Broken Unchained Classes?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Morzadian wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
I don't know about spike cards, but Timmy cards are deliberately bad cards that look shiny

That's not true in the slightest.

Timmy cards are generally BIG, "Awesome!" cards that often happen to be too slow to be competitive in most competitive formats, and thus they aren't generally considered "Spike" cards.

However, there are some formats in which "Timmy" cards are made excellent, because the environment or manner of play allows for whales to thrive where normally only Piranha are king.

Terrastodon is a Timmy card: it's big, it costs a lot of mana to play, and it does an awesome effect; it's also basically useless in Modern, Legacy, and Vintage formats, while it's an utter monster in EDH or casual games due to those formats having much-longer games and allowing for massive amounts of Mana to accumulate.

Thoughtseize is a Spike card: it's small, efficient, and is extremely good at helping you win the game (or at least preventing you from losing); Thoughtseize is very good in Modern, Legacy, and Vintage, but isn't very strong in EDH due to the multiplayer nature of the format.

Progenitus and Emrakul are both Timmy AND Spike cards: they're big, cool, and they utterly dominate the moment they hit the battlefield, though they have to be sneaked-in in some way or another, usually with Sneak Attack, Show & Tell, or (Progen only) Natural Order.

Correct and Incorrect

Magic: the gathering and their explanation of timmy cards and spike cards is different to how they are used in the School of Ivory Tower Design.

Using examples in D&D 3.5 not Magic identifies the various different types of feats and spells and of course 'traps'

And there are no traps in the Unchained Classes. or even the core classes

I dunno, not archetyping your core monk is fairly suicidal. That's one of those classes where nearly every archetype was a huge improvement on the existing class. >_>


thegreenteagamer wrote:
My point is anyone dedicated to that which actually tries to break your game is an @$$hole, pure and simple, and the problem is the players, not the system. They can ruin your game even if it's checkers.

I think if a system can be broken so badly, it still reflects badly on it. Or at least the sub-systems that were used.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LoneKnave wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
My point is anyone dedicated to that which actually tries to break your game is an @$$hole, pure and simple, and the problem is the players, not the system. They can ruin your game even if it's checkers.
I think if a system can be broken so badly, it still reflects badly on it. Or at least the sub-systems that were used.

I agree it is not a positive reflection, but the various means of maintaining that broken state were never intended to interact altogether. The more complex of a system you have, the harder it is to rule out every combination possible that might result in abuse.

I simply say players looking for that extreme of a loophole are the core problem. Yes, that such a loophole can happen is a problem in of itself, but it's usually only through thorough analysis while purposefully looking to break the system, which again, if actually exercised, is the action of a dick. Corner cases shouldn't define the overall package.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of course, that assumes that only corner cases can break the system. And not, say, a druid, who summons a bear to flank with his pet bear and then turns into a bear to form some kind of magical bear-force with his bear buddies (which was one of the most b!+!&*~% things you could do if there was a fighter in the party in 3.5).


I'm tempted to start another "make it work" thread just for the sake of comparison.

Also LOL at sapmaster being munchkin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
My point is anyone dedicated to that which actually tries to break your game is an @$$hole, pure and simple, and the problem is the players, not the system. They can ruin your game even if it's checkers.
I think if a system can be broken so badly, it still reflects badly on it. Or at least the sub-systems that were used.

I agree it is not a positive reflection, but the various means of maintaining that broken state were never intended to interact altogether. The more complex of a system you have, the harder it is to rule out every combination possible that might result in abuse.

I simply say players looking for that extreme of a loophole are the core problem. Yes, that such a loophole can happen is a problem in of itself, but it's usually only through thorough analysis while purposefully looking to break the system, which again, if actually exercised, is the action of a dick. Corner cases shouldn't define the overall package.

Problem is you run into a lot of jerks who do this sort of thing for their own jollies. A lot of times things like this come up, I don't even have to say anything as a GM; the other players at the table begin raising objections.

Sovereign Court

TarkXT wrote:

I'm tempted to start another "make it work" thread just for the sake of comparison.

Also LOL at sapmaster being munchkin.

i am far from an excellent optimizer...

I took a shot at doing a sap master build to get a grasp at what he was seeing to make him want to ban it.

about 30-40 nonlethal damage to one target once a round at level 6 using sap master feat...getting flat footed is not as easy as just a flank.

