TxSam88's page

Organized Play Member. 114 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I assume these will be for second edition. Any chance you'll make some for first edition?


TxSam88 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Cfoot wrote:

That's probably a bit dramatic, but it is a clickbait world. :)

Likes:
More dice rolling on damage, less static damage
Backgrounds feel better roleplay-wise than PS1 traits to me

Dislikes:
No Strength Rogue option (too cookie cutter)
No advantage to mounted combat (probably a disadvantage in the long run)
Ancestry Feats feel like a feat tax to get back what I used to get for free
I'm suspicious of how combat maneuvers will actually work (I think they will be more die dependent therefore less reliable therefore used less)

Summary:
I 'm biased because I loved 3.5 and when PF1 came out I was like, "Wow this is 3.5 on steroids!". I was hooked immediately. PS1 was said to be like 3.75. I was hoping PF2 would be like 3.8. I'm really trying to not be a hater, but this really doesn't feel like the same game to me. I'm still going to participate in the playtest, in order to give it a fair shake, but my confidence and expectations are low right now.

The problem with added damage dice is the time it takes to add them up (not an issue for me, but I know others can have this problem of intense shorthand math addition), and it creates very "swingy" results. You can hit as hard as 78 damage in a single attack with a +5 Greatsword with 22 Strength, or as weak as 12 (6 dice + 6 Strength). Yes, you are most likely to hit the averages, being 45 damage, but outliers do exist, they can come up more often than not, and this honestly served as the #1 reason why using Cure spells (generally in combat) was a waste of time and resources; the benefits were too swingy to warrant an appropriate expenditure for it. This also creates the idea that "was this attack action really worth it" paradigm, even though you hit and did what you were supposed to do, but it turns out it wasn't because you didn't roll good enough on damage, an arbitrary reason why you didn't do your job of defeating the bad guy? Sure, the same argument of "didn't roll
...

Any system with opposed die rolls is inherently bad. that's what makes D&D/Pathfinder so good, it's all about single die rolls vs target numbers. simple, straightforward and most importantly, quick.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Cfoot wrote:

That's probably a bit dramatic, but it is a clickbait world. :)

Likes:
More dice rolling on damage, less static damage
Backgrounds feel better roleplay-wise than PS1 traits to me

Dislikes:
No Strength Rogue option (too cookie cutter)
No advantage to mounted combat (probably a disadvantage in the long run)
Ancestry Feats feel like a feat tax to get back what I used to get for free
I'm suspicious of how combat maneuvers will actually work (I think they will be more die dependent therefore less reliable therefore used less)

Summary:
I 'm biased because I loved 3.5 and when PF1 came out I was like, "Wow this is 3.5 on steroids!". I was hooked immediately. PS1 was said to be like 3.75. I was hoping PF2 would be like 3.8. I'm really trying to not be a hater, but this really doesn't feel like the same game to me. I'm still going to participate in the playtest, in order to give it a fair shake, but my confidence and expectations are low right now.

The problem with added damage dice is the time it takes to add them up (not an issue for me, but I know others can have this problem of intense shorthand math addition), and it creates very "swingy" results. You can hit as hard as 78 damage in a single attack with a +5 Greatsword with 22 Strength, or as weak as 12 (6 dice + 6 Strength). Yes, you are most likely to hit the averages, being 45 damage, but outliers do exist, they can come up more often than not, and this honestly served as the #1 reason why using Cure spells (generally in combat) was a waste of time and resources; the benefits were too swingy to warrant an appropriate expenditure for it. This also creates the idea that "was this attack action really worth it" paradigm, even though you hit and did what you were supposed to do, but it turns out it wasn't because you didn't roll good enough on damage, an arbitrary reason why you didn't do your job of defeating the bad guy? Sure, the same argument of "didn't roll good on your attack roll" can apply, but a...

I've said for years that they need to support themselves on adventure paths and modules (i.e. new things for your characters to go do) instead of new rules (i.e. new things a character can do) and sales of core rules (market saturation is a thing).

So you get a good set of core rules, and publish a Great adventure every year and rely on that to be your cash cow.


