Well First time poster, long time stalker. I couldn't find anything on this So i decided to post and see what others thought. Please note that we are using the play test of stealth found here.
The PRD Rules.
Blind-Fight (Combat)
You are skilled at attacking opponents that you cannot clearly perceive.
Benefit: In melee, every time you miss because of concealment (see Combat), you can reroll your miss chance percentile roll one time to see if you actually hit.
An invisible attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you in melee. That is,you don't lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and the attacker doesn't get the usual +2 bonus for being invisible. The invisible attacker's bonuses do still apply for ranged attacks, however.
You do not need to make Acrobatics skill checks to move at full speed while blinded.
Normal: Regular attack roll modifiers for invisible attackers trying to hit you apply, and you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC. The speed reduction for darkness and poor visibility also applies.
Special: The Blind-Fight feat is of no use against a character who is the subject of a blink spell.
Flanking Foil (Combat)
Fighting multiple foes is easy for you.
Benefit: Whenever you hit an adjacent opponent with a melee attack, until the start of your next turn, that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while it is flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you. It can still provide a flank for its allies.
My question is fairly simple, If a melee-based rogue were to be fighting someone with both these feats is there anyway for it to be able to get sneak attack besides feint?
I'm a Gm and one of my players is playing a two weapon ninja, and i want to give him a challenge in a fight. Right now he is walking through most encounters using Shadow strike+Darkness, or invisible blade.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way Flanking Foil is written, it alone prevents your ability to SA by any means AT ALL.
Even if you go with RAI instead of RAW, it's the most abominable feat I've ever seen, almost completely (instead of completely) shutting down a class w/ no pre-reqs at all!
I implore you not to use Flanking Foil ever. Ban it. Please ban it. If you want to foil his SA, throw him against someone w/ improved uncanny dodge, that works just as well but actually requires having levels in specific classes instead of some 1st level feat any joker can have.
Or use a foe with a high AC so he has less hits/round. Or a foe that is adept at skirmishing so he's unable to full attack SA.
At least they have to hit them.....Wait Rogue light armor never mind.
I think the Rogue could simply move out of melee range thus ending the flank, and then move back to a new flanking position and SA.
That should negate the Flanking Foil.
There are plenty of ways to do so with just a move action.
The way Flanking Foil is written, it alone prevents your ability to SA by any means AT ALL.
Even if you go with RAI instead of RAW, it's the most abominable feat I've ever seen, almost completely (instead of completely) shutting down a class w/ no pre-reqs at all!
I guess I never read it that way. I agree that it is a little to powerful,I am trying to find a way to challenge him not make him useless.
We are playing in a city setting where its mostly humanoids, I know I could throw things at him from the bestiary that can't be sneak attacked but I was just wanting to find some way for NPC's to defend against his 5 attacks usually all Sneak attacks.
Smokesticks already negate sneak attack. This at least costs a feat.
Smokesticks already negate sneak attack. This at least costs a feat.
SA not working under non-total concealment is a major flaw carried over from 3E I wish PF had fixed. The stereotypical Halfling Rogue is completely neutered by the dark alleyway you'd think he'd want to ambush from.
Smokestick can also be negated, at least, by paying a feat tax on that shadow striker or whatever feat in APG. Flanking Foil has no countermeasure.
Doesn't the individual with Flanking Foil has to hit the opponent before sneak attack is foiled?
Even if straight rogues only get light armor, they can still have decent AC, and with UMD, they can also use wands to help with making it more challenging to be hit.
I am not seeing the feat as over powered and in need of banning. There are counters to it.
Rogues tend to have mediocre AC. If "not being hit" is your solution, then that sounds like a wonderful solution to any difficulty with surviving combat. "Having trouble? Try not getting hit." "Thanks, I never thought of trying that!"
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
You can negate Flanking Foil with a feat too...Spring Attack. Jump into flanking, stab, jump back. If the enemy wants to hit you, he's forced to disengage from the Fighter and eat an attack of opportunity.
Failing that, the rogue can always ready an action to attack after the start of the Folier's turn.
You're reduced to one attack per round with both, but you're hardly 'shut down'. Be thankful the GM isn't throwing Elementals at you.
If the rogue's imagination is limited to "stand there and trade blows," then their sneak attack deserves to be negated by a feat. All that feat does is prevent SA via flank and only from someone you hit the previous round. I'm fighting ninjas all the time in Jade Regent right now and I'm still not tempted to take it.
