MrBateman's page

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy playing martial characters. It's a lot of fun to make and play Paladins, Slayers, and Barbarians, just to name a few. I almost always have a good time when I make those sorts of characters; but you will never, ever catch me even thinking that my character is anywhere near as powerful as the party Wizard is capable of being. In fact, that's part of the reason why I don't like playing full casters. I just don't enjoy playing broken characters, it makes the game too boring for me.

Are there actually real people browsing these forums who unironically believe that martial classes are anywhere near the power level of full casters?

If not, I can understand that. There are trolls everywhere all the time who love sparking flamewars whenever possible. That's normal. It's a reality of the Internet.

If they actually do believe that, then how do those people function in the real world? How did they make it through High school without failing all of their classes and dropping out? Or do they not actually function properly in the real world, and instead rely on other people to take care of them? I am genuinely curious about this, because it just boggles my mind that there could actually exist real human beings even slightly familiar with 3.5 or Pathfinder who believe that martials are comparable to full casters in those systems.

I was under the impression that most people thought it was a bad thing for classes to be dependent on feats in order to be competitive. I must be crazy, right?

You may want to check out this post by Owen Stephens and the following posts in the thread for some more insight into the final Warpriest.

Okay, after reading that part of the discussion, the Warpriest definitely seems interesting, but I don't think I'm going to pick it. I used to play Fighters sometimes, and getting feats as a class feature often felt underwhelming and generally poorly-balanced relative to the other classes that filled the same role, such as Barbarians with their Rage Powers. I've generally found that Feats are a poor replacement for good class features, considering how poorly-balanced most feats are and how ridiculously heavy the feat tax is on some of the more useful feats. I really don't want to have to deal with lots of feats anymore, it just makes me sad when I look through the list and see all the wasted potential.

Thanks for all the responses so far, guys. I really do appreciate it.

Based on some new information from my group's DM regarding his house rules, I might be allowed to have an alignment within 1 step of Lawful Good if I decide to play a Paladin. Additionally, the fact that the Warpriest is a hybrid of the Fighter and Cleric just gives me a really bad feeling, considering how the Fighter is designed in Pathfinder. Right now, I'm starting to lean very heavily towards Paladin. I do have a couple more questions, though. If I choose Paladin, should I choose a weapon for the Divine Bond, or a mount? Would it be worth it to take the Oath of Vengeance Oathbound archetype?

I'm looking to build a new character starting from level 1, and I wanted to know which class would be better as a frontline fighter that also contributes significantly to the party's resources. I'm not very familiar with either class, and I'd like some advice from some people who are familiar with them. Which would you choose to fit that role? Why?
For the character's race, I'm thinking I might choose Aasimar, but I haven't decided yet.

Maybe when they put all those pictures of the Fighter getting s$&& on in the books, it wasn't meant to be a joke, but rather, an accurate representation of the game balance?

Although now that I think about it, based on the art from the books, the Rogue class should be totally badass. We all know the reality regarding that...

Maybe when they put all those pictures of the Fighter getting shit on in the books, it wasn't meant to be a joke, but rather, an accurate representation of the game balance?

Thanks for all your responses, guys! I personally think that the three most useful skills are Perception, Sense Motive, and UMD, though that's probably because I'm usually not playing a skill/knowledge monkey, and because my DM and fellow players really enjoy being sneaky, so sense motive is a must in my group.

nobody complains about the fighter not being able to do damage. Truly. Comparing damage is pointless...nobody is comparing damage.

It's EVERYTHING ELSE.

===Aelryinth

This is exactly the issue, the Fighter is worse as a front-line class not because they can't do damage, but because their defenses and other non-damage features are subpar at best, and hilariously bad at worst.

why on earth you compare damage only?

fighter has many things going his way:
1) he can archer much better
2) lore warden are master at maneuvers without the end level o tireless rage
3)a ighter can learn 3-4 maneuvers, my warden was going vital strike + felling smash + trip that provoke 2 AOO (1 from all) + grapple that lead to free greater grapple.
no barbarrian can ever hit and trip and grapple and pin and makeoe provoke from all in 1 round.

also, remember, maneuvers with greater maneuvers make opponent provoke AOO - so add the daamge all are doing...

