Most likely won't steal much of a spotlight if any. You can't do everything even if you only give yourself to skills and even then its very likely magic will do most things and cha casters will be party face. The fights will likely drag on, especially if other people in the party aren't made for combat or didn't invest in it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For pfs, double the warning of dire impending doom.
1) 80% of your time is spent in combat. You will be useless 80% of the time.
2) Skills have a STEEP set of diminishing returns for three reasons.
First off, dipping in a skill gets you 1 rank for a +4 bonus. After that its a 1 to 1 skill point to +1. After that you need to burn very valuable feats for a +3. Strait line diminishing returns.
THEN you need to consider that Perception and diplomacy together comprise about half of skill rolls. After that you have a few often useful skills (acrobatics*, sleight of hand, disable device, survival, knowledge: what obscure arcane metal do i need to hit that with) followed by skills that come up more rarely ( knowledge local (when it can't be replaced with diplomacy) ,heal, swim,) and followed by "you actually have what skill?" that sit there collecting dust like perform (keyboard), appraise, or knowledge nobility. Each additional skill you cover is less and less likely to be used.
And after THAT , The more skills you have, the more likely someone else has that skill or a scroll that will do the same thing. Half the characters have a good perception score, veteran players know you'll need someone with diplomacy. Its very hard to compete with a bard at diplomacy and the druid at survival and the barbarian at intimidation.
This synergizes especially quickly for point 1, because the more useful skills are the ones where its most likely this overlap will occur.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For pfs, double the warning of dire impending doom.
1) 80% of your time is spent in combat. You will be useless 80% of the time.
2) Skills have a STEEP set of diminishing returns for three reasons.
First off, dipping in a skill gets you 1 rank for a +4 bonus. After that its a 1 to 1 skill point to +1. After that you need to burn very valuable feats for a +3. Strait line diminishing returns.
THEN you need to consider that Perception and diplomacy together comprise about half of skill rolls. After that you have a few often useful skills (acrobatics*, sleight of hand, disable device, survival, knowledge: what obscure arcane metal do i need to hit that with) followed by skills that come up more rarely ( knowledge local (when it can't be replaced with diplomacy) ,heal, swim,) and followed by "you actually have what skill?" that sit there collecting dust like perform (keyboard), appraise, or knowledge nobility. Each additional skill you cover is less and less likely to be used.
And after THAT , The more skills you have, the more likely someone else has that skill or a scroll that will do the same thing. Half the characters have a good perception score, veteran players know you'll need someone with diplomacy. Its very hard to compete with a bard at diplomacy and the druid at survival and the barbarian at intimidation.
This synergizes especially quickly for point 1, because the more useful skills are the ones where its most likely this overlap will occur.
Hmmmm. Seems to me a skill monkey of any sort would not be advised. If most people do play balanced characters, I may just have to make a balanced character.
Usually it's not that bad if two PCs overlap with a few skills. If one fails his Perception check the other might see it, same goes for Knowledges, Survival, Heal and Diplomacy for information.
Though it is a bother for a PC if someone else constantly outskills him in his specialty though.
I have no experience with PFS games yet, but I can understand that people feel the need that every PC has to be a powerhouse. Therefore rogues might be better suited for homebrew tabletop games, however it depends on the style of play of the one controlling the rogue PC if he/she can make it work in a PFS game.
The one big problem for rogues is that they have to Sneak Attack to be able to really deal damage in combat. Creatures immune to critical hits are a big problem for rogues, other creatures might be circumvented by flanking using Acrobatics for example.
My advice to the OP is, make an additional character to bring to the PFS game, if the party lends itself for your rogue go ahead and play him. If there are a lot of other skill users then you might be better of with your other character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, I totally agree with Marthkus's decision to go back to rogue for his concept. The Freebooter Trapper Ranger really wasn't satisfying the feel of the character, and I honestly think it wouldn't have done much better in combat either.
