| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No no I think you need to add me at the end with my fists in the air, shaking them at the heavens and roaring "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"
Let me try and clear something up here:
Nobody is saying that Rogues are terrible so anyone that likes to play Rogues is terrible and should feel bad. Nobody is saying that Rogues are terrible and it is great that they are terrible because we hate Rogues.
What is happening is that people are pointing out how Rogues are weak in an effort to get them fixed. Rogues need more power--they need help.
Look at it this way: People complained about Monks since the game was released, and they've gotten some attention and help--maybe not enough, but some. Perhaps if enough is done to point out the flaw in Rogues, similar help will be given to them.
If you love Rogues, why do you not want them to be better? If you think they're already awesome, don't you want them to be more 'awesome?'
MPL if I say that I think rogues should have full BAB or maybe some jetpacks or hoverboards or something, can I get a hug? I just kinda want to hug this out because I feel pretty bad.
j/k I don't have feelings
But I mean the hug thing is still totally out there.
Two rugged backslaps only, no tears.
I promise
MPL if I say that I think rogues should have full BAB or maybe some jetpacks or hoverboards or something, can I get a hug? I just kinda want to hug this out because I feel pretty bad.j/k I don't have feelings
But I mean the hug thing is still totally out there.
Two rugged backslaps only, no tears.
I promise
If I hug you, will you tell me what your goal in this thread (or any other where you go off like this) is?
/hug
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me try and clear something up here:
Nobody is saying that Rogues are terrible so anyone that likes to play Rogues is terrible and should feel bad. Nobody is saying that Rogues are terrible and it is great that they are terrible because we hate Rogues.
What is happening is that people are pointing out how Rogues are weak in an effort to get them fixed. Rogues need more power--they need help.
Look at it this way: People complained about Monks since the game was released, and they've gotten some attention and help--maybe not enough, but some. Perhaps if enough is done to point out the flaw in Rogues, similar help will be given to them.
If you love Rogues, why do you not want them to be better? If you think they're already awesome, don't you want them to be more 'awesome?'
first i have a rogue in my group that does 9d6 +6 at level 3 in my group, they dont need to be "fixed".
to answer your question
1 a warrior needs to be thrown a bone in many fights. do you think any sentient being will run face first at a hevily armed and armored being while being undergeared comparatively?
HELL NO! the gm tosses them mooks and situation that will let that big 2 hnaded fighter do well. play a fighter and fight nothing but ghosts, lets see how much fun you have in that game.
each game needs to be tailored, or in the case of APs low level enough, for anyone who sits at the table can have fun. period end of discussion.
second, if you want to play a alchemist play one. if you want to play a rogue play one. not everyone likes alchemists.
hold on I'm counting silently in my head because I don't want the hug to go on longer than it should because that just makes things awkward and wait I forgot what number I was on and oh man ABORT ABORT YOU ARE NOT CLEAR TO BUZZ THE TOWER
Oh, but as for my goal in this thread it's really just basically to talk about rogues.
So like, if you were going to build a butterfly's sting crit fisher whose main goal is to set up a x4 homerun hitter with a two-hander for the big shots, what class other than a rogue would you use due to the need to mitigate the crit fisher's horrendous low-end damage especially at levels under say 8?
I know probably Magus, but come on I hear enough voices without having a sword that talks to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None so blind as those who refuse to see.
A ranger in a dungeon is still full BAB. He has proficiency in all martial weapons, not just bows. But if he does focus on bows he can get improved precise shot at 6th level and hit just fine with his bow while not having to jockey for space at the front in the narrow corridors you seem to like.
He has spells like Lead Blades and Gravity Bow and Longstrider and...
Oh noes! Some crappy spells with uber specific uses which are dependent on having a decent Wisdom and time to rest up in between might somehow derail the Rogue's utility!
Really? That's your best shot? Sigh. The nice thing about a group with a Rogue and a Fighter is that you can dungeon crawl for long periods without rest, which is really handy since I run my monsters intelligently. They have no problem calling for reinforcements or ambushing the party while they sleep. As DM, I fight dirty, that's the point of running villains. The only thing that slows them down is the spell capacity of the Cleric and Sorcerer, but since they have found a pair of Cure Light wands in the last adventure, they don't much care. As it is, those wands are a freak bit of luck that they use sparingly. I didn't write the module, and I know how useful they are.
