|
I don't know how the rest of you feel, but I think the unchained rogue is overpowered (loving it!) compared to other classes now. There are now so many builds opened up with Finesse Training. I posted two level 5 builds I was working on here:
Unchained Pathfinder Society Builds
Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter or builds to share?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Overpowered compared to the regular rogue barely makes them a core rulebook PC class, much less competitive in todays smorgasbord of class options, much less overpowered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Er... back in the days of the APG, some of us played damage-focused Rogues and kicked butt at it. But it was always a class that required careful planning, and it's been somewhat obsolesced by the Investigator (in the same way that non-archetyped Barbarians, pre-Unchained, were just lamer Bloodragers)
|
|
Rogue was notably underpowered before. Now it's probably still underpowered, but only very slightly (mostly in the area of Saves).
Here is a relatively straightforward build that's decently (but not especially) optimized.
And, off-topic, but the Invulnerable Rager/Superstition/Spell Sunder/Beast Totem Barbarian build still has some advantages that Bloodrager can't even touch. Bloodrager has some they can't either, but it's about even, IMO.
Unchained Rogue still isn't quite as good as Investigator, IMO, but it does now have, when sneak attacking, an effective max of +8 to hit and +35 damage from Class Features as compared to the Investigator's +12 to hit, +13 damage (+8 to hit, +25 damage with Power Attack), plus Skill Unlocks and the ability to restrict movement or give your victim attack penalties. Now, the Investigator still has Extracts, better default Saves, and is better at skills in many ways, but at least the Rogue has some advantages.
Skill unlocks are... I'm very close to call them not worth considering.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's great that Rogue gets native Dex to damage, but that doesn't make it remotely overpowered, or broken. I've had Dex to damage as part of Weapon Finesse for years and it's never been a problem, and Dex-based characters have never overshadowed pure Strength. If I had to say anything, the Unchained Rogue just works now. It's a middle of the road class instead of the bottom of the barrel.
Skill unlocks are... I'm very close to call them not worth considering.Eh. As written they probably aren't worth a Feat until 15th level or so, but several are quite nice if you get 'em for free, which Rogues do.
Which ones? I don't even pay attention to anything over 10. if you're a non caster at those levels there's no point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skill unlocks are... I'm very close to call them not worth considering.Eh. As written they probably aren't worth a Feat until 15th level or so, but several are quite nice if you get 'em for free, which Rogues do.
Class features aren't really "Free".
They are at the expense of getting another class feature instead.
Skill unlocks are... I'm very close to call them not worth considering.Eh. As written they probably aren't worth a Feat until 15th level or so, but several are quite nice if you get 'em for free, which Rogues do.Class features aren't really "Free".
They are at the expense of getting another class feature instead.
Very true,
The concept of 'free' is often applied to the Fighter class, the fighter does not get free feats just like the Rogue does not get free skill unlocks.
It's a falsehood, that prevents accurate analysis of a class and what that class can actually do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skill unlocks are... I'm very close to call them not worth considering.Eh. As written they probably aren't worth a Feat until 15th level or so, but several are quite nice if you get 'em for free, which Rogues do.Class features aren't really "Free".
They are at the expense of getting another class feature instead.
Very true,
The concept of 'free' is often applied to the Fighter class, the fighter does not get free feats just like the Rogue does not get free skill unlocks.
It's a falsehood, that prevents accurate analysis of a class and what that class can actually do.
Correct. The fighter gets feats instead of class features, not as class features, since feats are on the whole less powerful than class features. The ranger getting bonus feats is cool because they get to skip prereqs, not because they're getting feats. MoMS is a good (arguably the best) monk archetype because it, once again, gets to skip prereqs.
Getting a bonus feat as a "class feature" is usually not a class feature, because often if you just took away the "ability" and simply gave the class a bonus feat the character could just grab the feat anyways. It's only cool when you couldn't otherwise get access to it, or if it comes in addition to something else at that level.
|
|
Which ones? I don't even pay attention to anything over 10. if you're a non caster at those levels there's no point.
Intimidate and Perception are both excellent, as are Disguise and Stealth for certain builds. Diplomacy is amazing on a dedicated diplomancer build (being able to Diplomacy as a full-round is g!@@$~n terrifying even with a penalty if you have enough of it), and several others are okay.
Class features aren't really "Free".
They are at the expense of getting another class feature instead.
This is usually true, but completely wrong in this case, since they explicitly just took Rogue and threw it on in addition to the other stuff they get.
What, you mean the already scaling bonus to sneak attack? I'd honestly rather get a bonus combat feat at 5th level as a rogue than the skill unlocks as written.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What, you mean the already scaling bonus to sneak attack? I'd honestly rather get a bonus combat feat at 5th level as a rogue than the skill unlocks as written.
