MartialMadness's page

MartialMadness wrote:

You forgot that -4 to attacks for using the bow in combat. Have to make fair comparisons if you're going to say the cleric is channeling while everyone is fighting. The bow also provokes an attack of opportunity if you get too close where channel doesn't. If the archer gets to stand 100 feet away the cleric also gets to stand on the edge of channel range to ensure it doesn't hit the enemies as well. Sometimes enemies still have full HP and getting hit with a channel means nothing.

Unfair comparison doesn't validate your opinion.

You're absolutely right. Clearly the only fair comparison here is to compare a blind archer too stupid to 5 foot step out of melee to a cleric who magically finds that in every single fight his allies form a nicely linked arc that keeps every single enemy outside of the reach of his Channel Energy. Like you said, unfair comparison doesn't validate your opinion.

5 foot step doesn't help vs. creatures with reach or a character with step up. It doesn't change the fact that a bow provokes AoOs and channel does not. You can invest feats if you qualify for fighter levels, but now we're at 5 feats to be effective in combat and not provoke.

I never said the archer had to be blind and stupid. You're just making arbitrary exaggerated arguments.

I never said the enemy forms a perfect arc. This isn't the only means of getting an effective channel. You're just making arbitrary exaggerated arguments.

Making an unfair comparison or fabricating another unfair comparison and attempting to assert that that's anyone else's argument does not validate your opinion.

Rory wrote:

A longbow is a clumsy tool to use in combat without siginificant feat and monetary investment as well. No one argues an archer isn't allowed to spend resources. A longbow has a lot more feats and avenues open to boost it, but it still costs a LOT of resources.

Actually, without a single feat spent it's still a 1d8 weapon with a x3 crit and a range of 100 feet, which doesn't require additional feats in order to make multiple ranged attacks in combat. And if you spend feats on it, it becomes possibly the best weapon in the game. With Channel Energy, you're spending resources just to make it a viable option, basically upgrading it from water balloon full of pee, to club. For Channel Energy to be something resembling a good option, you have to dedicate a character to it, propping it up with feats, traits, class features, etc., and even then the only thing that's making it good is that you still have a standard action available to do something that will elevate your turn to effective, like casting a buffing spell, a damaging spell, a control spell, etc.

You forgot that -4 to attacks for using the bow in combat. Have to make fair comparisons if you're going to say the cleric is channeling while everyone is fighting. The bow also provokes an attack of opportunity if you get too close where channel doesn't. If the archer gets to stand 100 feet away the cleric also gets to stand on the edge of channel range to ensure it doesn't hit the enemies as well. Sometimes enemies still have full HP and getting hit with a channel means nothing.

Unfair comparison doesn't validate your opinion.

Rory wrote:

With 14 CHA, with zero other investment, a level 5 cleric has effectively 3 extra Cure Serious Wounds worth of healing without using spells. This is single target healing, which is comparing Channel Energy at its worst.

No, it's not. Channel Energy at its worst is healing every enemy within reach with a Cure Serious Wounds spell, dragging out the fight at the expense of the group's resources. And considering your 14 CHA cleric can only exclude 2 enemies from tha effect after spending a feat, this only works out in your favor in a situation where action economy is already on the group's side and they outnumber the enemy.

Your archer can only remove the -4 to attacks after spending 2 feats. It's an even greater investment. Excluding 2 enemies and battlefield positioning should be all you need to grant a channel to everyone effectively. Making some claim of enemies surrounding you is nonsense as most people complain about cleave not having enough use.

Also, your Channel example is bad. IF you want to bring up multiple people at 5th level, Fireball does an average damage of 21.5 to as many people as get caught in it. And that's like a basic fireball.

Belligerent much? Ease up on insulting others because you think your opinion is right and you have "system mastery" that others lack.

Your fireball deals 21.5 damage with a save for half. Half is 10.75 and you round down to 10. A 3d6 channel is 10.5 round down and they both negate each other. The wizard used his standard action to cast a spell, the cleric used his standard action to counter the effects of the spell, the party kills the wizard that just made himself known.

Arguing for any AoE damage spell is one of the easiest to counter with channel. Higher damage single target effects are when channel loses potency. Which is also why you don't stand there spamming channel and use it when there's multiple allies injured

Kwauss wrote:

Post a thread saying the Rogue is a worthwhile class?

Post a thread on paladin alignment. Hold any position.

Fighters are OP.

Oh, well do that then. Channel Energy sucks a lot, so getting free empowering on all your healing at the cost of some d6s on your channel energy is probably a win/win. Heck, keeping your channel dice low means you can stabilize allies without making them targets again.

*emphasis mine*

You keep saying this, but where's any validation of it? An AoE of scaling +1d6 in a typical 4 man group is a standard action +4d6 of healing at level 1. One channel is nearly on par with 3 first level spells.

The propagation of misinformation and opinion as fact on this board blows my mind.

Ssalarn wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Fighter: "Blarg, I am down at -3 HP!" *falls down*
Cleric: "Oh no, I'd better be a healer! *clanks over to the fighter and heals him back up to 10 HP!* "I'm the hero!"
Kobold Sorcerer: "EAT HOT DEATH UPWORLDERS!" *fireball for 21 damage*
Fighter: "Gack! I'm even more dead than I was before!" *dies*
Cleric: "OW! I NEED A HEALER!"

