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. 7,567 posts (9,040 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. 2 wishlists. 13 aliases.


1 to 50 of 585 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cpt. Caboodle wrote:

Errr... no.

The more I think about it, and the more entries this thread has, the clearer I see that my statement was wrong.
.

No, dude, no. You can not just admit you were wrong, it seems tha tnobody understand the internet in these days.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:


2 Giants DPR 33 (barbarian) / 25 (fighter, flanked) / 12.5 (fighter, not flanked)

It seems to be a good diference. BEsides the Skills digference (wich was terrible desing), I think fighter and barbarians where more or less balanced against each other in Core. The strongerst martial was probably the paladin.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

I use diplomacy on him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
At least 4, and probably as many as 9-10 times (I might be underselling this slightly, but I'm trying to be conservative). Which works out to 3-5 encounters.
And hte the wizard dies because the lack of defensive spells.
Dealing 10D6+20 (crossblooded dip)+10(Goblin Wardrum)+(10d6*0.5)+Stun on failed reflex save is the best defense... Enemy can't kill you if they are a pile of ash on the ground...

At the low levels? I doubt it. And some enemies can die, they can still be other enemies.

waves of enemies are hte better against spellcasters, single enemies waiting to be balsted into oblivion do not work in PF. And that is asumming the wizard won the initiative and did not get surprise of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hopefully the book will have some love for the classes that are not iconic undead hunters. Paladins and clerics for example need few. But figthers, bards and/or druids woudl benefir from some love here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, full BAB and D10 make rogues stronger but I heavily disagree about it.

In my experience as a player and as a DM most people do not play rogues to be a fighter.

I think rangers and in the furutre salyers will cover that niche pretty well.

What the rogue need are more roguish things. Rogues need to do amazing things with his skills, in and out of combat plus other nice things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Builds or it did not happens. But with all the spaltbook material and good sytem mastery I am pretty confident that monks can be good damage dealers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
-4+Int skill points should be the minimum.

Why? What are you really missing out on? What do you need these for?

yeah, what is the point of playing the game out of combat? just use your smartphone until combat beggins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love how he say combat expertise is an useful full feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Oh, and BTW... While flanking, that Rogue has a DPR of 54.50 (against AC 24. Average AC for CR 10 creatures). I'm not sure how you're getting 81.
He got 81 by getting the average damage if everything hit.

Yeah, and he was proven wrong. lets move on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

People, ther eis no need for hostility. Just post the numbers.


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


But you won't provide any support other than repeating that you are right.

He is right here. I think he is wrong about rogues but tonly numbers will prove him wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Because the Fighter won't stop being vanilla if he gets a good will save and more skills per level. He'll still be the simple mundane weapon and armor feat guy who either hits you with a pointy stick or shoots one at you. He'll just be a little less likely to hit his friends with said stick and be a little more useful between fights.

And this.

If you have a concept you want to make using the fighter class then It is not like 2 extra skills per level would ruin it for you.

Buying a whole new set of rulebooks and loosing half the Paizo customer base WOULD ruin it for me.

Why is that? it would be like the easiest errate ever. They have errated bigger things in the past.

Loosing half the paizo customers? really?. "look, they give the fighter better skills, damn paizo, I will never buy any other of their books".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Daenar wrote:
I know this is awfully simple of me but, I personally wish people would stop bashing fighters. Yeah they might not be that versatile out of combat, some people dont care. Can a Ranger be made that outshines fighter in combat? Thats variable on many factors.

In most combat? I doubt it, but certainly the ranger will shine more than the fighter in several combats.

By the other hand the fighter NEVER shine more out of combat than the ranger.

Such disparity seems to not disturb you but ir does really annoys me.

IF the figther get more out of combat utility then the same poeple that did not care before woudl still not care. B the other hand people like would find the game to be better.

The, gee... I dunno... why not PLAY A RANGER?

There are several reason actually.

1) Magic, perhaps I do not want it.
2) I despise Favored enemy
3) I perhaps would like a non-animal companion build
4) heavy armor
5) I like fighter's straight non-situational big numbers
6) I like the big amount of build fighter have avaliable.
7) I prefer sustain combat prowess and not nova ones.

Are you saying that rangers are actually better than fighters, and that that is a good thing that nobody should complain or something?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Wow, rogue/monk is the most controversial build you could have on these threads, given the amount of hate for both.

Good luck!

If that's what you think then you haven't been paying much attention. Levels of monk would actually improve the rogue in this case.

Though it is debatable whether there's much to gain from rogue levels.

The thug ability to shaken/sickening their targets, I believe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is always a class above and a class below you. Except for rogues, every class is superior to rogues, even monks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Sane wrote:
In all of those genres, I think "frail old man with a sword" is a pretty lousy protagonist.

