Rogues struggle to be competent in both skills and combat as they actually end up being very stat dependant.http://www.dndsheets.net/view.php?id=61196
I dunno, I think I'm doing alright. I'm staying at max rank in all the things that matter and still pulling off combat as well as a one-trick-pony reasonably can.
Your assessment of sorcerers and wizards is pretty good except their ability to react in surprise rounds is bad and their skill at getting in and out of crowded rooms is just tragic. Magical defenses have a look about them that would tip people off that you're anticipating a fight. If you don't already have them active, your first few rounds are going to be spent casting those. That's not very in-and-out. Plus not having any mundane ability to escape is pretty brutal. We're playing at low levels now and probably won't get too far past level 10, so teleportation abilities are limited and getting into a fight, diving out a window, scaling walls to safety and booking it home exhausts spells pretty quick.
We usually tie a rope around the gnome alchemist.
To begin, you have 25 points instead of the standard 15-20 points, have a disadvantage (for a bonus trait) and are not ranged based.
Even with all that, you have low saves (not abysmal, but low), mid to low AC and very low HP.
Your damage is decent though, but inferior to the one a lvl 4 fighter not optimized for damage is doing : you deals 1d8+17 when he's doing 2d6+15 [+6 STR, +1 weapon, +2 feat, +6 PA], with the same strength score as your rogue, all the time, and with a little better to hit and critical threat.
What is the point in compare a rogue lvl 4 damage with a fighter lvl 4 damage?
that isnt an optimized build..you always can improve.
Let´s change that:
Human Rogue 10
Str 14, Dex 26 Con 10, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8
Haste +17 - 1d8+ 5d6 + 18 + 5 bleed
Rapid Shot +17 - 1d8+ 5d6 + 18
1st Attack +17 - 1d8+ 5d6 + 18
2nd Attack +12 - 1d8+ 5d6 + 18
Traits: Reactionary +2 inic. Eyes and Ears of the City +1 perception
Feats:Weapon Proficiense(Long Composite bow) Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Skill Focus(Perception), Deadly Aim,
Rogue Talents:Bleeding Attack, Sniper´s Eye(allow sneak attack arget with concelment), Weapon Training, Follow Clues, Deadly Cocktail.For that:
Human Sanctified Rogue 10
Str 14, Dex 24 Con 14, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 8 (dual talent trait)
Haste +18 - 1d8+ 5d6 + 14 + 5 bleed
Rapid Shot +18 - 1d8+ 5d6 + 14
1st Attack +18 - 1d8+ 5d6 + 14
2nd Attack +13 - 1d8+ 5d6 + 14
Traits: Reactionary +2 inic. Indomitable Faith +1 will
Feats:Weapon Proficiense(Long Composite bow), Point Blank Shot, Greater fortitude, Toughness,
Rogue Talents:Bleeding Attack, Sniper´s Eye(allow sneak attack target with concelment), Weapon Training, combat trick(Rapid Shot), Feat(Iron will)
Saves:For:+9 Ref:+13 Will:+10 Hp:10d8+40 (favorite class +1hp)saves Ok, hp Ok, keep the damage low without sneak what is normal but with sneak is the best raged damage you will find at level 10.
Lest see. it is the same damage a vivisecsionist can do with the same stats. Witht he diference that the alchemist do have an extract for greater invisibility and a way to actually boost is to hit due to mutagen.
That is true, vivisecsionist is the best archer of the game. I have a build..will post later.
I won't say flat-out that rogues suck. I will say, however, that anything that you can think of to build using the rogue class can be built better using other classes.
Already did this a couple of pages ago, but okay.Classes that can do that kind of campaign beter than the rogue (and monk):
Ranger with urban favored terrain.
Alchemist.
Bard.
Wizard.
Inquisitor.
Ninja.
Note that I man they can do it better. Not just as well. Straight up, laugh at the poor rogue, better.
Sorry. I skipped a few pages. I figured even if you'd discussed the scenario already, I'm actually playing in a game like that so it's not hypothetical. My party (for reference) is Rogue-Rogue-Monk-Alchemist.
A ranger would definitely be able to replace one of the rogues or monk easily as a flanker-frontliner and not sacrifice any needed skills and just raise the general dpr of the party.
