|
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.
True, some limitations in the spell effects, so the casters can participate as team players, per encounter, over as many encounters as the martials want to take on, rather than trivialising several encounters per day, then whine about turning back.
Trouble is, as soon as you suggest this, someone pipes up with "4th Edition tried this, and made all classes the saaaaaame!", and the discussion never gets past that point.
But I do believe that the stratospheric amount of xp given out in D&D3variants, for trivial encounters, the unwillingness of GMs to allow this unearned xp* to derail their campaign, and the assumptions players have (that all encounters are designed to be beaten ('CR of APL should use up 20% resources, yeah, right. More like 0%', and 'the GM is only allowed to send 4 encounters per day, or else he's a poor GM') all contribute to the assumption the caster players have, that they should nova every time.
*The 1st Edition DMG specifically instructed DMs to give no xp to PCs who were fighting below-par enemies. D&D3 specifically gave xp for below-par encounters, so DMs who tried this had to face player opposition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sneak attack is a powerful feature, particularly with extra effects such as ability damage, and if you want to you will get its conditions met.
Blur and other concealmenr-based arguments are also of limited value, because
1) concealment affects all martials
2) a rogue could simply pick shadow strike
Apparently people here play with very simple traps, none where poison with ability damage or similar effects happen. Otherwise I can't understand the argument that all you need is a wand of cure light wounds. Which again costs money and may not easily be replaceable.
The rogue has its own unique set of abilities which give you lots of options and ways to be useful. Others can only offer parts of that.
Blur and other concealment-based arguments are also of limited value, because
1) concealment affects all martials
For a rogue (without shadow strike), concealment means they have an 80% chance their attack roll will resolve normally and a 0% chance sneak attack will be effective. For a barbarian, concealment means there is an 80% chance their attack is resolved normally and an 80% chance their attack will benefit from rage.
Apparently people here play with very simple traps, none where poison with ability damage or similar effects happen. Otherwise I can't understand the argument that all you need is a wand of cure light wounds. Which again costs money and may not easily be replaceable.
Lesser Restoration can be put in a wand too. And using the standard Pathfinder assumptions about magic item availability, wands of low level spells aren't too difficult to come by. If someone has Craft Wand, it's even easier.
Sneak attack is a powerful feature, particularly with extra effects such as ability damage, and if you want to you will get its conditions met.
Blur and other concealmenr-based arguments are also of limited value, because
1) concealment affects all martials
2) a rogue could simply pick shadow strike
Concealment don't forbid Favored enemy, or Smite Evil, or Weapon Specialization, or Rage. It does render useless Sneak attack. Which is NOT that powerful feature to begin with, when paired with a 3/4 BAB class without self-buff class features.
And yes, a rogue could pay yet another feat tax to keep being sub-par in combat in certain situations. Not that it'll help him with elementals, oozes or incorporeals, though. Or creatures with 50% concealment instead of 20%, for that matter
Apparently people here play with very simple traps, none where poison with ability damage or similar effects happen. Otherwise I can't understand the argument that all you need is a wand of cure light wounds. Which again costs money and may not easily be replaceable.
Lesser restoration is also cheap. And you are taking in acount the cost of not having a trap disabler, (which is the gold you lose in CLW and Lesser Restoration wands), but you are not taking in account the cost of oportunity you lose by having a rogue.
Of course a party wiith a fighter, cleric and wizard is worse than a party of cleric, wizard and rogue. But that's not the question. The question is how a party of fighter, cleric, wizard and rogue competes with a party of fighter, cleric, wizard and life oracle. Now you have an extra char who can heal the trap damage, for example (or disable the trap himself, by the way, if he is a Seeker) Or fighter, cleric, wizard and inquisitor, or fighter, cleric, wizard and summoner, Fighter, cleric, wizard and bard, etc.
Lesser Restoration can be put in a wand too. And using the standard Pathfinder assumptions about magic item availability, wands of low level spells aren't too difficult to come by. If someone has Craft Wand, it's even easier.
It's actually a 1st level spell for Paladins, so it's a 750gp wand. By the default rules, can be bought in any settlement with 201 or more citizens living there, with 75% chance to find one.
You're bringing this one up so often it makes me think you had that one campaign where you played a Rogue , your DM didn't like you much and he made sure every second fight was one you had to sit out.
Well, I've played at least half a dozen rogues in 3E and have (with massive frustration) attempted to play them in pathfinder. And everything Gustavo says is true.
