Try buff wizard. Or Druid with an animal companion guardian. Or a shaman. Or a witch. Or a psion. Or well really anything other than a rogue that tries not to stab people.
Also the gender of your character is rather irrelevant for build advice. No mechanics build off gender.
Investigator or bard, both can do those things you want and have similar feel to them, while being much better support charaters.
Play an unchained rogue eldritch scoundrel. You get 6th level casting for buffing and some battlefield control available, still have the rogue skills. You can basically focus all your points into dex and int.
You'll still have a bit of combat ability, but you'll have magic and skills to get things done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a rogue can't be used as I've described?
I'm more interested in non-combat skills and role playing than combat with this character.
I've played such a character before, people kept asking me why I brought a useless rogue.
I wasn't even going pseudo pacifistic like you.
Out of combat skills will depend a lot on the GM. Not just his running of the skill but also his ability to create skill opportunities and/or handle you trying to do something with them.
Skill aren't spells. You can't just cast them and have things happen.
So a rogue can't be used as I've described?
I'm more interested in non-combat skills and role playing than combat with this character.
I've played such a character before, people kept asking me why I brought a useless rogue.
I wasn't even going pseudo pacifistic like you.
Out of combat skills will depend a lot on the GM. Not just his running of the skill but also his ability to create skill opportunities and/or handle you trying to do something with them.
Skill aren't spells. You can't just cast them and have things happen.
I meant things like sneak, lock picking, etc. Things that come in handy that are not necessarily combat related. For example, the party needs a key held by a guard. I sneak into his chambers at night to retrieve it.
As for what skills are and are not, I've only about 10 years experience with AD&D, 5 with WEG's D6 Star Wars, etc. I'm not exactly new to role playing.
I've always thought AD&D (and clones of it) was too-combat driven. You tell this to anyone who plays and they'll swear the skill system means it's no more combat based than it is non-combat skill based. But as soon as you try to play a pacifist character, and I'm not suggesting this rogue will be a pacifist, you find out what the game is really based around :)
Combat does take the most time.
People around these parts will tell you the skill system is exactly why PF is combat/caster heavy. Even if the campaign isn't combat focused, spells replace most skills and classes with spells tend to be better at skills.
Investigators are the skill kings in PF. And they have alchemy (or they trade that away for more skill stuff).
Make a debuffing rogue instead. Use URogue with Dirty Tricks and the Rake archetype and Scout for added sneak attack chances. Put your first skill unlock into Intimidate. Now you can flank or charge and hit them. Instead of doing tons of damage, in a couple of hits, you can make them shaken/frightened/panicked, blinded, unable to do AOOs, bleeding, penalty to their AC, etc. Most of them will stack and then your party can wipe them out easily. Rinse and repeat without the need to manage spell slots.
It's not perfect, but it's a great way to do minimal damage in combat, but be very effective at the same time. There are plenty of builds out there for this.
Make a debuffing rogue instead. Use URogue with Dirty Tricks and the Rake archetype and Scout for added sneak attack chances. Put your first skill unlock into Intimidate. Now you can flank or charge and hit them. Instead of doing tons of damage, in a couple of hits, you can make them shaken/frightened/panicked, blinded, unable to do AOOs, bleeding, penalty to their AC, etc. Most of them will stack and then your party can wipe them out easily. Rinse and repeat without the need to manage spell slots.
It's not perfect, but it's a great way to do minimal damage in combat, but be very effective at the same time. There are plenty of builds out there for this.
I was thinking more like this:
Acrobatics +2
Bluff +1
Climb +2
Escape Artist +2
Perception +1
Stealth +2
Swim + 1Feats
#####
Stealthy
Weapon finesse... you know, feats and skills that make my rogue a rogue. If I wanted a fighter, I'd roll a fighter right?
