You're not my g+&-d@%ned teacher.
I've already answered your question. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a hypothetical invisible enemy being next to you. It has everything to do with your own personal preparedness to respond to something. This is, again, highlighted in my response.
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action.
Do you see anything in here about the other characters that may be around that character? No, you don't. It has everything to do with her and her readiness at the moment in time. She let's her guard down? AoO. She does something reckless? AoO.
I think that the OP has made his point that, short of Gygax himself stating it, he will likely invoke Rule 0 and tell his rogue player, "Because I said so." If that means nerfing the Rogue even more than it already has been in the past, so be it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and reality, that is what makes Kim Kardashian so great.
Now that I have put in my 1/2cp, I'm going to go back to more important things, such as proving how little has changed over the years in RPG's in the midst of this sea of change we are in. :P
You're not my g!~-d+$ned teacher.
I've already answered your question. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a hypothetical invisible enemy being next to you. It has everything to do with your own personal preparedness to respond to something. This is, again, highlighted in my response.
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action.Do you see anything in here about the other characters that may be around that character? No, you don't. It has everything to do with her and her readiness at the moment in time. She let's her guard down? AoO. She does something reckless? AoO.
I apologize if I sounded arrogant in my phrasing. It's only that it didn't seem to me like you addressed my question.
And, to be honest, it still doesn't. There's a clear analogy between the situation where there's a fighter next to you, and he's effectively invisible to you (because that, as my house rule states, is the mechanical effect of "ignoring" him), and the situation where there's a fighter next to you, and he's actually, literally invisible.
In the former case, you say that this results in you somehow provoking AoOs for actions that aren't said, anywhere in the rules, to provoke AoOs (because your guard is down). In the latter case...?
If you don't see the analogy, I don't know what to tell you, honestly.
I'm confused. If his players are aware of the house rule, discussed it with him, agreed to it, and provided input on how it operates, how exactly is it a bad thing. Don't get me wrong, I like to sit in judgment of how others are playing the game incorrectly, resulting in toxic levels of badwrongfun that could ruin the game for generations to come, but I have a hard time getting my dander up over a poster who says in multiple ways, in multiple posts, that the house rule works for his players at his table and isn't intended for general consumption or adoption. I don't think the rule is aimed at the peanut gallery here, and I'm not sure why anyone cares what it's affects are or how it breaks base assumptions at the table.
Yeah, I don't know. I like to rail against player entitlement and proclaim the sanctity of DM fiat as much as the next guy, but I do take input from my players.
In this case, it's a rule that improves the verisimilitude of the game, increases the complexity of combat (the good kind of complexity, where you gain additional combat options and the combat system gains greater depth, not the bad kind of complexity where you have to memorize arcane mechanics), and prevents certain cheesy tactics that make the non-rogue players (and, to be honest, even the rogue player) go :\.
And — as I've said at least several times — the rogue is still fine. His damage output continues to be unmatched.
I think the rule could work in certain games for certain DMs with certain groups of players. Caveat emptor. Rules should be tailored to the table; buff or nerf as required by the situation, not according to some celestial principles of theoretic balance.
The big deal is balance. If the ignored target doesn't count for flanking then the rogue doesn't get to use his largest damage dealer and is no longer unmatched in any way.
The other bit of balance is the seeming impunity to something as dumb as ignoring a fighter behind you. This isn't calling you dumb but the character in play is dumb for doing that. The system balance for this is attacks of opportunity. I've answered your question about the mysterious invisible character twice now. You're ignoring my answer.
If you don't see these two issues or my answer then count me out of this part of the convo.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the "player entitlement" spew is tantamount to vomiting feces over a child's grave, as far as enraging fellow gamers goes.
If someone managed to vomit feces, I'd be more scared and concerned than enraged. Either the individual producing the vomit has some disease that I don't want to be around or a diet that is indicative of some type of morale failing that is below even my low expectations for humans.
|
I tried to tell him to move on to the Houserules forum.
Then the steaming load of "player entitlement" and "verisimilitude, as I see it" got dropped like a unholy brown mess of an aborted abomination, wallowing an afterbirth of self-righteousness.
Seriously, take to the Houserules forum, and everyone can rage and placate themselves there.
The proposed rule is a rule trying to claim it doesn't impact the rogue. It clearly impacts the rogue and they still think they're unmatched in damage. That's just wrong. Then there are the changes to the game as a result of the rule which I pointed out.
Also, I'd rather pay you in a swift kick to the junk for that post before I'd give you thanks or cash.
The big deal is balance. If the ignored target doesn't count for flanking then the rogue doesn't get to use his largest damage dealer and is no longer unmatched in any way.
