| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is an opinion, and how the mechanics are setup in game to include DC's will affect who does what better. That is why I said a similar challenge should be done with blind DC's. That way nobody can cherrypick their way into a build. You dont know what the DC for diplomacy or intimidate will be. You dont know what the DC for finding and or disabling a trap or lock will be. You dont know how skilled you will have to be in combat.but still the rogue does it in a sense that fulfills the imagery of an iconic rogue best. In the fictional/literary sense, nobody does rogue better than rogue.
I will agree that the rogue is perfect THEMATICALLY. Most rogues read about in lore vastly out level their foes.
Problem is how that theme just doesn't work well in actual play, where everyone is the same level and can't afford hit and run tactics with every monster over the course of 20 rounds.
Traits: Reincarnated(+2 vs fear and death effects), Deathtouch(+2 vs mind affecting)
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|Iron Will
12|Opportunist
13|Combat Reflexes
14|Crippling Strike
15|Great Fortitude
16|Dispelling Attack
17|Quick Draw
18|Slippery Mind
19|Improved Great Fortitude
20|Defensive Roll
Mythic Feats: Weapon Finesse, Arcane Strike, Combat Expertise, Quickdraw, Deceitful
Mythic Path: Longevity, Impossible Speed, Fleet Warrior, Precision, Precision, Incredible Parry, Lesson Learned, Ever Ready, Limitless Range, Farwalker
My mistake on the ability scores.
The point that bothers me when I was making characters was that level 4 was very much the contention point. That is literally where the Rogue caps as opposed to others. Level 5 and the Inquisitor blows away the combat encounters. Add in magical gear and he's even more obviously better.
Another point that annoyed me was that your scenario attempts to remove magic from it. Most games are pretty high fantasy with the base setting(Golarion) indicative of that.
|
Its not a campaign trait. Despite what people seem to believe people of the sands(the book that contains the trait) isn't the Mummy Mask players guide.
And yet...
Campaign traits perfectly suited for characters taking part in the Mummy’s Mask Adventure Path.
And http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/campaign-traits/mummy-s-mask/trap-finder.
|
Another point that annoyed me was that your scenario attempts to remove magic from it. Most games are pretty high fantasy with the base setting(Golarion) indicative of that.
Ah, my point wasn't to annoy you - it was simply to show where "different tables, different groups, different campaigns" may actually be a sweet spot for a rogue.
My main home group for a decade repeated the process from level 1 to 6 about 10 times. Many of those were using Pathfinder rules in a low-magic Oerth. It wasn't troll bait, it was hopefully a way to show some folks how some of us who are saying "rogues aren't that bad" are playing the game in order to come up with such a disposition.
In a few we had an alchemist and no rogue. In more than one instance the party stood outside of a noble's villa or some place similar, and hadn't expected to be doing what they were doing that day. The party leader turned to the alchemist (level 4ish at the time) and said, "you're like our rogue right? Go sneak in there and grab the MacGuffin." To which the alchemist, who didn't know he was going to be sneaking into a manor that day could only respond "Uh, boss, sorry didn't prepare invisibility today, and you know Stealth isn't exactly a class skill for me... and if I get caught, I can't exactly bluff my way back out." Two campaigns, two different PCs. They could find and disarm the traps, but they were only a partial rogue. They, like most alchemists, built for bombs or Jekyl & Hyde transformations. In fact, you could say they were part rogue/part wizard... Funny thing, that.
Classes with magic will always be better than classes without it as the game progresses to the mid-tier levels. That's why an alchemist/bard (i.e. rogue/wizard) or an inquisitor (rogue/cleric) start to surpass some of the possibilities of the rogue at those tiers of play, unless the player of the rogue makes an effort to invest his wealth into consumables to try to narrow that gap.
Nine times out of ten, I see a rogue who hasn't bought enough consumables. At the rates forum folks level through APs, scenarios and modules, an alchemist barely has time to use all his extracts in a day. It's not hard for the rogue to simply buy what he needs in potion form to have the same flexibilities that today's preparations from a formula book provides.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a few we had an alchemist and no rogue. In more than one instance the party stood outside of a noble's villa or some place similar, and hadn't expected to be doing what they were doing that day. The party leader turned to the alchemist (level 4ish at the time) and said, "you're like our rogue right? Go sneak in there and grab the MacGuffin." To which the alchemist, who didn't know he was going to be sneaking into a manor that day could only respond "Uh, boss, sorry didn't prepare invisibility today, and you know Stealth isn't exactly a class skill for me... and if I get caught, I can't exactly bluff my way back out." Two campaigns, two different PCs. They could find and disarm the traps, but they were only a partial rogue. They, like most alchemists, built for bombs or Jekyl & Hyde transformations. In fact, you could say they were part rogue/part wizard... Funny thing, that.
