The basic bard is better in combat than the rogue, who has sneak attack? It is to laugh... Bard? Come on.
The bard makes everyone else better in combat.
Exactly.
Combat isn't only personal damage dealing. I don't think anyone would dispute that a battlefield controller Wizard is good in combat.
I thought you owned the Thief?I resemble that remark.
Nah, nah bro, I don't own you. I own the class.
Ha! Like I said "resemble" not "identical". ;-)
The wizard finds himself fighting vs a foe in a AMF. Come on.
Later the rogue goes to the next quest/mission, and find himself hopelessly fighting sneak-attack inmune tremor-sensing earth elementals.
*Casts Wall of stone around said enemy*
Also, creatures with inmunity to sneak attack are way more common than creatures with AMF.
My point is: yes this totally rogue-friendly tailor-made adventure in the post I quoted let the rogue shine. Handicaped people win medals in special olimpics too. The rogue's problem is not when they face an adventure taylor-made to make them sine (duh). It's when they face a regular, run-o'-mill adventure with one of the *several* stuff that put them in a hard place. Starting by any 3rd level arcane caster with access to Blur, or any combat taking place in, ironically, a dark alley.
When I GM, I let the humanoid-shaped creatures to be sneak-attacked (that includes elementals). I also ignore the can't-sneak-concealed rule. Even then, our party rogue in my last Adventure Path got sidelined in much more fights that I found desirable. It was NOT a pleasant thing for the player. And mind you, I *wasn't* trying to mess him, and I *was* making home-rules that helped him. Even then, it was waaaaaaay too much fights to skip or being plain useless.
When a party fights a magic-inmune enemy, the wizard can still cast haste and Enlarge person. The rogue is much much much more limited in scope when the party face, say, an Earth Elemental.
The basic bard is better in combat than the rogue, who has sneak attack? It is to laugh... Bard? Come on.
The bard makes everyone else better in combat.
Exactly.
Combat isn't only personal damage dealing. I don't think anyone would dispute that a battlefield controller Wizard is good in combat.
True, possibly the best use for a arcanist, even.
I have said before, I much prefer the bard to the rogue, but honestly, there's a great deal of flavor difference. So much so, if what you want to play is a sneaky backstab guy , a regular bard just won't cut it.
But sure, if the party needs a skill guy, the bard can fill those shoes pretty darn well. In fact, I'd say be of more over all use- UNLESS you're going into one of those old school style dungeons full of Gygaxian traps.
There, and only there is a true rogue needed.
But a sorc (or maybe a witch) can fill the shoes of a wizard. A Oracle can do the clerics job, and so forth.
In fact in a party with Hospitaller Paladin, Inquisitor, & Bard, we didn't even miss not having a cleric. much.
Yar, but I think the difference between the Sorc/Witch replacing the Wizard, or Oracle/Paladin replacing Cleric as a healer is that they don't do it BETTER.
And yes, the flavor is unique (ish) for a Rogue, but again that's not the point, the point is mechanical deficiency. I WANT to like the Rogue, but every time I go to make one I'm like "But i could just be an Alchemist instead...same concept, but with cool abilities and better stuff...I love it".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game I used ...
Thank you so much for taking the time to write this. These posts are great to read.
I totally agree a rogue's not at his best in this adventure (or the SS adventure path, really).
I can't think of a reason why I'd be a rogue over a ranger or bard in Serpent's Skull. Not only that, the group already had both of those!
An alchemist is definitely better in SS, too. One thing that makes a rogue "powerful" (don't laugh) compared to a vivisectionist alchemist is when they are in an urban adventure, and the person who has Stealth and Disable Device can be "caught red-handed" and has to improvise with a series of Bluff or Diplomacy checks.
Another time I've seen where a rogue was better to the party than a vivisectionist would be was when we had a player who had both a level 5 alchemist and level 5 rogue, and at that time picked their alchemist to play. The level 5 rogue I believe had something like a +16 UMD. The alchemist, who dumped Charisma to 7, did not. The adventure had thoughtfully placed a wand of calm emotions right before an encounter with Confusion. There was no "pure" divine caster in this group (witch, bard, alchemist if I recall). Long story short, confusion hit the party (and the encounter was balanced expecting someone to use the wand to "fix" that). It wasn't an easy save, but the alchemist somehow was the only one to make it, and the player said something like "too bad I'm not on my rogue, she could be using that wand". It ended up being a grim encounter for everyone, and took GM soft-balling to avoid the TPK.
