| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just balanced fun-wise.That's pretty subjective though, which is why I said my friend can have fun with a commoner. I like my arcane trickster for a theif personally, but if had to have a pick of class with no magic I might actually look for another game. Pathfinder likes its combat, so being a pure skill monkey isn't really viable, especially in a scenario like PFS. There are other games that probably handle a lack of combat better.
Not to mention that I can't imagine anyone would have less fun playing a rogue if they were better off mechanically.
"I used to love playing rogue, but now that my abilities all work as advertised and I can make consistent contributions to the party that other classes can't easily replicate or outdo, it's just not as much fun..."
You know, we spend so much time trying to make monk and rogue decent and balanced and what not... it'd be fun perhaps if we tried our hardest to make a fix with the intention of making them overpowered.
And see if that's even possible.
You know, sticking to the themes and specialties of the classes, not just handing them out spells or giving them obscene bonuses to combat rolls or other cheap cop outs.
I'm really not sure if such an attempt could actually be outright stronger and/or more versatile than a God wizard or Paragon Surge Sorc or Oracle.
I don´t know what kind a dungeons you run, but magic slots has limits, they end...and them? you will make the group stop every time the spells ends and whait until the next day?
When I run a game, if someone stops having fun its a problem. If you run out of spells and your expected to spend the next few hours slogging it not doing what you picked your class to do, life can suck. At higher levels it usually isn't a problem unless the GM has gone out of his way to make it a problem. At lower levels color spray can end encounters in a turn.
Yes, that is the balance of the game, you don´t use all the spell you have because other classes (rogues e etc) press support to the caster.
And if you stop the quest early because the caster doesn´t having fun without magic i suggest you stop the combats which the rogues can´t flank too.
I do think that a quick fix is to make "thief" skills something that only rogues get, much like 1st Ed. It doesn't fix imbalance issues, but it gives more reasons to have a rogue be useful in the game. I do understand that the rogue is not as mechanically good as just about any other character class. My point is that a good player and a good GM fix a lot of what is wrong.
Sorry for be so annoying. I just don´t understand the complains. I play D&d a long time in a table of power gamers where the GM need to make quests CR3+ over the party level for the players have fun and never seen any problems with monks, rogues or other classes.
And if you stop the quest early because the caster doesn´t having fun without magic i suggest you stop the combats which the rogues can´t flank too.
Between the grammar and the logic its kind of hard to read this. Are you trying to compare rogues flanking(something everyone can do) to a wizard's spells? Those two aren't really the same thing... at all. I don't play a rogue to flank, but I play a caster because spells. That's part of the whole fun theme.
Breaking the lock = everything on the other side of the door being prepared for you to come through that door.
Can a medium-to-high level wizurd make a rogue obsolete? Yes, for a short time. While throwing away limited resources to do what a rogue can do WITHOUT using limited resources.
Which means that wizurd is rather grotesquely stupid, despite his 20+ Int score. (I'll be generous and ascribe the stupidity to the character.)
Any single guy with a trait that gives him Disable Device as class skill can make obsolete a rogue. The wizard just add a secondary tool for extremely hard locks (The ones the rogue can't open, actually)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Always remember the opportunity cost of having a rogue is having a second wizard. Two wizards can replace a rogue while still having more spells than one wizard.
Also remember that all wizards outside PFS get scribe scroll as a bonus feat at first level. If you have two wizards chances are one of them will take craft wand at some point as well. If some days you need an unreasonable number of knocks there are solutions and not terribly expensive solutions at that.
This!
