I think he detected magic and then moved away. The story does not allow that range due to the map, but he did not meet the condition to set the trap off yet either.
I got a little ahead of myself when I called for the will save, but he posted while I was editing it.
You can Detect Magic from 200 feet away?
My first random roll on my dice roller app was a Nat 20. But since you won't believe that I'll roll again. 13, so 23.
Now I'll have you explain the trap to me that attacks me from 200 feet away.
No. Who said I could? I just said I cast it.
Neither. The Knock opened it. Read the spell.Make a will save.
K. I cast Dispel Magic. I roll 12, 22 total (I'm using a dice roller BTW) so caster level 11 or less. I'm guessing that doesn't work, but I'm unsure, and I immediately follow up with Knock at maximum range allowable (200 if possible, at level 10). I roll a 17, so a 37 Open Locks. I wait to see what I see when the chest pops open, and cast detect magic again.
My first random roll on my dice roller app was a Nat 20. But since you won't believe that I'll roll again. 13, so 23.
Now I'll have you explain the trap to me that attacks me from 200 feet away.You must have been typing when I made my edit. Did the wizard open it after the lock unlocked or does another party member do it?
You made the will save so you only take 2 points of con damage. Any attempt to damage the chest from any distance also forces a will save. Basically it was designed so that any attempt to break or open it without disabling the trap or uttering the prayer forces a will save.
edit:I initially mistook the disable DC for the open lock DC which is why I figured it would be very difficult for a non-rogue to open it.
Neither. The Knock opened it. Read the spell.Make a will save.
K. I cast Dispel Magic. I roll 12, 22 total (I'm using a dice roller BTW) so caster level 11 or less. I'm guessing that doesn't work, but I'm unsure, and I immediately follow up with Knock at maximum range allowable (200 if possible, at level 10). I roll a 17, so a 37 Open Locks. I wait to see what I see when the chest pops open, and cast detect magic again.
My first random roll on my dice roller app was a Nat 20. But since you won't believe that I'll roll again. 13, so 23.
Now I'll have you explain the trap to me that attacks me from 200 feet away.You must have been typing when I made my edit. Did the wizard open it after the lock unlocked or does another party member do it?
You made the will save so you only take 2 points of con damage. Any attempt to damage the chest from any distance also forces a will save. Basically it was designed so that any attempt to break or open it without disabling the trap or uttering the prayer forces a will save.
** spoiler omitted **
edit:I initially mistook the disable DC for the open lock DC which is why I figured it would be very difficult for a non-rogue to open it.
Do you mind posting a write-up of the trap as it appears in AoW?
Except, you are considering going into battle "unarmed" and "unarmored".
Not so much considering it as pointing out the absurdity of doing it.
The monk is the only class I know of silly enough to do that.
Druids can wear even less.
Yes, clanky is going to have issues running into a stealth encounter with no help. Thats why we have invisibility, silence, that sort of thing. The wizard and or rogue should be helping the party in a stealth encounter, just like they do in a combat encounter.
The rogues inability to help anyone here is part of the problem.
Hmm, what is a full plate + shield fighter looking like for stealth with invisibility cast on him? +15 or so, I'd bet. How about that rogue? +30ish at level 5. Looks like the rogue still gets to play his role, and scout ahead for enemies, find the best paths around them. Figure out places to climb over walls without avoiding notice. Yes, the other party members can still be spotted when invisible with only a +15 or so to the check. But, if they are sneaking 50-100 feet away?
Thats not always an option you have on stealth missions. Usually you have to go through an enclosed area, be it some sort of camp, cave, or keep in order to get the macguffin.
Don't split the party. Scouting out 2+ rounds away from the meat shield is a bad way to run into a pack of guard dogs, a dragon, a wizard with a seeing eye bat, an earth elemental, or the acolyte staring down a 40 foot cooridoor casting detect magic.
Different story. Invisibility is a tool to be used. It isn't perfect, and it lets everyone do the sneaky thing better. And yes, rogues can use invisibility just as well as wizards, so don't be throwing that around.
