|
At the end of the day, everything needs a spine.If you removed the entire spine, or even a large chunk of it I would agree, but just breaking it or severing it I don't see stopping something undead.By that logic, just because you cut off the barbarians leg, doesn't mean he isn't coming after you!
Ederin Elswyr said it perfectly in his post. If a thing is made up of a structure which holds it together, it has a weak point in that structure that can be exploited to knock it apart.
Even if you think of all undead like the Black Knight from Monty Python, which keep fighting regardless, even they they have structural weaknesses that can be exploited. The Black Knight from Monty Python wasn't effective without his arms and legs.
Skeletons have joints. So do constructs. Hit anything with a form and structure at the right spot and you can do more damage than hitting it in a generic spot.
True enough but hitting a joint of a construct or skeleton with most rogue weapons and expecting sneak attack damage is laughable. It is not like you are swinging a great club at a kneecap. Trying to pierce a kneecap or a ribcage with a rapier seems laughable at best.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
True enough but hitting a joint of a construct or skeleton with most rogue weapons and expecting sneak attack damage is laughable. It is not like you are swinging a great club at a kneecap. Trying to pierce a kneecap or a ribcage with a rapier seems laughable at best.At the end of the day, everything needs a spine.If you removed the entire spine, or even a large chunk of it I would agree, but just breaking it or severing it I don't see stopping something undead.By that logic, just because you cut off the barbarians leg, doesn't mean he isn't coming after you!
Ederin Elswyr said it perfectly in his post. If a thing is made up of a structure which holds it together, it has a weak point in that structure that can be exploited to knock it apart.
Even if you think of all undead like the Black Knight from Monty Python, which keep fighting regardless, even they they have structural weaknesses that can be exploited. The Black Knight from Monty Python wasn't effective without his arms and legs.
Skeletons have joints. So do constructs. Hit anything with a form and structure at the right spot and you can do more damage than hitting it in a generic spot.
Who says you're not using a greatclub? Maybe you multiclassed, maybe you burned a feat, maybe you're eating the non-proficiency penalty (after all, after the bonus from flanking, it's only a -2, against low AC undead that aint too bad).
I am also not saying you are doing it wrong. What I am saying is that until you show me something a rogue can do in combat so they don't feel worthless I will continue to believe your logic is faulty.I did - you've chosen to either ignore it willfully, or dismiss it out of hand. In either case, you keep coming to *me* with challenges of debate and/or "show me" somehow. I do, and it's ignored or devalued.
You show us OPTIONS the rogue can take, and that's the difference - if the rogue PC does not have those options for various reasons, then they are sunk.
Sneak attack is the only combat ability every rogue will have. making it ineffective against a wide range of creatures is going to render some rogues ineffective in combat, with nothing to do but twiddle their thumbs or put their lives on the line to Aid Another.How is that any different than a ranger getting a favored enemey every five levels after 1rst? Is the ranger not just twiddling his thumbs because his favored enemy may only show up in about 10% of the combats?
When you can show me a ranger with 3/4 BAB, d8 hit dice, no favoured terrain, and no combat style, I'll concede you the point. Rangers are way better adapted to combat from the go-get than rogues are, so they can do more without their special thing. Further, their special thing is a bonus to hit and damage.
True enough but hitting a joint of a construct or skeleton with most rogue weapons and expecting sneak attack damage is laughable. It is not like you are swinging a great club at a kneecap. Trying to pierce a kneecap or a ribcage with a rapier seems laughable at best.
So rogues that use light maces, clubs, axes, slings, and various other implements of war that aren't pointy must be nerfed because other rogues use rapiers and shortswords and it would be silly otherwise even though skeletons already have DR/bludgeoning ... right ...
Because undead used to be challenging and unique. It also used to be that when an evil necro started raising a horde from your towns graveyard, you went to the church and holy knights, not the thieves guild. I still think that sneak attack to constructs and undead are very bad ideas after all this time. Crits (correctly) represent head shots, stakes through the heart, and smashing gears, so makes sense in my opinion. Just drop the sneak attack.
I just wanted to jump in and say this is really pushing it. While it's true that the sneak attack (hereafter referred to as SA) revision has made it so that when a player who plays a rogue then happens to find themselves in an adventure with a lot of undead and constructs the player isn't relegated to the side-lines because their only offensive option is to deal pitiful damage. This is one of the primary examples for why high-skill skirmish types are inferior in every way to melee bruisers in prior editions of the game; because the main damage dealing quality is rendered useless against a very wide variety of enemies (just in core, count the number of constructs, oozes, plants, and undead - then count the number of creatures that can be encountered as undead via templates).
What is not true is the idea that you would run out and grab thieves over holy warrior types. That's just stupid. Clerics can completely slaughter swarms of skeletons and zombies via Channel Energy, and that's without even picking up Turn Undead (since 1HD skeletons have about 4hp on average, channel energy will destroy them rather handily). Likewise, Paladins have access to Channel Energy and Smite Evil, which specifically deals x2 the damage of a normal smite; so Liches have far more reason to fear a Paladin than a Rogue.
Seriously, which would YOU rather see attacking you? The rogue who's a full -5 points of attack accuracy behind the Paladin, coming at you with around 5 attacks (TWF, 3 from BAB, and 1 haste or speed weapon) for an average of +35 damage per hit, or 5 attacks (without TWF, just 4 attacks from BAB, and haste or speed weapon) that are all +5 higher in accuracy with a +10 bonus to hit (due to charisma) and a flat +40 to damage per hit (it crits too!), ignores your DR (if any), and doesn't even require him to flank you?
Sorry, I'd take a level 20 Paladin or Cleric against undead any day of the week. Perhaps you were exaggerating to make a point, but I think you overdid it. Giving rogues a fighting chance against undead is no more reason to run to a thieves or assassin's guild than it is to run to the Fighting School of Arms; but I don't hear complaints that fighters can re-kill skeletons and zombies.
|
|
But Rogues can Sneak Attack all day/night long, and the Cleric and Paladin can only do their thing a certain number of times a day. Channel Energy really isn't that good, even against starter Undead because of it's area. To get the most of the Channel they need to be right in the middle of the horde. On the other hand, Rogues have the ability to sneak up, (or around). They have other things that they can fall back on for the most part right out of the box. Thats the point I was making.
But against a single boss Undead, like a typical Lich, sure a Paladin has the upper hand, (and should).
But Rogues can Sneak Attack all day/night long, and the Cleric and Paladin can only do their thing a certain number of times a day. Channel Energy really isn't that good, even against starter Undead because of it's area. To get the most of the Channel they need to be right in the middle of the horde. On the other hand, Rogues have the ability to sneak up, (or around). They have other things that they can fall back on for the most part right out of the box. Thats the point I was making.
But against a single boss Undead, like a typical Lich, sure a Paladin has the upper hand, (and should).
Clerics still have their spells, paladins still have their heavy armour, full BAB and d10 hit dice (oh yes, and their spells, their lay on hands and mercies). Both of these classes are loaded with features that are effective in a multitude of situations, especially combat. The rogue has just one that can be guaranteed: sneak attack - and lets be clear, sneak attack is not a given, it's situational: without surprise or flanking, it's useless.
I see the undead more as how they are represented in Disney's Pirates of the Carribean movies. Break their neck they just reposition their skull, or pick up their head. Joints are not necessary and thus are not an issue. I try not to to look at things from a logical aspect, but from a magical one. Still you can do enough damage so that there isn't enough useable material for the negative energy to animate. That's also where your point about the barbarians leg doesn't hold up. Positive energy does require life/blood/tissue/proteins/amino acids/DNA. Mess with any of those and you have a problem. Negative energy does not require those things IMO. So if he was a barbarian animated by negative energy (undead), then yeah it doesn't mean he's not coming after you.At the end of the day, everything needs a spine.If you removed the entire spine, or even a large chunk of it I would agree, but just breaking it or severing it I don't see stopping something undead.By that logic, just because you cut off the barbarians leg, doesn't mean he isn't coming after you!
