|
Sometimes when I see these sort of comments; ‘rogues are terrible’;’ rogues don’t get nice things’; ‘every other class can do everything a rogue can do, but better’; ‘all rogue talents suck’ ... I have to wonder, do the people making the comments ever actually play rogues, or see relatively well-built rogues in play?
Rogues in 3.5 are/were great, they hold their own in play. Pathfinder rogues only got better. And while yes, there are a few suboptimal, very situational or just plain dud rogue talents, most of them are really very good.
I have played a PF rogue from first level to 14th level (so far) and at all levels the rogue has held his own mechanically against the rest of the party. There are some things that he does far better than anyone else, some things that he does equally well, and some things that other classes do better, but it is far from a dud class. And I have not yet got to a point where I am struggling to find a worthwhile rogue talent, or having to take ones from the ninja list to get a good one. Fast stealth, trap spotter, bleeding attack, crippling strike and opportunist to name a few.
This is obviously a subjective point of view, but so are the ‘rogues suck!’ ones. Let's have some balance and realisation that everyone is going to have their own opinions on what constitutes 'good game design / balance' no matter how much effort is made on the part of the designers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes when I see these sort of comments; ‘rogues are terrible’;’ rogues don’t get nice things’; ‘every other class can do everything a rogue can do, but better’; ‘all rogue talents suck’ ... I have to wonder, do the people making the comments ever actually play rogues, or see relatively well-built rogues in play?
Rogues in 3.5 are/were great, they hold their own in play. Pathfinder rogues only got better. And while yes, there are a few suboptimal, very situational or just plain dud rogue talents, most of them are really very good.
The thing is 3.5 Rogues didn't have PF nerfs.
And the Sneak attack works on most types buff? 3.5 Rogues can get that too (Penetrating Strike, trade trap sense, that weak +X to AC/Save from traps for it).Or Golem Strike wands, etc.
The PF nerfs made the rogue weaker: No blink (ring is cheap gp cost for all sneak attacks), no Grease (grease made everyone lose Dex to AC in 3.5; 1st lv spell wands are cheap), no flasks (alchemist fire, acid, holt water [for evil demons/devil/undead]) fot touch AC sneak attacks, etc.
Grease is major nerf for all rogues I played in 3.5. It was standard operating procedure.
Unlike turning invisible (hard to get a full attack unless G. Invis which isn't easy to acquire), it was harder to stop (True seeing stops invisibility but not Grease).
Even those with balance as a class skill (rogues, Monks, Bards) need to have 5 ranks, meaning everyone else needs to be minium level 8. And that is precious skill points back then.
In fact, I dare say if you added Rogue talents to 3.5 Rogue and thus no PF nerfs. The 3.5 Rogue beats the pants off the PF rogue everytime.
Heck, he might not need Rogue talents to do so.
|
|
The thing is 3.5 Rogues didn't have PF nerfs.
And the Sneak attack works on most types buff? 3.5 Rogues can get that too (Penetrating Strike, trade trap sense, that weak +X to AC/Save from traps for it).
Or Golem Strike wands, etc.The PF nerfs made the rogue weaker: No blink (ring is cheap gp cost for all sneak attacks), no Grease (grease made everyone lose Dex to AC in 3.5; 1st lv spell wands are cheap), no flasks (alchemist fire, acid, holt water [for evil demons/devil/undead]) fot touch AC sneak attacks, etc.
Grease is major nerf for all rogues I played in 3.5. It was standard operating procedure.
Unlike turning invisible (hard to get a full attack unless G. Invis which isn't easy to acquire), it was harder to stop (True seeing stops invisibility but not Grease).Even those with balance as a class skill (rogues, Monks, Bards) need to have 5 ranks, meaning everyone else needs to be minium level 8. And that is precious skill points back then.
In fact, I dare say if you added Rogue talents to 3.5 Rogue and thus no PF nerfs. The 3.5 Rogue beats the pants off the PF rogue everytime.
Heck, he might not need Rogue talents to do so.