They can't use it as well. When a wizard does it he uses more renewable/cheaper resources, it lasts longer, and is harder to dispel.
The party needs to climb a wall? Rogue hops up first and scouts it out. Next, he drops a rope when it is safe.
Need more help? Silence. Easy to make wands of both of these. Whats that? The party works together to overcome a stealthy encounter, just like they work together to overcome a combat encounter.
|
Neither. The Knock opened it. Read the spell.Make a will save.
K. I cast Dispel Magic. I roll 12, 22 total (I'm using a dice roller BTW) so caster level 11 or less. I'm guessing that doesn't work, but I'm unsure, and I immediately follow up with Knock at maximum range allowable (200 if possible, at level 10). I roll a 17, so a 37 Open Locks. I wait to see what I see when the chest pops open, and cast detect magic again.
My first random roll on my dice roller app was a Nat 20. But since you won't believe that I'll roll again. 13, so 23.
Now I'll have you explain the trap to me that attacks me from 200 feet away.You must have been typing when I made my edit. Did the wizard open it after the lock unlocked or does another party member do it?
Open open the locks, fastening, ecc., don't rise the lid of the chest.
You need telekinesis or mage hand to do that.
Open open the locks, fastening, ecc., don't rise the lid of the chest.
You need telekinesis or mage hand to do that.
Knock not Open/Close
Knock (the 2nd level spell) does open the chest and unlock the lock. No other spells needed. That includes chests.
|
|
Do you mind posting a write-up of the trap as it appears in AoW?
If you want a lock that "defeat" knock I did one about 25 years ago.
You have 2 locks with a mechanism linking them on a door.
One lock is open, the other closed.
Opening one lock activate the mechanism and it close the other lock unless you have inserted a key in the keyhole of the opened lock.
When inserted key is part of the mechanism and make the second lock operate in a different way so the second lock don't close.
Using knock to open the second lock will close the first one and so on.
You can defeat the mechanism using mundane tools to block the tumbler in the second lock so that it operate ad there was the right key in it.
It is an advanced lock but well within the parameters of what can be built in Golarion.
|
|
Open open the locks, fastening, ecc., don't rise the lid of the chest.
You need telekinesis or mage hand to do that.
Knock not Open/Close
Knock (the 2nd level spell) does open the chest and unlock the lock. No other spells needed. That includes chests.
"Open" is a wonderfully indefinite word in this contest, but:
Knock opens stuck, barred, or locked doors, as well as those subject to hold portal or arcane lock. When you complete the casting of this spell, make a caster level check against the DC of the lock with a +10 bonus. If successful, knock opens up to two means of closure. This spell opens secret doors, as well as locked or trick-opening boxes or chests. It also loosens welds, shackles, or chains (provided they serve to hold something shut). If used to open an arcane locked door, the spell does not remove the arcane lock but simply suspends its functioning for 10 minutes. In all other cases, the door does not relock itself or become stuck again on its own. Knock does not raise barred gates or similar impediments (such as a portcullis), nor does it affect ropes, vines, and the like. The effect is limited by the area. Each casting can undo as many as two means of preventing access.
1) the spell never say it will move the door, lid, whatever;
2) v. o·pened, o·pen·ing, o·pens
v.tr.
1. To release from a closed or fastened position.
"To release from a closed position" is not "Make it swing 180° degrees".
3) note that it say specifically that it "does not raise barred gates or similar impediments". Similarly it should not rise a chest lid. It don't fight gravity.
The spell unstruck, unbar and unlock but don't move items to another position.
--
BTW, note that Open/close do exactly that, it move doors and lids:
You can open or close (your choice) a door, chest, box, window, bag, pouch, bottle, barrel, or other container. If anything resists this activity (such as a bar on a door or a lock on a chest), the spell fails. In addition, the spell can only open and close things weighing 30 pounds or less. Thus, doors, chests, and similar objects sized for enormous creatures may be beyond this spell's ability to affect.
