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

Nicos's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 8,052 posts (10,403 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 15 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 8,052 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

All in all, this probably will be a really great class that will allow tons of character concepts.


Wasted wrote:
It's certainly going to be the most skill-monkey-ish of the full BAB classes, moreso than the Ranger, thanks to its access to Trapfinding via Slayer Talents.

I think there is a trait for that. But I suppose that trait is not valid in PFS.


Lemmy wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Rangers eventually pick up Hide in Plain Sight. So there's that.
I think there is an advanced rogue talent for that, probably not as good as the real HiPs though.
the rogue version requires them to take rogue talents for favored terrains. They only get HiPS in a favored terrain.
Also, they need to take it multiple times, while Ranger get it for free and can use Terrain Bond to treat any terrain as their favored one.

Uhm, I dislke that kind of spells.

anyways, unless the ACG have new impresive stealth talents, the ranger is clearly better.


Lest see, the salyer could ge fast stealth, there are probably other rogue talents for that, but I am not sure if taking rogue talens is the best idea.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Rangers eventually pick up Hide in Plain Sight. So there's that.

I think there is an advanced rogue talent for that, probably not as good as the real HiPs though.


eakratz wrote:

Oh, and a chance to pick up evasion.

Lemmy wrote:
Rangers are considerably better at Stealth too.
How so?

I think they have a spell to neagate scent and the bonus from favorite terrain, not sure if that constitue "considerably better" though, I should be missing something.


Nicos wrote:

Lets see, totally non exahustive list

- Mikaze (the best mikaze, even if mikaze aoi have more fans)
- Toz because, well, Toz.
- Bob loblaw
- roberta yang

Lamontious was in that list but his lack of rhyming and rapping lately get him out.

EDIT:

- Ross Byers
- Wraithstrike

- Grimmy

- Doodlebug Anklebiter
- Starbuck II
- Deadmanwalking


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Troodos wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Troodos wrote:
A soldier, knight, or proud warrior isn't going to be a slayer
Why not? (besides heavy armor prof)
Because it doesn't make sense thematically. A knight isnt going to be sneaking around in the shadows, and a proud warrior isn't going to train for skills that favor assassination and "dishonorable" conduct, he's going to learn to fight fair and skilled. It isn't about what abilities are needed, it's about what abilities MAKE SENSE. When would a soldier who fights in formation have time to learn sneak attack? Why would a gladiator want to make less of a spectacle?

Thend dont.

A slayer can take the ranger mounted combat style, instead of putting skill points into stealth you put it into ride. Done.

As aproud warrior the salyer can take the feint feats, and instead of fighting from the shadow he could prefer to combat his enemies face to face. Done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Troodos wrote:
A soldier, knight, or proud warrior isn't going to be a slayer

Why not? (besides heavy armor prof)


K177Y C47 wrote:
Final nail in the coffin...

This have been said soooo many times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Rot Grub wrote:
If that's true, then the needed fix is to strengthen the fighter, not to gimp several other classes..

Well, yes, that have been requested from a long time, but that would be powercreep, and apparently every figther related powercreep is bad.


TWF with shield master and sneak attack coudl be a good option.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Asumming you do not care stealth at all, how good would be the salyer taking heavy amrmor proficiency and just pretend he is a fighter?

Sadly, not workable with the Ranger Fighting Style Feats (well, not without Mithral Full Plate), which are a large part of what allows the Slayer to pull a Fighter impression. In short, it's doable...but seriously suboptimal at anything but higher levels (when you can afford the Mithral).

EDIT: Ninja'd! At least it was by someone with authority...

I see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lauren Tacita wrote:
What's this about dipping Knife Master? That's an illegal combination... You can't dip Rogue as a Slayer, right?

You can, they changed that.


Asumming you do not care stealth at all, how good would be the salyer taking heavy amrmor proficiency and just pretend he is a fighter?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The good thing is that it should be now clear for everyone that having a lot of feats and hitting things all day long is not a good justification for sucking at skills and having poor saves.