As for weapon proficiency, that's so very nice, but typically the damage die only counts in the first few experience levels, and then it is outshadowed easily by all the bonuses to damage. Sneak attack dice are pretty handy, did you know that? Those missile weapons won't help the other players, whose characters would prefer to have a flanking bonus so THEY can do something in a fight, too. Like say, the Cleric. Plus, no attack of opportunity for using a melee weapon, unlike a bow, at 5 foot range.
Oh, I'm blind! I must have been punished for either doing something kinky (checks palms for hair) or disagreeing with the peanut gallery! (written with much humor)
Guys, really. Ultimately I find the Rogue to be darned handy to have around in a dungeon crawl. I might be convinced in a wilderness setting to have a Ranger instead, or even a Bard, but in the dungeon the Rogue is king. Of course, you are welcome to travel long distance and game with me sometime to see what I mean while I run a prewritten adventure and kick your collective butts under the same conditions my other players have, but I kinda doubt it would get that far.
Let's just leave it that I disagree with your point that the poor Rogue is incompetent compared to the rest of the classes, kay?
(shakes head) Try to take this post in the *mildly* mocking mood it was intended, and not throw a fit. Video games and the ability to do math do not mean you understand tactics well. It just means you know how to create a character in a vacuum, without the influence of a setting or PC group you play with. I'm pretty sure my players are having fun, as am I.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to thank some of the posters in this thread for calling me dumb and stupid as a DM. Since the Rogue sometimes has trouble holding his own in the game it must be my fault. Or I know even better the guy playing the Rogue. Oh and thank you for telling me all the tacticas I already knew to make a Rogue effective. I would have never taught to use a Tanglefoot bag. No really. Flnaking opponents with the Fighter. By facless visor of Gorum my eyes they have been opened.
I respect the desire to defend the Rogue as a class. Coming into a thread any calling DMs who find Rogues weaker in a game incompetent etc. Not cool. Nor is acting like those who play them are useless and dont know what they are doing. Defend the class also try and keep the acts on people who disagree with you to a minimum.
hold on I'm counting silently in my head because I don't want the hug to go on longer than it should because that just makes things awkward and wait I forgot what number I was on and oh man ABORT ABORT YOU ARE NOT CLEAR TO BUZZ THE TOWEROh, but as for my goal in this thread it's really just basically to talk about rogues.
So like, if you were going to build a butterfly's sting crit fisher whose main goal is to set up a x4 homerun hitter with a two-hander for the big shots, what class other than a rogue would you use due to the need to mitigate the crit fisher's horrendous low-end damage especially at levels under say 8?
I know probably Magus, but come on I hear enough voices without having a sword that talks to me.
I wouldn't make the crit-fisher a Magus, but I would make the clean up hitter a Kensai Magus (so they can boost their weapon's crit to x5 with Arcana).
I'd make the crit fisher pretty much anything with Full BAB that can dual wield--probably a Ranger or Fighter. There's no reason you need alternate sources of damage--any dual wielder can do adequate damage, especially when considering his real contribution is more crits for their buddy.
Oh, and make sure both of them have Outflank and Paired Opportunist (and Gang Up if your GM reads Paired Opportunist disadvantageously).
Yeah I think the Kukri thing is pretty much a given, especially since Wakazashi's are a no-no in this particular game. But is the favored terrain and favored enemy thing really going to be a match for sneak attacks, especially since with Butterfly's Sting you're most likely going with Outflank and Pair Opportunists as well for ping-pong AoO's and such?
I'm sure Ashiel has probably covered this but I'm afraid to ask him
Yeah I think the Kukri thing is pretty much a given, especially since Wakazashi's are a no-no in this particular game. But is the favored terrain and favored enemy thing really going to be a match for sneak attacks, especially since with Butterfly's Sting you're most likely going with Outflank and Pair Opportunists as well for ping-pong AoO's and such?I'm sure Ashiel has probably covered this but I'm afraid to ask him
I think the reason people are advocating full BAB people for the TWF slot is because you really don't want to whiff. I suppose if the crit is crucial and the other hits don't matter, it's all good. However mathematically a TWF will usually have inferior DPS to a full BAB class doing it.
Rangers are particularly good for this because they don't have to make the big dex investment for TWF and can focus on str thus not giving up damage.
hold on I'm counting silently in my head because I don't want the hug to go on longer than it should because that just makes things awkward and wait I forgot what number I was on and oh man ABORT ABORT YOU ARE NOT CLEAR TO BUZZ THE TOWEROh, but as for my goal in this thread it's really just basically to talk about rogues.