Using Scout and Thug archetypes. Looked at using Intimidate mechanics to get bluffs going for free.

Nothing I can see that would scream so overpowered it required a ban. I think it is a fun niche build...but plenty of weaknesses.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Core Rogue is too weak. This was readily apparent to anyone capable of combining math and knowledge of the system. It's damage was woefully under par, it's ability to deal any meaningful damage was reliant on setting up flanks, often a risky proposition for a class with 3/4 BAB and light armor. The Rogue is like that kid from the Home Alone movies: sure, he fought off the burglars with a ridiculously elaborate series of traps, but anyone else would have shot the burglars or called the police and been done, and the 2 hour movie would have been wrapped in 5 minutes.

The whole "it's about the Roleplaying not the power" argument falls flat as well. The Rogue was not the master of skills; the Bard, Ranger, Alchemist, and others were as good or better. So the Rogue isn't as good as his peers in combat, isn't as good as many of them out of combat... What's left?

Sapmaster is an unreliable trick that squeezes you into some narrow and less than great choices in order to do what everyone else can do better, with half the effort. Calling it munchkin-y is a bit ridiculous, and as insulting as it is misinformed.

Unchained was a pretty solid offering. There were several things they did that I felt missed the mark (the alternative to iterative attacks was pretty terrible at its goal of simplifying and streamlining combat), a few things where I felt they didn't go far enough (Unchained Barbarian is supposed to be the class you can hand to your kid brother, and I think it could have been streamlined even more efficiently), some things that were just right (the Unchained Monk was pretty on the money), and a few that solved some problems while creating more (the Unchained Rogue got better at melee combat and slightly better with some skills, but the focus on melee advantages pushes him into combat even more, his defenses are still pretty terrible, and his combat boosts are still reliant on setting up flanks or waiting until very high levels to pull off other kinds of trickery).


Ssalarn wrote:

Core Rogue is too weak. This was readily apparent to anyone capable of combining math and knowledge of the system. It's damage was woefully under par, it's ability to deal any meaningful damage was reliant on setting up flanks, often a risky proposition for a class with 3/4 BAB and light armor. The Rogue is like that kid from the Home Alone movies: sure, he fought off the burglars with a ridiculously elaborate series of traps, but anyone else would have shot the burglars or called the police and been done, and the 2 hour movie would have been wrapped in 5 minutes.

The whole "it's about the Roleplaying not the power" argument falls flat as well. The Rogue was not the master of skills; the Bard, Ranger, Alchemist, and others were as good or better. So the Rogue isn't as good as his peers in combat, isn't as good as many of them out of combat... What's left?

Sapmaster is an unreliable trick that squeezes you into some narrow and less than great choices in order to do what everyone else can do better, with half the effort. Calling it munchkin-y is a bit ridiculous, and as insulting as it is misinformed.

Unchained was a pretty solid offering. There were several things they did that I felt missed the mark (the alternative to iterative attacks was pretty terrible at its goal of simplifying and streamlining combat), a few things where I felt they didn't go far enough (Unchained Barbarian is supposed to be the class you can hand to your kid brother, and I think it could have been streamlined even more efficiently), some things that were just right (the Unchained Monk was pretty on the money), and a few that solved some problems while creating more (the Unchained Rogue got better at melee combat and slightly better with some skills, but the focus on melee advantages pushes him into combat even more, his defenses are still pretty terrible, and his combat boosts are still reliant on setting up flanks or waiting until very high levels to pull off other kinds of trickery).

There is nothing unreliable about Sap Master, a Rogue makes a successful attack it works.

I agree, the core Rogue is a lot weaker than his peers, particularly the spell-casters, although it shouldn't validate overpowered feats.

For example, if there was a feat that doubled the damage of arcane spells if their opponents were caught flat-footed. There would be cry of outrage of how Wizards and Sorcerers are powerful enough and this feat unbalances the game.

This is why Sap Master is unbalanced and is considered munchkin.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

By that logic, Two Weapon Fighting is munchkin too. It doubles your damage even more reliably, if the rogue makes successful attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
By that logic, Two Weapon Fighting is munchkin too. It doubles your damage even more reliably, if the rogue makes successful attacks.

Incorrect, it doesn't double your damage. You get half strength bonus and are severely penalised if you do not use a light weapon (does less damage) when using the off-hand weapon.

