Sorcerers, Bards, Alchemists, some Oracles, Summoners, Witches, Magi, or anyone else who takes a trait.
Only three classes have UMD as a class skill, and only one of them can Take Ten with it during combat. (OK, there's a archetype somewhere that might, sure).
I was talking Core, but even so- how many of those can Take Ten with it during combat?
Sorcerers, Bards, Alchemists, some Oracles, Summoners, Witches, Magi, or anyone else who takes a trait.
Only three classes have UMD as a class skill, and only one of them can Take Ten with it during combat. (OK, there's a archetype somewhere that might, sure).
I was talking Core, but even so- how many of those can Take Ten with it during combat?
Aside from debatable uses, taking ten is largely unnecessary with a good bonus. My 10th level Alchemist succeeds on all UMD checks, including ones for scrolls of Caster level 11 on a 2 or higher.
Only three classes have UMD as a class skill
1) A class skill is merely a +3 bonus. By level 10 a sorcerer has that on charisma alone.
2) Anyone can take the trait dangerously curious.
3) Anyone can buy a circlet of persuasion.and only one of them can Take Ten with it during combat.Taking 10 loses much of its attractiveness when you start succeeding on a 1 or a 2.
You can only do that in the latter half to very end of your career.
The rogue also has effectively two bonus feats. Thus, Skill Focus.Unless this is ALL the rogue is going to do, they need to put their feats somewhere else.
So comparing a Rogue to a peasant is disingenuous.For most of the campaign they have the same UMD. You need a better argument to tell me i'm wrong, you're not even CLOSE to telling me I'm disingenuous.
Well, a Peasant* doesn't have UMD as a Class skill, so right out of the box, the Rogue is +3. And, blowing one of your 2+ bonus feats out of TEN talents on a skill doesn;t mean "this is ALL the rogue is going to do", it's burning a mere 10% of your Rogue talents which still leaves all your level feats untouched. In fact it's spending exactly 1/20th of the rogues feat/talent resources so yeah- disingenuous.
Aside from debatable uses, taking ten is largely unnecessary with a good bonus. My 10th level Alchemist succeeds on all UMD checks, including ones for scrolls of Caster level 11 on a 2 or higher.
I suppose one could build a 10th level Alchemist (who often dumps CHA*) with a +19 UMD score, but at a cost of a feat and 10 skillpoints? And, note that at 9th level, he's only +15.
* to quote the only Guide (Ogres) "Use magic device – All around a good skill, unfortunately as an alchemist your charisma is likely low."
Aside from debatable uses, taking ten is largely unnecessary with a good bonus. My 10th level Alchemist succeeds on all UMD checks, including ones for scrolls of Caster level 11 on a 2 or higher.
I suppose one could build a 10th level Alchemist (who often dumps CHA*) with a +19 UMD score, but at a cost of a feat and 10 skillpoints? And, note that at 9th level, he's only +15.
* to quote the only Guide (Ogres) "Use magic device – All around a good skill, unfortunately as an alchemist your charisma is likely low."
Only +19?
I hit +23 fairly easily. All you need is Skill Focus UMD and Pragmatic Activator. With the Focused Study Human option it's fairly easy.
Well, a Peasant* doesn't have UMD as a Class skill, so right out of the box, the Rogue is +3.
Be a dangerously curious peasant. Adds +4.
And, blowing one of your 2+ bonus feats out of TEN talents on a skill doesn;t mean "this is ALL the rogue is going to do", it's burning a mere 10% of your Rogue talents which still leaves all your level feats untouched.
If you're going to have a game that starts and only plays at 20 sure. (mind you, the wizards stopping time at that point are going to find your IMD checks rather quaint)
In fact it's spending exactly 1/20th of the rogues feat/talent resources so yeah- disingenuous.
And you haven't shown me how the Rogue is going to get higher than the peasant. The problem I've been trying to demonstrate is that while the rogue can grow out he's very limited in his ability to move UP.
Well, a Peasant* doesn't have UMD as a Class skill, so right out of the box, the Rogue is +3.Be a dangerously curious peasant. Adds +4.