Ederin Elswyr said it perfectly in his post. If a thing is made up of a structure which holds it together, it has a weak point in that structure that can be exploited to knock it apart.
Even if you think of all undead like the Black Knight from Monty Python, which keep fighting regardless, even they they have structural weaknesses that can be exploited. The Black Knight from Monty Python wasn't effective without his arms and legs.
Skeletons have joints. So do constructs. Hit anything with a form and structure at the right spot and you can do more damage than hitting it in a generic spot.
Then do undead in your game stay effectively immortal, since nobody can actually ever destroy one?
I never said it was the measure of the class. Why do you keep making things up that I did not say. I said it is the only way the rogue stays relevant in combat other than forcing them to try and UMD with scrolls.It's the one point you keep coming back to and claim as "relevant" so, yes - it sure seems like you are setting the measure of the class upon hp output only.
I pointed out all of the other combat relevant features and options out there (actually, only the Talent-specific ones) for combat and you're ignoring them based not on what they do, or role/relevance to combat, but to HP/damage output potential, pure and simple. That's nonsense as an evaluation. Casters have "battlefield control" spells - they don't do any damage, but control movement, etc. Rogues have a few options very much along these lines, so why sell them short because it's not a HP-dealing ability?
Again - our measure is completely different here, so stop trying. You are placing ALL of the emphasis on HP/damage output, and I am not. End of difference - let it go.
I am also not saying you are doing it wrong. What I am saying is that until you show me something a rogue can do in combat so they don't feel worthless I will continue to believe your logic is faulty.I did - you've chosen to either ignore it willfully, or dismiss it out of hand. In either case, you keep coming to *me* with challenges of debate and/or "show me" somehow. I do, and it's ignored or devalued.
"I don't like it", is something I hate to hear, but I can understand that, but to say a rogue is a contributor in combat in most cases without SA is laughable at best.Fine - then we agree to disagree. /end the nonsense.
So are you saying rogues that want to deal damage are useless in combat in undead campaigns?
How is that any different than a ranger getting a favored enemey every five levels after 1rst? Is the ranger not just twiddling his thumbs because his favored enemy may only show up in about 10% of the combats?The rogue is whatever players make it to be. One multi-class rogue I played never used stealth, for example. I contend, still, that it's not a versus situation at all. I like the PF ruling on SA not because I demand more SA in every and all situations I come across as a rogue, but rather that I'd like to see happy players at my table, regardless of how it is they acquire that satisfaction. For some, it's throwing d6s and seeing where they land. Relax, though, because nobody is taking your rogue away from you.This.
The thing is, there are many options a rogue has, but they are options, they are not certainties.
A rogue can invest in UMD and hep the party that way (although if this is the whole focus why not just play a cleric or wizard I don't know) if the player wants.
A rogue can take feats and talents that make them more effective in combat, if the player wants.
A rogue can use skills in combat to make a difference, if the player wants.
A rogue does have sneak attack.
Sneak attack is the only combat ability every rogue will have. making it ineffective against a wide range of creatures is going to render some rogues ineffective in combat, with nothing to do but twiddle their thumbs or put their lives on the line to Aid Another.
A ranger can do decent damage without his favored enemy bonus. He can at least bypass DR. I can imagine to many rogues bypassing DR since they are mostly dex based. I think a ranger should have a decent dex, but he can still be a strength focused character for combat, which allows him to be a threat even when his favored enemy is not there. I have not always gotten to fight my favorite enemies and I did pretty good damage.
But Rogues can Sneak Attack all day/night long, and the Cleric and Paladin can only do their thing a certain number of times a day. Channel Energy really isn't that good, even against starter Undead because of it's area. To get the most of the Channel they need to be right in the middle of the horde. On the other hand, Rogues have the ability to sneak up, (or around). They have other things that they can fall back on for the most part right out of the box. Thats the point I was making.
But against a single boss Undead, like a typical Lich, sure a Paladin has the upper hand, (and should).
Even when a paladin is not smiting he does credible damage, and those sneak attacks have to be setup. The rogue can't just activate SA as a swift action. Tumbling into position is no longer guaranteed, like it was in 3.5*. Many high level monsters have a high CMD so the rogue can "try" to get into position, assuming he has a competent flanker, but it is no where near as easy as you make it sound.
*That was in reference to the 15DC for tumbling that you needed to get through anyone's squares.
Then do undead in your game stay effectively immortal, since nobody can actually ever destroy one?I see the undead more as how they are represented in Disney's Pirates of the Carribean movies. Break their neck they just reposition their skull, or pick up their head. Joints are not necessary and thus are not an issue. I try not to to look at things from a logical aspect, but from a magical one. Still you can do enough damage so that there isn't enough useable material for the negative energy to animate. That's also where your point about the barbarians leg doesn't hold up. Positive energy does require life/blood/tissue/proteins/amino acids/DNA. Mess with any of those and you have a problem. Negative energy does not require those things IMO. So if he was a barbarian animated by negative energy (undead), then yeah it doesn't mean he's not coming after you.At the end of the day, everything needs a spine.If you removed the entire spine, or even a large chunk of it I would agree, but just breaking it or severing it I don't see stopping something undead.By that logic, just because you cut off the barbarians leg, doesn't mean he isn't coming after you!
Ederin Elswyr said it perfectly in his post. If a thing is made up of a structure which holds it together, it has a weak point in that structure that can be exploited to knock it apart.
Even if you think of all undead like the Black Knight from Monty Python, which keep fighting regardless, even they they have structural weaknesses that can be exploited. The Black Knight from Monty Python wasn't effective without his arms and legs.
Skeletons have joints. So do constructs. Hit anything with a form and structure at the right spot and you can do more damage than hitting it in a generic spot.
Sorry I guess I didn't make that clear. My bad. Fixed it now though.
How is that any different than a ranger getting a favored enemey every five levels after 1rst? Is the ranger not just twiddling his thumbs because his favored enemy may only show up in about 10% of the combats?
Because a ranger has:
Full BAB
Bonus feats w/out pre-requisites
Reduced spellcasting
An animal companion
If the ranger's favored enemy shows up in "about 10% of the combats" then the GM is either being a prick or the ranger isn't choosing correctly. The GM should tell the PCs what kinds of enemies that he likes to write up and is going to write up the most, and the PC should make considerations from that list.
A ranger at level 13 w/out favored enemy can do: 19/19/14/9 4d6+32+1d6 and 2d6+16+1d6 while ignoring all but total cover and concealment. And then his pet (a wolf) can do +16/+11 at 1d8+12.
A rogue at level 13 w/out sneak attack can do: 14/14/9 1d6+7/1d6+5. That's assuming he isn't power attacking like the ranger is, but if he was, he could do 10/10/9 1d6+13/1d6+11-- assuming he could hit anything he swung at, since most CR 13 monsters in the bestiary start at 28 AC.
So, to summarize: A ranger can hit a 28 on a 9/9/14/20. A rogue can hit a 28 on a 14/14/20. A ranger can easily hit the first two shots for around 6d6+48+2d6 (avg 76) damage. A rogue will have a hard time landing a hit with his best attacks for 1d6+7 (avg 19) damage-- likely 10 damage, since it's low probability he'll roll above 13 twice. And if he's power attacking, well, he has an extremely low chance he'll hit. If he hits, he likely crit threats, but cannot confirm because if they're immune to SA they're immune to criticals-- so his damage is probably going to be 16 or so a round while power attacking.
Assuming everything hits, a ranger can do 10d6+80+4d6 (avg 129) and a rogue could do 3d6+19 (avg 29) or 3d6+27 (avg 37). So, a difference of... almost a hundred damage, give or take, given that they both roll four nat 20s in a row.
