Why does the bard eclipse the rogue?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 549 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Tents go inside the encampment not outside.


andreww wrote:
Just have look through the images here and see how many are surrounded by clear open ground with good sight lines. Pretty much a given for a defensive fortification.

The castle I could just walk into via bluff and disguise?

Why am I killing the guard again?

This story is getting pretty intense!


You aren't killing the guard, you aren't doing enough damage to him. You could totally bluff you way in but so can the bard and he can do it better than you and without relying on the hat of disguise which will inevitably be spotted by the legion of level 1 detect magic caster wizard guards who always seem to crop up in discussions like these.

If however you want to kill off the sentries so your group who lack high stealth, bluff or disguise skills can get in then you are having to burn 150gp a time on darkvision scrolls. That will mount up quickly.

Also our bard can simply dimension door the party where they need to be.


andreww wrote:

You aren't killing the guard, you aren't doing enough damage to him. You could totally bluff you way in but so can the bard and he can do it better than you and without relying on the hat of disguise which will inevitably be spotted by the legion of level 1 detect magic caster wizard guards who always seem to crop up in discussions like these.

If however you want to kill off the sentries so your group who lack high stealth, bluff or disguise skills can get in then you are having to burn 150gp a time on darkvision scrolls. That will mount up quickly.

Also our bard can simply dimension door the party where they need to be.

This situation keeps changing.

OH! Is this the "moving goalpost" that I heard so much about?


You suggested bluffing your way in. I simply pointed out the bard is better at it than you. No goal posts have moved. You still cant kill the guard in 1 round meaning he will raise an alarm unless spending lots of cash on darkvision. Why did we bring the rogue again?


andreww wrote:
You still cant kill the guard in 1 round meaning he will raise an alarm unless spending lots of cash on darkvision.

Yes he can?

I see you are willfully not seeing how at this point.


Marthkus wrote:
ryric wrote:
Skill mastery - especially powerful if your GM allows it to be taken with UMD
I cannot even begin to tell you how angry it makes me that this is a debate.

Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

Shadow Lodge

Marthkus wrote:
Now I'm not going to defend this particular build until I play with it more. But dear lord, I just couldn't stay silent with the rogue getting knee-capped liked that.

Knee-capped? I based the outline on a rogue I played up to 9 in PFS before getting bored of it and starting something new, and he did quite well. Still, even with your rogue build, it doesn't change my analysis that much. Skills are pretty much the same, but should be lower on the Bluff/Diplomacy aspect and higher on the Dex-skills by a little, and combat prowess is stronger than before while still being lower than the bard. Still, that is a more fully fleshed-out rogue, so I'll probably use it when I run an Archaeologist v. Rogue analysis later, if you don't mind.


Mordo the Spaz - Forum Troll wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
ryric wrote:
Skill mastery - especially powerful if your GM allows it to be taken with UMD
I cannot even begin to tell you how angry it makes me that this is a debate.
Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

>.<

But really though. It does make me angry; People thinking UMD doesn't work with skill mastery. It's an interpretation wrong on every single level and direction. I've gotten to the point I just can't talk about it anymore and just have to direct people to the rules forum. I visible shake with nerd rage. It's not healthy. If someone wants to think that way, I just need to be content that they are wrong and I have yet to encounter a GM who could not read (which that is my current GMs justification for skill mastery working with UMD, I quote: "I read the ability.")


While I couldn't make it through this whole thread, it seems like a rather slippery way of making a claim and passing the burden of proof at the same time.

If you want specifics, there are many threads where people have outlined them. You seem to want someone to take all of those myriad specifics and roll them into one. As long as no one gets any more specific than you, or you can find a perceived chink in the armor of the specifics given, everyone else loses?