And, blowing one of your 2+ bonus feats out of TEN talents on a skill doesn;t mean "this is ALL the rogue is going to do", it's burning a mere 10% of your Rogue talents which still leaves all your level feats untouched.If you're going to have a game that starts and only plays at 20 sure. (mind you, the wizards stopping time at that point are going to find your IMD checks rather quaint)
In fact it's spending exactly 1/20th of the rogues feat/talent resources so yeah- disingenuous.And you haven't shown me how the Rogue is going to get higher than the peasant. The problem I've been trying to demonstrate is that while the rogue can grow out he's very limited in his ability to move UP.
Commoners don't get traits.
The rogue is higher as UMD is a Class skill for him, not the Commoner, thus the rogue gets +3. And, heck, the Rogue *CAN* take a trait.
For the alchemist that wants UMD but has a charisma so low they need to take craft golem if they ever want to make friends there's
than a match for another’s confidence and poise. Choose
one Charisma-based skill. You attempt checks with that
skill using your Intelligence modifier instead of your
Charisma modifier.
I hit +23 fairly easily. All you need is Skill Focus UMD and Pragmatic Activator. With the Focused Study Human option it's fairly easy.
Pragmatic Activator is a very cool trait, but I have never seen it. Outside Core. Once you get outside the PRD, well....
* to quote the only Guide (Ogres) "Use magic device – All around a good skill, unfortunately as an alchemist your charisma is likely low."
Since that guide came out they added Pragmatic Activator, which is rated purple in N. Jolly's much more recent guide to the alchemist if I remember right because going from charisma to int based on an int based class that uses charisma as its only real dumpstat is snazzy. Take with student of philosophy for bonus points.
The rogue is higher as UMD is a Class skill for him, not the Commoner, thus the rogue gets +3. And, heck, the Rogue *CAN* take a trait.
NPCs don't usually get traits, and a commoner PC might.
The rogue is higher as UMD is a Class skill for him, not the Commoner, thus the rogue gets +3. And, heck, the Rogue *CAN* take a trait.NPCs don't usually get traits, and a commoner PC might.
He can by burning a feat. So, by burning his one feat to get that trait he gets it as a class skill and thus +4. The rogue can take the same trait as a trait, thus being +4 and burn one feat makes it +7.
Rogue wins @ 1st.
The rogue is higher as UMD is a Class skill for him, not the Commoner, thus the rogue gets +3. And, heck, the Rogue *CAN* take a trait.NPCs don't usually get traits, and a commoner PC might.He can by burning a feat. So, by burning his one feat to get that trait he gets it as a class skill and thus +4. The rogue can take the same trait as a trait, thus being +4 and burn one feat makes it +7.
Rogue wins @ 1st.
I think the assumption was they were comparing two classes on even grounds, including traits. Next thing you know you'll be arguing his array is only 3 10's/3 11's while the rogue gets 25 point buy.
Pragmatic Activator is a very cool trait, but I have never seen it. Outside Core. Once you get outside the PRD, well....
I hit +23 fairly easily. All you need is Skill Focus UMD and Pragmatic Activator. With the Focused Study Human option it's fairly easy.
And? Pragmatic Activator is a Core Line product. Are Core Line products not valid discussion base lines when they are also in fact included on the PRD?
The Alchemist isn't "Core Rulebook" which I'm guessing is what you're implying here.
I think the assumption was they were comparing two classes on even grounds, including traits. Next thing you know you'll be arguing his array is only 3 10's/3 11's while the rogue gets 25 point buy.The rogue is higher as UMD is a Class skill for him, not the Commoner, thus the rogue gets +3. And, heck, the Rogue *CAN* take a trait.NPCs don't usually get traits, and a commoner PC might.He can by burning a feat. So, by burning his one feat to get that trait he gets it as a class skill and thus +4. The rogue can take the same trait as a trait, thus being +4 and burn one feat makes it +7.
Rogue wins @ 1st.
Umm, even grounds? How so? The Commoner gets the class abilities of a Commoner, and the Rogues gets Rogue.
Commoners don't get traits. Rogues don;t get Martial weapon prof either or a full bab, so if I compared a Rogue to a Ranger, I can say my Rogue gets both?
I mean, if you throw in feats and traits form every book, and allow the Commoner traits, then he can do anything any class can do. Swing a sword? Feat for martial weapon and there's a trait too. Cast a spell? There's feats and traits that allow a 0 level spell to be cast, and even better.