This is why I routinely suggest there should be some rogue archetypes that trade out the social skills and UMD for something else. Thus, a rogue wanting to be in Serpent's Skull could give up the skills they are not likely to use in a party like that (social ones) for something that would make them more comparable/competitive with the alternatives.
Because I suspect the designers place a lot of value on social skills and UMD, it wouldn't be considered power creep as this archetype doesn't obsolete the core rogue in an urban/social campaign where those would be tremendous assets to keep.
@Rynjin: So, get crazy. On a rogue in Serpent's Skull, what would you want to gain in an archetype that gives up counting all the Charisma-based skills as class skills? And, go one step further - would you give up Evasion for "Something Really Good"? And what would that be?
We typically compare the core rogue with non-core, archetypes of other classes (archaelogist, vivisectionist). My gut tells me a couple new rogue archetypes make this comparisons "more fair" since we'd be comparing apples-to-apples, because you could pick the "right rogue archetype" in each example that gives up low-value abilities for high value abilities in that specific example.
Rogue vs X combat encounter
X can be any monster
X is standing in a corner.
Rogue without a feint build is hopelessly CC'd for the whole fight and never even got a save (which are bad anyways)
------------------------------------------------
My GM pointed out that no other class has to specifically build around being able to use their class features to the extent that the rogue does. What most martials take power attack? Druids take natural spell? Don't pick dumb stats?
No the rogue needs like 5+ feats to work against non-sneak attack immune and mindless foes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wakedown I'm confused about your Vivisectionist/Rogue comparison.
A Rogue who dumped Charisma and didn't take UMD would be in the same boat would he not? Seems a problem with the build instead of the class. An Alchemist is more likely to invest in Int and ends up more often than naught with just as many or more skill points as the Rogue.
That's like saying, "Oracle didn't take Deathward and it killed our party. The Cleric did and that makes the Cleric a good class."
A Rogue who dumped Charisma and didn't take UMD would be in the same boat would he not? Seems a problem with the build instead of the class. An Alchemist is more likely to invest in Int and ends up more often than naught with just as many or more skill points as the Rogue.
Not only that, but the Alchemist have a quite nice option if he wants to be able to use magic devices.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
-snipitty-
I agree, Rogues aren't too good in Serpent's Skull (though Book 1 has a lot of traps to disable...Geralt was pounded by a LOT of traps, but that's up to bad rolls not bad class, hence why I didn't mention it), but it kind of illustrates a point: Rogues aren't very good in adventures not specially suited to them
Rogues perform pretty well in urban adventures, true. Better than in other places, at least. But how often do pure urban adventures come up? And how often is the Rogue significantly out performing other classes built to do the same role there?
As a side note, UMD being a Cha based skill has always baffled me. I can see Int (you're figuring it out) and Wis (intuition) but not Cha. Cha DOES seem to be the "S~$& just happens, yo" stat of the game, but making UMD a Cha based skill makes it seems like UMD is blind luck (and so does the description). So why can you make yourself better at being lucky?
Just odd. I think it would actually help Rogues to make it an Int or Wis based skill, since they could safely dump Cha and put points into a better stat without sacrificing the utility UMD can bring.
Idea for a good Rogue Talent?
Adaptable Wit: The Rogue may substitute his Intelligence modifier for any Charisma based skills he has as a class skill.
Only issue I see is dipping, but a limiter could perhaps be put on it that it only applies to class skills from the Rogue's list (and any that may be added by Rogue archetypes).
But that's beside the point.
This is why I routinely suggest there should be some rogue archetypes that trade out the social skills and UMD for something else. Thus, a rogue wanting to be in Serpent's Skull could give up the skills they are not likely to use in a party like that (social ones) for something that would make them more comparable/competitive with the alternatives.
Because I suspect the designers place a lot of value on social skills and UMD, it wouldn't be considered power creep as this archetype doesn't obsolete the core rogue in an urban/social campaign where those would be tremendous assets to keep.
@Rynjin: So, get crazy. On a rogue in Serpent's Skull, what would you want to gain in an archetype that gives up counting all the Charisma-based skills as class skills? And, go one step further - would you give up Evasion for "Something Really Good"? And what would that be?
