I think everyone has forgotten that they are having wrongbadfun. Thank goodness Bobby Y is around to explain it to everyone. It add so much to the dialog, I'm sure we are all glad BY is here.
Good job BY!
Roberta never said anything even close to "they are having wrongbadfun". All she did was point out that skill monkey Rogues are very, very underwhelming.
She never lied or offended the OP. She simply answered his questions quite honestly.PF doesn't support the OP's character concept. It allows said concept's existence, but will try to screw it every chance it gets.
I suppose the Rogue could use Bluff for feinting and Intimidate to make the enemies Shaken, but honestly, she would contribute more doing pretty much anything else.
Allow me to quote BY from this thread, and you tell me if BY was being insulting to the OP. All of the following are posts BY has made in this thread about the OPs plan:
"I may suck at my job when I could have been good at it instead, but by god I swear I will have the right word written at the top of my character sheet!"
When someone asks "How useless is a skill monkey rogue?" and the answer is "pretty useless", I'm going to answer "pretty useless".
"Also, you asked who was the better skill monkey. Guess what Sneak Attack doesn't boost at all? (Hint: it's skills.)"
"Whoa now, let's not be too hasty here. Sure, he's useful compared to the "I have nothing but skill points" rogue, but he's still just a rogue."
"I recommend using a system that believes non-casters should be allowed to have useful abilities other than "hits things good with sticks". "
End of quotes:
Because you agree with a posters premise, doesn't mean a) they are correct and b) They weren't being rude and dismissive.
I fail to see how any of those sentences were offending the OP or accusations of badwrong fun. And not one of them is a lie either, they may be exagerated for humour (just like I could say a Barbarian is a bazillion times better at DPR than a unbuffed Wizard, but that doesn't mean I calculated average DPR and found out that there is a differece of exactly "one bazillion"), but they're not untrue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh thank God! Lord Twig is posting again.
Uh... Thanks? :)
I think I just understood the character concept that Marthkus was going for and tried my best to improve the mechanics of it without destroying the flavor. I think ciretose's suggestions of using skills in combat are also good suggestions. And of course I would assume that if Marthkus took those suggestions and made something out of them the final build would still be different then what either of us had posted, but hopefully a little better because of the suggestions. That's the goal when you are trying to help someone make an effective build.
Warnings of where things might not be effective are also valid. However, if you suggest a different character concept that can mechanically achieve better results (in some areas), while still valid advice, you should not be surprised if that advice is rejected because the person wants to stick with their original concept.
I think I just understood the character concept that Marthkus was going for and tried my best to improve the mechanics of it without destroying the flavor. I think ciretose's suggestions of using skills in combat are also good suggestions. And of course I would assume that if Marthkus took those suggestions and made something out of them the final build would still be different then what either of us had posted, but hopefully a little better because of the suggestions. That's the goal when you are trying to help someone make an effective build.
Warnings of where things might not be effective are also valid. However, if you suggest a different character concept that can mechanically achieve better results (in some areas), while still valid advice, you should not be surprised if that advice is rejected because the person wants to stick with their original concept.
Exactly!
|
But if you want to play a game in which skills really, really matter, than Pathfinder isn't it
No, skills matter. Pathfinder makes it so a skill monkey can also be a viable combatant. Other systems, skill monkeys usually sit by the sidelines during combat. With pathfinder, a well built skill monkey can contribute inside and outside of combat. This is an improvement in my opinion.
The problem with the OP and his build is he is over optimizing skill use and building a one trick pony. Other people are trying to explain that you can build a character who is just as effective at skill use but far better in combat situations. When building an effective character, you should always choose a combat role you'd like to fullfill and a skill role. A pathfinder skill monkey should focus on one combat role and his skill role is covering all the bases the other PC's cannot.
