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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

All these Rogue Archetypes that drop Trapfinding


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Yeah, Ninja and Vivisectionist are such a kick in the teeth to rogues.


Elamdri wrote:
Yeah, Ninja and Vivisectionist are such a kick in the teeth to rogues.

Same with the Unarmed Fighter archetype and the Brawling armor property being kicks in the teeth of Monks.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Actually, the Ninja is a Rogue.

It is, more or less, an advanced archetype.


And some people go crazy when you put "Eastern animu crap" in their Western-dominant fantasy games.

I'd say that's why some people consider the Ninja being better than the Rogue nothing short of blasphemy.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

A class name, is just that.

A class name.

This a fantasy game, in a fantasy game.

If you need to, reflavor the fluff, and be done with it.

Silver Crusade

Icyshadow wrote:

And some people go crazy when you put "Eastern animu crap" in their Western-dominant fantasy games.

I'd say that's why some people consider the Ninja being better than the Rogue nothing short of blasphemy.

Well, the reason that the rogue being better than the Ninja is a problem is that it makes Rogues obsolete.

Alternative classes should add options, but shouldn't altogether invalidate the class they build upon.

Just like the Magus, with that there is almost no reason to play Eldritch Knight.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

A class name, is just that.

A class name.

This a fantasy game, in a fantasy game.

If you need to, reflavor the fluff, and be done with it.

You might have reached enlightenment in that regard, but I've seen many Players and DMs who haven't come to that same conclusion yet.

Elamdri wrote:

Well, the reason that the Rogue being better than the Ninja is a problem is that it makes Rogues obsolete.

Alternative classes should add options, but shouldn't altogether invalidate the class they build upon.

Just like the Magus, with that there is almost no reason to play Eldritch Knight.

The Eldritch Knight is far more versatile in regards to the list of spells it can cast. Magus as a class is more focused on offense than anything else.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
Elamdri wrote:

Just like the Magus, with that there is almost no reason to play Eldritch Knight.

7,8,9th level spells.

Silver Crusade

Gorbacz wrote:
Elamdri wrote:

Just like the Magus, with that there is almost no reason to play Eldritch Knight.

7,8,9th level spells.

I said "almost"

The reality is that the Magus is what the Eldritch Knight should have been.


The Magus is more a Gish to me than anything.

I imagine the Eldritch Knight being more like Gandalf.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

A class name, is just that.

A class name.

This a fantasy game, in a fantasy game.

If you need to, reflavor the fluff, and be done with it.

If only others shared that belief....

Silver Crusade

One and the same to me. They even used the same character art.

Eldritch Knight has a lot of problems that Magus doesn't, but the biggest is action economy. He can't cast and attack. Magus can.

Personally, I would take the Magus' action economy and ability to use his sword's crit range for spells over Eldritch Knight POSSIBLY being able to get 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells (Because lets be frank, many games don't see those levels).


(S)

In the modern game, the purpose of traps is to give the guy with Trapfinding something to do. (S)


sunbeam wrote:
If I understand this correctly, if you take an archetype that drops Trapfinding you can't disarm magical traps, correct?

Not with the Disable Device skill, no.

The point of most of those archetypes is that they are not "thiefy" or "dungeoneery" that the character would be likely to have trapfinding. For example, an acrobat has little business learning how to properly sever a trip wire.

I just wish there were an archetype that replaced sneak attack, for playing a non-magic-casting skillmonkey who is a thief and/or a dungeoneer, but not a melee-oriented backstabber style warrior.


Ranger's can pick up trapfinding and even do it better (you know having much better reasons for using wisdom such as tracking and spells)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You guys have such nice soft and cuddly DMs. Must be nice. Yeah you can use summon on traps, but what if the trap is inside the chest of loot? What if the trap destroys your loot and not you? I'm not seeing summon monster get me any sort of payday here.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Magic Items are quite resilient.

Making them suddenly destroyed is mark of a cruel DM.


If the purpose of the trap is to destroy the items in the box, that's not weird or disproportional, that's a thing acting according to its nature.