It is. But it strip rogues of their only niche. A healing witch or Life oracle might make the party cleric healing abilities less usefull or even obsolete, but that doesn't make the cleric less useful. The cleric player can instead cast buff spells to the party, blast the enemy with flamestrikes, buff himself and combat, or whatever.
The rogue, in the other hand, has very little. His main strength is skills. Everybody has those now, and in pathfinder, cross-class skills are actually useful. A rogue with, say stealth, is at best 3 points better than, say, an archer fighter with stealth. And that's if the fighter haven't take a trait to make it class skill.
I have played since 2e. In 2e, rogue's skill were absolutelly protected. Only rogues could sneak or open locks, PERIOD. Then 3e came. Everybody could have skills, but rogues had much more skills than everybody else, and they have much more class skills, which protected their niche. So the fighter could take stealth, but:
a) it cost him his 2 points per level
b) he is never going to be better than half the rogue.Then Pathfinder came. Everybody has now skills to spare (favored bonus class gives skills, several classes have more skills than in 3e, like ranger, several classes get better class skills, skill consolidation make everybody more competent, traits and a single dip in a class or PrC gives you full class skill benefit in several skills)
Am I complaining about other classes getting better at skills? No way. I love skills, and I like that all characters can have some competence with them. But in the meanwhile... the rogue's niche as the skilled guy has been destroyed. And he got nothing in return.
Not that you should need play experience to realize going from a system where the rogue can spend 20 skill points and get 20 ranks while as a fighter who spends 20 skill points gets 10 ranks (and is hard capped at those 10, even if he wanted to pay more) to a system where both spend 20 skill points and get 20 ranks except.. the fighter might be at 3 lower than the rogue if he didn't bother to dip or take a super-plentiful trait to make it a class skill (which would then give him a +1 ADVANTAGE)...
...is going to utterly destroy the rogue's niche protection. It's pretty basic common sense.
It's actually a 1st level spell for Paladins, so it's a 750gp wand. By the default rules, can be bought in any settlement with 201 or more citizens living there, with 75% chance to find one.Lesser Restoration can be put in a wand too. And using the standard Pathfinder assumptions about magic item availability, wands of low level spells aren't too difficult to come by. If someone has Craft Wand, it's even easier.
Yes, *only* 75%. And that does not even factor in setting specifics, that you may be in a wilderness with no magic shop nearby, and that paladins are much rarer than clerics.
I assume this means in your games you can always get wands of haste in the minimum sized settlings as a second level spell because it's that way on the summoner's list?Really, that's not convincing to me :-P
And you are still burning resources to get rid of a problem you would have avoided in the first place. Also, someone might still die or fall comatose. Bad luck if that was the one who could use the wand ;-)
I've seen arguments like yours before. And then the one got hit who could use the wand. And failed saves twice, max con damage rolled - dead. Using a lesser restoration wands requires 3 rounds minimum, so that is really not a quick aid either.
Sneak attack is a powerful feature, particularly with extra effects such as ability damage, and if you want to you will get its conditions met.
Blur and other concealmenr-based arguments are also of limited value, because
1) concealment affects all martials
2) a rogue could simply pick shadow strikeConcealment don't forbid Favored enemy, or Smite Evil, or Weapon Specialization, or Rage. It does render useless Sneak attack. Which is NOT that powerful feature to begin with, when paired with a 3/4 BAB class without self-buff class features.
And yes, a rogue could pay yet another feat tax to keep being sub-par in combat in certain situations. Not that it'll help him with elementals, oozes or incorporeals, though. Or creatures with 50% concealment instead of 20%, for that matter
Apparently people here play with very simple traps, none where poison with ability damage or similar effects happen. Otherwise I can't understand the argument that all you need is a wand of cure light wounds. Which again costs money and may not easily be replaceable.Lesser restoration is also cheap. And you are taking in acount the cost of not having a trap disabler, (which is the gold you lose in CLW and Lesser Restoration wands), but you are not taking in account the cost of oportunity you lose by having a rogue.
Of course a party wiith a fighter, cleric and wizard is worse than a party of cleric, wizard and rogue. But that's not the question. The question is how a party of fighter, cleric, wizard and rogue competes with a party of fighter, cleric, wizard and life oracle. Now you have an extra char who can heal the trap damage, for example (or disable the trap himself, by the way, if he is a Seeker) Or fighter, cleric, wizard and inquisitor, or fighter, cleric, wizard and summoner, Fighter, cleric, wizard and bard, etc.