Once you allow every published feat and trait and give the Commoner his choice of a couple traits and a a couple of feats, there no class he can't emulate IN ONE THING. He makes the Wizard obsolete as he can cast a spell.
I am not sure how the Commoner will get Sneak attack, but there is likely some feat or trait somewhere.
Disingenuous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Give me your best UMD on a rogue then.
Put up or knock it off with the insults.
If you need to argue that the rogues biggest advantage over a peasant is that he has traits because he's a PC class? You've lost.
Commoners don't get traits.
NPCs don't get traits. A PC can play a Commoner.
Already did . "The rogue can take the same trait as a trait, thus being +4 and burn one feat makes it +7.
Rogue wins @ 1st.= Class +3. Feat +3 , trait +1= +7.
Commoner can burn a feat to get the trait, but only reaches +4. He has no traits and one feat.
Of course, this is PRD only. But the Rogue has the same number of feats @1st, one extra @ 2nd, and two more traits @ 1st. Thus he wins, even if you find another feat or trait, the rogue can take that and more. Racial bonuses the same. The rogue gets the class skill for free, and has tow more traits and one more feat @ second level. No matter what feat or trait you find, the rogue can take that and more.
No insults from me. Have you read your posts recently? The insults aimed at another poster are very rude.
|
Aside from debatable uses, taking ten is largely unnecessary with a good bonus. My 10th level Alchemist succeeds on all UMD checks, including ones for scrolls of Caster level 11 on a 2 or higher.
I suppose one could build a 10th level Alchemist (who often dumps CHA*) with a +19 UMD score, but at a cost of a feat and 10 skillpoints? And, note that at 9th level, he's only +15.
* to quote the only Guide (Ogres) "Use magic device – All around a good skill, unfortunately as an alchemist your charisma is likely low."
Only guide for what? The Alchemist? As I'm pretty sure I wrote one.
And I also talked about UMD's value. But the only point I mentioned it was in the skill section, as I don't recommend basing a class's value off of renting another class's abilities.
Again, if UMD is the Rogue's go to thing, while Bard (easily better) and Alchemist (just as good) both have it, that's pretty telling.
Already did . "The rogue can take the same trait as a trait, thus being +4 and burn one feat makes it +7.
Rogue wins @ 1st.= Class +3. Feat +3 , trait +1= +7.
Commoner can burn a feat to get the trait, but only reaches +4. He has no traits and one feat.
Of course, this is PRD only. But the Rogue has the same number of feats @1st, one extra @ 2nd, and two more traits @ 1st. Thus he wins, even if you find another feat or trait, the rogue can take that and more. Racial bonuses the same. The rogue gets the class skill for free, and has tow more traits and one more feat @ second level. No matter what feat or trait you find, the rogue can take that and more.
You do realize the Commoner can also have traits without spending a feat right?
NPCs must take a feat. A Player character who chooses the Commoner class still gets traits.-
If you need to argue that the rogues biggest advantage over a peasant is that he has traits because he's a PC class? You've lost.
No, because he has UMD as a Class skill and the Commoner does not. He also has a Talent every second level, several of which can be burned as feats, the Commoner does not.
And of course, "the rogues biggest advantage over a peasant " is none of those things. The rogue has a better bab, better saves, four times as many skill points, and 33 class abilities vs none.
If you are comparing JUST ONE SKILL, then the commoner can do almost as well as any class, thus of course all the classes are no better than the commoner. The commoner, with the right traist and feats can even cast spells, thus forget the Wizard, right?
NPCs don't get traits. A PC can play a Commoner.
Commoners don't get traits.
Can they? Cite?
In any case, the rogue has more feats.
Aside from debatable uses, taking ten is largely unnecessary with a good bonus. My 10th level Alchemist succeeds on all UMD checks, including ones for scrolls of Caster level 11 on a 2 or higher.
I suppose one could build a 10th level Alchemist (who often dumps CHA*) with a +19 UMD score, but at a cost of a feat and 10 skillpoints? And, note that at 9th level, he's only +15.
* to quote the only Guide (Ogres) "Use magic device – All around a good skill, unfortunately as an alchemist your charisma is likely low."
