The Kulak's page

My suspicion is "no", based on the existence of this Loremaster feat, Quick Study:

During your daily preparations, you can study a particular subject to gain the trained proficiency rank in one Lore skill of your choice. You must have interacted with that subject in some way on the previous day, whether by reading about it, talking to someone knowledgeable on the topic, or experiencing it yourself. Alternatively, you can reference your notes to instead choose a Lore skill you've prepared before with Quick Study. This proficiency lasts until you prepare again. Since this proficiency is temporary, you can't use it as a prerequisite for a skill increase or a permanent character option like a feat.

If the narrower lore skill wasn't beneficial in some way, then this would be strictly worse than Loremaster Lore.

I welcome other's thoughts though.

Rolling a more specific or more applicable skill gives a lower DC than a more general or less relevant skill - this is mentioned a couple times in the book, for example in the Adjusting Difficulty section:

You might use different DCs for a task based on the particular skill or statistic used for the check. Let’s say your PCs encounter a magical tome about aberrant creatures. The tome is 4th-level and has the occult trait, so you set the DC of an Occultism check to Identify the Magic to 19, based on Table 10-5. As noted in Identify Magic, other magic-related skills can typically be used at a higher DC, so you might decide the check is very hard for a character using Arcana and set the DC at 24 for characters using that skill. If a character in your group had Aberration Lore, you might determine that it would be easy or very easy to use that skill and adjust the DC to 17 or 14. These adjustments aren’t taking the place of characters’ bonuses, modifiers, and penalties-they are due to the applicability of the skills being used.

This also applies to things that aren't lore, or to lore skills of varying relevance, as mentioned in, for example, Creature Identification:

The skill used to identify a creature usually depends on that creature’s trait, as shown on Table 10-7, but you have leeway on which skills apply. For instance, hags are humanoids but have a strong connection to occult spells and live outside society, so you might allow a character to use Occultism to identify them without any DC adjustment, while Society is harder. Lore skills can also be used to identify their specific creature. Using the applicable Lore usually has an easy or very easy DC (before adjusting for rarity).

Does Bardic Lore, or Loremaster Lore, benefit from an easier DC as though it were a more specific skill?

Thanks for the clarification on the Infamy, I'm glad I ran it correctly. Can you clarify the second two questions, Michael?

MY BABY!!!

Questions for the author:

It feels really bad to not be able to mix modifiers like Harmonize and Lingering Composition. Also starting a Harmonized composition still ends any ongoing composition you have.

Maybe that was the intent, but it just feels awful to have an "option" to remove the round-to-round upkeep, and then be able to use it less and less as the game progresses.

Can Bards use Lingering Performance and Inspire Heroics on the same casting of Inspire Courage?

RAW, it seems it's up to the GM, because the triggers are not "identical". Do you agree?

If you do, as a GM, what would you say?

Triggers

The triggers listed in the stat blocks of reactions and free actions limit when you can use them. You can use only 1 free action on a single trigger, but you can take both a free action and a reaction on the same trigger. If you somehow get more than 1 reaction per round, you can also use only 1 reaction per trigger. If two triggers are similar, but not identical, the GM determines whether you can use multiple free actions or reactions.

[[F]] Verbal Casting; Trigger You finish casting a cantrip composition with a duration of 1 round.

[[F]] Verbal Casting; Trigger You finish casting inspire courage.

It seems to fall in the same category as Enfeeble, RAW. So yes, until they consider errata for this.

The devs are pretty active on the board, and I wanted to make sure the nuance of Spell damage rolls didn't get lumped in with the more sensible "enfeeble affects weapon damage rolls". So I made a new post :D

Enfeeble provides a penalty to damage rolls. Lots of other effects affect damage rolls too, but let's stick with enfeebled.

Why are spell damage rolls affected by Enfeeble?

As far as I can tell (thank you Tholomyes) p293 which calls out "A damage roll typically uses a number and type of dice determined by the weapon or unarmed attack used or the spell cast" so yeah, by RAW, Enfeeble affects your spells.

