|
While flanking is useful. It's also no that great imo. I see posters here say they use it all the time. So the DM of those games never targets the Rogue. A creature or at least a intelligent one never targets the guy stabbing him in the back. Funny how those who like Rogues and flanking never seem to be targets in their games. My games your Rogues would be prime targets. We have a Rogue in our group with a specialized build. If he flanks and hits he gets a bonus to AC if he he hits. If not he gets easily hit by the enemy easily Rogues don't have high ACs or the hps needs to take a lot of damage.
I don't think the ACG is going to marginalize any class imo. Even if it does it's a book that can be banned from the table. Problem solved.
That's odd because I have had multiple campaigns where flanking was accomplished almost every round of almost every battle. . . one of which didn't even feature a rogue, just a fighter and cleric who always worked together to flank.
Almost as if choosing to ignore tactics or treat the game like its a solo game instead of a cooperative hinders some characters, while other characters willing to work together gain advantage by thinking tactically. . .
Or people have played in dungeons with choke points, corners, and walls, or with a GM that runs monsters tactically.
Or when the group get's jumped and the rogue has a mob in his face that no one else is there to flank because they are too busy full attacking their mobs.
While flanking is useful. It's also no that great imo. I see posters here say they use it all the time. So the DM of those games never targets the Rogue. A creature or at least a intelligent one never targets the guy stabbing him in the back. Funny how those who like Rogues and flanking never seem to be targets in their games. My games your Rogues would be prime targets. We have a Rogue in our group with a specialized build. If he flanks and hits he gets a bonus to AC if he he hits. If not he gets easily hit by the enemy easily Rogues don't have high ACs or the hps needs to take a lot of damage.
This too.
While flanking is useful. It's also no that great imo. I see posters here say they use it all the time. So the DM of those games never targets the Rogue. A creature or at least a intelligent one never targets the guy stabbing him in the back. Funny how those who like Rogues and flanking never seem to be targets in their games. My games your Rogues would be prime targets. We have a Rogue in our group with a specialized build. If he flanks and hits he gets a bonus to AC if he he hits. If not he gets easily hit by the enemy easily Rogues don't have high ACs or the hps needs to take a lot of damage.
I don't think the ACG is going to marginalize any class imo. Even if it does it's a book that can be banned from the table. Problem solved.
Well Fighter and Rogue are already marginalized, so the ACG won't change that (just *how* marginalized they are). But hey, that's great really. Some classes need to be marginalized, since they otherwise won't get fixed to allow them to perform.
That's odd because I have had multiple campaigns where flanking was accomplished almost every round of almost every battle. . . one of which didn't even feature a rogue, just a fighter and cleric who always worked together to flank.
Almost as if choosing to ignore tactics or treat the game like its a solo game instead of a cooperative hinders some characters, while other characters willing to work together gain advantage by thinking tactically. . .
Or people have played in dungeons with choke points, corners, and walls, or with a GM that runs monsters tactically.
Or when the group get's jumped and the rogue has a mob in his face that no one else is there to flank because they are too busy full attacking their mobs.
Sure, there are situations. . . though with acrobatics applied liberally you can still usually get there. . .no facing + only have to threaten not attack?
Unless you literally mean 20 enemies surrounding the players so that they cannot possibly get to a situation where a flank is possible?
I'd be interested to know if you use a combat map or not. Party size might also be a factor in whether or not flanking is possible on average. I still don't think the generally expressed board opinion of "Lol you can NEVER flank" is remotely accurate.
And while flanking isn't "great" it is still a benefit, and more so for rogues.
That's odd because I have had multiple campaigns where flanking was accomplished almost every round of almost every battle. . . one of which didn't even feature a rogue, just a fighter and cleric who always worked together to flank.
Almost as if choosing to ignore tactics or treat the game like its a solo game instead of a cooperative hinders some characters, while other characters willing to work together gain advantage by thinking tactically. . .
Or people have played in dungeons with choke points, corners, and walls, or with a GM that runs monsters tactically.
Or when the group get's jumped and the rogue has a mob in his face that no one else is there to flank because they are too busy full attacking their mobs.
Sure, there are situations. . . though with acrobatics applied liberally you can still usually get there. . .no facing + only have to threaten not attack?
