Stuart Lean's page

RAW for square movement = illegal move,

However, judge how 'fair' the move is. If the last diagonal is a positioning move (say, to skirt a pit or edge, move over to allow another character to engage the same large creature (and it wasn't a charge move by you) then allow it both to speed up play and enable more to take part.
If the move is, however, a deliberate attempt to avoid something that itself would raise dubious questions, such as cover rules against the dragon's breath attack you know will happen just after your movement then go with the 'rule of cool' (I dive to the side behind a rock to get out of the way: place me prone and I can avoid the damage perhaps?) or let the dice decide if you are hit or not (50/50 roll yes or no, old-school fairness).

Also, don't be afraid to get out a ruler and measure your movement in inches to see if the target square you wish to move to is within your move distance (if you can get the majority of yourself in the square then You make it, DM decision overrides) just remember whatever rule apples to one should apply to all in your campaign and DM has final veto always.

The key word here is "uncontrollable".

Can someone under the effects of hideous laughter be perfectly silent by holding their breath?

Can you laugh for 60 seconds - making noise - without exhaling and inhaling?

If you're exhaling and inhaling, are you holding your breath?

Alternatively - if we can decide that we have to mechanically separate the fluff from mechanical support on the rules:

A cleric who has their holy symbol taken away cannot channel, agreed?

Are you aware that the same sentence of that rule prohibits male clerics from channeling?

Quote:

Regardless of alignment, any cleric can release a wave of energy by channeling the power of her faith through her holy (or unholy) symbol. This energy can be used to cause or heal damage, depending on the type of energy channeled and the creatures targeted.

Nothing in channel energy specifically permits male clerics to channel.

This is what happens when you argue "Rules As Written" trump common sense. You have to fill a book with a rule for everything...

There is a passage right at the start of the chapter about 3rd personal pronoun use applying to whatever fits the character at the time, to reflect not having to write he/she/it every time it would apply. Sorry.

No issue I can see here, works for me as a DM. Chances are your BBEG or even his subordinate are unlikely to roll that many low-saves in a row so at best you have a two-spell DoT that gives you a few free rounds to mop-up minions or ready yourself for his returning successful. Playing an aquatic campaign at the moment, had to get intimately familiar with drowning rules and realistically in-game it takes quite a while.

It's almost a potentially deadly reverse Word of Peace from 3.5 Truenamers. If it actually works as you have described and kills the guy, then good on you, that is quite a stroke of luck. Personally, I'd go with disintegrate.

Some call me Tim wrote:

Should a cleric really be able to get his spell casting powers back with twenty minutes of work tying some twigs together.

Wouldn't that depend on the god or goddess and how they felt about what happened to the Cleric?

I think this more depends on the GM question of whether the party need to be without spells for a certain length of time, or is the desperate act of creating a small idol with whatever is available to hand in order to overcome the troubles they face worthy of reward?

In other words, as awesome as it is do you, the GM, 'need' the party to sit and chill for a certain length of time without ability to free themselves? The holy symbol user should still be allowed to make and keep one if they so desire, but its practical effect is up to you.

Technically, a holy symbol is something personal to the cleric/paladin/etc and their deity, so it is the faith in it that enables them to use it to focus their spells, the price listed to buy one is for the mass (ish) produced ones available at temple shops and knick-knack stores, so you could easily rule that to produce your own takes nothing but faith and the raw-material, no cost at all, and just a logically sensible amount of time. The shape of it is more for recognition by others than anything else. (Unless, you know, you rule that actually, it matters A LOT ;)

Anyone else here remember when Monks were that quirky secondary melee class you played because you wanted to be a bit more combat orientated than a rogue but still wanted to run rings around your foes? When you found the fighter a bit boring and wanted to do something fun like leap off a wall and smack the Evil Cult leader in the back of the head so hard he was largely ineffectual for the reminder of the combat just because you could?

Ah, alas, fun, simple times where did you go...

(And as a side note, some of the most sick, broken and wrong characters I have had the displeasure to DM for have been monks...)

On a serious and more OT note, if you genuinely feel an item makes playing a class pointless then either stick with your opinion and don't play that class, or rule-out the item. In all probably reality, a suit of brawling armour is highly unlikely to drop unless the DM puts one in, and if the armour doesn't exist in the system, it makes it exponentially harder for item crafters to fudge it (say the wizard wants to make a suit, he would have to research how it is made, and actually invent it if it would be the very first suit in your universe. IC/OC crossover aside, simply have the monk question his motives in character, great roleplay point people!)

Also... All this just to avoid being disarmed? Did all the fighters suddenly forget about locked gauntlets?

Stuart Lean wrote:

Protective Perambulator of the Paranoid

*...Really? A transforming throne? And the triple-P alliteration for the name is annoying. Just not a Superstar concept or execution. Vote to Reject.

*...I'd swear I saw the throne somewhere before but can't remember where well enough to make a snark. Reject.

As always, thanks for taking all the time to do this.

No real need to go into in-depth agonising over the critique, clearly put you off enough with the name as it was (which was a concept i came up with in the shower after deciding I liked the word 'Perambulator' enough to base an item around it... next time I'll use the bath and not worry about interesting sounding words ;) )

The 'somewhere before' comment likely references Discworld, or specifically, the luggage. I agonised a little over it but while possibly a homage, I considered it different enough to get by.

One question I'll probably get floored for asking, but its nagging me a little now. What exactly IS Superstar in Concept or execution?

I mean, and this isn't ranting about not getting chosen in a temper-hissy fit, execution wise (in terms of used mechanics, requirements, price etc.) this 'should' tick most of the boxes, unless I'm missing something I just don't know about. Not saying its flawless in terms of game rules, and the judges obviously didn't like it, but I was just wondering if this was a case of entering a Care Bears montage for a My Little Pony drawing contest level of screw up?

I totally believe there is always going to be the marmite question on any item (of the Top 32, I personally thought the "Bag of Holes" wasn't 'wow' enough, other items grabbed me straight away though), but perhaps some further musings on what you look for might help.

Ok, perhaps I'm a little annoyed at the entry... weird as it may sound, I'm annoyed because it generated a lack of comments, rather than simply being rejected. Just feel a little lost with nothing to work with (and I'll also admit to having a bad day at work today...)

But thanks again Neil, you are a Superstar of going the extra mile as much as an RPG superstar and you deserve all applause. Bravura.

Neil is right (as usual), but you need to step back a little and think about the 'left-brain' style a little more to see where he is coming from. I get where DM is coming from though.

Sure, creativity and that 'wow' factor are the main key things for round 1, but you still need to adhere to rules and balance, and there are a tonne of auto-rejects and subjective rejects, as we have seen, that are removed because they fail mechnically or are too over-powered. The Top 32 aren't picked just because they have the strongest imaginative input to them (and some are like marmite I guess, you either get grabbed by it and totally love the concept or you just don't get why everyone seems to think its so great) but also because they are solid and work with all the rules with the smallest of tweaks needed.

Come to this round, and again its a rules-fu and adaption exercise with imaginative thinking behind it. I'll admit I was a little dissapointed that there seemed to be a little bit too much 'playing safe' on show, but stepping back and viewing it subjectively, as much as the Top 32 have to make us go 'wow, awesome!' they also have to be much more clinical to succeed.