I'd start with the gaming stores there in San Angelo. plus the campus at the college. I used to know a few gamers in San Angelo but not any more. I know there are some people in Midland looking for a game. You might stop into Astral Castle and look around, plus the Hive over in Odessa.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

We have years off experience with the 3.X system, we have lots of time and money invested in the 3.X system. we have years worth of unplayed adventure paths. we like the 3.X system and enjoy the game. We picked up pathfinder 1 because it was just an expansion on the 3.X system, we had no desire to reinvest time and money to learn a new and different system. We still feel that same way, so unless PF2 is the same as Pf1, which we're betting it's not, then we will simply stick with PF1.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

our gaming group switched from D&D to Pathfinder because we did not want to learn new rules and spend time and money reinvesting in a new system. we also did not like how 4th edition D&D had dumbed-down the game. What I have seen so far in the 2.0 FAQs is that same dumbing down that made us not want to play 4th edition. Sad to say, we're saddened that Pathfinder 1.0 (based on D&D 3.5) will be losing support.
Happily we have years worth of adventures to go through before we need to worry about switching.


I found a sharding Dagger to be pretty awesome for the Flying Blade build. it should negate the need for quick draw feat and the startoss feats.


Thanks for all the input, here is how we handled it.

Each undead got a will save to resist the control of the intelligent weapons, just like a character would.

then we did opposed charisma checks to see whether the cleric or the intelligent weapons maintained controls, just like you would if two clerics were trying to control the undead via the command undead feat.


GM Hands of Fate wrote:
TxSam88 wrote:
...the weapons were intelligent...

Weapons? Plural? Someone left multiple intelligent weapons laying around?

So, what the true question is, can the weapon overcome the magical control of the caster. I don't think there are any rules for this, and if there is, I don't have time to research it. So what I propose is a house rule.

I would have the undead make the Will save required to see if the weapon dominates it. If so, then I would give the undead a second save vs the caster's control undead, adding the weapon's Ego to the undead's Will save.

But that's just me.

yep, multiple intelligent weapons. it was part of the adventure path apparently..


Dave Justus wrote:

The OP didn't say what kind of undead they were, whether mindless or not. Since the command undead feat was mentioned, it seems that the undead were not simple skeletons or zombies made by animate dead (since command undead wouldn't be needed.)

Precisely what sort of undead we are dealing with would help narrow down the answer.

Yes, they were undead created by the animate dead spell. Bloody skeletons to be precise.


In our last game session, the cleric created some undead, which, using the command undead feat, he ordered to arm themselves with weapons laying about. unknown to the cleric the weapons were intelligent and attempted to take control of the undead.

How do you go about determining who winds up in control of the undead?


I work at a firm that has a 42" wide plotter. I can print the flip maps directly at full scale.

I can also take the maps from the modules and print them at the proper scale for miniatures.

there's probably a local print shop in your area that can do this too (Kinko's comes to mind)


When the creature gets to make it's new saving throw each round, is the the Reflex bonus the same as it was before the spell went off, or are the new saves made at the new Reflex bonus (ie at Dex 0)?


TOZ wrote:
TxSam88 wrote:
"cutting off half the players" is not an option
Of course it is. Just not one you are willing to take.

no it actually isn't an option.


Rhedyn wrote:
M1k31 wrote:
TOZ wrote:
TxSam88 wrote:
I agree, so how do you handle it when half the players build flavorful characters and the other half go for total optimization?
Cut off half the players.
but which half?

The "flavor" ones.

In my experience, I've never meet someone good at roleplaying who isn't optimizing their characters by the second campaign.

Not optimizing tends to just mean "not caring".

As a GM, I'd rather have players that can do things because the is more interesting for me than a 9 page rogue backstory explaining why they are blind

I disagree as well, a good role player will be spreading out this skill purchases and his feat purchases into non optimised places, as well as buying "flavorful" magic items and choosing "flavorful" classes to begin with.

whereas a ROLLplayer will make only optimal choices.


TOZ wrote:
TxSam88 wrote:
I agree, so how do you handle it when half the players build flavorful characters and the other half go for total optimization?
Cut off half the players.

been best friends for almost 30 years, group has gamed together for almost 20. we've optimized characters for most of that

the adventure paths have brought about a need for changing our level of optimization, some have caught on, others are having trouble adjusting.