So your argument that an Alchemist not made to be a Rogue replacement isn't a good Rogue replacement?
Who could have possibly foreseen that outcome?
Nine times out of ten, I see a rogue who hasn't bought enough consumables. At the rates forum folks level through APs, scenarios and modules, an alchemist barely has time to use all his extracts in a day. It's not hard for the rogue to simply buy what he needs in potion form to have the same flexibilities that today's preparations from a formula book provides.
Extra bad comparison to the Alchemist, who gets Brew Potion for free and can get Discoveries that make Potions better.
And doesn't HAVE to spend his wealth to accomplish the things a Rogue needs wealth to do, but can also do so to save Extracts (at half the cost).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So your argument that an Alchemist not made to be a Rogue replacement isn't a good Rogue replacement?
Who could have possibly foreseen that outcome?
Next thing you know a str-build rogue without ranks in stealth is going to be bad at stealth!
|
|
So your argument that an Alchemist not made to be a Rogue replacement isn't a good Rogue replacement?
There's an argument? I'm not aware I'm participating in an argument. I'm just sharing stories where the rogue's gotten it's job done "being the rogue".
The thread's titled "trapfinding trait and making rogues even less useful".
I'm reporting that here, among our games, this trait changes nothing and the rogue's still the go-to class if you want your character to be a stereotypical rogue who's a jack-of-all trades and gets things done without relying on magic.
High adventure diversity really helps. A recent adventure had the party having to take on the guise of a local "mob boss", effectively taking his place in day-to-day operations and impersonating him for weeks of in-game time. It involved enough delicate moments where the "rogue" who took the job couldn't have gotten away with grabbing a holy symbol, reaching into a spell component pouch, or whipping out a portable alchemy lab. Luckily, the rogue was a jack-of-all-trades rogue who had skill ranks everywhere, ended up being solid at playing knivesies, and was quite competent when combat broke out.
I can think of yet another game this past month where the group spent a few days in Rahadoum. In this case, an inquisitor-turned-rogue would've been at hefty disadvantage without his holy symbol accomplishing the same feats that a rogue (or urban ranger would).
I fully believe in other areas, at other tables and groups, there's plenty examples of where folks are looking at the metagame for their campaign, crunching their numbers and happily reskinning other classes to fill their particular needs.
It's kind of odd actually - the greedy part of me wants more powerful rogue talents, but in most practical adventures I've seen, he's been quite competent at getting a wide variety of things done.
Should rogues get some power creep in future splat-books so he can be better in forums DPR arena or combat dummy style match-ups? I don't object to it, but it's not necessary for the most recent 100 tabletop game sessions I've seen this year. Likely, if the rogue did over 15% more damage than it was already doing, the daemon, dragon, troll or what-have-you would've eaten the rogue first instead of the paladin/fighter/barbarian, and that wouldn't exactly have helped the party.
Among our games, this trait changes nothing and the rogue's still the go-to class if you want your character to be a stereotypical rogue who's a jack-of-all trades and gets things done without relying on magic.
As long as they understand that another class can do it better.
Which is what your arguing against and insisting isn't true.
Edit: Actually I really don't care if they know it or not, but I'm not a big fan of someone constantly making a false statement.
Indeed? Which class, for the kinds of local games we're playing, fulfills the rogue stereotype as jack-of-all trades, without using magic, and does it better?
You can have a bard who doesn't cast spells and still ends up having more skill points and a better charisma base than the rogue does, and performance is still frikkin' amazing(+masterpieces like pageant of the peacock which look pretty fantastic in a situation like posing as a guild leader) Rogue be jelly of that. You can have an infiltrator inquisitor or inquisitor with the conversion inquisition and he'll have fantastic social skills without ever casting a spell and lots of skill points to go around, though I'm not keen on how you count judgment/bane. Alchemy if you don't count it as magic goes a long way and if you do puts the alchemist in a weird place. He can definitely do a lot of bardic stuff, but discoveries, alchemy, and bombs are definitely his schtick and becoming a mutant or quaffing potions is probably not your ideal rogue, thought it might be fine to the idea of non-magical rogue to someone else.
Bard would definitely be my pick because performance is so versatile and he does actually end up with more skill points than the rogue does and has a charisma base and can replace a lot of skills with that charisma base.
You added a contingency again btw. Its one thing to say "Those classes suck without magic!" like most of your examples, and another to say "but I really don't want magic in my class and to fulfill this stereotype'. If that makes sense. And no matter what, it still sucks if that class underperforms.
|
|
Bard would definitely be my pick because performance is so versatile and he does actually end up with more skill points than the rogue does and has a charisma base and can replace a lot of skills with that charisma base.
#1. I absolutely love bards. If anyone is in danger of stepping on the rogue's shoes with this trait, it's the bard.