I sort of see your points, personally I don’t think these changes have made the rogue significantly weaker, at least not enough to outweigh the pluses rogues get now, considering especially they are all fairly circumstantial.
Grease was (and is) a fantastic low level spell I agree, pretty much a must have anytime I play an arcane caster. I (personally) haven’t found the change to have a big impact on rogues or sneak attacks though; at low levels opponents in a grease spell are often failing their initial reflex saves anyway, and the fight is usually over quickly enough that being flat footed for multiple rounds is not a big advantage; with or without grease it is usually simple enough to achieve sneak attacks through flanking or (especially with a few levels under your rogue’s belt) feint. And in 3.5 when you were flat footed and needed to make saves if you simply stood still in grease, it was usually more advantageous (and in many circumstances entirely possible) to simply move out of the grease (which, yes, potentially meant a free sneak attack AoO, so that was good ... but in my experience the situation was not universal enough ot have meant a big nerf to the rogue).
I don’t think 3.5 penetrating strike was a Core Rule was it? So many groups (including mine which used mainly Core in 3.5) would not have used it (unless I just missed it somewhere in Core). Trap Sense is/was one of those highly circumstantial things, but depending on the campaign could be VERY useful for the rogue, especially in 3.5 when traps tended to be more deadly, and with the rogue often scouting ahead or being the one to try to disarm them, most likely to fall afoul of them.
Either way you had to give something up or spend money to make the most of your sneak attack, being able to sneak attack (very nearly) anything is a huge boon in PF.
I admit I never used a ring of blinking, cost too much considering it is normally not so difficult to set up sneak attacks (stealth-surprise round attack, high init, first round flat footed attack, flank, bluff/improved feint). I’ve never been totally sure of the rules for flask sneak attacks in either edition – where does it say in either rule set that you can / can’t? Always kinda assumed that you couldn’t in either edition.
3.5 rogue with PF rogue talents would be almost as good as the PF rogue IMO. Sneak attacking (almost) anything without losing anything is very good, the boost in hit points and combining several rogue-centric skills are a very big plus in my book.
I appreciate your point of view though, some things I did not consider much with the change to various spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Starbuck hit a lot of the nerfs, but there are plenty more. The PF skill system as a whole was a nerf to rogues. Class skills meant a LOT in 3E, trying to advance a skill w/ a class that didn't have it was costly AND restrictive. And you couldn't just get around the problem by dipping rogue or other high skills class for 1 level or with traits.
Tumble was also a huge nerf. Tumbling used to be a gimme by level 8 if not earlier, which made it actually possible for the rogue to safely get that flank. And more importantly, safely get the hell away when he realizes he can't hang in melee.
The boost in hit points is hardly worth mentioning. EVERY class that had lower than a d8 got a HD boost.
And yes, a lot of the "tools of the trade" for a 3E rogue are not core. Core rogues sucked. Though, they at least could use ring of blink + acid flasks to spam full attack enemies' flatfooted touch AC, which alone is basically better than anything the PF rogue can do...
It's not really fair to compare PF to core 3.5, though. PF has the benefit of coming out years later and learning from the mistakes of core 3.5. Later 3.5 also had this benefit. Which is why if you look at the latter part of 3.5, you see all these things - gravestrike and golemstrike spells, greater truedeath crystals, penetrating strike alt. class feature... that basically let rogues sneak attack anything. The developers couldn't (or were unwilling to) go re-write the base class, but clearly saw rogue had major problems, and took very drastic steps to fix them.
So yeah, PF rogue can hypothetically SA almost anything. Same with the 3.5 Rogue. Difference is, the 3.5 Rogue can actually obtain the conditions needed for SA much easier and more safely. And anyone trying to outdo him at his class skills (unless they also have it as a class skill) is doomed to be stuck at HALF his skill ranks and pay double for that honor!
|
|
@StreamOfTheSky
I would argue that the skill changes / amalgamations benefited the rogue more than most other classes.
Sure rogues had and have a lot of skill points, but they also had (under 3/3.5) a very high skill tax in order to be a good all rounder (rather than a highly focused specialist), more so than most other classes (ranger probably suffered from a similar problem in terms of necessary and highly desirable skills and have benefitted almost – but not quite – as much).