Our party actually has an alchemist. He's like the guy in any good heist movie who needs to hack something for us and always needs another 30 seconds. He's not as mobile as the rest of us, but is really versatile. I would agree he's just better than the rogues here.
Bard would replace a rogue in every way that mattered and eliminate some redundancy with social skills. I'll give you that one.
Wizards, at our level (4) can't do enough things reliably to fit into our heist game without creating redundancy with the alchemist.
Inquisitor? Crap. Okay. That could also be really appropriate in the setting if you played it right.
Ninjas are hands down better than the rogue, but they're themed all wrong. I hate them.
I guess I could put together a good heist team without the rogues and monk, but I feel like it would lose a lot of specific versatility. It would gain a bunch of stuff but I feel like those would apply mostly to situations that weren't cloak and dagger subterfuge. Like, if we were a ranger-ninja-inquisitor the three of us couldn't all hide in the same bathtub during a B&E or....hold it. ninja-ninja-ranger probably could.
Ninjas kinda ruin my whole deal. Lame.
Ninjas are hands down better than the rogue, but they're themed all wrong. I hate them.
I guess I could put together a good heist team without the rogues and monk, but I feel like it would lose a lot of specific versatility. It would gain a bunch of stuff but I feel like those would apply mostly to situations that weren't cloak and dagger subterfuge. Like, if we were a ranger-ninja-inquisitor the three of us couldn't all hide in the same bathtub during a B&E or....hold it. ninja-ninja-ranger probably could.
Ninjas kinda ruin my whole deal. Lame.
Fluff them as something different... A class name doesn't create the flavor of your character. You do. One of my players used to play a ninja who was only referred to as "trickster" or "scoundrel". He was basically a Rogue who dabbled in shadow/illusion magic.
Fluff them as something different... A class name doesn't create the flavor of your character. You do. One of my players used to play a ninja who was only referred to as "trickster" or "scoundrel". He was basically a Rogue who dabbled in shadow/illusion magic.
I really should, but the archetype rules would be different and I really wanted rumormonger from the Charlatan Rogue. You know, looking again I guess I thought the ninja had to give up some social ability to balance it out but it doesn't look like that's the case at all. It's literally just a more effective rogue. Did the devs ever openly say that all rogues should be ninjas now, because that's what this ninja trick list is screaming at me.
I really should, but the archetype rules would be different and I really wanted rumormonger from the Charlatan Rogue. You know, looking again I guess I thought the ninja had to give up some social ability to balance it out but it doesn't look like that's the case at all. It's literally just a more effective rogue. Did the devs ever openly say that all rogues should be ninjas now, because that's what this ninja trick list is screaming at me.This is one of the other problems that Rogues and many martial classes experience. New options come out in archetypes for effects which should already be part of the default ability of a skill. Really, before this existed did anyone really believe that someone reasonably skilled in Bluff couldn't start a rumour in a town? And yet the ability then gets produced which arguably carves it out of the base use of the skill and locks it behind an archetype or a feat or a class talent or something similarly b~$+#*~s.
Actually most of us just assume that rumor monger actually makes you worse at starting rumors. Because without it people who heard your lie repeat it without a bluff check because they think it is true.
Which that effect is about par for many rogue talents.
Fluff them as something different... A class name doesn't create the flavor of your character. You do. One of my players used to play a ninja who was only referred to as "trickster" or "scoundrel". He was basically a Rogue who dabbled in shadow/illusion magic.I really should, but the archetype rules would be different and I really wanted rumormonger from the Charlatan Rogue. You know, looking again I guess I thought the ninja had to give up some social ability to balance it out but it doesn't look like that's the case at all. It's literally just a more effective rogue. Did the devs ever openly say that all rogues should be ninjas now, because that's what this ninja trick list is screaming at me.
Why??? That ability does literally nothing. It's already possible to spread rumors by simply using Diplomacy/Bluff. This is one of those horribly written abilities that "allows" a character to do something by removing that option from everyone else. It makes no sense. Was it impossible for rumors to be spread before Ultimate Combat was published?
