RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Just had a crazy idea...
So, mistmail exists. But no one ever uses it, because even if the GM reads it right and doesn't add a 3min time limit, you're getting 20% concealment at the cost of your AC ever mattering at all. Basically, while the mistmail is active, any attack-based enemy probably only misses on a 1 because you don't have your biggest bonus to AC, so the 20% miss chance is your ONLY defense.
But what if I used it for something other than the miss chance? Because unlike, say, blur it grants actual concealment.
And if you have concealment, you can use Stealth.
And if you use Stealth, you can (potentially) use Sneak Attack.
Of course, since every enemy has an 80% chance of hitting me, I want to be a ranged combatant, and somehow a musket seems cooler to fire out of my personal cloud of fog than a bow.
Especially if I'm flying via winged boots, in which case I AM A THUNDERCLOUD!
:D
So anyway, I'm thinking of at least 3 levels of Musket Master to start with, so that reloading the musket is a move action by default and a free if I use a paper cartridge. I'm not sure whether to jump straight into rogue at 4th, or wait until I have DEX to damage first. I also don't really have any of the build's details in mind other than Musket Master, Rogue, mistmail, winged boots, and Stealth.
Any suggestions/guidance? Thanks!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Thinking out loud here...
.
.
.
.
Human
STR 11
DEX 18
CON 14
INT 10
WIS 12
CHA 12
Traits: Reactionary, Magical Talent (insert cantrip here)
Musket Master 1: Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot
Musket Master 2
Musket Master 3: Rapid Reload, Deadly Aim
Rogue 1: Sneak Attack 1d6, UMD as class skill
Rogue 2: Arcane Strike, Rogue Talent (Ninja Trick [Deadly Range])
Rogue 3: Sneak 2d6
Rogue 4: Vital Strike, Rogue Talent...?
Rogue 5: Sneak 3d6
...I'm a little fuzzy after that. :/
I realize there might be an argument to be made that RAW there's no limit, but RAI strongly suggests the activated ability is a modified version of Obscuring Mist and would thus be subject to the time limit. A good sanity check is the price - a 1000 gp flat price seems very cheap for any persistent L1 effect.
Another problem: You'd still need to get around the inability to stealth while observed. You pretty much will be found once you fire your musket, so unless you get HiPS somehow, you're only going to get the one sneak attack. This doesn't give you that much a leg up on Joe Rogue considering his SA at least does about 2d6 more damage and he likely has better AC.
I'm afraid I'm too much of a noob/tool to offer anything more constructive. You're fighting an uphill battle anytime you try to make a ranged rogue.
EDIT: This may invalidate the point behind the mistmail, but it may be prudent to dip shadowdancer for HiPS. That also gets you the prereqs for shot on the run, which you can then use to move within range, fire, and then shift positions away-ish. If you're "caught" after firing, who cares? You can make another check after moving away, I'd imagine. That said, I think the feat tax would probably be too steep though. It'd probably be simpler to have a reliable means of Greater Invisibility on hand.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I realize there might be an argument to be made that RAW there's no limit, but RAI strongly suggests the activated ability is a modified version of Obscuring Mist and would thus be subject to the time limit. A good sanity check is the price - a 1000 gp flat price seems very cheap for any persistent L1 effect.
No, nothing implies that you're activating a modified obscuring mist. In fact, being even moderately well-versed in normal magic items points the opposite direction.
Wondrous items that activate a spell effect, even a modified one, say so in their descriptions (something like "you may use spellname once per day on command, except..."). Construction prerequisites do not inform the function of the item; if you tried to use that logic, you break a lot of things in the CRB. Seriously: open up your CRB, look at the wondrous items, and read all the construction-required spells that aren't mentioned in the item descriptions and see if your method of interpretation remains reasonable.
As for your "sanity" check, you're ignoring an awful lot of facts, not the least of which is that you don't get to have an armor bonus to AC. Everyone hits you 80% of the time. I could do better than that with regular armor.
Another problem: You'd still need to get around the inability to stealth while observed. You pretty much will be found once you fire your musket, so unless you get HiPS somehow, you're only going to get the one sneak attack. This doesn't give you that much a leg up on Joe Rogue considering his SA at least does about 2d6 more damage and he likely has better AC.
Concealment allows you to use Stealth—it's right there in the book, in the same paragraph with the "not while observed" bit. Basic reading comprehension shows that it's explaining that concealment is what is required to be able to claim that you're not being observed.