Here is a CR 10 Trap pulled at random from the SRD. I have honestly not looked at them all to compare, so I don't know if this is better or worse than average, but:
Type mechanical; Perception DC 25; Disable Device DC 29
So my Rogue can find it without even trying (Trap spotter, +25 Perception vs. traps) and can disable it on a 1 (Disable Device +28 vs. traps).
But hey, traps are no big deal. Just stand there and take the effect.
Effect: molten brass infused with negative energy rains from the ceiling (8d6 fire damage and 1 negative level per round, DC 15 Fort negates after 24 hours); DC 20 Reflex save for half fire damage and negate negative level; multiple targets (all targets in room);
Notice the part I put in bold. Also, since we all know that Reflex saves are worthless, I will have to suffer with it being my best save in this case, along with the worthless +3 I get for a save vs. traps, without magic items, of +14. Plus evasion, but you know, who needs that?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, Kirth, your idea about what a D&D class should be able to do are so far down the road that it took you 20 pages and references to 10 splatbooks to cover the Rogue class in your Kirthfinder. It would take even more space if all that splatbook stuff was to be reprinted. Your expectations are on Mars, and we're on Venus.
You have a vision, which is cool and all, but claiming that everyone views the game using your set of glasses is a bit too far-fetched.
But if you want to play a game in which skills really, really matter, than Pathfinder isn't itNo, skills matter. Pathfinder makes it so a skill monkey can also be a viable combatant. Other systems, skill monkeys usually sit by the sidelines during combat. With pathfinder, a well built skill monkey can contribute inside and outside of combat. This is an improvement in my opinion.
The problem with the OP and his build is he is over optimizing skill use and building a one trick pony. Other people are trying to explain that you can build a character who is just as effective at skill use but far better in combat situations. When building an effective character, you should always choose a combat role you'd like to fullfill and a skill role. A pathfinder skill monkey should focus on one combat role and his skill role is covering all the bases the other PC's cannot.
The problem here is that a rogue needs to specialize to be a better skill monkey than a non-skill-focused bard. The skill monkey I am going for isn't just effective with skills, he is better than anyone who does not focus on skills.
Now comes the problem where I can't achieve that and still contribute effectively in combat. I could still fight, but a poorly built monk would still be doing more than I would.
Don't hate the succubus, hate the wilderness-survival-combat-focused game session that would render this character concept useless and/or dead.
Nothing to hate about succubus. They are creatures of love, of course. A message by MrSin.
The problem here is that a rogue needs to specialize to be a better skill monkey than a non-skill-focused bard. The skill monkey I am going for isn't just effective with skills, he is better than anyone who does not focus on skills.
Now comes the problem where I can't achieve that and still contribute effectively in combat. I could still fight, but a poorly built monk would still be doing more than I would.
Well... You could just put minimal effort into combat and put everything else into skills. TWF and an attempt to flank goes a long way. Add in toughness for some HP. Putting every last feat into skillfocus and things like Stealthy however is the part that everyone thinks is more than a little crazy. I think anyway. Also denouncing bards isn't cool to me.
Spending your feats on skill-boosters like Skill Focus and Stealthy was one of the primary parameters. You immediately jumped to "It's easy, all you need to do is take toughness and weapon finesse and then spend your time pinging with a bow at a -4 to hit due to lack of archery feats and unable to get sneak attacks".You asked, not me.
Can't say I am surprised...
Again, would you like to actual lay out a foundation that I can challenge, or would that require getting off your high horse.
The Rogue has a feat more or less every other level. I only mentioned one.
Set your bar or ride away on your high horse. You asked me, not the other way around.
They set the bar. Spend every feat on skill focus and things like stealthy. Its hard to be good at combat when you do this for some reason. If you have a GM who allows for more skill use in combat sure, it'll do well, but I feel like thats making someone bend over to help you do things. I'd rather compromise with pathfinder by making myself combat effective or try things out in another system.
|
I fail to see how any of those sentences were offending the OP or accusations of badwrong fun.
And the last one I posted?