Second, this rogue should not require a lot of healing because he should not be running up there to get hit on. He should only be in combat if he can actually flank and not get killed afterwards. The rogue that required a ton of healing probably just was not playing cautiously enough (or he was being targeted, see below).
That said I also agree that this character may not do well in PFS, but for a different reason than stated by others. Combat in some games (and probably many PFS games) resembles chess more than RPG combat. That is to say an enemy bandit might run right past the fighter, taking an AoO, just so he can kill your wizard. The bandit will then die horribly when the rest of the party goes, but it was a good exchange... if you are playing chess and you view him as just a pawn. If you were actually playing him in character there is no way he would sacrifice his own life just to kill a PC. Most people would actually want to live through the combat!
I bring this up because, yes, you may have trouble with this character in PFS play. Not the least of which is dealing with elitist players (and possibly the GM as well) that will take every opportunity to show you just how wrong you were to bring that character to the table.
I bring this up because, yes, you may have trouble with this character in PFS play. Not the least of which is dealing with elitist players (and possibly the GM as well) that will take every opportunity to show you just how wrong you were to bring that character to the table.
Hmm, bit paranoid are we?
I've played many a table of PFS, and never have seen a gimpy character get picked on. If anything GMs tend to cut those people slack. However there is only so much wiggle room provided by the RAW which is how PFS is to be run. Some scenarios simply have vicious fights, and bringing along a character which is going to be well under par in combat is going to be telling.
Truthfully I find it much more common that GMs will pick on optimized characters. They tend to think one of two things:
A) They can take it, so they hit them instead of the less effective characters
B) They have a grudge against characters which are 'too effective' and want to show them who's boss.
|
I'm with drbuzzard here. The only times I've seen GMs deliberately give a player crap is when they're a much higher level or much better optimized than the rest of the table. Other than that, players screw themselves over by opening doors during combat or insulting foes they could talk their way past... or by investing nothing in combat skills.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
wow. I can't express how depressing I have found this thread. I am an old school D&D player and I love Pathfinder, but this has really struck a blow against my love of the game. I am not speaking out against anyone in particular, viewpoints have been expressed clearly and without malice. However, what I walk away with is that Pathfinder is seriously broken. The skill system, one of the main hallmarks of d20 (3rd edition D&D) and one of the elements that I really liked, has made my favorite class, the thief (rogue, whatever), pointless.
I always just kind of smiled to myself when I heard players talking about how rogues were the weakest class because I told myself that it was just because they didn't know how to play one well. But I have just read a whole slew of great arguments proving me wrong, they are mechanically inferior to the other classes and their main functions may easily be subsumed by those other classes.
I really shouldn't have read this thread.
Well, back when it was the theif it was way harder for everyone else to do skills. Everyone being able to do skills is a good thing, the fact the rogue didn't get much to compensate is what really hurt. Best not to compare editions though, bad mojo.
DM hate on unoptimized/optimized characters is another problem altogether.
Hmmmm. Seems to me a skill monkey of any sort would not be advised. If most people do play balanced characters, I may just have to make a balanced character.For pfs, double the warning of dire impending doom.
1) 80% of your time is spent in combat. You will be useless 80% of the time.
2) Skills have a STEEP set of diminishing returns for three reasons.
First off, dipping in a skill gets you 1 rank for a +4 bonus. After that its a 1 to 1 skill point to +1. After that you need to burn very valuable feats for a +3. Strait line diminishing returns.
THEN you need to consider that Perception and diplomacy together comprise about half of skill rolls. After that you have a few often useful skills (acrobatics*, sleight of hand, disable device, survival, knowledge: what obscure arcane metal do i need to hit that with) followed by skills that come up more rarely ( knowledge local (when it can't be replaced with diplomacy) ,heal, swim,) and followed by "you actually have what skill?" that sit there collecting dust like perform (keyboard), appraise, or knowledge nobility. Each additional skill you cover is less and less likely to be used.