So how is the rogue sneak attacking from range, then? In fact, if a foe is determined to screw over the rogue, what can he do at all? Even if he has all the feats for Spring Attack (comes much later than Flanking Foil does), you cannot use it if you start your turn adjacent to an enemy, for example if he moved up to you and hit you. You can withdraw (maybe – if the foe only has 5 ft of reach), but then you're not attacking at all. You can try tumbling, but that's going to fail 50% of the time or more, so he's getting more attacks than you and even more melee attack chances to shut off your SA. Rogue could use Slow Reactions talent to avert AoOs, but that requires being able to SA in the first place, which melee combat is basically denying him from doing, and the problem just comes around full circle.
The feat renders a rogue, a class that's already weak, completely worthless, it's broken to all hell and should be banned.
@Ernest: That's not "all the feat does." It prevents the rogue from SAing that creature by any means as written. Even if it were errata'd to only negate flanking, 1) that's still over the top broken, PF nerfed the ever loving hell out of ranged SA options so flanking is the meat of how a PF rogue is supposed to GET his sneak attacks and 2) It's basically giving with no pre-reqs whatsoever, the benefit of Improved Uncanny Dodge and 20 effective rogue levels, that's obscene.
Doesn't the individual with Flanking Foil has to hit the opponent before sneak attack is foiled?
Even if straight rogues only get light armor, they can still have decent AC, and with UMD, they can also use wands to help with making it more challenging to be hit.
I am not seeing the feat as over powered and in need of banning. There are counters to it.
The fact that there are counters to it isn't the point. Getting sneak attacks is already hard enough as it is, not to mention creatures that are immune to it entirely, there doesn't need to be a feat, that can be taken by anyone at level 1, that practically shuts down Sneak Attack for a melee Rogue.
Why not just make Improved Uncanny Dodge a feat?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
So how is the rogue sneak attacking from range, then? In fact, if a foe is determined to screw over the rogue, what can he do at all? Even if he has all the feats for Spring Attack (comes much later than Flanking Foil does), you cannot use it if you start your turn adjacent to an enemy, for example if he moved up to you and hit you. You can withdraw (maybe – if the foe only has 5 ft of reach), but then you're not attacking at all. You can try tumbling, but that's going to fail 50% of the time or more, so he's getting more attacks than you and even more melee attack chances to shut off your SA. Rogue could use Slow Reactions talent to avert AoOs, but that requires being able to SA in the first place, which melee combat is basically denying him from doing, and the problem just comes around full circle.
The feat renders a rogue, a class that's already weak, completely worthless, it's broken to all hell and should be banned.
@Ernest: That's not "all the feat does." It prevents the rogue from SAing that creature by any means as written. Even if it were errata'd to only negate flanking, 1) that's still over the top broken, PF nerfed the ever loving hell out of ranged SA options so flanking is the meat of how a PF rogue is supposed to GET his sneak attacks and 2) It's basically giving with no pre-reqs whatsoever, the benefit of Improved Uncanny Dodge and 20 effective rogue levels, that's obscene.
If he moves 10 feet to be adjacent to you, he's giving up his full attack and taking an AoO from the Fighter. Then, on your turn, you either withdraw and force him to do it again, or you ready an action to attack him after the start of his turn.
Long story short, if the enemy is spending every round handicapping himself just to negate your sneak attack, your sneak attack is still helping to win the battle.
Besides, if this feat renders rogues worthless, then rooms with corners render rogues worthless. :)
If he moves 10 feet to be adjacent to you, he's giving up his full attack and taking an AoO from the Fighter. Then, on your turn, you either withdraw and force him to do it again, or you ready an action to attack him after the start of his turn.Long story short, if the enemy is spending every round handicapping himself just to negate your sneak attack, your sneak attack is still helping to win the battle.
Besides, if this feat renders rogues worthless, then rooms with corners render rogues worthless. :)
So the Rogue needs three feats to counter his opponents one and he's limited to a single attack, while his opponent is not.
This is, of course, assuming the Rogue doesn't get tripped by a readied action mid Spring Attack (classic Spring Attack foil), or based by another opponent with Flanking Foil. I mean, it's such an easy feat to get EVERY Fighter and anyone else who thinks they might fight melee Rogues on a semi-regular basis should take it.