Starting midway through the game, combat maneuvers become bad, and they certainly aren't worth a lot of investment at levels 15 and up.

Rynjin wrote:

It seems to me that the Barbarian edges ahead by the end, even in the pure damage department, from a numbers perspective, contrary to the initial statement.

I think it ca be safely say that at level 20 the fighter full attack deals more damage, because autocrit with increased multiplier is a HUGE bonus.

At level 11-19 the barbarian is wins though.

That would be important if the Fighter actually had a decent will save.

I just wanted to know what everyone's thoughts are on which skills are the most valuable. In general, which skills are the most generally useful to have multiple ranks in? Perception is a no-brainer, but what else is generally good?

From memory it says you can use it if you cannot take a full round action but can take a standard... which would mean you could use it while Staggered as well. Which is hilarious for a pouncing Barbarian.

Nevermind, you're right, it says you can use the partial charge whenever you are limited to a single standard action in a round, regardless of what is imposing the limit.

Scavion wrote:

chaoseffect wrote:

Scavion wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Kaleb the Opportunist wrote:

GM: "As you stick your toe out to reach the edge of the pit trap, the bugbear charges out of hiding and attacks the fighter with a greataxe as he clings to the wall. Meanwhile, the goblins behind you have had time to light their Molotov cocktails. Roll initiative.

How was that bugbear not seen, or do you mean if the bugbear rolls high enough on his stealth check he is not seen?

They do have really high stealth checks, being goblinoids and all.

The real question is how the bugbear has so many actions in a surprise round: One standard action or one move action and a charge is a full round... unless the bugbear somehow had the foresight to inflict the Staggered condition on himself in advance so he could charge as a standard action but only up to his base speed. Tricky, tricky bugbear.

In the surprise round since you are only able to take a standard or a move, you can use a partial action charge I hear.

I understood the partial charge rules to mean that you could only take one if you were unable to make a full round action, if you understand me. Because there is something wrong with you, not the type of round you are in. I'm not trying to dispute what you are saying as I totally see your point, but that didn't occur to me that it might also apply to a surprise round. Huh, the more you know.

Yeah, it was a little confusing for me when I first read it, but from what I understand after reading it and talking to my friends about it, the partial charge is a special action only available in a surprise round. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the way it works.

chaoseffect wrote:

Scavion wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Kaleb the Opportunist wrote:

GM: "As you stick your toe out to reach the edge of the pit trap, the bugbear charges out of hiding and attacks the fighter with a greataxe as he clings to the wall. Meanwhile, the goblins behind you have had time to light their Molotov cocktails. Roll initiative.

How was that bugbear not seen, or do you mean if the bugbear rolls high enough on his stealth check he is not seen?

They do have really high stealth checks, being goblinoids and all.

The real question is how the bugbear has so many actions in a surprise round: One standard action or one move action and a charge is a full round... unless the bugbear somehow had the foresight to inflict the Staggered condition on himself in advance so he could charge as a standard action but only up to his base speed. Tricky, tricky bugbear.

In the surprise round since you are only able to take a standard or a move, you can use a partial action charge I hear.

This is true; you can charge, but only at your normal movement speed.

MrBateman wrote:

Hello everyone, I've just recently started in on making a whirlwind attacking fighter using this post as a reference, but I was thinking of switching up the primary weapon to be a Nodachi, changing the archetype to be a Mobile Fighter, and retraining Dazing Assault into Stunning Assault at level 16.

I understand that the reason for choosing the Weaponmaster as the Fighter archetype is to improve the potency of the critical status effect feats, but I thought that the Mobile Fighter archetype had a lot of potential to maximize the effectiveness of my normal whirlwind attacks.