"cutting off half the players" is not an option


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
The better solution is to discuss the issue with the optimizer and get him to agree to dial things down a notch or two.
I feel like one of the problems with games like this is that there are some classes or archetypes that are dripping with flavor, but are often avoided because they're either not powerful or there are far more efficient traditional ways to build a whatever. So when there's a clear gulf in system mastery between you and everybody else playing in the game, this is your opportunity to build something that's flavorful but you wouldn't play it in a game where you felt the need to "keep up".

I agree, so how do you handle it when half the players build flavorful characters and the other half go for total optimization?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Balkoth wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
A skilled player can optimize any class, given the time and effort.

Are you claiming all (or even most) classes are of roughly equal power when optimized?

If not, then removing the option to play the most powerful ones does bring down the overall power available to the PCs.

I am not claiming all classes are equal.

Banning classes that have a higher ceiling tends to also lower the available options for the non-optimizing players. You don't wind up with a more even table, you just have a lower ceiling for both optimized and unoptimized players.

The better solution is to discuss the issue with the optimizer and get him to agree to dial things down a notch or two.

we tried that, didn't work..

But yeah, we got rid of the Ferrari, and made the players all max out with Camaro's, still fast and powerful, and can be optimized, but not as awesome as the Ferrari


CorvusMask wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
The more I hear about adventure path design,

Well, okay okay okaaaay, gotta reply to this part in particular, thats just sounds like confirmation bias to me :D Ya know, the thing where you have particular opinion and believe opinions that support that opinion

I mean, at least read through one of them before commenting on AP design please xD

That being said, yeah like it was said before, they are designed for 4 point buy 15 unoptimized parties. I think its common sense that any optimized party needs to have campaign customized them, optimized pathfinder's math breaks hard so designing for it is ridicolous. I mean, the way system works, challenge ratings means nothing for optimized parties. Thats why my group prefers to do it more casually than optimizing much. I mean, they do somewhat plan ahead and such, but as far as I know, they just don't bother with effort that optimization needs. They might also just avoid optimized choices on purpose to keep difficulty right, but I think its just case that not everyone wants to do tons of calculating and planning in their hobbies.

Like, just example of what unoptimized but not "bad"(as in unable to play the AP at all due to getting far enough that they can't keep up with high level monsters) party is about like: ** spoiler omitted **...

yeah, we are "forcing" unoptimized parties/characters by having to ban certain classes. it's not the best solution, but we are having a hard time getting our players from always optimizing their characters. So by getting rid of the classes we've seen to be most troublesome, hopefully we can bring back some of the challenge to the game.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:

The more I hear about adventure path design, the more convinced I become I would be wasting my players' time and my own trying to run one for them. If decent AC and damage is all it takes to take one of those apart those things won't stand up to any class played by someone who knows what the class is good for. No wonder PFS got thrown off by something as simple as Crane Wing.

Outside of adventure paths, though, do watch out for incorporeals. They can reach through your armor, and the majority of them outright ignore your HP in favor of just strength/constitution damaging you to death or stacking up negative levels. Something every weapon-user needs to keep in mind, really, incorporeals are almost as bad as swarms for fighty-types.

EH, the thing you have to remember about adventure paths is that to sell, they need to be reasonable for a group of people whove never played the game to sit down, make their first characters ever, and not get simply overwhelmed by challenges put in for optimized or higher point buy characters.

Many tables run them with higher stats, or larger groups than they get tested with, and to run them unadjusted while the party optimizes is going to make them pretty easy, outside of pc's making decisions that screw them not based in game math.

Edit: Although that brings to mind the idea that AP's could probably have a rating system of "difficulty" based on the party its tested with. IE: This AP was tested for a 4 man party with 15 point buy. This AP was tested with a 6 man party and 25 point buy. To throw gms who don't want to alter paths a little guidance on how they should build a party for the modules.

Agreed, we're probably a bit more casual group than most, we all have jobs and we rotate GM's, none of us who GM would have time to create adventures on our own, so the Adventure Paths are a great substitute.

We are however an extremely experienced gaming group, most us having 25+ years of experience through a multitude of game systems.

Now, yeah, the AP's are written for 4 sub-optimal characters, for less experienced players, whereas we are 6, highly experienced players, who build highly optimal characters and take an optimal mix of classes. So the AP's should be less challenging to us as a whole. However, even with all that in consideration, the GM should not need to effectively DOUBLE the CR of an encounter just to challenge us.