Rangers definitely do not "twiddle their thumbs" against non-favored enemies.
(If this was his most favored enemy, he could add +6 to hit and +6 to damage versus this target-- +25/+25/+20/+15 with 4d6+38+1d6 and 2d6+22+1d6, and his wolf could power attack for +18/+13 at 1d8+24.)
(Likewise, if this was a SA target, the rogue could do 1d6+7+7d6 and 2 strength damage-- which is on average 1d6+30 or so, suspiciously close to the DPR the ranger is doing.)
Agreed. That's not even including the fact a ranger can effectively hybrid while retaining a low dexterity, giving them an easier time focusing on ability scores.
A ranger with Str 18, Dex 12 can wield a two-handed weapon and a longbow while still remaining perfectly competent with both and even excelling a both. In this case, the ranger at 1st level has a +5 to hit with a glaive (1d10+6) as a reach weapon (the reach actually helps alleviate low AC when working on a team with others) and +2 to hit with a ranged weapon (a sling would deal 1d4+4 damage and costs him nothing) which isn't horrible at those levels. Every level the ranger's accuracy increases by +1, so his low dex becomes less important for hitting things and he can begin picking up feats like Point Blank Shot/Rapid Shot/Multishot even if he doesn't meet the requirements since he's a ranger. With his natural feats (1st, 3rd, 5th, etc) he can pick up feats such as Power Attack, Cleave, and so forth.
He can choose generalized favored enemies. Good options include Aberrations, Magical Beasts, and Undead since you're pretty darn likely to run into some of those at some point; which more or less amounts to a little extra butt-whipping when they show up.
At higher levels, he can upgrade his sling to composite bows, purchase or create (rangers are spellcasters and can make items for themselves - oh snap!) bracers of archery (+ attack and damage), and be a surprisingly powerful archer without even trying to be (low natural dexterity). The ranger can even continue to pump his strength until it has a +12 or higher bonus by 20th level, granting a +12 hit/+18 damage with his 2 handed weapon (before power attack and other special abilities or weapon qualities) and sport a +12 damage on a mighty composite bow.
Now the rogue is pushed far more into the "I need to be dexterity focused" archtype by their features. Less hit points, different weapon proficiencies, less armor (rangers get medium, rogues light), and so forth. They have harder ability score decisions than the ranger (you need higher Con to compare to the ranger's saves and HP, more dexterity for armor class, etc). You don't even have an animal to flank for you (wouldn't that be nice), your HP, BAB, and Saves are lower. Heck, you only get 2 more skill points per level than the ranger does too boot!
But you have some nice skill options and you can pull stunts like Sneak Attack (allowing you to focus heavily on light finesse-able weapons like short-swords, daggers, rapiers, and so forth) which allow you to turn your higher Dexterity into +Hit in melee as well, but you can't front-line like other people so you need an opening to maximize damage against your opponent (flat-footed or flanked), in which case you receive up to 35 average damage per hit landed (at 20th level with +10d6).
But Rogues can Sneak Attack all day/night long, and the Cleric and Paladin can only do their thing a certain number of times a day. Channel Energy really isn't that good, even against starter Undead because of it's area. To get the most of the Channel they need to be right in the middle of the horde. On the other hand, Rogues have the ability to sneak up, (or around). They have other things that they can fall back on for the most part right out of the box. Thats the point I was making.
But against a single boss Undead, like a typical Lich, sure a Paladin has the upper hand, (and should).
Now coming back to the cleric/paladin bit. I believe the fact the cleric's Channel Energy feature heals the party went largely ignored. While Channel isn't very strong offensively, the ability to - without touching your spells - heal your allies and harm enemies is not to be ignored, especially against low-level undead.
A low-level rogue can probably drop a 1 HD skeleton in a sneak attack (assuming an average of 3.5 damage with a vial of acid or club and another 3.5 from sneak attack), but so can anyone at that level (the aforementioned ranger auto-kills them if he smacks them with a quarterstaff), while the cleric can potentially take out a ton of them (average damage of 1d6 channel energy is 3.5, most 1 HD skeletons have 4 hp, so roughly half of all the skeletons who biff their save will crumble while you heal yourself and others for the same). If you took the Turn Undead feat, they could also end up fleeing/cowering for a while, effectively ending their immediate influence on the battle.
As levels rise, the rogue needs sneak attack to remain relevant in damage. The fact they have to set it up is generally enough of a drawback; likewise it encourages tactical combat and teamwork, which isn't a bad thing. Being the guy who sits out every fight because you only deal 1d6+1 damage at 8th level because the GM decided a Necromancer would be a fun opponent is not appealing. That's worse than having a favored enemy and never seeing them during the campaign - 'cause you're still at least competent.
Another thing, rogues don't have that many other things to fall back on "right out of the box". In fact, generally falling back on use magic device is the default alternative and requires magical items to pretend to be a weak caster, or using alchemical items, but in both cases those are better to use in conjunction with sneak attack (acid for 1d6 + sneak attack, or ray of frost for 1d3 + sneak attack).
Likewise, rogues are in no way guaranteed to sneak up on an opponent. If you read the Stealth rules, rogues need cover or concealment to hide, which is highly situational in most cases. Rogues cannot simply walk into an open room with enemies and get a sneak attack, regardless of their Stealth skill. Likewise, stuff like low-light and darkvision make it difficult to lurk in shadows. You could hide inside smoke, fog clouds, or other "ninja-vanish" tricks, but most likely the effect grants your opponent at least a little concealment which also prevents you from sneak attacking them. Even worse, a minor cloak of displacement makes you IMMUNE TO SNEAK ATTACKS, as does blur, and displacement.
Care to make any counter-arguments?
Hmm ... quite a few things to hit here. In order to not be "rude" or anything, I'll address them flatly w/no hyperbole, but just straight responses, ok?
@Dabbler: I've shown rogue-only options ... why would they *not* be available? I've not even addressed feat choices (which are as open to them as anyone else).
If you want to be effective in melee, the design emphasis default is Str based - we know this well, eh? ;-) So ... if a rogue is to be good in melee, *why* would that design emphasis change or be altered? Sure, they get sneak attack, but if they're *really* trying to optimize damage, then you're talking about building a STR-based rogue, or a "thug" basically. His extra to hit and damage will come from STR score and will factor in all cases (SA or no SA), so this guy would work out just fine for damage only. It would free up things like Finesse Rogue for other options should he want them. Just sayin' ... str is king of melee damage out-put. SA or no SA, this remains true.
"Options" wise, if it's NOT a melee-heavy class (ie: full bab), why are you comparing it or expecting it to perform as one W/OUT using "options" in the first place? Really ... that's just weird. *Of course* they will come up short compared to a class that's PRIMARY FUNCTION is to sit on the front line and trade blows. Rogues are SUPPOSED to be inferior here ... standing and trading blows is NOT what they are about.
@Wraithstrike: 1) Rogues wanting to deal damage in undead campaigns should build like any other melee-heavy class (ie: invest a lot in STR), AND I'd fully warn them about the SKELETAL UNDEAD ONLY part of the house rules. They'll be fine w/SA vs. ALL OTHER UNDEAD types. Is this still unclear?
2) Tumbling past *most* undead will be awefully easy. Even accounting for the changes in CMB/CMD - the base undead will get tumbled upon pretty regularly by a rogue with an investment in mobility on the field of battle. Just sayin' ... it's more "to level" threats that will be problematic to them. Hordes of lesser undead will hardly rate.
@Benchak: I hate damage % calcualtions and such, but MAN 80% seems ... odd. I have NO idea how you did it, or under what assumed "best case scenario" you have planned, but whatever. Here's my observations (w/NO calculations mind you) on that front regarding Rogues:
1) Rogues will never "just get" SA damage - it's always requiring some sort of effort to use. Point being: the effort comes in action costs, which means reduced attack % chances (or decreased damage as they can't get the iteratives unless in the "perfect" condition circumstances).
