Not looking at the damage just to-hit. The fighter is the baseline for melee-combat effective class. If you are +9 behind him in to-hit, then you are way behind where you need to be. I'm asking if there is a way to get within +5 of the fighter by level 12. non-Paladins and non-twf-non-FE-rangers are only +4 behind the fighter, but they both have options to catch up and surpass the fighter.Well... Bonus to attack and damage rolls are pretty much all the Fighter has, it's the focus of the class.
A better idea would be comparing your to-hit and damage to a Ranger without Favored Enemy or Non-smiting Paladin.
What? It's not like you need Weapon Training to consistently hit your target. It's a nice bonus, but not necessary. A fighter could lose it and still land his strikes more often than not, just like a Paladin doesn't need Smite Evil to be relevant.
The Paladin doesn't but the rogue is an additional +4 behind him (we're assuming the rogue takes weapon focus and the paladin doesn't).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh the idea was to be amazing at skills. I can play a wizard and still be good with skills. I could play an alchemist or a ranger and be good with skills. I could be great with skills using a bard or I could be pretty good with skills using a combat optimized rogue and be mediocre at combat.
I think wizard will be my 'skill monkey' for PFS. SIDE NOTE: Is Appraise useful at all in PFS? I'm having trouble seeing where that would come up.
Surprised you didn't go Alchemist. INT-heavy, 4+INT skill ranks, less spell-heavy than the wizzy.
I still think you could have enjoyed the rogue skillmonkey. Rogues may not be as effective in combat as combat characters, but as long as you're making a difference and enjoying the game, that's all that really matters.
Appraise: no point beyond +10, where taking 10 gives you 20. Get a masterwork loupe and you need only +8.
Bluff is amazing as a Rogue. Distract, feint, deliver secret messages in conversation, and lie.
Disguise with a hat of disguise can help you mess with enemies in and out of combat.
Stealth and Perception and UMD obviously.
Disable Device is useful for more than opening locks and disabling traps. Sabotage doors to make them fall when opened ... they're effectively noisy alarms.
I also like Sense Motive, mainly because my GM lets me use it to do a Cold Read on NPCs.
The Paladin doesn't but the rogue is an additional +4 behind him (we're assuming the rogue takes weapon focus and the paladin doesn't).
I agree that Rogues have problems hitting stuff, my point is that you shouldn't compare them to Fighters wielding their main weapon. Comparing them to Rangers (without FE bonus) would be more realistic.
Then again, IMO, from low to mid levels, the greatest advantage of full BAB is not so much the bigger bonus to attack rolls, but the earlier access to combat feats and iterative attacks.
Anyway, I think you should try a Trapper Ranger, it has no spell casting, so it still qualifies as "mundane skill-monkey", but has better attack, better AC and better saves. Use traits to get whatever skills you want to focus on.
Rogues should be compared with fighters when it comes to combat. Rogues have to hit things for their combat style. Fighters are the baseline by which a melee combatant is held to. If you can't get within +5 to-hit by level 12 with the fighter, your playing at a completely different tier.
+8 is the equivalent to 16 levels of commoner, 11 levels of a 3/4 BAB class, 8 lvls of Full BAB class, +16 strength or dexterity, Max potential of Favored enemy bonus, Double the inspire courage bonus from a bard, and a +8 epic weapon.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters only thing they can do is fight. They are not a good baseline to compare everyone else too. If other people could fight as well as the fighter the fighter would be in big trouble... Ooops.
Rogues should be compared with fighters when it comes to combat. Rogues have to hit things for their combat style. Fighters are the baseline by which a melee combatant is held to. If you can't get within +5 to-hit by level 12 with the fighter, your playing at a completely different tier.
+8 is the equivalent to 16 levels of commoner, 11 levels of a 3/4 BAB class, 8 lvls of Full BAB class, +16 strength or dexterity, Max potential of Favored enemy bonus, Double the inspire courage bonus from a bard, and a +8 epic weapon.
Fighters are not the baseline, their numbers are considerably higher than average, even for martial classes. Weapon Training + Weapon Focus/Specialization ensures they have extremely high attack/damage bonuses.