In essence, the skill set needed to achieve is the same, its just the approach and thinking that needs to be a little different. Rather than come up with something from scratch, this time you take a broad idea (the base class) and focus in on an aspect of it. You could also argue that is much the same for Round 1, taking a concept or spell and making something cool and specific out of it.

Sure, we can vote on what we like, but I know one of the things I've been looking at closely when choosing my vote (still undecided on a couple) has been the judges recommendations. This isn't to slavishly follow their thinking, per se, but I certainly use them as tie-breakers between the ones I think are close to each other.

Protective Perambulator of the Paranoid
Aura strong abjuration; CL 15th
Slot -; Price 140,000 gp; Weight 150 lbs.
Description
Inactive, the protective perambulator of the paranoid appears as a luxurious throne, carved from a single block of mahogany. Upon sitting upon the throne and uttering the proper command word, a hundred tiny roots sprout from its base like the legs of a centipede, lifting the throne off of the ground and providing stable, steady movement as the rider dictates using simple mental commands. The multitudes of tiny legs allow it to easily traverse difficult terrain and obstacles shorter than 5’ in height without penalty. The throne itself is equivalent in size to a standard riding pony for a medium sized creature. It cannot make attacks itself.
In addition, the throne projects a protective aura out to a 20’ radius that prevents all forms of extradimensial travel into or within it, such as a Dimension Door, Ethereal Jaunt and Teleport. Any creature attempting to use such effects immediately ends such movement at the edge of the area and must pass a DC15 Will Save or be stunned for 1 round.
The protective perambulator of the paranoid has the following characteristics in animated form: hardness 8; hp 60; Spd 20; AC 14; CMD 15.

Construction
Requirements Craft Wonderous Item, animate objects, dimensional lock, creator must have 8 ranks in Craft (carpentry); Cost 70,000 gp

Once again, congrats to the winners, and thanks judges for taking the time to judge, critique and be there for us!

Thymespinner

This ancient amulet allows the wearer to spin threads of thyme. This material may then be used to make an interesting looking, fragrant smelling item of clothing, or simply added to a good casserole.

Right, well, just got back from the weekly PF mid-level session and my Dwarf Abj specialist Wizzie just bit the dust twice due to, of all things, Fireball.

Thankfully the Cleric was able to bring me back up from numbers around the -25 mark both times so he lives to fight another day at least. Sure, the main reason was because there were a lot of them (4 in a row first time, 5 the next), but the OTHER reason was because I failed my reflex saves, making my ring of evasion effectively useless.

So, back to the optimisation drawing board for that one, learnt my lesson well. Next downtime session I am doing some enchanting to add more DEX to my +4 Con belt...

(and a contingency Protection from Fire might just have to be thrown on as well...)

I found the opening line made me chuckle. Sure, lvl 1 is the weakest level for a wizard, but the same could be said for most pure casters.

The problem isn't so much that you can't make a lvl 1 wizard that works, its more than the game-winning uber ideaology of a wizard a lot of people seem to posit here requires several levels to achieve, and would be something that required the right planning early on. Planning that reaslitically may not happen if the constraints of the campaign mean he would hamstring himself before he reached 'ultimate power' level.

Playing a recent campaign at lvl 1 using Pathfinder rules in Eberron setting (no traits or other APG allowed, just a few DM house-ruled background traits to tie in Eberron) we had a part consisting of a Paladin, Ranger, Wizard and a Sorceror. The Sorceror shot himself in the foot slightly by taking Fear as his lvl 1, the wizard used scrolls almost exclusively.

For some unfathomable reason, it seemed to be the longest running level 1 I've ever seen in a campaign. By comparison, lvl 2 and 3 practically flew by, and they each took a month or so to do. The age-old wizard problem of FFZZAPP!!! "Right, I'll be in my trailer" has been alleviated massively by the orb spells, but it still hangs heavy over the head of the wizard player for doing much else. He actually tanked a couple of times, purely because he had the highest AC by 1 until the Paladin found some scale mail. Lvl 2 didn't bring much more joy for him, it just meant he had the cash to buy some wands and no longer had to use his quarter staff as often. By lvl 3, he'd scrapped his own 'ideal' progression in favour of simply going with what the campaign itself actually needed. In the end, it meant he could do more between rests, and the amount of downtime he actually needed was actuely driven home when he had to miss out on a (what turned out to be incredibly long-winded) slave-train chase purely because he hadn't had time to scribe his new spells into his spellbook yet.

It was then that I learned that having faith in your dice and being a gnome means Paladins CAN stealthily take out half the guard's on a goblin and bugbear slave caravan before the alarm is raised so long as the gods are smiling that day...
Wizard missed out, it was unfortunate, aye, and totally a circumstance of the game we were playing. So, in retrospect, lvl 1 isn't necessarily the weakest level for a wizard... its the level that causes you to stop power-gaming and start being a bit more utilitarian that is.

James Jacobs wrote:

Scipion del Ferro wrote:

I bet SKR gets tired of seeing, "---- of the ----"

I sure as hell do.

That format is the MOST overused construction of all time for adventures, it seems. We make a VERY conscious effort to avoid building adventure titles like that today, and even then, we can't always avoid it entirely. (Witness the upcoming "Tomb of the Iron Medusa" or Kingmaker's "Sound of a Thousand Screams.)

Or the Cult of the ebon destroyers ;)

Yup, pretty hard to get away from that convention really. Flipping it around to 'Ebon Destroyers Cult' makes it sound like the name-plaque on the noticeboard at the front entrance to a building also holding such conventions as 'Angst Dungeon Collaboration' and 'Devil Dragon Followers Anonymous'

...and Ebon Destroyers' Cult makes no sense either...

Of course, one thing to also bear in mind in this decision of how hard is it to make X versus Y is to look at lvl 1 only. In terms of simplicity, many might auto-spout Fighter, purely because at 1st level, there aren't too many things you need to physically right down. Everything you put on your character sheet as a fighter you will need to do for everyone else and they also have the lowest skill points, making that fairly straight forward as well.

However, the only classes with other things to work out/write down are spellcasters. 1st lvl Ranger, Paladin and Monk are pretty much just basic feats, skills, features and stats, 1st lvl Rogue likewise only more skills, then building up with Barbarian adding Rage points to track, then Cavalier, Alchemist and Inquisitor, Oracle, Cleric/Sor/Wiz (domain powers and bloodline powers pretty similar in terms to working out choice) then Bard, summoner and Druid with the most to work out and write down and keep track of.

Conversely, the more complex at level 1, the then slightly easier to level up it gets, as most of these classes are feature lite... EXCEPT for Bard and Druid yet again, who arguably blip a bit early on as class features pile on before stabalising out and just going through the motions of adding spell slots, performances and wildshapes per day. The 'hybrids' get a bit complex when they get their extra funky class abilities, but spells are spells and easy to work out (especially when you are looking at only 1 or 2 a day). You could argue Ranger is the most complex to level up at lvl 4, purely because you then have to go and potentially add a pet on to the character sheet as well.

However, while a newer player won't achieve optimum build status, that is part of the learning experience anyway and they will have plenty of time to read up on what is coming next for their chosen class while playing them up to the next level.