On what are you basing this claim? It can't be any of the things I've told you about my campaign, which make it quite clear that this house rule has a very small effect on how often the rogue gets to sneak attack, and also that he is still unmatched in damage output, with this rule. (I'm not just making that up. I've tallied up per-fight damage a number of times. The rogue consistently comes out on top.) Any claims to the contrary can only be completely baseless.
The other bit of balance is the seeming impunity to something as dumb as ignoring a fighter behind you. This isn't calling you dumb but the character in play is dumb for doing that. The system balance for this is attacks of opportunity.
The claims you're making about how AoOs allegedly work, and what they are allegedly for, are very strange and frankly I don't see how you get them from the rules at all. The rules make it quite clear what actions provoke AoOs, and in what circumstances. You seem to be extrapolating in strange and unjustified ways.
I've answered your question about the mysterious invisible character twice now. You're ignoring my answer.
If you don't see these two issues or my answer then count me out of this part of the convo.
If your answer was "I don't see the analogy you're making, and the invisible character scenario is entirely irrelevant to the discussion", then yes, I suppose you did answer. Sadly, that answer fails to engage with the argument I'm making. I suppose I am failing to explain the analogy sufficiently well, but I don't see what else I can say to make clear what is, for me, an obvious and direct line of reasoning. Ah well.
Then the steaming load of "player entitlement" and "verisimilitude, as I see it" got dropped like a unholy brown mess of an aborted abomination, wallowing an afterbirth of self-righteousness.
You really didn't catch the sarcasm in that "player entitlement" line?
Should I be worried that you're even now contacting the police to inform them of my repeated physical assaults on the player of the party wizard in my game?
(Man, this "communicating with people on the internet" thing is harder than it looks...)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The proposed rule is a rule trying to claim it doesn't impact the rogue.
Huh? He's owned up that it impacts the rogue. In fact, the reason it was adopted, is because it impacts the rogue.
It clearly impacts the rogue and they still think they're unmatched in damage. That's just wrong. Then there are the changes to the game as a result of the rule which I pointed out.
OMG! Someone is wrong on the internet?!?! Call the po-po, this s*** just got serious.
Also, I'd rather pay you in a swift kick to the junk for that post before I'd give you thanks or cash.
Ah, I see that this is a Very Serious Discussion for you. Let me laugh harder.
The proposed rule is a rule trying to claim it doesn't impact the rogue. It clearly impacts the rogue and they still think they're unmatched in damage. That's just wrong. Then there are the changes to the game as a result of the rule which I pointed out.
I think I see what happened here, Buri.
When I said "the rogue is still unmatched in damage", you read that as "the rogue class, after this nerf, still makes a better damage-dealer than other classes (on average and all things being equal)".
But what I meant was: "the specific rogue in my game, after this nerf, still does more damage than any of the other members of the party in my game".
Does that clear things up?
The proposed rule is a rule trying to claim it doesn't impact the rogue. It clearly impacts the rogue and they still think they're unmatched in damage. That's just wrong. Then there are the changes to the game as a result of the rule which I pointed out.I think I see what happened here, Buri.
When I said "the rogue is still unmatched in damage", you read that as "the rogue class, after this nerf, still makes a better damage-dealer than other classes (on average and all things being equal)".
But what I meant was: "the specific rogue in my game, after this nerf, still does more damage than any of the other members of the party in my game".
Does that clear things up?
That seems impossible unless all the other members are non-conbatants.
The proposed rule is a rule trying to claim it doesn't impact the rogue. It clearly impacts the rogue and they still think they're unmatched in damage. That's just wrong. Then there are the changes to the game as a result of the rule which I pointed out.I think I see what happened here, Buri.
When I said "the rogue is still unmatched in damage", you read that as "the rogue class, after this nerf, still makes a better damage-dealer than other classes (on average and all things being equal)".
But what I meant was: "the specific rogue in my game, after this nerf, still does more damage than any of the other members of the party in my game".
Does that clear things up?
I have no idea how that is happening. I am going to have to assume you have some other house rules in place that we don't know about.
At this point everyone is arguing over a houserule...the rules were made clear and the rules question was answered
That seems impossible unless all the other members are non-conbatants.The proposed rule is a rule trying to claim it doesn't impact the rogue. It clearly impacts the rogue and they still think they're unmatched in damage. That's just wrong. Then there are the changes to the game as a result of the rule which I pointed out.I think I see what happened here, Buri.
When I said "the rogue is still unmatched in damage", you read that as "the rogue class, after this nerf, still makes a better damage-dealer than other classes (on average and all things being equal)".
But what I meant was: "the specific rogue in my game, after this nerf, still does more damage than any of the other members of the party in my game".
Does that clear things up?
I think some people here are so caught up in theory that they are wildly out of touch with practice. I have a hard time believing that you literally can't imagine a scenario where a rogue ends up as the top damage-dealer in the party - even in Pathfinder, much less 3.5.
