As far as using a Wizard to perform a Rogue job goes.
beside taking up a spell slot as mention before.
Most Spells have a VERBAL component.. Which means the bad guys will have a chance to hear you casting said spell unless you have taken silent casting feat.
And Detect magic is one of the easiest defenses to set up. Far easier then it is to detect a Rogue sneaking in. So going through some area with spells up is going to be like going through a metal detector wearing plate armour.Truth. I actually had a situation recently where the party was trying to infiltrate a mercenary camp at night, and they wanted to have the bard charm the guards, but because it had a verbal component they needed to make some sort of sound that would be loud enough to cover it up but not unusual enough to put them on high alert.
I think the "spells surpass skill ranks" argument doesn't hold a whole lot of water when you consider that generally, most parties will have only 1 wizard, which is really the only class capable of replacing ALL of the skills with spells, as sorcerers don't get to choose enough of them to make that huge a dent unless they're devoting themselves to "replacing the rogue" in which case there are others things they can't do.
Couple things, 1. Wizards gets skills as well and will eventually have more then a Rogue and 2. in the event that you have replaced the Rogue with a Wizard, you now have 2 Wizards not one.
Let me give this a shot. I'm going to try and avoid just using attrition. Please note I have way more experience with Divine Casting, so I will admit I may be selling Wizard magic short at a few points. The main thing with skills vs prepared casting is magic will win out when it has time to be prepared and deployed. So to make skills relevant, you really just need need to deprive someone of that.
Acrobatics: I think the potential to avoid AoEs may justify this one alone, considering how many circumstances prevent 5 foot stepping. Other ways to make it work include things like having the ground suddenly split beneath the party and require an acrobatics check to avoid being knocked prone, take damage, or what have you.
As has been shown repeatedly, tumbling to avoid AoO is not really a viable strategy. The other part calls for Reflex saves, not Acrobatics checks.
Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate: Honestly, I don't really feel like these should require examples. Trying to magic your way through social interactions can be problematic on all sorts of levels. If you try to Charm Person someone and they make their save, or have allies which can see you and you may or may not be able to see, then people may not be too happy that you are invading minds. Now you just turned a bunch of potential allies into hostiles. Too bad, their leader was planning to tell you where all that magical loot was. You also never really know when one of these checks will come in handy.
Mostly agree, these are A-list skills.
Climb: Admittedly, this seems to be a bit of a dead end, but a DM can make it matter. See: My characters gets knocked down really long stairs and needs a climb check to stop falling. Or the wind makes it harder to fly than climb, or you get swallowed by a giant monster and have to muscle your way up it's esophagus.
Dead end. Being swallowed calls for Escape Artist.
Disguise: Admittedly this one is hard. One thing springs to mind though. A lot of spells have limited durations. If you need to move around a city you are wanted in freely for a long period of time, a Disguise might be more efficient than an Alter Self.
Hat of disguise costs 1.800 gold, and the people you need to fool tend to have low perception scores.
Escape Artist: I struggle to come up with a circumstance for this that don't involve just straight up depriving someone of magic. Liberating Command makes that hard. If everyone is getting grappled though the Wizard probably only prepared so many, and if he lost his ability to verbalize he is screwed.
Liberating Command, the Liberation domain, liberating Command, Grease, swift-action teleportation...there's a lot of magic that beats this, and most of it is cheap.
Fly: I don't feel I need to justify this since most Wizard strategies to bypass skills involve flying. You want skill ranks here to not get knocked out of the air.
But you don't need a lot.
Handle Animal: If you are summoning monsters, do you really want to have to burn another spell slot just to get a little extra utility from them once the combat is over?
Meh. Animals are trapfinders, at best.
Linguistics: This skills is honestly just broken and should be revised. But here's an example: You're suddenly surrounded by a savage tribe that hates magic. They will cut you and your party down if you so much as try a Cantrip, much less a Tongues spell. They can be talked down but don't speak Common.
Given that your attempt to make Linguistics relevant is a scenario that's a) extremly contrived and b) strictly low-level, I think we can agree that the skill is actually terrible.
Perform: I dunno, I never bothered to research Bards, but I think they can do stuff with this?
Nope. They do get to substitute it for actual skills like Diplomacy and Sense Motive.
Ride: All this really needs to be useful is a mount that is exceptionally badass to outdo high level magic-- maybe let the PCs ride dragons for a Starfox style midair shenanigans.
All you need is the ability to make a DC 10 check. Unless you're using Mounted Combat to negate hits, which is actually good value for skill points, but very situational.
Sense Motive: I think this is up there with Bluff and Diplomacy. Really useful to have on in any non-combat interaction.
Theoretically, very useful. In practice, player paranoia tends to protect them from the very occasional trickster.
Stealth: While I can't think of any situation that calls for this skill that wouldn't benefit from Invisibility, or a few other spells, one should point out there's no reason you can't use both. Spells and skills stack here, unlike situations where Climb and Wings are mutually exclusive. There are still ways to alert people to your presence when Invisible, and a good DM will utilize those if a player uses Invisibility as a crutch. Frankly, if you need to cast Invisibility, there's a good chance you already HAD to make a Stealth check to not get noticed before or during the spell's casting.
Yes. But Invisibility without good Stealth is better than good Stealth without Invisibility. Any Stealth challenge that a non-invisible character has a decent chance of handling can easily be turned into no chance of failing by an invisible wizard.
Survival: Frankly, I don't think I know enough about Divination and this skill to give you a good example. I'm not sure what spells replace it so I can't really come up with a scenario where they don't apply. But I imagine it could still come down to stuff like tracking someone who is fleeing from you, which might let you take 10 rounds or more to cast a Divination.
Strictly low level. And if you're going to track someone at low level, just bring a dog.
Sleight of Hand: Again, not sure if any spells can really take the place of this.
More importantly, what does this skill actually, in practice, do for you?