:(

I'm more curious about Enfeeble and Spell damage rolls. Enfeeble says "conditional penalty to damage rolls", and spells roll for damage...

You may want to note that the Enfeebled condition from the Shadows has no cap, and is cumulative. They are attacking against TAC. This, mixed with the short timeframe between encounters (can only cast 1 restoration), can leave your players at large enfeebled values going into the final fight.

What saving throw is used for Divine Wrath? It's not a 1e spell, so I can't infer it.

Disarm should only need to specify that you can use a weapon instead of being unarmed.

The section about Weapons in the Treasure chapter specifies that a weapon's item bonus applies to all Attack rolls made using the weapon.

For the devs, I suggest making this super clear, rather than leaving it for induction.

So any check made as part of an Activity that grants an Attack by the Attack trait, is considered an Attack Roll?

Why does the Disarm trait feel the need to call out that the item bonus from the weapon applies to the Disarm Athletics Check?

As a second question, this then should allow me to use my Dexterity instead of Strength with Disarm checks made with a Rapier? (because it has the Finesse trait?)

I can't find in the rules where the various combat maneuver uses of Athletics that have the Attack trait cause the Athletics skill checks to be considered "Attack rolls".

This means:

• While Athletics activities with the Attack trait contribute to the Multiple Attack Penalty, the Athletics checks made never suffer a penalty.
  
• Maneuvers cannot benefit from bonuses to Attack Rolls, like Inspire Courage.
  
• Maneuvers made with Finesse weapons (e.g. Rapier to take a Disarm action) cannot use their Dexterity bonus instead of Strength.
  
• Maneuvers rarely suffer from penalties from Conditions (like Sluggish).
  

This doesn't make sense to me, it seems like it's unintended.

Multiple Attack Penalty's definition implies that actions that have the Attack trait might be considered Attack rolls. It never actually states that though.

But then the Disarm weapon trait implies that attack rolls and Athletics checks to disarm are two different things that need special handling.

I can't find anything in the book about light sources creating dim light beyond their Bright light range. I'm going to default to what feels like a sane choice of Dim light extends twice as far as Bright.

So the Light spell casts 20' Bright light, and 20 feet beyond that of Dim light.

Real post gencon bump?

I don't think there are contested rolls anymore. You should always be rolling against a Skill DC (10 + the target's skill bonus).

Post gencon shameless bump.

Shameless bump for Paizo attention.

You can attempt to move to another place while becoming or staying unseen. Stride up to half your Speed.

• Is it true that if I take 3 Sneak actions, I have to make 3 Stealth rolls? Against an equal level opponent, I probably have a 3-4 bonus advantage, which means I succeed on a 7 or higher. Statistically speaking, I'm going to fail, and become Sensed.
  
• Is initiative the only contested Stealth roll, opposed by Perception? I have to make another Stealth roll?
  

I'm looking forward to testing out to see how it works in game, but I'm struggling with the number of opportunities I have for failure.

Given that strike is an encounter mode action, can you even take it without entering encounter mode first?

Even if not, it’s your action that causes you to become seen. If the hobgoblin goes first, you are still unseen on his turn.

This doesn’t help you get sneak attack, but it would let you get a pseudo surprise round by having the party all delay their initiative to 0, before revealing their presence.

I'm assuming that it's a contested roll to be spotted. It doesn't really make sense that the enemy would roll a really good Perception, higher than your Stealth, and not see you.

I would really like clarification from a Paizo member on that though.

Take these two feats, or just very sneaky if you're a goblin already. You can't do it every time, but when you crit succeed it works.

-Adopted Ancestry (goblin)
-Very Sneaky

I like it.

I made a thread over here on how Sneak Attacking works.

Hello PCRogue, I understand you want to sneak up on the goblin and put a knife in him? Excellent!

Naturally, we're currently in Exploration Mode [p. 316], and it sounds like you've chosen the Sneaking tactic! So let's have you roll a Stealth roll for the tactic, enabling you to move around the dimly lit (so you have the Concealed status) room. Good thing too, if it were a Brightly lit room, you wouldn't be able to Sneak around without cover.

I rolled a 15 Stealth for you (because Sneak has the Secret trait), beating the Perception DC of 14. You're able to sneak around the room, and are close to the Hobgoblin's back. He picks his nose.

According to the Sneaking tactic, when we start this encounter, you will roll Stealth for your initiative instead of a Perception check. This check will determine your initiative order, and to see if the enemies notice you.

You declare you're attacking, which (according to p. 331) is a creature on your side deciding to take an action against someone on the other side.

You roll a Stealth for Initiative, and you get a 17!
I roll a Perception for the Hobgoblin, and only get a 12.

He hasn't spotted you, and you're going first. He hasn't acted in this first round of combat, so the Rogue class feature Surprise Attack activates, and he is flat-footed to you.

It's your turn.

You take an action other than Stealth, and attack him. You lose the "Unseen" condition, and are now "Seen", before your action starts. Normally, this would make it so the Hobgoblin is no longer flat-footed, but because of Surprise Attack, he still is flat-footed. You hit with your attack and get Sneak Attack damage!

But what if initiative happened differently?

You roll a Stealth for Initiative, and you get a 15!
I roll a Perception for the Hobgoblin, and only get a 17.

Even though your Stealth was higher than the Hobgoblin's Perception DC of 14, he spots you as you move to attack, and is able to react. As far as I can tell, the Stealth initiative roll is the ONLY contested roll in the game. As you creep forward, you foot scatters some pebble on the ground, alerting the Hobgoblin to your presence!

It's the Hobgoblin's turn. He attacks you, and you don't get Sneak Attack damage for this fight.

What else can I do?

You can't use Deception to Create a Distraction, it follows the same rules as "Attacking ends the Sensed condition right before your attack."

You can use the Feint action (Deception Trained).

If you're not a Rogue, even if you go first in Initiative, the Hobgoblin is not flat-footed to your attacks. (But you don't have Sneak Attack either, so it would just be the -2 AC anyway).

I can't say I'm a fan of having a contested roll to determine Sneaking up on someone, especially after you already had to make a Stealth roll in Exploration mode. It's essentially 2 chances to be spotted, and the second is a lot more "Swingy" as odds go.

If anyone has rules/comments that would paint a different picture, I'd love it. Or if a Paizo staff wants to clarify something I missed?

Because we changed "dire rats" to "giant rats" but did a kinda sloppy job extending that change into the adventure. Sorry about that.

No, I mean why is there a Giant* Rat in that room? Is it Drakus' pet? Does he fight with Drakus? There's no text mentioning the Rat, there's just the Monster title block dropped in randomly.

Why is there a Dire Rat in Lost Star's A10 (Befouled Shrine)?

I think you're interpreting something as overly restrictive, when it's not.

Let's say that I wanted to be a pirate! I've been sailing forever! Oh, but I can't take the Pirate archetype until Level 2? So no pirate for me?

That's not really true. I can structure the identity however I want. I just can't unlock certain mechanical benefits until Level 2. Which is exactly how countless PF1 Archetypes work.

So many archetypes only "kick in" at level 3 or higher, e.g. Bard - Sound Striker.

I see a lot of statements that Paizo is limiting our character's identities with these new Archetypes, and I don't think that's true.

You can be a Pirate without the the "Pirate Archetype", and you can be a Grey Maiden without the "Grey Maiden Archetype".

Side note: remember that this is a reset of content and combinatorics (which as a GM, I am so thankful for), so it may take a while before there are mechanics that support the exact character identity you're looking for, but there's no reason to think that it won't surface.

The Kulak wrote:

Opportunist gives an extra attack on a non crit, so presumably the fighter spawns 2 attacks for the rogue. The rogue total attack is now 7, 30% of which will crit, creating a little more than 2 attacks for the fighter, which (statistically, considering the rogue has one extra attack left over from the seven) has a good chance of causing one more attack for the rogue. From there it trails off infinitely (capped at max AOOs) at a return of 9% chance that any attack you take will let you take another.

PFSRD wrote:

Opportunist (Ex)

Prerequisite: Advanced talents

Benefit: Once per round, the rogue can make an attack of opportunity against an opponent who has just been struck for damage in melee by another character. This attack counts as an attack of opportunity for that round. Even a rogue with the Combat Reflexes feat can't use the opportunist ability more than once per round.

You mean this opportunist? That says directly you can only get one attack from this per round.

Oppurtunist adds 1 attack per round. Outflank adds 1 per crit from flanking ally with the Outflank feat.

You can 5' step out of flanking by going diagonally.

(Nitpick) Fighter and Rogue both take 5' diagonal step to re-flank.

Also, I think you are overestimating the number of attacks you will pick up from Outflank. A fighter isn't going to have more than a 30% chance of a critical, and using the curve blade you mentioned above will only have 3 attacks. That means less than 1 critical on average.

Opportunist gives an extra attack on a non crit, so presumably the fighter spawns 2 attacks for the rogue. The rogue total attack is now 7, 30% of which will crit, creating a little more than 2 attacks for the fighter, which (statistically, considering the rogue has one extra attack left over from the seven) has a good chance of causing one more attack for the rogue. From there it trails off infinitely (capped at max AOOs) at a return of 9% chance that any attack you take will let you take another.

For everything else.

I see your point. That's.... depressing. I haven't investigated the archetypes enough to see how much crossover there is, but from what you've shown, it's clear that other classes can mimic almost all of the rogues abilities. The only thing I would defend the rogue with is the rate of damage potential increase, where at level 19, the rogue is dishing out 6-7 attacks by himself, with AOO's to fill out the rest at 10d8 easily resulting in hundreds of damage.

But you are correct, the rogue concept seems to be pulled off by other classes very easily. (not to mention, I'm completely befuddled when I can't crit).

Well, lemme switch forums and go jump on the "BUFF ROGUES!!!!" train.

EDIT:Wait... blah, someone with a spreadsheet check me. I think I forgot the haste attack, but already deleted my calculation.

I got 97.98 on the damage for the round on 5 attacks at AC 24. Using the DPRO formula by hand/calculator, not an excel sheet. I could be wrong. I also have 30.95 main hand damage and 28.35 secondary hand.

The real issue is keeping monsters in one place and achieving that flanking keyword; not an easy task. And even doing all of that, Joe Bob the fighter tends to outdamage you somewhat (or at 10th level, Jim Bob the just-as-skilled-with-better-saves archer ranger).

Actually easier than you think. Round 1 is positioning, allowing both fighter and rogue 1 Attack.

From there, any 5 foot step taken by the target can be adjusted for by a 5 foot step by both fighter and rogue. And, damagewise, you have to keep in mind, that if Flanking is acheived, the rogue above gets (on average) 3-4 extra attacks at max BAB, and the Figter gets 2-3 extra attacks. Above all that, the attacks have a 30% chance of snowballing.

Do +STR gauntlets even exist as a non-custom item anymore?

Not in Pathfinder, but we converted. DM allowed, but on straight PF, you are correct.

General stat aside: This is a character with crazy high stats. "Epic ridiculously overpowered" is 25 point buy and you're north of that.

16,16,14,14,10,9 feels fairly standard, but we rolled, not point buy. Drop from strength, or charisma as required to meet standards, although Charisma is really just for being that "dashing" rogue.

So, yeah. Let me build a two weapon wielding fighter with 30 or whatever point buy and that's going to look a lot crazier than what you see in DPSO, too.

Oh definitely. A rogue solo is poor stuff, no comparison for your solo fighter/ranger based on the to hit chance alone.

The Kulak wrote:
Oppurtunist (Bonus Talent from Human Rogue Favored Class - 1/6 of talent, taken levels 5-10)

I don't think picking an Advanced Talent that way is legal.

Advanced Talent from SRD:

Advanced Talents

At 10th level, and every two levels thereafter, a rogue can choose one of the following advanced talents in place of a rogue talent.

It's debatable, and definitely min/maxing, but it's fast tumble. Doesn't factor into damage, just tactics for positioning.

The Kulak wrote:

Potion of Haste: 14/14/14/9/9

Even if we were benchmarking some weird DPSO variant in which we allowed prep items and averaged your damage over, say, 10 rounds I'm still not positive that giving up attacking for at least a round to quaff the potion for 5 rounds of haste is a good trade.

Fair enough, my character walks with these often as prep for combat if the wizard isn't around, but benchmark stats, I think you'd be right. 5 extra attacks at max BAB is better than 4 at varied though.

Rogue Level 10 - Archetype Blademaster (Ulti Combat)
Str: 14 (Gauntlets for +2) -> 16
Dex: 16 (+2 for ability points from level, +4 from belt) ->22
Con: 10
Int: 14
Wis: 9
Cha: 16 (+2 Human) -> 18

BAB: 7/2
2 WPN: 5/5/0/0
Dex: 11/11/6/6
Magic Weapons (+1 Keen Kukris): 12/12/7/7
Weapon Focus: 13/13/8/8
Potion of Haste: 14/14/14/9/9
Flanking: 18/18/18/13/13 (This happens all the time, but I guess solo it doesn't count)

Feats:
Combat Reflexes
2 Weapon Fighting
Outflank
Weapon Focus
Improved Two Weapon Fighting
Combat Expertise

Rogue Talents:
Finesse (Weapon Finesse)
Bleeding Attack
Underhanded
Black Market
Fast Tumble
Oppurtunist (Bonus Talent from Human Rogue Favored Class - 1/6 of talent, taken levels 5-10)

Skills:
Acrobatics 10 (+5 for boots of striding/springing)
Appraise 10
Bluff 10
Climb 5
Diplo 10
Disable Device 10
Disguise 5
Knowledge Local 10
Perception 10
Sleight of Hand 10
Stealth 10
UMD 10

Damage:
1d4 (base) +1 (magic) +3 (strength) + 5d8 (sneak attack)

DPRO Standard:
For values of "to hit chance" >0.3 : (to hit chance)(149.55) - 14.175

I think via DPRO, I think I only do about 150, assuming sneak attacks, and subtract 30-40% because my to hit should be about 6-8 less than a comparable fighter. I'll run the numbers when I have time. Then I'll run the numbers for the fighter I pair with solo, and subsequently post the numbers if we are together. I see the validity of your points with regards to the benchmark requiring solo play, but rarely does that actually happen, and using that benchmark limits the scope of, and implies an aspect of the game that isn't there.

I get the baseline concept, but the validity of the character has to exceed the DPRO standards.

EDIT:

Wait wait wait... "The number of attacks is based on Outflank?" I was really confused as how you were getting 10... 4 from two-weapon fighting, 1 from a bite or something. Are you assuming your two flanking fighters are getting 5 critical hits a round for you to get extra attacks on? Because that is... wow. Just... wow.

Outflank combos. I partner with a fighter that uses an Elven Curve blade with improved crit range, meaning 30% of either of our attacks are crits. Everytime she crits, I get an AOO, which, if it subsequently crits, creates and AOO for her, etc. Add in Opportunist, which basically adds one extra attack, and I usually get to roll 8+ attacks in the round.

The Pro min-maxxers of the Internet don't carefully pick feats that let them maximize on their strength anymore? The Rogue is a tactical option, if you don't have Flanking, you don't have Sneak Attack. I'll post everything regarding the duo build for viewing, and I'll include the DPR Olympics formulae, but you can't omit tactical feats with a tactical character...

make DPR calculations according to the DPRO benchmark

Can you link?