The plan is to attack, then next round Stealth again and attack again. So one shot per round (hence Vital Strike).
Concealment or cover is necessary but not sufficient for stealth. If it were the case that partial concealment allows you to stealth while observed, there'd be no point to the HiPS ability, or at least the ranger's flavor.
Also read through the distraction use case. Under your interpretation, if you have concealment, why would you need to distract observers? You can just hide anyway. This is not the case. Unless you interpret that distraction offers a sort of pseudo-concealment so you can hide without normal concealment, it is clear that it removes observation as an inhibitory element. The absence of observation, barring HiPS-like abilities, is necessary (and, coincidentally, sufficient) for attempting stealth.
That said...
As for your "sanity" check, you're ignoring an awful lot of facts, not the least of which is that you don't get to have an armor bonus to AC. Everyone hits you 80% of the time. I could do better than that with regular armor.
Fair point. Sanity check statement withdrawn.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Concealment or cover is necessary but not sufficient for stealth. If it were the case that partial concealment allows you to stealth while observed, there'd be no point to the HiPS ability, or at least the ranger's flavor.
Not true; if you look at cover/concealment as being the definition of getting out of direct observation (which a plain reading of that paragraph implies) then the ranger's HiPS is still very functional: it lets you use Stealth right out in the open - that is, without needing cover or concealment first.
Also read through the distraction use case. Under your interpretation, if you have concealment, why would you need to distract observers? You can just hide anyway. This is not the case. Unless you interpret that distraction offers a sort of pseudo-concealment so you can hide without normal concealment, it is clear that it removes observation as an inhibitory element. The absence of observation, barring HiPS-like abilities, is necessary (and, coincidentally, sufficient) for attempting stealth.
Bluff/distraction is to make a Stealth check getting TO cover/concealment; normally you would need to already be there before you could start taking actions that would involve Stealth checks, but Bluff will let you use Stealth in transit so that they don't know where you even went - which is exactly the classic trope that the diversion mechanic tries to emulate. My interpretation doesn't interfere with that at all.
Not true; if you look at cover/concealment as being the definition of getting out of direct observation (which a plain reading of that paragraph implies) then the ranger's HiPS is still very functional: it lets you use Stealth right out in the open - that is, without needing cover or concealment first.
Under that interpretation, what is the purpose of the same ranger's camouflage ability? He can already hide without cover/concealment in the absence of HiPS. Getting HiPS only changes the equation by allowing him to do so even when observed.
Bluff/distraction is to make a Stealth check getting TO cover/concealment; normally you would need to already be there before you could start taking actions that would involve Stealth checks, but Bluff will let you use Stealth in transit so that they don't know where you even went - which is exactly the classic trope that the diversion mechanic tries to emulate. My interpretation doesn't interfere with that at all.
Do you propose, then, that there is no need to make said bluff check to hide from someone who is directly next to you, talking to you, if you happen to be in a dimly lit room granting the same level of concealment as your Mistmail? You already have concealment, after all, and so do not need to distract him to seek it out.
What is your evidence that you can stealth if unobserved OR if you have cover/concealment? Explain how having cover/concealment invalidates the sentence, "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth," and then explain why the same sentence does not invalidate cover/concealment allowing a check.
Again, concealment/cover is necessary but not sufficient.
|
A bit off topic, but related to being a Gunslinger "sniper".
Tonight we had someone sit down at the table with the Gunslinger pregen, who for those that don't know, is a half-elf.
She can't see in the dark.
So in a party where the rest of the people had Darkvision, we came up with an idea.
The Oracle cast Light on a bullet, and the pregen loaded it into her barrel.
Instant "sniper" (and a lot of laughs!)
=D
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Under that interpretation, what is the purpose of the same ranger's camouflage ability? He can already hide without cover/concealment in the absence of HiPS. Getting HiPS only changes the equation by allowing him to do so even when observed.
Not true; if you look at cover/concealment as being the definition of getting out of direct observation (which a plain reading of that paragraph implies) then the ranger's HiPS is still very functional: it lets you use Stealth right out in the open - that is, without needing cover or concealment first.
Hm, okay, that's actually rather compelling.
Do you propose, then, that there is no need to make said bluff check to hide from someone who is directly next to you, talking to you, if you happen to be in a dimly lit room granting the same level of concealment as your Mistmail? You already have concealment, after all, and so do not need to distract him to seek it out.
