one thing I have to say though, a rogue's skills are feeling a bit less special since everyone can take them without much trouble, everyone can be a bit of a rogue.
....even with the changes to the skill system, a rogue still doesn't get enough skill points, ......Would you care to explain this?
not enough skill points to get all the useful skills and still afford backround/fluff skills. so no backround skill for little miss rogue, very little fluff skills for her either. as she is expected to have decent modifiers in 10 skills. meaning human w/ favored class rogue and 14 int only gets 2 skills for backround and fluff. maybe you took a trait to get survival as a class skill and learned to sew your own clothes, whilst preying on small helpless animals, wild plants and other peoples discarded meals. the sewing would be craft (tailoring) the other would be survival. a 13 or less couldn't afford these skills.
so maybe i was wrong about rogues needing more skill points.
not all skills need to be maxed, especially true for background and fluff skills, your expectations arent mine I like skills but they really get plenty to get around in my opinion.
not all skills need to be maxed, especially true for background and fluff skills, your expectations arent mine I like skills but they really get plenty to get around in my opinion.
what skills do you not recommend maxing?
not all skills need to be maxed, especially true for background and fluff skills, your expectations arent mine I like skills but they really get plenty to get around in my opinion.what skills do you not recommend maxing?
The ones that most likely wont see play in game, or at least contribute to the success of the party. Fluff skill points are not a necessity to complete an adventure. Profession skills usually fall into this category.
The ones that most likely wont see play in game, or at least contribute to the success of the party. Fluff skill points are not a necessity to complete an adventure. Profession skills usually fall into this category.not all skills need to be maxed, especially true for background and fluff skills, your expectations arent mine I like skills but they really get plenty to get around in my opinion.what skills do you not recommend maxing?
craft skills could be used while adventuring, Tailoring could be used to repair clothing, maybe shoes, blacksmithing could repair weapons/armor. craft bowmaking could be used to supply extra arrows when far from civilization. survival can be used to aquire food/water,
sleight of hand can be used to perform stage magic to make money in town. making perform redundant.profession is used to make money on the side during downtime.
There's always the option of "If your character isn't specifically skilled in this area, don't bother spending points on it."
Which is to say: Sure, you might know how to cook, and you might be passingly decent at it. Or you might know how to sew your own clothes, or knit, or what-have-you.
But unless it's something that your character spends a large amount of time doing, and can therefore be counted as "Being Good Enough" at to make a living off of it, don't bother spending skill points. Simply say "My character is a decent cook, and an okay tailor, but he's nothing special," or "My character is a reasonable lute player, but she's certainly not as good as your Bard."
And then, just handwave it. If you want to try and make money at it, or compete with the professionals, you can always make an Untrained Skill Check. And if you really want to compete with them, then put points into it.
There's nothing in the rules that says that the skills that you have spent points on are the only things you can do - they're simply what you're especially good at. There is a large difference, I think.
There's always the option of "If your character isn't specifically skilled in this area, don't bother spending points on it."
Which is to say: Sure, you might know how to cook, and you might be passingly decent at it. Or you might know how to sew your own clothes, or knit, or what-have-you.
But unless it's something that your character spends a large amount of time doing, and can therefore be counted as "Being Good Enough" at to make a living off of it, don't bother spending skill points. Simply say "My character is a decent cook, and an okay tailor, but he's nothing special," or "My character is a reasonable lute player, but she's certainly not as good as your Bard."
And then, just handwave it. If you want to try and make money at it, or compete with the professionals, you can always make an Untrained Skill Check. And if you really want to compete with them, then put points into it.
There's nothing in the rules that says that the skills that you have spent points on are the only things you can do - they're simply what you're especially good at. There is a large difference, I think.
i guess you got me.
There's always the option of "If your character isn't specifically skilled in this area, don't bother spending points on it."
Which is to say: Sure, you might know how to cook, and you might be passingly decent at it. Or you might know how to sew your own clothes, or knit, or what-have-you.