"Nah, I think he's focusing too much on the "monkey" part. Dude's image of a skill monkey is the team pet who they let out of its cage once per campaign to disarm one trap and who otherwise just sits around screeching while the sentient life forms are actually doing things. Except for some reason he's seeing this as a positive thing and thinks having useful abilities is bad."
Is not saying the OP wanting to see if he can make this wrongbadfub?
@Marthkus:
You mentioned that you want to use skills to contribute in combat. So what, specifically, do you imagine this character doing with those skills in combat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look, Kirth, your idea about what a D&D class should be able to do are so far down the road that it took you 20 pages and references to 10 splatbooks to cover the Rogue class in your Kirthfinder.
Without any sarcasm (for once), I have to admit that I love this post! In fact, it makes me sad I already ordered the hardback from Lulu -- otherwise I'd ask permission to use this as a review (like in the front of books when you buy them). Thanks for brightening my day and bringing me back to a semblance of perspective.
The problem here is that a rogue needs to specialize to be a better skill monkey than a non-skill-focused bard. The skill monkey I am going for isn't just effective with skills, he is better than anyone who does not focus on skills.
Now comes the problem where I can't achieve that and still contribute effectively in combat. I could still fight, but a poorly built monk would still be doing more than I would.
Okay, this is true. I fully admit that my version of this rogue is not really useful in combat. Not completely worthless, but yes, a vanilla monk is doing better.
That said if this were my game the rogue would not be useless. There are plenty of situational things that can be done in combat that are helpful. I agree that it takes a GM that is willing to work with you and not shut down out of the box thinking, but that's the type of game I enjoy.
And yes, other classes can do that too, but they are better at other things. The weird random stuff that may help (setting bushes on fire, spiking a door shut to stop reinforcements, grabbing the McGuffin in the chaos, etc.) is what this character is about.
|
|
But if you want to play a game in which skills really, really matter, than Pathfinder isn't itNo, skills matter. Pathfinder makes it so a skill monkey can also be a viable combatant. Other systems, skill monkeys usually sit by the sidelines during combat. With pathfinder, a well built skill monkey can contribute inside and outside of combat. This is an improvement in my opinion.
The problem with the OP and his build is he is over optimizing skill use and building a one trick pony. Other people are trying to explain that you can build a character who is just as effective at skill use but far better in combat situations. When building an effective character, you should always choose a combat role you'd like to fullfill and a skill role. A pathfinder skill monkey should focus on one combat role and his skill role is covering all the bases the other PC's cannot.
The problem here is that a rogue needs to specialize to be a better skill monkey than a non-skill-focused bard. The skill monkey I am going for isn't just effective with skills, he is better than anyone who does not focus on skills.
Now comes the problem where I can't achieve that and still contribute effectively in combat. I could still fight, but a poorly built monk would still be doing more than I would.
Yes and no.
You functionally get a feat every other level (One feat, one rogue talent) and so if you didn't invest all of them in skill focus there are things you could do to be combat effective (Toughness, Precise Shot, deadly aim, etc...)
You are getting between 11 and 13 skill points a level. How many skill focus and skill mastery feats do really want and how many can be focused elsewhere.
And let us not forget that Bard has to pick spells that last the campaign, not every morning. Utility spells take up space on the spell list. And while the bard is helping everyone else do damage, they aren't doing that much themselves when you really look at it.
You do still have sneak attack, and your attack bonus can be off of Dex, meaning you can actually hit stuff.
This is why we need to set the goal posts, as scrodinger's Bard has appeared.
@Marthkus:
You mentioned that you want to use skills to contribute in combat. So what, specifically, do you imagine this character doing with those skills in combat?
I believe that is the heart of the problem. I don't really know. Other kinds of games have skilled characters being a thing. I think KOTOR would be a great example of skills being used in 'turn-based' combat.
Is a pathfinder rogue skill monkey useless? No.
Does a rogue skill monkey contribute as much as another class in both skills and other things? No.
