|
Personally, I don't really like Gishes, I prefer controller mages. It just seems to me like Eldritch Knight is trying to be a Gish and have versatility, when I would prefer they just be a gish and leave the versatility to classes that are better at it.
Like I said, not a fan of generalists, I greatly prefer specialists.
On trapfinding: I find it's both overrated and underrated. It's overrated by the people saying you need a rogue for it (though they are few and far between on the forums), because there are other ways and traps aren't AS dangerous as before. It's underrated by those that say "just use Mount/BSF/Healing" because you can make a lot of effective traps that that doesn't help with (the prime example being a simple Alarm, and all traps that lock of progress).
On the EK vs Magus: The magus is a fighter/mage. The EK is a caster that can fight. The arcane archer and dragon disciples mostly are fighters that can cast. (All this is my experience; YMMV)
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Personally, I don't really like Gishes, I prefer controller mages. ...
Like I said, not a fan of generalists, I greatly prefer specialists.
Now, see, that's something else entirely. "The EK does something I don't care for" is a completely different sentiment than "The EK does the same thing as the magus, only worse". The former is a preference, while the latter is an incorrect assessment of facts.
Personally, I don't really like Gishes, I prefer controller mages. It just seems to me like Eldritch Knight is trying to be a Gish and have versatility, when I would prefer they just be a gish and leave the versatility to classes that are better at it.
Like I said, not a fan of generalists, I greatly prefer specialists.
I understand. I am just saying there is no reason to not have both since there are players skilled enough to make the EK work as a generalist without dying all the time, and the EK does have a role that it can play well. As a designer it is often better to have something that covers all the bases. With the EK and the magus we have that.
On the EK vs Magus: The magus is a fighter/mage. The EK is a caster that can fight....
As my GM says in Skulls n' Shackles: "You guys aren't pirates yet. You're just guys with a boat who steal stuff."
I think you misunderstood me. What I meant was that a magus blends casting and fighting, using each to strengthen the other without exceptional at either. The EK is a caster first and foremost - it's an exceptional caster that can bash things a bit if needed. It's nearly as good at casting as a full sorcerer/wizard/witch, but a bit tougher.
A high-level magus is in the front swinging a sword while casting disintegrate and wall of iron, a high-level eldritch knight is in the front casting energy drain and persistant prismatic spray, a high-level pure wizard is in the back casting mass hold monster and gate.
EDIT: Don't think of the eldritch knight as something between fighter and wizard, think of it as something between magus and wizard.
|
|
On the EK vs Magus: The magus is a fighter/mage. The EK is a caster that can fight....
As my GM says in Skulls n' Shackles: "You guys aren't pirates yet. You're just guys with a boat who steal stuff."
I think you misunderstood me. What I meant was that a magus blends casting and fighting, using each to strengthen the other without exceptional at either. The EK is a caster first and foremost - it's an exceptional caster that can bash things a bit if needed. It's nearly as good at casting as a full sorcerer/wizard/witch, but a bit tougher.
A high-level magus is in the front swinging a sword while casting disintegrate and wall of iron, a high-level eldritch knight is in the front casting energy drain and persistant prismatic spray, a high-level pure wizard is in the back casting mass hold monster and gate.
EDIT: Don't think of the eldritch knight as something between fighter and wizard, think of it as something between magus and wizard.
I got your point, I was just teasing you because semantically saying one thing is a fighter/mage and the other is a caster that can fight is pretty much the same thing. ;)
Like I said: You're not pirates, you're just guys with a boat that steal stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like divine casters therefore the Cleric is a pointless class with no reason to exist, discuss. Also what is this Ranger garbage, as far as I can tell the Druid is what the Ranger should have been so the Ranger should never have been written.
Why hasn't Paizo hired me yet.
It's only the same thing if the ability to fight causes you to have the "identity"/descriptor of fighter ;)
I don't like divine casters therefore the Cleric is a pointless class with no reason to exist, discuss. Also what is this Ranger garbage, as far as I can tell the Druid is what the Ranger should have been so the Ranger should never have been written.
Why hasn't Paizo hired me yet.
Having an opinion is one thing.
Being a jerk for no reason is another.
No need to mock someone. Knock it off.
