| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's hardly a function of the Rogue anymore. That's like saying Master of Many Styles is a good Monk Archetype.
It's a great archetype... if you don't want to be a Monk.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Excitement
Shock
Hesitation
Hope
Desperation
Revulsion
Ambivalence
Acceptance
kikidmonkey: Indeed. Pummeling Charge is the easiest to get, and it is absolutely wonderful when combined with Vicious Claws, Feral Combat Training (claws), and Sap Master. If you multiclass with Vivisectionist, you can use Vestigial Arms and Feral Mutagen to exchange two iterative unarmed strikes for claw attacks. By level 10, that's 4 claws at full BAB, for 10d8+10 sneak attack damage for each claw. Every round.
And you can't accomplish it without being a rogue.
Or you could be any given martial with a greatsword. Rogue replaced.
|
which part of that requires the rogue? Couldn't you do that with vivisectionist alone?kikidmonkey: Indeed. Pummeling Charge is the easiest to get, and it is absolutely wonderful when combined with Vicious Claws, Feral Combat Training (claws), and Sap Master. If you multiclass with Vivisectionist, you can use Vestigial Arms and Feral Mutagen to exchange two iterative unarmed strikes for claw attacks. By level 10, that's 4 claws at full BAB, for 10d8+10 sneak attack damage for each claw. Every round.
And you can't accomplish it without being a rogue.
No, because you need scout to get SA on a charge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
countering invisibility is a joke at any level. just buy a dog or few, problem solved for most baddies. on dog's turn, dog uses scent and barks out location, rogue is autodetected
Surprise round. Dog and ninja are aware. Dog auto detects presence. MOve action detects rogues direction. Rogue delays for sneak attack and 5 foot step. Dog moves to rogue. Dog dies in a fountain of blood. Rogue moves into 1 of any 8 or so possible squares.
DominusMegadeus: Any given martial with a greatsword at that level is going to have two attacks, at BAB and BAB-5.
They'll have, what, +5 base damage, +9 damage from power attack and +4 from 1/2 STR? Maybe a small bonus from weapon training or weapon specialization?
And they won't be able to pounce. (Well, unless they're a barbarian.)
I'm not sure I'd exactly call that a replacement.kikidmonkey: Well, yeah, it involves multiclassing. Because vivisectionist is better than rogue. But rogue is honestly a vital part.
And pretty much every martial class is usually better off multiclassing.andreww: Yes, it requires a 1 level dip in monk. Four levels in rogue. 5 in vivisectionist. I'm not sure what you mean by Monk doing the "heavy lifting."
And 200 damage in a round is definitely "comparable" to a druid or a barbarian. It might not be as good as an optimized one, but it's comparable.Anyway. This isn't about the particular qualities of this particular build. kikidmonkey was the one who brought up Pummeling Charge in the first place.
My point is that if you are trying to do extreme damage with sneak attack, rogue contributes things that nothing else can. I have shown that.
But why would you want to do heavy sneak attack damage when you could do damage that works against everything? and more of it? and have good saves? and more HP?
A few rogue archetypes bring in a feature that is hard or impossible to duplicate somewhere else. But if you're going into rogue for that it's not that rogues are good, it's more like sacrificing to get the ability you want. That's why you get the ability and get out as soon as you can. Since that's the prevalent mentality it shows that the rogue isn't good, but that a few abilities might be worth sacrificing for (by taking rogue levels) to enhance other classes.
You'll notice I never said that rogue is not a bad class. It totally is.
It just has worth.
Not anymore. I can come pretty close to doing everything any rogue can do with a Mind Chemist Alchemist whose simply got more utility ability minus a few skill points but since the Investigator I see no reason to ever play a rogue that is actually a rogue instead of a rogue pretending to be some brute smasher. Which is done better as a Ranger or something.