Is a rogue's contribution if they focus on skill use enough to contribute as much as other classes, especially classes that can also do skills just as well or better? No.
Is it fun to sit down at a PFS game with a rogue who hits worse than an NPC class with NPC stats while they train up to get their feats and talents that still leaves them 3-4 levels behind on DPR? No.
Lets face it, the rogue is viable in terms of "Can my guy contribute". They can even with the right build and optimization build to be effective combatants that can at least hold their own. The build the OP is talking about however is essentially running away from any build that might be effective outside of completing faction missions.
Rogue's niche is always being able to contribute in some way. They aren't consistent damage dealers, but with work they can contribute. They aren't the best at skills, but they are pretty good at them. They aren't the best party face, but they can get the job done. The class itself is pretty flexible. Focusing on just 1 thing be it skills or damage makes the character bad. Since the class isn't actually the best at anything, focusing on one thing means that you still aren't the best at that thing, and now you aren't very good at the other things.
The sad thing about the rogue is they aren't even the best at being able to always contribute. Other classes have archetypes that fill the rogues niche, or straight up is a better at everything at rogue can do (and do even more things the rogue can't even attempt). Even the random crap like trapfinding and sneak attack has been infringed on.
I believe that is the heart of the problem. I don't really know. Other kinds of games have skilled characters being a thing. I think KOTOR would be a great example of skills being used in 'turn-based' combat.@Marthkus:
You mentioned that you want to use skills to contribute in combat. So what, specifically, do you imagine this character doing with those skills in combat?
How? at best it determined your healing from items. Most guides to those games say throw the skill monkeys to the side and throw Jedi/wookie up front to kill things.
|
|
Look, Kirth, your idea about what a D&D class should be able to do are so far down the road that it took you 20 pages and references to 10 splatbooks to cover the Rogue class in your Kirthfinder.Without any sarcasm (for once), I have to admit that I love this post! In fact, it makes me sad I already ordered the hardback from Lulu -- otherwise I'd ask permission to use this as a review (like in the front of books when you buy them). Thanks for brightening my day and bringing me back to a semblance of perspective.
Hey, sure! If I ever come across a situation where my players will tell me that are looking for some tested houserules, I'll point them your way. But I'll warn them that there's some major reading involved ;-)
In the mean time, as long as Rogue players at my table are happy AND it doesn't involve too much of work from my side to keep them happy (FACT: sneak attack's situationalism sometimes makes me cry, but I know that throwing that away would rise a cry of "but but BACKSTAB!!!!") I'm fine with Rogues as they are.
I believe that is the heart of the problem. I don't really know. Other kinds of games have skilled characters being a thing. I think KOTOR would be a great example of skills being used in 'turn-based' combat.@Marthkus:
You mentioned that you want to use skills to contribute in combat. So what, specifically, do you imagine this character doing with those skills in combat?
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that system, so I don't know what you mean. If you're looking for always having the perfect answer for a situation, that doesn't involve just running around hitting stuff, then maybe you could consider specializing in a variety Combat Maneuvers (with a lore warden fighter, who can have very respectable skills as well), or having a utility belt full of a wide array of alchemical items (with an alchemist, who can also have very respectable skills).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Kirth - You do realize we are now on the opposite side of this mornings argument. I am saying that if the player wants to try something off the wall let them, and you are saying they should be told it won't work.
:)
I see the sides as the same: I'm still pro-players, and am in favor of giving them good advice; you're still anti-players, and want them to shut up and play the crappy classes you toss their way!
(P.S. I'm kidding here, before anyone gets worked up and starts hitting the "flag" button.)
The sad thing about the rogue is they aren't even the best at being able to always contribute. Other classes have archetypes that fill the rogues niche, or straight up is a better at everything at rogue can do (and do even more things the rogue can't even attempt). Even the random crap like trapfinding and sneak attack has been infringed on.