Additionally, stunning is, based on what I've read, just straight-up better than dazing, and stunning assault has the same exact penalties as dazing assault, so I didn't see any reason not to retrain dazing assault for stunning assault.

What are your thoughts on these ideas? Do you guys have any advice for me?

With Lunge and 5' step already available, you might want to consider going with the higher crit Falchion and taking Iron Will in place of Combat Reflexes.

The nodachi has 18-20 crit and higher average damage than the Falchion, so I'm set when it comes to that.

MrBateman wrote:

chaoseffect wrote:

K177Y C47 wrote:

So since I am a w1z4D does that mean I can do magic???? :)

Prestidigitation lets you do "minor tricks" so anyone who knows how to do card tricks irl can use it in game. Similarly anyone with a flashlight can cast Light and anyone with an improvised explosive device at the table may cast fireball.

I agree, it's way better to have a human bard go around convincing everyone that he's a purple elephant than it is for a fighter with no skill ranks in diplomacy to convince someone that he hasn't showed up to kill them, he just wants to ask them a couple of mundane questions.

I'm not in favor of rolling diplomacy for trivial things as you seem to think I am. I'm just confused by how hand-waving trivial checks that have no real importance to anything helps the fighter be useful and come up with clever solutions to problems as you originally seemed to be saying.

Yeah, I did a poor job of arguing my point in the post I originally made, which is why I deleted it.

I really like this kind of approach, because I think it's really boring to just let the dice decide everything that happens, rather than allowing the players some agency in a roleplaying situation. If your Gunslinger has talent, you should have a much better chance at shooting someone with your x to hit A.C. in real life. Our group gets bonus points when the real player takes charge of agency and actually hits one of the other volunteer players with his shot.

I really like this kind of approach, because I think it's really boring to let our arguments stand for themselves, rather than putting up strawmen in a debate situation. If you have no arguing talent, you should have a much better chance of ridiculing someone with your stupid strawman that really doesn't prove anything, but makes your opponent's point seem ridiculous. You should get bonus points when people favorite the strawman you posted because that means it obviously is working as intended.

K177Y C47 wrote:

So since I am a w1z4D does that mean I can do magic???? :)

Prestidigitation lets you do "minor tricks" so anyone who knows how to do card tricks irl can use it in game. Similarly anyone with a flashlight can cast Light and anyone with an improvised explosive device at the table may cast fireball.

I agree, it's way better to have a human bard go around convincing everyone that he's a purple elephant than it is for a fighter with no skill ranks in diplomacy to convince someone that he hasn't showed up to kill them, he just wants to ask them a couple of mundane questions.

MrBateman wrote:

As I said before, I do agree that Fighters should get more skill points, but the fact that Fighters get few skill points doesn't make it a s*@#ty class. In fact, I'd argue that having less skill points forces you to be more creative because you can't just roll your d20 to get favorable results when roleplaying outside of combat, you have to come up with a way to work around your lack of social skills or what have you in order to get things done. This makes for far more interesting roleplaying than:
Bard: "I explain why the NPC should side with me."

DM: "Okay, roll for Diplomacy"
Bard: *rolls d20* "I got a 27"
DM: "The NPC decides that you have a good point, and he/she decides to help you"

I always make the players roleplay things like that out, and give them modifiers on the roll based on how creative and/or plausible their argument is. They still have to make the skill roll, because it's the character who has the skill, not the player. But they get to roleplay too, and have an incentive to really think about what they want their character to say.

I really like this kind of approach, because I think it's really boring to just let the dice decide everything that happens, rather than allowing the players some agency in a roleplaying situation. If your argument has merit, you should have a much better chance at convincing someone with Diplomacy.

Petty Alchemy wrote:

If there was an equivalent item that gave you 25/50/75% immunity to enemy spells, it still wouldn't be as crippling because now they just use spells that affect allies, create allies, or change reality around you without directly affecting you.