As has been shown repeatedly, tumbling to avoid AoO is not really a viable strategy. The other part calls for Reflex saves, not Acrobatics checks.
This is not true. You require skill focus, Boots of Elvenkind, and skill mastery but avoiding AOOs is doable.
Currently my level 10 rogue can take 35 on acrobatics checks. This can handle CMDs at this level. And I do not have skill focus yet.
Traits: Resilient(+1 fort saves), Indomitable Faith(+1 Will)
1 |Deceitful, Skill Focus(Bluff)
2 |Finesse Rogue
3 |Combat Expertise
4 |Combat Trick(Improved Feint)
5 |Skill Focus(UMD)
6 |Bleeding Attack
7 |Combat Reflexes
8 |Fast Stealth, Skill Focus(Stealth)
9 |Quick Draw
10|Skill Mastery(Bluff, UMD, Stealth, Disguise, Acrobatics)
11|Greater Feint
12|Opportunist
13|Iron Will
14|Crippling Strike
15|Great Fortitude
16|Hard Minded, Skill Focus(Acrobatics)
17|Extra Rogue Talent(Skill Mastery)
18|Defensive Roll
19|Improved Great Fortitude
20|Improved Evasion
By level 20, I estimate an acrobatics check of 54 when taking 10.
This dances around dragons, but will still have problems for things like the Tarrasque.
Yes. But Invisibility without good Stealth is better than good Stealth without Invisibility. Any Stealth challenge that a non-invisible character has a decent chance of handling can easily be turned into no chance of failing by an invisible wizard.
False, +20 to the check just is not good enough when the roll spread is 19 (difference between 1 and 20)
Same build as above can take 36 on stealth checks. The diversion mechanic combined with a good bluff makes any room with cover a more preferable situation for those with only good stealth.
Combine acrobatics, climb, bluff, and there are very few areas that just good stealth cannot enter.
Just invisibility will have problems with a complex(building) with 20 lvl 1 guards who have 1 rank in perception (perhaps even as a class skill).
In truth, Invisibility alone just doesn't cut it. Many GM's apply 3.5 logic to these situations so many are under the illusion that invisibility is the stealth skill replacement. This happens in my own games, but what invisibility will never have is infinite duration, which is critical to any sort of infiltration mission.
Hat of disguise costs 1.800 gold, and the people you need to fool tend to have low perception scores.
My favorite item! For my rogue. Who has deceitful and skill mastery. The build posted above can take 37 on the skill. I can safely impersonate anything or one of my type. Including the -10 penalty for creatures of a different size.
Someone without ranks though is still looking at the +19 spread caused by opposed rolls. The +10 from the item just doesn't cut it, even for those with low perception.
Yes. But Invisibility without good Stealth is better than good Stealth without Invisibility. Any Stealth challenge that a non-invisible character has a decent chance of handling can easily be turned into no chance of failing by an invisible wizard.False, +20 to the check just is not good enough when the roll spread is 19 (difference between 1 and 20)
Same build as above can take 36 on stealth checks. The diversion mechanic combined with a good bluff makes any room with cover a more preferable situation for those with only good stealth.
Combine acrobatics, climb, bluff, and there are very few areas that just good stealth cannot enter.
Just invisibility will have problems with a complex with 20 lvl 1 guards who have 1 rank in perception (perhaps even as a class skill).
In truth, Invisibility alone just doesn't cut it. Many GM's apply 3.5 logic to these situations so many are under the illusion that invisibility is the stealth skill replacement. This happens in my own games, but what invisibility will never have is infinite duration, which is critical to any sort of infiltration mission.
A lvl 1 guard with perception as class skill will not be able to perceive the invisible guy. Well, not reliably anyway.
Remember of modifiers : +1 to perception DC for every 10ft, amongst other modifiers (light, ...).
An invisible character have a +20 to stealth, plus his dexterity modifier (third most important ability for wizards), plus the distance. a perception DC of 1d20+25 is common (+2 from DEX, distance of 30ft). The guard will have +4 to perception, maybe up to +8 with skill focus and/or wisdom, but it's not granted. With a +8 to perception, you only have 0,75% of seeing an invisible guy moving at 30ft, and less than 4% chance of seeing the guy when he's right next to you while moving.
All this for an invisible guy that doesn't have any single rank in stealth, skill focus, magic items, traits or class skill bonus.
As has been shown repeatedly, tumbling to avoid AoO is not really a viable strategy. The other part calls for Reflex saves, not Acrobatics checks.This is not true. You require skill focus, Boots of Elvenkind, and skill mastery but avoiding AOOs is doable.
Currently my level 10 rogue can take 35 on acrobatics checks. This can handle CMDs at this level. And I do not have skill focus yet.
That's nice. If 15' of movement gets you where you want to go when you're facing an iconic CR 9 creature, the Frost Giant. With your character who...doesn't really do a lot once he gets where he's going, AFAICT.
By demonstrating how far you have to go to build a character who can actually tumble, and how little it accomplishes, you've nicely proven my point.
Yes. But Invisibility without good Stealth is better than good Stealth without Invisibility. Any Stealth challenge that a non-invisible character has a decent chance of handling can easily be turned into no chance of failing by an invisible wizard.False, +20 to the check just is not good enough when the roll spread is 19 (difference between 1 and 20)
Same build as above can take 36 on stealth checks. The diversion mechanic combined with a good bluff makes any room with cover a more preferable situation for those with only good stealth.
Combine acrobatics, climb, bluff, and there are very few areas that just good stealth cannot enter.
Just invisibility will have problems with a complex with 20 lvl 1 guards who have 1 rank in perception (perhaps even as a class skill).
In truth, Invisibility alone just doesn't cut it. Many GM's apply 3.5 logic to these situations so many are under the illusion that invisibility is the stealth skill replacement. This happens in my own games, but what invisibility will never have is infinite duration, which is critical to any sort of infiltration mission.
