So by RAW its pointless to give to NPCs, and as others have pointed out, its of marginal use for PCs as well.
Not quite. See, the PCs can decide they don't believe an NPC, no matter how honest an NPC is. However, an NPC who wants to effectively lie to the PCs is going to want ranks in Bluff. See, basically the Bluff and Sense motive skills serve as something of a insurance / counter-insurance policy for them.
Example: During a game there is a bit of a mystery going on. The party encounters a guard they are suspicious of, and question where he was the previous night. Since they are highly suspicious, they want to roll a Sense Motive. Now, the guard might tell them the truth (maybe he was where he says he was) and they detect the guard wasn't lying. Or maybe the guard bluffs better than they sense motive, and they detect the guard wasn't lying. They might still be suspicious, but at least they tried, and might decide he wasn't lying. Or he might have lied, but their Sense Motive noticed that lie, and now they are sure that he is lying.
Since Sense Motive is rolled in secret, having a good Sense Motive is more like an investment in something a bit beyond your gut feeling. Likewise, an NPC with lots of Bluff means that he will keep the party with nothing more than their gut feeling. ^-^
Never use a Drow Noble character as an example if you're trying to prove a point.
It's like saying "My level 1 commoner character defeated an entire nation by using an atomic bomb!"
|
Well, his point ratio IS high, but he barely uses it (his whole strategy is poke someone and hope they bleed to death and can't find him).
Which:
A) require a generous party willing to stay hidden while he solos
B) requires a low AC target (his attack bonus is non-exciting)
C) Requires him to be able to diversion-bluff all of his enemies at once and beat their perception checks.
So I'd need to see the gameplay, but overall I'm calling his effectiveness "shenanigans".
|
Never use a Drow Noble character as an example if you're trying to prove a point.
It's like saying "My level 1 commoner character defeated an entire nation by using an atomic bomb!"
But we're all Drow Nobles. Even some of our enemies. Those Orcs were level 1 Barbarians, and the Ogre boss was CR 5 and backed up by nine CR 3 minions.
That combat was especially deadly - the sorcerer was crushed (dying) and the Fighter was slain (dead-dead). That's what they get for trying to outfight superior numbers. Horrible tacticians, my comrades. Except the Alchemist - she knew how to survive and take the advantage.
Well, his point ratio IS high, but he barely uses it (his whole strategy is poke someone and hope they bleed to death and can't find him).
Which:
A) require a generous party willing to stay hidden while he solos
B) requires a low AC target (his attack bonus is non-exciting)
C) Requires him to be able to diversion-bluff all of his enemies at once and beat their perception checks.So I'd need to see the gameplay, but overall I'm calling his effectiveness "shenanigans".
(pre-A) False. Every round an enemy is bleeding, they either take damage, or burn up the actions and resources of someone to heal them (which makes them once again a viable target). Either way, I call it a win.
(A) False again. My comrades are very useful. They do all the fighting, and attract all the attention, while I am given the joy of picking my victims. As the fight goes on, they find a few less enemies, and/or a few wounded and bleeding ones easier to finish. As I said, I also use battlefield control for their benefit as well as my own.(B) With a DEX of 18, weapon finesse and a +1 shortsword, My attack is + 8 melee (1d6+3/19-20). Against flatfooted or flanked foes, this is enough.
(C) You assume all the enemies are going to ignore the rest of my party and gun for me. Bad assumption when doing do would require some of them to leave melee and incur and AoO. Further, I don't reveal myself without thinking 1-2 steps ahead.
Truth be told, my party gave me some complaints because I didn't jump out from hiding to try and flank against 3 ogres (with nobody but ogres on my side). I don't flank when it will cost me my life the very next round. I levitated up to the roof and assassinated the hobgoblin snipers instead, before finally picking out an Orc.
For me, combat is actually rather methodical. The question was is combat boring for me, to which the answer is "no".
The question other people are trying to imply: Am I the greatest contributor? No, and I never claimed I was. I'm not a warrior, nor a battlemage. I'm a handler.
Do I contribute? The body count strongly suggests that I do, as does the ambush I set up, the time I've bought my comrades, and the wasted actions of our enemies.