Plus you get a -2 to hit penalty.

It is an alternative to fighting with two-handed weapons, and a balanced alternative.

Sap Master can be combined with two-weapon fighting, certifying its position as being munchkin.

Plus it's a disassociated mechanic, why should a sap do an excessive amount of extra damage than a weapon designed for killing like a longsword or rapier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
There is nothing unreliable about Sap Master, a Rogue makes a successful attack it works.

Unreliable in that fact that lots of things are unaffected by it's damage, so a successful attack that double 0 is still 0. Unreliable execution of it's effect. it's also healed at the same rate as real damage so against foes that have regen/fast healing they get to heal double their amount.

In the right situation or game it's pretty nifty but no where close to overpowered.

"disassociated mechanic": why would a weapon designed to knock people out be better at knock people out... Doesn't that answer itself?

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Sap Master doesn't double your damage either, you don't get to add your main stat and weapon dice again.

You'll probably only get Sap Master on one attack a round, from surprise and from the Scout archetype. If you get it multiple times on a round, your opponent screwed up badly.

You're not required to use a sap, you can use any bludgeoning weapon for nonlethal.

It's meant to enable the fantasy of a rogue sneaking up on someone and taking them out with a well-placed blow to the head.

Edit: Perhaps instead of banning it outright, you could just prevent it from being used more than once a round. Because that's super rare anyway.


graystone wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
There is nothing unreliable about Sap Master, a Rogue makes a successful attack it works.

Unreliable in that fact that lots of things are unaffected by it's damage, so a successful attack that double 0 is still 0. Unreliable execution of it's effect. it's also healed at the same rate as real damage so against foes that have regen/fast healing they get to heal double their amount.

In the right situation or game it's pretty nifty but no where close to overpowered.

"disassociated mechanic": why would a weapon designed to knock people out be better at knock people out... Doesn't that answer itself?

Lots of things? You mean a few things like Undead. You just have to look at Pathfinder's Adventure Paths, the majority of enemies you encounter are vulnerable to a sap attack.

Firstly sap attack is something all rogues should know how to do, so it should be a class ability not a feat. And if did +2d6 sneak damage I wouldn't have a problem with it, double damage is excessive.

Now if the Sap Master feat tree existed in a fantasy world all rogues would have it because it is very effective in relation to the way they approach combat.

And all classes would have ways of defending against it, protective spells and class abilities for the martial characters.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
And all classes would have ways of defending against it, protective spells and class abilities for the martial characters.

Can't stop laughin'.


Constructs, undead, swarms, inevitables are immune to non-lethal (wouldn't have thought you could knock out an elemental pile of rock, but there you have it).

Oozes, Elements and Incorporeal monsters are immune to precision damage.

These are just monster types, IIRC other defenses exist.


Morzadian wrote:
graystone wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
There is nothing unreliable about Sap Master, a Rogue makes a successful attack it works.

Unreliable in that fact that lots of things are unaffected by it's damage, so a successful attack that double 0 is still 0. Unreliable execution of it's effect. it's also healed at the same rate as real damage so against foes that have regen/fast healing they get to heal double their amount.

In the right situation or game it's pretty nifty but no where close to overpowered.

"disassociated mechanic": why would a weapon designed to knock people out be better at knock people out... Doesn't that answer itself?

Lots of things? You mean a few things like Undead. You just have to look at Pathfinder's Adventure Paths, the majority of enemies you encounter are vulnerable to a sap attack.

Firstly sap attack is something all rogues should know how to do, so it should be a class ability not a feat. And if did +2d6 sneak damage I wouldn't have a problem with it, double damage is excessive.

Now if the Sap Master feat tree existed in a fantasy world all rogues would have it because it is very effective in relation to the way they approach combat.

And all classes would have ways of defending against it, protective spells and class abilities for the martial characters.

LOL AP's have lots of issues, like an overreliance on single humanoid foes. it's the reason a certain style feat was nerfed because it deflected attacks...

If you look a LITTLE bit longer, you'll find more things that aren't effected by the damage. The last AP features a LOT of creatures you aren't going to sap.

Protections: Plenty of them do have protections. I've seen Dr vs it and plenty of spells either negate or mitigate it. Then add the protections to the conditions that allow the sneak attack in the first place.