A lvl 1 guard with perception as class skill will not be able to perceive the invisible guy. Well, not reliably anyway.
Remember of modifiers : +1 to perception DC for every 10ft, amongst other modifiers (light, ...).
An invisible character have a +20 to stealth, plus his dexterity modifier (third most important ability for wizards), plus the distance. a perception DC of 1d20+25 is common (+2 from DEX, distance of 30ft). The guard will have +4 to perception, maybe up to +8 with skill focus and/or wisdom, but it's not granted. With a +8 to perception, you only have 0,75% of seeing an invisible guy moving at 30ft, and less than 4% chance of seeing the guy when he's right next to you while moving.
All this for an invisible guy that doesn't have any single rank in stealth, skill focus, magic items, traits or class skill bonus.
Exactly, but their isn't just one guard is there?
There is 20*20 possible combinations, so 400. Someone with a +1 has a 1/400 chance of seeing you. Someone with +4 increases that more so, but let's assume the +1.
Say a structure has 20 such guards. Let's say on average you are making a check against 5 of them. First round, you are 98.7% successful.
Next round 97.5
Let's say you have extended invisibility at level 10, but only use 10 minutes to be safe. That's 100 rounds. You will be unnoticed 28.6% of the time.
Now that is just assuming the guards have a +1 to perception. The odd get much worse as the ranks go up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
God I love people discussing the viability of a spell in a scenario when both parties are making up the details of the scenario as they go along.
Exactly, but their isn't just one guard is there?
There is 20*20 possible combinations, so 400. Someone with a +1 has a 1/400 chance of seeing you. Someone with +4 increases that more so, but let's assume the +1.
Say a structure has 20 such guards. Let's say on average you are making a check against 5 of them. First round, you are 98.7% successful.
Next round 97.5Let's say you have extended invisibility at level 10, but only use 10 minutes to be safe. That's 100 rounds. You will be unnoticed 28.6% of the time.
Now that is just assuming the guards have a +1 to perception. The odd get much worse as the ranks go up.
Yes, because rolling 100 Stealth checks while the GM rolls 500 Perception checks? That's totally how the game is played.
As has been shown repeatedly, tumbling to avoid AoO is not really a viable strategy. The other part calls for Reflex saves, not Acrobatics checks.This is not true. You require skill focus, Boots of Elvenkind, and skill mastery but avoiding AOOs is doable.
Currently my level 10 rogue can take 35 on acrobatics checks. This can handle CMDs at this level. And I do not have skill focus yet.
That's nice. If 15' of movement gets you where you want to go when you're facing an iconic CR 9 creature, the Frost Giant. With your character who...doesn't really do a lot once he gets where he's going, AFAICT.
By demonstrating how far you have to go to build a character who can actually tumble, and how little it accomplishes, you've nicely proven my point.
You claimed it could not be done. Which was false.
I will post later on the forums just how useful that tumbling is.
NOTE: Only 10ft of movement are expended to avoid the AOOs to get through the square that they threaten for large creatures. You still have a total of 25ft of movement and that is assuming no one has casted haste.
Yes, because rolling 100 Stealth checks while the GM rolls 500 Perception checks? That's totally how the game is played.Exactly, but their isn't just one guard is there?
There is 20*20 possible combinations, so 400. Someone with a +1 has a 1/400 chance of seeing you. Someone with +4 increases that more so, but let's assume the +1.
Say a structure has 20 such guards. Let's say on average you are making a check against 5 of them. First round, you are 98.7% successful.
Next round 97.5Let's say you have extended invisibility at level 10, but only use 10 minutes to be safe. That's 100 rounds. You will be unnoticed 28.6% of the time.
Now that is just assuming the guards have a +1 to perception. The odd get much worse as the ranks go up.
It is how the rules are written though.
Complaining about how spells are house-ruled to override skills is rather misplaced.
NOTE: A simple dice roller solves the problem. Each round is only 6 rolls. That is far less than most combat.
God I love people discussing the viability of a spell in a scenario when both parties are making up the details of the scenario as they go along.
Tis the nature of corner cases.
As has been shown repeatedly, tumbling to avoid AoO is not really a viable strategy. The other part calls for Reflex saves, not Acrobatics checks.This is not true. You require skill focus, Boots of Elvenkind, and skill mastery but avoiding AOOs is doable.
Currently my level 10 rogue can take 35 on acrobatics checks. This can handle CMDs at this level. And I do not have skill focus yet.
That's nice. If 15' of movement gets you where you want to go when you're facing an iconic CR 9 creature, the Frost Giant. With your character who...doesn't really do a lot once he gets where he's going, AFAICT.
By demonstrating how far you have to go to build a character who can actually tumble, and how little it accomplishes, you've nicely proven my point.
You claimed it could not be done. Which was false.
I will post later on the forums just how useful that tumbling is.
NOTE: Only 10ft of movement are expended to avoid the AOOs to get through the square that they threaten for large creatures. You still have a total of 25ft of movement and that is assuming no one has casted haste.
If you're going to split hairs, make double damn sure you've got your details straight. Look up to the post above; I said "not a viable strategy", not "can't be done, by anyone, ever".
Besides, let's turn off Easy Mode. Equal-CR encounters do not test characters. CR 11 has the Giant Emperor Scorpion (20' reach, CMD 37; even with skill focus, you're not tumbling that by taking 10), the adult black dragon (CMD 33 - but he won't be fighting you on a featureless plain. In a deep bog, tumbling just can't be done, regardless of modifier), the Retriever (CMD 36), and so on. I'm sure CR 12 and 13 are worse.
Actually, I'll give you the Dragon, because you'll either be flying, or you'll be playing Smash Bros the entire fight.
Yes, because rolling 100 Stealth checks while the GM rolls 500 Perception checks? That's totally how the game is played.It is how the rules are written though.