Knock not Open/Close
Yes it does. You've gone passed rules lawyering in a failed attempt to support your point. It didn't work. Try something else.
i think this argument was already lost way back when the wizard took a 1 level dip in rogue. i just find the desperation entertaining to read.
i have one hand on the keyboard and another on the fork, that white chocolate rasberry cheesecake is quite yummy. got some mountain dew, gonna listen to some gish.
i think this argument was already lost way back when the wizard took a 1 level dip in rogue. i just find the desperation entertaining to read.
I think you should find the first post informative.
I have been all through the books and the discussion forums about rogue skills and it seems that you can indeed take a single level of rogue and then apply your total HD to the acquired skills. This rules discrepancy makes leveling a Rogue a pointless waste of time. Since essentially it is the same as taking 1 level of wizard and gaining every spell at every level. The entire class is bought for a SINGLE level and the only thing left exclusively to the Rogue is a collection of little talents.
This essentially makes Rogues obsolete.
Since the entire question is basically "Hey, can't you get the entire rogue class in a level?" There's nothing ludicrous, dishonest, misleading or remotely detrimental to the argument about snagging said level of rogue.
i think this argument was already lost way back when the wizard took a 1 level dip in rogue. i just find the desperation entertaining to read.I think you should find the first post informative.
I have been all through the books and the discussion forums about rogue skills and it seems that you can indeed take a single level of rogue and then apply your total HD to the acquired skills. This rules discrepancy makes leveling a Rogue a pointless waste of time. Since essentially it is the same as taking 1 level of wizard and gaining every spell at every level. The entire class is bought for a SINGLE level and the only thing left exclusively to the Rogue is a collection of little talents.
This essentially makes Rogues obsolete.
Since the entire question is basically "Hey, can't you get the entire rogue class in a level?" There's nothing ludicrous, dishonest, misleading or remotely detrimental to the argument about snagging said level of rogue.
you get part of a major ability or few in one level
trapfinding doesn't just offer the ability to disable magical traps, it gives a fat bonus that gets fatter as your rogue level increases
you get 1d6 sneak attack
and no, you don't just add your HD to skills, you have to spend the points.
if you stick with rogue, you get talents, more sneak attack dice, a better trapfinding bonus, evasion, and even the uncanny dodge line. the latter 3 are great for survivability.
and it is pretty difficult to find another class that provides the same amount of skill points with the same level of freedom to spend and distribute them.
traps are more than just an HP tax.
i have seen traps that provide ability drain and negative levels
i have also seen traps that make you wish you didn't put all your eggs in one basket either.
Since the entire question is basically "Hey, can't you get the entire rogue class in a level?" There's nothing ludicrous, dishonest, misleading or remotely detrimental to the argument about snagging said level of rogue.
OPs point was that you get trapfinding at lvl 1 and the Class Skill List, which is nice yes.
However, you only get to add 1/2 your Rogue lvl to the Perception and Disable Device skill checks so the gap in those skills widens as the characters level. (as well as if the Wiz doesn't keep putting ranks in Per and DD)
But what he didn't talk about was everything he doesn't get.
Evasion
Trap Sense
Talents (even a Wiz could benefit from those)
Uncanny Dodge (and Improved)
Sneak Attack (the rest of it)
Advanced Talents
Skills (the other billion and a half the Wiz can't keep up with)
If the argument is that RAW says "the rogue can add 1/2 her level..." and we're just going to pretend they don't mean class level then by all means, every class is only worth a one level dip. (so I'm assuming that isn't the goal here)
But yes, a 1 lvl dip in Rogue gets you Trapfinding and Skill access. Congratulations.
Since the entire question is basically "Hey, can't you get the entire rogue class in a level?" There's nothing ludicrous, dishonest, misleading or remotely detrimental to the argument about snagging said level of rogue.OPs point was that you get trapfinding at lvl 1 and the Class Skill List, which is nice yes.
However, you only get to add 1/2 your Rogue lvl to the Perception and Disable Device skill checks so the gap in those skills widens as the characters level. (as well as if the Wiz doesn't keep putting ranks in Per and DD)
But what he didn't talk about was everything he doesn't get.