I think Marroar is right, actually... And if you think I'm a "caster supremacist", I invite you to read my post history.i know your post history, but do you agree with me that pouring a bag of flour on an invisible target should be just as effective as casting a glitterdust spell on them?You'd know where the character is, and be able to attack him. But the 50% miss chance would still apply... Unless you somehow managed to completely immerse the enemy in an "ocean" of flour.
So, no. I don't think it'd be just as effective. Nor do I think it should be. I think mundane classes should have options to deal with this sort of thing, but I don't think flour should be able to completely negate invisibility.
personally, i think a large enough bag of flour should at least reduce the 50% miss chance to a 20% miss chance, but i think it should negate the miss chance entirely, because you can't put your skin in a backpack without skinning yourself, which would count as attacking yourself while leaving you at risk to all sorts of dungeons
skin isn't an object or possession, it is an external organ. plus putting flour over an easily targetable part of one's body will generally give you an area you can strike pretty reliably. it is easy to target the flour covered part of the body. and the flour targets the target's body, not their possessions and doesn't count as an object.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Invisibility doesn't stop at your skin though. If it did, you would have to strip naked every time you went invisible.
It extends a full 10 feet around you encompassing your clothes, armor, bags, weapons, and other gear. When you get doused with the flour, the flour that sticks to you becomes invisible too.
It's good enough to locate the square, but it does nothing to reduce total concealment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes!
A talk about Rogues has finally degenerated into cooking tips!
alright now we're talking!
So, what you do with Flour is, you sift it first, that way you'll get a more accurate measurement. Some people like using a mesh screen, but i like those old time-y sifters with a handle:-)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The first character I ever rolled was a Halfling rogue. The DM/GM helped me spec him for melee combat, but I did not fully understand the implications of what that meant. (level 3 character)
I had spent several hours painstakingly picking out the skills I wanted my little dude to have and pouring over EVERY item I purchased so I would be prepared for ANYTHING! I bought a hand-crossbow and some daggers so I would be ready for ANYTHING!
Our first combat was against dire rats and I was FREAKED out. DM kept giving descriptions like: "Rats as big as YOU!" and fangs and drool and someone got bit and needed a fortitude save and my number was WAY lower that what they started calling out... So I resorted to ranged tactics...
'Cept... I wasn't built to fight like that. This is not to say that I didn't hit anything. I did. The cleric. 3 times. Once flat footed. Oops. I did more damage to our party (i.e. the Cleric) than the enemy did. Again... Oops.
When combat was over I asked the cleric if I could have the bolts back (you know... the ones protruding from her torso). She was not entirely thrilled with the request but I did offer her a Cure Light Wounds potion for the trade AND I did say I was sorry for shooting her with little bolts, with the caveat that I had never seen a dire rat before (as a player OR as a character... I was supposed to be a pickpocket and this was my first "job" doing REAL adventuring).
No harm done. We proceeded into the sewers (ugh, gross, classic). I picked a lock while the party fought bandits. Opened the door to: DARK CREEPY HALLWAY... Ok... I am not going first. Fighter to the rescue! Huzzah! He went, then me, cleric taking up the rear (for the life of me I am SURE we had an arcane caster, but I cannot think of who/what it was?).
Not 30 paces into the hall: CHOKER! And it has the cleric. Well... FIRE THE CROSSBOW and... I hit the cleric (this is 4 bolts for those keeping count) ah, also the cleric was flat footed. I have since come to the understanding that my rogue had some beef with authority figures and clerics are serving a SERIOUS authority. While I did not start off well I did land 2 crossbow hits against the choker the latter of the two being the felling blow. Victory to me! The great and powerful rogue! (I did not do the most damage to the choker, I was still the one who dealt the most damage to the party, but I dropped the stupid thing so... victory to the rogue!)