Complaining about how spells are house-ruled to override skills is rather misplaced.
NOTE: A simple dice roller solves the problem. Each round is only 6 rolls. That is far less than most combat.
But is that seriously how the game is played at your table?
Exactly, but their isn't just one guard is there?
There is 20*20 possible combinations, so 400. Someone with a +1 has a 1/400 chance of seeing you. Someone with +4 increases that more so, but let's assume the +1.
Say a structure has 20 such guards. Let's say on average you are making a check against 5 of them. First round, you are 98.7% successful.
Next round 97.5Let's say you have extended invisibility at level 10, but only use 10 minutes to be safe. That's 100 rounds. You will be unnoticed 28.6% of the time.
Now that is just assuming the guards have a +1 to perception. The odd get much worse as the ranks go up.
If the guards have +1 to perception, they can't see the invisible guy at all. They can be 500 in each room and still not changing this.
I showed you the chances you are to be seen with someone with +8 to perception.
Between 0,75% and 3,75%. If just any modifier apply in the situation (it's dark, the guards are chatting, ...), they can't see me at all, even when I am 2 inches from them.
At the contrary, a rogue with +70 to stealth still can't sneak without concealment or cover, so a door protected by a guard at each side, with torchs are rogue-proof (at least "sneak-rogue-proof").
35 will get you past most equal CR opponents but once you start facing things that are actually threatening you begin to have trouble. CR12 includes such standbys as the CMD40 purple worm or CMD43 sea serpent.As has been shown repeatedly, tumbling to avoid AoO is not really a viable strategy. The other part calls for Reflex saves, not Acrobatics checks.This is not true. You require skill focus, Boots of Elvenkind, and skill mastery but avoiding AOOs is doable.
Currently my level 10 rogue can take 35 on acrobatics checks. This can handle CMDs at this level. And I do not have skill focus yet.
** spoiler omitted **
By level 20, I estimate an acrobatics check of 54 when taking 10.
This dances around dragons, but will still have problems for things like the Tarrasque.
At which point it is a single or two enemy encounter which are easy regardless of what you do.
Multiple equal CR foes or lower making up a APL+4 encounter is for more challenging than CR 14 solo mobs.
Playing RotRL at the moment and most mobs we fight are either low CR or that same low CR mob with class levels, which generally do not pump the CMD all that high.
As has been shown repeatedly, tumbling to avoid AoO is not really a viable strategy. The other part calls for Reflex saves, not Acrobatics checks.This is not true. You require skill focus, Boots of Elvenkind, and skill mastery but avoiding AOOs is doable.
Currently my level 10 rogue can take 35 on acrobatics checks. This can handle CMDs at this level. And I do not have skill focus yet.
That's nice. If 15' of movement gets you where you want to go when you're facing an iconic CR 9 creature, the Frost Giant. With your character who...doesn't really do a lot once he gets where he's going, AFAICT.
By demonstrating how far you have to go to build a character who can actually tumble, and how little it accomplishes, you've nicely proven my point.
You claimed it could not be done. Which was false.
I will post later on the forums just how useful that tumbling is.
NOTE: Only 10ft of movement are expended to avoid the AOOs to get through the square that they threaten for large creatures. You still have a total of 25ft of movement and that is assuming no one has casted haste.
If you're going to split hairs, make double damn sure you've got your details straight. Look up to the post above; I said "not a viable strategy", not "can't be done, by anyone, ever".
Besides, let's turn off Easy Mode. Equal-CR encounters do not test characters. CR 11 has the Giant Emperor Scorpion (20' reach, CMD 37; even with skill focus, you're not tumbling that by taking 10), the adult black dragon (CMD 33 - but he won't be fighting you on a featureless plain. In a deep bog, tumbling just can't be done, regardless of modifier), the Retriever (CMD 36), and so on. I'm sure CR 12 and 13 are worse.
Actually, I'll give you the Dragon, because you'll either be flying, or you'll be playing Smash Bros the entire fight.
If I had skill focus my check would be 41 which would bypass all those CMDs.
Now ignoring that:
Generally what I fight are equal to low CR monsters with class levels, and as you pointed out iconic monsters like dragons are still easy to tumble around.
Furthermore once the CR of the individual monsters goes up, the amount of creatures in the encounter goes down, unless it is common for your table to fight encounters that are greater than APL+4 in CR. Even then that is basically a boss mob encounter that is not caster like creature (dragon) nor would they have class levels. So the rare full-attacking boss mob brute that is burned down in 2-3 rounds anyways would be a problem to tumble pass.
If I had skill focus my check would be 41 which would bypass all those CMDs.
Now ignoring that:
Generally what I fight are equal to low CR monsters with class levels, and as you pointed out iconic monsters like dragons are still easy to tumble around.Furthermore once the CR of the individual monsters goes up, the amount of creatures in the encounter goes down, unless it is common for your table to fight encounters that are greater than APL+4 in CR. Even then that is basically a boss mob encounter that is not caster like creature (dragon) nor would they have class levels. So the rare full-attacking boss mob brute that is burned down in 2-3 rounds anyways would be a problem to tumble pass.
That is good to know. I suppose your fights often take 4-5 rounds or more? Multiple under-leveled humanoids tend to produce longer fights IME (and dull as f&&! fights, but that's highly subjective). I can see how your character would be very useful in those circumstances.
If I had skill focus my check would be 41 which would bypass all those CMDs.
Now ignoring that:
Generally what I fight are equal to low CR monsters with class levels, and as you pointed out iconic monsters like dragons are still easy to tumble around.Furthermore once the CR of the individual monsters goes up, the amount of creatures in the encounter goes down, unless it is common for your table to fight encounters that are greater than APL+4 in CR. Even then that is basically a boss mob encounter that is not caster like creature (dragon) nor would they have class levels. So the rare full-attacking boss mob brute that is burned down in 2-3 rounds anyways would be a problem to tumble pass.