Evasion
Trap Sense
Talents (even a Wiz could benefit from those)
Uncanny Dodge (and Improved)
Sneak Attack (the rest of it)
Advanced Talents
Skills (the other billion and a half the Wiz can't keep up with)If the argument is that RAW says "the rogue can add 1/2 her level..." and we're just going to pretend they don't mean class level then by all means, every class is only worth a one level dip. (so I'm assuming that isn't the goal here)
But yes, a 1 lvl dip in Rogue gets you Trapfinding and Skill access. Congratulations.
thank you for backing me.
a 1 level dip is nothing more than a single spoonful of the sweet nectar, if you want more honey, you must pay the price to get it.
in this case, class levels.
thank you for backing me.
a 1 level dip is nothing more than a single spoonful of the sweet nectar, if you want more honey, you must pay the price to get it.
in this case, class levels.
I think we typed this out at the same time
I think we typed this out at the same timethank you for backing me.
a 1 level dip is nothing more than a single spoonful of the sweet nectar, if you want more honey, you must pay the price to get it.
in this case, class levels.
we did. it's amazing how many people want the whole pot, but refuse to pay the price, so they look for ways to cheat the free spoonfuls.
the perfect system wouldn't offer those free spoonfuls.
the perfect system would attach a variable price based on how much honey you wanted to buy. in other words, we must charge by volume.
so that the free spoonfuls couldn't be cheated.
only then can we achieve true balance.
the perfect system wouldn't offer those free spoonfuls.
the perfect system would attach a variable price based on how much honey you wanted to buy. in other words, charge by volume.
so that the free spoonfuls couldn't be cheated.
only then can we achieve true balance.
-Could you explain why you think the argument was over when i took a level of rogue?
But this is not a perfect system.
A plus 1/2 your level bonus to a narrow use of one skill and the main use of another is not that huge of an advantage. Its certainly not worth the underpowered class that comes with it.
here is a quote from Alphonse Elric, the first law of alchemy is the law of equivalent exchange, to gain something, an asset of equal value must be sacrificed in the transaction
And how powerful were the normal humans in that series? Any of THEM going toe to toe with homonculi? The fact that equivalent exchange DOESN"T exist here is the point. The player gains so much by picking a caster that even if they blow what they've been given they still come out ahead of the poor schmuck that picked rogue.
oh yay, standard desperation tactic, pick on the weak link.
you just like picking on me because you have a great deal more experience in theoretical analysis than i have.
i know it's not the perfect system.
but i put a lot of effort into my honey metaphors.
gotta go out to dinner, i'll be on later.
oh yay, standard desperation tactic, pick on the weak link.
you just like picking on me because you have a great deal more experience in theoretical analysis than i have.
You disparaged my point while completely missing it. You disingenuously refer to refuting your points as a desperation tactic and play the victim because i'm proving your points wrong. If you don't want your points disproved then make valid ones.
I'm sorry, but your number are so precisely contrived to the exact number that your rogue needs for the situation to be in his favor inorder to make this point that its hard to believe that this is a genuine argument.
Actually that's just how the numbers work out. The DC is based on a spell trap that's exactly level appropriate. The skill modifiers are also perfectly reasonable. Look over them.. what's out of line? I'll go into it in more detail below.
WOW... such an amazing coincidence that you picked the exact number you needed and the right circumstances so that your rogues ability would actually be useful. At random. Its astounding!
A plus 1/2 your level bonus to a narrow use of one skill and the main use of another is not that huge of an advantage. Its certainly not worth the underpowered class that comes with it.The player gains so much by picking a caster that even if they blow what they've been given they still come out ahead of the poor schmuck that picked rogue.
Disable Device is narrow? (your DM must be running a purely hack n slash campaign)
Perception is kind of a big dealYou're comparing casters to melee classes. Fantastic.
Barb is obsolete because I can be a Druid and Rage
Monk is obsolete because I can be a Cleric and Flurry/Stunning Fist
Ranger is obsolete because I can be a Sorc with a favored enemy
Inquisitor is obsolete because I can be an Oracle with Judgement and Monster Lore
Cavalier is obsolete because I can be a Summoner with a Mount
Good argument
Hell, casters are obsolete because I'm a Rogue and I have wands.