EvilPaladin wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Now I'm not going to defend this particular build until I play with it more. But dear lord, I just couldn't stay silent with the rogue getting knee-capped liked that.
Knee-capped? I based the outline on a rogue I played up to 9 in PFS before getting bored of it and starting something new, and he did quite well. Still, even with your rogue build, it doesn't change my analysis that much. Skills are pretty much the same, but should be lower on the Bluff/Diplomacy aspect and higher on the Dex-skills by a little, and combat prowess is stronger than before while still being lower than the bard. Still, that is a more fully fleshed-out rogue, so I'll probably use it when I run an Archaeologist v. Rogue analysis later, if you don't mind.

OK.

Are you going to compare the two as in better or compare the archaeologist ability to "parity and more" the rogue?

Either way is fine now. This thread has run on long enough that it's original purpose ran it's course a long time ago. Your comparison will be interesting though.


Sitri wrote:

While I couldn't make it through this whole thread, it seems like a rather slippery way of making a claim and passing the burden of proof at the same time.

If you want specifics, there are many threads where people have outlined them. You seem to want someone to take all of those myriad specifics and roll them into one. As long as no one gets any more specific than you, or you can find a perceived chink in the armor of the specifics given, everyone else loses?

This is a good example of what I mean by the thread has ran it's course.

The thread is too long to read now and the conversation will start to retread covered ground.


Marthkus wrote:
The thread is too long to read now and the conversation will start to retread covered ground.

No.

So far thread about "Demonstrate Evasion as forum ability". Rogue have! Bard have? (No. Bards try help.)

In long twisty obfuscated thread easier find cover. Now thread about "Demonstrate sneak attack as forum ability". Rogue have! Bard have?

Ha! You not believe it? That why you fail, Luke.

(Yoda still me flanking buddy.)

Bard turn.


Mordo the Spaz - Forum Troll wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
The thread is too long to read now and the conversation will start to retread covered ground.

No.

So far thread about "Demonstrate Evasion as forum ability". Rogue have! Bard have? (No. Bards try help.)

Long twisty obfuscated thread easier find cover.

Now thread about "Demonstrate sneak attack as forum ability". Rogue have! Bard have?

Ha! You not believe it? That why you fail, Luke.

(Yoda still me flanking buddy.)

Bard turn.

Actually there was a very technical section where everything did get nailed down.

I must agree with your objections. Forum ability testing seems to be very different than in-game situations. I tried to talk to my GM about one of these situations and he was like, "That is not nearly enough information for me to tell you what would happen."

NOTE: You are not even in the top 5 of trolliest posters in this thread.


Marthkus wrote:
NOTE: You are not even in the top 5 of trolliest posters in this thread.

Only cause no format code share me smell.

(Real Trolls not need flaunt Troll.)

By way, you respond to me twice but still not reply. Seek clarity, grasshopper.


Why is the Bard blowing 3 feats on Skill Focus? (Sure, Bards get more out of that feat than anyone else, but that doesn't mean there aren't better uses for a feat slot!)

Where is the Rogue getting Inspire Courage from? I thought the whole point was two different parties, one with a Rogue and one with a Bard. If the Rogue's party also has a Bard, it kinda defeats a lot of the purpose.

Why aren't critical hits taken into account? This is a huge boon in favor of the Rogue, as SA can't crit, but all the Bard's bonuses to damage can.

Why isn't AC/To-Hit taken into consideration? Another huge boon for the Rogue, as the Bard is more likely to hit from self-buffs than the Rogue who lacks self-buffs.

You should, at the very least, list what classes are present in each party in your head.
From the sounds of it, based on examples from this thread, it seems like:
Rogue's Party- Rogue, Druid, Wizard, Bard, Fighter.
Bard's Party- Bard, Druid, Wizard, Fighter.


Neo2151 wrote:

1. Why is the Bard blowing 3 feats on Skill Focus? (Sure, Bards get more out of that feat than anyone else, but that doesn't mean there aren't better uses for a feat slot!)

2. Where is the Rogue getting Inspire Courage from? I thought the whole point was two different parties, one with a Rogue and one with a Bard. If the Rogue's party also has a Bard, it kinda defeats a lot of the purpose.