Yeah...but they literally just added it on top of what Rogues already get. Could they have added something better? Sure, but it doesn't inherently mean they would've. So...it doesn't actually replace anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know how the rest of you feel, but I think the unchained rogue is overpowered (loving it!) compared to other classes now. There are now so many builds opened up with Finesse Training. I posted two level 5 builds I was working on here:
Unchained Pathfinder Society Builds
Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter or builds to share?
You are going to have to explain, and yes I saw the builds. I will also add that DPR is more accurate than "he might do 35 to 1000" points of damage.
In addition the reason for all the damage is the same reason eidolons get a lot of damage. The tengu used in both of your cases gives 3 extra attacks. I can take another class and do more damage than a rogue, which means the rogue is not the issue, assuming there is an issue at all.
In addition are you within WBL?
I also don't see saves or AC for either character. Post an actual full character, and one that is built on the rogue, not on some other class or race.
Example: If you take a rogue half-orc with darkvision, and say he can do X, and I can replace the rogue with <insert random class>, and get the same or better results then the rogue is not doing the heavy lifting, and the rogue is not the issue.
Rogue was notably underpowered before. Now it's probably still underpowered, but only very slightly (mostly in the area of Saves).
Here is a relatively straightforward build that's decently (but not especially) optimized.
And, off-topic, but the Invulnerable Rager/Superstition/Spell Sunder/Beast Totem Barbarian build still has some advantages that Bloodrager can't even touch. Bloodrager has some they can't either, but it's about even, IMO.
Unchained Rogue still isn't quite as good as Investigator, IMO, but it does now have, when sneak attacking, an effective max of +8 to hit and +35 damage from Class Features as compared to the Investigator's +12 to hit, +13 damage (+8 to hit, +25 damage with Power Attack), plus Skill Unlocks and the ability to restrict movement or give your victim attack penalties. Now, the Investigator still has Extracts, better default Saves, and is better at skills in many ways, but at least the Rogue has some advantages.
Underpowered, maybe, but I wouldn't call it "notably" so. A feat like Sap Master can double that sneak attack damage to a +70 (and old Rogues can pull three bonus combat feats by level 6); with Offensive Defense and Great Cleave you can pull higher AC then a Kensai Magus, and at higher levels with Crippling Strike you're throwing around 10 points of unsaveable Strength damage every round, which means that in three rounds you can paralyze almost any boss.
As for actually pulling off sneak attacks, there's a lot of ways to get around this; Improved Two-Weapon Feint, Greater Invisibility, and attacking at reach with a Whip all being pretty easy to pull off at mid levels.
Rogue was notably underpowered before. Now it's probably still underpowered, but only very slightly (mostly in the area of Saves).
Here is a relatively straightforward build that's decently (but not especially) optimized.
And, off-topic, but the Invulnerable Rager/Superstition/Spell Sunder/Beast Totem Barbarian build still has some advantages that Bloodrager can't even touch. Bloodrager has some they can't either, but it's about even, IMO.
Unchained Rogue still isn't quite as good as Investigator, IMO, but it does now have, when sneak attacking, an effective max of +8 to hit and +35 damage from Class Features as compared to the Investigator's +12 to hit, +13 damage (+8 to hit, +25 damage with Power Attack), plus Skill Unlocks and the ability to restrict movement or give your victim attack penalties. Now, the Investigator still has Extracts, better default Saves, and is better at skills in many ways, but at least the Rogue has some advantages.
Underpowered, maybe, but I wouldn't call it "notably" so. A feat like Sap Master can double that sneak attack damage to a +70 (and old Rogues can pull three bonus combat feats by level 6); with Offensive Defense and Great Cleave you can pull higher AC then a Kensai Magus, and at higher levels with Crippling Strike you're throwing around 10 points of unsaveable Strength damage every round, which means that in three rounds you can paralyze almost any boss.
As for actually pulling off sneak attacks, there's a lot of ways to get around this; Improved Two-Weapon Feint, Greater Invisibility, and attacking at reach with a Whip all being pretty easy to pull off at mid levels.
The whole sap master feat tree is so munchkin. if I was GM and a Rogue wanted to pull that munchkin routine I would throw in some powerful undead. Something like Mohrgs, paralysing a Rogue is pretty easy to pull off. And Mohrgs love to eat munchkin Rogues.
In any game system you are bound to find a loophole in the rules. It's not clever, or inventive actually pretty destructive to gameplay.
|
|
Underpowered, maybe, but I wouldn't call it "notably" so. A feat like Sap Master can double that sneak attack damage to a +70 (and old Rogues can pull three bonus combat feats by level 6); with Offensive Defense and Great Cleave you can pull higher AC then a Kensai Magus, and at higher levels with Crippling Strike you're throwing around 10 points of unsaveable Strength damage every round, which means that in three rounds you can paralyze almost any boss.