That is good to know. I suppose your fights often take 4-5 rounds or more? Multiple under-leveled humanoids tend to produce longer fights IME (and dull as f$~~ fights, but that's highly subjective). I can see how your character would be very useful in those circumstances.
I don't believe you are reading what I am typing if you think I was implying that the foes were under-leveled. I simply meant the base creature was of lower CR, not the total creature + class levels.
Couple things, 1. Wizards gets skills as well and will eventually have more then a Rogue and 2. in the event that you have replaced the Rogue with a Wizard, you now have 2 Wizards not one.As far as using a Wizard to perform a Rogue job goes.
beside taking up a spell slot as mention before.
Most Spells have a VERBAL component.. Which means the bad guys will have a chance to hear you casting said spell unless you have taken silent casting feat.
And Detect magic is one of the easiest defenses to set up. Far easier then it is to detect a Rogue sneaking in. So going through some area with spells up is going to be like going through a metal detector wearing plate armour.Truth. I actually had a situation recently where the party was trying to infiltrate a mercenary camp at night, and they wanted to have the bard charm the guards, but because it had a verbal component they needed to make some sort of sound that would be loud enough to cover it up but not unusual enough to put them on high alert.
I think the "spells surpass skill ranks" argument doesn't hold a whole lot of water when you consider that generally, most parties will have only 1 wizard, which is really the only class capable of replacing ALL of the skills with spells, as sorcerers don't get to choose enough of them to make that huge a dent unless they're devoting themselves to "replacing the rogue" in which case there are others things they can't do.
Not arguing that the Rogue is a flop class. I actually agree with that. You don't even need spells to beat the rogue. My "replacing the rogue" reference may have misled you. My qualm is with the idea that spells are strictly superior to overcoming skill challenge than non-casters with it as a class skill.
A single wizard can't be expected to competently replace other characters on all valuable skill rolls unless he completely devotes himself to that, as opposed to damage-dealing spells, combat support, etc.
He would need to prepare multiple copies of invisibility spells, mind-control spells, and utility spells like spider climb in order to outdo other classes in ALL skill areas, and that doesn't leave much room to the important combat spells.
Of course, all of this depends on how many challenges come up in a single day, which varies from table to table.
|
I've seen quite a few people in the forums calling skills and characters focused on them as useless? I personally have not played a PFS organized game but i know that when my group gets together skills are far from useless. While skills may not be effective in combat, there is so much more to the game than that. I play rogues a lot, and i mean a lot. And i don't know how many times I've save our group from being destroyed either through diplomacy, stealthy intervention, or by destroying a problem enemy with a devastating sneak attack while other characters drew his attention away. Needless to say without my help we would be creating new characters much more often. Anyone who underestimates my characters in Society play will regret this mistake. That i promise.
Skills do suck, unless it helps me get more DPR. I just want combat man
Personally I find the sage sorcerer is a much better option for replacing the rogue. You dont need to worry about memorising lots of utility, you simply take some of the utility spells using your expanded spells known from the Human FCB and a couple of pages and spell knowledge and away you go. People dont expect sorcerers to be doing the knowledge thing either so you can sink your large number of skill points into "rougish" skills without getting too much grief from your party.
Agreed mostly because the Seeker archetype along with Sage goes a long long way to making the Sorcerer quite the skill class (really more Sage then Seeker) compared to the default Sorcerer. Now if only Seeker and Razmiran Priest/False Priest archetype didn't both trade away Eschew Materials...
@ Ellis Mirari - Its not as heavy a spell investment as you might think except perhaps from levels 1-5/6 or so. Around 7 it will become a much lower burden. It can work at low levels if you are willing to spend some crafting scrolls using your free convenient Scribe Scroll feat class feature. The thing is... a lot of the skill replacing are low level and if you really need tons of Knocks/Aram Zey's Focus, Ring of Wizardry II is only 20,000 gp to make.
Now if the challenges for beyond 8 or so encounters... ya this might become a problem.
I think a fundamental problem I have with some of the posts in this topic is it assumes a very standardized game type. Maybe it's because my experience has differed personally, but there is kind of this mindset here that the party is going to play the sort of game that best suits spellcasters-- IE, you can predict when you will be in danger and will have time to cast the appropriate spell before hand, you get can count on getting the rest you need whenever you want, you have full access to every resource the game could possibly offer.
I've been playing in a campaign where the party was framed for the destruction of a city. People are constantly lying to us and trying to manipulate us. Our DM isn't generally cruel with rest opportunities, but we can't necessarily count on being able to do it whenever we want. Magic's also currently illegal, which makes it risky for our characters to overtly use it.
I dunno, it just seems like this all really comes down to DM discretion. I mean we all know by now that a Tier 1 caster with all their capabilities will be able to trivialize a lot of stuff. But a DM can make choices in how they run their game to mitigate this and find opportunities for any given Skill to shine. Sometimes the scenario may feel contrived, but the DM should be setting up their game so it lets players use their toys. If one of my players is a rogue and another is a wizard, you can bet I will find a way to keep the wizard in check, even if it requires other magic.
As has been shown repeatedly, tumbling to avoid AoO is not really a viable strategy. The other part calls for Reflex saves, not Acrobatics checks.
Fair enough on the AoE thing, but a DM could quite comfortably say that retaining balance during an ongoing effect would be an Acrobatics check in the same vein as Grease.
Dead end. Being swallowed calls for Escape Artist.
Again, there are a few times where a DM COULD make it a thing. I am not arguing it is the best skill when flight is an alternative, but the example of falling down the stairs or climbing DOWN the throat of the monster to stab its insides are pretty kewl. But it's not the best skill.
Hat of disguise costs 1.800 gold, and the people you need to fool tend to have low perception scores.