People always seem blind to oportunity costs. It's not "hey, we have a Wizard, a Cleric, and a fighter. Let's go adventuring!". It's, "ok, we already have a guy who want to melee (who could be a fighter, but also a Beastmorph alchemist, or a Druid, or an Inqusitor). A guy with support and restorative abilities (who could be a Cleric, but also a Druid, or a Witch, and sometimes a Bard) And a guy who can deal with hordes of mooks and buff the party and debuff the BBEG (who could be a wizard, but also a summoner, or a sorcerer, or a caster-oriented oracle or cleric). Now we need a guy who can do stuff with skills, and help with infiltrating. This could be a rogue, BUT also could be a Bard, or Inquisitor, or Ranger, or alchemist, or wizard. _IF_ you are building this guy, spending your 2nd level slots in knock is NOT a waste, because you are doing YOUR job. The guy who is playing the Caster (who could be another wizard, but also a cleric, or witch, or summoner, or caster-druid) can focus in his battlefield control, AOE blasts, party Buffs and whatever. The guy in the "infiltrating skill-monkey" role doesn't need to. But he can help, with any extra resources he can spare. While the rogue... can't do the same
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any single guy with a trait that gives him Disable Device as class skill can make obsolete a rogue. The wizard just add a secondary tool for extremely hard locks (The ones the rogue can't open, actually)Breaking the lock = everything on the other side of the door being prepared for you to come through that door.
Can a medium-to-high level wizurd make a rogue obsolete? Yes, for a short time. While throwing away limited resources to do what a rogue can do WITHOUT using limited resources.
Which means that wizurd is rather grotesquely stupid, despite his 20+ Int score. (I'll be generous and ascribe the stupidity to the character.)
By that logic, any class with UMD as class skills makes a Wizard obsolete, which in turn makes any class obsolete, which in turn ... man, your gaming must be full of headaches.
By that logic, any class with UMD as class skills makes a Wizard obsolete, which in turn makes any class obsolete, which in turn ... man, your gaming must be full of headaches.Any single guy with a trait that gives him Disable Device as class skill can make obsolete a rogue. The wizard just add a secondary tool for extremely hard locks (The ones the rogue can't open, actually)Breaking the lock = everything on the other side of the door being prepared for you to come through that door.
Can a medium-to-high level wizurd make a rogue obsolete? Yes, for a short time. While throwing away limited resources to do what a rogue can do WITHOUT using limited resources.
Which means that wizurd is rather grotesquely stupid, despite his 20+ Int score. (I'll be generous and ascribe the stupidity to the character.)
That comparison would be valid if the wizard had to pay a 700gp scroll every time he open a DC 30 lock, and he could only use the minimum ranks in the scroll and the minimum ability modifier to use the lockpicking tools. Which means your trolli... err... comparison fails.
|
... the problem you often see is that skills only take a few minutes to resolve in real time but combat can take hours. Then you have the problem of being sub-optimal for the majority of your playing time. Some people don't mind that but it would not be my cup of tea.
In my experience, it's the reverse when min/maxed fighters crush the combats in three rounds...and then it's back to hours of face-time and sneaking around with the rogues and bards.
Any single guy with a trait that gives him Disable Device as class skill can make obsolete a rogue. The wizard just add a secondary tool for extremely hard locks (The ones the rogue can't open, actually)
WRONG.
This is no more true than someone with a wand of CLW makes clerics obsolete. The cleric still has channel energy, other spells and domain powers etc etc etc that are not provided by the wand. The cleric isn't going to memorise CLW probably, but just because you can do one trick that the cleric can, doesn't mean that your a cleric replacement.
Similarly, any single guy who has taken disable device makes the rogue having disable device obsolete. The rogue however still has another 7 or more skill points in other skills that your other character does not.
Yes, it's a straw man arguement I know. Lets set something up that is easy to cut down, but .... doesn't stop it being true. People look at the rogue and go "But a druid will have a better perception because of their wis" without looking at the fact that a druid only gets half the skill points and probably wants to invest in survival, knowledge nature and spellcraft as well. A rogue on the other hand has spare skill points to burn to the point they can come pick up ranks in "Profession (Courtesan)" and it barely make a dent in the number of skill points that have available (not to mention freak out your GM when he sees it on your sheet).
A char built to beat a rogue at perception might be able to do a better job at that. The rogue will have a half dozen other strengths as well though.
Any single guy with a trait that gives him Disable Device as class skill can make obsolete a rogue. The wizard just add a secondary tool for extremely hard locks (The ones the rogue can't open, actually)WRONG.