That damage is only relevant when you can hit, which is pretty rare on a corebook Rogue. Ditto the AC in many ways. And then there's the bad saves, which aren't crippling, but don't help.
And, for the record, the Unchained Rogue can still do all the stuff you list (okay, they don't have Offensive Defense, but it's baked in as a Class Feature instead).
As for actually pulling off sneak attacks, there's a lot of ways to get around this; Improved Two-Weapon Feint, Greater Invisibility, and attacking at reach with a Whip all being pretty easy to pull off at mid levels.
This is true. And remains useful, since the Unchained Rogue still definitely needs Sneak Attacks to be viable, probably even more than the corebook Rogue (since they get more out of it).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, for the record, the Unchained Rogue can still do all the stuff you list (okay, they don't have Offensive Defense, but it's baked in as a Class Feature instead).
And I missed that somehow. Okay, this one's better. I still think a rogue, old or new, can be useful in combat (especially if you know what you're going to be fighting), but it does require more munchkinry and reading to pull off than most other classes—and skill masteries mean rogues once again get to excel at what they used to before the investigator, which is pulling off ridiculous skill tricks.
Overpowered compared to the regular rogue barely makes them a core rulebook PC class, much less competitive in todays smorgasbord of class options, much less overpowered.Pretty much this. I ran for my first unchained rogue last night and he had the same problems actually getting sneak attack as the core rogue does. Acrobatics scales slower than CMD and corners are the bane of flankers. He got to sneak attack maybe twice in the entire session over three different fights and he missed both attacks the second time.
Teamwork plays a huge part in the success of some characters. Sundering an enemies shield before the Rogue moves in for the kill or a hold person spell can make a big difference.
The flanking bonus alleviates the rogues inferior BAB (at low levels) and boots of elvenkind or skill focus: acrobatics can get a rogue into position. A bit difficult but at least its not automatic successes in what we had in D&D 3.5e
It's a pretty good feeling working together to overcome obstacles.
I dont Think it looks that good. Better than the old rogue yes but that is sort of the point. The actual builds are both multiclass guys at there sweet spot. And they are not impressive unless they get a special setup.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont Think it looks that good. Better than the old rogue yes but that is sort of the point. The actual builds are both multiclass guys at there sweet spot. And they are not impressive unless they get a special setup.
I can do a very nice 6th level build that demonstrates why they're cool as a straight human Rogue (preferably a Scout). It basically comes down to Dex 20 + TWF + Weapon Focus + Twist Away (and a Ring of Ferocious Action) + Double Slice + Iron Will. And plus Minor and Major Magic if you want straight stat upgrades.
We can easily be talking +9/+9 to hit for 1d4+5 damage +3d8 Sneak Attack (which can easily give very nice offensive or defensive bonuses, making it the equivalent of +13/+13 to hit pretty readily), +4 Fort, +11 Reflex, +7 Will (plus the ability to use Ref for Fort at no penalty pretty regularly), and something on the order of 26 AC. All for about a total of 14k in equipment.
Major Magic also lets you get a Mauler Familiar for flanking at level 10 (though with Improved Familiar and a bit of UMD, you can get a permanently-enlarged Arbiter Inevitable for a flanking buddy that's immune to death).
Scouts are neat, but I've found they work really really well with things like Sanctified Sneak Attack, where suddenly you've got an even easier time overcoming most relevant DR than the party Paladins.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole sap master feat tree is so munchkin. if I was GM and a Rogue wanted to pull that munchkin routine I would throw in some powerful undead. Something like Mohrgs, paralysing a Rogue is pretty easy to pull off. And...
??
No offense but that is terrible GMing.
I don't see how the Sap Master tree is any more "munchkin" than Power Attack would be. Do you regularly invalidate feat choices?
The whole sap master feat tree is so munchkin. if I was GM and a Rogue wanted to pull that munchkin routine I would throw in some powerful undead. Something like Mohrgs, paralysing a Rogue is pretty easy to pull off. And...??
No offense but that is terrible GMing.
I don't see how the Sap Master tree is any more "munchkin" than Power Attack would be. Do you regularly invalidate feat choices?
I have played roleplaying games for 30 years and I have seen what munchkin character choices does to the industry as a whole. It turns people off quickly.
Power Attack is totally different to begin with there are penalties in its use, a 9th level Rogue using power attack and a long sword -2 to hit +4 damage, hardly comparable.
D&D 3.5e created this culture of theory crafting builds that broke the game. As an experiment they are fine but for practical use- a definite no.