And Rogues really don't like rooms with corners, but at least a guy with his back to the wall has pinned himself in and can't move.
Smokesticks already negate sneak attack. This at least costs a feat.
The problem with this thinking though is the Rogue (actually ninja in question) has Shadow Strike and Smokesticks only provide concealment (within 5ft) not total concealment. and Shadow Strike lets you sneak attack a creature who has concealment.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
So the Rogue needs three feats to counter his opponents one and he's limited to a single attack, while his opponent is not.
This is, of course, assuming the Rogue doesn't get tripped by a readied action mid Spring Attack (classic Spring Attack foil), or based by another opponent with Flanking Foil. I mean, it's such an easy feat to get EVERY Fighter and anyone else who thinks they might fight melee Rogues on a semi-regular basis should take it.
And Rogues really don't like rooms with corners, but at least a guy with his back to the wall has pinned himself in and can't move.
So now the guy is giving up all his attacks by readying an action, just to keep from being sneak attacked? I fail to see how this is a bad thing! :)
Being based by another character with Flanking Foil is irrelevant (or at least only as relevant as being based by any enemy), since Flanking Foil only stops the rogue from sneak attacking you. Foiler #2 will get an AoO on the rogue when she springs away, but that's true of pretty much any enemy, regardless of what feats they have.
And, like I've said a few times now, you can also negate the feat for a cost of Zero feats by attacking through readied actions. Losing multiple attacks sucks, but it sucks a lot less than fighting an elemental, and I hardly think it makes the rogue worthless.
Flanking Foiler is a decent feat for anti-rogue fighters, but I hardly think EVERY fighter will take it. It's only useful against rogues (and vivisectionists, I guess), which means unless you're playing in a rogue-heavy campaign, it's going to be useless more often than not. There are too many Always-Useful feats for Flanking Foiler to be a no-brainer.
Have the invisible rogue position himself for flank before he attacks...
Blindfighting doesn't make you aware of the presence of an invisible enemy, it just preserves your defenses.... If the BBEG is already engaged with an ally, the rogue can move into position from invisibility and then gain SA damage from the flanking condition as he becomes visible. Flanking foil is great, if and only if you get a chance to hit the rogue 1st... generally you don't that's why he's the rogue.
This combination does limit the "army of one" rogue that thinks he can slug it out in combat without actually using time and tactics to position himself well.
The fact that there are counters to it isn't the point.Doesn't the individual with Flanking Foil has to hit the opponent before sneak attack is foiled?
Even if straight rogues only get light armor, they can still have decent AC, and with UMD, they can also use wands to help with making it more challenging to be hit.
I am not seeing the feat as over powered and in need of banning. There are counters to it.
Actually, StreamOfTheSky stated that there were no counters to the feat in the post above mine, so my comment about counters was directed at them.
Rogues tend to have mediocre AC. If "not being hit" is your solution, then that sounds like a wonderful solution to any difficulty with surviving combat. "Having trouble? Try not getting hit." "Thanks, I never thought of trying that!"
The heavy sarcasm doesn't help much.
To the point, with UMD the rogue can cast Vanish and get a full round attack with sneak attack the next round. With a wand of mirror image, likely they will have a few rounds where they can get sneak attacks in. Wands with blue or displacement will also help.
A rogue could take the scout archtype (APG) and get sneak attacks when they charge (at 4th) and when they move more than 10' (at 8th).
There are options for a rogue faced with an opponent that has this feat. It will likely be a pain for the rogue, but unless every opponent has the feat, it is simply one more challenge.
This is not a "must have" feat for everyone. It can be effective in certain circumstances, but most characters and NPCs that I have made would not even consider taking it, there are other feats that have a higher priority.
And that seems to be what it always comes down to when people tell me the feat's not so bad. I show how much it screws the poor rogue over, and the work he has to put in to deal with it, if he's even able to, and the final argument people always fall back on is some variation of, "rogue isn't a common or severe enough threat to validate taking the feat. Ergo, it's ok."
Yeah, if there was a level 1 no pre-req feat that let you stop a spellcaster cold from casting spells at all (not just some dinky +4 cast defensive DC like disruptive, which even then requires SIX fighter levels) by hitting him with a melee attack, I wonder if people would feel that way?
Except even THAT wouldn't be a fair comparison, because unlike rogues, many casters aren't expected to do melee in the first place.