This is no more true than someone with a wand of CLW makes clerics obsolete. The cleric still has channel energy, other spells and domain powers etc etc etc that are not provided by the wand. The cleric isn't going to memorise CLW probably, but just because you can do one trick that the cleric can, doesn't mean that your a cleric replacement.
Similarly, any single guy who has taken disable device makes the rogue having disable device obsolete. The rogue however still has another 7 or more skill points in other skills that your other character does not.
Yes, it's a straw man arguement I know. Lets set something up that is easy to cut down, but .... doesn't stop it being true. People look at the rogue and go "But a druid will have a better perception because of their wis" without looking at the fact that a druid only gets half the skill points and probably wants to invest in survival, knowledge nature and spellcraft as well. A rogue on the other hand has spare skill points to burn to the point they can come pick up ranks in "Profession (Courtesan)" and it barely make a dent in the number of skill points that have available (not to mention freak out your GM when he sees it on your sheet).
A char built to beat a rogue at perception might be able to do a better job at that. The rogue will have a half dozen other strengths as well though.
+1
Also unlike others with just disable device a rogue can disarm magical traps without burning ressources. And trapspotter allows them to move at full speed while looking for traps and gets an automatic check. Throw skill mastery into that and a rogue will keep your party save.
This of course becomes less relevant when all your traps are only at mysterious looking doors and never just in the middle of a corridor or in the wilderness... ;-)
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?
You will not be useless, but you are clearly not a combat spec. With the dex, go ranged and avoid/talk your way out of combat as much as possible.
There are two ranger archetypes, I think three or four bard archetypes, two alchemist archetypes, an oracle archetype, and a sorcerer archetype that can disable magical traps without expending resources. The alchemist archetypes and one of the bard archetypes can also get the trapspotter rogue talent.
Rogues don't even get the most skill points and solving traps is usually the most boring part of the game. Rogues aren't in the best place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, very boring. Until you walk into the trap that the rogue didn't solve.
Yeah, bards in PF can be great trapfinders. That seems to be a bit off to me, but I've been in 3.5 too long, so I see their role as social influencing partial spellcasters, not trap finders.
The rogue is not useless, play them how you like, get creative and you will be able to ascertain how useless they are.
One game example where I saw npc and pc rogues do well. Zombie city situation. What did they have to do? Get into and out of the city, gather resources, follow people, move quickly, kill enemies and get them into a manageable spot and avoid getting overwhelmed, use a lot of social checks involving soldiers and survivors, lie and manipulate. With all that climbing, leaping and dodginess, the rogues did quite well. There were even rogue vs rogue rooftop fights and on the back of a steed (more than a touch of assassin's creed in there).
The rogues were not that great against the core monster, the zombie (and the other horrors). But they were good in every other facet of the game that came up, solving challenges, surviving and evading threats too large to take, and negotiation. The combat was tricky and they had to be careful and watch hp, but otherwise the rogues were adaptable and pretty nifty.
The party fighter determined to fight more of the monsters rather than use skills had real trouble. Almost died a few times, as good as she was.
One player also multiclassed his rogue after a while, and that can be a good path to follow. If you want to play a rogue but your game is pushing in another direction apart from skills, high reflex and sneak attack, then have your rogue cake and eat it too with multiclassing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Useless" is probably a bit of misnomer, when it comes to rogues. You can certainly make a rogue that is useful. The problem comes with trade-offs and opportunity costs. The rogue's skill monkey-ing is nice, but there are other classes that can be fairly competitive with the rogue on skills while also having a lot more going for them in other areas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is cool since no one said that in the first 24 pages
Meanwhile I will just keep rocking a solid rogue
I'm surprised how dismissive people are of traps and the Rogue's ability to negate them.
Sure one on one traps aren't deadly, but *individual* traps generally aren't it's when you're doing the Indiana Jones style trapped tomb that the cumulative effect is seen and the small damage adds up, etc. Eventually you fail checks.
From the perspective of running traps, why in the world would you ever have a single trap alone? you chain them, trigger them off each other, etc. Make it a nightmare if a check is failed or a trap is missed.