Barb is obsolete because I can be a Druid and Rage
Monk is obsolete because I can be a Cleric and Flurry/Stunning Fist
Ranger is obsolete because I can be a Sorc with a favored enemy
Inquisitor is obsolete because I can be an Oracle with Judgement and Monster Lore
Cavalier is obsolete because I can be a Summoner with a Mount
That one might be true... ;)
Disable Device is narrow? (your DM must be running a purely hack n slash campaign)
Perception is kind of a big deal
-Perception is the narrow one i was speaking of. Most campaigns i'm in lurking monsters and clues in the room tend to be more common than traps.
Barb is obsolete because I can be a Druid and Rage
Might be true for the barbarian i don't know, i haven't tried it. This is probably true of the pre apg barbarian but not the post apg barbarian.
Monk is obsolete because I can be a Cleric and Flurry/Stunning Fist
If your argument is riding on the hopes of a monk being useful you probably want to reassess your position.
Ranger is obsolete because I can be a Sorc with a favored enemy
That doesn't synergize very well. I don't see a sorcerer tracking either.
Inquisitor is obsolete because I can be an Oracle with Judgement and Monster Lore
How well does that work?
Cavalier is obsolete because I can be a Summoner with a Mount
You need a better BAB to pull that one off. Druid can do it fairly well though.
Good argument
Hell, casters are obsolete because I'm a Rogue and I have wands.
Ok, cast a 5th level spell, or anything that requires a save.
WORDS WORDS WORDS
why are you writing your posts inside quotes?
anyway... all of my examples of blank is obsolete because blank is what you can extrapolate from your terrible assumption that a 1 lvl dip into Rogue makes the entire class obsolete.
But since we're doing this for the Wizard now, I don't need to cast anything higher than 4th level. I am only replacing the Wizard. We do have a Cleric or Druid in the party. And I can cast Haste off my Wand. Don't really need you to do much else.
So let's turn this around. Give me some spells that in a balanced campaign thats got Monsters, Puzzles, Traps, Diplomacy etc, that I NEEEEEED to get by and we'll see if my other party members can fill in the void.
Rogue
Fighter
Cleric
Ranger
Use magic device works on staffs too. It can also emulate ability scores. So, based on this argument, anyone who feels like picking up use magic device as a skill can do everything a wizard can, minus metamagic feats. Seems like a pretty fair trade off for a loss of 1 skill point per level. Perhaps a few others to bump up your stats. By your own logic, All casters are obsoleted by the rogue.
Ok, cast a 5th level spell, or anything that requires a save.
Eh, staves don't really work that way.
But with infinite gold you would be correct.Or another caster to imbue the staff.
why are you writing your posts inside quotes?
Accident. Ignore the Illuminati conspiracy. There is no hidden message here.
anyway... all of my examples of blank is obsolete because blank is what you can extrapolate from your terrible assumption that a 1 lvl dip into Rogue makes the entire class obsolete.
This simply does not follow logically. The different classes give different abilities at different level. How front loaded each class is is independent of how front loaded the other classes are.
But since we're doing this for the Wizard now, I don't need to cast anything higher than 4th level. I am only replacing the Wizard. We do have a Cleric or Druid in the party. And I can cast Haste off my Wand. Don't really need you to do much else.
I'd like to see you try that within a reasonable wbl.
So let's turn this around. Give me some spells that in a balanced campaign thats got Monsters, Puzzles, Traps, Diplomacy etc, that I NEEEEEED to get by and we'll see if my other party members can fill in the void.
You've moved the goal post. Its not what you can get by with. The question is can you replace the wizard on a reasonable level and still have enough rougue left over to be useful. Keep that in mind for the exercise.
Pretty much anything that takes a large group quickly out of a fight or nukes a single target.
Some of my favorites.
Grease, glitter dust,fireball, baleful poly (yes the druid can do it),
blind/deafen (cleric can do it but later) hideous laughter, rope trick, Daylight, dispel magic, Fly, hold person, lightning bolt, stinking cloud, black tentacles, charm monster, DImension door /teleport et all, dimensional anchor (needed for the occasional annoying teleporting wizard) Magic jar (highly, highly underrated spell and absolutely gamebreaking if used correctly) wall of stone (versatile as hell)
But since we're doing this for the Wizard now, I don't need to cast anything higher than 4th level.
