Who said the Rogue doesn't get to use archetypes?
It's just the problem is that 90% of Rogue Archetypes trade out Trapfinding...which is the ability we're saying an archetype can obtain and be a better Rogue than the Rogue.
|
And, as I said so many times, if we are comparing, then we have to compare apples to apples. Since rogue boosters don;t get to bring in rogue archetypes, then neither does the other side of the debate. Straight class vs class.So, what rogue archetype(s) allows the rogue to not be outclassed by an archetyped ranger/alchemist/bard?
The answer to your question is none. In fact, I would go on to state that an archetyped rogue is probably (if not definitely) still inferior to the aforementioned classes even when they are not given archetypes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1 level in Pathfinder Delver in any class other than a Rogue makes you a better Rogue than he is.Now you know why some of us give the devs such a hard time. Stuff like this makes you wonder sometimes. At the very least I would have written that the DCs for magical traps goes up by five or more. And that Rogues can find magical traps without penalty. Reflecting the Rogue skill and ability with traps.Eh. Traps are boring anyways.
Roll Perception. Fail? Trap goes off, take damage, move on.
Roll Perception. Success! Disable Device. Success! Move on.
Once again Perception does not set off traps -- failing the disable device does.
Detect magic actually finds magical traps just fine, no chance of failing perceptionHowever, if the archetypes are valid, the rogue isn't needed. A cryptbreaker alchemist can do everything the rogue does about traps, and then more, because of the extracts. Same goes with the rest of the archetypes, and now the trapfinding trait
Yeah you so do NOT want to rely on detect magic alone.
Besides trapfinding isn't required to find magical traps -- perception alone can do that.
Trapfinding simply lets you disable magical traps with the disable device skill.
So your point is Rogue is useful is you don't allow any of the other (lot) of classes that get trap-finding?
I'll concede gracesfully that rogues are (somewhat) needed if you don't allow any of the archetypes that give trap finding, or the trap-finding trait, and you are playing a gygaxian dungeon full of magical traps.
However, if the archetypes are valid, the rogue isn't needed.
No. I said nothing of the sort. I said if you compare others classes archetypes to the rogue, then you have to allow in the rogues archetypes also.
Either allow a archetype vs archetype comparo, or just base class vs base class.
You can't nail the rogues foot to the floor and then say the class is useless. I have seen threads where: no rogue archetypes were allowed, no sneak attack, and no strength builds.
Detect magic actually finds magical traps just fine, no chance of failing perception
So, no way you could hide the trap portion behind say ....hmmm...a "thin sheet of lead"?
So your point is Rogue is useful is you don't allow any of the other (lot) of classes that get trap-finding?
I'll concede gracesfully that rogues are (somewhat) needed if you don't allow any of the archetypes that give trap finding, or the trap-finding trait, and you are playing a gygaxian dungeon full of magical traps.
However, if the archetypes are valid, the rogue isn't needed.No. I said nothing of the sort. I said if you compare others classes archetypes to the rogue, then you have to allow in the rogues archetypes also.
Either allow a archetype vs archetype comparo, or just base class vs base class.
I always thought all rogue archetypes were valid.
As for the whole rogue archetypes deal, guess what ability tends to be the MOST DROPPED for rogue archetypes? Give u a hit, trapfinding...
So if u are taking archetypes, u are either going to become a worse "rogue" or u are now competeing with martials on their turf...
I've always felt Martial Classe should all be Full BAB classes. So is the rogue a martial class. I think it is. All the other 3/4 BAB classes have casting to 6th or 9th level spell. Highly skilled 3/4 BAB classes have 6th level casting and a ton of class features. The rogue is also highly skilled and has a ton of class features too. Compare the rogue to the Inquisitor for example. Inquisitor get better armor, two good saves, stern gaze, solo tactics, tracking, teamwork feats, judgement, bane, stalwart, slayer, exploit weakness, discern lies, detect alignment and is full caster up to 6th level spells. The rogue get trap finding, trap spotting, sneak attack, rogues talents, uncanny dodge, improved uncanny dodge, and evasion. The Inquisitor just get 2 less skill points. So the Inquisitor gets so much for being 3/4 BAB. Do this comparison with the Bard, Alchemist, Summoner, Magus and it is the same.
