VIvisectionist buff themselves quietly, they do more damage too. They ca get trapfinding with a trait, become invisible by themselves, have good skills (cause Int is a main stat for them)
They can also be pretty good at social skills with a trait and excel beyond the rogue with it. Rogue isn't inherently good with social skills as is.
Human Vivisectionist Alchemist 9/Pathfinder Delver 1 20 Pointbuy
Traits: Deathtouched, Reincarnated
Str:10
Dex:18(20)(Ability score increases +2)
Con:14
Int:16(18)(+2 Human)
Wis:10
Cha:10
Human Sanctified Rogue 9/Urban Barbarian 1
Traits: Indomitable Faith/Fast-Talker-Dual talent
Str:10 Dex:20 Con:14 Int:13 Wis:14 Cha:10
Feats:
1: Combat Expertise, Skill Focus(Bluff)
3: Weapon Finesse
5: Two Weapon Fighting
7: Two Weapon Feint
8: Skill Focus(Perception)
9: Improved Feint
Feats:
1:Combat Expertise3:Skill Focus(Bluff)
5:Two Weapon Feint
7:Improved Two Weapon Feint
9:Skill Focus(Perception)
Rogue Talents:
2:Weapon Finesse
4:Two Weapon Fighting
6:Weapon focus
8:Ofennsive defense
Gear:
+1 Agile Light Mace
+1 Agile Dagger
Cloak of Resistance +3
Eyes of the Eagle
Trapspringer's Gloves
+3 Mithril Chainshirt
Belt of Incredible Dexterity +2
Headband of Vast Intelligence +2
Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier
Ring of Protection +1
Wayfinder equipped with Clear Spindle
Approximately 4.6k gold remaining
+1 Agile Short Sword
+1 Agile Short SwordCloak of Resistance +3
Eyes of the Eagle
Trapspringer's Gloves
+2 Silken cerimonial
Belt of Incredible Dexterity +2
Ring of Protection +1
Boots of haste
masterwork thives' tools
continue.......
VIvisectionist buff themselves quietly, they do more damage too. They ca get trapfinding with a trait, become invisible by themselves, have good skills (cause Int is a main stat for them)
Totally forgot about alchemist are silent casters.
Yeah I retract my statement. Alchemist can totally do everything this guy is asking for with the right build (maybe a one level dip into archaeologist bard)
@Leonardo Trancoso
Don't know how you have +6 BAB by level 7
The reason the rogue is the only one that can handle the aforementioned type of situation is that the rogue is the only one that can do all of those things, at the same time, quietly.No, he isn't. Bards, Alchemists, Rangers and Inquisitors can do it all too.
And even if you can make the casting work to substitute for all the Rogue's skills, you still have a hard time taking the mooks out quietly, consistently, before they can sound the alarm, which has to be seen ultimately as the true purpose of Sneak Attack.If you have to deal damage, though... Sneak Attack is not the most effective way. Simply Power Attacking with a full BAB class can be just as good. If the enemy can be taken down with a single SA, ti's not much of a threat... If a full attack is necessary, then the other classes do it better most of the time.
BTW, Trap Finding as boring as it is, is now a trait away... So Rogues don't even have that going for them anymore.
Even the vivisectionist (which has, btw, been made illegal in Society play and is therefore a questionable archetype in the first place)I strongly disagree with the notion that PFS-illegal material is "questionable". I don't see how PFS is any more valid than any other set of house rules.
We're going to go in circles as long as you keep ignoring my central thesis. Rogues can do all the necessary stuff at the same time. Sure the full BAB PA attaching guy (presumably a Ranger, in this argument?) might (and that's still a maybe but I'll grant it for the sake of argument) be able to do more damage than the SA Rogue, but he's still going to have trouble doing all the other things a James Bond needs to do too.
As far as the mooks being not much of a threat...you do know that's basically the meaning of the word mook, yes? The threat they represent is not in and of themself, but in their ability to raise the alarm. Now, that said I will grant your point, to some degree. But again you have missed the point of my post.
The point of what i said was that, yes, Rogues are crappy unless the GM basically creates situations (like the ones mentioned) wherein they are the only ones who can get it done. In other words, you have to cater the game to them in order to make them useful.
The counter to this is, however, that theoretically that kind of catering shouldn't really be such a stretch. Those kinds of situations really should crop up far more than they do. Anyway, at this point we get into some really deep meta arguments that you could seriously write a thesis on, and I don't really want to spend all afternoon having them.
Rogues can do all the necessary stuff at the same time.
