Is lava flammable? If not, does it count as water? Would it extinguish a fire elemental? Could you swim through it?
Yes I did dig through your post to try to gain insight into the mind of someone who thinks GMs should ignore mechanics and kill players on a whim.
Not true. That is a rule. Without that part of the line you couldn't take 10 on skills while there are stress or distractions.
Skill mastery only let's you take 10. That part of the sentence actually overrides the general rules. Without it, the only point of the ability would be to take 10 on UMD in non-stressful, non-distracting situations.
You only have the inverse of that ability in PF.
"Unwavering Skill (Ex): You can always take 10 or 20 on class skills, even if threatened or in a hazardous situation. You can't use this ability with skill checks that don't normally allow you to take 10 or take 20."
Skill mastery's wording also did not change from 3.5.
My GM sees no grey area. When I asked him why he responded with, "I read the ability." even after pointing out and explaining the supposed counter arguments.
It's not a grey area. It's an area some people get confused about. The staff CL thing is a grey area. Being able to select UMD with skill mastery is not. Misreading "even if" as "if and only if" is also not a grey area.
I won't continue this line of discussion.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Oh sorry I just assumed OP knew that.
Tips for playing a druid: Read the whole class. Some classes you can skim, the druid is not one of them. It's one of the more complicated classes. It uses basically every rule in the game.
Then please kindly stop using the Rogue's ability to use UMD to get X when defending the class. UMD is something any class can do and while yes Rogues get Skill Mastery (in 3.5 I'd rule it works since Warlock uses the same language as Rogues, in PF I would probably not because UMD has its own reason for not being able to take 10 on it that Skill mastery doesn't cover), since that doesn't even occur until level 10 they are not especially good even at UMD.
Psst: The wording for UMD is not different from 3.5. At least not in the parts you are referring too.
And no, I won't ignore unique things the rogue can do (taking 10 on UMD) when comparing it to other classes. That would be a dishonest comparison.
That has to be the dumbest thing I ever heard. Picking the class after the stats makes sense. Picking before is paste-eating levels of dumb.
It seems more straight forward from a GM perspective to me.
1) Know everyone's THAC0
The players wouldn't need to do math. It's all done GM-side, which sounds faster to me. Assuming there wasn't a million and one mechanics that changed AC and THAC0.
Did I ever say that? Is calling UMD useful the same thing as saying it's as good as a wizard?
Now a rogue with Bruce Wayne money could be as good as a wizard.
Other than the GM being a jerk and saying no.
Huh. So this is that player entitlement thing I keep hearing about.
No. Vague definitions are not fixed mechanics. Telling your GM that he or she is a jerk for interpreting those vague definitions differently than you makes you the jerk.
Eventually however, you'll get to a point where some lack of knowledge betrays you, and you're now dealing with a close friend, relative, or lieutenant of your disguise target. Then it becomes an opposed BLUFF check instead. There's no taking 20 on that.
Some people here think you can take 10 on that bluff check and the guard can take 10 on the sense motive.
The only thing diverting attention here is somebody being deliberately obtuse.
Oh no the GM has to interpret something so fundamental to the game! There might be table variation! How will my experiences be valid for forum references!?
Would clear rules be nice? Yep. Would they be so nice that I am willing to pretend that the rules are clear and lie to myself about it? No.
occurring or done at once; instant.
"the authorities took no immediate action"
synonyms: instant, instantaneous, swift, prompt, fast, speedy, rapid, brisk, quick, expeditious; More
antonyms: delayed, gradual
relating to or existing at the present time.
"the immediate concern was how to avoid taxes"
synonyms: current, present, existing, actual; More
antonyms: past, future
nearest in time, relationship, or rank.
"a funeral with only the immediate family in attendance"
synonyms: recent, not long past, just gone, latest More
nearest or next to in space.
"roads in the immediate vicinity of the port"
synonyms: nearest, near, close, closest, next-door; More
(of a relation or action) without an intervening medium or agency; direct.
"coronary thrombosis was the immediate cause of death"
synonyms: direct, primary More
(of knowledge or reaction) gained or shown without reasoning; intuitive.
Pretending these definitions are so iron-clad as to only reinforce the way you play the game is ridiculous.
I was in that thread, but that was not my challenge.
If the GM decides you mean.
The definitions of "immediate threats and distractions" are not explicit.
Pretending they are is a reaching claim at best.
I didn't say that. Taking ten is a mechanic. It's not meant for every instance of skills because it has limitations.
Except no one can know those rulings were made by a dev unless someone tells them about it. There is no longer proper documentation.
I even looked through his threads and some of them still have a rules dev title next to them. If Paizo wanted his old rulings to be from a rules dev they could have left that indication. They did not do that.
Oh do explain why.
There is a difference between mundane and realistic.
There is also a difference between makings sense and being realistic.
I do want rogues and fighters to be mundane and make sense.
I doesn't have to be, but that doesn't mean it can't be.
Trying to claim RAW on that would be silly.
I would take the 1 million every time.
I've seen someone describe their love for "D&D" is because it is a game where agency meets chance. Liberally letting people take 10 guts that aspect of the game.
The complaint of non-heroic is why I don't like low levels. I want to be more than my d20 roll, but I don't want to do that by removing it from the game, and if I do (like with skill mastery) I want that to be a powerful mechanic that I had to work for (like suffering 10 levels of rogue).
His post doesn't say rules dev next to it anymore. So what he says cannot be taken as from a rules dev. Some of his post still do have the "rules dev" title by them. I won't assume that isn't on purpose.
That doesn't invalidate his reasoning, but SKR quotes are not Word-of-God for RAW.