Ok, maybe not that bad, but you can see my point. build traps and the areas that have them like you're actually intending them to fail and need multiple line of defence.
I've always felt the rogue was made to multiclass, you get a cooler fighter, or a sorcerer who really IS the face, and not just has charisma. A straight rogue is a bore, especially with alchemists running around.
Any single guy with a trait that gives him Disable Device as class skill can make obsolete a rogue. The wizard just add a secondary tool for extremely hard locks (The ones the rogue can't open, actually)WRONG.
This is no more true than someone with a wand of CLW makes clerics obsolete. The cleric still has channel energy, other spells and domain powers etc etc etc that are not provided by the wand. The cleric isn't going to memorise CLW probably, but just because you can do one trick that the cleric can, doesn't mean that your a cleric replacement.
Similarly, any single guy who has taken disable device makes the rogue having disable device obsolete. The rogue however still has another 7 or more skill points in other skills that your other character does not.
Yes, it's a straw man arguement I know. Lets set something up that is easy to cut down, but .... doesn't stop it being true. People look at the rogue and go "But a druid will have a better perception because of their wis" without looking at the fact that a druid only gets half the skill points and probably wants to invest in survival, knowledge nature and spellcraft as well. A rogue on the other hand has spare skill points to burn to the point they can come pick up ranks in "Profession (Courtesan)" and it barely make a dent in the number of skill points that have available (not to mention freak out your GM when he sees it on your sheet).
A char built to beat a rogue at perception might be able to do a better job at that. The rogue will have a half dozen other strengths as well though.
A druid does not compete with a Rogue in the skill monkey niche, that's true.
However, Alchemists, Bards, Inquisitors, Summoners (including eidolon), Rangers, Wizards and Magi can give him a run for they money. Yes, they wont have point in "profession (courtesan)", but that does not really matter. And they have spells and class abilities to make for the rest, being a much better rounded up character in the end, while still doing all the relevant stuff of the rogue (that means things like sneaking, being party-face and info-gatherers, disabling, etc. Sure, they won't have Proffesion (courtesan), but who cares?)
I'm surprised how dismissive people are of traps and the Rogue's ability to negate them.
Sure one on one traps aren't deadly, but *individual* traps generally aren't it's when you're doing the Indiana Jones style trapped tomb that the cumulative effect is seen and the small damage adds up, etc. Eventually you fail checks.
From the perspective of running traps, why in the world would you ever have a single trap alone? you chain them, trigger them off each other, etc. Make it a nightmare if a check is failed or a trap is missed.
Ok, maybe not that bad, but you can see my point. build traps and the areas that have them like you're actually intending them to fail and need multiple line of defence.
The problem with traps is twofold:
First, unless they are found in combat, traps are either lethal (ie: you fail your save, you die), or irrelevant. All non-lethal traps can be disabled with a wand of Cure Light Wounds. And if they are found in combat, which is a nice encounter, then often the rogue can't help disabling it anyway, as disabling traps take too long to be done in combat.Second: everybody and their dog can disable traps. Not only rogues. Rogues get trapfinding, unless they archetype out of it. Several other classes get trapfinding through an archetype.
-Bards: detective, archeologist, sandman
-Sorcerer: Seeker
-Oracle: Seeker
-Alchemist: cryptbreaker
-Rangers: trapper, urban ranger.
-PrC Pathfinder Delver
There's also a level 2 spell that give trapfinding, which is cheap enough to put in a wand, and several other class features that allow to disarm some magical traps like glyphs or symbols.
And finally, magical traps can be disabled through anything that disable magic. A barbarian with spell sunder can disable magical traps spending one round of rage.
|
|
Any single guy with a trait that gives him Disable Device as class skill can make obsolete a rogue. The wizard just add a secondary tool for extremely hard locks (The ones the rogue can't open, actually)WRONG.
This is no more true than someone with a wand of CLW makes clerics obsolete. The cleric still has channel energy, other spells and domain powers etc etc etc that are not provided by the wand. The cleric isn't going to memorise CLW probably, but just because you can do one trick that the cleric can, doesn't mean that your a cleric replacement.