To be a really good rogue you wanted disable device, open lock, search, listen, spot, move silently, hide, climb, balance, tumble, escape artist, bluff at least. Without a fairly high Int score most rogues would not be able to keep all of these at / near max ranks, gods forbid if they also wanted to be a master of disguise, a forger, a pick pocket or something like that as well.
With combined skills (not to mention bonus skill points from favoured class) you easily cover all the essentials at max ranks every level and can pick up a few others as well. Certainly other classes benefitted from the combined skills, but few had or have the skill requirements of a rogue, and some got far less benefit from the change (I would argue that the typical ‘must have’ skills for wizards, clerics, fighters do not see much change from 3.5 to PF).
Certainly other classes can be better at some things that the rogue is also good at than they once were, but in most cases the rogue is still going to be a lot better, and that can make all the difference. The classes that still come closest (or equal to) the rogue in their ‘must have’ skills could do it in 3.5 or PF mostly.
Boost in hit points is not a huge thing, and again some other classes got a benefit too, I would argue that rogues, who are more likely to find themselves in melee than the typical wizard, sorcerer or to some extent bard get a higher benefit from the change.
A common argument I see is ‘but this is a minor advantage, but that is a minor advantage’ – sure they are; but when taken as a whole picture the sum of these minor advantages can be greater than the whole.
I don’t think saying that the PF rogue benefitted from later 3.5 stuff (as opposed to a comparison with core 3.5) is all that relevant to the argument, surely all PF classes benefitted to some degree or another from the lessons learnt in 3.5? And yes, a splat 3.5 rogue could do stuff to SA anything, but needed give up other things, or spend resources, or have someone cast the spell on them or whatever ... based on my play experience I really think people are overestimating the difficulty and danger in setting up SAs in PF (and perhaps how common using things like grease and rings of blink were in 3.5; maybe not on the latter, maybe I just didn’t get the most I could out of my 3.5 rogues, but I never felt they were under powered in that regard).
I do agree that tumbling through an enemy’s reach (or square) got a lot more difficult under PF. But seriously, any self respecting rogue should be maxing out acrobatics, maxing out dex, getting boots of elven kind asap, enough that you still have a respectable chance at getting past most enemies.
Personally I see this as one of many compromises that the designers made in order to try to make (as much as possible – and it is really not entirely possible without making everything bland and vanilla) a balanced game. When you are playing a fighter or something in 3.5 there were few things more frustrating than having the rogue tumble past you with ease and not being able to do anything about it. Honestly, with a DC of 15 it was hardly worth having people roll it once they had a few levels under their belt – now your opponent’s skill actually matters. Personally I don’t think the balance is quite right now, but while it disadvantages the rogue somewhat, it did fix a huge problem in the 3/3.5 rules.
...I have played a PF rogue from first level to 14th level (so far) and at all levels the rogue has held his own mechanically against the rest of the party....
More power to you.
In our (balanced players, not so very combat heavy) weekly game NOONE has played a Rogue for like 10 years despite the fact that all players change their PC class with every campaign. Once a player dipped Rogue to get Arcane Trickster but we had to houserule a few things so that he felt viable between the Droods, Barbarians, Wizards and Clerics.
This is not only because Rogues are mediocre in combat and have nothing else to really show off but because Rogues do not feel heroic and become obsolete after Level 5.
The ability to hold your breath longer or grovel at anothers feet effecively has actually not changed that assessment.
I can't believe people are actually defending Hold Breath. I thought that was one of those things so hilariously pathetically worthless that anyone, anywhere could look at it and laugh. I remember the first time I saw it, I copy/pasted the text to show all my friends solely for the purpose of making them laugh.
Hi, I'm Guybrush Threepwood and I can hold my breath for ten minutes!
Sometimes when I see these sort of comments; ‘rogues are terrible’;’ rogues don’t get nice things’; ‘every other class can do everything a rogue can do, but better’; ‘all rogue talents suck’ ... I have to wonder, do the people making the comments ever actually play rogues, or see relatively well-built rogues in play?