The cleric then sarcastically (and against all roleplaying guidelines) asked if I wanted THIS bolt back as well (you know... the one in her vital bits). I replied: "If you aren't using it for anything. It is still good." She was not super happy about that. I asked the GM if I was able to recover the bolts from the choker and his reply "they are there, but they are damaged and can't be used again." His out of DM/GM reply being: "I want you to think about your resources so just reclaiming ALL of your bolts won't add any need for conservation."
This made sense. Ok. 2 bolts lost. We came upon another group of bandits. I shot some bolts at them- missed, but did not hit my comrades. The fighter fell into a pit trap and rather than continue my COMPLETELY ineffective combat measures I grabbed my grapple and rope and assisted the meat-shield in getting back into the fray. He felled two of bandits and I took half the credit for that. The argument being that he COULD have been stuck in a hole and gotten nothing and aren't you grateful I am prepared.
I am down by 5 bolts at this point. Oi... I REALLY don't want to be in melee because the cleric and the fighter keep getting hit. I (and possibly the vaguely existing wizard/sorcerer) have not been hurt. A trend I was desperate to keep going. I did not have the same hit points as those rough and tumble warrior types. I had 4 less than the cleric that is like a whole commoner's worth of difference!
Another door. I check for traps (a roll of 12). There aren't any. I tell the fighter such and he opens the door. BAM! Shot with a poison arrow. Unfortunate. I say "sorry" and shrug- no one is perfect. I tell him to just use an antitoxin and lets move on. He says he doesn't have one. Oh, well that is easy. I have 2. I am willing to sell him one of mine for the price of 25 gold pieces (which is a number I just shot off. You will take notice that this is a 50% discount!). The fighter says I should just give it to him.
And here is the issue. I came prepared. I find out now that I am the ONLY character with rations, water, rope, grapple, cure potions, alchemical items, and extra ammunition. I mean... I was ready for ADVENTURE and ended up in a sewer looking for bandit terrorists. You want my antitoxin you offer compensation. No. Yes. No. Yes. Reply of: But YOU didn't find the trap. Rebuttal of: But YOU opened the door.
End result? The argument took the amount of time the poison needed to take effect. Sorry (not really) fighter, take some ability damage (I am sure it was STR or CON, but I didn't really care). I got to keep my antitoxin. Glory be to the rogue! We continue.
More bandits this time with an expert who has placed a timed detonation device at a support base for the city. If it blows then the city hall goes to $hi+ and that would be crappy (yeah... I was a punny rogue!). the party fights. Cleric using heals, fighter smacks stuff with a... sword? axe?... weapon! The possibly non-existent sorcerer used arcane powers to bend the cosmos to his will (magic missile most likely... it didn't leave an impression so I will say he was ineffective at best).
The rogue? I plunged myself into battle and fired the crossbow. Bam! Critical hit. Flat Footed! Boo Ya! the bomber is down! You are welcome you glorified blacksmiths mannequin. Next round I head for the device, bla bla bla I use Dis Dev: 19. The GM/DM replied: "The device continues to count down." Umm... ok... I guess... Well, that is bad right? Hmmm... Next turn try again: 19. Nothing if not consistent right? "Device continues to countdown." Oi... Next round I attempt to wind the device to grant us more time. The party has since dispensed with the lesser bandit/terrorists (obviously some level of super genius has planted the device and only Batman could undo it because... reasons!)
Try again. I rolled REALLY well this time. "Device is still counting down." All if for nought. I cry out "My few remaining crossbow bolts won't save us now." The cleric asks in a very personal way: "How many bolts do you have?" as if an extra 5 would make the difference.
"I started with 260," I say.
This seemed to upset her for some reason. I am not sure why, I feel like our imminent explosion should be MUCH more meaningful right now. She blathered on about how this or that was not something she signed up for and curses upon the kinder... Ugh, it was really quite annoying. I am trying to die in pieces over here and she is going ON and ON. The fighter was pretty quiet, resigned to his fate. And the... whatever was off being unremarkable if he was being at all.