So like, if you were going to build a butterfly's sting crit fisher whose main goal is to set up a x4 homerun hitter with a two-hander for the big shots, what class other than a rogue would you use due to the need to mitigate the crit fisher's horrendous low-end damage especially at levels under say 8?
I know probably Magus, but come on I hear enough voices without having a sword that talks to me.
I wouldn't make the crit-fisher a Magus, but I would make the clean up hitter a Kensai Magus (so they can boost their weapon's crit to x5 with Arcana).
I'd make the crit fisher pretty much anything with Full BAB that can dual wield--probably a Ranger or Fighter. There's no reason you need alternate sources of damage--any dual wielder can do adequate damage, especially when considering his real contribution is more crits for their buddy.
Oh, and make sure both of them have Outflank and Paired Opportunist (and Gang Up if your GM reads Paired Opportunist disadvantageously).
Only thing I don't like about the fighter in this case in the lower level ranges is a really solid way to add some sort of supplemental damage to the kukri attacks. They can just go feat crazy but there isn't too much to add more oomph to their little bee-sting kukri attacks.
Omg I'm sorry fighters I still love you though.
And yeah I'm already ioun-stones-deep on the Outflank and Paired Opportunist tip. As for Gang-up, I arm-wrestled my GM for the right to make him admit that I count as my own ally for that.
j/k I just bribed him
|
|
I think you have rather different GM expectations than some of the rest of us. I expect the GM to run the monsters in a fashion which reflects actions that would follow from their intelligence and information available.
Monsters doing abjectly stupid things is possible if they are abjectly stupid monsters, but creatures of at least average or even close to average smarts won't step into a flank, allowing them to be exposed. This is not exactly rocket science.
What you describe as GMing properly amounts to willing suspension of belief to facilitate a shared story. There's nothing wrong with that if you happen to like playing that way. However it has nothing whatsoever to do with the rules as written or the roots of this game.
You might want to hearken back to the original days of Gygax and how he ran things. It was not the Hello Kitty world you seem to picture. In his version (and he did invent the game after all- mostly) lives were nasty, brutish, and short.
wow you take everything to the up most degree in your counter argument.
you cant speak in realistic terms at all can you?first lets cut through your hyperbole, if you as a gm make your action blatant then yes people will most likely be mad. but lets take simple fight:
RxxEx
xxxFE
xxxxx
r= rogue
E= enemy
F= fighter
if e moved into a position flanking with the fighter, he would net a +2 but put himself into a terrible position. a intelligent person wouldnt do that, but for the sake of the rogue who will obliterate that enemey the NPC decides to do it anyway.
EVERYONE IS HAPPY, no one realises that you did that to throw the rogue a bone, but i do this every now and then when i gm and my player love playing in my games.
i dont hand hold or make things easier then they need be just to compensate for the rogue, i only let the rogue do his thing so he is happy. that is my NUMBER 1 JOB as a gm.
as i said before, read the GM guide and it says that in black and white.
first i have a rogue in my group that does 9d6 +6 at level 3 in my group, they dont need to be "fixed".
Ok, 2d6 from Sneak Attack and 1d6 for a weapon. I guess this is someone dual wielding? 3d6 on each swing, +2 on the main hand and +1 on the off? Where's the last 3d6 coming from? Does this person have a Speed weapon somehow or something?
Can you clarify how this is happening?
If you explain the conditions (wealth, houserules, etc.), then I can show you how another character can easily out do him.
to answer your question
1 a warrior needs to be thrown a bone in many fights. do you think any sentient being will run face first at a hevily armed and armored being while being undergeared comparatively?
I don't see how this answers either question. Are you suggesting other classes are also underpowered and should be fixed as well?
play a fighter and fight nothing but ghosts, lets see how much fun you have in that game.
Yeah, I have played Carrion Crown, thanks, and book 1 sucked for everyone but the spellcasters and Paladin.
second, if you want to play a alchemist play one. if you want to play a rogue play one. not everyone likes alchemists.
I didn't say anyone should play an alchemist, I suggested that it might be better if the Rogue and Alchemist were equally good choices mechanically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I understand it, the two positions in this thread are:
A - Rogues are mechanically inferior to other classes, especially if you use the right archetype,
B - Yeah, but I'm having tons of fun with my rogue anyway.