There it is again! Which mythical class is this? What class is better than a rogue at everything it can do?
How? at best it determined your healing from items. Most guides to those games say throw the skill monkeys to the side and throw Jedi/wookie up front to kill things.I believe that is the heart of the problem. I don't really know. Other kinds of games have skilled characters being a thing. I think KOTOR would be a great example of skills being used in 'turn-based' combat.@Marthkus:
You mentioned that you want to use skills to contribute in combat. So what, specifically, do you imagine this character doing with those skills in combat?
Skill characters could stealth in combat and lay waste to things with grenades and mines and 'sneak attacks', oh and not to mention being able to apply their skills before combat to make combat easier by hacking security and taking over drones.
They may have lagged in combat a little bit, but did so many things that no other class could imitate.
The sad thing about the rogue is they aren't even the best at being able to always contribute. Other classes have archetypes that fill the rogues niche, or straight up is a better at everything at rogue can do (and do even more things the rogue can't even attempt). Even the random crap like trapfinding and sneak attack has been infringed on.There it is again! Which mythical class is this? What class is better than a rogue at everything it can do?
Archeologist Bard... They only lose out on sneak attacks. They even get rogue talents...
They may have lagged in combat a little bit, but did so many things that no other class could imitate.
Well, except throwing grenades and landmines. Anyone can do that. They also couldn't do any of the things force users do, like heal or put things in stasis or knockdowns, and you needed an item to make stealth useful at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that is the heart of the problem. I don't really know. Other kinds of games have skilled characters being a thing. I think KOTOR would be a great example of skills being used in 'turn-based' combat.@Marthkus:
You mentioned that you want to use skills to contribute in combat. So what, specifically, do you imagine this character doing with those skills in combat?
Acrobatics to position yourself for flanks, aids and defensive/total defense fighting and higher ground.
Bluff to feint.Intimidate to demoralize.
Climb for higher ground.
Escape Artist to keep mobile and frustrate grapplers.
Fly to...uh, well, fly
First Aid to Stabilize PCs
Knowledge skills to identify monster weaknesses and abilities, religious affiliations, planar orientations, auras
Perception to -c'mon man
Ride to freakin' ride
Sleight of Hand to hide weapons
Spellcraft to identify spells
Stealth -...srsly
Swim to not drown and to get concealment bonuses
UMD to do basically anything you want
They lost bardic performance and versatile performance so they are not better at skills.
EDIT: They also can not disarm magical traps so rogues are better in that regard too.
Nicos! Reread the class. They still get a performance that only affects themselves and they can still disarm magical traps. They also don't lose bardic knowledge and can always take 10 on disarming a trap, even if in direct danger.
Edit: for your convinience heres the quote.
Clever Explorer (Ex)
At 2nd level, an archaeologist gains a bonus equal to half his class level on Disable Device and Perception checks. He can disable intricate and complex devices in half the normal amount of time (minimum 1 round) and open a lock as a standard action. At 6th level, an archaeologist can take 10 on Disable Device checks, even if distracted or endangered, and can disarm magical traps.
|
|
The sad thing about the rogue is they aren't even the best at being able to always contribute. Other classes have archetypes that fill the rogues niche, or straight up is a better at everything at rogue can do (and do even more things the rogue can't even attempt). Even the random crap like trapfinding and sneak attack has been infringed on.There it is again! Which mythical class is this? What class is better than a rogue at everything it can do?
Schrodinger
|
|
Archeologist Bard... They only lose out on sneak attacks. They even get rogue talents...The sad thing about the rogue is they aren't even the best at being able to always contribute. Other classes have archetypes that fill the rogues niche, or straight up is a better at everything at rogue can do (and do even more things the rogue can't even attempt). Even the random crap like trapfinding and sneak attack has been infringed on.There it is again! Which mythical class is this? What class is better than a rogue at everything it can do?
They get some rogue talents (not as many) and they lose lots of other things.