Only guide for what? The Alchemist? As I'm pretty sure I wrote one.
And I also talked about UMD's value. But the only point I mentioned it was in the skill section, as I don't recommend basing a class's value off of renting another class's abilities.
Again, if UMD is the Rogue's go to thing, while Bard (easily better) and Alchemist (just as good) both have it, that's pretty telling.
Sure, but I was talking about page one of the Advice "Guide to the Class Guides" where Ogres is the one one there.
UMD is a tiny part of a rogues skill list. 1/8th.
NPCs don't get traits. A PC can play a Commoner.
Commoners don't get traits.
Can they? Cite?
In any case, the rogue has more feats.
Character traits are only for player characters. If you want an NPC to have traits, that NPC must “buy” them with the Additional Traits feat.
While PFS dictates that NPC classes are not valid PC class choices, actual Pathfinder has no stipulation on that.
So yes, a Player Character may select an NPC class. They are still Player Characters and receive traits.
Already did . "The rogue can take the same trait as a trait, thus being +4 and burn one feat makes it +7.
Rogue wins @ 1st.= Class +3. Feat +3 , trait +1= +7.
Human peasant.
Human feat: traded for focused study (Skill focus UMD)1st level feat: extra traits, one of which is dangerously curious (not even neccesary by how i read the trait rules, but whatever)
Class +3 Feat +3 Trait +1 = +7.
The rogue gets the class skill for free, and has tow more traits and one more feat @ second level. No matter what feat or trait you find, the rogue can take that and more.
No, he can't, because as I've been saying but you haven't been hearing, the rogue can spread out but not up. That is incredibl problematic in a group oriented game.
No insults from me.
You've called me disingenuous when you were shown to be flat out wrong. Your only recourse to holding your counter-factual position is to demean everyone that doesn't hold it. Goodbye.
|
|
Sure, but I was talking about page one of the Advice "Guide to the Class Guides" where Ogres is the one one there.
UMD is a tiny part of a rogues skill list. 1/8th.
Use BZ's links, they're way better. And my guide is updated pass Ultimate Magic, which seems like a point in my favor.
And If it's such a small part, why is it such a large topic of conversation of the Rogue's versatility. Neither other class that's being compared has to keep talking about their UMD because they have actual refreshing magic which works just as well, if not better in most situations.
Again, this isn't about hating the Rogue, it's about getting them on the same level as everyone else.
One problem i've been seeing with rogues is that you unlike a fighter have to set up your attack in advance in order to shoot the flat footed most. So sneaking, spotting enemies before they a spot you, setting traps, applying the appropiate poison is how the rogue usually prefers his combat. Then if your barbarian goes kicking in doors and your druids monkey isn't trained to shut up yet, the rogue is going to be a low armor low damage fighter until in flanking position.
One more thing is that against barbarians, elementals and such when you can't sneak attack, you don't really have a plan B. A fighter who doesn't seem to overcome the armor class can switch to combat maneuvers, a caster who's unable to get past the SR can alter the battlefield or place buffs. A rogue without sneak in combat can't do anything better than none rogues.
Sure, but I was talking about page one of the Advice "Guide to the Class Guides" where Ogres is the one one there.
UMD is a tiny part of a rogues skill list. 1/8th.
Use BZ's links, they're way better. And my guide is updated pass Ultimate Magic, which seems like a point in my favor.
And If it's such a small part, why is it such a large topic of conversation of the Rogue's versatility. Neither other class that's being compared has to keep talking about their UMD because they have actual refreshing magic which works just as well, if not better in most situations.
Again, this isn't about hating the Rogue, it's about getting them on the same level as everyone else.
1) There is table variation among some of the rules which naturally increases how much something is talked about.
2) There is confusion about "having the options to" and "having to" when it comes to using UMD.
3) Some people want to give the option no value because anyone can do it, while ignoring that spell casters get far less out of the investment.
I have skipped a few post but the limits on realism also affects fighters, and it is not just GM's but players. Tome of Battle is being made fun of or discounted not because it was broken, but people saw the abilities as "too magical", but it gave the fighting classes options. They still did not compare to magic, but it was a lot better than "I hit things". Barbarians get some semi-magical affects now, but I think Paizo is playing it safe with doing that for the non-magical melee types because even when such abilities come up in "improve the fighter/rogue" threads, the "it is not realistic" argument always comes up. If we allow it Paizo will give it to us.