Perhaps, but still, nobody have the right to tell other what character concepts are good or bad to play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
Inner Sea Magic didn't have fighters, so I'm okay with Inner Sea Combat not having wizards. Again, this book is specifically about martial characters and should be kept that way.

+1.

I mean

+10000.

How many option for fighter, rogues and barbarians does the magic books have?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

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

Bard are casters.

Do you think they have recieved so much love by mistake?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

High optimization does limit the number of builds avaliables.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

IMHO, the sad thing is that Rogue DPR is basically fine. their DPR is what is supposed to be, mediocre but situationally good.

The problems is that rogue doe snot really have more combat options. Rogues are supposed to be clever combatants but they always flank + sneak attack, always (unless you are scout, but then charge + sneak attack)

The bard can attack, the bard can use performance, the bard can cast spells (every one is a unique in combat option) "Do I cast haste or I cast something else?"

Player: I am playing a rogue to be a smart combatant, that prefer his wit over his brawn.
DM: Ok, so what do you do
Player: I try to flank then stand still and full attack. In like every turn, of every fight. Ever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
It is very disconcerting to be reading the forums and see that there is a culture that seems to despise what people are calling "traditional" play when the traditional playstyle seems to be the only thing I've experienced outside the forums.

You misunderstood like everything. People do not react to your playstyle, people react to your high horse of cailling it the "normal" and good style while the others are the powergamesn number crunching bad roleplayers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Spell sunder a demiplane for the win.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
CWheezy wrote:

***What about spells with no save? Waves of fatigue and waves of exhaustion brutalize barbarians lol.

***
Any barbarian not wearing a cord of stubborn resolve deserves what he gets when those spells are cast.

Not particulary the best option. There is a ioun stone and wayfinder for that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really dislike the standard suprestition chain + invulnerable rager + beast totem + come and get me build

Seriously dislike it.

It is just by far the strongest build. You try to build a barbarian without those and you end to be MASSIVELY inferior to the standard barbarian.

I dislike such imbalance among options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leonardo Trancoso wrote:
SPCDRI wrote:
Leonardo Trancoso wrote:
Stop trying to make the rogue fight, rogue isn´t a combatant class.

Everyone has a duty in combat. The Witch isn't a martial character, for instance, but when it drops the DC 25 Slumber or Agony it is a combat contributor.

"The rogue isn't supposed to be a combat contributor. He is supposed to be the trap guy and face guy and we just whored that out to 20 different classes."

:/

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.

How this is suppsoed to be reconciliated with the "I am the master of scouting?"

The ranger can scout and fight 1x1 if need, does the rogeu beyond the sneak attack surprise round?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Headfirst wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Problem is, most skills are supplanted by spells beyond the low levels. Bards and Alchemists can potentially have more skill ranks than the Rogue (Bards have Versatile Performance, Alchemists are Int-focused), and spells on top of it.

Being able to memorize Knock once or twice a day does not entirely replace a rogue's skill in disabling devices. Hey genius wizard, what if the dungeon has more than two or three locked doors? And, because people seem to forget: Knock still requires a roll to see if it works. If not, you just blew a second level spell that could have saved your ass in battle, but I guess that doesn't matter because you didn't make it through the door anyway.

Having invisibility, even as a spontaneous spell, still can only be used for a certain amount of time. So you went invisible and got a great attack off against an unwitting guard. What are you going to use to get the jump on the next guard? And the one after that?

Just because your caster knows Disguise Self doesn't mean he has all of the other skills required to really pull off a convincing long-term alternate identity.

The point here is: Rogues can do this kind of thing all day, every day. The dungeon has twenty locked doors? No problem. The castle has a sniper in each of a dozen towers? Child's play. Someone needs to hide under the bridge all day and wait for the villain's caravan to pass? The rogue's got this.

Bards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karl Hammarhand wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Avh wrote:

He uses the exact same argument the one arguing the monk is not underpowered use : "Don't try to make him fight, it's not his role !"

But when you ask what IS his role, then you don't have anyone to answer.

Don't be mean, AvH. They did tell us in what kind of situation Rogues can shine: When the party is inside a huge AMF with no visible enemies or any other threat anywhere to be seen, except for the low Perception DC magic traps that are inexplicably immune to AMF.
Sorry new to the game, AMF?

Antimagic field.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This statement puzzles me. I would like to know what rogue talent really add a lot to out of combat.

What advanced rogue talent is (out of combat speaking) at the level of a high level spell (or extracts, or discoveries)?.

Then, how many rogue talents are dedicated to combat?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pupsocket wrote:
Why would someone choose an RPG with thousands of pages of rules and mechanical options, if not to play with that material?
Prince of Knives wrote:
meatrace wrote:

I'm a role-player, and I also optimize.

/thread
I'm a roleplayer, and I got into optimization because I was sick of shoddy mechanics no-selling my characterization & fluff.

