|
skill make up 1/3 to 1/4 what a bard does
That's what people are saying. Skills make up 1/3 to 1/4 of what a bard does and he can do them better than a rogue. Leaving another 2/3 to 3/4 to be an effective character in combat.
The biggest strength of the bard is his inspiration bonus and access to haste. If he wants to be a skill monkey, He is free to dump combat stats since neither his performance or spells rely on these. By level 10, on the first round of combat he can effectively raise the party's EL by about 3 by casting haste and performing (+3 attack and damage and extra attack).
A skillmonkey is not somebody who does skills greater than 50% of the time. A skillmonkey is someone who can use roughly 50% of the skills very effectively.
Skillmonkey is a secondary role in Pathfinder. It has never nor will ever be a primary feature of a class. Unless you happen to be a Scholar. Then knock yourself out.
Argh again with the bard. He has a lot of synergy with all of his abilities but he is not a skill monkey, skill make up 1/3 to 1/4 what a bard does, depending on how much of their feats are spent on melee or ranged combat.
If "skill monkey" means good at skills, the Rogue is a worse skill monkey than Bards and Rangers.
If "skill monkey" means not good at anything but skills, the Rogue still isn't a good skill monkey (you have tricks and Sneak still), but "skill monkey" isn't a very good thing to be.
... Also, when I play a bard I have to ham it up. I am the party fop.
I hate it when I play a Samurai and have to finish all of my sentences with "Desu."
...
In all seriousness, most of the "fop" characters I've had in my games were Rogues, Fighters, or Swashbucklers from 3.5. In fact, I've had an overabundance of rapier-carrying, giant-floppy-feather-hat wearing, smarmy-one-line spewing rogues. I groan every time I hear someone wanting to play a rogue in my games, not because they don't work, but because I associate them with arrogant gits.
I usually associate Bard with the time I played one as a calculating member of a Tzeench-inspired magical cult. The "performances" were flavored as eldritch chants to the weird primeval god of magic.
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but perhaps go Dervish Dance? Weapon Finesse then Dervish dance. Though really, I do think if you can, it'd be best to find a way to get some more Con in there.
I have abandoned the concept. Getting it to work well with the system loses a lot of the original flavor for me (like playing a bard instead of a rogue to be good at skills taste bad).
If I am playing a bard, it is not because I want to be a skill monkey.
You seem attached to thinking bards are all some form of silly singing minstrel and incapable of being capable trapworkers, or assassins, or thieves... They can do all these things.
They can and it's an important thing for them to be able to do. But by no means does that mean I would ever play a bard to be a skill monkey. I have played many bards before. I enjoyed having skills, but I never thought of myself as a skill monkey.
Vivisectionist get sneak attack, tons of skills, and the power over monkeys through there Dr Moreau theme.
Play a bard to be a skill monkey rather than a silly minstrel and he will be a skill monkey. Oratory and Dance are just his way of speaking and moving, not performances for the arts. The names of the classes are only labels. Your free to refluff things and archetypes give you some control over that even.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OP, if you really want to be a skill monkey, I suggest you play D&D 3.5 instead of PF. 3E was much more conducive to playing a dedicated skill monkey.
a) Class skills meant much more - if a skill was cross class, it took 2x the skill points for each rank and your max ranks were capped at half what it was for class skills. So training in them was harder, and it was impossible for you to ever acheive as much as the skilled class at it. This is called, "niche protection" and it is a critical aspect of class balance. In PF, class skill is only worth a +3 bonus, and getting them as traits or with a level dip is trivially easy.
b) There were more skills. Skills were split up, which made it harder to be good at lots of skills. So having 12 or more skill points per level vs. 6 or whatever made a big difference. Spot, Listen, and Search are all important skills. In 3E, they were 3 skills, in PF they are one skill. In PF, after a half dozen skills, you start running out of good ones actually worth maxing out.
c) The skills were MORE POWERFUL. In 3E, you could end an encounter on round 1 with a rushed Diplomacy check. You could get Iaijutsu Focus and do sneak attack level damage...with a skill check! Heck, you could even get Lucid Dreaming and kill people in their sleep! (they could resist...with a lucid dreaming opposed check... good luck with that, lol) Granted that last one was kinda broken to all hell. But the point is... skills were stronger in 3E. The check DCs were lower for many things, too. And each splat book seemed to add new uses for existing skills (my favorite was the DC 35 kip up for Tumble to stand from prone as a swift w/o provoking, iirc). Hell, they even had you covered if you maxed the hell out of your modifiers with Epic Skills! I actually successfully used the "Bluff to create a Suggestion" effect once, and it was AWESOME.