So the only reason this feat isn't broken is because rogues suck and spending even one feat to cripple them isn't worth the investment, as they're not really a threat to begin with. Lovely.
And that seems to be what it always comes down to when people tell me the feat's not so bad. I show how much it screws the poor rogue over, and the work he has to put in to deal with it, if he's even able to, and the final argument people always fall back on is some variation of, "rogue isn't a common or severe enough threat to validate taking the feat. Ergo, it's ok."
I must have missed where you showed how much it screws the poor rogue over. In another thread perhaps? Could you re-state/demonstrate how this feat screws over the rogue?
"Whenever you hit an adjacent opponent with a melee attack, until the start of your next turn, that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while it is flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you."
What's unclear? Guy w/ feat hits rogue w/ a melee attack, rogue cannot sneak attack him for a round (by which time, guy hits him again to keep it going).
Rogue s forced to desperately try and stay far the hell away from guy, and since he needs 30 ft range to ranged SA, can't really do that w/o removing himself from the fight entirely. Even if he can do it safely (he bought Sniper Goggles despite being a melee rogue), how's he getting his SA from range? He's still been taken out of the fight.
Again, how would you feel about a level 1 no-pre-req feat that said if you hit someone w/ a melee attack, they cannot use spells for 1 round? Or one that said if you hit someone w/ a melee attack, they cannot use any of their combat feats or weapon training bonuses for 1 round?
"Whenever you hit an adjacent opponent with a melee attack, until the start of your next turn, that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while it is flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you."
What's unclear? Guy w/ feat hits rogue w/ a melee attack, rogue cannot sneak attack him for a round (by which time, guy hits him again to keep it going).
You seem to be saying that the only option for the rogue is to stand there and get auto-hit every round. Why would the rogue do that?
What about the suggestions that have been offered? Use a wand of vanish, move to a different position. Next round, do a full round attack with sneak attack damage applied. So the rogue has to use a consumable and can only get sneak attack every second round - I don't consider that shutting down the rogue.
Even if the rogue does not have any consumables, if they are the focus of the opponent, what is the rest of the rogue's team doing? Are they getting the AoO that are triggered when the feat owner moves to attack the rogue? Are they taking advantage of the flanking? Perhaps getting precision damage from a spell, feat or class ability? Why isn't the rogue moving around allies, to be in a place where the opponent can't get them that round, then move up and get in a sneak attack?
I still want an answer to my question. Are easy level 1 feats that shut down other classes' combat abilities just by hitting with a melee attack ok? If not, why is it only ok to gimp the rogue?
The feat is bad for rogues, but really, its very circumstantial. Its not like a "prevent casters from casting spells completely with a hit", its a "prevent druids from casting spells targeting you specifically with a hit".
The rogue can just attack someone else, or ready actions, or use combat expertise/total defense so the attacker has to deal with the high ac and the fighter can just pound it into the ground.
For a 15th level fighter with its 17 feats i could see taking it. A 4th level ranger? Not so much.
I think its badly designed, as its a little too much "screw one specific class", (id rather see for example no flanking bonus and halve all precision damage including SA), but its not a big deal.
If the dm puts this on everyone, hes a dick - just like if all enemies are AM BARBARIAN.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
And that seems to be what it always comes down to when people tell me the feat's not so bad. I show how much it screws the poor rogue over, and the work he has to put in to deal with it, if he's even able to, and the final argument people always fall back on is some variation of, "rogue isn't a common or severe enough threat to validate taking the feat. Ergo, it's ok."
No, the reason the feat isn't broken is because it doesn't screw the rogue over that much at low levels, and at high levels they have a lot of ways of getting around it.
I still want an answer to my question. Are easy level 1 feats that shut down other classes' combat abilities just by hitting with a melee attack ok? If not, why is it only ok to gimp the rogue?
You mean like Deflect Arrows? It's easy enough for humans and monks to take at first level, and it completely shuts down most ranged weapon builds until 6th level (Edit: They don't even have to land a melee attack either! It's automatic, you miss, no damage!). You can take rapid shot before then, but you're still losing out on an attack each round, and that's gonna hurt your damage a lot more than the rogue losing her sneak attack. And don't even get me started on how much it sucks for gunslingers :)
But yeah, I've got no problem with Deflect Arrows. There are ways around it, and not like every enemy you run across is going to have it :P
Or crane strike. That gimps every every melee class
In the game until they have a BAB of 6.
|
Doesn't the individual with Flanking Foil has to hit the opponent before sneak attack is foiled?