#2. A bard that keeps versatile performance (and is hamstrung without magic) will come up lacking on the rogue when it comes to individual swordplay.
It's also worth mentioning - that again, in the kinds of local games I'm playing, I've seen a lot of games where there's both a bard and rogue. The person playing the rogue wasn't interested in playing a second bard, despite many of us insisting that the all bard party is where it's at.
I'd ask what you think the rogue needs so that it doesn't underperform in your eyes. Do rogues in your games frequently miss skill checks, so they need an Inspiration mechanic (like the current Investigator)? Are they missing swings with their sword 5-10% more often that you'd like when they swing, so they need a higher BAB? What rogue-like function are they underperforming at?
The answer to that probably belongs in this thread given all the rogue-swirl going on at the moment.
Not it may not be the vivisectionist but neither is the rogue, yes the rogue might be able to sneak into the governor's ball pretending to be someone he isn't (although other classes would probably have more chances to do that) but he can't beat the rival at a duel (unless the rival is an NPC class or rogue) because he sucks..I spent the 5 minutes in HeroLab to illustrate. Which other class will rise to this challenge?
** spoiler omitted **...
First of all i won't create a build to go through that challenge since i don't have hero lab and even a low level build like that would take me more time than i want to spend.
Secondly, even though your scenario has a lot issues (doesn't make a lot of sense, houserules and others) i am pretty sure your rogue can't do it, it's way to difficult for level 4 (the skill based part) and too easy for level 4 (the combats part).1. Your rogue has +9 disguise and that has to hold against several perception checks at +6 (at the bare minimum, most likely higher).
2. This can be done, not auto success by any means, he will have to pit his +9 (or +10)bluff against a +3 (at the minimum) sense motive several times.
3. Again here too difficult for anyone, even your rogue has less than 50% chance to succeed (i don't want to do the math so i am not sure about the number).
4. Before i judge that part you will need to explain to me how (from a mechanics POV) he managed to convince the noble to a duel or allow me to read your house rule.
5. Ok that can be done, your rogue might be able to defeat a CR 2-3 opponent who has NPC class levels in a duel with rules he is built for.
5. Again too difficult, you have to pit your rogue's +11 sleight of hand against A LOT of (albeit) low perceptions.
6. Here is flat out impossible, even if we ignore that you need a house rule in order to stealth into a crowd the guards would notice your magical rapier (since the guards have detect magic).
7. I don't have anything to say anything here, anyone either finds the trap and disables/ignores it or doesn't find the trap and succeeds his save, any character can overcome that obstacle, yes the rogue has evasion but other classes (in case the have to roll save) can self heal, use wands, have resist energy etc.
8. Here you fight a CR 2 (at best) monster and you assume way too much, you assume that you can use stealth, you assume that you beat his perception then that the monster wasn't alerted to your presence either magically or mundane (by the fireball) and finally that you beat his initiave. If any of the above isn't true your rogue will have a lot of trouble to beat this CR 2 monster. Any other character (who can actually fight) would have an easier time fighting this monster and wouldn't need so many assumptions.
So i don't think that this scenario can be done by anyone at level 4, at least if you want to succeed on all of your objectives, if you want only the item at the basement then anyone who can cast invisibility can just skip to no.7.
Problems with the Rogue:
1.) Its concept. It is supposed to be the "skill class".
Problem 1: Every class can do skills, so the niche is already eroded since it doesn't have anything unique here.
Problem 2: Other classes do skills BETTER, so the Rogue doesn't have niche protection in that he's the best skill class.
Solution: Give the Rogue unique skill uses with Talents, or some such.
2.) Its combat capability. Combat, like it or not, is a large portion of the game at its core.
Problem 1: The Rogue is a 3/4 BaB class. It is the ONLY 3/4 BaB class with no ability to boost its to-hit in some manner (Bard has Inspire Courage, Inquisitor has Judgement, Monk has Flurry, etc.).
Problem 2: Sneak Attack is situational, and when it's not in play the Rogue is dealing pitiful damage.
Solution: Kill two birds with one stone. Give the Rogue the ability to create scenarios where he can get Sneak Attack off more easily, preferably in such a manner that he gets circumstance bonuses to-hit or the enemy takes substantial penalties to AC. Feint does not adequately accomplish this goal, but it may serve as a good foundation for an ability.
3.) 90% of Rogue Talents outright suck.
Solution: Better Rogue Talents. Look to Ninja Tricks, Rage Powers and Discoveries for inspiration. All allow the user to gain new and better abilities as they level, which are useful in the majority of situations.
Less Rumormonger and Deadly Sneak.
More Beast Totem, Stink Cloud, and Vanishing Trick.
#2. A bard that keeps versatile performance (and is hamstrung without magic) will come up lacking on the rogue when it comes to individual swordplay.
