I'd like to see a feature that adds debuffing...I forgot I had one for debuffing :/
==================================================================Rogues should be good with disarm, steal and dirty trck maneuvers.
Advanced trait: Weapon Snatcher... Make a sleight of hand to disarm means Rogues can kick serious butt at disarming.
My serpent skull guy did a LOT more disarming THAT way then he EVER did CMB....
|
stuffexcept you only gain concealment and it;s effects during a very specific moment of game time, called a ranged attack, this does not effect other people or actually make your concealed, you are only temporarily concealed for an OOC game roll and calculation.
TBH, sure you can roll a stealth check, but your still right in front of people, they still see you, and they don;t even have to roll an opposed perception check, why? you don;t have HIPS.
If you got concealment versus ranged attacks, can you take a stealth roll against them? Forcing the person using a ranged attack to make a perception check to see where you are/ended up by moving so fast? I'd say "yep." I wouldn't just say "its a game mechanic that means just a 20% miss roll." Because, well, that is NOT what it says. It says you gain concealment. And if you gain concealment you can make a stealth roll. Ergo, back to square one. Made the stealth roll. Now: what does it work against? Anything at range coming in. OK. How are people no longer engaged in melee versus you not at range? Essentially, you moved so fast they couldn't tell where you went. One round later (it ends), OH! There he is! Get Him! (close for melee attack)
I mean, you can use Bluff to say "look over there" and roll stealth behind nothing (dim light works), but you can't move as fast as the wind and do it? When the skill says you gain concealment... you gain concealment... roll stealth check follows. I guess I just disagree with the narrow interpretation based on the antithesis of what something says instead of what that something actually says.
|
|
what?The vast majority of Rogue Talents range from mediocre to awful. There are a few good ones, but they're few and far between.Well, to be fair they have the extremely OP Offensive Defense Talent that lets them have untouchable AC when they land at least 2 sneak attacks (which Paizo is unfortunately planning to nerf to hell).
I think, but am not sure, that he is referring to an ability that lets you add a dodge bonus to AC based on sneak attack dice not used or something like that... I read it somewhere but forget exactly what it is called. I don't know if the attacks even had to land... just be able to add sneak attack damage. So you could like use 5 dice as AC mods (that stack) from each attack, miss 3x and still get a +15 bonus to AC. I don't know if this is exactly how it worked, sorry.
found it: Offensive Defense** (Ex): When a rogue with this talent hits a creature with a melee attack that deals sneak attack damage, the rogue gains a +1 dodge bonus to AC for each sneak attack die rolled for 1 round. http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/coreClasses/rogue.html#_offensi ve-defense**
so you do have to hit. but you do damage AND get the AC bonus...
stuffIf you got concealment versus ranged attacks, can you take a stealth roll against them? Forcing the person using a ranged attack to make a perception check to see where you are/ended up by moving so fast? I'd say "yep." I wouldn't just say "its a game mechanic that means just a 20% miss roll." Because, well, that is NOT what it says. It says you gain concealment. And if you gain concealment you can make a stealth roll. Ergo, back to square one. Made the stealth roll. Now: what does it work against? Anything at range coming in. OK. How are people no longer engaged in melee versus you not at range? Essentially, you moved so fast they couldn't tell where you went. One round later (it ends), OH! There he is! Get Him! (close for melee attack)
I mean, you can use Bluff to say "look over there" and roll stealth behind nothing (dim light works), but you can't move as fast as the wind and do it? When the skill says you gain concealment... you gain concealment... roll stealth check follows. I guess I just disagree with the narrow interpretation based on the antithesis of what something says instead of what that something actually says.
nope it's only the attack, it says nothing about people.
stealth check is fine, you can hide from a ranged attack, but the people who fired the arrow? nope they don't have concealment between you unless its dark or foggy or something. The feat does not state in any instance that another person would have concealment against you.
You either have concealment or not. Then the GM determines if it works against someone/something. The example I pointed out is dim light. It works for concealment, allowing a stealth roll, for anyone with normal vision. They don't write "against normal vision folks" or "against normal vision attacks." But the GM would reasonably read the rest of the appropriate part and determine that it doesn't work against dark vision, and the stealth roll would be immaterial to the person looking down the dim alley with dark vision (if the dim light were the only reason for the concealment, and the person using stealth was in view otherwise).
