Chiming back in, because at the end of my post I was rushing to meet a deadline and I feel that I kind of jumbled my concluding remarks.
I agree a bit with both sides here. The point behind the 5 points are true, with some exceptions. The fact that extremist views on the boards tend to give readers the impression that "everyone" has those extremist views (because a number of less extreme views agree with the general sentiment) is also true.
What I meant to say was that I agree with both the OP's general sentiment (in that it's easy for someone to pick up general prevailing opinions and mentally express them in their most extreme form) as well as the many people who have spoken up in defense of the 'five truths.' The general idea behind the points are true. Rogue is mechanically weaker, healing out of combat is preferred to non-emergency healing in combat, specialization is powerful when combined with solid party balance... etc etc etc. However, it is quite common for a shiny eyed forum newbie to read all of the posts expressing these ideas to various degrees and mentally summarize them as a simpler idea. Much like bookrat said in his response to my post. Unfortunately, it also seems common for those short summaries to be more on the extreme side than the shades-of-grey side. "Rogues are bad." "Always take power attack." "Healing in combat is bad." Etc etc etc.
So I find myself in the position of both understanding the OP's points, while agreeing with the general sentiments of those who have spoke up against it. I myself have spent the last 2 years slowly recognizing that my initial impressions were both true and false, and refining the ideas in my own mind.
And honestly, I think there'd be a lot of value in someone making a guide that takes these general points (along with a few others) and explains the why of them in ways that a new player could understand. It would probably avoid a great deal of confusion for the next generation of bright eyed forum viewers.
EDIT: Bookrat, regarding your post above- well said, and I agree. :)
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm not sure if all of you are just out and out lying, exaggerating, or see an entire different messageboard than I do.At the risk of giving you advice you didn't ask for, I'm going to say that "a number of people have had experiences that I don't seem to have had, they must be lying" is pretty much never the right answer, in any context. What it actually means, particularly if you want to maintain a reasonable level of intellectual honesty, is that it's time to re-examine your own biases, particularly your confirmation bias, to see if they're interfering with your ability to accurately assess what's going on. Sometimes you'll find it is. Many times you'll find that it's not. Either way, the re-examination is worth your effort, and will hopefully keep you from dismissing valid experiences that you just don't happen to share.
I agree that people should check their biases and verify their information/conclusions.
So, hypothetically, let's say that Bob Bob Bob (hereafter abbreviated as "BBB") decided to go ahead and do that. Suppose that he went and "did the homework", and discovered that (for example) condescending or insulting "rogue-is-weak" posts were, as an objective fact, vastly outnumbered by polite/respectful "rogue-is-weak" posts.
Suppose that, having discovered this to be a fact, he now encounters someone asserting the opposite.
What is he allowed to say now? Is he allowed to question whether that person is "lying, exaggerating, or see an entire different messageboard"? Or if not that, then is BBB at least allowed to instead insist that the other person perform the same fact-checking that BBB did?
Does there ever come a point where a person has done enough fact-checking that they can assert that forum behavior is X and call into question the validity of claims to the contrary?
@ BigNorseWolf - Trap Spotter (i.e., I always win against traps), offensive defense (i.e., rogues who are doing it right aren't squishy), black market connections (man, that's a weird one, but funny), various talents that grant feats you'd want want anyways, major magic talent, fast stealth, etc.If you need it, trapspotter is available from other, better dipping classes.
Offensive defense was nerfed
Black market connections is a hell of a lot worse than magic item creation feats, or just a teleport spell.
Most classes willingly,repeatedly and gleefully burn feats to take extra [class feature here] . That the list of best rogue talents includes going in the other direction is telling.
And that's without getting into master talents (which a rogue actually gets more of than the normal talents).IF your campaign gets to 10th level you're running into the god wizards becoming reality rather than theorycrafting by then.
Thought about it and came back to your responses, because they're kind of odd, honestly. I'm trying to figure out where you're coming from.
Trapspotter: Yes, it is, but you were asking about examples of good rogue talents. Did you mean rogue only or what? Considering how many rogue talents have been farmed out to other classes, that's a really important qualifier to leave out of your initial question.