- I don't know how you decide that you don't need to cast anything higher than 4th.
Grease, glitter dust,fireball, baleful poly (yes the druid can do it),
blind/deafen (cleric can do it but later) hideous laughter, rope trick, Daylight, dispel magic, Fly, hold person, lightning bolt, stinking cloud, black tentacles, charm monster, DImension door /teleport et all, dimensional anchor (needed for the occasional annoying teleporting wizard) Magic jar (highly, highly underrated spell and absolutely gamebreaking if used correctly) wall of stone (versatile as hell)
Grease - to make them fall? Probably some minions that are easily handled by the Rogue damage
Glitterdust - early purpose to blind, later for invisible dudes. Wand of Glitterdust is actually very appropriate here
Fireball - same as grease. if the ball can kill them, so can the sneak attacky rogue with Mobility and Acrobatics checks
Hideous Laughter - no answer
Rope Trick - we tough it out in camp
Daylight - is a cute trick, I'm a Half-Elf, sorry, just need a little light, cantrip
Dispel magic - depends, Disable Device for the traps, scrolls of Dispel Magic here
etc and so on and so forth
spells that I would enjoy: teleport, tentacles, and the occasional Hold Person/Monster but alas, what can you do?
No. Just no.
Grease - to make them fall? Probably some minions that are easily handled by the Rogue damage
Its nasty on any melee type (fighter npc or high str. monster) Or before all the wizards are flying can stop them from just moving/5 foot stepping away from the melee
Using it as a wand isn't very effective, because the dc on the wand is 11.
Glitterdust - early purpose to blind, later for invisible dudes. Wand of Glitterdust is actually very appropriate here-
it won't blind very well. The DC is only 12. It is nice to keep around, although 4.5k for a wand of it may be a bit steep.
Fireball - same as grease. if the ball can kill them, so can the sneak attacky rogue with Mobility and Acrobatics checks
-Sure, if the rogue can get off 15 rounds of sneak attacks.
Hideous Laughter - no answer
Rope Trick - we tough it out in camp
-Some DM's make camping out more dangerous than the dungeon.
Daylight - is a cute trick, I'm a Half-Elf, sorry, just need a little light, cantrip
-Daylight is mostly for those under dark monsters that like to cast deeper darkness.
spells that I would enjoy: teleport, tentacles, and the occasional Hold Person/Monster but alas, what can you do?
- Ditch the rogue. You're never going to be able to afford these when they're useful.
The only way to make a rogue THAT much better at removing traps than someone with just maxed out ranks and an intro course to thievery is to gimp your combat value horribly. The trap specialist rogue above has all the combat value of a deflated rubber chicken.
Combat is both more common and more important (life threatening) than traps. It doesn't make sense to skew the party away from the more common more important task in favor of the less important less vital task.
oh yay, standard desperation tactic, pick on the weak link.
you just like picking on me because you have a great deal more experience in theoretical analysis than i have.
You disparaged my point while completely missing it. You disingenuously refer to refuting your points as a desperation tactic and play the victim because i'm proving your points wrong. If you don't want your points disproved then make valid ones.
why did i think the argument was over when you took that rogue level?
because i find it silly that on the debate of a classes value, that the class you think can do better had to dip a level of the class you were trying to make a case about being lacking in value.
in other words, you were supporting the wizard being superior to the rogue and suddenly had to dip a level of rogue to prove your wizard was a better rogue than a rogue. no longer is it a pure wizard but a multiclass character. i believe that the 1 rogue level is the dirt that ruined that pot of honey.
the rogue and the wizard shouldn't be judged against each other
a wizard with sufficient uninterrupted time and funds can outperform anyone
a rogue doesn't need to use spells to provide temporary skill enhancement and doesn't need to blow the actions.