Sneak attack 1d6/2 levels is balanced, doubling that (as the feat tree does) throws the balance out.
Me and many others left d&d 3.5e behind and came to Pathfinder because we wanted to leave that destructive culture in the past, where it belongs.
I'm all for player freedom, but not at the cost of the enjoyment of others or added work for an all ready over-worked (and often under-appreciated) GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's fair. I've never taken Sap Master with a Rogue, and I don't think it's necessary, but I also don't like classes that strongly limit party roles and I like to encourage the fact that there's always options.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole sap master feat tree is so munchkin. if I was GM and a Rogue wanted to pull that munchkin routine I would throw in some powerful undead. Something like Mohrgs, paralysing a Rogue is pretty easy to pull off. And...??
No offense but that is terrible GMing.
I don't see how the Sap Master tree is any more "munchkin" than Power Attack would be. Do you regularly invalidate feat choices?
I have played roleplaying games for 30 years and I have seen what munchkin character choices does to the industry as a whole. It turns people off quickly.
Power Attack is totally different to begin with there are penalties in its use, a 9th level Rogue using power attack and a long sword -2 to hit +4 damage, hardly comparable.
D&D 3.5e created this culture of theory crafting builds that broke the game. As an experiment they are fine but for practical use- a definite no.
Sneak attack 1d6/2 levels is balanced, doubling that (as the feat tree does) throws the balance out.
Me and many others left d&d 3.5e behind and came to Pathfinder because we wanted to leave that destructive culture in the past, where it belongs.
I'm all for player freedom, but not at the cost of the enjoyment of others or added work for an all ready over-worked (and often under-appreciated) GM.
what world do you live in where sneak attack is a powerful martial class feature, even doubled? There's nothing special that a sap master rogue can do (high dpr against 1 target in the first round that doesnt work against anything that notices him first or has uncanny dodge because it only works against flat-footed opponents) that a bomb alchemist, any magus, Rage-Cycling barbarian, cavalier, instant-enemy ranger, warpriest, inquisitor with bane, paladin with smite and/or litany of righteousness, zen archer, gunslinger, blaster caster, anyone with pummeling charge, wizard who decides to be relatively ineffective and turn into a dragon, druid in wild shape, slayer, investigator, or two-handed fighter cant do just as well/better with more consistency. The rogue is weakest in protracted engagements almost categorically, and you want to punish a player for trying to build so that he can occasionally end a fight before his weaknesses show?
If I want to make a street-smart watch detective who fights dirty and takes people alive, and wants to in uncommon, specific situations be able to take a guy out without drawing attention or killing him, it is not your job as a DM to ruin me because you arbitrarily smell a "munchkin". If a player wants to grab the feat because it can net them a decent nova round once every few encounters and it doesn't clash with their character concept, then it is not your job to punish them for building to be good at combat, and even if it were the sap master rogue should be at the back of the line behind every single 9th and 6th level caster in the game.
Power-gaming exists. Power-gamers do not play rogues unless they are very bad at power-gaming.
also re:power attack, the reckless abandon/beast totem barbarian gets -0/+9 at level 9 from power attack on every single attack they make with a two-hander. That is a considerably better bonus than sap master due to its far superior applicability.
|
|
Diplomacy is amazing on a dedicated diplomancer build (being able to Diplomacy as a full-round is g+&@~!n terrifying even with a penalty if you have enough of it), and several others are okay.
Yeah - that one made me laugh. I may take that as a feat with my bard for the level 10 version. (Diplomacy to change attitude as full-round at a -10.)
I just picture my bard stepping into a room of hostile slavering monsters, flipping his hair, and then giving them a 'look' - "Hello".
If I can hit a DC of 45 modified by their Charisma (not freakish at level 11) I can change them from hostile to friendly before they even get a turn.
Lol
|
The whole sap master feat tree is so munchkin. if I was GM and a Rogue wanted to pull that munchkin routine I would throw in some powerful undead. Something like Mohrgs, paralysing a Rogue is pretty easy to pull off. And...??
No offense but that is terrible GMing.
I don't see how the Sap Master tree is any more "munchkin" than Power Attack would be. Do you regularly invalidate feat choices?
I have played roleplaying games for 30 years and I have seen what munchkin character choices does to the industry as a whole. It turns people off quickly.
Power Attack is totally different to begin with there are penalties in its use, a 9th level Rogue using power attack and a long sword -2 to hit +4 damage, hardly comparable.
D&D 3.5e created this culture of theory crafting builds that broke the game. As an experiment they are fine but for practical use- a definite no.
Sneak attack 1d6/2 levels is balanced, doubling that (as the feat tree does) throws the balance out.
Me and many others left d&d 3.5e behind and came to Pathfinder because we wanted to leave that destructive culture in the past, where it belongs.
