You know, Umbriere, you are comparing Archetypes to the base Rogue class. This is about the functionality of the base class. So you're comparing grapefruits to oranges. They're not the same fruit. (The exception being the Slayer and Investigator, but they're still playtest classes.)
To be honest, a Fighter can be a trapfinder. All he needs is ranks in Disable Device. But that does not make him a GOOD trapfinder. This is what the Rogue does. And more. While other classes can replicate some elements of the Rogue, they don't replicate ALL elements of the Rogue. The Rogue is a functional and reasonable class. If your GM just bases the game on combat and doesn't bother including elements where the Rogue is meant to thrive, then it's not the rogue's fault.
the Archetypes i mentioned, can all be good trapfinders
and a lot of them, are either good faces, good scouts, spellcasters, decent combatants, or any combination of 2-3 the 4.
they all don't necessarily have to shine in combat
they are all archetypes that compete with the rogue at the rogues role, and are relevant to the rogue's fuctionality
Technically, thats only 7 classes, just 11 archetypes. Still, point is taken. The only real advantage a rogue has is full sneak attack progression (for those of us who really like backstabbing), and 2-4 more skills/level (and not even that with bard). So make the most of those I say. Also, there is a limited use of Disable Device that can only be used by rogues in the CRB.
that would be limited if the only allowed book, was the core rulebook
but the fact is, there is 2 Archetypes of Bard and 1 of Ranger whom could find traps in the advanced players guide
thing is, APG is considered just as core as the core rulebook in a lot of groups i heard of or witnessed
a true CRB only game, a rogue might be the only trapfinder, maybe. but i don't know anybody whom plays like that.
So what you're saying is that Archetypes make the base Rogue Class less desirable. Could not the same be said for Archetypes of any class compared to the Core basic classes?
And what of the Rogue Archetypes? Are they all useless as well?
The Rogue is no less functional just because an archetype can mimic some of the abilities of the Rogue. None of the official published archetypes and classes mimic ALL of the abilities of the Rogue.
relevant to the rogue's fuctionality
Actually they're not. We are looking at the rogue being functional in most/all situations which include combat. His role as a skill monkey out-of-combat has nothing to do with his functionality in combat. A functional character can play the whole game. Not just parts of it.
All of this has nothing to do with how well other classes may be able to do all these things and more.
Actually, his role as a skill monkey out-of-combat influences his functionality in combat. And let's face it. A wizard who runs out of spells is ineffectual. The rogue is more effective than a wizard in that situation.
With Offensive Defense and Acrobatics, a Rogue can take a move-action to Tumble past an enemy, flank him, and sneak attack. His armor class will increase as a result making him more difficult to hit. In all likelihood he'll have a Ring of Protection or an Amulet of Natural Armor (or both) to further improve his defensive abilities.
So a 5th level rogue with an 18 Dexterity, +1 studded leather, and a ring of protection +1 could tumble past a foe, flank him, sneak attack for an additional 3d6 damage, and be armor class 22 for the rest of that round. If he was smart he tumbled to an area where he was not flanked by several foes at once.
Acrobatics: In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics. When moving in this way, you move at half speed. You can move at full speed by increasing the DC of the check by 10. You cannot use Acrobatics to move past foes if your speed is reduced due to carrying a medium or heavy load or wearing medium or heavy armor. If an ability allows you to move at full speed under such conditions, you can use Acrobatics to move past foes. You can use Acrobatics in this way while prone, but doing so requires a full-round action to move 5 feet, and the DC is increased by 5. If you attempt to move though an enemy's space and fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity.
Actually, his role as a skill monkey out-of-combat influences his functionality in combat. And let's face it. A wizard who runs out of spells is ineffectual. The rogue is more effective than a wizard in that situation.
Once again. This is not about comparing to other classes.
How does is out-of-combat skill monkeying influence his functionality in combat? It would seem to me that "out-of-combat" is mutually exclusive from in combat. In combat skill monkeying includes feinting, intimidate builds, escape artist, stealth, acrobatics, UMD, and maybe even sleight-of-hand if you are clever (stealth into cover, rush out and swipe the wizards spell component pouch. The steal combat maneuver is for when they are observing you). Skill mastery is almost essential for this.
You also can't assume that you can flank, or that flanking is a good idea. No amount of acrobatics will change the existence of walls or choke points.