I came up with some suggestions that can raise the rogue's effectiveness:
Skillful (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, the rogue can select one skill to add ½ class level as an inherent bonus to all checks related to the chosen skill. For every 2 levels after the 2nd, he can select one additional skill to add this bonus.
Improved Finesse (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, when using weapons affected by the Weapon Finesse feat which he is proficient, a rogue adds ½ class level (rounded down) to weapon damage (if using Two-Weapon Fighting, the rogue adds ½ level to damage of primary weapon, and ¼ level to secondary weapon – the Double Slice feat raise the bonus to secondary weapon’s damage to ½ rogue level).
Additionally, i think it's a really good idea to grant full BAB to the rogue when sneak attacking.
Comments?
Never use a Drow Noble character as an example if you're trying to prove a point.
It's like saying "My level 1 commoner character defeated an entire nation by using an atomic bomb!"
But we're all Drow Nobles. Even some of our enemies. Those Orcs were level 1 Barbarians, and the Ogre boss was CR 5 and backed up by nine CR 3 minions.
Doesn't really matter, still Drow Noble :) That fundamentally changes just about every class (at-will levitation, deeper darkness, faerie fire, etc), so even if everyone is one, it's still a horrible way to prove a point.
Getting sneak attack with at-will DD and FF is trivially easy.
The rogue doing well as a drow noble isn't a function of him being a rogue. It's due to him being a drow noble. Everything is a good choice as a drow noble.
|
|
and he's having fun, I thought he was claiming to be a major combat factor, but it's not the case. In a mostly-roleplaying high-stat group skills can be important, though he could do all listed and more as a bard-type or ranger-type. Those two generally being strictly superior is the argument against rogues being decent; but suboptimal does NOT mean 100% useless. You can still have a decent time with a mediocre character, especially when high ability scores blur the lines a bit.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and he's having fun, I thought he was claiming to be a major combat factor, but it's not the case. In a mostly-roleplaying high-stat group skills can be important, though he could do all listed and more as a bard-type or ranger-type. Those two generally being strictly superior is the argument against rogues being decent; but suboptimal does NOT mean 100% useless. You can still have a decent time with a mediocre character, especially when high ability scores blur the lines a bit.
+1
You caught on quickly.Unlike my Orc-brained allies (imagine ... A Drow charging an Ogre. Lolth must have been retching in Her web to see that), I don't try to be a glorious heroic combatant. I much more prefer to win slowly, quietly and without risk to myself. It's much more satisfying: Watching a sub-Drow fool run around, looking for me (the splendid person who cut and then tricked it) in vain, frantic, all while bleeding to death in his ignorant rage... it warms that cold little stone which passes for my heart.
The rogue doing well as a drow noble isn't a function of him being a rogue. It's due to him being a drow noble. Everything is a good choice as a drow noble.Not when DD (level 3) is higher level than FF (level 2), so FF is completely useless in a DD effect.
Errata required on that one.
Oh damnit, missed that part of FF.
But deeper darkness can still be overcome with Blind-Fight and the improved versions.
I came up with some suggestions that can raise the rogue's effectiveness:
Skillful (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, the rogue can select one skill to add ½ class level as an inherent bonus to all checks related to the chosen skill. For every 2 levels after the 2nd, he can select one additional skill to add this bonus.
Improved Finesse (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, when using weapons affected by the Weapon Finesse feat which he is proficient, a rogue adds ½ class level (rounded down) to weapon damage (if using Two-Weapon Fighting, the rogue adds ½ level to damage of primary weapon, and ¼ level to secondary weapon – the Double Slice feat raise the bonus to secondary weapon’s damage to ½ rogue level).
Additionally, i think it's a really good idea to grant full BAB to the rogue when sneak attacking.
Comments?