Except for that whole performance thing, which works pretty well and can even if your solo. Battle Dance(Dervish of the Dawn/Dervish Dancer) is pretty darn murderful. Its not just versatile performance that makes them great at skills either, its loremaster, jack of all trades, and performance/masterpieces. Its not really that lacking. To hit is pretty darn helpful. 3/4 BAB isn't to hot for hitting things or CMB, and its pretty rough to get sneak attack on a solo target(you might even say you have to build around it because its not inherently built in class).
|
|
Except for that whole performance thing, which works pretty well and can even if your solo. Battle Dance(Dervish of the Dawn/Dervish Dancer) is pretty darn murderful.
Except the martial bard archetypes trade away versatile performance. You can't take 2 different bards and hold them up against a single rogue and say "see, I made a bard that covers all the rogue's bases".
It's very challenging to build a bard without using an archetype that trades away versatile performance to stay competitive with a rogue in the mid-tier game (levels 4-9 or so).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problems with the Rogue..
Despite however folks may think I sound, I'm 100% supportive if certain groups/tables/campaigns are having problems with their rogues.
I'm pretty sure the designers are too. If not, go with the default rule and blame Jason.
However, I don't think this list is what will compel them to take action. This is basically an "envy" list for a rogue.
1. I want even better skills. The bard is too close to me.
2. I want more combat power. Other classes built for combat are better than me with situational handcuffs.
3. I want better talents. The barbarian has a dozen good rage powers, how come I can't have a dozen tasty talents.
For (#1) to be an issue that the design team gets motivated to fix, they'd need to walk the tables at PaizoCon and see story after story how the skill-based rogue's continuously failed to perform at skill challenges.
I know Jason is a huge fan of chases. You know who typically wins those or is in their last square at conventions? Rogues. This is taken as evidence that rogues don't necessarily need any more boosts to their skill prowess.
I'd suspect this means in their mind(s), rogues not only just fine when it comes to skills, they're the "King of Skills".
Showing how specially built bards or inquisitors can be peers w.r.t skills is a Good Thing. It means in a group of 4 friends who are always the same, one guy doesn't play a Rogue every single campaign, but he rotates through Bard, Rogue, Inquisitor, Alchemist, slapping different personalities on each and tweaking their mechanics. It's not a major design issue if one build is 10% better at skills than another, as long as they are all within a certain acceptable range. If certain tables are showing a rogue isn't in this acceptable range, data needs to presented to show what's going on. It might be a specific problem in level 13-18 play with 25 pt buys -- I don't know how to provide this data since I haven't seen a rogue fall flat on it's face in the presence of skill challenges (excepting one case where a half-orc rogue was built with 7 Int, used the non-lethal intimidate build, and clearly was not intended to be competitive across a wide range of skills).
Now with (#2), that's another difficult one to soldier through, especially when you have designers who may walk through the same convention halls, inquire how the party dealt with Xorthok the Defiler and the GM relates, "oh the rogue snuck up on him after drinking an invisibility potion, got a surprise round, and rolled like a beast on sneak attack. At level 5, he did 80 damage before the wizard even got to his initiative."
Said designer walks away, "Interesting... it seems rogues are quite competent at damage. It's spikey and situation, but that's how I like it..."
Again, I'm totally empathetic that "rogues are underpowered" in the home games of some folks. Perhaps sharing the attributes and situations of those home games helps trump any general assumptions the designers have about the class, and leads to specific archetypes/talents/feats/etc that help address the shortcomings within the specific parameters of those games?
I hope this helps, and folks don't just try to argue with me for the sake of venting rogue frustration. I'm totally supportive that certain tables/groups/campaigns are having problems with rogue performance and need a shot of viagra to fix it.
|
|
Its not a campaign trait. Despite what people seem to believe people of the sands(the book that contains the trait) isn't the Mummy Mask players guide.And yet...
Campaign traits perfectly suited for characters taking part in the Mummy’s Mask Adventure Path.And http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/campaign-traits/mummy-s-mask/trap-finder.
I just want to revisit this to confirm that yes, People of the Sand has a section titled "Mummy's Mask Player's Guide'.
And I am sad, because I know Trapfinding will not be PFS legal.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If an "envy list" consists of everything the class has being inferior to everything another class has, that indicates a balance issue.
I doubt Paizo is basing their balance assumptions on random anecdotes from cons. From everything I've seen they're neither lazy nor incompetent, and that is the hallmark of a game designer who is both.
They've acknowledged already that Rogue Talents are terrible (though as of yet have done nothing to remedy that issue).
They refuse to acknowledge the problem with combat being a problem, not because of anecdotes, because they truly don't feel the Rogue is SUPPOSED TO BE good at combat in any way.
They've been pretty mum on the skills thing as far as I see, beyond a general statement that yes, skills are very limited in what they can do for all classes, which may imply they understand that a Rogue being "The skill class" is a small boon, especially when other classes do it better.