Device countdown ends. Device clicks. and... nothing. We all look around like: Oh... wow... Good luck that was. the GM responds: "yeah, the bomber didn't have time to hook up the combustible material before he was killed"
BY THE ROGUE! BOO YA! ROGUE SAVED TEH DAY!!!
In short: 1) spec for the combat you are GOING to use, not the combat you want, 2) ALWAYS be prepared, 3) rogues are all encompassing gods who have always saved the day and clerics merely get in the way of otherwise perfectly aimed crossbow bolts.
At some point I was bitten by a were-rat too... but I don't seem to remember how that came about.
@What's in the box?
This was a 3.0 game, correct?
So as far as I can see from above, you would have been just as helpful if not more had you gone bard. Hmm...
@What's in the box?
This was a 3.0 game, correct?
3.5... it was glorious!
So as far as I can see from above, you would have been just as helpful if not more had you gone bard. Hmm...
Nope. The bard wouldn't have had the glorious benefit of being a Rogue (which is what ACTUALLY helps when you are trying to get the benefits of rogue-luck).
I believe the 3.0 relevance is that they removed chance to hit allies with ranged attacks in 3.5 (though, I've never played 3.0 either so maybe it wasn't a rule then)
Okay so you wouldn't have been happy with it, but someone wanting to be more helpful to the group probably would have. singing would have boosted everyone, and maybe had them miss less on their attacks. Because nothing you did had anything tied to being a pathfinder rogue.
|
Thug builds, for the record, are not the same as fear effects. Even if it was ruled a morale effect (it's not right now, go scare all of the undead paladins you want), it doesn't allow a save. Tweaking a skill to uber levels (which is largely unnecessary) is easy enough, and you can either stack with enforcer (to not have to get the "+10" before pulling the fear effect) or Dazzling Display (an area-effect based on skill points, rather than their save. Since it is relatively easy to get skill bonuses, you should typically fear off all opponents on a 5 or higher even taking the "-10" into consideration... remember all they get is HD + Wisdom bonus).
Just food for thought.... they pretty much outclass necromancer mages in every way for AE fear.
what level is your rogue
I have a rogue concept that I've never played, but I think COULD work.
Halfling rogue with sniper goggles or the sniper archtype if the goggles arent available.
The halfling trait that reduces stealth penalty to sniping
The feat that reduces sniping for halfling.
I'll have to look the names up, but I know the exist. Essentially it reduces the sniping stealth penalty to 0.
Then skill focus stealth + Max ranks + any and all stealthy item bonuses.
You could theoretically snipe from a distance and do decent damage every round.
Again, never played this character, but I think it could be sufficiently fun to play if not necessarily min/maxed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
character optimized to do one thing well does that one thing well
update at 11
stay tuned
There's a lot of group-think going on regarding rogues.
A lot of the criticisms levied against rogues are based on the fact that they don't do as much damage as a fighter and their abilities can be replicated by a spell caster.
In my experience, it's been rare that a spellcaster can do as much damage as the fighter, either, and it's been extremely unusual for the caster to have the right spell for every (and in most cases, any) of the problems a rogue could solve for free with a skill check.
Yea, summon monster/invisibility/spider climb/pilfering hand makes for a pretty good rogue proxy at low levels if you're willing for those to be your only sorcerer 2nd level spells known or you've got the spell slots to prepare each of them two or three times a day, and you don't mind noisily setting off traps instead of quietly disarming them.
Alternatively, you could use scrolls. But then, alternatively, you could use potions. If "throw more money at it" is your solution, all classes are equal.
I think the specific fallacy being employed is that for any one situation, there is another character that _could_ do that specific job better (especially when the character or the situation is designed post-hoc to prove that very point and the sample rogue isn't), but whether that character class's representative is equipped and spec'd to do that job on this adventure at this moment is pretty important variable.
