magic. Otoh can you think of a physical or mental ability you can only use 'once per day'?

The ability to wake up. It's not limited to daily uses, but I need to rest to regain it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Dude! Don't attract too much attention to Bards! Paizo may decide to Crane Wing the class!

They nerfed Investigators and the class is not even out yet! Why? Because they make Rogues look bad...

News flash, Paizo. EVERY class makes Rogues look bad! Except, maybe, Fighters, but that is just because they suffer from different problems... And Fighters at least manage to be reliable at what they do (as limited as that is).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
EpicFail wrote:

I like Commoners 'as is'.

I haven't read a single thing about build-craft, but I can't find the problem with Commoners.

I do however houserule some of the other 'very powerful' (YMMV) classes like Mystic Theurges and player Munchkins who insist on being Kobalds...
A lot depends on the DM and I let all classes and players shine.

So no, they don't suck. Their DPS (or whatever that cr@p is called) is 'low', everything they do some other class does better, but I let them shine in other ways (skills, social, ...) because shining is wonderfully insubstantial and thinking about what a character does is too concrete and difficult.

But that's just me!

I wish I could favorite this post twice...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Samduc Dawnbringer wrote:

Two fighters at a bar, Fighter 1: "I was surrounded by rogues!"

Fighter 2 "What did you do?" Fighter 1: "Luckily I had a single smoke grenade!!"

And then the Fighter found out they had Shadow Strike/headbands of ninjitsu.

I mean, he still made it to the bar, but he had to get more healing first.

It's sad that Rogues need to spend 15000gp (or a feat) to counter a 20gp consumable. -.-'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mystically Inclined wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
specially after the trapfinding trait.
Well... yes. If you can find a GM who permits it.

*raises hand*

I haven't found one who doesn't, actually... Most, if not all, players and GMs who I met in live play said they would allow it. Myself included.Trap Finding is just not good enough to be worth a feat, much less a whole class.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
A character without mythic tiers should not be able to stand against an optimized tier 10 mythic anything.

An yet, a 20th level non-mystic full-caster can make a mystic pretty-much-anything-except-another-caster his b#%!# with a spell or two.

Seriously, look at all the absurd stuff casters can do at high levels. You are saying Barbarians are overpowered because they have good saving throws... ¬¬'


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
"Oh, no! A 20th level Barbarian has a good will save! How will I, a 20th level full caster, deal with this threat? It's not like I have any option other than directly targeting enemies with a SoL effect!"
Why is a barbar capable of resisting the highest possible DC from creatures that are not un-stated Gods?

Because resisting magic and dealing damage is the class' main strengths. He doesn't get to bend reality to his will in the way any caster can. He doesn't get to e good in social situations. No, he gets to deal damage and resist magic.

Are you honestly telling me that having a good will save is more powerful than spell-casting? Because if you're worried about game balance, your priorities make no sense.

The better question would be... Why is a [any caster class] capable of doing stuff usually reserved to un-stated Gods? Including, but not limited to, having saving DC that are all but impossible to defeat except by optimized characters with ideal selection of race, favored class bonus and gear?

A Kitsune Fey Sorcerer (which should be the standard caster, if your standard Barbarian is human with superstition and raging weapons and whatever else) can easily reach DC 42 for enchantment spells.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

"Oh, no! A 20th level Barbarian has a good will save! How will I, a 20th level full caster, deal with this threat? It's not like I have any option other than directly targeting enemies with a SoL effect!"

Really, Marthkus, what alternative do you propose? That Barbarians have the same pathetic saves as Fighters and Rogues? Isn't it enough to have 2 classes easily failing saving throws caused by a casters4 levels below them?


19 people marked this as a favorite.
Majuba wrote:
Pounce is just wrong. Most of the rest is alright.

What's wrong is that Barbarians are the only martial class that get Pounce. (At 10th level. After investing 3 Rage Powers. Meanwhile, Druids get it for free at 6th level and Summoners at 1st level for a single evolution point).

Martial classes losing 90% of their effectiveness because they dared to move 10ft is one of the biggest flaws with the system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Barbarian who decides to use maneuvers is likely to be better at them, thanks to Strength Surge.

Strength surge is just another example. Oh look I want to do a maneuver. Well let's just add an additional +20 to the check! hurr durr

There is having a bonus and then there is having stupid levels of bonuses.

Well, considering CMB itself is just a numerical bonus, and the unreasonably fast rate at which CMD scales, I don't see any alternatives. Maneuvers are weak as they are. There should be more ways to increase CMB, not less.