2) Trading off all iteratives via Feint just to get 1 hit + SA damage is (regardless of all else) STILL not going to keep up all that much w/melee-heavies on full attacks (*possibly* not even w/Vital Strike lines and Critical Feats, etc). Point being: rogues are *always* behind the ball in this measure.
3) Granting a "best case scenario" of beginning and ending a round in a position to be "perfectly" positioned at opposite sides to a target is ignoring the action sacrifices made in previous rounds in order to GET into that position in the first place. Point being: it sounds like cherry-picking damage conditions to try and make the case for them being able to keep up in the first place, when clearly, they do not, nor are meant to.
None of that is meant antagonistically - just as observations and head-scratching thoughts mostly.
@Ashiel: Clerics and Paladins are *pointedly* designed to be the bane of undead ... are you *really* observing this and crying foul for the Rogue in NOT being an undead-killing hound or having a power to compare (even though, thematically, there is NOTHING that would indicate it *should* have similar abilities)?
8-0
@stonechild: I'm with you on the "old school" job of the rogue - avoid traps, combat, etc at all costs and get the OTHER stuff done (whatever that other stuff is depending on the situation). When combat *does* break out, skirt along the edges sniping, hit and run, etc, etc as needed/opportunities provide (control the field some, etc).
@Dabbler: I've shown rogue-only options ... why would they *not* be available? I've not even addressed feat choices (which are as open to them as anyone else).
If you want to be effective in melee, the design emphasis default is Str based - we know this well, eh? ;-) So ... if a rogue is to be good in melee, *why* would that design emphasis change or be altered? Sure, they get sneak attack, but if they're *really* trying to optimize damage, then you're talking about building a STR-based rogue, or a "thug" basically. His extra to hit and damage will come from STR score and will factor in all cases (SA or no SA), so this guy would work out just fine for damage only. It would free up things like Finesse Rogue for other options should he want them. Just sayin' ... str is king of melee damage out-put. SA or no SA, this remains true.
"Options" wise, if it's NOT a melee-heavy class (ie: full bab), why are you comparing it or expecting it to perform as one W/OUT using "options" in the first place? Really ... that's just weird. *Of course* they will come up short compared to a class that's PRIMARY FUNCTION is to sit on the front line and trade blows. Rogues are SUPPOSED to be inferior here ... standing and trading blows is NOT what they are about.
Speaker, I think you confuse 'available' with 'automatic'. Any character can take combat feats and be effective, that's not the point. The rogue can take rogue talents relevant to combat, but that's not the point either.
The point is, that every other class in the book has an ability that works nearly all the time in combat. Look at the special abilities caster's have, and their spells. Look at the monk's flurry or the combat classes BAB. All of these classes have these features available to them regardless of their selectable options, not because of them, and which are always effective. The rogue has one too, it's called 'sneak attack' ...
You see I am not talking about making a combat optimised rogue, I'm talking about the opposite, a guy who has nothing but his sneak attack because he has focussed only on the other things that a rogue does. So in combat, he has to rely on that one thing - take it away, and he has nothing.
Hmm ... quite a few things to hit here. In order to not be "rude" or anything, I'll address them flatly w/no hyperbole, but just straight responses, ok?
Thanks
If you want to be effective in melee, the design emphasis default is Str based - we know this well, eh? ;-) So ... if a rogue is to be good in melee, *why* would that design emphasis change or be altered? Sure, they get sneak attack, but if they're *really* trying to optimize damage, then you're talking about building a STR-based rogue, or a "thug" basically.
Are you suggesting he drop dex which will only make him a lot easier to hit, and affect a good portion of is skills? The goal is not to make a combat only rogue. The goal was for the rogue to be as effective in an undead campaign as he would be in any other campaign.
His extra to hit and damage will come from STR score and will factor in all cases (SA or no SA), so this guy would work out just fine for damage only. It would free up things like Finesse Rogue for other options should he want them. Just sayin' ... str is king of melee damage out-put. SA or no SA, this remains true.
Are you saying a strength based rogue without sneak attack will compete with a dex based rogue with sneak attack for damage?
Rogues are SUPPOSED to be inferior here ... standing and trading blows is NOT what they are about.Almost every time I post I have to speak against this train of thought. Nobody is saying the rogue has to keep up with the fighter or barbarian in damage. This is the 3rd time at least. Are you just ignoring my statements or did you really not see them? I have missed people's comments on the boards before so I am asking this as a serious question. 2) Tumbling past *most* undead will be awefully easy. Even accounting for the changes in CMB/CMD - the base undead will get tumbled upon pretty regularly by a rogue with an investment in mobility on the field of battle. Just sayin' ... it's more "to level" threats that will be problematic to them. Hordes of lesser undead will hardly rate.
Tumbling past most monsters is doable until they get to huge size. It is still not automatic as another poster tried to make it sound, and the mastermind undeads are normally zombies and liches. You can't normally just walk up to them because as a caster they have minions or other defenses, and vampires usually have a high CMD for their size due to the stat boost they get.
Dabbler,
I *think* I'm finally starting to see our disconnect. Primarily that a rogue should NOT have an "automatic" option in combat. Even the SA is situational in it's use and application. For *me* that sums up the class in combat - optional and situationally effective. There *is* no "automatic" in that class as regards combat. Even most of the others do not follow that, IMO, EXCEPT the full bab-types as that *is* their thing.
Fighters finally got AT and WT - finally! Before this, their entire "class features" consisted of more feats than everyone else (ie: options that may/may not come into play). Even the APG now cracked that open, too, w/the archetypes and customizable class features, etc. None of it's necessarily "automatic" now, and MOST of it is fully dependent upon feat selection.
The other full BAB types - they're getting full BAB and some neat stuff otherwise that is 100% circumstantial and situational. Smite does squat against "evil" and if the ranger isn't right there messin' w/Favored Enemies he gets all of squat for a boon. {I'd sooner take Hunter's Bond, though over an animal - style thing mostly - just sayin'.}
Casters ... have a WHOLE LOT of different types of spells. Not all are combat-focused, and they are highly limited resources (until more mid-level like), so I wouldn't call *any* of them "automatic combat bumps" as the spells are, likewise "optional" and dependent on choice and frequency of encountered spellbooks from enemies, etc. Granted, they high-combat ones will tend to be selected, but why take the high combat options for mages, call that "automatic" and then gloss over combat options for rogue talents and leave them as "optional" in the same breath?
Monk's have always been about using hands - now it's just getting TWF tree of feat more or less. Still only on the activation of a full attack, and still at a bonus that is at odds with the higher mobility class feature that they have. His "automatic bonus" for his 3/4 BAB (ie: not a primary role) is to grant better combat bonuses as, that *is* his/her theme as a whole (martial unarmed guy). They get a few mystical things thrown in, also in the spirit of the same theme - to help them with their concept (same as the paladin, or ranger, or fighter improving their lots).
The bard is a 3/4 guy who's "automatic bonus" is a spell progression and bardic music and other skill-type stuff. He does ok with his schtick.
Rogues are 3/4 types who can mess w/magic (liberal use of knacks and UMD w/items) if they want, get better in combat if they want, of out-skill just about everyone in several ways (taking 10's in a LOT of skills), or get into battle-field control, or shake off/negate spell effects, or pretty much kitchen-sinking every other option that's left. Short of SA, they're NOT *supposed* to be enhanceing or competing in combat like front-liners are. They're suppose to be finding and disarming traps (as no other class can do it ... at all), getting ahead of everyone and scouting out the front lines, reporting their findings back to the group to try and execute a plan of action, etc. Their class features are *really* good at doing these things ... corner-casing them w/SA as the *only* way to contribute in combat is just short sighted, IMO, as it misses the point of the class - it's NOT built to get into combat like front-liners, or the other 3/4 types that have enhancements designed to support their wading in and dominating combats (bards, monks and clerics).