Why??? That ability does literally nothing. It's already possible to spread rumors by simply using Diplomacy/Bluff. This is one of those horribly written abilities that "allows" a character to do something by removing that option from everyone else. It makes no sense. Was it impossible for rumors to be spread before Ultimate Combat was published?Fluff them as something different... A class name doesn't create the flavor of your character. You do. One of my players used to play a ninja who was only referred to as "trickster" or "scoundrel". He was basically a Rogue who dabbled in shadow/illusion magic.I really should, but the archetype rules would be different and I really wanted rumormonger from the Charlatan Rogue. You know, looking again I guess I thought the ninja had to give up some social ability to balance it out but it doesn't look like that's the case at all. It's literally just a more effective rogue. Did the devs ever openly say that all rogues should be ninjas now, because that's what this ninja trick list is screaming at me.
This is why I think PF has a power seep problem as oppose to a power creep problem.
Actually most of us just assume that rumor monger actually makes you worse at starting rumors. Because without it people who heard your lie repeat it without a bluff check because they think it is true.
Which that effect is about par for many rogue talents.
You're thinking of Cunning Lie. Rumormonger is the one that codifies how quickly you can build a name for yourself in an area. It's useless in most games, but it's something I planned to abuse in Sharn, so I thought it was best that I not leave it up to DM fiat because he's gonna get so tired of me and my crap. This way I have a set system to overuse so I can dedicate my finagling with the DM to getting the results I want from the rumors that the game specifically says I succeeded at spreading.
You're thinking of Cunning Lie. Rumormonger is the one that codifies how quickly you can build a name for yourself in an area. It's useless in most games, but it's something I planned to abuse in Sharn, so I thought it was best that I not leave it up to DM fiat because he's gonna get so tired of me and my crap. This way I have a set system to overuse so I can dedicate my finagling with the DM to getting the results I want from the rumors that the game specifically says I succeeded at spreading.Actually most of us just assume that rumor monger actually makes you worse at starting rumors. Because without it people who heard your lie repeat it without a bluff check because they think it is true.
Which that effect is about par for many rogue talents.
Still, you don't need a class feature for that. Spreading Rumors is just a simple (and somewhat obvious) use of Bluff/Diplomacy.
Still, you don't need a class feature for that. Spreading Rumors is just a simple (and somewhat obvious) use of Bluff/Diplomacy.
It's not spelled out anywhere so I'd have to rely on the DM to set the DCs and determine the effects it could have. I mean, it's obvious that I could feasibly spread a rumor, if that was the only thing I needed to accomplish. The rule of cool would even let me do it a few times to avert major disasters for our crew. It's when I started using it several times a session for everything I could think of, and the novelty had worn off (our whole party has high bluff) I figured having hard rules for it would be valuable. Since I only had to give up trapfinding, it just seemed like a neat way to handle those elements.
I knew it was unoptimized when I picked it, but I was going for a theme. I opted to have something on my character sheet that implied more about my character's focus. I would totally agree that doesn't win any points for the rogue as far as this thread is concerned. In fact, I've come to the conclusion that my party could keep the same vibe with entirely different classes replacing 3 quarters of the characters.
Can anybody else think of a good way for 4 characters to operate in the same, highly mobile, low armor and weapon-free (or concealable) team and game type we're playing?
This is why I think PF has a power seep problem as oppose to a power creep problem.Why??? That ability does literally nothing. It's already possible to spread rumors by simply using Diplomacy/Bluff. This is one of those horribly written abilities that "allows" a character to do something by removing that option from everyone else. It makes no sense. Was it impossible for rumors to be spread before Ultimate Combat was published?Fluff them as something different... A class name doesn't create the flavor of your character. You do. One of my players used to play a ninja who was only referred to as "trickster" or "scoundrel". He was basically a Rogue who dabbled in shadow/illusion magic.I really should, but the archetype rules would be different and I really wanted rumormonger from the Charlatan Rogue. You know, looking again I guess I thought the ninja had to give up some social ability to balance it out but it doesn't look like that's the case at all. It's literally just a more effective rogue. Did the devs ever openly say that all rogues should be ninjas now, because that's what this ninja trick list is screaming at me.
It unfortuntately have both. Several imbalanced options amongs dozend of unworthy ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why??? That ability does literally nothing. It's already possible to spread rumors by simply using Diplomacy/Bluff. This is one of those horribly written abilities that "allows" a character to do something by removing that option from everyone else. It makes no sense. Was it impossible for rumors to be spread before Ultimate Combat was published?You know how bluff has the built in "If it is obviously too fantastic to believe, then the person can disbelieve"?
Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).Rumourmonger doesn't have that caveat, as a friend pointed out to me. That means you can tell all sorts of nonsense and it will be believed (The king is a half demon half dragon lich!!!)
This is where someone points out that rumormounger doesn't specifically override the general rule. Not that your example would trigger it.
Remember. If it seems like the rogue can do something cool and useful, it's probably against the rules.
Why??? That ability does literally nothing. It's already possible to spread rumors by simply using Diplomacy/Bluff. This is one of those horribly written abilities that "allows" a character to do something by removing that option from everyone else. It makes no sense. Was it impossible for rumors to be spread before Ultimate Combat was published?You know how bluff has the built in "If it is obviously too fantastic to believe, then the person can disbelieve"?
Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).Rumourmonger doesn't have that caveat, as a friend pointed out to me. That means you can tell all sorts of nonsense and it will be believed (The king is a half demon half dragon lich!!!)
That is when the DM start hitting peopel with his copy of the CRB for their silliness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It unfortuntately have both. Several imbalanced options amongs dozend of unworthy ones.This is why I think PF has a power seep problem as oppose to a power creep problem.Why??? That ability does literally nothing. It's already possible to spread rumors by simply using Diplomacy/Bluff. This is one of those horribly written abilities that "allows" a character to do something by removing that option from everyone else. It makes no sense. Was it impossible for rumors to be spread before Ultimate Combat was published?Fluff them as something different... A class name doesn't create the flavor of your character. You do. One of my players used to play a ninja who was only referred to as "trickster" or "scoundrel". He was basically a Rogue who dabbled in shadow/illusion magic.I really should, but the archetype rules would be different and I really wanted rumormonger from the Charlatan Rogue. You know, looking again I guess I thought the ninja had to give up some social ability to balance it out but it doesn't look like that's the case at all. It's literally just a more effective rogue. Did the devs ever openly say that all rogues should be ninjas now, because that's what this ninja trick list is screaming at me.
A host of double standards, but overall the efficacy of new material decreases overtime.
And as crane wing taught us, anything mildly useful outside of a spell or I HIT HARDER will be errata'd away.
Why??? That ability does literally nothing. It's already possible to spread rumors by simply using Diplomacy/Bluff. This is one of those horribly written abilities that "allows" a character to do something by removing that option from everyone else. It makes no sense. Was it impossible for rumors to be spread before Ultimate Combat was published?You know how bluff has the built in "If it is obviously too fantastic to believe, then the person can disbelieve"?
Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).Rumourmonger doesn't have that caveat, as a friend pointed out to me. That means you can tell all sorts of nonsense and it will be believed (The king is a half demon half dragon lich!!!)
Sorry, CWheezy, that sounds like a desperate attempt to make Rumormonger not appear as completely pointless. A lie being impossible only grants a -20 penalty.
While the skill does say some lies are too impossible to be believed, it also makes it clear that such thing is subject to GM discretion, which is basically a nice way to say "your GM doesn't have to let you convince everyone of whatever you want just because your Bluff bonus is too high. He can invoke rule 0".
That same GM discretion can, and almost certainly will, be applied to Rumormonger.
It unfortuntately have both. Several imbalanced options amongs dozend of unworthy ones.This is why I think PF has a power seep problem as oppose to a power creep problem.Why??? That ability does literally nothing. It's already possible to spread rumors by simply using Diplomacy/Bluff. This is one of those horribly written abilities that "allows" a character to do something by removing that option from everyone else. It makes no sense. Was it impossible for rumors to be spread before Ultimate Combat was published?Fluff them as something different... A class name doesn't create the flavor of your character. You do. One of my players used to play a ninja who was only referred to as "trickster" or "scoundrel". He was basically a Rogue who dabbled in shadow/illusion magic.I really should, but the archetype rules would be different and I really wanted rumormonger from the Charlatan Rogue. You know, looking again I guess I thought the ninja had to give up some social ability to balance it out but it doesn't look like that's the case at all. It's literally just a more effective rogue. Did the devs ever openly say that all rogues should be ninjas now, because that's what this ninja trick list is screaming at me.A host of double standards, but overall the efficacy of new material decreases overtime.
