| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention, gatorade is clearly superior to water.
Water sucks.
"Brawndo... it's what plants crave."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or, to put it another way, 7th level rogue (20 dex) with 2 short swords +1 of agility
+5 (BAB) +2 (flank) -2 (TWF) +5 (dex) +1 magic +1 WF = +12 for 5d6 + 5 *2 (average 23.5*2)
His AC should be 4 mithril + 5 dex + 3 assorted magical bonuses for about 22
The fighter (20 strength) with a +1 electric greatsword is
+7 (BAB) +2 flank -2 (Power attack, second attack only) +1 (weapon train) +5 (str) + 1 (WF) +1 (magic) = +17/+10 for 3d6+17 (7 str, 2 WS, 1 WT, 6 PA, 1 magic) = 26 / attack average. He has better AC (full plate +1 plus same magic)
So we gave the rogue ideal circumstances and more expensive magic and he's still unable to keep up with the fighter in combat. If you make a bash rogue his AC goes into the gutter and he loses the few advantages of skills he got in the first place to try to catch up on damage, again only in the best of circumstances.
As to skills, that ranger that is outdamaging both of these guys in most circumstances has those handled as well (if not better) than the rogue too.
He's truly regulated to unemployment and to those players who play rogues because they want "rogue" on their character sheet.
Or, to put it another way, 7th level rogue (20 dex) with 2 short swords +1 of agility
+5 (BAB) +2 (flank) -2 (TWF) +5 (dex) +1 magic +1 WF = +12 for 5d6 + 5 *2 (average 23.5*2)
His AC should be 4 mithril + 5 dex + 3 assorted magical bonuses for about 22The fighter (20 strength) with a +1 electric greatsword is
+7 (BAB) +2 flank -2 (Power attack, second attack only) +1 (weapon train) +5 (str) + 1 (WF) +1 (magic) = +17/+10 for 3d6+17 (7 str, 2 WS, 1 WT, 6 PA, 1 magic) = 26 / attack average. He has better AC (full plate +1 plus same magic)So we gave the rogue ideal circumstances and more expensive magic and he's still unable to keep up with the fighter in combat. If you make a bash rogue his AC goes into the gutter and he loses the few advantages of skills he got in the first place to try to catch up on damage, again only in the best of circumstances.
As to skills, that ranger that is outdamaging both of these guys in most circumstances has those handled as well (if not better) than the rogue too.
He's truly regulated to unemployment and to those players who play rogues because they want "rogue" on their character sheet.
Hey now if it's a sap master rogue he gets 9d6 + 1 (Enchant) +5 (Dex/agi) + 16 (from sap adept) *2 which equals 53.5 per hit but that's only on the average.
P.S. Kudos to Dire Mongoose, who ninja'd me on the Idiocracy reference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Careful or the computers will do that auto fire thingy and we will all loose our jobs!
\Welcome to Costco... I love you.
Careful or somebody's gonna get a nut shot.
That's funny, I don't see the camera van for "Ow, My Balls!" anywhere.
|
It is starting to sound like most of my early complaints about 4e have been fixed as long as I'm willing to pay several hundred dollars (if not a thousand) dollars to own the rules (or pay an infinite price via DDI).
We have found that the 4e Essentials line (and only these books) is perfect for all our 4e D&D needs. Assuming you start with these only then 4e is quite reasonable to get into. No kidney selling required, or DDI for that matter. Four little books and you're set.
2 cents,
S.
|
|
And if the only reason you like the rogue is because it's called a rogue, I suggest writing it in crayon at the top of your character sheet.
He's truly regulated to unemployment and to those players who play rogues because they want "rogue" on their character sheet.
And play a ranger. Take skirmisher if you don't want spells.
If you really want that sneak attack, Trapfinding, Evasion, and a bonus feat (or other rogue talent), dip 2 levels into rogue. You gain those features, and +3 Reflex, Plus 8 additional skillpoints. In exchange you lose one BAB, avg 2 HP, and you lose 1 fort. (in addition to delaying any ranger class features by 2 levels. A bigger deal if you're a ranger with spells or an animal companion than if you're not.)