I think those are marvelous rogue talents and as they are class level rather than character level it incentive-izes staying in rogue rather than a dip for 2 levels.
one puts the rogue ahead of the other skill monkeys one puts them into a better position as melee combatants. i would have to look at the other rogue tricks to make sure that neither was more abusive than casting 9th level spells but they both seem like nice flat top +10's to things by 20 and not over powering.I am not convinced of the full BAB at sneak attack. While i know it is a system in use already for another class i, personally, don't like it for monk so Im not sure if it would like it any better for rogues. But would enhance thier combat ability for sure
A Rogue-type should, in the high levels, be out-stealthing and outwitting dragons, and able to drop a giant in a single SA. Just like how a high level warrior should be going toe-to-toe with incredibly powerful beings. Just like how a high level caster can ALREADY warp reality.The scope of power is completely dropped, and too much time was spent looking at numbers alone. Numbers alone do not make balance.
No, I got it. A new Archetype Thief (2E/4E type).
Devastating Strike: Same as Sneak attack but deals 3d6 whenever Rogue would deal 1d6. Usable 1/rd.Mimics backstab without the silly back restriction or multiplication.
With this you get one really powerful sneak attack each rd. Favors 2 handed Rogues I guess since you only get one big attack that counts.
At level 1, you are deal 3 times damage of a rogue with Sneak attack (3d6 vs 1d6), but he gets it on each attack and you only one first that hits. But TWFing rogue or Taffy using Rogue beats you (Taffy adds Haste).
At level 5, you are dealing 1.5 damage of rogue with Sneak attack (haste is common by now behinds Taffy). But Twfing Rogues with Haste equal you.
Level 10, You are equal or below a Rogue with Sneak attack. He has 2 attacks + Haste + Twfing maybe.
At level 20, you are below a Rogue but easier to set up. You are deal +30d6 (about 3 attacks worth of sneak atack) one first strike. But since Rogue has 4 attacks easily (3 BAB attacks +1 Haste) you are behind.
Unlike my Orc-brained allies (imagine ... A Drow charging an Ogre. Lolth must have been retching in Her web to see that), I don't try to be a glorious heroic combatant. I much more prefer to win slowly, quietly and without risk to myself. It's much more satisfying: Watching a sub-Drow fool run around, looking for me (the splendid person who cut and then tricked it) in vain, frantic, all while bleeding to death in his ignorant rage... it warms that cold little stone which passes for my heart.
If your allies are stupid enough to simply charge the ogre like a bunch of humans, its baffling that they survived to adulthood to begin with.
Doesn't really matter, still Drow Noble :) That fundamentally changes just about every class (at-will levitation, deeper darkness, faerie fire, etc), so even if everyone is one, it's still a horrible way to prove a point.
Getting sneak attack with at-will DD and FF is trivially easy.
The rogue doing well as a drow noble isn't a function of him being a rogue. It's due to him being a drow noble. Everything is a good choice as a drow noble.
I must agree with Cheapy on this one. Being a drow fundamentally changes tactics, behavior, and effects. We're just better than those lesser surface races, and "faerie" elves.
Being a weaker character class is less debilitating if you are a stronger race. I will say though, you probably would have been better off rolling a ninja.
*Also. Is this a Pbp? I've been wanting to run/play in a drow campaign for years, but I simply can't find a group of players competent or interested enough to attempt it. Its a very different beast than your typical dungeon crawl.
I have been pondering my earlier idea, and I think this makes more sense.
Create 2 new rogue talents.
Quick Wits - You quick thinking has allows you to sense danger before it ensnares you. You can add your intelligence modifier to you perception and sense motive skills.
Force of Personality - Your forceful personality allows you to overcome even the most dire of circumstances. You may add your charisma modifier to you Fortitude and Will saves.
Basically, you can make a rogue that uses wisdom, but if you take these talents, a low wisdom score is not going to gimp you.
|
|
I must agree with Cheapy on this one. Being a drow fundamentally changes tactics, behavior, and effects. We're just better than those lesser surface races, and "faerie" elves.
Being a weaker character class is less debilitating if you are a stronger race.
Yes, yes, I hear a Bard can deceive even better. Using magic.
No, I don't care.
Magic is commonplace, and my kin are resistant. So many of us can identify a spell being cast, which requires more complications to obscure.
I prefer to simply bypass these facts by instead relying on sheer skill. Thus I do not have to rely as heavily on magic.
