Here's my approach---I drag back in a lot of the aspects of 1st edition.
In the level 8+ range, in most games that I run, rulership, warfare, and human intelligence (in the HUMINT sense) become increasingly important. This is because by this time, PC's have become at least prominent regional figures.
What I do for martial characters is I put the thumb on the scale BIGTIME (and you need to be incredibly heavy handed here) in the rulership and warfare (leading armies and navies) spheres. They own these spheres just as convincingly as the casters own the utility and equivalent of electronic intelligence (i.e., divination, which is analogous to signal intercepts, spy satellites, and the like). For instance, a Fighter who owns a domain will get around a 40% bonus on usable revenues, for the same level of taxation, than a pure caster. Their little realms just work better, largely because they inherently inspire a lot more loyalty and identification with them among those who are being ruled. Similarly, armies led by high level fighters will have huge bonuses on morale, as well as in nonmagical logistics. Those familiar with history will note that these are usually the decisive factors in warfare. Yes, Mr. Wizard, you might be able to barbeque even perhaps a thousand infantry, but your impact will pale before that of the mighty warrior who can do such insane things as marching an army of a hundred thousand men at a rate of nearly 30 miles a day and who can exert significant morale bonuses over all of them (think Napoleon here). Again, I emphasize, that if you want martials to own a sphere, you've got to be insanely hardcore about the modifiers you're imposing. No, you can't allow someone with a diplomacy +20 skill to get in on the action. The bonuses need to be large, and 'essential' and not obtainable with mere skill point or feat expenditure. Basically, you need to make them almost class abilities.
For rogues, I make them the masters of HUMINT. In a fairly high magic game, defenses against the equivalent of electronic intelligence will be VERY highly honed. You probably can't even get the answer with a commune spell as to how to get into Mr Evil Overlord's private sanctum who is considered appropriate opposition for, say a band of 16-20th level characters because he literally has access to every defensive spell in the book, and he uses them religiously. But some of his subminions might be weak to a honey-trap or blackmail, or might leak information when in their cups. And this is where the rogue can shine.
EWHM wrote: What I do for martial characters is I put the thumb on the scale BIGTIME (and you need to be incredibly heavy handed here) in the rulership and warfare (leading armies and navies) spheres. I'd love to do that -- but the question is, how do you make armies and navies at all relevant in D&D? A single planar binding spell summons a monster with DR that makes it essentially immune to all followers. It can then mow down armies unopposed, while ignoring their petty attempts to injure it. The only thing that poses a threat to it is a character of high enough level to have her or her own armies and navies -- so why is that guy acting like a paid bodyguard for other peoples' forces? D&D is a game in which level always counts more than numbers of troops -- no matter how big those numbers are.
Kirth Gersen wrote: EWHM wrote: What I do for martial characters is I put the thumb on the scale BIGTIME (and you need to be incredibly heavy handed here) in the rulership and warfare (leading armies and navies) spheres. I'd love to do that -- but the question is, how do you make armies and navies at all relevant in D&D? A single planar binding spell summons a monster with DR that makes it essentially immune to all followers. It can then mow down armies unopposed, while ignoring their petty attempts to injure it. The only thing that poses a threat to it is a character of high enough level to have her or her own armies and navies -- so why is that guy acting like a paid bodyguard for other peoples' forces? D&D is a game in which level always counts more than numbers of troops -- no matter how big those numbers are. Well, in a fairly high magic world, what you have to do is have your various rulers and armies aware of the fact that DR can be a problem and set up to counter it. Magical arrows or arrows with alchemy treatments to counter DR aren't all that expensive. You can also do this with siege weapon ammunition. Just have your guys without the needed weapons trained to 'aid another' so your picked men can actually hit.
But if the focus of the game is less on leading armies around (Granted, my campaign involves raising an army, so it totally works for me) for the martial classes, what do you do if the story isn't about leading armies around? Then the fighter/barbarian just fall off again? I like how you can make it work in the case of warfare though.
TakeABow wrote: But if the focus of the game is less on leading armies around (Granted, my campaign involves raising an army, so it totally works for me) for the martial classes, what do you do if the story isn't about leading armies around? Then the fighter/barbarian just fall off again? I like how you can make it work in the case of warfare though.
In a high level game, you usually have several spheres that you normally play within. High level characters that rule nations and the like usually also do more 'traditional' adventuring as well, and casters have their own irons in the fire. The key here is that you have to include spheres where your martial characters have an overwhelming superiority to everyone else---RAW already have that for casters at 10th level and higher. See, it's actually outside combat where the advantages of casters over everyone else is most pronounced (massive utility and the equivalent of electronic intelligence). If this (or some other sphere that gives them all the trump cards) isn't a substantial part of your game, high level fighters and barbarians in particular are frequently going to feel like mere grogs.
If you've got access to some of the old basic/expert/companion/masters level material, you can mine a lot of ideas for how very high level characters can interact with the world both as land barons and as adventurers.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote: Also I wonder where this preponderance of Adamantium bolts are coming from? Is there some international lock-smith consortium buying up what is presumably the rarest mineral on the material plane to make locks from. If so, it's probably run by a rogue.
In any case, every class has a niche where it shines, and spell-casters are versatile, but every niche they don't have to cover is a moment to shine doing what they do best (battle-field control, area damage and weirdo spells).