A shame they never wanted to admit that for fighters.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Ok. The guy hit harder than a fighter, have better saves and 6+int skill points per level, and skip prereq for combat feats. I suppose the slayer is now THE martial.

Eh. Rangers, Barbarians, Cavaliers, Monks, Gunslingers and Paladins (as well as Bloodragers, Brawlers, and Swashbucklers) still definitively do stuff the Slayer doesn't. It's really only Fighter and Rogue who the Slayer really steps on the toes of.

Ttrue. I should have said THE Non-magical martial.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zark wrote:
Nicos wrote:

Ok. The guy hit harder than a fighter, have better saves and 6+int skill points per level, and skip prereq for combat feats. I suppose the slayer is now THE martial.

The fighter and the slayer don’t really cover the same niches.

feat expert Non-magical guy that Kill things with pointy sticks all day long?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok. The guy hit harder than a fighter, have better saves and 6+int skill points per level, and skip prereq for combat feats. I suppose the slayer is now THE martial.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vod Canockers wrote:
Maybe, just maybe if they stopped killing Israeli (and American) citizens and firing rockets into Israel and sending in human bombs, then Israel would stop sending in their army to retaliate.

Maybe if they stop killing palestine citizens and stealing their land they stop firing rockets.


Chimon Jivuran wrote:


How many second-level slots do you have left, Jo?

One. Two if I use arcane bond


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Choon wrote:

You know, I've been reading "tacticslion" for months and my mind has been seperating that word as tactic-slion, which made no sence but I thought, It's the Internet. Whatever.

Then, about 30 seconds ago, my mind finally saw "tactics-lion". The world makes so much more sence now!

I have one similar, it took me an eternity to decipher the secret name of odraude.


JoeJ wrote:
Odraude wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

What would be really nice would be a full Class Builder like the Race Builder in ARG.

Honestly, having played point buy systems, I can tell you that would really be easy to abuse and game. It's better to have advice that can help guide a GM make good judgement calls about class design.

Point buy systems can never beat experienced advice.

Why can't we have both?

Because it was a lof of work that hey wanted to avoid. If you mind, Rinjyn have a system where you cherry pick your class features, it is probably broken at many levels but if you are not purporsely trying to break anything it works just fine.


It is a pretty theory, but nah, I do not think it work like that :/


Degoon Squad wrote:

Rogues are subpar because the way most games are played. Many games dont use skills that much, dont use traps, dont use locked doors that need to be open and dont run adventures where people need to sneek around.

We realy need a rogue Freaquently repeated myths thread.


Ravingdork wrote:

B

Nicos

unexpected.


TOZ wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
Weird, it is not like he was the most vocal on that thread

MrBateman wrote:
pming wrote:

Hiya.

claudekennilol wrote:
I see a lot of posts implying that rogues aren't worth playing, why is that?

Because far too many people think of the MMORPG version of "rogue". In other words, "Rogue = the main damage-dealer in the party", and not the actual "D&D" RPG version of "rogue = thief who avoids combat, preferring to gain treasure via stealth, planning and patients".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

That's great and all, but it's not as much fun when the rest of the party can't sneak as well as you can, so you either end up sneaking around without them(boring for them) or you end up not sneaking at all(in which case, why play a rogue?).

Or when they are all good and sneak around with stealth plus invisibility, plus bunch of better class features.


Lets see, totally non exahustive list

- Mikaze (the best mikaze, even if mikaze aoi have more fans)
- Toz because, well, Toz.
- Bob loblaw
- roberta yang

Lamontious was in that list but his lack of rhyming and rapping lately get him out.

EDIT:

- Ross Byers
- Wraithstrike


The trap argument is bad anyways. Ignoring hte fact taht everyone in the game can find and disarm magic traps if they so wish, there is also the fact taht putting traps in a dungeon so the rogue do not feel bad is sad.

You do not combat just for the barbarian. sorcerer, the druid and the bard of the party participate just as good.