But the person with concealment, in the dim alley, still got concealment, and still got to roll a stealth roll. That is my point. What the concealment and stealth roll DOES or DOES NOT work against is determined after the roll. In this case, IMHO, it would work against anything not threatening a melee square adjacent to the character. People still in melee range would ignore the concealment and the stealth roll. Otherwise it work just like any other "moved and got concealment" situation ever played in the game.
But in this case, it does specify against what said concealment applies (ranged attacks), implying that it doesn't apply to anything else.
|
|
nope it's only the attack, it says nothing about people.
stealth check is fine, you can hide from a ranged attack, but the people who fired the arrow? nope they don't have concealment between you unless its dark or foggy or something. The feat does not state in any instance that another person would have concealment against you.
"from your ranged attack" is not unheard of -
Concealment
To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment....When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you, use the rules for determining concealment from ranged attacks.
In these cases, a person with concealment "against ranged attacks" could roll stealth. Pursuant to a simple "bluff check" or some other "movement" that allows a stealth roll (against ranged attacks). So no. I don't think "against ranged attacks" is the important part of the feat's description.
Just came into this thread to say there's absolutely no way wind stance would allow you to make a stealth roll. The sentence explicitly qualifies with 'against ranged attacks'. This is basic english.
You don't even need to parse the sentence to realise how little this makes sense if you look at some other examples. The Catching Cloak magic item also gives you concealment against ranged attacks... And if you think a cloak that attracts arrows now suddenly lets you stealth as well, I am at a loss for words.
I'm sorry to say this but, if this guy can't parse a simple sentence like that, i'm not sure there's much point arguing with him about anything more complex. You know what they say about being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience...
Urban Ranger gets trapfinding like the Rogue. Same with the Slayer, but they have to spend a talent on it.
nope it's only the attack, it says nothing about people.
stealth check is fine, you can hide from a ranged attack, but the people who fired the arrow? nope they don't have concealment between you unless its dark or foggy or something. The feat does not state in any instance that another person would have concealment against you.
"from your ranged attack" is not unheard of -
In these cases, a person with concealment "against ranged attacks" could roll stealth. Pursuant to a simple "bluff check" or some other "movement" that allows a stealth roll (against ranged attacks). So no. I don't think "against ranged attacks" is the important part of the feat's description.Concealment
To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment....When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you, use the rules for determining concealment from ranged attacks.
yeah, he can roll stealth checks against ranged attacks, so if say a man was launched at your from a catapult you could stealth from him.
the feat never gives you concealment against people, it specifically states only ranged attacks, there isn't any part that feat that states you gain concealment against any other thing.
while not unheard of as well, that's not what the feat does. it gives you concealment against ranges attacks. in fact the part you cite is about whether or not something has concealment, and that's not what the feat effects, it effects ranged attacks and their concealment between you.
If you move more than 5 feet this turn, you gain 20% concealment for 1 round against ranged attacks.
this can be broken up like this
Condition: move more than 5 feet this turn
effect: 20% concealment
duration: 1 round
target: ranged attacks
basically, just like mindless creatures are immune to charm spells, non-ranged attack objects are immune to wind stance.
|
|
Just came into this thread to say there's absolutely no way wind stance would allow you to make a stealth roll. The sentence explicitly qualifies with 'against ranged attacks'. This is basic english.
I'm sorry to say this but, if this guy can't parse a simple sentence like that, i'm not sure there's much point arguing with him about anything more complex. You know what they say about being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience...
See my excerpt from the "concealment" section of the Core Rulebook. ALL of that says "against ranged attacks." So no. This is NOT the important part of the sentence. You moved, you gained concealment, you can roll stealth. Go back and see the excerpts that allow all of these actions in a logical row, or just go to Stealth itself in the Core Rulebook. Once you see that gaining concealment (typically, and I don't see why this is a-typical, you gain concealment via movement) allows a stealth roll, maybe you will come around.
|
|
the feat never gives you concealment against people, it specifically states only ranged attacks, there isn't any part that feat that states you gain concealment against any other thing.
AND concealment itself doesn't state you get it against anything other than attacks (ranged and melee, and melee is determined the same way as ranged). So what is your point?