What is this Wizard garbage, it's like a Sorcerer except with fewer spells per day? And the few spells you do get you need to pick in advance? That's garbage. Sure, you don't have a spells known limit, but man, the only advantage that gives you is being a generalist, and I hate generalists with a passion and wish they were all dead and generalists are always terrible anyhow so Wizards are like Sorcerers except worse in every way because they try to do the same thing except Wizards suck, screw generalists forever.
|
|
What is this Wizard garbage, it's like a Sorcerer except with fewer spells per day? And the few spells you do get you need to pick in advance? That's garbage. Sure, you don't have a spells known limit, but man, the only advantage that gives you is being a generalist, and I hate generalists with a passion and wish they were all dead and generalists are always terrible anyhow so Wizards are like Sorcerers except worse in every way because they try to do the same thing except Wizards suck, screw generalists forever.
Wizards aren't generalists, they're dedicated casters. A generalist is someone who tries to be a caster, a fighter and a skill monkey at the same time.
The whole point of choosing Wizard over Sorcerer is to have a spellbook of countless spells as a toolbox instead of specializing in a few spells known to cast over and over again. That makes the wizard a generalist by comparison, and therefore they must burn.
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.
so much hyperbole there...
Do you count a regular wizard as a genralist? Or Cleric? Or Druid?|
|
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.
so much hyperbole there...
Do you count a regular wizard as a genralist? Or Cleric? Or Druid?
No, when I say generalist, I mean someone who builds a character to be a jack of all trades. My problem is usually they end up doing a terrible job at it.
Bards are the one exception that I have, Bards tend to do their job well.
...
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.
...
Define "A drag on the party".
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.
I've seen the same problem with a rogue. Some do trap finding well, some do sneak attack well, and some do the face / diplomacy thing well, but I've never seen a rogue built to excel in all three.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF didnt neuter traps all by themselves. 3.X started the process. PF just extended the process.
- Gauss
What's it matter, the status of traps?
Rogue's problem isn't that other people can do traps or that traps are lame.
Rogue' problem is traps are the only thing people think they should be good at.
Dealing with traps sucks, if that's the reason my character exists, I'd be freaking miserable.
In 3E, rogue was pretty good at damage output and the unquestioned skills master. PF robbed them of these things. That is their problem.
How are rogues worse at damage, or are you saying everyone got a damage increase except for the rogue?
I agree they should be better at skills.
How are rogues worse at damage, or are you saying everyone got a damage increase except for the rogue?
A combination of others getting better at damage dealing and sneak attack not being nearly as easy to obtain.
Using a summon to explode a magic trap is all well and good... unless the trap explodes (noise), is a Magic Mouth ("Hey intruders over here!"), or an alarm spell.
Sometimes its nice to disable a trap instead of just triggering it with expendable resources.
How are rogues worse at damage, or are you saying everyone got a damage increase except for the rogue?A combination of others getting better at damage dealing and sneak attack not being nearly as easy to obtain.
Uhm... In 3.x you couldn't sneak attack undead, elementals, oozes, and constructs. Now you can't sneak attack oozes and some elementals.
where does crypt breaker come from and what does it trade for trapfinding?
It's an alchemist archetype and I believe it gives up brewing potions.
The problem with Arcane Armor Training is that it makes the top tier of EK worthless.
In my opinion the 'swift action' needed for the arcane armor training should be removed, and in my understanding it is in many home games.
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.
so much hyperbole there...
Do you count a regular wizard as a genralist? Or Cleric? Or Druid?No, when I say generalist, I mean someone who builds a character to be a jack of all trades. My problem is usually they end up doing a terrible job at it.
Bards are the one exception that I have, Bards tend to do their job well.
Several wizards are built to be a Jack of All Trades. Have you ever read the old D&D Character Optimization forum? "Anything you can do, a wizard can do better" was a common saying.
And Clerics and Druids are, by default, Jacks of all trades too. They can cast spells, control the battlefield, go to melee, heal & buff... And those three (wizards, clerics and druids) are not just "not underpowered". They are, actually, rated as Tier 1 by most Optimizers. They are, indeed, the only tier 1, with sorcerers and oracles (and sometimes witches) being tier 1.5. Preciselly becouse they can cover all the bases by themselves.As I said, I think your sentence was way beyond hyperbole.
|
|
Uhm... In 3.x you couldn't sneak attack undead, elementals, oozes, and constructs. Now you can't sneak attack oozes and some elementals.
In core. If you went looking you could find plenty of options to allow you to sneak attack them.