I'm, again, coming from a completely different perspective here it seems. I don't measure the effectiveness of a class by how well it performs *in combat* but rather by what it does as a whole. Rogue *can* fight, but it doesn't mean they're supposed to dominate it, nor would I want them to. Mind you, there are only +2 more enemy types being denied the SA die to them by what I propose, so it's hardly affecting much of anything - and it's back to your comment of "why bother?" To which I simply reply, "because it fits my aesthetics better."
wraithstrike, I'm just suggesting that if you're going to measure 'combat contribution' by how much HP they can deal in damage, then the rogue is going to benefit a lot more by investing in STR by *at least* a secondary stat of importance. It will increase the HP damage dealt, will actually get more for PA (say a baseball-bat weilding mafioso guy for lack of a better image), and it will crit pretty well in damage output (vs. SA's that don't get to add into the damage output of crits). It's just a good idea to increase "damage" which seems to be what you measure for "contribution" this whole time.
If worried about being hit and/or loss of stealth, I'd keep str and dex pretty close and just keep them both up - dex only for AC, saves, and skills, though (no Finesse Rogue), and str for combat and damage purposes. These would be my 2 highest priorities build wise, but this is all getting awefully specific now. In an undead campaign, the rogue *should* be built a HELL of a lot different than one built for social sleuthing and hob-knobing behind closed doors - they're fundamentally different games, and they'll each have different areas of focus just based upon setting alone. Add in the group/party dynamics and it's even more variable - ie: I don't see much point in this as it's an obviously true statement that the tone of the campaign will affect the build and effectiveness of the character (mind you - this is fitting of pretty much all classes as well).
As for the Str or Dex rogues and damage competition - if str is made primary, then yes - he's absolutely going to out-damage the other guy. His to hit will be higher, his damage gets multiplied on crits, and he gets better use of PA (where a dex guy may not even get PA for having a lower str). He doesn't have to pick up Finesse Rogue (and can pick up something else in place), and will just have a lot more open to him for that focus.
The dex guy will need to dedicate a talent to counter act the system defaults, and at that, he'll just equal the "to hit" portion of damage calculations. So the str guy comes ahead.
AC will probably be higher on the dex guy, but the other one can use a feat to pick up Med Armor prof, or the like and it'll be close enough.
Again - getting really specific here, but the SA part - I'm not saying w/out SA in play he'll out -damage the other guy, BUT his full attack will be pretty good and certainly better w/out SA (if neither uses SA). Using SA, the str guy wins out still ... my point is not an on/off of SA, but rather that the str-built guy will *always* win out on damage period (using or not using SA - the str guy wins out in damage output - as long as the comparison is the same and fair on the dex-guy, too. Ie: if he's using Dex, then his damage will go down because str adds to damage, not dex - follow?).
You keep popping in here and talking about damage output ... then turn around and say you're not talking about "keeping up", then it's all about "relevant" damage, or "competing" damage. How about just explaining what your frame of reference is? Honestly, my impression at the moment is that you've got like a tank full of "combat" and a dip-stick that you put into the class to measure how "combat effective" it is. Each class has it's own tank, or dip-stick (tank I think works better, though), and you're moving the same dip-stick from tank (ie: class) to tank and checking to see how full it is. THAT is what I'm hearing from your end. Please, clarify that, as, yet again - bold type and all, this is still sounding EXACTLY THE SAME despite your bold type (and .. again, no clear explanation - lot of finger pointing and hand waving, but it's not coming across even slightly. How about you stop w/the hand waving and denial of X, Y, or Z, and simply lay out clearly what *you* use as a measure, eh?)
Tumble-stuff, I wasn't talking about the higher level types - just the more low-level stuff (undead wise) and size-wise ... that never even hit my radar, honestly. (Difference of scope I guess ... I mostly go to normal sized things as antagonists, so even there it's level that matters more than the rest in those cases. Start messin' w/size and it's all different.)
@Ashiel: Clerics and Paladins are *pointedly* designed to be the bane of undead ... are you *really* observing this and crying foul for the Rogue in NOT being an undead-killing hound or having a power to compare (even though, thematically, there is NOTHING that would indicate it *should* have similar abilities)?
Well let's see. The rogue can sneak attack them. This isn't really anything more than the rogue can do with other creatures, but for sake of argument, let's count this as a +1 vs Undead in Rogue's favor.
Rogue: +1 vs Undead.
The cleric can channel energy and potentially turn undead - or take control of them and turn them to your side, so that's a +1 right there. The cleric also can spontaneously cast Cure spells which can be an effective finishing move (all are touch spells) against undead, while remaining useful outside of undead(+1).
Clerics get deathwatch which aside from seeing HP damage also allows the cleric to determine if a creature is undead or not without knowledge checks and the like, and it has other uses, so this is at least a +0.5; which combined with detect undead to also check the undead's overall strength would be another +1 (know thy enemy). The cleric gets spells like searing light which deal more damage to undead (+1).
The cleric gets consecrate which makes undead in an area horribly weaker (+1).
Clerics get the restoration line of spells which make them better at fighting undead, since many undead inflict ability damage/drain or energy drain (+1).
Clerics get Animate Dead which allows them to make undead to fight undead (since they are immune to the majority of the bad things undead do)(+1).
Clerics get deathward which makes them immune to negative energy and level drain, rendering creatures like shadows useless against them (+1).
Clerics can use mass cure spells (such as cure light wounds) as a super Channel Energy. When you first get mass cure light wounds (9th level), you can choose 9 targets within 65ft to heal for 1d8+9 damage, dealing damage to undead targets for the same amount (save for half). Unlike normal cure spells, these add your whole caster level into the healing, up to +25. Combined with metamagic feats such as Quicken (even if it's just from a Rod of Moderate Quickening), it can be an effective method for burst healing / damage (+1).
Clerics get disrupting weapon which they can use on themselves, or anyone else. It basically forces a Will save against your save or be destroyed if the undead foe is equal or lower level, every time you hit the target. If you cast it on a weapon wielded by your fighter, that's roughly a DC 17 (minimum) will save or die every strike. Effects that increase your caster level (like the ioun stone) make it better (+1 for this one, but it's worth +2 I think).
Clerics get Undeath to Death (+1), Heal (+1), and Mass Heal (+1).
Cleric: +13-14 vs Undead.
The Paladin gets a lot of what the cleric gets (restoration spells, channel energy, death ward, so +3).
Paladins get Smite which inflicts double damage on undead targets (+1).
Paladins get Aura of Justice which allows them to take that massive attack and damage increase and give it to every ally near them for 1 round, which pretty much means undead are screwed that round (+1 per party member and pet, so we'll say +6 (assuming 4 party members with at least 2 spellcasters who summon 1 minion or have one animal companion)).
Paladins get Holy Sword as a spell, allowing them to turn any weapon they want into a +5 holy weapon, and since Pathfinder carried on the stupid 3.5 idea that mindless undead are automatically evil (for some reason) it is guaranteed to work almost every undead (+1).
A paladin's capstone ability ensures they always heal/deal 60 damage when using Lay on Hands or Turning, ensuring solid mass healing, or brutal direct damage (+1).
A paladin can use Lay on Hands as a melee touch attack that undead cannot prevent in any way other than dodging it (there's no save, spell resistance, or energy resistance - not even positive energy resistance added in some sourcebooks can stop it), which can be used in conjunction with both Smite AND Power Attack (it's a touch attack, so pour on the damage) (+1).
Paladin: +13 vs Undead
Now let's take a look at what other factors play a part in this...