And hey, look at Fighters... All their class features are about raising numbers. All of them. Even combat feats in general (especially Fighter-exclusive feats) are about getting a +1 to this or that 90% of the time. does that make Fighters overpowered?

Martials should have amazing combat-related bonuses. That's the whole point of those classes, being amazing in combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Besides, that doesn't make them unbalanced, just uninspired.

Perhaps. It seems like all the barbar has to do is rage-pounce and nothing can stop him without killing the whole party. And party couldn't even buff the barbar should he get in trouble. They just get to watch "Hulk smash!"

The paladin actually requires thought and player input to run. Even the fighter (although weaker) has more interesting combat interactions.

Dunno about that... Barbarians can at least use tactics that involve moving 10ft. Having 4 skill points is enough to give him some out-ofcombat presence (not much, but some) and Spell Sunder actually adds a great deal of versatility to the class (which is why I classify spell-sundering Barbarians as tier 3).

Fighters make better switch-hitters and have easier access to maneuvers, but a Barbarian who decides to use maneuvers is likely to be better at them, thanks to Strength Surge. Also, Knockback and Knockdown save him the need of getting Combat Expertise.

That said, I'd love to see Barbarians getting more Rage Powers that allow them to do cool stuff instead of just raising numbers. Same goes for Fighters and feats.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Barbarians are one of the very few martial classes that actually work.

But the way they work is SO dumb.

"hurr durr +12 more to my d20 roll"

You mean, the same way every other class works?

What's the alternative to getting bonus to saving throws for a non caster class? Getting immunities? How is that any less dumb?

Besides, that doesn't make them unbalanced, just uninspired.

Also, what make Barbarians work is the fact that they have a decent number of skill points, good mobility and cool abilities such as Spell Sunder, No Escape and Knock Down. If all they had was bigger damage numbers and AC, they would be like Fighters, and they would suck.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
Rangers can also afford the various rather important archery feats which this rogue is missing. No precise shoot, clustered shots, manyshot or point blank master makes for a sad archer. No seeking on the bow doesn't help either and having most of your damage shut down because the target isn't flanked is pretty crap.

And they can actually use the bow from longer than 30ft without losing all their damage too. Thus, enjoying one of the advantages of ranged weapons... Range.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
I know people like the barbar because of how it actually competes with classes that can cast spells, but surely there is a better way to do that than just adding a +6-12 to all d20 rolls.

No, it doesn't. Even a pouncing spell-sundering Barbarian has nothing even close to the versatility of classes capable of stuff such as flying, teleporting, reading minds, summoning monsters (sometimes with permanent duration), divination, healing and resurrecting allies, creating walls, decelerating time, among other tricks, while still having all sorts of options for combat.

Barbarians are still far less versatile than Bards, Inquisitors and Magi, for example. They hit hard, make saves, resist damage, move and remain effective, (things every martial class should be able to do!) and they "dispel" magic. That's all. It's a good selection of tricks, but not overpowered in anyway, unless you're comparing them to classes that are completely one-dimensional (such as Fighters) and/or not particularly good at what they do (Such as Rogues).

Barbarians are one of the very few martial classes that actually work. The other ones being Paladin and, to a lesser extent, Ranger.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is my take on it, if anyone is interested. I tried to make it effective without changing the class too much. Hopefully, it was enough... :)

I'm currently playtesting this homebrew and would love to hear more opinions on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
I'd prefer it if the flavor for Sorcerers wasn't so dependent on the actions of people who came before him.

Well, you can flavor the bloodlines as anything you want. Even the CRB hints at "bloodlines" gained through other means.

Maybe you conduct some kind of arcane experiment on your self, or made a deal with a demon or something like that.

Orc bloodline is... odd. I prefer to see it as simply being a bloodline particularly common in orc-sorcerers, so other races came to associate it to orcs. Or maybe descendants from an orc deity, etc.

What I find weird is that the guys who are supposedly exploding with arcane power get their spell levels later than the guy who spends years studying magic... IMO, both should get spells at the same level. Wizards would have the advantage of versatility while Sorcerers would have the advantage of raw power (in the form of having more spells per day or maybe some metamagic-related ability).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
I think many people miss that that profile is a character. Thus the lack of responses.
Yeah, but I've asked for help with my rogue before and no one has bitten either.

Hey! I did tell you what you did wrong, but you said it wasn't helpful!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leonardo Trancoso wrote:
I´m not saying that the rogue can´t contribute to the combat, it is just the class concept isn´t make to compare rogue vs monsters 1x1 at a open fight.

Fortunately, no one here is thinking of x1 battles.

1 to 50 of 789 << 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.