sounds like the player would be the problem there--that's pretty blatantly going against the whole "three wishes per customer" thing. you could just have efreeti keep a running tally of whos got what wishes granted, and go "sorry, you've already used your three wishes for more efreeti, good luck with that."
and then slap your player upside the head for being a minmaxing little turd.
if he complains about you not sticking to the rules as written, then simply cite rule 0. if they persist, they dont need to be in your game--they obviously arent having fun with your gm'ing methods and it would be an act of mercy to spare them the growing resentment and dissatisfaction.
Of course no rule zero is needed. A legal out is put into the wording of the spell.
Rogue DPR sucks, it just sucks a little less if you go with a strength based half orc falchion build. sucks a whole 9 points less.
but half orc falchion strength rogues might as well be gimped warriors by a different name.
While I think Marthkus is underestimating the power of casters and saying "no there isn't a problem" where there is a huge problem, I'm all on his interpretation of Simulacrum.
The spell clearly states that it has the special abilities that are appropriate for a creature of that hit dice; that is very fuzzy in itself, and can only serve to show that it's up to the DM.
Just like how the Leadership feat doesn't what feats etc the creature will have, the Simulacrum spell doesn't define what is appropriate and not. It is completely up to the game master and/or group.
Both main methods of wish-abuse (planar binding and simulacrum) are extremely dependant on DM goodwill and cooperation. Thus, I feel that any C/M disparity arising from that specific method is kind of a moot point as it can be shut down by the DM very easily without going against the rules.
That said, simulacrum is a very powerful spell, and casters are far too dominating at high levels (and even at low to mid levels martial will often feel much more stuck in a single mode than a caster). That's an issue that needs to be considered.
Saying a half-HD efreet doesn't have wish is not akin to banning the spell, it's more akin to saying "your leadership cohort will not be designed freely by you, rather you can pick the race and class and I'll pick the feats". Which is not in any way changing the rules, but determining how it should be in areas not defined by the rules (such as how a cohort is designed or what abilities are appropriate for a 6HD creature).
A regular Efreeti has 10HD, an Advanced Efreeti Fighter 4 has 22HD. Both have 1/day grant up to 3 Wishes. It would be entirely logical to assume an 11HD simulacrum (of the 22HD Efreeti) would have the wish ability.
A regular Efreeti has 10HD, an Advanced Efreeti Fighter 4 has 22HD. Both have 1/day grant up to 3 Wishes. It would be entirely logical to assume an 11HD simulacrum (of the 22HD Efreeti) would have the wish ability.
Unless you see the racial hit dice as the relevant thing (which is very reasonable as it's a racial ability). The simulacrum will only have 9 hit dice.
Also, nothing really says wish is appropriate for a 10hd creature either. A non-simulacrum creature can have an inappropriate ability, there's nothing preventing that.
Think of it like in real life. Say I always pee in public; that's hardly appropriate. If someone had a machine that made a copy of me, but the copy "would have appropriate behaviour". Then the copy would NOT pee in public, even though I did! ;D
EDIT: To clarify, yes, it could be rational or logical to say that the efreet would have wish. I'm not disputing that. It could ALSO be rational or logical to say it does NOT have wish. Both interpretations are valid not only by the rules but by rationale.
*pulls out revolver*
*shoots self in mouth, Robert "Budd" Dwyer style*
*gets reincarnated 3 days later*
*pulls out revolver*
*shoots self in mouth, Robert "Budd" Dwyer style*
*gets reincarnated 3 days later*
*pulls out revolver*
Oh, sorry, I thought this was the "God" Wizard (er, Oracle) thread. My bad
*shoots self in mouth, Robert "Budd" Dwyer style*
*gets reincarnated 3 days later*
Still, I bet you filthy Martials can't do this.
*pulls out revolver*
Yup, it's still Groundhog Day.
*rinse, repeat, and recycle*
Did everyone forget my ways of fixing Simulacrum forever?
Or did I post that in the Wizard Gawd thread?
ED-209, I don't think you have the appropriate build to coup de grace yourself with a firearm. Besides, I'll take my 1/day Time Stop over forever aging and reincarnating.
To clarify, yes, it could be rational or logical to say that the efreet would have wish. I'm not disputing that. It could ALSO be rational or logical to say it does NOT have wish. Both interpretations are valid not only by the rules but by rationale.