It's actually a pretty logical idea, especially if the treasure is something like a scroll with state secrets. Gosh, some people use traps like that in the real world too.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Antimagic field, suppress trap, open box, take treasure, walk away.


Elamdri wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Elamdri wrote:

Just like the Magus, with that there is almost no reason to play Eldritch Knight.

7,8,9th level spells.

I said "almost"

The reality is that the Magus is what the Eldritch Knight should have been.

Why not mix both?

To be an eldritch knight you need at least a 1 level dip into a class that can use all martial weapons. The magus is such a class.

One day I'm going to make a scarred witchdoctor/magus/eldritch knight

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elamdri wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Elamdri wrote:

Just like the Magus, with that there is almost no reason to play Eldritch Knight.

7,8,9th level spells.

I said "almost"

The reality is that the Magus is what the Eldritch Knight should have been.

As a player of a 9th level PFS Eldritch Knight, and having played alongside a magus, I can say quite confidently that the classes aren't even trying to do the same thing. If you look at them and just see "arcane casters with swords", you don't understand either class.

The magus is primarily a combatant. His schtick is mostly to deal damage (and that primarily to single targets).

The EK is basically a traditional wizard (with all the versatility that comes with that), plus the added option of melee combat. He's always got an answer, whether it's cutting down thugs, doing crowd control, throwing out energy resistances to the team, performing divinations, or providing answers to tough situations.

Honestly, the two classes are not competing for the same role. The magus is a (damage) specialist, the EK is a generalist.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Antimagic field, suppress trap, open box, take treasure, walk away.

Hey. Anti-Magic Field doesn't even come into play until near 15th level. Even at that level it isn't really a great response to traps. It's not the answer to everything.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Just throwing it out there.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hey guys, question was answered...72 posts ago.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:
Hey guys, question was answered...72 posts ago.

But it is so much fun to keep responding to these threads. ;-)


Brain in a Jar wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Antimagic field, suppress trap, open box, take treasure, walk away.
Hey. Anti-Magic Field doesn't even come into play until near 15th level. Even at that level it isn't really a great response to traps. It's not the answer to everything.

If you know the spell or similar spells exist (various dispels and mage's disjunction) you can look for a scroll of it and then try to activate it with caster ability or Use Magic Device before you are 15th level. It might be hard, but then that is probably the point.

Point is, there are ways to deal with traps besides the Disable Device skill. This has been in fact true since traps were included in RPGs, even if the skill or ability used to disarm traps was called something different. These ways may not always be ideal or amazing or better, but there are ways to do it if you're short the individual with the skillset to do it the traditional way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:

And some people go crazy when you put "Eastern animu crap" in their Western-dominant fantasy games.

I'd say that's why some people consider the Ninja being better than the Rogue nothing short of blasphemy.

Call it a Nightblade. Problem solved :)

I'm starting to DM a game next month. A player made a knifemaster rogue. I gave him poison use for free, and "Cunning" points, which work exactly like ki points, but are based on intelligence instead of charisma. It works dandy, the player is happy as a pig in a mud pool, and I have exactly ZERO balance issues about it.

Silver Crusade

Jiggy wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Elamdri wrote:

Just like the Magus, with that there is almost no reason to play Eldritch Knight.

7,8,9th level spells.

I said "almost"

The reality is that the Magus is what the Eldritch Knight should have been.

As a player of a 9th level PFS Eldritch Knight, and having played alongside a magus, I can say quite confidently that the classes aren't even trying to do the same thing. If you look at them and just see "arcane casters with swords", you don't understand either class.

The magus is primarily a combatant. His schtick is mostly to deal damage (and that primarily to single targets).

The EK is basically a traditional wizard (with all the versatility that comes with that), plus the added option of melee combat. He's always got an answer, whether it's cutting down thugs, doing crowd control, throwing out energy resistances to the team, performing divinations, or providing answers to tough situations.

Honestly, the two classes are not competing for the same role. The magus is a (damage) specialist, the EK is a generalist.

And my point is that Magus is what the EK always should have been. I don't see a need for the EK. I would rather you pulled my teeth than be a full spell tier behind with the EK, and that's what you end up with.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

You end up the same with a magus.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Elamdri wrote:
And my point is that Magus is what the EK always should have been.

