| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think of it this way ... they finally errata'd the rogue. It's now called 'the slayer'.
If I had a physical copy of the Core Rulebook I would rip out the Rogue pages, take off my shirt and burn them in the woods while screaming, and then print out a copy of the Slayer rules and staple them where the Rogue pages had been.
What static modifiers am i not seeing on that build? I add Strength, Power Attack and weapon enchantment and i get +28 damage per hit.
Looks like Smite Evil.
I think of it this way ... they finally errata'd the rogue. It's now called 'the slayer'.If I had a physical copy of the Core Rulebook I would rip out the Rogue pages, take off my shirt and burn them in the woods while screaming, and then print out a copy of the Slayer rules and staple them where the Rogue pages had been.
Hey now, don't burn your shirt, that's a perfectly good shirt. I mean I'm all for burning things but let's be reasonable here.
Hey now, don't burn your shirt, that's a perfectly good shirt. I mean I'm all for burning things but let's be reasonable here.I think of it this way ... they finally errata'd the rogue. It's now called 'the slayer'.If I had a physical copy of the Core Rulebook I would rip out the Rogue pages, take off my shirt and burn them in the woods while screaming, and then print out a copy of the Slayer rules and staple them where the Rogue pages had been.
Nah, the shirt would just be temporarily removed, not burned. You just can't really give an authentic primal scream with a shirt on.
Nah, the shirt would just be temporarily removed, not burned. You just can't really give an authentic primal scream with a shirt on.Hey now, don't burn your shirt, that's a perfectly good shirt. I mean I'm all for burning things but let's be reasonable here.I think of it this way ... they finally errata'd the rogue. It's now called 'the slayer'.If I had a physical copy of the Core Rulebook I would rip out the Rogue pages, take off my shirt and burn them in the woods while screaming, and then print out a copy of the Slayer rules and staple them where the Rogue pages had been.
Oh well that's cool then. Carry on.
1) Boots of speed grant Haste. Haste specifically does not work with speed weapons. Still only getting a cap of 5 attacks per round.
2) 5*(40)=200 but you have not counted your to hit. You haven't calculated dpr at all. We need the hit numbers because honestly it doesn't matter how many attack you have if they're all terrible.
3) Level 13 200 DPR is not hard.
1) true, i got mixed with the Slayer, he gets 6th from high BAB. My rogue only has 5, thats why all my numbers were with 5 attacks.
2) Sure i can include to hit. Just like the Barb 3rd attack (with no speed) my fifth attack is not reliable. The thing is me losing one hit is a lower lost than a barb losing one. And to kill most stuff at my lvl i do not need to hit with all my attacks.
3) Don't know, maybe we are not expert at creating characters. All i know is that when we started at lvl 1 the barb felt way more powerful than all the other characters. But the more we advanced in lvl, the more the rogue started to get en edge. Now at 13 in my group they all see my rogue as a bit overpowered (even me).
This came as a surprise because when i started reading the forums i kept seeing post about rogue being weak. The same thing is happening with the caster of the group. He was created as a blaster. Almost all guide in the advice section say not to do so, that it is weaker. The melee in the group are complaining because he kills most stuff before they can get one attack in...
I think if you are finding yourself a bit over powered that probably means you are fight CR 12-14 encounters. That's fine but there should also be a few CR 15 and maybe 1 CR 16. A CR 16 fight will show you how weak the rogue is and that is level appropriate encounter that will 1/3 to 1/2 the party resources.
At Level 13 you probably has 22-25 attack bonus in flanking position. A CR 13 you need 3 to hit a typical monster but CR 16 you will 50% or less with your primary attack. As you go up that gets worse and find pretty soon you need 15 or higher on your primary attack. The monster has more hit points that you could do if all your attacks hit. It deals enough damage in full attack to drop you and only needs 4 or better to hit you. This doesn't mean it's impossible to play a rogue, you just hang back hiding and wait for the monster to take enough damage that you can kill in with 1 attack. That blaster caster is you friend here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah, the shirt would just be temporarily removed, not burned. You just can't really give an authentic primal scream with a shirt on.
What if the shirt is made of the skin of your enemies and/or you dramatically rip it off as you scream?