But then GM fiat basically defines the spell, which is my point. There isn't a rules-out in the spell.
If I played a martial character, I'd love to treat the game as casters sometimes do.
DM: "You're at a diplomatic hearing with the paladin king."
Me: "I charge the paladin king!"
DM: "His guards step in between, blocking your path."
Me: "WHAT? What DM FIAT IS THIS?!?! The sword rules say NOTHING about NPC's arbitrarily going after my character?!?!? And neither does the charge rules?!?!? YOU HORRIBLE HOUSERULING DM!!!!!"
To clarify, yes, it could be rational or logical to say that the efreet would have wish. I'm not disputing that. It could ALSO be rational or logical to say it does NOT have wish. Both interpretations are valid not only by the rules but by rationale.But then GM fiat basically defines the spell, which is my point. There isn't a rules-out in the spell.
Yes, DM fiat defines the spell to a large degree, much like many other illusion spells and a lot of other stuff in the game.
I'm not exactly sure what rules-out means (English isn't my native language and google didn't give any useful results), but the spell itself includes text to allow for the DM to set limits. If a DM says "well fireball doesn't deal 1d6 damage/caster level" then that's a house rule - if a DM says "well an efreeti simulacrum doesn't have wish because it's not appropriate as an ability for a 5hd creature" then that is a valid interpretation of the spell.
Compare to feats - a DM saying "skill focus doesn't give you +3/+6 to a skill" is houseruling/using rule zero. A DM saying "the cohort you get from leadership is not designed by you" is not; she's stating a valid interpretation of the feat.
ED-209, I don't think you have the appropriate build to coup de grace yourself with a firearm.
Darn. But have you seen me in action?
Oh well, I decided to go into a new line of work anyhow.
Ok I guess instead of discussion you just want to do personal attacks.Pluck out the beam in thine own eye, friend.
Beams for sale, 3 for a copper.
Get your beams at Crazy ED's Discount Beams - suitable for all your Downtime construction activities and Kingdom building actions.
Beams for sale, 3 for a copper!
Rules-out, an out within the rules? I was just using a hyphen to coin a phrase.
What I mean is the spell shouldn't use language that implies it could be conceivably used in that way at all. It's messy, and frankly it would also be a lot less abusable if the lesser version was the default.
@ED-209: Oh god.
No-SR damage spells have less damage than SR damage spells. So you take what already sucks (damage spells) and cast a worse less damaging spell to get past SR.But you could use the same argument for any spell. Hurl a piece of the fire elemental plane. Call it "fireball".
You just need to put the Conjuration label and write a fluff sentence in the spell, and ANY evocation elemental spell could be conjuration, and non-SR. It destroys the entire point of both Evocation school and SR.
I think there should be non-SR damaging spells. But they should be limited to mundane levels of damage, and/or DR. Earthquake is a good example.
Compare snowball and magic missile. Snowball even has a rider (stagger).
By the way, damage spells only suck when unmodified. Intensified-empowered-maximized(through rod) fireballs can do about 125hp in 20' at level 10, which isn't bad at all.
If I played a martial character, I'd love to treat the game as casters sometimes do.
DM: "You're at a diplomatic hearing with the paladin king."
Me: "I charge the paladin king!"
DM: "His guards step in between, blocking your path."
Me: "WHAT? What DM FIAT IS THIS?!?! The sword rules say NOTHING about NPC's arbitrarily going after my character?!?!? And neither does the charge rules?!?!? YOU HORRIBLE HOUSERULING DM!!!!!"To clarify, yes, it could be rational or logical to say that the efreet would have wish. I'm not disputing that. It could ALSO be rational or logical to say it does NOT have wish. Both interpretations are valid not only by the rules but by rationale.But then GM fiat basically defines the spell, which is my point. There isn't a rules-out in the spell.Yes, DM fiat defines the spell to a large degree, much like many other illusion spells and a lot of other stuff in the game.
I'm not exactly sure what rules-out means (English isn't my native language and google didn't give any useful results), but the spell itself includes text to allow for the DM to set limits. If a DM says "well fireball doesn't deal 1d6 damage/caster level" then that's a house rule - if a DM says "well an efreeti simulacrum doesn't have wish because it's not appropriate as an ability for a 5hd creature" then that is a valid interpretation of the spell.