I'm all for player freedom, but not at the cost of the enjoyment of others or added work for an all ready over-worked (and often under-appreciated) GM.
You are overlooking the huge disadvantages to Sap Master in your analysis:
1: It's non-lethal bludgeoning damage only. You are locked into weak weapons for rogues, and a large percentage of monsters are immune to non-lethal damage.
2: It only works on flat-footed opponents. This means without some massive hoops to go through it's very hard to get the extra damage except in a surprise round.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have played roleplaying games for 30 years and I have seen what munchkin character choices does to the industry as a whole. It turns people off quickly.
Ah, so you advocate banning the wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid, and summoner, for starters? I could go with that.
|
|
1: It's non-lethal bludgeoning damage only. You are locked into weak weapons for rogues, and a large percentage of monsters are immune to non-lethal damage.
I will say - the combo I'd go with this is the Tengu nat weapon combined with Blade of Mercy. Claws & bite both have both slashing (qualify for Blade of Mercy) and bludgeoning (qualify for Sap Master). And frankly - a nat weapon Tengu is already a solid option, especially for rogues.
Though admittedly - it wouldn't work for their fourth nat attack once they grab a Helm of the Mammoth Lord for a gore attack.
2: It only works on flat-footed opponents. This means without some massive hoops to go through it's very hard to get the extra damage except in a surprise round.
This is a significant hoop. You can get it off semi-consistently with the Scout archetype or a Feint build. (Since the archetype says specifically - 'as if they were flat-footed'.) But really - this makes Sap Master actually somewhat better for Ninjas with their invis than for Rogues.
In the end - I agree with you that it's not something that you can pull off too consistently. I just thought I'd bring up a few ways to do it somewhat more often and without as many negatives.
|
|
2: It only works on flat-footed opponents. This means without some massive hoops to go through it's very hard to get the extra damage except in a surprise round.This is a significant hoop. You can get it off semi-consistently with the Scout archetype or a Feint build. (Since the archetype says specifically - 'as if they were flat-footed'.) But really - this makes Sap Master actually somewhat better for Ninjas with their invis than for Rogues.
In the end - I agree with you that it's not something that you can pull off too consistently. I just thought I'd bring up a few ways to do it somewhat more often and without as many negatives.
I know it's difficult, which I why I said go through hoops.
You can dip unchained monk, and use a seven branched sword to apply flat-footed and then use unarmed strikes in a flurry. As a trip, everything immune to tripping is also immune to the pull of balance.
You can use humble beginnings/catch off guard, then disarm your opponent and use your improvised weapon. No good against monsters.
You can have a caster hit you with greater invisibility. Cant be relied on.
Two weapon feint. Losing an attack to pull off, very feat heavy.
Scout is only good for one attack.
Mist assassin + Blunt arrows + Merciful Longbow would be fun, although not team friendly.
It can be done, but every way to do it requires significant resources, and isn't going to apply all the time.
what world do you live in where sneak attack is a powerful martial class feature, even doubled? There's nothing special that a sap master rogue can do (high dpr against 1 target in the first round that doesnt work against anything that notices him first or has uncanny dodge because it only works against flat-footed opponents) that a bomb alchemist, any magus, Rage-Cycling barbarian, cavalier, instant-enemy ranger, warpriest, inquisitor with bane, paladin with smite and/or litany of righteousness, zen archer, gunslinger, blaster caster, anyone with pummeling charge, wizard who decides to be relatively ineffective and turn into a dragon, druid in...The whole sap master feat tree is so munchkin. if I was GM and a Rogue wanted to pull that munchkin routine I would throw in some powerful undead. Something like Mohrgs, paralysing a Rogue is pretty easy to pull off. And...??
No offense but that is terrible GMing.
I don't see how the Sap Master tree is any more "munchkin" than Power Attack would be. Do you regularly invalidate feat choices?
I have played roleplaying games for 30 years and I have seen what munchkin character choices does to the industry as a whole. It turns people off quickly.
Power Attack is totally different to begin with there are penalties in its use, a 9th level Rogue using power attack and a long sword -2 to hit +4 damage, hardly comparable.
D&D 3.5e created this culture of theory crafting builds that broke the game. As an experiment they are fine but for practical use- a definite no.
Sneak attack 1d6/2 levels is balanced, doubling that (as the feat tree does) throws the balance out.
Me and many others left d&d 3.5e behind and came to Pathfinder because we wanted to leave that destructive culture in the past, where it belongs.
I'm all for player freedom, but not at the cost of the enjoyment of others or added work for an all ready over-worked (and often under-appreciated) GM.
When Ultimate Combat first came out it consequently produced these broken Sap master builds, and the theory crafters who designed them said they were broken and they did it so the GM would be aware of such things and should ban them.