And as crane wing taught us, anything mildly useful outside of a spell or I HIT HARDER will be errata'd away.
I think you are basically right. that does nt means there is not power creep or that there is not power creep among martials.
Basically the standard barbarian is non-CRB. And Instant enemy is a massive power creep for rangers. and palaidnd have a lot of new toys.
Sadly they (mostly) all fit within the I HIT HARDER camp.
|
I think in a sense its is a mistake to make consider a ninja a non rogue, as the ninja is just another archetype of Rogue.
I've noted the objection to ranged Ninja Gunslinger as a non ranged Rogue with a sense of mirth as much of the "better than Rogues" examples are often archetypes of bards, alchemists, rangers, inquisitors, etc.
Yet the source of these half breeds is the developer's blending of rogues with another class to have a skilled (perhaps stealthy) improvement over the Fighter, Cleric, or Wizard. Or perhaps they agree with you, the Rogue needs a boost...easy enough play the mixed bag.
Then I see the tired old "fix" full bab, spells, max skills, feat every level, etc. It clearly shows where that train is headed. If you have no limits, have everyone play the "deity class" and the game becomes dull.
I do agree with several earlier statement that when power gaming you can find easier routes to power via other sources. I don't disagree with that statement. But as a Rogue enthusiast (yes a form of deviancy) I just don't go over the cliff.
My question is what is the minimum damage a character should do to be optimal for the group. I've asked it before without answer. I think it yields where your direction of thought lies. My own answer is 25% of the typical opposition hps at your CR.
Anyway - happy hunting..I've a half dozen relatives in line for the family title...so much to do, so little blackpowder.
Yours Truly
Scaramanga
the guy who can sort of scrape an enemy
This just makes me laugh. Something tells me that this particular Rogue would not function well in a modern urban environment.
"Betta step BACK brutha!" *Flicks out a knife.* "I'll... sort of scrape a guy."
*Pause*
"You're not very good a this, are you?"
Of course I would be okay with it. The players are meant to overcome. The barbarian smashing it is choosing the option come what may, and not solving it.Trap Wrecker
You can smash traps instead of disarming them.
Prerequisites: Power Attack, Disable Device 1 rank, orc.
Benefit: You can attempt to disarm a trap by striking it with a melee weapon instead of making a Disable Device check. As a full-round action, make a melee attack against an Armor Class equal to the trap's Disable Device DC. If you miss, the trap activates. If you hit, roll damage. If this damage is at least half the trap's Disable Device DC, you disable the trap. If this damage is less than half the trap's Disable Device DC, the trap activates. You can only attempt this on nonmagical traps. You must be able to reach some part of the trap with your attack in order to use this feat. At the GM's discretion, some traps may not be susceptible to this feat.
Limited, relies on discretion, doesn't work on magical traps, have to find a part to hit.
Other than that, I like it. So annoying only orcs can take it.
Already did this a couple of pages ago, but okay.Classes that can do that kind of campaign beter than the rogue (and monk):
Ranger with urban favored terrain.
Alchemist.
Bard.
Wizard.
Inquisitor.
Ninja.
Note that I man they can do it better. Not just as well. Straight up, laugh at the poor rogue, better.Sorry. I skipped a few pages. I figured even if you'd discussed the scenario already, I'm actually playing in a game like that so it's not hypothetical. My party (for reference) is Rogue-Rogue-Monk-Alchemist.
A ranger would definitely be able to replace one of the rogues or monk easily as a flanker-frontliner and not sacrifice any needed skills and just raise the general dpr of the party.
Our party actually has an alchemist. He's like the guy in any good heist movie who needs to hack something for us and always needs another 30 seconds. He's not as mobile as the rest of us, but is really versatile. I would agree he's just better than the rogues here.
Bard would replace a rogue in every way that mattered and eliminate some redundancy with social skills. I'll give you that one.
Wizards, at our level (4) can't do enough things reliably to fit into our heist game without creating redundancy with the alchemist.
Inquisitor? Crap. Okay. That could also be really appropriate in the setting if you played it right.
Ninjas are hands down better than the rogue, but they're themed all wrong. I hate them.