We typically compare the core rogue with non-core, archetypes of other classes (archaelogist, vivisectionist). My gut tells me a couple new rogue archetypes make this comparisons "more fair" since we'd be comparing apples-to-apples, because you could pick the "right rogue archetype" in each example that gives up low-value abilities for high value abilities in that specific example.
Mmhmm. That is part of the issue. The Monk was boosted slightly by Archetypes (Qinggong is a straight upgrade, Sohei and Zen Archer might even make the class be considered GOOD), but the Rogue so far has little of that love. Likely because, as you say, the devs place an extraordinary amount of value on skills. I wish I could remember the thread I had the conversation with SKR about this, it's an interesting read.
Better Rogue Talents and some "Upgrade Archetypes" would go a long way toward making the class desirable (if only because they have something nobody else does). The closest thing to a upgrade Archetype the Rogue has is Scout, which increases his Sneak Attack potential scenarios,a nd it's not super great either.
Giving up social skills and Evasion for something better? I'd definitely take that a lot of the time, since so many classes do social better, hands down. You're never gonna beat a Bard in social. They're ALWAYS going to take those skills.
I'm a bit torn between whether it should be a combat boosting archetype or a niche protection archetype, though combat boosting is probably best...after all part of the thing that makes the Rogue's minor skill boost less desirable is its lackluster at best combat ability. It'd have to have something that allows the Rogue to boost its to-hit, since that's the main issue...maybe something that allows better Sneak Attack usage, like the Scout. Hm.
The Hitman loses Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Perform, and Use Magic Device as class skills.
Feint Master (Ex): A Hitman gains Improved Feint as a bonus Feat at 1st level, even if he does not meet the prerequisites. At 6th level he gains the Greater Feint Feat. At 9th level he may perform a Feint combat maneuver as a Swift action.
This replaces Uncanny Dodge and the Rogue Talent gained at 2nd level.
It's In Your Eyes (Ex): The Hitman gains a bonus on Bluff and Sense Motive checks equal to half his class level (minimum 1).
This replaces Trap Sense and the skill bonus granted by Trapfinding. A Hitman may still disable magical traps.
Deadly Sneak Attack (Ex): Starting at 4rd level, a Hitman rolls d8s instead of d6s when Sneak Attacking a flatfooted opponent. This bonus does not apply to Sneak Attack gained through any other manner. At 6th level a Hitman may re-roll any ones on the Sneak Attack dice. At 8th level a Hitman may re-roll any ones or twos on the Sneak Attack dice.
This replaces Evasion and Improved Uncanny Dodge.
Rough draft, but you get the idea. Making Feint a tenable combat ability kills two birds with one stone, effectively increasing the Rogues attack AND damage to more reasonable levels.
Giving up social skills and Evasion for something better? I'd definitely take that a lot of the time, since so many classes do social better, hands down. You're never gonna beat a Bard in social. They're ALWAYS going to take those skills.
I'm a bit torn between whether it should be a combat boosting archetype or a niche protection archetype, though combat boosting is probably best...after all part of the thing that makes the Rogue's minor skill boost less desirable is its lackluster at best combat ability. It'd have to have something that allows the Rogue to boost its to-hit, since that's the main issue...maybe something that allows better Sneak Attack usage, like the Scout
I love your Hitman. Martial finally got nice things!
I like everything about the Hitman except the reroll mechanics for the Deadly Sneak Attack. I'd prefer "treats 1s as x" and "treats 2s as x". Excessive rerolling tends to be a pain.
|
|
Wakedown I'm confused about your Vivisectionist/Rogue comparison. A Rogue who dumped Charisma and didn't take UMD would be in the same boat would he not?
Barring "thug" concepts, I'm not used to seeing rogues dump Charisma that often.
That's kind of a recurring point in my observations is that most rogues I'm used to seeing are specifically rogues because (perhaps this helps you best grok what I'm saying) they effectively "want to play a vivisectionist with social and acrobat skills".
The rogue has bluff, diplomacy, disguise, intimidate, sense motive and use magic device all as class skills. If you imagine every level 1 class has "100 build points" that it's spent on its existence, the rogue has allocated a lot of their "build points" to make these available class skills.
The vivisectionist also lacks Acrobatics, Climb and Stealth.
I'm also used to seeing most alchemists (vivisectionists among them) never exceed a 10 Charisma, and often times will go as low as 7-8.