So trying to reach the numbers of a Fighter with his main weapon is very unrealistic, and unnecessary. You don't need such numbers to succeed.
A Ranger without Favored Enemy fights just fine, FE is a bonus, not a necessity. That's why I'm telling you this is a more reasonable comparison. The real problem is that Rogues don't reach these numbers either.
Exactly they are far behind everyone, even the ninja. At level 10 the alternate rogue class is using greater indivisibility in every fight and is attacking flat footed AC. Something the rogue can't do more than once a round (if that).
How would you get a rogue to be able to hit anything? They are 3/4 and have no ways to improve their to-hit rolls. Weapon focus and scroll scoundrel can give a +3 to hit against opponents that hit you last round.Weapon Focus (rapier), Weapon Finesse, Precise Strike, Outflank, weapon enchantment heartseeker. Want me to go on? That's just off the top of my head. There's also the Agile enchantment that amps damage.most of those are teamwork feats. Weapon finesse is a wash with just using your strength score. Gear is available to everyone and damage isn't the issue here. The rogue has trouble getting pluses to hit.
Is there anyway I don't end up more than plus 5 to hit behind the fighter by Lvl 12?
Fighter gets plus 4 from weapon training and weapon focus by lvl 12. They have an additional plus 3 from being full Bab. If the rogue is twoweapon fighting the fighter will have a plus 9 to hit over the rogue. His second attack will be plus 4 higher than the rogues best attack and his last attack the one that will probably miss is only one point lower than the rogues best attack. If the fighter uses power attack then he only has plus 5 over the rogue but gained plus 16 to damage per hit.Damage is irrelevant if you can't hit anything.
Most warrior types WANT bonuses to hit, and there are only a few that are teamwork based. This might surprise you, but using Dex to hit is actually pretty useful, even more so than strength, esp if you have a 20 or 22 dexterity.
No one in PFS is going to have a teamwork feat, unless they only play games with a body that they take to every game.
Teamwork feats are useless, if no one else has them.
We're assuming dex and strength are the same.
|
The difference with str or dex to hit is what else you do and also having to use feats to make it work.
For hitting, str or dex are equal when considering the use of the feat... but it's not more useful then the other for hitting.
A finessed rogue with 300 dex hits just as well as a rogue with 300 str.
The difference with str or dex to hit is what else you do and also having to use feats to make it work.
For hitting, str or dex are equal when considering the use of the feat... but it's not more useful then the other for hitting.
A finessed rogue with 300 dex hits just as well as a rogue with 300 str.
Yes that assumption favors the rogue. We are also ignoring damage because we have a big problem before we even considered all that. A rogue has trouble actually hitting things. They have no archetype or talent that allows for more than a few attacks per day to have a bonus to-hit. +8 behind the fighter and plus 4 behind the paladin and the ranger (assuming neither took weapon focus and the rogue did)
I can't think of a better argument against the state of rogues than the fact that "It's obvious, your rogue should dump Dex, max Str, and two-hand a greatsword" is a serious thing.
It's kinda sad how Rogues don't have a single class feature that can be described as better than "okay, I guess...".
They have lots of skill points, but skill are considerably underpowered, and Rogues aren't actually better than anyone else with them.
Even the "all-mighty" Sneak Attack, which could be actually powerful, is brought down to "okay, I guess..." level by other class features (or lack there of).
Archaeologist bards are better at trapfinding and disabling than a rogue.
A bard with a bow can out damage a rogue. I think a melee bard can give him a run also. I am sure he does not beat the bard by a lot. Both can get in about 45 to 60 DPR for most players if they really want to hurt things.
Only in a vacuum, as in with a stupid DM. While you are singing to yourself to beef up your Perception and Disable Device rolls, the bad guys in the next room will hear, and attack. Think about it.
As for out damaging a Rogue, I'd like to see the attempt. Just flanking with ye old Fighter and a Knife Master Rogue would blow that out of the water. That's not even counting various feats to beef that up. Put simply, Bards are not built to really dish out damage. You know, they're dabblers, not specialists.
Bardic Performance doesn't even require you to sing. you could also dance for stealth purposes. or chant frightening war chants to repel your foe too.