Sap Master coupled with Greater Two Weapon Fighting: 764.5 damage on average per round.
And that is not even the most powerful built.
It's munchkin alright. And if 764 damage by a single character is not game-breaking I don't know what is.
The whole sap master feat tree is so munchkin. if I was GM and a Rogue wanted to pull that munchkin routine I would throw in some powerful undead. Something like Mohrgs, paralysing a Rogue is pretty easy to pull off. And...??
No offense but that is terrible GMing.
I don't see how the Sap Master tree is any more "munchkin" than Power Attack would be. Do you regularly invalidate feat choices?
I have played roleplaying games for 30 years and I have seen what munchkin character choices does to the industry as a whole. It turns people off quickly.
Power Attack is totally different to begin with there are penalties in its use, a 9th level Rogue using power attack and a long sword -2 to hit +4 damage, hardly comparable.
D&D 3.5e created this culture of theory crafting builds that broke the game. As an experiment they are fine but for practical use- a definite no.
Sneak attack 1d6/2 levels is balanced, doubling that (as the feat tree does) throws the balance out.
Me and many others left d&d 3.5e behind and came to Pathfinder because we wanted to leave that destructive culture in the past, where it belongs.
I'm all for player freedom, but not at the cost of the enjoyment of others or added work for an all ready over-worked (and often under-appreciated) GM.
You are overlooking the huge disadvantages to Sap Master in your analysis:
1: It's non-lethal bludgeoning damage only. You are locked into weak weapons for rogues, and a large percentage of monsters are immune to non-lethal damage.
2: It only works on flat-footed opponents. This means without some massive hoops to go through it's very hard to get the extra damage except in a surprise round.
In theory, yes a Sap Master's ridiculous DPR appears to be restrictive.
And this is the problem with theory-crafting, it's a very specific framework that re-contextualises gameplay, a form of isolated analysis that provides a snapshot on what a character can do, yet when actually playing Pathfinder things turn out quite differently.
I played a Rogue character for 3 years, D&D 3.5e system, started and finished the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. And i surprised my opponents 97% of the time and I won initiative 97% of the time. That is a hell of a lot of flat-footed opponents. That's what Rogues do and they are very good at it.
So every encounter at the bare minimum you will be able to use the Sap Master ability twice. And in Pathfinder there are other ways of making an opponent flat-footed, Shattered Defences and Flowing Monk come to mind.
I have played roleplaying games for 30 years and I have seen what munchkin character choices does to the industry as a whole. It turns people off quickly.Ah, so you advocate banning the wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid, and summoner, for starters? I could go with that.
Sap Master is munchkin, although +caster level and feats that ignore meta-magic limitations are just as bad, unbalancing the balance established in the CRB. And are banned from the games I GM, and the games my friends GM.
You are taking what I said out of context. I didn't mention my gaming experience to suggest I was superior, it was to frame the fact that I have lived through and experienced the ups and downs of 3 decades of playing RPGs.
We played D&D 1e and 2e in harmony, but 3-3.5e inspired min/maxing and theory crafting (that got way out of hand) with one purpose to break the game. And newer players don't see the pitfalls as much as people who have experienced it before.
And this history is still relevant today, as it has informed many of Paizo's design choices: hard-to-class-dip, gradual diminishing of prestige classes, aversion to the School of Ivory Tower Game Design etc.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
More years of experience playing totally different RPGs with a select sample doesn't make anyone more knowledgeable with one particular RPG that has a wide variety of players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...what world do you live in where sneak attack is a powerful martial class feature, even doubled? There's nothing special that a sap master rogue can do (high dpr against 1 target in the first round that doesnt work against anything that notices him first or has uncanny dodge because it only works against flat-footed opponents) that a bomb alchemist, any magus, Rage-Cycling barbarian, cavalier, instant-enemy ranger, warpriest, inquisitor with bane, paladin with smite and/or litany of righteousness, zen archer, gunslinger, blaster caster, anyone with pummeling charge, wizard who decides to be relatively ineffective andThe whole sap master feat tree is so munchkin. if I was GM and a Rogue wanted to pull that munchkin routine I would throw in some powerful undead. Something like Mohrgs, paralysing a Rogue is pretty easy to pull off. And...??
No offense but that is terrible GMing.
I don't see how the Sap Master tree is any more "munchkin" than Power Attack would be. Do you regularly invalidate feat choices?
I have played roleplaying games for 30 years and I have seen what munchkin character choices does to the industry as a whole. It turns people off quickly.
Power Attack is totally different to begin with there are penalties in its use, a 9th level Rogue using power attack and a long sword -2 to hit +4 damage, hardly comparable.