And after THAT , The more skills you have, the more likely someone else has that skill or a scroll that will do the same thing. Half the characters have a good perception score, veteran players know you'll need someone with diplomacy. Its very hard to compete with a bard at diplomacy and the druid at survival and the barbarian at intimidation.
This synergizes especially quickly for point 1, because the more useful skills are the ones where its most likely this overlap will occur.
Aye, a skill monkey like you proposed is only viable in a homebrew group, with regular players. In that setting where you can hash the group makeup beforehand with everybody, the caster can be a charisma caster to play face and the fighters can dump all mental stats and forget about skills to focus solely on combat, that way their minmaxing can balance out you not participating in combat and you can do the skill rolls for the rest of the party. A homebrew group also might allow you to bring some third party or 3,5 things to help make your concept work, like those feats Stream of the Sky pointed a couple posts ago.
Sad thing? A bard still would be better for the concept, since he benefits more from a good cha and can be better at the social skills without losing the sneaky skills.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wow. I can't express how depressing I have found this thread. I am an old school D&D player and I love Pathfinder, but this has really struck a blow against my love of the game. I am not speaking out against anyone in particular, viewpoints have been expressed clearly and without malice. However, what I walk away with is that Pathfinder is seriously broken. The skill system, one of the main hallmarks of d20 (3rd edition D&D) and one of the elements that I really liked, has made my favorite class, the thief (rogue, whatever), pointless.
I always just kind of smiled to myself when I heard players talking about how rogues were the weakest class because I told myself that it was just because they didn't know how to play one well. But I have just read a whole slew of great arguments proving me wrong, they are mechanically inferior to the other classes and their main functions may easily be subsumed by those other classes.
I really shouldn't have read this thread.
Well, Monk is still the weakest class. ;) Rogue is outshone by other classes and has no real purpose, but can still skate by in mediocrity. Monk just completely fails at everything.
And yeah, it hurts. Rogue was my favorite 3E core class and I also love playing martial artists. I wish things weren't as they were. But it's better to be aware of it, I think, and try to mitigate it. Like, playing a Bard or Alchemist and pretending it's a rogue.
Rogue, in the change to PF, lost on basically all grounds. The most damaging was the loss of niche protection with skills (if you think about it, most of what made 3E Rogue good wasn't what it could do so much as that no one else COULD do it), but sneak attack has also taken some severe nerfs in how it can be used and set up. Many other classes and all monsters also saw combat upgrades which makes rogue weaker, effectively (ditto for monk).
I am at least glad there are other similar classes that I can use in place of rogue, so the themes are still available in classes that aren't bad. If only skirmishing hadn't died in a fire in Pathfinder... I guess there's always Magus w/ Bladed Dash and spell combat, it's just not the same, using spells for it...
wow. I can't express how depressing I have found this thread. I am an old school D&D player and I love Pathfinder, but this has really struck a blow against my love of the game. I am not speaking out against anyone in particular, viewpoints have been expressed clearly and without malice. However, what I walk away with is that Pathfinder is seriously broken. The skill system, one of the main hallmarks of d20 (3rd edition D&D) and one of the elements that I really liked, has made my favorite class, the thief (rogue, whatever), pointless.
I always just kind of smiled to myself when I heard players talking about how rogues were the weakest class because I told myself that it was just because they didn't know how to play one well. But I have just read a whole slew of great arguments proving me wrong, they are mechanically inferior to the other classes and their main functions may easily be subsumed by those other classes.
I really shouldn't have read this thread.
Honestly I blame the fighter 'fix' weapon training
Full BAB characters got additional pluses to hit and damage to improve their effectiveness.
This has made life very hard for 3/4 BAB characters, who struggle to keep up. Every fix I have seen for monks and rogues has mentioned giving them full BAB. 3/4 classes don't get the additional pluses to hit that full martials do. This leads to an ever widening gap.