You do not put social interaction so the bard feel good. The barbarian, the socerer and the druid of the party can participate just fine.

But somehow, you have to put traps upon traps for the rogue or you are a bad GM.


JoeJ wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Oh and with the new Investigator, the "skill rogue" is pretty much dead... he can LITERALLY do the skill thing better than the rogue. He has access to most of the useful rogue talents AND he has infusions AND he can add 2d6 to his skill roll...

You've already established that it's wrong to allow rogue talents or skills to be useful in an adventure, because... well just because. But anyway, that applies to the Investigator just as much.

You misundertood, or are just being purporsefully obstuse.

Skills and rogeu talens have their uses, it is just that what other class get is more useful. and they still fight better.


White mage: 1/2 full divine caster.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Nicos wrote:
JoeJ wrote:


Anybody can, but did they? Obviously you don't want to bring a trapfinder rogue into a party that's already got a non-rogue specialist in that. But it would be just as bad for the non-rogue to come in and displace the existing rogue. And if they players are creating their characters at the same time, they should work out between themselves what niches they want for their characters.
Not sure why. You can perfectly have a barbarian,a paladin and a ranger working int he same team and everything would work just fine.

You can have three fighters in a party, too. I've been in groups like that myself, and had a lot of fun. My point is still that every PC should get a chance to shine. That's what I mean by "niche." That has very little to do with class abilities, and everything to do with how the GM designs (or modifies) the adventure.

I agree that every PC have to have a chance to shine, I disagree taht is all on the DM. If the DM have to work harder for one class because that class is subpar then that calss is not Ok in my book.


JoeJ wrote:


Anybody can, but did they? Obviously you don't want to bring a trapfinder rogue into a party that's already got a non-rogue specialist in that. But it would be just as bad for the non-rogue to come in and displace the existing rogue. And if they players are creating their characters at the same time, they should work out between themselves what niches they want for their characters.

Not sure why. You can perfectly have a barbarian,a paladin and a ranger working int he same team and everything would work just fine.


Ssalarn wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Because things that give you 25/50/75% immunity to a class's defining feature are poor design.
I feel diferrent. The poor design was making the rogue so dependent of a single calss feature.

Barbarians are equally dependent on Rage. Cavalier's are equally dependent on their mount. Wizards are equally dependent on their spells, as are Clerics.

A Barbarians without rage or a cavalier without mount is much more than a rogue who can not sneak attack.

Wizards and cleric are a bit different, thecnically they do depend on a single class feature, but unlike rogues who can basically do one thing (flank for sneak attack, feint for snak attack, sneak attack this sneak attack that...) every spell of wizards and clerics is a diferent option. Something that shut donw one spell do not shut donw their entire spell list (except antimagic field, but that shut down almsot everyone)


Not sure, Anyways, I would houserule to not allow more than one AoO per target, but well, the strongest Is korak the less trouble for Jo.


The way we are using snake fang seems to me way umbalanced.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Because things that give you 25/50/75% immunity to a class's defining feature are poor design.

I feel diferent. The poor design was making the rogue so dependent of a single calss feature.


Hey, it seems like Lemmy is becoming famous

Pappy wrote:
Melkiador wrote:


Rogue talents feel weak to me. They're about at the power of 3/4 or 1x of a feat. They should be more like 1.5x a feat or even 2x a feat.

If memory serves, a forum member named Lemmy (my apologies if this is wrong), went to the trouble to redesign/rewrite rogue talents to make them more powerful and useful. I haven't tried them yet, but I have to say that I admire the creativity and ambition that went into them.

Have a look. I'd link to them, but I'm horrible at all that.


Pappy wrote:
Nicos wrote:


It probably would not make too powerful, but it is a change in the wrong direction, IMHO.
Which direction would you take?

I agree with the results of this thread

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r7a9?Poll-What-are-the-changes-the-Rogue-class -needs#1

I would improve rogue talents in order for the rogue to feel like the best rogue, instead of making him fighter #2.