OK (EDIT: I've spent awhile pounding my head against this wall [using the rogue class], my advice is to avoid it, but this is the rogue build I have that most resembles your character description)
Focused Study Human Rogue || 10 18 10 16 10 10 || Acrobatics, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Sleight of Hand, Stealth ||5|| Bluff, Use Magic Device, Perception||3|| Secondary Skills(5); Climb, Diplomacy, Disguise, Sense Motive, Linguistics(max -1), Swim(1 rank)
Traits: Resilient(+1 fort saves), Indomitable Faith(+1 Will)
1 |Stealthy, Skill Focus(Stealth)
2 |Finesse Rogue
3 |Deceitful
4 |Combat Trick(Shadow Strike)
5 |Skill Focus(Bluff)
6 |Fast Stealth
7 |Hellcat Stealth
8 |Bleeding Attack, Skill Focus(UMD)
9 |Deft Hands
10|Skill Mastery(Bluff, UMD, Stealth, Disguise, Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand)
11|Alertness
12|Skill Mastery(Diplomacy, Escape Artist, Sense Motive, Climb, Perception, Disable Device)
13|Skill Focus(Perception)
14|Hard Minded
15|Skill Focus (Acrobatics)
16|Crippling Strike, Skill Focus(Diplomacy)
17|Skill Focus(Sleight of Hand)
18|Feat(Skill Focus(Escape Artist)
19|Skill Focus(Sense Motive)
20|Improved Evasion
EDIT: Pathfinder specific stuff. You can only put one rank in a skill at level one. In class skills gain a +3 bonus after one rank is put in. This build uses favored class bonus to increase skill points by one per level. Focused study is a human racial archetype, it replaces your 1 feat at level 1 with 3 skill focus feats aat 1, 8, and 16.
If you are a non-magical thief, you are also by definition a low-level thief.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Combat does take the most time.If you don't know how to role play, sure.
This is really a bad opinion to have and borders on 'playing the right way.'
Combat is a large part of the game, even if you don't want to participate in it, and something you have to consider is that if you want to RP your way through possible combat scenarios, you have to be working with a party who is willing to accommodate that style of play. If someone brought a pacifist character to a game I was playing in and tried to railroad us into never fighting (especially if I'd made a fighter), I'd barrel on ahead through them so I could actually enjoy the game the way I wanted to play it.
You can avoid doing damage in combat if you want, focus on maneuvers and such, be a 'tricky' combatant and such with the party being thankful that you're there, but not participating in combat at all in a system like this just isn't possible without the entire party agreeing to play like that.
As others have stated, investigator is a great rogue like character as your alchemy will put you leagues ahead of what a non magical rogue can do, and yes, that includes the UCrogue. Personally, I think the alchemist is another good fit here if you go vivisectionist, and that archetype stacks with quite a lot of others to help you make an even more versatile character.
Really, if you think you can get through the game without combat, make sure EVERYONE else is on board with this, as you're avoiding a large part of the game if you do this.
|
What the class seems to be about doesn't have to be what it is actually about. Build towards Stealth, Acrobatics, take Underworld Inspiration to bump up your thieving skills, grab Infusion to be able to hand out healing and buffing potions to your allies. An Investigator is a much less combat-focused Rogue.
I would strongly consider the OP to play an empiricist investigator, like some other people have already. Investigators are crazy good at the outside of combat stuff. Here is what I think you should do:
1.) take the empiricist archetype for the following at second level: "At 2nd level, an empiricist uses his Intelligence modifier instead of the skill's typical ability for all Disable Device, Perception, Sense Motive, and Use Magic Device checks. He can also use his Intelligence modifier instead of Charisma on any Diplomacy checks made to gather information."
2.) consider being a half elf or human with the orator feat. Between skill focus, your high Int, and free uses of inspiration on linguistics, you can talk smoothly or bluff the pants off of anyone. You will also benefit from bonus languages because as the party diplomat, you should be able to talk to just about anything.
3.) once you have three levels of investigator, you can pick up the trap-spotter rogue talent. Additionally, you can go the extra mile and make your third level feat extra investigator talent to pick up expanded inspiration. At this point you are the king of all things trap related. Now, most people would love to go fourth level of investigator because studied combat is amazing. However, you don't care about combat and it is time to leave your investigating days behind and...
4.) dip two levels of the mindchemist alchemist archetype. This will keep you up to speed on your alchemy, and also makes you the king of all things knowledge. So at this point, we can step back and look at the character.