After about 6 months of analysis and many nights of intense discussion, we determined that there are certain classes that are just over the top when it comes to the game.

Optimal Fighters deal way too much damage or are way to hard to hit for any equal CR challenge.

Certain other classes we have determined than when optimally build, just break the game as well, most notably, the Summoner, the Arcane Trickster, the Arcane Archer and a Cleric build which specializes in animating dead.

In our experience, any one of these at a semi optimal build can handle just a typical equal CR encounter by themselves, something which should take 4 characters.


Blackwaltzomega wrote:
TxSam88 wrote:
voska66 wrote:

I don't think there is anything wrong with the fighter. It fills its niche perfectly. If you don't like there are tons of other martial classes to choose from that might suit you better.

I find the only reason I'd play a fighter is to tank, they excel in that. With armor masters guide, you can really max out that AC easily and still do enough damage to make you a threat. That's what a fighter does. You can even get good with skills doing this so you can be useful out of combat.

I agree, the fighter excels at either being an unhittable tank, or the king of damage dealing. 40+ AC is easy, and 200+ damage per turn is easy as well.

they do it so well, that in our game, the GM has to boost the CR of encounters so high to make them a challenge for the fighter than the rest of the party is not really able to compete.

That's why in our home game, we have banned the straight fighter class.

Your GM hasn't heard of Touch Attacks or saving throws?

To your average ghost, most fighters with 40+ AC have something like 15 AC against their attacks. Critters with guns or ray attacks, similarly, barely notice that super-buffed full plate is there.

We're trying to use the Adventure paths, as written, or with additions that fit the story.

Against touch attacks, having 200+ Hit points means you can take a lot of hits from touch attacks. And then when it's the fighters turn, that 200+ damage he'll put out basically takes that "ghost" out of action, since incorporeal doesn't negate damage, just cuts it in half.

And about the only saving throw a fighter is bad at is Will, Not very many monsters have effects that go against a Will save, at least not in the adventure paths.

Flying creatures however are the bane of the melee fighter. But if he was smart and picked up a bow as his second weapon and spent his spare feats there, well.. so it's not 200 damage per round, its just 150....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
voska66 wrote:

I don't think there is anything wrong with the fighter. It fills its niche perfectly. If you don't like there are tons of other martial classes to choose from that might suit you better.

I find the only reason I'd play a fighter is to tank, they excel in that. With armor masters guide, you can really max out that AC easily and still do enough damage to make you a threat. That's what a fighter does. You can even get good with skills doing this so you can be useful out of combat.

I agree, the fighter excels at either being an unhittable tank, or the king of damage dealing. 40+ AC is easy, and 200+ damage per turn is easy as well.

they do it so well, that in our game, the GM has to boost the CR of encounters so high to make them a challenge for the fighter than the rest of the party is not really able to compete.

That's why in our home game, we have banned the straight fighter class.


Derek345 wrote:
Orcus Porcus wrote:
I have a medium fighter (titan fighter) wielding a large great axe. A large great axe does 3d6 Damage damage x3 on crits. Does that mean I roll 9d6 on a crit? Or 3d6 plus 3d6?
Your critical will deal 9d6 + 3*(any static bonuses you have which are not called out as precision damage).

no, it will deal (3d6)*3 (you roll 3d6 and mulitply the total by 3)


on earth, 100 miles up puts you in space and you would suffocate..... so I'd say it's an impossibility.. I mean, would you really allow a mage to teleport to the mooon, since it's LOS?


Let's pretend there is another Enemy (EZ) who's stealth is 22, who chooses not to go in the surprise round. When they finally do decide to go, thus revealing themselves, who can react to them? Is it a mini surprise round, and players can only take a standard action against EZ or are they free to take full actions against EZ if they go after him?


a good Cleric can fill more than just the Rezzing and condition removal role.

with the right feat to boost your spell DC's etc, it's not hard to become a striker. Plane shift random badguy........ etc...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I sure hope it's NOT Spelljammer


The Dungeonmaster

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089060/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1


My wife is our current GM, we have 1 other female in our group, plus my wife's sister plays in a group of her own.