How would you know what the EK was supposed to be? Did you write it? Or do you really mean "I don't like the EK"? Honesty is a virtue, including honesty with yourself.

Quote:
I don't see a need for the EK.

That much is clear.


Some traps affect everyone in the vicinity, and not just the person that set it off. That is why I prefer to not set them off. An AP I ran a over a year ago had a trap like that. Good times. :)


Elamdri wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Elamdri wrote:

Just like the Magus, with that there is almost no reason to play Eldritch Knight.

7,8,9th level spells.

I said "almost"

The reality is that the Magus is what the Eldritch Knight should have been.

As a player of a 9th level PFS Eldritch Knight, and having played alongside a magus, I can say quite confidently that the classes aren't even trying to do the same thing. If you look at them and just see "arcane casters with swords", you don't understand either class.

The magus is primarily a combatant. His schtick is mostly to deal damage (and that primarily to single targets).

The EK is basically a traditional wizard (with all the versatility that comes with that), plus the added option of melee combat. He's always got an answer, whether it's cutting down thugs, doing crowd control, throwing out energy resistances to the team, performing divinations, or providing answers to tough situations.

Honestly, the two classes are not competing for the same role. The magus is a (damage) specialist, the EK is a generalist.

And my point is that Magus is what the EK always should have been. I don't see a need for the EK. I would rather you pulled my teeth than be a full spell tier behind with the EK, and that's what you end up with.

So what if the player does not care about the damage, but instead wants a wizard that can fight, and has given up some spell levels to do so? The magus on the other hand is more like a fighter that can cast spells.

Silver Crusade

Jiggy wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
And my point is that Magus is what the EK always should have been.

How would you know what the EK was supposed to be? Did you write it? Or do you really mean "I don't like the EK"? Honesty is a virtue, including honesty with yourself.

Quote:
I don't see a need for the EK.
That much is clear.

I think that the Eldritch Knight should have been able to attack and cast in the same round as a Magus. The Magus feels like a retconn of the EK, like the designers were just like "Yeah, we don't know what happened, the booze was flowing that knight, we're sorry, does the Magus make up for it?"

The Abilities of the Fighter and the Wizard just don't synergize well with the EK:

1: You can't attack and cast
2: You can't wear armor without incurring a spell failure penalty
3: You are behind on your casting your entire career, even more so if you take more than one level of fighter.
4: You're MAD as hell, Requiring Strength to hit, Dexterity for AC, Constitution for Health, and Intelligence for Spells or Charisma if you went Sorcerer.
5: You don't gain any school/bloodline powers as you dump ranks into EK.
6: Your saves will never be as good as a wizard's for your control spells, you will never use Gish Spells as well as a Magus, and while you have access to a greater variety of spells, anyone with arcane casting or UMD can have access to those spells too.

I guess I just hold a lot of disdain for generalist characters. I've never played a campaign with a generalist character who wasn't both:

A: A drag on the party

and

B: Going to die.

EDIT: Also, every generalist I've ever played with tends to remind me too much of Red Mage from 8-Bit Theater, and well...just no.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ah, okay, so you just have a sacred cow of having to be able to cast and attack in the same round, and also simply don't know how to build an effective generalist. That would explain your position, then.

Meanwhile, my 9th level EK has never died, is locally respected as a useful party member, wears a breastplate without ASF, is casting higher-level spells than a magus of equivalent level (and is only going to get further ahead), and is getting lots of mileage out of the school powers he got at wizard1.

That which you say can't be done is what I'm doing. Guess where that leaves you?

Silver Crusade

I never said it couldn't be done, I said I didn't think it was worth it. I would rather have a bunch of characters that all do one or two things very well than one character that is mediocre at everything.


Elamdri wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
And my point is that Magus is what the EK always should have been.

How would you know what the EK was supposed to be? Did you write it? Or do you really mean "I don't like the EK"? Honesty is a virtue, including honesty with yourself.

Quote:
I don't see a need for the EK.
That much is clear.