Basically, if you're a low level PC in a campaign where bluff, diplomacy, disguise, intimidate, use magic device, acrobatics, climb and stealth don't matter much (or only 2 of that list matter and you have some traits to burn) - you'll probably want to be a vivisectionist over a rogue. I'd say at least the first chapter of Serpent's Skull (levels 1-4, I haven't experienced beyond that myself) is a good example of such.
|
|
.. Hitman..
This is great! I'm not going to nit (if I did, it'd be to give them back Bluff as a class skill since the 'Your Eyes' improves it).
I'd also think you could get away with a flat bonus to sneak attack instead of going d8s and re-rolls. Adds +1 per dice that keeps going (+2, +3...). This keeps it quicker to run at tables and should have the same net effect on average damage.
If my theory is correct, and a huge premium is placed on class skill availability and evasion, this archetype is totally plausible to see someday.
The rogue has bluff, diplomacy, disguise, intimidate, sense motive and use magic device all as class skills. If you imagine every level 1 class has "100 build points" that it's spent on its existence, the rogue has allocated a lot of their "build points" to make these available class skills.
That's an awful weak design justification when you realize that you can get the Class Skill bonus for any skill with a Trait, or a 1 level dip. That rationale might have applied more in 3.5, but no longer in Pathfinder.
The rogue has bluff, diplomacy, disguise, intimidate, sense motive and use magic device all as class skills. If you imagine every level 1 class has "100 build points" that it's spent on its existence, the rogue has allocated a lot of their "build points" to make these available class skills.That's an awful weak design justification when you realize that you can get the Class Skill bonus for any skill with a Trait, or a 1 level dip. That rationale might have applied more in 3.5, but no longer in Pathfinder.
Or that the class bonus is "You get +3" instead of "You can buy ranks in this skill 1 for 1 instead of 1 for 2." Class skill is a pretty meaningless term outside the Fly skill.
Good Qualities about the rogue:
1. Skill List
2. Dodge defenses: Evasion, uncanny dodge, ect..
3. Skillmastery
4. Opportunist
5. Crippling Strike
6. Dispelling Attack
|
|
That's an awful weak design justification when you realize that you can get the Class Skill bonus for any skill with a Trait, or a 1 level dip. That rationale might have applied more in 3.5, but no longer in Pathfinder.
As long as we're on this edition of Pathfinder, it's still the reality.
Getting something as a class skill requires a trait (and usually comes with a +1 kicker, but let's ignore that for the moment). A trait is usually considered a half-feat.
With this benchmark in place, a level 1 rogue gets "5 feats" more than a level 1 vivisectionist just comparing class skills for the "social" and "acrobatic" skills. I haven't done a full gap analysis here, though.
You can certainly dip for class skills, but for many classes that's a fairly hefty price to pay.
Thus, if that's true and as I've mentioned many times, if you don't find the "5 feats" that every rogue gets for free at 1st level particularly valuable, what you may be searching for is the archetype that trades those out for something you are looking for.
This kind of archetype wouldn't technically be power creep, even though I suspect a lot of folks on this thread would leap all over it -- because other folks are actually looking for those "5 feats worth of class skills" and wouldn't leap all over that archetype.
For example, imagine an archetype that gives up all 5 of those class skills and gives you an extra 5 combat feats over 10 levels.
Needs moar hypotheticals.
Again... its just +3, except in the case of Fly. No one cares if those skills are on a given class skill. Also, Climb is a 1 point (if even that wonder) and Alchemists can *surprise!* get an actual climb speed from an Extract. Being trained in Stealth gets you +3 to the skill, the alchemist can get +20 from an extract. Acrobatics... sure you get +3... shame it gets useless later on...
I'm not sure why does Class Skill especially matter for Fly?
You can't put Ranks into it without reliable means to fly, but that has nothing to do with Class Skill status.
You can certainly dip for class skills, but for many classes that's a fairly hefty price to pay.Thus, if that's true and as I've mentioned many times, if you don't find the "5 feats" that every rogue gets for free at 1st level particularly valuable, what you may be searching for is the archetype that trades those out for something you are looking for.
Hm. I've come to the conclusion that the Rogue caps out at about level 4 in comparative effectiveness. From there on, other classes have a noticeable advantage over it.
A Rogue Replacement 9/Multiclassed for class skills 1 is more effective than a Rogue 9/Multiclassed anything.