Bardic Performance doesn't even require you to sing. you could also dance for stealth purposes. or chant frightening war chants to repel your foe too.Only in a vacuum, as in with a stupid DM. While you are singing to yourself to beef up your Perception and Disable Device rolls, the bad guys in the next room will hear, and attack. Think about it.
As for out damaging a Rogue, I'd like to see the attempt. Just flanking with ye old Fighter and a Knife Master Rogue would blow that out of the water. That's not even counting various feats to beef that up. Put simply, Bards are not built to really dish out damage. You know, they're dabblers, not specialists.
Don't forget about puppet theater.
Oh and I'd take a ranged bard over a dual wielding rogue for damage any day. Past a certain point the rogue really won't be able to hit much. The bard will continue to provide bonuses to attack and damage to the entire team, be capable of taking full attacks, and if he so chooses take a single feat (arcane strike) that scales with his level giving him a stacking bonus to hit and damage that pretty much puts his to hit on par with most of the full BAB.
Simply put your dual wielding rogue will still have the to hit problems of a rogue while having situational damage. A ranged bard will have none of that and buff the entire party to boot.
i agree with this sentiment, i'd rather have a ranged bard than a dual wielding rogue.
How so Shain, and what does the rogue give up to get them?Uncanny Dodge
But depending on the situation, do we min-max the combat, or the traps?
Rogues will generally be a bit better damage dealing compared to Archaeologist Bards. This is assuming we end up trying to balance the chosen abilities towards each other rather then maxing out everything towards doing one thing or the other.
My biggest question to Paizo is why are they created they did 'Archaeologist bard' the way they did? By balance, they shouldn't be making a bard more proficient in mechanical devices then the rogue, which is the iconic trap/lock remover.
It looks like someone took Indiana Jones and gave him spell casting, and really didn't try to balance it vs the one class that should not be surpassed in the trap category.
The person I was responding to at first said a bard could not come close to a rogue in damage to which I brought this bard, and said he could compete in damage, and do better with disable device and perception. Traps are not as dangerous as they were in 3.5, and forcing a party to take a rogue is not exactly a good idea, which was the idea when the rogue was a standard party member.
Careful Disarm at level _4_ means your rogue is not going to mistakenly trip that trap while disarming. At least not unless your DM is using traps far outstripping the level of the party. You are effectively getting a +5 bonus to your don't screw up your disarm traps skill.Careful Disarm --The bard is not going to fail by 5 or more anyway if he cares to disable traps.
Trap Master-Most groups kill all enemies going forward, so this almost never comes up.
Just disable the trap, and keep going. Giving up uncanny dodge, and improved uncanny dodge is not a bonus here.
I understand, but a well made archeologist can take 10 and not fail by 5 or more so it won't be an issue anyway.
I can't think of a better argument against the state of rogues than the fact that "It's obvious, your rogue should dump Dex, max Str, and two-hand a greatsword" is a serious thing.Are you making fun of my build? :P Seriously going 2 hander instead of two weapon gets rid of the 2 weapon fighting penalties, some of the feat requirements, and gets rid of the problem of prohibitive cost of 2 weapons.
Yang was not making fun of your build. She was saying that your assessment was correct, and that you helped prove that rogues are in trouble.
I was thinking of playing a rogue with 18 dex and 16 int with 10s in all the other stats as a human. I plan to use my rogue talents for weapon finesse, fast stealth, a combat feat, weapon focus, and skill mastery twice. I'm only planning out to lvl 12.
My normal feats would be ones that added bonuses to skills like stealthy and skill focus.
Can this character function and contribute to the party in an effective way regardless of the campaign situation?
it really depends on how creative you and your party are. also if your DM has alot of role play and problem solving situations. the skill monkey is pretty good at it.
but if your dm just keeps you on a combat grind he may not seem worth it and every dm is different so you may get one that lets you do the work in the shadows thing while the party is in town.
also dmg isint an issue if the skill monkey can sneek up on something while its sleeping.
the real question you need to ask is will i have fun playing this character? because you can power game the hell out of a class and be very bored or have lots of fun it depends on your play style.