Rogues in 3.5 are/were great, they hold their own in play. Pathfinder rogues only got better. And while yes, there are a few suboptimal, very situational or just plain dud rogue talents, most of them are really very good.
I have played a PF rogue from first level to 14th level (so far) and at all levels the rogue has held his own mechanically against the rest of the party. There are some things that he does far better than anyone else, some things that he does equally well, and some things that other classes do better, but it is far from a dud class. And I have not yet got to a point where I am struggling to find a worthwhile rogue talent, or having to take ones from the ninja list to get a good one. Fast stealth, trap spotter, bleeding attack, crippling strike and opportunist to name a few.
This is obviously a subjective point of view, but so are the ‘rogues suck!’ ones. Let's have some balance and realisation that everyone is going to have their own opinions on what constitutes 'good game design / balance' no matter how much effort is made on the part of the designers.
I'm a GM so I don't get to play often so I haven't actually played a rogue but I've seen in 90% of the game I GM. The only problem I see the rogue having is hitting at higher levels. The problem really manifest after 12th level. At this point I notice rogue missing with most of their attacks. A TWF fighting rogue with 4 attacks is hitting with maybe 1 attack dealing sneak attack damage. This a case of builds, I see this consistently. As well it gets worse if the point buy is lower as that leads to lower DEX or STR meaning 1 or 2 less on the To Hit bonus from stats.
The rogue isn't useless though they just they have lot more disappointing moments in game than the other classes at the higher levels. As this happens I find some players lose confidence and become a wall flower when combat starts, avoiding engaging in combat.
I've implemented a house rule that sneak attack starting at 3rd level provides +1 to hit when using sneak attack and it increase every with every other sneak attack dice. So at 19th level the rogue has +5 to hit their sneak attack. The effect of this is minor from what I can tell at low levels but by 12th level the bonus is +3 and this comes in when the rogue really needs it.
The thing with the rogue is if you don't play past 12th level you probably won't notice the problem much. We quite often play till about 15th to 17th level.
Now this problem is what makes a lot of the talents kind of suck. You already have a problem with combat so can't afford to take situational cool talent that you may not use all the time. Get kind of into rut of talents you have to take to make the rogue effective in combat so you can make that 1 hit you might land do the most it can do. Like Bleed, Slow Reaction, Dispelling Attack and Crippling Strike. If all you get is one hit in normally best make most of it and hope for some high rolls to get more out of a single attack. If you didn't have to worry about that you'd be more free to pick talents those crappy ones wouldn't feel so crappy.
the Rogue. Makes a fantastic villain. Unfortunately the rogue suffers from 2 major problems. First off is their place in lore and fantasy stories in the first place. They are often quirky thieves or bold faced liars, comedic relief, fluf characters in a book. Even the Rougish main character/hero/main villain is more of a fighter/assassin/duelist. The second problem the rogue faces is role filling. Ok its a scout, well so is the ranger, and the monke, and the wizard (cuz they can do anything). They are the striker, fighter, archer, does it already. Trapfinder!!!!!...rangers, alchemists have dissable device, and arcane caster can get rid of magic. The rogue was made to fill the unwanted roles that other players have to sacrifice to do. Rangers want to be snipers, mages want to cause explosions, fighters want to swing their big sword. The rogue fils the roles no one wants to do, all the little "avoidable garbage" that makes the game more "realistic" or gritty is done by the rogue. He is the grunt, the fall guy, the cleaner, and the nose wiper
Sherlock Holmes is a Rogue.
If you mean the one from the recent movies I'd say a Fighter/Rogue which is great combo in the game.
I would argue that the skill changes / amalgamations benefited the rogue more than most other classes.
Sure rogues had and have a lot of skill points, but they also had (under 3/3.5) a very high skill tax in order to be a good all rounder (rather than a highly focused specialist), more so than most other classes (ranger probably suffered from a similar problem in terms of necessary and highly desirable skills and have benefitted almost – but not quite – as much).