Eldmar wrote:
How is playing with the core book / rules changing the rules or as someone else said earlier playing a different game? All the other books are optional extras, just because they have been published doesn't mean that they 'must' be used.

Everything is optional.

On the other hand, removing any other option from the game in order for the rogue to not be bad is just sad.


Pappy wrote:
voska66 wrote:
Dannorn wrote:
Ok can someone explain why they're saying Rogues have bad to-hit? I'm just not getting it, aside from not being full BAB how is a Rogues ability to hit, or to improve their to-hit, any worse than any other 3/4 BAB class?

Rogue have a bad to hit because they 3/4 BAB with no in class method of increasing their to hit bonus. Simple as that. Every other 3/4 BAB class can increase attack bonus via class feature or buff spells.

Then to make it worse most rogue builds go Two Weapon Fighting which makes sense since you have the DEX to do it and it works really well at the lower levels. At the higher levels the -2 to hit impacts you more because monster AC is much higher. Also add the fact that monster AC at the higher CRs is typically higher than they were in 3.5 and the rogue didn't get anything boost their to hit.

I agree with your post. In your view would making a rogue full BAB be too powerful? Just curious.

It probably would not make too powerful, but it is a change in the wrong direction, IMHO.


Lemmy wrote:


Eh, whatever... I'll just take the Summon Monster SLA or something.

Now that I think about it, according to Rinjyn rules if you take summon monster from the summoner class feaute your summoner effective level eill be 1.

So, uhm, I suposse this post was not a good birthday present.


RaizielDragon wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Anything that adds to attack rolls, adds to CMB.
So an Amulet of Mighty Fists would be another +5?

No, it is not that simple. The amulet increase the CMB for trip, disarm and sunder. The only way to add it to grapple hcks is via hamatula strike.

But things like cracked pale green prism Ioun stone do add +1 to attack and CMB. A wayfinde plus a dusty rose Ioun stone give another +2 to CMB and CMD.

Spells like heroism and haste also add.


Nicos wrote:
Artemis Moonstar wrote:


Off the top of my head-
Wish/Limited Wish
Miracle
Color Spray (strong but not umbalancing in the same sense as the others, IMHO)
Blood Money (as much as I love it, it's cheese potential)

Geas

Planar binding
simulacrum

Just to be on topic again

Fickle winds
emergency force sphere
contigency
Create demiplane


Jaxtor wrote:
But for well balanced campaigns where the DM rewards creative game play it isn't that hard to play a rogue and feel rewarded in doing so.

Creativity is not in the class but in the player, but there is more, other calsses actually have more options than rogues and that sinergy better with creative players.

You do what?, stealth?, every other roguish classes do that too.

The problem is not htat the rogue is subpar in combat, the problem is that the rogue is subpar in combat plus other do better the out of combat thing.


wraithstrike wrote:
Nicos wrote:

I actually think that sneak attack and the low to hit is not that big problem per se.

The actual problem is the lack of options besides " I try to sneak attack"

The light armor is also a problem. If the rogue does hit it does decent damage, but then the monster, if it is made for melee, gives the rogue some attention, and that is bad for the rogue. The reason is that some of them can kill a rogue quiet easily. If they dont kill it with one full attack the 2nd one will likely finish it off.

That is why i like the thug cornugon smash/brutal beating/offensive defense combo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually think that sneak attack and the low to hit is not that big problem per se.

The actual problem is the lack of options besides " I try to sneak attack"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dannorn wrote:
Ok can someone explain why they're saying Rogues have bad to-hit? I'm just not getting it, aside from not being full BAB how is a Rogues ability to hit, or to improve their to-hit, any worse than any other 3/4 BAB class?

BEause those otehrs 3/4 have class features designed for that. Mutagens or judgement for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Anyways, not sure why this threads become about just fighters.

Because Fighters are THE martial. If there is a problem with them it is indicative a problem with martials in general.

If you lined up martials in terms of effectiveness, the best martials are generally the ones least like the fighter.

Good answer.

1 to 50 of 8,052 << 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.