I don't disagree with the list posted, but I have a few times had to stop and think 'what does X feat do again?' on my fighter when I was trying to get a bit too clever and technical for her bi-weekly job role. That doesn't necessarily make her complex, and you can just write down all the necessary modified to hits etc for power attack, combat expertise et al, but in the heat of the moment it can lead to the occasional face-palm when you overlook something. Ironically, when playing my old Druid, that was hardly ever a problem... guess you just get used to being complicated.

As an alternative, create a magic item for yourself that allows you to hide by either a)granting concealment or b) some other effect that provides cover. The rules are in the PFRB and I imagine a low charges per day item wouldn't be all that expensive to come up with.

Had a friend who modified a Darkness spell into a ring for his old Shadowdancer to allow him to change local light levels around him and create false shadows. DM allowed it, wasn't overly game breaking and I don't think he ever needed to use all 3 charges in one day anyway. Wouldn't be too hard to come up with something similar (or even a magic item that ALLOWED hiding in dim-light/plain sight if your DM is ameniable to it)

Now we are past submission time for RPG Superstar, I guess there is no harm in hearing other ideas on this front.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

If any one has the cost and stats of a rifle to hand, i would be very greatful to know them.

If you're interested, I've got half a dozen+ rifles in my setting. Check out pages 6-8 in the Rhune: Dawn of Twilight Character Primer ((it's a free download, btw) for stats on several rifles.

You can find it here.

http://www.rhunedawnoftwilight.com/library.html

Hi Jason, just thought you might like to know your website is black-listed by pretty much all of my anti-spyware and sercurity programs. Dunno if its just cause of certificate issues or something that was posted up on their, but it was the first time I'd seen high-risk bad website alerts in ages!

Not saying its your fault, just saying you might want to look into it a bit.

Something else just occurred to me. Part of the reason I'm approaching Pathfinder the way I am is because I'm approaching it in the context of it being more of an rpg than a tactical game. Most of the rpgs my group and I have played before this where pretty light on rules so fudging things was just a standard practice. The other game we play pretty consistently is warhammer fantasy battle and when we play that we follow the rules exactly and let the dice fall where they may. I guess part of what's going on is because Pathfinder is such a robust system you can follow the RAW exactly and not encounter to many issues but we've been approaching it more from a story telling perspective than a wargame perspective hmmm.

Nothing wrong with that. Warhammer is a fantastic tactical system that is very rigid and not exactly forgiving, designed for structured play where you are basically using position and numerical superiority to favour outcomes as much as the individual hardness of any one character or troop. Pathfinder is about a bunch of (almost super-)heroes going about saving the world and getting up to all sorts of derring do and so is much more spectacular on an individual level. Fudge = Artistic License and leads to more cinematic play (there are rules for every stage of grabbing a chandelier, swinging over the heads of the illuminati cult in the ballroom below, landing neatly on the balustrade of the grand staircase and sweeping the mastermind's head from his shoulders with a well-aimed blow... but you can do all that with a single Acrobatics check to make it quicker and easier)

I've played Exalted... now there was a game that encourage imaginative thinking and sheer over-the-top actions.

OT: By the way, anyone looking for a prime candidate for that Chandelier tactic, look no further than Rogue! ;)

@Midnighttoker & Kamelguru- I said Charisma was not 'just' about looks and charm, meaning that is a large part but there is more to it than that.

Basically, your CHA 5 fighter isn't a hero, he is something much more demeaning... a SIDEKICK (or a stooge, henchman or, heaven forbid... cohort!).

That's not to say he isn't ugly as sin at the same time though...

Lol Codzilla. Alright while I don't necessarily agree with you in the context of my current game I understand your point.

To Bob: It's entirely possible that the trouble my PCs occasionally find themselves in is as much a result of my choices as theirs. I'm not sure about it but as I gain experience as a Pathfinder DM hopefully my skill with the rules will improve as well. The only Rule that we as a group have decided truly matters in the end is rule 0 so fun is the end all and be all for our group. We hit speed bumps occasionally but everyone has a good attitude so it's nothing we can't overcome with a mild amount of tweaking.

As a mild aside to this, check out the series 'I hit it with my Axe' over on The Escapist

I Hit it With my Axe

I imagine CoDzilla and a good few others would probably foam at the mouth at some of the things they do and some of the character concepts/executions/choices, but seriously, this is how 'normal' people often approach the game, especially those not too familiar with the rules (the stress on normal is not to dig at hyper-exceptional roleplayers, or anyone on these boards, but more to do with the fact that the people playing are, well, not exactly your stereotypical players).

This is, I'm guessing, a bit closer to what happens in your game room Lordjimbo, than the elite game rooms of veteran players. The DM of the video series' featured group is highly experienced and copes with his inexperienced players very well, to the point where all are kept interested, engaged and above all excited about what happens next.

a charisma of 8 would suffice to being gruff, hell a 7 i could deal with. a 6 I could stomach. a 5? I would literally be very very upset to see that from any of my players as it is an obvious ploy to just gain more combat ability while caring less about the roleplaying and character development in the game.

Plus, Charisma isn't just a notation of how ugly/beautiful/socially acceptable/well-spoken someone is, but also a measure of their sense of self. Admittedly that much is harder to quantify, but you can almost think of it as a measure of your life energy and youth (as much as Consitution is a measure of your overall health). Think about, for example that a Paladin's abilities stem from the power of his faith and belief, but aren't as much about how well spoken or outwardly beautiful he is necessarily (I love grizzled, battle-scarred paladins in preference to gold-plate wearing pretty boys) as how much he believes in his cause. He can be completely unlearned (int 8) and as naive as they come (wis 8), but that doesn't matter to him, because he believes he is a hero and that is all that matters to him (Cha 16).

In essence, a Cha 5 fighter is NOT a hero. Its not longer a matter of being ugly and uncouth, he is on the same level as a long-term drug addict unable to kick the habit. His level of wellbeing, sense of self and general sloth means he is going to have to be led around ALL the time or else be extremely listless and disinterested, and probably kicked, goaded and heavily persuaded to even get out of his bedroll in the morning.

Of course, roleplay that and I'd give anyone a bonus ;)

In response to Stuart, he is a weedy guy in leather armor vs huge guys in plate dumb monsters might not make the jump that he is weaker but most villains will in theory.

He uses stealth pretty well but he often pops up to sneak attack in the midst of an enemy group. Pretty dumb but he can't resist the opportunity to kidney stab villains, o well.

Lol, it happens. Show him the sniping rules (part of the Stealth skill description), he might start making those sneak attacks from 30' away with a shortbow rather than right in the middle of them if he knows he has a chance (though slim...) of not necessarily getting detected straight away. Even if he doesn't use the free re-hide check, the monsters still have to move to engage him and the party might be closer/in the way or obstacles may exist between the rogue and his target/s.

james maissen wrote:

Lordjimbo wrote:

Lol ok I'm new to pathfinder and in the process of currently DMing

while sometimes I have to fudge things

Well first I would suggest that you don't ever have to fudge things. Ever.

Then come and steal my GM's d20, otherwise, a fudge here and a fudge there is the only way to avoid TPK every session, as he rolls an average of 5 natural 20s per encounter. And I tend to roll ONE natural 20 every 5 encounters (Yes, I kept track and did the math), and I have scored two critical hits over 6 levels of play. The only reason I have survived so far is that I play a paladin and have great saves, so I just need to roll average to make them at most times, and I have lay on hands to cure the stead stream of damage that the cleric is unable to.