Petty Alchemy wrote:

Sap Master doesn't double your damage either, you don't get to add your main stat and weapon dice again.

You'll probably only get Sap Master on one attack a round, from surprise and from the Scout archetype. If you get it multiple times on a round, your opponent screwed up badly.

You're not required to use a sap, you can use any bludgeoning weapon for nonlethal.

It's meant to enable the fantasy of a rogue sneaking up on someone and taking them out with a well-placed blow to the head.

Edit: Perhaps instead of banning it outright, you could just prevent it from being used more than once a round. Because that's super rare anyway.

Totally agree, the Sap Master feat tree was intended to convey the classic narrative of a rogue knocking someone out.

If this came up in a game I was game-mastering, I would probably house-rule it as a class ability doing an extra amount of damage as part of a sneak attack.

So at least all players know that sap attacks is something rogues frequently do. IMO sap attack needs codification with the core rules.


Petty Alchemy wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
And all classes would have ways of defending against it, protective spells and class abilities for the martial characters.
Can't stop laughin'.

Flanking Foil does absolute nothing in stopping a sap attack.


Morzadian wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:

Sap Master doesn't double your damage either, you don't get to add your main stat and weapon dice again.

You'll probably only get Sap Master on one attack a round, from surprise and from the Scout archetype. If you get it multiple times on a round, your opponent screwed up badly.

You're not required to use a sap, you can use any bludgeoning weapon for nonlethal.

It's meant to enable the fantasy of a rogue sneaking up on someone and taking them out with a well-placed blow to the head.

Edit: Perhaps instead of banning it outright, you could just prevent it from being used more than once a round. Because that's super rare anyway.

Totally agree, the Sap Master feat tree was intended to convey the classic narrative of a rogue knocking someone out.

If this came up in a game I was game-mastering, I would probably house-rule it as a class ability doing an extra amount of damage as part of a sneak attack.

So at least all players know that sap attacks is something rogues frequently do. IMO sap attack needs codification with the core rules.

The rogue as is already gets training in the sap as they get the proficiency in it and it's a weapon that is made to deal non-lethal damage. Add to that that their sneak attack feature says that non-lethal attacks create non-lethal sneak attacks. So out of the box, all rogues should know it's something they could frequently do if they wished.

As to the feat, I don't really see it as super powerful. As the levels go up, that type of damage's usefulness goes down.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Morzadian wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
And all classes would have ways of defending against it, protective spells and class abilities for the martial characters.
Can't stop laughin'.
Flanking Foil does absolute nothing in stopping a sap attack.

It makes them unable to Sneak Attack you if you tap them with any melee attack, and Sap Master relies on your Sneak Attack damage. No single other feat can so completely shut down a class.


Petty Alchemy wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
And all classes would have ways of defending against it, protective spells and class abilities for the martial characters.
Can't stop laughin'.
Flanking Foil does absolute nothing in stopping a sap attack.
It makes them unable to Sneak Attack you if you tap them with any melee attack, and Sap Master relies on your Sneak Attack damage. No single other feat can so completely shut down a class.

Yes from a theory crafting and game design perspective this is true. What about a practical stand point. In a published AP how many enemies will have sneak attack, certainly not a majority, so flanking foil is situational, highly situational.

Not a fan of the Flanking Foil feat.

Silver Crusade Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, with brawlers and martial master fighters, situational feats like that are their bread and butter. :)


Or barbarians. What's Uncanny Dodge again?


Morzadian wrote:
In a published AP how many enemies will have sneak attack, certainly not a majority, so flanking foil is situational, highly situational.

The first thing you should do is understand not everyone plays an AP or follows one 100%. So judging everything by 'but that's the way it is in AP's' is flawed at best unless you're in a PFS forum.

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait how does Flank Foil ruin Sap Master? Somebody please explain that to me again.

And now that we've remembered that not only do you have to get the drop on your foe for him to be flat-footed (not just "as if"), to bring the thread back on topic, the Unchained Rogue using the updated Stealth rules (in the back of the book in it's own special chapter just kidding) can simply Bewilder the Barbarian/Brawler whose bread and butter was supposed to be better - that's anywhere from a -4 to a -8 making the Unchained Rogue "broken" in the sense of the word that means un-un-chained.

Right?


rainzax wrote:
Wait how does Flank Foil ruin Sap Master? Somebody please explain that to me again.