I've never run or been in a party that felt like they were segregated by tiers. Players just made sure not to step on each others toes, just one of those polite unspoken rules of the game that makes it fun.
*stare* Context is important. Bolt as in thing you put in crossbows, that costs 60 gold, and because it is made of adamantine it ignores hardness of less than 20, and therefore cuts through the lock like a hot knife through butter. So you stab the lock, and go right through it, and you open the door. Which is a far better deal than wasting resources on Knock, or dealing with the vastly inflated lock picking DCs.
The reason why it is a bolt is because ammo costs 50 times less, while granting the same benefit.
Now if you assume the door is the thing with adamantine...
If the lock is made of Adamantine, you stab the hinges. If the hinges are, you stab the door. If the whole door is, you stab the wall, and then loot the door for megabucks and make your DM facepalm.
james maissen wrote: CoDzilla wrote: Knock is a terrible spell. But so is the Open Lock skill. Adamantine bolt > either of them.
If you're in a party that's traveling with bells around their necks.
Also, of course by the time you do get through the lock either everyone is waiting for you, they've left, or they've killed the guy you're trying to rescue...
Rogues work well in groups when you want finesse and stealth. Some eschew that.
If you want to encourage their usefulness then reward a party for not going 'hey diddle diddle' each and every time.
-James The bolt bypasses hardness, so it slices through very easily and quickly. At least as fast as lockpicking, which is a round an attempt. Of course since lockpicking DCs are inflated, you'll probably have to take 20, if you can get it at all. Last I checked, one standard action is less than 2 minutes. So either they hear you either way, or the bolt is better. If the former, cast Silence. If the latter, you're still better off bypassing the borked mechanic that is lockpicking.
Also, even though ATs aren't good, they're still Wizard based, and therefore have plenty of Int and therefore have plenty of skills. Likely more than an actual Rogue.
CoDzilla wrote: So either they hear you either way, or the bolt is better. If the former, cast Silence. If the latter, you're still better off bypassing the borked mechanic that is lockpicking. I'm sorry but chiseling at a lock does make A LOT more noise than picking one. Orders of magnitude.
Likewise so does casting silence spell in the first place... which if you are going to do.. why not cast a knock spell from the get go? I guess you could back up a good distance, cast silence, then go forward.. but again the rogue is going to do this better.
As to 'the difficulty of picking locks' I'm sorry difficulty? I forget people don't really know rogues.
They put open locks into disable device.. it's damn easy to do. If you can have adamantine weapons and second level spells to throw against mere doors what level are we talking here? By around 8th level any reasonable rogue is going to get top level locks on about a take 10. Even at 4th level they can handle those with a take 20 and lesser locks on a take 10.
CoDzilla wrote:
Also, even though ATs aren't good, they're still Wizard based, and therefore have plenty of Int and therefore have plenty of skills. Likely more than an actual Rogue.
I mentioned this I think. I believe said AT would need 10 points of INT higher to break even before counting any wizard/INT based skills that they might wish to invest their vast intellect upon.
While this is achievable, it does impact their other stats and their gear. Which again I mentioned.
Which again refuted the comments made on that issue, which was discussing what non-magical skills an AT would bring.
So again I'll say that if you are trying to fill a wizard slot or a rogue slot with an AT then you're making a mistake. You're going to bring in a cohort wizard (essentially.. heck even a level down from one) that dabbles badly in being a rogue. If you hardly ever need a rogue (by say blundering in places chiseling your way through doors) then you won't really miss them and think that even a cohort wizard is better at being a wizard than a full rogue.. but you're better off with a full wizard or even dare I say a mystic theurge than the AT to fill this wizard slot.
-James
james maissen wrote: In combat it has to try to be a wizard that's given up how many casting levels? How effective is this wizard?
Not especially, but still (in my experience) more effective than a rogue, unless that rogue is getting a lot of help from the rest of the group. Which is doable, but depending on your party makeup maybe you can't or don't want to do that.
james maissen wrote:
You don't have 'all of the non-magical skill-monkey power of a full rogue'- not by a long shot.
In my experience, it turns out close enough, unless your GM is writing his own adventures and going out of his way to make an actual rogue absolutely essential. (For example, they're setting trap detection DCs so high that it takes a character totally cranked out for Perception who also has trapfinding to even have a chance to find them -- and those traps are also important enough that failure has heavy consequences.) If either of those things aren't the case, as they won't be in probably 95%+ of campaigns, the AT is "good enough" at doing the rogue job.
Dire Mongoose wrote:
In my experience, it turns out close enough, ... the AT is "good enough" at doing the rogue job.
Which was my point about campaigns that allow a bad rogue to shine in the rogue role then a cohort wizard looks good for the part. If you only rarely need a bad rogue in a box and never need him outside of that then the AT looks like a cohort wizard that's better than nothing. That's with the AT trying not to be a trickster, but rather a wizard and a rogue.
Its amusing that LG was so varied that in some regions you would get your experience, while in others it would reinforce mine. And that's with LG's strict rules on total number of ELs per module.
Towards the OP, this is something that he should avoid. It's not all that hard to reward attacking problems with finesse rather than a sledgehammer.