Has anything meaningful been added to these two positions for the last couple of pages worth of replies?
As for Gang-up, I arm-wrestled my GM for the right to make him admit that I count as my own ally for that.
j/k I just bribed him
Ha, you didn't need to--Kensai can get a familiar to use Gang Up with for an Arcana. I was referring to the idea that the free attack from Paired Opportunist works regardless of positioning. Some argue the whole thing only works while adjacent, whereas I believe only the +4 requires being adjacent.
1 a warrior needs to be thrown a bone in many fights. do you think any sentient being will run face first at a hevily armed and armored being while being undergeared comparatively?HELL NO! the gm tosses them mooks and situation that will let that big 2 hnaded fighter do well. play a fighter and fight nothing but ghosts, lets see how much fun you have in that game.
Huh. I don't run games like that. I just have my baddies take merciless advantage of unarmored characters, and generally try to wipe out the PC's. They ARE bad guys, remember? They fight the warrior types because those guys get in the way, or the mook in question is unintelligent by design (skeletons, golems etc).
Why else do you think beasties target spellcasters? It's because those tend to be squishy and it hoses over the PC's as a whole because their offense and recovery starts lacking.
I use mooks because they are cheap and expendable, not because I want the Fighter to feel busy. I don't pull my punches unless someone has a spectacular streak of bad dice luck, like the time one of my friends made a Rogue that lost his weapon at the start of every combat, and couldn't keep ahold of his rapier to save his hide. Kept rolling nat 1's and confirming the fumble.
But I digress.
There's nothing wrong with the Rogue. The only thing I've seen that's screwy so far with Pathfinder is that some of the PC races are MUCH weaker than the others used for PC races. That, and the Summoner (NPC's shouldn't outshine the PC's).
Not sure how you would use Paired opportunists and Outflank at the same time.But the Ranger Str damage while getting access to twf and to hit bonus are probably going to be a pretty big difference compared to the Rogue, not to mention Rogues don't actually have proficiency in the Kukri so there's that too.
I might do it with a Rogue/Fighter but I assumed you meant pure class Rogue.
The AoO triggered from Outflank crit triggers the AoO from Paired Opportunists back to the crit fisher. You can argue by RAW that you won't get the +4 bonus to hit on the AoO but the rest could pretty much queue up a couple hundred argument posts.
Biggest advantage of the fighter is the ability to get all the feats you need to start passing the crit by pretty much level 4. You're not hitting for much, but that's not your job.
Actually, I think a couple of us do want the rogue to go away. It's mechanically and thematically redundant and the main mechanical niche is something I think makes the game worse by existing.I did actually say the same thing a few pages back--but to clarify, I only want the class to go away, I still want the concept to remain (which, hey it already exists in other forms!). But I'd also be happy if they just made the Rogue worth being in the first place.
As I understand it, the two positions in this thread are:
A - Rogues are mechanically inferior to other classes, especially if you use the right archetype,
B - Yeah, but I'm having tons of fun with my rogue anyway.
Has anything meaningful been added to these two positions for the last couple of pages worth of replies?
Nope. Just face palming.
EVERYONE IS HAPPY, no one realises that you did that to throw the rogue a bone, but i do this every now and then when i gm and my player love playing in my games.
Er, how does everyone ever not notice that you did that to throw the Rogue a bone? That seems extremely obvious.
|
|
then I can show you how another character can easily out do him.
this is the wrong mentality for this game, i honestly feel like im on the wow forums right now reading QQ about how the grass is greener, sometimes.
i dont care if you can out do me, 9d6 + 6 at level 1 is way more then you need.I don't see how this answers either question. Are you suggesting other classes are also underpowered and should be fixed as well?
it answers the question perfectly, all classes are weak if a gm chooses to make them so. and no this is not GM fiat (learn what that word means if you're going to use it, not directed @mplindustries) in a non AP home game, or even some PFS modules, your character will feel weak at times.
play a fighter and fight nothing but ghosts, lets see how much fun you have in that game.
Yeah, I have played Carrion Crown, thanks, and book 1 sucked for everyone but the spellcasters and Paladin.