If you want a 3rd level in rogue, you'll up your sneak attack to 2d6, you won't lose any additional bab, won't lose any more saves, you get 4 more skillpoints, and trap sense +1 and you'll lose (avg) one more hitpoint, and delay ranger features by one more level
Rogue is an excellent 2-3 level dip. that's about all its good for though, and I would not advocating only dipping a single level. :P
|
|
It is starting to sound like most of my early complaints about 4e have been fixed as long as I'm willing to pay several hundred dollars (if not a thousand) dollars to own the rules (or pay an infinite price via DDI).We have found that the 4e Essentials line (and only these books) is perfect for all our 4e D&D needs. Assuming you start with these only then 4e is quite reasonable to get into. No kidney selling required, or DDI for that matter. Four little books and you're set.
2 cents,
S.That's what? Four different books just to get all the classes? That looks like kidney selling to me. And I note you said "assuming you start with these.."
Sorry, I'll clarify.
4e Essentials line;
Heroes of the Fallen Lands* ($13.57 Amazon) - Races; dwarves, eladrin, elves, halflings, and humans. Classes; cleric, fighter, ranger, rogue, and wizard.
Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms* ($13.57 Amazon) - Races; dragonborn, drow, half-elves, half-orcs, and tieflings. Classes; druid, paladin, ranger, and warlock.
Dungeon Master's Kit ($26.39 Amazon) - good advice and things like traps etc + map + tokens + adventure
Monster Vault ($19.79 Amazon) - er monsters + map + tokens
Optional:
Rules Compendium ($13.57 Amazon) - is what it says it is
That's 10 races, 9 classes - one of which is a Rogue that works... ;)
Total cost (incl. optional book) = $80.67 (under $100 bucks!)
Do you NEED anymore books - nope. Anything else is up to you and your wallet.
S.
*ALL the rules to play 4e are also included in these books.
|
|
Thats more expensive than PF, I'll note.
PF: like 30 each on amazon. 60 for CORE and APG, which is all you really need. Maybe you want UC an UM, in which case print copies are more than the wotc equivalent.
But wotc doesnt offer pdfs.
You can get all 4 in pdf format for like 40$
Or grab the core book for 30, and then grab the other 3 as pdfs, for a total of 60.
How do you roll dice in a message?
How do you roll dice in a message?
When you go to post, look under the box you can type in, there is a sentence "How to format your text" with a gray button with the word Show on it. Press the button, it opens up to reveal all you will need to know.
|
|
Thats more expensive than PF, I'll note.
PF: like 30 each on amazon. 60 for CORE and APG, which is all you really need. Maybe you want UC an UM, in which case print copies are more than the wotc equivalent.But wotc doesnt offer pdfs.
You can get all 4 in pdf format for like 40$Or grab the core book for 30, and then grab the other 3 as pdfs, for a total of 60.
I wasn't doing a price comparison. But now you mention it I agree both PF & 4e Essentials will cost you about the same in terms of start up cost.
At least for me the pdf's aren't a draw card either way.
Good point,
S.
How do you roll dice in a message?When you go to post, look under the box you can type in, there is a sentence "How to format your text" with a gray button with the word Show on it. Press the button, it opens up to reveal all you will need to know.
Let's try it out.
edit: completely average. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The start-up cost for Pathfinder is zero dollars. Paizo would like you to purchase their products, and indeed I do recommend that you do if you enjoy the game. But if you want to try it, the cost of entry is an internet connection.
No clue what this has to do with rogues.
Well, you see, all rogues are thieves and to a thief, everything will be free if they want, and uh...
I got nothin'.
Yes. It requires a favorable setup to deal comparable damage, and is still outdamaged even then. Add in the difficulty in achieving favorable conditions, and it struggles to even break even.
And yet, combat is not the whole game.