You get rogues to hit level appropriate AC by taking another class. A ~50% rogue/cavalier or rogue/weaponmaster fighter split or possibly rogue/barbarian if you can stand to give up the higher prerequisite rage powers.At which point you might as well just play the other class. Are you telling me there is no uber optimization way to get a rogue to have a to-hit bonus that is within 5 points of a fighter?
Depends...you can get within 5 points of a full BAB class, but the fighter is better than the other full BAB classes, so you aren't likely to get close. Even the other full BAB classes have problems getting that close.
The fighter is still +6-8 points ahead of you in to-hit. That is a lot. In comparison a monk without weapon focus is 6 points behind the fighter in bonuses to-hit when flurrying. And a non optimized monk is considered one of worse combat option in the game.
The monk is usually further behind than that; after MAD and enhancement are factored in, they lose around another +2-4. In fact, he's normally closer to the rogue than he is to the fighter, the difference being that the rogue can do a lot more damage per hit.
Another difference is that the rogue is usually going to flank. That puts him up on a par with the monk, and he can get the most out of his sneak attack.
That said, the rogue could do with an ability to make more of their sneak attack. For example:
Rogue Talent: Deliberate Strike - in a situation where you can deliver a sneak attack, by sacrificing 1d6 of your sneak attack, you gain a +2 bonus to hit. You may sacrifice as many d6 of sneak attack as you have d6 in sneak attack, if you wish.
Traps are not as dangerous as they were in 3.5, and forcing a party to take a rogue is not exactly a good idea, which was the idea when the rogue was a standard party member.Heck, there is almost no hard data on how to come up with hard trap data. For someone with Craft (traps), coming up with a new trap design is complete hand-wavium. There is no crunch to come up with damage, DC, bonus to hit, or any sort of thing. At least, none that I could find.
Closest thing we have is the ranger trap ability and it is completely craptastic.
Traps are not as dangerous as they were in 3.5, and forcing a party to take a rogue is not exactly a good idea, which was the idea when the rogue was a standard party member.Heck, there is almost no hard data on how to come up with hard trap data. For someone with Craft (traps), coming up with a new trap design is complete hand-wavium. There is no crunch to come up with damage, DC, bonus to hit, or any sort of thing. At least, none that I could find.
I was using AP traps as the standard. Most GM's ignore the trap rules, but if they follow the rules its hard to get a the perception DC high enough, that the trap can't be found. The disable device DC is the most difficult when the trap directly emulates a spells, but since perception and disable device checks scales faster than the DC's, both the bard and rogue should be out of trouble before those abilities come into play. Neither of them will fail be more than 5 if they take 10. A trap in play in combat is not much of an issue for either class archetype because one can take 10 even when in combat. The other can fail by more than 5, and still not fail. I really don't see any of them failing unless they trap is magical and 3+APL, and they are not built for disabling things.
That is making a _huge_ assumption on the DC of the trap involved.I understand, but a well made archeologist can take 10 and not fail by 5 or more so it won't be an issue anyway.
See my previous post.
Disclaimers: I have not read much of the thread because I know the Wrongbadfun Brigade will have hit it pretty hard. I also know I am late to this. So the following is just in answer to the original poster's request, and I apologize if it comes after the subject has changed or whatever. If this whole thing is moot by now, carry on. The following also reflects only my opinion to take or leave:
I was thinking of playing a rogue with 18 dex and 16 int with 10s in all the other stats as a human. I plan to use my rogue talents for weapon finesse, fast stealth, a combat feat, weapon focus, and skill mastery twice. I'm only planning out to lvl 12.
My normal feats would be ones that added bonuses to skills like stealthy and skill focus.
Can this character function and contribute to the party in an effective way regardless of the campaign situation?
Between this post, the thread title, and some of the other posts by the OP, what I am reading is: "I want to play a rogue who is primarily good at skills, but can still contribute in other areas. I want human and high Dex and lots of skill points."