Unless you literally mean 20 enemies surrounding the players so that they cannot possibly get to a situation where a flank is possible?
I'd be interested to know if you use a combat map or not. Party size might also be a factor in whether or not flanking is possible on average. I still don't think the generally expressed board opinion of "Lol you can NEVER flank" is remotely accurate.
And while flanking isn't "great" it is still a benefit, and more so for rogues.
It's easier to flank without maps...
The existence of walls is quite the issue for flanking.
Sure, there are situations. . . though with acrobatics applied liberally you can still usually get there. . .no facing + only have to threaten not attack?
Acrobatics might not be your best bet. CMD scales pretty well against you, especially once size and the inherent strength bonuses kick in. CR 11 black dragon has a CMD of 33, and at 10th lvl you have 10+dex+misc.
Usually groups I have go for flanking when convenient or they see it as the best option, but they aren't going to dive for it to make someone else do marginally better. They might also cast invisibility or greater invisibility on the rogue though. Of course flanking and invisibility aren't in class for the rogue, so they aren't your safest bets.
Slayer benefits from flanking too! Cool guys.
|
|
Or people have played in dungeons with choke points, corners, and walls, or with a GM that runs monsters tactically.Or when the group get's jumped and the rogue has a mob in his face that no one else is there to flank because they are too busy full attacking their mobs.
Seconded. It's not to say that Rogue will never ever be in the right position to use his abilities. Sometimes they can't. The Rogue in our group routinely uses a wand of invisiblity to get into position. The Acrobatics skill does help. The Rogue better have good rolls and enough skill points. I rememebr a Rogue trying to tumble through a area with four enemies getting low rolls and allowing aoos. By the time he landed he was at negative hps.
Wands of vanish are better for that.
They are. The player who runs the Rogues likes being invisible for longer periods of time. I can't fault him for that.
Seconded. It's not to say that Rogue will never ever be in the right position to use his abilities. Sometimes they can't. The Rgue in our group routinely uses a wand of invisiblity to get into position.
Or people have played in dungeons with choke points, corners, and walls, or with a GM that runs monsters tactically.Or when the group get's jumped and the rogue has a mob in his face that no one else is there to flank because they are too busy full attacking their mobs.
Wands of vanish are better for that.
Or people have played in dungeons with choke points, corners, and walls, or with a GM that runs monsters tactically.Or when the group get's jumped and the rogue has a mob in his face that no one else is there to flank because they are too busy full attacking their mobs.
Seconded. It's not to say that Rogue will never ever be in the right position to use his abilities. Sometimes they can't. The Rogue in our group routinely uses a wand of invisiblity to get into position. The Acrobatics skill does help. The Rogue better have good rolls and enough skill points. I rememebr a Rogue trying to tumble through a area with four enemies getting low rolls and allowing aoos. By the time he landed he was at negative hps.
They are. The player who runs the Rogues likes being invisible for longer periods of time. I can't fault him for that.
Wands of vanish are better for that.
All of which require a free hand for the wand. Preventing TWF.
All of which require a free hand for the wand. Preventing TWF.
Or people have played in dungeons with choke points, corners, and walls, or with a GM that runs monsters tactically.Or when the group get's jumped and the rogue has a mob in his face that no one else is there to flank because they are too busy full attacking their mobs.
Seconded. It's not to say that Rogue will never ever be in the right position to use his abilities. Sometimes they can't. The Rogue in our group routinely uses a wand of invisiblity to get into position. The Acrobatics skill does help. The Rogue better have good rolls and enough skill points. I rememebr a Rogue trying to tumble through a area with four enemies getting low rolls and allowing aoos. By the time he landed he was at negative hps.
They are. The player who runs the Rogues likes being invisible for longer periods of time. I can't fault him for that.
Wands of vanish are better for that.
Wand + weapon cord.It is not like you can activate the wand and attack in the same round anyways
Sure, there are situations. . . though with acrobatics applied liberally you can still usually get there. . .no facing + only have to threaten not attack?Acrobatics might not be your best bet. CMD scales pretty well against you, especially once size and the inherent strength bonuses kick in. CR 11 black dragon has a CMD of 33, and at 10th lvl you have 10+dex+misc.