The Rogue could easily be full BAB and with D10. The rogue would out damage a fighter when they can sneak attack but that doesn't step on teh fighters toes too much. The fighter's main ability in my opinion is not damage. While they are good at it they really shine in AC due armor training. As well the fight has the feats to put into defense and offense options. Like in RotRL I have barbarian who is much lower in AC. Monster auto hit me I'm just meat shield. The fighter in the group has AC that is a good 10 or 12 higher than me. I do a lot more damage though I can power attack with out penalty when using Reckless Abandon as they cancel each other out but I take hit to AC to do it. This would be much the same with the rogue if it was Full BAB.
|
I've always felt, on the other hand, that FTR should be the only one with full BAB. Pally, ranger, rogue, barbarian and monk could have an 8/10 BAB instead of 7/10. Leave clerics and druids at 7/10, and wizard/sorcerer are fine at 5/10.
Those pallies, ranger, monks, rogues and monks who have fighter envy could take a feat to make the gap and get full BAB. Full BAB would do nice things for rogue feat eligibility and monk flurries...
Edit: I also feel that 7/10 BAB is wasted on clerics and druids; if you could drop to 5/10 in exchange for Heavy Armor i'd take it, as I've never played a cleric/druid who ever swung a weapon in battle... for some reason I always build them with a light shield and weapon (free hand to hold divine focus or potion), but honestly, heavy shield with focus built-in on the shield with an empty hand / spiked gauntlet would be better...
I've always felt Martial Classe should all be Full BAB classes. So is the rogue a martial class. I think it is. All the other 3/4 BAB classes have casting to 6th or 9th level spell.
Except monks. :P
Depends on the trap and if the trigger is visual.So, no way you could hide the trap portion behind say ....hmmm...a "thin sheet of lead"?
Detect magic actually finds magical traps just fine, no chance of failing perception
Trigger could be a trip line of a trigger plate in the floor. The mundane trigger could fire off a magical trap.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always felt, on the other hand, that FTR should be the only one with full BAB. Pally, ranger, rogue, barbarian and monk could have an 8/10 BAB instead of 7/10. Leave clerics and druids at 7/10, and wizard/sorcerer are fine at 5/10.
Those pallies, ranger, monks, rogues and monks who have fighter envy could take a feat to make the gap and get full BAB. Full BAB would do nice things for rogue feat eligibility and monk flurries...
Edit: I also feel that 7/10 BAB is wasted on clerics and druids; if you could drop to 5/10 in exchange for Heavy Armor i'd take it, as I've never played a cleric/druid who ever swung a weapon in battle... for some reason I always build them with a light shield and weapon (free hand to hold divine focus or potion), but honestly, heavy shield with focus built-in on the shield with an empty hand / spiked gauntlet would be better...
It seems, for this, you are the exception, rather than the rule.
|
Trigger could be a trip line of a trigger plate in the floor. The mundane trigger could fire off a magical trap.Depends on the trap and if the trigger is visual.So, no way you could hide the trap portion behind say ....hmmm...a "thin sheet of lead"?
Detect magic actually finds magical traps just fine, no chance of failing perception
I believe I said 'if the trigger is visual'. Your example was already covered.
So, no way you could hide the trap portion behind say ....hmmm...a "thin sheet of lead"?
I never said that you could not. It is important to respond to what I actually say.
Maybe you could layer everything in a thin sheet of lead. If I was making a dungeon in Golarion, I would definitely do that. I have yet to find a published AP where this is the case though
Here's your exact words "Detect magic actually finds magical traps just fine, no chance of failing perception" and like i said, you could hide the trap with many things, including stone (which is pretty common in dungeons). Nor would I expect any published AP to have all it's traps identical. You should have mundane traps with magic triggers, magic traps with mundane triggers, well hidden traps, real easy to find traps- real easy to find trap that when you go to disarm them the obvious way sets off the hard to find trap. Traps that only set off when you are opening a door, picking a lock, flying into a room, walking down a corridor in a group , and so forth.
If a DM sets up all his trap so that they can be disarmed by a Summon Monster I, he's failing. But he should have a few like that. It's a decent trick, so certainly some traps should fall to it.
Every single trap behind a thin sheet of lead? Booooorrrring.
But you could certainly have ONE trap like that (magic trap hidden behind lead or stone or whatever, with mundane trigger)- and if so your statement "Detect magic actually finds magical traps just fine, no chance of failing perception" would be false.