I hear a lot of folks say rogues spend a lot of time being dead. I speculate this is because everyone has decided they should play them as the multiple-ability-dependent paper cannon two weapon builds that try to keep up with the fighter in damage output by moving to the most exposed battlefield positions with their 5 hp a level and their leather armor. I think this is why, when encountered in the wild, they are often spread evenly across a ten foot squared section of dungeon floor.
Box is on to something with his advice to build your character for the way you fight and to stay at range. Yea, your damage output is going to be weak sauce. You're a rogue. Deal with it. You can use your mobility to stay out of trouble and harry soft, high value targets while contributing slightly to damage output. Combat isn't your job. Your job is problem-solving.
My experience as a rogue has been that I'm moderately effective in combat through around level eight (I don't spend a lot of time higher level than that), and I am generally able to solve on my own or contribute significantly to the solving of whatever obstacle the party is faced with, especially outside of combat.
For PFS, I get pretty frustrated trying to sneak, so I think I'd recommend _not_ investing ranks in stealth. It's not that it doesn't work, it's just too unpredictable table to table. Besides, its use is fundamentally predicated on splitting up the party, so it's not great for a group game with strangers.
Alternatively, you could use scrolls. But then, alternatively, you could use potions. If "throw more money at it" is your solution, all classes are equal.
Yeah but a Wizard gets Scribe Scroll and is making them half price. So the general desired Rogue functions are obfuscated by 13 gp and 75 gp spells.
But all this is meaningless since we already know that Slayers and Investigators have completely overtaken the Rogue.
I have seen quite a few builds with some rogue or ninja levels. I haven't seen a single classed one past level 4. Some were effective and some were ineffective.
Tannish - Pistolero 5/Rogue 3 She was death incarnate dual wielding revolvers. I was GM for this game and the other characters were totally outclassed. This had everything to do with revolvers and barley anything to do with being a rogue.
The Bash Brothers - Fighter 4/Rogue 4 and Fighter 2/ Druid 1/ Rogue 3 (he died before the campaign ended) They were the ones being outclassed by Tannish. Ogres need skill points from somewhere, but these guys would have had more fun with barbarians I think. They had trouble fitting in some places because being large isn't always good.
Faergus - Barbarian 4/Rogue 6/Psion 1 He started life as a barbarian and the GM kept trying to fit him into the "rogue" job. He was really fun to play up until my skill checks were made irrelevant. This happened due to poor GMing rather than structural problems, like getting a 40 on disable device or sleight of hand and failing on a regular basis at levels 8 to 11.
The Cat Burglars - Catfolk Rogue 8 and Dwaf Druid 8 I was playing the druid who wild shaped into housecat form and acted as his bodyguard. The rogue was actually an effective party member in addition to our B&E routine. In a party that had a shocking grasp magus and an awesome display oracle no less.
Princess Angel - Rogue 3/Ranger 8 She was just not good comparatively. The rest of the party was a barbarian, a grapple monk, a cleric, a witch, and a wizard. Couldn't hit like the barbarian or maneuver like the monk. Had about the skill points of the witch and wizard but not the magic. The player was miserable and it stopped being fun for the rest of us after a while.
No Name - Gestalt Ninja Sorcerer 4 This guy was pretty effective, the only complaint was that he never got attacked because he was usually invisible. And that complaint was from the other players and the GM, not the player in question.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the specific fallacy being employed is that for any one situation, there is another character that _could_ do that specific job better (especially when the character or the situation is designed post-hoc to prove that very point and the sample rogue isn't), but whether that character class's representative is equipped and spec'd to do that job on this adventure at this moment is pretty important variable.
The issue is present at character creation. Why MAKE a rogue when you could make another character to do it better? That's the issue.
If they can't do much damage (and by the way, this is a huge stumbling block for most people because rogues in video games are ALWAYS high damage dealers) and someone else can be just as good or better with skills, why bother?