The feat prevents sneak attack damage. Sap master affects sneak attack damage.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Morzadian wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
And all classes would have ways of defending against it, protective spells and class abilities for the martial characters.
Can't stop laughin'.
Flanking Foil does absolute nothing in stopping a sap attack.
It makes them unable to Sneak Attack you if you tap them with any melee attack, and Sap Master relies on your Sneak Attack damage. No single other feat can so completely shut down a class.

Yes from a theory crafting and game design perspective this is true. What about a practical stand point. In a published AP how many enemies will have sneak attack, certainly not a majority, so flanking foil is situational, highly situational.

Not a fan of the Flanking Foil feat.

If it's as meta-warping as you imply with the quoted post I responded to (And all classes would have ways of defending against it, protective spells and class abilities for the martial characters.), then Flanking Foil is your answer. But as you note now, it actually isn't that important to defend against Sap Master, or indeed, rogues at all.

Sovereign Court

Morzadian wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
And all classes would have ways of defending against it, protective spells and class abilities for the martial characters.
Can't stop laughin'.
Flanking Foil does absolute nothing in stopping a sap attack.
It makes them unable to Sneak Attack you if you tap them with any melee attack, and Sap Master relies on your Sneak Attack damage. No single other feat can so completely shut down a class.

Yes from a theory crafting and game design perspective this is true. What about a practical stand point. In a published AP how many enemies will have sneak attack, certainly not a majority, so flanking foil is situational, highly situational.

Not a fan of the Flanking Foil feat.

So is Sap Adept/Master.

Truly, you took a situational feat combo based for one of the weakest classes in the game, and took exception. Then preceded to ban it for no real reason.

I go back to my initial statement about your GMing.

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
rainzax wrote:
Wait how does Flank Foil ruin Sap Master? Somebody please explain that to me again.
The feat prevents sneak attack damage. Sap master affects sneak attack damage.

How again?

Sovereign Court

rainzax wrote:
graystone wrote:
rainzax wrote:
Wait how does Flank Foil ruin Sap Master? Somebody please explain that to me again.
The feat prevents sneak attack damage. Sap master affects sneak attack damage.
How again?

What are you looking for friend?

Sap Master modifies sneak damage.

Flank Foil negates Sneak Damage.

Sap Master does nothing to one protected by Flank Foil.


rainzax wrote:
graystone wrote:
rainzax wrote:
Wait how does Flank Foil ruin Sap Master? Somebody please explain that to me again.
The feat prevents sneak attack damage. Sap master affects sneak attack damage.
How again?

Maybe you should read the feat? "cannot deal sneak attack damage to you" + "Whenever you use a bludgeoning weapon to deal nonlethal sneak attack damage"

it does what I said in the last post...


graystone wrote:
rainzax wrote:
graystone wrote:
rainzax wrote:
Wait how does Flank Foil ruin Sap Master? Somebody please explain that to me again.
The feat prevents sneak attack damage. Sap master affects sneak attack damage.
How again?

Maybe you should read the feat? "cannot deal sneak attack damage to you" + "Whenever you use a bludgeoning weapon to deal nonlethal sneak attack damage"

it does what I said in the last post...

I have read the feat and it CANNOT be used at any kind of defence against Sap Master.

There are corner cases like Shattered Defences, so for the most part it can't.

Sap Master feat tree relies on an opponent being flat-footed.

While Flanking Foil only functions if you hit the enemy in combat. You haven't hit anyone if you are flat-footed.

Flanking Foil: Whenever you hit an adjacent opponent with a melee attack, until the start of your next turn, that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while it is flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you. It can still provide a flank for its allies.


OilHorse wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
And all classes would have ways of defending against it, protective spells and class abilities for the martial characters.
Can't stop laughin'.
Flanking Foil does absolute nothing in stopping a sap attack.
It makes them unable to Sneak Attack you if you tap them with any melee attack, and Sap Master relies on your Sneak Attack damage. No single other feat can so completely shut down a class.

Yes from a theory crafting and game design perspective this is true. What about a practical stand point. In a published AP how many enemies will have sneak attack, certainly not a majority, so flanking foil is situational, highly situational.

Not a fan of the Flanking Foil feat.

So is Sap Adept/Master.

Truly, you took a situational feat combo based for one of the weakest classes in the game, and took exception. Then preceded to ban it for no real reason.

