What exactly else can they do in combat that doesn't involve.. combat?
I appreciate they can do other things, but not many of them. Sneak attacking and using spells are the things that rogues and wizards do best in combat. Take them away and they may have other options, but those options are a quantum leap or two down the scale of effectiveness.
The point we are making here is not that there should be nothing they don't effect, but that there should be less than a given number of foes that they should have limited effectiveness with. Ideally, these should not be the same kinds of creatures.
The more I think about it the more I agree with the idea that golems were made vulnerable to critical hits, and rogues just came along for the ride.
Think about it, you have a character than hits for 1d8+2 damage against a DR10 Golem. They have 0 chance of hurting the golem, but if you make the golem vulnerable to criticals, when they can hurt the golem if they get a critical hit. A small chance to hurt it is better than no chance.
Thing about it, you have a character than hits for 1d8+2 damage against a DR10 Golem.IMO a character that does 1d8+2 at the levels at which you fight golems is not a melee specialist, and thus it quite reasonable that they are ineffective against them.
I do not think that everybody should be equally effective in all situations.
There should be opportunities for various characters to shine.
IMO the purpose of golems with their magic immunity and DR is to give the melee specialists a chance to shine. That should be the fighter and barbarian of the core 3.5 classes (or a ranger with golems as favoured enemy).
The thing is with this change they will still be ineffective. The problem was before they were knew there was nothing they could do. Now they have a 10% chance to maybe do a little damage. Being useless is not fun. Even against a magic immune monster, a wizard still has the option of buffing the party.
Also, 5-10 damage would be about right for a non-fighter's off-hand attack at level 10. 10-15 damage is a non-fighter's main-hand strike. Without crits, and melee specialized ranger does a maximum of 10 damage(if both main hands hit and do max damage) to a golem unless they have favored enemy golem.
Well I always thought the rogues' principle class feature was that they got more skill points than anyone else.
No, they don't.
Well I always thought the rogues' principle class feature was that they got more skill points than anyone else.No, they don't.
They are the only core base class that gets 8+Int skill points. Everyone else gets 6 or less.
You can argue whether that's their principle class feature or not, or whether a smart human wizard will average more skills after the math is done, but the class does get the most base skill points.
...
Tell you what. Take a steak knife and then take a WHOLE WEEK to examine a local marble or metal statue for its vulnerable point, and then make it crumble in three stabs, please. Maybe try that at the local dinosaur museum on the skeleton of a massive extinct beast of your choice...
You obviously don't have enough levels in rogue class to begin with ;)
Aside from that I usuually rule that you can attack the magic contraptions animating whole construct or undead.
Animate Dead and Create Undead recquires an onyx gem to be placed somewhere on the dead body to serve as a conduct for animating energies and I can imagine spontaneously risen undead to absorb take some vessel of their own as well, so the Rogue can just attempt to hit this thing and thus disrupt the undead creature's connection to the negative energy plane.
As for constructs here is a classical example of a clay golem with an easily disruptable weak spot. I can imagine other constructs to have some similar mystical weak spot, although better hidden.
What exactly else can they do in combat that doesn't involve.. combat?
A lot actually. Even in the flawed simulation that is D&D/Pathfinder, combat is a VERY chaotic place with a lot of different things going on. I've been in several games where the wizard and rogue weren't joining in the combat not because they couldn't damage what the party was facing, but because they needed a few warm bodies with other skills to watch the party's back(note: this was back in a friend's house ruled 2.5 to 3.0 game with facing...maybe facing does indeed play a role here). You need to keep other people alive when the cleric is busy, and sometimes that means more than just tossing a potion, but acting as a distraction or indeed slipping into the fray(pocalypse!!!) for a round or two so that someone can slip away and drink that potion themselves. Sometimes a non-front liner just needs to get visceral and hold someone off/threaten an AOO with a reach weapon/get in there and FLANK. I'm at work and can't go into too much detail here, but it sounds like in your experience combat has mostly been getting the enemy ducks in a row so everyone can get a shot in and feel useful. If that's how your games have been and that is how you have the most fun, then go for it, it's your game. But in my experience, combat is and should be much, much more than that.