Undead in Pathfinder got an increase in their base attack bonus (it was even worse in 3.5), and both clerics and paladins have a better armor class by default due to their armor options, while a rogue has to spend feats just to match the cleric (who could match the paladin with the same feat expenditure). Both clerics and paladins can wear shields. This means that the cleric and paladin are harder to hit than the rogue, so being at ground-zero for channeling or fighting isn't as bad as it is for the rogue. Both can also get a cheap +1 armor enhancement (ghost touch) to apply the full AC bonus against incorporeal opponents like wraiths.
Clerics and Paladins are less multi-ability dependent. A Paladin can afford minor to moderate scores in Dexterity, Intelligence, and Wisdom, while pumping Strength, Constitution, and Charisma (or for experienced players, you can get by with just Strength and Charisma) to maximize their potential. Clerics really only need Wisdom to be good at what they do, but since many cleric spells are better used for buffing than saving throws, a cleric can be effective with only a moderate wisdom and focus on more survival based ability scores (or strength if you want to be a melee cleric).
Rogues on the other hand have little armor by default, so they need more dexterity for their armor class and the fuel a few of their abilities, while needing Constitution if they plan to sneak attack often (front-lines, since ranged sneak attacks are harder to set up) and to support their low Fortitude saves, and Wisdom for their low Will saves. A rogue can pump Strength to be a melee-thug, but pumping strength means the rogue will suffer in other areas, and even thug-rogues still rely on Sneak Attack for the majority of their damage (they can't get nearly the benefit from Power Attack for example) and have less accuracy; which is why most Rogues fall back on Weapon Finesse if they plan to melee. It's also the reason most melee rogues opt for two-weapon fighting instead of power attack, since the off-hand penalty means diddly, the -2 penalty is lighter than the power attack penalty, and every hit they can land potentially carries bonus damage.
Exactly, at what point, did "are you *really* observing this and crying foul for the Rogue in NOT being an undead-killing hound or having a power to compare (even though, thematically, there is NOTHING that would indicate it *should* have similar abilities)?" even become a question?
a lot of stuff
My point was that a rogue is not just a skills monkey. He is a utility guy that knows how to fight. All the extra stuff is good, and that is where he shines, but saying you are useless in this type(undead) of campaign is not fun.
After thinking about it I realized my beef was with the fact that many DM force you to have trapfinding to get past a trap means thatno matter how ingenious you are means the class has to be there. If trapfinding could be gained through a feat and I could pretend the rogue did not exist for undead games it would not matter so much, but if somebody has to be a rogue they should not be restricted to nigh uselessness or forced to use UMD in combat. Maybe they don't want to use UMD, whether it is because they like another skill better or they don't want to put points into charisma. Being forced to play a character a certain way(utility or bust)is probably my biggest issue, since I don't like restricting options. It is about the same as me nerfing evocation wizards since I don't care for blasters.I am convinced that you think rogues should just accept low damage in combat and that won't change, so if the player wanted to drop the animal companion for trapfinding would you allow that?
It is just a question, and I have nothing more to say on the subject.
Dabbler,
I *think* I'm finally starting to see our disconnect. Primarily that a rogue should NOT have an "automatic" option in combat. Even the SA is situational in it's use and application. For *me* that sums up the class in combat - optional and situationally effective. There *is* no "automatic" in that class as regards combat. Even most of the others do not follow that, IMO, EXCEPT the full bab-types as that *is* their thing.
Yes, we seem to fundamentally disagree on this: Every class has something that always works in combat, if they can set it up pretty much independent of what they are fighting. Combat is, like it or not, at the heart of the game and takes up a lot of the time of any session, and having any character of any class have to sit it out is not good games design. If you nerf any class so that it does not automatically have an option it can use effectively in the vast majority of cases, then you have in theory screwed over some player, somewhere.
It's one thing to have a good option you cannot make work because of circumstances, because then the challenge becomes that of setting up the circumstances, and doing this keeps that character in play. If you have nothing that can work, though, you are on the sidelines at best and a liability at worst; if your combat is 50% of the session, you just robbed that player of 50% of their game for the evening.
Dabbler,
I *think* I'm finally starting to see our disconnect. Primarily that a rogue should NOT have an "automatic" option in combat. Even the SA is situational in it's use and application. For *me* that sums up the class in combat - optional and situationally effective. There *is* no "automatic" in that class as regards combat. Even most of the others do not follow that, IMO, EXCEPT the full bab-types as that *is* their thing.
Yes, we seem to fundamentally disagree on this: Every class has something that always works in combat, if they can set it up pretty much independent of what they are fighting. Combat is, like it or not, at the heart of the game and takes up a lot of the time of any session, and having any character of any class have to sit it out is not good games design. If you nerf any class so that it does not automatically have an option it can use effectively in the vast majority of cases, then you have in theory screwed over some player, somewhere.
It's one thing to have a good option you cannot make work because of circumstances, because then the challenge becomes that of setting up the circumstances, and doing this keeps that character in play. If you have nothing that can work, though, you are on the sidelines at best and a liability at worst; if your combat is 50% of the session, you just robbed that player of 50% of their game for the evening.
Well .. so much of that is SO absolutely subjective that, beyond making that observation I really have nothing else to say.
Again, I point to 3 critter-types of very specific definition clearly pointed out at the inception of the game (over 1 by RAW of a broad base, mind you, as non-corporeal comes in many different forms) and say this is *hardly* a "vast majority of cases" in the slightest - to which you seemed to agree (to whit I refer you to your previous quote: "Thing is, that leaves it at so small a change I have to ask, why bother?").
Combat being 50% of the session is subjective, and can vary from night to night.
Not allowing every class a "best win option" or what have you in every fight is, again, subjective. Creative people can look at it and whip up a plan of action and be fully effective. Others can look at the same scenario and put up their hands and give up the game/character/whatever - again: subjective.
On the "every class" and "automatic options" I do not call even 1 of those features "automatic" (at least not as described so far). They're *all* options and special situations that may/may not come into play.
:shrugs:
*shakes fist ... vigorously!*
;-)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
@Benchak: I hate damage % calcualtions and such, but MAN 80% seems ... odd. I have NO idea how you did it, or under what assumed "best case scenario" you have planned, but whatever. Here's my observations (w/NO calculations mind you) on that front regarding Rogues:
1) Rogues will never "just get" SA damage - it's always requiring some sort of effort to use. Point being: the effort comes in action costs, which means reduced attack % chances (or decreased damage as they can't get the iteratives unless in the "perfect" condition circumstances).2) Trading off all iteratives via Feint just to get 1 hit + SA damage is (regardless of all else) STILL not going to keep up all that much w/melee-heavies on full attacks (*possibly* not even w/Vital Strike lines and Critical Feats, etc). Point being: rogues are *always* behind the ball in this measure.
3) Granting a "best case scenario" of beginning and ending a round in a position to be "perfectly" positioned at opposite sides to a target is ignoring the action sacrifices made in previous rounds in order to GET into that position in the first place. Point being: it sounds like cherry-picking damage conditions to try and make the case for them being able to keep up in the first place, when clearly, they do not, nor are meant to.
None of that is meant antagonistically - just as observations and head-scratching thoughts mostly.
I think you meant that to be '@Mistah Green', as opposed to me, yes?
I am convinced that you think rogues should just accept low damage in combat and that won't change, so if the player wanted to drop the animal companion for trapfinding would you allow that?
It is just a question, and I have nothing more to say on the subject.
No - but it should be accepted that it's a situational and limited damaging ability.
Again, I point you to the 3 critter types period, only 2 more than the 1 broad based category type of RAW is what *I* limit it to. This is not "all combat" or enough to even qualify for such a thing. It's not all undead - it's skeletal types. It's a tiny increased range where SA isn't guaranteed. Any/all other damage they have in play is fully applicable (just not the SA against the 3 types of enemies).
My "happy middle ground" is more than 3.5 granted it to function on, but not as liberal as PF.