I go back to my initial statement about your GMing.

I originally responded to a post that claimed that the rogue is not underpowered because they have the option of doing massive damage from Sap Master.

And the way Sap Master was being used was munchkin. Having a powerful feat tree like Sap Master that can make and break a class is not a good thing.

And my games can do without it. I want my players to have freedom in creating different types of characters not forced into 'must-have' feats.


Morzadian wrote:

While Flanking Foil only functions if you hit the enemy in combat. You haven't hit anyone if you are flat-footed.

Flanking Foil: Whenever you hit an adjacent opponent with a melee attack, until the start of your next turn, that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while it is flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you. It can still provide a flank for its allies.

So it's an active defense instead of a passive defense. It's still a defense. To say it's not "kind of defense" is disingenuous in the extreme. Are you and rainzax REALLY trying to split hairs like this?

Verdant Wheel

Unchained could have worked out a better way to categorize the difference between "flat-footed" and "as if flat-footed" by giving the latter 'condition' a new name. Maybe a blogpost like the new one on light vs darkness. Dunno if that helps.

Sovereign Court

Morzadian wrote:


I originally responded to a post that claimed that the rogue is not underpowered because they have the option of doing massive damage from Sap Master.

And the way Sap Master was being used was munchkin. Having a powerful feat tree like Sap Master that can make and break a class is not a good thing.

And my games can do without it. I want my players to have freedom in creating different types of characters not forced into 'must-have' feats.

Lol. Powerful? By all the definitions you claim about Sap Master Power Attack fits also. Do you ban it?

It is a niche, situational feat tree.

It is usable in surprise rounds, with a very select group of archtypes (namely Scout but maybe there are others) and when invisible (which as you get higher in level the number of creatures that can see invisible increases.

It is easily defeated through mundane means like uncanny dodge.

Fortification magic ability can foil it.

Odds are you only get it once per round.

Nothing about this feat tree screams OverPowered or Ban worthy.

Sovereign Court

rainzax wrote:
Unchained could have worked out a better way to categorize the difference between "flat-footed" and "as if flat-footed" by giving the latter 'condition' a new name. Maybe a blogpost like the new one on light vs darkness. Dunno if that helps.

More information and clarification is better than worse.

Verdant Wheel

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Imagine, OilHorse, if we instead had three primary defenses: AC, touch AC, and distracted AC.

It could be said that the unchained monk's Spin Kick style strike "targets your opponent's distracted AC" or that feinting made your opponent "distracted relative to your next attack."

Then, we could draw a clear line in the sand, and qualify "flat-footed" as a condition that is an escalation of "distracted," which includes the additional prohibition of being unable to use immediate actions or make attacks of opportunity (ex. a surprised combatant).

In short, there could have been a chapter on Unchaining Conditions which could have not only created entirely new conditions (such as Bewildered, Disoriented, Hampered), but organized them into general categories (Fear, Nausea, Shock), consequently setting universal provisions for their relative escalation and relaxation.


With the ridiculous reasoning of banning sap master here...

Inb4 Lookout + Sap Master + Merciful Bow + Blunt Arrows + Rapid Shot + Powerful Sneak + etc. etc.

Rogue OP please nerf!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
There is nothing unreliable about Sap Master, a Rogue makes a successful attack it works.

It is not that simple. They have to specifically be flat-footed for it to work. Even then they may not hit since the rogue is not a very accurate class, and not many monsters have a large portion of their AC made of us dex. Then when they don't die get knock out and full attack the rogue...


"Benefit: Whenever you hit an adjacent opponent with a melee attack, until the start of your next turn, that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while it is flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you. It can still provide a flank for its allies."

That is flanking foil. If it said you can not be affected to sneak attacks that work due to being flanked then sap master could bypass it.

However it only says, that you no flanking bonus can be used against you from that opponent, and that you do not take sneak attack damage from that opponent.

Now maybe the intent was to say you can avoid sneak attack damage coming from a flank, and only if it comes from a flank, but that is not what it says.

However it does call out adjacent opponents so if the individual has a reach weapon or he has longarm bracers he can bypass this feat.


Also, the whole thing about how a number of prominent creature types no-sell that build hard really needs to be kept in mind.