What if all the enemies are humanoids (sneak attackable), and have spell resistance (so the casters have a hard time)? (That's not the case in my campaign, but I can imagine it happening.)
What if the player of the rogue is a lot better at optimization than the other players? (Also not true in my game, but it could be.)
What if the rogue ends up with a substantially better set of magical equipment than anyone else? (Again, not the case for my game, where everyone's pretty well-equipped... but it could happen.)
It took me like a minute to come up with these scenarios. Are you telling me none of those would ever have occurred to you?
I have no idea how that is happening. I am going to have to assume you have some other house rules in place that we don't know about.
Um... yeah. You don't even have to assume, because I've said as much, explicitly and unambiguously:
in my 3.5 campaign (a campaign already filled with house rules)
in my campaign, with my specific set of PCs, my specific list of allowed materials, and my specific homebrew magic items
That's an over-reaching interpretation of a general statement in the rules text. Again: this "ignore the fighter" rule simply duplicates the effect of the fighter being invisible to you. Take the rules covering that situation, and apply here. Simple. Complicating things with AoOs is unnecessary.
Invisible creatures still threaten you know. Ignoring a creature to the point where it doesnt flank you shouldnt deny you your dex, it should make you helpless to them. Because they can just non-chalantly put their sword at your neck and slit your throat.
Invisible creatures still threaten you know. Ignoring a creature to the point where it doesnt flank you shouldnt deny you your dex, it should make you helpless to them. Because they can just non-chalantly put their sword at your neck and slit your throat.
That's an over-reaching interpretation of a general statement in the rules text. Again: this "ignore the fighter" rule simply duplicates the effect of the fighter being invisible to you. Take the rules covering that situation, and apply here. Simple. Complicating things with AoOs is unnecessary.
I see the intuition behind what you're saying, but consider this:
f X R
You're X, the rogue is R, and the fighter is f (lowercase to emphasize that he's invisible).
You don't know the fighter is there. Totally unaware of his presence.
The rogue... also doesn't know the fighter is there.
That's the scenario.
Now, you're not helpless against invisible creatures. That's clear from the rules.
Yet in this case, you're totally not defending yourself from the fighter. How could you? You are 100% unaware of his existence, much less his presence next to you.
So what you're telling me is that despite this, the fighter still threatens (which, granted, seems to be the RAW), still provides flanking (seems to be a consequence of the RAW...), BUT... that it's possible to ignore the fighter even harder, ignore him more than one would ignore a wholly nonexistent opponent, and that this greater degree of ignoring would in fact cause you to be helpless against the fighter?
That seems pretty nonsensical to me. I would sooner rule that if you're not aware of the fighter's presence, and the rogue also isn't aware of the fighter's presence, then the rogue does not receive any of the benefits of flanking. (But the fighter, of course, can attack you with all the impunity of an unseen opponent.)
Casters generally aren't the damage dealers. Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians, Inquisitors, Summoners (Magi as well, but they do run into Spell Resistance.)
Yes, in Pathfinder that can be true (but doesn't have to be)... but not every party has all of those classes. Some parties have only one member from those classes, other parties have none. Sometimes the players' respective levels of system proficiency, their build choices, and the party's tactics come together in such a way that, all else being equal, the casters end up doing damage comparable to, or competitive with, any "primary damage-dealer" classes that might be in the party.
Yeah, that's certainly true. It all relates to tactics. A full caster can usually spend his combat time more efficiently than just dealing damage, but he certainly doesn't have to.
Indeed. As an aside (this is getting pretty tangential to "the point", if there still is any, but what the hey), SR also applies to non-damaging spells, so you might have the following situation:
Wizard: Well, normally I would just cast some sort of save-or-suck to get these guys out of the fight, but they have SR. Rogue, I guess you'll just have to stab them to death.
Rogue: k.
Honestly though, the experience of the vast majority of regulars on this board is that the Rogue is significantly underpowered, and actually needs a hand UP, rather than to be houseruled against.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing with that experience, nor with the conclusions you've drawn from it. I only play in Pathfinder games, I don't DM one; when the forum regulars tell me that the rogue is weak in PF, given the current set of available PF material, I believe them.
That being said, though, the campaign I've been referring to is a 3.5 campaign, with a rather specific set of allowed materials, house rules, custom magic items, etc., and the enemies that the PCs face are enemies of my choosing, not drawn at random out of a hat containing all the Monster Manuals — in short, I have, and exercise, control over every aspect of the environment in which the rogue operates, so what's true in "the average campaign" isn't true for me. I originally mentioned my house rule because I know that something similar is true for many (maybe even most) DMs: the game they play isn't exactly the same game as "the average D&D/PF player" plays, and thus they can and should tailor their house rules to their circumstances.
Clearly in your particular game this wasn't the case due to extraneous circumstances (including being higher level if I remember reading the original post right?)