A mundane 3/4 BAB class goes about combat in a less than straightforward way. What has plagued the monk since 3.5 is that their combat is straightforward. A rogue worked in 3.5. Dex gave them survivability and to hit. Sneak attack was more than decent damage-wise and provided a non-straight forward way to fight. In pathfinder the to-hit gap is too large and sneak attack gives too little damage to keep up.
Favored enemy did not add to 'to-hit' rolls, it was a pure damage increase. Smite was too limited to mention. Only a barbarians rage and a fighters weapon focus allowed the PC to hit things easier. The fighter then gets weapon training in pathfinder that stacks with weapon focus allowing for a +6 to hit and +8 to damage as opposed to the barbarians +8 to strength or +4 to hit. The barbarians got buffs in later splat books to catch up to the static bonus of the fighter. The ranger now adds FA bonuses to hit. A Paladins smite is now a death sentence. What did the monk get? An additional +3 to hit on his best attacks (of which he gets less of in pathfinder). What did the rogue get? Nothing. The rogue talent for weapon focus allows them access to a feat they could already get. The rogue is now +11 to hit behind the fighter or +13 to-hit if two weapon fighting.
I know these are end game differences, but this is why rogues feel fine at low levels and slowly get worse.
And you know whats funny about all of this? The fighter isn't even fixed yet. We still see his short comings as time goes on.
Paizo did a great job with pathfinder and fixed a lot of problems with 3.5. I am excited to play this game, but it is disheartening to find that certain iconic concepts fall flat even in non-optimized games.
Actually everyone but the monk and rogue have +x. Don't treat it like a "How dare we give everyone nice things!" thing, having nice things is a good thing. Especialy for martials. ToB was nice in 3.5, but again we shouldn't be talking about other editions too much.
Anytime you build a character for one thing he's going to be pretty meh. Being a one trick pony is always going to hurt, especially in a place like PFS where you don't know the group but the game demands a variety of things so having a versatile character is important.
Actually everyone but the monk and rogue have +x. Don't treat it like a "How dare we give everyone nice things!" thing, having nice things is a good thing. Especialy for martials. ToB was nice in 3.5, but again we shouldn't be talking about other editions too much.
Anytime you build a character for one thing he's going to be pretty meh. Being a one trick pony is always going to hurt, especially in a place like PFS where you don't know the group but the game demands a variety of things so having a versatile character is important.
But what good is the +x if everyone has it? I've seen a term for this a lot; power creep. No where near to the extent 3.5 was, but still there.
Everyone has a different kind of +x and it creates flavor and difference between the classes. Its not power creep. Your misusing that term.
Everyone has a different kind of +x and it creates flavor and difference between the classes. Its not power creep. Your misusing that term.
*monk and rogue try to handle the fact that they are no one
You would have a point if everyone did have +x to hit. Some don't. They tend to be the 3/4 BAB classes without spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't mind noncasters getting nice things. I'm just perplexed and angry that monk and rogue not only did not also get nice things, but were nerfed.
That said, I hate most of PF's "fixes," especially Fighter. He didn't need bigger combat numbers. He needed 4 + int skill points with a better list, a whole lot of pseudo-class features in the form of awesome feats that require a fighter level and not much else (Paizo has done this to a limited extent to their credit... I just wish basic things like Pin Down were neither Fighter-only nor so high level), and an expansion and empowering of what you could do with the existing combat maneuvers ... which paizo instead nerfed pretty badly. An ability to retrain feats (more often than one feat per 4 levels... more like how an eidolon can switch ALL his evo points EVERY level) and spend some time training to "re-assign" weapon-related feats would have been nice, too. It really sucks when you've got Greater Weap Spec. (greatsword) and all pre-req feats... and find a +5 Holy Adamantine Greataxe.