NobodysHome wrote:

Resurrecting this just because I'm still hoping to find an "official" FAQ/errata/source that puts this to rest forever. (I've just read 300-400 posts on the subject, and I apologize for adding to the noise, but...)

In the middle of a combat, while BBEG was attacking other players (at range), my player's invisible rogue got behind him and was about to stab him 3 times, and the moment I told him, "No, you only get sneak attack damage on the first attack. After that you're no longer invisible so the rest of the damage is normal damage," he basically quit the fight, retired his rogue, and declared the Stealth rules useless and untenable.

It didn't matter that I offered to house rule sneak attack damage for the full round. The damage was done. If the "official" rules were that only the first attack gets damage, that's what he was going to play, but it made his rogue useless so he was retiring him.

So notice bbangerter's initial response is my interpretation, and as far as I know how the "rules as written" work, but it would be sooooooo nice to have an actual reference/FAQ/developer's opinion to point to instead of our erstwhile co-posters very cogent, very valid, very well-reasoned, but still "just opinions" postings...

EDIT: Yeah, I'm aware that asking for official postings on anything is a no-no. I was just hoping that my search-fu had failed me and there was a posting on this somewhere beyond the user threads I've been through.

If the Rogue was behind the BBEG, then he should be flanking. as long as a rogue is flanking then he gets sneak attack on all his attacks.

"The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target."


Use HeroLab on the ipad.....


Diego Rossi wrote:
demonolgist wrote:
hello everyone recently had a fun idea for my palladin to have an awesome burst atk vs flying foes so i decided to get magic missel but besides multiclassing and wands havnt rly found anything, do you all have any ideas?

Note that there is a open question about how you add smite evil to magic missiles.

Some people think that the spell is a single attack, so you apply smite evil once, others think that each missile is a separate attack and you apply smite evil to each missiles.
Ask your GM for his interpretation.

in a similar vein, Arcane trickster applying backstab to magic missile has been ruled that the backstab only applies once, not to each missile.


I went to a 40K tournament with a buddy once. Played the local "pity" player. you know, the guy they take pity on and don't run off, but his army is sub-par and he doesn't know the rules. His Space Marine army is also painted like the Dallas cowbys (sigh)

anyway, I have a good army, Space marines is a good matchup for me, my dice were rolling great, plus his were rolling horribly.

I proceed to destroy most of his army on turn 2 and wipe the table on turn 3.

He makes some comment along the lines of "How to you have such good dice?"

I make some comment about "I put them in solitary confinement (in the bathtub) when they roll bad, it teaches them a lesson." (I had recently read an article where some guy did that to his dice.

So the guy looks at me askance and asks, "You soak your dice in water?"

I'm like sure, whatever.

He immediately calls for a judge, calamine I'm cheating that I have loaded dice. The judge rolls some of my dice, doesn't even look and proclaims my dice as fine.

So he rage quits and leaves the store. The locals thank me for running him off. We break for lunch and then continue the tournament.

mid afternoon he calls the store we are playing in, and asks if anyone wants to buy his army, that he's getting out of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
G-Zeus wrote:
When playing with new players i simply ask us all to do a quick intro. In this i get an idea what to expect and i declare what i took them to mean. If they say they are a blaster sorc ill ask if they have fireball or someother evocation, and 90% of the time theyll correct me with exactly what they have. At the end of intros ill run off a quick checkpist of things weve missed and make sure we got them covered. It honestly doeant take that long all in all 5 minutes while the gm sets up.

I played Mummy's Mask 1 yesterday with a group of experienced players and still went through a checklist:

1. Do you have a way to attack at range
2. How are you going to heal yourself if damaged
3. What do you do if a swarm turns up
4. How about if we encounter a shadow
5. We are in a city which was nearly wrecked by plague, who bought an anti plague
6. How are you going to see in the dark

Its a useful list even for experienced people.

This would totally ruin my gaming experience. I don't want to have a single character who is "prepared for every situation", I don't even want a party that is "prepared for every situation" . I want to have to role play the encounter and see how things wind up. Yes, that sometimes means we fail against whatever the problem is.