So can all of those characters.
VIvisectionist buff themselves quietly, they do more damage too. They ca get trapfinding with a trait, become invisible by themselves, have good skills (cause Int is a main stat for them)Totally forgot about alchemist are silent casters.
Yeah I retract my statement. Alchemist can totally do everything this guy is asking for with the right build (maybe a one level dip into archaeologist bard)
I'll give this a maybe. But, again, you really do have to take into account the fact that you are going to run into tables where the GM (for better or worse- I don't want to have that argument now either) is simply not going to allow PFS-illegal material.
Rogues can do all the necessary stuff at the same time.So can all of those characters.
Took the words out of my... keyboard, I suppose.
Took the words out of my... keyboard, I suppose.Rogues can do all the necessary stuff at the same time.So can all of those characters.
You type pretty well for someone who I stole the letter A from!
I'll give this a maybe. But, again, you really do have to take into account the fact that you are going to run into tables where the GM (for better or worse- I don't want to have that argument now either) is simply not going to allow PFS-illegal material.VIvisectionist buff themselves quietly, they do more damage too. They ca get trapfinding with a trait, become invisible by themselves, have good skills (cause Int is a main stat for them)Totally forgot about alchemist are silent casters.
Yeah I retract my statement. Alchemist can totally do everything this guy is asking for with the right build (maybe a one level dip into archaeologist bard)
GMs can also just ban rogues. I know I do.
Rogues can do all the necessary stuff at the same time.So can all of those characters.
They really can't, or at least not without considerable fiddling/dipping etc. You've got to deal with infiltration, social situations, physical obstacles and (quiet, swift) mook dispatching all at once.
The only ones I will grant you are the Ninja, which I am considering the same class, and possibly the Vivisectionist, which for better or worse brings up the PFS issue.
GMs can also just ban rogues. I know I do.
PFS gives precedent. You can mock it, or you can deal with it maturely as a reality.
They really can't, or at least not without considerable fiddling/dipping etc. You've got to deal with infiltration, social situations, physical obstacles and (quiet, swift) mook dispatching all at once.Rogues can do all the necessary stuff at the same time.So can all of those characters.
Which are all things those classes can do...
Mind you quiet/swift is dependent on a lot of things. Sneak attack isn't death attack, or is it inherently quiet. It depends on how you define those things.
You could gestalt fighter and rogue together and the Vivisectionist would still be better for what you are asking for.
Mind you quiet/swift is dependent on a lot of things. Sneak attack isn't...inherently quiet. It depends on how you define those things.
Normally I don't rest on this kind of argument, but in this case... Dude. Man. The word sneak is in the title!
We're going to go in circles as long as you keep ignoring my central thesis. Rogues can do all the necessary stuff at the same time. Sure the full BAB PA attaching guy (presumably a Ranger, in this argument?) might (and that's still a maybe but I'll grant it for the sake of argument) be able to do more damage than the SA Rogue, but he's still going to have trouble doing all the other things a James Bond needs to do too.
As far as the mooks being not much of a threat...you do know that's basically the meaning of the word mook, yes? The threat they represent is not in and of themself, but in their ability to raise the alarm. Now, that said I will grant your point, to some degree. But again you have missed the point of my post.
The point of what i said was that, yes, Rogues are crappy unless the GM basically creates situations (like the ones mentioned) wherein they are the only ones who can get it done. In other words, you have to cater the game to them in order to make them useful.
The counter to this is, however, that theoretically that kind of catering shouldn't really be such a stretch. Those kinds of situations really should crop up far more than they do. Anyway, at this point we get into some really deep meta arguments that you could seriously write a thesis on, and I don't really want to spend all afternoon having them.
Friend. The Vivisectionist Mindchemist Alchemist is almost a complete upgrade from the Rogue. He can stealth, he can pick locks, disable traps, bluff, and he fights better than the Rogue.
The Rogue can get a few feats over him.
If Vivisectionist is off the table, Beastmorph can easily make up for the damage as he switches to a more strength centric build. (14 Strength is good enough)
Rogues excel when you need to stealthily infiltrate a place that is prepared for magic use and that has a combination of traps, locks and mook guards. In other words, they need to do James Bond/Alias stuff. Go to the socialite party being held in the dictator's palace, slip away, quietly kill a few guards, get past the traps and locks, steal the McGuffin, smuggle it to your peeps waiting outside, return to the party like nothing happened. That sort of thing.