For the same price as the 75% immunity to rogues, you can get SR 19 on your armor, giving you 75% immunity to 4th level casters.

That seems infinitely more useful than countering a weak class feature of a poorly-balanced class.

MrBateman wrote:

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

MrBateman wrote:

K177Y C47 wrote:

MrBateman wrote:

K177Y C47 wrote:

MrBateman wrote:

I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?

Make a will save?....

Oh... and I am a flying Kitty xD

Don't Cavaliers have those same exact problems?

Pretty much... but thye atleast have some skill points xD

What good are skill ranks to a Fighter, though? I can think of 2 or 3 skills that are absolutely essential, and 2+int is usually enough to cover that. However, I do agree that Fighters should get at least 4+int.

UMD, Perception, swim, climb, or acrobatics, any of the social skills, sense motive, even disable device.

There are a lot of places you can stick skill points on any character and they would be useful (though acrobatics very much less so due to scaling).

Most of those skills aren't essential, though. They'd be nice to have, and I would invest in them if Fighters got 4+int like I think they should, but still, they aren't essential.

A lot of skills become essential if you're creating an actual character instead of a mechanic, though. For example: a mounted steppe warrior needs Ride, Handle Animal, and Survival (plains). A viking needs Profession (sailor) and Swim, and a pirate needs those plus either Climb or Acrobatics to get around in the rigging. A mercenary should have Profession (soldier) and probably Heal, as well as Craft (armor), and Craft (weapons) to keep his equipment in order. A knight needs Ride, Knowledge (nobility), and possibly Diplomacy. Any adventurer should have a good Perception check. And while not every fighter needs Intimidate, it's pretty iconic for the big tough types to be good at that.

As I said before, I do agree that Fighters should get more skill points, but the fact that Fighters get few skill points doesn't make it a shitty class. In fact, I'd argue that having less skill points forces you to be more creative because you can't just roll your d20 to get favorable results when roleplaying outside of combat, you have to come up with a way to work around your lack of social skills or what have you in order to get things done. This makes for far more interesting roleplaying than:

MrBateman wrote:

I miss the 3.5 Assassin that had spellcasting. D-Door, True Strike, and Invisibility are really useful for that kind of character. Even though it might not have made for the most optimized of characters, it was still fun to play.

I introduce you to the red mantis assassin

While very feat intensive... it is actually a cool prestige class...

I suppose TWF Ranger -> Crimson Assassin would be nice.

I miss the 3.5 Assassin that had spellcasting. D-Door, True Strike, and Invisibility are really useful for that kind of character. Even though it might not have made for the most optimized of characters, it was still fun to play, and it was certainly not the worst character you could make.

consider the fauchard as well: 18-20x2 crit with reach is nice.

Yeah, I was thinking about the Fauchard, but I didn't really want to spend a feat on EWP when I could get stuff like Iron Will sooner if I chose a martial weapon.

Hiya.

o_O

I guess my experience with PF is just so far out on the edge of what is considered "normal play" that I don't "get it". Admittedly, we've only played PF for roughly a year total (not continuous). I guess we are "on the fringe" for a couple reasons:

(1) We also use the core book and the Advanced Players Guide. Period. We don't allow, use, or need anything from any other source. So a "fetchling Umbral Sorcerer"...???

(2) My DM'ing style is definitely "old skool" (it's the only way I really know how...old dog, new tricks and all that...;). If the PC's start to infiltrate the Evil Cultist lair, then turn back half way through so they can "rest and stuff", well, chances are they will die quickly in their sleep. The bad guys don't just sit around waiting (unless they are dumb, of course); they pro-actively defend themselves. So, having all these cool powers and spells to bump-up "thief" skills *will* run out....when they do, you're left with a guy who can get his butt kicked the next combat (sorcerer) or a guy who can fight a bit and sneak a bit (but not nearly as good as the rogue can).