Usually groups I have go for flanking when convenient or they see it as the best option, but they aren't going to dive for it to make someone else do marginally better. They might also cast invisibility or greater invisibility on the rogue though. Of course flanking and invisibility aren't in class for the rogue, so they aren't your safest bets.
Slayer benefits from flanking too! Cool guys.
If you are surrounded by the 8-16 enemies per PC that prevents ordinary movement to flanking and they are all CR 11 black dragons I think you're probably better off using the "throw your hands in the air and beg for mercy" diplomacy check. . .
Define "marginally better"? Sure, two barbarians may not go out of their way for flanking, but Monk+ Rogue usually try to get there real hard?
Take also into account that ninjas/vivisecsionist are better for that flaking thing too, among other things, but of course that have nothing to do with rogues being marginalized.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are surrounded by the 8-16 enemies per PC that prevents ordinary movement to flanking and they are all CR 11 black dragons I think you're probably better off using the "throw your hands in the air and beg for mercy" diplomacy check. . .
Doesn't have to be 8-16 CR 11 black dragons. The guy in the example didn't even have a 50% chance of success against one guy even if he had a +5 competence bonus and 20 dex. Acrobatics can be pretty suicidal. Which was the point. Slightly more fair against an humanoid foes though more checks means more chances at taking a hit.
One needs the right terrain. The right type of building or area. Enemies with a poor grasp of tactics for the Rogue to get into the best position to flank. Which does not happen all the time.
MOre importantly, if the fighter or the cleric in the example can not flank for whatever reason they still have things to do. the fighter still hit like a truck, the cleric can still cast, attack or use a domain power or whatever.
If the TWF rogue is not flaking chances are he is basically doing nothing importantly that turn.
On the gripping hand, so will the fighter and the cleric. And they won't have a chance at the Acrobatics check.
Slayer and ranger might. Vivisectionist and ninja have easy access to invisibility.
So bout' dem ACG classes.
If you are surrounded by the 8-16 enemies per PC that prevents ordinary movement to flanking and they are all CR 11 black dragons I think you're probably better off using the "throw your hands in the air and beg for mercy" diplomacy check. . .Doesn't have to be 8-16 CR 11 black dragons. The guy in the example didn't even have a 50% chance of success against one guy even if he had a +5 competence bonus and 20 dex. Acrobatics can be pretty suicidal. Which was the point. Slightly more fair against an humanoid foes though more checks means more chances at taking a hit.
Sure. . . but my suggestion of Acrobatics was in response to the "tons of mobs jump out and surround you so you can't flank" situation-- Acrobatics has a much higher chance of working against "mobs" or I would hope?
I think flanking is generally a poor mechanic to base your main damage ability off of anyway.
PArticularly when said mechanic can be shut down by a variety of low level spells and easily attainable items.
But that's a horse that is practically paste.
Flanking in general is an over glorified tactic. It's good if an opportunity presents itself to make it work without getting flanked in return. But too often I see players go for flanks rather than go for damage, or instead moving to draw enemies into full attacks, or into more advantageous terrain.
Flanking in general is an over glorified tactic. It's good if an opportunity presents itself to make it work without getting flanked in return. But too often I see players go for flanks rather than go for damage, or instead moving to draw enemies into full attacks, or into more advantageous terrain.
Exactly. The is never going to be DPR king. The least he/she can do is not convince the fighter to do less damage.
Casters get so loaded with buff spells that greater dispel magic is a standard tactic against them. MOST creatures can't cast sneak attack negating spells like blur
MOST creatures can't cast sneak attack negating spells like blur
Apparently anyone can take a feat though.
I wonder if that'll be popular against slayers... maybe.
MOST creatures can't cast sneak attack negating spells like blurApparently anyone can take a feat though.
I wonder if that'll be popular against slayers... maybe.
You still have to hit them...
Which does nothing against your sniper goggles and shortbow.
MOST creatures can't cast sneak attack negating spells like blurApparently anyone can take a feat though.
I wonder if that'll be popular against slayers... maybe.
You still have to hit them...
Which does nothing against your sniper goggles and shortbow.