If the number of valid target goes up while your total number of successful sneak attacks go down, you're still doing less damage, even if it is to a wider variety of targets.
|
I view the EK more as a wizard who trades in one tier of spellcasting for battlefield spellcasting;
* Full BAB enhances Ranged Touch spells to become almost certain hits.
* d10 HD
* good Fortitude save instead of good Will, but since you've probably already got 5 wizard levels, that just evens them out a bit; less peaks, less valleys.
* armor proficiencies, so you're halfway to Arcane Armor Training/Mastery
Having melee weapons is pure coincidence here. You may never have to use them. What you're after is reducing your fragility and improving your BAB.
It gets even funnier if you don't take the Fighter as the entryway into EK; any class with all martial weapons will do;
* Paladin, gets you good Will and Fortitude saves and some wonky stuff (Smite Evil with ray spells?)
* Ranger: get a better Reflex save, Track, lots of skill points, a sweet addition to your class skills. Favored Enemy's to-hit bonus probably doesn't apply unless you use magic to create weapons (which for an EK isn't absurd, actually).
* Gunslinger: good Fort and Ref save, good class skills, slightly more skill points than a wizard, and a quick entry into firearms.
* Oracle of Battle, with the revelation that makes you proficient in all martial weapons: if you want some clerical magic as well. It's not much, but it does free up some cantrip slots.
I've seen the same problem with a rogue. Some do trap finding well, some do sneak attack well, and some do the face / diplomacy thing well, but I've never seen a rogue built to excel in all three.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.
That's not all that hard... all you need to be good at trapfinding is dump at least some points into Perception and Disable Device (trapfinding bonuses handle the rest), and maybe at some point take Trapspotter or Quick Disarm if you feel it's necessary. That still leaves you plenty of skill points left over for Bluff and Diplomacy for party face stuff. Then do a feint build, which builds on your Charismatic abilities while also making you able to sneak attack often. (1st level take Combat Expertise, 2nd Level take Combat Trick to get Improved Feint. Or if you can wait till 3rd level for Improved Feint or are human, take the rogue talent that allows you to roll 2 dice for Bluff.) At further levels take talents that either complement sneak attack or party face skills depending on the specific needs of your build or needs of the party.
And if you're in a party where people use good tactics, then you likely pair up with another melee person to flank as much as possible, so between feint and flanking you're sneak attacking pretty much as often as you can.
|
A combination of others getting better at damage dealing and sneak attack not being nearly as easy to obtain.
im sorry what? sneak attack undead anyone?
In core. If you went looking you could find plenty of options to allow you to sneak attack them.If the number of valid target goes up while your total number of successful sneak attacks go down, you're still doing less damage, even if it is to a wider variety of targets.
even this is wrong, in 3.x a rouge got 1 sneak per round per target, even if they had 30 attacks on one target.
now if you have 30 attacks you get 30 sneak attacks also, assuming you're flanking or feinting.
|
|
even this is wrong, in 3.x a rouge got 1 sneak per round per target, even if they had 30 attacks on one target.
now if you have 30 attacks you get 30 sneak attacks also, assuming you're flanking or feinting.
Even if this were true (I need proof, which I do not believe you have) it is irrelevant to my point.
No matter how many SA you can get a round, if your ability to achieve the conditions is reduced, the higher number of valid targets is meaningless.
A combination of others getting better at damage dealing and sneak attack not being nearly as easy to obtain.im sorry what? sneak attack undead anyone?
In core. If you went looking you could find plenty of options to allow you to sneak attack them.If the number of valid target goes up while your total number of successful sneak attacks go down, you're still doing less damage, even if it is to a wider variety of targets.
even this is wrong, in 3.x a rouge got 1 sneak per round per target, even if they had 30 attacks on one target.
now if you have 30 attacks you get 30 sneak attacks also, assuming you're flanking or feinting.
In 3.5 you could SA anytime the qualifications were met.
As an example if I am a rogue with 3 attacks, and you are flanked then I would get 3 SA's, assuming they all hit.
even this is wrong, in 3.x a rouge got 1 sneak per round per target, even if they had 30 attacks on one target.
now if you have 30 attacks you get 30 sneak attacks also, assuming you're flanking or feinting.
Even if this were true (I need proof, which I do not believe you have) it is irrelevant to my point.