Well I always thought the rogues' principle class feature was that they got more skill points than anyone else.No, they don't.They are the only core base class that gets 8+Int skill points. Everyone else gets 6 or less.
You can argue whether that's their principle class feature or not, but they do get the most base skill points.
But....
int is not really a high priority stat for rogues.
A level 12 wizard is going to be rocking 15 base int +2 racial + 3 int from levels +6 int from magic item = 26 int without factoring in inherent bonuses from wishes or manuals. That puts the wizard at 2 + 8 = 10 skills points per level.
A level 12 rogue is going to have a maybe a 14 int. For 10 skill points per level. A rogue has to focus on dex and str to hit and deal damage and have a decent AC. Mental stats are secondary for most rogues, and Wisdom is probably a higher priority than int because of weak will saves.
Well I always thought the rogues' principle class feature was that they got more skill points than anyone else.No, they don't.They are the only core base class that gets 8+Int skill points. Everyone else gets 6 or less.
You can argue whether that's their principle class feature or not, but they do get the most base skill points.
But....
int is not really a high priority stat for rogues.
A level 12 wizard is going to be rocking 15 base int +2 racial + 3 int from levels +6 int from magic item = 26 int without factoring in inherent bonuses from wishes or manuals. That puts the wizard at 2 + 8 = 10 skills points per level.
A level 12 rogue is going to have a maybe a 14 int. For 10 skill points per level. A rogue has to focus on dex and str to hit and deal damage and have a decent AC. Mental stats are secondary for most rogues, and Wisdom is probably a higher priority than int because of weak will saves.
I apparently edited my post while you were typing. See above--all I'm noting is that they have the highest BASE number of ranks.
Which I think is all the poor guy was arguing. I hate it when people jump on someone for little details like that.
And for the record, I like to build high Int, low Wis rogues myself, and human ones at that, but that's just a personal preference thing. We could argue ourselves blue in the face about who has the most skill points AFTER a final build, and no one would be right.
Well I always thought the rogues' principle class feature was that they got more skill points than anyone else.No, they don't.They are the only core base class that gets 8+Int skill points. Everyone else gets 6 or less.
You can argue whether that's their principle class feature or not, or whether a smart human wizard will average more skills after the math is done, but the class does get the most base skill points.
That wasn't the claim, though. The claim was that rogues get more skill points than any other character. This is demonstrably false. It's not even true talking about base skill points. There are several other classes that get 8+ base points. Nowhere did he mention "core classes", and since this discussion encompasses 3.5 as well as Pathfinder, 3.5 classes are certainly fair game.
|
Well I always thought the rogues' principle class feature was that they got more skill points than anyone else.No, they don't.They are the only core base class that gets 8+Int skill points. Everyone else gets 6 or less.
You can argue whether that's their principle class feature or not, but they do get the most base skill points.
But....
int is not really a high priority stat for rogues.
A level 12 wizard is going to be rocking 15 base int +2 racial + 3 int from levels +6 int from magic item = 26 int without factoring in inherent bonuses from wishes or manuals. That puts the wizard at 2 + 8 = 10 skills points per level.
A level 12 rogue is going to have a maybe a 14 int. For 10 skill points per level. A rogue has to focus on dex and str to hit and deal damage and have a decent AC. Mental stats are secondary for most rogues, and Wisdom is probably a higher priority than int because of weak will saves.
Since when do you use magic item enhancement bonuses to figure out your skill points...? In your example here, the Wizard has 5 skill point for his first 3 levels (6 if Human), 6 from Levels 4-11 (7 if Human) and 7 from Level 12-19 (8 if Human); assuming he puts all his stat points into int, which I admit is likely. He spends his entire career chasing the BASIC amount of skill points a Rogue has, and with a s$#$ty skill class list to boot.