Rogues are already in a sticky predicament against elementals and oozes, as most of their go-to tactics are now null and void, but constructs and undead are very easily two of the most popular monster categories for the BBEG's mooks and minions to come from. Being a specialist in nonlethal damage isn't so great when your build has to scramble for its backup weapon the second the enemy guards his fortress with a horde of zombies or machines instead of squishy, inattentive humanoids. Zombie and skeleton hordes aren't such a big deal to your standard rogue, being exceptionally easy to flank and usually not that well-protected from attacks, but the sap master isn't going to be feeling so hot any time he stares down something that is nonlethal immune or precision immune.

Fortification becomes more common over time as crits become more devastating, too, I notice, and that's really going to ruin your sap master's day if one of THOSE goes off if you committed to an attack.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Anzyr wrote:
Majuba wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
Are any of the core options overpowered?
No, not really. Not inherently. Abusable? Always. Inherently ridiculous? No.
High level magic (and even not so high magic) both RAW and RAI is inherently ridiculous. Even using Simulacrum in the fairest, most intended way by making "just" a half level copy of yourself is ridiculous. Summon Monster starting around Summon Monster III is "just" an insanely diverse toolkit. Animate Dead is "just" a free minion. Create Pit is "just" a reliable Save or Die. The issue that the good spells require nebulous loopholes or abuse of intent to be powerful. It's that they don't.

Simulacrum is pricy - 6500gp for a minimum self-duplicate, takes almost a full day to make and a full 24 hours (and loads of cash) to repair, plus it might need copies of your spellbook. Summon Monster is dispelable, killable, and highly interuptable, as well as extremely short duration. Animate Dead is not free, and is both quite stinky and evil. Evil cheats. Create Pit is not core.


Majuba wrote:
Simulacrum is pricy - 6500gp for a minimum self-duplicate, takes almost a full day to make and a full 24 hours (and loads of cash) to repair, plus it might need copies of your spellbook. Summon Monster is dispelable, killable, and highly interuptable, as well as extremely short duration. Animate Dead is not free, and is both quite stinky and evil. Evil cheats. Create Pit is not core.

simulacrum is pocket change by level 13. Especially when it gets you a bunch of excellent utility spells and a perfect copy of you.


CWheezy wrote:
Majuba wrote:
Simulacrum is pricy - 6500gp for a minimum self-duplicate, takes almost a full day to make and a full 24 hours (and loads of cash) to repair, plus it might need copies of your spellbook. Summon Monster is dispelable, killable, and highly interuptable, as well as extremely short duration. Animate Dead is not free, and is both quite stinky and evil. Evil cheats. Create Pit is not core.
simulacrum is pocket change by level 13. Especially when it gets you a bunch of excellent utility spells and a perfect copy of you.

Perfect copy of you at half your level.

So, while, yeah, you may have those utility spells, they're not as many, not as strong, and only as many as a 7th-level character, meaning as a Wizard at best you're getting a handful of 4th level spells.

You're probably better off investing in a few Scrolls of those same spells and Wands for others.

Silver Crusade Contributor

In the Reign of Winter game I'm in, I actually was thinking about sculpting a few simulacra of the party's musket master, then having him arm them. ^_^


OilHorse wrote:
Morzadian wrote:


I originally responded to a post that claimed that the rogue is not underpowered because they have the option of doing massive damage from Sap Master.

And the way Sap Master was being used was munchkin. Having a powerful feat tree like Sap Master that can make and break a class is not a good thing.

And my games can do without it. I want my players to have freedom in creating different types of characters not forced into 'must-have' feats.

Lol. Powerful? By all the definitions you claim about Sap Master Power Attack fits also. Do you ban it?

It is a niche, situational feat tree.

It is usable in surprise rounds, with a very select group of archtypes (namely Scout but maybe there are others) and when invisible (which as you get higher in level the number of creatures that can see invisible increases.

It is easily defeated through mundane means like uncanny dodge.

Fortification magic ability can foil it.

Odds are you only get it once per round.

Nothing about this feat tree screams OverPowered or Ban worthy.

It is usable in surprise rounds and in the first round of combat. So 2 Sap Master attacks

per combat.

And you don't need a Rogue archetype to use Sap Master, to suggest otherwise is misleading and completely false.

There is nothing mundane about Uncanny Dodge it is a specialised ability and so doesn't have wide use, well unless you are attacking a thieves guild or a barbarian camp.