My thoughts based on this assumption, and noting I've played a lot of skillmonkeys of various classes at various times and had a lot of fun doing so, includes the following:
1. First, chat with your GM about it. If the GM is doing a puzzly dungeon with lots of tricks and traps and non-combat challenges, you could do just great as is. If it's a big heavy combat game, though, you'd largely be a support character and might get bored or feel frustrated. You say you want to see the viability of a skill monkey, but that (as with most things to do with character builds) can depend both on the type of campaign and how creatively you're willing to play the character--and how your GM runs as well. This really is a case by case thing so it has to be considered that way.
2. The proposed build needs to drop Int a little. Rogues have loads of skill points, and you're human, and if you're absolutely desperate for another skill point, there's always favored class. For example, I might drop Int to 14 and put the 12 into Charisma (party face, goes well with skillmonkeys) or Wisdom (little boost to Will saves) or Strength (better carrying capacity, climb, swim, and some other stuff). You should have more than enough skills to fill out what you want to build.
I know you're not asking for build advice per se, but when talking about viability of skill monkeys, where your stats go is important. Intelligence isn't the only skill you need for stats.
3. With the specific proposed stats, consider a sniper build instead of melee. Especially since you have a lowish Con, you'll not necessarily want to be in close quarters combat. It is harder to set up a ranged sneak attack, but you'll be hitting often. And even though archery builds take a lot of feats, it takes fewer feats than to build a finesse melee rogue--which also leaves you more feats for skill feats. If you are willing to give up trap sense and trapfinding, the sniper archetype is good for this. There's some good complementary rogue talents and such as well, which are also fairly unique.
You also might consider what skills you want this skill monkey to be BEST at. A Party Face skillmonkey works differently from a Stealth and Steal skillmonkey works differently from a Knowledge and Craft skillmonkey, and will need slightly different statistics and build aspects to make them work best.
So no way to be creative with skills in combat I take it? I noticed the steal maneuver, does this mean that I couldn't use slight-of-hand to take things from people during combat?
The only way you can use Sleight of Hand to steal in combat RAW is the cutpurse archetype's stab and grab ability:
Stab and Grab (Ex): At 3rd level, as a full-round action, a cutpurse can make an attack and also make a Sleight of Hand check to steal something from the target of the attack. If the attack deals sneak attack damage, the rogue can use Sleight of Hand to take an item from the creature during combat; otherwise this ability can only be used in a surprise round before the target has acted. If the attack is successful, the target takes a –5 penalty on the Perception check to notice the theft. This ability replaces trap sense.
Can you not get by with crossbow sniping in combat?
I would suggest bow since it's faster to load, unless you're wanting to use a hand crossbow to keep a hand free. And yes, you can certainly "get by" sniping. And with fast stealth, and at high levels, Hide in Plain Sight, you can snipe a fair amount if you're good at what you do.
So how do we justify that steal uses CMB instead of sleight-of-hand? Sleight-of-hand even has DCs for stealing things from people. I'm not saying those aren't the rules, but what sort of non-meta sense do they make?
I think the idea is that you're wresting something out of someone's hand in a fight, rather than sneaking up on them and taking it without their knowing it. Hence its being a combat maneuver. I don't necessarily agree but that's the best explanation I can come up with.
Now, your proposed build would have an okay CMB if it took Agile Maneuvers, and it's got a high Int so it can take Combat Expertise and thus then Improved Steal and so on, so it could be good at stuff like that anyway, if that's what you wanted.
SO what I'm getting here is that a character good at only skills is worthless.
No. But it can depend on the exact build, type of campaign, and party. Being in an arena style PVP, definitely worthless. Being in an urban intrigue campaign, quite likely the opposite.
For those calling my 'character concept' gimp role playing. I ask how do you make a skill monkey rogue that is not outclassed by a Bard who does not focus at all on skills? Ignoring all the other bard stuff. If I am going for skill monkey and not a fop, I have to do something that makes the rogue better at skills than your average bard.
I'm not going into the whole rogue versus bard debate, but one thing that rogues have uniquely (not better or worse per se) compared to bards are their rogue talents and some skill boosting class abilities. Review those carefully bearing in mind the kind of skill monkey you're building, some of those can make a rogue truly do some things no one else can. Whether they are "powerful" or "just neat" or "not usable" depends on the talent and how you make use of it, but that's one thing to look at more carefully for this project. Yes, some rogue talents are just crappy, but some of them are pretty cool.