(3) Rogues have something called a "thieves guild". ;) That is a HUGE advantage for a rogue. When the brown stuff hits the spinning blades, and those Evil Cultists come looking for some payback...the sorcerer has...well, nobody (sans other PC's), and the bard as...uh, ditto. The rogue? An entire enclave of other thieves (and all their 'contacts'...like city officials, merchants, 'questionable' clerics/casters, etc).

Of course, if the group/DM focus on the Game aspect of RPG to the general exclusion of the RP part...well, yeah. I guess I can see Rogues "sucking". If you put a long distance runner against a 100m sprinter...in a 100m sprint, the long distance runner will loose pretty much every, single, time. Other way around, however...and it's a whole 'nuther ballgame. :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming

So essentially what you are saying is, the Rogue becomes a decent option when it is the only option.

MrBateman wrote:

K177Y C47 wrote:

MrBateman wrote:

K177Y C47 wrote:

MrBateman wrote:

I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?

Make a will save?....

Oh... and I am a flying Kitty xD

Don't Cavaliers have those same exact problems?

Pretty much... but thye atleast have some skill points xD

What good are skill ranks to a Fighter, though? I can think of 2 or 3 skills that are absolutely essential, and 2+int is usually enough to cover that. However, I do agree that Fighters should get at least 4+int.

UMD, Perception, swim, climb, or acrobatics, any of the social skills, sense motive, even disable device.

There are a lot of places you can stick skill points on any character and they would be useful (though acrobatics very much less so due to scaling).

Most of those skills aren't essential, though. They'd be nice to have, and I would invest in them if Fighters got 4+int like I think they should, but still, they aren't essential.

MrBateman wrote:

K177Y C47 wrote:

MrBateman wrote:

K177Y C47 wrote:

MrBateman wrote:

I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?

Make a will save?....

Oh... and I am a flying Kitty xD

Don't Cavaliers have those same exact problems?

Pretty much... but thye atleast have some skill points xD

What good are skill ranks to a Fighter, though? I can think of 2 or 3 skills that are absolutely essential, and 2+int is usually enough to cover that. However, I do agree that Fighters should get at least 4+int.

They allow the fighter to do things other than "I kill it", especially when killing the problem is considered socially impolite and generally frowned upon... like a duke...

I agree that it would be nice if Fighters got more skill points and better class skills, but usually you have other characters to be the skill monkeys or face of the party.

MrBateman wrote:

K177Y C47 wrote:

MrBateman wrote:

I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?

Make a will save?....

Oh... and I am a flying Kitty xD

Don't Cavaliers have those same exact problems?

Pretty much... but thye atleast have some skill points xD

What good are skill ranks to a Fighter, though? I can think of 2 or 3 skills that are absolutely essential, and 2+int is usually enough to cover that. However, I do agree that Fighters should get at least 4+int.

MrBateman wrote:

I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?

Make a will save?....

Oh... and I am a flying Kitty xD

Don't Cavaliers have those same exact problems?

Hiya.

claudekennilol wrote:

I see a lot of posts implying that rogues aren't worth playing, why is that?

Because far too many people think of the MMORPG version of "rogue". In other words, "Rogue = the main damage-dealer in the party", and not the actual "D&D" RPG version of "rogue = thief who avoids combat, preferring to gain treasure via stealth, planning and patients".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

That's great and all, but it's not as much fun when the rest of the party can't sneak as well as you can, so you either end up sneaking around without them(boring for them) or you end up not sneaking at all(in which case, why play a rogue?).

I do still want to know why people think Fighters are as bad as Rogues. Considering that most Pathfinder games don't go very far beyond level 10, why are fighters a bad choice?

MrBateman wrote:

Scavion wrote:

Thats uh...pretty weird. I've fought dragons a ton. It's just not a fantasy game if I don't get to fight a dragon at some point. Hell I spent the whole game of Divinity: Original Sin waiting to fight a dragon and thinking "Man I really hope I get to fight a dragon."

They're the penultimate fantasy enemy. Sharp teeth, impressive stature, breath weapon, dragonfear, flight, magic, and f#!$ tons of treasure when you find their hoard.