It is a major design issue if 3-4 classes are "10%" better at skills than the Rogue, "10% better" at combat than the Rogue, and have more resources to use that make them more useful to the entire group.
If the Rogue were superior to a Bard, Alchemist, Inqusitor, or Ninja in ANY single way, that might indicate something different. If they truly were the King of Skills or if they managed to be a better combatant than those classes or if they had something special, and useful, and powerful nobody else could do, there might be room to talk about how there's no balance issue. It would, at least, have a niche as "Skill King" or "Melee guy with tons of skills" or whatever.
But that's not the case. It is worse at combat than ALL of them. It is worse at skills than the Bard by a mile, only takes a draw with the Alchemist, and ever so slightly edges out the Inquisitor.
It brings NOTHING else to the table those classes can't. Bards, Alchemists, Inquisitors all have spells or spell-like effects. Bards can buff the entire party. Alchemists can debuff entire crowds (or just be a Rogue and Sneak Attack, but they're less effective as a Vivisectionist, despite that they're Rogue+ there), Inquisitors can ANNIHILATE single targets with Judgement and Bane, and have spells that can make them the enemy's focus, taking attention off the rest of the party.
The problem is not the Rogue being 10% less good than one class in one area. The problem is the Rogue being 10% less good in EVERY AREA than a BUNCH of classes (or more).
Concept and RP doesn't enter into it. This is purely a mechanical problem, proven by the numbers (despite people, including SKR, chalking it up to people "not getting it" and only comparing DPR).
And this is not an isolated issue. This is an issue provable by both numbers and actual play experience. I have NEVER seen a non-anecdotal shred of proof that the Rogue is not underpowered. Isolated incidences of a skilled player making a Rogue that's better than his party? Yes.
Never an instance that shows a Rogue shining in an equally skilled group.
Plenty of math proving they are not equal to other classes.
Plenty of anecdotes saying otherwise as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're welcome to build a 4th level bard, alchemist and rogue and measure them up to 1) Disguise/Bluff/Diplomacy their way through the party, 2) Possess the five combat feats to beat the noble in a fair duel and 3) Still have sneak attack damage.
1) Bard can do it without any problem. One level rogue and 3 levels fighter? Or one level rogue and 3 levels ranger or 3 level Guide or 3 levels barbarian or Paladin or Cavalier or monk or whatever. Yes, you heard me. Rogue, just like fighter is a good dip class.
2) Why would you need 5 combat feats to beat a noble the noble in a fair fight. Oh, and define fair fight.
2a) You are welcome to build that rogue and explain to me how the rogue is going to use her sneak attack without a flanking buddy in a “fair” fight. Fair meaning no sneak attack or at least no feinting?
3) Why would I want sneak attack damage? SA suck if you are one-on-one.
I'll refer to my point. Every table is different. Some tables lean heavily on roleplay and at those tables, you just can't start quaffing a mutagen or casting Charm Person in the middle of a dinner party.
Actually you can:
Spellsong
At other tables, it's more about getting to a certain numeric modifier on a skill, using spells/magic as needed to augment and rolling the dice to achieve the same net result.
You meant, not playing weak characters is something some people don’t like?
A game that uses a lot of magic is something some people don’t like? Sorry wrong game for those people. This game is based on magic. You can’t even hurt an incorporeal creature without magic or a magic weapon.
Diverse groups exist out there. There's plenty where the rogue class does a better job of emulating the classic rogue. You can't make Gord with an Alchemist or Bard and have it feel authentic.
Ah, the old moving the goalpost tactic. “I don’t care about fact, it just don’t feel right”. Well then sir, we can’t have an argument because you are just set on saying: No I don’t.
Yes, I’m going to agree with you one thing so we now can officially leave that behind us: The only class that is exactly like the rogue: Just as limited and weak and have exactly its powers and its weaknesses, the same BAB, with the same set of class skills, the same number of skill points, the same crappy save and the same rest, is the rogue.This is what you are trying to say: “The rogue is the only class that is the rogue.”
That is true. It is also true that the commoner is the only class that is the commoner and the Paladin is the only class that is the Paladin.
I fail to see what this argument brings to the discussion.
As pointed out by many already: I don’t care if we have a rogue class or not. If people like the rogue as it is: Fine. The trouble with the rogue is that it hold everyone else back, Investigator being a good example of this.
Just a FWI, although i don't have the book i think (from reading the additional resources) that the trapfinder trait isn't legal for PFS play, can someone who has the book confirm that?
Just to clarify a little: The final part of People of the sands is called "Mummy's Mask Player's Guide". The Trapfinder trait is found in this section. While I personally am thrilled this trait exists and will happily allow it as a general trait for other APs, it is most definitely a campaign trait.