3. Why aren't critical hits taken into account? This is a huge boon in favor of the Rogue, as SA can't crit, but all the Bard's bonuses to damage can.

4. Why isn't AC/To-Hit taken into consideration? Another huge boon for the Rogue, as the Bard is more likely to hit from self-buffs than the Rogue who lacks self-buffs.

5. You should, at the very least, list what classes are present in each party in your head.
From the sounds of it, based on examples from this thread, it seems like:
Rogue's Party- Rogue, Druid, Wizard, Bard, Fighter.
Bard's Party- Bard, Druid, Wizard, Fighter.

1. He's trying to parity the rogue and then do more stuff. Focused study means 3 skill focus for 1 feat.

2. He's not. The first comparison he has heroism on, the second one he does not.

3. It was extra math I didn't feel like doing. I did total up the to-hit and damages if someone wants to run a more intensive DPR calculation.

4. To-hit is taken into consideration. The damages are relative to each other, they don't translate into actual damages. A lack of self-buffs does not mean a lack of buffs in a party situations (though it did in the second example). Oddly enough, the bard actually has less to-hit. But range combat is really strong and did in both examples.

5. Fair enough, I see a wizard, a fighter, and a druid playing with a rogue or bard. I say druid, because I have yet in my D&D/PF career played with an alignment good cleric so I don't know how they play or treat others.


Marthkus wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
2. Where is the Rogue getting Inspire Courage from? I thought the whole point was two different parties, one with a Rogue and one with a Bard. If the Rogue's party also has a Bard, it kinda defeats a lot of the purpose.
2. He's not. The first comparison he has heroism on, the second one he does not.

Quoting you earlier in the thread:

Marthkus wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Greater Magic Weapon.

Shield of Faith.

Greater Magical Vestment.

Great now both the rogue and the bard have those buffs.

So.. nothing changed!

Untrue, as the Bard gets inspire courage boosting his hasted extra attack, the bonus buffs we are discussing boost him even further than the rogue.

Extra attacks boost DPR.

How so?

Both get the buff, so both have their damage increased by a percentage.


Marthkus wrote:
Serum wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Greater Magic Weapon.

Shield of Faith.

Greater Magical Vestment.

Great now both the rogue and the bard have those buffs.

So.. nothing changed!

So, your example is that the rogue is receiving buffs from someone else, while the bard is casting them on himself? The rogue is sucking up party resources, while the bard is providing them himself.

You don't think it's a little lopsided that, in the rogue's party, someone is casting heroism on everyone (costing 4 spells), while in the bard's party someone is casting heroism on everyone except the bard (costing three spells), and the bard has to cast something on himself instead?

I've already talked about this in-depth.

Can you point to where you've talked about this? I don't see it anywhere.

Your Rogue build doesn't include wealth to have scrolls/potions/etc for self-buffs (edit - Sorry, yes you do.), but you argue that both the Bard and the Rogue will have comparable buffs.
But in reality, the Bard should have the extra benefit of Inspire Courage that the Rogue's party will not have.

Example turn 1:
Rogue Party - Wizard casts a buff. Druid casts a buff. Rogue (edit - quafs a potion or UMD's a scroll).
Bard Party - Wizard casts a buff. Druid casts a buff. Bard casts a buff and starts Bardic Performance.

tl;dr - Why do the two have equal buffs again? (Not trying to be argumentative - Just honestly don't see anywhere you've discussed it.)


Neo2151 wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
2. Where is the Rogue getting Inspire Courage from? I thought the whole point was two different parties, one with a Rogue and one with a Bard. If the Rogue's party also has a Bard, it kinda defeats a lot of the purpose.
2. He's not. The first comparison he has heroism on, the second one he does not.

Quoting you earlier in the thread:

Marthkus wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Greater Magic Weapon.

Shield of Faith.

Greater Magical Vestment.

Great now both the rogue and the bard have those buffs.

So.. nothing changed!

Untrue, as the Bard gets inspire courage boosting his hasted extra attack, the bonus buffs we are discussing boost him even further than the rogue.