Really, that's not convincing to me :-P
That's because your picky and picking straws, eh. A level one wand. You buy them with 50 charges. Tyring to say you won't get the chance for a level one wand is kind of ridiculous.
Worse, it doesn't help make trap finding fun. A rogue(or anyone really...) doing trapfinding can be pretty boring. Getting hit by a trap can be boring. The best traps aren't traps. Its also a single niche for a skillmonkey. There are a whole lot of skills. Social skills are done better by the bard, hands down. Then the bard has more skill points. Then the bard has spells. And the bard has performance...
Really, that's not convincing to me :-PThat's because your picky and picking straws, eh. A level one wand. You buy them with 50 charges. Tyring to say you won't get the chance for a level one wand is kind of ridiculous.
Worse, it doesn't help make trap finding fun. A rogue(or anyone really...) doing trapfinding can be pretty boring. Getting hit by a trap can be boring. The best traps aren't traps. Its also a single niche for a skillmonkey. There are a whole lot of skills. Social skills are done better by the bard, hands down. Then the bard has more skill points. Then the bard has spells. And the bard has performance...
Yup. Dealing with traps when it's just a single d20 roll to disable them is not very interesting at all. I and my players had far more fun in a dungeon-crawl where there were a bunch of traps, and the party had no rogue at all. Instead of it just being a bunch of "I roll disable device" my players had to keep coming up with really creative ways of getting past the traps, which was more fun and kept the entire party involved and engaged.
which was more fun and kept the entire party involved and engaged.
Lol, I remember doing that once. I once bought an army of chickens and let them loose in a dungeon. Another time a party of mine kept chucking corpses of the orcs in the dungeon into rooms. "Is it safe yet?"
Sneak attack is a powerful feature, particularly with extra effects such as ability damage, and if you want to you will get its conditions met.
Blur and other concealmenr-based arguments are also of limited value, because
1) concealment affects all martials
2) a rogue could simply pick shadow strikeConcealment don't forbid Favored enemy, or Smite Evil, or Weapon Specialization, or Rage. It does render useless Sneak attack. Which is NOT that powerful feature to begin with, when paired with a 3/4 BAB class without self-buff class features.
And yes, a rogue could pay yet another feat tax to keep being sub-par in combat in certain situations. Not that it'll help him with elementals, oozes or incorporeals, though. Or creatures with 50% concealment instead of 20%, for that matter
Apparently people here play with very simple traps, none where poison with ability damage or similar effects happen. Otherwise I can't understand the argument that all you need is a wand of cure light wounds. Which again costs money and may not easily be replaceable.Lesser restoration is also cheap. And you are taking in acount the cost of not having a trap disabler, (which is the gold you lose in CLW and Lesser Restoration wands), but you are not taking in account the cost of oportunity you lose by having a rogue.
Of course a party wiith a fighter, cleric and wizard is worse than a party of cleric, wizard and rogue. But that's not the question. The question is how a party of fighter, cleric, wizard and rogue competes with a party of fighter, cleric, wizard and life oracle. Now you have an extra char who can heal the trap damage, for example (or disable the trap himself, by the way, if he is a Seeker) Or fighter, cleric, wizard and inquisitor, or
fighter, cleric, wizard and summoner, Fighter, cleric, wizard and bard, etc.
Seeker is not even hardcover, but just pfs. That is only of limited value to many, and exactls of zero value to anyone I play with. But that just as a note
Sneak attack has extra effects I pointed out. These are very nice.
I also don't consider shadow strike a feat tax. You don't have to have it, you just need it in specific situations. Still, youh do not need power attack, which is considered a requirement for all other martial classes. So instead you take shadow strike and are fine.
Btw. Rangers and barbarians and others get far less from their abilities than a rogue on average. E.g. FE gives you +2 every 5 levels on it if you optimize only one. So you will have +6 at level 12, whereas a rogue has 6d6 sneak, avg +21. Even with a x3 critical the ranger would be behind - and the gap only widens later.
BAB is not a real problem either. Rogues either go for flanking, e.g. utilizing feats like gang up and weapon enchantments, or for tactics that leave an opponent flatfooted and thus reduce their AC. And they get talents that help them with that. So I don't see the problem here.
By the way, the rogue is ultimately not supposed to be as powerful in combat as a barbarian or fighter. Otherwise the package of skills and talents and uncanny dodge etc. would be too much :-)
Seeker is not even hardcover, but just pfs. That is only of limited value to many, and exactls of zero value to anyone I play with. But that just as a note
Dat grammar. Can I get a translation?