That said, I think it's sad you think all bards are fops. My orcish war drummer might in fact like to have some words with you (as would my archeologist, but she's less scary), but we'll leave that for another time. No matter what class you want to play, look at it at what they can do for you, not for unfair stereotypes that are largely holdovers from old and no longer relevant traditions and editions.
Whatever you decide to play, good luck, and most importantly, do what you think sounds like the most fun to you personally.
Not are bards are fops, but the bards I play are fops.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not are bards are fops, but the bards I play are fops.
I don't know what a fop is but wouldn't it be your choice if he were a fop or not? Whatever this fop thing is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I really hate having to carry someone at a table. I find it completely miserable when I have most of a table that needs to be carried. Did a module a few weekends ago and the table consisted of:
My fighter
another well built fighter
pregen-cleric
pregen-rogue
gimpy inquisitor/fighter
gimpy druid/fighterThe two gimps might as well have not been there at all. At least the people playing the pregens managed to pull some weight (in particular the cleric, the pregen rogue is pretty lousy). Eventually the fighter/druid got whacked and there wasn't a noticeable difference in combat efficacy in the following encounters.
6 PCs at your table? You shouldn't have to carry ANYTHING. I LOL at your troubles. Something else is wrong here, and with your party build... you should thank your lucky stars that you had someone there with skills enough to carry along the story.
In fact, that has been paizo modules greatest downside to me. They marginalize skills and traps in their products.
Only 2-3 traps per book and investigative measures don't matter because the story will go on, giving you the answers to your dilemma. If there was a true penalty for not having skills... it should be just as devastating as having crap AC and BAB. I would make a party pay through their collective arses to hire investigators because they didn't have the skills track a killer through the woods or couldn't keep up in a chase scene because their ride skills sucks.
In fact, that has been paizo modules greatest downside to me. They marginalize skills and traps in their products.
Only 2-3 traps per book and investigative measures don't matter because the story will go on, giving you the answers to your dilemma. If there was a true penalty for not having skills... it should be just as devastating as having crap AC and BAB. I would make a party pay through their collective arses to hire investigators because they didn't have the skills track a killer through the woods or couldn't keep up in a chase scene because their ride skills sucks.
Your right, you should always need a rogue, a tank, and a cleric at the table or you just can't play. LF 2 deeps for bonekeep. Must do at least 40 DPR and have a WBL of 40k!
Traps aren't that fun and they tend to give a single player face time. Its okay for the game not to be loaded with haunts and traps and just have the occasional moment. Skills come up all the time in PFS and chases punish classes such as clerics for being their own class. That's not fun to me.
6 PCs at your table? You shouldn't have to carry ANYTHING. I LOL at your troubles. Something else is wrong here, and with your party build... you should thank your lucky stars that you had someone there with skills enough to carry along the story.
Are you at all familiar with Pathfinder Society gaming? Yes, I shouldn't have to carry anything, but when two of the seats are filled with people who made such bad characters that they simply could not hit or do damage. Then another two had to use the iconic pregens which are definitely not very well built. There were a bunch of combats where the rogue was simply useless (oozes, no place to flank due to environment, or incorporeal undead), so it was cleric, and 2 fighters. That's not much of a table for an adventure designed to handle six players.
Now I wonder... how could we make traps more fun? Right now, they are kinda boring.
GM: You notice there is a "trap X" in the corridor.
Rogue: Oh... I disarm it!
*rolls Disable Device check*
GM: Congratulations! You succeeded!
Rogue: Gosh, that was exciting!
The fun traps are the ones where a DD check doesn't help much.
GM: Floor is slowly opening, the doors are locked. You see a spiked pit below, what do you do?
Wizard: I cast Fly on myself. (spent a finite resource)
Monk: I use Acrobatics and Slow Fall to go down slowly enough that the spikes don't hurt me. (uses a rarely useful class feature and rolls a different skill check than the one used last time)
Fighter: I try to break the door
GM: Well, the hole is opening from the middle of the room, so the door is already without solid ground in front of it.