Luck, or the lack thereof can utterly ruin the fun for people.

The opposite holds for me.

Crit like a mo-fo when playing, fumble like crazy when DMing (I'm notorious for it amongst my group.)

Lol ok I'm new to pathfinder and in the process of currently DMing my second game which includes a rogue and I'd like to voice my first impressions of the class. First off though I want to start by saying that my opinion is so amateur, subjective and completely situational that it's probably entirely without value. Having said that I'm deciding to pip up anyway because why not =)

Ok the thing I've noticed most when we're playing is the fact that while sometimes I have to fudge things (dice rolls, monster choices)to make sure the players don't get too bashed it seems like I have to cheat a great deal more for the rogue player to make sure he doesn't get shredded. I routinely direct monsters to ignore the tempting lower AC and HP rogue for the more effective melee beasts. It seems the problem for us is that the rogue is primarily a close range fighter type (when it comes to combat) who just doesn't have what it takes to survive easily at those ranges. Sometimes the rogue will attack at longer range with his short bow or wands but he can't really use sneak attack then usually and that seems to be the classes primary damage deal capability.

I wouldn't say the rogue just sucks because he still has fun things like face skills and interesting talents but he does seem to struggle in combat compared to the other PCs (I guess you could say it's a flaw in our game too in that I don't find traps that interesting so I don't use them that much and we do have slightly more combat the character interaction).

Oh well that's my worthless two cents, like I said it it's based on vague impressions not objective fact but I can see where people are coming from when they claim the rogue is underpowered.

Didn't make much mention of your party's tactics, which might go some way to explain why the Rogue seems to get shafted. As a DM, one of the hardest things to learn is balancing your own game to suit everyone, and you'll never get it exactly right, even using nothing but stuff straight out of the sourcebooks you may find one monster more effective than you thought it might be. It happens, don't sweat it.

However, one thing to consider is how and why your monsters are reacting to the party as they are. Initially, especially if they win initiative, there might be a degree of engaging the clothies first if the monsters are intelligent. Mindless, or instinct creatures often just target the first thing they see. This isn't to say you go easy on him, more just take a heartbeat to consider why your monsters are doing what they are doing.

Several times you may read about someone who deliberately makes their Wizard look less like a stereotypical guy in robes in order to not be targetted first by sensible enemies, the same applies for the Rogue. Is there a reason for monster A to choose the Rogue over someone else? Not every monster has a clued in knowledge of AC, Saves and HP levels (a Gelatinous Cube doesn't roll over the cleric out of rational choice, for example, just engulfs whatever is in front of it. Wolves, while great pack tactic users, won't single out the guy with the weakest AC if he is in the middle of the group. A Bugbear won't willingly turn his back on a heavily armed and armoured fighter to strike at someone behind him without very good reason such, so if the Rogue didn't hit, he shouldn't get squished out of hand for flanking. Also, most monsters don't want to get hit for no reason, so only things with a sense of their own invinvibility in a certain situation are likely to disengage from combat with one player to target another).

If the Rogue is routinely seperating himself from the group without stealthing, charging into the thick of the fighting without flanking and, in short, making himself a tempting target, then consider if the monsters attacking would actually go for him first. Something like a Skeleton or Zombie would, closest target, but the evil cleric overlord might see the sorceror or the party cleric as something that needs neutralising first and foremost, though he would probably try to keep the Rogue in sight.

Just a collection of thoughts really, things to consider, rather than how to run your game, it might just be that the Rogue went for a range of things and didn't optimise his dex so his AC is not as high as it could be and he dumped his Con so his HP count is lower than average. There is nothing wrong with that at all, its how he chose to play it.

Simon Legrande wrote:

Not bad. Maybe this will help alleviate the theory that if you aren't behind something anyone can see you.

Partly, I guess. If you're not behind something and standing in an area of bright light, anyone can see you. Otherwise you have concealment, right?

The thing is, I understand why these rules go unused at a lot of tables. The experience of using them in MapTool is an experience of being constantly reminded of things you would have otherwise forgotten. Constantly. Knowing the rules alone does not help me as a GM.

But more often than not, if it is night, or you are inside, a rogue can get right up on you. If all you have is a candle to see by (a common nighttime situation) or perhaps you are indoors and there is only light from a closed window, then a rogue can in fact be right at your throat without your knowing it.

Lighting also benefits ranged rogues a LOT. A sniper rogue can get right up to you with your torch (up to 20' away), get a ranged sneak attack, and then probably rehide if they make the check. As a GM, the idea of NPCs pulling this off makes me crack a smile, I admit. One more reason to go for Darkvision.

I tried to point this out a long while ago in this thread, that basically you can sneak attack whenever an enemy is unable to use their dex bonus against you, and you lose your dex bonus against an enemy you can't see.

Got shot down through erroneous assumptions about Flat-footedness and over-use of darkvision and/or scent (which still doesn't allow you to 'see' someone hiding)

Still, thanks for posting that, I can attest to how difficult monitoring light levels in games can be. If it becomes absolutely critical in a combat situation, we usually end up shading our wipe-clean maps to show areas of good and dim light.

*checks thread to see if it's going anywhere, or if people have realized some basic truths yet such as replacing the Rogue with a caster with 10 spells, and using 5 of them means +5 spells, not -5 spells only to find that it hasn't, and they have not*

Perhaps in another thousand posts.

Considering the other spells in his repertoire are likely to include Shield and Mage Armour purely to compensate for the fact he is a guy in a dress, you mean you only get +3 spells surely? ;)

Gauthok wrote:

Fergie wrote:

Is the spell really intended to do more then 15d6?

Sure, throw 15 greatswords. That'd be 30d6. Of course, it requires 15 attack rolls too, so it's kind of a pain. I think that's why people look for higher powered weapons like gargantuan greatswords; less attack rolls.

Illegal move. Gargantuan Greatswords are 64 pounds. Best you can do is Large (16 pounds, 3d6 damage).

Mithril? Or is that going a bit too far?

High skill points: Allow a rogue to grow out but not up. Rogues are just as limited to the number of ranks they can have in a skill as anyone else.

Good class skills: This is where the rogue took a relative nose dive. Having a class skill, instead of effectively doubling the ranks you could put into something, is now just a flat +3 bonus: which is easily replicated with a feat (and surpassed by said feat after level 10)

The point to make here though lies in that vast list of class skills a Rogue has. Becuase of the flat +3, you can get decent skill check bonuses in a lot of skills at once, certainly more than any other class except for a high int Bard or Wizard if you go for knowledges.

In order to rack up the same level of +3s you would have to sacrifice a LOT of feats in order to replicate a Rogue's adaptibility with another class, and you'd frankly have to be insane to do that.

Sure, you can argue an average skill rank class such as a Druid may not need to worry about some skills enough to put Skill Focus in them to get to the same level, but the difference remains that you still need to burn a feat to become comparable in that one tiny area (and there are skills such as Fly and Spellcraft and Knowledge (Nature) you are probably more likely to invest in meaning your ranks are already spread into other areas).

If you wanted Arsenic to be highly (or even just comparatively) competant in Diplomacy, Bluff, Linguistics, Acrobatics, Stealth, Disable Device, Use Magic Device, Knowledge (Dungeoneering), Knowledge (local), Appraise, Disguise, Escape Artist, Sense Motive and Sleight of Hand, to the degree of a Rogue who just put one rank in each, you would need to take Skill Focus 14 times!

Sure, you might not need to worry about one or more of these, and yes, it is the skills argument, and yes, it is only a +3 (4 if you count the rank versus an untrained skill) difference that you might be able to mitigate using spells a little, but I felt it needed showing as some people seem to have forgotten/overlooked the enormity of the situation when it comes to skills. Its not just the odd one or two, but the fact you can have a lot of bases covered without even really trying that does it.

Again, not devaluing your Druid, just showing the problem in trying to emulate a Rogue. You can out-stealth him and in places, out-spot, but when the party has had its fill of the wilderness (or dungeon) and heads back to town for some gossip and intrigue, you won't be anywhere near as capable as the Rogue who just plonked ranks in those skills for the sake of having ranks to spend (and all Rogues should max Bluff if they can... not just for talking to people encounters, but for feinting in combat and distracting to allow you to enter stealth once spotted, very useful).

Oh, and Cheapy... +1 :)

If you want to use poison be an alchemist, they do it better by leaps and bounds.

Ah yes, but that again is something specialised, I was merely stating that if you play 'a rogue' its just there to use if you feel like it, and to specialise a bit in if you like.

I personally don't count the APG classes in any of my comparisons or considerations, I certainly am not in a position to wager one against another. This is for two reasons, first being that our group here in the UK has only had the book for a few months and no character deaths in that time so no-one has made a class from it to try (though we've looked at the alchemist a fair bit, mainly in a Doctor Jekyl/Mr. Hyde or Grenadier type of role, and the Summoner Class, though admittedly not as a scout but in a way similar to the conjuration specialist or old-school Psion Shaper).
Second, because we are looking at the Rogue, one of the 'classic' four. In my opinion the plethora of additional base classes in 3.5 were what led to the system becomming unwieldy, where a lot of the 'core' got left behind without the revisions. Alchemist is a late entry, the new kid on the block, the spotty-faced teen sitting at the bar nursing a pint and trying not to get ID'd by the barman. I'm not saying your point is invalid, and agree that, obviously, the method of use is ultimately similar (as a debuff and attack augmenter) but an Alchemist falls short of the Rogue in other areas and so the two are balanced out in that way.

While we are here, lets not forget to add in poison use. Often overlooked, and occasionally hard to work with in some campaign settings, poisons are netherless another tool in the Rogue's vast arsenal.

Another case of finding the right tool for the job, which is where knowledge skill ranks and perception help beforehand, a good Poison crafter can improve the DCs of his poisons, meaning they are more useful than simple player-inconviniences and start becomming real monster-debuffers. Sure, again, there are monsters with high Fort save DCs, but then you should know this before hand and tailor your poison use to suit, or choose not to.

On the specialisation front, there are talents that make it quicker to use, more potent and the like as well.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

its focus is on lots and lots of lethal traps that will kill you all dead!... those traps haven't existed since 2e.

Mate if you aren't playing with traps that will leave you a pile of smoking ash then you just aren't playing with traps :)

Don't people set up Glyphs of Warding and other such treats with regularity anymore!??

Or Sepia Snake Sigils or Symbols of Death... both count as magical traps (the fact they are trap spells should make that kind of obvious)

To be honest on the traps front though, the difference is that Rogues get trap skills as a class basic, its only when you start variant-taking away that you really lose out on them, thus you don't even really need to specialise in them much unless you are constantly going up against intricate and difficult traps of a highly lethal nature (in other words, your DM is setting difficult traps for your CR and you need a bonus to help).

Thus you don't necessarily need to sacrifice anything as a Rogue to do the trap thing. There are even a few utility magic items that don't cost too much that will provide bonuses in the right areas to help.

Even the other rogue admitted the druid has a better ability to disengage. I can't see your opinion being anything but horribly biased.

Other Rogue missed a couple of tricks you can do if that's your play style. Few of them open to anyone (spring attack, etc), but my personal favorite is the talent that allows you to sneak attack someone then make an immediate withdrawl action to get out of combat free.

Thing is, I like Druids, have played them more than any other class, so I'm not going to sit here and argue against them. However, I will happily state that every single good group I've adventured with had one thing in common.

A Rogue.

I like the Druid build, having a soft spot for dino's, and can see the campaign-centric issue of them with some DMs (last Druid I played could only turn into animals he had seen... so cue three weeks of downtime between adventures turning into an Eagle and flying as far away as possible observing new species)

One thing I'm surprised no-one has picked up on with the Scent thing though is using other, stronger scents in a different way.

Rather than roll in it and make yourself smell (useful to distract those you know have been tracking you by scent awhile by masking your original) you instead carry a small, sealed jar or bottle with something strong-smelling in it (stinkbombs basically). If you believe something is attempting to discover you by scent close by while hidden you simply open or break the container away from you and move away. The Perception check DC to hear the action is likely quite high, and you make efforts to mask your actions of course.

Also, as it is a move action to discern direction for scent, you must remember that is to work out where a scent is coming from in the first instance. If the target stays still, then the scent-tracker can move to the spot and investigate and likely find him. If the person being smelled moves away in a manner which changes the direction relative to the smeller, they have to turn again to locate them, again aborting their movement.

This above example considers not being able to be seen or heard easily (stealthed) in the first place, as I know my dogs IRL are fantastic at finding static objects by smell (takes them a minute or so) but if the scent trail moves, they have to pick it up from the source first before being able to travel to its new location or else re-locate it after moving and head off in a new direction to find it.

Quote:

If you're saying that the rogue might get caught once by continually testing the odds, sure it can happen. But you know what?

He's not going to get caught once. He's going to get caught up there many, many times over the course of his adventures.

This point, this one point annoyed me enough to want to comment again, as it is basically the whole crux of all of BNWs argument points and view on this discussion so far.

SO

WHAT?

Funny thing with a dice-roll based system is that failure happens. Sometimes more often than others. A good measure of a challenge for the party is one with at least a 50/50 chance of failure.

Ironically, you may find the following also occurs with amazing frequency:

The fighter or Barbarian misses in melee.

The Wizard fails his Reflex or Fortitude Save.

The Sorceror fails his check to cast Defensively.

A Cleric heals you for a measly 10pts when you really really needed 45 back.

The dice comes up a '1'.

Put it another way. A player doesn't look at a scouting class and think 'hmm, I could go scout but I'm not as good as an equivalent CR monster', he thinks 'right, I'd better work on this, this and this and then decide how I want to play him'.

Apart from the simple reason that they are only human, not some cold, unimaginative logic machine, it has more to do with the fact that a lvl 2 PC will not ever, and should not ever, be on a par with a CR2 creature. The CR is based on the idea that the creature will face a party of 4 equal level characters, so a solo encounter with one such creature may pose a significant challenge. At the end of the day, the challenge part of it mainly boils down to the %age chance of Monster A beating whatever DC you put up against it, be it from stealth to hide from the player, or perecption to spot the player, that is, afterall, the very crux of the game. Wizards are mechanically weak at melee combat, but I would never once try and dissuade a wizard player from trying it simply because his chances at succeeding are mathematically tiny compared to a fighter's.

Sure, a canny player will work his build and the play-table to his advantage, but he will never be able to account for the fall of the dice on the day... only the amount of fixed numbers he can apply to that dice roll in his favour and against his targets.