Offensive defense: to be technical, it's not nerfed yet, and even with the nerf it'll still be worth taking if you melee. It's one of the few talents that's actually a strong combat ability.
Black market connections: Um, if you're shopping for magic items, then you obviously aren't crafting them. And the ability actually gets better (upgrading to "all magic items are for sale" in a metropolis) if you teleport to a bigger settlement. Your comparison is off, I think. It's a really goofy talent, but it actually lets you fulfill every grognard's magic mart nightmares. =P
Talents for feats: Using talents to get feats is more reflective of (a) most rogue builds are very feat intensive than anything and (b) rogue don't get straight bonus feats to spend in addition to the talents. While most other martial or demimartial classes either get bonus feats from their class (monks, rangers, slayers, warpriests, etc.), or honestly don't need any feats beyond power attack and eventually improved critical (barbarians, melee inquisitors, etc.).
L10+: Um, are you trying to say that nothing matters because wizards exist? I guess my response to that is "they do exist, so what?" Having a "god" wizard around is generally beneficial, except of course when the player is an ass who's trying to break the campaign and the GM is an enabling wimp.
The problem with that is promptly : Examples are boring.
Build two characters. Compare.
UGH. It's the right way to do things. It's boring as hell to watch, and then the two people nitpick one another's details to death trying to destroy the validity of the other build.
It's simply Not Fun.
But, you'll generally find that Polite Consensus is overwhelmingly superior to Enthusiastic Outlier for practical purposes. You may hate popular music. More people like popular music then local band reggae. On a percentage basis, if someone doesn't know our music, you will be far more likely to give him something he wants to hear by recommending Channel 94.7 then if you enthusiastically introduce him to your niche reggae collection.
General build advice on the boards works the same way.
==Aelryinth
...
But since it was only three years ago, I'm also able to remember what it was like to be the guy who thought the vanilla classes were really cool and interesting, and who struggled to build a character that could keep up with the party and actually contribute.
At the time, I was in a home group. The only seriously experienced player had a problem with patience, and would only help so much. So I came to the Paizo forums and spent a lot of time reading the advice section. There I found a number of 'truths' that I eagerly enshrined in my memory- the things one simply Did Not Do.
And frankly, the OP's list pretty strongly matches my own from that period. (In my case, swap out power attack for 'monks are almost as bad as rogues.') And when I saw the OP's post, I remembered those early times and nodded right along with him.
Were those opinions the majority opinion of the boards? Likely not. But they are the opinion of a rather loud segment of the advice forums. Or at least, the opinion is aired enough that an eager eyed newbie will easily get that impression.
...
The above is the danger both new and old visitors to the forums have. There is a loud assortment of posters that can get vehement about their ideas -- they aren't trying (well, most of them anyway) to be rude or disrespectful, they are just passionate about what they are saying.
It's important when you are sifting through posts to take the opinions as just that -- and yes, there are informed opinions and math has been worked out to show without a shadow of a doubt that X is sub-optimal and Y is a poor idea. And yet ..
I often hear the same thing when speaking with people about sporting teams, as an example. There are people that can show you that X team cannot possibly win and you are wasting your time rooting for them. Y car is clearly superior, why wouldn't you get it?
Both/all sides should look at what is being said, process the information and then apply it to their own experiences and needs. Rogues may well and truly suck because of all the aforementioned decisions. Universal wizards aren't the best choice. And so on. But you take the opinions and math and if you still want to play whatever, that is totally ok!
You don't have to defend why you want to play a rogue, or don't want a dinosaur companion or heal in combat. People are just being passionate about the ideas -- I daresay that no one posting really cares what you or someone else plays in your game. They are saying "These are cool ideas that do what you want to do too. If you play in organized play, you may want to consider them as a better choice."
That's it. No ulterior motives or desire to destroy your concepts, but rather a fan's love of the game and a need to share it, sometimes forcefully, with others.
How could there be a nerf FAQ for that talent?What is a really good rogue talent?Offensive Defense is good. (I don't think the nerf FAQ is technically official yet - though it'd still be pretty decent.)Two things -
1. Making it so that multiple sneak attacks don't stack.
2. Making it only works against the target of the SA. (I have this amusing idea in my head of a rogue with a bandolier of blinded mice to jack up his AC with. I'd never abuse the rule so - but the idea makes me chuckle.)
