He's not burning feats on Feinting, mind you. He's burning feats on BLUFF...which helps to Feint.
And he'll likely end up a better bluffer then the Rogue when he wants to be, which is annoying.
Yes, the rogue NEEDS it more. Not disputing that in the slightest
And you can make a sorcerer who is better at feinting. Idk why you do that, much like I don't know why the bard is picking up things like improved feint, combat expertise, and greater feint.
Less reason to invest in Feinting is absolutely correct.
And the rogue really doesn't do it any better, although he has to. If the Bard is of a mind to feint, he WILL do it better, because he's a bard.The whole point is that the bard has no reason to do it. For a rogue feinting is a viable tactic(sneak attack + opportunist), for a bard it just makes the enemy potentially slightly easier to hit.
A bard shouldn't be wasting his feats on feint because he doesn't have class features that support it.
If a bard isn't burning feats on it, a feinting rogue will be better at bluffing.
Tis not a waste when the Bard gets a nice benefit and gets to target a lower AC for his trouble.
The Rogue on the otherhand is doing it so he can function at all.
...much like I don't know why the bard is picking up things like improved feint, combat expertise, and greater feint.He's not. He's building up his Bluff, which just so happens to make him that much better at feinting.
Improved feint does not improve bluff. Without that feat the bard is burning standard actions to set up an attack that might hit lower AC.
Tis not a waste when the Bard gets a nice benefit and gets to target a lower AC for his trouble.
The Rogue on the otherhand is doing it so he can function at all.
Considering that a bard could be full-attacking, feint is a waste of actions for him. It doesn't boost his DPR.
Concede on second point. Having a rogue completely dependent on flanking is non-functional.
Tis not a waste when the Bard gets a nice benefit and gets to target a lower AC for his trouble.
The Rogue on the otherhand is doing it so he can function at all.
Considering that a bard could be full-attacking, feint is a waste of actions for him. It doesn't boost his DPR.
Concede on second point. Having a rogue completely dependent on flanking is non-functional.
So a Two Weapon Feinting Bard isn't getting a DPR boost? If you have only one attack, feinting as a move action then striking seems a solid move to me.
Without that feat the bard is burning standard actions to set up an attack that might hit lower AC.And instead of burning feats to be relevant, he can burn them on teamwork feats to help his allies hit.
If his allies also take teamwork feats... You know because teamwork feats are awful for anyone not an NPC or an inquisitor.
Bards are feat starved and generally need all their feats for combat.
rangers can get good mileage out of them as well, since their animal companions can take them when they hit 3 int
Ugh... I just found a way for a druid to make their animal companion more dangerous than a rogue.
It doesn't happen until lvl 17 (use share spells to cast shapechange on pet), but that doesn't mean it isn't a little sad to think about (46 strength with form of the dragon III's natural attacks).
EDIT: Actually only 42 strength do to polymorphing size adjustment table
|
Rogues main stat is intelligence, we should focus on finding builds which concept gets supported by a high int score.
A rogue could get the master siege engineer feat + enlarge person to fire his indirect siege engine every round, aiming with his knowledge engineer skill check.
Or you could use the intelligence + master craftsman + "rogue talent which allows to trigger a trap as a swift action".
PFS doesn't allow a free creation world but otherwise you could go off crafting an automatically reset "colorspray" plate which triggers when touched, just like a floor but instead attached around your waist.
Make it a multitrap with "soundburst" so both triggers at once. Ask an NPC or PC to cast your spell. Both colorsray and soundburst stuns their victims in cones, with a Will/fortitude savecheck.
Then it would be easy to tie-up the enemy, sneak attack with a gun or acid orb wand or nonlethal weapons + sapmaster + Catch of guard + performer to intimidate all foes so that you next round can stun even easier. Just the ability to stun every round with the swift action should turn the rogue quite useful whatever he'll spend the rest of his round doing.