This was actually hilarious because I've had this experience on more than one occasion, where I've healed someone just enough to make sure that instead of falling unconcious at -5 or so, they're left barely standing so that the next hit straight up murders them. After this happened in a RotRL campaign, I was specifically asked to "stop helping" as the former bard rolled up a new character.

Yep. I've seen, and heard, of it happening many, many times. And why not? It makes sense. Most enemies unless they're just either A) especially interested in cruelty over survival, or B) want to eat you in the middle of a fight (very few things should) will generally not bother to continue attacking downed foes in the middle of a fight. It's just bad business.

However, having the healer bring someone up makes them a target again, so if you're going to bring them up, bring them up HARD. Healers don't do this very well in D&D until high levels when spells like heal come online. The best they can do otherwise is generally metamagiced versions of cure spells (admittedly, maximized cure spells look really nice, but that's usually a druid thing with meditation incense), but normal metamagic effects require you to sacrifice higher spell levels. This might not be so bad, but clerics can't apply metamagic on the fly, which means locking yourself into that spell, which is painful.

Had the cleric attacked the Kobold there's no guarantee it would have killed it followed up by its 5 foot step, dropping a fireball to engulf the already unconscious fighter killing him and still damaging the cleric.

Or why the cleric wasn't dropping a cure serious and healing an average 19.5 vs the average 21 damage fireball which leaves them both charred, but the fighter not dead.

If healing is your focus I'm sure you also plan to take abilities that maximize its effectiveness like the healing domain which bumps that CSW up to 27 which now has both characters standing after the fireball.

Or maybe the fighter and cleric were close and the cleric can quick channel and cast CSW bringing the fighter up another 10.5 to 37.5 and healing himself 10.5

I don't get why it has to be comparisons to the worst outcome and never a look at the inverse.

Channel Energy is terrible as a healing ability in combat.

Channel energy + Quick Channel + Shield Other is one of the most effective combat healing methods there is. Split the damage a front liner takes by half and your channel becomes twice as effective.

ikarinokami wrote:

healing in combat is awesome, that is all.

Not needing to be healed in combat is even more awesome. :D

Not needing combat is even more awesome.

Evil Paladin wrote:

(...)and I think he had an AC of 15 or 16. I had a 17 AC at first level, and should have had 11 HP.

I read that to mean that the cleric had 11 HP, not the fighter, but I could very well be mistaken.

You are correct, I misread that. Even still the fighter could have a 5 con at the lowest using the RAW leaving it at 7 HP requiring 8 damage and a maxed 6 roll on channel to be fitting of the statement. I'd be questioning who plays a fighter and dumps con and AC. Why not throw your wizard into melee.

It could have been an Old Elf level 1 fighter with 3 constitution and his FCB in skills, he'd have a baseline HP of 6 or so.

Or, you know, a slightly faulty memory. No need to call shenanigans, let's keep this friendly. :)

He specifically said it should have had 11 hp. That's a 12 con on a fighter so it's a believable number. The math is also very simple. 1d6 heals a maximum of 6. The fighter went down in one hit which is a minimum of 12 damage. The channel got the fighter back to his feat and almost to full HP which is impossible.

I'm not trying to be rude, just pointing out that this comment shouldn't be used for any valid reasoning for the effectiveness of combat healing anymore than saying my level 20 fighter only takes 13 points of damage a round and the cleric always heals 13 with his CLW spells.

They're dishonest statements and someone else even favorited the post.

Here is one of my Real Life experiences with my cleric's healing not keeping up with damage. Keep in mind, this was my first PF character, and I didn't know the rules for PF very well, so I was far from optimized.

First level, we are fighting around 3 different humans[I think, it was a while ago], and the fighter in the group drops in one hit, along with a few others getting damaged. So, I used Channel Energy to heal everyone, and the fighter gets back up [and almost to full]. So, he stands up as a full-round action[houseruled to not provoke], and then the next turn, he gets dropped even further then the last turn. So rinse, repeat, [and I did throw a CLW or two at him IIRC] a few rounds later he was 1 point away from death, because I was combat-healing somebody who could only do frontline melee fighting. The healing I was doing was not keeping up with the damage, and was merely prolonging the fight.

and I think he had an AC of 15 or 16. I had a 17 AC at first level, and should have had 11 HP.

Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric. The amount of damage dealt or healed is equal to 1d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage for every two cleric levels beyond 1st (2d6 at 3rd, 3d6 at 5th, and so on).

I call shenanigans. Your fighter took at a minimum 12 points in one swing and you channeled a maximum of 6 on that single d6 almost healing him to full?

I don't think that healing keeps up with damage as you level in a meaningful way and that's why you apply buffs as preventing damage is the best form of healing. Going by the monster creation tables you can make the comparison easily to spells.

CR 1 high damage is 7 HP, low damage is 5 HP. Average healing on a CLW is 5.5 HP.

CR 3 high damage is 13 HP, low damage is 9 HP. Average healing on CMW is 12 HP.