Uh, isn't 1 how it already works? It stacks with other Dodge bonuses, but dodge bonuses from the same source don't stack on themselves I believe.
|
Uh, isn't 1 how it already works? It stacks with other Dodge bonuses, but dodge bonuses from the same source don't stack on themselves I believe.How could there be a nerf FAQ for that talent?What is a really good rogue talent?Offensive Defense is good. (I don't think the nerf FAQ is technically official yet - though it'd still be pretty decent.)Two things -
1. Making it so that multiple sneak attacks don't stack.
2. Making it only works against the target of the SA. (I have this amusing idea in my head of a rogue with a bandolier of blinded mice to jack up his AC with. I'd never abuse the rule so - but the idea makes me chuckle.)
It was a gray area. Is Offensive Defense a source, or is each attack a seperate source?
|
|
The problem with that is promptly : Examples are boring.
Build two characters. Compare.
UGH. It's the right way to do things. It's boring as hell to watch, and then the two people nitpick one another's details to death trying to destroy the validity of the other build.
It's simply Not Fun.
To you it's not fun! I quite enjoy it so long as the other person knows what the heck they're doing. (At least half the time they don't and just get grumpy at me.)
But, you'll generally find that Polite Consensus is overwhelmingly superior to Enthusiastic Outlier for practical purposes. You may hate popular music. More people like popular music then local band reggae. On a percentage basis, if someone doesn't know our music, you will be far more likely to give him something he wants to hear by recommending Channel 94.7 then if you enthusiastically introduce him to your niche reggae collection.
General build advice on the boards works the same way.
It's not really the same at all. Music taste is purely subjective. Build advice is math. (You don't know the circumstances they'll be in - so there's a spectrum. But still math.)
Your music example is more like if someone asks for advice on what sort of build to try to fill in party gaps. There are standard party roles - and it's unlikely someone will suggest an off-the-wall concept like the Songbird of Doom in such a case.
5) Rogues are worthless. They suck in a vacuum. They were dead in the CRB. They have been thematically killed with other additions. This has only been verified by myself extensively playing a rogue in Rise of the Rune Lords and all other campaigns in which I have witness rogues present.
4) I agree. A wizard is a wizard. You don't NEED that extra slot to be effective.
3) No you really do need power attack. If you wouldn't benefit from using it, then your character is poorly optimized.
2) I agree. If anything PF rewards versatility and penalizes specialization. One character can be good at everything or the best at one maybe two things.
1) I agree. Healing is useful. Not every combat goes as planned. Hyperspecilization into healing is a mistake like we talked about in #2.
I will respond to point 3 later because even as a power attack advocate I know it is not true, and I am only referring to characters that attack in melee not archers or non-melee casters.
edit: To avoid any moving goalpost what counts as "not poorly optimized" in melee combat.
|
I'm not sure if all of you are just out and out lying, exaggerating, or see an entire different messageboard than I do.At the risk of giving you advice you didn't ask for, I'm going to say that "a number of people have had experiences that I don't seem to have had, they must be lying" is pretty much never the right answer, in any context. What it actually means, particularly if you want to maintain a reasonable level of intellectual honesty, is that it's time to re-examine your own biases, particularly your confirmation bias, to see if they're interfering with your ability to accurately assess what's going on. Sometimes you'll find it is. Many times you'll find that it's not. Either way, the re-examination is worth your effort, and will hopefully keep you from dismissing valid experiences that you just don't happen to share.I agree that people should check their biases and verify their information/conclusions.
So, hypothetically, let's say that Bob Bob Bob (hereafter abbreviated as "BBB") decided to go ahead and do that. Suppose that he went and "did the homework", and discovered that (for example) condescending or insulting "rogue-is-weak" posts were, as an objective fact, vastly outnumbered by polite/respectful "rogue-is-weak" posts.
Suppose that, having discovered this to be a fact, he now encounters someone asserting the opposite.
What is he allowed to say now? Is he allowed to question whether that person is "lying, exaggerating, or see an entire different messageboard"? Or if not that, then is BBB at least allowed to instead insist that the other person perform the same fact-checking that BBB did?