Similarly, any single guy who has taken disable device makes the rogue having disable device obsolete. The rogue however still has another 7 or more skill points in other skills that your other character does not.
Yes, it's a straw man arguement I know. Lets set something up that is easy to cut down, but .... doesn't stop it being true. People look at the rogue and go "But a druid will have a better perception because of their wis" without looking at the fact that a druid only gets half the skill points and probably wants to invest in survival, knowledge nature and spellcraft as well. A rogue on the other hand has spare skill points to burn to the point they can come pick up ranks in "Profession (Courtesan)" and it barely make a dent in the number of skill points that have available (not to mention freak out your GM when he sees it on your sheet).
A char built to beat a rogue at perception might be able to do a better job at that. The rogue will have a half dozen other strengths as well though.
A druid does not compete with a Rogue in the skill monkey niche, that's true.
However, Alchemists, Bards, Inquisitors, Summoners (including eidolon), Rangers, Wizards and Magi can give him a run for they money. Yes, they wont have point in "profession (courtesan)", but that does not really matter. And they have spells and class abilities to make for the...
Rogue: I can open this lock!
Wizard: Muhahhahaha! So can I, thanks to *POWER OF MAGIC*! Rogue, you're obsolete, dead martial weight, move over.Cleric: Hold on. Rogue, are you expending any resources to pick that lock?
Rogue: Nope. I'm just, rolling the skill chceck, man.
Cleric: Cool. Do it. Wizard, shut your egomaniac trap and tell me you didn't blow one of your precious spell slots on something this guy here can do just like that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogue: I can open this lock!
Wizard: Muhahhahaha! So can I, thanks to *POWER OF MAGIC*! Rogue, you're obsolete, dead martial weight, move over.
Cleric: Hold on. Rogue, are you expending any resources to pick that lock?
Rogue: Nope. I'm just, rolling the skill chceck, man.
Cleric: Cool. Do it. Wizard, shut your egomaniac trap and tell me you didn't blow one of your precious spell slots on something this guy here can do just like that.
Rogue: I can open this lock
Ranger: me tooBard me too
Sorcerer: Me too
oracle: me too
Alchemist: me too
Wizard: actually me too, I took a trait for it.
Summoner: I can't. But my eidolon can.
Cleric: Oh, I see. Well, everybody else can do a lot of other stuff, so let's Timmy have his little victory too. He didn't do that much in the last 4 combats against elementals, wraiths, wizard with blur and a guy inside a fog cloud, so if we let them to open the lock at least he won't be having a free ride to his share of the treasure
Ok, maybe not that bad, but you can see my point. build traps and the areas that have them like you're actually intending them to fail and need multiple line of defence.
The best traps aren't traps really.
Rogue: I can open this lock!
Wizard: Muhahhahaha! So can I, thanks to *POWER OF MAGIC*! Rogue, you're obsolete, dead martial weight, move over.
Cleric: Hold on. Rogue, are you expending any resources to pick that lock?
Rogue: Nope. I'm just, rolling the skill chceck, man.
Cleric: Cool. Do it. Wizard, shut your egomaniac trap and tell me you didn't blow one of your precious spell slots on something this guy here can do just like that.
Alternatively...
Rogue: Don't worry bro. I can open this lock!
Wizard: So can I!
Rogue: What, with magic? Don't waste the spellslot noob. That's why you have a rogue.
Wizard: Umm... No, with the skill. I have 16 dex and like, 9 skill points per level.
or another alternative.
Rogue: Don't worry guys, I can totally open this lock!
Barbarian: Me am smash with adamantite greataxe! SMASH!
Door: Explodes
I see maxed Disable Device is a new feature of Schroedinger's Wizard.
So, what were you saying about strawmans? I couldn't hear you over your strawman.
|
|
I see maxed Disable Device is a new feature of Schroedinger's Wizard.So, what were you saying about strawmans? I couldn't hear you over your strawman.
Dude, your maxed DD Wizard is one. Also, I think the last time you tried that it didn't quite work.