I don't know as to whether you and I are disagreeing. Non-ranged attacks are immune to this feat. Yep. Now, what qualifies as a ranged attack that IS concealed against?
The ranger can totally outdamage you, disarm the trap and be at least as good at stealth. All at the same time...unless it is a magic trap... then KABOOM! (or are there abilities in other books that let them do magic traps like a rogue? I don't know the class very well from other books)
Anyone can disable magical traps with just a the Trap Finder Trait.
Benefit(s): You gain a +1 trait bonus on Disable Device checks, and that skill is always a class skill for you. In addition, you can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps, like a rogue.
Off the top of my head I know Archeologist Bards, Urban Rangers, Crypt Breaker and Trap Breaker Alchemists can disable magical traps. I'm pretty positive a wide variety of other archetypes and PrCs can bust magical traps as well.
the feat never gives you concealment against people, it specifically states only ranged attacks, there isn't any part that feat that states you gain concealment against any other thing.
AND concealment itself doesn't state you get it against anything other than attacks (ranged and melee, and melee is determined the same way as ranged). So what is your point?
once again, I don't care about concealment rules, because we're talking about wind stance rules, and it specifically states, only ranged attacks are subject to it's effects. someone firing a ranged attack at you isn't suffering from concealment, but all the energy he's going to be using to fire an arrow at you is.
Condition: move more than 5 feet this turn
effect: 20% concealment
duration: 1 round
target: ranged attacks
it applies it's EFFECT, when CONDITION happens, the EFFECT persists for DURATION and only effects TARGET
So maouse, do you then believe the catching cape gives you concealment? So you can stealth once you use a swift action with it?
Really?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even better, I just realised as per maouse's argument, tower shields now let you stealth!
All rogues need is a tower shield and they can duck in and out of stealth as they please with a quick standard action! No need for any invisibility or other shenanigans at all! Now you can open a door, plunk down your tower shield in front of the guards and then make a quick dash down the hall without them even realising you are there!
Suck on that, bards!
Even better, I just realised as per maouse's argument, tower shields now let you stealth!
All rogues need is a tower shield and they can duck in and out of stealth as they please with a quick standard action! No need for any invisibility or other shenanigans at all! Now you can open a door, plunk down your tower shield in front of them and then make a quick dash down the hall without them even realising you are there!
Suck on that, bards!
Hah! I actually LOL'ed reading this post!
Blakmane makes a very good point here.
|
|
well folks... I am not the first to debate the whole stealth roll with ANY concealment... here's a recent thread.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qq0k?Stealth-Concealment-and-Invisibility#1
Suffice to say, if you can move to 20% concealment, you can roll stealth. Wind stance gives you 20% concealment while moving... guess what MY opinion is? (and that is all it is, my opinion)
|
|
So maouse, do you then believe the catching cape gives you concealment? So you can stealth once you use a swift action with it?
Really?
Since all they see is a ball of force, and you could duck down, hide behind a box that is in your square to remain hidden afterwards, yep. Absolutely. You could even do this against melee attackers, in theory. But while it is up, if you wanted to make yourself look more "force bubble" like (ie. hide via stealth) then yep. Again. Absolutely. Stealth would be fine. Note that people who entered the bubble area/within melee would see you instantly and be able to land melee attacks against you without 20% miss chance. Absolutely.
Again, you can say "look over there!" with a bluff check, move and make a stealth check. Why can't you cast an obscuring bubble and do it? Really?
well folks... I am not the first to debate the whole stealth roll with ANY concealment... here's a recent thread.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qq0k?Stealth-Concealment-and-Invisibility#1
Suffice to say, if you can move to 20% concealment, you can roll stealth. Wind stance gives you 20% concealment while moving... guess what MY opinion is? (and that is all it is, my opinion)
unfortunately opinions don't mean much against rules and sentence syntax... i'm a programmer this is what i do... parse stuff. you need to not be visible to perform stealth checks, unfortunately moving some in a turn doesn't erase you from peoples vision.
|
|
unfortunately opinions don't mean much against rules and sentence syntax... i'm a programmer this is what i do... parse stuff. you need to not be visible to perform stealth checks, unfortunately moving some in a turn doesn't erase you from peoples vision.