Even if straight rogues only get light armor, they can still have decent AC, and with UMD, they can also use wands to help with making it more challenging to be hit.
I am not seeing the feat as over powered and in need of banning. There are counters to it.
The fact that there are counters to it isn't the point. Getting sneak attacks is already hard enough as it is, not to mention creatures that are immune to it entirely, there doesn't need to be a feat, that can be taken by anyone at level 1, that practically shuts down Sneak Attack for a melee Rogue.
Why not just make Improved Uncanny Dodge a feat?
There aren't many creatures that are immune to Sneak Attack anymore.
Also, you get Sneak Attack any time someone is denied their dex bonus.
Smokesticks already negate sneak attack. This at least costs a feat.SA not working under non-total concealment is a major flaw carried over from 3E I wish PF had fixed. The stereotypical Halfling Rogue is completely neutered by the dark alleyway you'd think he'd want to ambush from.
Smokestick can also be negated, at least, by paying a feat tax on that shadow striker or whatever feat in APG. Flanking Foil has no countermeasure.
1) in order to sneak attack you have to be precise in where you hit, this is why it's reffered to as "precision damage", it also means that ANY type of concealment will obscure where you need to target and make it invalid.
2) your example of the halfling in the dark hall is irrelevent, lighting conditions where YOU are grant YOU concealment, not your opponent. The lighting conditions where your opponent is determines if THEY have concealment.3) Flanking Foil doesn't need an easy fix, it's not broken and it makes sense. Pathfinder made sneak attack better, in the previous editions you only got sneak attack damage on your first attack of a full attack. They also made more things vulnerable to it.
4) the rogue is NOT supposed to be able to turn all enemies into bloody smears, if you want to kill things play a fighter that's what they're for.
5) as to the origional post question, use Flanking Foil it'll make the player think outside the box, just don't use it all the time or they'll get frustrated. I used it on a bad guy when I had two rogues in the party who kept flanking with each other, and one was dual wielding bastard swords.
1. There is a feat for less than full concealment
2. If your in that alley way and so are they you can't sneak attack.
3. Don't know about pre 3rd but for 3.x you did get it on all attacks if they all qualified.
4. Without sneak attack the rogue barely tickles most enemies noses.
5. Good Point here.
Wow, Didn't mean to open a can of worms here, Everyone seems stuck on how powerful Flanking Foil is that they might have missed in the OP that I was planning on taking Blind-Fight on the NPC which would also stop the ninja from using Invisibility (or stealth using the play test rules that we play by).
Of course not every NPC is going to have this I was just looking for ways for the ninja, to still be able to get Sneak attack that i didn't think of.
I guess i should have posted this in the Advice section.
And in my first post I listed an array of options to use to challenge the player instead of using this broken feat. To wit:
1) Throw him against someone w/ improved uncanny dodge.
2) Use a foe with a high AC so he has less hits/round.
3) A foe that is adept at skirmishing so he's unable to full attack sneak attack.
I'm sure there's plenty of other ways to do it. Point is, the above are a challenge due to their niche, or their own major class features, or the feats and combat style they've invested much of their own resources.
Sorry about what this thread turned into, I just felt the need to request you banning the worst written feat I've seen in my life, but most of the other people seem to think it's ok somehow, even though in its most tame interpretation ("it only prevents sneak attacking gained from flanking" - which is NOT what it says by strict RAW) it's still basically Improved Uncanny Dodge w/ 20 effective rogue levels as a1st level feat. Oh, but you have to hit them in melee for it to work, right. Because you were planning to just throw a tea party and this feat requiring you to try and kill your foes is now crimping your style.
I'll stop now. The board is beyond convincing or reasoning with. Sorry it turned into a threadjack.
|
And in my first post I listed an array of options to use to challenge the player instead of using this broken feat.
SotS: The feat is not broken. Even in a setting with an insane number of Rogues, it is barely worth considering.
At low levels, you don't even need a feat to shut down that spellcaster with a single attack. Using an "okay" build for a two-handed weapon wielder, (Str 16, say, no PA, not a Barbarian/not Favored Enemy, just a regular attack) that is a +4 to hit against Wizard/Sorcerer AC 12-14, and 2d6+6 damage against 8 hit points. Bam, spellcaster shut down for not just the round, but likely the whole fight.