I also want certain "focused" characters in my party, example: I'm the weak mage who only has a few spells per day, I want a really strong tough fighter in my party who can get between me and the badguy. if he's not specialized to the point where he can take a lot of hits and deal a lot of melee damage, then he's not good enough at his job and I'll find someone else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

http://www.seventhsanctum.com/index-name.php


I was told, by a WoTC employee, that the reason WoTC did not make a Gargantuan Green Dragon was directly related to the high price of plastics (tied to the price of oil)


we always benefitted from having a portable ram in the party gear somewhere.

I find a campfire bead, an ioun torch, and a cauldron of plenty to be on the short list of items to buy as well.


Back in 2nd edition, we just had our super high level mage cast reverse gravity on the area it was in. basically put the thing in orbit....


Get a portable hole, store them in it when you go to town.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

1. The Monk is not that bad of a character. I built up a mobile monk character was doing damage on par with a typical fighter and my AC was much higher than the same fighter.

2. this is a ROLE playing game. not a ROLL playing game. players should be allowed to play whatever they want and not really worry about optimization unless they want to.


Our group has a shared Dropbox folder that we store all kinds of "party" information in.


OK, I'll re-read the stuff on surprise round.

However, I think invisibility is open to interpretation.

It says immediately after you "attack" you become visible. I can see where that can be interpreted as "a full attack" since that is "an attack" or after a single attack as part of a "full attack".


I guess I'm not seeing that in the rules.

Rogue enters a room invisible and moves to within 5' of enemy. rogue waits 1 round, then takes a 5' step and makes an attack. enemy is surprised. enemy has not yet acted therefore enemy is flat-footed. rogue can make a full round attack with sneak attack, since he did not take a move action this round and is going before the flat-footed enemy.
If the rogue has "Surprise attack" he can still make a full round sneak attack even if by some miracle the enemy predicts him becoming visible and acts before the rogue because the enemy is still considered flat-footed.

I see nothing in the rules stopping that.


Imbicatus wrote:
TxSam88 wrote:


We've searched for a ruling on that and I believe it's up to DM discretion. We decided that "a full round attack" would all fall under surprise.

The rule is in the invisibility spell itself.

invisibility wrote:
If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear.

true, but is the sneak good for no attacks, one attack or a full attack? I can see it ruled all three ways.

wouldn't the rogue attack, become visible, but the opponent be considered flat-footed vs. the rogue since it's now in a surprise situation?

And like I said, the Sneak Attack feat takes care of all of that for you.


Imbicatus wrote:
TxSam88 wrote:
Alex Mack wrote:
TxSam88 wrote:

so it wears off after 3 minutes, just reactivate it, it can be used an unlimited number of times per day. As the party scout, you should almost always be invisible except when you are reporting back to the party. So 90% of all combats should begin with you invisible.

Still your net gain is one Sneak attack per combat. That does nothing to enable TWF.

I'm gonna disagree again, as the party scout, with stealth and invisibility, you should be within a 5' step of an opponent before combat starts. And even if you aren't, most of your party will be making single attacks due to having to move to get into base to base. But for raw damage output, the best a rogue can do is TWF with backstab, which is pretty easy to get.

My Arcane trickster rogue was once charmed/dominated/etc to kill off my own party (we play in a group of 6 players), I was able to kill 4 of them before I passed the will save to snap out of it (3 out of those 4 I was able to kill in one round each)

Even if you can full attack, invisibility is only good for a single attack roll before breaking, and therefore is only allowing one sneak attack. You are visible and not denying dex to AC to any attacks after the first.

We've searched for a ruling on that and I believe it's up to DM discretion. We decided that "a full round attack" would all fall under surprise.

Luckily our fighter player typically has a higher Imitative than the rogue, or the rogue player will delay his action, until there is a fighter in base to base to help with flanking.

there is also the Surprise Attack feat, which leaves your opponent flat-footed for the whole round, even if they get to act.


Alex Mack wrote:
TxSam88 wrote:

so it wears off after 3 minutes, just reactivate it, it can be used an unlimited number of times per day. As the party scout, you should almost always be invisible except when you are reporting back to the party. So 90% of all combats should begin with you invisible.

Still your net gain is one Sneak attack per combat. That does nothing to enable TWF.

I'm gonna disagree again, as the party scout, with stealth and invisibility, you should be within a 5' step of an opponent before combat starts. And even if you aren't, most of your party will be making single attacks due to having to move to get into base to base. But for raw damage output, the best a rogue can do is TWF with backstab, which is pretty easy to get.