i admit that a wizard who can gaurantee himself the ability to benefit from his spells at all times can outperform the rogue in some aspects through the spells
lets look at a similar case i am more familiar with due to personal experience
fighter VS Inquisitor
a fighter can be quite an effective combatant, but has to wisely invest passive resources, like the rogue does with skills
and inquisitor who spends enough actions buffing himself can hit harder than the fighter and is a better combatant than a similarly built cleric for so many rounds per day.
they are similar in total vacuum DPR
but like the wizard, the inquisitor is better when there are fewer encounters in a day, and especially good when multiple encounters were rolled into one bigger one. much like how the wizard benefits greatly from the 15 minute adventure day.
why did i think the argument was over when you took that rogue level?
because i find it silly that on the debate of a classes value, that the class you think can do better had to dip a level of the class you were trying to make a case about being lacking in value.
-The debate is the value of the rogue AFTER the first level.
i admit that a wizard who can gaurantee himself the ability to benefit from his spells at all times can outperform the rogue in some aspects through the spells
Even without spells its not that big of a loss unless the rogue is specifically specialized towards one particular task: usually making them useless in combat.
lets look at a similar case i am more familiar with due to personal experience
fighter VS Inquisitor
The difference here is that in combat you have a limited number of rounds to buff.. usually while the combat is happening. For sneaking/opening doors etc you usually have extra time to putter around a bit before the attempt
but like the wizard, the inquisitor is better when there are fewer encounters in a day, and especially good when multiple encounters were rolled into one bigger one. much like how the wizard benefits greatly from the 15 minute adventure day.
Which is the hallmark of sloppy GM'ing, and the reason the classes become so unbalanced.
I agree with Big Dog, i have had entire sessions with no combat, but lots of skill checks.
with Weekly William, i have been around entire multiple session long situations where the party has wished they had a rogue.
instead of 4 normal encounters
we get 2 or 3 mega encounters that effectively amount to a combination of 6 CR appropriate encounters
the perfect DM for an inquisitor.
Ok, so the full rogue is the best at finding traps and disarming traps without doing anything to optimize for them.
By a small bit. And with enough knock spells it gets kind of questionable.
We've already pointed out that he handles them better than your rogue/wizard optimized for the task. You can build a rogue purely for combat and he is still excellent at finding traps.
But still gets blown away in combat by the wizard and the level of nukage is going to increase exponentially as the level increases.
Traps are not the only thing rogues are excellent at. They are competent across most of the skill spectrum. If your DM isn't having you use skills both in combat and out of combat, he's doing it wrong. I've played entire sessions, and I know others who have as well, where combat never occurred.
So have I. And unless a rogue further gimps himself he's not going to bring much to the table except rank +modifier.
Guess how much skills factored into these evenings? The purely combat optimized front line guys hate these sessions, as well they should, they usually had 1 skill point per level. Combat optimization isn't always the best route.
There is an ENORMOUS difference between being mechanically able to use skills to meet a social challange and the ability to enjoy a role playing session. My CG hippie Elven alchemist doesn't have any social skills except for bluff. To get the town to do something i convinced the paladin/the paladin's player it was a good idea. He spent 15 seconds solving a mystery of who was making the locals act crazy (it wa farie dragons) , had a lovely chat with the dragons about a lot of things and started a garden for them. Bandied sexual inuendos with a gnoll, danced with an (invisible) fairie dragon during the ball and by the end of the night had the farie dragon go visible because IT was getting worried about the ALCHEMISTS sanity.
It was a blast.
the rogue does get some rewards past that first level, they aren't as much as other classes have to offer, but they are nice to have in a variety of circumstances.
and i enjoy that fact that i handed Weekly William a stack of printed Grimtooth packets from my personal computer.
makes survival feel much more rewarding
and as a note, before i printed those packets, i spent a lot of free time during a 30 day period attempting to make the traps even nastier via microsoft word. it was a pain to do all that editing. but it was fun at the same time.
when you incorporate the bad habit of the 15 minute adventure day, any spellcasting class becomes drastically better than it's noncasting counterpart.