Actually, let me add that in "olden times" Rogues were high damage dealers, though casters were actually the damage kings. Everyone's HP were much, much lower, and weapon damage didn't scale much if at all (and you also got far fewer attacks), so a 10d6 Fireball was REALLY significant. Thieves, meanwhile, multiplied their damage with Backstab, so after blasting spells, they generally did the most damage per hit (they were less accurate than clerics, though, so, they still had issues). Blast spells have not scaled up in damage, but HPs and other melee damage scaled up significantly, so, blasting is now worthless.
Looking ahead, as well, Rogues in 4e and 5e are premier damage dealers (yes, ok, Rangers outdo them in 4e and Paladins in 5e, but they're definitely high damage), so it's really ONLY in 3rd edition/Pathfinder that Rogues aren't deadly and dangerous.
Further, in earlier editions, Thieves, Bards, and Rangers were often the only classes that had ANY skills at all (non-weapon proficiencies were not commonly used in my experience), so they were unquestionably the best choices for that. Spells to replace skills were actually necessary because you were screwed without a Rogue (or if the Rogue failed their check). And using a spell slot on a skill check was a huge cost because spell slots were extremely limited. Looking forward again, 4e basically neutered everyone's out of combat options, while 5e made sure Rogues (and Bards) are unquestionably better with skills than anyone else (and spell slots are again very limited).
So, you have to realize that Pathfinder (or rather 3rd edition) is weird, then, in the grand scheme of things. It is the only edition were Rogues are lousy damage dealers and where the Rogue's other niche, skills, are essentially worthless by midgame.
|
Unless an invisible creature covered in flour uses invisibility again, the flour doesn't become invisible without stripping/skinning everything covered in flour and stowing it in a pack/cavity.Invisibility doesn't stop at your skin though. If it did, you would have to strip naked every time you went invisible.
It extends a full 10 feet around you encompassing your clothes, armor, bags, weapons, and other gear. When you get doused with the flour, the flour that sticks to you becomes invisible too.It's good enough to locate the square, but it does nothing to reduce total concealment.
What rule makes you think so?
"Powder: Powdered chalk, flour, and similar materials are popular with adventurers for their utility in pinpointing invisible creatures. Throwing a bag of powder into a square is an attack against AC 5, and momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there. A much more effective method is to spread powder on a surface (which takes 1 full round) and look for footprints."
It doesn't let you see them at all - just know what square they're in.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yea, your damage output is going to be weak sauce. You're a rogue. Deal with it. You can use your mobility to stay out of trouble and harry soft, high value targets while contributing slightly to damage output. Combat isn't your job.
Every other class seems to be able to handle combat...
Yea, your damage output is going to be weak sauce. You're a rogue. Deal with it. You can use your mobility to stay out of trouble and harry soft, high value targets while contributing slightly to damage output. Combat isn't your job.Every other class seems to be able to handle combat...
Don't be silly. Sneak attack? Evasion? Master Strike capstone ability? Proficiency with rapiers? Cleary combat was the last thing the devs expected a Rogue to engage in.
Alternatively, you could use scrolls. But then, alternatively, you could use potions. If "throw more money at it" is your solution, all classes are equal.Yeah but a Wizard gets Scribe Scroll and is making them half price. So the general desired Rogue functions are obfuscated by 13 gp and 75 gp spells.
Additionally, scrolls are always cheaper than having to share your loot with a less-than-useful party member.
|
Alternatively, you could use scrolls. But then, alternatively, you could use potions. If "throw more money at it" is your solution, all classes are equal.Yeah but a Wizard gets Scribe Scroll and is making them half price. So the general desired Rogue functions are obfuscated by 13 gp and 75 gp spells
Not in PFS, they don't.
The reason I have given up on rogues currently is WBL. I used to love the class back in 2nd edition. I got to level up faster than casters and fighters, I had skills they lacked, but mostly I had more money because I stole it. There was no guideline telling people not to let me, and in fact it was what the class was designed to do.