In your comparison here, the 14 int rogue smoothly takes 10 skill points per level throughout his career. And your mileage may vary, but many people's second highest Rogue stat is intelligence; especially Rogue's wanting to go into Assassin, helped further by the Elf now giving +2 dex and +2 int; making it a common rogue choice.
Edit: I think assuming Pathfinder classes in the PATHFINDER FORUM is a fair guess. And in core PF, no one has more skill points than the 20 Intelligence Human rogue; starting out with a tasty 14 ranks at level 1...
What exactly else can they do in combat that doesn't involve.. combat?A lot actually. Even in the flawed simulation that is D&D/Pathfinder, combat is a VERY chaotic place with a lot of different things going on. I've been in several games where the wizard and rogue weren't joining in the combat not because they couldn't damage what the party was facing, but because they needed a few warm bodies with other skills to watch the party's back(note: this was back in a friend's house ruled 2.5 to 3.0 game with facing...maybe facing does indeed play a role here). You need to keep other people alive when the cleric is busy, and sometimes that means more than just tossing a potion, but acting as a distraction or indeed slipping into the fray(pocalypse!!!) for a round or two so that someone can slip away and drink that potion themselves. Sometimes a non-front liner just needs to get visceral and hold someone off/threaten an AOO with a reach weapon/get in there and FLANK. I'm at work and can't go into too much detail here, but it sounds like in your experience combat has mostly been getting the enemy ducks in a row so everyone can get a shot in and feel useful. If that's how your games have been and that is how you have the most fun, then go for it, it's your game. But in my experience, combat is and should be much, much more than that.
So the Rogue is given the official position of party Butt Monkey. Got it.
|
Must be one of those rule changes that slipped by me... (can I get a quote where it says that so I can read it for myself?).Since Pathfinder made Int boosts give retroactive skill points.
Since when do you use magic item enhancement bonuses to figure out your skill points...?
I'm working on it. I found this but it does not definitively state it. I haven't read through everything, mostly just referenced what I need to as I go along.
Edit: In the glossary.
Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.
Edit: I think assuming Pathfinder classes in the PATHFINDER FORUM is a fair guess.
Uh, a few points about that:
Edit: I think assuming Pathfinder classes in the PATHFINDER FORUM is a fair guess.Uh, a few points about that:
This entire thread is because of a change from 3.5 to Pathfinder. Discussing 3.5 is thus entirely relevant to the thread.
Pathfinder is specifically designed and marketed so that people can use their 3.5 books with it. Discussing 3.5 is thus entirely relevant to the thread.
We can't assume that the classes in the Core Rulebook will be the only classes ever produced for Pathfinder. 3.5 is the best model for what other types of classes we're likely to see from both first and third party publishers. Thus, discussing 3.5 is entirely relevant to the thread.
Still a fair assumption. Nothing wrong with 3.5 material for discussion. You know the saying about assumptions....
Fighters also get a lot of benefit out of this rule change. Most fighters pick exotic weapon with higher crit multipliers or ranges.
In 3.5 there was an alternative class feature for Rogues which allowed them to use Sneak Attack against Undead, Constructs and so on but you used d4's instead of d6's. It was in Dungeonscape D&D 3.5 sourcebook. All you gave up was Trap Sense to have this ability and my players ALWAYS took it, it solved the whole Rogues cant sneak attack XXXXXX issue.
But Rogues should really be able to Sneak Attack anything that has a solid form, because as others have said, its form is not seamless like an Ooze or a Ghost, etc. Theres nothing wrong with the rules for Sneak Attack, if it has a solid form with joints, hinges, etc that might very well be weaker than the whole.
So the Rogue is given the official position of party Butt Monkey. Got it.
Nah, it's worse - he's a multi-classed Butt Monkey / XP Siphon.