Fighter:Oh... Then I use my adamantine daggers to pierce the walls and hold onto them instead of falling down. (Sunder attempt, then... Climb?)
Rogue: I use my boots of Spider Walk to walk on the wall, then I go to the door and Try to unlock them.(use a cool item, Climb and then Disable Device check)
Or traps where you need more than a single skill check to succeed. (By that I mean, you need to do something else too, not necessarily more skill checks)
In a room filling with gas, Disable Device may stop more gas from coming in, but the gas already there won't go away (so maybe you got a few extra rounds or bonus to Fort save to resist the poison, something like that), and it won't help the party to move forward if the exits (assuming the exits are not doors that can be unlocked)
Yeah, I really hate having to carry someone at a table. I find it completely miserable when I have most of a table that needs to be carried. Did a module a few weekends ago and the table consisted of:
My fighter
another well built fighter
pregen-cleric
pregen-rogue
gimpy inquisitor/fighter
gimpy druid/fighterThe two gimps might as well have not been there at all. At least the people playing the pregens managed to pull some weight (in particular the cleric, the pregen rogue is pretty lousy). Eventually the fighter/druid got whacked and there wasn't a noticeable difference in combat efficacy in the following encounters.
So you basically had 2 veteran players (both playing fighters) and 4 novices, right? The two players with pregens were basically unprepared to play, and the two who multiclassed apparently did not know what they were doing (because I cannot imagine a way to get good value out of those multiclass combinations). The problem wasn't that you had to carry these players -- the problem is that they were actively dragging you down.
It is like the game where I let another player fill the healer role with a reasonably built cleric (highest stat wisdom, lowest stat dexterity). What did he do in actual play? He moved off to the side (out of range for his healing abilities) and attempted to shoot the enemies with his crossbow. I wish I had known that we really did not have a healer in that game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fun traps are the ones where a DD check doesn't help much.
I agree these are much better for a group-oriented game. However, they necessitate the creation of an actual role for the rogue, because if everyone deals with traps in their own way, then the there's no "guy who deals with traps" niche that needs filling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fun traps are the ones where a DD check doesn't help much.I agree these are much better for a group-oriented game. However, they necessitate the creation of an actual role for the rogue, because if everyone deals with traps in their own way, then the there's no "guy who deals with traps" niche that needs filling.
I agree. But IMO, "trapfinder" shouldn't be the primary role of any character class.
And in my opening floor room, for example, the party still needed the Rogue to move forward. Without him they would have a much harder time trying to leave the room (unless the wizard was prepared, of course, but that could be said about pretty much every situation ever)
The ideal traps would be ones where a Rogue is not necessary, but his presence makes them much, much easier to deal with. And I mean Rogue, not "character-with-Perception-and-Disable-Device".
So you basically had 2 veteran players (both playing fighters) and 4 novices, right? The two players with pregens were basically unprepared to play, and the two who multiclassed apparently did not know what they were doing (because I cannot imagine a way to get good value out of those multiclass combinations). The problem wasn't that you had to carry these players -- the problem is that they were actively dragging you down.
Actually the guy playing the pregen cleric was pretty experienced at the game. He was just too new to PFS to have a character in the level range. He really got every bit of mileage out of the iconic that he could. The rogue wasn't too bad either, but was still a rogue, and hasn't slept in 48 hours, so was a bit off her game as well. The pregen rogue really isn't anything to write home about to start with.
Yes, the other two were boat anchors.
It is like the game where I let another player fill the healer role with a reasonably built cleric (highest stat wisdom, lowest stat dexterity). What did he do in actual play? He moved off to the side (out of range for his healing abilities) and attempted to shoot the enemies with his crossbow. I wish I had known that we really did not have a healer in that game.
So an actively incompetent player. It's not every day that someone plays to their weaknesses.
I play with people who forget to add strength to their attack roles. That wouldn't be so bad if they weren't the samurai and the barbarian.
I play with people who forget to add strength to their attack roles. That wouldn't be so bad if they weren't the samurai and the barbarian.
I had something like that in one of the special PFS modules once. We were fighting some critter with DR 10/ (something the guy didn't have). The player was using a greatsword, had an 18 strength, and used power attack (for -2/+6). Somehow he did not consistently make it past the DR.