At levels where the spellcasdter can survive that damage, the meleeist is likely, if built to be an anti-spellcaster, to have the Step Up feat of chains. That will remove the ability of the spellcaster to just 5' step back and cast, he'll either have to take an AoO or attempt to cast defensively.
There are plenty of ways to easily "shut down" any build.
Meleeist? Fly, high speed, high AC, ways to make the meleeist deal with miss chances and/or decoy targets.
Ranged user? Wall of Force, Wall of Air, various other air movement spells, cover, concealment, etc.
Spellcaster? Damage them while casting, or remove their ability to cast. Silence, readied attacks, Blindness/Deafness, etc.
The feat is seriously not overpowered because it is so conditional. It only affects one target per HIT. You have to hit your target to shut down their Flanking ability. At first level, that means one enemy. His flanking buddy still gets his flank, since the hit target, if he survived, still threatens. It won't protect your party Wizard or Sorcerer, it actually reduces their protection. Why? Because the Rogue ain't gonna waste his time on the party tank, who he cannot sneak attack, when the Wizard is fully vulnerable and worth dropping on his own.
So now the guy is giving up all his attacks by readying an action, just to keep from being sneak attacked? I fail to see how this is a bad thing! :)
No, he's giving up all his attacks by readying an action, just to avoid being attacked period, force the Rogue prone, get an AoO, and allow his buddy to flank the now pron Rogue. Cause, ya know, he uses tactics.
Or, he ignores the Rogue, let's the Rogue get in his measly one attack, that the Rouge had to invest three feats in just to make, and instead completely shuts down all 7 of the TWF Rogues attacks, cause not all Rogues are Spring Attackers. And he still has two extra feats.
Flanking Foiler is a decent feat for anti-rogue fighters, but I hardly think EVERY fighter will take it. It's only useful against rogues (and vivisectionists, I guess), which means unless you're playing in a rogue-heavy campaign, it's going to be useless more often than not. There are too many Always-Useful feats for Flanking Foiler to be a no-brainer.
Flanking Foil is always useful when fighting multiple foes. The fact that it completely nerfs most builds of an entire class is just gravy.
But, that's not the point, once again, "Don't Rogues suck enough without taking away their prime method of getting sneak attacks?"
I want a feat that shuts down other classes if you hit them in melee. Whack! Wizards can't cast spells at you. Wham! Fighters don't get to use their feats against you.
I still read Flanking Foil the same way.
Flanking Foil (Combat)
Fighting multiple foes is easy for you.
Benefit: Whenever you hit an adjacent opponent with a melee attack, until the start of your next turn, that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while it is flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you. It can still provide a flank for its allies.
Bolded by me, WHILE (continuing) to flank, and (while continuing to flank) cannot deal SA.
That is how I read it.
Simple solution; stop the flank, move out of reach, move to a new flanking position and SA to your hearts content.
|
Here's the problem with that. Nothing about that states that the effect stops if the target stops flanking and starts again.
In fact, the duration is "until the start of your next turn". So "while" it is flanking, whether or not it stopped at some point, it's still going to be under the effects of the ability.
You don't need a feat for that with wizards. The concentration check is sufficient. Fighters? How about sunder?
Or you can just be a lvl 3+ magus who applies the lingering pain arcana to a spellstrike against the wizard, making it effectively impossible for him to cast spells on his next turn.
People actually think DC 15 + 2*spell level is hard?
Like, a 20 to start in casting stat caster (I can do it on 15 point buy, no problem, don't tell me it's hard) has trouble making that by mid levels? Hahano. And nothing's compelling him to use his highest level spell when threatened, either.
And at least he GETS a damn check to use his class feature under duress. One that comes for free with his caster levels, too. No need to spend skill points or anything.
3) Flanking Foil doesn't need an easy fix, it's not broken and it makes sense. Pathfinder made sneak attack better, in the previous editions you only got sneak attack damage on your first attack of a full attack. They also made more things vulnerable to it.
If you mean 3.0/3.5, you got sneak attack on very attack in a full attack. You are misremembering.
Heck, in 2.0 Backstab worked on every attack in an attack (if G. Invisibility) as long as you are behind them and unseen.
4) the rogue is NOT supposed to be able to turn all enemies into bloody smears, if you want to kill things play a fighter that's what they're for.