Well, assuming you play a game with magic mart access, yeah, that DOES make Disguise pretty silly to invest in. Still could come in handy if magic is being used as a security measure I guess-- Detect Magic, Anti-Magic fields, and so forth.
Liberating Command, the Liberation domain, liberating Command, Grease, swift-action teleportation...there's a lot of magic that beats this, and most of it is cheap.
Actually, thinking about this more, I don't know if Escape Artist should be undersold. Most of these will require concentration checks if you are trying to use them for your own sake, which can be tricky business. Some of them don't, but they they are also only going to be available to specific characters (Liberation Domain.) I've heard concentration checks aren't very hard to make at higher levels, but I think a DM could make them get awfully tricky if you start having multiple distractions-- a grappler, readied actions to attack during casting, and so forth.
But you don't need a lot.
Probably not, no. Unless you do-- you never really know when a DM will throw a tornado, or a situation where you need to rapidly gain altitude, or a variety of other things.
Meh. Animals are trapfinders, at best.
You can do more than that. In a few post combat cases, I have gotten decent use out of my summons. Once I used a leopard to lead me through the jungle to make up for my own crappy survival score. At another time, after alarms had been triggered and guards had begun rushing in our general direction, I Handled a pack of hyenas to run off the direction of the oncoming guards to cover our escape. That's before you get into stuff like mounts and animal companions.
All you need is the ability to make a DC 10 check. Unless you're using Mounted Combat to negate hits, which is actually good value for skill points, but very situational.
There's all sorts of stuff a DM could do to raise the DC of that check though. Obviously it's highly situational, but hey, so is a lot of magic.
Theoretically, very useful. In practice, player paranoia tends to protect them from the very occasional trickster.
Unless tricksters are actually commonplace. EVERYONE lies to each other in my campaign. And paranoia can only get you so far sometimes.
Yes. But Invisibility without good Stealth is better than good Stealth without Invisibility.
Except for where it isn't-- True Seeing, or a creaky door, or a variety of other circumstances.
Strictly low level. And if you're going to track someone at low level, just bring a dog.
Not to seem like a newb, but I don't understand how this is strictly low level? Situations where you need to do this could arise at any time. It's basic navigation to a certain extent. And bringing a dog is fine... if you had time to get a dog beforehand.
More importantly, what does this skill actually, in practice, do for you?
I think I already provided a few examples. Pick pocketing is one, and hiding something you wear or carry which could incriminate you is another.
Captain Morgan:
You keep saying "A DM could X." Please compare to something published so we aren't just pulling out Schrodinger's counters to the argument. Because "A DM could make skills useless." is the equivocal argument and both are meaningless.
Captain Morgan:
You keep saying "A DM could X." Please compare to something published so we aren't just pulling out Schrodinger's counters to the argument. Because "A DM could make skills useless." is the equivocal argument and both are meaningless.
The argument that Hats of Disguise may be rare is a clear evidence of reaching.
I'm all for arguing the virtue of skills but the counter points need to be solid.
You keep saying "A DM could X." Please compare to something published so we aren't just pulling out Schrodinger's counters to the argument. Because "A DM could make skills useless." is the equivocal argument and both are meaningless.
That's not actually a equivocal argument. I'm not arguing a DM should make magic useless. Making anyone useless runs counter to the goal of a DM, which is that everyone gets to have fun and feel like they are making a difference. I don't really see why published materials are relevant unless you know your DM refuses to deviate from published material in any manner.
The Hat of Disguise thing was reaching, I will admit. But if the argument is "magic is generally better at helping me easily win at most published material," that's true. But it doesn't mean that it's impossible to make skills useful.
Because published material is neutral to build discussions, while individual GMs are not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because published material is neutral to build discussions, while individual GMs are not.
Why is neutrality relevant? My assertion was that skills can be useful, either instead of or in conjunction with magic, given the right scenario. This is a game about having fun. If a player wants to be a skill monkey the DM should figure out if that person can contribute to the campaign, and of the answer is no they should either adjust the campaign or tell the player they may want to rethink their choice.
I'm not arguing this game is well balanced or that skills are as good as magic. I am arguing we as players and as DMs have the ability to make up for the game balance issues.
Can GM's make up for unbalanced material... well obviously. That has very little to do with a discussion about balance. No one is saying "X class cannot contribute", but even a Commoner can contribute so thats a poor measure of determining the worth of a class. I believe that you are not interested in having the discussion we are having here Captain Morgan, since we comparing things objectively here and thus neutrality is extremely important. Also, I would prefer the game be balanced in the first place as I am liable to rewrite the system from the ground up if I start homebrewing.
I'm not arguing this game is well balanced or that skills are as good as magic. I am arguing we as players and as DMs have the ability to make up for the game balance issues.
An irrelevant point.
It's true but not interestingly so.
Skills are as useless as the GM makes them.
If the game centers around Nuke the Orc, then yes skill are pretty worthless at high level.
On the other hand if the Gm try to make the players think, runs villains that can plot ahead and are smart then skills become far more important.People keep saying this, but I would love to see concrete examples that magic isn't the answer.
Btw, I mostly GM, and I try to make skills relevant, but it gets hard. Except for knowledges, those stay relevant for a long time.
My skill examples were posted in response to the above. So... No, I was not having the same conversation as you guys. I was posting examples of ways to work skills into a campaign in response to requests for examples of skills being relevant in a campaign.
Also, if you guys are simply looking to establish whether Pathfinder is inherently balanced... Well, it's already been established that it isn't. In this thread and countless others like it. So you can either have your DM run a non-traditional campaign in such a way that rebalances things, figure out how to optimize a weaker class, or house rule the basic mechanics to fit your vision of balance and fun better.