Nah, the shirt would just be temporarily removed, not burned. You just can't really give an authentic primal scream with a shirt on.What if the shirt is made of the skin of your enemies and/or you dramatically rip it off as you scream?
Exception that proves the rule?
Nah, the shirt would just be temporarily removed, not burned. You just can't really give an authentic primal scream with a shirt on.What if the shirt is made of the skin of your enemies and/or you dramatically rip it off as you scream?
Though I'm ashamed to admit it, I don't know if I would have the strength to actually tear my shirt in half to facilitate the required drama for such a scene. You are right though, ripping off a shirt made from an enemy skin would be the best way to go about this... would it be cheating if I cut the shirt strategically in advance to make it easier?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though I'm ashamed to admit it, I don't know if I would have the strength to actually tear my shirt in half to facilitate the required drama for such a scene. You are right though, ripping off a shirt made from an enemy skin would be the best way to go about this... would it be cheating if I cut the shirt strategically in advance to make it easier?Nah, the shirt would just be temporarily removed, not burned. You just can't really give an authentic primal scream with a shirt on.What if the shirt is made of the skin of your enemies and/or you dramatically rip it off as you scream?
You're seeing it in reverse... It's not about having the necessary strength to facilitate your drama. It's about having enough drama to fuel your strength!
(Besides, in this case, your enemy are book pages, so they should be pretty easy to tear apart).
It's kind of sad, because the 3.5e halfling hurler with a ring of blink and a sackful of acid flasks and alchemist's fire was long considered the benchmark of good class balance: he could hold his own in combat, he had plenty of skills outside of combat, he had reasonable defenses (slippery mind, etc.), and so on. Paizo nerfed his combat potential to near-zero, and now the rogue seems to mark the dividing line between PC classes and mundane NPC classes like the aristocrat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
would it be cheating if I cut the shirt strategically in advance to make it easier?
It worked for Hulk Hogan.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of sad, because the 3.5e halfling hurler with a ring of blink and a sackful of acid flasks and alchemist's fire was long considered the benchmark of good class balance: he could hold his own in combat, he had plenty of skills outside of combat, he had reasonable defenses (slippery mind, etc.), and so on. Paizo nerfed his combat potential to near-zero, and now the rogue seems to mark the dividing line between PC classes and mundane NPC classes like the aristocrat.
I think the specificness of what was required to make the rogue good is sort of symptomatic of the problem dont you? In the end classes need to stand or fall on whats there in the class description. If a specific magic item, or very specific build is necessary, the class is probably just as problematic. I played 3.5 for its entire length. I never saw a ring of blink. I saw lots of rogues. Lots of halfling rogues. No rings of blink though.
Kolo,
I pretty much agree that the 3.5 rogue should have had built-in allowances for those sorts of things. Be that as it may, once people started buying rings of blink as soon as they had the scratch, the acid hurler became the recognized "optimal" balance point for new classes to aim for: below the wizard and cleric, but way above the fighter and 3.5 monk. I agree it wasn't envisioned that way by WotC, but that's how it turned out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of sad, because the 3.5e halfling hurler with a ring of blink and a sackful of acid flasks and alchemist's fire was long considered the benchmark of good class balance: he could hold his own in combat, he had plenty of skills outside of combat, he had reasonable defenses (slippery mind, etc.), and so on. Paizo nerfed his combat potential to near-zero, and now the rogue seems to mark the dividing line between PC classes and mundane NPC classes like the aristocrat.
That's all about the gear, not the class.
The gear was to allow you to turn sneak attack from a situational dud into a useful class feature, providing viable offensive capability.
To the Op.
To do fair comparisions you have to post your rogue in here. All te numbers, Hps, Ac, CMD, to hit and damage and very importantly his saves.
After that people in here can answer you with numbers.
So far, I have only see one rogue buidl that is superior, the other are mediocre at best.
At lvl 13 with same gear and base stats:
Rogue:
AC: 29
CMD: 30
HP: 103
To hit (with haste): 20/20/18/15/13
Dmg: 1d6+5 (+5d6 sneak) per attackSlayer (same gear):
AC: 29
CMD: 37
HP: 128
*To hit (with haste): 27/27/25/22/20/14
*Dmg: 1d6+10 (+4d6+12 sneak) per attack
*studied target bonus includedIt's not just a small difference... If the rogue was already affective the slayer is ... overkill (any rock fan? :-)
Gear? Feats? Where are the modifiers coming from?