Why would you need NPC or PC to cast spells? With master craftsman that's just an increase of +5 per spell to the DC.
for the thread: rogues can now dirty trick/steal/sunder/disarm/trip someone in lieu of sneak attack damage (and at a -2 to hit, unfortunately--only to the initial attack roll, not the combat maneuver) via the 'sneaky maneuver' talent in Magical Marketplace.
might be helpful for folks.
|
Bleh.. if only there was a way to make up the loss of CMB for a rogue.
Why is a fighter better at combat steal than rogues?
And I really don't get why Paizo keeps giving Rogues penalties to their attack rolls with their talents. It takes all of their sneak attack damage, their swift action for the turn and also gives them a penalty to hit?
Why is a fighter better at combat steal than rogues?
Because Paizo thought sleight of hand isn't to bluff what steal is to feint.
Bleh.. if only there was a way to make up the loss of CMB for a rogue.
Why is a fighter better at combat steal than rogues?
And I really don't get why Paizo keeps giving Rogues penalties to their attack rolls with their talents. It takes all of their sneak attack damage, their swift action for the turn and also gives them a penalty to hit?
I'm surprised there isn't yet a rogue's talent or Archetype that says "A Rogue uses her Rogue level in place of her base attack bonus when calculating her Combat Maneuver Bonus. Base attack bonuses granted from other classes are unaffected and are added normally" or some variation that only applies to dirty trick/steal/whatever the designers felt necessary. Or even "A Rogue uses her Sleight of Hand skill bonus in place of her Combat Maneuver Bonus, when attempting a Dirty Trick or Steal combat maneuver."
|
Also.. Sunder/Disarm/Trip = All three of these could have been used in place of the melee attack in the first place. So.. like the one thing you're getting I guess with them is a small bit of damage.. provided your now reduced AB hits the enemy.
i see this as a very good talent when paired up with a debuffer rogue.
think of the enforcer/thug or cruel weapon enchant build, i hit you at my best attack against your ac, which is usually lower, apply the debuffs then get a cmb against you. with dueling FG i can get a massive boost to disarm attempts.
still not great, but its a pretty cool path you might be able to make use of.
|
|
Well there is a slight of hand to disarm for an advanced talent.
And I don't really see it being a good talent when paired up with a debuffer rogue. Mostly because you could do the three I mentioned pretty much the same way, without using up your swift action and using your attack instead.. being able to get them off just a little more likely.
Cause as is, you have to roll two times, hitting the enemy both types to get the maneuver off. The first roll is at a -2 penalty. Then after you've done that, you lose your sneak attack damage. Followed by using up your swift. Then you get the second roll.
Compared to just using your first attack where you roll only once.
Maybe.. /maybe/ if your level of SA did something in it. Then perhaps.
I see it better as a debuffer for a fighter. Take one level of Rogue then go fighter the rest of the way. Preferably the Lore master one.
|
Bring back some good 3.5 stuff:
Ring of Blink, 3.5 version: SA with every attack
Staggering strike: Fort save vs damage dealt by a sneak attack or be staggered.
Finesseable reach weapons (besides whip which needs 3 feats to be useful)
Companion Guard Style: Finesse a longspear
(that combo + spring attack allowed me to defeat on a titan, mano-a-mano at 15th level)
Well, Ultimate combat errata out. One of the useless talents upgraded slightly.
Esotric Scholar however still remained untouched. At least fix the wording on it so its once per day you may make an untrained knowledge check. RAW once having it, you can only make a single knowledge check a day, trained or not.
Bring back some good 3.5 stuff:
Ring of Blink, 3.5 version: SA with every attack
Staggering strike: Fort save vs damage dealt by a sneak attack or be staggered.