I'll post the build, I've never used DPRO standards, but the number of attacks is based on Outflank, which is a teamwork feat, and I use it with the party's two fighters. I'll see how that can factor into DPRO. I'll work on that today.

First, powergame section.

At level 10, using my character concept (which does incorporate having a partnered fighter to flank with). I can get 10 (11 with haste) attacks, and do 55d8 + 14d4 + 98 ⇒ (2, 8, 7, 1, 2, 8, 1, 7, 3, 7, 8, 2, 8, 7, 4, 4, 2, 6, 2, 7, 4, 3, 7, 2, 7, 7, 6, 8, 1, 4, 8, 1, 1, 2, 6, 3, 2, 8, 6, 6, 4, 2, 8, 8, 6, 6, 6, 8, 2, 2, 6, 2, 4, 5, 8) + (1, 1, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4, 2, 4, 2, 3, 4, 1, 1) + 98 = 397. I've wasted some feat slots on utility.

Second, The actual game section.
I'm not arguing that an Urban Ranger can't face, or find/disarm traps. But in order to hold down those skills, you're losing skills elsewhere, and taking feats. And if you embody the concept of an Urban Ranger, presumably someone who can track down, find, and deal with someone across and Urban environment, congratulations! I'll take my Agent of the Royal Crown concept, and fit the rogue to it much better.

That's the crux of the problem. It's not that the rogue can't outshine other classes in his niches; the problem is it's possible to make a character that does everything as well as rogue does or better.

Sure the Ranger can function as an Urban character, but the Charisma doesn't complement his role, and the Ranger has to go out of his way to fulfill the Face. The Rogue is specialist that triangles Face, Traps, and Combat. The Ranger can dabble in these and surpass in some, but can't do all 3, (keep in mind you can only have one archetype). And Urban encounters aren't the only Face encounters.

Bards can also specialize, but triangles Face, Support, and (with archetypes, I suppose traps or any other facet the bard wants).

The rogue remains a puzzle piece, complementing his surrounding party members. (And I'm pretty sure I can out dps your ranger ;p, but that's just the power gamer raising I had).

So, I just started reading through these forums, as I've played PF since beta, and DND since I was 9 years old back in first edition (although those memories are blurry). In my experience, as I've followed the game through out it's many implementations, it's remained a game of roles, not balance.

Each player picks a character concept that fulfills a role with regards to a party, and fleshes out the character to truly embody and have fun with that concept. Fighters are front line hitters, taking hits just as well as they dish them out. Wizards are squishy, but can do more damage than anyone else.

I think 3 or 4 of the top General Discussion forums at point of this writing are about how the Rogue is imbalanced, where either the Rogue needs improvements, or the Rogue needs his SA nerfed.

Well I disagree with both points. In fact the Rogue fulfills his puzzle piece perfectly, going above and beyond his role in the party. He can face, he can trap-find, he can manuever tactically.

I can hear you already though... and I agree! The fighter CAN hit more, and gets Strength to every attack. (Currently playing with a power-gamer of a father who can, at level 10, conduct 250 points of damage with an archer-fighter). The Wizard concept can do more damage than even that fighter though! Metamagic feats propel damage so much higher. But that's the point of the Wizard. He fulfills his role!

Now we return to our Rogue. What's his deal? I play the rogue in our group, and I drive the party forward. I wheel, deal, and race into position tactically when I need to. (And because my father challenged me with his 250 damage, I've managed to wrangle similar or higher numbers out of my level 10 rogue with some absurd dancing, presuming all my attacks hit. Oh and I get hurt. A LOT.) But that doesn't change that above anything else, I fulfill my role as the specialist. Because that's what the rogue is. So he doesn't need changing, or limits. By RAW alone, he's good at what he does, and isn't good at what he doesn't do.