Off topic:
True, but last I checked didn't stealth require a move action?
Stealth is usually used as part of another "movement." Even a 5' step is classified as a "movement." The only time Stealth is noted as taking up a full Move Action is when you're Sniping.
So short of flanking and such you'd only get 1 per full attack sequence.
Most of the time yes. You technically could get two SA in a full attack but only if you start your turn in Stealth and adjacent to your foe. You take your first attack, then 5' step using HiPS, then take the rest of your attacks. In this incredibly specific scenario you would net two Sneak Attacks in a full attack, however, this leaves you visible and adjacent to your enemy at the end of your turn... typically not a good spot for the Rogue.
Sounds like your Paladin and Barbarian are either badly made or badly played then.
Without being able to look in on your game in more detail, I'm not sure how you're pulling that off. Every rogue we've had in ours has lagged behind the rest of the party significantly, and there's a LOT of evidence on the forums of other groups doing likewise, as well as mechanical examination of its failings.
Add to that that every trick the rogue has, another class - Bard, Ninja, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Ranger, Slayer, etc. etc. etc. - either has it and can do it better, or has something that does the same general thing and does it better, and you can start to see where it has problems.
The only thing the Rogue has going for it are skills... and with Pathfinder consolidating the skills and opening them up to other classes more, doubly so if you use Traits, that's not really all that much of an advantage.
It is post like this why I don't really reply to threads like this anymore...not to in particular pick on you Orthos...
But perhaps it is the people in your game that don't know how to build or play rogues is the issue...
I also see a lot of groups that say that rogues are fine...usually though they give up when people start calling the people they play with a bunch of idiots...
The mechanical evidence is usually based on averages...which I would probably say no ones games are actually average...
And sure a lot of the classes do get rogue's things...but none can do it all as well as the rogue...you can be a con man, trap finder thief, assassin, etc. and be better at it than all of those other classes trying to to do all the same thing (though they will outshine in a specific way.)
Rogues are the ultimate generalist...unfortunately they are in a game of specialist...so it is hard for people who are caught up in one area of the game to see them shine.
Not to say rogues don't need some help like better talents that do more...and sure give them a full BAB (though at that point why the heck you would play a slayer or a ninja is beyond me...)
Anyway I know know people are going to bring their anecdotal evidence or a bunch of silly average which have nothing to do with my play experience to 'prove' me wrong...but I guess I needed to vent.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The mechanical evidence is usually based on averages...which I would probably say no ones games are actually average...
Gotta stop you right there. "Average" is simply the result of an infinite sample size. Anecdotes like "the Rogue in my party does just fine" are meaningless. Maybe the DM is soft-pedaling for him, or his system mastery is greater than that of the rest of the party, or it's a low level game where the Rogue's weaknesses are less apparent, or he just plain rolls well all the time, or, or, or.
And sure a lot of the classes do get rogue's things...but none can do it all as well as the rogue...you can be a con man, trap finder thief, assassin, etc. and be better at it than all of those other classes trying to to do all the same thing (though they will outshine in a specific way.)
Bard does it all at the same time, and better.
Anyway I know know people are going to bring their anecdotal evidence or a bunch of silly average which have nothing to do with my play experience to 'prove' me wrong...but I guess I needed to vent.
Play experience is an anecdote.
Also I have to ask, because I'm genuinely curious: Why all the ellipses?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well... To avoid anecdotal evidence, let's see what math tell us...
Rogues have:
- The lowest accuracy of any non-full caster in the game. In fact theya re the only class that has no means of buffing their to hit.
- Low/mediocre AC and CMD.
- The worst saves in the game.
And in exchange for all of that, they gain:
- 2 extra points over a Bard ('til 6th level, that is).
- Trapfinding (which is nice to have, but far from impressive).
- A situational damage boost that is okay, but not good enough to be any class' one and only offensive tool.
Rogues are not particularly good generalists, either... Bards are far better at... Well, basically everything.