TLDR: The problem is here is not the people making the games but other gamers. We have to be more accepting of melee types being able to do special things.
I have skipped a few post but the limits on realism also affects fighters, and it is not just GM's but players. Tome of Battle is being made fun of or discounted not because it was broken, but people saw the abilities as "too magical", but it gave the fighting classes options. They still did not compare to magic, but it was a lot better than "I hit things". Barbarians get some semi-magical affects now, but I think Paizo is playing it safe with doing that for the non-magical melee types because even when such abilities come up in "improve the fighter/rogue" threads, the "it is not realistic" argument always comes up. If we allow it Paizo will give it to us.
TLDR: The problem is here is not the people making the games but other gamers. We have to be more accepting of melee types being able to do special things.
There is a difference between mundane and realistic.
There is also a difference between makings sense and being realistic.
I do want rogues and fighters to be mundane and make sense.
[
Roleplay shouldn't be used as a defense for a class like that imo.
Yeah, one should never use roleplaying as a argument in a roleplaying game. sigh.
It's not a numberplaying game, it's a roleplaying game.
The point being made is that certain roles can be played by several classes, and since it is obvious this thread is talking about mechanical viability, you now have at least two reason why it does not matter what the role was.
I could probably make a barbarian into a decent rogue concept, but that does not mean I should pretend the barbarian is actually a good rogue.
[
not a nasty scalpel wielding animal torturer.Good thing the vivisectionist doesn't actually require you to torture animals or wield scalpels or be a nasty person. Too bad people think it does...Yeah, that flavor text put in there for the roleplayers does get in the way sometimes, doesn't it?
"Unlike a chirurgeon, a vivisectionist's goals are not related to healing, but rather to experimentation and knowledge that most people would consider evil."Of course, one can ignore flavor text. Or not.
You as the player control the concept for your character not the rulebook. The rulebook only controls the rules. That is how I get to use my rangers as ninjas, because I really dont care for the ninja class.
Acrobatic, climb and stealth are things every other calss can do. Feint is something the vivisecsionist can do too. Those are not special.There is very little a rogue can do in combat that doesn't require a skill check.Because there is very little the rogue can do in combat? besides weapon snatcher (I believe that is the name) what exactly the rogue do in combat with their skill than some other class can not?You want to flank? Acrobatics required 9 times out of ten
You want to range sneak attack? Create a diversion to hide(bluff), stealth to hide, shoot. Two skill checks in one round.
You want to attack someone from a hiding spot? Breaking stealth, requires stealth check
Next to something without a flanking partner? Feint
Moving around obstacles to the opponent? Acrobatics, climb, stealth, fast stealth
Situation calls for some extra magic? UMDMost of these are to set up sneak attacks which no other class really needs to worry about. Ninjas get on demand invisibility and can only have one advance rogue talent. Skill mastery doesn't fit many ninja builds. It's a slight difference, but they are only slightly different classes.
Theorycraft vs actual play
Any character you see that is not a rogue and does the above routinely? Even if they could, do they actually do it?
NOTE: I also have skill mastery in all those skill but climb, which is mimic-able by one class that wouldn't do it.
I have seen rogues not do these well, and non rogues such as rangers and bard do them well in actual play.
Just like the time you challenged me to build a barbarian that was good(not good as a rogue) with UMD, you assume everyone plays like you do. You did not know I already had barbarian made with UMD and diplomacy however.
Already did . "The rogue can take the same trait as a trait, thus being +4 and burn one feat makes it +7.
Rogue wins @ 1st.= Class +3. Feat +3 , trait +1= +7.
Human peasant.
Human feat: traded for focused study (Skill focus UMD)
1st level feat: extra traits, one of which is dangerously curious (not even neccesary by how i read the trait rules, but whatever)Class +3 Feat +3 Trait +1 = +7.
[
You used two feats, but the rogue only had to use one. Thus the rogue wins.
And of course you fail to address my other point: If you are comparing JUST ONE SKILL, then the commoner can do almost as well as any class, thus of course all the classes are no better than the commoner. The commoner, with the right traits and feats can even cast spells, thus forget the Wizard, right?