The first option was what I was trying to do, and can be a really fun change of pace. The second option is a losing battle because my party wizard could always put a little more effort into HIS optimization and make my rogue useless. And if you go for the third option, whether you merely try to tweak Paizo's rules or try and start from scratch, then discussion of the other two options is still relevant because it gives you ideas on how the game can run better.
Playing traditional published material with strict pathfinder RAW will not be a perfectly balanced experience. But if you are reading these boards and posting on it rather than moving on to a new game, then clearly we all have some sort if interest in playing Pathfinder and making sure it is enjoyable when we do it. Or, you know, you could just say that magic will always trump skills and that that playing anything other than a tier 1 Caster is a waste of time.
Yes. But Invisibility without good Stealth is better than good Stealth without Invisibility. Any Stealth challenge that a non-invisible character has a decent chance of handling can easily be turned into no chance of failing by an invisible wizard.False, +20 to the check just is not good enough when the roll spread is 19 (difference between 1 and 20)
Same build as above can take 36 on stealth checks. The diversion mechanic combined with a good bluff makes any room with cover a more preferable situation for those with only good stealth.
Combine acrobatics, climb, bluff, and there are very few areas that just good stealth cannot enter.
Just invisibility will have problems with a complex with 20 lvl 1 guards who have 1 rank in perception (perhaps even as a class skill).
In truth, Invisibility alone just doesn't cut it. Many GM's apply 3.5 logic to these situations so many are under the illusion that invisibility is the stealth skill replacement. This happens in my own games, but what invisibility will never have is infinite duration, which is critical to any sort of infiltration mission.
A lvl 1 guard with perception as class skill will not be able to perceive the invisible guy. Well, not reliably anyway.
Remember of modifiers : +1 to perception DC for every 10ft, amongst other modifiers (light, ...).
An invisible character have a +20 to stealth, plus his dexterity modifier (third most important ability for wizards), plus the distance. a perception DC of 1d20+25 is common (+2 from DEX, distance of 30ft). The guard will have +4 to perception, maybe up to +8 with skill focus and/or wisdom, but it's not granted. With a +8 to perception, you only have 0,75% of seeing an invisible guy moving at 30ft, and less than 4% chance of seeing the guy when he's right next to you while moving.
All this for an invisible guy that doesn't have any single rank in stealth, skill focus, magic items, traits or class skill bonus.
Well what happpens when the owner of said building replace say two of the first level fighter guarding the building with 2 first level casters casting detect magic on a regular basis? Remember there IS NO SAVING THROW for detect magic.
Detect Magic is a 0 level spell that can be cast by almost all spell casting classes so almost all NPC of any importance should have some one able to cast it as needed.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My skill examples were posted in response to the above. So... No, I was not having the same conversation as you guys. I was posting examples of ways to work skills into a campaign in response to requests for examples of skills being relevant in a campaign.
I think you might be arguing past one another - Marthkus and Anzyr are arguing that the skill system is underwhelming in typical play and near as I can tell, you're arguing that a GM can take steps to make the skill system work well.
Let's try a RL example. The original Xbox 360 had a problem with overheating, melting the internal components and making the console useless. One user claimed the overheating wasn't a problem because he just placed the XBOX in a watertight submerged cabinet inside a water cooler - effectively lowering the temperature inside the console and avoiding the problem. Of course he'd need to dismantle the cabinet whenever he wanted to change games, but he considered that a small price to pay for a cool-running console.
The fact that you can houserule and create specific scenarios that make skills viable doesn't change the fact that at its core, many skills are underwhelming and some grow useless by the low-mid levels.
My skill examples were posted in response to the above. So... No, I was not having the same conversation as you guys. I was posting examples of ways to work skills into a campaign in response to requests for examples of skills being relevant in a campaign.I think you might be arguing past one another - Marthkus and Anzyr are arguing that the skill system is underwhelming in typical play and near as I can tell, you're arguing that a GM can take steps to make the skill system work well.
Let's try a RL example. The original Xbox 360 had a problem with overheating, melting the internal components and making the console useless. One user claimed the overheating wasn't a problem because he just placed the XBOX in a watertight submerged cabinet inside a water cooler - effectively lowering the temperature inside the console and avoiding the problem. Of course he'd need to dismantle the cabinet whenever he wanted to change games, but he considered that a small price to pay for a cool-running console.
The fact that you can houserule and create specific scenarios that make skills viable doesn't change the fact that at its core, many skills are underwhelming and some grow useless by the low-mid levels.
You are entirely correct. But again, that's an established thing by now. I know it, you know, Paizo knows it. Shouldn't we focus on solutions to make it better, or is our job as consumers to merely point out how things are broken and hope that the creators get it right next time?
Obviously in your Xbox example it would be impractical for most of us to make the Xbox work better. But we don't have those limitations here and I think it is worth fixing things or at least talking about how to. If the consensus is that this isn't the right thread for that, Gauthok and I can go start a new one.
Well what happpens when the owner of said building replace say two of the first level fighter guarding the building with 2 first level casters casting detect magic on a regular basis? Remember there IS NO SAVING THROW for detect magic.
Detect Magic is a 0 level spell that can be cast by almost all spell casting classes so almost all NPC of any importance should have some one able to cast it as needed.
The obvious answer is Nondetection, which is a guaranteed success against the level 1 wizards.
Furthermore, Detect Magic tells you there is some kind of magical presence on round 1, then number of presences on round 2. Send someone in with an item that has Magic Aura cast on it, then stealth past while that character is in the scan range. Move past the scan zone before round 2.
Finally, detect magic can't penetrate barriers, especially lead. Either use the area to take advantage of cover, or bring a thin sheet of lead and keeping it between you and the scanner. Bonus points if you're a halfling.
And make note of the fact that by default you can't stealth without concealment (typically darkness) or hard cover. If there's no cover or concealment available, the rogue would have a much harder time stealthing past the (apparently incredibly) vigilant wizard guards than our theoretical spellcaster.