D&D 3.5e created this culture of theory crafting builds that broke the game. As an experiment they are fine but for practical use- a definite no.
Sneak attack 1d6/2 levels is balanced, doubling that (as the feat tree does) throws the balance out.
Me and many others left d&d 3.5e behind and came to Pathfinder because we wanted to leave that destructive culture in the past, where it belongs.
I'm all for player freedom, but not at the cost of the enjoyment of others or added work for an all ready over-worked (and often under-appreciated) GM.
1. the highest dpr builds for sap master are alchemists, not rogues. That's not even scratching the highest dpr an alchemist can get (see: level 15 ratfolk grenadier dual-wielding double pistols with kirin strike, conductive weapon ability and alchemical weapon. Up to 14d4+36d6+48xint damage before any magical equipment mods). Heck, you can get MoMS monks swinging in the range of 40ishd8 base weapon damage all the time.
2. 764 damage is only ever achievable in a sap master build if every single attack hits, a very unlikely event for a rogue. Further, those dont really qualify as actual dpr builds as they only function anywhere close to reliably in a complete vacuum of ideal conditions.
3. All of these direct damage builds are still inherently weaker than any half-decent wizard who has access to 5+ level spells. single target damage is neat, but can never match bending reality for defining the terms and results of both combat and narrative. Said wizard can also cast three or four transmutation spells that he learned in his spare time and rival said builds for straight single target dpr if he wishes. he won't though, because direct damage is a weak form of power projection compared to the shenanigans he can pull. He has spells that literally say "you make the save or you are dead" and they aren't even the most powerful ones available.
So no, 764 nonlethal damage in very specific conditions at level 20 is not game breaking, not when by that point wizards don't even have to care that their enemies have hit points. 764 damage is a lot of burst when it happens, yes. But it is comparable to lightly optimized dpr builds for most any class given that the accuracy that it would be hitting at is going to drop it down by at least half, and is pushed out of the running entirely by the sheer unreliability of the bonus damage. Even in ideal conditions, it cant keep up with the highest martial damage outputs, what with fighter (arguably the worst optimization potential among full BaB martial) builds that can do over 900 average damage with a much higher to-hit.
The question then, is this: why is it cool and fine that 9th level spell-casters can rewrite reality and make or break nations daily, or hourly if they choose? Conversely, why is a 20th level rogue, who has based his entire concept and build on being able to kill one dude at a time who he catches unawares and hits perfectly dead to the point of completely neglecting all other important aspects of combat (mobility, defense), utterly unacceptable?
The whole sap master feat tree is so munchkin. if I was GM and a Rogue wanted to pull that munchkin routine I would throw in some powerful undead. Something like Mohrgs, paralysing a Rogue is pretty easy to pull off. And...??
No offense but that is terrible GMing.
I don't see how the Sap Master tree is any more "munchkin" than Power Attack would be. Do you regularly invalidate feat choices?
Power Attack is not munchkin gaming, so that is a bad comparison. Better yet it is not nearly as strong as the sap master. However I do agree that the way it was suggested to be handled is bad GM'ing. It is better to just tell the player they can't have it, if you don't want them to have it. Just because someone thinks something is OP/broken/etc, that does not mean another person does, so they may not see the problem.
what world do you live in where sneak attack is a powerful martial class feature, even doubled? There's nothing special that a sap master rogue can do (high dpr against 1 target in the first round that doesnt work against anything that notices him first or has uncanny dodge because it only works against flat-footed opponents) that a bomb alchemist, any magus, Rage-Cycling barbarian, cavalier, instant-enemy ranger, warpriest, inquisitor with bane, paladin with smite and/or litany of righteousness, zen archer, gunslinger, blaster caster, anyone with pummeling charge, wizard who decides to be relatively ineffective and turn into a dragon, druid in...The whole sap master feat tree is so munchkin. if I was GM and a Rogue wanted to pull that munchkin routine I would throw in some powerful undead. Something like Mohrgs, paralysing a Rogue is pretty easy to pull off. And...??
No offense but that is terrible GMing.
I don't see how the Sap Master tree is any more "munchkin" than Power Attack would be. Do you regularly invalidate feat choices?
I have played roleplaying games for 30 years and I have seen what munchkin character choices does to the industry as a whole. It turns people off quickly.
Power Attack is totally different to begin with there are penalties in its use, a 9th level Rogue using power attack and a long sword -2 to hit +4 damage, hardly comparable.
D&D 3.5e created this culture of theory crafting builds that broke the game. As an experiment they are fine but for practical use- a definite no.
Sneak attack 1d6/2 levels is balanced, doubling that (as the feat tree does) throws the balance out.
Me and many others left d&d 3.5e behind and came to Pathfinder because we wanted to leave that destructive culture in the past, where it belongs.