Thank you for letting us know Kudaku, i don't understand why they placed something like that in a companion book since we are going to have a mummy's mask player's guide when the adventure path begins.
Maybe they want to place different traits in the guide?
...
@ Sangalor: ...
But if you want the trap expert role filled by one class ...
Well, funny thing is I do not want that :-)
The entire thread I have tried to make clear that I simply feel that the trait is too cheap. It has nothing to do with the rogue in that sense, it's just one of its classic abilities...Others asked what I would feel an adequate cost, and I replied. And to make it crystal clear again:
1. I do not think the rogue only has trapfinding left. So the class isn't killed by the trait.
2. I do think the Trap Finder trait as written is too cheap. Here are examples (not perfect, but a quick write-up to illustrate what I think is right):Trap Finder trait
Benefit(s): Disable Device is always a class skill for you. In addition, you can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps, like a rogue, but you take a -5 penalty to the the check. If you have the ability to disarm magic traps from another class feature, like the rogue's trapfinding or the archaeologist bard's clever explorer, you do not take this penalty and gain a +1 trait bonus instead.Trap Finder feat
Benefit(s): You gain a +2 bonus on Disable Device checks, and that skill is always a class skill for you. You are treated as if having the trapfinding class feature of the rogue for the purpose of meeting prerequisites of prestige classes, spells etc.
In addition, you can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps, like a rogue. If you have the ability to disarm magic traps from another class feature, like the rogue's trapfinding or the archaeologist bard's clever explorer, the bonus increases to +4.This way it is at least worth considering it for everyone:
- Trait: A class with trapfinding (like core rogue) gets a bonus along the typical lines of a trait. An archaeologist bard, for example, gets more - disable device as a class skill.
- Trait: A class without trapfinding gets a class skill and the ability to disarm magic traps. The penalty is almost equaled out by the trained bonus.
- Feat: Similar arguments as the trait, but the bonuses are larger, and no penalty to them.
- Feat: Trapfinding of the rogue (and other classes, I think the trapper ranger also gets one) still has the scaling bonuses on perception and disable device checks, so it's still good. If you took the feat in addition you just improve it further, enabling you to either sink less skills into it or be very good at it even at low levels.
Something along the lines would be fine IMO.
Just not the trait as written. :-)
I agree. This trait is probably to good.
I wouldn't mind if it just granted the ability to disable magical traps (not making the skill a class skill).
Thank you for letting us know Kudaku, i don't understand why they placed something like that in a companion book since we are going to have a mummy's mask player's guide when the adventure path begins.
Maybe they want to place different traits in the guide?
It might just be a matter of convenience. When I started a RotRL campaign I circulated the player's guide along with the Varisia player companion book so that the players both knew the basics and had the option of really reading up on the country they'd be exploring.
|
Before the publication of this trait The Rogues had the class feature of being able ability to disarm magical traps. With this trait you don't even need a Rogue. A bard with this trait is imo better than a Rogue. Sure sneak attack damage is great. Except you have to specialize in ranged version of that. Or get torn apart in melee. The trait: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/campaign-traits/mummy-s-mask/trap-finder
But the character IS not a Rogue so with that trait come the painful lesson because he was not sneaky enough to "get away with it" like a rogue would.
Unlike a Rogue this Player has a few people out to get him such as damaged parties or a Thieves Guild who is looking for a free agent in their territory.
Never just give a player an advantage for free. Make them always pay for it with a great story with complications.
|
|
People who can fly, dimension door or teleport. Or people who can disable the enemy entirely and simply negate the chase scene full stop.
I've mentioned numerous times that I'm specifically talking about the treadmill of repeated low level play. People who can fly, dimension door or teleport don't really come up that often except perhaps at the tail end of those levels, and even then - sure the wizard flies over the pond that would normally take a swim check only to step into the crowded embassy and do what about the door guards? (I'm sure you'll say Charm here, because in these simulations a wizard of course has every spell on the spell list, and of course prepared it today).
I've seen chase mechanics over a dozen times in the past several months. In every instance, not a single person could fly (although, there was a witch who could levitate...)
I'm not playing a "build the ultimate character for chases" challenge. Almost nobody optimizes a character to take on the odd chase scene. In fact, most people hate chases because it's only the rogues that win them because they typically build their wizard, sorcerer, even bard with other goals in mind than beating the rogue to the finish of a chase scene.
The Wizard and the Sage Bloodline Sorcerer are so far ahead of you it isn't even funny anymore.
Okay, sure. Feel free to make your brand spanking new level 1 wizard the party's new rogue and handle all the Acrobatics, Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Disable Device, Perception and Stealth checks for their first 9 sessions.