CR 5 high damage is 20 HP, low damage is 15 HP. Average Healing on CSW is 18.5 HP.

CR 7 high damage is 30 HP, low damage is 22 HP. average healing on CCW is 25 HP.

CR 9 high damage is 40 HP, low damage is 30 HP. Average healing on BoL is 31.5 HP.

CR 11 high damage is 50 HP, low damage is 37 HP. Heal is 110 HP.

Healing keeps pace with the low damage, but slowly falls behind further on the high damage until level 11 where heal trumps the amount of damage per round. The problem is multiple creatures attacking one character or running out of your highest tier of spells to keep the pace.

Preventing attacks from landing will always trump spending time healing in combat UNLESS a dire situation calls for it.

lemeres wrote:

But how common is the 'standard adventuring party'? And how much more common is "a rich merchant with some body guards, some of which have bows"?

Pretty much, your party is the ONLY "party of adventurers" in the entire world of Golarion. Thus, no one has ever seen such a thing.

PFS says otherwise.

MartialMadness wrote:

Your Viking was a lone man blocking a bridge. With no one else to attack all attacks will be directed at the lone figure. This is not a tank. This is a lone person holding their ground using a tactical advantage.

My Fighter is a guy blocking a dungeon corridor. This defines "tank".

Wrong. I could stand back and fire volleys into the wizard behind you. You've done nothing, but become a pawn on a chess board. If there is no one behind you and you stand alone like the Viking then you're not tanking as the term refers to a role played in a group of people. Under your assumption a wizard standing in the corridor or a wall with an arrow slit is a tank.

Well, assuming you succeeded on the intimidate check, then it lasts for 1 round (maybe more if you rolled very well), and you've failed to present yourself as a threat at all because you didn't even touch them.

If you're making an intimidate build this isn't a problem and is a pointless argument. This is akin to assuming your fighter even hits to apply the mark.

Intimidate is 10+HD+WIS. +3 class, +1 rank, +1 stat, take 10 is a roll of 15 which beats pretty much every CR 1 if not all of them. Not sure if any CR 1 creatures have a 22 wisdom or a 20 with 2 HD.

Dazzling display also applies to ALL creatures in a 30 foot radius where you just said marks apply to a creature you hit. Seems like dazzling display is only getting better. So you've made one foe know that you can swing a sword where I've scared everyone in the room with my presence, but I'm somehow not threatening?

Then they smash your amazing grappling rogue.

Sorry, was meant to be a monk. I'm still not sure how the creature is smashing anyone though. They have a -2 from shaken and a -2 from grapple along with a -4 dex which could result in another -2 attack.

Dazzling Display takes up your Standard action, Marks are generally applied by attacks or swift action. The fact that they don't take -2 to hit you is a feature as well, it evens out the party's AC relative to yours.

-2 to hit you AND a -2 on saves, skill checks, ability checks. The mark made it harder to hit your allies where dazzling display made it harder to hit everyone AND allowed the casters to more effectively use spells, allowed the grappling monk to succeed more often, the sneak attacking rogue to apply hamstring strike.

Carrying a weapon that wizards don't traditionally use, conditioning of the body, stance, gait, a plethora of physical attributes that are present due to training. Unless of course you are perpetually bluffing the world and your 7 strength wizards walk around flexing and you just describe them as hulking behemoths.

You're comparing a librarian who spent their life pouring over tomes to the librarian that spent time training with weaponry. They definitely will not be similar in appearance.

There is only one term that is tanking. It's origins are based in MUDs and is supported by searching the etymology. If it existed before this the etymology would say as much.

A tank is someone who uses their ability to direct attacks towards themselves to ensure that a single person is taking the brunt of damage. Ie tanking the damage. PF has the antagonize feat and a few spells that support this mechanic. Anything that forces a penalty for not attacking someone is merely a debuff where a sentient being is free to attack anyone they want and the sole person is not tanking damage.

@Martial Madness: 4e Defenders get to challenge their opponent with a Mark, which gives the marked creature -2 to hit anyone besides the Defender. Different defenders also have different unique ways to punish those that ignore the mark to attack one of their allies, whether getting an extra attack against them, reducing the damage of their attack, or something else.

Dazzling display does this except they even have a -2 to hit the person that used it and also suffer a penalty to skills, ability checks, and saves. It is a debuff with no mechanic forcing anyone to attack a single target. Combat reflexes, body guard, in harm's way and having players maneuver tactically to ensure more AoOs get provoked does the rest. It's still limited in use for a representation of a tank.

Publius Horatius Cocles would disagree. So would Leonidas.

The Viking who held Stamford Bridge would disagree.

Publius Horatius Cocles held a bridge shoulder to shoulder with 2 other soldiers. Only 3 people were present and all three were being assaulted. Publius did not tank the damage while his allies freely assaulted the enemy.

Leonidas fought with Spartan tactics locking shields and fighting as a defensive unit. He did not tank all the attacks while his allies freely slaughtered Persians.

Your Viking was a lone man blocking a bridge. With no one else to attack all attacks will be directed at the lone figure. This is not a tank. This is a lone person holding their ground using a tactical advantage. An archer could hold a narrow passageway. This doesn't make the archer a tank under the definition of the word.