It's actually funny... I've come to realize that the only thing martials are allowed to do in PF is massive hp damage. Combat maneuvers suck now; lockdown feats and abilities either don't exist, were horribly nerfed (like Stand Still), or come way too freaking late (like Pin Down); the game designers and player base are out-right hostile towards non-magic/compulsion "aggro" generating (look at the s**t storm the original Antagonize feat received and how quickly and hugely it was nerfed); since PF is for "those who dislike 4E" the idea of martial maneuvers like ToB or other encounter-based martial abilities is avoided like the plague... The only thing non-casters can do well in combat in PF is damage. It's getting really boring.
Sad thing? A bard still would be better for the concept, since he benefits more from a good cha and can be better at the social skills without losing the sneaky skills.
Dude, just make a level 1 Bard, and be done with it. Grab Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus and a rapier. Make Dex, Cha, and Int your highest stats, and you should be good. And try to relax.
|
Honestly I blame the fighter 'fix' weapon training
Full BAB characters got additional pluses to hit and damage to improve their effectiveness.
This has made life very hard for 3/4 BAB characters, who struggle to keep up. Every fix I have seen for monks and rogues has mentioned giving them full BAB. 3/4 classes don't get the additional pluses to hit that full martials do. This leads to an ever widening gap.
A mundane 3/4 BAB class goes about combat in a less than straightforward way. What has plagued the monk since 3.5 is that their combat is straightforward. A rogue worked in 3.5. Dex gave them survivability and to hit. Sneak attack was more than decent damage-wise and provided a non-straight forward way to fight. In pathfinder the to-hit gap is too large and sneak attack gives too little damage to keep up.
Favored enemy did not add to 'to-hit' rolls, it was a pure damage increase. Smite was too limited to mention. Only a barbarians rage and a fighters weapon focus allowed the PC to hit things easier. The fighter then gets weapon training in pathfinder that stacks with weapon focus allowing for a +6 to hit and +8 to damage as opposed to the barbarians +8 to strength or +4 to hit. The barbarians got buffs in later splat books to catch up to the static bonus of the fighter. The ranger now adds FA bonuses to hit. A Paladins smite is now a death sentence. What did the monk get? An additional +3 to hit on his best attacks (of which he gets less of in pathfinder). What did the rogue get? Nothing. The rogue talent for weapon focus allows them access to a feat they could already get. The rogue is now +11 to hit behind the fighter or +13 to-hit if two weapon fighting.
I know these are end game differences, but this is why rogues feel fine at low levels and slowly get worse.
And you know whats funny about all of this? The fighter isn't even fixed yet. We still see his short comings as time goes on.
Paizo did a great job with pathfinder and fixed a lot of problems with 3.5. I am excited to play this game, but it is disheartening to find that certain iconic concepts fall flat even in non-optimized games.
Then have some buffers in the group. Having +11 more to hit is nice...but it matters little when your ALL hitting on a 2 or better. Flanking can give you as much as +8 to hit (tactical acumen is +4 and there is a feat that gives you +4 to hit on flank). Bard song, bless/prayer, heroism/greater heroism...yeah there is a LOT of ways to boost to hit. The issue with PFS is that you need to play with players who knows how to do this. Failing that...well there is always UMD....
Seriously, I have made monks work on 20 PB (yes with archetypes)...it's not easy...but you can do it. You can make a rogue work for PFS just fine as well...just not what you posted. A Halfling with swift as shadow sniping for instance might not be a powerhouse of combat...but it is effective enough to contribute in combat (and you generally won't be getting hit so you won't suck up much resources).
Eh the idea was to be amazing at skills. I can play a wizard and still be good with skills. I could play an alchemist or a ranger and be good with skills. I could be great with skills using a bard or I could be pretty good with skills using a combat optimized rogue and be mediocre at combat.
I think wizard will be my 'skill monkey' for PFS. SIDE NOTE: Is Appraise useful at all in PFS? I'm having trouble seeing where that would come up.
There are a few faction missions with appraise. Drop a point into it, move on.
KK. Best of luck good sir!