To be a really good rogue you wanted disable device, open lock, search, listen, spot, move silently, hide, climb, balance, tumble, escape artist, bluff at least. Without a fairly high Int score most rogues would not be able to keep all of these at / near max ranks, gods forbid if they also wanted to be a master of disguise, a forger, a pick pocket or something like that as well.
Your problem is bringing PF assumptions to 3E rules. In 3E, the designers left a ton of skills in the system, but intentionally made static DCs, often with pretty low upper caps, the norm for those skill checks. Why? So you weren't enslaved to keeping that skill maxed out your whole career. You could get your tumble to +14, then move onto other pursuits. The preference order you invested your ranks in was up to you, and they did make sure to add benefits for maxing out a skill anyway (too many to name, almost any splatbook had some benefit for making super high DCs or having a lot of ranks, most notably of course the epic rules). But you absolutely did NOT need to keep your ranks maxed in order to function at a basic level with the skill. This also facilitated multiclassing, btw.
A 3E rogue needed Tumble +14, he needed 5 ranks in Balance (that gets you all the goodies, and 5 ranks + your big dex and no armor check penalty = a 10+ margin over the other PCs, if that wasn't enough to win, the rest of the party basically has no chance to), disable device needs to be +33 (DC 25 +spell level for magic traps) but even that didn't require a full 23 rank investment, open lock was usually ignored because breaking locks was so easy / repurcussions for failing to break it and jamming the lock not harsh or frequent enough, search again you need +33 like w/ DD, hide and move silently you did have to max I agree, climb is obsoleted at mid levels by flight and was not needed much if at all, spot and listen needed maxing I agree, escape artist was a horrible skill (can't even use it to avoid being grappled, only to escape once being choked out; it was a standard while as grapple checks to escape replaced attacks in a full attack), bluff benefited from maxing but hardly required it to beat 99% of NPCs and feint was so terribad maxing bluff for that was just plain laughable.
Think I covered all the skills you mentioned. :) Rogue skill burden was heavy, but definitely manageable.
With combined skills (not to mention bonus skill points from favoured class) you easily cover all the essentials at max ranks every level and can pick up a few others as well. Certainly other classes benefitted from the combined skills, but few had or have the skill requirements of a rogue, and some got far less benefit from the change (I would argue that the typical ‘must have’ skills for wizards, clerics, fighters do not see much change from 3.5 to PF).
All casters get concentration for free. For low int 2+ skills classes like sorc and cleric, that's already like getting 50% or 33% of your skills for free. The huge Perception bundling benefited casters as much as anyone, and w/ the class skill thing being a joke, everyone can be awesome at it. And your point seems to agree with mine: In 3E, you needed a rogue to handle all sorts of skills. In PF, between a 4 person party w/ class skill being meaningless, the party can easily cover all the important skills once or twice over without any need of the rogue. He lost niche protection.
Certainly other classes can be better at some things that the rogue is also good at than they once were, but in most cases the rogue is still going to be a lot better, and that can make all the difference. The classes that still come closest (or equal to) the rogue in their ‘must have’ skills could do it in 3.5 or PF mostly.
I disagree. Rogue is heavily MAD, so anything that's not a dex-based skill, many other classes will be able to do MUCH better than him. Loss of skill synergies also took an edge away from being able to rank up lots of skills.
Boost in hit points is not a huge thing, and again some other classes got a benefit too, I would argue that rogues, who are more likely to find themselves in melee than the typical wizard, sorcerer or to some extent bard get a higher benefit from the change.
Maybe. I'd also argue rogue and bard sorely needed the hit die increase; sorc and wiz did not.
A common argument I see is ‘but this is a minor advantage, but that is a minor advantage’ – sure they are; but...
My argument is rogue overall is nerfed. A bunch of little un-unified advantages doesn't make up for the gigantic nerfs they got to all the core competencies they once had and leaves them with no good role or niche to fill.
My argument is rogue overall is nerfed. A bunch of little un-unified advantages doesn't make up for the gigantic nerfs they got to all the core competencies they once had and leaves them with no good role or niche to fill.