No matter how many SA you can get a round, if your ability to achieve the conditions is reduced, the higher number of valid targets is meaningless.
Which conditions for SA have been reduced? I'm not aware of any.
Were the qualifications different? I didn't play 3.5.
Nope, not at all. PF just made more monsters susceptible to it, but the also make it more difficult to tumble(use acrobatics) to get into a flanking position. In 3.5 it was a flat DC 15 to tumble through a threatened area. I always did dislike that flat DC, but the CMD mechanic makes it more difficult for a rogue to get into position. I kind of wish they had a bonus to acrobatics to help make up for it.
Were the qualifications different? I didn't play 3.5.
No, as concerro says. TOZ mentions "looking for" ways around it--I assume he is saying there are some 3.x splats that give you ways to increase sneak attack options (the only ability I am aware of that does that is an epic feat, however, but I did not collect a lot of 3.x splats). I would assume that these ways would involve feats or alternate class abilities. Given Pathfinder core rogues can sneak attack more creatures than a core 3.x rogue, the PF rogue starts off base-wise with more advantages... so if you created similar feats you could probably strengthen the rogue's sneak attack likewise moreso. Perhaps a project for a 3PP.
IIRC, the one thing that that changed sneak attack tactics from 3.x to Pathfinder was that a ring of blinking was more powerful -- I think you were truly considered concealed so any rogue with such a ring would be able to get off sneak attacks constantly. I never played with anyone who used such trick but even though it likely pissed off rogue players who played this way, I can see why such a "nerf" would have been implemented.
Let us not forget the "Flasked Avenger." Back in 3.X, you could sneak attack with splash weapons like flasks of alchemist's fire or acid. It was pretty devastating, especially with that ring of blinking (or any other, similar way of getting concealment). It was like being an Alchemist who could use money to throw bombs all day.
Nowadays the poor Rogues have to survive on chill touch for their touch attacks needs, and hope nothing ever has spell resistance. These are dark times, indeed.
NEVER MIND, found it. Hm. Okay, I was not aware of that--talk about subtle changes in Pathfinder.
Okay, you're right, and that sucks. House ruling that one back then...
There is always UMD and wands of blur which should come in around level 6 with it´s 4500gp cost. Also your party wizard could scribe you some scrolls if he doesn´t want to "waste" the spellslot. And shortly later you have the supreme lesser cloak of displacement with a constant blur.
But yes, trapfinding and trap sense as well as the ninja´s poison use and stay hidden replacements are very weak stuff compared over the classes.
That in combination with a feat starved class that is either dependent on cooperation from other players or on creating conditons, makes its more challenging.
Let´s face it though, other melee classes and their playstyles often don´t favor cooperative play and we all know how supereffective ranged sneak attackers are.
Actually, I do not believe this was true in 3.0. I still have my 3.0 PHB (second printing) and there is no wording that leads me to believe that a Rogue flanking a target only gets 1 sneak attack.
What did exist (and still does) is that a stealthed or invisible rogue only gets a single sneak attack regardless of the number of attacks because after the first attack he is no longer stealthed or invisible.
- Gauss
|
|
No, as concerro says. TOZ mentions "looking for" ways around it--I assume he is saying there are some 3.x splats that give you ways to increase sneak attack options (the only ability I am aware of that does that is an epic feat, however, but I did not collect a lot of 3.x splats). I would assume that these ways would involve feats or alternate class abilities.
There were spells that allowed you to SA undead and golems, weapon crystals from the MIC, and I believe an ACF in Dungeonscape that allowed half damage from SA on anything (maybe only certain things) that didn't normally allow it.
Actually, I do not believe this was true in 3.0. I still have my 3.0 PHB (second printing) and there is no wording that leads me to believe that a Rogue flanking a target only gets 1 sneak attack.
What did exist (and still does) is that a stealthed or invisible rogue only gets a single sneak attack regardless of the number of attacks because after the first attack he is no longer stealthed or invisible.
- Gauss
I think that poster and some others are mixing things up. There was a rule that said (and still does) in a volley, you only get SA damage in the first attack. So old 3.0 shurikens, or Manyshot feat, etc, only get SA in the first attack of the volley, but they get SA normally after that.
In 4e you only SA once too, that might be another source of confusion for some. But in 3.0, 3.5, and 3.P, you always have been able to sneak attack more than once, as general thumbs rule