I guess I could put together a good heist team without the rogues and monk, but I feel like it would lose a lot of specific versatility. It would gain a bunch of stuff but I feel like those would apply mostly to situations that weren't cloak and dagger subterfuge. Like, if we were a ranger-ninja-inquisitor the three of us couldn't all hide in the same bathtub during a B&E or....hold it. ninja-ninja-ranger probably could.
Ninjas kinda ruin my whole deal. Lame.
You know you can re-theme ninjas in a setting to be a secret society of spring-heeled jack terrorist thieves right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know you can re-theme ninjas in a setting to be a secret society of spring-heeled jack terrorist thieves right?
No I did not. In fact, I'd never even heard of that particular urban legend either so you've done me two services. I mean, retheming things is nothing new to me, but every time I looked at the Ninja specifically, it seemed like it was just a murder-rogue, so my brain automatically passed it up if my character had any other focus (and they always do).
Hell, both my character and the other rogue are doing non-lethal builds into sap master because we anticipated lots of interaction with functionally innocent people for whom murder would cause us more problems and make them impossible to blackmail later. For that reason, I looked at the ninja and just kinda snorted and moved on. It was only yesterday that I looked again and found it was basically a rogue with a magic resource that makes him just that much more useful in most every way.
Why is he billed so hard as a totally combat class?
|
I do not completely agree with the premise that Rogues are that bad. I have a great build of a Rogue who took a Fighter dip. He's an Elf that uses a Curve Blade for melee (but rarely) and uses dex for his bonus to hit with Finesse. He's an excellent Archer going down the full archery feat line. His Disable Traps is excellent and has decent dex, perception, and stealth skills.
He's formidable at range and can help the party seek out and disable traps during a dungeon crawl. Maybe other classes can do that, but I still don't mind the things like Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, etc. that are thrown in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is he billed so hard as a totally combat class?
Collective double-standards, I think.
After all, the Rogue isn't really a combat class (even though 80% or more of the abilities have to do with combat). We all "know" this.
But when you look at the Ninja, you see those 80% of combat abilities plus a ki system that actually makes them effective in combat. (And even then they have no class-inherent way to boost their attack. My ninja has to depend on adding situational modifiers like the +2 from invisiblity, +2 from flanking, negatives to AC from flatfooted, +1 from height...)
For some reason, people regard the Ninja as more of an independent class than a Rogue archetype. So they look over the 'new class' with 80% or more combat features plus an additional mechanic that makes them effective in combat and say "well, this is the Rogue's combat capable brother. Thus it must be geared totally for combat."
The truth is: the Ninja trades trapfinding for combat effectiveness. It specializes in scouting instead of trapfinding. That's it. It has the same out-of-combat effectiveness as ever. Actually, it's likely to be a more social version of the Rogue due to higher charisma.
On a side note- my PFS Ninja had the opportunity to journey alongside a PFS trapfinding Rogue for a time. They were much better as a pair than they were alone. They could both stealth. They could both flank for each other. They could both do each other's jobs, except that the Rogue was practically assured of finding traps and the Ninja could use invisibility to safely check a room. It was beautiful.
I do not completely agree with the premise that Rogues are that bad. I have a great build of a Rogue who took a Fighter dip.
Actually, that reminds me. I've seen a dex-based Tengu Urban Barbarian/Rogue build that is truly lethal. He two-hands an agile elven curve-blade with weapon finesse and power attack. He's an AC tank with decent saves, a series of buffs available through UMD, and either good ('just' two hand power attacking) or great (adding sneak attack) damage. Plus, he can attack with his beak for bleed and sneak attack damage. It's pretty darn capable, and it doesn't lose out on the sneaky/trapfinding schtick.
I don't have exact numbers, but I can't imagine something like that would be difficult to rebuild. If someone wants some numbers, I can try putting something together over the weekend.
The truth is: the Ninja trades trapfinding for combat effectiveness. It specializes in scouting instead of trapfinding. That's it. It has the same out-of-combat effectiveness as ever. Actually, it's likely to be a more social version of the Rogue due to higher charisma.
specially after the trapfinding trait.
specially after the trapfinding trait.
Well... yes. If you can find a GM who permits it.
Folks on these boards toss the Trapfinding trait around a lot, but that's a campaign trait specific to a module.
1. I have yet to talk to a GM in person that doesn't snort derisively at the idea and/or disallow the trait immediately. The two who didn't regard it as "blatant cheese" said that a trait specific to a single module did not apply in their AP or custom world.