I think that the Eldritch Knight should have been able to attack and cast in the same round as a Magus. The Magus feels like a retconn of the EK, like the designers were just like "Yeah, we don't know what happened, the booze was flowing that knight, we're sorry, does the Magus make up for it?"

The Abilities of the Fighter and the Wizard just don't synergize well with the EK:

1: You can't attack and cast
2: You can't wear armor without incurring a spell failure penalty
3: You are behind on your casting your entire career, even more so if you take more than one level of fighter.
4: You're MAD as hell, Requiring Strength to hit, Dexterity for AC, Constitution for Health, and Intelligence for Spells or Charisma if you went Sorcerer.
5: You don't gain any school/bloodline powers as you dump ranks into EK.
6: Your saves will never be as good as a wizard's for your control spells, you will never use Gish Spells as well as a Magus, and while you have access to a greater variety of spells, anyone with arcane casting or UMD can have access to those spells too.

I guess I just hold a lot of disdain for generalist characters. I've never played a campaign with a generalist character who wasn't both:

A: A drag on the party

and

B: Going to die.

EDIT: Also, every generalist I've ever played with tends to remind me too much of Red Mage from 8-Bit Theater, and well...just no.

Just because you don't like the EK doesn't make it bad.

Each has Pros and Cons and neither are "better" than the other. It's more a matter of personal opinion.

I mean EK can still get 9th spells and are good at combat and casting.

While Magus caps at 6th spells and has less to choose from(spells). More focused on fighting in combat(spells either enhance combat or add melee damage)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elamdri wrote:
I never said it couldn't be done, I said I didn't think it was worth it.

Actually, for at least one item on your list you did say it couldn't be done: you said you can't wear armor and cast without ASF. Which my EK is doing. So you are wrong.

Along a similar vein, you said the EK is "behind on casting" their entire career, yet by 9th level I'm actually ahead of your precious magus, and will continue to widen the gap. So once again, you are objectively wrong.

Some of your other stuff was more subjective, but that's at least two of your issues with the EK that just aren't true. This contributes heavily to me thinking that you just don't know how to build an EK properly.

I could be wrong, but when my first-hand experience contradicts a list of guesses (of which each item capable of being factually wrong is), well, that's some pretty compelling evidence.

Silver Crusade

I personally just don't see a point. If I want spells, I'll play a wizard or Sorcerer. If I want to be a fighter, I'll play a fighter. If I want to do both, I'll play a Magus. It just feel that EK fills a niche without a purpose now that Magus exists.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
Elamdri wrote:
I personally just don't see a point. If I want spells, I'll play a wizard or Sorcerer. If I want to be a fighter, I'll play a fighter. If I want to do both, I'll play a Magus. It just feel that EK fills a niche without a purpose now that Magus exists.

The niche is called "I want to be an able bowman who can cast wish".

Scratch that, Magus.


What you feel and what is fact are not the same thing.

Silver Crusade

Jiggy wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
I never said it couldn't be done, I said I didn't think it was worth it.
Actually, for at least one item on your list you did say it couldn't be done: you said you can't wear armor and cast without ASF. Which my EK is doing. So you are wrong.

Wasn't aware that was possible to be honest. How are you doing that?

Jiggy wrote:


Along a similar vein, you said the EK is "behind on casting" their entire career, yet by 9th level I'm actually ahead of your precious magus, and will continue to widen the gap. So once again, you are objectively wrong.

But you're always behind compared to a wizard. That's the point:the Wizard will always be a better caster than the Eldritch Knight, so if you want full casting, you should just be a Wizard (or Sorcerer).

Jiggy wrote:


Some of your other stuff was more subjective, but that's at least two of your issues with the EK that just aren't true. This contributes heavily to me thinking that you just don't know how to build an EK properly.

I could be wrong, but when my first-hand experience contradicts a list of guesses (of which each item capable of being factually wrong is), well, that's some pretty compelling evidence.

Well I admit I wasn't aware that you could get away with having no Arcane Armor Penalty, but it is true that the EK will always behind the wizard on castings.