The rogue can contribute in combat. Its damage is low, but in boosting it's damage through sneak attack, it often moves to flank, boosting the damage of a fighter by increasing its hit rate. Add to this Distracting Attack, Assault Leader, Lasting Poison, Swift Poison, and Deadly Cocktail, can make their over all contribution quite taste.
The rogue has a skill set and rogue trick which allow him to move with a degree of freedom few other classes can manage, without the expenditure of resources. Within combat this allow the Rogue to achieve time sensitive objectives, avoid enemy combant, and use terrain to their advantage.
But as I said, combat is hardly the whole game. Out of it, their skills and rogue talents allow the party to advance past obsticals, it allows information gathering, make contacts, and locate magic items for sale, it allows the PCs to gather human intelligence, on their enemies. The overcoming of trick and trap.
All without the use of the precious resources of a wizard or cleric.
The rogue shines the brightest of all characters outside of combat, with only the bard coming close to filling its boots. And it can still performs adequately in combat
The rogue shines the brightest of all characters outside of combat, with only the bard coming close to filling its boots. And it can still performs adequately in combat
But it doesn't: the new ranger archetypes, the numerous bard ones, the inquisitor, the new monk variants all trample on the "out of combat lead" and can perform better in combat. and the new bard mini dimension door spells make maneuvering the whole party easier. So while the game isn't all combat if the edge really isn't there anymore out of combat for the rogue and that person can bring more effective options in combat (or buffing the party to be more effective) as well then why bring the rogue?
I don't like it I think it stink that it goes that way, but it does.
I still maintain that Rumormonger is awesome, and am considering a 3 level dip into Charlatan just to pick that up for an urban campaign.
The rogue shines the brightest of all characters outside of combat, with only the bard coming close to filling its boots. And it can still performs adequately in combatBut it doesn't: the new ranger archetypes, the numerous bard ones, the inquisitor, the new monk variants all trample on the "out of combat lead" and can perform better in combat. and the new bard mini dimension door spells make maneuvering the whole party easier. So while the game isn't all combat if the edge really isn't there anymore out of combat for the rogue and that person can bring more effective options in combat (or buffing the party to be more effective) as well then why bring the rogue?
I don't like it I think it stink that it goes that way, but it does.
Every one of those examples is a specialist. A lot of them are great, but going into a city campaign, with a high RP/skills element, and a wide range of such challanges, the choice for me is Bard or rogue. If it want the social/combat side dominant, then its a bard. If it want the skill side dominant, I want the rogue, every time. If I know that one aspect of the skills game is going to be dominant skills, I might take a archetype that does it well, but generally, if I am making a choice on how to perform best in such a campaign, I take the rogue.
Also on the point of why play a Rogue. Everything you have listed just hasn't factored in when I have been deciding on what to play in 99% of the games I have ever played. I can think of three exceptions in about twenty years of roleplaying, where what I was going to play was determined predominantly by its efficacy.
I choose a concept that fits with the power level of the game, and I then fit a set of mechanics to that power level and concept.
|
|
Also, why would the rogue shine brightest out of combat? Rangers do the "sneak thing" as well, and rogues are inentivized to dump Cha as much as the next guy. Bards end up with more skill points, and many tactical sneaks are better done by Druids and mages. You're again mixing the desire (rogues are suave characters with charm and a graceful but effective fighting style) with reality (rogues have a lot of skills but no incetive to have particularly decent Cha/Wis and are one of the least effective combat characters). So again I say rangers/bards do everything rogues do, better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The start-up cost for Pathfinder is zero dollars. Paizo would like you to purchase their products, and indeed I do recommend that you do if you enjoy the game. But if you want to try it, the cost of entry is an internet connection.
No clue what this has to do with rogues.
This is the straw the broke the camel's back; I now feel obligated to buy the core PDF.