Many people have a problem because they think of rogues as assassins who kill with knives. I have a problem because I think of them as thieves who have more money than they should.
My disappointment is that the activities the role implies (scouting ahead, being the smartest person in the room, stealing, lying, cheating, double crossing, bribery, etc) are either done much easier by someone else or are actively discouraged by the game.
Most of the tropes associated with rogues in fiction and cinema don't work well in the game, at least not for a player character.
Not in PFS, they don't.Alternatively, you could use scrolls. But then, alternatively, you could use potions. If "throw more money at it" is your solution, all classes are equal.Yeah but a Wizard gets Scribe Scroll and is making them half price. So the general desired Rogue functions are obfuscated by 13 gp and 75 gp spells
I have enjoyed both of my human rogue PC's.
First was a 20pt buy, I did an Intimidate build and played her as a thug (not the archetype) who eventually redeemed herself and became a cleric of Serenrae. The campaign was called at 6th level.
The other was rolled, is currently involved in a Pathfinder-ala-Dark Sun campaign. He is the party face and skill monkey.
So... my experience has been good. I like them and will play them again.
The reason I have given up on rogues currently is WBL. I used to love the class back in 2nd edition. I got to level up faster than casters and fighters, I had skills they lacked, but mostly I had more money because I stole it. There was no guideline telling people not to let me, and in fact it was what the class was designed to do.
There still isn't, that's not what WBL is for.
Many people have a problem because they think of rogues as assassins who kill with knives. I have a problem because I think of them as thieves who have more money than they should.My disappointment is that the activities the role implies (scouting ahead, being the smartest person in the room, stealing, lying, cheating, double crossing, bribery, etc) are either done much easier by someone else or are actively discouraged by the game.
Most of the tropes associated with rogues in fiction and cinema don't work well in the game, at least not for a player character.
this I can understand and I sympathize with you, but i do think this is a typical exaple of table variation.
A lot of the things you list are things that often fall into the catogory of "solo play" , unless the whole party have built their characters to emphasize a sthealthy/sneaky play style.And I don't know how everybody does it but I know that my gm allows for "solo sidequests" for all his players.
We can have sessions where over half of the time we are jumping from player to player: everybody goes on a grand, personal adventure, while the other listen in for half an hour or more before we jump to the next one, who then does his thing and so on ..
Eventually we meet up, either by chance (gm prodding) or by design (player prodding) to handle our next joint adventure.
When I gm I keep that at a minimum but I allow all players at least 1 "action" at any settlement/downtime-phase.
we usually go around the table answering the "what do you do?"-question, untill we run out of things to do or I put the foot down and outright say:
"No, we're moving on, we will not be roleplaying the buying of the feed for the horses! Nor the acquisition of rations or rope! Enough is enough, this is NOT Pathfinder: the Accounting!"
But then again, half my players don't get much ideas/have a low initiative to start ther own actions - while the other half will happily roleplay and scheme on their own untill the session is over and they somhow became mayor whil the other guys went for a drink. So I have to find a middle ground so everybody gets to play.
Sean Nitter gives his example of his "greatsword rogue, with a high umd, and Lots Of Skills so he can contribute out of combat as well", he also states that in HIS gaming group, skils are used often and have a deep(er)impact on play.
In the games I've played either as a gm or a player, we also use skills often and allow for thinking "out of the box" - meaning that not all the encounters can only be overcome with violence. Depending on the setting, play style, and mindset of a group (including gm) different character builds will have different impact on the game.
Another anecdote before lunch:
the only reason mr "awesome god-wizard" survived a late-night ambush by (just normal)wolves once was because mr "I don't know what I want to play-bard" made his perception roll, so that him and ranger could get up and protect the party for that (very dangerous) suprise round.
After which the wizard was roused and let loose with his control spells so that the groggy fighter could wreck havoc on the enemies.
for a moment there I though I might TPK a lvl3 (or was it 4?) party with 8 wolves ...
LO out.