5th level it's harder to see the differences but Spell Casting is a big part of it, Rogue Replacements often have their powerful combat abilities come into place here. 6th level, you can dip something like Pathfinder Delver to completely trivialize the Rogue since Delver has all his Class Skills, Trap Finding and you get Bardic Knowledge as a plus.
I'm not sure why does Class Skill especially matter for Fly?
You can't put Ranks into it without reliable means to fly, but that has nothing to do with Class Skill status.
Huh, fair point guess its just odd all around then.
If you imagine every level 1 class has "100 build points" that it's spent on its existence, the rogue has allocated a lot of their "build points" to make these available class skills.
Personally, I imagine very class has 25 build points. =p
.. Hitman..This is great! I'm not going to nit (if I did, it'd be to give them back Bluff as a class skill since the 'Your Eyes' improves it).
I'd also think you could get away with a flat bonus to sneak attack instead of going d8s and re-rolls. Adds +1 per dice that keeps going (+2, +3...). This keeps it quicker to run at tables and should have the same net effect on average damage.
If my theory is correct, and a huge premium is placed on class skill availability and evasion, this archetype is totally plausible to see someday.
I figured boosting to d8s was safer, since Paizo seems pretty attached to the random factor of Sneak Attack, and it's a variant of an already existing archetype ability (Knife Master when using daggers) so it has precedent for existing already.
The re-rolls I agree slows things down, I liked Kudaku's suggestion of just flat out making ones twos and ones/twos threes later.
I waffled on giving it back Bluff as a class skill but I figured it was safer not. It ends up being a larger bonus, but through level 6 the Core Rogue has an advantage.
May use that in the next game I run to see if anybody goes for it.
That's an awful weak design justification when you realize that you can get the Class Skill bonus for any skill with a Trait, or a 1 level dip. That rationale might have applied more in 3.5, but no longer in Pathfinder.As long as we're on this edition of Pathfinder, it's still the reality.
Getting something as a class skill requires a trait (and usually comes with a +1 kicker, but let's ignore that for the moment). A trait is usually considered a half-feat.
With this benchmark in place, a level 1 rogue gets "5 feats" more than a level 1 vivisectionist just comparing class skills for the "social" and "acrobatic" skills. I haven't done a full gap analysis here, though.
You can certainly dip for class skills, but for many classes that's a fairly hefty price to pay.
Thus, if that's true and as I've mentioned many times, if you don't find the "5 feats" that every rogue gets for free at 1st level particularly valuable, what you may be searching for is the archetype that trades those out for something you are looking for.
The problem there is that not every feat is worth the same. Having Appraise and Sleight of Hand isn't worth the same than having, say, a Cleric Domain, Craft Woundrous Item, or Rage.
If the classes are built with "point buy", then the Rogue spent his points in an awful way
If you imagine every level 1 class has "100 build points" that it's spent on its existence, the rogue has allocated a lot of their "build points" to make these available class skills.
Very cool read on that. I might give that a playtest.
It's broken in a few ways I have yet to be able to fix, but it's fun to play around with. I'm running a game with it right now, and the players seem to enjoy it, and I like building their enemies with it. =)
I'm guessing most folks will pass at building a PC and attempting the chase (since it would clearly show a weirdly build level 1 PC that most folks wouldn't make).
Slightly weird but heck, I have 10 skill points and a floating skill focus.
Human Alchemist 1
CG Medium humanoid (human)
Init +7; Senses Perception +4
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 15, touch 13, flat-footed 12 (+3 Dex, +2 Armor)
hp 10 (1d8+2)
Fort +4, Ref +5, Will +0
Defensive Abilities
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee Longspear +2 (1d8+3 x3)
Ranged Bomb +3 Touch (1d6+2 x2)
Special Attacks Bomb
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 14, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 10
Base Atk +0; CMB +2; CMD 15
Feats Improved Initiative, Skill Focus(Escape Artist)
Traits Fast Talker, Bandit(Escape Artist)
Skills Disable Device +7, Perception +4, Sleight of Hand +7, Bluff +4, Escape Artist +10, Climb +3, Swim +3, Craft(Alchemy) +4, Spellcraft +6, UMD +4
Languages Common
SQ
Other Gear Longspear, Thieves' tools, masterwork, Leather Armor, Light Mace
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Alchemist Stuff
Jack Flash drinks his extract of Expeditious Retreat to gain a +6 to all the Chase checks then uses his move action to move a square. Every round after he moves 3 squares as a full round action
1. Bluff the Guard! 20% chance of failure with a +10 to his check! "Of course your boss told you to let me through! I'm in a hurry!"