The rogue wasn't nerfed, to be nerfed you have to be over powered to begin with. What happened is the system changed and those changes impacted the rogue.
1) Like for example the fighter getting Weapon Training. The fighter is kind baseline class and +4 to hit and damage this meant monster got bit tougher. 3.5 monsters are a full CR 1 or 2 less that the pathfinder equivalents. The rogue didn't get boost in combat so they are little worse off. It's either AC is higher or damage output is higher and both of these are bad for the rogue.
2) The skills, consolidation and class skills instead more skills and cross class skills. What this means is at level 20 you will only 3 off the person with the class skill. In 3.5 you'd 7 less since you can only half the max ranks and you max rank wich was level +3. Now class skills just give you the +3 but everyone can be good at skill with high stat bonus because they can all put the same ranks in the skill. The Skill Mastery Talent looks like it was to address and while use full I think should have granted bonus to the skills as well as allowing take 10 when normally they couldn't.
Just to add, one thing they did do for the rogue is allow sneak attack a lot more targets than in 3.5. You can sneak attack undead and constructs for example and that's huge bonus to rogues.
The rogue wasn't nerfed, to be nerfed you have to be over powered to begin with.Actually, to "nerf" something just means to make it weaker. Doesn't matter where it started.
I don't think rogue is weaker, I'd say it's more powerful than the 3.5 equivalent. Problem is while they boosted the rogue they boosted everything else more so. I think allowing sneak attack on more targets was a big boost to the rogue of the 3.5 rogue.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't think rogue is weaker, I'd say it's more powerful than the 3.5 equivalent. Problem is while they boosted the rogue they boosted everything else more so. I think allowing sneak attack on more targets was a big boost to the rogue of the 3.5 rogue.The rogue wasn't nerfed, to be nerfed you have to be over powered to begin with.Actually, to "nerf" something just means to make it weaker. Doesn't matter where it started.
Meh, I was just nitpicking your terminology.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Or you could use the following feats.
Monkey Moves: While using Monkey Style, you gain a Wisdom bonus on Climb checks. You can also can climb and crawl at half your speed; you can take a 5-foot step by jumping, crawling, or climbing; and you retain your Dexterity bonus to AC while climbing. Further, while using Monkey Style, when you use your unarmed strike to hit an opponent twice or more on your turn, you can spend a swift action to take a 5-foot step even if you have moved this round.That closeley resembles Wall climber (and may let you move faster).
It also lets your Rogue crawl.
You'd need a base speed of 40ft for Monkey Moves to let you climb as fast as Wall Climber, more to be faster.
Additionally, having a climb speed (as granted by Wall Climber) gives you a +8 bonus to climb checks. For Monkey Moves to compare, you'd need 26 WIS.
Furthermore, Wall Climber lets you take 10 even while threatened. Monkey Moves doesn't, so sooner or later you roll a 1. In the cliffside harpy encounter I mentioned earlier, I'd have died with Monkey Moves. Wall Climber saved my arse.
And finally, Wall Climber you can grab at level 2 with no prereqs. Monkey Moves requires two previous feats (IUS and Monkey Style) and you have to be at least level 8.
Monkey Style: You add your Wisdom bonus on Acrobatics checks. While using this style, you take no penalty on melee attack rolls or to AC while prone. Further, you can crawl and stand up from lying prone without provoking attacks of opportunity, and you can stand up as a swift action if you succeed at a DC 20 Acrobatics check.This takes "Stand up" behind the gym and steals its lunch money. Ok swift instead of free but still much better since no attack of opportunity.
The "no penalties while prone" thing is pretty nice, I'll grant you. So is the non-provoking stand. On the other hand, the swift action stand requires an acrobatics check, and again, you have to be at least level 5 and need IUS first. Stand Up can be taken much sooner and with no prereqs.
|
|
You think the lack of a +3 to the skill is enough to disqualify straight Rogue?
Disqualify? Probably not outright. Make an alternative the ideal reflection of the character? Yes.
I'd personally peg him as having a few levels of Lore Warden (or something similar) and then the rest Rogue.