You can do the following with ease: spot and disable traps, talk to other people be it bluff, diplomacy, or intimidate, know a million languages between high int and maxing linguistics, be able to tell super reliably if someone is lying with your Int based and inspiration boosted sense motive, have modifiers in the twenties for every single knowledge skill, and the ability to chuck a single bomb per round at people to have at least some use to your party in combat. (this is seriously important and takes so little effort.)
The one downside of all this is that I skipped second level extracts. It might be better to take four levels of investigator to pick up amazing second level extracts like invisibility and spider climb. Can you imagine an invisible investigator with spider climb? Probably not, his stealth is too high.
Notice in the movie that after Virginia steals she doesn't go to the local bar and sing about her accomplishments.
I'm not interested in the showmanship, just the skills.
How can you have 15 years of RPG experience and not even look at the PF Bard before dismissing it?
Besides the fact that a bog-standard Bard isn't forced to be a musician, the Archaeologist Bard gives up all performances for a luck ability to buff their skill checks and saving throws. They get a half level bonus on Disable Device and Perception, making them better at both than a similar Rogue. They also get Evasion, Trap Sense, Uncanny Dodge and Rogue Talents.
They are, for all intents and purposes, better Rogues who can also cast spells.
|
|
I didn't say anything about not fighting. I didn't say my character would be a pacifist.
What I said is that my character's first priority will not be combat. If I want to play a Fighter, I'll create a Fighter. I'm not interested in maximizing damage output.
Well then you've got a very misleading thread title. Aside from play an investigator (which you could flavor however you want), the only advice here would be go UCrogue and take skill feats because that's what it seems like you're looking for here.
What I'm saying is you can play without prioritizing combat while still being able to contribute in it. No one's even saying to maximize damage since the investigator is better than the rogue for being a rogue due to extracts giving things like invisibility, alter self, and other great utility spells as extracts. Hell, flavor it as 'getting them from a contact' if you don't want to go the alchemy route.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to have two problems on this path:
1.) Being unable to divorce default class flavor from YOUR OWN CHARACTER. You decide who and what your character is, not the blurb at the top of the page.
2.) Assuming you can't do skills AND ALSO other stuff. The reason people don't like a "skills only" Rogue is because everyone can do skills. AND ALSO other stuff. A Slayer can do skills AND combat. A Wizard can do skills AND spells. An Inquisitor or Investigator can do skills AND combat AND spells.
A character who can only do one thing, therefore, is less useful to the party than a character that can do multiple...going out of your way to make your character less useful and versatile is kind of an issue.
Unless you're playing in a party with some niche blend of Fighter, Cleric, and Sorcerer, and neither of the spellcasters decided to be utility casters, your "skills only" guy is not going to bring a lot to the table. And in that case you'll have bigger problems down the line.
Most parties I've seen and played in have a much more eclectic assortment of classes, many of which have 4-6 skills/level (and some having a decent Int on top of that) and between them cover almost every skill in the game. A "skill guy" is redundant.
I didn't say anything about not fighting. I didn't say my character would be a pacifist.
What I said is that my character's first priority will not be combat. If I want to play a Fighter, I'll create a Fighter. I'm not interested in maximizing damage output.
Well then you've got a very misleading thread title. Aside from play an investigator (which you could flavor however you want), the only advice here would be go UCrogue and take skill feats because that's what it seems like you're looking for here.
What I'm saying is you can play without prioritizing combat while still being able to contribute in it. No one's even saying to maximize damage since the investigator is better than the rogue for being a rogue due to extracts giving things like invisibility, alter self, and other great utility spells as extracts. Hell, flavor it as 'getting them from a contact' if you don't want to go the alchemy route.
His initial build idea included weapon finesse. He clearly expects above commoner competence.
He has unfortunately assumed the rogue is well designed enough to deliver that. Sadly it takes next level optimizations to achieve that or digging into PF's version of unearthed arcana for the dev apology class rewrite.
You can also reflavor investigators alchemy as a personal stash of stolen/gotten-through-contacts potions.
You seem to have two problems on this path:
1.) Being unable to divorce default class flavor from YOUR OWN CHARACTER. You decide who and what your character is, not the blurb at the top of the page.