But Rogues should really be able to Sneak Attack anything that has a solid form, because as others have said, its form is not seamless like an Ooze or a Ghost, etc. Theres nothing wrong with the rules for Sneak Attack, if it has a solid form with joints, hinges, etc that might very well be weaker than the whole.
i've always been under the impression that rogues had the ability to strike at weak spots in the anatomy. hence the old name, "backstab."
So the Rogue is given the official position of party Butt Monkey. Got it.What exactly else can they do in combat that doesn't involve.. combat?A lot actually. Even in the flawed simulation that is D&D/Pathfinder, combat is a VERY chaotic place with a lot of different things going on. I've been in several games where the wizard and rogue weren't joining in the combat not because they couldn't damage what the party was facing, but because they needed a few warm bodies with other skills to watch the party's back(note: this was back in a friend's house ruled 2.5 to 3.0 game with facing...maybe facing does indeed play a role here). You need to keep other people alive when the cleric is busy, and sometimes that means more than just tossing a potion, but acting as a distraction or indeed slipping into the fray(pocalypse!!!) for a round or two so that someone can slip away and drink that potion themselves. Sometimes a non-front liner just needs to get visceral and hold someone off/threaten an AOO with a reach weapon/get in there and FLANK. I'm at work and can't go into too much detail here, but it sounds like in your experience combat has mostly been getting the enemy ducks in a row so everyone can get a shot in and feel useful. If that's how your games have been and that is how you have the most fun, then go for it, it's your game. But in my experience, combat is and should be much, much more than that.
If that's what you want them to be just because they can't sneak attack damage something, then so be it. I'm also giving serious thought to rogues transferring the dice from sneak attack damage to their ability to hit something as mentioned above. I've run into more people having problems with their rogues hitting something difficult, much more so than those worrying about the damage done(although snake eyes is still extremely disappointing).
As an aside, what do you think of the 1e - 2.5e thief backstab multiplier instead of extra dice? Mayhaps that was better, in your opinion?
In 3.5 there was an alternative class feature for Rogues which allowed them to use Sneak Attack against Undead, Constructs and so on but you used d4's instead of d6's. It was in Dungeonscape D&D 3.5 sourcebook. All you gave up was Trap Sense to have this ability and my players ALWAYS took it, it solved the whole Rogues cant sneak attack XXXXXX issue.
Very interesting. I'm going to have to root around for my old Dungeonscape...it's around the bookshelves somewhere.
So the Rogue is given the official position of party Butt Monkey. Got it.Nah, it's worse - he's a multi-classed Butt Monkey / XP Siphon.
I will not have the bard slandered in such a fashion!!!!
are we seriously arguing this? In 3.5 a rogues PRINCIPLE CLASS FEATURE [sneak attack]Well I always thought the rogues' principle class feature was that they got more skill points than anyone else.
Sneak attack was there to give rogues something useful to do in combat, but that was not their speciality.
As a secondary class feature it being moderately commonly negated is not a big issue.
At the risk of repeating myself...
Do all of your players share that same exact vision of the Rogue?
Are all Rogues in your campaigns played in that manner?
To me, it isn't just about how I play or DM Rogues. It is about how my players interpret the Rogue and how they will have fun with it. Currently, I am running a Rogues-only PF campaign. There are the 'slinker' sorts but there are also the players who are constantly whetting their blades, drooling for the opportunity to stick them in someone's back. Clearly, their sense of 'fun' and how they define what are and are not a Rogue's 'important aspects' are tied to slitting throats. That is their vision of the Rogue and it is as valid as any other.
Do you have any basis whatsoever to say that skill points are a principle class feature and sneak attack is not? A quick look at the rogue class description in the PF book has 4 paragraphs dedicated to sneak attack - more text than is given to any other single class ability. I find it hard to believe the designers would spend that much space on a 'secondary feature'.
I suspect that you have more combat orientated [sic] campaigns than I do.