I kind of love the Archeologist Bard, personally, but it has major power limiters and gives up a lot of Bard stuff.
If you are not playing PFS, a great way of becoming a really awesome skill monkey IMO would involve taking "Master Craftsman" and "Craft Wondrous Items".
Using the Advanced Crafting rules, you can now permanently increase any skill you want for only Bonus squared x 100 gp. This allows you to reach insane boni in some skills, making it absolutely impossible to fail. Versatile 1x items could also add to the Jack of all trades feeling of a skill monkey. Love elixirs, Travelers any tool or portable holes could all fit well.
Sadly though a wizard, sorcerer or bard makes a better Crafter than a rogue, but IMO it would still be awesome. (In our group we houseruled rogues, who take the Magic-Rogue tricks, qualifiy for crafting.)
I see, the ability is clever exporer and not trapfinding. Still with less skill points per level and a lower Int (cause the need a higher Cha) a rogue will have more skill points.
My edit... They actually have a higher intellect becuase they have an easier time dumping other things.
Skill characters could stealth in combat and lay waste to things with grenades and mines and 'sneak attacks', oh and not to mention being able to apply their skills before combat to make combat easier by hacking security and taking over drones.
They may have lagged in combat a little bit, but did so many things that no other class could imitate.
Well, if you want to lay waste with grenades and mines, I'd recommend you check out the Trap Breaker alchemist archetype from the new Dungeoneer's Handbook. They can disable magical traps, throw bombs, disable traps by throwing bombs, and plant bombs as mines. That's in addition to everything alchemists normally do (except for poisons).
This is not how I would build a bard but I thought I would make one in the form set out by Lord Twig and see how it turned out. Lord Twig took 12 skills. With versatile performance for oratory and acting and taking the favored class option for the skill point a...I know you were not seeking build advice, but since this got moved to the advice forum!
Str: 10 +0
Dex: 17 +3 (15 base, +2 racial)
Con: 12 +1 (12 base)
Int: 15 +2 (15 base)
Wis: 12 +1 (12 base)
Cha: 12 +1 (12 base)So that's how I would build this character. One point into Dex and Int at levels 4 and 8 (you choose which one first).
To me this guy is average strength, extremely nimble, very smart, above average health, common sense, will power and looks and is generally likeable.
For feats, Skill Focus Acrobatics and Dodge at 1st level. Grab a light crossbow or short bow and attack from range.
2nd: Finesse Rogue for Weapon Finesse.
3rd: Skill Focus Perception to cement your place as the trapfinder (or anything finder really).
4th: Trap Spotter, so you don't miss anything.
5th: Skill Focus: Stealth
6th: Weapon Training for Weapon Focus (whatever weapon you choose).
7th: Skill Focus: Disable Device
8th: Combat Trick for Mobility
9th: Spring Attack
10th: Skill MasterySo at level 10 your base skills are:
Acrobatics +23, Bluff +14, Diplomacy +14, Disable Device +23, Disguise +14, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +16, Knowledge (local) +16, Perception +20, Sense Motive +14, Sleight of Hand +17, Stealth +23, Use Magic Device +14I would put the favored class point into Hit Points, but if not you can get another skill. And of course skills can be swapped out for other ones. Probably Alertness at 11th for +4 to Perception and Sense Motive?
Anyway, this guys isn't the greatest in combat, but with his Acrobatics and eventually Spring Attack he can get to where he needs to be when it counts. Otherwise he should stay out of the way, try not to get hit and look for an opportunity to be useful.
Thank you for making a bard build that shows the rogue as a better skill monkey.
Yeah, I am trying to parse through the Archaeologist right now.
First blush...
Archaeologist’s Luck and Rogue Talents: These kinda cancel out each other. The fact that they only get half as many talents as a rogue and get them later is balanced by this ability that lets them get a bonus for a limited number of times a day. So kinda a wash there.