Alchemist takes 10s on stealth for score of 28. Can be a 33 with Shadow Armor. Can be a 53 with Invisibility. A Rogue can't kill level appropriate guards in one turn so thats a wash. My Alchemist has plenty of room for Disguise and he has Alter Self and Disguise Self. He becomes a completely different person. Slips away easily since he has a great stealth check, bluffs and says he's going to the Restroom. Disables the traps and locks while invisible, then flies out.
The really important thing is if any of these things goes wrong, the Alchemist can fight his way out reliably. Solo, a Rogue has few options to get Sneak Attack. He relies on feinting and getting surprise which the Alchemist can be just as good at.
GMs can also just ban rogues. I know I do.PFS gives precedent. You can mock it, or you deal with it maturely as a reality.
PFS doesn't ban things for being OP, they ban things for flavor, mechanics that don't work in organised play, and classes that would take up too much time during their turn.
From PFS our group takes the 20 point buy and not having to roll for health.
Skills(92 points):
Acrobatics: +10(5 ranks)
Bluff: +21 (10 ranks)
Perception: +29 (10 ranks)
Kn.(History): +11 (4 ranks)
Disable Device: +25 (10 ranks)
Stealth: +18 (10 ranks)
UMD +13(10 ranks)
(33 points left for free)
Bluff: +21
Perception: +30Disable Device: +30
DEFENSES
HP: 78
AC: 24(31 with Mutagen boosting Dex and Barkskin)
Fort:+9(+6 vs Poison) Ref:+9 Will:+6(Immune to possesions and mental control)OFFENSES:
This guy gets completely outrageous with buffs.
Melee Attack Bonus: +10/+10/+5 (+6 BAB +1 Wpn +5 Dex)
Ranged Attack Bonus: +12/+6
Full Buffed Attack Bonus: +17/+17/+12 Breakdown: 6(BAB)+7(Dex)+1(Wpn)+2(Morale)+2(Invis)+1(Haste)
Buffs: Heroism, Mutagen, Haste, Greater Invisibility (He can supply himself with all of these)
Damage: 1d6+10+5d6, 1d6+10+5d6 and 1d4+10+5d6 or 1d4+10+5d6, 1d4+10+5d6 and 1d6+10+5d6 However one of these is likely to be dropped to feint.
HP: 76
AC: 19(27 hase/rage/ofennsive)Fort:+11 Ref:+15 Will:+10
Melee Attack Bonus: +12/+12/+7(+7 BAB +1 wfocus +1magic +5 Dex)
Ranged Attack Bonus: +13/+7
Full Buffed Attack Bonus: +15/+15/+10 Breakdown:+7(Dex)rage/+7bab/+1wf/+1magic/+1haste/-2twf
damage: 1d6+8+5d6
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You type pretty well for someone who I stole the letter A from!
I expect to see it returned by tomorrow morning. Do you know how difficult it is to write without this letter? Well, you were kind enough to let me keep the letter E, so I suppose it could be worse.
Except I often need to type in Portuguese. The one letter you stole is very common in Portuguese, just like E is in English.
So, this is my request for you to return the letter. It's mine by right.
BTW, I tried typing without it. It's been difficult (not to mention, pointless).
|
Rogues can do all the necessary stuff at the same time.So can all of those characters.They really can't, or at least not without considerable fiddling/dipping etc. You've got to deal with infiltration, social situations, physical obstacles and (quiet, swift) mook dispatching all at once.
The only ones I will grant you are the Ninja, which I am considering the same class, and possibly the Vivisectionist, which for better or worse brings up the PFS issue.
Yeah, we don't need a Vivi for this job. Any Alchemist can do the job just as well unless we're going to pretend like the spike damage from SA is really important here.
Vivi was banned because it was "evil" and evil isn't allowed in PFS, not for balance concerns. The Alch can still become an invisible 4 Armed Gargoyle and rip the throat out of anything before it can have a chance to scream for about 600 rounds. And that's just one solution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So in a set of circumstances where the character in question has to infiltrate a social party, inside an anti-magic field of some kind, sneakily sneak himself away, find and disable various traps, which are magical since he needs to justify Trap Finding, and subdue mooks that are just strong enough that a normal attack won't kill them but just weak enough that a sneak attack will... The rogue might be the right class for the job.
As long as the GM is enforcing PFS rules.
That's not really a particularly strong argument for the rogue.
Conversely I could argue that the Life Oracle is an excellent damage dealer - as long as he only fights undead, which are all low level, and attack in giant packs, and have taken commoner hostages that are interspersed within the giant packs of undead and would die instantly to any traditional aoe attack.