Moving into partial cover or concealment DOES though... right? Distracting people with Bluff and moving into an unobserved spot (not cover or concealment btw, just unobserved) DOES though... right?
Note, in the first instance; moving to cover or concealment CAN BE OBSERVED. Because the cover and the concealment you GAIN means you are no longer seen. In the case of the feat we are discussing, this "no longer seen because you have concealment" lasts a whapping ONE ROUND. And only applies at range. Good god people... I would think you were defending the Alamo.
|
|
Even better, I just realised as per maouse's argument, tower shields now let you stealth!
All rogues need is a tower shield and they can duck in and out of stealth as they please with a quick standard action! No need for any invisibility or other shenanigans at all! Now you can open a door, plunk down your tower shield in front of the guards and then make a quick dash down the hall without them even realising you are there!
Suck on that, bards!
And against the single side that you erect this portable wall, absolutely you could roll stealth. The person on the other side would have no idea which side you were coming from. Why would this be incomprehensible? Also, it is pretty useless after one use, as the person you do it to would probably knock it down next time.
And btw. That grants total cover. SO absolutely you could roll stealth. Then you could drop it (free action) move away from it unseen (from the side it faces), come around the back of them unseen, and sneak attack from a different angle. Perfectly acceptable Rogue tactics. Just as good as dodging behind any other wall. Or are you claiming that something that gives you full cover doesn't actually give you full cover? While humorous, what you suggested is 100% viable.
unfortunately opinions don't mean much against rules and sentence syntax... i'm a programmer this is what i do... parse stuff. you need to not be visible to perform stealth checks, unfortunately moving some in a turn doesn't erase you from peoples vision.Moving into partial cover or concealment DOES though... right? Distracting people with Bluff and moving into an unobserved spot (not cover or concealment btw, just unobserved) DOES though... right?
Note, in the first instance; moving to cover or concealment CAN BE OBSERVED. Because the cover and the concealment you GAIN means you are no longer seen. In the case of the feat we are discussing, this "no longer seen because you have concealment" lasts a whapping ONE ROUND. And only applies at range. Good god people... I would think you were defending the Alamo.
as with tower shields if what is giving you concealment is yourself, you do not get the ability to stealth.
once again, we're heading off course, concealment or not, is still only applied to ranged attacks.
if it read that: "If you move more than 5 feet this turn, you gain 20% concealment for 1 round against dragons."
you'd only be concealed against dragons.
if it read that: "If you move more than 5 feet this turn, you gain +3 to your AC for 1 round against ranged attacks."
you'd still only be gaining that AC against ranged attacks.
as i have said before, I honestly don't care what concealment does, i care what wind stance does.
|
|
as with tower shields if what is giving you concealment is yourself, you do not get the ability to stealth.
Um... ok. GM Fiat much? What restricts the method of gaining concealment/cover? Where is THAT written? I guess all those mages who cast spells on themselves are not actually invisible....
As far as I know, the only cover that says it does not allow stealth is "soft cover." Anything else is interpreted/opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it people are so set against giving the Rogue full BAB? Aside from giving a simpler form of to-hit boost it needs, it helps the Rogue stay competative in DPM terms (more SA) that justifies the smaller hit die. As well as allowing earlier access to certain feats that Rogues are often likely to take (ie some critical feats).Rogues need Full BAB (or some other accuaracy enhancer)I would have upvoted this but I'm strongly against full BaB and strongly in favor of some other accuracy enhancer.
- Torger
Speaking only for myself,
Putting them on full BaB makes them feel like just another type of fighter.
That's definitively not how I want my rogue to feel.
I want them to feel like they're technically outclassed in most fights, but manage to get by on wit and guile.
Full BaB makes it feel like they get by the same way other full BaB classes do, by smashing the crap out of things.
Do they need help? sure they do, particularly in the attack bonus department, but just slapping them with a full BaB and all the beefy fighter perks that come with it (power attack progression/d10HC/feat access etc.) looses some of the scrappy underdog flavor for me.
as in all things YMMV
- Torger
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, tower shield rogues new meta?
Let's take things well beyond the brink of silliness:
Having trouble with stealth? Can't get that concealment you need to hide? All you need to do is have an ally close his eyes and BAM! you can roll that stealth check! Sure you're only getting concealment against your ally... but just like against ranged attacks that still counts as full concealment because qualifiers don't matter!