Being a functional rogue is very doable, but you have to get in the mindset that you want to ALWAYS be functional both in and out of combat. Functional is also a very low bar. Yes DPR of the rogue when not flanking won't be great, but it should still be noticeable. Base weapon damage can be easily ignored by low mid level monsters.
Actually, yes. It is. People are basing the functionality of the Rogue based off of Archetypes of other classes. You can't say that the Rogue is not functional because of other classes and then turn around and state you can't compare the fighting ability of a Rogue to that of a Wizard without spells.
------------
Out-of-combat skill abilities influence combat because by scouting ahead a rogue can find out about an ambush and thus prepare the party for the fight. Or she can negotiate better prices for found treasure and thus be able to buy better equipment.
And if an opponent is in a situation where flanking isn't an option? Then that happens. But a fighter can have his weapon sundered or be disarmed or tripped, and thus is no longer effective in that situation. But that does not mean the fighter is not functional just because an environmental situation resulted in his not being at optimal effectiveness.
So what you're saying is that Archetypes make the base Rogue Class less desirable. Could not the same be said for Archetypes of any class compared to the Core basic classes?
The answer is no.
|
So what you're saying is that Archetypes make the base Rogue Class less desirable. Could not the same be said for Archetypes of any class compared to the Core basic classes?The answer is no.
The only other one I'd say that I'd almost absolutely run an archetype for is Fighter.
Wizard, Cleric and Sorc I hardly will run an Archetype for them.
Druid, I might, but because I wanna be a doggy or pack lord or something.
Bard, I know I normally do, and when I do, its usually one of the 'rogue' archetypes. But I could play a bard base easily.
I don't play Paladins
Barb, typically invulnerable rager, but most of the time I don't play them.
Ranger, It fluxes
Rogues though.. I've started so many times trying to make one. Flipping around from archetype to archetype. Cause well anyone can disarm a DC less than 20 trap. I've had fighters in ADnD that were better trap monkies than rogues.
One of the big problems I'm noticing with some people here is that they attribute their imagination to their class. Like the one who had a rogue that lit some hay on fire, but ultimately didn't use anything from his class.
I had a big burly fighter in ADnD, who was partied with a cleric and Rogue. The Rogue was terrible at his job. Completely terrible. The player lacks imagination, and understanding of what his role in the group was suppose to be.
For me, I had this fighter. He wasn't dumb. But he became the trap dealer. Why? Well, huge amounts of HP, high con, Spell Resistance, A ring of Regen and his race converted a sizable amount of damage into non-lethal damage. But also, I'm imaginative.
We come into a dungeon where there is poison dart traps along the walls, and pressure plates on the center paths. I push the heavy stone door on its side, down the path, disabling each dart trap along the way. I keep pushing it down into another hall where spikes try to stabbity it to death, only to get stopped by the stone door, the mechanics break for this trap. I pull one of the metal spikes off the wall, and bring it with me, as the door was now stuck.
We get a little further in and the rogue moves ahead of me with the cleric. Suddenly the room we were in starts closing, and I quickly make a dex check to jam the spike into the door way, and again the mechanics fail for the trap as water starts pouring in on us. Because it couldn't get sealed though, the water harmlessly pours out of the room.
So even though I didn't have any ability to actually disable the traps via my mechanical skills, I managed to affect the scenes with the power of my imagination.
This however doesn't make Fighters good trap dealers (In ADnD) but makes me a very clever fellow.
|
With Kobold Groundling prone opponents lose their dexterity your attacks. I have yet to find a reliable way for small rogues to trip opponents.
Flensing Strike should also be mentioned since it vastly improves your chance of hitting once you sneaked an opponent. Doesn't work on creatures immune to bleeding damage, though.
Actually, yes. It is. People are basing the functionality of the Rogue based off of Archetypes of other classes. You can't say that the Rogue is not functional because of other classes and then turn around and state you can't compare the fighting ability of a Rogue to that of a Wizard without spells.
------------
Out-of-combat skill abilities influence combat because by scouting ahead a rogue can find out about an ambush and thus prepare the party for the fight. Or she can negotiate better prices for found treasure and thus be able to buy better equipment.
And if an opponent is in a situation where flanking isn't an option? Then that happens. But a fighter can have his weapon sundered or be disarmed or tripped, and thus is no longer effective in that situation. But that does not mean the fighter is not functional just because an environmental situation resulted in his not being at optimal effectiveness.
1) I'm not and neither is this thread.