2. Climb Ivy Wall! 0% chance of failure with a +9 to his check! Jack Flash darts up the wall!
3. Unlock the Gate! 0% chance of failure with a +13 to his check! Jack deftly unlocks the gate with a flick of his wrist!
4. Greet the Hostess! 25% chance of failure with a +6 to his check! Jack gives a roguish grin at the Hostess and she swoons from his manliness!
5. Take a Deep Breath! 10% chance of failure with a +9 to his check! Jack dives!
6. Excuse me coming through! 5% chance of failure with a +16 to his check! Jack nimbly pushes through the crowd!
7. Squeeze Under! 5% chance of failure with a +16 to his check! Jack slides under the Hay Wagon!
8. Pinky Grips! 5% chance of failure with a +13 to his check! Jack nimbly pinky grips his way!
9. Watch your Step! 20% chance of failure with a +10 to his check! Jack picks his way across the loose tiles!
10. Finish!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before the publication of this trait The Rogues had the class feature of being able ability to disarm magical traps. With this trait you don't even need a Rogue. A bard with this trait is imo better than a Rogue. Sure sneak attack damage is great. Except you have to specialize in ranged version of that. Or get torn apart in melee. The trait: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/campaign-traits/mummy-s-mask/trap-finder
Actually this trait isn't as bad for the Rogue as it looks at first glance. Sure, it may be one more Rogue thing that Non-Rogues will have access to... but it's also available to the Rogues and it is awesome for actual Rogues. It allows them to drop Trapfinding with an Archetype and get it back with a trait, giving them freedom gain some of their more powerful archetypes with only the cost of Trapsense.
Make no mistake, the Trap Finder trait is a campaign trait for Mummy's Mask - nothing more, nothing less.
Good to know, I was just about to leave for one of my two weekly RPG sessions and announce to my group that this trait was now generaly available. Would have been difficult to walk that back. ^^
Nobody *needs* to handle acrobatics. Perception and Diplomacy sure, maybe Bluff. Traps can be dealt with by summons and rogues going on solo stealth missions are committing suicide.You were talking about beating chase scenes on your wizard, sorcerer or oracle just as well as a rogue. Go ahead and drop your level 1 seeker sorcerer into a spoiler if you like and feel free to take him through a chase with some rolls in a spoiler.
I'll spoiler the chase scene I just saw tackled by several level 1-2 groups below. Go ahead and be level 2 if it helps you even!
** spoiler omitted **
I have made bards and inquisitors that could do this and beat a rogue and they were not specially made.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before the publication of this trait The Rogues had the class feature of being able ability to disarm magical traps. With this trait you don't even need a Rogue. A bard with this trait is imo better than a Rogue. Sure sneak attack damage is great. Except you have to specialize in ranged version of that. Or get torn apart in melee. The trait: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/campaign-traits/mummy-s-mask/trap-finderActually this trait isn't as bad for the Rogue as it looks at first glance. Sure, it may be one more Rogue thing that Non-Rogues will have access to... but it's also available to the Rogues and it is awesome for actual Rogues. It allows them to drop Trapfinding with an Archetype and get it back with a trait, giving them freedom gain some of their more powerful archetypes with only the cost of Trapsense.
That is how I see it also. The rogue gets the best of both worlds this way. It would cost a trait, but it is only a trait.
|
I have always had an issue with rogues being the only guys detecting magical traps; therefore, this trait is great news, even moreso with the fact that this will now allow us to play archetype that do not have trapfinding..
Let's face it, for some of us, giving up trapfinding for another ability was done with extreme guilt... or anxiety, out of fear of other fellow players' scowls when you announce that your rogue is not a "traps rogue"
LOL
Thank goodness this is a campaign trait; at least rogues remain viable outside of Mummy's Mask.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank goodness this is a campaign trait; at least rogues remain viable outside of Mummy's Mask.
How does the trait make them less viable? If I want trapfinding I can just go with two ranger archetypes or a bard achetype. If another class having access to trapfinding makes a rogue not viable then it was not viable before this trait was created.
I have always had an issue with rogues being the only guys detecting magical traps; therefore, this trait is great news, even moreso with the fact that this will now allow us to play archetype that do not have trapfinding..