Extra attacks boost DPR.

How so?

Both get the buff, so both have their damage increased by a percentage.

I was assuming he was talking about the greater magic weapon damage boost, since I already accounted for bards getting the damage bonus from inspire courage.

The bonus buffs they are talking about would be going to both.


Neo2151 wrote:
tl;dr - Why do the two have equal buffs again? (Not trying to be argumentative - Just honestly don't see anywhere you've discussed it.)

They did in that one combat situation which was labeled "Most optimal" to look at how both characters max builds compare to each other.

Heroism is a party buff. That the party wants. It's not something the rogue has to cover by himself.

Bard party just uses bard's good hope.

10 minute/lvl buffs are something you cast before a dungeon and last throughout the dungeon. So turn 1 may look like that. I didn't simulate the in-between combat situations which are more in favor of the rogue.

tl;dr a fair bit of this is throughout the thread already. This thread is getting too long.


the Party with the buffed rogue assumes the casters are willing to buff the rogue. not every party includes players whom buff their allies.

with Weekly William's last PF campaign back in 2011-2012 or so. the only buffs that were guaranteed were haste and inspire courage, because we had a bard. it may have been a large party, but everybody had to pay for their own healing wands and bring their own buffs otherwise.

there wasn't a single fullcaster with the exception of Rina Shadowsong, but with the Exception of Roargar the Steel Souled Dwarven Fighter/Rogue/Red Mantis Assassin with a houseruled lawful neutral alignment and Bruce the Human Wereshark Katana Wielding Superstitious Beast Totem invulnerable Rager Barbarian with Come and Get me and Spell Sunder, everybody had a means to provide their own buffs and everyone brought their own healing items and their own ressurection diamonds. usually this meant playing a partial caster or using UMD.

Rina would Debuff Enemies and summon swarms of butterflies that carried and dropped grenades upon their foe targeting touch AC without a saving throw for 3d6 Shrapnel Damage apiece, Shrapnel being treated as force.

when you can whip out 100 butterflies in a matter of turns, each dropping cheap single target shrapnel grenades for 3d6 force damage Apiece and ignoring hardness while dealing full damage to ships. the enemy will quickly die. the butterflies were only for ship to ship battles though.

we had over 15 players plus myself and the DM, so 16 players, so buffs would be spread pretty thinly, so everyone had to provide their own buffs, i debuffed the enemies for the PCs to kill weakened foes, and used evil eye more than slumber.


A good point.
For example, Heroism is a great buff. It's also a single-target spell.
The likelihood that the Bard/Wizard/whoever is going to throw it out 4 times is, well, it's kind of ridiculous.

The alternative is that the party sets aside a "buff fund," for a collection of wands or something similar, but realistically, that's going to be rather expensive (and requires a very "gamist" attitude towards gameplay, rather than a narrative one - It's the kind of preparation you'd expect from a guild getting ready to try the last boss of the raid, not from a group of individuals all trying to roleplay a character in a unique, but still useful, way).


Neo2151 wrote:

A good point.

For example, Heroism is a great buff. It's also a single-target spell.
The likelihood that the Bard/Wizard/whoever is going to throw it out 4 times is, well, it's kind of ridiculous.

The alternative is that the party sets aside a "buff fund," for a collection of wands or something similar, but realistically, that's going to be rather expensive (and requires a very "gamist" attitude towards gameplay, rather than a narrative one - It's the kind of preparation you'd expect from a guild getting ready to try the last boss of the raid, not from a group of individuals all trying to roleplay a character in a unique, but still useful, way).

First point is solid, the second point is a little reaching. People gaming with "gamist" attitudes is what some people would call strategy, which I don't see clashing with roleplay.

Obviously more of a mixture of the two methods, not all or one.


even if wands have the cheapest price per spell, a bardic wand of heroism costs 6,000 gold and lasts 40 minutes per charge. roughly 120 gold per 40 minutes per person. a caster has limited spell slots, and well, it is commonly assumed a PC that cannot cast their own buffs will at least buy their own wands or pearls to use the buffs if they intend to rely on them.