Does there ever come a point where a person has done enough fact-checking that they can assert that forum behavior is X and call into question the validity of claims to the contrary?
Considering that I'm drawing my advice from #notallmen style comments, I'm going to stick with the idea that it's going to be better to acknowledge someone else's experiences might well be different than yours, to not be part of the problem, to try to heighten one's own awareness of the possibility of the experience occurring and address it should it require addressing. "You're lying" is unprovable and unhelpful. "You're exaggerating" might well be provable, but the perception still deserves consideration. "You're seeing a different messageboard" is the only real possibility if you aren't going automatically assume deliberate mendacity on the part of anyone who disagrees with you. So what exactly would "fact-checking" of the type you describe accomplish? Will it prove that the individual hasn't had those experiences?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So what exactly would "fact-checking" of the type you describe accomplish? Will it prove that the individual hasn't had those experiences?
My understanding of the context of the post you replied to (I could be wrong) was that he was not contesting that people had encountered Nasty Folks at all, but that he was contesting some folks' claims/implications that the Nasty Folks are representative of the portion of the community that believes X.
And that can absolutely be proven or disproven. Earlier in this thread I challenged someone to send me an example of Nasty Folks among the "rogues are weak" camp, and said that for every such instance I would give three examples of non-Nasty Folks in that same "rogues are weak" camp, and we could see who ran out first.
Turned out to be easier than I thought, as in just the first page of the thread from which he pulled his first example, I easily found eight posters who were not being Nasty (while still claiming that rogues were weak).
So if someone claims they've encountered Nasty Folks among the rogues-are-weak crowd, that's one thing. (And if that's what BBB was actually talking about when you replied to him, then forget this whole post.) But if they want to assert that the rogues-are-weak crowd is primarily composed of Nasty Folks, well, that's something that is either correct or incorrect. There's no "opinion-immunity" there. A person can just be wrong, and it's something we can check.
That's what I'm getting at: claims about the behavior of a group of posters can be proven/disproven, and your caution about confirmation biases can go both ways.
...1) Again it's the similar state as the rogue. "Hi I want to be a healer" 'The mechanics of Pathfinder make healing not really work, if you want to your best options are the oradin or the ..., but here's the mechanics of why healing isn't useful in combat.' But every post I've seen they've still said that healing is still good for saving a life, as it's cheaper and usually the best way to end the fight faster. So can you play a heal focused character? more...
It is things like this that make people think healing in combat is a bad thing to do. (Also, the well liked post that says healing in combat is bad doesn't help!) Should you ever make poor tactical choices in combat? Of course not! Thus "never heal in combat" has become a common opinion on these boards. Even on threads that analyze it, there will be several posters who say that you should never heal in combat, and that if you need to, you are playing poorly.
The problem with such statements is that healing works just fine in Pathfinder. The math of healing and monster damage shows that it can be very effective, with relatively little investment. If you want to be great at healing, it is fairly easy, and you can still be great at one or two other things as well.
...1) Again it's the similar state as the rogue. "Hi I want to be a healer" 'The mechanics of Pathfinder make healing not really work, if you want to your best options are the oradin or the ..., but here's the mechanics of why healing isn't useful in combat.' But every post I've seen they've still said that healing is still good for saving a life, as it's cheaper and usually the best way to end the fight faster. So can you play a heal focused character? more...It is things like this that make people think healing in combat is a bad thing to do. (Also, the well liked post that says healing in combat is bad doesn't help!) Should you ever make poor tactical choices in combat? Of course not! Thus "never heal in combat" has become a common opinion on these boards. Even on threads that analyze it, there will be several posters who say that you should never heal in combat, and that if you need to, you are playing poorly.
The problem with such statements is that healing works just fine in Pathfinder. The math of healing and monster damage shows that it can be very effective, with relatively little investment. If you want to be great at healing, it is fairly easy, and you can still be great at one or two other things as well.
You're up against two creatures, they deal 15 damage, you heal 7, then they do more and you heal and so on until they die. You're out spells for dragging combat on. If you instead could stop one from doing damage then you effectively healed all the damage it didn't do. Now you're out less spells and still got the party at higher HP. Going for channels? Now that'll be two feats to burn through your channels faster for some D6 of healing, that scales worse than fireball's D6. So if they pass the save then you can heal up most of what they took on average, if the blaster wasn't a dragon/orc sorcerer.