Mind you quiet/swift is dependent on a lot of things. Sneak attack isn't...inherently quiet. It depends on how you define those things.Normally I don't rest on this kind of argument, but in this case... Dude. Man. The word sneak is in the title!
I know it has sneak in the title. That doesn't make it sneaky though. It doesn't make it mute or quiet anymore than anyone else's attack.
BTW, typing without it's been difficult (not to mention, pointless).
Totally worth it. I was cracking up when I figured out what you were doing. I'd say my smile is worth it, but I might be biased.
To some degree, I like to play devil's advocate on these boards. I am playing a Rogue in Reign of Winter, and have oft-lamented the exact kinds of complaints a lot of people here have raised. Still, I think Rogues do take more than their fair share of abuse. The only class that might genuinely undercut every bit of the Rogue's usefulness is, admittedly, the Alchemist.
And you might still play a Rogue just to avoid spell-juggling. Also, in a properly fantasy-Shadowrun style game, you'd likely have anti-magic auras protecting about half of everything important. It would be equivalent to the way half of the scenarios in Shadowrun involve isolated systems that aren't connected to the Matrix.
So in a set of circumstances where the character in question has to infiltrate a social party, inside an anti-magic field of some kind, sneakily sneak himself away, find and disable various traps, which are magical since he needs to justify Trap Finding, and subdue mooks that are just strong enough that a normal attack won't kill them but just weak enough that a sneak attack will... The rogue might be the right class for the job.
As long as the GM is enforcing PFS rules.
That's not really a particularly strong argument for the rogue.
Conversely I could argue that the Life Oracle is an excellent damage dealer - as long as he only fights undead, which are all low level, and attack in giant packs, and have taken commoner hostages that are interspersed within the giant packs of undead and would die instantly to any traditional aoe attack.
The rogue also needs to be high enough level for Trapfinding to even be usable. The weakest magical traps have DC26 to spot and DC26 to disarm, and failing the disarm check by 5 makes it blow up in your face. At low levels you're as likely to set off the trap as you are to actually disarm it.
We also need to not use traits (so nobody else can pick up Trapfinding or a couple of class skills) and ban the Silent Spell feat.
|
|
To some degree, I like to play devil's advocate on these boards. I am playing a Rogue in Reign of Winter, and have oft-lamented the exact kinds of complaints a lot of people here have raised. Still, I think Rogues do take more than their fair share of abuse. The only class that might genuinely undercut every bit of the Rogue's usefulness is, admittedly, the Alchemist.
And you might still play a Rogue just to avoid spell-juggling. Also, in a properly fantasy-Shadowrun style game, you'd likely have anti-magic auras protecting about half of everything important.
I question this second part. Magic is used for EVERYTHING, so having tons of anti magic zones would be counter productive. Anywhere worth having something is a place worth having magic. No one's going to shut down their biggest advantage on the chance it'll be used against them. Not like Shadowrun is full of radio shielding in every building, since it'd stop their own signals from getting out, and any business kind of needs to be connected to others to run. At least the most recent edition, as I haven't played earlier ones.
So in a set of circumstances where the character in question has to infiltrate a social party, inside an anti-magic field of some kind, sneakily sneak himself away, find and disable various traps, which are magical since he needs to justify Trap Finding, and subdue mooks that are just strong enough that a normal attack won't kill them but just weak enough that a sneak attack will... The rogue might be the right class for the job.
As long as the GM is enforcing PFS rules.
That's not really a particularly strong argument for the rogue.
Lol, you're right. Thank you for correctly understanding my argument.
Bluff: +21
Perception: +30
Disable Device: +30
Just so you know, most trap DCs don't go past 34. Magic traps cap there and my Alchemist can take 10s on Disable Device. And if we're just walking through the dungeon I can take 10s on my Perception check.
And my saves weren't calculated with Buffs in play so I'll do that for you here.
Fort:+11(+6 vs Poison) Reflex: +13 Will: +8
I also forgot to put my haste attack in my full attack as did you. So its,
+15/+15/+15/+10
Its also interesting that your Rogue still ends up doing less.