~ch'ching~
Also, why would the rogue shine brightest out of combat? Rangers do the "sneak thing" as well, and rogues are inentivized to dump Cha as much as the next guy. Bards end up with more skill points, and many tactical sneaks are better done by Druids and mages. You're again mixing the desire (rogues are suave characters with charm and a graceful but effective fighting style) with reality (rogues have a lot of skills but no incetive to have particularly decent Cha/Wis and are one of the least effective combat characters). So again I say rangers/bards do everything rogues do, better.
Off the top of my head, with only limited time. I'll give more later, if I am not to tired from work.
Rogue:
8 + Int modifier
21 class skills
10 class features that be customised to synergise with skills
Ranger:
6 + Int modifier.
15 class skills
The ranger also has some class feature synergy with skills, they are incredibly focused on wilderness skills. Ofcause that can be switched to city focused, but it looses the synergy in the other direction
Also, why would the rogue shine brightest out of combat? Rangers do the "sneak thing" as well, and rogues are inentivized to dump Cha as much as the next guy. Bards end up with more skill points, and many tactical sneaks are better done by Druids and mages. You're again mixing the desire (rogues are suave characters with charm and a graceful but effective fighting style) with reality (rogues have a lot of skills but no incetive to have particularly decent Cha/Wis and are one of the least effective combat characters). So again I say rangers/bards do everything rogues do, better.Off the top of my head, with only limited time. I'll give more later, if I am not to tired from work.
Rogue:
8 + Int modifier
21 class skills
10 class features that be customised to synergise with skillsRanger:
6 + Int modifier.
15 class skills
The ranger also has some class feature synergy with skills, they are incredibly focused on wilderness skills. Ofcause that can be switched to city focused, but it looses the synergy in the other direction
Oh oh oh oh, do bards next! Remember Versatile Performance, Perform Oratory and Perform Comedy!
Ranger:
6 + Int modifier.
15 class skills
The ranger also has some class feature synergy with skills, they are incredibly focused on wilderness skills. Ofcause that can be switched to city focused, but it looses the synergy in the other direction
Umm read what favored enemy gives bonuses to it is in fact very urban focused if you take ohh lets say human as one. Your right about the intention the theme however, the play doesn't fit the theme.
Your second argument was effectively optimization and role-play are mutually exclusive AKA the Stormwind Fallacy.
The thing is, Paizo obviously knows this. They sold it cheap for the vivisectionist.It became apparent (to me, anyway) during the UC Ninja playtest that they think Evasion is a much, much more valuable ability than I do.
So that's probably also part of the calculus.
You know why, don't you?
The designers still assume blaster wizard, healer cleric, trapfinding scout rogue, meatshield sword-and-board fighter (with weapon specialization).
The rogue shines the brightest of all characters outside of combat, with only the bard coming close to filling its boots. And it can still performs adequately in combat
Hahaha, oh wow. Yeah, rogues are great at moving the party through teleportation or long-distance flight. When you need to build a castle or drain a lake in a day, they really pull their weight. Their divination abilities are awesome. (And Bards beat them so hard at Face jobs, it's not even funny to watch).
Ranger:
6 + Int modifier.
15 class skills
The ranger also has some class feature synergy with skills, they are incredibly focused on wilderness skills. Ofcause that can be switched to city focused, but it looses the synergy in the other direction
Umm read what favored enemy gives bonuses to it is in fact very urban focused if you take ohh lets say human as one. Your right about the intention the theme however, the play doesn't fit the theme.
Your second argument was effectively optimization and role-play are mutually exclusive AKA the Stormwind Fallacy.
You can always gain class skills via dipping into other classes or via traits.
At level 10, Ranger 2/Alchmist(Vivisectionist) 8
22 class skills
Appraise (Int), Craft (any) (Int), Disable Device (Dex), Fly (Dex), Heal (Wis), Knowledge (arcana) (Int), Knowledge (nature) (Int), Perception (Wis), Profession (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Spellcraft (Int), Survival (Wis), Use Magic Device (Cha), Climb (Str), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge (nature) (Int), Ride (Dex), Stealth (Dex), and Swim (Str).
The only 2 skills of note that you don't have are Bluff and Diplomacy which can be gained via traits.
