So, the Archaeologist kit for the Bard gives up Bardic Performance en toto, yet Perform still remains on its class skill list.
One of the abilities the Archaeologist gets is the ability to find and disarm traps, like a rogue ... but Disable Device is not added to its skill list.
Reasonable Houserule Suggestion: Swap Perform for Disable Device?
Reasonable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what my GM let me do for my Archaeologist. He also let me ditch all of the more obvious bard spells (like solid note and allegro) for some more thematically fitting ranger spells (like gravity bow and detect snares and pits).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I cannot provide an direct quote on that, I'm relatively certain that's an intentional part of the "price" for stepping on the rogue's toes.
I'll see if I can find the post later, when I have more time.
|
While I cannot provide an direct quote on that, I'm relatively certain that's an intentional part of the "price" for stepping on the rogue's toes.
I'll see if I can find the post later, when I have more time.
That's my recollection, too. Eventually you'll get it as a class skill at 16th level, and you can always take the Vagabond Child trait, but with all the bonuses the archaeologist gets you really don't miss the +3 for a class skill once you're 3rd or 4th level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's my recollection, too. Eventually you'll get it as a class skill at 16th level, and you can always take the Vagabond Child trait, but with all the bonuses the archaeologist gets you really don't miss the +3 for a class skill once you're 3rd or 4th level.
Precisely.
I hunted on the boards, pretty sure it was a James Jacobs post, but can't find it and I'm not going to spend anymore time trying to pour through his massive post list.
In essence, the definition of "reasonable house rule" is determined by what your GM considers "reasonable". If you're the GM, I recommend against it. That archetype is one of several that helps to make the rogue obsolete, mechanically.
In essence, the definition of "reasonable house rule" is determined by what your GM considers "reasonable". If you're the GM, I recommend against it. That archetype is one of several that helps to make the rogue obsolete, mechanically.
If we started preventing classes and archetypes from fulfilling certain roles because it obviates certain other classes that people are or aren't playing in the current game, we'd need to ban all the primary casters first.
I'd allow this one. It's more a problem with the rogue than the archaeobard.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we started preventing classes and archetypes from fulfilling certain roles because it obviates certain other classes that people are or aren't playing in the current game, we'd need to ban all the primary casters first.
A valid argument.
The gradual increase in caster sustainability and survival is more the problem, in my opinion, than their stepping on the toes of other classes, which magic has always done (re: Gygax's brother and Tenser's Transformation). The old price was phenomenal cosmic power - low chance of surviving to get it. In the current systems (3.0-PF) they get their cake and eat it, too.
It's more a problem with the rogue than the archeobard.
Another valid point - the rogue is a very lackluster class. It does not, however, invalidate my argument of "the definition of "reasonable house rule" is determined by what your GM considers 'reasonable'."
This will lead somewhere well off-topic, but do you think the rogue needs more/better skills, then? It does appear that between the urban ranger and the archaeobard (nice neologism, btw) w/DD as a class skill the straight rogue is generally the nonoptimal choice.
First, I must express my utter hatred towards archetypes. They're insults to customization, and I consider them the pinnacle of retardation.
Instead of the archetype approach, I think all classes with meaningful class features and archetypes should have a CHOICE at certain levels between certain class features, much like my Monk 2.0 has right now.And the thing is, the rogue's class features suck. They suck hard. In a no-magic setting, I could imagine a rogue and fighter with a purpose, but not in the magic-filled universe we play in.
"How to fix the rogue" is a huge topic.
This will lead somewhere well off-topic, but do you think the rogue needs more/better skills, then? It does appear that between the urban ranger and the archaeobard (nice neologism, btw) w/DD as a class skill the straight rogue is generally the nonoptimal choice.
I think this topic is ultimately dead until the OP posts something new regarding the decision made regarding the archaeologist.
I think the rogue needs something. I am not sure what that is, anymore than most of the other GMs or players. I say this because despite the role entry for the rogue (which is, admittedly, quite generic), there are several clear lines separating folks on what they believe that role should be (pretty much the same issue with the monk - folks can't agree). Some think they're fine. Some think they need more damage output (they should be high single target damage dealers), others think there is some other "undiscovered" mechanic which will instantly fix a class they feel is broken - to mention a few.