In the LG world for an example there was a Duchy module that I really liked a lot whose final encounter could have the 'feel' of either an APL+0 encounter, an APL+2 encounter or an APL+4 encounter depending upon how you gathered information and whether or not they knew you were coming. The enemy was fixed, but the circumstances in which you encountered them changed to varying degrees.
This is the way to 'reward' or 'encourage' certain styles of play over others. The above final encounter, for example, was survivable by a group going 'hey diddle diddle straight up the middle' but it was an APL+4 encounter. As such it was challenging and bad things could happen to good people. Meanwhile the party taking the time to approach with far more caution and care could do so. The result being essentially a lowering of the EL by 4 and the combat being straightforward.
If a rogue can do this periodically in a campaign then they are certainly on par with the cranked out initiative battlefield control wizard that can neuter encounters by like amounts.
It just takes a little work and thought, kind of like a player maintaining the right amount of consumables for his PC's level and wealth to maximize the gain from them vs permanent items,
-James
james maissen wrote: In the LG world for an example there was a Duchy module that I really liked a lot whose final encounter could have the 'feel' of either an APL+0 encounter, an APL+2 encounter or an APL+4 encounter depending upon how you gathered information and whether or not they knew you were coming. The enemy was fixed, but the circumstances in which you encountered them changed to varying degrees.
This is the way to 'reward' or 'encourage' certain styles of play over others. The above final encounter, for example, was survivable by a group going 'hey diddle diddle straight up the middle' but it was an APL+4 encounter.
I wrote an LG (regional) interactive that used a similar mechanic. The resulting body count was somewhat higher than I anticipated. . .
I definitely think it can be done . . . I just don't think it usually is, especially with any kind of published adventure.
Also granted, Pathfinder *semi* fixes this problem relative to 3.5 in that there are rogue talents useful to "typical rogue niches" that the AT wouldn't get, trapfinding scales by level so there's incentive there to more than a level of rogue (if its benefits can still be pretty well kept up with by, say, throwing a feat at skill focus: perception) and search doesn't exist as an INT skill anymore (although I mostly don't like that change, here it helps out.)
Dire Mongoose wrote:
I wrote an LG (regional) interactive that used a similar mechanic. The resulting body count was somewhat higher than I anticipated. . .
I definitely think it can be done . . . I just don't think it usually is, especially with any kind of published adventure.
Well assuming that the OP wasn't simply trolling for the discussion for/against rogues, this is what they were asking for help with..
Its something that can be addressed without causing the end of civilization as we know it.
Dire Mongoose wrote:
Also granted, Pathfinder *semi* fixes this problem relative to 3.5 in that there are rogue talents useful to "typical rogue niches" that the AT wouldn't get, trapfinding scales by level so there's incentive there to more than a level of rogue (if its benefits can still be pretty well kept up with by, say, throwing a feat at skill focus: perception) and search doesn't exist as an INT skill anymore (although I mostly don't like that change, here it helps out.)
The AT needs work as it stands, it's a d6 class which means that a pure wizard can have more hps than one!
The mutt PrCs should advance some of the class based abilities imho.
-James
james maissen wrote: CoDzilla wrote: So either they hear you either way, or the bolt is better. If the former, cast Silence. If the latter, you're still better off bypassing the borked mechanic that is lockpicking. I'm sorry but chiseling at a lock does make A LOT more noise than picking one. Orders of magnitude. Ignores hardness of less than 20. You do not chisel through the lock. You slice through the rock as if you were putting a hot knife through butter.
Quote: Likewise so does casting silence spell in the first place... which if you are going to do.. why not cast a knock spell from the get go? I guess you could back up a good distance, cast silence, then go forward.. but again the rogue is going to do this better. Silence lasts more than one door, always works, and has other effects. You can also close your hand to disable it, say to cast spells as it is an emanation and therefore needs line of effect.
Quote: As to 'the difficulty of picking locks' I'm sorry difficulty? I forget people don't really know rogues. Have you seen lock DCs? An average lock is DC 30. The good ones are 40, or even better. Starting around level 4, there will be a DC 40 lock on everything of importance. A few levels higher, and they'll be a DC 40 lock on EVERYTHING. Why? Because they're cheap.
Quote: They put open locks into disable device.. it's damn easy to do. If you can have adamantine weapons and second level spells to throw against mere doors what level are we talking here? By around 8th level any reasonable rogue is going to get top level locks on about a take 10. Even at 4th level they can handle those with a take 20 and lesser locks on a take 10. Adamantine bolt is 60 gold, so you're level 3. Actually you could have one of these at character creation, but Silence still requires 3. Which means you might get the DC 30 locks on a take 20, but the DC 40 locks aren't getting opened by lockpicking. If the Rogue opens that door, it's because he's holding the "lockpick" (adamantine bolt).
Now do illustrate how you get a lockpicking modifier of +30, at level 3, without completely gimping your character such that there is no reason to ever let them out of their box for anything other than to pick locks. Even at level 8, you're not doing it without screwing your character, and at those levels every single lock is DC 40. Because they are cheap.
CoDzilla wrote:
Adamantine bolt is 60 gold, so you're level 3. Actually you could have one of these at character creation, but Silence still requires 3. Which means you might get the DC 30 locks on a take 20, but the DC 40 locks aren't getting opened by lockpicking. If the Rogue opens that door, it's because he's holding the...