I appreciate folks who are talking about higher level play, and when they have the ability to create a character starting at level 10. It's completely different when you begin play at level 10, pick up a ring of evasion, and there's no much difference between a character with +16 Disable Device and +20 Disable Device when it comes to disabling a DC30 trap. For gaming groups in this game, they have a different perspective, and a legitimate issue in the rogue being much less sexy than a magically enhanced alternative. That's kind of the way this game works though - it has a planned imbalance of magic vs non-magic at higher levels barring the odd case where folks are stripped of gear, forced to fight a beholder, etc.
Bringing the conversation back to the trait - I don't see it changing the rogue's usefulness to the typical parties I see every weekend (and that is many parties at 1-5, and a handful at 5-10).
In fact, I'd actually like to see a magus or wizard tempted to burn a trait here instead of constantly taking the more powerful alternatives and see no reason it couldn't be allowed in PFS play given PFS is what gave us the Seeker archetype for the very reason to get more players at tables with trapfinding.
Disabling Traps is such a small part of the game I don't think this impacts the rogue at all. Sure they are hazard at low levels but they become so trivial by high level that they just don't appear often and if they do they are easily avoided or don't do much harm.
The rogue suffers from other problems and those are debatable to the degree of the problem but the problems exist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogue does relatively better at low levels, say 1-4. That's already been mentioned.
A 'general discussion' of the class cannot be assumed to only apply to 20% of the level range though. The rest does matter.
Even at low levels, rangers and inquisitors handle all that type of stuff just great... AND getting more cool stuff.
Senior Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for letting us know Kudaku, i don't understand why they placed something like that in a companion book since we are going to have a mummy's mask player's guide when the adventure path begins.
Maybe they want to place different traits in the guide?
We've been putting the campaign traits for our APs in the tie-in Player Companions for awhile (though they appear in the free Player's Guides as well).
Varisia, Birthplace of Legends has a player's guide and campaign traits for Shattered Star; People of the North has campaign traits for Reign of Winter; and Demon Hunter's Handbook has the campaign traits for Wrath of the Righteous.Make no mistake, the Trap Finder trait is a campaign trait for Mummy's Mask - nothing more, nothing less.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogue Update Concept... based on the fact that Paizo supposedly recognizes Tricks are weak, yet their role in the Rogue class has higher expectations:
Increase the number of Rogue Tricks. They are weak, many of them could roll 2 into 1 and be balanced, so the easiest fix to the existing class is adding more Trick slots.
Drop Advanced Tricks down a few levels, to become available earlier. I don't think they necessarily need MORE of these, so basically they would get the same # of slots for Adv Tricks (that can also be used for normal Tricks) AND extra slots that can only be used for normal Tricks. While tending to spend Advanced Trick slots on Advanced Tricks, you would continue to pick up a very large, broad array of normal Tricks in high level play.
Add more Advanced Tricks that are higher powered, but have high Rogue Level pre-reqs, basically creating further tiers of Advanced Tricks.
Extra Trick Feat can gain you any of these tiers that you qualify for level-wise.
Either via these Tricks or otherwise, there needs to be some more means to gain bonuses to attack, like every other combat focused PC class, whether full or 3/4 bab. They also need stronger means to boost defenses, particularly non-Reflex Saves, as options, but viable and strongly worth the while if you choose to take them.
Most of that also boosts the Ninja, which needs much less help than the Rogue.
Fixing Rogue Ki Pool to offer parity is one fix there, also offering Tricks that require Rogue Abilities (Uncanny, Trap Sense, Evasion) make standard Rogues more viable. E.g. Pre-Req Evasion-> Evasion also applies to Will Saves. Pre-Req Uncanny->Scaling bonus to Init. Etc.
Great posts Quandary!
I would also:
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the character IS not a Rogue so with that trait come the painful lesson because he was not sneaky enough to "get away with it" like a rogue would.Unlike a Rogue this Player has a few people out to get him such as damaged parties or a Thieves Guild who is looking for a free agent in their territory.
So basically, you Fiat that only Rogues can be members of the local Thieves' Guild and every other class is barred from having criminal connections?
Along with the inverse: Every Rogue is a Thieves' Guild member and/or has underworld connections?
That is so much worse.
Thank you for letting us know Kudaku, i don't understand why they placed something like that in a companion book since we are going to have a mummy's mask player's guide when the adventure path begins.
Maybe they want to place different traits in the guide?We've been putting the campaign traits for our APs in the tie-in Player Companions for awhile (though they appear in the free Player's Guides as well).
Varisia, Birthplace of Legends has a player's guide and campaign traits for Shattered Star; People of the North has campaign traits for Reign of Winter; and Demon Hunter's Handbook has the campaign traits for Wrath of the Righteous.Make no mistake, the Trap Finder trait is a campaign trait for Mummy's Mask - nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks for the info.
Cool Avatar.
This is all I could find, sorry.
The Trap Spotter rogue talent is a good way to gain an auto-spot ability for traps in the game. Normally, you can't autospot traps like this. A player has to specifically state that they're looking for traps.