Oh, and as an aside, Scent just allows the lion a chance to spot the Rogue coming, he could fail this, and distance will be the biggest factor. Simply because he knows he is there, somewhere, doesn't mean he knows exactly where, and can still be surprised/caught flat-footed if the hidden scout acts quickly enough (sniffing creature needs to be adjacent to his square to actually know where he is). It isn't designed as an auto-detect mechanic. If the Rogue approaches downwind of the lion, lion ain't gonna know what hit him.

The only arguemt on this I will accept is that, Yes, some creatures are better than others at being stealthy, and spotting the party coming, but I will NOT accept any idea or assertion that scouting is pointless and never to be bothered with. You can go without, sure, quite easily, but it depends on your party build and play style (kick in the door play uses the point man kicking the door as the scout and works out what is in the next area by the number of saving throws/wounds he has to make). All you have tried to insinuate so far is that anyone playing a scouting class is doomed to fail at every juncture. This is both unfair, and untrue.

Arcane Archer or Assassin (some preparation needed... ;) )

Nah, I'm with the 'no real best class' ideal on this one. Certainly a melee character or perhaps an Nec/Evoc souped up Sorceror would fit the bill, but I'd probably settle on Cleric if pressed.

Smurfs are obviously derived from Drow (blue skin, thinly veiled Matriarchy where the one female holds sway over an entire nation of males...) and thus are destined to win in the end.

Lolth said so.

Can anyone point to the rules that allow a sneak attack from stealth?

By everything i see in the raw, the only mechanism by which stealth can gain you a sneak attack is if it enables the rogue to go close enough to start the fight with an unaware opponent, enabling him to sneak attack his flat footed opponent in the surprise round. Once the fight has begun and the opponent has acted the opponent is not flat footed whether or not they can see the rogue.

Enabling you to get into a position to sneak attack is another use of Stealth in combat, as is disengaging. Simply being unattackable until you yourself choose to allows you to step back and assess the battlefield a bit, work a spring-attack flanking chain, other tricks, and tactics etc.

Can anyone find a rule that says perception works better in one direction than another? (remember, perception is now hearing as well as looking)

Not so much a direct rule 'per se', but trying to perceive amid large distractions (i.e. combat, source of loud noise, inclement weather) incurs DC increasers. Ergo, the fighter in melee with the opponent forms sufficient enough a distraction to keep attention focussed enough on him that the DC to spot the Rogue re-/sneaking is slightly higher than normal. You could argue the 'reason' for this is because you are more concerned with the big sword flashing at your face than someone skulking around a small distance behind you and so aren't looking in his direction at the time.

Although it is called 'sneak attack', you do not have to be actually sneaking to use it, and indeed a great many rogue tactics involve creating situations such as flanking, feinting or using certain items (and abilities) to give sneak attack bonus damage. Any time a foe cannot employ (is denied) their dexterity bonus you can sneak attack them. Flat-footed is just a bonus a fast (high init) Rogue can enjoy, and I've seen plenty of builds that ignore Imp. Init in lieu of other feats.

Dex is denied through a variety of things other than simply being flat footed, such as the blinded, cowering, helpless, paralysed, stunned and unconscious conditions (take note monks, team up with the Rogue to really put the hurting on that bad guy!) Of common spell misconceptions, Entangles does not remove dex bonus, nor does Grease, but more powerful ones such as Hold Person, Sepia Snake Sigil and the harsher effects of ones like Dictum will. Sleep is also a candidate for obvious reasons (though the spell itself does not state slept targets are denied their dex bonus most GMs take it as a given...)

not sure if this clears up a misunderstanding some seem to have from what I've read, or if this aspect had been ignored for the time being in lieu of the stealth/counter-stealth/flat-footed argument.

Hmm... needs some kind of poison special rule where all any poison ever does is make him tired. Once he's slept it off, he's all ok!

Have to look at Awakening one soon and have it as a cohort...

Just wanted the class to know that thanks to this thread, I've been inspired to make a Bugbear Ninja. ^-^

Thanks guys and gals!

My pleasure. Enjoy! :D

Quote:

I can't be subjective because apparently every DUNGEON the world over is inhabited by panthers, cheetahs, crocodiles and Bugbears are actually ninjas who wait in dark corners to pounce on unsuspecting party members (as opposed to violent bullies who believe themselves superior to lesser types of goblinoid and are more often seen bashing heads, yelling and bawling).

As opposed to your apparent dungeons, when creatures have high stealth skills but inexplicably stand around out in the open saying "here i am heavily armed band of adventurers, look at me! easy xp!" I'm running an rpg, not an mmorpg. If a given creature has a high stealth score that tells me they're supposed to be USING it. The creatures don't know the pc's are comming, true.. but the pc's don't know that the monsters are coming either. They don't know WHATS going to run into them today but chances are its something they're either going to want to eat (and thus want to sneak up on it) or will eat them ( and thus they don't want to be seen by it)

to...

Now, you think i cherry picked a rogue killing menagerie? Look at the list i gave. Look at the level cr2 monsters. Notice something... thats.. ALL of them. The rogue killing monsters are a good chunk , not of a random list, not of some dishonest cherry picking, but of a 100% examination of all the cr 2 monsters. The list of rogue killing monsters is called the bestiary. The simple fact is that too many critters have a reasonable possibility of spotting you to make scouting a viable option. Dont. split. the party.

The ONLY way you are going to run up against such a disparate list is if you are a) running a randomly generated dungeon, b) you have a DM who has explicitly stated he will only use CR1 monsters against a lvl 1 party, CR2 against lvl 2 etc etc. b) you are on safari and fall into the underdark at some part.

Seriously, I have never once been on an adventure at lvl 2 facing anything remotely close to that particular collection of beasts and vermin. Terrain is one factor against it, making for a good story is another, and also because it is actualy very hard to come up with a reasonable raison d'etre for there to be those particular beasts there in any reasonable quantity. Sure you could go down a dungeon infested with Cave Fishers, but you are going to know pretty quick they are there after a few encounters and can change your tactics accordingly. A bugbear army doesn't make camp and all suddenly go into hiding. I know its a case of injecting reality into a fantasy situation, but please allow for SOME plausability in your dungeon inhabitants.

If given the scenario "Recover this artifact from Black Panther Jungle, you will need to traverse Crocodile Waits Falls to get there", you sort of get an inkling that there may be lots of ambush predators and stealthy hunters and then you can plan accordingly. Very rarely will you go off half-cocked and unprepared (unless you are that sort of party). In such a scenario as the one listed, you can be sure my rogue would be using Climb and Acrobatics to move through the trees as much as possible, or if we had one, the Ranger or Druid would be doing the scouting for a change.

I will give you one thing though... I actually struggle to remember an adventure I've done recently that didn't involve Bandits, Goblins or Undead at lvl 2. Unimaginative, even cliché perhaps.

Finally:

To explain... as it is obviously needed. You cannot charge something you cannot see. You cannot attack something you do not know is there. In order to detect someone who is stealthing you need to perceive them, and if you fail you cannot act against them that round (you 'could' throw an AoE spell at the general vicinity if you wanted to... chances are good that the Rogue could evade it).

you can also walk in the direction that they went to. When you get close enough, they will likely not have cover. blow away their cover, turn on the lights, move more than 30 feet away from the smoke etc.