By the way, the rogue is ultimately not supposed to be as powerful in combat as a barbarian or fighter. Otherwise the package of skills and talents and uncanny dodge etc. would be too much :-)
No one asked for that. People want someone competent though, especially if he isn't the best skill monkey out there. His 'package' kinda' sucks.
Really, that's not convincing to me :-PThat's because your picky and picking straws, eh. A level one wand. You buy them with 50 charges. Tyring to say you won't get the chance for a level one wand is kind of ridiculous.
Worse, it doesn't help make trap finding fun. A rogue(or anyone really...) doing trapfinding can be pretty boring. Getting hit by a trap can be boring. The best traps aren't traps. Its also a single niche for a skillmonkey. There are a whole lot of skills. Social skills are done better by the bard, hands down. Then the bard has more skill points. Then the bard has spells. And the bard has performance...
I am no more picky than you, just pointing out flaws in your assumptions.
Wands of what you want are not always available, that is in the rules. Skills areg always available, that is also in the rules.And just because you find traps boring and seem to not involve the party, does not make it a universal truth. There are different ways to play the game, and none is more right or wrong than others :-)
I love bards and know very well what they can do. But that is why I can also appreciate the strengths of a rogue: same as with the bard you have to be more creative :-)
Seeker is not even hardcover, but just pfs. That is only of limited value to many, and exactls of zero value to anyone I play with. But that just as a noteDat grammar. Can I get a translation?
By the way, the rogue is ultimately not supposed to be as powerful in combat as a barbarian or fighter. Otherwise the package of skills and talents and uncanny dodge etc. would be too much :-)No one asked for that. People want someone competent though, especially if he isn't the best skill monkey out there. His 'package' kinda' sucks.
What's your problem?
Seeker is not in hardcover books, just PFS Field guide.Not even available in my language, and non-hardcover material is banned in all my groups.
By the way is there a mobile friendly paizo site somewhere? This is tedious with a mobile :-(
I am no more picky than you, just pointing out flaws in your assumptions.
'your' infers your picking holes in mine and 'flaws' infers your complaints are legit. You won't even accept when someone else picks at your ideas.
Wands of what you want are not always available, that is in the rules. Skills areg always available, that is also in the rules.
A level one wand is pretty much always available except in extreme circumstances.
just because you find traps boring and seem to not involve the party, does not make it a universal truth
No, but it is a legitimate thing. My complaint is that its boring to roll the dice or take damage and then move on and that the best traps aren't traps. Do you have something to say about that? or do you really love rolling a d20 and hearing you take 6D6 from a fire blast and nothing else.
same as with the bard you have to be more creative :-)
No, not the same. Unless rogues suddenly got versatile performance and spells. Creativity and roleplay are not class features. Its something anyone can do. You can't argue that it does anything to help a class by its design and mechanics.
Yes, *only* 75%. And that does not even factor in setting specifics, that you may be in a wilderness with no magic shop nearby, and that paladins are much rarer than clerics.
I assume this means in your games you can always get wands of haste in the minimum sized settlings as a second level spell because it's that way on the summoner's list?
Really, that's not convincing to me :-P
And you are still burning resources to get rid of a problem you would have avoided in the first place.
Wands last long enough that having them available at at least 3/4 of the settlements you come across will probably suffice. How often does your party take ability damage? Are poisoned traps a daily occurrence? The cost isn't terrible, either, for lesser restoration being a 1st or 2nd level wand. It costs 15gp (90gp) per use, for an average cost being 6gp (36gp) per ability score cured.
Of course, this cost only has to be paid on a failed save. The insanity mist trap (CR 5) requires a DC 15 fort save or does 1d3 points of wisdom damage (up to 6 rounds; cure 1 save). Let's say a 5th level party without a rogue (or other trapfinder) encounters this trap outside of combat. They don't have anyone to find the trap, so they blindly step into it. One character has to save against the poison. Fort saves at this level range from about 2 to 7, depending on class and ability scores, not including bonuses specific to poison (such as from dwarves or alchemists). There's about a 1/3 to 2/3 chance that the save is successful. Subsequent saves are more likely to be made, as someone can use the heal skill to give a bonus (+4 on a DC 15 heal check). The character probable takes between 0 and 2d3 points of wisdom damage, which is will probably take 0 to 2 uses of the wand to cure. Not having a rogue in the party cost up to 180gp from this trap, probably less or even zero.
I don't think that's a big drain on resources.
I've seen arguments like yours before. And then the one got hit who could use the wand. And failed saves twice, max con damage rolled - dead. Using a lesser restoration wands requires 3 rounds minimum, so that is really not a quick aid either.