When I am disguised or hidden, I laugh when fools cast Dispel Magic or See the Invisible, assuming I'm as trite as the rest. Go ahead, waste your time, waste your power. When they can't get past my beautiful lies, they try to counteract or remove the Glibness effect which isn't there. They don't realize that I trick them all, evade them all, and eventually own them all as my pets, because I'm simply better than they are.
*Also. Is this a Pbp? I've been wanting to run/play in a drow campaign for years, but I simply can't find a group of players competent or interested enough to attempt it. Its a very different beast than your typical dungeon crawl.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, yes, I hear a Bard can deceive even better. Using magic.
No, I don't care.
Magic is commonplace, and my kin are resistant. So many of us can identify a spell being cast, which requires more complications to obscure.
I prefer to simply bypass these facts by instead relying on sheer skill. Thus I do not have to rely as heavily on magic.
When I am disguised or hidden, I laugh when fools cast Dispel Magic or See the Invisible, assuming I'm as trite as the rest. Go ahead, waste your time, waste your power. When they can't get past my beautiful lies, they try to counteract or remove the Glibness effect which isn't there. They don't realize that I trick them all, evade them all, and eventually own them all as my pets, because I'm simply better than they are.That's the concept I use for this - skill instead of magic.
But the point most people are trying to make is that if you were a bard, you'd have the skill AND the magic. All of those stealth and manipulation skills are there for the bard, and many are better utilized by the bard. And then you would have magic as well.
Or you could do Urban Ranger and have those stealth skills AND combat effectiveness. You would even have the advantage of picking easier favored enemies since you know Underdark races.
I don't mean to insult or sound condescending, I think you have a wonderful concept for your character and it sounds like a ton of fun (always wanted to play in a Drow campaign), but the concept would be better served by an Archaeologist Bard.
|
|
All of those stealth and manipulation skills are there for the bard, and many are better utilized by the bard.
BTW, Gat, nice flame baiting. Referring to my words as "nonsense" and to the skills I value as "nothing". Do you troll professionally, or just as a hobby?A bard also deceives better not using magic, you know.
Quote:
[nonsense about bard and magic]
Protip: the alternative in Pathfinder isn't "having magic or having skills instead". The alternative is "having magic or having nothing instead".
So by getting rid of trapfinding, pretty much the only saving grace of the rogue, they can possibly do better than the bard before he uses magic.
By the way, the street performer bard archetype gets half his level to bluff.
And disguise.
And knowledge local.
And sleight of hand.
And some uses of diplomacy and intimidate.
Oh, and they can make people invisible as a performance.
So by getting rid of trapfinding, pretty much the only saving grace of the rogue, they can possibly do better than the bard before he uses magic.The sandman receive trapfinding and +1/2 level in Bluff.
But they have magic, therefore they don't have skill. That's the whole point.
Yeah, I opened the APG, saw the street performer, and just posted that.
backstabbing turned up to 15.
No fair, you took the fused vertebrae feat.
Weren't you berating gat less than an hour ago about flamebaiting?
|
|
So you were pointing that a bard without archetype isn't as deceptive as an archetype made to enhance Bluff? Fascinating.Actually, it was others who were making the comparison in the first place. Silly, no? Now, who in their right mind would make such a comparison? Or perhaps they WERE in their right mind, but jumped/leaped headlong and uninformed into the middle of a conversation, and made an embarrassing blunder out of some innocently ignorant presumptions. Perhaps.
The fact is: any argument of the form "the bard needs magic to be as effective as the rogue with skills" is nonsense, except for the case of disable device in a Core-only game.
How very true: such an argument is nonsense. I wonder who was making such an argument. If you think it was me, then care to point out from where you extracted such ridiculous interpretation?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My 13 year old brother has a lot of fun playing experts (the NPC class) and prefers to play them using 3 Point Buy (like NPCs), and has soloed a wyvern at 3rd level with said NPC.
I don't think anyone here is going to argue that somehow the expert is a good PC class. Or that expert somehow holds a candle to bard, ranger, or even rogue for that matter. But, my brother proves it can be played competently and can be a lot of fun for him. This does not, at any point, make the expert as good or better at anything than another PC class that.
For those paying attention, the moral of this story is that even if the rogue can be played well, and enjoyed, that does not mean that it is not a weak class by comparison to its peers.