Hell, if you close your own eyes can you get concealment against yourself!? If that's the case, all you need to do is close your eyes, roll that stealth check and noone will notice you!
as with tower shields if what is giving you concealment is yourself, you do not get the ability to stealth.Um... ok. GM Fiat much? What restricts the method of gaining concealment/cover? Where is THAT written? I guess all those mages who cast spells on themselves are not actually invisible....
As far as I know, the only cover that says it does not allow stealth is "soft cover." Anything else is interpreted/opinion.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.
I'm not restricting concealment, just that concealment does not negate the above. when you gain concealment from yourself they're still aware of you and sensing you.
once again, we're heading off course, concealment or not, is still only applied to ranged attacks.
if it read that: "If you move more than 5 feet this turn, you gain 20% concealment for 1 round against dragons."
you'd only be concealed against dragons.
if it read that: "If you move more than 5 feet this turn, you gain +3 to your AC for 1 round against ranged attacks."
you'd still only be gaining that AC against ranged attacks.
as i have said before, I honestly don't care what concealment does, i care what wind stance does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hell, if you close your own eyes can you get concealment against yourself!? If that's the case, all you need to do is close your eyes, roll that stealth check and noone will notice you!
We need a new ostrich race that gets massive bonuses for being a rogue, make it happen Paizo
|
|
So, tower shield rogues new meta?
Let's take things well beyond the brink of silliness:
Having trouble with stealth? Can't get that concealment you need to hide? All you need to do is have an ally close his eyes and BAM! you can roll that stealth check! Sure you're only getting concealment against your ally... but just like against ranged attacks that still counts as full concealment because qualifiers don't matter!
Hell, if you close your own eyes can you get concealment against yourself!? If that's the case, all you need to do is close your eyes, roll that stealth check and noone will notice you!
And your ally would have to A: figure out where you are (he might remember, but if he kept his eyes shut and tried to move towards you at range he might miss your square entirely), and B: miss 50% of the time, with his eyes closed, even if he gets the right square. Yep. Absolutely 100% RAW. And nobody else would take these negatives. Just like "against ranged attacks." Why is this so hard to understand?
Again, the stealth doesn't work AGAINST EVERYONE. Never said it did. Never will say it did. But if your ally closes his eyes, you can use stealth to move behind him unheard so he doesn't know what square you are in. Can't you? This is basic. Isn't it?????
So, tower shield rogues new meta?
Let's take things well beyond the brink of silliness:
Having trouble with stealth? Can't get that concealment you need to hide? All you need to do is have an ally close his eyes and BAM! you can roll that stealth check! Sure you're only getting concealment against your ally... but just like against ranged attacks that still counts as full concealment because qualifiers don't matter!
Hell, if you close your own eyes can you get concealment against yourself!? If that's the case, all you need to do is close your eyes, roll that stealth check and noone will notice you!
And your ally would have to A: figure out where you are (he might remember, but if he kept his eyes shut and tried to move towards you at range he might miss your square entirely), and B: miss 50% of the time, with his eyes closed, even if he gets the right square. Yep. Absolutely 100% RAW. And nobody else would take these negatives. Just like "against ranged attacks." Why is this so hard to understand?
Again, the stealth doesn't work AGAINST EVERYONE. Never said it did. Never will say it did.
because you seem to think people are ranged attacks.
Offensive Defense is pretty good, but don't bonuses from the same source not stack? (Dodge stacks with other dodge, but OD is the same source, rather than say, stacking the Dodge feat, Haste, and Offensive Defense).
|
|
because you seem to think people are ranged attacks.
Again... words in my mouth I never said. I did point out that the concealment "condition" itself only mentions "versus ranged attacks." My thought is that "versus ranged attacks" is similar to "anyone who makes a ranged attack." Since the section in the Core Rulebook indicates such.
The attempt is to get me to admit that "they can still see you just fine even though you have 20% concealment" - which kind of makes having concealment NOT having concealment. Doesn't it?
And I readily admit that people right next to you (in melee) are not fooled by your wind stance movement and its concealment benefit. I might even go so far as to say that people who you just tricked into thinking you zigged when you zagged (got concealment) saw where you went. Nope. I guess I don't buy that. If they are not in melee they didn't see where you went. You were just that fast...