Bluff/distraction is to make a Stealth check getting TO cover/concealment; normally you would need to already be there before you could start taking actions that would involve Stealth checks, but Bluff will let you use Stealth in transit so that they don't know where you even went - which is exactly the classic trope that the diversion mechanic tries to emulate. My interpretation doesn't interfere with that at all.
Remember, though, that "dimly lit" in game terms is NOT the same "dimly lit" that you must be picturing in order to make your example seem absurd enough to bother mentioning. After all, are you picturing a room that's "dimly lit" enough that if you suddenly decided to punch me while I'm standing there talking to you, that there's a 20% chance that you punched the air where I wasn't standing? Because if that's not the light level you're picturing, your example is wrong.
Go into a completely lightless room. Light a torch, and set it down. Walk 30ft away. Think an expert in stealth might be able to hide from you then?
What is your evidence that you can stealth if unobserved OR if you have cover/concealment? Explain how having cover/concealment invalidates the sentence, "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth," and then explain why the same sentence does not invalidate cover/concealment allowing a check.
Again, concealment/cover is necessary but not sufficient.
I'm not saying anything invalidates the "if observed" sentence. I'm saying that the next sentence defines it.
Read them together, the way they appear in the rules:
"If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth."
How does that read to you? That's what it says. If instead it said then it would obviously mean what you're claiming; it would be listing two conditions under which you can't use Stealth (while observed, and while you lack cover/concealment), and therefore you need to satisfy both criteria before you can use Stealth.
But that's not what it says. It says that if you have cover/concealment, you can use Stealth. When a sentence saying comes right after a vague, non-game-term statement about observation that needs to be defined, it seems intuitive that the immediately-following game-term sentence is a definition of the sentence before it.
Yes, this does cause an issue between the ranger's Camoflage and HiPS abilities (though interestingly, not the Shadowdancer's HiPS). But in this case, it seems less problematic to believe there's an issue with the ranger's abilities than to read the Stealth rules in what seems to me to be a strained and unintuitive way. YMMV.
Here's a sidewinder:
In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. Some creatures, such as those with light sensitivity and light blindness, take penalties while in areas of bright light. A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover. Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine and inside the area of a daylight spell.Normal light functions just like bright light, but characters with light sensitivity and light blindness do not take penalties. Areas of normal light include underneath a forest canopy during the day, within 20 feet of a torch, and inside the area of a light spell.
Long story short, your concealment doesn't allow stealth checks unless the light environment would allow you to do so anyway. Even then, I maintain my point regarding observation directly preventing stealth and justify it with the usual rule of thumb that when two statements in the rules are in conflict, the more specific one holds true. Against most creatures, concealment allows you to attempt a check. Against creatures who are observing you, you cannot. "Creatures observing you" is more specific than "most creatures," so the observation short-circuit statement holds.
Here's a hail-mary possibility, with the caveat that I'm far from the greatest optmizer. Same-ish point spread.
Human Gunslinger 5/Shadow Dancer 2/Rogue 4+
Feats:
G1: Dodge, Rapid Reload (Musket), Point Blank Shot
G3: Precise Shot
#Here come the taxes
G4: Mobility
#At least this one can be made useful later if you go for the snap-shot feats
G5: Combat Reflexes
SD2.7: Vital Strike
R2.9: Weapon Training (Musket) Talent, Deadly Aim
R4.11: Combat Trick (Rapid Shot), Snap Shot <- these are both iffy.
Future Ideas:
Deft shootist is almost a must, either by feat or by the grit rogue talent. Getting at least one SA-modifying talent should be a good bet, too. No particular suggestions there for lack of experience. Fast stealth will really help battlefield mobility if you end up pulling a shoot->drop stealth->move to regain stealth routine. The Snap Shot /talent/ could be useful depending on how often you have bilateral surprise rounds. Depending on how lenient your GM is with allowing free action reloads after AoO's taken via snap shot, going for the improved and greater versions might be worth it. If you're okay with foregoing Vital Strike for defensive tactical advantage, and as you have the prereqs already, Shot on the Run could be used to move (possibly regaining stealth), shot for SA, and return to full cover handily.
Notes:
In darkness, you technically can't use SD HiPS. If your opponents have darkvision, stay in the shadowy radius of whatever light source your team is lugging along, I guess. If they don't have darkvision, they're functionally blind and still subject to SA.
Overall, a little bit less thundercloud, a little more deafening darkness?