3E supports what you're looking for much better than PF, IMO.
Haha wow there is a lot of stuff in this thread and I stopped at page 1.
You can make Steal manuevers with Sleight of Hand, if you're a Filcher or a Prankster. See my guide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-9oMc_RDPwuToFqoywkhUFI2AfNLa3ZQroZBdtU XdnU/edit?usp=sharing
It also outlines that relying on the Steal manuever to be effective in combat is a bad idea, because you will face enemies that fight tooth and nail quite often in a standard fantasy setting. Perhaps less so in an urban adventure.
Edit: Fixed the link.
|
Anybody who plays a Rogue is a stain upon our species. I mean, how can our gene pool be THAT polluted? Shouldn't we do something about it? Say if somebody tells you they're playing a Rogue, hand them a brochure that explains that having kids is a really bad idea? Or perhaps try to convince them that spending the rest of their life in a Himalayas monastery is a great thing to do (bonus points: they get to argue with Monks!).
/sacrasm.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're using the term "Skill Monkey" way too literally, focusing only on the "Skill" part of Skill Monkey
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.
My apologies for answering a "How useful would this character be?" question accurately. From now on I will describe every build as the absolute best and most useful thing ever, even if it would actually be worthless and even if the entire point of the thread is to make sure in advance that it wouldn't be worthless.
But Ciretose, perhaps you can help? This fine fellow would like to know how to build a good skillmonkey. The only restrictions are that it can't be human, must be a single-classed rogue with no archetypes, can't spend feats on anything other than Skill Focus and "+2 to two skills" feats, and other than skill checks is forbidden to ever take any action more effective than attempting to ping for 1d4 with a crossbow but missing. Perhaps you, given the restriction of "You're not allowed to change the build I have in mind in any way", could find a way to improve it? Or perhaps you'd care to share your opinion on how much use this would actually be in play, bearing in mind that this thread exists solely to make sure the build would actually be useful because the OP doesn't want a worthless character?
|
Sure, under the following conditons:
- You set a clear defintion of the goalposts to define "Good" and "Worthless". For example, competitive with bestiary standards for the same level.
- You set a clear framework of level, ability score system, etc...for example PFS, level 10. Or PFS, levels 1-10.
You do that, Challenge accepted.
While I disagree with Roberta's overall tone regarding the rogue class as a whole, I completely agree with the idea that this is a poor build for the OP's idea of making something that would be useful and interesting to play regardless of what style/setting/gametype it is used in.
Don't hate the succubus, hate the wilderness-survival-combat-focused game session that would render this character concept useless and/or dead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, it's not Roberta's fault that the PF system is totally inadequate for playing a skills-oriented character. As noted above, the 007 game engine, in contrast, does that sort of thing well.
It's not the OP's fault that the rogue is a fairly egregious case of false advertising, insofar as it has no abilities that other classes can't do better, and still do more besides.
So the OP asks questions, and she (and others) answer them truthfully, and people get mad because they don't like the answers -- a classic case of shooting the messenger.
Whatever your feelings about tone may be, RY's responses are at least honest, which is more than can be said for the way the rogue is presented in PF, vs. what it's actually written as. The rules just don't live up to the fluff. Hell, for disarming magic traps, a cleric with at-will detect magic and a wand of dispel magic can do that, and still be an armored full caster who can channel energy besides.
|
|
Look, it's not Roberta's fault that the PF system is totally inadequate for playing a skills-oriented character. As noted above, the 007 game engine, in contrast, does that sort of thing well.