2.) Assuming you can't do skills AND ALSO other stuff. The reason people don't like a "skills only" Rogue is because everyone can do skills. AND ALSO other stuff. A Slayer can do skills AND combat. A Wizard can do skills AND spells. An Inquisitor or Investigator can do skills AND combat AND spells.
A character who can only do one thing, therefore, is less useful to the party than a character that can do multiple...going out of your way to make your character less useful and versatile is kind of an issue.
Unless you're playing in a party with some niche blend of Fighter, Cleric, and Sorcerer, and neither of the spellcasters decided to be utility casters, your "skills only" guy is not going to bring a lot to the table. And in that case you'll have bigger problems down the line.
Most parties I've seen and played in have a much more eclectic assortment of classes, many of which have 4-6 skills/level (and some having a decent Int on top of that) and between them cover almost every skill in the game. A "skill guy" is redundant.
What I'm hearing is that in Pathfinder you can't play the type of character that you want. If you play a Rogue, you HAVE to build it like X.
I've played Vampire the Masquerade before in a campaign where people could build whatever character they wanted, and all were viable.
Are you saying Pathfinder doesn't lend itself well to doing this?
well, it depends. If your DM is on board for giving you solo challenges that you solve through skill cheks, and your teammates are ok with you doing nothing in battles and soloing parts of the adventure while they twiddle their thumbs, than yes it is viable.
The simple facts:
Number of Skills is based on your:
1. Base number + Levels. Yes, Rogues are good here, but so are others [e.g. Bard, Investigator]
2. Intelligence. If you don't want to play a smart Rogue, you're already going to end up behind what a Bard, Investigator, or Wizard will have, and that's just in Skills.
3. Usefulness of class skills. If you aren't using Stealth to make attacks and utilize sneak attack dice, you may not be a pacifist, but you may as well be in terms of game mechanics. The Bard, Investigator, or Wizard will have equal ranks to a Rogue in Perception, Sense Motive, and anything else they care to match you on for non-combat, especially if you don't have the points in Intelligence.
4. Feats. Get the Skill Focus or Trait-type feats a couple of times to add additional points of skills.
5. Traits. Get the skill feats a couple of times to add additional points of skills.
But most importantly: Spells are better than Skills. Period. This is true both in and out of combat.
The one main benefit for you is if Unchained Rogue skill unlocks are only available in your game to the Rogue. Then your skills can start to look amazing without needing spells. This is a GM decision. And even still, spells can duplicate most of the effect while still being more useful both in combat and out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to have two problems on this path:
1.) Being unable to divorce default class flavor from YOUR OWN CHARACTER. You decide who and what your character is, not the blurb at the top of the page.
2.) Assuming you can't do skills AND ALSO other stuff. The reason people don't like a "skills only" Rogue is because everyone can do skills. AND ALSO other stuff. A Slayer can do skills AND combat. A Wizard can do skills AND spells. An Inquisitor or Investigator can do skills AND combat AND spells.
A character who can only do one thing, therefore, is less useful to the party than a character that can do multiple...going out of your way to make your character less useful and versatile is kind of an issue.
Unless you're playing in a party with some niche blend of Fighter, Cleric, and Sorcerer, and neither of the spellcasters decided to be utility casters, your "skills only" guy is not going to bring a lot to the table. And in that case you'll have bigger problems down the line.
Most parties I've seen and played in have a much more eclectic assortment of classes, many of which have 4-6 skills/level (and some having a decent Int on top of that) and between them cover almost every skill in the game. A "skill guy" is redundant.
What I'm hearing is that in Pathfinder you can't play the type of character that you want. If you play a Rogue, you HAVE to build it like X.
I've played Vampire the Masquerade before in a campaign where people could build whatever character they wanted, and all were viable.
Are you saying Pathfinder doesn't lend itself well to doing this?
Not really, no. Not unless you basically throw out half of the rule book.
The sad fact is that by default most of a PC's power comes from the mechanical abilities of their class, augmented by feats, ability scores and skill modifiers. If you pick a really weak class and don't aggressively optimize, then your PC is going to be really weak and ineffectual. If you pick a strong class, then your PC will be strong and you will probably find yourself holding back to avoid taking a sledgehammer to the GM's campaign. A moderate class will give you a PC that is OK to great 90% of the time, sucks 5% of the time and does the sledgehammer thing the other 5%.