Many words

I'm not saying anyone singles anyone out. I'm saying a sentient creature has the choice to attack anyone they want and PF lacks the mechanics to play a tank effectively as the term is traditionally used. Even animals that work on instinct will avoid the guy in armor to attack the guy wearing clothes. It's why survival of the fittest is a real thing.

A person knows it's easier to kill a man wearing basic clothes than to kill a man wearing full plate. Tactically it would make more sense to kill off the easy targets so you can gang up on the harder foe. It's easier to kill the mooks before the BBEG than to rush the BBEG while the mooks beat on you.

The problem will arise in the thoughts of your stats actually affecting your appearance, ability, and understanding. An 18 strength should be a hulking mass where the 7 or even 10 strength is just a skinny or lean looking individual. So a person should be able to make a quick visual inspection of the threats and decide that they want to thin the ranks which provides a tactical man advantage. Why spend 3 arrows to take down the guy in heavy armor if 3 arrows can kill 3 lightly armored people. Surely you can move faster than the guy in full plate to keep enough distance while killing his allies. Same thing with melee attacks. Unless a creature has no choice, but to go through the heavy armor combatant then they're just as easily avoided and a being that thinks for itself can come to this conclusion as easily as you or I.

Actually, tanking DOES exist outside of video games, but you have to have explicit mechanics for it. 4e has the 'defender' role, which fits the definition of a tank to the tee. It's just that pathfinder doesn't really do that role.

Never played 4e or a variety of the plethora of table tops so I can't speak for all of them. Did any of the classes that took the defender role have "a way to taunt or provoke enemies into attacking me?" Or is it just more battlefield control abilities. I'm not seeing anything that says a sentient creature isn't allowed to attack anyone it wants.

Tactics used by a team to ensure more vulnerable members of the team are not exposed to the enemy's attacks.

Sounds like what people refer to when they discuss tanking.

OP asked for an ability to taunt or provoke. Many others mentioned classes that become a tank due to damage output. Many others are suggestions of classes using spells or other feats to accomplish short term solutions. Neither of those are tactics used by a team.

Sounds like people talk about a variety of things when they refer to tanking.

"Tanking doesn't exist in worlds with sentient beings".

Surely you have heard of the Roman legionary? Putting up a shield wall and daring the enemies of Rome to have a go at it. Tanking is old in combat. The Assyrian bow and shield teams did it, which is why they were so effective at sieges. Steadily take the ranged hits with the shield, return fire, soak and slowly choke the enemy as they waste their shots and get picked off. The shield-bearer was all "tank".

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/AssyrianSiege.jpg

Back to the game, there are a lot of ways to do it. It is really easy to do in tight corridors. Clerics and pallies do it the best with great ac and hp (barbs are a different, more offensive type of tank in my mind). Exposing themselves and their hp pool (which they can replenish) so that others are injured less.

And now you're just discussing tactics used by a team like I mentioned. The Testudo formation was a brilliant tactic. Unfortunately it was very slow moving, restricted combat, and was susceptible to skirmishers throwing pilum which weighed down the shields and made them ineffective.

Tanking does not exist in worlds with sentient beings. It's a mechanism of video games where the system doesn't allow free thought. A tank rolling onto a battle field doesn't demand everyone's attention. It's just another threat as capable of killing you as a soldier with a rifle.

Real life tanks also had nothing to do with the term as it's come to be known. Tanks were secretly manufactured during WWI and to avoid being leaked the manufacturers listed plans as water tanks which eventually became shortened or became slang as a tank.

Tanking doesn't exist in worlds with sentient beings. The video game concept of tanking is based on enmity generation and a class capable of over riding the enmity of others. Antagonize completely does do this, but for a single attempt and then you cannot use it on a creature again that day.

You can say a barbarian tanks by being a threat through things like pounce, but this is still not true as much as a turret archer or a spell caster is a tank. A creature is free to do as it likes. If anything the reverse is true in a table top RPG setting as it attempts to mimic life through role playing. A creature that is overly threatening will be avoided as instinct would cater to survival unless there's a method of dealing with it. Using a run action to steer clear of a barbarian or even just a withdraw if your movement is greater is a more likely course of action than telling yourself the barbarian is THE threat that must be dealt with in a manner that removes it from it's threatening position.

Creatures that think for themselves are smart enough to know when they're losing or their lives are in jeopardy and wouldn't stand around to fight. They'd carry tools to aid in escape measures like smoke sticks

Your best choice at a defensive character build is to talk with your group and play tactics. It can be hard as most groups, my own included, like to be the solo hero. Charging off alone to wreak havoc and hoping others will be there to help when things go wrong. An armored melee that hangs back with the archer firing volleys or the wizard casting is truly how an adventuring party would work IMO. Have a ranged weapon to hang back and when monsters close in quick draw your melee and get in the way of the advancing creatures. Provided your team focus fires down some creatures and the group maneuvers with you to force creatures to provoke AoOs, you should be able to get in the way of the bulk of the attacks.