Wands are spell-trigger items which means it is a standard action to activate them. It's actually faster than casting the spell.
Lesser restoration is on the cleric, druid, inquisitor, oracle, and paladin spell lists (and anyone with UMD can use the wand). Each of those but oracle have good fort saves, and hence are likely to succeed on the poison save. It is possible for such a character to fail multiple fort saves and die of con damage due to the DM rolling high, but it's not likely. Regardless, having a rogue in the party won't save you from a long string of bad rolls. They could roll poorly also.
Its the circle of life! Forum style. New posters come in, say the same things as the guy 10 pages ago, same refutes as before... Rinse, repeat.
How else do you expect us to procrastinate our real-life responsibilities? :P
It's actually a 1st level spell for Paladins, so it's a 750gp wand. By the default rules, can be bought in any settlement with 201 or more citizens living there, with 75% chance to find one.Lesser Restoration can be put in a wand too. And using the standard Pathfinder assumptions about magic item availability, wands of low level spells aren't too difficult to come by. If someone has Craft Wand, it's even easier.
Yes, *only* 75%. And that does not even factor in setting specifics, that you may be in a wilderness with no magic shop nearby, and that paladins are much rarer than clerics.
I assume this means in your games you can always get wands of haste in the minimum sized settlings as a second level spell because it's that way on the summoner's list?Really, that's not convincing to me :-P
what I do or I don't in my own homebrew campaign is not relevant when we are talking about the basic assumptions for rogues in the game. In my own games, for example, the rogue can sneak attack elementals. That doesn't mean the default rogue can.
In the default game, you have 75% to find a lvl 1 lesser restoration wand in EVERY small village with 201+ citizens. If you fail your first 75% you only need to do a small trip to the next one. 201+ population isn't that hard to find, really.
And you are still burning resources to get rid of a problem you would have avoided in the first place. Also, someone might still die or fall comatose. Bad luck if that was the one who could use the wand ;-)
several people can use that wand. The party cleric, oracle, inquisitor and paladin can by default, and several other classes can with UMD.
I've seen arguments like yours before. And then the one got hit who could use the wand. And failed saves twice, max con damage rolled - dead. Using a lesser restoration wands requires 3 rounds minimum, so that is really not a quick aid either.
I've seen a rogue roll 1 in a disable device trap and die by the poison too. Your point was?
Wands of what you want are not always available, that is in the rules. Skills areg always available, that is also in the rules.
Wands of what you want aren't always available. They are in 75% of the settlements with 201 or more people living there. And that is in the rules also.
Seeker is not even hardcover, but just pfs. That is only of limited value to many, and exactls of zero value to anyone I play with. But that just as a note
Sneak attack has extra effects I pointed out. These are very nice.
Sneak attack sucks. It would suck considerably less if it wouldn't be attached to a 3/4 BAB with no buffs. That's why vivisectionist alchemist are much better in combat than rogues.
I also don't consider shadow strike a feat tax. You don't have to have it, you just need it in specific situations.
Either you have it, and it's a feat tax, or you don't, and then you suck at every encounter with a lvl 1 wizard that cast obscuring mist. What you can't say is that your rogue have it when needed, and have something else when not, unless you are Schrodinger Rogue.
And shadow strike still doesn't help you against full concealment, or elementals, incorporeal undeads, etc.Btw. Rangers and barbarians and others get far less from their abilities than a rogue on average. E.g. FE gives you +2 every 5 levels on it if you optimize only one. So you will have +6 at level 12, whereas a rogue has 6d6 sneak, avg +21. Even with a x3 critical the ranger would be behind - and the gap only widens later.
You forgot to add the +6 to hit also. There is a BIG difference between +6 to damage, or +6 to hit and damage. Your 6d6 sneak attack dice mean jack if you miss.
BAB is not a real problem either. Rogues either go for flanking, e.g. utilizing feats like gang up and weapon enchantments, or for tactics that leave an opponent flatfooted and thus reduce their AC. And they get talents that help them with that. So I don't see the problem here.
Everybody go for flanking. And yes, there is a problem there, rogues are the *WORST* class in combat, except full casters with 1/2 BAB. Every other 3/4 class have self-buffs to increase their BAB, be it performance, judgement, mutagens, wildshaping, or spells.
By the way, the rogue is ultimately not supposed to be as powerful in combat as a barbarian or fighter. Otherwise the package of skills and talents and uncanny dodge etc. would be too much :-)
That would be true, if the package of skills and talents would not stink as much as they do.