When you have to use ridiculous corner cases to prove your point you've probably lost the argument.So, no way you could hide the trap portion behind say ....hmmm...a "thin sheet of lead"?
Detect magic actually finds magical traps just fine, no chance of failing perception
Ridiculous corner cases? It's right there in the spell description "The spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it."
I mean- nearly every spellcaster in the world can cast Detect Magic all day long for free. You don't think that you might take a precaution against that? How dumb are your Mad Archmages anyway? It's like every trap being bypassable by use of a 10' pole. Kinda boring and not very effective.
|
|
It seems, for this, you are the exception, rather than the rule.
Not so sure... most cleric players I've DMed in 3.5/Pathfinder are busy either channeling or patching up a barbarian... (never have time to cast self buffs or swing a mace). It's not a hard choice: keep the barbarian going for 100+ damage a round or swing your mace for 1d8+2....
It seems, for this, you are the exception, rather than the rule.Not so sure... most cleric players I've DMed in 3.5/Pathfinder are busy either channeling or patching up a barbarian... (never have time to cast self buffs or swing a mace). It's not a hard choice: keep the barbarian going for 100+ damage a round or swing your mace for 1d8+2....
I agree, but usually its casting a Buff spell on the party, then firing off some sort of attack spell, then healing. Using that mace is for when you have nothing else to do. Mind you, building a fighting cleric is not a bad thing at all, and there's a Battle oracle also.
I've always felt Martial Classe should all be Full BAB classes. So is the rogue a martial class. I think it is. All the other 3/4 BAB classes have casting to 6th or 9th level spell.Except monks. :P
Why not monks too? They practically are full BAB already since FOB is treated as full BAB and they get early access to many feats with the monk feats. They'd get the extra hit points and be able to make an unarmed strike as standard action at full BAB.
It seems, for this, you are the exception, rather than the rule.Not so sure... most cleric players I've DMed in 3.5/Pathfinder are busy either channeling or patching up a barbarian... (never have time to cast self buffs or swing a mace). It's not a hard choice: keep the barbarian going for 100+ damage a round or swing your mace for 1d8+2....
I've seen clerics dealing a lot more 1D8+2 by the time the barbarian is doing 100+ a round. That's usually what the cleric does at level 1 not level 12.
Honestly, the people who are saying that they never really see clerics get into combat, I have to ask... Do you pigeon-hole your cleric into playing a Healbot/Buffbot role??? I mean, combat clerics are some of the most terrifying things to see. Bad Touch clerics can also get rediculous...
As for the "blasting off offensive spells" people seem to be saying... WHAT OFFENSIVE SPELLS???? Clerics have a VERY poor list when it comes to going on the offence with spells...
I have never seen a cleric that never swings a weapon. They might start off casting a party buff depending on the situation, but clerics don't get a lot spells so casting every round of combat is not normally an option, even if that is all they wanted to do. My druids also get into melee.
PS: Yes I am aware that due to playstyles another GM might make it possible, but I have never seen it.
Honestly, the people who are saying that they never really see clerics get into combat, I have to ask... Do you pigeon-hole your cleric into playing a Healbot/Buffbot role??? I mean, combat clerics are some of the most terrifying things to see. Bad Touch clerics can also get rediculous...
As for the "blasting off offensive spells" people seem to be saying... WHAT OFFENSIVE SPELLS???? Clerics have a VERY poor list when it comes to going on the offence with spells...
Just the ones I have seen: Flame strike, fireball (domain or oracle but a common one), Summon Monster, Holy Smite, Searing light, Dispel magic, spiritual ally, cold ice strike, etc. That last one is a swift action, so that's nice and spiritual ally is the 'gift that keeps on giving" as it acts as a flanker.
Honestly, the people who are saying that they never really see clerics get into combat, I have to ask... Do you pigeon-hole your cleric into playing a Healbot/Buffbot role??? I mean, combat clerics are some of the most terrifying things to see. Bad Touch clerics can also get rediculous...
As for the "blasting off offensive spells" people seem to be saying... WHAT OFFENSIVE SPELLS???? Clerics have a VERY poor list when it comes to going on the offence with spells...
Just the ones I have seen: Flame strike, fireball (domain or oracle but a common one), Summon Monster, Holy Smite, Searing light, Dispel magic, spiritual ally, cold ice strike, etc. That last one is a swift action, so that's nice and spiritual ally is the 'gift that keeps on giving" as it acts as a flanker.