Of course, in one round, it wears off and everyone sees you fine again...
You're beginning to piece together the logic, very slowly. So who does it work against, then? Because it pretty clearly says 'against ranged attacks'. You know what aren't ranged attacks? Ranged attackers. Hiding from a ranged attack is not really helping you much, is it? Just like in my example, you're not hiding from anything much by closing your own eyes (and you are only hiding from your friend when he closes his)... so for everyone else, you get no benefit.
Another fun example: because you are saying 'against ranged attacks' still lets you stealth, and cover lets you stealth just like concealment, you can hide in a translucent force cage! From the spell text:
"Even against such weapons (including arrows and similar ranged attacks), a creature in the barred cage has cover"
Oh, I have a very clear idea of how to fix Rogues without giving them spell casting.
- Free Shadow Strike.
- Free Trap Spotter.
- Free Improved Evasion.
- Ability to add any 2 skills to their list of class skills.
- Slightly better weapon selection.And, of course, the most important change:
Rogue Talents That Are actually Worth a Damn!
Rogues don't need a better weapon selection. Being limited to certain weapons is part of the rogues flavour.
Rogues were never meant to be a combat heavy class. They were designed to get that hit in every now amd then that really hurts, and does.
Their trapspotting skills are perfectly fine as is. They need "Hide in Plain Sight" definitely. Better rogue talents is probably 95% of the problem.
One last thing. I think there are a lot of people who really miss the point classes and their design. Classes are not designed with maximum numbers in mind, they are designed with a concept. Also, people choose classes based on an idea they have and not just because they get high numbers. I know strolling through the door and using Charm Person would be easier, but some people like to sneak into that window and rob someone blind using Stealth.
If we left class design up to some of you the game would quickly become boring as hell because you could reach level 20 in just a few hours. Encounters would only last about a round.
|
|
You know what aren't ranged attacks? Ranged attackers.
And per "concealment" in the Core Rulebook, it never hides you against an attacker, just ranged attacks and melee attacks (which is determined like ranged attacks)... yet you can roll stealth with it... against those people who attack you... so there is my side of the argument.
Actually, I'd rather wait for him to claim ranged attacks = ranged attackers, so we can have some more fun with silly examples :).
because you seem to think people are ranged attacks.Again... words in my mouth I never said. I did point out that the concealment "condition" itself only mentions "versus ranged attacks." My thought is that "versus ranged attacks" is similar to "anyone who makes a ranged attack." Since the section in the Core Rulebook indicates such.
The attempt is to get me to admit that "they can still see you just fine even though you have 20% concealment" - which kind of makes having concealment NOT having concealment. Doesn't it?
it's almost like the feats flavor text on erratic movements means something.
if you have seen Samurai Champloo, Mugen uses wind stance, he moves erratically making him hard to hit, not see.
concealment never actually states you have to be unseen to have it. concealment just in general means that attacks have a 20% chance to miss, precision damage don't work, and you can make stealth checks against those who you have concealment against.
"To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has concealment if his space is entirely within an effect that grants concealment. When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you, use the rules for determining concealment from ranged attacks."
this is the part you keep bringing up, wind stance never makes a square provide concealment, so they don't matter. Thus line of sight is still on, and the characters according to normal concealment rolls are not concealed. because, once again, people aren't ranged attacks.
|
|
Actually, I'd rather wait for him to claim ranged attacks = ranged attackers, so we can have some more fun with silly examples :).
Again, I recognize this difference. But now will you please recognize that concealment, itself, is determined against "attacks" of one sort or another and not against "people" of any sort in the Core Rulebook? Therefore claiming that having concealment against any kind of attack allows a stealth roll against anyone who might make such an attack is logical? RAW.
Oh, I have a very clear idea of how to fix Rogues without giving them spell casting.
- Free Shadow Strike.
- Free Trap Spotter.
- Free Improved Evasion.
- Ability to add any 2 skills to their list of class skills.
- Slightly better weapon selection.And, of course, the most important change:
Rogue Talents That Are actually Worth a Damn!
Rogues don't need a better weapon selection. Being limited to certain weapons is part of the rogues flavour.