Talents are so bad, that the best ones are the ones that give you feats. On the other hand, Rage powers, Arcana, or Evolutions are so good, that those classes spend feats to get Extra Rage Powers, Extra Arcana, or Extra evolutions.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To belatedly respond to the attempt to bash on my comment a couple pages ago...
I am not saying it's "wrong" to optimize your character. Or it's "wrong" to look for characters that measure success in DPR. Or it's "wrong" to do anything.
What I *am* saying is that it's wrong for someone to say you HAVE to do that to be a meaningful part of a game, or that it's BADWRONGFUN to just play the character you want to play without regard for anything but the numbers.
If you want to play a monk, play a monk. If you want to play a bare-handed specialist fighter, play one of those. They are two entirely different characters, but whatever. If yo0u feel bad that the fighter is going to out-damage you, then don't fight the same targets as the fighter. Let him chop-punch-whatever one of the bad guys, while you stand in the back, lure the other one over with a "bring it" hand gesture, and kick his head off.
If you don't want to play a rogue, because you think the class is no good, then don't play one. But if someone else does want to play one, shut the hell up. It doesn't make him/her a "noob" to play the character he/she wants to play.
So no--you're not wrong. But neither am I, nor is anyone else who wants to play X character with Y power for Z reasons. Even if classes A, B, and C can do it "better." If that person wanted to play A, B, or C, that person would have.
I say again--it's a game. It's supposed to be fun, not a source of tension between factions of gamers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I *am* saying is that it's wrong for someone to say you HAVE to do that to be a meaningful part of a game, or that it's BADWRONGFUN to just play the character you want to play without regard for anything but the numbers.
See, the flip side to that is that if you're incompetent or useless, you're just being a burden on the rest of the party.
A 3E game I'm in now has gone on for a long time, years before I even joined 2 years ago. One guy that used to be in the party had the ONLY character that had survived since the very beginning of the campaign, while as other characters seemed to die off after a while and get replaced (I'm on my 2nd character, myself). What sort of uber badass must he have been to survive so long, you ask?
A dwarven defender. Whose highest stat is Con, and who can barely hit anything let alone damage it if it has any DR at all. I think, even at level 18, he only had 16 strength, after magic items. He had over 300 hp and decent DR himself and AC in the upper 40's...but he wasn't a threat at all. One time it even took him THREE ROUNDS to defeat a single barbazu devil (the 6 HD guys), trading full attacks each of those 3 rounds (while as we were busy fighting off the devil's 15 other friends, several of whom were not nearly so...lowly).
Shockingly, not many enemies even bothered to attack him. I came to realize that the reason he kept leveling (and piling up gold and levels on everyone else) was because the enemies knew he was gimpy and useless. So instead they focused their attacks on the actually dangerous ones...
It really started to annoy me how his decision to make such a weak character was getting the rest of us killed.
You don't have to make an extremely optimized character, no. But the other extreme is bad, too. It's a party game. If you're seriously not pulling your weight, it's abusing the relationship between yourself and the other players, knowing they can't just boot your PC from the group.
Now, a rogue doesn't have to be worthless. Hardcore optimizing can make just about anything decent. But it does take a lot more effort, and the party would still do just as fine with a different PC instead.
18 Dex, I'd put some feat investment into a good crossbow, you can still sneak attack inside 30ft IIRC, and stuff, your just not a bladey, stabby rouge.
Ranged sneak attacking is very weak in Pathfinder. They specifically went about nerfing every core 3E option for that which they could find (grease spell, blink spell / ring of blinking, flask throwing). The non-core stuff obviously they couldn't touch one way or the other, but IME most PF games don't allow 3E splat books.
Ranged sneak attacking is very weak in Pathfinder.
To go more into detail, to get the sneak attack you have to be flanking or the foe has to be flat-footed. If you want to do sneak attack consistently, you can at best you can have greater invisibility, but for that you have to be a caster or a high level ninja. Without going into detail about how awful crossbows are too.
Of course we stopped giving advice on that rogue some time ago if I remember right. It somehow mutated into talking about why the rogue isn't up to par. Its not to say he's totally useless, but he's got other people who can do his job better or in the least do other things and his job.
There is also a trick using a dip in Oracle for Water Sight to see through fog/mist and then putting down some obscuring mist and keeping 10+ ft away (ie, 5 ft step away every turn) from enemies so that they can't see you.