What if you don't want to enemies know you picked the lock?
james maissen wrote:
Its amusing that LG was so varied that in some regions you would get your experience, while in others it would reinforce mine. Different regions had different authors that wrote consistently for them. Even within adhering to LG's ruleset, that made for a lot of variation. I remember playing Keoland modules in NJ and then going over to Mepacon at Pennsy to play some other region modules there. The experience and tone as well as module style were quite different.
Kaiyanwang wrote: CoDzilla wrote:
Adamantine bolt is 60 gold, so you're level 3. Actually you could have one of these at character creation, but Silence still requires 3. Which means you might get the DC 30 locks on a take 20, but the DC 40 locks aren't getting opened by lockpicking. If the Rogue opens that door, it's because he's holding the...
What if you don't want to enemies know you picked the lock? We've already been over that.
CoDzilla wrote: Kaiyanwang wrote: CoDzilla wrote:
Adamantine bolt is 60 gold, so you're level 3. Actually you could have one of these at character creation, but Silence still requires 3. Which means you might get the DC 30 locks on a take 20, but the DC 40 locks aren't getting opened by lockpicking. If the Rogue opens that door, it's because he's holding the...
What if you don't want to enemies know you picked the lock? We've already been over that. I explained it badly :) (sorry)
I mean: sometimes you want to open a box or a door without the owner knowing that someone has been there. Adamantine arrows does not help you in these situation.
What I really mean is that in standard dungeon delving you could be right, but the gameworld is more complicated than that.
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote: Kierato wrote: A good way to limit spell casters is to throw out 4 to 6 encounters a day (not per session, unless your session is a day). They will run out of spells, leaving the rogue and monk still able to do the majority of their stuff. Make this the norm and mages will have to ration their spells. And if you don't want to have that many per day? What do you do if you have less? What do you do if you have maybe 1 encounter per day? You will generally have mages novaing on that reliable one encounter. Blowing out limited resources and pretty much devastating everything in their path (and the super high challenge ratings that the game generally assumes you will have if you only have one in a day are more rocket-taggy, with a greater chance of TPK if something goes wrong.)
Greg Wasson wrote: The Group is the Thing
I kinda think that thread applies here as well. Why does the wizzie player want to overshadow the rogue player? Does the ranger focus on using cure wands as the cleric stands idle? My group tries to let everyone into the spotlight. Whether it is RP moments or it is combat or it is crafting. If someone is designed for a niche...why would you try and hamper their enjoyment? *shrugs*
Greg
Why is the Cleric wishing to be a heal bot? He should be thanking the Ranger.
CoDzilla wrote: james maissen wrote: CoDzilla wrote: So either they hear you either way, or the bolt is better. If the former, cast Silence. If the latter, you're still better off bypassing the borked mechanic that is lockpicking. I'm sorry but chiseling at a lock does make A LOT more noise than picking one. Orders of magnitude. Ignores hardness of less than 20. You do not chisel through the lock. You slice through the rock as if you were putting a hot knife through butter.
Quote: Likewise so does casting silence spell in the first place... which if you are going to do.. why not cast a knock spell from the get go? I guess you could back up a good distance, cast silence, then go forward.. but again the rogue is going to do this better. Silence lasts more than one door, always works, and has other effects. You can also close your hand to disable it, say to cast spells as it is an emanation and therefore needs line of effect.
Quote: As to 'the difficulty of picking locks' I'm sorry difficulty? I forget people don't really know rogues. Have you seen lock DCs? An average lock is DC 30. The good ones are 40, or even better. Starting around level 4, there will be a DC 40 lock on everything of importance. A few levels higher, and they'll be a DC 40 lock on EVERYTHING. Why? Because they're cheap.
Quote: They put open locks into disable device.. it's damn easy to do. If you can have adamantine weapons and second level spells to throw against mere doors what level are we talking here? By around 8th level any reasonable rogue is going to get top level locks on about a take 10. Even at 4th level they can handle those with a take 20 and lesser locks on a take 10. Adamantine bolt is 60 gold, so you're level 3. Actually you could have one of these at character creation, but Silence still requires 3. Which means you might get the DC 30 locks on a take 20, but the DC 40 locks aren't getting opened by lockpicking. If the Rogue opens that door, it's because he's holding the... Perhaps you should actually read the rules. Environment section ->doors:
prd wrote: The Disable Device DC to pick a lock often falls within the range of 20 to 30, although locks with lower or higher DCs can exist. A door can have more than one lock, each of which must be unlocked separately. Locks are often trapped, usually with poison needles that extend out to prick a rogue's finger. Later, for the DC of a locked trap, it says the disable device DC is 30.
If your GM is putting 150gp, DC40, locks on every door, you should cut them out and thank him for the loot. At level 4, that is a significant ammount of treasure.
As for your adamantine bolt, we shall go to the Additional Rules section on damaging objects: prd wrote: Ineffective Weapons: Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. Likewise, most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer. Now, I am not saying that I would not allow the adamantine bolt to do damage to the object, just that it is not designed to do it and therefore cannot do it as effectively, and thus will take time. The rules intentionally leave this option up to DM judgement. Personally, my ruling would be that you can deal 1 damage a round through the hardness 10, if you can get the bolt into the crack in the door, which may not be the case. You may need to chip away at the door/wall. Though every GM will rule differently.