At which point they have taken several attacks of op from the remainder of the guys he was meleeing.

Don't split the party does not mean 'always stick together in a 20' square'. That was part of the point about how to play a Ranged Rogue. Outrider, not lone-wolf ten leagues ahead scout. At MOST you go no further than darkvision range+30' ahead of the party, certainly within triple-move/full flee distance back to them.

Sound will likely give you away in a dungeon before light will, if you are being cautious, hence the distance. And to re-iterate, you can have Darkvision all you like, if I am hiding anywhere other than in plain sight (which is simply being stupid), you DO NOT automatically see me, you still need to roll. Besides, defended obstacles for the win!

And as for simply making a (potentially metagamed) guess as to a sniper's origin and moving over their, if it really did come from a sniper, then you likely have to move at least 40' to make base contact. Unless you have a high speed, that means a double move, so no attack. Rogue moves away in his own round, or feints and sneak attacks you/catches you off guard (feat) and sneak attacks you, potentially allowing him to disengage again (talent). Point is, he has done his job, disrupted that monster from combat, allowing his friends to take advantage.

Look, lets be frank here, you are considering a very, very narrow selection of combat situations and verbosely claiming they happen 9 times out of 10.

Is anyone with me in the "If you read the rules and play by them the game works great" camp?

Yes.

Players who min/max their characters into gimped unrealistic misfits that would never be able to survive in the real world. And then get pissy when you put them in a situation that their self imposed weaknesses cause them giant problems.

and on the flip-side, players who DON'T min/max their characters finding themselves unable to fight this monsters/do that skill check because the DM had to change up the ACs and DCs to provide a challenge for the gimps.

People who use Haste to give themselves more free actions, move actions and attack actions than is feasibly possible in a 6 second time frame, and then get annoyed when you go back and show them that the spell has set limits on what you can and cannot do.

Y'know, I think I'm about ready to give up on this one.

I can't be descriptive because BigNorseWolf seems to think that means I'm changing the rules, despite reassuring him that wasn't the case. I can't be subjective because apparently every DUNGEON the world over is inhabited by panthers, cheetahs, crocodiles and Bugbears are actually ninjas who wait in dark corners to pounce on unsuspecting party members (as opposed to violent bullies who believe themselves superior to lesser types of goblinoid and are more often seen bashing heads, yelling and bawling).

Apparently I can't play a Rogue at all despite the fact that personally I've never lost one in combat.

Apparently it is impossible to play DnD or Pathfinder and actually think about what you are doing and how to approach a situation.

And no matter how much I talk about the ability to snipe and stealth, apparently it is pointless due to the flat-footed rules. If it simply boiled down to sneak attack, that would be fine and dandy (hence why I roll improved feint and move to melee flanking in turn 2), but I believe someone was also talking about the Rogue sneak attacking and then getting immediately butchered, when re-stealthing is a method of avoiding this and keeping yourself free to move around the battlefield.
To explain... as it is obviously needed. You cannot charge something you cannot see. You cannot attack something you do not know is there. In order to detect someone who is stealthing you need to perceive them, and if you fail you cannot act against them that round (you 'could' throw an AoE spell at the general vicinity if you wanted to... chances are good that the Rogue could evade it).

There are more than enough cheap methods of getting low-light vision, even darkvision and a mundane telescope works fine regardless of light levels (so you can perceive a lit area further down the corridor while happily hiding well out of range of any darkvision in the dark.

Basically, Critics will be critics, and nothing anyone else can say will ever be simply read, validated, TRIED OUT and then further improved upon.

I have been more than happy with the 'pure' Rogue PF progression since release, I personally didn't feel there was any form of slow-down in momemtum at later levels, or else didn't notice one in comparison to everyone else. I was still able to do everything I should be doing, competantly, and could fill the gap and work effectively with everyone else in the team.

Does this mean that it is in fact I who has the problem in that I don't believe anyone should write off a class because 'x' class is much better at one aspect or another? Do I have some problem because none of the people I play with consider Rogues or even Monks to be a bad class? Perhaps I do.

SpaceChomp, best answer I can give you now is "depends on the campaign and what you are likely to be doing." If it is actually Cabelas Unplausible Dungeon Safari as BigNorse seems to want it to be, then fine, you are going to get ambushed by the panther hiding in the corner of the Lich's treasure room and murdered before the rest of the party can do anything, so it doesn't matter what class you play, you are better off simply not going in the first place.

Midnightoker, you tried, and I agree with practically all of your points and arguments, but guys, this is just turning into a bashing session and has lot the point entirely. I'd actually like to see posted, not a build, but the adventures BigNorse attends, because I don't believe for one minute any player has ever actually come across anything so ridiculous as the Rogue-beating Bestiary list he posted (In isolation, sure, but often enough to make a stealth-based class or player pointless? And in EVERY adventure or campaign?). Since last night, that seems to be the only thing this thread is doing.

Depending on your DM, there are also rule changes/modules for stealth missions and quietly taking out people unnoticed in Cityscape and a few other publications (think Complete Scoundrel also touches on it as a theme). Basically it makes everything die/disabled if successfully sneak attacked or attacked from stealth completely unnoticed.

It was designed to streamline the game and allow for a movie-style silent infiltration of a fort or enemy base by turning it into a workable, yet still challenging long encounter full of tension, rather than simple staffing your fortress with the equivalent of lvl 1 warriors so they all die from one hit and have no hope in hell of spotting you anyway.

Ran a adventure a few years back where half the party had to sneak on board a warship in port and plant barrels of gunpowder in strategic places to blow it up. Went off without a hitch... till that 1 got rolled on the Stealth roll to silently lower a guard who spotted them trying to escape and got slotted by the bow Ranger in the rigging to the water and ended up with him tumbling over the rail and making a huge splash which alerted the Bosun who rang the ships bell and then all hell broke loose... fun!

Its that, or work a house rule with your DM (gonna get bitten for that one...) that allows you to do so. It should be open to anyone, and is a perfect example of using Stealth repeatedly.

Quote:

You can (feats and items allow you to, still hard though)

feats and items such as....?

Deep Stalker from 3.5 Lords of Madness. Havn't got my MIC to hand as we aren't using it in the current Pathfinder campaign.

Quote:

Ranged Rogues are fairly capable of doing a lot of damage at a mid-distance. Sure, it isn't 100ft plus, but it is still a range where monsters will have to move away from melee fighters to get to them. You can re-stealth if the target isn't observing you keenly,

no. NO changing the rules to make your point. This is about the game as it is, NOT about the game you want it to be. I wouldn't be against changing the game to work like that, but currently it does not. You do NOT have to observe the rouge KEENLY to keep them from re stealthing. The rogue needs to not be observed (usually with sight) Keenly. is. not. there. The rogue needs cover or concealment, and the rogue cannot sneak attack people after the first round of combat under his own power. Your foe is...

Not changing the rules, just presuming everyone knew of the following. To quote PFRB Pg.106 Stealth - "Sniping: If you've already successfully used stealth at least 10ft from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a -20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location."

At lvl 10, therefore, your Rogue has likely got a base Stealth bonus of +22 or so on their dice roll, not including magic items, and can snipe someone for sneak attack damage up to 70ft away. The Perception check to pick him up after he fires is at +7 to the DC, resulting in an effective penalty of -3.