It's actually less powerful than an ACTUAL oracle 1-20 build hiding in mist and using save or lose spells (and later on using the same revelation to scry for free, too!), but because it looks "cheesy" (god, I've grown to hate that word), a lot of DMs would probably balk at it.
But yeah, that's the only low-level way to full attack ranged sneak attack, or even reliably ranged SA at all. Later on you might be able to pull out greater invis or the feat tax-riffic Shatter Defenses, but those are still poor solutions that will not work on a significant portion of enemies.
Honestly, after reading a few pages, I have found Sangalor to be in either a serious case of denial or trolling hardcore.
Rogues have literally NO place in the party. Trapfinding is ubiquitos. Disabling Locks can be done with a simple low level spell or with the party meat shield. Sneak Attack, the thing that used to define a rogue, is now giving to everyone and there mothers. Oh! And the rogue has literally the WORST SAVES. Poor reflex and will but good reflex? That is literally worthless. Ok yes, he can now dodge teh traps that he screwed up and can dodge a fireball. But that doesn't amount to much, most reflex saves are made in response to *insert evocation spell here* or breath weapons. Those, while hurting, won't kill you outright. But having bad Fort AND Will is horrible since those two are the saves that are targeted for Save or Suck spells and abilities. Domination? Yup. Energy Drain? Yup. Disease? Yup. Death Spells? Yup. Illusions? Yup.
I mean really... What can a rogue legitimately do better than his counterparts that is actually helpful?
Sneak Attack, the thing that used to define a rogue, is now giving to everyone and there mothers.
Well, sneak attack isn't actually given out to everyone and their mothers. Trapfinding maybe, but not sneak attack. Vivisectionist gets full sneak attack, and its better at quiet a few things itself but I wouldn't call it the most amazing thing in the world. Sandman Bard gets partial sneak attack, but its a weird spell thief... thing. No idea how well sandman bard does. I miss anyone?
I mean really... What can a rogue legitimately do better than his counterparts that is actually helpful?
Create nearly 1300 post about "How useless is a skill monkey x" apparently!
Sneak attack isn't that common. It's also not actually that good.
It's +3.5 damage per die, culminating in 35 on average at +10d6. Compare that to the to hit bonus of full BAB and maybe some other class-based bonuses like weapon training or rage, factor in the 3-1 power attack conversion to turn that to hit advantage into damage as well as the higher damage from weapon and strength itself an actual martial class is bringing, and...
Even when every attack is a SA, rogue really isn't putting out that much damage compared to other noncasters. Of course, every attack being a SA takes a lot of work/"cheese" and is often a freaking pipe dream, too...
I have an idea...Let´s open a new thread. People who plays rogues post rogue builds...and people who think that rogue can be replaced by other classes post "rogue like" builds with other classes. We define the evaluation parameters and make a comparative test....we will have a much better result than just opinions.
|
I have an idea...Let´s open a new thread. People who plays rogues post rogue builds...and people who think that rogue can be replaced by other classes post "rogue like" builds with other classes. We define the evaluation parameters and make a comparative test....we will have a much better result than just opinions.
-1 for wanting a valid, logical alternative option. Shame on you ;)
I have an idea...Let´s open a new thread. People who plays rogues post rogue builds...and people who think that rogue can be replaced by other classes post "rogue like" builds with other classes. We define the evaluation parameters and make a comparative test....we will have a much better result than just opinions.
Sounds like fun to me.
I have an idea...Let´s open a new thread. People who plays rogues post rogue builds...and people who think that rogue can be replaced by other classes post "rogue like" builds with other classes. We define the evaluation parameters and make a comparative test....we will have a much better result than just opinions.Sounds like fun to me.
We had one like that. I wound up with a roguey druid named Doyle that way.
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.
Traps can be really nasty. It isn't the single trap that you have to worry about (until mid levels), what gets you is if you walk into a group of traps, or take one trap on the chin and then walk into a worse one when on medium hp.
We lost two players like that, from memory.
Tossed up a build thread, for those who are interested: Click the link.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need to sacrifice your combat capability to be a skill monkey. Rogues are naturally skilled, and useful in those terms. 8 skill points per level, and proficiency in a healthy number of skills. That's not including extra skills you can pick up through feats or talents, or extra skill points derived from intelligence.
If you're really interested in being valuable to your party on that front, go 50/50. Use half of your talents and feats on skill based selections, and the other half on combat related, or general feats/talents. I think you'll find that even with that methodology, you'll be an exceptional skill monkey, as well as capable of delivering damage and contributing to the party's success in a combat situation. After a certain point, 1 or 2 extra skill points in a talent or two becomes moot.