MartialMadness wrote:

You can't have a profane and a sacred bonus. They are polar opposites determined by alignment. You chose a profane bonus from one and you will get a profane bonus on the other.

Hmm... is there an actual rule on that somewhere? I thought if you were neutral you could get both from different sources.

Nothing beyond each individual entry saying once chosen it can't change. It just doesn't make sense that your god would give you both a profane and a sacred bonus. One is a bonus for performing an obedience where the other is only granted by the Evangelist class by performing your obedience.

MartialMadness wrote:

How can you be so averse to pageant of the peacock, but all for versatile performance? It's the exact same idea. You play the drums and scare people. You play a guitar and bluff people. Your dancing allows better use of your wings.

Two reasons. One, the big one, balance. Big difference between using one skill to replace two, and using one skill to replace a dozen or so.

Second, big difference between scaring people with drums, or flying gracefully with your dancing ability (both of which make sense), and identifying a monster or crafting a sword by dancing/lying (which doesn't)

I agree with the balance point. Your other one is just being arbitrary. Why would dancing have anything to do with flying. Wings don't affect dancing so why would the reverse be true. I can't see drums causing fear without some magic to back that. How about a triangle, chimes, xylophones, cowbells, or a tambourine? Truly scary instruments.

Playing a keyboard allows diplomacy to gather information? Playing a flute allows diplomacy to negotiate item prices? Singing allows sense motive vs feinting?

Versatile performances happen every 4 levels. 2, 6, 10, 14, 18.

Focused study happens at 1, 8, 16.

You can't have a profane and a sacred bonus. They are polar opposites determined by alignment. You chose a profane bonus from one and you will get a profane bonus on the other.

How can you be so averse to pageant of the peacock, but all for versatile performance? It's the exact same idea. You play the drums and scare people. You play a guitar and bluff people. Your dancing allows better use of your wings.

Not worth it. Of those 15 skills more than half are very weak and none are particularly strong. You're giving up your top level abilities and a feat and taking a BAB penalty and basing things on your principal dump stat. For the alchemist and investigator you're moving skills from your primary stat to your principal dump stat.

I suppose if everyone else is running around with an int 7 cleric or fighter going for pageant with a dip might make sense, but unless you absolutely have to do everything outside of combat and don't have to do anything in combat it's not as good a deal as you think.

I just listed an example of a charisma dumped fighter that has a +26 in 15 skills and your response is if everyone dumps intelligence? What does this have to do with anything? How does this magically make you useless in combat?

More than half of the 15 are weak? 10 are knowledge checks, one is Spellcraft, another is only limited to the number of things you want to craft, and then we have linguistics, appraise, and bluff.

Losing +1 BAB is extremely trivial to every class. It's the difference of a single level for feat qualification. And the entire context of this is that a single level dip can make any class a skill monkey so I'm not sure what your point is.

For the alchemist or investigator you're moving 15 skills onto one skill check. Do those classes come with 15+ INT per level?

pageant of the peacock is one of those abilities that are so absurd I just do not care about them, I just pretend they do not exist. If the problem were that then I would say there was actually no problem at all.

Unfortunately te bard still steals the rogue´s job without it.

Because the bard still has versatile performance and bardic knowledge. I've already stated this as well when I said a rogue isn't defined as a skill monkey under the expectations of most posters here. If getting 8 skills per level makes you a skill monkey then a wizard is inherently a skill monkey and is more useful than a bard just by having 9th level spell progression and being SAD.

MartialMadness wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

MartialMadness wrote:

I don't really agree that the rogue has been left behind as much as I believe the bard has been given too many tools to be abusive.

This does not account for the alchemist, ranger, inquisitor and soon the slayer and investigator.

And bard1/alchemist is better than any alchemist, bard1/ranger is better than any ranger, bard1/inquisitor is better than any inquisitor, and soon the bard1/slayer and bard1/investigator are going to be better than any slayer or investigator.

The bard1/rogue still trumps all of those base PURE classes above.

As it stands I don't agree that a class is defined as a skill monkey by skill points alone. Skill points let you diversify and do many things, but it doesn't mean you do those things better than anyone. Especially not knowledges as the classes you mentioned get bonuses to those. A rogue having skills IMO is an attempt to make the rogue less MAD.

If your definition is just someone with many skill points than the rogue does just as well as most the others you listed and there's no need to continue, but it seems they also have to do skills well or the comparison to other classes wouldn't be present. Under this premise the PF rogue is not a skill monkey because they have no inherent skill boosting abilities beyond disable device and perception related to finding traps.

As I posted above the problem may be that the PF rogue has evolved into something that no longer meets the expectation of players from previous editions.

You need to review the multiclassing rules. Whenever a class ability refers to your level it means your level in that class. Everything a bard dip gives you quickly becomes obsolete since it doesn't scale. If you're an nth level alchemist your next alchemist level is always better than bard 1 and the disparity only grows as you have more alchemist levels under your belt. Bard gives a few quickly obsolete spells and performance that isn't...

You need to not make accusatory statements about peoples understanding of the rules. Also take a read at the applicable information given before stating your assumptions.