Not infallable, but then I don't believe any one thing in PF is designed to be.

It's just as easy to say "this is the tactic a ranged rogue works effectively" and be done with it. Please do not get people to start posting builds when all they need to do is mention an ability and the way it would work.

Also, when you say

"But the problem at the start is we are being asked to define a Rogue's abilities in such a way that precludes skills and Trapfinding, and to an increasingly larger part, stealth, but given that Rogues are 'the skill class', its incredibly hard to do so. Like talking about the sea without being able to use the words 'water', 'wet', 'salty', 'sand', 'blue', 'green', 'ocean' 'sky' and 'fish'."

you're not paying full attention. Yes, i do believe that trapfinding is limited in use to certain campaigns and not a viable reason for a class to exist. Yes, i do believe that people put too much emphasis on the amount of skills that a rogue gets. they get 8, not 12, and how many skill points do you need anyway? With the ability to be a human, and to use your favored class bonus for skps, most of the non-2 point classes will have enough skills to play a fulfilling character skill wise.

I encourage people to tell me about rogue stealth, provided they can show something that only a rogue can do, or something that is profoundly better for a rogue.

Well that makes it easier (throws the Ranged Scout Rogue build using only PFCR and APG Sniper variant and additional talents away)

Basically the tactic to use is that of the outrider, use the party to attract all the attention. From stealth attack target at range (30' for sneak attack, should be aiming to make all attacks at this range) and re-stealth. Reposition if needed. You are not there simply to kill things, but to harry and distract, cripple, poison and bleed. Bluff to re-stealth if compromised, tumble away if attacked. At about 10th level with a mundane crossbow you are looking at about 22-26 damage from sneak attack, more useful debuffs if you don't got for pure damage.

With the right feats/talents/items, even with the negative to stealthing back up after attack (only an effective -7 on your stealth role given the +1 DC to spot per 10') you should be a shadow for the vast majority of the combat.

I await the inevitable decrying of this tactic as not adding all that much damage compared to others. They are all missing the point.

Stuart- can you provide a way for ranged rogues to work on a regular basis? This is something that i would find very interesting. I saw the goggles in APG that gave +2 dmg per sneak attack die, but looking at it i can't find a reliable way to get ranged sneak attack damage in a full attack.

I understand that you can use things like smoke bombs and darkness, but there is a good chance that you just screwed your melee fighter in the process, making the rogue now liable for the damage.

A scout rogue can do the move first thing, leaving opponents flatfooted for one attack per round. Which is neat, however, the power of a ranged fighter/monk/ranger/inquisitor is the ability to full attack on the regular from almost any position. How do you make a rogue compete (not better than, just on a reasonable playing field).

So you want a build now then? ;)

Np, I'm off to the pub right now but I'll knock up a simple few case suggestions when I get back.

Tanis wrote:

Mob Anatomy (Ex): A mob has no clear front or back and no discernible anatomy, so it is not subject to critical hits or sneak attacks. A mob cannot be flanked, tripped, grappled, or bull rushed.

*edit* pretty much a swarm of humans.

i am sorry for the online slang...

MOB stands for Monster Or Beast in MMO's like Everquest and World of Warcraft. TBH my group of friends uses it both online and in pen and paper games...

Also dates back further to Runescape and is the abbreviated form of 'mobile', meaning a monster that moves around, as a opposed to static spawns. The term caught on past that, though some Everquest players still refer to something moving of its own volition as 'mobs' and those rooted to the spot as 'static spawns'.

Of course, any sensible EQ player will have macro'd [/group "Incomming %T"] to show exactly what the rest of the party should be hitting ;)

arrrgh... lostpost, keyboard needs repair, cliff notes version

1) you can't stealth something with blind sight or blindsense. It doesn't happen. It sucks for the rogue, but thats the rules.

You can (feats and items allow you to, still hard though), but these would be what I was referring to about the ones designed not to be snuck up upon and flummox stealth users. Likewise, Golems are resistant/reflect/absorb magic - they are an example of a monster designed to flummox the spellcasters. Unless you have a DM using them almost exclusively, such exotic abilities are only found on pretty rare monsters. Nothing in PF is designed to be able to beat everything every time, especially easily (though lord knows people keep trying!). Thems the breaks.

2) killing the rogue of the wizard means less damage taken before the entire party is dead. the wizard can deal death from a distance...the rogue cannot. if killing the fighter would take 10 rounds and killing the rogue 5 , and both do equal damage, killing the warrior then the rogue is 25 rounds of damage , killing the rogue then the warrior is 20

Ranged Rogues are fairly capable of doing a lot of damage at a mid-distance. Sure, it isn't 100ft plus, but it is still a range where monsters will have to move away from melee fighters to get to them. You can re-stealth if the target isn't observing you keenly, and combat is generally regarded as being highly distracting, so ranged sneak attacks are doable often, and there are numerous ways of making a target flat footed from range. Teamwork at this point is a bonus and makes it a darn sight easier, admittedly.

3) breaking in to rob a safe is something a rogue can do ALONE .. they can't do it with group. thats the problem. Sneaking and sniping is fine... if everyone is doing it or youre solo. as a group activity it just doesn't work.

Agree with the first part, but thats part of the point. Its the Rogue's job, let him do it. You don't send the Frenzied Beserker to diplome a room for the night at the local temple of Obad-Hai, so why should Rogues be forced to act with everyone else 100% of the time. However, sneaking and sniping actually work BEST in a combat when everyone else is making as much of a melee distraction as possible so I disagree that everyone has to be doing it for it to work. If you are trying to silently take out all the guards without alerting anyone then I have a Gnome Paladin who would beg to differ that only the Rogues can do that, but you have to agree they have a better than most other classes of pulling it off.

You pick your fights so you are fighting with the best of your abilities. If you don't 'need' to be in the thick of it, don't be. I know plenty of Rangers who fit into that category also.

But the problem at the start is we are being asked to define a Rogue's abilities in such a way that precludes skills and Trapfinding, and to an increasingly larger part, stealth, but given that Rogues are 'the skill class', its incredibly hard to do so. Like talking about the sea without being able to use the words 'water', 'wet', 'salty', 'sand', 'blue', 'green', 'ocean' 'sky' and 'fish'.

We can post examples of good use of Rogues, where rogues have been fantastic or where rogues have outdone other classes at certain things, but apparently thats not what SpaceChomp is after.

The bard might get less skill point, but he's able to use them more efficiently.

Bards are awesome.

not dissing Bards here, just making the comparison between how each class works its feature bonuses out.

This seems like, yet again, more simple conjecture on what a rogue is supposed to do rather than on how it should be doing it.

What can a rogue do that would make it better than a bard in the above scenario. Or more simply, what is this rogue doing that every other character can't do? Or is this another brief argument that the 8 skill points makes that big of a difference?

Not exactly, but it does point back to trapsense and some of the Rogue Talents, though I know you have already mentioned you are looking for things besides trapsense all the time.

Specific to the example you refer, Rogue would be better than a Bard at sneaking past the guards unnoticed, picking locks and finding and bypassing traps so they wouldn't be noticed as being activated. the Bard would have to resort to magic to augment himself to the same degree, and thus stands a greater chance of being detected either during or afterwards. As information gatherers the Bard has the edge, and both are very good at bribing, bluffing and threatening to get information/aid/guards to look the other way.