Rina, unlike most witches could technically cast restoration, but you either had to provide your own diamonds for the components, or take a loan to use her diamonds with 50 percent interest because you used her personal emergency supply. it was not her job to pay for the party's diamonds and if you couldn't pay up the price of the diamonds you used including interest or provide your own diamonds, she would animate you as a zombie slave to use as a trapspringer instead. she was the only person in the pirate crew with the requisite spells to ressurect dead PCs or remove conditions beyond the basics of ability damage, fatigue, and the like. she could remove diseases, curses, poisons, you name it.

she didn't charge the price of spellcasting services, but she did expect others to provide their own material components for spells they expected to benefit from, and should it be a buff they needed for their combat role, she expected them to either bring their own wand for her to tap them with or supply her with a pearl to refund the slot with.

those Heroisms were not free. she had both healing hexes to contribute as well, but most of the time it was, tap you with your own wand out of combat.

emergency condition removal? provide the material components and i will remove the condition, borrowing my materials comes with 50% total additional interest on payday. so borrowing 7,000 in diamonds to get a ressurection from Rina's Personal stash, will cost you 10,500 for the emergency risk cost that comes from using the "Emergency Component Stash" a fancy way of Saying "Rina's Private Stash" and she always kept lots of diamonds as needed with her paycheck, crafting her own items and charging PCs 75% market price for crafted goods. the excess going to the "Emergency Stash"

Rina used the stash for herself being her personal stash, but she charged PCs to use the stash because it came from her profits. the free 25% off was so PCs could buy their own buffing wands and spell components.


Marthkus wrote:
andreww wrote:
You still cant kill the guard in 1 round meaning he will raise an alarm unless spending lots of cash on darkvision.

Yes he can?

I see you are willfully not seeing how at this point.

The only way you do so is if you use a 150/300gp consumable and if you can find cover to get within 30' unseen. If either of those are untrue or it is foggy then you cannot as your maximum damage is 7.


andreww wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
andreww wrote:
You still cant kill the guard in 1 round meaning he will raise an alarm unless spending lots of cash on darkvision.

Yes he can?

I see you are willfully not seeing how at this point.

The only way you do so is if you use a 150/300gp consumable and if you can find cover to get within 30' unseen. If either of those are untrue or it is foggy then you cannot as your maximum damage is 7.

Also not true.

Here just one more example for you to create more circumstances of why it won't work:

As per posted rogue build: Use skill mastery bluff and disguise to walk up to orc looking like an orc. Use bluff to show orc what I found. It was an endless torch. Now either stab him first in the surprise round, or somehow have a full-round of actions by which to feint and stab. Either way the mook is dead. Put away torch and then gesture party in on the night-raid that they felt like doing without casting darkvision on anyone.

EDIT: Let me guess the encampment is covered in fog. The same fog that I can use to sneak in like cover. Oh but wait! We need to get the party in for reasons... Clearly we need a bard to shoot his 1d6+12 arrows(while singing all stealth like, or cast dimension door to handle a lvl 1 guard), because the fighter doesn't use bows (at a range that anyone could snipe from) for RP reasons because we need to contrive corner cases where the bard is bringing more to the table somehow!


Marthkus wrote:
As per posted rogue build: Use skill mastery bluff and disguise to walk up to orc looking like an orc. Use bluff to show orc what I found. It was an endless torch. Now either stab him first in the surprise round, or somehow have a full-round of actions by which to feint and stab. Either way the mook is dead. Put away torch and then gesture party in on the night-raid that they felt like doing without casting darkvision on anyone.

Thing is, you're not solving but instead sidestepping the original challenge (stealth in and kill guard without being detected) by instead using Disguise and Bluff to get within kill range and explaining why you're bringing a light. Which is fine, because in the end the result is the same - one dead guard.