It's not the OP's fault that the rogue is a fairly egregious case of false advertising, insofar as it has no abilities that other classes can't do better, and still do more besides.
So the OP asks questions, and she (and others) answer them truthfully, and people get mad because they don't like the answers -- a classic case of shooting the messenger.
Whatever your feelings about tone may be, RY's responses are at least honest, which is more than can be said for the way the rogue is presented in PF, vs. what it actually written as.
And again I say define "worthless".
Dismissive is unhelpful, and so I hope BY decides to set the terms so we can test the theory. I think you can make a perfectly viable build using the criteria the OP presented. It won't be a dominant killing machine, but who said that was the goal.
I think I can build something that can contribute to a party, I just want to see the goal posts put in the ground lest they move.
|
|
For example, let us just look at the OP.
We can assume 20 point buy with 2 16's, with Dex bumped by a +2 as one option.
We could also go with a class that gets a Dex bump (Halfling/Gnome) with a trade off that is countered and off set.
At first level we have a feat (maybe two if we are human) so we take toughness and suddenly we go from 8 or 9 hit point to 11 or 12 hit points.
We have a +4 to AC, and if we are using ranged at first level, we have a +4 to hit (+5 if we are small).
And we have between 11 and 13 skillpoints to spread around.
At first level, are we viable? I would say absolutely. At 2nd level I can pick up weapon finesse as a rogue talent and now I'm +5 (or +6) ranged or melee, with another 11 to 13 skill points.
Is a rogue less powerful than other classes. Probably. Is in not able to contribute? Not in my opinion.
I see no reason to define additional parameters when you haven't bothered to read those already presented.
I don't know where BY got the idea that I couldn't be human.
A skill monkey for the purpose of this character concept is one that uses skills to get the job done. Out-of-Combat? He is using skills. In-Combat? He is using skills to contribute.
Bardic performance and spells don't fit that character concept. I am not too particularly jazzed by sneak attack either, but at least sneak attack is mundane and fits the concept better than casting spells.
Just for comparison lets look at casters. What do they do out of combat? Cast spells. What do they do in combat? Cast spells. What do they do in a social encounter? Cast spells.
Just because the character concept I was looking for doesn't exist in a functional form, does not mean that my character concept should be a bard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I can build something that can contribute to a party, I just want to see the goal posts put in the ground lest they move.
I can easily build a commoner that contributes to the party, by carrying their gear for them. That doesn't mean it's an equal participant.
My personal goalpost would be this: find me a mechanical role for the rogue that's not easily superseded by the secondary features and/or afterthoughts of other classes. In other words, if I can make a bard or a ranger or a wizard that covers the niche you're proposing equally well, and can still do other stuff besides that you can't, then the rogue loses.
P.S. By "mechanical role," I mean "deal with traps, if needed" vs. "disarm traps using skill X." Or "deal damage" vs. "has sneak attack as a class feature."
You asked, not me.
Can't say I am surprised...
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".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is a rogue less powerful than other classes. Probably. Is in not able to contribute? Not in my opinion.
Its able to contribute if optimized.
This is the opposite of optimizing. Sparkles the pony could beat him up.
1. Just because the character concept I was looking for doesn't exist in a functional form,
2. does not mean that my character concept should be a bard.
1. For Pathfinder, this is correct.
2. Yes. Bard is probably the best option for playing something similar to what you want, but it's not what you want -- because, sadly, PF just doesn't do what you're after.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Ciretose, perhaps you can help? This fine fellow would like to know how to build a good skillmonkey. The only restrictions are that it can't be human, must be a single-classed rogue with no archetypes, can't spend feats on anything other than Skill Focus and "+2 to two skills" feats, and other than skill checks is forbidden to ever take any action more effective than attempting to ping for 1d4 with a crossbow but missing. Perhaps you, given the restriction of "You're not allowed to change the build I have in mind in any way", could find a way to improve it? Or perhaps you'd care to share your opinion on how much use this would actually be in play, bearing in mind that this thread exists solely to make sure the build would actually be useful because the OP doesn't want a worthless character?