Rogues get a bunch of secondary abilities and try to pretend they are good enough to be a main class feature.
And sure a lot of the classes do get rogue's things...but none can do it all as well as the rogue...you can be a con man, trap finder thief, assassin, etc. and be better at it than all of those other classes trying to to do all the same thing (though they will outshine in a specific way.)Bard does it all at the same time, and better.
As does Alchemist, with the right archetypes. And now Slayer.
But perhaps it is the people in your game that don't know how to build or play rogues is the issue...
The two players in my game who like roguish characters can build them quite well, thank you. It just so happens that because the Rogue is a mechanically-deficient class, it can be easily replaced - and improved upon - by using another class in its place.
The Spymistress in my Kingmaker game started the game as a Rogue. A chapter in, she retrained into Ranger, then a short time later swapped to the Hunter from Fistfull of Denarii. She's now debating whether she wants to stick with that or swap to Slayer.
There's also a Rogue (Thug) in my group's Age of Worms game where I'm playerside, played by the most optimizing-educated and number-crunching player in the group. He's as well-built as a Rogue can be. And yet he's the least efficient member of the party, which otherwise includes a Druid, my Zen Archer Monk, and a Paladin. He's likewise considering a swap, either to Slayer or to Swashbuckler.
So no. It's not ineptitude on the players' part at fault here. It's the lack of capability built into the Rogue class that's the issue. As many, many other people here have elucidated on in great detail.
It is post like this why I don't really reply to threads like this anymore...not to in particular pick on you Orthos...
If you're going to debate class capabilities, there are some rules you have to live by. One is that everything is measured in averages because that's the only reasonable way to measure things like this, as Athaleon said.
Anecdotal evidence (ie. anything that is not straight-up numbers on the sheet, up to and including "well this one time" type reenactments/remembrances) is pretty much pointless, as it conforms too easily to bias and missed information (did you know the guy was supposed to have X bonus or Y penalty, are you absolutely sure he wasn't cheating, or just got really lucky with the dice, was the GM going easy on the guy, etc.) whereas straight-up calculations can be proven unbiased mathematically.
House rules, obviously, must be left at the door. Anyone can say "the class is not broken/bad because I implemented this house rule that fixes the problem". That's just about as much as admitting "yes this class has a problem, because here I obviously had to fix it with this change before I was happy with it".
When people on the forums say the Rogue is the worst-designed class, they aren't just griping about how badly one's performed in game. They're speaking from years and years and years of crunching numbers and doing math. This is as much some people's hobby as actually playing the game itself is for many others. They know what they're talking about, which is why they're so adamant and repetitive about it, especially when someone comes in and tells them they don't.
If you can't/won't/don't want to live by those rules, then yes you're probably better off avoiding these kinds of threads. =) There's got to be some kind of baseline of expectations and the forum community as a majority has chosen the mathematical facts over anything else to be that baseline. If you're going to disregard that from the get-go, you've really nothing to contribute to the discussion but anecdotes and personal experiences that can't be substantiated by the numbers and will thus be disregarded.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is post like this why I don't really reply to threads like this anymore...not to in particular pick on you Orthos...
Noted.
But perhaps it is the people in your game that don't know how to build or play rogues is the issue...
Okay, anecdote time: I've seen the Rogue do well. Indeed, very well. My first long-time Pathfinder character was a Rogue, and did very well indeed in comparison to a Sorcerer, a Monk, a Ranger, and a few other characters.
Now, let's analyze why that was the case shall we? Firstly, we rolled for stats, and I rolled well, secondly my level of general system mastery (for RPGs as a whole) is quite a bit better than most other people in my group, and thirdly I was using TWF and this being our first Pathfinder game we screwed up the rules and allowed it to apply even on standard action attacks, which was definitely beneficial. Oh, and this was a corebook only game, since only the corebook was out yet.
Given all those unique circumstances that should make a character definitively better (higher skill level, better stats, advantageous rules errors)...I still only did about as well as everyone else. So, I've been in one of those 'Rogues did well' games, and I know why it happened, and it's not because the Rogue is a good class.
I also see a lot of groups that say that rogues are fine...usually though they give up when people start calling the people they play with a bunch of idiots...