But unless it's something that your character spends a large amount of time doing, and can therefore be counted as "Being Good Enough" at to make a living off of it, don't bother spending skill points. Simply say "My character is a decent cook, and an okay tailor, but he's nothing special," or "My character is a reasonable lute player, but she's certainly not as good as your Bard."
And then, just handwave it. If you want to try and make money at it, or compete with the professionals, you can always make an Untrained Skill Check. And if you really want to compete with them, then put points into it.
There's nothing in the rules that says that the skills that you have spent points on are the only things you can do - they're simply what you're especially good at. There is a large difference, I think.
ninja'd before I even got to reply
You don't get to be the Emperor of Japan and have an army of Ninja Assassins at your command in a webcomic without picking up a few skills from the guys in black pajamas. ;)
On a serious note, though, I recently had to go through just this same conversation with one of my players. I came into this one pre-armed, I supposed. Didn't know it at the time, though!
seriously if you have 6 ranks in a skill as a 12th level character doesnt mean you suck at it, I mean.. how many people will have 6 ranks in tailoring ?
the local tailor might not be 6th level elite, quite possibly you are one of the best around. because seriously.. not that many elite high levels take tailoring :p
even with the changes to the skill system, a rogue still doesn't get enough skill points, unless they spread themselves too thin. rogues can afford some more if they forget backround skills and prc prerequisites as well as play 25 point buy (P.F. point buy).
What do you consider "enough skill points"? Enough to get every skill there is? Everything on the rogue class skill list?
You're supposed to make choices in character generation. That's why you can't get everything. Fighters cannot get all the feats they want, spellcasters cannot learn or cast all the spells and rogues cannot get all the skills.
But with the changes in Pathfinder (i.e. the changed favoured class rules, the consolidation of many key skills that most rogues find useful), and the extra ability bonuses, it's not hard now to cover all the bases of virtually every rogue archetype without even using many resources for int.
9 skill points per level are very easy to get for your average rogue. With that, you can get Stealth, Perception, Sleight of Hand, Disable Device, Acrobatics, Climb, Bluff, and two of Disguise, Intimidate and Diplomacy.
With that, you can be a scout, a burgler, a dungeon delver, a cutpurse, a con man, a racketeer, an assassin, a bravo, and an infiltrator - and probably many concepts I forgot. Yes, that's right: Without really putting much in the way of resoruces, you can do many rogue archetypes at once.
Play around with the skills mentioned, and you can get many other archetypes - and still, you get to embody at least half a dozen at once.
And if you actually put resources into this, like intelligence (you know, like it would make sense for a character class that is already focussed on skill use), you can go even further than that.
What more could you want, except getting simply everything?
i was going to get to that. most newbies that play rogues go for damage when they shouldn't.
And how is that the rules' fault? By the rules, the rogue is not meant to be damage king. That's why the class is not considered a warrior class and doesn't get the usual warrior benefits.
in the later days of 3.5, before they made 4.0. sometimes i feel as i'm advocating help for the adolescent boys who misspell rogue as rouge and go overboard on the sneak attack. i realize now, a rules change may not be the best idea.
Exactly. The rogue belongs to the, well, "rogue" category of character classes. Call it expert, or adventurer. I mean rogues and bards, and a couple of the classes we get in the APG (and some third-party stuff).
Experts (as I prefer to call the caste) are usually jacks-of-all-trades, very versatile, masters of skill use, and good (though not exceptional) in other areas as well - often within certain circumstances.
Changing the rogue so they're good at other things in every circumstance would not be right in my opinion. They can be half-decent damage dealers - about in the same league as true warriors - but only with the right tactical setup against enemies that have exploitable weaknesses.
If you want to be all damage, all the time, you have to go fighter.
i read how they can mess you up. but a mistake i have made is a finesse cleric w/ 8 str, 12 con and 16 dex. her weapon of choice was a shortsword. (she burned the feat in a 3.5 core only camapign.) she couldn't damage anything. 8 str will screw up anyone, even the party wizard.