However, how is this different from a bard sidestepping a linguistics skill challenge by using Comprehend Languages/Tongues for speaking languages and Pageant of the Peacock to create/detect forgeries?

And if the bard can do that, why does his "rogue replacement" build require ranks in Linguistics in the first place?


Kudaku wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
As per posted rogue build: Use skill mastery bluff and disguise to walk up to orc looking like an orc. Use bluff to show orc what I found. It was an endless torch. Now either stab him first in the surprise round, or somehow have a full-round of actions by which to feint and stab. Either way the mook is dead. Put away torch and then gesture party in on the night-raid that they felt like doing without casting darkvision on anyone.

Thing is, you're not solving but instead sidestepping the original challenge (stealth in and kill guard without being detected) by instead using Disguise and Bluff to get within kill range and explaining why you're bringing a light. Which is fine, because in the end the result is the same - one dead guard.

However, how is this different from a bard sidestepping a linguistics skill challenge by using Comprehend Languages/Tongues for speaking languages and Pageant of the Peacock to create/detect forgeries?

And if the bard can do that, why does his "rogue replacement" build require ranks in Linguistics in the first place?

That comparison was looking for mechanical parity.

I must of missed the bolded part. Yes that would totally work.


This is kind of why you might be better off establishing some goal posts and see if the bard can meet them, instead of trying to build "a straight rogue" with the bard class.

Create 10 or so challenges that the iconic rogue would handle well, and see how a "rogueish" bard would do in the same challenge.

For instance, let's consider the previous example - a sentry with darkvision is keeping watch on the outskirts of an encampment at night. He is in dim light, and placed in such a way that there is no cover available to approach him.

The bard might not be able to drop the sentry in a single round either. Instead he might use Invisibility to bypass the sentry entirely, a charm/compulsion spell to convert the sentry to his side, an illusion spell to divert the sentry as he sneaks past, and so on.


Kudaku wrote:

This is kind of why you might be better off establishing some goal posts and see if the bard can meet them, instead of trying to build "a straight rogue" with the bard class.

Create 10 or so challenges that the iconic rogue would handle well, and see how a "rogueish" bard would do in the same challenge.

For instance, let's consider the previous example - a sentry with darkvision is keeping watch on the outskirts of an encampment at night. He is in dim light, and placed in such a way that there is no cover available to approach him.

The bard might not be able to drop the sentry in a single round either. Instead he might use Invisibility to bypass the sentry entirely, a charm/compulsion spell to convert the sentry to his side, an illusion spell to divert the sentry as he sneaks past, and so on.

I'm not going to do that because as andreww has pointed out these situations tend to morph as solutions are brought up.

For example: It's not dim light, it's pitch black out. The guard is now a level 1 wizard with detect magic. The now friendly orc greets you so loudly that it alerts the other orcs to your presence. This orc is scared of illusions and begins screaming when he sees one, and so on.

Oh and then for some reason you can't just sneak past the guard. You have to kill him so the party can get in, or cast dimension door and yada yada yada.

I was just looking for a mechanical test for parity. Whether or not the lack of parity means anything is a different discussion that I am not prepared to have (of course saying this just makes me some sort of super troll. Heaven forbid I don't take a position and defend it to the death with no evidence!)


Marthkus wrote:

I'm not going to do that because as andreww has pointed out these situations tend to morph as solutions are brought up.

For example: It's not dim light, it's pitch black out. The guard is now a level 1 wizard with detect magic. The now friendly orc greets you so loudly that it alerts the other orcs to your presence. This orc is scared of illusions and begins screaming when he sees one, and so on.

Oh and then for some reason you can't just sneak past the guard. You have to kill him so the party can get in, or cast dimension door and yada yada yada.

If they morph it's either because A - they weren't explained clearly enough in the first place or B - because whoever made the initial example is moving the goal posts trying to back up his point.

The encampment seems to be an example of A - the person who initially posted it had additional detail put into it which was not made clear in the first post.

For instance, to me it makes perfect sense that a permanent defensive structure would clear away cover specifically to prevent enemies from sneaking up on it.