I'm not sure what you're referencing to exactly when you said it's fairly easy to be a healer in combat with no investment and still be great at other things. If it's the Oradin, then I said such in my post, and it's still not some mega healer type character.
And again, I say that there's a time to heal if doing so prevents a death or causes the fight to finish faster.
If you want I can go and make any of your posts say something horrible too that you didn't actually say.
|
|
You're up against two creatures, they deal 15 damage, you heal 7, then they do more and you heal and so on until they die. You're out spells for dragging combat on. If you instead could stop one from doing damage then you effectively healed all the damage it didn't do.
It's not hard to show examples to prove your point.
For example: You're down to 80/140 hp and two monsters hit you for 34hp, you cast Heal. They hit you for another 34hp and you swing back. After another couple rounds you cast heal again. They can't kill you faster than you can heal, and you can hurt them back 2/3 rounds.
Neither example actually proves anything as they're out of context.
Much of whether in combat healing is viable depends upon your group. If it's offense focuses (like most) - in combat healing is rarely useful. If the characters are actually build with high defenses so they take less damage each round, in-combat healing becomes far more viable. Even then - in-combat healing isn't a good Plan A.
Much of whether in combat healing is viable depends upon your group. If it's offense focuses (like most) - in combat healing is rarely useful. If the characters are actually build with high defenses so they take less damage each round, in-combat healing becomes far more viable. Even then - in-combat healing isn't a good Plan A.
There's also the argument that if the "healer" had decided to use that 6th level spell slot on something other then Heal (barring extremely dire circumstances) then any subsequent healing may have been not needed. Be proactive and destroy or disable your enemies instead of reactive and wait to undo their actions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For Science, I'm going to try to test this. Numbers will come from Pazio's Monster Creation chart
Cure Light Wounds, CL1: Heals 1D8+1 HP, average 5.5
Damage of a CR1 monster: 5-7, average 6
Healing fails to pace against the damage of a single CR1 monster. Assuming an equal encounter, there will be four of them. Unless their accuracy is >25%, healing loses.
*bolded for emphasis*
Wait - what? 4 CR1 creatures is a CR5 encounter!
I believe that you meant <25%.
But even if the healer is falling behind a bit - killing them is what the rest of the group is for! A healer only has to keep up with their proportion of the encounter to be worth their time. (Again - it's generally not a good Plan A.)
|
|
So what exactly would "fact-checking" of the type you describe accomplish? Will it prove that the individual hasn't had those experiences?My understanding of the context of the post you replied to (I could be wrong) was that he was not contesting that people had encountered Nasty Folks at all, but that he was contesting some folks' claims/implications that the Nasty Folks are representative of the portion of the community that believes X.
Your interpretation is without doubt more generous than mine. Here's the entire original post that prompted my "advice":
Got an example of those? Because I've seen plenty of "Does it have to be a rogue? Because other classes do what you want better" and no "ROGUES SUCK AND YOU'RE A DOODYHEAD FOR WANTING ONE".
You know, except for in this thread where people have repeatedly said (and refused to provide any proof) that this happens all the time. I'm not sure if all of you are just out and out lying, exaggerating, or see an entire different messageboard than I do.
"Plenty of" and "no" examples. Followed by a qualified accusation of lying. That doesn't really speak to me of "it may have happened, but it's not representative."
In regards to your larger point, let me point out two things: first, a number of the posters who have claimed to have had these experience have felt that they were being treated aggressively, attacked or insulted, as a separate matter from simply holding a minority opinion about the mechanics in question. You yourself called them Nasty Folks. As is usually the case in these matters, it doesn't take much for even a relatively small percentage of a population to drag down the reputation of the whole, at least as regards to the perceptions of those who feel bullied or insulted. I think that's an issue, period. Second, given that, what percentage is "acceptable" harrassment? 1/4? 1/9? I'm not really comfortable with either of those.