Compare to feats - a DM saying "skill focus doesn't give you +3/+6 to a skill" is houseruling/using rule zero. A DM saying "the cohort you get from leadership is not designed by you" is not; she's stating a valid interpretation of the feat.
Actually the guards could total do that under the rules of the game. (readying an action). However, saying that something that is a racial ability ceases to exist at a certain HD for that race is very much fiat. A racial ability will exist even at 1HD, you don't have to gain X HD to get that human bonus feat. Regardless of how many HD an Efreeti gains for example it will always have a CL 11th 3 times a day Wish to a non-genie. Thus it is entirely appropriate for a half-HD efreeti to have 3/day Wish, even if it rather overpowered. (Reading "appropriate" as "balanced" is a rather poor idea.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's because the golem is a stupid easy encounter. Most monsters by themselves stand little chance against a party.
Do you know why it is? Because it's a fighter-type monster. Good armor, good damage, good hp, and that's it. Whenever you use magic to alter the fighting conditions, he is unable to react. Even the mighty tarrasque suffer from this.
Encounters that are caster-type, or have SLA, can fly, teleport at will, etc, aren't so easily defeated by a simply reverse gravity.
Few monsters are so well rounded that they are a competent encounter by themselves.
that's true... if the party has casters. A group of rogue+fighter+monk+cavalier wouldn't do so good against an Adamantine Golem. Specially if they fight it at 13th level, +6 CR above themselves. Swap any of them by a wizard with reverse gravity (or any "pit" spell for that matter) and the encounter goes from "hard" to "trivial".
If your caster is trivializing AP encounters that means he is skilled. You either need harder APs or a DM who can improvise. What level are your guys at?
They are 19th right now. Only a couple sessions more and we finish the AP. But to be honest, the strongest chars have been the half-casters: archer inquisitor and summoner. Our wizard is the least optimizing player. Despite having created several undead with huge attack power (linnorm, black and copper wyrm, storm giants, today a bandersnatch etc...) he never brings them to combat (even when there's plenty room). Even that way, Reverse Gravity is, by itself, a encounter-breaker. Sure, the GM can erradicate non-flying monsters and NPC from the adventure... but that's not very realistic. And for sure, it's not the AP encounters.
Today they suffered. The rogue died. I upgraded the basic Bandersnatch in the AP, to a Antimagic Field Bandersnatch. Those are the kind of monsters that do real damage
What I mean is the spell shouldn't use language that implies it could be conceivably used in that way at all. It's messy, and frankly it would also be a lot less abusable if the lesser version was the default.
Agreed - the wording is bad.
It's worth noting though that most things that are often called out as "broken" are things with what you call rules-outs; planar binding/ally, simulacrum, the leadership feat etc.
I personally think this is due to RPG's having moved towards less DM fiat, that now a common attitude is "if the rules don't explicitly say no, the DM should allow it". This means abilities that are loosely defined to allow for creative usage will often be considered overpowered because the DM can't/won't restrict usage.
Basically, now the mindset either needs to change or the game design philosophy needs to change. For a game such as Pathfinder that tries to catch both the groups that want loosely-defined abilities for creative usage and those that want clear, balanced rules that can be used as close to RAW as possible, I think the best solution is that of the Wish spell actually; list what is possible by RAW, and add a clause that's basically "more stuff can be done at the discretion of the DM".
In terms of simulacrum, I think it should simply lose all it's special abilities, and the spell have a note that says "certain iconic abilities may be present on a simulacrum, at the GM's discretion".
Actually the guards could total do that under the rules of the game. (readying an action). However, saying that something that is a racial ability ceases to exist at a certain HD for that race is very much fiat. A racial ability will exist even at 1HD, you don't have to gain X HD to get that human bonus feat. Regardless of how many HD an Efreeti gains...
Well, the thought got to me more due to recent discussions on planar binding and wish abuse through that, but the point wasn't so much "can guards stop someone" because clearly they can by the rules, more that the charge or weapon rules don't say that if you charge a king the guards will react in a hostile manner towards you and having them attack you is dm fiat since it's determined by the DM (they could just hang around and drink tea), much like how some argue that calling efreeti and abusing their wish shouldn't incur the wrath of more powerful beings because that would be "DM fiat" and "going after a certain player".
So the DM fiat isn't that they _can_ stop the character, it's that they're interested in doing that in the first place.