Assuming you don't want him to be a spellcaster, of course. You could build him as a straight Inquisitor very effectively, for example.
|
|
Were I to do anything, I'd give him one level of Wizard for all Knowledges and a few spells that could easily be fluffed as alchemical tools or slight of hand tricks.
A level or two of Lore Warden are probably better both thematically and mechanically if you're just going for a splash. More skill points, extra Feats (three feats for two levels!), and all Int based skills as class.
But class isn't really vital to Holmes, the important part is high Int and Wis and an outstanding Perception score as well as good Knowledge and social skills. With those, you can make him as just about anything.
For example, I'll note that Count Varian Jeggare comes perilously close to being Golasrion's equivalent of Holmes, and he's just a Wizard. :)
|
So? they are good feats the same way wall climber is a good rogue talent.As for taking a 10, you do not autmatically fail a skill roll on a 1.
As for getting it at level 2, MoMS 2 can get it at level 2, also as a monk he will by level 3 have the move of 40. Haste and other methods let you boost your speed.
Monkey style also lets you crawl half your move rather then just 5'.
Well, I wouldn't say good actually. It's okay. It's nothing like being able to buy a fly speed as a synthesist or alchemist, and it certainly is not as good as the spider climb spell. But it's not bad.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As for taking a 10, you do not autmatically fail a skill roll on a 1.
What's that got to do with anything? Again with the harpy scenario:
Each turn, I double-moved to climb 40ft total with two climb checks. I took 10 on each, getting a 26. Then the harpies attack, and each hit forces me to make a climb check or fall. I took 10 on those too, so I never fell. If we assume an average of 1 hit per round, then that's 3 climb checks per round, for four rounds, meaning 12 climb checks to not die.The Monkey guy can't take 10 and also doesn't have the +8 bonus. He gets to add his WIS, and for the sake of argument we'll assume that he also has high enough STR for the WIS bonus to profit him +1 above my rogue. Okay, so instead of my +16 to climb, he has +9.
I always get a 26. Monkey man could roll a 1 and get a 10. Then he falls 100ft and dies from 10d6 falling damage. Even with my +16, if I roll and get a 1, that's a 17, which fails if it's a fairly smooth wall (DC 25), whereas I always succeed with being able to take 10.
That difference is HUGE.
As for getting it at level 2, MoMS 2 can get it at level 2, also as a monk he will by level 3 have the move of 40.
Fair enough.
Haste and other methods let you boost your speed.
That doesn't really count since that could just as easily apply to the rogue.
Monkey style also lets you crawl half your move rather then just 5'.
So does Rogue Crawl. Did you actually read these abilities before commenting on them?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Actually Jiggy, my main objection was to you saying (to your knowledge) they rogue crawl and instant stand up were unique.
Ah, okay. Yes, they are apparently not entirely unique. Good catch. Still, pretty close, you know?
As for the harpys, yes in that case wall climber would be better, at higher level it might not be.
Well, anything Monkey can do to increase his Climb bonus can be done by the rogue too, and Monkey still has the risk of bad rolls. So unless the GM never makes harder Climb DCs (making things slippery, etc), then Wall Climber's going to stay ahead there.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Come to think of it, Wall Climber might be the overall best talent/trick on the list. It's actually better than the most comparable feat (Skill Focus:Climb). Well, if you're crawling upside-down across the ceiling, then Skill Focus is better... But in 99% of situations, Wall Climber is more than doubling Skill Focus' bonus (and continues to beat it even after 10 ranks), and gives other benefits to boot.
|
Nope but might he not have more fun yet if he were more effective in combat?The rogue in our current PF game rocks and the guy playing him is having a lot of fun.
Someone going to say we are having BAD/WRONG/FUN?
Since when has the rogue been all about combat?
Actually the rogue is doing some great damage. He just got a +2 silvered agile rapier and he is loving every minute of it.
|
|
You're getting pretty defensive. It's great that he's having fun, but it doesn't make the rogue any better as a class.The rogue in our current PF game rocks and the guy playing him is having a lot of fun.