The bard dip gives you access to pageant of the peacock which let's you use a single skill in place of 15 different skills. A one level dip, 8 skill points, one feat or take a second feat to increase your usage by 6 rounds/60 minutes. The point isn't to use your bardic performance for anything other than the skills bonus.

A bard 1/ Fighter 9 can have +10 ranks +3 class skill(from bard), -2 from a dumped charisma, +5 competence item, +4 pageant of the peacock, and can easily spare another feat to skill focus bluff for another +6. That's a +26 bonus to bluff checks and the 14 different intelligence skill checks. Taking 10 for 15 different skills at a 36 roll is a good skill monkey. There's not a single knowledge check that 36 won't solve for CR appropriate encounters. The DC to know what 9th level spell was cast on a character is a 34 and this was managed with dumping charisma and 7 levels before the party wizard has access to those spells. It's as easy as taking a single level of bard at level 5 and putting your 6 skill points into the prerequisites along with 2 from your fighter levels from 1-4, spend your level 5 feat for this and laugh at your ridiculous skill utility as you bluff your way to intelligence.

There's traits that allow skills to use intelligence instead of its original stat. A feat to allow bluff instead of intimidate and with no size penalty as intimidate incurs. A single skill to rule them all.

MartialMadness wrote:

I don't really agree that the rogue has been left behind as much as I believe the bard has been given too many tools to be abusive.

This does not account for the alchemist, ranger, inquisitor and soon the slayer and investigator.

And bard1/alchemist is better than any alchemist, bard1/ranger is better than any ranger, bard1/inquisitor is better than any inquisitor, and soon the bard1/slayer and bard1/investigator are going to be better than any slayer or investigator.

The bard1/rogue still trumps all of those base PURE classes above.

As it stands I don't agree that a class is defined as a skill monkey by skill points alone. Skill points let you diversify and do many things, but it doesn't mean you do those things better than anyone. Especially not knowledges as the classes you mentioned get bonuses to those. A rogue having skills IMO is an attempt to make the rogue less MAD.

If your definition is just someone with many skill points than the rogue does just as well as most the others you listed and there's no need to continue, but it seems they also have to do skills well or the comparison to other classes wouldn't be present. Under this premise the PF rogue is not a skill monkey because they have no inherent skill boosting abilities beyond disable device and perception related to finding traps.

As I posted above the problem may be that the PF rogue has evolved into something that no longer meets the expectation of players from previous editions.

As to the goal of the thread:

First the Goal

I'm going to make our goal here as clear as possible. We wish to make a rogue (PURE rogue) that can perform roguish functions while dealing enough damage in combat to be on par with his spell casting peers (bards, alchemists, etc). We do not want to surpass them as that may prove more difficult than its worth.

Dipping is allowed but only like one or two levels the overall strength of the build should be founded on the rogue not a level of fighter or gunslinger.

Although I don't agree that a single level should be able to trump the overall strength of a class, but this is the why of taking a dip. You are using a bonus gained from another class to inherently boost your main class.

The easiest abuse of this to make ANY class a skill monkey is a single level dip from bard to grant bardic knowledge, bardic performance, access to the bard spell list for wand use and 0 level spell use. This opens every class up to taking the pageant of the peacock masterpiece with a single feat cost.

I don't really agree that the rogue has been left behind as much as I believe the bard has been given too many tools to be abusive. A single level dip slows progression in a class, yes, but it gives far too much potential to any class for skills, skill related abilities, and magic item usage. With a 10 charisma you have 4 rounds of performance which is 4 10 minute intervals of pageant of the peacock. A feat can boost you to 10 rounds or 10 10 minute intervals. A second level dip and you can take versatile performance string to use for both diplomacy and bluff checks which now account for 15 skills including untrained knowledges. Even just the single level dip has trivialized every intelligence based skill.

Basically, the best skill monkey is bard1/any class X

1)Did anybody in the 2100 posts happen to run comparisons vs other classes without the addition of external factors? ie feats gained due to level that everyone gets, bonuses from race and traits, and the like.

A base rogue can get weapon finesse, weapon focus, bonus combat feat, bonus any feat from its class alone that a bard isn't getting. Many of he advanced talents are great like opportunist, improved evasion, crippling strike, the bonus feat, unwitting ally. The rogue can also access ninja tricks to get improved unarmed strike, a style feat, deflect/snatch arrows without even looking at the Ki point tricks, although shadow clone is amazing if you want to spend the couple talents to get a Ki pool and shadow clone.

It seems a class would be balanced against other classes without these other interactions that could cause further discrepancy. Maybe it's not so much the classes as it is the feats that the classes can get that cause a class to be overpowered. I know bards get some ridiculous abilities like versatile performance and through masterpieces like pageant of the peacock for the cost of a single 2nd level spell known or a feat. Human bards get bonus spells known which basically makes this a freebie that grants one skill to be used for 15 different skills along with a bards internal mechanics they become the best skill monkey by a long shot even vs. a SAD wizard with max ranks in a knowledge. With versatile performance you can make that bluff check with a performance that also provides another skill like diplomacy or disguise on top of that.

2) What is everyone defining a rogue to be?