Finesseable reach weapons (besides whip which needs 3 feats to be useful)
Companion Guard Style: Finesse a longspear
(that combo + spring attack allowed me to defeat on a titan, mano-a-mano at 15th level)
which three feats?
at the very least you can do lethal damage off the bat via a scorpion whip (and still deal nonlethal at no penalty with the blade of mercy trait if that tickles your fancy).
|
|
So, respectfully, I come here to ask rogue players a question:
A lot of folks are suggesting Skill Mastery > UMD. As far as I can tell, Skill Mastery does not remove the "cannot take 10" restriction on UMD. It only removes the stress and distractions restriction from taking 10.
Before someone says "specific overrides general" -- skill mastery does not specifically allow you to take 10 on a skill that cannot be taken 10 on.
I know this is like asking the foxes why they should be allowed into the henhouse, but perhaps I'm missing something here and don't mind if someone can prove SM allows take 10 on UMD.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So, respectfully, I come here to ask rogue players a question:
A lot of folks are suggesting Skill Mastery > UMD. As far as I can tell, Skill Mastery does not remove the "cannot take 10" restriction on UMD. It only removes the stress and distractions restriction from taking 10.
Before someone says "specific overrides general" -- skill mastery does not specifically allow you to take 10 on a skill that cannot be taken 10 on.
I know this is like asking the foxes why they should be allowed into the henhouse, but perhaps I'm missing something here and don't mind if someone can prove SM allows take 10 on UMD.
Relevant texts from the PRD:
The rogue becomes so confident in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions.
Upon gaining this ability, she selects a number of skills equal to 3 + her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so. A rogue may gain this special ability multiple times, selecting additional skills for skill mastery to apply to each time.
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.
Special: You cannot take 10 with this skill. You can't aid another on Use Magic Device checks. Only the user of the item may attempt such a check.
You can't take 10 with UMD regardless of 'danger or distraction'. Skill Mastery only negates the 'danger and disctraction' clause. So Skill Mastery doesn't apply to UMD.
Let's get philosophical. If you go out to buy a raincoat that is "guaranteed to keep you dry, even in the toughest weather conditions" would you ask the shopkeeper if said raincoat also would keep you dry in ordinary rainy weather or when getting sprayed with a hose? Of course not, because you would rightly assume that the "guaranteed to keep you dry" part of the sentence is a statement about the general characteristics of the raincoat and the "even if" part of the sentence is there to provide an example of a situation that still does not compromise the garment's general ability to keep you try.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wait is the rogue the raincoat or is this thread the raincoat
or is life the raincoat and this thread is the rain
or is the dead horse wearing the raincoat
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's get philosophical. If you go out to buy a raincoat that is "guaranteed to keep you dry, even in the toughest weather conditions" would you ask the shopkeeper if said raincoat also would keep you dry in ordinary rainy weather or when getting sprayed with a hose? Of course not, because you would rightly assume that the "guaranteed to keep you dry" part of the sentence is a statement about the general characteristics of the raincoat and the "even if" part of the sentence is there to provide an example of a situation that still does not compromise the garment's general ability to keep you try.
If we're getting philosophical I'm all in.
Premise 1: you can perform X
Premise 2: If W, Y, Z occur you cannot perform X
Premise 3: X' cannot be done
Premise 4: W, Y, Z are prevented from occuring
Conclusion: You can perform X'
this is a false conclusion, that does not follow from the premises. In this case X stands for a particular skill check. W, Y, and Z are stand ins for circumstances that prevent X. X' is the special clause on UMD that prevents it from being synonymous with X. The conclusion does not follow because X' does not equal X even when the conditions for X are met.
Now if you can show that X'=X we would have a valid conclusion to draw from the reading.
I do see where your coming from, in that you see the latter half of the sentence as a non all encompassing example. However, we have two competing rules and neither appears to have the specific>general upper-hand.
Let's get philosophical. If you go out to buy a raincoat that is "guaranteed to keep you dry, even in the toughest weather conditions" would you ask the shopkeeper if said raincoat also would keep you dry in ordinary rainy weather or when getting sprayed with a hose? Of course not, because you would rightly assume that the "guaranteed to keep you dry" part of the sentence is a statement about the general characteristics of the raincoat and the "even if" part of the sentence is there to provide an example of a situation that still does not compromise the garment's general ability to keep you try.