However, your stats need some work. You can have skill points all day long, but you're working against yourself if your charisma, wisdom, and strength are low. A lot of rogue skills depend on charisma, wisdom and strength. Climbing, swimming, bluff, sense motive, perception, etc. And those are some of the more useful ones. What good is having an extra skill point or 2, when you could have a bonus to all of your strength based checks by just putting a 12 in strength? (Not to mention the extra point of damage you would no longer be forgoing).
Think it through, crunch the numbers. Putting all of your eggs in one basket wont necessarily make you a better skill monkey. There are ways to achieve that without sacrificing your characters playability in combat, or in other scenarios.
You only need a rogue if
1) There are lots of traps
2) the traps do something you can't heal quickly
3) You, for some reason, cannot simply move at half speed looking for traps
4) You are not a dwarf or your dungeon is not made out of stone.
5) You can't dip into rogue or another class with trapfinding.
Its a pretty rare confluence of events.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's disappointing to see that when you don't agree you are either accused of trolling or being in denial.
I only pointed out flaws in assumptions which according to the rules are not extreme but the default.
I also explained why I don't consider medium BAB to be a problem. And that rogues should not be as powerful in combat as full BAB classes.
I consider the package of the rogue to be quite decent. With the new rulings on SLA you can even be a magic item crafter early on. You have SA which gives you a damage boost when necessary. You sap away Str damage on opponents, weakening them for the benefit of you companions.
You have lots of flexibility built into the class.
Other classes can do parts of it, but never everything, and never without expending resources.
When some here consider traps boring, that is their personal opinion. I don't, my groups don't, and others here don't see it that way either.
Every class has some weak spots so that they are dependent on others. Ranger sucks when you picked the wrong FE. Casters have problems with golems and in AMF. The list goes on.
We enjoy playing rogues as well as bards, fighters, sorcs etc. They complement each other, which is fun.
Enjoy the debate, I agree that it's not worth continuing :-)
Oh, final hint regarding wands: apparently not everyone here has read the magic items chapter. Casting a spell from a wand takes at least a standard action, but longer if the spell requires more time. Lesser restoration thus requires 3 rounds.
It's in the magic items chapter in the wands section, so again, rules.
Have fun :-)
And I still hope to find a mobile-friendly version of this site ;-)
To belatedly respond to the attempt to bash on my comment a couple pages ago...
I am not saying it's "wrong" to optimize your character. Or it's "wrong" to look for characters that measure success in DPR. Or it's "wrong" to do anything.
What I *am* saying is that it's wrong for someone to say you HAVE to do that to be a meaningful part of a game, or that it's BADWRONGFUN to just play the character you want to play without regard for anything but the numbers.
If you want to play a monk, play a monk. If you want to play a bare-handed specialist fighter, play one of those. They are two entirely different characters, but whatever. If yo0u feel bad that the fighter is going to out-damage you, then don't fight the same targets as the fighter. Let him chop-punch-whatever one of the bad guys, while you stand in the back, lure the other one over with a "bring it" hand gesture, and kick his head off.
If you don't want to play a rogue, because you think the class is no good, then don't play one. But if someone else does want to play one, shut the hell up. It doesn't make him/her a "noob" to play the character he/she wants to play.
So no--you're not wrong. But neither am I, nor is anyone else who wants to play X character with Y power for Z reasons. Even if classes A, B, and C can do it "better." If that person wanted to play A, B, or C, that person would have.
I say again--it's a game. It's supposed to be fun, not a source of tension between factions of gamers.
I agree, enjoy your game :-)
Oh, final hint regarding wands: apparently not everyone here has read the magic items chapter. Casting a spell from a wand takes at least a standard action, but longer if the spell requires more time. Lesser restoration thus requires 3 rounds.
It's in the magic items chapter in the wands section, so again, rules.
Who said otherwise?
Who said otherwise?Oh, final hint regarding wands: apparently not everyone here has read the magic items chapter. Casting a spell from a wand takes at least a standard action, but longer if the spell requires more time. Lesser restoration thus requires 3 rounds.
It's in the magic items chapter in the wands section, so again, rules.
Vivianne Laflamme.
The time that it takes ro remove ability damage has effects on the entire reasoning as to why avoiding it is important, so it seems to be an assumption by others as well that you can immediately take care of that. Similar to always getting access to items at the lowest possible spell level, and always having a shop available.
That's why I didn't address only to VF.