This one is key to knowing a baseline and seeing if the PF rogue fits it or if expectations can even be achieved. Maybe the problem is a relic of previous versions where the PF rogue has evolved into something different than people's expectations.

I see skill monkey a lot when it comes to rogue, but the only logic I see to that is the 8 skill ranks per level. If 8 skill points per level make a skill monkey then by definition and inherent nature a wizard is also a skill monkey as they'll easily get 8 skills per level due to a primary stat keyed to the stat giving more skill points. Most intelligence based casters will pull something close to this and again by definition be a skill monkey. If this is the case then the rogue is a skill monkey and only beaten by a bard who has a ridiculous amount of internal mechanics designed to make him so. Versatile performance, bardic knowledge, lore master, and pageant of the peacock ensure it cannot be caught. Compared with the other classes the rogue competes for the skill monkey spot.

I feel like giving the rogue 8 skills per level was only there to help reduce MAD by not needing intelligence. A rogue could dump intelligence to 7 and still get more skills than most every class. With 6 skills per level the rogue could invest in diplomacy, sense motive, perception, use magic device, bluff, and disable device allowing it to be the face and still use the skills that it's class is inherently better at than most other classes. ie. trap finding and trap manipulation.

Sorry for not sifting though the entire thread. What are the tips given for sneak attacking at a range?

Sniper goggles, dazzling display + shatter defenses (which is good for any sneak attack vs. creatures not immune to fear), snap shot, improved snap shot so you can flank at 15 feet, opportunist can help set up for a full round of sneak attacks if creatures are shaken, headband of Ninjitsu to ensure you can sneak attack creatures with concealment, seeking bow enchantment to avoid miss chance. Eventually look at getting a silver spindle Ioun stone for divine favor and add +3 to hit/damage on all attacks. Unwitting ally will help you set up flanks against multiple enemies. Snap shot rogue talent will ensure you go first in the surprise round. Hellcat pounce + surprise attacks talent will give you 2 attacks in the surprise round if you hit with the first and the creature remains flat footed. Initiative is always a rogues best friend as creatures are flat footed until they act in combat. Sneaking precision and critical feats will allow you to apply a critical feat like blinding critical on your second sneak attack which makes a creature lose its dex to AC if it fails the save and allows all attacks as a sneak attack. A cruel bow when coupled with shaken condition now adds sickened and a cumulative -4 on saving throws that increase the effectiveness of critical feats.

Avoid deadly aim as you need the higher to hit for your iterative attacks and your damage should be coming from sneak attack. Since you'll be shooting fairly weak arrows that rely on sneak for damage many shot is also not useful to a rogue since sneak isn't added to both arrows.

If you want a single attack option you can grab deadly aim/many shot, max stealth as best as you can and try sniping. With the sniper goggles you can sit at the max range of your bow and shoot creatures if you can see that far under lighting conditions.

The whole point is that you get more bang for your buck with those feats. No monetary investment and you spend the same number of feats. Saying "he'd not get more than a +2 inherent bonus to strength until 15th" is true of buying tomes as well, except at level 15 you could still barely afford to spare the 55,000 gold of your 240,000 wealth by level. That single tome is almost 25% of your characters wealth at level 15 for a +2 bonus. The feats net you a +2 bonus at level 11 and a +4 bonus at level 15 which is a value of a 55,000 GP item at level 11 that increases to a 110,000 GP item at 15 for the cost of 3 feats. At level 11 your WBL is 82000 GP and that feat is a 67% increase of your WBL.

Skill focus survival gives a +3-6 bonus to survival if you like free living in the wilderness along with the ability to track creatures.

The first Eldritch heritage isn't very useful without the optimistic gambler trait, but it's worth being spent for the benefit of the next one in the line.

Using the headband is now another expenditure of 36,000 GP on top of the 55,000 GP manual along with a single use scroll costing 2275 GP. The feat line cost is 3 feats that eventually give you a bonus unattainable with the listed items of the game, but the extrapolation would be 165,000 GP.

You can easily account for the charisma by dropping your initial dexterity to 14 and your intelligence back to 10 and those 7 points will get you back to 13 charisma. Then you purchase a 25,000 GP rod of splendor which provides a +4 charisma enhancement just for carrying it on your person along with a couple other cool tricks. Or just get the 16,000 GP headband if you don't need your headband slot for anything. It's really not that big of an investment. You will lose 1 AC from dex, 1 reflex save, 1 initiative, and 1 skill point for level. It allows you to drop your trait that gives intelligence to intimidate and put a trait into an initiative boost of +2, a +1 to reflex saves, or a +1 to AC when wearing armor or using a shield.

The Eldritch heritage line provides a +6 inherent bonus to strength by level 19. AFAIK you can only hit +5 with manuals and yes, you called it with the saving of 137500 GP of your total wealth, but with a bigger bonus. You also get the enlarge for up to 20 minutes per day that provides a size bonus of +6 strength and +4 con that stacks with inherent bonuses and gives you reach and +4 natural armor that stacks with an amulet of natural armor. So with the book for con and the amulet you get a +9 to con and natural armor. In total the feat line works out to +6 to hit and damage, reach, +3 AC, +2 fort saves, -1 reflex saves, +4 to hp below 0, +40 hp, and +3-6 survival. Dropping the two weapon specialization feats and two shield focuses or dodge and shield focus is only a reduction of 4 damage and 2 AC which is made up for by the other bonuses and then a lot more.

