Vulnerability to Critical Hits...


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 311 of 311 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:


...who did you sleep with to get that smurfy avatar?
I smurfed about how much I smurfed them to the Smurfmonster.

Custom avatars are lame.


Sebastian wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:


...who did you sleep with to get that smurfy avatar?
I smurfed about how much I smurfed them to the Smurfmonster.
Custom avatars are lame.

Heh. You have been denied your chance to smurf your own custom smurfatar!

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:


...who did you sleep with to get that smurfy avatar?
I smurfed about how much I smurfed them to the Smurfmonster.
Custom avatars are lame.
Heh. You have been denied your chance to smurf your own custom smurfatar!

I shudder to think what a smurfier version of a pony would look like. I'm pretty sure it would cause diabetes in viewers.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

*reads Sab's hate list* Oh yeah, that $10...I forgot about that...


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Malachi Tarchannen wrote:


Thank you for that defintion.

Now...how does that apply to VoodooMike, Beckett, and me? Examples would be nice...

You wrote:
Sadly, no one is up to the challenge of giving VDMike an answer to his original query.
You also refer to 'misty-eyed' folk in a lot of your posts.

I'm not sure how the first quote of mine qualifies, but I concede the second. And to that, I apologize; upon further reflection I can see how it would be considered unnecessary and intended to evoke emotions unconducive to harmonious interaction. In all honesty, I hope no one was offended.


Oh, and before I forget, once you take Versatile Performer into account, bard has far more skill points then rogue does, and more things to do out of combat.

So, what is the rogue's problem? The same one, funny enough, that infects the monk and the fighter - it's hereditary.

The rogue grew up in the mean streets of early D&D, where it resembled Shadowrun more then D&D as it exists now. The game took place inside a dungeon, and classes were specialized to different roles. Fighting men were, well, fighting men. They did more or less all of the fighting. Clerics were priests. They didn't fight, but they did turn undead and heal - and that's it. Wizards had arcane lore and a very significantly smaller spell pool. And thieves?

Thieves did the dungeoneering. Traps, locks, climbing up sheer walls (which they ironically can no longer do), etc.

As the editions progressed, classes became less specific. Clerics got fighting skills, wizards got more spells, fighters...have a lot of problems ;p

"But Cirno," you say, "Rogues got better too. They got sneak attack!"

Yes, that's the point.

The problem with rogues is that people still cling to the first edition thieves. They see rogues unlocking a door and think "This is what they're here for. I guess they can sorta help in combat, but this is their main thing." The reality is, however, that in 3e the goal was made to have ALL classes contribute in the fight. Rogues shouldn't have to sit out any more then wizards or fighters do, unless there's a specific situation. In base 3.5, there were too many situations for rogues. Sneak attack progressively got worse as time went on, because you progressively saw more and more enemies immune to crits. As such, it was far from uncommon to see people make rogue 3/anything else X.

In Pathfinder, the decision was made "Rogues should be kinda cool, you know? I like rogues. Let's make rogue players have fun." Criticals became a big thing for fighters, and both fighters and rogues got their happiness raised with more enemies having their "LOL NO CRIT" lifted.

As for the "realism" debate, yeah, you can find reasons to disallow critical hits for a lot of monsters. You can find just as many reasons to allow them. The question is not and never was realism, and hiding behind it is cowardly.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Malachi Tarchannen wrote:
I'm not sure how the first quote of mine qualifies, but I concede the second. And to that, I apologize; upon further reflection I can see how it would be considered unnecessary and intended to evoke emotions unconducive to harmonious interaction. In all honesty, I hope no one was offended.

Well, I accept your apology. To expand on the first quote, you are implying that no one here is capable of answering the question. This suggests everyone that has answered is inferior in mental capability to VD (and possibly yourself). You have dismissed every response here as irrelevant. Regardless of the truth of that statement, it IS inflammatory as well, and will produce an emotional response.


Freehold DM wrote:
stormraven wrote:

And what exactly are you preventing the rogue from doing? The reality of sneak attack is that a rogue rarely gets to employ it more than once or twice in an encounter, if even that much. He has to jump through the hoops of either maneuvering to flank or somehow catching the undead without DEX. With flanking, a rogue is generally losing the protection of his team, and getting into position may draw one or more AoOs - so there is a risk associated with getting to the right spot. With DEX-lessness, it is totally situational. Then our rogue has to hit. Then he (unless suicidal) will try to retreat back to his own lines because chances are the badguys will focus on him since he did an appreciable amount of damage. Retreating may also provoke AoOs.

So sneak attacks, in reality, at least in my campaigns, are infrequent events, usually kicked off by strange opportunities (a portion of the opponent's defense crumbles and the rogue can snake in) or required by desperation (the fighter got taken out and the risk is high but we need to bring the BBEG down NOW)... so to hobble the ONE principle combat advantage of a lightly armored MELEE class seems punitive and pointless to me.

I think there is a very good possiblity that we(not just you and I, but the two different sides of this argument) are playing with two very different types of rogue-players. Sneak Attacks happen so often in my games its not funny. Far too many of my rogue players won't even enter combat unless there are many opportunities to flank and/or sneak attack.

Entirely possible. If sneak attack is being abused in the games you play... then that is a problem, but not necessarily a problem inherent to the backstab mechanic. And frankly, if I were playing a fighter in a campaign where a rogue flat-out refused to fight because he couldn't sneak up on someone in every encounter... well, I'd make his thin little ass a projectile and hurl him into a flanking position.


Beckett wrote:


You are seriously calling me a troll? Seriously.

If it walks like, talks like, and doesn't regenerate fire or acid damage...

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a few posts. Generally, if the moderators remove something, it's best not to repeat what was removed.

Also, this thread has run its course. The arguments on both sides have been stated over and over. Continuing to argue will not get a response from the developers and certainly isn't going to get any rules changed. If you still want to discuss how to make undead and constructs crit-immune again, please create a thread in the house rules forum.

301 to 311 of 311 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Vulnerability to Critical Hits... All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion