Or that the ranger has some enemies of his choice ;)
I quite like unlimited cantrips. Even love them. Someone who has supreme mastery over magic shouldn't just "run out" of the ability to use it. If Minor Magic gave unlimited uses of cantrips, I'd seriously consider take a 2 level dip in Rogue for many character concepts just to pick up some SLA cantrips.
Create light at will, like Gandalf, I'm OK with that.
Create water at will, less cool.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Create light at will, like Gandalf, I'm OK with that.
Create water at will, less cool.
Spam Detect Magic every few rounds, even less cool.
I think that part of the problem is that some 0-level spells should have been adjusted (either nerf the spell or beef it up and make it 1st level) when they made cantrip/orisons unlimited.
*Starts popping popcorn*
Yeah, if your GM is hell bend on magical traps with a high DC the Rogue has something to do until a Wand of Summon Monster I becomes an insignificant investion. After that trapfinding is usually worse than the Wand.
If everything else fails then a Bard or an Alchemist or even a Ranger with just one Level of Rogue can be a better Rogue than a pure Rogue...
I think most of us agree that these things depend heavily on the campaign...
No, simply no (unless the GM says "I refuse to game without a pure Rogue")!
|
I have attempted to address with with 101 New Skill Uses
We have Three 5/5 star reviews for the product.
My favorite quote is
"This should be owned by all PFRPG-groups out there. Period." -Endzeitgeist
You don't need to convince me. I bought it today. It's awesome.
I'd add a few other uses to the list, but its a much needed expansion.
I quite like unlimited cantrips. Even love them. Someone who has supreme mastery over magic shouldn't just "run out" of the ability to use it.I guess it just goes against my "D&D" instincts. Then again it's PF not D&D so perhaps I am unfair. Still I believe the rule was not included for any other reason than to appease the casters and their rebelling against Vancian spell casting. Why stop at cantrips? Why not have a rule that any spell 5 levels lower than you can cast becomes unlimited for example? Why if I can cast the mighty Wish is casting say Alarm a challenge to my brain anymore?
Perhaps that is the problem - people (like myself) still see PF as an extension of D&D, when really they parted ways many moons ago.
S.
I'm not a fan of Vancian casting. I'm not a fan of x/day, or x/encounter designs. But its PF & D&D, so I'm stuck with them.
Personally I'd rather have everything be based off of rolls to succeed at a task, and possibly a fatigue system.
If you HAVE to limit how often something can happen, I like the 4e monster route with a % chance of an ability recharging each round.
I came up with a nifty design that had wizards work like a mtg once. you had a deck of spells. and a draw mechanic. you could build your own deck, much like in mtg. and you had a hand of 7 spells. Those were the only spells you could cast at any given time.
It was pretty fun for the 1-off I ran it in.
|
|
One of these days I'm going to buy all of the '101 X' series...
I have all three "Variant Spells" books.
I gotta say. Pretty nice.
Also: Genius Guide to the Templar will be replacing Paladins in every PF Game I run from now on, I imagine.
I picked up some 3pp stuff just recently. I really like alot of it.
My only complaint is in the production quality of some of the 3pp. Good content, but they're often pretty sparse on art, and and sometimes the books and covers are just terribly hideous.
And print-formatting: You either get full-color, printer killing, no color, blank, but printer friendly, or monitor friendly.
I'd love to have some releases that offer all 3.
And one thing I can say for LPJ? I may not like their art sometimes, or sometimes their covers, but layout and production inside a book? it doesnt get much better than that. If only they offered the books in a format thats easy to read on a widescreen laptop.
Much like you have to go out of your way to make sure that a spellcaster stays relevant throught the full day.
I really don't need to go out of the way to have less than 16 rounds of combat in a single day (4 encounters at 4 rounds) quite the opposite: getting through that much combat in a single night can require a fair bit of discipline at the table, and keeping track of resources between sessions that can be 2,3, or 4 weeks a part can be a pain.
Also, its hard to keep parties from accessing scrolls and wands. You need to have a less than normal availability of magic items, and even the old "we never have downtime... EVER!" doesn't stop a party member with the feat from cranking out scrolls and potions on his lunch break.
Show me a pure caster, from level 1 to 20 (preferably core since that is where the majority of the "problem" is with the rogue), that can fill the rogue's role as well as any other role.
Show me the rogue I'm competing with. You complain about Schrodinger's wizard, i always see Schrodinger's rogue who's talents keep changing to match the situation. The difference is that its at least theoretically possible for the wizard to match the situation. And don't give me duff about my product not being as good a caster as a caster: that's the wrong comparison.
For the rogue i want to see something that is viable in combat, because pathfinder so often comes down to combat
fully understand opportunity cost and that is exactly what I'm talking about. All I ever read about is the theoretical spell caster that is always ready with whatever spells are needed or he can just wait a day and reset his spells while the world stands still waiting for the caster to come back and finish things.
Many of your comments indicate that you do not understand opportunity cost, for example, not accepting that the rogue has been replaced unless the character is both a full caster and a full rogue. Full rogue +ANY caster is coming out ahead.
I have never, in more than 30 years, seen this perfect caster built or played. The build has never shown up in any of these discussions. The reason why I believe that it won't ever show up is because it is a pipe dream. Pick whatever pipe, but it is still a dream.
I have been playing 3.0 since the beginning and haven't seen a rogue that couldn't be replaced with a little creativity.
Oh, I want him to be a real skill monkey and have all those knowledge skills that are touted.
Why? Rogues don't usually bulk up on knowledge skills.
I want him to be able to find and disable traps consistently.
Easy enough.
I want him to be able to get his butt into some melee and deal some damage (yes, the rogue can actually do this).
They CAN but its hard to do both effectively.
I want him to be able to be very stealthy from level 1. I want him to be able to do everything the rogue can do as well as what is expected of the caster (whatever that may be).
Why? If you get an entire rogue and 3/4 a caster out of a character you've come way ahead of just having a rogue.
I don't think it will happen. I've been in these discussions before and have never seen it.
I think the last time we did this my druid was a comparable if not better scout with more utility, and your rogue was out DPR'd by the druid's pet alone.
I have seen some people show some interesting builds, but none have ever been able to compete with the rogue with being a rogue.
The only time you need a rogue is if you need to stuff the trap finder and face in the same person.
Show me a pure caster, from level 1 to 20 (preferably core since that is where the majority of the "problem" is with the rogue), that can fill the rogue's role as well as any other role.
See, most people aren't playing core only. Its doable, but harder there. With traits,archetypes, and non core feats its pretty easy.
Once we establish this, then we can look at archetypes and see how they compare. What we are doing right now is just pretending that we all play the exact same style of game and that casters have all spells available at all times for all levels.
Once the casters have time to scribe some scrolls (or the campaign goes on and you write on the fly) this becomes nearly true.
There also comes the question of why not just Dip a level or 2 of rogue and get most of the benefits?
I think we've had this discussion before...like yesterday.
But I, for one, am fine with the fact that people who can wield magical energy to alter reality to better suit themselves are better at doing things than someone who is confined to pesky physics. Perhaps one could argue that it's at too low a level, but making something invisible seems like an easy enough trick.
Why on earth should any of the classes be confined to physics if some aren't?
That's a real question and not just aimed at you, btw.
The funny thing is, a mid level rogue with an efficient quiver full of wands, and the Quickdraw feat, can do anything that a rogue can do, which includes cast any level 0-4 spell from any class (if they pony up the cash). So can anyone, for that matter, with enough investment in UMD. All the talk of casters being ultra-awesome is true, but any class can now cast level 0-4 spells... higher if they want to burn up scrolls.
PF rocks.
I admit I laughed at this.
So if I understand you correct, rogues can equal out to wizards so long as they spend all their money on wands in order to really badly try to ape being a wizard?
Why on earth should any of the classes be confined to physics if some aren't?
Because the entire point of the fighter and rogue (formerly barbarian) is that they're real, ordinary people doing things without magic.
Why on earth should any of the classes be confined to physics if some aren't?Because the entire point of the fighter and rogue (formerly barbarian) is that they're real, ordinary people doing things without magic.
You didn't answer my question.
"Not doing magic" does not mean "entirely confined to physics." Last I checked, both fiction and mythology are pretty much filled to the brim with people who aren't wizards yet do some physics-defying impressive things.
The funny thing is, a mid level rogue with an efficient quiver full of wands, and the Quickdraw feat, can do anything that a rogue can do, which includes cast any level 0-4 spell from any class (if they pony up the cash). So can anyone, for that matter, with enough investment in UMD. All the talk of casters being ultra-awesome is true, but any class can now cast level 0-4 spells... higher if they want to burn up scrolls.
PF rocks.
I admit I laughed at this.
So if I understand you correct, rogues can equal out to wizards so long as they spend all their money on wands in order to really badly try to ape being a wizard?
You know, in retrospect I'm surprised the Pathfinder rogue doesn't have class features to make the stereotypical "but UMD!" argument actually a good argument.
For example, a rogue talent that gives you some kind of limited ability to discharge a wand/staff/scroll without consuming it.
Why on earth should any of the classes be confined to physics if some aren't?Because the entire point of the fighter and rogue (formerly barbarian) is that they're real, ordinary people doing things without magic.You didn't answer my question.
"Not doing magic" does not mean "entirely confined to physics." Last I checked, both fiction and mythology are pretty much filled to the brim with people who aren't wizards yet do some physics-defying impressive things.
Actually, I meant "not doing magic" by "entirely confined to physics" in my original post.
I think bending what's physically possible is still being confined by physics, as opposed to the wizard's thought of "Physics? Oh yea, I had that for breakfast today with a side of froghemoth eggs."
Why on earth should any of the classes be confined to physics if some aren't?Because the entire point of the fighter and rogue (formerly barbarian) is that they're real, ordinary people doing things without magic.You didn't answer my question.
"Not doing magic" does not mean "entirely confined to physics." Last I checked, both fiction and mythology are pretty much filled to the brim with people who aren't wizards yet do some physics-defying impressive things.
Pffft. I suppose you have the version of the myth in which Hercules didn't cast Hydraulic Torrent to clear out those stables.
You didn't answer my question.
Yes, i did.
"Not doing magic" does not mean "entirely confined to physics." Last I checked, both fiction and mythology are pretty much filled to the brim with people who aren't wizards yet do some physics-defying impressive things.
Such as?
"Not doing magic" does not mean "entirely confined to physics." Last I checked, both fiction and mythology are pretty much filled to the brim with people who aren't wizards yet do some physics-defying impressive things.
Well, with absurdly high strength scores you can break the rules of biology, and with high skill checks you can break rules of realism, but to break the rules of physics you need magic.
Actually what happened is stabing things keeps getting new stuff, spells keep getting new stuff, but skills are largely ignored. They get a bone thrown their way now and again, but not with the kind of focus that fighting and casting do. So while spell casting and combat options have balooned since the advent of 3rd edition, what you can do with skills has barely changed at all with slight bumps with skill tricks in complete scoundrel that never caught on. Every book has new way to stab, smash, and slash guys, and has new ways for casters to warp time and space, but the rogues best attribute (his skills) remain stagnent.
So in my opinion game designers giving in to bleating casters devalued the rogue and caused the rogue's current problems - that and perhaps the 'skill system' of the d20 system to some extent. If everyone can do rogue things (mostly) why do we need a rogue?S.
I have attempted to address with with 101 New Skill Uses
We have Three 5/5 star reviews for the product.
My favorite quote is
"This should be owned by all PFRPG-groups out there. Period." -Endzeitgeist
I know, I own it, in fact I was looking at it on the train ride to work this morning trying to decide how I am going to incorporate it into my game. The fact is though there should be more such material from paizo, and there should have been more from WotC in 3.5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off, thanks for doing this even though you knew I was trying to set you up. This is honestly interesting, trying to make a Rogue-imitating-wizzy build.Nice, nice. Solves alot of trapped doors and chests, once you unlock them with you Disable Device (below).Cantrips: 4 total.
Mage Hand (very useful)
Prestidigitation
Detect Magic (aka: detect magical traps. Then just use your Arcane Bond to cast Dispel Magic!)
Open/Close. Animate Rope is kind of a way to get the extra "oomph" in climb, and also to trigger traps from afar. May I suggest Reduce Person to get +4 size modifier on stealth checks, and to shrink out of bonds (skipping Escape Artist).1st level: 4 + 1 trans.
Trans: Enlarge Person!
Animate Rope (Battle field control *and* utility!)
Magic Missile (pewpewpew)
Blank
Blank Shouldn't you have invisibility here?2nd level: 3 + 1 trans
Trans: Knock! Or Spider Climb! Levitate sucks.
Create Pit!
Stone Call or...Create Pit!
Blank Interesting. Not very Rogue-ish.3rd level: 2 + 1 trans
Trans: Fly!
Haste
Haste He'll have...6 skills per level. Spellcraft, Knowledge Arcana, Disable Device, Climb, Acrobatics, and Stealth.
If he spends the 2k on a headband of Int, he'll effectively get 5 more ranks in any one skill. Maybe Bluff, maybe Diplomacy, maybe Disguise.
Fun and games aside, you're now in a pickle: Bluff/Diplomacy/Disguise for subterfuge, or PERCEPTION to actually find the traps and secret doors (remember those disable device ranks)?
May I suggest: 6 ranks/Lvl = {Bluff, Stealth, Perception, Disable Device, Know Arcana, Spellcraft}. This way you can find the traps, and rely on spells to disable some of them, such as your Open/Close, Mage Hand, or Animate Rope. Skill will handle the rest.
So, here are some problems I see, no matter the build:
1 - squishy. -1hp/HD, and no armor proficiency. This means a reliance on not being attacked in the...
Let's see...
A scroll of Vanish that lasts for 2 rounds should cost 25 gp, which is expendable enough, so we don't need an invis type spell. Plus, he has a ton of ranks in Stealth, and a decent dex (since it's the second most important for a wizard)
Fly solves a lot of acrobatics issues. That's the rogue-y bit.
To be honest, Climb shouldn't have any points in it. Mage Hand can lift a silk rope, and animate rope can fasten it just fine for 12.5 gp. Let's put that in Perception!
The squishy bits are trying to out do the rogue. they're squishier than the rogue, so they're better at being killed easily than them! But seriously, they should have enough money to buy a +1 Mithral Twilight Chain Shirt, if your GM allows that. That has no ASF, and gives +5 to AC, for 2k. Otherwise, Mage Armor scrolls are 12.5 gp each, and last for 1 hour. HP is an issue, yea. But between Spider Climb, Fly, and Create Pit, you should be able to position yourself so you won't be in too much danger. Also, the wizard isn't feat starved, so Toughness is a great feat for them.
I assumed that the wizard has a fighter to actually kill stuff. The wizard set's 'em up, and the fighter knocks 'em down. I also assume our rogue has a fighter, so he can flank.
UMD isn't really a solution at level 5. With +2 cha (a bit generous, but we never defined a point buy, so shrug. I figure 16 main stat (Int for Wiz, Dex for rogue [although if the rogue is optimal, that'd be Str], 14 secondary, 12 tertiary.) 5 ranks of that, +2 cha, +3 class skill = +10. So he has about a 45% chance of activating a wand, and less chance for a scroll. That's not quite reliable, and the wizard auto-succeeds his scrolls (and can get 'em half (?) off). Plus, wands will be far more expensive, but if they can get a few, they do have about a 45% chance to activate them. And even then, that's just for one round. Could still make all the difference, I'll grant you that.
And eww Drow Noble.
A rogue with a good Int score will mean the wizard will have to wait to overpass them with skill points per level, but due to the rogue's huge class list, they will have that advantage.
I really don't think the spellbook I presented is built for the purpose of out-doing the rogue. They're just solid spells, with flexibility built in (arcane bond and the blank slots), plus most of the spells that really shine at roguish abilities are low level, so scrolls are cheap-ish.
He should do fine with three encounters. Round 1, Haste. Round two, Enlarge or Create Pit. Third encounter, he'll open with Create Pit or Stone Call. Maybe use a scroll of Stumble Gap or Create Pit.
For sure, the wizard will be spending a lot of money on scrolls. But he doesn't have to buy armor or weapons, which can be very, very expensive, so he has quite a bit of wigglewaggle room.
I plan on making a more...focused...version of the rogue someday, to try and shore up some of these shortcomings. Right now, I really do think they are spread out too thin with their focus, compared to other classes. As the only non-magical 3/4ths BAB in the game (monks are magical), they need a big boost.
So if I understand you correct, rogues can equal out to wizards so long as they spend all their money on wands in order to really badly try to ape being a wizard?
Well, what are some of the biggest "Wizards >= Rogue" arguments? Spells. Low level spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quickdraw specifically does not work with wands.
Quick Draw (Combat)
You can draw weapons faster than most.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action. You can draw a hidden weapon (see the Sleight of Hand skill) as a move action.
A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow).
Alchemical items, potions, scrolls, and wands cannot be drawn quickly using this feat.
Normal: Without this feat, you may draw a weapon as a move action, or (if your base attack bonus is +1 or higher) as a free action as part of movement. Without this feat, you can draw a hidden weapon as a standard action.
I like the CWI and skill points argument myself :D
Well, with absurdly high strength scores you can break the rules of biology, and with high skill checks you can break rules of realism, but to break the rules of physics you need magic.
Actually all extraordinary abilities can break rules of physics. It is the key defining feature.
It helps explain why evasion cares only that you roll right, not that there is room.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually all extraordinary abilities can break rules of physics. It is the key defining feature.
Blindsense (Ex) Using nonvisual senses, such as acute smell or hearing, a creature with blindsense notices things it cannot see.
I will inform the bats that in addition to having trouble with fungus, they are now in trouble with the laws of physics.
I still think (Ex) are still within the confines of physics.
I mean...blindsense even explains how it uses physics to do cool things. Unless smell or hearing aren't a part of physics anymore, in which case I need to notify CERN.
~Well written response~
The only way I can think to respond to this is (unfortunately) picking pieces out, which often seems like a Richard maneuver. True or not, I think it's the only way to address the different points without adding confusion.
A scroll of Vanish: available to a Rogue. Yes, double price, and only works some of the time (right now) but still available.
Fly: True that it's awesome. But it's not really rogue-ey. There's no facing, so it's not much of a stealth thing. More like a general awesomeness.
Climb shouldn't have any points in it. Mage Hand can lift a silk rope, and animate rope can fasten it just fine for 12.5 gp. Let's put that in Perception!: Well played, sir. Especially since you also like Spider Climb.
+1 Mithral Twilight Chain Shirt: 2k? My rogue will take Studded Leather +1 and a first level wand... Cure Light Wounds (Cler1), or some long-term buff like Longstrider (Druid1) or Disguise Self (crank that disguise up), or something usable from afar, like Silent Image. I pick these because they cater to the 40-50% chance of working UMD, and add more utility to the Rogue, some of which a rogue-replacing Wizard can't do (CLW and Longstrider).
eww Drow Noble: I know. But the campaign is "you are all Drow Nobles, dealing with other Drow Nobles, in a deadly game of deception, murder and house-wars, with some notable dungeon crawling". So the race is really inconsequential when everyone has it.
A rogue with a good Int score: I'm a skill-hungry player. It's a rare thing to see a character of mine with an INT lower than 14, or 12 if human.
He should do fine with three encounters.: As I mentioned earlier, our combats tend to be a bit crazy.
Our last one was us, six level 4 Drow Nobles, being ambushed and surrounded by 3 ogres, 1 ogre with a level in Barbarian, and 8 Orcs each with 1 level in Barbarian, and 4 Hobgoblins (no class levels).
The one before that was us versus a Drow Noble Wizard and his entourage of 8 Drow Fighters, which started in the streets and ended up scattered among a nearby ruin and a bazaar 4 blocks away (leave no witnesses)!
This doesn't include all the non-combat encounters as well, where we impersonated the Noble and entourage and infiltrated a brothel, or had to negotiate a deal with a slavemaster, or interrogate a cripple for the names of some muscle/minions we can recruit for a coming conflict (leading us to the Ogres & Orcs).
The sheer volume, length, and necessity of strategy in these conflicts demands an endurance which a wizard simply lacks unless they pick their spells appropriately. Focusing on out-rogue-ing a rogue results in a wizard that can't really keep up, or burns off his resources too quickly. At least in our group.
(As you may have guessed by my enthusiasm, I love the game I'm in).
I really do think they are spread out too thin with their focus, compared to other classes. As the only non-magical 3/4ths BAB in the game (monks are magical), they need a big boost.
I agree and disagree. I've personally thought that rogues need a combat boost consistent with their concept, and past level 6 Rogues should automatically get social abilities which reflect that they're like superhuman world-class criminals. Also, some of the traits need to be re-examined. But other than that, I like what the Rogue is, skill-wise.
Oh, I want him to be a real skill monkey and have all those knowledge skills that are touted. I want him to be able to find and disable traps consistently. I want him to be able to get his butt into some melee and deal some damage (yes, the rogue can actually do this). I want him to be able...Would you like him to be a primary healer as well? Because if he's replacing the rogue he's replacing the thief. There's already a wizard, witch, or sorceror in the magic user slot.
Can he replace the rogue as a skill monkey? It looks like it. The rogue wasn't taking the knowledges either after all. In combat? Haste alone contributes more to combat than the rogue by doubling the damage output of the fighter and cleric. The wizard is only going to get better in comparison as his int rises, the class skill bonus becomes a smaller fraction of the skill, and he gets more and higher level slots for combat. When he's level 17 and casting time stop he'll still be replacing the rogue out of his level 1-3 slots and his skill ranks
Use a Sage Sorceror instead of a wizard and all the Schrödinger complaints evaporate. Same massive int, only a few spells known spent on roguishness, and flexible slots.
Use a bard and... Yeah, no point even discussing it. Bards have skill boosting magic even wizards can't match and with versatile performance as many effective skill ranks per level at level 5 as a rogue and have nearly everything as a class skill.
Alchemists have a lot of the skill obsoleting spells as extracts, int as a primary stat, and make up for not being as SAD as the wizard by having 4+int skills/level. Disable Device is a class skill, mutagen can crank their dexterity for stealth or cognatogen their charisma for social situations. And they can sneak attack and use poisons.
What I want is the spell caster that can fill any and all roles on a whim. That's how every one of these discussions ends up being. I want to see the caster that can change roles throughout the day and remain useful to the party. He needs to do this from level 1 through 20. I would like to see the build using the elite array since that is what the game is supposed to assume but I would be content with 20 point buy. The only caveat is that only 1 stat can be a dump stat.
Remember that for every spell you use to mimic a rogue, that is a spell you aren't using for something else. Spells are limited resources.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I want is the spell caster that can fill any and all roles on a whim.
That is a disingenuous question if you're trying to determine the rogues value. Take the goal post off the Semi truck and put it back where it belongs. This isn't "lets replace the fighter with a caster" this isn't "lets replace the cleric with a wizard" this is "You think we can replace the rogue?"
Remember that for every spell you use to mimic a rogue, that is a spell you aren't using for something else. Spells are limited resources.
Remember, for every rogue that you play to mimic a real character, that is one character's worth of spells you're not getting. Characters are a limited resource.
|
|
Remember that for every spell you use to mimic a rogue, that is a spell you aren't using for something else. Spells are limited resources.Remember, for every rogue that you play to mimic a real character, that is one character's worth of spells you're not getting. Characters are a limited resource.
Clearly all Parties (of 4) should consist of:
The Wizard (Or Sorcerer): Role - Utility, Stealth, Battlefield ControlThe Druid: Role - Off-Tank, Trapfinding
The Cleric Role - Healing, Buffs
and The Summoner - Tank, Buffs, Face.
And all four get spells.
Everyone wins. :)
lol.
Show me a pure caster, from level 1 to 20 (preferably core since that is where the majority of the "problem" is with the rogue), that can fill the rogue's role as well as any other role.Show me the rogue I'm competing with. You complain about Schrodinger's wizard, i always see Schrodinger's rogue who's talents keep changing to match the situation. The difference is that its at least theoretically possible for the wizard to match the situation. And don't give me duff about my product not being as good a caster as a caster: that's the wrong comparison.
For the rogue i want to see something that is viable in combat, because pathfinder so often comes down to combat
We need to define some things then:
1) What do you mean when you say viable? I know what I mean but from our other discussions, I know we don't mean the same thing.
2) The caster must be able to fill the role of the rogue as well as the role of the caster that can do everything whenever he wants. The caster must be able to continue adventuring without having to run home to recharge or reset all his abilities. The world will continue on, so teleporting away for a day isn't a solution. The adventure doesn't go into stasis waiting for the caster to return.
3) What is the role of the rogue we are trying to fill? Specifically, what do we agree that the rogue should be able to accomplish?
fully understand opportunity cost and that is exactly what I'm talking about. All I ever read about is the theoretical spell caster that is always ready with whatever spells are needed or he can just wait a day and reset his spells while the world stands still waiting for the caster to come back and finish things.Many of your comments indicate that you do not understand opportunity cost, for example, not accepting that the rogue has been replaced unless the character is both a full caster and a full rogue. Full rogue +ANY caster is coming out ahead.
That's an opinion, not a statement of fact. Besides, you know as well as I do, that there are plenty of people that come into these discussions who only look at high level of play and assume that the wizard maintains that level of power and consistency from level 1 on up. These people also assume that the world stops for the caster to be able to reset his abilities.
I have never, in more than 30 years, seen this perfect caster built or played. The build has never shown up in any of these discussions. The reason why I believe that it won't ever show up is because it is a pipe dream. Pick whatever pipe, but it is still a dream.I have been playing 3.0 since the beginning and haven't seen a rogue that couldn't be replaced with a little creativity.
I have seen many classes replaced with other classes. I have built wizards who were melee fighters. I have built clerics that were roguish. I have seen all kinds of interesting concepts. That is the beauty of the d20 system. The classes aren't forced into perfect little roles like other systems.
I have run many games where it was far better to just have the rogue instead of a caster replacing the rogue. The caster was able to use his limited resources for other things while the rogue was able to do his job. The games just ran more smoothly. That isn't to say that any and all games would do the same. Just that the games I ran were that way.
Oh, I want him to be a real skill monkey and have all those knowledge skills that are touted.Why? Rogues don't usually bulk up on knowledge skills.
When I first wrote that post, I was specifically talking about wizards and I thought I had edited it so that it wasn't so specific. That's my fault for not removing this line. My thought process was that the wizard is also called a skill monkey because of all the skill points he gets (2+Int). As the conversation goes on, we see all those skill points going into knowledge. There aren't skill points left over for other things. That being said, you didn't specifically mention the wizard and I was referring to casters in general so we can skip this.
Why? If you get an entire rogue and 3/4 a caster out of a character you've come way ahead of just having a rogue.
I want him to be able to be very stealthy from level 1. I want him to be able to do everything the rogue can do as well as what is expected of the caster (whatever that may be).
I want the character to be what is often touted. It must fill both roles completely. That is what many actually are claiming. I want to see it.
I don't think it will happen. I've been in these discussions before and have never seen it.I think the last time we did this my druid was a comparable if not better scout with more utility, and your rogue was out DPR'd by the druid's pet alone.
That was your assumption, but the reality is different. We both saw things the way we wanted. My scout was a far more versatile scout, able to go anywhere and report back. He was able to deal with CR appropriate enemies with ease, alone. He was an incredible scout, able to accomplish far more than your druid.
As for the DPR, it's not relevant. What is relevant is that the rogue could deal enough DPR. The rogue I built was able to take on plenty, dealing with the enemy quickly and efficiently. If the enemy only has 40 hit points, and I can deal 45, does it matter if your pet can deal 60? Anything over 40 is excessive. The rogue also was not meant to be a front line fighter, and the one I built was definitely a skirmisher.
I have seen some people show some interesting builds, but none have ever been able to compete with the rogue with being a rogue.The only time you need a rogue is if you need to stuff the trap finder and face in the same person.
We should start defining what we want from the rogue otherwise we aren't going to get very far.
See, most people aren't playing core only. Its doable, but harder there. With traits,archetypes, and non core feats its pretty easy.
Show me a pure caster, from level 1 to 20 (preferably core since that is where the majority of the "problem" is with the rogue), that can fill the rogue's role as well as any other role.
Then let's open it up. The rogue does better once we leave Core, as most classes do, so I wanted to keep it with just the basics.
Once we establish this, then we can look at archetypes and see how they compare. What we are doing right now is just pretending that we all play the exact same style of game and that casters have all spells available at all times for all levels.Once the casters have time to scribe some scrolls (or the campaign goes on and you write on the fly) this becomes nearly true.
There also comes the question of why not just Dip a level or 2 of rogue and get most of the benefits?
Casters can only scribe scrolls of spells they know. Only the wizard starts with the ability to scribe. I firmly believe that those classes that can brew potions or scribe scrolls should make at least one potion or scroll a day as long as they have the materials (paper, flasks, etc). However, they are still limited to what they already know.
Multiclassing brings up its own problems. The rogue can multiclass into barbarian or fighter to improve his combat. He can take a couple levels of an appropriate spellcasting class to beef up some of his abilities if he feels it is necessary. Many low level spells are very useful but so are some of the abilities that he can get.
Clearly all Parties (of 4) should consist of:
Everyone wins. :)
well yes that was a little more snark than I liked but i was trying to demonstrate how the opportunity cost worked and the ironic echo worked.
1) What do you mean when you say viable? I know what I mean but from our other discussions, I know we don't mean the same thing.
This is a rough one, it varies a lot with level. At first level you should be able to one shot a CR 1 but that doesn't hold up . I think 75% of a DPR olympic contender sounds about right? (this is an off the cuff rough estimate)
2) The caster must be able to fill the role of the rogue as well as the role of the caster that can do everything whenever he wants. The caster must be able to continue adventuring without having to run home to recharge or reset all his abilities. The world will continue on, so teleporting away for a day isn't a solution. The adventure doesn't go into stasis waiting for the caster to return.
For how long? The game is based around 4 encounters between rests.
3) What is the role of the rogue we are trying to fill? Specifically, what do we agree that the rogue should be able to accomplish?
Do a significant amount of damage in combat, because it is a largely combat based game and everyone is supposed to participate towards that goal
Find and deal with traps.
Open locked doors.
Sneak should it become neccesary.
You might include being the party face, but the fact is that other classes do it better.
That's an opinion, not a...
That is a fact. If you fully replace the rogue and have anything left over you are ahead. That is not an opinion, it is not up for discussion, it is true by definition.
I want the character to be what is often touted. It must fill both roles completely. That is what many actually are claiming. I want to see it.
I'm not claiming it, i don't see anyone else claiming it, and the claim is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. By definition when you use one spell for knock you're not using a scorching ray, so you will have less power than the batman/blasty wizard.
That was your assumption
Vizzini, that word doesn't mean what you think it means.
but the reality is different. We both saw things the way we wanted. My scout was a far more versatile scout
In what way? The druid could fly in the air, swim under water, see in the dark. You keep adding fuzzy, subjective adjectives like "my rouge is more x" without any evidence or definition. You may as well be saying that your rogue is smurfier.
able to go anywhere and report back.
reporting back is a problem at low levels, but can be dealt with.
He was able to deal with CR appropriate enemies with ease, alone. He was an incredible scout, able to accomplish far more than your druid.
When you assume that your rogue would dart in and out of combat and everything would go his way and the druid, not being a rogue, is somehow forced to strait on charge. You assumed the druid with spiderclimb wouldn't think to hop up in a tree.
Newsflash: Rogue as a personality type and combat tactic is not the sole Provence of the mechanics of being a rogue. Being a rogue does not make you a superior player, or mystically grand superior tactics. You can be powerful AND smart at the same time.
As for the DPR, it's not relevant. What is relevant is that the rogue could deal enough DPR. The rogue I built was able to take on plenty, dealing with the enemy quickly and efficiently. If the enemy only has 40 hit points, and I can deal 45, does it matter if your pet can deal 60? Anything over 40 is excessive.
If the DM is throwing balsa wood cutouts at you, sure. At 10th level 45 damage on a rare full attack and 1d6+3 damage on a single attack is horrible.
The rogue also was not meant to be a front line fighter, and the one I built was definitely a skirmisher.
Skirmishing doesn't work unless your entire party goes along with it. Going out alone will get you killed (it was confirmed that scent does roflcopter stealth), and you're asking your party to sit there and do nothing in the middle of the fight so your 3 round plan to move in strike and move out has time to work.
In the herd of cats you usually wind up playing with while the rogue is setting up the barbarian will smash the thing he's aiming for.
In think I will replace every Rogues in my game by Swordsages, and I'll just give the Swordsage a Sneak Attack "stance" along with Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge. :)
What I want is the spell caster that can fill any and all roles on a whim.That is a disingenuous question if you're trying to determine the rogues value. Take the goal post off the Semi truck and put it back where it belongs. This isn't "lets replace the fighter with a caster" this isn't "lets replace the cleric with a wizard" this is "You think we can replace the rogue?"
It's not disingenuous at all. I have been in enough of these discussions to know that the argument is casters can do everything whenever they want and that non-casters can suck it. I'm leaving the goal post at "caster must fill rogue role 100% and his own role 100%." That is what is touted and that's what I want to see.
Remember that for every spell you use to mimic a rogue, that is a spell you aren't using for something else. Spells are limited resources.Remember, for every rogue that you play to mimic a real character, that is one character's worth of spells you're not getting. Characters are a limited resource.
At this point, this conversation is going to go nowhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm leaving the goal post at "caster must fill rogue role 100% and his own role 100%." That is what is touted and that's what I want to see.
By this measure the expert is a viable PC class.
Swordsages already have Assassin's Stance.
Yeah I know, I would just tweak it so that it would have the Rogue's Sneak Attack damage progression instead of just 2d6. ToB is so full of good stuff.
|
|
I'm leaving the goal post at "caster must fill rogue role 100% and his own role 100%." That is what is touted and that's what I want to see.
The rest of us are holding to a more realistic standard that still shows the rogue as underpowered.
Here's how I'm going to phrase it.
"Caster must fill rogue role 100% and his own role 10% or more."
1) What do you mean when you say viable? I know what I mean but from our other discussions, I know we don't mean the same thing.This is a rough one, it varies a lot with level. At first level you should be able to one shot a CR 1 but that doesn't hold up . I think 75% of a DPR olympic contender sounds about right? (this is an off the cuff rough estimate)
I would go even farther. Strive for damage dealers being within 5% of each other's DPR. The argument for combat viability stems from WoW's influence, after all. We may as well try and emulate that level of concept balance as far as combat is concerned.
If that leaves fighters feeling incomplete, that is then a problem with the fighter class.
3) What is the role of the rogue we are trying to fill? Specifically, what do we agree that the rogue should be able to accomplish?
Do a significant amount of damage in combat, because it is a largely combat based game and everyone is supposed to participate towards that goal
Find and deal with traps.
Open locked doors.
Sneak should it become neccesary.
You might include being the party face, but the fact is that other classes do it better.
Agreed. The rogue's role should be combat + DEX based skills, with CHA based skills on the side.
The argument for combat viability stems from WoW's influence, after all. We may as well try and emulate that level of concept balance as far as combat is concerned.
Argh, NO. Definitely not. It started when players were able to control their own characters and at 3.0 when things started getting more hitpoints.
|
The argument for combat viability stems from WoW's influence, after all. We may as well try and emulate that level of concept balance as far as combat is concerned.
This a agree with and find to be another nail in the coffin of Pen & Paper roleplaying games. This preoccupation with DPR and calculating average damage based on hitting an average creature and average number of times, etc, what rubbish in the sense of an RPG. Contributing to a successful adventure has little if anything to do with abilities in combat, or with any rule for that matter. Contributing is the ability of the player to act as their character has been decided to act by the player. The class/race which the player chooses should/will reflect this. As a GM it is all I expect and I would eject from my game any player who singled out another player based on 'lack of DPR'.
Because of this I see no problem at all with a player wanting to be a Rogue OR wanting to be a caster who does Rogue things. Both can exist side by side in my games.
S.