It's not about 'a bunch of idiots', it's about relative optimization levels. The people I game with are smart, competent, people...but with maybe one exception I'm the best at optimizing characters (for whatever reason), so if I play a Rogue it's gonna look a lot better comparatively than it should. That's all people are saying.
The mechanical evidence is usually based on averages...which I would probably say no ones games are actually average...
Averages in what sense? Average damage? what does that have to do with 'average games'?And that's the only 'average' I see commonly coming up. Statistics are more common, but not the same thing. Was that what you meant?
And sure a lot of the classes do get rogue's things...but none can do it all as well as the rogue...you can be a con man, trap finder thief, assassin, etc. and be better at it than all of those other classes trying to to do all the same thing (though they will outshine in a specific way.)
Uh...I can make an Archaeologist Bard or Investigator or Slayer better at all four things you list than almost any Rogue you'd care to make. So...no, this is flatly untrue.
Rogues are the ultimate generalist...unfortunately they are in a game of specialist...so it is hard for people who are caught up in one area of the game to see them shine.
Nope. Rogues are really bad generalists compared to several other classes, Investigator and Bard most obviously. A real generalist is capable of actually succeeding in a wide variety of areas...which Rogues don't.
Not to say rogues don't need some help like better talents that do more...and sure give them a full BAB (though at that point why the heck you would play a slayer or a ninja is beyond me...)
Huh? This...really doesn't synch up with the rest of your post. And Ninja would kinda definitionally get the same boost as Rogue if you boosted Rogue.
Anyway I know know people are going to bring their anecdotal evidence or a bunch of silly average which have nothing to do with my play experience to 'prove' me wrong...but I guess I needed to vent.
So...when other people bring it up it's an 'anecdote', when you do it's 'play experience'? That's not a very good or fair attitude.
Also...if you don't accept either statistics or anecdotes, what evidence would you accept?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^^^ this. No matter the concept, you can make a better character as something other than a rogue. Those are just the breaks. With the same amount of system mastery/optimization, the rogue gets the short end of the stick.
@: At all...
The problem is average results on dice is that not only does no one actually roll average all the time...dice don't roll average all the time unless you spend lots of money to get precision dice made.
And you are right there are a few of archetypes out there that does step all over the rogues toes...that is bad archetype design...not that the rogue class design.
Anyway this is my last post in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're right, my dice suck and like to roll less than ten continuously. Because of this I gotta play characters who don't role dice often or can succeed on a 5.
If my dice continually rolled 15+ I'd say Rogue is one of the strongest classes in the game on a sneak full attack!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you are right there are a few of archetypes out there that does step all over the rogues toes...that is bad archetype design...not that the rogue class design.
I prefer it see it as there are several good archetype that help you make a better character than the poorly designed (for PF) rogue class. Why have crappy archetypes just to protect a sub-optimal class?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@: At all...
The problem is average results on dice is that not only does no one actually roll average all the time...dice don't roll average all the time unless you spend lots of money to get precision dice made.
No, of course not. But if the dice are gonna roll well, they'll roll well, and if they're gonna roll poorly, roll poorly. Class doesn't change that. If you use all low rolls and compare Rogue and Slayer, Rogue still comes out behind. Ditto high rolls. So...yeah, if the Rogue needs to get notably higher rolls to do as well, isn't that the definition of a less powerful class?
And you are right there are a few of archetypes out there that does step all over the rogues toes...that is bad archetype design...not that the rogue class design.
Uh...how are Slayer or Investigator Archetypes? And how is an Archetype that's right on par with the base class or a little weaker (like Archaeologist) poor archetype design?
Anyway this is my last post in this thread.
Huh. Okay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fine you guys convinced me rogues suck...whatever...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you are right there are a few of archetypes out there that does step all over the rogues toes...that is bad archetype design...not that the rogue class design.I prefer it see it as there are several good archetype that help you make a better character than the poorly designed (for PF) rogue class. Why have crappy archetypes just to protect a sub-optimal class?
I wonder if the Rogue section in Pathfinder Unchained will just be a photocopy of a tear stained apology letter followed by a comprehensive list of existing classes and archetypes that function as Rogue should.
Or the Rogue is just a plain badly-designed class and to nerf the Slayer down to its level would produce two badly-designed classes rather than one good class and one poor class.