With just improved Eldritch heritage you gain the +6 to strength which is +3 to hit and damage and arguably better than the +2 to hit and +4 to damage from weapon focus/specialization and greater weapon focus/specialization.

If you can access the optimistic gambler trait the first feat of Eldritch heritage also grants a morale bonus of +1 to +10 on attacks, damage, and will saves for 1d4+1 rounds.

Think about summons. You could use summon monster 8 to grab an elder elemental or go to the VI list and get 1d4+1 Lillends. They can inspire courage while the cohort bard does other buffs like inspire greatness. They also come with 2 cure serious and 5 cure light wounds so if you happen to get the max roll of 5 you get 30d8+70 and 25d8+125 for an average of 442 hp of healing. They can play fodder to absorb hits, act as flanking buddies, or provide healing and utility all for a single spell which can be worth it. Bralani from the V list can throw blur up on your whole party providing a 20% miss chance. Lantern archons are usually viable due to targeting touch AC and bypassing DR even though their attacks aren't that strong.

With a 21 wisdom I'd avoid anything with a saving throw as your DCs will be a little low vs. CR appropriate monsters.

Look into masterpieces like pageant of the peacock. You can use your bluff skill for any intelligence check or skill check effectively reducing all intelligence skills to a single skill roll. No need to keep intelligence high when one skill check works for 15 skills. Effectively gives you every knowledge check that you can make untrained by keeping your bluff up. A single rank in other intelligence skills so you are trained if they require it and you're set on a lot of skills.

Wisdom is very important for will saves, sense motive, and perception checks. Honestly intelligence isn't necessary on a bard.

@Lemeres

Dungeoneering is used for things like aberrations. There's 5 knowledges for monster knowledge checks.

A three level dip in ranger gets you the bonus power attack and endurance along with favored enemy, favored terrain, lots more skill points and class skills, better reflex saves. You wind up with the same amount of feats by level 3 with a little added versatility at the cost of 3 favored class bonuses which is a big deal on this build for sure, but it may open more ideas for item usage and bonuses.

I'd also try to not dump charisma and avoid the weapon specialization feats, and pick two more. Go Eldritch heritage orc bloodline for the inherent +4 strength bonus at 13 and at 17 the ability to enlarge yourself for minutes per day based on character level which comes complete with another +6 to strength, +4 to constitution, and +4 natural armor. The combo nets you a +12 to strength, -2 dex, +4 con, +4 natural armor, +3-6 survival, large size complete with reach, and a one round standard action morale bonus to attack, damage, and will saving throws. If you can get the Optimistic Gambler trait from second darkness your touch of rage lasts 1d4+1 round which makes it very useful to you.

Having a charisma of 11 qualifies you to use silver spindles in late game. A 13 qualifies you for Eldritch heritage and the last +4 can be made up by carrying a rod of splendor.

'A sohei may use flurry of blows and ki strike with any weapon in which he has weapon training'.

A Sohei gains this at level 6. It's clearly written in the rules. A level 1 Sohei has a regular monks flurry of blows and at level 6 this ability is modified to allow the use of any weapon they have weapon training in. A level 1 Sohei multi classed with a level 3 weapon master has flurry of blows as a level 1 Sohei and the weapon training of a level 3 weapon master. That is all. Not the flurry of blows as a level 6 Sohei.

Using your logic a wizard 1 / sorcerer 4 can cast up to level 2 spells as a wizard and a sorcerer. This is not how it works and you only gain the abilities through leveling the class. This example would have the spell casting function of a 1st level wizard and a 4th level sorcerer not the ability to cast 2nd level spells of both classes.

You don't seem to be using any of your meta magic feats on your spells. You could try dropping them and just adding a +5 to the DC of creating rods with craft rod as per the rules. Crafting DCs are ridiculously easy if you just invest ranks to Spellcraft. Frees up 3 feats to invest elsewhere. I'd suggest discordant voice to start with as it adds sonic damage to your allies attacks when you're inspiring.

You could think about medium armor proficiency if you don't want to take the celestial plate's armor check penalty to attacks or if you're keen on not attacking much and using summons I'd go with augment summoning and superior summoning, but that may be best if you're using summon monster 6 to get multiple creatures off the level 5 table.

You have summon monster V listed as a standard action as your round two, but I think you meant it to be a full round as there's no move action listed and the spell is a 1 round casting time.

You have 5 greater reach rods, but only 13 spells from 4th to 6th level with many you don't need reach on. I'd drop one or two (if not all but 1) to free up money. Make lesser rods for your 1st to 3rd spells and regular reach for 4th to 6th. Same deal with your 5 quicken rods. You're losing a lot of money you should be investing in pearls of power and other items like a cloak of resistance.

With a bunch of free money it might also be worth dropping craft magic arms and armor as well. You don't use a magic weapon and you only have celestial plate and shield so you could spare the cash to just buy those and free up another feat.