Hang on, Slayers can make reliable sneak attacks with ranged attacks? What am I missing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ACG classes do marginalize a few of the base classes. The slayer is better at doing most of the things players play a ranger to do than the ranger. Similarly, the Warpriest is in almost every way a more interesting version of the paladin, only without the ability of your GM to take away all your powers because you are not playing exactly the way he wants you to (and if their that kind of dm they probably like the warpriest more anyway because it means that they can "trick' you/your party with evil NPCs.
The bigger problem with ACG though is that it shows how much pathfinder really needs a second edition.
The swashbuckler shows what could be done to make the pathfinder martial characters a lot more interesting. The grit system started out as something to make the gunslinger unique and had some resistance but now it looks like it or something like it is one of the things that can be done to make martial characters have more agency in every part of the game.
Heck the swashbuckler being a melee character makes him pretty much directly transferable to the fighter. Rename his panache ability "courage" and give it to fighters and cavaliers and they are 10 times more interesting.
Similarly the Arcanist really looks like what the wizard should be in pathfinder 2.0.
ACG is an excellent book, but it really shows that pathfinder either needs a 2.0 or an "Advanced" pathfinder that recognizes that the game has evolved beyond much of the material in the core rulebook.
MOST creatures can't cast sneak attack negating spells like blur
No, but they can use a smoke stick, or just attack in dim light.
Shadow strike is a cut and standard feat in a lot of rogue (and now swashbuckler builds) because a GM actually using the lighting rules is bad for a rogues career.
The reason we don't or can't say the same for other precision damage type classes is that they have solid ways around it or don't need the damage (ninjas and vivisectionists) or have some pretty decent ways to contribute without it (swashbuckler).
Hang on, Slayers can make reliable sneak attacks with ranged attacks? What am I missing?
Nope, not at the moment anyway. At best they have access to rogue talents that effect ranged sneak attack and equipment that benefits sneak attack.
The swashbuckler shows what could be done to make the pathfinder martial characters a lot more interesting. The grit system started out as something to make the gunslinger unique and had some resistance but now it looks like it or something like it is one of the things that can be done to make martial characters have more agency in every part of the game.
I though that's what 3.5's martial adepts were, or 3.5's tactical feats. Swashbuckler will still spend most of his actions shouting "me am full attack!" like most of the other martials.
Still, always nice to see new options.
MOST creatures can't cast sneak attack negating spells like blurNo, but they can use a smoke stick, or just attack in dim light.
Shadow strike is a cut and standard feat in a lot of rogue (and now swashbuckler builds) because a GM actually using the lighting rules is bad for a rogues career.
The reason we don't or can't say the same for other precision damage type classes is that they have solid ways around it or don't need the damage (ninjas and vivisectionists) or have some pretty decent ways to contribute without it (swashbuckler).
Or the darkvision spell...
Most enemies aren't dropping smoke sticks since the concealment hurts them too and eats up action, requires them to stay still, and takes a round to go into effect.
Hang on, Slayers can make reliable sneak attacks with ranged attacks? What am I missing?MOST creatures can't cast sneak attack negating spells like blurApparently anyone can take a feat though.
I wonder if that'll be popular against slayers... maybe.
You still have to hit them...
Which does nothing against your sniper goggles and shortbow.
I'm talking about rogues, who would rather get one range sneak attack than a full-attack with their bow if they have to choose.
*Skill mastery bluff and stealth is all you need. Until ten you can just make the rolls.
The ACG classes do marginalize a few of the base classes. The slayer is better at doing most of the things players play a ranger to do than the ranger. Similarly, the Warpriest is in almost every way a more interesting version of the paladin, only without the ability of your GM to take away all your powers because you are not playing exactly the way he wants you to (and if their that kind of dm they probably like the warpriest more anyway because it means that they can "trick' you/your party with evil NPCs.
The bigger problem with ACG though is that it shows how much pathfinder really needs a second edition.
The swashbuckler shows what could be done to make the pathfinder martial characters a lot more interesting. The grit system started out as something to make the gunslinger unique and had some resistance but now it looks like it or something like it is one of the things that can be done to make martial characters have more agency in every part of the game.
Heck the swashbuckler being a melee character makes him pretty much directly transferable to the fighter. Rename his panache ability "courage" and give it to fighters and cavaliers and they are 10 times more interesting.