I have seen rogues not do these well, and non rogues such as rangers and bard do them well in actual play.
Just like the time you challenged me to build a barbarian that was good(not good as a rogue) with UMD, you assume everyone plays like you do. You did not know I already had barbarian made with UMD and diplomacy however.
I was in that thread, but that was not my challenge.
Rogue wins @ 1st.RRogue wins @ 1st level against a Commoner. Fun-tucking-fastic.
If you are comparing JUST ONE SKILL, then the commoner can do almost as well as any class, thus of course all the classes are no better than the commoner. The commoner, with the right traist and feats can even cast spells, thus forget the Wizard, right?
If you are comparing JUST ONE SKILL, then the commoner can do almost as well as any class, thus of course all the classes are no better than the commoner. The commoner, with the right traist and feats can even cast spells, thus forget the Wizard, right?Rogue wins @ 1st.RRogue wins @ 1st level against a Commoner. Fun-tucking-fastic.
There's a feat that lets me prepare cast spells like a wizard?
More to the point, if the rogue isn't doing skills much better than the rogue that might be a sign the rogue isn't doing too hot, which may or may not have been the point. He has more skill points and in class and... that might be just about it.
|
I'm a little late to the party but a few things I'd like to post here
While I can't speak for others, I am currently playing a rogue in one home campaign, and there are 4 party members. Me, a 3pp class[don't recall name] with 2 skill ranks/level, a sorcerer, and a paladin. The Paladin alone as out-skilled me multiple times[with actual skill roles], and as a whole, I think that maybe twice in the entire 9 levels have I actually been better than the party at making a skill check. I may not be skill focused[in fact, I am combat focused for the most part], but still, I actually have played a rogue, would say it is rather well built[I have survived 9 levels in a Mythic campaign, do almost as much damage as the pally when I sneak attack, am the one party member who almost never takes damage from the sorcerer's detonates, and still have a lot of skill ranks], and have been outskilled. The most humorous thing about this is the Paladin has a 7INT. I am just waiting for more non-diplomatic skill encounters.LOL!
Tell you what?
How about you actually go and play a rogue and get back with us on your absurd comment?
Something I have noticed about these rogue discussions is the class is being compared to about two or three other classes.
I would say the rogue is pretty damn special if it takes two or three classes to equal the one class.
Well, since you seem interesting, a little while back I did a direct, objective comparison of a non-archetyped bard and non-archetyped rogue, side by side, and a side by side direct objective comparison of an archaeologist bard and a non-archetyped rogue, and found that while the rogue may not be totally eclipsed by the Bard/Archaeologist in every possible way, they still are inferior in almost every way, and only won out in one incredibly small niche that probably won't come up in a party. If you like, I might do the same thing in this thread with an alchemist or slayer or vivisectionist, but the results I would almost bet will be pretty close to the same.
Pragmatic Activator is a very cool trait, but I have never seen it. Outside Core. Once you get outside the PRD, well....
I hit +23 fairly easily. All you need is Skill Focus UMD and Pragmatic Activator. With the Focused Study Human option it's fairly easy.
Once you get outsied the cure rulebook the rogue get behind. THat , I guess, is the point of the rogue bashing.
I have skipped a few post but the limits on realism also affects fighters, and it is not just GM's but players. Tome of Battle is being made fun of or discounted not because it was broken, but people saw the abilities as "too magical", but it gave the fighting classes options. They still did not compare to magic, but it was a lot better than "I hit things". Barbarians get some semi-magical affects now, but I think Paizo is playing it safe with doing that for the non-magical melee types because even when such abilities come up in "improve the fighter/rogue" threads, the "it is not realistic" argument always comes up. If we allow it Paizo will give it to us.
Not sure wy abilities have to be magic-like in nature to bee good. Old crane wing was totally martial and was strong.