Yes, they are.
You can shut down most spell-casting with a successful melee attack called a grapple.
If you successfully grapple a spell-caster, the only spells they can even attempt to cast are those without somatic components; that's not a long list.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If you successfully grapple a spell-caster, the only spells they can even attempt to cast are those without somatic components; that's not a long list.
See and I thought the rule was "A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell."
|
|
People actually think DC 15 + 2*spell level is hard?
Like, a 20 to start in casting stat caster (I can do it on 15 point buy, no problem, don't tell me it's hard) has trouble making that by mid levels? Hahano. And nothing's compelling him to use his highest level spell when threatened, either.
And at least he GETS a damn check to use his class feature under duress. One that comes for free with his caster levels, too. No need to spend skill points or anything.
Yep. But in return, no one has to spend a feat to make an attack either.
And it's easy to get a 20 in a starting stat. What's hard is surviving through level 1, 2, 3, until you don't die quite as easily when you bought in for a 20.
Still doesn't get you past those readied attacks though. Archers, btw, are best for that role since they don't have to worry about that 5ft step.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
No, he's giving up all his attacks by readying an action, just to avoid being attacked period, force the Rogue prone, get an AoO, and allow his buddy to flank the now pron Rogue. Cause, ya know, he uses tactics.
Or, he ignores the Rogue, let's the Rogue get in his measly one attack, that the Rouge had to invest three feats in just to make, and instead completely shuts down all 7 of the TWF Rogues attacks, cause not all Rogues are Spring Attackers. And he still has two extra feats.
And if the rogue doesn't spring attack him (and, say, goes after that other enemy that's floating around somewhere waiting to attack prone targets), the Foiler just wasted a whole turn of combat trying to avoid one sneak attack. Awesome tactics. Meanwhile the Rogue's flanking buddy, the Fighter, just made a full attack on the Foiler, beating the s$#% out of him.
The TWFing rogue can also make a Single Sneak Attack by readying an action, if he wants, at the cost of ZERO feats. He's losing one or more attacks, yes, and that sucks, but he's not worthless. Hell, depending on how much SA he does and how many attacks he gets, it may make more sense for him to just full attack.
Flanking Foil is always useful when fighting multiple foes. The fact that it completely nerfs most builds of an entire class is just gravy.
But, that's not the point, once again, "Don't Rogues suck enough without taking away their prime method of getting sneak attacks?"
I want a feat that shuts down other classes if you hit them in melee. Whack! Wizards can't cast spells at you. Wham! Fighters don't get to use their feats against you.
"Always useful in a specific circumstance" is not "always useful". Fighting multiple enemies comes up quite a bit, but the benefit you get from the feat against non-rogues is not really all that impressive (and possible to get simply by using the terrain, maneuvering intelligently, bringing along buddies to watch your back, or using similar tactics that don't burn a feat slot).
Some fighters will take Flanking Foil. They should be about as common in a campaign as Elementals, Oozes, 5+ level barbarians, and creatures with All-Around Vision.
In direct answer, "No, rogues don't suck as much as you think they do. Every rogue I've played or seen played has been a fun, effective character. They can handle the challenge of having an occasional enemy that's immune to sneak attack (especially if that immunity is the weaksauce kind you can find ways around, like Flanking Foil provides)"
And I gave you a feat that shuts down other classes, without even needing to hit them in melee! Deflect Arrows.
If you successfully grapple a spell-caster, the only spells they can even attempt to cast are those without somatic components; that's not a long list.See and I thought the rule was "A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell."
Yeah, those rules aren't the clearest. Elsewhere it specifies that you can only make that check for spells without somatic components.
And it's easy to get a 20 in a starting stat. What's hard is surviving through level 1, 2, 3, until you don't die quite as easily when you bought in for a 20.
Still doesn't get you past those readied attacks though. Archers, btw, are best for that role since they don't have to worry about that 5ft step.
What you say applies to rogues, too. Their HD is one size better than wizard or sorc, and he cannot afford as much in Con as those SAD classes can, so their hp ends up being about equal. Rogue has trouble just surviving in melee combat at low levels, too.
And only archers w/ Point Blank Master dont care about 5 ft stepping. All other archers are quite definitely screwed by Step Up. Far more so than a caster ever is. They don't get some check to not provoke with their bowshots.