I know that, and I wish I would fight dragons more often, but the group I play with can never stick to a campaign long enough to reach level 10, and the one time we did fight a dragon, we were playing an Epic-level campaign that started at level 30. That time, we were the minions of a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon, and our first task was to kill off a Red Dragon, the age of which I didn't know. We had a Frenzied Berserker that reached ~-800 hp by the time the fight was over, and it was good fun all around.

You can start off on low level dragons, you can fight them as early as 3 or so.

Yeah, well, I haven't been a DM for any games in D&D or PF, but I suppose I could tell that to my groups DMs. Not sure that they'll listen, though.

Thats uh...pretty weird. I've fought dragons a ton. It's just not a fantasy game if I don't get to fight a dragon at some point. Hell I spent the whole game of Divinity: Original Sin waiting to fight a dragon and thinking "Man I really hope I get to fight a dragon."

They're the penultimate fantasy enemy. Sharp teeth, impressive stature, breath weapon, dragonfear, flight, magic, and f#!$ tons of treasure when you find their hoard.

I know that, and I wish I would fight dragons more often, but the group I play with can never stick to a campaign long enough to reach level 10, and the one time we did fight a dragon, we were playing an Epic-level campaign that started at level 30. That time, we were the minions of a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon, and our first task was to kill off a Red Dragon, the age of which I didn't know. We had a Frenzied Berserker that reached ~-800 hp by the time the fight was over, and it was good fun all around.

K177Y C47 wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

JoeJ wrote:

[sarcasm]Yes. A party of fantasy adventurers would never enter an old tomb or ancient ruin in search of treasure. Why that would be completely unprecedented! [/sarcasm]

I have never gone on an adventure where the goal is treasure, or to delve into an ancient trap filled tomb. Almost every adventure I've partaken in is dealing with the problems of the present and not the ghosts of the past.

I'd be surprised if people were largely different from this.

Almost literally every one of the most famous and iconic D&D adventures involves a dungeon crawl for the sake of dungeon crawling at least as the initial premise. See Tomb of Horrors, Age of Worms, and so on.

do people actually use pre-built stuff a lot?

Yes.

But even beside that...the core of D&D is, as the name implies, Dungeons. As in, going into random places for fun and profit.

Actually the game you are playing is called PATHFINDER... NOT D&D.

I didn't realize there were people who would pick nits that closely.

Well, to be fair, your argument was pretty stupid. As I said earlier, I have only ever fought a dragon once in 6 years of playing D&D 3.5 and 4e.

Rynjin wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

JoeJ wrote:

[sarcasm]Yes. A party of fantasy adventurers would never enter an old tomb or ancient ruin in search of treasure. Why that would be completely unprecedented! [/sarcasm]

I have never gone on an adventure where the goal is treasure, or to delve into an ancient trap filled tomb. Almost every adventure I've partaken in is dealing with the problems of the present and not the ghosts of the past.

I'd be surprised if people were largely different from this.

Almost literally every one of the most famous and iconic D&D adventures involves a dungeon crawl for the sake of dungeon crawling at least as the initial premise. See Tomb of Horrors, Age of Worms, and so on.

do people actually use pre-built stuff a lot?

Yes.

But even beside that...the core of D&D is, as the name implies, Dungeons. As in, going into random places for fun and profit.

Actually the game you are playing is called PATHFINDER... NOT D&D.

The "Iconic" game is about as archaic as the idea of the "classic four" (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric)

If it's called Pathfinder, shouldn't we all be playing Rangers all the time?

Bandw2 wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

JoeJ wrote:

[sarcasm]Yes. A party of fantasy adventurers would never enter an old tomb or ancient ruin in search of treasure. Why that would be completely unprecedented! [/sarcasm]

I have never gone on an adventure where the goal is treasure, or to delve into an ancient trap filled tomb. Almost every adventure I've partaken in is dealing with the problems of the present and not the ghosts of the past.