As for silenece, you say it yourself: silence is an emanation. It does not affect sound generated by the door on the other side of the door. Your chiselling at the lock will cause the door to make noise unless done carefully (stealth check, you must declare actively or you wont get it), even with the silence. The silence will give you a bonus, just like invisibility, but is not a guarantee.
Kaiyanwang wrote: CoDzilla wrote: Kaiyanwang wrote: CoDzilla wrote:
Adamantine bolt is 60 gold, so you're level 3. Actually you could have one of these at character creation, but Silence still requires 3. Which means you might get the DC 30 locks on a take 20, but the DC 40 locks aren't getting opened by lockpicking. If the Rogue opens that door, it's because he's holding the...
What if you don't want to enemies know you picked the lock? We've already been over that. I explained it badly :) (sorry)
I mean: sometimes you want to open a box or a door without the owner knowing that someone has been there. Adamantine arrows does not help you in these situation.
What I really mean is that in standard dungeon delving you could be right, but the gameworld is more complicated than that. I know what you meant. We have still already been over that.
As for going nova, that's false because you won't have enough actions in that fight to use all your spells.
Caineach wrote: CoDzilla wrote: james maissen wrote: CoDzilla wrote: So either they hear you either way, or the bolt is better. If the former, cast Silence. If the latter, you're still better off bypassing the borked mechanic that is lockpicking. I'm sorry but chiseling at a lock does make A LOT more noise than picking one. Orders of magnitude. Ignores hardness of less than 20. You do not chisel through the lock. You slice through the rock as if you were putting a hot knife through butter.
Quote: Likewise so does casting silence spell in the first place... which if you are going to do.. why not cast a knock spell from the get go? I guess you could back up a good distance, cast silence, then go forward.. but again the rogue is going to do this better. Silence lasts more than one door, always works, and has other effects. You can also close your hand to disable it, say to cast spells as it is an emanation and therefore needs line of effect.
Quote: As to 'the difficulty of picking locks' I'm sorry difficulty? I forget people don't really know rogues. Have you seen lock DCs? An average lock is DC 30. The good ones are 40, or even better. Starting around level 4, there will be a DC 40 lock on everything of importance. A few levels higher, and they'll be a DC 40 lock on EVERYTHING. Why? Because they're cheap.
Quote: They put open locks into disable device.. it's damn easy to do. If you can have adamantine weapons and second level spells to throw against mere doors what level are we talking here? By around 8th level any reasonable rogue is going to get top level locks on about a take 10. Even at 4th level they can handle those with a take 20 and lesser locks on a take 10. Adamantine bolt is 60 gold, so you're level 3. Actually you could have one of these at character creation, but Silence still requires 3. Which means you might get the DC 30 locks on a take 20, but the DC 40 locks aren't getting opened by lockpicking. If the Rogue opens that door, it's because ... This is about the rules, not your houserules. At level 4 you will encounter DC 40 locks on anything important, as 150 gold is less than the cost of anything important. At level 8 you'll encounter them everywhere, because they're cheap.
Now of course it's still possible to defeat the lock, but not in ways that involve picking it.
@CoD: You assume everybody has the means to buy/build that lock. You can buy things only if are there.
What do you mean we already been there?
CoDzilla wrote: This is about the rules, not your houserules. At level 4 you will encounter DC 40 locks on anything important, as 150 gold is less than the cost of anything important. At level 8 you'll encounter them everywhere, because they're cheap.
Now of course it's still possible to defeat the lock, but not in ways that involve picking it.
Yes, because by sighting the rules that explicitly state it is up to the GM I am invoking house rules.
At level 4, any GM throwing DC40 skill checks at the party is intentionally eliminating that element from the game. It is not designed into the game that players should be facing DC40 anything at that level, and the rules explicitly state that 20-30 is normal. Sure, certain locations may have more impressive locks, but they are the exception, not the rule. Even then:
4lvl +3 class +2 trapspotter +2 masterwork tools +3 dex +2 assist = +16
If the rogue has goggles of minute seeing he can pick the lock.
DC40 at level 8 rogue:
8lvl +3class +4 trapspotter + 2 masterwork tools +3 dex = 20. You can take 20 at any door. Goggles of minute seeing and assistence give you a 27, so a 40% chance of success in 1 round. At level 8, casting knock only gives you a +18, so the rogue can open the lock while the wizard cannot.
CoDzilla wrote: This is about the rules, not your houserules. At level 4 you will encounter DC 40 locks on anything important, as 150 gold is less than the cost of anything important. At level 8 you'll encounter them everywhere, because they're cheap. DC 40 at level 8?
So, that's 20 from take 20, 11 from skills (8 ranks and 3 for the class skill) +2 from aid an other, +2 from a bard inspire competence or something similar effect, +2 from master work thieves tools. So that means you only need a +3 modifier from your dex (which at level 8 is rather low).
So either mathematics are different where you are, or one of us is missing something.
TakeABow wrote: What are some tricks to make the lower-tier classes shine?
For example: How do you make a Rogue useful when the wizard can just cast "Find Traps", "Detect Secret Doors", "Knock", "Invisibility", and lots of other spells that do what Rogue does better than Rogue can.
I'm interested in both actual experience (Things that did/didn't work) and theorycrafed solutions (Things that should/shouldn't work) which promote/reward use of the weaker classes.