I question this second part. Magic is used for EVERYTHING, so having tons of anti magic zones would be counter productive. Anywhere worth having something is a place worth having magic. No one's going to shut down their biggest advantage on the chance it'll be used against them. Not like Shadowrun is full of radio shielding in every building, since it'd stop their own signals from getting out, and any business kind of needs to be connected to others to run. At least the most recent edition, as I haven't played earlier ones.To some degree, I like to play devil's advocate on these boards. I am playing a Rogue in Reign of Winter, and have oft-lamented the exact kinds of complaints a lot of people here have raised. Still, I think Rogues do take more than their fair share of abuse. The only class that might genuinely undercut every bit of the Rogue's usefulness is, admittedly, the Alchemist.
And you might still play a Rogue just to avoid spell-juggling. Also, in a properly fantasy-Shadowrun style game, you'd likely have anti-magic auras protecting about half of everything important.
I disagree, and I edited my above post slightly to explain at the same time as you were typing this. Anti-magic zones in this kind of game would be the equivalent of non-Matrix connected systems in Shadowrun. They'd be the minority, but still quite common, for exactly the same kinds of reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Totally worth it. I was cracking up when I figured out what you were doing. I'd say my smile is worth it, but I might be biased.
Haha, I'll take it. A smile for a few harmless words is a good deal in my book. ^^
We also need to not use traits (so nobody else can pick up Trapfinding or a couple of class skills) and ban the Silent Spell feat.
The Silent Spell issue, at least, I have dealt with already. Spell juggling raises all kinds of significant issues that the Rogue doesn't have to deal with, especially when you have to modify everything you're casting with a metamagic feat.
Anyway, seriously, please, read Kudaku's post above. He is the only one who seems to have entirely understood what I am saying. I have only ever been making an extremely limited argument in the Rogue's favor. I am far from the champion of Rogueyness that I am being painted as. The class is weak. But it's not useless, and it may have serious potential in relatively unexplored, but totally legit styles of more Shadowrun-like play.
So in a set of circumstances where the character in question has to infiltrate a social party, inside an anti-magic field of some kind, sneakily sneak himself away, find and disable various traps, which are magical since he needs to justify Trap Finding, and subdue mooks that are just strong enough that a normal attack won't kill them but just weak enough that a sneak attack will... The rogue might be the right class for the job.
As long as the GM is enforcing PFS rules.
That's not really a particularly strong argument for the rogue.
Conversely I could argue that the Life Oracle is an excellent damage dealer - as long as he only fights undead, which are all low level, and attack in giant packs, and have taken commoner hostages that are interspersed within the giant packs of undead and would die instantly to any traditional aoe attack.
The rogue also needs to be high enough level for Trapfinding to even be usable. The weakest magical traps have DC26 to spot and DC26 to disarm, and failing the disarm check by 5 makes it blow up in your face. At low levels you're as likely to set off the trap as you are to actually disarm it.
We also need to not use traits (so nobody else can pick up Trapfinding or a couple of class skills) and ban the Silent Spell feat.
Oh, oh... My turn!
And those magic traps must somehow work inside that AMF.
And even then... I still think Rangers do a better job! Especially if they take a single 1 level dip in Urban Barbarian. :)
|
|
I disagree, and I edited my above post slightly to explain at the same time as you were typing this. Anti-magic zones in this kind of game would be the equivalent of non-Matrix connected systems in Shadowrun. They'd be the minority, but still quite common, for exactly the same kinds of reasons.
Non interface zones aren't the same as non magic zone. I'm almost certain you still have your tech upgrades there, adepts still work fine there, as do a lot of other things.
Most of the things that challenge you in PF utilize magic in some way or another (Spells, SLAs, SU abilities), so again an anti magic field completely removes those options.
Dead tech zones don't really shut off a character in the same way that an anti magic field shuts off most PF characters, especially since other than the Rogue(Ninja?)/Fighter/Cavalier/Gunslinger/Barbarian(?), everyone has SOME magic.
Bluff: +21
Perception: +30
Disable Device: +30Just so you know, most trap DCs don't go past 34. Magic traps cap there and my Alchemist can take 10s on Disable Device. And if we're just walking through the dungeon I can take 10s on my Perception check.
And my saves weren't calculated with Buffs in play so I'll do that for you here.
Fort:+11(+6 vs Poison) Reflex: +13 Will: +8
I also forgot to put my haste attack in my full attack as did you. So its,
+15/+15/+15/+10
Its also interesting that your Rogue still ends up doing less.
As i said, I´m just comparing similar builds using a rogue. That rogue isn´t a good build, and it is still better than this alchemist at some points, using the same build line. I will post a good rogue buil later.