NOt sure why there have to be a jump between "I roll dices to hit thing with my sword" to "I rage so hard that now have dragons wings and can fly with them", for example.
|
|
I'm a little late to the party but a few things I'd like to post hereWhile I can't speak for others, I am currently playing a rogue in one home campaign, and there are 4 party members. Me, a 3pp class[don't recall name] with 2 skill ranks/level, a sorcerer, and a paladin. The Paladin alone as out-skilled me multiple times[with actual skill roles], and as a whole, I think that maybe twice in the entire 9 levels have I actually been better than the party at making a skill check. I may not be skill focused[in fact, I am combat focused for the most part], but still, I actually have played a rogue, would say it is rather well built[I have survived 9 levels in a Mythic campaign, do almost as much damage as the pally when I sneak attack, am the one party member who almost never takes damage from the sorcerer's detonates, and still have a lot of skill ranks], and have been outskilled. The most humorous thing about this is the Paladin has a 7INT. I am just waiting for more non-diplomatic skill encounters.LOL!
Tell you what?
How about you actually go and play a rogue and get back with us on your absurd comment?
Well, since you seem interesting, a little while back I did a direct, objective comparison of a non-archetyped bard and non-archetyped rogue, side by side, and a side by side direct objective comparison of an archaeologist bard and a non-archetyped rogue, and found that while the rogue may not be totally eclipsed by the Bard/Archaeologist in every possible way, they still are inferior in almost every way, and only won out in one incredibly small...Something I have noticed about these rogue discussions is the class is being compared to about two or three other classes.
I would say the rogue is pretty damn special if it takes two or three classes to equal the one class.
How about post this rogue build of yours so we can take a look. Paladins don't have very many skills, also it depends how your rogue is built with regards to skills.
Also depends on how many skills you actually roll for. There is also the chance of just rolling bad.
|
I've offered to do this before but I'll offer again. Show me a Rogue build. I will make a build of another class that does basically all the same things only better.
Yes, really. This isn't even especially hard to do. Different Rogue builds necessitate different Classes, but for none of them is Rogue best.
If you are comparing JUST ONE SKILL, then the commoner can do almost as well as any class, thus of course all the classes are no better than the commoner. The commoner, with the right traist and feats can even cast spells, thus forget the Wizard, right?Rogue wins @ 1st.RRogue wins @ 1st level against a Commoner. Fun-tucking-fastic.There's a feat that lets me prepare cast spells like a wizard?
Magical Talent: Either from inborn talent, the whimsy of the gods, or obsessive study of strange tomes, you have mastered the use of a cantrip. Choose a 0-level spell. You may cast that spell once per day as a spell-like ability. This spell-like ability is cast at your highest caster level gained; if you have no caster level, it functions at CL 1st. The spell-like ability's save DC is Charisma-based.
I have skipped a few post but the limits on realism also affects fighters, and it is not just GM's but players. Tome of Battle is being made fun of or discounted not because it was broken, but people saw the abilities as "too magical", but it gave the fighting classes options. They still did not compare to magic, but it was a lot better than "I hit things". Barbarians get some semi-magical affects now, but I think Paizo is playing it safe with doing that for the non-magical melee types because even when such abilities come up in "improve the fighter/rogue" threads, the "it is not realistic" argument always comes up. If we allow it Paizo will give it to us.
Not sure wy abilities have to be magic-like in nature to bee god. Old crane wing was totally martial and was strong.
NOt sure why there have to be a jump between "I roll dices to hit thing with my sword" to "I rage so hard that now have dragons wings and can fly with them", for example.
I don't think Wraith said they were magical. I think some people have a really low bar before things become magical too. Something like jumping really high or smashing through DR even is apparently magical to some people.
Magical Talent: Either from inborn talent, the whimsy of the gods, or obsessive study of strange tomes, you have mastered the use of a cantrip. Choose a 0-level spell. You may cast that spell once per day as a spell-like ability. This spell-like ability is cast at your highest caster level gained; if you have no caster level, it functions at CL 1st. The spell-like ability's save DC is Charisma-based.If you are comparing JUST ONE SKILL, then the commoner can do almost as well as any class, thus of course all the classes are no better than the commoner. The commoner, with the right traist and feats can even cast spells, thus forget the Wizard, right?Rogue wins @ 1st.RRogue wins @ 1st level against a Commoner. Fun-tucking-fastic.There's a feat that lets me prepare cast spells like a wizard?
You can cast one cantrip once per day, using spell like rules(sorcerer-esque). Okay? Not quiet the same thing.