2) Being able to use skills to create situations is all well and good, but that still doesn't excuse doing base weapon damage when you can't flank. More so considering that you don't have to build a dex rogue that way. I would I argue that feint and intimidate builds are not only better in combat, but also better skill monkeys because they invest in feats like skill focus to be better at combat. My one-handed feint build gets a +10 feat bonus to bluff at lvl 10. Now people can claim that the rogue class is not special for this, but few other classes would specialize in feinting so that they can use sneak attacks more.
One of the big problems I'm noticing with some people here is that they attribute their imagination to their class. Like the one who had a rogue that lit some hay on fire, but ultimately didn't use anything from his class.
The hay lighter did use stealth to sneak over and do that. With either talents Fast stealth or skillmastery it was very much him using class abilities.
Actually, his role as a skill monkey out-of-combat influences his functionality in combat. And let's face it. A wizard who runs out of spells is ineffectual. The rogue is more effective than a wizard in that situation.Once again. This is not about comparing to other classes.
How does is out-of-combat skill monkeying influence his functionality in combat? It would seem to me that "out-of-combat" is mutually exclusive from in combat. In combat skill monkeying includes feinting, intimidate builds, escape artist, stealth, acrobatics, UMD, and maybe even sleight-of-hand if you are clever (stealth into cover, rush out and swipe the wizards spell component pouch. The steal combat maneuver is for when they are observing you). Skill mastery is almost essential for this.
You also can't assume that you can flank, or that flanking is a good idea. No amount of acrobatics will change the existence of walls or choke points.
Being a functional rogue is very doable, but you have to get in the mindset that you want to ALWAYS be functional both in and out of combat. Functional is also a very low bar. Yes DPR of the rogue when not flanking won't be great, but it should still be noticeable. Base weapon damage can be easily ignored by low mid level monsters.
Once again, the out of combat skills come into play with gathering information, advanced scouting (i.e. becoming member of an organization) The mundane setting of fires including the moltov cocktail to the unflankable person lets you set up sneak attack. Or intimidate for a "debuff". Just because you won't accept any of this doesn't mean it won't work.
Once again, the out of combat skills come into play with gathering information, advanced scouting (i.e. becoming member of an organization) The mundane setting of fires including the moltov cocktail to the unflankable person lets you set up sneak attack. Or intimidate for a "debuff". Just because you won't accept any of this doesn't mean it won't work.Actually, his role as a skill monkey out-of-combat influences his functionality in combat. And let's face it. A wizard who runs out of spells is ineffectual. The rogue is more effective than a wizard in that situation.Once again. This is not about comparing to other classes.
How does is out-of-combat skill monkeying influence his functionality in combat? It would seem to me that "out-of-combat" is mutually exclusive from in combat. In combat skill monkeying includes feinting, intimidate builds, escape artist, stealth, acrobatics, UMD, and maybe even sleight-of-hand if you are clever (stealth into cover, rush out and swipe the wizards spell component pouch. The steal combat maneuver is for when they are observing you). Skill mastery is almost essential for this.
You also can't assume that you can flank, or that flanking is a good idea. No amount of acrobatics will change the existence of walls or choke points.
Being a functional rogue is very doable, but you have to get in the mindset that you want to ALWAYS be functional both in and out of combat. Functional is also a very low bar. Yes DPR of the rogue when not flanking won't be great, but it should still be noticeable. Base weapon damage can be easily ignored by low mid level monsters.
I'm starting to get the feeling that no one is reading what I post.
Also nothing about being on fire makes you flat footed. You can roll around on the ground for a +4 to the save, but even being on the ground doesn't make you 'flat footed'/dex denied.
Catching on Fire
Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and non-instantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don't normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.
Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character's clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out—that is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he's no longer on fire.
A character on fire may automatically extinguish the flames by jumping into enough water to douse himself. If no body of water is at hand, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus.
Those whose clothes or equipment catch fire must make DC 15 Reflex saves for each item. Flammable items that fail take the same amount of damage as the character.
Prone: The character is lying on the ground. A prone attacker has a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A prone defender gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.
Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
Would you think a person on fire has the ability to put the fire out and defend themselves at the same time? In my games that meets the condition of flat flooted for the purposes of sneak attack.
But lets go RAW. The bad guy drops prone to extinguish the flames. He just got easier to hit. If he stops defending himself that's an attack of opportunity. If he defends himself, he burns. If he withdraws to put the fire out one enemy is neutralized without sneak attack.