Similarly the Arcanist really looks like what the wizard should be in pathfinder 2.0.
ACG is an excellent book, but it really shows that pathfinder either needs a 2.0 or an "Advanced" pathfinder that recognizes that the game has evolved beyond much of the material in the core rulebook.
I actually don't like grit mechanics or panache or whatever. They can make a fighter archetype for it if they really want to. I won't be using it.
Hang on, Slayers can make reliable sneak attacks with ranged attacks? What am I missing?Nope, not at the moment anyway. At best they have access to rogue talents that effect ranged sneak attack and equipment that benefits sneak attack.
Ah. Thank you for the update.
Heck the swashbuckler being a melee character makes him pretty much directly transferable to the fighter. Rename his panache ability "courage" and give it to fighters and cavaliers and they are 10 times more interesting
"Interesting" is subjetive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heck the swashbuckler being a melee character makes him pretty much directly transferable to the fighter. Rename his panache ability "courage" and give it to fighters and cavaliers and they are 10 times more interesting"Interesting" is subjetive.
Not if we define it as "has more options in a given turn."
Not if we define it as "has more options in a given turn."Heck the swashbuckler being a melee character makes him pretty much directly transferable to the fighter. Rename his panache ability "courage" and give it to fighters and cavaliers and they are 10 times more interesting"Interesting" is subjetive.
Doesn't make it more interesting.
Doesn't make it more interesting.Not if we define it as "has more options in a given turn."Heck the swashbuckler being a melee character makes him pretty much directly transferable to the fighter. Rename his panache ability "courage" and give it to fighters and cavaliers and they are 10 times more interesting"Interesting" is subjetive.
What would?
Doesn't make it more interesting.Not if we define it as "has more options in a given turn."Heck the swashbuckler being a melee character makes him pretty much directly transferable to the fighter. Rename his panache ability "courage" and give it to fighters and cavaliers and they are 10 times more interesting"Interesting" is subjetive.What would?
Interesting is subjective.
So interesting options make a character interesting, but interesting is defined by the player. There are many people who don't find spells interesting at all.
So interesting options make a character interesting, but interesting is defined by the player. There are many people who don't find spells interesting at all.
Its probably safe to say "AM FULL ATTACK!" without any other options is going to be less interesting to most people than "AM FULL ATTACK!" + a few options. I don't like actually like vancian casting, but I do think its more fun than "AM FULL ATTACK" playstyle.
I feel like martials could get a bit more variety in what makes them good than just "everyone gets a grit system".
The Fighter is already nudged in the direction of "jack of all trades" with the bonus feats, more options for the Fighter should expand on that. It would be great if the Fighter could approach every problem by saying "there's a feat for that"... If there was actually a feat for that.
So interesting options make a character interesting, but interesting is defined by the player. There are many people who don't find spells interesting at all.Its probably safe to say "AM FULL ATTACK!" without any other options is going to be less interesting to most people than "AM FULL ATTACK!" + a few options. I don't like actually like vancian casting, but I do think its more fun than "AM FULL ATTACK" playstyle.
And some people REALLY like full-attacking.
AM NOT "AM BARBARIAN," BUT AM OTHER BARBARIAN, AND BARBARIAN AM NOT GET "MAUHR-JIN-UH-LIEZD" BY MORE NOT-BARBARIANS. ONLY ONE AM GOOD AT SMASH AS BARBARIAN, AND THAT AM OTHER BARBARIAN. NOT-BARBARIANS AM NOT BARBARIAN, BARBARIAN AM ONLY BARBARIAN!
AM SEE OTHER NOT-BARBARIANS, AND NOT-BARBARIANS NOT SMASH LIKE BARBARIAN DOES! NOT-BARBARIANS AM TRY, BUT AM NOT GOOD AT SMASH-TIME LIKE BARBARIAN AM.
AM SEE NOT-BARBARIANS POKE BARBARIAN WITH STICK-THING, MAKE BARBARIAN MAD AND MAKE BARBARIAN SMASH NOT-BARBARIANS WITH HAMMER. TURN NOT-BARBARIANS INTO BARBARIAN PANCAKE BREAKFAST!