I disagree, and I edited my above post slightly to explain at the same time as you were typing this. Anti-magic zones in this kind of game would be the equivalent of non-Matrix connected systems in Shadowrun. They'd be the minority, but still quite common, for exactly the same kinds of reasons.Non interface zones aren't the same as non magic zone. I'm almost certain you still have your tech upgrades there, adepts still work fine there, as do a lot of other things.
Most of the things that challenge you in PF utilize magic in some way or another (Spells, SLAs, SU abilities), so again an anti magic field completely removes those options.
Dead tech zones don't really shut off a character in the same way that an anti magic field shuts off most PF characters, especially since other than the Rogue(Ninja?)/Fighter/Cavalier/Gunslinger/Barbarian(?), everyone has SOME magic.
Obviously, it's not going to be an exact parallel. The point is that it is definitely going to exist in that kind of game, and probably not uncommonly. Also bear in mind, it would hardly be the only defense. You'd likely have layers of magical security with the dead magic zone in the center, guarding the McGuffin. Or alternating layers of each, etc. You'd get all the crazy permutations of security options that you get in Shadowrun.
The new People of Sands book puts the ability to disable magic traps in the form of a trait.
Mostly, this thread will end being Rogue fans stomping their foot, and saying "Nuh uh, Rogue is like, ta super kewl strong man".
Then, someone will provide numerical evidence to show the underpowered nature of of the Rogue.
Later, someone will say something snarky, and hurtful to Rogue fans.
Posts will be deleted.
Thread will be locked.
We can still have fun in the meantime though.
Word
|
|
As i said, I´m just comparing similar builds using a rogue. That rogue isn´t a good build, and it is still better than this alchemist at some points, using the same build line. I will post a good rogue buil later.
Ooh, I'm looking forward to seeing that, I might build an Alchemist for comparison, been too long since I statted out a full build, could use it in one of my games too.
The new People of Sands book puts the ability to disable magic traps in the form of a trait.
Mostly, this thread will end being Rogue fans stomping their foot, and saying "Nuh uh, Rogue is like, ta super kewl strong man".
Then, someone will provide numerical evidence to show the underpowered nature of of the Rogue.
Later, someone will say something snarky...
Later?
|
|
Obviously, it's not going to be an exact parallel. The point is that it is definitely going to exist in that kind of game, and probably not uncommonly. Also bear in mind, it would hardly be the only defense. You'd likely have layers of magical security with the dead magic zone in the center, guarding the McGuffin. Or alternating layers of each, etc. You'd get all the crazy permutations of security options that you get in Shadowrun.
I'll admit in more of a Rogue's World sort of setting it would work, and the idea sounds fun, but default setting is that AMFs are rare and wondrous (and I'd assume hard to be made permanent.) It's more problems with the game that make the Rogue a 5th wheel with the skill changes and traps being so hit or miss.
No one here is denying the fun in running a roguish character, but it's the second that roguish chap becomes a Rogue that the fun bus comes to a screeching halt.
As i said, I´m just comparing similar builds using a rogue. That rogue isn´t a good build, and it is still better than this alchemist at some points. I will post a good rogue build later.
What points? The Alchemist is immune to Mental Control and Possession and also has a +10 Will Save vs Mind Affecting effects. Then he also has a +2 vs fear effects and Death effects. I haven't seen any better points yet besides Reflex saves.
Also you cant take Improved Two Weapon Feint. You don't have the BAB for it at level 7.
I'll admit in more of a Rogue's World sort of setting it would work, and the idea sounds fun...
That's all I have been saying :)
Totally worth it. I was cracking up when I figured out what you were doing. I'd say my smile is worth it, but I might be biased.Haha, I'll take it. A smile for a few harmless words is a good deal in my book. ^^
Oh, get a room :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, get a room :pTotally worth it. I was cracking up when I figured out what you were doing. I'd say my smile is worth it, but I might be biased.Haha, I'll take it. A smile for a few harmless words is a good deal in my book. ^^
You're just jealous 'cause even though I'm at best a 2nd level expert, my Diplomacy and Perform(Comedy) bonuses are better than a Rogue's.
^^
Oh, get a room :pTotally worth it. I was cracking up when I figured out what you were doing. I'd say my smile is worth it, but I might be biased.Haha, I'll take it. A smile for a few harmless words is a good deal in my book. ^^You're just jealous 'cause even though I'm at best a 2nd level expert, my Diplomacy and Perform(Comedy) bonuses are better than a Rogue's.
^^
Touche! It's true... *slumps and walks off*
"People of Sands book puts the ability to disable magic traps in the form of a trait."
Yo can I get a link for this?
I'm having trouble finding it.