For Science, I'm going to try to test this. Numbers will come from Pazio's Monster Creation chart
Cure Light Wounds, CL1: Heals 1D8+1 HP, average 5.5
Damage of a CR1 monster: 5-7, average 6
Healing fails to pace against the damage of a single CR1 monster. Assuming an equal encounter, there will be four of them. Unless their accuracy is >25%, healing loses.
*bolded for emphasis*
Wait - what? 4 CR1 creatures is a CR5 encounter!
I believe that you meant <25%.
But even if the healer is falling behind a bit - killing them is what the rest of the group is for! A healer only has to keep up with their proportion of the encounter to be worth their time. (Again - it's generally not a good Plan A.)
I think he's refering to the "number of encounters per day" stuff. There's this idea that travels around that suggests you want 4 encounters per day equal to your party's level. So, he means four separate CR 1 encounters in a single adventuring day.
(I really disagree with the "4 CR = PC level encounters a day" idea and like to throw stuff both above and below the party's level at them.)
|
|
I think he's refering to the "number of encounters per day" stuff. There's this idea that travels around that suggests you want 4 encounters per day equal to your party's level. So, he means four separate CR 1 encounters in a single adventuring day.
I don't think so - as that'd make no sense at all then.
He's referring to whether a healer will 'fall behind' in their healing vs the monsters' damage when healing every round. The number of encounters per day has no impact upon that. (That's a resouce thing.)
|
|
So basically, revised results for an average encounter, using the same numbers: you can negate 1-2 rounds worth of actions from a weak encounter.
Yep - that sounds pretty decent to me. 1/4 of the party is spending a single round to negate 2 rounds or so of all the enemy actions? Not bad. (At low levels most accuracy tends to be 50% at best.)
Now - from a resource perspective he's probably better off trying to end the combat faster and heal outside of combat. (Assuming all party members will stay up when he's not healing.) But from an action standpoint it's not bad at all.
Dude Charon, everyone in the "don't heal" category knows that we're talking about Cure spells, not heal. Heal is a whole nother ball game.
You go from cure spells that maybe can heal 40 in one go, to healing over 100 guaranteed+removing bad effects.
|
|
Dude Charon, everyone in the "don't heal" category knows that we're talking about Cure spells, not heal. Heal is a whole nother ball game.
You go from cure spells that maybe can heal 40 in one go, to healing over 100 guaranteed+removing bad effects.
Yes - that was my point. I wrote that to prove that examples can prove anything. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
|
|
The question was what are good rogue talents.
Not having to spend a feat for WF is a good talent. Even when I take fighter levels for some of my rogues, I easily run out of needed feats.
True strike is an excellent option for a rogue.
Minor magic is a prereq and it leads to dispelling strike. Acid splash is an excellent way to never be unarmed (in its limited form) has no sr no save and you can add in sneak attack.
The question was what are good rogue talents.
They are good you compare them against other rogue talents. When you compare them against other classes class features they are not. ( I do think dispelling attack is good)
They are good rogue talent if you compare them against other rogue talents. When you compare them against other classes class features they are not. ( I do think dispelling attack is good)The question was what are good rogue talents.
Well I think it was good basic talents (it's advanced) and the prereq's (minor/major magic) aren't exactly exciting. It also has a weakness of targeting the lowest level spells first. This means cantrips like Virtue, Read Magic, Guidance, Enhanced Diplomacy, Breeze, Resistance and Penumbra go first. For a rogue ability though, it's pretty good.
|
|
I separated the types in case someone was overly sensitive. I also don't like spending a feat on dazzling display, but I love shatter defenses. No choice in paying feat taxes (in PFS)
I like Rogues (the class) and have no problems with the class. Consider it my chosen form of deviance. I don't play slayers as the advanced talents I want are not available.
The problem with the Rogue Magic Talents is they don't go up high enough.
Swap out Sneak attack for scaling access to 3 spells per level of SA as spell likes, and you suddenly have a very INTERESTING rogue to play.
==Aelryinth
Contributor
|
Quite literally, The first thing my players did when they met Caromarc was give him a lecture on the importance of hand rails and safety for bridges. :)@ Bob Bob Bob concerning magical traps in Paizo's adventures - actually, there's a pair of magical traps in Book 2 of Carrion Crown that, between them, account for over 50% of the obituary thread.