One awesome one is to not have any wizards in your party. I am running a summoner, a druid, and a bunch of non-magical classes. It is awesome.
Short of that, don't let the wizard feel like he can spend spells on that kind of stuff. Detect snares actually doesn't work on mechanically complex traps, and find traps only works for a few minutes.
You can, for example, put a difficult multi phase trap right up front that takes a few minutes to disarm, eating up all the time on those spells.
Something else that has worked is enemies who run away. They show themselves and attack brilliantly for one or two rounds, getting the party to cast their spells. Then they activate their escape plan and flee. They wait for the spells to finish, then they attack again. They will continue to sucker the wizards into casting spells until they run out of everything good. Then they attack.
In that same note, enemies trying to harm wizards know the best time to come is in the middle of the night: preventing the wizards from sleeping. Keep that up for a little while and the mages will be basically useless. I've done that several times, best of which was with fairies that were hunting the party.
In addition, I make a lot of mid to high level fighters with moderate wisdom scores, resistance, iron will, and improved iron will. All of that together is called, "A warrior's temperament." Fighters have plenty enough feats to burn a few on defense.
CoDzilla wrote:
I'm sorry but chiseling at a lock does make A LOT more noise than picking one. Orders of magnitude.
Ignores hardness of less than 20. You do not chisel through the lock. You slice through the rock as if you were putting a hot knife through butter.
But it is still chiseling and still makes a lot of noise. Metal striking onto metal does that.
As another poster mentioned that's ignoring the inappropriate weapon modifier should the DM care to apply it. We can call it a 3k gold lock pick though easily enough.
But the noise issue is still there.
CoDzilla wrote:
Silence lasts more than one door, always works, and has other effects. You can also close your hand to disable it, say to cast spells as it is an emanation and therefore needs line of effect.
Sure silence lasts for 1min/level and you can have fun with the emanation part of it. Of course if you run over your DM roughshod then you get more mileage out of this than if you cannot.
Regardless it is a big investment below 8th level. If you're claiming 3rd level then you're saying you're spending a top level spell on this.
CoDzilla wrote:
Have you seen lock DCs? An average lock is DC 30. The good ones are 40, or even better. Starting around level 4, there will be a DC 40 lock on everything of importance. A few levels higher, and they'll be a DC 40 lock on EVERYTHING. Why? Because they're cheap.
Actually the chart has DCs for Simple (20), Average (25), Good (30) and Amazing (40).
The Amazing lock is 150gp a piece. At 4th level an average encounter should have maybe 750gp in treasure. So you're saying that 1/5 of the treasure is on the door.. and you're destroying it.
But let's do out a few Rogues.
On a 20pt buy I'm going with
STR 14
INT 07
WIS 14
DEX 17
CON 14
CHA 07
Before racials. Say a human bumping DEX. (Could even out the STR & INT if you want more skills). If you use a 15pt buy then just go with a 10STR off the bat.
At 4th level you're looking at a Disable Device Check of +15 (4 ranks +3class skill +2Rogue +2master work item +4 DEX), which is without magic items. For 1,250gp you have an item that has you rolling at a +20, which will handle the 80gp locks on a take 10 and the 1/5 of our treasure for the encounter locks on a take 20. At 4th level.
By 8th level you can have this on a take 10, which is what I said before, but you didn't seem to be able to follow how.
-James
In other words, there is no point buying a decent lock, you may as well just pay the protection money to the thieves guild.
CoDzilla wrote:
Ignores hardness of less than 20. You do not chisel through the lock. You slice through the rock as if you were putting a hot knife through butter.
Human's don't have a hardness, and most things don't slice through them like a knife through hot butter
CoDzilla wrote:
Silence lasts more than one door, always works, and has other effects. You can also close your hand to disable it, say to cast spells as it is an emanation and therefore needs line of effect.
Silence last 1 round per caster level. Either you are using the bolt in your hand, which makes it an improvised weapon, close to a small dagger (1d3+str) or your shooting it from a crossbow which gets no strength modifiers (1d10), either way takes longer then one round, plus you spend a round opening the door.
Kaiyanwang wrote: @CoD: You assume everybody has the means to buy/build that lock. You can buy things only if are there.
What do you mean we already been there?
They have the means to get the lock because they have the resources to get the lock, by virtue of being things that are level appropriate at level 4, or 8.
We've already covered the subject of what you do when you need to open a door covertly.
Caineach wrote: At level 4, any GM throwing DC40 skill checks at the party is intentionally eliminating that element from the game. It is not designed into the game that players should be facing DC40 anything at that level, and the rules explicitly state that 20-30 is normal. Sure, certain locations may have more impressive locks, but they are the exception, not the rule. Even then: Except that DC 40 is 150 gold away. Anything important at level 4 has a value substantially higher than 150 gold. Just about anything does at level 8. So they have the best locks because there is absolutely no reason not to. And the Rogues adapt by carrying adamantine bolts to act as lockpicks like everyone else, but they do not pick the lock.
Quote: 4lvl +3 class +2 trapspotter +2 masterwork tools +3 dex +2 assist = +16
If the rogue has goggles of minute seeing he can pick the lock.
Aid Another doesn't work on lockpicking. And a 3,600 gold item is most of your total at level 4.