Ah, well this explains your attitude. If your campaigns are combat-light or combat-none... then your rogues won't use sneak attack much, and your fighters won't fight much, etc. I don't know what the demographics will reveal - but I suspect more DMs play combat-moderate games... in which case Sneak Attack is a VERY relevant issue and is an important class feature for rogues.
If that's what you want them to be just because they can't sneak attack damage something, then so be it.
Your position is that, in a fight where the enemy is immune to crits, the Rogue should hand out potions, be the rodeo clown for a useful party member, or be the swinging punching bag in a flanking position for a useful party member.
Class: Rogue
Position: Butt Monkey
Prior to the Pathfinder Bestiary being released, I was anxious to see what creature types would be immune to sneak attack (since I play a rogue in our current game). I was pleased to see that golems were not immune, although I am somewhat surprised that they didn't give stone or iron golems some form of progressive fortification (maybe 25% for stone and 50% for iron golems).
I've toyed with the idea of adding fortification to certain golems. That's one way to keep flesh golems and clay golems crittable and sneak attack-able, but provide some additional defenses to the "harder" golem types like stone and iron. Just a thought.
The whole point is that everything with anatomy has parts that are more vulnerable than others. On golems, joints are thinner and more manipulatable than others.
Thinner parts equals more vulnerability.
And even if that logic and real world answer doesn't work, try this one; it's magic. Magic weapons. Magic effects. Magic creatures. Can you tell me how magic works? No. Don't question it.
If you don't like don't use it but know that your rogues are going to complain about it.
|
I am of the opinion that Rogues should not be able to sneak attack Undead or Constructs. The class is already too good in and outside of combat.
Further more, no matter how much it is insinuated that you can knock off a skull, cut a wire, double tap a zombie brain, etc. . . that is what Crits are all about, not sneak attack. I have no problem with universal crits, which I think was a failure in 3E, but changes like this have made Undead encounters really weak, particularly at low levels.
Now, you welcome to disagree, and I have already been trolled the hell out of on this topic (different threads) at least three times, so ya I know what to expect, but still feel that it was a poor decision, as this was one of the few things that Rogues where weak against. [And most of the class problems, like so many D&D issues stems not from the system, but rather DM's going outside of the system and not expecting changes, like say an Undead heavy game, which consequently might also be campaigns that all non-Rogues might actually really enjoy more.]
If that's what you want them to be just because they can't sneak attack damage something, then so be it.Your position is that, in a fight where the enemy is immune to crits, the Rogue should hand out potions, be the rodeo clown for a useful party member, or be the swinging punching bag in a flanking position for a useful party member.
Class: Rogue
Position: Butt Monkey
Don't complain when you bleed out, get flanked yourself by the hordes of enemies surrounding you, or can't take advantage of having someone at your back in combat.
|
|
The whole point is that everything with anatomy has parts that are more vulnerable than others. On golems, joints are thinner and more manipulatable than others.
This is not universally true, so doesn't work as an answer.
Thinner parts equals more vulnerability.
Again, untrue. In the often mentioned skull = vulnerable to sneak attack, the skull is actually both the strongest and largest bone in the skeleton's "anatomy".
And even if that logic and real world answer doesn't work, try this one; it's magic. Magic weapons. Magic effects. Magic creatures. Can you tell me how magic works? No. Don't question it.
Actually, being that this is game with rules, magic is very defined. You may mean DM Fait, which is diferent and not relevant, but part of the problem here is that it breaks the "rules", (particularly in favor of Rogues), but does NOT make any real sense. By not questioning it, all we are doing is allowing a glairing flaw in the logic and acceptible realism to remain that way.
If you don't like don't use it but know that your rogues are going to complain about it.To be honest, so what. Every single class does, and should have weak points. this is a game that is just as much about single characters shinning as it is about the party. Each class/race/whatever has things they are weak against. Magic users are particularly weak against Golems, (universally). Melee Fighters/Paladins/Barbarians/Etc are devistatedby larger creatures that have reach and some sort of Grapple, Pounce or Knockdown. And like other classes, Rogues can find other "roguey" things to do. They can sneak to not get hit, or to aid the Fighter, keep flanking, keep themselves a target that creatures can't hit easily, help te Cleric out with Heal checks, most effectively use the environment, etc. . .