????
Of course on top of that it was a con and I was quite hungover. I've had better games.
I play with people who forget to add strength to their attack roles. That wouldn't be so bad if they weren't the samurai and the barbarian.
What...? How? What??!!!
Well, on the bright side, that means there's a good chance even a skill-focus only Rogue can outdamage them... lol.
I play with people who forget to add strength to their attack roles. That wouldn't be so bad if they weren't the samurai and the barbarian.What...? How? What??!!!
Well, on the bright side, that means there's a good chance even a skill-focus only Rogue can outdamage them... lol.
"I thought you added BAB to attacks roles?"
"You add strength too.""So does that mean BAB adds to damage roles too?"
"No since you are using a two handed weapon you add 1.5 strength mod to damage roles?"
"Oh cool, does that means my attack role is higher!"
"No the 1.5 is only for damage roles."
"I thought you added BAB to attacks roles?"
"You add strength too."
"So does that mean BAB adds to damage roles too?"
"No since you are using a two handed weapon you add 1.5 strength mod to damage roles?"
"Oh cool, does that means my attack role is higher!"
"No the 1.5 is only for damage roles."
Was this Moe, Larry, or Curly?
wow. I can't express how depressing I have found this thread. I am an old school D&D player and I love Pathfinder, but this has really struck a blow against my love of the game. I am not speaking out against anyone in particular, viewpoints have been expressed clearly and without malice. However, what I walk away with is that Pathfinder is seriously broken. The skill system, one of the main hallmarks of d20 (3rd edition D&D) and one of the elements that I really liked, has made my favorite class, the thief (rogue, whatever), pointless.
I always just kind of smiled to myself when I heard players talking about how rogues were the weakest class because I told myself that it was just because they didn't know how to play one well. But I have just read a whole slew of great arguments proving me wrong, they are mechanically inferior to the other classes and their main functions may easily be subsumed by those other classes.
I really shouldn't have read this thread.
Courage, Interfactor. PF is a really good toolkit of a game system, but it does give the players, GM, and group a lot of rope with which to hang themselves on issues. One of those ropes is the gulf between certain play styles - mainly min-maxers/combat builds vs non-min-maxers/non-combat builds. Unfortunately, because of the variety of options in the attempt to create a satisfying experience, it's easier for PFS to gear up toward the min-maxers and combat builds than the non-min-maxers/non-combat builds. Fortunately, your home campaign is yours and doesn't need to pay that way.
[escalating conspiracy wingnut rant mode]Ultimately, this is why I think organized play is a bane to the game as well as a boon in promotion. To accommodate scratch-built tables, a lot of tailoring that could be done by a home GM has to go out the window. And that pushes the game in the direction of the lowest common denominators that everyone experiences - combat and survival. That, in turn, drives an optimization feedback loop that discards classes like the rogue and other options that can't be pushed as far. And, being closely in contact with the game company, the organized play system becomes a primary source of information on the state of the game. Pretty soon, in an effort to quell the reports of imbalance, the game company launches a new edition that features combat balance above all at the expense of the feel and history of the game. Gah!
[/escalating conspiracy wingnut rant mode]
Sometimes I need to get that off my chest when the "pull your weight or die" discussions come up.
No one in PFS is going to have a teamwork feat, unless they only play games with a body that they take to every game.
Teamwork feats are useless, if no one else has them.
We're assuming dex and strength are the same.
Most people don't play PFS, they're usually in home games. And, if you make a deal with a fellow regular, you can take them all you like. Most warriors love the idea of getting more bonuses to hit and damage, and rogues need the flanking.
Most people don't play PFS, they're usually in home games. And, if you make a deal with a fellow regular, you can take them all you like. Most warriors love the idea of getting more bonuses to hit and damage, and rogues need the flanking.No one in PFS is going to have a teamwork feat, unless they only play games with a body that they take to every game.
Teamwork feats are useless, if no one else has them.
We're assuming dex and strength are the same.
But this is for a PFS game. I already know what my next home game character is, but it is not allowed in PFS.