I have round that A strength score below 10 can work. Some of the characters I've played (and with success) that had a lower strength score.
but any stat below 10 will screw you over in some way. i will not specicify how though, it varies with each attirbute and no it is not skill related, think other more vital stats such as initiative, hit points, carring capacity or saving throws.
Not everyone needs initiative. I have played many characters that didn't care if the enemy got a jump on them. It is a disadvantage, sure, but there's worse.
Carrying capacity isn't that important universally: Some characters are travelling light, some campaigns take place in cities (where you don't need a tent), and some groups just don't look at this stuff too closely. And usually, the party doesn't expect everyone to be a pack mule.
again i'm sorry for asking for immunity removal without thinking ahead.
No need to be sorry for that, you didn't insult us or anything.
(If you should feel sorry for anything, than it's your blatant disregard for spelling ;-P)
not enough skill points to get all the useful skills and still afford backround/fluff skills. so no backround skill for little miss rogue, very little fluff skills for her either.
Depends on what you consider fluff or background skills, really. And, as has been mentioned, 0 ranks in a skill doesn't mean you are completely inept in this. It just means you're more or less as skilled in it as the average guy.
For example, a character with average strength and no ranks in jump can still jump across a 10-foot gap every single time (provided he has a running start and isn't distracted or threatened). Even without a single rank in ride, you can get on a horse and travel from one city to the next. Even without ranks in profession (cooking), you can feed yourself without poisoning yourself or making yourself throw up.
Ranks in a skill represent exceptional ability in that skill.
And just because a class considers a skill as class skill doesn't mean it cannot be considered flavour or background-related.
i spell to where it's readable, i try not to be anal retentive about it, actually my spelling skill has degraded a lot in the last several years. yesterday i just turned 21. don't read my character sheet thingie, it is just one of my stock archtypes. i consider being readable a higher priority over every last letter and punctuation. sometimes i will make up words that don't exist, but who hasn't at some point in thier life?
seriously if you have 6 ranks in a skill as a 12th level character doesnt mean you suck at it, I mean.. how many people will have 6 ranks in tailoring ?
the local tailor might not be 6th level elite, quite possibly you are one of the best around. because seriously.. not that many elite high levels take tailoring :p
In fact, It could be said that the local master craftsman has ranks in the skill, his journeymen and apprentices do not. The master is probably an expert2 (maybe even expert 1), but his assistants are probably just commoners. They might not even have a rank in it.
They won't produce premium ware, but the stuff will probably be of acceptable quality.
Look at it like this: The master can make masterwork items, while his assistants only do the regular stuff.
i spell to where it's readable, i try not to be anal retentive about it
Well, there are several steps between sloppy and anal-retentive. You can care about spelling and all that without losing any sleep over any error you might have missed. (And you can cheat by turning the browser's spelling checker on.)
I guess it's a side effect of having to produce official or semi-official texts as part of my work (not the main part, but it's still in the job description) and a general drive to do things properly, but I wouldn't consider myself too pedantic (except for entertainment).
I think sneak attacking everything that can move with the same ease is a bit bland in flavour, adding some special abilities that would make them better able to participate is fine, partly covered by adding abilities and feats and a bigger HD to rogues.
An attempted disable device check on a golem would be nicer in my opinion, undead sure I can imagine it.. though at the same time it should be hard to damage them they are just not weak in the same way people are, undead appear to be less scary.. what with all the channeling (which I dislike) and ease of destruction, I'd have liked a more creative way to deal with this.
plants no longer subject to sneak attack, yea I am sure I can think of something, but it seems farfetched.
the necromancer campaign kinda thing.. well yea, it can be bothersome, many spells suck as well, I can understand why it is done, but something in between to keep the flavour would have been nice.
a halfling rogue stabbing a dragon to death with a full attack is slightly less silly, really unless every attack hits an eye it isnt going to happen, that doesn't make new equally weird or weirder rules alright though
If such an abberation without shape and weird anatomy shows up it might not be weird to give it partial immunity, but I can see it won;t go for all abberations
I can see how two-weapon fighting makes sneak attack better mechanically, just doesn't fit my vision of sneak attack.
again it isnt so much about what it mechanically does, I just like it to make more sense, more attention to balance is given than realism, which is fine I'll just have to adapt to suit my own tastes.