I posted something that I think improved on the concept. I made a viable build that can contribute. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is worthless. And I have yet to see exactly how a bard does anything that this "skill monkey rogue" does, better. Getting the same skills doesn't mean they do it better. Having higher skills would be better. So go ahead and make a bard with higher skills in everything that I have listed for my rogue.
I want to see one class that does everything better than a rogue. Not a combination of 3 or 4 different classes that combined to everything better, one.
Also, it's the opposite of "can't be human", it is human. Other races would work just as well though. And how does a light crossbow do 1d4? I swear you are intentionally trying to make this concept look worse than it actually is! Maybe if you didn't do that people wouldn't accuse you of calling something worthless when it's not?
As for spells replacing trapfinding. I have never seen it work. Here is a clue why: You don't know there is a trap there until after you look for it. So all those spells that give you trapfinding? If they don't give it to your for hours at a time, they are worthless.
As for sending a summon to set of a trap (assuming you know it is even there). Congratulations! You triggered the alarm!
And I don't understand how people don't get the fact that some of us like to play rogues not bard flavored as rogues. Honestly I don't like bards, never have. And after this thread I dislike them even more!
As for spells replacing trapfinding. I have never seen it work. Here is a clue why: You don't know there is a trap there until after you look for it. So all those spells that give you trapfinding? If they don't give it to your for hours at a time, they are worthless.
You don't need a spell anymore, all you need are eyes.
Just because the character concept I was looking for doesn't exist in a functional form, does not mean that my character concept should be a bard.
I'm sorry. I laughed out loud at this line. It is so true it's funny!
|
|
@Marthkus - You have a 18 dex, so with weapon finesse you'll be able to hit and with acrobatics you should be able to position yourself well to be doing sneak attach when you do.
Also, you have access to ninja tricks, so vanishing trick will be a nice pick up.
You may want to consider going small (you get a +1 to AC and Attack bonus, as well as stealth bonuses).
As far as skills, feint can be useful (under bluff), tumble (acrobatics), Use Magic Device are probably your go to skills in combat.
You aren't going to play it that much different than you would play any other rogue. You are just going to want to look at things to get your hit points and saves up when you are able.
|
|
Is a rogue less powerful than other classes. Probably. Is in not able to contribute? Not in my opinion.Its able to contribute if optimized.
This is the opposite of optimizing. Sparkles the pony could beat him up.
You are welcome to also set the bar, since BY is backing away from the challenge they laid out.
As for spells replacing trapfinding. I have never seen it work. Here is a clue why: You don't know there is a trap there until after you look for it. So all those spells that give you trapfinding? If they don't give it to your for hours at a time, they are worthless.
Or unless they're usable at will. Which detect magic is, from a distance of 60 ft.
And wands are pretty cheap, especially if you craft them yourself; 50 charges might as well be "at will."
And barring all that, most traps just aren't that dangerous. "Deals 5d6 damage" or whatever isn't really a CR 5 challenge, so there's no real need for a class whose sole function is to deal with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
|
|
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.
there is a talent that lets you use sleight of hand i believe.
also minor and major magic might be a good idea. acid splash and you can sneak attack from range with touch. major magic, take chill touch. if you are an elf you can take favored class for extra uses of major magic i believe.
Oh thank God! Lord Twig is posting again.
|
|
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.
|
|
To be clear about my issue with BY here, if an OP asks for help making something work, if your only response is "It can't" you don't need to stick around the thread beyond saying that once.
You have expressed your opinion and offered your advice. If the OP disagrees, you are only trolling at that point.
Q: What color is the sky right now?
A: Blue
Person #1: "Oh, thank you so much for the inquiry! I do believe it's blue, although if you say red I certainly shan't argue with you, my good man! By the way, have I offered to shine your shoes today?"
Person #2: "Same color as Sinatra's eyes, if the no-talent hack weren't dead that is."
Certainly person #1 is bending over backwards to try and avoid giving offense, but the factual information in his response isn't any better than person #2's -- and is in fact worse, because he's willing to outright lie ("red it is!") in the interest of not being "mean." Person #2's response, while a bit harsh on Sinatra, is more to the point, and actually gives more factual information, because we even get an idea what shade of blue we're dealing with.