2. Campaign traits are the single trait type most likely to be assigned directly by the GM based on your character's background. I've both given them as a GM and received them as a player (and I'm refering to two different player groups btw- not two instances within the same circle). So the players may not be free to take the trait they want in that area.
Both of which are to say: using the trapfinder trait to slap the ability on any class is still a suspect practice in my area. Of course, there are plenty of archetypes that have trapfinding other than straight Rogue. But the interesting thing is that most (if not all) of those archetypes lends themselves quite well to scouting. So even if the Rogue class isn't being used as your scout, the Rogue archetype (the idea of the rogue) is. Giving out the trapfinding trait to any and all classes? That just feels disrespectful somehow. :/
Not sure how many folks read that, as nobody responded to the post. This is the spoiler'ed section from the bottom post of the last page.
specially after the trapfinding trait.Well... yes. If you can find a GM who permits it.
The same can be said about Ninjas, inquisitors and alchemist.
|
Skills:
Here you are not too bad. Stealth and Disable Device are decent. I am not that familiar with your archetype but it looks like you have traded away Trap Finding which reduces the utility of Disable Device. Your Perception is low for anyone thinking of working as an advance scout and you dont seem to have any ranks in UMD which would at least open up options.
I've been considering options for awhile and may retrain out of Knife Master. The d8s on SA just aren't worth dealing with the situational bonuses. It'll cost 15 prestige but I figure if he ends up dying before he gets back enough resources for a raise the problem will have solved itself.
He started out as being more focused on social encounters and had to morph towards combat a bit more due to the nature of the earlier season scenarios. Now I only pull him out for things like The Immortal Conundrum and Hellknight's Feast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
specially after the trapfinding trait.Well... yes. If you can find a GM who permits it.
*raises hand*
I haven't found one who doesn't, actually... Most, if not all, players and GMs who I met in live play said they would allow it. Myself included.Trap Finding is just not good enough to be worth a feat, much less a whole class.
|
|
The same can be said about Ninjas, inquisitors and alchemist.specially after the trapfinding trait.Well... yes. If you can find a GM who permits it.
People always defend this as a campaign trait, but it's a trait, no matter how you look at it. It's something they thought should be in the game. There's no trait for anything else like this. That's a pretty strong argument for how unimportant trapfinding is considered.
People always defend this as a campaign trait, but it's a trait, no matter how you look at it. It's something they thought should be in the game. There's no trait for anything else like this. That's a pretty strong argument for how unimportant trapfinding is considered.The same can be said about Ninjas, inquisitors and alchemist.specially after the trapfinding trait.Well... yes. If you can find a GM who permits it.
I also thing the existence of the trait say a lot. it is like "look, this campaing will be filled with traits but we will not want to force you to play a rogue so here is this trait"
not sue why it did not happened before.
People always defend this as a campaign trait, but it's a trait, no matter how you look at it. It's something they thought should be in the game. There's no trait for anything else like this. That's a pretty strong argument for how unimportant trapfinding is considered.
The same can be said about Ninjas, inquisitors and alchemist.I also thing the existence of the trait say a lot. it is like "look, this campaing will be filled with traits but we will not want to force you to play a rogue so here is this trait"
not sue why it did not happened before.
I think it makes perfect sense. You have a campaign that sets out to break the typical setting tropes so they feel certain things should be more available than they are in the typical setting. Why they're less plentiful in standard play could be any number of reasons, but the most obvious one is game balance.
Rogues are situational and that's whats kind of awesome to me. Whos the guy that's gonna tumble past the big defenders to kill the squishy mage in the back? Whos the guy that's gonna make the climb/acrobatics checks during the fight to drop that chandelier, or take on the archer up top.
A summoned monster. And probably more effectively as well.
That's part of the issue.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Great, the Rogue has been demoted from NPC to Summoned Monster and is still found to be lacking.
You know you can re-theme ninjas in a setting to be a secret society of spring-heeled jack terrorist thieves right?No I did not. In fact, I'd never even heard of that particular urban legend either so you've done me two services. I mean, retheming things is nothing new to me, but every time I looked at the Ninja specifically, it seemed like it was just a murder-rogue, so my brain automatically passed it up if my character had any other focus (and they always do).