** spoiler omitted **
While usually not magical, Serpent's Skull has a lot of snares and alarm trip-wires - stuff that's horribly inconvenient to set off, and not just due to HP damage. (I think the very last trap my rogue disabled in Book 6 was a symbol of death cast at 20th level? I know it was a symbol, but I don't remember the type anymore.)
Shattered Star has the Best Trap Ever. I have to grin just thinking about that trap.
I haven't looked at Mummy's Mask, but I'd hope there's a number of traps that can't be shrugged off with a cure light wand. (But Mummy's Mask actually gives out trapfinding as a campaign trait, so that no one is actually required to a play a class with trapfinding.)
Totally with you on Shattered Star. I actually did something in Serpent's Skull based on that trap...
As for Schloss Caromarc, it's not the traps. It's the lack of handrails. The entire place is OSHA-noncompliant. :)
Hm. We just assumed that his parents had been killed by a handrail. :)
5) Rogues are worthless. They suck in a vacuum. They were dead in the CRB. They have been thematically killed with other additions. This has only been verified by myself extensively playing a rogue in Rise of the Rune Lords and all other campaigns in which I have witness rogues present.
4) I agree. A wizard is a wizard. You don't NEED that extra slot to be effective.
3) No you really do need power attack. If you wouldn't benefit from using it, then your character is poorly optimized.
2) I agree. If anything PF rewards versatility and penalizes specialization. One character can be good at everything or the best at one maybe two things.
1) I agree. Healing is useful. Not every combat goes as planned. Hyperspecilization into healing is a mistake like we talked about in #2.
I will respond to point 3 later because even as a power attack advocate I know it is not true, and I am only referring to characters that attack in melee not archers or non-melee casters.
edit: To avoid any moving goalpost what counts as "not poorly optimized" in melee combat.
If you would benefit from using power attack.
If you would benefit from using power attack.5) Rogues are worthless. They suck in a vacuum. They were dead in the CRB. They have been thematically killed with other additions. This has only been verified by myself extensively playing a rogue in Rise of the Rune Lords and all other campaigns in which I have witness rogues present.
4) I agree. A wizard is a wizard. You don't NEED that extra slot to be effective.
3) No you really do need power attack. If you wouldn't benefit from using it, then your character is poorly optimized.
2) I agree. If anything PF rewards versatility and penalizes specialization. One character can be good at everything or the best at one maybe two things.
1) I agree. Healing is useful. Not every combat goes as planned. Hyperspecilization into healing is a mistake like we talked about in #2.
I will respond to point 3 later because even as a power attack advocate I know it is not true, and I am only referring to characters that attack in melee not archers or non-melee casters.
edit: To avoid any moving goalpost what counts as "not poorly optimized" in melee combat.
I don't know. It really feels like circular logic here.
If we're defining optimized vs non-optimized as whether or not you can benefit from power attack, then claiming that we know they're not optimized because they don't benefit from power attack is a tautology at best. Our conclusion is based on the definition, and our definition is based on this same conclusion. We still haven't shown that not benefitting from power attack really is "non-optimized."
Can we show this before moving this topic forward without using tautological arguments?
It really feels like circular logic here.
It really feels like circular logic here.
If you would benefit from using power attack.5) Rogues are worthless. They suck in a vacuum. They were dead in the CRB. They have been thematically killed with other additions. This has only been verified by myself extensively playing a rogue in Rise of the Rune Lords and all other campaigns in which I have witness rogues present.
4) I agree. A wizard is a wizard. You don't NEED that extra slot to be effective.
3) No you really do need power attack. If you wouldn't benefit from using it, then your character is poorly optimized.
2) I agree. If anything PF rewards versatility and penalizes specialization. One character can be good at everything or the best at one maybe two things.
1) I agree. Healing is useful. Not every combat goes as planned. Hyperspecilization into healing is a mistake like we talked about in #2.
I will respond to point 3 later because even as a power attack advocate I know it is not true, and I am only referring to characters that attack in melee not archers or non-melee casters.
edit: To avoid any moving goalpost what counts as "not poorly optimized" in melee combat.