Overall, if I'm actually interested in the answer, I'd rather talk to person #2. Person #1 is a better yes-man, but those are a dime a dozen and don't actually contribute anything except boosting my ego, which is big enough already. So if I follow up and ask, "Are you sure it's not red?", then I'd MUCH rather be talking to person #2.
YMMV.
Getting the same skills doesn't mean they do it better. Having higher skills would be better. So go ahead and make a bard with higher skills in everything that I have listed for my rogue.
I want to see one class that does everything better than a rogue. Not a combination of 3 or 4 different classes that combined to everything better, one.
Let me see... A Bard with versatile performance will have more skill points than Rogues, so he's doing skills more often. Then, he gets to base Sense Motive on Cha, which is probably his highest or second highest score. He gets a bonus equal to half his level in all knowledge checks, so he does it better than Rogues.
He has Invisibility, so he's doing Stealth better than Rogues. He has Glibness, so he's doing Bluff better than rogues.s for spells replacing trapfinding. I have never seen it work. Here is a clue why: You don't know there is a trap there until after you look for it. So all those spells that give you trapfinding? If they don't give it to your for hours at a time, they are worthless.
All you need to find traps is Perception. Bards are just as good as Rogues at Perception, if not better thanks to spells/archetype.
As for sending a summon to set of a trap (assuming you know it is even there). Congratulations! You triggered the alarm!
Whatever a Rogue could do about the alarm, a Bard can do just as well or better. If summonning won't make it, maybe Dispel Magic will. Or maybe another one of the many other spells Bards have access to.
And I don't understand how people don't get the fact that some of us like to play rogues not bard flavored as rogues. Honestly I don't like bards, never have. And after this thread I dislike them even more!
Nobody is doubting or harassing you for liking Rogues or disliking Bards. We're merely pointing out that Rogues are not as effective as Bards, no matter how much you or anyone else loves/hates any of those classes.
|
|
And you have written an entire variant game system because of your disagreement with how Pathfinder works. If someone wants to play pathfinder, do you post throughout the thread that pathfinder is crap.
No.
If you want to say you don't think it can work, once, fine.
If you stay in the thread and say it over and over, then when someone says "well maybe it could" you attack them and say they are wrong...
Q: What color is the sky right now?
A: BluePerson #1: "Oh, thank you so much for the inquiry! I do believe it's blue, although if you say red I certainly shan't argue with you, my good man! By the way, have I offered to shine your shoes today?"
Person #2: "Same color as Sinatra's eyes, if the no-talent hack weren't dead that is."
Certainly person #1 is bending over backwards to try and avoid giving offense, but the factual information in his response isn't any better than person #2's -- and is in fact worse, because he's willing to outright lie ("red it is!") in the interest of not being "mean." Person #2's response, while a bit harsh on Sinatra, is more to the point, and actually gives more factual information, because we even get an idea what shade of blue we're dealing with.
Overall, if I'm actually interested in the answer, I'd rather get response #2. And if I follow up and ask "Are you sure it's not red?", then I'd MUCH rather be talking to person #2.
YMMV.
Both of those responses are awful and uninformative. Some of us don't know the color of dead people's eyes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Algebra is fun!!!
|
|
@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?
And you have written an entire variant game system because of your disagreement with how Pathfinder works. If someone wants to play pathfinder, do you post throughout the thread that pathfinder is crap.
No.
Well, that's true... but I also don't lie to them and say that Pathfinder works in ways that it doesn't.
Look -- I'll be the first to admit that Pathfinder is the best game ever devised to date for one set of criteria: Players that like glossy art and big books, who don't care about the mechanical aspects of the game that much, who want to stick with the basics of 4-person single-classed parties in dungeons, and who like flavor to be spelled out in big bold letters and even extra supplements. For those criteria, Pathfinder beats the HELL out of anything I've ever come up with.
But if you want to play a game in which skills really, really matter, than Pathfinder isn't it, and the inclusion of the rogue class doesn't fix that; it just obscures it. If people can't see that, then helping them understand it is an act of assistance, not douchery.