Crowe's page

There should be a mining contest. First team of eight to construct a tunnel through a twenty foot slab of earth gets the gold.

It's either that, or... bobsledding.

Some people say that they know they can't believe
That the Five Kings Mountains have a bobsled team.

Mine car racing, just like bobsledding, only in the dark, with monsters.

Phasics wrote:

if you feel like screwing with your character begin a string a mauling murders that happen every few nights. The dogs are blamed but thier pen is undamaged and no blood is found on them in the morning.

The town starts demanding the animals are put down the PC's no doubt will want to prevent that and thus must solve the murders which could either be some other wild critter or some bbeg who is teleporting the animals out of their pens whipping them into a frenzy against some poor villager and then returning them before morning. Perhaps even leaving illusions in their place to fool the PC who stay up to watch the pens.

no such thing as a free lunch in Pathfinder ;)

also this, this is also good

I think so too, specially if perhaps the real perps are Barghests

The problem is, the numbers just aren't there. Rogues have terrible to-hit, due to 3/4 Bab and no class based bonuses to it. This then cuts heavily into average damage. At the end of the day, even with optimal tactics and conditions, you will be lucky to match the damage of many other classes. The difference is, they can still deal damage without those conditions. The Rogue is not so lucky.

I find this 3/4 BAB is the suck argument a bit overdone. At twenty, you are 5 BAB behind the Ranger, and nobody is crying for them. You shouldn't be attacking anyone's normal AC, on average, their AC should be 1 or 2 lower flat footed, and flanking earns you another +2. If you are dual wielding and not hitting, stop attacking with the offhand and that -2 goes away. If you are hammering on a tank/high ac critter, try a wand of produce flame.

What "whole spill?" I specifically stated "That Bards can eventually end up with even more skillpoints is really just icing on the schtick-stealing cake." Does that sound like I am balancing the argument on Versatile Performance in any way?

As for the trait, as Evil Lincoln said, "Disable Device is go big or go home." Besides making Disable Device a class skill, you also grab a +1 trait bonus. The Rogue can match, or fall behind in the number race.

Whole spiel. I think the argument is that a Rogue can devote more points to int, whereas a Bard is a bit more mad and ends up having to go with the 10 INT, so you end up with 6 skill points for the Bard and 10-12 for the Rogue. In the end, I think they cancel each other out. Rogue's are hard pressed to match Bard's in Knowledge's and Face Skills, and Rogues do the more physical skills better. They are both Skill Monkeys, different, but in many ways equal. That is the Bard vis Rogue. The Archaeologist on the other hand, the Bard/Rogue hybrid, loses versatile performance, so skill point parity is gone. The archaeologist loses inspire, so his damage potential is greatly reduced. Even though it is a "bard", the Archaeologist essentially a rogue without sneak attack, reduced skill points, reduced talents, a new focus on Charisma, a self buff, 1 less trait, and a bards spell list. The Archivist is arguably better because it has a form of inspire, but it too loses versatile performance. Different strokes for different folks. I don't think that Bard is better than Rogue, they both have their places, I just don't think Rogue's are useless compared to Bards. As an aside, it is nice to see Bards get so much love, they were pretty useless in previous editions.

Mike Schneider wrote:

Imagine a foe who, at any random moment of the day, zings you one for 1d8+6d6. You're out in the middle of nowhere, running low of consumables and spell uses per day, and can't get a moment's rest -- and if they let you sleep, it'll be to coup de grace.

You camp someplace with 60 feet of unobstructed sight and put the dwarf or half orc on watch. The rogue says "Oh look i'm in the dark " the person with dark vision says "You're standing in the open, you have no cover and no concealment. Auto spot! WHACK"

And by 12th level you're not camping anywhere except maybe in your Tiny hut. Pardon me, do you have any grey poupon?

The rogue relies on particular terrain and target types: which are not under his control, they're under the DM's. Rogues work ok as foes but the mark of how good a class is for a player is how well a player can do with it.

One hopes that the rogue attack team doesn't have a wand of vanish, or dispel magic or arcane sight, or any of the other things that could torpedo the "rogue-proof" camp. For every move there is a counter-move, and yes it is a two-way street.