- James Jacobs on the Paizo Rules Questions forum: Dec 6, 2009
Wouldn't PFS and adventure paths be a good measure for comparing Rogues against other classes built to be Thieves?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
add improved feint (without meeting the Perecs) as a Rogue Tricks
Great point, many (most?) classes offer some means of gaining a Feat or something else via "early entry" or otherwise bypassing pre-reqs. Rogues would be perfect candidates. This could be implemented as auxiliary features to Tricks: the Trick has some active function, but also says: "You can take X Feat without meeting the pre-reqs" (or just exempting some pre-reqs).
Tricks based on having certain Rogue class features (evasion, uncanny, trapspotting) would distinguish between Rogue/Ninja, but also between vanilla Rogue and Archetype Rogues that most people seem to thin are stronger - thus they need less help. If they retain SOME of those features, they could access SOME of the benefits, if they Archetype out of basically all Rogue features, then they couldn't access those.
We bypassed some magical traps tonight. I mean, it took me 2 of my 5 3rd level spells to Dispel, but whatevz.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the wizard flies over the pond that would normally take a swim check only to step into the crowded embassy and do what about the door guards? (I'm sure you'll say Charm here, because in these simulations a wizard of course has every spell on the spell list, and of course prepared it today).Anyone can take diplomacy, a wand of charm person is 750gp or 2PP and most of my examples are Sorcerers or Oracles so shroedingers wizard doesnt apply.
Especially Sorcerers. Is there a Bloodline that DOESN'T have Fly as a bonus spell?
Also, there's a trait that makes Wizards boss at Diplomacy and Bluff.
|
|
Nobody *needs* to handle acrobatics. Perception and Diplomacy sure, maybe Bluff. Traps can be dealt with by summons and rogues going on solo stealth missions are committing suicide.
You were talking about beating chase scenes on your wizard, sorcerer or oracle just as well as a rogue. Go ahead and drop your level 1 seeker sorcerer into a spoiler if you like and feel free to take him through a chase with some rolls in a spoiler.
I'll spoiler the chase scene I just saw tackled by several level 1-2 groups below. Go ahead and be level 2 if it helps you even!
Some of you may recognize this from a certain PFS scenario. :)
1: Jump Through Window (Acrobatics DC20) or Bluff Guard (Bluff DC15)
2: Climb Ivy Wall (Climb DC10) or Dodge Slippery Bathers (Reflex DC15)
3: Climb Fence (Climb DC18) or Unlock Gate (Disable Device DC12)
4: Greet Hostess (Diplomacy DC12) or Shove Through (CMB DC17)
5: Take A Deep Breath (Swim DC12) or Slippery Stones (Acrobatics DC20)
6: Excuse Me Coming Through (Escape Artist DC18) or Get Out Of The Way (Intimidate DC13)
7: Squeeze Under (Escape Artist DC18) or Giddy Up (Handle Animal DC13)
8: Ledge to Ledge (Climb DC23) or Pinky Grips (Sleight of Hand DC15)
9: Watch Your Step (Perception DC15) or Quick Feet (Acrobatics DC20)
10: FINISH LINE!
So when did we get on the subject of Sorcerers being better Rogues than Rogues instead of the classes closer to their niche (Bard, Alchemist, Ninja, and Inquisitor)? I've seen people mention trap disabling and certain skill checks being easily handled by mid level casters but I'll admit I haven't been paying much attention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you need to chase someone you can sleep hex?
*scratches head*
Why do you need to chase someone you can sleep hex?
*scratches head*Unfortunately in this case, the person you are chasing starts 180 feet away from you. Feel free to get that level 1-2 witch within 30 feet so you can!
Expeditious Retreat. Catch up.
Also, can't you just say which scenario it is and warn of spoilers? I want to look this sort of stuff up because I've always wondered how these chases don't get nipped in the bud immediately.
Well. I mean it is hard to beat cherry-picked scenarios where the characters have no say in what happens and are designed specifically for a level 1 rogue to shine.
You've got us there!
I mean really, your situations are so contrived you might as well just start shouting "rocks fall, you all die, the rogue evades!"
As always, I can only speak from my own experience BUT...in 16 years of play every rogue I've played with has died due to the role he has (scouting, trap disarming) being a solo-sport. And we've never had a single issue. Not once. In two game groups, playing every week for about 10 years straight now. Not one issue where a rogue was needed or there wasn't another way around an obstacle.
There have been RARE OCCASIONS where magical traps are tricky to disarm. However, 2 3rd level slots are easier to prepare than an entire party member.
I largely feel this same way about the "healer" role and wands of CLW. The treasure it costs us to pay for (super cheap and effective!) magical healing is WAAAAAAY less than it would cost to give a cleric 1/4 or 1/6 of our treasure div. Same goes for rogue.