Eh, any smart caster would just use one of the Wishes from his Wish factory to say "I Wish there were no negative repercussions or retaliations from outside forces for this action." ;)
Though really, why would any higher power care if the Efreeti's 3 Wishes were used to make fake, made of snow Simuacra of Efreeti that were then abused?
It's definitely Fiat if it makes no logical sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, any smart caster would just use one of the Wishes from his Wish factory to say "I Wish there were no negative repercussions or retaliations from outside forces for this action." ;)
Though really, why would any higher power care if the Efreeti's 3 Wishes were used to make fake, made of snow Simuacra of Efreeti that were then abused?
It's definitely Fiat if it makes no logical sense.
The Efreeti could care. He could then grant 3 wishes to the BBEG.
Also the Simuacra Efreeti do not have wish, so I don't get what you mean by abuse. You can keep saying that simuacra Efreeti do have wish, but that is just you interpreting simulacrum in a way to break your game. By the same extent, I can say all enemies surrender to the party Fighter because of his reputation. But me making bad DM calls doesn't make the Fighter OP.Giving simuacra efreeti wish is just as much of a DM fiat as not giving them wish.
"I Wish there were no negative repercussions or retaliations from outside forces for this action."
That is a wish and you can't add anything to it. It's a wish that does nothing. SO OP!
Eh, any smart caster would just use one of the Wishes from his Wish factory to say "I Wish there were no negative repercussions or retaliations from outside forces for this action." ;)
Though really, why would any higher power care if the Efreeti's 3 Wishes were used to make fake, made of snow Simuacra of Efreeti that were then abused?
It's definitely Fiat if it makes no logical sense.
The Efreeti could care. He could then grant 3 wishes to the BBEG.
Also the Simuacra Efreeti do not have wish, so I don't get what you mean by abuse. You can keep saying that simuacra Efreeti do have wish, but that is just you interpreting simulacrum in a way to break your game. By the same extent,
The default efreeti does not have wish with 5HD. However, the problem with simulacrum is that it can
a) copy a creature you haven't even seen, ever.b) copy a creature up to twice your CL, then halve it.
So if somewhere, in some place, there is a efreet with 22 hd or better (say, the Sultan of the city of Brass, or the Champion of all Efreets, or whatever), then you can copy that. Sure, no sane DM will let you do so (GM fiat... or simply saying "Bob, you are not invited to the next game, thanks"). However... it would be much better if those two points mentioned above were addressed. So you could only copy things that you know (or even that are pressent during casting, or that you have a piece of it's body as in 3.5, whatever), and reducing the level of what you can copy to your own CL, then halved. Even without chain-casting of simulacrum for free through wish, it's way powerful to be able to create copies of things up to twice your CL. A small army of your own Tarrasques is worrysome enough
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Giving simuacra efreeti wish is just as much of a DM fiat as not giving them wish.
Except this statement is false, since allowing the Simulacrum to have the racial abilities of the race it is a copy of is the default state of the game.
This is why the spell is hilariously overpowered and needs to be fixed. Except people like you keep going "No no no, it's okay because I can Fiat it into not being broken!" which is a great move: For your single game. It does nothing to fix the underlying problem with the spell.
If people would stop talking about their houserules in balance discussions as if they mattered, I bet we could get more done around here.
@Ilja: That is not quite what I meant...
When I said 'rules-out', I meant that there is no Rules as Written justification for the GM saying no. Not, there is no rule saying the player is prohibited from using the spell in that way. (There is clear and obvious Rules as Intended, but using Rule 0 to enforce RAI, against RAW, is messy.) So, the problem spells you mention are all problems because they have no 'rules-out'. There is no out in the rules that stops the situation from occurring.
Semantics aside, I don't think that adjusting certain problem spells would in any way bring the fighter up to the narrative or mechanical versatility of a spellcaster. Though, it would certainly stop a lot of shenanigans.
Giving simuacra efreeti wish is just as much of a DM fiat as not giving them wish.Except this statement is false, since allowing the Simulacrum to have the racial abilities of the race it is a copy of is the default state of the game.
This is why the spell is hilariously overpowered and needs to be fixed. Except people like you keep going "No no no, it's okay because I can Fiat it into not being broken!" which is a great move: For your single game. It does nothing to fix the underlying problem with the spell.
If people would stop talking about their houserules in balance discussions as if they mattered, I bet we could get more done around here.
Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD). You can't create a simulacrum of a creature whose HD or levels exceed twice your caster level. You must make a Disguise check when you cast the spell to determine how good the likeness is. A creature familiar with the original might detect the ruse with a successful Perception check (opposed by the caster's Disguise check) or a DC 20 Sense Motive check.
You are either ignoring that statement (house rule) or you are saying wish is an appropriate ability for a half hit die efreeti.
Either way you must make a call as a DM. You are choosing to give casters unlimited wishes. I think it makes vast more sense to say that half HD efreeti do not have wish.
Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD). You can't create a simulacrum of a creature whose HD or levels exceed twice your caster level. You must make a Disguise check when you cast the spell to determine how good the likeness is. A creature familiar with the original might detect the ruse with a successful Perception check (opposed by the caster's Disguise check) or a DC 20 Sense Motive check.You are either ignoring that statement (house rule) or you are saying wish is an appropriate ability for a half hit die efreeti.
Either way you must make a call as a DM. You are choosing to give casters unlimited wishes. I think it makes vast more sense to say that half HD efreeti do not have wish.
Anzyr already responded to that point:
A racial ability will exist even at 1HD, you don't have to gain X HD to get that human bonus feat. Regardless of how many HD an Efreeti gains for example it will always have a CL 11th 3 times a day Wish to a non-genie. Thus it is entirely appropriate for a half-HD efreeti to have 3/day Wish, even if it rather overpowered. (Reading "appropriate" as "balanced" is a rather poor idea.)
EDIT: To reinforce this point, every statted Efreeti (with the exception of Maliks who are flavoured as Noble Efreeti and therefore above and beyond all other Efreeti) has CL 11 SLAs and the ability to grant wishes.
@Ilja: That is not quite what I meant...
When I said 'rules-out', I meant that there is no Rules as Written justification for the GM saying no. Not, there is no rule saying the player is prohibited from using the spell in that way. (There is clear and obvious Rules as Intended, but using Rule 0 to enforce RAI, against RAW, is messy.) So, the problem spells you mention are all problems because they have no 'rules-out'. There is no out in the rules that stops the situation from occurring.Semantics aside, I don't think that adjusting certain problem spells would in any way bring the fighter up to the narrative or mechanical versatility of a spellcaster. Though, it would certainly stop a lot of shenanigans.
There is a phrase in the spell that prevents it from being used that way. OR you think it is appropriate for half-HD efreeti to be able to grant wish.
Since you feel this tactic is OP. You are asserting that you do not feel it is appropriate. But you feel that they can do it anyways. That is a house rule more so than saying they can't.
Yes. Appropriate. As-in "what a creature would have at that HD."
For HP/Skills/Feats that would be 5 levels worth.
For racial abilities that rely on level, it would be the ones below that level 5 threshold, not the ones above.
For class abilities, likewise.
However, the Wishes are not level dependent. They are not based on HD. They are a racial ability any Efreeti has, regardless of HD.
It is appropriate for an Efreeti of 1-20+ HD to have 3 Wishes.
Is it BALANCED?
NO.
Which is why it needs to be changed.
Is it APPROPRIATE?
YES.
You're making that mistake again. "Common sense" has no place in a balance discussion. Common sense would dictate that this strategy would be shot down before it progressed further than a twinkle in the player's eye.
But there is nothing in the RULES that prevents it, period. It's all up to the GM. Which is poor design.
There is a phrase in the spell that prevents it from being used that way. OR you think it is appropriate for half-HD efreeti to be able to grant wish.
Since you feel this tactic is OP. You are asserting that you do not feel it is appropriate. But you feel that they can do it anyways. That is a house rule more so than saying they can't.
Excuse me while I gag on all those words you put in my mouth.
I don't think this tactic is OP and I never said that. I think it's entirely appropriate that a simulacrum efreeti have 1/day up to 3 wishes. If someone pulled that on me as a GM I would be miffed and if it hurt the game (the fun of the players) I'd stop it with Rule 0. For that same reason I'd never do it as a player. Do I think it's rules legal? Yes. Do I think it's funny and awesome? Hell yes, I do.
But, it'd be nice if the wording was a little more GM friendly so that if it wasn't appropriate (balanced, not follows logically from statblocks) then the GM could say no without it being rule 0. I would be closer to Ilja's vein of thought than a hard yes/no.