I'm all for player freedom, but not at the cost of the enjoyment of others or added work for an all ready over-worked (and often under-appreciated) GM.
I think someone built a sap-rogue here that easily one rounds opponents at APL = CR. Personally I don't mind, but some GM's don't like it.
Most of these classes you mentioned are not doing that unless they are really optimized, and their special ability is on.edit: The need for an opponent to be flat-footed is there, but some wont care.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Power Attack is not munchkin gaming, so that is a bad comparison. Better yet it is not nearly as strong as the sap master. However I do agree that the way it was suggested to be handled is bad GM'ing. It is better to just tell the player they can't have it, if you don't want them to have it. Just because someone thinks something is OP/broken/etc, that does not mean another person does, so they may not see the problem.The whole sap master feat tree is so munchkin. if I was GM and a Rogue wanted to pull that munchkin routine I would throw in some powerful undead. Something like Mohrgs, paralysing a Rogue is pretty easy to pull off. And...??
No offense but that is terrible GMing.
I don't see how the Sap Master tree is any more "munchkin" than Power Attack would be. Do you regularly invalidate feat choices?
Wraithstrike you are right, my comment was badly framed. Communication with players, and collaboration between GM and players is a better way of dealing with the situation.
Sap Master if not exploited can provide depth and options to a rogue character. I guess intentions plays a huge part.
It's munchkin alright. And if 764 damage by a single character is not game-breaking I don't know what is.
I don't think using one abnormal build should be used as a standard. Someone build a caster with DC's in the mid 30's to low 40's, but it was a dedicated build.
Basically extreme cases only prove that extreme cases can exist. Many of the classes can do extreme things within the rules, but most people don't take it that far in an actual game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
+caster level and feats that ignore meta-magic limitations are just as bad, unbalancing the balance established in the CRB.
The CRB remains one of the most unbalanced RPG books ever published: casters >> everyone else at everything except direct-damage potential.
And Paizo has taken Ivory Tower design to a whole new level, with an abundance of blatant Timmy cards like the Crossbowman fighter archetype ("give up class features so that you can be a totally inferior archer!")
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have played roleplaying games for 30 years and I have seen what munchkin character choices does to the industry as a whole. It turns people off quickly.Ah, so you advocate banning the wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid, and summoner, for starters? I could go with that.
Sap Master is munchkin, although +caster level and feats that ignore meta-magic limitations are just as bad, unbalancing the balance established in the CRB. And are banned from the games I GM, and the games my friends GM.
You are taking what I said out of context. I didn't mention my gaming experience to suggest I was superior, it was to frame the fact that I have lived through and experienced the ups and downs of 3 decades of playing RPGs.
We played D&D 1e and 2e in harmony, but 3-3.5e inspired min/maxing and theory crafting (that got way out of hand) with one purpose to break the game. And newer players don't see the pitfalls as much as people who have experienced it before.
And this history is still relevant today, as it has informed many of Paizo's design choices: hard-to-class-dip, gradual diminishing of prestige classes, aversion to the School of Ivory Tower Game Design etc.
I Think the internet with forums like this is more to blame for the optimisation trend than the new systems but that is of cause a dual(or more than dual) effect.
And the story about how good 1e and 2e was. I was there they were good at the time to Day none of them would have a chance and that is not because of min/maxing.
+caster level and feats that ignore meta-magic limitations are just as bad, unbalancing the balance established in the CRB.The CRB remains one of the most unbalanced RPG books ever published: casters >> everyone else at everything except direct-damage potential.
And Paizo has taken Ivory Tower design to a whole new level, with an abundance of blatant Timmy cards like the Crossbowman fighter acrhetype ("give up class features so that you can be a totally inferior archer!")
Paizo does not conform to the School of Ivory Tower Design.
1. All their rules from their hardcovers are online and free. They are not asking their customers to buy new books for super-powered options.
2. Paizo intentionally tries to not publish anything more powerful than what exists in older books. Pathfinder Unchained is proof of that, somewhat detrimental to fans of the Monk class.
There are no Timmy cards in Pathfinder, sure the Crossbow archetype is not as powerful as other archetypes or classes for that matter. But it doesn't make it a 'trap' that promotes system mastery.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are no Timmy cards in Pathfinder, sure the Crossbow archetype is not as powerful as other archetypes or classes for that matter. But it doesn't make it a 'trap' that promotes system mastery.
That's exactly what it is, though. Being a Crossbowman makes you worse in every respect than a vanilla fighter with some ranged feats and a composite longbow -- very intentionally so, to "teach you a lesson" that crossbows aren't supposed to be as good as bows. The Slinger has a similar purpose (the developers have come straight out and compared using a sling to throwing water balloons).