The Slayer didn't destroy the Rogue. That was done long ago, between the Bard, the Alchemist, and the Inquisitor.
I dont understand why people keep saying the rogue is bad. At lvl 13 i have more AC than the Barbarian and Paladin in my group and i rarely lose the bonus.
I also outdamage them by a very large margin. 5 attacks doing 6d6+4 dmg each for 200dmg possible per round...
I took 3 lvl of shadowdancer for hide in plain sight and the flank partner. The only time i can't do sneak dmg is when the target is immune: rarely.
On top of very nice combat abilities rogues get many skill points to play with, just icing on the cake.
Pretty sure my Barbarian's attack routine of +40/+30/+25 at 2d6+48 (plus a bite at +24 with 1d4+22 damage as icing) blows that out of the water.
Granted he's level 16 but I don't think that extra 1d6 of Sneak Attack changes matters in your favor a whole ton.
For reference, your maximum damage (5 attacks at 9d6+4 apiece) is 290 damage.
My MINIMUM (3 attacks at 2d6+48, one at 1d4+22) is 173...without the buffs you seem to be enjoying, at a higher to-hit, less situational, and without the utter reliance on the swinginess of damage dice (change this to averages and you're now doing 177 vs my 189...again with the above stated advantages).
My numbers may be a smidge off, I think my bite should be more powerful and I'm adding in some slight buffs that may not be strictly legal to the Earthbreaker hits but the overall result is the same.
Hmm, i was pretty much positive a dev said on here a few years back that you could have as many running as you wanted lol. ok then fair enough :)Naw, there's no rule limiting how many elementals you can have going at once
I do believe a weapon enchanted with frost shock and flaming can only have one of those effect active at a time, also there is better ways to improive your damage than stack elmental damage d6s. A speed enchantment doubles a two-handed weapons primary attack damage output, while it only adds little over 50% for a TWFerUpon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.The last sentence is in every one of these effects' descriptions, and i read it as such that you command it to become flaming, it becomes flaming, then you command it to become frosty, it stops being flaming and becomes frosty.
You are correct. There is no rule saying that activating one turns another one off. They can even all activate using the same command word.
Or the Rogue is just a plain badly-designed class and to nerf the Slayer down to its level would produce two badly-designed classes rather than one good class and one poor class.
The Slayer didn't destroy the Rogue. That was done long ago, between the Bard, the Alchemist, and the Inquisitor.
I dont understand why people keep saying the rogue is bad. At lvl 13 i have more AC than the Barbarian and Paladin in my group and i rarely lose the bonus.
I also outdamage them by a very large margin. 5 attacks doing 6d6+4 dmg each for 200dmg possible per round...
I took 3 lvl of shadowdancer for hide in plain sight and the flank partner. The only time i can't do sneak dmg is when the target is immune: rarely.
On top of very nice combat abilities rogues get many skill points to play with, just icing on the cake.
Pretty sure my Barbarian's attack routine of +40/+30/+25 at 2d6+48 (plus a bite at +24 with 1d4+22 damage as icing) blows that out of the water.
Granted he's level 16 but I don't think that extra 1d6 of Sneak Attack changes matters in your favor a whole ton.
For reference, your maximum damage (5 attacks at 9d6+4 apiece) is 290 damage.
My MINIMUM (3 attacks at 2d6+48, one at 1d4+22) is 173...without the buffs you seem to be enjoying, at a higher to-hit, less situational, and without the utter reliance on the swinginess of damage dice (change this to averages and you're now doing 177 vs my 189...again with the above stated advantages).
My numbers may be a smidge off, I think my bite should be more powerful and I'm adding in some slight buffs that may not be strictly legal to the Earthbreaker hits but the overall result is the same.
As the GM for this creation I can say that at level 13 he was definitely over +30 to hit, and doing at least +35 to damage. He also did not care about DR.