I am getting really tired of the current meme that Fighters, Monks and Rogues suck. They don't. All three classes as a blast to play and are popular. Yes, for certain roles there can be better builds- so? And at the highest levels spellcasters rule- but few ever play up there.
There is a phrase in the spell that prevents it from being used that way. OR you think it is appropriate for half-HD efreeti to be able to grant wish.
Since you feel this tactic is OP. You are asserting that you do not feel it is appropriate. But you feel that they can do it anyways. That is a house rule more so than saying they can't.
Excuse me while I gag on all those words you put in my mouth.
I don't think this tactic is OP and I never said that. I think it's entirely appropriate that a simulacrum efreeti have 1/day up to 3 wishes. If someone pulled that on me as a GM I would be miffed and if it hurt the game (the fun of the players) I'd stop it with Rule 0. For that same reason I'd never do it as a player. Do I think it's rules legal? Yes. Do I think it's funny and awesome? Hell yes, I do.
But, it'd be nice if the wording was a little more GM friendly so that if it wasn't appropriate (balanced, not follows logically from statblocks) then the GM could say no without it being rule 0. I would be closer to Ilja's vein of thought than a hard yes/no.
You can say yes or no without rule 0. Appropriate is up to the DM.
I am getting really tired of the current meme that Fighters, Monks and Rogues suck. They don't. All three classes as a blast to play and are popular. Yes, for certain roles there can be better builds- so? And at the highest levels spellcasters rule- but few ever play up there.
I'll let fighters slide.
The rogue has the problem of people being better than him in everyway. But the rogue is still useful.
Now monks on the other hand... They are subpar at a role that isn't useful. It's not a good thing. They are pretty good mage tanks, but others are better and mage tank is not a great role. My monk has problems being a normal tank. Not just people being better tanks, but me being completely unable to pull it off. The right monk build can be competent, but I wouldn't bring in a monk in a party of 4 or less.
I am getting really tired of the current meme that Fighters, Monks and Rogues suck. They don't. All three classes as a blast to play and are popular. Yes, for certain roles there can be better builds- so? And at the highest levels spellcasters rule- but few ever play up there.I'll let fighters slide.
The rogue has the problem of people being better than him in everyway. But the rogue is still useful.
Now monks on the other hand... They are subpar at a role that isn't useful. It's not a good thing. They are pretty good mage tanks, but others are better and mage tank is not a great role. My monk has problems being a normal tank. Not just people being better tanks, but me being completely unable to pull it off. The right monk build can be competent, but I wouldn't bring in a monk in a party of 4 or less.
a rogue to be anywhere near viable at damage, has to be a falchion wielding half orc with a high strength score, power attack, furious focus, and weapon focus.
a monk, to be a viable damage dealer, has to be an onispawn tiefling who focuses on strength and wisdom, and becomes a zen archer.
both of which are corner cases.
I am getting really tired of the current meme that Fighters, Monks and Rogues suck. They don't. All three classes as a blast to play and are popular. Yes, for certain roles there can be better builds- so? And at the highest levels spellcasters rule- but few ever play up there.I'll let fighters slide.
The rogue has the problem of people being better than him in everyway. But the rogue is still useful.
Now monks on the other hand... They are subpar at a role that isn't useful. It's not a good thing. They are pretty good mage tanks, but others are better and mage tank is not a great role. My monk has problems being a normal tank. Not just people being better tanks, but me being completely unable to pull it off. The right monk build can be competent, but I wouldn't bring in a monk in a party of 4 or less.
a rogue to be anywhere near viable at damage, has to be a falchion wielding half orc with a high strength score, power attack, furious focus, and weapon focus.
a monk, to be a viable damage dealer, has to be an onispawn tiefling who focuses on strength and wisdom, and becomes a zen archer.
both of which are corner cases.
Rogue skills are nice. Their damage is low in combat, but it's still higher than most God-Wizards. Even though other classes do the job better, the rogue job still needs doing.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am getting really tired of the current meme that Fighters, Monks and Rogues suck. They don't. All three classes as a blast to play and are popular. Yes, for certain roles there can be better builds- so? And at the highest levels spellcasters rule- but few ever play up there.
The first is a really fancy car, lots of gizmos that does the job better. It gets you to a place, in style.
The second one, sure it gets you a place. You might even have some fun with it, but you need to spend an awful lot of feats to hold that bumper on.