But lets go RAW. The bad guy drops prone to extinguish the flames. He just got easier to hit. If he stops defending himself that's an attack of opportunity. If he defends himself, he burns. If he withdraws to put the fire out one enemy is neutralized without sneak attack.
Foe is on fire.
Foe gets one reflex save per round DC 15 to put out the fire as a free action.Foe MAY roll on the ground for a +4 bonus to save.
A prone foe is easier to hit, but is not dex-denied
Standing up is an AOO, but they are still not dex denied.
I would like emphasize the foe doesn't have to go prone or spend actions on putting out the fire.
Would you think a person on fire has the ability to put the fire out and defend themselves at the same time? In my games that meets the condition of flat flooted for the purposes of sneak attack.
Yes. You can do whatever you want in your games.
THE GOAL OF THIS THREAD WAS ACCOMPLISHED by many builds and many different people.
So, since i read thru the many pages, and never found you admitting that a build met all your goalposts- which build is it? Whose and on what page? What time & date?
Post a link.
|
So, since i read thru the many pages, and never found you admitting that a build met all your goalposts- which build is it? Whose and on what page? What time & date?
Post a link.
Weeee another functional build! (Where does the bite attack come from?)
Just as one example, but there are plenty others if you go back and read the responses to some of the posts earlier on in the thread.
THE GOAL OF THIS THREAD WAS ACCOMPLISHED by many builds and many different people.
So, since i read thru the many pages, and never found you admitting that a build met all your goalposts- which build is it? Whose and on what page? What time & date?
Post a link.
1 |Combat Expertise, Skill Focus(Bluff)
2 |Finesse Rogue
3 |Deceitful
4 |Combat Trick(Improved Feint)
5 |Skill Focus(UMD)
6 |Minor Magic(Prestidigitation)
7 |Arcane Strike
8 |Major Magic(Silent Image)
9 |Greater Feint
10|Skill Mastery(Bluff, UMD, Stealth, Disable Device, Acrobatics)
11|Extra Rogue Talent(Opportunist)
12|Familiar
13|Improved Familiar(Small Air Elemental)
14|Crippling Strike
15|Extra Rogue talent(Dispelling Attack)
16|Feat(Combat Reflexes)
17|Extra Rogue Talent(Hard to fool)
18|Unwitting Ally
19|Quick Draw
20|Skill Mastery
*If mythic*
Mythic Feats: Weapon Finesse, Arcane Strike, Improved Familiar, Combat Expertise, Quickdraw
Mythic Path: Longevity, Impossible Speed, Fleet Warrior, Precision, Precision, Limitless Range, Unstoppable Shot, Perfect Strike, Critical Master, Critical Master
At lvl 11 with a +1 agile rapier and 22 dex
Feint + Opportunist + Arcane Strike = 2 sneak attacks at +15 to-hit for 7d6+10
Flanking + Haste + Opportunist + Arcane Strike =4 sneak attack at +18/+18/+18/+13 to-hit for 7d6+10
(rough math for fighter to-hit = 11-3+2+2+6 = 18, rough math on damage 2d6+22)
THE GOAL OF THIS THREAD WAS ACCOMPLISHED by many builds and many different people.
So, since i read thru the many pages, and never found you admitting that a build met all your goalposts- which build is it? Whose and on what page? What time & date?
Post a link.
** spoiler omitted **...
Well, Ok, but #3 isn't a build and on #4 the Builder specifically asked "So. Does this make the base Rogue class functional? ;)" and you never replied, so the assumption has to be that you found it lacking. #2 doesn't link to a build, that I can see.
That makes one build you agreed was functional.
THE GOAL OF THIS THREAD WAS ACCOMPLISHED by many builds and many different people.
So, since i read thru the many pages, and never found you admitting that a build met all your goalposts- which build is it? Whose and on what page? What time & date?
Post a link.
** spoiler omitted **...
Well, Ok, but #3 isn't a build and on #4 the Builder specifically asked "So. Does this make the base Rogue class functional? ;)" and you never replied, so the assumption has to be that you found it lacking. #2 doesn't link to a build, that I can see.
That makes one build you agreed was functional.
I've responded to every build. Any builds I problems with I had questions for. (which covers 4)
#3 specifically references a build in the thread and so does #2.
You're just being an ass. Harassing people for no reason.