Let's face it, for some of us, giving up trapfinding for another ability was done with extreme guilt... or anxiety, out of fear of other fellow players' scowls when you announce that your rogue is not a "traps rogue"
LOL
Correction, in PF everyone can detect magical traps, you need trapfinding in order to disable magical traps.
|
|
Correction, in PF everyone can detect magical traps, you need trapfinding in order to disable magical traps.I have always had an issue with rogues being the only guys detecting magical traps; therefore, this trait is great news, even moreso with the fact that this will now allow us to play archetype that do not have trapfinding..
Let's face it, for some of us, giving up trapfinding for another ability was done with extreme guilt... or anxiety, out of fear of other fellow players' scowls when you announce that your rogue is not a "traps rogue"
LOL
I stand corrected. I meant disable... (technically a simple detect magic spell can detect a magical trap...)
How does the trait make them less viable? If I want trapfinding I can just go with two ranger archetypes or a bard achetype. If another class having access to trapfinding makes a rogue not viable then it was not viable before this trait was created.
It makes them less viable because now everyone (as opposed to non-core rangers and non-core bards) can have trapfinding.
That said, I think you might be on to something about the rogue...
I stand corrected. I meant disable... (technically a simple detect magic spell can detect a magical trap...)Correction, in PF everyone can detect magical traps, you need trapfinding in order to disable magical traps.I have always had an issue with rogues being the only guys detecting magical traps; therefore, this trait is great news, even moreso with the fact that this will now allow us to play archetype that do not have trapfinding..
Let's face it, for some of us, giving up trapfinding for another ability was done with extreme guilt... or anxiety, out of fear of other fellow players' scowls when you announce that your rogue is not a "traps rogue"
LOL
Technically, a simple perception roll can detect a magical trap. Rogues don't get anything special to detect magical traps, if a rogue can detect it with a DC 30 Perception roll, anyone able to roll 30+ with perception can too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank goodness this is a campaign trait; at least rogues remain viable outside of Mummy's Mask.How does the trait make them less viable? If I want trapfinding I can just go with two ranger archetypes or a bard achetype. If another class having access to trapfinding makes a rogue not viable then it was not viable before this trait was created.
And at least two Alchemist archetypes and so on. :)
I really think you could simply rogues full BAB and d10 hit dice and they'd still be just fine. But that's another thread. :)
I really think you could simply rogues full BAB and d10 hit dice and they'd still be just fine. But that's another thread. :)
Not to mention a feat every other level... and full spellcasting....
;-)
But sure, if the party needs a skill guy, the bard can fill those shoes pretty darn well. In fact, I'd say be of more over all use- UNLESS you're going into one of those old school style dungeons full of Gygaxian traps.
There, and only there is a true rogue needed.
I know you feel it's needed because of trap spotter, but that's not true for two reasons:
1) Gygaxian rogues didn't have trap spotters, and they did just fine. Like every other version of the rogue, pre-pathfinder. So it's perfectly possible to play and find those traps without trap-spotter, and any other of the PC classes with trapfinder (or anyone with the trait) will do it just as fine as those rogues did in 3.5 and before, without trap-spotter
2) The alchemist has trap-spotter too.
Sure. But you see, we weren't so worried about Minute per level spells running out.
AND since there wasn't a rule for it, then the DM could play it however.
It was actually worse in 3.5, but then few classes had Trap finding.
Meh. That's a campaign archetype. And, as I said so many times, if we are comparing, then we have to compare apples to apples. Since rogue boosters don;t get to bring in rogue archetypes, then neither does the other side of the debate. Straight class vs class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So your point is Rogue is useful is you don't allow any of the other (lot) of classes that get trap-finding?
Sure. Just like Commoner would be useful as party faces, if you don't allow any other class to roll diplomacy :^P
I'll concede gracesfully that rogues are (somewhat) needed if you don't allow any of the archetypes that give trap finding, or the trap-finding trait, and you are playing a gygaxian dungeon full of magical traps. The somewhat is because there are a lot of ways to bypass most traps (a wand of summon monster I for example), but I guess a dungeon built to enforce the presence of the rogue would deux-ex-machina most of those.
However, if the archetypes are valid, the rogue isn't needed. A cryptbreaker alchemist can do everything the rogue does about traps, and then more, because of the extracts. Same goes with the rest of the archetypes, and now the trapfinding trait