You still have to be able to reach something vital so unless the halfling rogue is using a longspear on this huge dragon, I'm not sure shinbones count as vital areas.. I will have to check the core rulebook.
i spell to where it's readable, i try not to be anal retentive about itWell, there are several steps between sloppy and anal-retentive. You can care about spelling and all that without losing any sleep over any error you might have missed. (And you can cheat by turning the browser's spelling checker on.)
I guess it's a side effect of having to produce official or semi-official texts as part of my work (not the main part, but it's still in the job description) and a general drive to do things properly, but I wouldn't consider myself too pedantic (except for entertainment).
i never figured out how to use internet explorer's spellcheck, if it has one.
You still have to be able to reach something vital so unless the halfling rogue is using a longspear on this huge dragon, I'm not sure shinbones count as vital areas.. I will have to check the core rulebook.
I have ignored that every since it was brought to my attention. I can flavor it in by saying there is an artery or nerve ending in the foot that causes a great deal of pain.
Where in hells bells does a construct keep its vitals?! A Stone Golem, a giant walking STATUE, does not have guts to pierce, a spine to shatter, or a brain to target. Anywhere you hit it, it does the same damage. So WHY should it be subject to sneak attack?
Do you pierce its Stone Heart?
In regards to constructs, such as golems, how about joints to destroy? Weak areas where the construct pieces come together?
Just because its internal organs aren't present doesn't mean there aren't weak points to a construct.
i never figured out how to use internet explorer's spellcheck, if it has one.
IE doesn't have a spellchecker - Microsoft would never be that useful. Download Firefox 3.5 and you can get Adblock, Lazarus, spellcheck and all sorts of other useful plugins, all entirely free :)
In regards to constructs, such as golems, how about joints to destroy? Weak areas where the construct pieces come together?
Just because its internal organs aren't present doesn't mean there aren't weak points to a construct.
I can say they have decidedly less weak points though, I consider the sneak attack rule to be a plain gameplay adjustment, not one rooted so much in logic.
It's not to say I can not make up a flimsy excuse why it could work.
In regards to constructs, such as golems, how about joints to destroy? Weak areas where the construct pieces come together?
Just because its internal organs aren't present doesn't mean there aren't weak points to a construct.
I can say they have decidedly less weak points though, I consider the sneak attack rule to be a plain gameplay adjustment, not one rooted so much in logic.
It's not to say I can not make up a flimsy excuse why it could work.
shank the golem in the back of the knee with your dagger, and then spin, grinding further into the joint as you yell some animesque BS, like "Grinding Fang of the Tiger!".
The previous poster asked "WHY" it would work. I was simply providing possible flavor as to why for him.
There's just as much suspension of reality as to why one would be able to sneak attack any other type of being that has a completely different anatomy than the norm. You have to decide what works for you in your own game with your own interpretation. Also, if it's that flimsy, or stretches your beliefs too much, by all means house rule precision damage however you like to work for you.
The previous poster asked "WHY" it would work. I was simply providing possible flavor as to why for him.
There's just as much suspension of reality as to why one would be able to sneak attack any other type of being that has a completely different anatomy than the norm. You have to decide what works for you in your own game with your own interpretation. Also, if it's that flimsy, or stretches your beliefs too much, by all means house rule precision damage however you like to work for you.
i thought he said how! why it would work, golems aren't 100% evenly distributed, they have weaker layers around the joints to allow movement. or else, how could they even take a step?
i thought he said how! why it would work, golems aren't 100% evenly distributed, they have weaker layers around the joints to allow movement. or else, how could they even take a step?
Sorry, my reply was in regards to Remco's comment from above. Your interpretation is actually how I view the flavor behind the sneak attack on constructs.