Hell, both my character and the other rogue are doing non-lethal builds into sap master because we anticipated lots of interaction with functionally innocent people for whom murder would cause us more problems and make them impossible to blackmail later. For that reason, I looked at the ninja and just kinda snorted and moved on. It was only yesterday that I looked again and found it was basically a rogue with a magic resource that makes him just that much more useful in most every way.
Why is he billed so hard as a totally combat class?
Glad to help!
I do not completely agree with the premise that Rogues are that bad. I have a great build of a Rogue who took a Fighter dip. He's an Elf that uses a Curve Blade for melee (but rarely) and uses dex for his bonus to hit with Finesse. He's an excellent Archer going down the full archery feat line. His Disable Traps is excellent and has decent dex, perception, and stealth skills.
He's formidable at range and can help the party seek out and disable traps during a dungeon crawl. Maybe other classes can do that, but I still don't mind the things like Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, etc. that are thrown in.
I like the build. If in the fluff more elves were like this, a dungeon adventuring specialist but with some breadth in specialisation, respect would follow. I like the option of two handed weapons and the bow for a rogue, very nice choice. It is great that he is working his dex for all it is for from weaponry down into skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can re-theme rogues as archer clerics :-)
specially after the trapfinding trait.Well... yes. If you can find a GM who permits it.
Not sure how many folks read that, as nobody responded to the post. This is the spoiler'ed section from the bottom post of the last page.Folks on these boards toss the Trapfinding trait around a lot, but that's a campaign trait specific to a module.
1. I have yet to talk to a GM in person that doesn't snort derisively at the idea and/or disallow the trait immediately. The two who didn't regard it as "blatant cheese" said that a trait specific to a single module did not apply in their AP or custom world.
2. Campaign traits are the single trait type most likely to be assigned directly by the GM based on your character's background. I've both given them as a GM and received them as a player (and I'm refering to two different player groups btw- not two instances within the same circle). So the players may not be free to take the trait they want in that area.
Both of which are to say: using the trapfinder trait to slap the ability on any class is still a suspect practice in my area. Of course, there are plenty of archetypes that have trapfinding other than straight Rogue. But the interesting thing is that most (if not all) of those archetypes lends themselves quite well to scouting. So even if the Rogue class isn't being used as your scout, the Rogue archetype (the idea of the rogue) is. Giving out the trapfinding trait to any and all classes? That just feels disrespectful somehow. :/
I agree that the trait is going to be banned by a lot of GMs.
Also it is not available in Pathfinder Society Organized Play nor is it on the PRD.Regardless I really hope they create a feat or a trait in the next core line book (Advance class Guide) that grants you the ability to disable magical traps so we just can move on and address the real problem.
stuff
My intention is not to be snarky I just understand what you think you prove by creating highly specialist class canon set it up in a a highly contrived scenario specifically set up to make the rogue to succeed at dealing maximum damage SA damage. Especially since you haven’t actually presented its DPR.
As Atarlost pointed out in another thread that “The DPR Olympics threads have proven that even with sneak attack handwaved to always work rogues are lackluster damage dealers”.
If this is all about dismissing a specific claim about a class without actually presenting a viable character concept anyone can do it. Sure I can create a 10 level rogue or even a 10 level NPC Class with good saves
20 PB.
Str: 7, dex 18, con 16, int: 8, wis 18 (16 + 2 by leveling up) char 7.
Traits: Traits that boost saves
Feats: Feats that boost saves: Including Iron Will, Improved Iron will, Extra trait, etc.
Magic items that boos saves and AC
See what I mean?
Even in the Olympics thread there was a minimum of +8 to your fort and will saves, and I actually think that is too low considering the Average Primary Ability DC for a CR 10 creature is 19. This means you will fail 50 % of your saves.
If we should see if there is a way to create a rogue that is Viable the rules from the DPR Olympics thread is a good way to start. So if anyone still want to prove that the rogue is a good damage dealer?
Link:
The DPR Summer Olympics, or What are we supposed to use? Harsh language? .
The “rules in the Olympics thread has obviously been stacked heavily in favor of the martial classes, but it will still be interesting to see what happens.
My math sucks, so does anyone have a link to a DPR spread sheet that can to all the math?