My Wizard 'Skill monkey'
10 10 14 20 10 8 Human Conjurer(ban: Necromancy,Enchantment)
FA(+1 hp) Skills(8): Appraise/one-point-dump-skills,Craft(alchemy),Fly,Linguistics
Spellcraft,Knowledge(Arcana,Planes);Perception
1 :Augment Summoning,Eschew Materials|Spell Focus(Conjuration)
2 :|
3 :Superior Summoning|
4 :|
5 :Fast Study|Feral Speech
6 :|
7 :Extend Spell|
8 :|
9 :Opposition Research(Necromancy)|
10:|Quicken Spell
11:Multimorph|
12:|
Any tips?
Do the Teleport Conjuror subschool. It's possibly the best wizard school, and certainly better than normal Conjuror.
Take familiar instead of the bonded object, so it can share your ranks and aid you on skill checks.
For 1st level, your best combat spell will be Color Spray. Mage Armor will help keep you safe, though you'll have to be choosy on when to use it at low levels. Never underestimate the usefulness of Grease and Prestidigitation, and Silent Image can be amazing if you are clever with how to use it (generally, you want it to create illusions NPCs don't want to / won't bother with interacting with, or can't, but nonetheless fool them).
Take familiar instead of the bonded object, so it can share your ranks and aid you on skill checks.
Never even considered taking bonded object. It seems like a trap to me. More so in PFS since you can't magic craft boost it.
Eh the idea was to be amazing at skills. I can play a wizard and still be good with skills. I could play an alchemist or a ranger and be good with skills. I could be great with skills using a bard or I could be pretty good with skills using a combat optimized rogue and be mediocre at combat.
Elven wizard with Breadth of Experience
Although still young for your kind, you have a lifetime of knowledge and training.
Prerequisites: Dwarf, elf, or gnome; 100+ years old.
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Knowledge and Profession skill checks, and can make checks with those skills untrained.
Use your two traits to pick up almost any class skills you want. Stealth and disable device (vagabond child) will make you into a functional rogue since +2 perception from being an elf is almost as good as having it trained. Your big brain will let you have enough skill points to branch out a bit from typical wizard stuff.
pathfinder chronicles from the inner sea world guide are masterwork items for knowledge checks. 50gp, get a +2.
Mossy disk: This stone grants a +1 competence bonus on
one Knowledge skill. Price: 200 gp.(seeker of secrets)
You don't need to be a human to take fast learner. Just take toughness and throw your favored class options into skill points. Same effect.
I think wizard will be my 'skill monkey' for PFS. SIDE NOTE: Is Appraise useful at all in PFS? I'm having trouble seeing where that would come up.
Appraise was on tier 3 for me for a reason. It might have come up in a faction mission that I didn't get, but I haven't seen a use for it. If its worth enough cash to worry about, it gets all glowy when you cast detectmagic.
|
|
Take familiar instead of the bonded object, so it can share your ranks and aid you on skill checks.Never even considered taking bonded object. It seems like a trap to me. More so in PFS since you can't magic craft boost it.
Actually, arcane bond is the ONLY thing you can craft in PFS. Makes a weapon choice for bonded item for an EK REALLY worthwhile. That said, the amulet is honestly the best for amulet of spell cunning and amulet of spell mastery IMHO. Although a ring so you can get ring of freedom of movement ASAP is also pretty nice.
Sad thing? A bard still would be better for the concept, since he benefits more from a good cha and can be better at the social skills without losing the sneaky skills.Dude, just make a level 1 Bard, and be done with it. Grab Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus and a rapier. Make Dex, Cha, and Int your highest stats, and you should be good. And try to relax.
Ummm... Ooookkk.... I'm not the one making the character... That is Marthkus.
And I'm pretty relaxed, I think. It was just an observation. Sorry if it came out angry sounding, or you got offended or something. Jeez...
I think the way the bonded object works in pfs makes it a very minimal savings at best. i think the way it works is that you craft your way to a +1 magical item yourself and then pay for it normally from there but i admit i'm not entirely sure.