Someone going to say we are having BAD/WRONG/FUN?
I don't have to get defensive. The guy is doing great damage, kicking ass in skills and the guy is having fun. So in other words he is contributing to the party in every way.
You saying it's not a great class doesn't make it so I'm afraid. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it's not.
I'm not sure I agree. Wall Climber is pretty decent for a situational trick. But you've got to remember that it is replicated by a second level spell or potion/wand that is rather widely available. You'd be burning a feat/trick for a permanent one.
Unless I was doing it as part of a character theme I don't know as I'd ever spend the trick for it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm not sure I agree. Wall Climber is pretty decent for a situational trick. But you've got to remember that it is replicated by a second level spell or potion/wand that is rather widely available. You'd be burning a feat/trick for a permanent one.
Unless I was doing it as part of a character theme I don't know as I'd ever spend the trick for it.
You use spider climb when you need to climb or die. When you have a static climb speed, you start finding all kinds of new reasons to get your Spidey on. ;)
I'd also point out that you need to spend an action for the spell/potion/wand route. If you need to boogie NOW, then not having to spend your whole turn retrieving and using an item can save your life.
Similarly, if you get knocked off a cliff in the surprise round, you can make a Climb check (DC 20 + wall's base DC) to catch yourself and not fall. My rogue at least has a chance (on a high roll) of catching himself on a rough wall or rock face. (As he continues to add ranks, his odds get better and better.) The guy who relies on spider climb goes splat.
Situational, yes, but still. :)
I didn't say anything about any rogue talents being overpowered or anything about them being good enough.
I stated that wall climber is easily duplicated. Nothing more and nothing less.
Is a permanent spider climb good enough for me as a non flavor choice to spend one of my talents on? No because it is easily reproduced and there are many other rogue talents that I would rather spend my rather small allotted number on.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I doubt ther exist a single one rogue talent that is overpowered, but that is not the point, the argue is about if they are good enough.
Yeah, there are a couple of strong ones, some decent ones, and a bunch of weak ones. Building a strong rogue requires excellent cherry-picking skills. :P
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Is a permanent spider climb good enough for me as a non flavor choice to spend one of my talents on? No because it is easily reproduced and there are many other rogue talents that I would rather spend my rather small allotted number on.
What would those others be? I'm curious to hear people's preferences.
You use spider climb when you need to climb or die. When you have a static climb speed, you start finding all kinds of new reasons to get your Spidey on. ;)I'd also point out that you need to spend an action for the spell/potion/wand route. If you need to boogie NOW, then not having to spend your whole turn retrieving and using an item can save your life.
Similarly, if you get knocked off a cliff in the surprise round, you can make a Climb check (DC 20 + wall's base DC) to catch yourself and not fall. My rogue at least has a chance (on a high roll) of catching himself on a rough wall or rock face. (As he continues to add ranks, his odds get better and better.) The guy who relies on spider climb goes splat.
Situational, yes, but still. :)
You use spider climb when you want to, much the same way you use wall climb.
Yes you have to spend an action. Ideally if you have any sense at all you'll spend it before you start climbing. If you don't have the foresight to understand that hey cliff my climb skill sucks I should break out my spider climb wand I bought for this then nothing will save your character from an untimely demise short of dm intervention. Spider climb lasts 10min/lvl. Wand has 50 charges. How many cliffs am I going to be coming across that I'm worried about burning a charge just in case?
Granted when you have a permanent move speed you start thinking of whole new things to do with them. It makes a great flavor choice.
I'd rather purchase for a combat/face rogue combat trick, offensive defense, underhanded, charmer, fast picks, convincing lie, and black market connections depending on my dm. Mind you this is just off the top of my head and two minutes looking at the talent list.
Edit@Nico Agreed you cannot always rely on spells and magic items. If you can do something without using either I almost always say go for it. But at the same time consider the scenario that being unable to spare a standard action for a wand requires or being unable to use said wand. Also consider the highly limited number of rogue talents. You are a rogue. You are the king skill monkey. For the love of all that is good and holy use them.