Rogues were never meant to be a combat heavy class. They were designed to get that hit in every now amd then that really hurts, and does.
Their trapspotting skills are perfectly fine as is. They need "Hide in Plain Sight" definitely. Better rogue talents is probably 95% of the problem.
One last thing. I think there are a lot of people who really miss the point classes and their design. Classes are not designed with maximum numbers in mind, they are designed with a concept. Also, people choose classes based on an idea they have and not just because they get high numbers. I know strolling through the door and using Charm Person would be easier, but some people like to sneak into that window and rob someone blind using Stealth.
If we left class design up to some of you the game would quickly become boring as hell because you could reach level 20 in just a few hours. Encounters would only last about a round.
He literally just added whips and bucklers. Neither of these things are outside the scope of the Rogue archetype.
If Rogues aren't meant to be a combat heavy class that could be problematic as this is certainly a combat heavy game. I certainly don't think Rogues should be competing with Barbarians on straight damage (which is why my Rogue revision changes their role entirely to maneuver-based debuffs) but they need to do something worthwhile in combat. Everyone else does.
Lemmy didn't even touch Trapfinding so I don't understand where this criticism is coming from.
I think what you're missing is that Pathfinder is a very math intensive game. You can write a class for a role, but if the math doesn't back it up then that class does not work as advertised and does not actually fill that role. If you want to play a sneaky bastard who's primary joy in life is stabbing people's kidneys, you play a Vivisectionist Alchemist or a Slayer. If you want to play someone who can talk her way out of anything, you play a Bard. The Rogue as currently written doesn't really work for any of the roles that you'd expect a Rogue to fill, and that's very silly and I'd like to see that fixed.
Actually, I'd rather wait for him to claim ranged attacks = ranged attackers, so we can have some more fun with silly examples :).Again, I recognize this difference. But now will you please recognize that concealment, itself, is determined against "attacks" of one sort or another and not against "people" of any sort in the Core Rulebook? Therefore claiming that having concealment against a kind of attack allows a stealth roll against anyone who might make such an attack is logical? RAW.
the whole concealment section bases it's rules on squares being filled with concealment or not.
Actually, I'd rather wait for him to claim ranged attacks = ranged attackers, so we can have some more fun with silly examples :).Again, I recognize this difference. But now will you please recognize that concealment, itself, is determined against "attacks" of one sort or another and not against "people" of any sort in the Core Rulebook? Therefore claiming that having concealment against a kind of attack allows a stealth roll against anyone who might make such an attack is logical? RAW.
Concealment isn't actually defined in the core rule book at all (totally DM purview what 'counts as' concealment), except to say squares are what contain 'concealment'. However, on the next line it states a target can have total concealment against 'you', not 'your attack' so you have no precedent for your continued extrapolation.... unless you are trying to argue 'concealment' and 'total concealment' are not relatable terms?
Less directly at your core argument:
'might' make such an attack? So, if I am within 5ft but armed with a bow, you can make a stealth check against me... but if I swing a sword within 5ft you can't?
Actually... I could throw that sword, so technically I am always capable making a ranged attack against you. Unless I am totally naked, and then I can see you just fine I guess?
Actually, I'd rather wait for him to claim ranged attacks = ranged attackers, so we can have some more fun with silly examples :).Again, I recognize this difference. But now will you please recognize that concealment, itself, is determined against "attacks" of one sort or another and not against "people" of any sort in the Core Rulebook? Therefore claiming that having concealment against a kind of attack allows a stealth roll against anyone who might make such an attack is logical? RAW.Concealment isn't actually defined in the core rule book at all (totally DM purview what 'counts as' concealment), except to say squares are what contain 'concealment'. However, on the next line it states a target can have total concealment against 'you', not 'your attack' so you have no precedent for your continued extrapolation.... unless you are trying to argue 'concealment' and 'total concealment' are not relatable terms?
Less directly at your core argument:
'might' make such an attack? So, if I am within 5ft but armed with a bow, you can make a stealth check against me... but if I swing a sword within 5ft you can't?
Actually... I could throw that sword, so technically I am always capable making a ranged attack against you. Unless I am totally naked, and then I can see you just fine I guess?
you could be a sorcerer with a ranged touch attack...