What makes it good is being able to spontaneously cast any spell from your book when you need it. Thats very hard to beat.
With that said, a familiar (or better yet an improved familiar) with your ranks can eventually aid another on a roll of a 1, and is a reasonable indulgence if you want to concentrate on skills.
You can just leave the slot open and prepare it later if its out of combat, with fast study preferably. I think we left the topic of rogues a while ago.
I think we left the topic of rogues a while ago.
I'm just going to pretend that rogues don't exist. That seems like the best option.
|
|
hmmm... 9 pages this may have already been covered but i will throw in my 2 cents.
if you want to make a character that focuses on skills, and does not deal damage in combat, may i suggest a bard fighter?
bard will net you the skill monkey role better then a rogue and you will have bardic bonuses to make your teammates better in combat. then to add to that you can focus on steal and dirty trick maneuvers to have a non combat function, like taking the wnd, sword, shield, etc.. from the target giving you an advantage in combat without being a damage dealer. you will also have spells to use for party buffing.
if you really really really want sneak attack then they have bard archetype that will allow you to still have Sneak attack, but i dont know why you would want it when combat isnt a focus for you.
the rogue class and a rogue character dont need to be the same thing, you can use what ever class you want, like fighter if you wanted to, and call it a rogue.
|
|
I think the way the bonded object works in pfs makes it a very minimal savings at best. i think the way it works is that you craft your way to a +1 magical item yourself and then pay for it normally from there but i admit i'm not entirely sure.
Basically, you get 50% off making your bonded item magical. No custom items and it must be PFS legal of course. You can not combine item properties as well for most items, but you can make a +1 keen spell storing frost longsword if you so wish. The issue is that it is somewhat unclear on if you get the discount on upgrading or if this is a one time bonus.
Theres a FAQs all about the arcane bond I thought...
Theres a FAQs all about the arcane bond I thought...
Its all mute because I'm a sucker for talking Raven familiars.
|
|
Theres a FAQs all about the arcane bond I thought...
So there is...what a pain the arse to find that FAQ however...
Can an Arcane Bonded Item be upgraded?
A character with the arcane bond class feature may create a bond with any item he owns, either magical or mundane, as long as the item falls within the categories permitted by the arcane bond ability (the cost for bonding with a new item still applies). If a caster later wishes to upgrade an existing bonded item, he may do so for the cost (not price) of the final item as listed in the item's statblock.
For items which can be enhanced incrementally (such as weapons or a ring of protection), the caster must meet all prerequisites for the item as outlined in the item crafting rules. For example, a nonmagical bonded dagger can be enchanted to a +1 dagger for 1,000 gp instead of the normal 2,000 gp, but the caster must be at least 5th level (a prerequisite for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat). To upgrade the item further to a +2 dagger, the caster must have a caster level of 6 or higher (three times the item's enhancement bonus).
A bonded item that is enhanced must still conform to all the campaign rules for access to and upgrading of magical items. The final and total price of the item (not the cost) is used on the Fame chart to determine whether a caster can apply such an enhancement to a bonded item.
So yeah...can totally upgrade bonded items incrementally...now I wonder if spell cunning and mastery is considered incremental items :P .
I think we left the topic of rogues a while ago.I'm just going to pretend that rogues don't exist. That seems like the best option.
Just take a freakin BARD already! it has the skills you want and the abilities you want.
Theres a FAQs all about the arcane bond I thought...Its all mute because I'm a sucker for talking Raven familiars.
Moot. Mute is someone who can't speak, or a function on a tv.
I have always hated the Sneak Attack mechanic.
It is unreliable, and takes way too much effort to set up.
I always see it as a "wheeee DICE!" mechanic that inexperienced players believe will do waaaaay more damage than it actually does.
Give me static damage any day.
Except I am not looking to be the king of combat here. I just need to be functional and get creative with skills every once in awhile.