Drop Animal Companion ... as a ranger or something? Sure - seems a fair enough trade to me. (plus ... I freakin' HATE companions/familiars/whatever - so it's a *win* in my book! )
Side Note: wasn't there a 2e kit for rangers that let them get backstab and trap making or something?
Hell, if the rogue wanted an animal companion to swap in/out/whatever for trapfinding they could do that, too.
Edit: Sorry Benchak! I totally got the name wrong and looked down vs. up. Yes - it's for Mr. Green. Not much to reply to, but just my observation given the situation and circumstance.
Again, I point to 3 critter-types of very specific definition clearly pointed out at the inception of the game (over 1 by RAW of a broad base, mind you, as non-corporeal comes in many different forms) and say this is *hardly* a "vast majority of cases" in the slightest - to which you seemed to agree (to whit I refer you to your previous quote: "Thing is, that leaves it at so small a change I have to ask, why bother?").
No, that's true. I keep thinking in terms of all undead as opposed to just a few sub-categories.
Combat being 50% of the session is subjective, and can vary from night to night.
That is subjective, true. However, when combat occurs, it takes up a lot of time you must agree, so if there is a character that is rendered impotent by the nature of the foe, they are going to have a boring time of it.
Not allowing every class a "best win option" or what have you in every fight is, again, subjective. Creative people can look at it and whip up a plan of action and be fully effective. Others can look at the same scenario and put up their hands and give up the game/character/whatever - again: subjective.
Fact is, the Pathfinder combat system usually requires you to invest in feats to achieve combat effects. If you do not invest in the right feats, being effective in combat without any combat-oriented class features is pretty darned difficult, no matter how creative you get.
On the "every class" and "automatic options" I do not call even 1 of those features "automatic" (at least not as described so far). They're *all* options and special situations that may/may not come into play.
High BAB is not "optional" for a fighter, ranger, paladin or barbarian, they get it regardless along with good hit dice and some other goodies, like decent armour or bonus feats. Flurry of blows is not "optional" for a monk - he's got it and in most combat situations it can be applied usefully. I don't think anyone has accused the casting classes of being underpowered, and that leaves the rogue. All he is guaranteed as a combat feature is his sneak attack. While you aren't suggesting it be completely nerfed against undead, some others are, and as you can have entire dungeons full of nothing but undead I cannot help but think this is a bad idea.
Look ... case in point of a 3.5 game in recent history on my end as a player (ie: where SA is not applicable against a LOT of critters).
Scenario: party (make-up largely irrelevant, but there was a rogue in the group - this matters) enters a "dungeon" (really, just a basement of a building - big whoop, right? lol), and we find a small cabal of cultists chanting.
Big-time suck about to take place, right? So we interrupt. They manage to summon a demon - everyone's fighting it up pretty good ... except the rogue. The rogue went into the shadows and disappeared (snuck off to get past everyone using columns to dart behind, get to the Door we wanted to get into anyway, and look to see what "dirt" we could find on the cult).
We kill the priests, the demon, and as a final effort, they animate a Huge (I'm pretty sure it was Huge sized, could have been Large, though) Bronze Golem of some sort. Rogue-y McRogue there is at the door picking locks and stuff, in the room, searching, etc, and we're all fighting the damn thing.
Point: the rogue was NOT a major factor in combat. He did a bit in the opening round to whittle down/help whittle down the cleric cultists, but otherwise, he checked out to do what HE was good at to better use our time.
As it turned out, we all freakin' RAN the hell away from that thing. Our mission was accomplished, not for our combat damage dealing, but because the ROGUE went and subverted the important part of the encounter by, you know - doing what a rogue is *really* best at.
So "use/contribution" is a subjective measure to me. Did the rogue help fighting? Hardly - maybe against 2 cultists. Big deal! Did he help vs. the demon? Not really. Against the golem? Wasn't even in the room most of the time (in the other room looting ahead of the game actually). Yet, we "won" even in a retreat because the ROGUE did his thing while we did OUR things (heavy combat, casting, etc).
I just can't look at "how much damage did he do" as the measure of a rogue's effectiveness as I've never ONCE seen it be the absolute measure of the worth of the rogue. SA is a nice feature, but more often than not, in the games I've played and run, the rogues do not pull their weight on account of combat, but they do other things entirely, and (with the right feats or features - as it *is* still feat-based as a system overall) are 100% "effective" by the measure of everyone at the table.
I mean ... rogues do awesome stuff ... it's just not limited to combat, nor do I see the need to effectively contribute purely in a HP-based fashion as a necessity.
If anything, it *almost* reeks more of 4e's "make everyone equal all the time" nonsense and I can NOT get behind that in the slightest. I LIKE the classes being unique in feel, style and application. I do NOT want them to all be "equal all the time" or whatever the hell 4e's paradigm is. I want the right class to stand out at the right times and moments. When it comes to combat ... that's just NOT the rogue's moment to shine - it's the time for the full BAB classes to get their shine on (and leave a rogue looking rather dim by comparison).
That brings us back to "high bab performs in combat better" as your criticism and features pointed out above indicate (bab, AC, armor, etc) ... to which I stare blankly back at you and say "Of course they do ... they're full bab."
;-)
Note: for the record I am NOT in favor of "vs. all undead" at all. I'm just lookin' at skeletal undead (since they no longer rely on physiology beyond bones animating of their own violition w/no more tendon use, etc what so ever). I dig the idea of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" themed undead (seriously - pretty nice way to rationalize the 3.5 default), but I don't see it in the same terms for the fantasy games. The fleshy-undead seem to be making use of all the bits they *do* have left ... unlike skeletons and such that *have* no kind of bits left but bones that CAN NOT FUNCTION w/out fleshy bits to anchor them (call it the science in me that rebels against the notion).
Man, that rogue sounds like, well... a rogue.
Man, that rogue sounds like, well... a rogue.
Doesn't he?
All told, though, I'd be totally down to play a rogue in a game of yours running undead like Pirates of the Caribbean if/when they show up. That's kind of neat, my man.
I'd be down and find it challenging to see how *else* I can get my "rogue on" with that challenge before me.
Tell you what I'm NOT doing, though - wasting ANY time trying to SA dead guys.
(not w/out PrC's that let me SA the hell out of 'em anyway! 3.5 I'm lookin' at you!)
This all reminds me of a Phil Phoglio comic strip discussing the differences between Rogues,thieves,thugs etc
Are you really stating that rogues are fine because, when presented with a combat situation they are useless in, they can always run away?
That's your logic?
.
..
...
....
.....
Personally, I agree with Seeker. Also, in direct to your question I'd personally say 'Yes!' - being able to duck of combat and do things that are useful to the party succeeding/accomplishing THE MISSION is a very important ability.
A creative DM will anticipate this behavior and build encounters around it.
In it's simplest form, it's the classic 'Combatants are pinned down/pinning down the big robot while the sneaky/rogue guy/thing finds the master computer and cuts the power.'
Look ... case in point of a 3.5 game in recent history on my end as a player (ie: where SA is not applicable against a LOT of critters).
{snipped}
... and that's cool, but does that happen in the majority of encounters? For example, in one our party was travelling through the wilds and come across some old barrows, and were mobbed by large skeletons. In that circumstance, Roguey McRogue is a bit stuck, because sometimes there is no plot to advance or there is no opportunity to do so. Then what can he do?
|
This is still up? Really? Please lurk a little, we've hammered this out dozens of times. Literally.
If I punch out a skeleton's spine, and manage to not remove all of it's hp, it will find it very difficult to do things. In fiction, just because something is magically animated doesn't mean it doesn't have weaknesses, when you decapitate most undead creatures in fiction, they stop working altogether, even if they would hypothetically sustain more damage than a mere removed limb. For example: apply enough bullets to a vampire to remove it's leg, it will be okay aside from having to hop around, apply the same number of bullets to it's neck, and you have a very much defeated vampire. Same thing applies to skeletons.
|
Folks, really, stop using realism arguments. You're playing a game where a moderately experienced PC can fall from 200 feet and walk away just fine. I'm not even getting into the whole "magic and monsters" stuff, it's just the basic physics that aren't simulated in D&D, so discussing "do skeletons have joints ?" is kind of pointless.