I am not the OP of the thread (with whom I think you may be confusing me?). The rogue in my game isn't even a rogue, he's a rogue/ranger/assassin (and he's the same level as everyone else, namely level 19).
I see the intuition behind what you're saying, but consider this:
f X R
You're X, the rogue is R, and the fighter is f (lowercase to emphasize that he's invisible).
You don't know the fighter is there. Totally unaware of his presence.
The rogue... also doesn't know the fighter is there.
That's the scenario.
Now, you're not helpless against invisible creatures. That's clear from the rules.
Yet in this case, you're totally not defending yourself from the fighter. How could you? You are 100% unaware of his existence, much less his presence next to you.
So what you're telling me is that despite this, the fighter still threatens (which, granted, seems to be the RAW), still provides flanking (seems to be a consequence of the RAW...), BUT... that it's possible to ignore the fighter even harder, ignore him more than one would ignore a wholly nonexistent opponent, and that this greater degree of ignoring would in fact cause you to be helpless against the fighter?
That seems pretty nonsensical to me. I would sooner rule that if you're not aware of the fighter's presence, and the rogue also isn't aware of the fighter's presence, then the rogue does not receive any of the benefits of flanking. (But the fighter, of course, can attack you with all the impunity of an unseen opponent.)
Combat is not actually swinging a sword ONCE every six seconds in sequence. Everyone attacks and acts at the same time. An attack represents an entire sequence of blows.
Yes there is a difference from intentionally making no effort to defend yourself against someone, and not knowing there. For instance, even if I am unaware of the fighter, as his blade strikes my armor, I am going to react. I will try to avoid the blow. Ever sit down on something sharp, hot, wet, or otherwise undesirable? You jump up, limit contact, move away. Once this happens, you are defending yourself against that unknown entity, even if it isnt effective. And if I jump/react to the fighter swinging a sword at my back, the rogue has an opening to get in on me, thats what flanking is
Rouges can be pretty nasty! I do like this fact that every attack can get sneak damage, even with a spell like schorching ray.
Hey guys, I think I just found out where this thread is going to go next!
Combat is not actually swinging a sword ONCE every six seconds in sequence. Everyone attacks and acts at the same time. An attack represents an entire sequence of blows.
Nothing I said assumed, nor was meant to imply, otherwise.
Yes there is a difference from intentionally making no effort to defend yourself against someone, and not knowing there. For instance, even if I am unaware of the fighter, as his blade strikes my armor, I am going to react. I will try to avoid the blow. Ever sit down on something sharp, hot, wet, or otherwise undesirable? You jump up, limit contact, move away. Once this happens, you are defending yourself against that unknown entity, even if it isnt effective. And if I jump/react to the fighter swinging a sword at my back, the rogue has an opening to get in on me, thats what flanking is
I understand your interpretation of flanking, but I do not agree with it. In my view, flanking represents the splitting of sensory and cognitive attention involved in maintaining combat awareness of two opponents on diametrically opposing sides of you. Evidence for my position, and against yours, is the fact that you don't actually need to make any attacks in order to threaten an opponent and participate in flanking. You can just stand there, holding a weapon.
(In fact, by the RAW, you can stand there invisibly, holding a weapon, never attacking, with the flanked combatant being totally unaware of you, and still participate in flanking. So I really don't think it has anything to do with "ow, my spleen! ow, the rogue stabbed me in the face while I was saying 'ow, my spleen!'!")
Rouges can be pretty nasty! I do like this fact that every attack can get sneak damage, even with a spell like schorching ray.
Impressive. That's, like, 1.5 per sentence. Well played, sir.
Gee guys, I have played a rogue who out DPRered everyone. Easily.
This was back in 3.0, I had a Shade Rogue/Assassin dual wielding paired Artifacts who had 4 levels over the rest of the party, and since we rolled was about a 40 pt build.
But that was then. This is Pathfinder.
|
I can see how two rogues would be faaaaaar more effective than one, given the flanking possibilities, but so be it. A simple 5-foot-step is generally enough to keep two rogues from doing iterative attacks in the following round.
I've seen this type of claim many times and always find it odd. Why would you need two rogues? In every game I've ever been involved with the rest of the party routinely helps the rogue get flanking.
Ditto the '5 foot step escape'? Targets in the games I have played generally don't even try... because it is just as simple for the rogue and their current 'flanking buddy' to ALSO take 5 foot steps and re-acquire flanking.
My experience with rogues is very different from that described by many people on the boards. Nearly every attack of every round of every combat the rogue is getting sneak attack. Throw in that these rogues are ALWAYS built with high strength and damage based feats and they tend to do much more damage than the actual 'fighter' classes. The classic refrain on the boards is that they can't do as much damage because they miss due to lower BAB... but that is offset by the flanking bonus until level 9 and not enough to offset the sneak attack damage thereafter.