Dude, your maxed DD Wizard is one. Also, I think the last time you tried that it didn't quite work.I see maxed Disable Device is a new feature of Schroedinger's Wizard.So, what were you saying about strawmans? I couldn't hear you over your strawman.
Posting an incomplete and unupdated barebones stats? Ouch, my heart. Wish I could hide my PFS characters... Besides, Bastian didn't have disable device. He had a wand of summon expendable horse!
Anyways, the point was Schrödinger's rogue has points in every skill. Maxing out disable device on any class is possible. Even fighter. Rogue is slightly better because he gets half his class bonus to the skill though. I probably could've used archeaologist as an example, is that schrodinger's bard? Most rogue archetypes and his alternate class actually give up that bonus too... Kinda' sad.
I see maxed Disable Device is a new feature of Schroedinger's Wizard.
Somebody (wizard or otherwise) taking maxed Disable Device is a staple for groups that don't waste a slot in rogues ;)
|
|
Dude, your maxed DD Wizard is one. Also, I think the last time you tried that it didn't quite work.I see maxed Disable Device is a new feature of Schroedinger's Wizard.So, what were you saying about strawmans? I couldn't hear you over your strawman.Posting an incomplete and unupdated barebones stats? Ouch, my heart. Wish I could hide my PFS characters... Besides, Bastian didn't have disable device. He had a wand of summon expendable horse!
Anyways, the point was Schrödinger's rogue has points in every skill. Maxing out disable device on any class is possible. Even fighter. Rogue is slightly better because he gets half his class bonus to the skill though. I probably could've used archeaologist as an example, is that schrodinger's bard? Most rogue archetypes and his alternate class actually give up that bonus too... Kinda' sad.
"Great, we have a Rogue in the party, so we can actually pick skills and traits we want instead of having to cover all those areas with often awkward trait/stat/feat combos and taking utility spells to make sure we them covered" is something I get a lot in the groups I run. Sure Bards are stepping on Rogues' toes, but:
a) not everybody wants to play a caster ("Fighters should be mundane" argument, hello!)
b) there's some ultra-strong stigma that every bard is a falsetto and lute weirdo of questionable sexuality, so they don't get picked often. No, really, check out all those "I hate Bards because playing harp in combat is stupid" threads.
|
I don´t know what kind a dungeons you run, but magic slots has limits, they end...and them? you will make the group stop every time the spells ends and whait until the next day?
A lot of people do play that way, the infamous 'Fifteen Minute Adventuring Day'.
And when you play that way, the situation does become more pronounced.
When one PC is going Nova, Nova, Nova, and another is going Slow and Steady, Slow and Steady, Slow and Steady, it causes issues.
If one is going Powerful but Rationed, Powerful but Rationed, Powerful but Rationed, and the other is going Slow and Steady, Slow and Steady, Slow and Steady, the group can function with a modicum of mutual respect, where both realise they need the other.
Problem is, because of casters complaining (from as far back as the earliest editions, so this is not a young players vs old issue) about running out of things to do, efforts have been made for decades, to increase the amount of things they can do in a day. Therefore, there is less need to ration what they do. Therefore, you see the first situation far more than the second, which was, IMO, the way the game was intended to be played.
The first time one of my groups encountered the fifteen minute day expectation, the caster had just blown all his spells (in many cases unnecessarily, on things someone had already covered), and asked the others to stop to make camp.
We all just looked at him like he was simple, "Camp? It's not even breakfast time." and we carried on, forcing him to tag along or be left behind.
I don't know if the player actually believed it was late in the day, or just thought time should be fast-forwarded, for his benefit, just because he'd blown his wad.
This wasn't a young or inexperienced player, he'd been brought up on 1st Edition. Just wasn't used to playing casters.
"Great, we have a Rogue in the party, so we can actually pick skills and traits we want instead of having to cover all those areas with often awkward trait/stat/feat combos and taking utility spells to make sure we them covered" is something I get a lot in the groups I run.
Funny. I read your sentence as "great, some noob took the class which only does the job no one of us want to do". I guess you are lucky if your group have some of those sacrificed players that take "the skills and traits" the rest "don't want".