Alchmist is only 4 + int skills points per level, but int is the alchmist's casting stat, so I would expect the alchmist to have an int that is 4-6 higher than most rogues. So assuming the alchmist has an int of 16, and the rogue has an int of 12, we get
Rogue - 90 skill points
Ranger/Alchmist - 74 skill points
In addition, the Ranger/Vivisectionist gets 4d6 sneak attack, level 3 extracts, medium armor profiency, profiency with all martial weapons, mutagens, favored enemy: humans +2, and a bonus feat that lets you ignore the feat prerequisites.
|
|
And yet, combat is not the whole game.
...
The rogue shines the brightest of all characters outside of combat, with only the bard coming close to filling its boots. And it can still performs adequately in combat
You're right. Combat is not the whole game.
However it is (in most games) Half or More of the game that requires game mechanics.
You're also right about the bard. Its nearly as good as the rogue in skills, but the bard can also perform adequately in combat.
Hahaha, oh wow. Yeah, rogues are great at moving the party through teleportation or long-distance flight. When you need to build a castle or drain a lake in a day, they really pull their weight. Their divination abilities are awesome. (And Bards beat them so hard at Face jobs, it's not even funny to watch).
lol.
The designers still assume blaster wizard, healer cleric, trapfinding scout rogue, meatshield sword-and-board fighter (with weapon specialization).
Thats a terrible assumption. Nobody plays like that.
Abstract Wizard
Combat Assisting Cleric
TWF Fighter
And either a Ranger or a Bard.
Alternately,
Summoner
Wildshaping Druid
Synthesist
Master Summoner
lol.
The start-up cost for Pathfinder is zero dollars. Paizo would like you to purchase their products, and indeed I do recommend that you do if you enjoy the game. But if you want to try it, the cost of entry is an internet connection.This is the straw the broke the camel's back; I now feel obligated to buy the core PDF.
~ch'ching~
Definitely worth the $9.
DH, you misspelled that second group.
It should read:
Master Summoner
Master Summoner
Master Summoner
Master Summoner
|
|
DH, you misspelled that second group.
It should read:
Master Summoner
Master Summoner
Master Summoner
Master Summoner
Ah. I was sacrificing a small amount of power for more versatility.
We needed some better healing, and I guess I just wanted it to be a more interesting combination.
But yes.
Master Summoner is a functional group composition.
Ironically,
Rogue
Rogue
Rogue
Rogue
isnt as terrible as you would think.
Rogues are like shocker lizards. Pathetic and worthless when you have just one, but they get more effective, the more of them you have, due to synergy.
Granted, they aren't as good as master summonerx4.
Ironically,
Rogue
Rogue
Rogue
Rogueisnt as terrible as you would think.
Rogues are like shocker lizards. Pathetic and worthless when you have just one, but they get more effective, the more of them you have, due to synergy.
Granted, they aren't as good as master summonerx4.
That would actually be pretty interesting, since the whole party could sneak around, pick only fights they think they can win ("It's an Ooze!"->"We sneak past"... "It's one big monster!"->"We all get into position and gank it to oblivion in 1 round"), and divide Rogue Talents among the group to cover all the different kinds of "rogue-ing".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would actually be pretty interesting, since the whole party could sneak around, pick only fights they think they can win ("It's an Ooze!"->"We sneak past"... "It's one big monster!"->"We all get into position and gank it to oblivion in 1 round"), and divide Rogue Talents among the group to cover all the different kinds of "rogue-ing".Ironically,
Rogue
Rogue
Rogue
Rogueisnt as terrible as you would think.
Rogues are like shocker lizards. Pathetic and worthless when you have just one, but they get more effective, the more of them you have, due to synergy.
Granted, they aren't as good as master summonerx4.
Granted, you could do the same thing with a group of all rangers, but you'd also have better armor, spells and access to reliable healing (Wand of CLW! no UMD check), and generally better combat prowess, as well as being able to take more hits.