I'd be surprised if people were largely different from this.

Almost literally every one of the most famous and iconic D&D adventures involves a dungeon crawl for the sake of dungeon crawling at least as the initial premise. See Tomb of Horrors, Age of Worms, and so on.

do people actually use pre-built stuff a lot?

Yes.

But even beside that...the core of D&D is, as the name implies, Dungeons. As in, going into random places for fun and profit.

But I almost never fight dragons... I even made a Wyrm Sniper for vital-striking fun once, and I didn't see a single Wyrm to Snipe.

If you're going to go with a Nodachi, with its very high critical range, I think you're much better off going to Staggering and/or Stunning Critical, rather than taking penalties to your attack roll, on top of the penalty from Power Attack.

That was already part of my plan, based on the build I referenced. Nice to see I'm heading in the right direction, though. Thanks.

Are there any other glaring issues you guys see with this build?

MrBateman wrote:

TOZ wrote:

Hey, where did the OP go?

...

Well, I guess this means he really was a troll.

Or that his question was answered and he had nothing left to say in this thread.

Yeah, I guess it's possible that he was unintentionally committing a great evil. That still doesn't do much to help his alignment, though...

Hey, where did the OP go?

...

Why do people say that Fighters are as bad as Rogues?

It's not relevant to consider now because Rogues aren't very threatening anyway. If they got fixes and became threatening, then boom Fortification throws them back into the pits without any counterplay. It's not an interesting mechanic. There's no parallel to other classes getting turned off like that.

If the Rogue truly did get fixed, it would mean that they wouldn't be completely reliant on sneak attacks to do damage anyways.

Because things that give you 25/50/75% immunity to a class's defining feature are poor design. Rogues have heaps of other problem as they currently are, but even if you fix those, there are all these ways to negate their main feature.

If there was an equivalent item that gave you 25/50/75% immunity to enemy spells, it still wouldn't be as crippling because now they just use spells that affect allies, create allies, or change reality around you without directly affecting you.

25% chance to have it negated isn't really that crippling, and the costs associated with getting magical armor with moderate or heavy fortification is high enough that it wouldn't really be relevant to consider until higher levels, especially considering how limited the applications of that enchantment are. The real problem lies with the Rogue class itself, not Fortification.

I guess I'll bump this thread one last time to see if someone replies. If not, I suppose I'll just ask somewhere else.

Quickfire solution:

If it can be dealt damage, it can be sneak attacked. Fortification stops crits, but not sneak attacks.

If you're in a position to apply sneak attack, you count as full BAB (as the Monk does while flurrying)

Count as full BAB for feats.

Why does Fortification need to be nerfed? It's not like it's a 100% chance to block crits and sneak attacks.

Bandw2 wrote:

JoeJ wrote:

JoeJ wrote:

He spent most of his childhood trying not to be noticed.

What part of "grew up on the streets" suggests no combat experience?

And?

Why would a character based entirely around avoiding other peoples' notice have enough combat experience to do something worthwhile in a fight? Actually, now that I think about it, I just made a very good argument in favor of choosing a Rogue...

Bandw2 wrote:

JoeJ wrote:

L33Fish wrote:

If I were only playing with the core book, I'd still rather be a bard who happened to put max ranks into Disable Device than a Rogue. I would be able to deal with mechanical traps via DD and magical ones via Dispel Magic. Meanwhile, I'd be a better party face (via versatile performance), a better knowledge monkey, and have something to do in combat.

So what class should I play if my character is a little guy who grew up on the streets, making a living by breaking into the houses of the wealthy? He's never had the chance to learn any magic, and he's certainly not a performer - just the opposite, in fact. He spent most of his childhood trying not to be noticed.

an expert or a commoner.

<boggle> You think a commoner would be better than a rogue?

How could a character with no experience dealing with magic have the ability to disarm magical traps?

Anybody?

If you guys are so tired of having this discussion, once one person has explained it, just... don't reply.