Don't complain when you bleed out, get flanked yourself by the hordes of enemies surrounding you, or can't take advantage of having someone at your back in combat.
If that's what you want them to be just because they can't sneak attack damage something, then so be it.Your position is that, in a fight where the enemy is immune to crits, the Rogue should hand out potions, be the rodeo clown for a useful party member, or be the swinging punching bag in a flanking position for a useful party member.
Class: Rogue
Position: Butt Monkey
The points you are conveniently leaving out are those things were all the Rogue could do and would be a punching bag since he would be ineffectual in combat against the monsters. No one expects or would propose that the Wizard should provide a flanking partner for the iron golem, or be the blocking body in a monster rush.
I very nearly read this whole thread, mainly because I found it highly entertaining. VooDooMike, you are a master logician who has heretofore gone underappreciated and unloved.
+1 (at least) to all your quippy rhetoric, which carried just the right combination of light-hearted fun-poking and serious interrogation into the arbitrariness of game designers AND their misty-eyed followers.
It would be nice -- really nice -- if someone actually answered your queries, 'cause I'd like to know, too.
But, mainly, I just stopped by to say "Kudos to you, VooDoo, for your sardonic wit that summarily knocked a bunch of chips off a bunch of shoulders. It is SUCH fun to see the reactions!"
Drew
Prior to the Pathfinder Bestiary being released, I was anxious to see what creature types would be immune to sneak attack (since I play a rogue in our current game). I was pleased to see that golems were not immune, although I am somewhat surprised that they didn't give stone or iron golems some form of progressive fortification (maybe 25% for stone and 50% for iron golems).
I've toyed with the idea of adding fortification to certain golems. That's one way to keep flesh golems and clay golems crittable and sneak attack-able, but provide some additional defenses to the "harder" golem types like stone and iron. Just a thought.
IMO, Golems are tough enough already. For Stone or Iron, you've got AC: 26 or 28, DR: 10 or 15 /Adamantine, and near total resistance to spells, not to mention all those construct immunities. Give them Fortification and you might as well call them "Baby Tarrasques".
The whole point is that everything with anatomy has parts that are more vulnerable than others. On golems, joints are thinner and more manipulatable than others.This is not universally true, so doesn't work as an answer.
Prove your assertion, please.
I very nearly read this whole thread, mainly because I found it highly entertaining. VooDooMike, you are a master logician who has heretofore gone underappreciated and unloved.
+1 (at least) to all your quippy rhetoric, which carried just the right combination of light-hearted fun-poking and serious interrogation into the arbitrariness of game designers AND their misty-eyed followers.
It would be nice -- really nice -- if someone actually answered your queries, 'cause I'd like to know, too.
But, mainly, I just stopped by to say "Kudos to you, VooDoo, for your sardonic wit that summarily knocked a bunch of chips off a bunch of shoulders. It is SUCH fun to see the reactions!"
Drew
I'm hoping you're being sarcastic, but in the case you aren't...
Voodoo Mike (among others) had several posts forcibly removed by the moderator. You're only seeing the posts that the moderator determined didn't step over the line.
|
|
Prove your assertion, please.The whole point is that everything with anatomy has parts that are more vulnerable than others. On golems, joints are thinner and more manipulatable than others.This is not universally true, so doesn't work as an answer.
How so?
Or rather, to be clear, but what criteria are you asking me to prove it?
A rope Golem was made completely out of rope strands. A Chain Golem same thing. Neither had arms or legs that are "thinner" than the body.
The whole anatomy thing is just stupid. Not persoanly attacking anyone, mind you, but that is a poor rational. If I somehow mad an ooze into an undead, nothing has changed about its physical body, it's "anatomy", but suddenly it is sneak attackable?