The change wasn't made because Jason read a treatise on undead anatomy (if any such exists) and a golem creation manual and arrived at conclusion that yes sir they can boogie ! It was made because Rogues in 3.5 had to sit out undead fights. Undead fights take up a large chunk of D&D combats - far more than caster-screwing construct fights. It's OK to keep Rogues away from oozes, incorp. undead and elementals as those fights are rather scarce (and I'm not that convinced on the elemental part).
But apart from your "ghoul's kidney" realism, the game is also supposed to be fun. When realism gets in the way of fun, the realism should take a walk, IMHO.
But apart from your "ghoul's kidney" realism, the game is also supposed to be fun. When realism gets in the way of fun, the realism should take a walk, IMHO.
This is true ... and ENTIRELY subjective. You're attempting to define the limits of "fun" and what it is.
Of necessity, it will be different for every group, person and GM.
... and that's cool, but does that happen in the majority of encounters?
Yes ... yes it does, I thought that was clear.
In the games I've taken part of it is true, and in the games I run, I design it to be true.
More over, when the occasion has come up, my players tend to run the creative side and *make* options up I never even considered much. Being a fair-minded GM, I run with their ideas and such as they're exploring the options (true of all my players, so it's not class specific here).
Even attacking large skeletons in hilly terrain ... there would be *something* there for a rogue to exploit in my set-up of the situation. Maybe he catches sight of a particularly shiny dagger of some description (that's an undead-bane weapon), or maybe there's some special relic present that if someone notes and obtains it (sounds best suited to a rogue, no?) will cause the critters to stop, etc.
And no, the rogue is not effective because he can run - he's effective because he's doing the stuff HE does better than everyone else.
Even attacking large skeletons in hilly terrain ... there would be *something* there for a rogue to exploit in my set-up of the situation. Maybe he catches sight of a particularly shiny dagger of some description (that's an undead-bane weapon), or maybe there's some special relic present that if someone notes and obtains it (sounds best suited to a rogue, no?) will cause the critters to stop, etc.
I didn't actually want to comment originally, I did want to mention that I think it "sounds best suited to a monk" really. ;)
Even attacking large skeletons in hilly terrain ... there would be *something* there for a rogue to exploit in my set-up of the situation. Maybe he catches sight of a particularly shiny dagger of some description (that's an undead-bane weapon), or maybe there's some special relic present that if someone notes and obtains it (sounds best suited to a rogue, no?) will cause the critters to stop, etc.I didn't actually want to comment originally, I did want to mention that I think it "sounds best suited to a monk" really. ;)
Well ... depending. Monk's a quick SOB, though - so depending on location, etc, it's a good job for him, too.
;-p
|
|
Sneak attack is the only combat ability every rogue will have. making it ineffective against a wide range of creatures is going to render some rogues ineffective in combat, with nothing to do but twiddle their thumbs or put their lives on the line to Aid Another.How is that any different than a ranger getting a favored enemey every five levels after 1rst? Is the ranger not just twiddling his thumbs because his favored enemy may only show up in about 10% of the combats?
When you can show me a ranger with 3/4 BAB, d8 hit dice, no favoured terrain, and no combat style, I'll concede you the point. Rangers are way better adapted to combat from the go-get than rogues are, so they can do more without their special thing. Further, their special thing is a bonus to hit and damage.
Rogues can take ranger like combat style feats through their rogue talents by substituting a combat feat for a rogue talent. Rangers do not have that broad an option. The attack bonus is a minimal difference over the course of most games. You are one behind a fighting class till about 5th level and then you go down to two behnd. You end up with one less attack and you want to cry foul? Really? If you were on the wizard attack table I could conceede your point. The D8 hit dice is no crutch. You are acually more combat ready than a rogue was ever conceived to be. I don't hear clerics whining that they only have D8 hit dice and that life is so unfair.
True enough but hitting a joint of a construct or skeleton with most rogue weapons and expecting sneak attack damage is laughable. It is not like you are swinging a great club at a kneecap. Trying to pierce a kneecap or a ribcage with a rapier seems laughable at best.
So rogues that use light maces, clubs, axes, slings, and various other implements of war that aren't pointy must be nerfed because other rogues use rapiers and shortswords and it would be silly otherwise even though skeletons already have DR/bludgeoning ... right...
Yes because it seems hard to deal precision damage with weapons that are not precise. Besides sneak attacks are about hitting a weak spot when it counts. Skeletons don't have weak spots. A thumb to the eye would really hurt me. Skeletons not so much. Sneak attack came from the old Backstab class feature where it was assumed that stabbing a person in the back would hurt more than a normal hit to the back because the person would be unaware of the attack and not take measures to protect herself. It had nothing to do with vital strikes or whatever contortions/rationalizations that people claim for rogue sneak attack damage. It was a cheap shot and undead/constructs don't have weak points that cheap shots (i.e. sneak attack) would matter.
If sneak attacks are about hitting weak spots, why isn't the damage multiplied on crits? Wouldn't hitting a weak spot really well do more damage?
To me that's always been a damn weird distinction, honestly. Crits multiply damage ... it should multiply *all* damage, not just *some* damage. Singling out "extra die adders" is just wonky.
It's never made much sense to me. The *only* thing I could see is that they want it so not be (say on a typical x2 crit weapon w/a high range) so that you're inflicting say 1d6 (most wpn ratings) + all the sneak die adders, and say whipping out with like a 22d6 equivalent worth of damage (2d6 base and 10d for 20th level rogue, and then doubled flatly) anytime you're just in a flanking position or whatever.
To *me* it's like the flat multiple is FAE more powerful and useful when it was a viable option (ie: 2e rogues did WAY more damage in the higher levels).
3e tried to make the SA a more regularly "useful" ability. In doing so, they made this massive spread of extra d6's just tacked on to attacks. All well and good ... until crit-weapons entered the picture. So NOW they were looking at a rogue w/TONS of damage die, AND it was going to be doubled (or whatever). So ... now they made the rogues FAR too powerful/potent (looking at crit-ranges) compared to everyone else, so they dial it back for pure mechanical reasons. Thus, we arrive as a "+xd6 damage adders do NOT add to damage inflicted on crits." It's lame, and kind of kills certain weapon features (ala: flaming swords, etc) in concept because it MUST hurt SO much more if whatever just did the "nasty strike" is also red-flaming-freakin'-hot! But ... no, apparently, on a critical strike, fire is *just* fire since they can't let the rogues with their crazy-high-die adders to get the similar benefit.
It's purely a "gamist" sort of rule, IMO.
I was toying with the idea of reverting to 2e's "damage multiples" for SA instead of SA die, but then it's going to leave some entirely *new* open spaces/dead levels in re-figuring, so the question turns into ... what to fill those levels with?
Sneak attack is the only combat ability every rogue will have. making it ineffective against a wide range of creatures is going to render some rogues ineffective in combat, with nothing to do but twiddle their thumbs or put their lives on the line to Aid Another.
This was answered many post ago. Did you really not see the answer?
Is there a spell or wand the rogue can use to sneak attack undead?
D&D 3.5e has grave strike which is quite handy and golem strike.
When my group switched to PF, I showed them this rule of sneak attacking undead.
Much joy was had around this table.
Is there a spell or wand the rogue can use to sneak attack undead?
D&D 3.5e has grave strike which is quite handy and golem strike.
Don't forget Deathstrike Bracers from the Magic Item Compendium.
But yeah, you can already do that in PF.