Power Attack is a totally different thing to Sap Master and can never be considered munchkin like how Sap Master is.


Morzadian wrote:
OilHorse wrote:
Morzadian wrote:


I originally responded to a post that claimed that the rogue is not underpowered because they have the option of doing massive damage from Sap Master.

And the way Sap Master was being used was munchkin. Having a powerful feat tree like Sap Master that can make and break a class is not a good thing.

And my games can do without it. I want my players to have freedom in creating different types of characters not forced into 'must-have' feats.

Lol. Powerful? By all the definitions you claim about Sap Master Power Attack fits also. Do you ban it?

It is a niche, situational feat tree.

It is usable in surprise rounds, with a very select group of archtypes (namely Scout but maybe there are others) and when invisible (which as you get higher in level the number of creatures that can see invisible increases.

It is easily defeated through mundane means like uncanny dodge.

Fortification magic ability can foil it.

Odds are you only get it once per round.

Nothing about this feat tree screams OverPowered or Ban worthy.

It is usable in surprise rounds and in the first round of combat. So 2 Sap Master attacks

per combat.

And you don't need a Rogue archetype to use Sap Master, to suggest otherwise is misleading and completely false.

There is nothing mundane about Uncanny Dodge it is a specialised ability and so doesn't have wide use, well unless you are attacking a thieves guild or a barbarian camp.

Power Attack is a totally different thing to Sap Master and can never be considered munchkin like how Sap Master is.

Question: what levels would you say sap master is at the most munchkin understanding that the minimum level you can get it is 5th?


TarkXT wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
OilHorse wrote:
Morzadian wrote:


I originally responded to a post that claimed that the rogue is not underpowered because they have the option of doing massive damage from Sap Master.

And the way Sap Master was being used was munchkin. Having a powerful feat tree like Sap Master that can make and break a class is not a good thing.

And my games can do without it. I want my players to have freedom in creating different types of characters not forced into 'must-have' feats.

Lol. Powerful? By all the definitions you claim about Sap Master Power Attack fits also. Do you ban it?

It is a niche, situational feat tree.

It is usable in surprise rounds, with a very select group of archtypes (namely Scout but maybe there are others) and when invisible (which as you get higher in level the number of creatures that can see invisible increases.

It is easily defeated through mundane means like uncanny dodge.

Fortification magic ability can foil it.

Odds are you only get it once per round.

Nothing about this feat tree screams OverPowered or Ban worthy.

It is usable in surprise rounds and in the first round of combat. So 2 Sap Master attacks

per combat.

And you don't need a Rogue archetype to use Sap Master, to suggest otherwise is misleading and completely false.

There is nothing mundane about Uncanny Dodge it is a specialised ability and so doesn't have wide use, well unless you are attacking a thieves guild or a barbarian camp.

Power Attack is a totally different thing to Sap Master and can never be considered munchkin like how Sap Master is.

Question: what levels would you say sap master is at the most munchkin understanding that the minimum level you can get it is 5th?

Every gaming group is different and have different ways of looking at things.

I play with an extensive amount of house rules and my gaming group plays 1/month usually a 12-16 hour game session (heaps of caffeine needed in our games).

We play without the grid but with miniatures and small mini-maps. And quite a bit of role-playing occurs, as you can fit it in during our long game sessions. And combat is a little bit different less codified.

We use 3/4 BAB for saving throws (+2 for good saves) so a 5th level Rogue has a Will save of +3, iterative attacks are at full BAB, Rogues get extra combat feats, and more recently we have introduced the Unchained Rogue into our games.

I have worked long and hard in creating a ruleset that keeps munchkin shenanigans to a minimum and promotes a more balanced gameplay in relation to classes.

From my perspective, Sap Master is bound to cause problems, taking out key NPCs with ease and forcing a Rogue character to always sap attack their enemies during the surprise round and first round of combat, instead of killing them.

It's not that its just munchkin it creates this new subsystem of knocking out opponents that is not codified with the core rules.

If I created an encounter consisting of rogues with Sap Master attacks, it would be deadly and players would feel like its GM munchkin tactics, so it's only fair that I treat it the same from a player's perspective.

And finally the answer to your question I would say 5th level. The Two-Handed Fighter archetype has to wait till 15th level to get Greater Power Attack and that only increases the damage by 25%.

151 to 200 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Broken Unchained Classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.