Now your argument is more reasonable but if it is possible to do comparable damage to someone who is power attacking without taking power attack it would still be inaccurate. This assumes similar type builds such as 2 handed weapons. No I cant think of a way to do so right now but taking or not taking power attack is poor metric by itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this topic is inherently toxic but I did have a bit to say. I think there is a huge disconnect when it comes to the people new to people I don't know about anyone else but these problems did not exist for me until after looking online. There's a period of time after arriving on the Paizo forums where I really resented being told what I'm doing wrong because as much Monk I've played before that I did not notice being terrible and not having fun. I remember contributing to the party and being awesome. It doesn't matter what's numerically true because its hard to ignore what happened at my kitchen table and what the forum says happens at kitchen tables. Even after becoming more knowledgeable about the game its hard to ignore how things work once I have people rolling dice. I've seen fighters be the most helpful class at the table, I've seen maybe two campaigns that didn't have a rogue. I play a Fighter and I have a blast, without even using the super optimized options. I just went with a theme and ran with it no matter how many goofy feats I needed to make it work.
It doesn't help that some of the points are explained as if it were a huge difference. So many arguments are discussing differences of seemingly tiny numbers but being huge differences. Not even numbers but roles. A Rogue is terrible at attack bonuses but my initial reaction to that early in playing was 'why am I getting into an actual fight? I'm a Rogue, isn't that the Fighter's job?'
A big example is how I viewed prepared casting. To some extent I sill have this logic but; "Spells, unless you have some kind of normal mode of operating, suck. They are way too situational unless you're actively attacking something. Some are incredibly useful but how do you prepare the right spells given that when you go in a dungeon you don't know what the heck you're fighting. I'd pick spontaneous casting any day because adventures are too random. Even if I play a prepared caster, I'm going to pick a schtick and stick with it, not try to have a Batman utility belt of spells."
If "normal mode of operating" means picking spells such that you generally rolf-stomp, then your opinion would logically have to hold true.
It really feels like circular logic here.It really feels like circular logic here.
So you agree? Disagree? I'm not understanding the point of your reply, here.
So you agree? Disagree? I'm not understanding the point of your reply, here.It really feels like circular logic here.It really feels like circular logic here.
I never agreed to that.
A Rogue is going into a fight because at least half of his class features are devoted to him fighting. Probably more, but you might be able to take nothing but non-combat talents. Somehow.
Two things. First, I'm not talking about fights in general but an actual or fair fight. Second this is speaking as I was when I started the game and didn't know much about Rogue talents other than I'll take it if it looks cool. Basically during my first game my thoughts were that the Rogue was a class that gets rewarded for not fighting fair, after the forums the Rogue is expected to hold his own in full on fair fights, seemingly by himself given how people talk about optimization, and not being unseen or doing anything to get advantages. Never mind how capable it is at getting itself in advantageous situations (not much) there's a huge disconnect from what I thought the Rogue did and the real state of the Rogue.
I never agreed to that.So you agree? Disagree? I'm not understanding the point of your reply, here.It really feels like circular logic here.It really feels like circular logic here.
I'm so confused!!!
So you agree? Disagree? I'm not understanding the point of your reply, here.It really feels like circular logic here.It really feels like circular logic here.
yes
|
|
The problem with the Rogue Magic Talents is they don't go up high enough.
Swap out Sneak attack for scaling access to 3 spells per level of SA as spell likes, and you suddenly have a very INTERESTING rogue to play.
==Aelryinth
Play an arcane trickster - lose a little sneak attack and get all the spells you want. I'd also like to see the minor magic / major magic (talents) be worth more than a 0 and 1st level sla... but they are interesting and I need it for dispelling strike (sigh taxes - I pay so many)
I'm so confused!!!I never agreed to that.So you agree? Disagree? I'm not understanding the point of your reply, here.It really feels like circular logic here.It really feels like circular logic here.
And now you truly understand.
The problem with the Rogue Magic Talents is they don't go up high enough.
Swap out Sneak attack for scaling access to 3 spells per level of SA as spell likes, and you suddenly have a very INTERESTING rogue to play.
==Aelryinth
It almost sounds like you're talking about an archaeologist bard or inquisitor!
There's a 3pp pact magic archetype that swaps out sneak attack for spirit pacts that could provide similar abilities.