Silver Crusade

Gorbacz wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
I personally just don't see a point. If I want spells, I'll play a wizard or Sorcerer. If I want to be a fighter, I'll play a fighter. If I want to do both, I'll play a Magus. It just feel that EK fills a niche without a purpose now that Magus exists.

The niche is called "I want to be an able bowman who can cast wish".

Scratch that, Magus.

At the point where you can cast wish, why bother with a bow at all?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Elamdri wrote:
Wasn't aware [casting without ASF] was possible to be honest. How are you doing that?

Couple of Core feats: Arcane Armor Training, and later Arcane Armor Mastery (paired with mithral armor, of course).

Quote:
But you're always behind compared to a wizard. That's the point:the Wizard will always be a better caster than the Eldritch Knight, so if you want full casting, you should just be a Wizard (or Sorcerer).

I wasn't comparing casting to the wizard, I was comparing casting with the magus. I can cast better than a magus, and fight better than a wizard. That puts me in a role that neither is already filling.


Elamdri wrote:
I never said it couldn't be done, I said I didn't think it was worth it. I would rather have a bunch of characters that all do one or two things very well than one character that is mediocre at everything.

Being a generalist does not mean you are mediocre or not very helpful to the party. It just means you don't specialize in one area. Being the guy that always has an answer is not a bad thing.

Silver Crusade

Jiggy wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
Wasn't aware [casting without ASF] was possible to be honest. How are you doing that?
Couple of Core feats: Arcane Armor Training, and later Arcane Armor Mastery (paired with mithral armor, of course).

Ah, thanks.

Jiggy wrote:


Quote:
But you're always behind compared to a wizard. That's the point:the Wizard will always be a better caster than the Eldritch Knight, so if you want full casting, you should just be a Wizard (or Sorcerer).
I wasn't comparing casting to the wizard, I was comparing casting with the magus. I can cast better than a magus, and fight better than a wizard. That puts me in a role that neither is already filling.

I guess. I just look at it as if you want to be a fighter, play a fighter, if you want to be a wizard, play a wizard. If you want to be a gish, play a Magus.

That's my opinion, clearly you disagree, and that's fine. Play what you like. I just don't terribly think that there is point to EK with Magus on the scene is all.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

"Gish with better spellcasting than a magus" seems like a "point" to me. :)

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
I never said it couldn't be done, I said I didn't think it was worth it. I would rather have a bunch of characters that all do one or two things very well than one character that is mediocre at everything.
Being a generalist does not mean you are mediocre or not very helpful to the party. It just means you don't specialize in one area. Being the guy that always has an answer is not a bad thing.

My experience has been that apart from Bards, generalists get killed off easily and never are as good at what they're trying to do as someone who specializes in the task at hand. But I'm a big advocate of specialization, so take it at face value.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Elamdri wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Well, unless the trap resets.
Yeah but how many Automatically resetting magical traps are there in the game and how likely is it that you're going to come across one before you have some other way to get around it?

There are several in "First Steps Part II", with reset times ranging from 24 hours to one which appears, by RAW, to reset immediately.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
proftobe wrote:
Traps used to be TPK back in earlier editions. So you HAD to have a rogue. But between the assumption of rogue as skillmonkey in third. the compression of the skill list in PF the expansion of other classes with lots of skills and the insult of the ninjas and vivisectionist the rogue is dying. At least the fighter still wins dpr. There's almost no rogue idea that cant be better optimized in another class.

There are classes that can do single pieces of the rogue package frequently with significan resource expenditure. There are none that can do all of them on a dependable basis.


Elamdri wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
I never said it couldn't be done, I said I didn't think it was worth it. I would rather have a bunch of characters that all do one or two things very well than one character that is mediocre at everything.
Being a generalist does not mean you are mediocre or not very helpful to the party. It just means you don't specialize in one area. Being the guy that always has an answer is not a bad thing.
My experience has been that apart from Bards, generalists get killed off easily and never are as good at what they're trying to do as someone who specializes in the task at hand. But I'm a big advocate of specialization, so take it at face value.

So basically it is the fact that nobody has made a good generalist that is not a bard yet in your gaming circle?

51 to 100 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / All these Rogue Archetypes that drop Trapfinding All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©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.