Quote: DC40 at level 8 rogue:
8lvl +3class +4 trapspotter + 2 masterwork tools +3 dex = 20. You can take 20 at any door. Goggles of minute seeing and assistence give you a 27, so a 40% chance of success in 1 round. At level 8, casting knock only gives you a +18, so the rogue can open the lock while the wizard cannot.
Ok, so 2 minutes, vs a quick go with the "lockpick".
Which you use by pressing the head to the door and just sliding it on through.
Also, any approach along the lines of "get them to waste buffs on traps" really just means "party runs through traps and is better off than if they did not".
Lastly, you give some casters a round or two to throw spells, and you're not running anywhere. You're either dead, or immobilized, or otherwise hopelessly screwed by one save or lose or another. Likely, multiples.
I'd be surprised if it didn't happen on the first round.
CoDzilla wrote: Also, any approach along the lines of "get them to waste buffs on traps" really just means "party runs through traps and is better off than if they did not". Shame on your DM for that.
If they don't have things go far tougher for you barging and stomping around then why bother not doing so?
Not sure what 3,600gp item you were referring to either, was it your adamantine tool to destroy the 150gp locks that others would have collected?
-James
But what if there was a guard dog outside the door?
Ice Titan wrote: But what if there was a guard dog outside the door? ...dualwielding gongs!
But back on topic: I deas I have on fixing rogues to make them relevant:
- 12 Skill Points/lv. I really don't see a problem with having lots of skills. They are going to max the ones they need anyways. This only allows them to take the skills they WANT.
- Paladin/Ranger spell progression with access to illusion/enchantment/alteration and some other utility spells, based on INT. Magic IS better, so allow them to have the "cheats" as well.
- 1/day rogue talents become 3/day (already mentioned)
- Give them half their level as a bonus on Acrobatics and Stealth as well as Perception and Disable Device. Those two skills need a bump to scale. Our lv7 Arcane Trickster has +20 now with Boots of Elvenkind, and still can't rely on it in a pinch.
- Dagger Mastery; At lv1, a rogue can draw daggers like they were ammo for throwing purposes, and get a +1 to hit and damage with daggers, which increases by one every 6 levels thereafter, for a maximum of +4 at lv19.
CoDzilla wrote:
They have the means to get the lock because they have the resources to get the lock, by virtue of being things that are level appropriate at level 4, or 8.
This is something you decided arbitrarily, sorry. But even admitting that, people have shown that is not that impossible for the rogue open it. But see below.
Quote:
We've already covered the subject of what you do when you need to open a door covertly.
This is why I said I explained the thing improperly. I was thinking to a different situation. Say you want to open a chest property of an enemy you must spy. You have to sneak there, open the chest, see what's there, and then lock it again, and go away. Your adamantine arrow is useless now. You could bring in a new lock, but you must hope that the old one is not particular in its color and shape.
Things like this, in adventures of complicated plot, come up a lot, at least IME.
And frankly, no offense intended, but the adamantine arrow seems more of take advantage of a loophole. Caineach already said it - the Core Rulebook says that you cannot use certain tools for certain jobs (say, use a sap to cut a rope). If you want to allow the adamantine arrow cut the lock, it's up to the DM, but is just the DM being nice IMHO. Consider that the arrow is piercing - a damage type not so suitable to sunder things in general.
How easily the arrow cuts it's up to you. If in your game works, fine - but assume this for every game is preposterous.
james maissen wrote: CoDzilla wrote: Also, any approach along the lines of "get them to waste buffs on traps" really just means "party runs through traps and is better off than if they did not". Shame on your DM for that.
If they don't have things go far tougher for you barging and stomping around then why bother not doing so?
Not sure what 3,600gp item you were referring to either, was it your adamantine tool to destroy the 150gp locks that others would have collected?
-James Since you cannot Aid Another on lockpicking, you must have a +6 item in that instance, otherwise you cannot get it even on a take 20. 6 squared * 100 = 3,600.
As for why they are better off running through the trap, that's very simple.
1: Traps are trivial in PF.
2: Giving enemies time to buff makes them immensely more difficult than if they do not have time to buff.
Going slow = they have time to buff. Your own buffs wear off.
Going fast = they do not have time to buff. Your own buffs do not wear off.
So you see, slowing down to deal with traps makes things much worse because not only do you lose your advantage of momentum, you deliberately relinquish it to the enemy.
CoDzilla wrote: james maissen wrote: CoDzilla wrote: Also, any approach along the lines of "get them to waste buffs on traps" really just means "party runs through traps and is better off than if they did not". Shame on your DM for that.
If they don't have things go far tougher for you barging and stomping around then why bother not doing so?
Not sure what 3,600gp item you were referring to either, was it your adamantine tool to destroy the 150gp locks that others would have collected?
-James Since you cannot Aid Another on lockpicking, you must have a +6 item in that instance, otherwise you cannot get it even on a take 20. 6 squared * 100 = 3,600.
As for why they are better off running through the trap, that's very simple.
1: Traps are trivial in PF.
2: Giving enemies time to buff makes them immensely more difficult than if they do not have time to buff.
Going slow = they have time to buff. Your own buffs wear off.
Going fast = they do not have time to buff. Your own buffs do not wear off.
So you see, slowing down to deal with traps makes things much worse because not only do you lose your advantage of momentum, you deliberately relinquish it to the enemy. Except for the fact that no part of the rules, or realistic lockpicking, prevents someone from aiding.