I didn't say anyone should play an alchemist, I suggested that it might be better if the Rogue and Alchemist were equally good choices mechanically.
you chose alchemist as an example of power, i chose alchemist as a level of power also. let me be more to the point.
if you want to play a fighter play a fighter
if you want to play a rogue play a rogue
if you want to play a paladin play a paladin
if you want to play a summoner play a summoner.
see how that works. its not just limited to alchemists. you play what you want to play. dont like rogues and you think a bard is better, play that. i like rogues, and i think they are in a very good place compared to 3.5. asking for more is like QQ at blizzard to make class x better because that other guy hits harder.
just play the class that makes you happy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here we are again, only this time its "rogues" instead of "monks".
And lo, many of the same pooh-poohers, issuing the same sort of black and white cut and dry edicts proving rogue suckitude and decrying the unbalanced nature of the differing classes.
I see "dpr analysis" head to head battles full BAB against 3/4 BAB class against engineered and tailored monsters showing how rogues suck.....just like in the "why do monks suck so bad" threads.
I see "your personal experiences dont matter, hard numbers matter, see above DPR comparisons" arguments.....just like in the "why do monks suck so bad" threads.
I see "XYZ classes do it better" arguments just like in the "why do monks suck so bad" threads.
I see a bunch of people talking about a rogue in a 1 on 1 situation, not relying on his party members for buffs, flanks, tactics and other common occurrences that happen in a party....just like in the "why do monks suck so bad" threads.
I even saw someone (Ashiel, I think, who's opinion I respect mostly) even bring up the "just like people who think blaster casters are a good idea" argument....just like in the "why do monks suck so bad" threads.
I think the only good news is, that apparently the last 3 months of monk bashing are at an end, and now its Paladin alignment bashing and rogue DPR bashing.
Monks must be good now.
Blastercasters, beware! For March will soon be upon us, and I see a bevy of "why do blasting wizards suck so much" threads coming up.
Until then, I reckon rogues will just have to be the apex of dpr suckitude and theorycrafting angst.
first i have a rogue in my group that does 9d6 +6 at level 3 in my group, they dont need to be "fixed".
Ninja?
1d6 weapon, 2d6 Sneak Attack, TWfing, Ki bonus attack = 9d6 +6 assuming +2 on each weapon (Str +1, +1 weapon).But no one is discussing Ninja, it is Rogue that is weak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Er, how does everyone ever not notice that you did that to throw the Rogue a bone? That seems extremely obvious.
You have to underplay yout NPCs as idiots as Rogues suck that bad. He is saying. He is saying yes they suck, but he is okay with that.
|
|
You have to underplay yout NPCs as idiots as Rogues suck that bad. He is saying. He is saying yes they suck, but I'm okay with that.
Er, how does everyone ever not notice that you did that to throw the Rogue a bone? That seems extremely obvious.
the actual implied meaning was that you need to play npc's to real life. not every guy in the military can make a great decision every time in a firefight, if you think monsters are infallible then you perception of reality is very very skewed.
the situation painted before was that he saw an opening and that I as the gm sitting in a room casually observing a make believe battle in front of me wouldnt (or shouldnt) make that mistake. but "when you're in the shit" you dont act that same way so he took it and died.
dont believe me? ask a veteran of any major war.
im getting the feeling that people play this game like chess without taking RP in account. if you ignore RP in combat, then this conversation is over because we will never see eye to eye.
Wow this is a fairly interesting thread. I've never considered the Rogue to be lacking. As a matter of fact at our table it is the rogue that is often dealing out the most pain.
I find that 75% of the time he is either going first, using stealth, flanking and/or feinting all of which allow him to use his sneak attack and when he is isn't doing any of those he is charging (via the scout option).
In addition without him I think the party would have died 9x over due to traps not to mention good recon.
Yeah, seen this all before. In the discussion of how strong the rogue is, what is often being missed is the use of stealth, ranged and initiative control.
E.g. rogue scouts out targets. Moves up to within 30, the rest move up to about 50-60, with the bonus to their stealth from distance to cover their average to weak stealth checks. If they are detected, the targets start to move to the party but the rogue is still hidden. You can play with angles here to get some great crossing fire. Rogue sneak attacks with ranged, wins initiative, sneak attacks with another single shot and retreats to the cover of the hidden party. Rest of party busts out. Rogue enters melee with feinting, tumbling or 5, move and another sneak attack if the opening is there. Or they shoot the enemies in the face while the rest of the pcs are the sudden wall of advancing steel and spells.