Clever Explorer vs. Trapfinding: This is a blatant called shot to the nuts of the rogue. I mean, come on! Who approved this ability? It does the same thing as Trapfinding, AND it adds the bonus to ALL perception and disable device checks, can disable in half the time, open locks as a standard action and can take 10 at 6th level when distracted. Really?
Anyway... I don't know that this makes them better at traps, they are about the same, except they can do it in half the time. But they are definitely better at all other uses of perception and disable device. (I am totally giving this to all rogues in my game as a house rule.)
Uncanny Dodge and Evasion: They both get this, but the archaeologist gets UD at 2nd and evasion at 6th, while the rogue gets evasion at 2nd and UD at 4th. It is probably better to get UD first and evasion second, but since the rogue has both of them sooner I will call this a wash.
Trap Sense is exactly the same for both. So, yeah.
Skills is a hard call. The archaeologist will have less skill points, and since he gives up versatile performance he loses that way to get around it. Clever Explorer makes him better at perception and disable device, except of traps, and Lore Master will make him better at knowledge skills. Finally Jack of All Trades, which makes him better at untrained skills. The rogue can probably get more skills to max ranks than the archaeologist can, but with all those other advantages it will definitely be overshadowed.
The archaeologist does not get improved uncanny dodge, which is a really nice ability to have, and no sneak attack. So it doesn't can't take any of the sneak sttack talents.
So is it better than the rogue? Yes. Is it better at everything a rogue does? No.
As far as I can tell the only archaeologist ability that enhances it direct combat ability is Archaeologist’s Luck, which is limited in uses and doesn't do as much damage as a rogue's sneak attack. Of course he has spells to help with combat, which can be more helpful than the rogue's sneak attack, but it is not doing sneak attack better than a rogue.
I fully expect that Paizo will come out with an expansion at a later date to address this oversight and give sneak attack to the archaeologist.
@Lemmy - Oh, and I forgot the post that actually put me over to actually responding to this thread rather than just ignoring it.
Nah, I think he's focusing too much on the "monkey" part. Dude's image of a skill monkey is the team pet who they let out of its cage once per campaign to disarm one trap and who otherwise just sits around screeching while the sentient life forms are actually doing things. Except for some reason he's seeing this as a positive thing and thinks having useful abilities is bad.Is not insulting how?
Yeah, I suppose that last bit insulting , but to be fair, it's more about making fun of the OP's proposed character build and than about the OP himself. And, honestly, I kinda agree with her opinion about the character build.
The OP did say something very similar to "I don't want a Bard skill-monkey because skill-monkeys do X and Bards do X and Y", so RY made a comment exaggerating that for humour.
It may not have been the nicest thing to say, but it wasn't exactly heart-breaking or deeply offensive either.
And I still don't see it as an accusation of badwrong fun. She never said "your character build is wrong", just "your character build is ineffective", which is true.
mmm, I do not believe it. MAybe you can dump wisdom but that is not a really good idea for anyone.I see, the ability is clever exporer and not trapfinding. Still with less skill points per level and a lower Int (cause the need a higher Cha) a rogue will have more skill points.My edit... They actually have a higher intellect becuase they have an easier time dumping other things.
Its what I read in the guides, not first hand experience. So don't take what I say to heart. Regardless neither one of the two is likely to have more than 12 outside of a racial modifier.
@Twig, Yeah theres been more than one statement I've seen that archeaologist is a smack to the rogues face. Same with vivisectionist. They just tend to do things better than the rogue.
I think most bards I know either go archery or nab dervish dance for damage. They can do it, but rogues give up their offhand if they take this route. No idea how useful it is outside of magus.
And don't forget the araelogist still gets Bardic Knowledge!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lord Twig took skill focus four times so I also took skill focus four times for the same skills but I did take advantage of the human focused study trait to get an extra skill focus feat at 8th level.