Its probably safe to say "AM FULL ATTACK!" without any other options is going to be less interesting to most people than "AM FULL ATTACK!" + a few options. I don't like actually like vancian casting, but I do think its more fun than "AM FULL ATTACK" playstyle.
You'd be surprised. I know a ranger player who specifically looked for archetypes that gave up spells because "he couldn't be bothered with them". When he couldn't find one, he instead deliberately lowered his Wisdom to the point where he didn't qualify for ranger spellcasting.
Come to think of it, he generally seems to play "simple classes" without much bookkeeping or special abilities.
So interesting options make a character interesting, but interesting is defined by the player. There are many people who don't find spells interesting at all.
That's not really the question. It was on options. If a player likes spells, they'd find it more interesting to have more than having less. You can quibble over what it is that excites you, but generally more is better than less.
Not if we define it as "has more options in a given turn."Heck the swashbuckler being a melee character makes him pretty much directly transferable to the fighter. Rename his panache ability "courage" and give it to fighters and cavaliers and they are 10 times more interesting"Interesting" is subjetive.
A subjetive definition.
Come to think of it, he generally seems to play "simple classes" without much bookkeeping or special abilities.
I used to do the spell less thing. Never been a fan of book keeping, and I actually like a class to be simple and understandable. That said, simple doesn't need to mean that you don't have special abilities or options. That doesn't help solve problems and can really turn into something boring.
So interesting options make a character interesting, but interesting is defined by the player. There are many people who don't find spells interesting at all.Its probably safe to say "AM FULL ATTACK!" without any other options is going to be less interesting to most people than "AM FULL ATTACK!" + a few options. I don't like actually like vancian casting, but I do think its more fun than "AM FULL ATTACK" playstyle.
Wich does not imply a grit-like mechanic at all.
Wich does not imply a grit-like mechanic at all.So interesting options make a character interesting, but interesting is defined by the player. There are many people who don't find spells interesting at all.Its probably safe to say "AM FULL ATTACK!" without any other options is going to be less interesting to most people than "AM FULL ATTACK!" + a few options. I don't like actually like vancian casting, but I do think its more fun than "AM FULL ATTACK" playstyle.
What part of "Not if we define it as "has more options in a given turn." had grit in it? I didn't see it.
What part of "Not if we define it as "has more options in a given turn." had grit in it? I didn't see it.Wich does not imply a grit-like mechanic at all.So interesting options make a character interesting, but interesting is defined by the player. There are many people who don't find spells interesting at all.Its probably safe to say "AM FULL ATTACK!" without any other options is going to be less interesting to most people than "AM FULL ATTACK!" + a few options. I don't like actually like vancian casting, but I do think its more fun than "AM FULL ATTACK" playstyle.
If you go back a couple of post you will see that the post that started this trending topic had "grit" in it.
If you go back a couple of post you will see that the post that started this trending topic had "grit" in it.What part of "Not if we define it as "has more options in a given turn." had grit in it? I didn't see it.Wich does not imply a grit-like mechanic at all.So interesting options make a character interesting, but interesting is defined by the player. There are many people who don't find spells interesting at all.Its probably safe to say "AM FULL ATTACK!" without any other options is going to be less interesting to most people than "AM FULL ATTACK!" + a few options. I don't like actually like vancian casting, but I do think its more fun than "AM FULL ATTACK" playstyle.
true, but the line of questions you are replying to and quoted doesn't make mention of it anywhere.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we agree that having no options is not interesting at least?
And that although not all options are interesting for everyone, the more options available increases the likeliness of an interesting one existing?
Well, yeah, since that was essentially the point.
I tend to design like I would want to play. With tons and tons of options. Not all ahve to be amazing, but all have to be different or at least different enough that when combined in certain ways produce an interesting whole.
An individual option may not be interesting. But if anything gaming history has taught us that more options are better because even if you are only interested in a few options you always have the option of simply not bothering with extras.
I'm not sure what class Ill write a guide for (I'm leaning towards shaman or investigator but swashbuckler might be an option if I don't see a guide that satisfies me). But inevitably like my leaning towards the cavalier and cleric guides it will inevitably express my joy for the freedom of choice.