On the other hand when somebody took a rogue, instead of wasting a trait to disable device, the party waste a full slot in every combat where the enemy is an elemental, incorporeal, ooze, cast blur, darkness, or some form of cloud.
Sure Bards are stepping on Rogues' toes, but:
Bards? And alchemists, rangers, summoners...
|
|
One of the big reasons for not blowing all your spells before breakfast, used to be Wandering or Random Encounters.
This was something at the back of most casters' minds, or should have been. "If I don't keep something in reserve, I'll be dead meat if we meet something unexpected."
In my experience, such encounters rarely happen now, if ever.
Players have become used to a certain expectation of 'reasonable number of encounters/day', that 'all encounters we meet have to be specifically tailored to be easy to beat (CR=APL+/-4), otherwise the GM is a failure', that 'all encounters provide significantly worthwhile experience points' therefore 'only a small number of encounters will result in levelling up'.
This makes unplanned encounters a nightmare for GMs to use, and many have dropped the practice. When you've prepared an adventure for PCs of Level X, you do not want the PCs to hit those planned encounters at Level X+1, or Level X+2, because they met some random encounters.
This wasn't a problem in earlier editions, since the amount of xp given out per level-appropriate encounter (or even tough encounters) was a tiny fraction of what was needed to level up. 2000xp to go from Fighter 1 to Fighter 2, and a level-appropriate orc provided 15xp, shared between all PCs. Here, have eight, they'll bang the big gong and blow their signal horns before giving you all a bloody nose, and all you'll have to show for it is 30xp each, and the sound of the whole orc army mobilising behind you, as you flee for your lives.
There was no reason for the GM not to throw such extra patrols into the mix, as it wouldn't throw out the balance of later encounters.
The players had to ration their daily abilities, to deal with these likely interruptions, and deal with them efficiently, since only one warning needed to be shouted, for the whole enemy barracks to be on alert, and the adventure made much more difficult.
In PF? "Whoohoo, eight orcs. We blew them away with our cheap scrolls, and all levelled up. Come get some, orcs!"
GM: "groan. Another eight orcs appear at the doorway..."
Wizard: "Cool. I'll blow them away, too. Keep them coming! With scrolls at 12 gold a pop, I could go all day!"
@ op there as useless as the player makes them
This wasn't a problem in earlier editions, since the amount of xp given out per level-appropriate encounter (or even tough encounters) was a tiny fraction of what was needed to level up. 2000xp to go from Fighter 1 to Fighter 2, and a level-appropriate orc provided 15xp, shared between all PCs. Here, have eight, they'll bang the big gong and blow their signal horns before giving you all a bloody nose, and all you'll have to show for it is 30xp each, and the sound of the whole orc army mobilising behind you, as you flee for your lives.
I don't blame xp. I don't even use xp! Event based level up. I blame the games vancian casting and dependency on x/day. The idea that if you blow through x/day abilities the rest of your day is supposed to be suck and your supposed to be worthless, but x/day bends reality over its back is kind of silly.
That said, I don't think it has a lot to do with rogues.
|
|
I'm surprised how dismissive people are of traps and the Rogue's ability to negate them.
Sure one on one traps aren't deadly, but *individual* traps generally aren't it's when you're doing the Indiana Jones style trapped tomb that the cumulative effect is seen and the small damage adds up, etc. Eventually you fail checks.
From the perspective of running traps, why in the world would you ever have a single trap alone? you chain them, trigger them off each other, etc. Make it a nightmare if a check is failed or a trap is missed.
Ok, maybe not that bad, but you can see my point. build traps and the areas that have them like you're actually intending them to fail and need multiple line of defence.
Everything you say is true, but you'd be surprised how often that advice is ignored by professional adventure-writers.
If a trap isn't immediately followed by a dangerous situation targeting the same resource targeted by the trap (eg having to climb out of a cloud of Str poison gas, oh dear, has your Climb skill been reduced, guess I'll need another saving throw...), then the trap may as well be CRzero.