You are correct. There is no rule saying that activating one turns another one off. They can even all activate using the same command word.Hmm, i was pretty much positive a dev said on here a few years back that you could have as many running as you wanted lol. ok then fair enough :)Naw, there's no rule limiting how many elementals you can have going at once
I do believe a weapon enchanted with frost shock and flaming can only have one of those effect active at a time, also there is better ways to improive your damage than stack elmental damage d6s. A speed enchantment doubles a two-handed weapons primary attack damage output, while it only adds little over 50% for a TWFerUpon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.The last sentence is in every one of these effects' descriptions, and i read it as such that you command it to become flaming, it becomes flaming, then you command it to become frosty, it stops being flaming and becomes frosty.
Indeed. The "until another command is given" is still talking about the same ability. "Flame on" to turn on the fire damage, and "flame off" (another command, not the same command) to turn it off.
And if you are making the weapon yourself, you can make the command word "Triarc" for all three, although that means you can't specify which one's on or off (for when you fight things healed by a particular energy, etc).
But regardless of this finer point, it was simply a way to give a direct comparison to the d6s damage being tossed around as example.
You are correct. There is no rule saying that activating one turns another one off. They can even all activate using the same command word.Hmm, i was pretty much positive a dev said on here a few years back that you could have as many running as you wanted lol. ok then fair enough :)Naw, there's no rule limiting how many elementals you can have going at once
I do believe a weapon enchanted with frost shock and flaming can only have one of those effect active at a time, also there is better ways to improive your damage than stack elmental damage d6s. A speed enchantment doubles a two-handed weapons primary attack damage output, while it only adds little over 50% for a TWFerUpon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.The last sentence is in every one of these effects' descriptions, and i read it as such that you command it to become flaming, it becomes flaming, then you command it to become frosty, it stops being flaming and becomes frosty.Indeed. The "until another command is given" is still talking about the same ability. "Flame on" to turn on the fire damage, and "flame off" (another command, not the same command) to turn it off.
And if you are making the weapon yourself, you can make the command word "Triarc" for all three, although that means you can't specify which one's on or off (for when you fight things healed by a particular energy, etc).
But regardless of this finer point, it was simply a way to give a direct comparison to the d6s damage being tossed around as example.
In that case I stand corrected.
- No mistake, the numbers i gave included all penalties and bonus to hit (from Dex, from Swords, from weapon focus...).
Then why is your main-hand bonus two higher than your off-hand? Especially since you said you were using two weapons of the same type (so not a Weapon Focus difference) with the same enhancement (so no difference there).
Again most foes we face dont have 200hp. And this is a module made by Paizo. I assume they created something appropriate for our lvl...
They created something for a party of 4 characters with 15 point buy and no system mastery. If you are improved on any of those three factors, no, Paizo does not write their APs appropriate to you - they expect a GM with more players, higher point buy/rolled stats, and/or players with more mechanical expertise will beef up the challenge to be appropriate for them.
With very few, somewhat infamous exceptions, Paizo APs are very easy.
If your GM is just running it straight out of the box and you are using higher point buy/rolled stats or are better at building characters than a brand-new player, then no wonder you're steamrolling everything.
For larger groups, stronger groups, and/or more advanced groups, the APs are a skeleton of a plot - not a run-out-of-the-box, all-the-work-done-for-you pre-packaged campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're making a mistake here. Main hand and offhand take the penalties for TWF. You're at 18/18/18/13/13.That being said, average AC for a CR 13 foe is 28. You need a 10 to hit on your highest attack. Aka, a 45% miss chance.
So, .55+.55+.55+.3+.3=2.25 hits per round against average AC of CR equivalent foe.
2.25*17.5 + 2.25*8.5*1.10=60.4125 before DR, miss chance, or other such things.
Average HP around this level is about 200 for monsters, meaning that it should take about 4 full attacking sneak attacks to kill a single opponent.
- No mistake, the numbers i gave included all penalties and bonus to hit (from Dex, from Swords, from weapon focus...).
- We are playing a premade module from Paizo (Jade Reagent). The average AC of foes we are facing is not 28. Plus as a rogue my main priority most of the time is to go after the casters/archers, they have lower AC.
-Again most foes we face dont have 200hp. And this is a module made by Paizo. I assume they created something appropriate for our lvl...
Your off hand and main hand attack should have the same attack bonus unless one weapon has a special ability such as a feat or magic applied to give it a higher attack bonus than the other weapon.
That penalty from TWF applies to both weapons, not just one or the other.