You can get around having a mechanically sucky character, but it requires a lot of effort by the player (not the PC) trying to circumvent the game mechanics for every advantage they can find, and it also requires a GM that goes along with it. It also requires other players not doing the same, since it's easier to milk advantages when the system isn't trying to screw you. Usually, it's easier to just make a decent character in the first place and not rely on the rest of the table to foster a nurturing environment for your mechanically lacking PC.
well, it depends. If your DM is on board for giving you solo challenges that you solve through skill cheks, and your teammates are ok with you doing nothing in battles and soloing parts of the adventure while they twiddle their thumbs, than yes it is viable.
Do any of you read what I've wrote?
I never said I won't fight. I never even said I'd avoid it.
All I said is that my focus is on becoming better at sneaking, lock-picking, stealth, etc.
If you are playing a rogue and don't ruthlessly optimize for combat, then you are going to find that you are usually doing nothing meaningful in fights, whether you like it or not. Want to be useful in combat even with very little investment in fighting? Play a bard. The Archaeologist was mentioned up thread and they are a pretty good option. No performance based stuff, just lock picking, skills, spells and luck. Take Power Attack, 14 strength, wield a longsword and toss out a few spells and you can probably contribute sufficiently in combat to warrant eating 1/4 of the party's treasure. All the skills you can do (better than a rogue too) are gravy.
Unfortunately, most of those are "solo" skills. I.e. nobody but you is doing anything while you're scouting or lock picking or what have you.
They're all useful skills, mind, but if your character is bad at combat and good at solo skills, then the GM is probably going to try and accommodate by giving you challenges off to the side of the group, particularly if they're more combat or even social skill oriented ("You scout, we'll stay here" or "You sneak into the King's chambers and steal the Maguffin while we hobnob with the nobkes" sort of stuff).
This can be fun occasionally, but at least for me I'm there to interact with everyone else, so it being a constant thing would be no fun.
And youre also correct: Not every character concept is viable in Pathfinder. The guy who is bad at combat is one of them. Regis the halfling thief would not do well here, really.
That's why Investigator is a good compromise. Insane skills and utility! But can throw down hardcore when needed. Just three Feats: Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (Rapier), and Fencing Grace, then the rest could go into skill boosters and such. On top of Studied Combat you're good for most fights.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How can you have 15 years of RPG experience and not even look at the PF Bard before dismissing it?Perhaps because in said 15 years I've never owned or purchased a Pathfinder book so I'm going off my AD&D knowledge...
How can any human make assumptions, never verify they are correct, and get accusatory given their own imaginations?
Do you honestly think that you are the reasonable party in this disagreement, Adrian?
The sad fact is that by default most of a PC's power comes from the mechanical abilities of their class, augmented by feats, ability scores and skill modifiers. If you pick a really weak class and don't aggressively optimize, then your PC is going to be really weak and ineffectual. If you pick a...But isn't it only an issue if the GM has also min/maxed the opponents?
Nope. The GM needs to go out of their way to weaken the opposition if you rock up with a rogue that's crappy in combat and expect to be useful a lot of the time. Level appropriate encounters aren't forgiving to characters with no mobility, an extremely unreliable primary damage source, little durability, little armor and no effective ways of participating beyond "I sit beside the giant beasty and stab it".
I feel disinclined to help after reading your comment about combat taking long because players are incompetent or "don't know how to roleplay"... But I'll drop my two cents anyway...
IMO, your best bet at achieving your character concept and still remain an useful addition to your party are:
- Unchained Rogue with the Eldritch Scoundrel archetype (also Thug or Scout, if they stack with Eldritch Scoundrel).
- Investigator
- Bard (possibly using the Archaeologist archetype)
- Inquisifor with Sanctified Slayer archetype for Sneak Attack and Conversion archetype for social skills.
Take Weapon Finesse and the Dirty Trick related feats to better fit the Rogue theme.
Well, I don't own the book, so I can't read it. Fair enough?Heyooooo!
At this stage, as far as I know the only things not legally available online are some of the setting fluff and a few pretty pictures. You don't need to spend a dollar (although supporting something you like is always nice).