Well, since you seem interesting, a little while back I did a direct, objective comparison of a non-archetyped bard and non-archetyped rogue, side by side, and a side by side direct objective comparison of an archaeologist bard and a non-archetyped rogue, and found that while the rogue may not be totally eclipsed by the Bard/Archaeologist in every possible way, they still are inferior in almost every way, and only won out in one incredibly small...
All this is true except the word "objective". Marthkus showed a much better Rogue build. Your comparo was clearly biased.
And, so? There are Oracle builds that beat a Cleric at buffing and healing. Is the Cleric now obsolete? There are Sorc builds that are better at blasting than the wizard, and so forth.
The point is, do I want a "foppish minstrel who relies upon magic to do everything" or a "clever, dashing, sneak thief who can go all day and is self reliant"?
It's a ROLEplaying game, not a NUMBERplaying game.
[
You can cast one cantrip once per day, using spell like rules(sorcerer-esque). Okay? Not quiet the same thing.
It's the same as a Commoner who can burn all his resources to be almost as good as a Rogue is one, count 'em ONE of the rogues many, many talents and skills.
The Wizard can use magic, the Commoner can use magic. They are thus equal by BNW's logic.
|
|
I'm a little late to the party but a few things I'd like to post here...While I can't speak for others, I am currently playing a rogue in one home campaign, and there are 4 party members. Me, a 3pp class[don't recall name] with 2 skill ranks/level, a sorcerer, and a paladin. The Paladin alone as out-skilled me multiple times[with actual skill roles], and as a whole, I think that maybe twice in the entire 9 levels have I actually been better than the party at making a skill check. I may not be skill focused[in fact, I am combat focused for the most part], but still, I actually have played a rogue, would say it is rather well built[I have survived 9 levels in a Mythic campaign, do almost as much damage as the pally when I sneak attack, am the one party member who almost never takes damage from the sorcerer's detonates, and still have a lot of skill ranks], and have been outskilled. The most humorous thing about this is the Paladin has a 7INT. I am just waiting for more non-diplomatic skill encounters.LOL!
Tell you what?
How about you actually go and play a rogue and get back with us on your absurd comment?
Well, since you seem interesting, a little while back I did a direct, objective comparison of a non-archetyped bard and non-archetyped rogue, side by side, and a side by side direct objective comparison of an archaeologist bard and a non-archetyped rogue, and found that while the rogue may not be totally eclipsed by the Bard/Archaeologist in every possible way, they still are inferior in almost every way, and only wonSomething I have noticed about these rogue discussions is the class is being compared to about two or three other classes.
I would say the rogue is pretty damn special if it takes two or three classes to equal the one class.
If I could I certainly would. But I don't have the sheet on me, its been a few months, and we're mythic so I don't remember all of it. I can tell you a few things about it and the respective campaign though.
When I made the character I wanted to do a combat rogue, so I wasn't focused on skills [I do have the most skills in the party, along with the highest Int and Wisdom, at 12 each], and the skills I did choose were specifically either ones I had a use for or that the party didn't cover. I can recall having a bit of Knowledge [Local and Dungeoneering], Stealth, Acrobatics, Climb, Disable Device, Perception, UMD, Bluff, Intimidate, and I believe a rank in Diplomacy for a positive modifier. I also had a 7Charisma because the entire party was charisma-based and so I figured most of the face skills should be covered[and they were].
It turned out however, the first half of the campaign[the part we are in now, as this one will go to 20] had most of its skill uses be face skills, so I haven't been able to use much. I have so far used both knowledge skills 1 time each, climb once, Stealth once or twice, Acrobatics various times[in combat, I think once out of combat], I've been the best at perception, usually rolling among the highest, I've not once had a chance to disable a trap[though I did pick a lock], and aside from maybe using Intimidate once, maybe, I've only aided another with my charisma-based skills. I'm still waiting.
[
You can cast one cantrip once per day, using spell like rules(sorcerer-esque). Okay? Not quiet the same thing.
It's the same as a Commoner who can burn all his resources to be almost as good as a Rogue is one, count 'em ONE of the rogues many, many talents and skills.
The Wizard can use magic, the Commoner can use magic. They are thus equal by BNW's logic.
Actually that's Marthkus' logic. BNW is pointing out the flaws in your "I can use UMD argument." which... you yourself evidently don't believe. So... that's interesting to note.