My rogue only needs to be on par with a vanilla monk in combat, if I don't focus on combat.I would have to be clever with my skills to be really effective.
Wand of invisibility. Turn self invisible and combine with stealth, and maybe spring attack. You hit foes flat-footed, making them easier to target and keeping you safe, and you make those dice count.
Just take a freakin BARD already! it has the skills you want and the abilities you want.
No.
How many times do I have to say it? The bard is a slick class, but does not fit any of the current character concepts I have at the moment.Look, just to show you that I didn't dismiss the bard out of hand, here is the bard build I made before starting this thread.
17 12 14 14 7 14 half-orc Bard
Perform(Act,Oratory),Intimidate,UMD,Perception,Stealth,Acrobatics,Knowledge
1 :Arcane Strike ||0th:Prestidigitation,Read-Magic,Ghost-Sound,Mage-Hand|1st:Silent-Image,Cu re-Light-Wounds|
2 : ||0th:Message|1st:Grease|
3 :Power Attack ||0th:Mending|1st:Disguise-Self|
4 : ||2nd:Invisibility,Silence|
5 :Cleave ||2nd:Mirror-Image|
6 : ||2nd:Pyrotechnics|
7 :Great Cleave ||1st:Feather-Fall|3rd:Major-Image,Haste|
8 : ||3rd:Good-Hope|
9 :Toughness ||3rd:Slow|
10: ||2nd:Cure-Moderate-Wounds|4th:Dimension-Door,Dominate-Person|
11:Improved Critical(falchion)||4th:Invisibility-Greater|
12: ||4th:Freedom-of-Movement|
What is your concept? I know it was initially a skills only character.
A concept and what you want mechanically or two different things.
If you say I want to have 10 skills that is a mechanical thing.
If you say I want to be knowledgeable in various areas, because I am an explorer who will be studying dangerous things similar that is a concept.
I normally come up with a concept, then decide what I want to do mechanically.
from there I decide how much of his can I do and still not be a handicap to the party.
I then keep revising from there. Sometimes you have to sacrifice part of your concept or what you want mechanically to get something you can accept.
Markthus why is the bard not going to work for you?<---I am not trying to talk you into a bard, but maybe I can provide an alternate solution, such as trading in bard abilities for some rogue abilities, if the GM will allow it. Another idea is multiclassing. Is this for PFS?
PS:I have skipped a few post.
edit: Added a sentence.
I am an average Joe, or at least I appear to be. Far from average though, I am quite quick and clever and nothing misses my notice. I read people like a book and always know the right thing to say to get my way, although I am never the center of attention. My nimble finger can get me what I need regardless of who has what I want. Through use of cunning and skill I can get into just about anywhere. My logical mind can figure out just about any lock, trap or device. Although completely mundane I am equally versed in the use of magical devices, whether utilizing or disabling. In combat I try to focus on not being hit with the belief that the best defense is not being where an attack is landing. When I do strike I take my time to find an opening and make sure it hurts.
@wraithstrike
Lord twig did a good job explaining the character concept.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nice explanation. You being mundane does require you to not have any magic.
Would you be allowed to take a normally magical class, and trade in any spells it can cast for something else or is this PFS?
If it's a homegame the GM can put in places for you to be more useful, but if the GM is not willing or can't make special accommodations for you then I would change the fluff from "completely mundane" to " appear to be completely mundane". As for not wanting to be hit, you may want to look at the Duelist since it adds int to AC or you can try to pick up medium armor at least.
There is also a way to add dex to damage instead of strength, and piranha strike is like power attack for dex based characters if you still want to go with dex.
Only if there us an existing(and legal) archetype wraithstrike. For bards there isn't, but there is for rangers and paladins.
There is nothing "official" that I had in mind. That is why I wanted to know if this was for home or for PFS, and if the GM would be willing to let him trade things out.
Oh! Misread. He said it was for PFS earlier.