Basic stuff, it isn't about DPR an full round attacks, it is about using stealth, then sneak attacking, sneak attacking again and doing just so much in the very early rounds.
|
|
Here we are again, only this time its "rogues" instead of "monks".
And lo, many of the same pooh-poohers, issuing the same sort of black and white cut and dry edicts proving rogue suckitude and decrying the unbalanced nature of the differing classes.
I see "dpr analysis" head to head battles full BAB against 3/4 BAB class against engineered and tailored monsters showing how rogues suck.....just like in the "why do monks suck so bad" threads.
I see "your personal experiences dont matter, hard numbers matter, see above DPR comparisons" arguments.....just like in the "why do monks suck so bad" threads.
I see "XYZ classes do it better" arguments just like in the "why do monks suck so bad" threads.
I see a bunch of people talking about a rogue in a 1 on 1 situation, not relying on his party members for buffs, flanks, tactics and other common occurrences that happen in a party....just like in the "why do monks suck so bad" threads.
I even saw someone (Ashiel, I think, who's opinion I respect mostly) even bring up the "just like people who think blaster casters are a good idea" argument....just like in the "why do monks suck so bad" threads.
I think the only good news is, that apparently the last 3 months of monk bashing are at an end, and now its Paladin alignment bashing and rogue DPR bashing.
Monks must be good now.
Blastercasters, beware! For March will soon be upon us, and I see a bevy of "why do blasting wizards suck so much" threads coming up.
Until then, I reckon rogues will just have to be the apex of dpr suckitude and theorycrafting angst.
Prety much. Even the same shouting match stuff going on too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, seen this all before. In the discussion of how strong the rogue is, what is often being missed is the use of stealth, ranged and initiative control.
E.g. rogue scouts out targets. Moves up to within 30, the rest move up to about 50-60, with the bonus to their stealth from distance to cover their average to weak stealth checks. If they are detected, the targets start to move to the party but the rogue is still hidden. You can play with angles here to get some great crossing fire. Rogue sneak attacks with ranged, wins initiative, sneak attacks with another single shot and retreats to the cover of the hidden party. Rest of party busts out. Rogue enters melee with feinting, tumbling or 5, move and another sneak attack if the opening is there. Or they shoot the enemies in the face while the rest of the pcs are the sudden wall of advancing steel and spells.
Basic stuff, it isn't about DPR an full round attacks, it is about using stealth, then sneak attacking, sneak attacking again and doing just so much in the very early rounds.
Anyone can do what you described--anyone can take Stealth and do that--Rangers can even better at it than the Rogue with favored terrain, and Ninjas and other spellcasters like the Bard can just be legit invisible. This is not a "rogue" tactic, this is a Stealth tactic--it's good but does not help the rogue's case because it is not Rogue specific or even something the Rogue is best at.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
this is the wrong mentality for this game, i honestly feel like im on the wow forums right now reading QQ about how the grass is greener, sometimes.
i dont care if you can out do me, 9d6 + 6 at level 1 is way more then you need.
You started saying that was level 3...
Anyway, correct me if I am wrong, but your argument seems to be:
The rogue is good enough to function, so it doesn't matter if others can do better?
So, as an example, you don't need A's in school because C's are all you need to pass? Or there's no reason to get a job that pays $100 per hour because you can live on $15 per hour?
If a Rogue contributes X to a party, while a Ranger or Bard contributes X+1, it doesn't matter if just X is enough to do the job. It's still not fair--everyone should contribute the same amount.
wow you take everything to the up most degree in your counter argument.
you cant speak in realistic terms at all can you?first lets cut through your hyperbole, if you as a gm make your action blatant then yes people will most likely be mad. but lets take simple fight:
RxxEx
xxxFE
xxxxxr= rogue
E= enemy
F= fighterif e moved into a position flanking with the fighter, he would net a +2 but put himself into a terrible position. a intelligent person wouldnt do that, but for the sake of the rogue who will obliterate that enemey the NPC decides to do it anyway.
EVERYONE IS HAPPY, no one realises that you did that to throw the rogue a bone, but i do this every now and then when i gm and my player love playing in my games.
i dont hand hold or make things easier then they need be just to compensate for the rogue, i only let the rogue do his thing so he is happy. that is my NUMBER 1 JOB as a gm.
as i said before, read the GM guide and it says that in black and white.
Hmmm, that's a lot of text to say "yes, I make the bad guys act stupid so the rogue can feel good about himself".