But if we carry this analogy further and provide the restriction "You can not stay dry while swimming", would you still expect a raincoat to keep you dry when you are swimming laps?
UMD does not say you can not take 10 if under stress. It says you can't take 10. Period.
...we have two competing rules and neither appears to have the specific>general upper-hand.
Really this is the issue. Which text takes precedence? Since it's not clear it is up to interpretation. It would be great to hear an official ruling on this matter, since I've seen it come up many times on different threads without clear resolution.
My thought is that since most skills do not say you can't take 10, and the UMD skill is the more specific of the two rules, I would rule that the text there is more important.
...we have two competing rules and neither appears to have the specific>general upper-hand.Really this is the issue. Which text takes precedence? Since it's not clear it is up to interpretation. It would be great to hear an official ruling on this matter, since I've seen it come up many times on different threads without clear resolution.
My thought is that since most skills do not say you can't take 10, and the UMD skill is the more specific of the two rules, I would rule that the text there is more important.
Class features, talents, feats and etc all allow you to do out of the ordinary abilities. They are the more specific ruling.
Skill Mastery allows you to take 10 AND use UMD in distracting situations.
...we have two competing rules and neither appears to have the specific>general upper-hand.Really this is the issue. Which text takes precedence? Since it's not clear it is up to interpretation. It would be great to hear an official ruling on this matter, since I've seen it come up many times on different threads without clear resolution.
My thought is that since most skills do not say you can't take 10, and the UMD skill is the more specific of the two rules, I would rule that the text there is more important.
Class features, talents, feats and etc all allow you to do out of the ordinary abilities. They are the more specific ruling.
Skill Mastery allows you to take 10 AND use UMD in distracting situations.
Scavion, your just making the statement that it's the more specific rule. That's different then showing it.
You are in fact correct that class abilities are usually more specific then the general rules of a feat.
However, the cannot take 10 is not part of the normal rule. It's under the Special section of the skill. Whenever we see the special segment of a skill it's normally providing a specific to the general rule.
Now, can you cite evidence where the specific of a class ability override the specific of the special section of a skill or something similar?
I hope your game is truly enriched by this debate. However this is a semantics debate. Normally Use Magic Device is not a skill that can Take 10. A Rogue Ability says you may take 10 while avoiding distraction with a set number of skills. The Rogue ability does not disallow you from selecting Use Magic Device as one of these skills.
But here, I'll make a Rules thread just for yall.
And it's back :)
*dusts off his club*
FYI: Skill mastery let's you take 10 on UMD. No ifs ans or buts. Go to the rules forum for inane arguments to the contrary.
Do not bring this thread back.
*sensing that rogues will be the next thread series after paladins this time*
And it's back :)
Been playing Thief. Makes me wish Rogues were cooler.
And it's back :)Been playing Thief. Makes me wish Rogues were cooler.
*cries*
FYI: Skill mastery let's you take 10 on UMD. No ifs ans or buts. Go to the rules forum for inane arguments to the contrary.
Do not bring this thread back.
*sensing that rogues will be the next thread series after paladins this time*
Here's the rules forum thread containing my inane arguments to the contrary.
*cries*And it's back :)Been playing Thief. Makes me wish Rogues were cooler.
Fooling around with making a Base class designed off of Thief mechanics with a Focus Pool.
its a cycle, it goes Rogue sucks/fix- monk sucks/fix- paladin falls/falls/moral arguments/still falls and back to rogues. with a smattering of other things with other classes trying to push through the cracks.
*sensing that rogues will be the next thread series after paladins this time*
you left out an important one. After monk sucks/fix, it goes martials are under powered sucks/fix. this inevitably leads someone to point out how awesome paladins are, which in turn leads to paladin falls/falls/moral arguments/still falls and back to rogues.
how could you possibly forget this? ;)
I wonder if the new responses will just be copy pasted?