My Arcane trickster rogue was once charmed/dominated/etc to kill off my own party (we play in a group of 6 players), I was able to kill 4 of them before I passed the will save to snap out of it (3 out of those 4 I was able to kill in one round each)


Imbicatus wrote:
TxSam88 wrote:

When I played one, I picked up a ring of invisibility early on, which easily allowed me to get backstab damage. and then the Trickster gets Invisible thief at 9th level, which is basically Greater Invisibility, suddenly All of my attacks got sneak attack.

So over the duration of play of my character, easily 75% of his attacks got sneak attack damage.

A ring of invisibility takes a standard action to activate and allows you to remain invisible for 3 minutes per activation. The short duration means you likely do not have it active when combat starts unless you pre-buff. This means you waste a round to become invisible, and then you can make one sneak attack next round before you become visible. Losing a round of attacks to make a single sneak attack is not a good trade.

There are much better uses for 10000 gold than a ring of invisibility, especially at low level.

so it wears off after 3 minutes, just reactivate it, it can be used an unlimited number of times per day. As the party scout, you should almost always be invisible except when you are reporting back to the party. So 90% of all combats should begin with you invisible.


Alex Mack wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

Knife master is all about sneak attacking with daggers. Arcane trickster is all about sneak attacking with spells. Don't mix the two.

If you really want to do arcane trickster, starting at 13th level would be a great way to do it; you bypass all the prerequisites.

Em I think you meant all the levels of sucking :)

I can also confirm Secret Wizard's assessment on the superiority of TWF for unchained Rogue. Dagger is actually by far the best weapon for this due to Deific Obedience.
However in actual game play I'm not sure how many flanking full attacks you are actually gonna be pulling off. My guess is that it's far less than 50% of combat rounds and even less if you don't have a group actively helping you out here.

The Cayden Divine Fighting Technique might actually be really good for TWF Rogues if you found a way to make your CMB good.

There are a couple of good feats that will grant you flanking without actually being in flank position. The trickster also has Impromptu Sneak Attack which will allow backstab damage. When I played one, I picked up a ring of invisibility early on, which easily allowed me to get backstab damage. and then the Trickster gets Invisible thief at 9th level, which is basically Greater Invisibility, suddenly All of my attacks got sneak attack.

And let's not forget that with high dex, comes high initiative, and when combined with improved initiative you'll get to go first. and in the first round of combat, the opponent is flat footed until his turn, again allowing sneak attack damage.

So over the duration of play of my character, I'd say that easily 75% of his attacks got sneak attack damage.


Arachnofiend wrote:

I cannot in good faith recommend TWF; you will have an incredibly difficult time hitting anything on a 3/4 bab class with no innate bonuses to hit.

Normally I'd recommend you go full hog on natural attacks but I'm not sure how many naturals you can get with your GM's restrictions since the Helm of the Mammoth Lord is certainly going to be considered setting specific.

I disagree, TWF is the ONLY way to play a rogue. With the arcane tricksters Natural Greater Invisibility, your opponents will be denied any dex. bonus to AC. Use Flanking as much as possible. and invest in brilliant energy weapons or weapons with an element bonus. being able to roll upwards of 30 or more dice for damage is way worth it.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Well, the way to go Arcane Trickster is Rogue 1/Wizard 3/Arcane Trickster 9 (or Rogue 1/Sorcerer 4/Arcane Trickster 8). This requires the Accomplished Sneak Attacker Feat, but is quite solid.

That build, however, also gets nothing from Scout and is basically a Wizard (or Sorcerer) + Sneak Attack, not actually any sort of Rogue. Trying to go with more levels of Rogue and less of Arcane Trickster just winds up kind of a mess, and not nearly as good (remember, Arcane Trickster uses Wizard BAB and HD).

So, if you want to play a real Rogue, I'd go with the first build, which sounds very doable. If you want to play a Wizard or Sorcerer with some Rogue skills and Sneak Attack, go Arcane Trickster.

this is a very solid build and one I really enjoyed played. the knife master archetype is a great bonus to this, but was not available when I played. I also think going the full 10 levels of Arcane Trickster is nice.

1 to 50 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>