Aid Another under Using Skills wrote: In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can't aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn't achieve alone. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.
Caineach wrote: CoDzilla wrote: james maissen wrote: CoDzilla wrote: Also, any approach along the lines of "get them to waste buffs on traps" really just means "party runs through traps and is better off than if they did not". Shame on your DM for that.
If they don't have things go far tougher for you barging and stomping around then why bother not doing so?
Not sure what 3,600gp item you were referring to either, was it your adamantine tool to destroy the 150gp locks that others would have collected?
-James Since you cannot Aid Another on lockpicking, you must have a +6 item in that instance, otherwise you cannot get it even on a take 20. 6 squared * 100 = 3,600.
As for why they are better off running through the trap, that's very simple.
1: Traps are trivial in PF.
2: Giving enemies time to buff makes them immensely more difficult than if they do not have time to buff.
Going slow = they have time to buff. Your own buffs wear off.
Going fast = they do not have time to buff. Your own buffs do not wear off.
So you see, slowing down to deal with traps makes things much worse because not only do you lose your advantage of momentum, you deliberately relinquish it to the enemy. Except for the fact that no part of the rules, or realistic lockpicking, prevents someone from aiding. Quote: Aid Another
You can help someone achieve success on a skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you're helping gets a +2 bonus on his or her check. (You can't take 10 on a skill check to aid another.) In many cases, a character's help won't be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help at once.
In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can't aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn't achieve alone. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.
Oh look, it specifically uses lockpicking as an example! Could that perhaps be because more than one person cannot reasonably work on such a small object? Why yes it is!
TriOmegaZero wrote: Aid Another under Using Skills wrote: In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can't aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn't achieve alone. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well. I always took that to mean you couldn't Aid Another for a skill that can't be used unskilled if you don't have that skill, basically.
In other words, you'd need to have a point in Disable Device to assist with Disable Device.
Remind them that they're a lower-tier and weaker class no more than 500 times a day. Promise them scooby snacks or bananas as rewards. The more condescending pats on the head, the better.
Dire Mongoose wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Aid Another under Using Skills wrote: In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can't aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn't achieve alone. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well. I always took that to mean you couldn't Aid Another for a skill that can't be used unskilled if you don't have that skill, basically.
In other words, you'd need to have a point in Disable Device to assist with Disable Device. this. someone else trained in disable device should be able to aid another. of course, at this point that means you now have two people in the party with disable device.
"The finger can point to the moon’s location. However, the finger is not the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger, right?"
I think that one could optimize more to reach a 40 taking 20. That's not the problem. The problem is assuming certain gamestyles as universal.
What's the lock in your games? Where is put? To protect which secret? Where is the finger? Where is the moon?
angryscrub wrote: Dire Mongoose wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Aid Another under Using Skills wrote: In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can't aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn't achieve alone. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well. I always took that to mean you couldn't Aid Another for a skill that can't be used unskilled if you don't have that skill, basically.
In other words, you'd need to have a point in Disable Device to assist with Disable Device. this. someone else trained in disable device should be able to aid another. of course, at this point that means you now have two people in the party with disable device.
Thats exactly how I read it too. And pretty much every party I have has people taking ranks in non-fundamental skills so that they can aid annother on trained only skills.
And yes, 2 people working the same lock is reasonable. I have done it before. When you have 6+ metal sticks coming out of a lock, it can be useful to have annother set of hands holding things in place.
At which point you've ignored the rules, and still said "At level 4, to deal with anything important you need one person with a maximized lockpicking skill, and a 1,600 gold item specifically to boost that skill and another person with at least a +9 modifier so they auto pass the aid another."
...Or you spend 60 gold on an adamantine bolt and never care about locks again.
CoDzilla wrote: ...Or you spend 60 gold on an adamantine bolt and never care about locks again. Hypothetically, in an arms-race-taken-to-its-ultimate-conclusion kind of world in which 150 gp locks are on everything important but people just bypass them with 60 gp adamantine bolts, wouldn't all the locks on anything important end up being made out of adamantine themselves?
But what if there was a guard dog inside the lock?
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mischievious look
What if destroying the lock with the adamantine arrow activated some kind of anti-magic field, which collapsed the ceiling of the room (magic no longer holding it up), crushing everyone in the room?
Dire Mongoose wrote: CoDzilla wrote: ...Or you spend 60 gold on an adamantine bolt and never care about locks again. Hypothetically, in an arms-race-taken-to-its-ultimate-conclusion kind of world in which 150 gp locks are on everything important but people just bypass them with 60 gp adamantine bolts, wouldn't all the locks on anything important end up being made out of adamantine themselves? But that's looking at things realistically, as if the characters were part of a larger, living world instead of the world being static outside of the adventuring party... Anyways, I've never had a problem with lower tier classes having things to do but if you are having problems with the rogue feeling overshadowed giving him more talents, or more uses of talents, more skill points, or maybe making it a little easier to sneak attack would help boost the rogue.
Also, designing encounters where the rogue's skills can be useful could help too, such as having occasional adventures where killing everything and throwing around spells is going to cause more trouble than it solves, such as anything inside a major city.
Ice Titan wrote: But what if there was a guard dog inside the lock? You just gave me an idea.
|