Focused Study is definitely something that should be added to my build. You lose nothing and gain an additional Skill Focus feat. I might suggest getting Fast Learner (so that my rogue gets both the +1 skill point and +1 HP per level) in place of one of the current Skill Focus feats and then getting back the Skill Focus feat at 8th. Lose nothing, add 1 maxed skill and +1 HP per level to what I have written. Win/Win.
|
Archeologist Bard... They only lose out on sneak attacks. They even get rogue talents...The sad thing about the rogue is they aren't even the best at being able to always contribute. Other classes have archetypes that fill the rogues niche, or straight up is a better at everything at rogue can do (and do even more things the rogue can't even attempt). Even the random crap like trapfinding and sneak attack has been infringed on.There it is again! Which mythical class is this? What class is better than a rogue at everything it can do?
Archivist Bard is better skills-wise and has trapfinding. they lose sneak attack and rogue talents but they can use knowledge checks in combat to id critters and can boost themselves and the other PCs against those they ID. I like Archivist better than Archeologist.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Lemmy - Oh, and I forgot the post that actually put me over to actually responding to this thread rather than just ignoring it.
Nah, I think he's focusing too much on the "monkey" part. Dude's image of a skill monkey is the team pet who they let out of its cage once per campaign to disarm one trap and who otherwise just sits around screeching while the sentient life forms are actually doing things. Except for some reason he's seeing this as a positive thing and thinks having useful abilities is bad.Is not insulting how?Yeah, I suppose that last bit insulting , but to be fair, it's more about making fun of the OP's proposed character build and than about the OP himself. And, honestly, I kinda agree with her opinion about the character build.
The OP did say something very similar to "I don't want a Bard skill-monkey because skill-monkeys do X and Bards do X and Y", so RY made a comment exaggerating that for humour.
It may not have been the nicest thing to say, but it wasn't exactly heart-breaking or deeply offensive either.
And I still don't see it as an accusation of badwrong fun. She never said "your character build is wrong", just "your character build is ineffective", which is true.
The problem with your logic being that the OP was seeking a way to make a concept work, and the response was "Playing that concept is stupid"
Which is basically saying "What you want to do is wrongbadfun" because this rogue won't be as effective as it could be.
Will it be unplayable? I don't think so. It still has a high attack and AC (Dex is high) and doesn't need strength for damage, so what we are really talking about is low saves and hit points. One feat addresses hit points, and one item addresses saves.
What bothers me is this idea that anything below "optimized" is unplayable.
What you have is a build that has all the skills, ever. In many campaigns that would allow them to avoid tons of conflicts, or at least have the conflicts on their terms.
Think of it this way. With the stealth skill maxed and focused with this build, at first level you have a stealth of +8 (+4 dex, +1 rank +3 trained). If you are small, +11 at 1st level.
With skill focus (and small), you are at +14
You can do that at first level.
By 10th level, you could have 10 (rank) + 3 (trained) + 6 (skill focus) + 4 (stealthy) +4 (small) + 4 Dex
Meaning, even with no addition to dexterity you would have a + 31 to stealth. Add in the rogue talent that allows you to move at full speed while stealthy and skill mastery that lets then use it under adverse and you can take 10 to have basically invisibility level stealth.
How is that not awesome?
Can't do damage and doesn't actually have a high to hit. Its great that he can stealth, dont' get me wrong, its awesome that he has a high modifier and if he gets invisiblity cast on him it only gets more awesome! In combat though, its not so perfect. Pathfinder and DnD usually have combat.
Stealth is only as good as your lowest if your in a group. Not that it doesn't have its moments.
Why would they hit the people with high stealth exactly? Could use a good story.
Add in the rogue talent that allows you to move at full speed while stealthy and skill mastery that lets then use it under adverse and you can take 10 to have basically invisibility level stealth.
This is one of my biggest problems with the rogue right here: by optimizing him for a certain task, by 10th level he's "basically as good" as a spell the wizard gets at 3rd level. It's stuff like this that makes me want to kick puppies.