When I think offensive spell I tend to think either SoS or blasts. Dispel Magic and Summon Monster I tend to lump into utility or the really weird multi-fuction spells (Summon Monster can literally do anything).
When it comes to straight up ending an opponent or reducing them to such level that anyone could kill them tends to fall better for the Witch, Wizard, Sorcerer, Arcanist, and the Druid. The Cleric spell list is very much more reactive than proactive.
Depends -- If you know you are fighting a specific enemy the clerical damage (and SOS spells) are generally much better. They don't touch allies (usually) specific effects in large areas with back up effects if save throws are past and generally do not have to deal with energy resistances as much.
The problem with clerical spells is they very much are target specific -- you must know ahead of time that you are facing a specific type opponent.
Whereas arcane spells are generally much more generic in who they will kill they also generally allow for more variables in saves, lack of extra effects, and the ability to backblast your allies on accident.
But you could certainly have ONE trap like that (magic trap hidden behind lead or stone or whatever, with mundane trigger)- and if so your statement "Detect magic actually finds magical traps just fine, no chance of failing perception" would be false.
It would be true for every traps but ONE, though ;)
Why not monks too? They practically are full BAB already since FOB is treated as full BAB and they get early access to many feats with the monk feats. They'd get the extra hit points and be able to make an unarmed strike as standard action at full BAB.I've always felt Martial Classe should all be Full BAB classes. So is the rogue a martial class. I think it is. All the other 3/4 BAB classes have casting to 6th or 9th level spell.Except monks. :P
I'd give them Full BAB too. I mean the sentence "all other 3/4 BAB have casting to 6th or 9th level" isn't valid for monks, they are 3/4, and can't cast 6th to 9th spells
Because MM looks like it'll be extremely trap-heavy, and Rich Parents is a trap that you apparently didn't spot.
What he spotted was those two combat trained tigers that he wanted immediately.
Honestly, the people who are saying that they never really see clerics get into combat, I have to ask... Do you pigeon-hole your cleric into playing a Healbot/Buffbot role??? I mean, combat clerics are some of the most terrifying things to see. Bad Touch clerics can also get rediculous...
As for the "blasting off offensive spells" people seem to be saying... WHAT OFFENSIVE SPELLS???? Clerics have a VERY poor list when it comes to going on the offence with spells...
I've seen a lot of very strange things. I saw an orc diviner wizard who had a masterwork greataxe as a bonded weapon and got into melee combat more often than casting spells. But he was awful at it, and on the rare occasion he cast the spells he prepared he saved the day.
What I see is people focusing on the strengths of the classes they play, not trying to bring their weaknesses up to par. Yes, a cleric (or oracle) is a decent second-string combatant, and with enough resources and a couple rounds to buff can probably be a front-liner...but their strength is their spells.
Which usually means: healing spells, summon spells, sound burst, burst of radiance, and mind-control crowd control like Murderous Command or Greater Command.
Honestly, the people who are saying that they never really see clerics get into combat, I have to ask... Do you pigeon-hole your cleric into playing a Healbot/Buffbot role??? I mean, combat clerics are some of the most terrifying things to see. Bad Touch clerics can also get rediculous...
As for the "blasting off offensive spells" people seem to be saying... WHAT OFFENSIVE SPELLS???? Clerics have a VERY poor list when it comes to going on the offence with spells...
I've seen a lot of very strange things. I saw an orc diviner wizard who had a masterwork greataxe as a bonded weapon and got into melee combat more often than casting spells. But he was awful at it, and on the rare occasion he cast the spells he prepared he saved the day.
What I see is people focusing on the strengths of the classes they play, not trying to bring their weaknesses up to par. Yes, a cleric (or oracle) is a decent second-string combatant, and with enough resources and a couple rounds to buff can probably be a front-liner...but their strength is their spells.
Which usually means: healing spells, summon spells, sound burst, burst of radiance, and mind-control crowd control like Murderous Command or Greater Command.
Oh true, a spell caster cleric>melee. But a melee focused cleric or an Oracle of Battle/Metal actually make VERY strong combatants since the cleric spell list includes spells to make them effectively full BAB with a huge buff to hit and damage. If you abuse the FC bonus of Elves or Aasimars with Dark Tapestry to speed through the Many Forms ability you can get very rediculous in dragon form.