I'm seeing a grand total of four rogue skills that aren't either coverable with versatile performance, charisma based, or better shoveled off onto the wizard who doesn't need to take all the knowledges with bardic knowledge in play. And one of them is almost completely useless for non-evil characters.

I'm not counting climb, swim, or professions. Those are fixed DC skills that take a handful of points over the lifetime of the character or useless.

But, seriously, high int rogues? An obligate melee class since ranged sneak attack isn't viable so they need lots of con. They have a weak will save so they need quite a bit of wisdom. They need dexterity for AC. They can't dump strength because of the encumbrance rules. As many charisma based skills as they have int should be the last stat on their priority list.

The bard, on the other hand, doesn't need to be a melee build so he can skimp on constitution and put favored class bonus into skill points. He can skimp on wisdom because will isn't a weak save. Int could be priority three after charisma and dexterity instead of priority five or six.

I am of the opinion, that a rogues's second highest stat should be INT with DEX first. Strength is needed only to meet encumbrance requirements, Con contributes nothing to skills, and while the plus to save and absorption of an extra hit is nice (at high levels)...it is not mandatory. I am really surprised toughness and Great Fortitude aren't sky blue in all of these guides with the emphasis on 14 min Con or you will get pwned in melee. A rogue should only initiate fights in the surprise round and in the first round (ie, against helpless opponents), after that, he should assist teammates is finishing combats quickly. Wisdom is important, as one of the most used skills for a rogue is Perception, but you don't need anything spectacular, as most races have a bonus, and your Rogue's bonus makes traps fairly easy to detect. Most Guides recommend dumping Charisma, but I think it is best at a 10, as you have many skills that key off of it and I think it fits the Rogue to not stand out in a crowd as being too memorable either way. Many people criticize the low saves, but a +2 isn't really going to save you, and a rogue's best defense against a spellcaster is stealth and avoidance of line of sight. A Rogue's strengths are his skills and his speed, and you should emphasize these.

Rogues are challenging to play. They require alot of tactical play and they are really feat intensive in the beginning to get them cooking, but they can be very rewarding. Alot of people find them dissatisfying because their combat role is more supportive than front-line. A rogue is often best employed finishing fights other characters are in rather than starting his own, and a rogue must finish those fights quickly lest he be a target himself.

Hellraiser was the first thing I thought of when I read the description, of course you could have it be the opposite, it contains a holy relic of some sort (angel feather, saint's skull, tears of Desna, what ev), and the player's after some puzzling unlock it to give them a divine vision of a quest...the box could provide the player's clues/divine guidance/gm hints in the future.

For good AC, you might want to do Savage Barbarian. True, you lose Damage Reduction, but with a buckler, bracers of armor, amulet of natural armor, ring of protection, ghost rager, guarded stance, etc, you can come up with some disturbing ACs, and at the higher levels, not getting hit is more important than soaking ten per hit.

It varies by build, preparation, and time level as well as house rules, use of the FAQ, and plenty of other odds and ends. Pathfinder, however, was not built for class versus class combat.

This is of course all true, but it is also true that it is inefficient to fight fire with fire. Tanks vs Tanks doesn't work, Controller vs Controller, etc You don't want to fight fire with fire, you want to fight fire with water. Combined arms theory for Pathfinder if you will.

I guess what I am trying to poll, is for class X that you have experience with, if you encountered an opposing party, which classes/roles would you feel strong in engaging with that class, and which classes/roles would you be worried about attacking your class. Obivously, they are a million variables to this, and builds can make anything pretty effective against anything, so it it all subjective, I am merely looking for your opinion, which may vary from others (ie, that the Rogue can engage anything)

Some classes are very effective against other classes, for example, Wizards are good at neutralizing Fighters, but Fighters are good at neutralizing Rogues, and Rogues in Turn are good at neutralizing Wizards. In your opinions, for your favorite classes please give reasons as to what class do you think they are strongest against, and what class do you think they are weakest against.

My Example:
I think Wizards are strongest against Fighters because they can attack the fighters typical weak defenses (Will, Reflex) and either immobilize or enchant them to use against the enemy.

I think Wizards are weakest against Rogues, because often the Rogue acts before the Wizard, is hard for the Wizard to target, has the mobility to reach the Wizard, and the Rogue's attacks can often kill the Wizard in a single round.

Your thoughts and opinions please,

Thanks,

C. Rowe