Weekly William's compound encounters method gives more mileage out of various buffs, and gives more reason to heal downed PCs
and rather than using lone baddies, he uses smaller but still nasty opponents and tactics.
there is nothing as lethal as facing multiple massive swarms of mooks that still have a good chance of harming you. and lot of them have contingincies against evocation. such as consumables.
and because he uses the Grimtooth packets i handed him, survival feels more rewarding and players still feel that they are still mortal.
detect magic can easily be stopped by a thin sheet of lead.
any smart trapsmith would have discovered that weakness several centuries ago.
and lead is not really that difficult to come by.
lead lining negates the whole detect magic problem.
now the trap is in the rogue's favor again.
The main problem with the rogue is that, in a standard 4-person party, you can get everything he brings to the table and more from other character classes.
If your party already has a fighter, wizard, and cleric, then an archivist bard runs circles around the rogue. He finds and disables magical traps, out-socials the rogue by a wide margin, and brings team buffs that more than make up for the rogue's damage while still being a competent secondary combatant.
If the fighter in the above group is replaced by a paladin or a cavalier who can handle social interactions for the party, then an urban or trapper ranger makes a better addition to the party since he can handle traps just as well as the rogue while also being a full-BAB combatant (who can also handle wilderness duties in the case of the trapper).
The issue is not that the rogue's abilities can be distributed out among other party members. As has been stated, that is true for any character class. The issue is how incredibly easy it is to distribute those abilities. Building a party for serious adventuring that lacks a full-BAB character requires a significant amount of optimization and coordination of character builds amongst the party. However, building a party without a rogue is pretty much trivially easy, and sadly enough, often actually results in a better party that's also more fun for each player since there will be less situations where characters will be rendered spectators. Eliminating the designated skill-monkey role actually keeps players more engaged and results in less nodding off, playing on smartphones, side conversations, etc since everyone has more to do.
When did the rogue get blown away in combat by your character? You had 3, maybe 4 spells useful in an offensive combat situation, beyond your cantrips. At level 5. Thats about one per battle.
Do it right and thats all it takes. Do you want me to crank out the level 10 version or do you realize whats going to happen at that point?
Beyond that, you were finding ways to do sneak attack damage so your 1d6 attacks did 2d6 with your +1d6 sneak attack. Congrats, that is not combat effective over an entire day compared to someone at even a 3/4 fighter level.
And the rogue isn't going to get to sneak attack all that often. Its great and memorable when they do but the fact is that the sneak attack is not nearly as often as people would like.
I'm also giving the front line fighters a +2 on all their attacks effectively, due to flanking. That easily matches your "enlarge person" spell.
Would you like to explain how you plan on surviving if there's more than one combatant? Those flanking rules go more than one way.
Lowering yourself to 4 offensive spells (cantrips don't count) is terrible for a level five caster. You speak of gimping your combat ability by trying to be a rogue? The rogue gimps none of it to be acceptable at combat. The wizard has to give up far more combat ability to be an effective rogue replacement.
If more juice is needed the spelllist can be tweaked.
Knock replaces trapfinding? No. Just no.
Trapfinding blows chunks. its a tiny bonus compared to everything else.
Additionally, the rogue's combat effectiveness requires only that he remains with hitpoints (wand) and removed status effects. Again, this can also be handled by a wand. The wizard's effectiveness degrades over time, the rogue stays constant.
But the wizards grows as he levels. The rogue's shrinks.
Also, magic aura.detect magic can easily be stopped by a thin sheet of lead.
any smart trapsmith would have discovered that weakness several centuries ago.
and lead is not really that difficult to come by.
lead lining negates the whole detect magic problem.
now the trap is in the rogue's favor again.
but lead lining is more easily affordable by most trapsmiths.
and that lead lining means the poor wizard doesn't get his 60 foot distance.
the rogue has a talent that allows a 10 foot buffer zone, that can't be stopped by a simple lead lining. and the rogue has defensive abilities designed to help him survive traps. and these anti trap defenses grow stronger with your rogue level.
i don't see how the wizard will get these contingencies with only a single rogue level.
and a smart DM will place that lead lining on every trap he uses. not just so the rogue can feel useful. but to distinguish a sense of diversity in the party.