For example: I believe a rogue's sneak attack mechanic needs shifted to something more relevant and less "gimmick" based. Additionally, a rogue should be able to Hide in Plain Sight effectively, without having some silly mechanic that wastes his already limited number of talents (with crappy versions of the same talent) and without having to break from a class he or she may like to take a "dip" in one of the other (prestige) classes that have an infinitely better version of the talent.
First, I must express my utter hatred towards archetypes. They're insults to customization, and I consider them the pinnacle of retardation.
Instead of the archetype approach, I think all classes with meaningful class features and archetypes should have a CHOICE at certain levels between certain class features, much like my Monk 2.0 has right now.
And the thing is, the rogue's class features suck. They suck hard. In a no-magic setting, I could imagine a rogue and fighter with a purpose, but not in the magic-filled universe we play in.
"How to fix the rogue" is a huge topic.
I both agree with you and disagree with you (mostly agree). I think archetypes were potentially great additions to the ability of a player to customize - if they had been taken to the next logical step (offering a variety of abilities at each level they "traded something". The Qinggong Monk archetype is the only example of what I mean.)
As it stands, instead of players creating both unique and "cookie cutter" builds through class selection/prestige classes, the cookie cutter is handed to them with a pat on the back.
If one feels the rogue is lackluster in the skillmonkey department compared to other classes, a very simple houserule that improves them is simply "a rogue gains a bonus to all skills equal to 1/2 her level (minimum +1)."
Since the bonus increases with time as the usefulness of skills decreases, this won't break anything, but at least gives them a schtick.
If we started preventing classes and archetypes from fulfilling certain roles because it obviates certain other classes that people are or aren't playing in the current game, we'd need to ban all the primary casters first.
I'd allow this one. It's more a problem with the rogue than the archaeobard.
When something is obviously better among nominal peers that's at least equally problematic as being op'd for the macro-scale game as a whole.
A caster no matter what their particular build and effectiveness is still "conceptually" different then a tank or a skill-monkey. Because a caster is simulating a role not being in it. So you will attract different sort of players to the classes. You play a caster to use magic first, what that magic does becomes a modestly secondary concern. This is kinda a "its about the journey not the destination" thing in mechanics.
That difference essentially doesn't exist for the Archeologist and Rogue. Unless you have some hardcore objection to magical dabbling you are left with little but the cold calculation of numerical advantage to decide between the classes.
Anyone care to argue the Rogue beats the Archeologist?
So that's the real problem regardless of how it plays in the greater game. In this case I tend to think the Archeologist is the model for what the Rogue should be, but I'm not precisely happy about that either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I must express my utter hatred towards archetypes. They're insults to customization, and I consider them the pinnacle of retardation.
As a big fan of archetypes I'm going to have to disagree with you. I dislike it when an archetype makes you pay for something before you get it, but other than that they're just a method of making any class feature in the game into a list of options. I think that's a good thing.
They're not all well balanced and they can be restricive, but they do a good job of replacing most prestige classes.As to giving the archeologist disable device, I think that makes perfect sense. The rogue is outclassed already, so it won't do much harm to make the archeologist more thematically appropriate.
I'm not the DM for the game ... if I was, I wouldn't even use the class skills lists. I think you should be able to spend your skill points where you want to. :)
I've not yet asked the DM, because we're still early in the planning stages of the game, and I'm not sure this is what I'll be playing; I've got several ideas, and I'll wait to see what everybody else wants to do before picking mine.
(Ironically, two of them involve rogue levels.)
...if I was, I wouldn't even use the class skills lists. I think you should be able to spend your skill points where you want to. :)
You can still put points into any skill you want. All Class skills do is give you a +3 bonus if you have single point in that skill.
...if I was, I wouldn't even use the class skills lists. I think you should be able to spend your skill points where you want to. :)You can still put points into any skill you want. All Class skills do is give you a +3 bonus if you have single point in that skill.
Fine, append with 'without getting penalized for it'.