And out of curiosity, how would the orc recognize an illusion on sight and why would he be scared of it?


Kudaku wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

I'm not going to do that because as andreww has pointed out these situations tend to morph as solutions are brought up.

For example: It's not dim light, it's pitch black out. The guard is now a level 1 wizard with detect magic. The now friendly orc greets you so loudly that it alerts the other orcs to your presence. This orc is scared of illusions and begins screaming when he sees one, and so on.

Oh and then for some reason you can't just sneak past the guard. You have to kill him so the party can get in, or cast dimension door and yada yada yada.

If they morph it's either because A - they weren't explained clearly enough in the first place or B - because whoever made the initial example is moving the goal posts trying to back up his point.

The encampment seems to be an example of A - the person who initially posted it had additional detail put into it which was not made clear in the first post.

For instance, to me it makes perfect sense that a permanent defensive structure would clear away cover specifically to prevent enemies from sneaking up on it.

And out of curiosity, how would the orc recognize an illusion on sight and why would he be scared of it?

Definitely B. Still not sure if we are assaulting an encampment or attacking a castle.

Depends on how you use the illusion. It doesn't matter though because this is a forum situation with scant detail. I can just move the goal post and keep adding details until the situation can only be solved with casting 7 wishes in a row, thereby proving the only valid rogue build is a 20th level wizard.


Marthkus wrote:
It doesn't matter though because this is a forum situation with scant detail. I can just move the goal post and keep adding details until the situation can only be solved with casting 7 wishes in a row, thereby proving the only valid rogue build is a 20th level wizard.

If that's how you feel then I'm perfectly happy changing the topic back to how you're wrong about permanent magic bonuses to ability scores and feat requirements or the fly skill and access to flight magic :)


Kudaku wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
It doesn't matter though because this is a forum situation with scant detail. I can just move the goal post and keep adding details until the situation can only be solved with casting 7 wishes in a row, thereby proving the only valid rogue build is a 20th level wizard.
If that's how you feel then I'm perfectly happy changing the topic back to how you're wrong about permanent magic bonuses to ability scores and feat requirements or the fly skill and access to flight magic :)

As legit as that might be, it doesn't make any sense.

You either have to wear items upon level up, or you can pick whatever abilities you want and they don't work until you actually meet the prerequisites because there could exist an item that you could wear to meet the prerequisites.

The idea that what you are wearing effects your build path is more than a little silly, but it does make TWF fighters more viable.

So how much does it cost to rent a +6 int item for a day? Would be great to have that when my rogue gets skill mastery.


You'd need to rent it for two days, since the bonus goes from "temporary" to "permanent" after 24 hours - note that permanent in this case does not mean it persists after you remove the item. You'd also be lose the extra benefits from benefit from Skill Mastery when you remove the headband and your intelligence drops back down to normal.

That said yes, wearing ability score boost items while leveling up allows you to take feats you otherwise do not qualify for. If you remove the item that grants the permanent bonus the feat becomes "inactive" until you once again qualify.

This is all explained in the ability score chapter of the CRB.


Kudaku wrote:
This is all explained in the ability score chapter of the CRB.

Let's see *checks pages 15-17*

Nope. No mention of anything like that. Maybe you should actually know where the rules are coming from that you are citing?


Marthkus wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
This is all explained in the ability score chapter of the CRB.

Let's see *checks pages 15-17*

Nope. No mention of anything like that. Maybe you should actually know where the rules are coming from that you are citing?

My mistake, I mean the Ability Score *bonus section* in the CRB - page 554 and 555. PFSRD gathers all that information on one page for convenience, I thought the CRB did as well. Thanks for handling it in a classy way, by the way.


Marthkus wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
It doesn't matter though because this is a forum situation with scant detail. I can just move the goal post and keep adding details until the situation can only be solved with casting 7 wishes in a row, thereby proving the only valid rogue build is a 20th level wizard.
If that's how you feel then I'm perfectly happy changing the topic back to how you're wrong about permanent magic bonuses to ability scores and feat requirements or the fly skill and access to flight magic :)

As legit as that might be, it doesn't make any sense.