The problem then becomes if even one example does not work, than the rule is either admittedly (by all side) bad and wrong or the definition needs to change.
A rope Golem was made completely out of rope strands. A Chain Golem same thing. Neither had arms or legs that are "thinner" than the body.
If I somehow mad an ooze into an undead, nothing has changed about its physical body, it's "anatomy", but suddenly it is sneak attackable?
By RAW, there are no undead oozes, and no chain or rope golems. Such creatures would be home creations, or things taken from when rogues weren't able to sneak attack golems. These are exceptions to the norm, and as such they should probably have "immune to critical hits" as a special rule - rather than nearly all other undeads and constructs having "vulnerable to critical hits".
A rope Golem was made completely out of rope strands. A Chain Golem same thing. Neither had arms or legs that are "thinner" than the body.
My official Chain Golem mini begs to differ.
|
|
Chain and Rope Golems are 3.5 monsters. The Web Golem would also fit. It doesn't matter that they are where immune, because the point was to show that if the reasoning is true, that it would need to apply to all cases. It does not though.
As for Undead Oozes, I see no reason Animate Dead can not make a Zombie Ooze, (could be wrong)? Regardless, it shows the logic for "why" is wrong.
|
|
A rope Golem was made completely out of rope strands. A Chain Golem same thing. Neither had arms or legs that are "thinner" than the body.My official Chain Golem mini begs to differ.
Ok?
Here is the Chain Golem, not sure which one you mean though.
The points you are conveniently leaving out are those things were all the Rogue could do and would be a punching bag since he would be ineffectual in combat against the monsters. No one expects or would propose that the Wizard should provide a flanking partner for the iron golem, or be the blocking body in a monster rush.Don't complain when you bleed out, get flanked yourself by the hordes of enemies surrounding you, or can't take advantage of having someone at your back in combat.
If that's what you want them to be just because they can't sneak attack damage something, then so be it.Your position is that, in a fight where the enemy is immune to crits, the Rogue should hand out potions, be the rodeo clown for a useful party member, or be the swinging punching bag in a flanking position for a useful party member.
Class: Rogue
Position: Butt Monkey
So what's wrong with the rogue just swinging and doing damage as normal? Sneak attack damage is extra, not the sole basis for all damage done. Same with spells for spellcasters(to a certain extent). Just because it's not your forte doesn't mean you CAN'T do it, which is what your argument implies.
IMO, Golems are tough enough already. For Stone or Iron, you've got AC: 26 or 28, DR: 10 or 15 /Adamantine, and near total resistance to spells, not to mention all those construct immunities. Give them Fortification and you might as well call them "Baby Tarrasques".Prior to the Pathfinder Bestiary being released, I was anxious to see what creature types would be immune to sneak attack (since I play a rogue in our current game). I was pleased to see that golems were not immune, although I am somewhat surprised that they didn't give stone or iron golems some form of progressive fortification (maybe 25% for stone and 50% for iron golems).
I've toyed with the idea of adding fortification to certain golems. That's one way to keep flesh golems and clay golems crittable and sneak attack-able, but provide some additional defenses to the "harder" golem types like stone and iron. Just a thought.
Agreed. Golems are frightening. I've never encountered one in game, although one of my characters(interestingly enough, a rogue) spied an iron colossus from a great distance away.
Speaking of rogues being "ineffective" against golems...
I am currently running a series of Pathfinder Modules (Crypt of the Everflame & Masks of the Living God). The PC's consist of a pair of Human Rogues (Brothers), Human Cleric, Half-elf Ranger (two-sword), and a Half-elf Sorcereress. In "Masks"...
Edit: Just to be clear... I think the system works well as is. Golems are still difficult foes for Rogues to hit and damage even given constant flanking and sneak attack damage. The PC's in the above example are running with "Heroic" stats generated with the 2d6+6 method and still the Rogues have difficulty with golems and higher ac undead. DR is a big balancing factor.