Also, puppies that can trip.
Rogues can't get puppies.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could just see team master summoner. At 7th level each can summon d3+1 (3 avg) lantern archons, 11 times. So tell the GM:
"we summon 132 lantern archons, tell them to spread out and do as much damage as they can in the dungeon in 7 minutes. Then we go to the local tavern to report out imminent victory. GO!"
|
|
I could just see team master summoner. At 7th level each can summon d3+1 (3 avg) lantern archons, 11 times. So tell the GM:
"we summon 132 lantern archons, tell them to spread out and do as much damage as they can in the dungeon in 7 minutes. Then we go to the local tavern to report out imminent victory. GO!"
That sounds like an awesome (if not necessarily very combat oriented) campaign.
With that many summons, no GM is going to actually play out all the combat rounds. they will quickly narrate the combat and move on with the plot. You'd only have to actually fight in the combats you might actually lose (like the enemy master summoner team), or against an army regiment.
At which point I break out my copy of Warpath(Adament entertainment) and make you build your armies, and then make you wargame it out.
Also, I heard Kingmaker also presents mass combat rules, and there's supposedly a 3pp that expands on it. How do those compare to warpath?
Granted, you could do the same thing with a group of all rangers
...
Rogues can't get puppies.
All-Ranger party doesn't get get all the skill ranks that an all Rogue party would, either. Depends on what's optimal for the campaign.
For example, how does an all-ranger group tackle TPK-powerlevel traps with DCs high enough to require a skill bonus of +((level x 1.5) + 3) to disarm? The answer is about the same as how an All-Rogue party handles a critical plot point which requires a master tracker.
|
|
Granted, you could do the same thing with a group of all rangers
...
Rogues can't get puppies.All-Ranger party doesn't get get all the skill ranks that an all Rogue party would, either. Depends on what's optimal for the campaign.
For example, how does an all-ranger group tackle TPK-powerlevel traps with DCs high enough to require a skill bonus of +((level x 1.5) + 3) to disarm? The answer is about the same as how an All-Rogue party handles a critical plot point which requires a master tracker.
The Summoner Squad can handle both of those situations.
Though the Summoner Squad could use a wizard for the utility spells that might save them effort.
Granted, you could do the same thing with a group of all rangers
...
Rogues can't get puppies.All-Ranger party doesn't get get all the skill ranks that an all Rogue party would, either. Depends on what's optimal for the campaign.
For example, how does an all-ranger group tackle TPK-powerlevel traps with DCs high enough to require a skill bonus of +((level x 1.5) + 3) to disarm? The answer is about the same as how an All-Rogue party handles a critical plot point which requires a master tracker.
Well, disregarding the exceedingly rare and arbitrary example...
I think you should read the Urban Ranger.
Because they get the 1/2 level to Disable Device that rogues get.
Well, disregarding the exceedingly rare and arbitrary example...
I think you should read the Urban Ranger.
Because they get the 1/2 level to Disable Device that rogues get.
I know; it stinks.
|
|
I know; it stinks.Well, disregarding the exceedingly rare and arbitrary example...
I think you should read the Urban Ranger.
Because they get the 1/2 level to Disable Device that rogues get.
You say stinks, I say
"Allows me to not *need* waste resources dragging around a rogue for the off chance that single scenario where they are useful comes up."
You say stinks, I say
"Allows me to not *need* waste resources dragging around a rogue for the off chance that single scenario where they are useful comes up."
It stinks because that archetype makes the Rogue almost completely obsolete. All these variations in the spirit of customization and flexibility is causing classes to bleed into each other, which in turn is making some of the core classes' "checks and balances" become glaring shortcomings and leaving them in the "reject bin".
Only if you're designing a game from mechanics first, and ignoring the source material of books, movies and mythology.
Granted, I'll agree that "traps detail" is a dumb role to design a class around, but it's a good "also has" ability.
The concept of a rogue - an opportunistic thug/hooligan, not a frontliner, not a spellcaster - is a staple.