Roll a commoner instead with animal ally and boon companion.
If you are going to build your character to not use class features, then you might as well not have them. At least this way everyone knows up front that you are going for gimmick build.
There are ways to do what you want and be effective, just not with that stat array.
Current Favorite Rogue Build:
Focused Study Human Rogue || 10 18 14 14 10 14 || Acrobatics, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Sleight of Hand, Stealth ||5|| Bluff,Use Magic Device, Perception||3|| Secondary Skills(4); Climb, Diplomacy, Disguise, Linguistics(max -1), Swim(1 rank)
Traits: Resilient(+1 fort saves), Indomitable Faith(+1 Will)
1 |Deceitful, Skill Focus(Bluff)
2 |Finesse Rogue
3 |Combat Expertise
4 |Combat Trick(Improved Feint)
5 |Skill Focus(UMD)
6 |Bleeding Attack
7 |Combat Reflexes
8 |Fast Stealth, Skill Focus(Stealth)
9 |Quick Draw
10|Skill Mastery(Bluff, UMD, Stealth, Disguise, Acrobatics)
13|Extra Rogue Talent(Crippling Strike)
16|Skill Mastery(Diplomacy, Escape Artist, Sleight of Hand, Climb, Linguistics), Skill Focus(Acrobatics)
18|Black Market Connections
He should probably just play a slayer though. A rogue can be a soul crushing experience for new players or old players or anyone who doesn't want to jump through hoops to be useful.
I consider the lich powers just something you get for spending the money.
In PF there is no LA, so I wouldn't have the lich fall behind in levels either.
In 3.5 there were "paying off" LA rules, and the lower level you were the more xp you got, so eventually you would end up the same level as the rest of the party.
Rolling for stats worked in 2e because the game was designed to handle it. It doesn't work in 3.X. The only time I have seen it work is were the rolling for stats yields such a high average that each stat is only different levels of good.
Try playing the game rolling 3d6 for each stat in order. If you want to be "hardcore" then go all in. None of this "my groups better than point buyers. We have CHANCE in our creation. Oh we roll 2d6+8 for each stat."
*also clearly a flame-bait post*
N. Jolly wrote:
1) There is table variation among some of the rules which naturally increases how much something is talked about.
2) There is confusion about "having the options to" and "having to" when it comes to using UMD.
3) Some people want to give the option no value because anyone can do it, while ignoring that spell casters get far less out of the investment.
A barbarian pulling out his bow for that one range combat encounter is not worthless because the ranger could fire the bow better.
Adam B. 135 wrote:
Guys, trying to reason is not working and has not been working for a while. The only choice is to ignore. I get the feeling that Anarchy is looking for an argument, not a discussion.
If you aren't contributing don't comment. You may disagree with his points, but your comments are harassment and bullying.
There is little reason to try to persuade everyone to join your cyber bullying idea of giving this guy the cold shoulder.
I find that mid levels take the longest. Early levels tend to be quicker in groups that don't really like them. Late levels take longer, but fewer campaigns get there.
When you use the staff instead of the wizard and the wizard then cast another spell, is that not something? The party is like "we need to nova", being able to burn those resources faster is being helpful.
N. Jolly wrote:
It also comes online when Int casters get really close to surpassing the rogue in skill points (my builds are only 12 per level).
It's also the point when you need to start getting a sneak attack every round.
Little things like fast stealth are also important, but I consider 7-9 to be the toughest area for the rogue.
So in other words for your rogue to work it requires two fairly important 'grey areas." I wont say you're wrong on the CL and UMD. I will say that everyone I've ever played with disagrees(as well as a number of people posting on this forum). So just to humor us how would your rogue+ comparison operate IF we were right?
Nothing particularly changes. The UMD is a side thing. The bread and butter is skill mastery which other classes have to use resources to compensate for the lack of. They aren't playing like that rogue then. They still aren't a rogue with more options. Without their resources they are a rogue-. They have to use them to be as effective or more effective attempting the same play style. But since they are managing those resources, they don't have the same play style.
I still probably would not play a rogue where such a thing did not work. The rogue builds I have come with a running list of potential "grey area" as in "GM ruling" things to talk about. Any one of those working a different way (like if people can take 10 on stealth when sneaking past guards while not having skill mastery), then rogue is not in a decent enough place in that campaign to be worth playing in my eyes. My biggest complaint with the rogue is that you can just barely get them to work at a satisfactory level. Which is a shame, since their play style is fairly fun.
The all day factor is important to play style, but is of less important to effectiveness.
If you really don't get what I am saying, then you are stating that you think Paladins and fighters play the same way, but the paladin just does it better.
Yes so for that the UMD comes with other advantages that isn't always wasting gold.
For example using the wizards staves for him doesn't burn any gold, since staves are renewable. Using the items that drop that no one else can use doesn't explicitly use up resources either. It allow the party to use those resources when they couldn't.
The analogy doesn't completely apply because it is too simple to fully express everything, but should outline the fundamental difference in play.
Sorry, but despite my rereading I still do not understand the specifics of one style versus the other. I am afraid that my questions must remain the same, as I can not really discuss the differences between two things when I do not actually know how they are different.
I'll try to draw an analogy that doesn't completely apply.
Picture a fighter. Weapon training doesn't require resources to use.
The paladin uses lay on hands to heal.
They both play differently.
The GM making a ruling is not homebrew.
The GM making up mechanics would be homebrew.
Both are the actual rules of the game, but most of us are talking about the PF general rules. No one actually plays general pathfinder though. They play their GM's game which happens to resemble pathfinder.