This. Lets face it. THis is a game heavily on rules. It is understanfdable that people will use those rules.

And, I agree with prince of knives, there are a lot of ways a character can fail, and I mean FAIL from its creation, PF is filled with horrible horrible options and a good portion of system mastery is to avoid them.

I once saw a 12 str, 14 dex monk who have weapon finesse as his chosen feat, the other feat was the awful scorpion style. I Suppose it was very thematically. But then that monk was out DPR by my crossbow wielding sorcerer and the bow/rapier user bard.

The guy was sad with his character. What I was supposed to tell him, "dude, be a normal player and just have fun"?.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not sure why people keep arguing about traps. There are like 20 rogues repalcement for that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem was that some classes were designed with more love than others. Look at the bard, obviously the designer of the class just loved the concept and wanted to make the bard a great class.

The same for the ranger.

But what dev really liked the poor monk or rogue?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zark wrote:

If the Devs just tried to put their pride aside and just look at the facts. There are so many classes that are built in the rogue chassis, that it is obvious that the rogue doesn't fill the needs of the high dex, skilled fighter type. The fix has always been to force someone to play the rogue to deal with traps. Make the rogue unique by making her the trap expert and then make sure every adventure has a lot of traps. The problem however is that now any class can find traps and all classes can disable them. Only a few classes can disable magical traps, but those can be dealt with by other means.

I would be more or less happy if the existence of the rogue do not make the investigaror and the slayer bad classes.

It was just a playtest but what happened to the investigator was not good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
Apparently, gaining Sneak Attack by any method other than tumbling into flanking with dual daggers is "cheesy".

According to what?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Headfirst, show us how to play a rogue or stop telling us we're doing i wrong.

Put up.

To be more concrete. Show us with numbers and tactics.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Headfirst wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Headfirst wrote:
If you think rogues suck, it's because you're trying to play them like another class.
Dude, there isn't going to be one thing about your damage that will be incredible. It will be mediocre at best. You'll hit a moderate to low amount of the time and hit for ok damage even with sneak when you do.
I'm just going to ignore the other part of your reply. How is a rogue "not all that great" at skills? Rogues have great Dex and aren't very MAD, so they can afford decent Int and Cha. With 8 skill points per level and the fact that like 90% of skills are Dex, Int, or Cha-based, how does that not make rogues the optimal skill monkeys?
Bards. Ninjas. Wizards.

Inquisitors. Rangers . alchemist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, there is a good rogue build. It is Str Thugh/Scout (of course) that have a couple of levels as a fighter for armor and weapon proficiencies and a couple of feats.

Then that silly feat/(trait?) that let you use blugoening weapon to deal non lethal damage and the sap master/sap adept. Cornugon smash for considerably more fun.

It have good DPR and AC, and the usal skill points of rogue.

That is the only really mechanically superior rogue build I have seen. it is absurly silly fluffwise though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbranus wrote:
taldanrebel2187 wrote:
I really dislike making threads like this, but I've been looking at making a ranged Rogue build and frankly it seems like they... well, basically suck completely. Paizo seems to have sort of dropped the ball on this...

If you only look at combat you might be correct. But out of combat rogues are ok. And all in all I see rogues as stronger than fighters because the can do a relevant bit in combat and are very good out of combat.

The fighter is very good in combat but nearly useless out of combat.

Rogues have some interesting archetypes, they can use talents to get combat feats (1 free to choose, one for weapon focus, one for weapon finesse and I think there is one for weapon prof, too.)
With the swashbuckler archetype they get a martial weapon prof and can take combat trick two times.

Build your rogue with a little cha, to be able to be the party face and you can take flagbearer to buff the party without having to play a bard. There are options and, in my view they are less of a strawman than the options given for why fighters do not suck out of combat.

Enter the ranger, see the situation, the ranger start laughing.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Remy Balster wrote:
They only suck if your games revolve entirely around combat.

COnsidering that the inquisitor and bards are flat out better out of combat, I would say that "yes". Rogues sucks.

I even would say more. Paizo do not care about rogues, purporsely or not they have been putting nails in the rogue coffing book after book.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
JiCi wrote:
On another class-specific shenanigans, the monk doesn't get automatic proficiency with weapons with the Monk property.

I asked this once and someone from Paizo (I don't remember who) said it was because granting Monks proficiency with all Monk weapons is a powerful option, sounds like power creep, and steps on the toes of other martials, like fighters.

My reaction: -_-

It is somewhat funny how any of the3 problematic classes stop any improvement in the others 2.

Fighters can not have more skill points because rogue.

Rogues and monk can not have more in combat usefulness because fighters.

meanwhile a ranger, paladin and barbarian fan have been slipping then powercreep in every book since core.

1 to 50 of 585 << 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.