You are entirely correct. But again, that's an established thing by now. I know it, you know, Paizo knows it. Shouldn't we focus on solutions to make it better, or is our job as consumers to merely point out how things are broken and hope that the creators get it right next time?
Obviously in your Xbox example it would be impractical for most of us to make the Xbox work better. But we don't have those limitations here and I think it is worth fixing things or at least talking about how to. If the consensus is that this isn't the right thread for that, Gauthok and I can go start a new one.
I think a great many of us already have taken steps to make skills work better in our home games - I know I have. However I also think it's important that people do point out the shortcomings of Pathfinder. It's a game in constant evolution, and with the right tweaks Paizo can make the skill system much, much more satisfying than it is currently.
As far as handle animal goes.
In one of the games Im now in our Ranger has a baby Woolly Mammoth he is training. When full grown it may not fit in the dungeon or be any use in a bar fight.,but your average Goblin band is not going to steal it when we are in the dungeon either.
I think a great many of us already have taken steps to make skills work better in our home games - I know I have. However I also think it's important that people do point out the shortcomings of Pathfinder. It's a game in constant evolution, and with the right tweaks Paizo can make the skill system much, much more satisfying than it is currently.You are entirely correct. But again, that's an established thing by now. I know it, you know, Paizo knows it. Shouldn't we focus on solutions to make it better, or is our job as consumers to merely point out how things are broken and hope that the creators get it right next time?
Obviously in your Xbox example it would be impractical for most of us to make the Xbox work better. But we don't have those limitations here and I think it is worth fixing things or at least talking about how to. If the consensus is that this isn't the right thread for that, Gauthok and I can go start a new one.
I am in complete agreement. But those shortcomings were pointed out in this thread already. There were also some wonderful suggestions for overhauling the skills system. There did not seem to be suggestions for how to make a campaign more skill friendly, and there were requests for them. I made some suggestions. Then Marthkus and Anzyr said my posts were irrelevant.
Which is why I am finding you to be entirely more pleasant to talk to, bee tee dubs, because you are actually engaging in the context of what I am saying rather.
In one of the games Im now in our Ranger has a baby Woolly Mammoth he is training. When full grown it may not fit in the dungeon or be any use in a bar fight.,but your average Goblin band is not going to steal it when we are in the dungeon either.
Assuming mammoths grow up at the same rate as an asian elephant (which is roughly the same size), that baby mammoth will be full grown in a decade or so.
And your GM isn't running goblins right if they pass up the chance to light a baby mammoth on fire.
I am in complete agreement. But those shortcomings were pointed out in this thread already. There were also some wonderful suggestions for overhauling the skills system. There did not seem to be suggestions for how to make a campaign more skill friendly, and there were requests for them. I made some suggestions. Then Marthkus and Anzyr said my posts were irrelevant.
Which is why I am finding you to be entirely more pleasant to talk to, bee tee dubs, because you are actually engaging in the context of what I am saying rather.
Well, the thread topic is primarily whether or not those shortcomings exist - making suggestions for houserules and homebrewing skill variants will probably be better placed in the suggestions forum.
Ultimately I just wanted to point out that near as I can tell, Marthkus, Anzyr and you are in agreement in that you all think the skill system is flawed and could use some tweaks.
Edit: Feeling bad about the double posts, so I'll just combine these two :)
In one of the games Im now in our Ranger has a baby Woolly Mammoth he is training. When full grown it may not fit in the dungeon or be any use in a bar fight.,but your average Goblin band is not going to steal it when we are in the dungeon either.Assuming mammoths grow up at the same rate as an asian elephant (which is roughly the same size), that baby mammoth will be full grown in a decade or so.
And your GM isn't running goblins right if they pass up the chance to light a baby mammoth on fire.
I am in complete agreement. But those shortcomings were pointed out in this thread already. There were also some wonderful suggestions for overhauling the skills system. There did not seem to be suggestions for how to make a campaign more skill friendly, and there were requests for them. I made some suggestions. Then Marthkus and Anzyr said my posts were irrelevant.
Which is why I am finding you to be entirely more pleasant to talk to, bee tee dubs, because you are actually engaging in the context of what I am saying rather.
Well, the thread topic is primarily whether or not those shortcomings exist - making suggestions for houserules and homebrewing skill variants will probably be better placed in the suggestions forum.
Ultimately I just wanted to point out that near as I can tell, Marthkus, Anzyr and you are in agreement in that you all think the skill system is flawed and could use some tweaks.
Edit: Feeling bad about the double posts, so I'll just combine these two :)
Do you know what the green stuff is between a mammoth toes is? The last goblin who tried to set it on fire.
Do you know what the green stuff is between a mammoth toes is? The last goblin who tried to set it on fire.
I think you might be overestimating the size of a baby mammoth.
I don't find skills useless but they do become kind of trivial at high levels when the DCs hit max 40 and players auto succeed. A few still are useful like perception vs stealth, bluff vs sense motive, and Intimidate but even they are minimal use at best due to spells.
I don't see this a problem in general, an 18th level character should succeed like that. The problem is if you character concept is designed around skills what do you do when become so trivial that skill rolls aren't even used anymore. Why bother rolling when you auto succeed. It works but it take the challenge away. It would be like auto killing monsters to the point where you don't need to roll.
I think focusing on skills is fine for the lower levels but by the high levels you need something different to contribute to feel useful, even if your skills are useful just there is no challenge to using them anymore.
Do you know what the green stuff is between a mammoth toes is? The last goblin who tried to set it on fire.I think you might be overestimating the size of a baby mammoth.
But the point is , if the GM allows it there are many animals, if trained can add alot to the party. Almost anything with the word Dire in it, Rocs, Orcas etc. You could even bring a Dire bear into most dungeons.
Even then, it's kinda meh. My party captured several dire bears in RotRL, and they don't bring them with. Not really needed.