You either have to wear items upon level up, or you can pick whatever abilities you want and they don't work until you actually meet the prerequisites because there could exist an item that you could wear to meet the prerequisites.

The idea that what you are wearing effects your build path is more than a little silly, but it does make TWF fighters more viable.

So how much does it cost to rent a +6 int item for a day? Would be great to have that when my rogue gets skill mastery.

It's interesting Marthkus because oddly enough it is true.

You can reverse engineer the argument with Ability Drain/Damage. The Devs have specifically said that that doesn't make you lose your feat should you be reduced to less than the requirement. You have it but you just can't make use of it.

I like to think of it like having Weapon Focus(Falchion) but not having the Falchion means I can't use the feat till I find one. Not having the Falchion on hand doesn't mean I can't take Weapon Focus(Falchion)

EDIT: The only thing that matters is having the requisite score when you take the feat and maintaining that score should you want to use the feat.


Kudaku wrote:
Thanks for handling it in a classy way, by the way.

As always :P


Scavion wrote:
You can reverse engineer the argument with Ability Drain/Damage. The Devs have specifically said that that doesn't make you lose your feat should you be reduced to less than the requirement. You have it but you just can't make use of it.

I think this more goes along the line that your actual ability score is what matters not the augmented one.

Which clashes with the idea to use magic items to qualify for build choices.


Marthkus wrote:
Scavion wrote:
You can reverse engineer the argument with Ability Drain/Damage. The Devs have specifically said that that doesn't make you lose your feat should you be reduced to less than the requirement. You have it but you just can't make use of it.

I think this more goes along the line that your actual ability score is what matters not the augmented one.

Which clashes with the idea to use magic items to qualify for build choices.

Ability score damage only gives you a penalty to associated rolls, you don't actually lose ability score points. Think of this as a temporary penalty, much like Bull's Strength is a temporary bonus. Note that ability score damage is cured automatically.

Ability score drain removes the affected ability score points until you have them restored, with all that that entails - losing skill ranks, bonus spells, and not qualifying for feats. Think of this as a permanent penalty, much like how a permanent bonus actually adds to the affected ability score.

*Edited for clarity.


Kudaku wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
This is all explained in the ability score chapter of the CRB.

Let's see *checks pages 15-17*

Nope. No mention of anything like that. Maybe you should actually know where the rules are coming from that you are citing?

My mistake, I mean the Ability Score *bonus section* in the CRB - page 554 and 555. PFSRD gathers all that information on one page for convenience, I thought the CRB did as well. Thanks for handling it in a classy way, by the way.

Oh by the way. Whatever rule you're quoting wasn't there either as far as I can tell.


Kudaku wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Scavion wrote:
You can reverse engineer the argument with Ability Drain/Damage. The Devs have specifically said that that doesn't make you lose your feat should you be reduced to less than the requirement. You have it but you just can't make use of it.

I think this more goes along the line that your actual ability score is what matters not the augmented one.

Which clashes with the idea to use magic items to qualify for build choices.

Ability score damage only gives you a penalty to associated rolls, you don't actually lose ability score points. Think of this as a temporary penalty, much like Bull's Strength is a temporary bonus. Note that ability score damage is cured automatically.

Ability score drain removes the affected ability score points until you have them restored, with all that that entails - losing skill ranks, bonus spells, and not qualifying for feats. Think of this as a permanent penalty, much like how a permanent bonus actually adds to the affected ability score.

*Edited for clarity.

Drain can't make you not qualify for feats...


Marthkus wrote:
Oh by the way. Whatever rule you're quoting wasn't there either as far as I can tell.

"Permanent bonuses:

Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increases the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, or other bonuses."

Marthkus wrote:
Drain can't make you not qualify for feats...

Yes, it can.

351 to 400 of 549 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why does the bard eclipse the rogue? All Messageboards