Remember, brevity is the soul of wit.
the actual implied meaning was that you need to play npc's to real life. not every guy in the military can make a great decision every time in a firefight, if you think monsters are infallible then you perception of reality is very very skewed.
the situation painted before was that he saw an opening and that I as the gm sitting in a room casually observing a make believe battle in front of me wouldnt (or shouldnt) make that mistake. but "when you're in the s@&&" you dont act that same way so he took it and died.
dont believe me? ask a veteran of any major war.
im getting the feeling that people play this game like chess without taking RP in account. if you ignore RP in combat, then this conversation is over because we will never see eye to eye.
Oh, but do you force the PCs also make stupid moves in the heat of battle or is is this sauce only for the gander?
|
|
players make mistakes all the time. not everyone makes great choices every time.
many times ive said to players "you are acting out of character, just because this is a combat doesnt mean you can go from brash and reckless to cautious because you are able to meta game. YOU know that a mind flayer can kill you in 2 rounds by eating your brain, your character does not" and other dialogues like that.
i expect player controlled character to function above that of an npc of low value (a cr 5 hobgoblin for example). if a player cant make good choices, oh well you live with them. but for any gm to play a "flawless" combat where every npc works in unison to the disadvantage of the players is very unrealistic.
Hmmm, that's a lot of text to say "yes, I make the bad guys act stupid so the rogue can feel good about himself".
Remember, brevity is the soul of wit.
this response proved to me that the "lot of text" left no opening for you to digress or make inane counter arguments. being concise is important, but being thorough is more important when posting on the forums... unless you like digression.
A Rogue in a dungeon crawl game is king. Flat out. I've read through all the new changes, the new classes, and that's not changed. In fact, it may have gotten MORE so because of Rogue Talents. Oh, and don't tell me that an Archaeologist Bard can beat a Rogue at traps, they don't even get Disable Device as class! The supplements that grant such ability are in obscure books made particularly for the Pathfinder specific game world, NOT in any of the core books.
Being trained skill only adds +3 to a skill. It takes 1 rank to raise any skill no matter is trained or not.
So it is only 3 points.
players make mistakes all the time. not everyone makes great choices every time.
many times ive said to players "you are acting out of character, just because this is a combat doesnt mean you can go from brash and reckless to cautious because you are able to meta game. YOU know that a mind flayer can kill you in 2 rounds by eating your brain, your character does not" and other dialogues like that.
i expect player controlled character to function above that of an npc of low value (a cr 5 hobgoblin for example). if a player cant make good choices, oh well you live with them. but for any gm to play a "flawless" combat where every npc works in unison to the disadvantage of the players is very unrealistic.
Yes, but do you require players to do things which will actually harm them? In the instance above, do you require them to grapple the mindflayer, if it looks like a caster (assuming they usually grapple casters)?
Or do you happen to force them to walk into flanked positions which is rather more relevant?
this response proved to me that the "lot of text" left no opening for you to digress or make inane counter arguments. being concise is important, but being thorough is more important when posting on the forums... unless you like digression.
Meh. No, it was just that saying more was unnecessary. You just made a long drawn out explanation that you make the enemy act dumb to spoil the rogue and embellish it enough to make it sound different.
But really what you don't seem to know is that even with sneak attack, rogues usually don't keep up in damage anyway.
Above you cite a 3rd level rogue doing 9d6+6 which is rather on the side of unbelievable. Please explain how this occurs. They can't have 3 attacks at that level (which seemed like the logical breakdown, 3 attacks of 1d6 weapon, +2 d6 sneak, +1 weapon, +1 str). Unless he has one heck of an over wealth by level weapon, I don't see it as possible.
I guess if you have a rogue capable of doing that (in spite of the rules), then you might well consider them plenty powerful.
I've been wondering about this 9d6 rogue myself. On a side note, rangers deal 2d6+6 from 1st level. All day, every day.
Above you cite a 3rd level rogue doing 9d6+6 which is rather on the side of unbelievable. Please explain how this occurs. They can't have 3 attacks at that level (which seemed like the logical breakdown, 3 attacks of 1d6 weapon, +2 d6 sneak, +1 weapon, +1 str). Unless he has one heck of an over wealth by level weapon, I don't see it as possible.
I guess if you have a rogue capable...
Ninja works.
If he meant Ninja when he write Rogue, it is possible. Very resource draining (1 Ki point per each round you get an extra attack).