How is the unchained rogue?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 482 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

For Minor Magic, Acid Splash is serious contender for Detect Magic, giving you a sniping ranged touch sneak attack.

Of course Bookish rogue makes both Minor and Major better, as you can swap out your spells with 10 minutes as needed. It's like always having an empty slot.

And then Dispelling Attack is unlocked for a free targeted dispel on every sneak attack.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Reads first page, sees Snowblind post involving healers:
I don't mean to be rude, but what the hell? What is it with you and others having such disdain or mockery of healers?! Healers have been a staple of fantasy RPGs and other such games for years, and I feel should not be so disrespected through such names as "bandaid dispenser', "healbot', and "party gimp".

Myself, when it comes to the cleric, or other healer, I have always been of the mind that it is a iconic role that should be seen positively... so much so that if no one else picks a healer I would be perfectly happy being a cleric or paladin. I would gladly offer playing such a role since I see it as important, a party cleric who offers healing should be seen respectable not with mockery.

I do not like your post, not at all and if I wasn't trying so hard to be nice I would perhaps be a bit more colorful with my post. -mutters, mutters-
-----------------

Moving onto the Unchained Rogue I am glad the Heal skill may actually see use. Sound like the rogue has a means of actually offering some extra healing, which is nice. All around I say that Unchained Rogue is a very nice improvement, especially since they can use any of the archetypes available to it before.

I am also glad that Minor and Major Magic got improvements, though I do wish the class had better option for such. A handful of spells, while useful, is in many ways not as effective as taking a dip into the wizard class or other spellcaster. Heck, a single dip as a wizard offers more magic and you can save your talents for other things.

I admit, I have actually considered buying the third party Advanced Archetypes II because it offers a rogue archetype which gives up talents for 4 levels of spellcasting. I am curious to see how it would work, and I am glad that Unchained Rogue allows for all archetypes to work with it.


JonathonWilder wrote:

Reads first page, sees Snowblind post involving healers:

I don't mean to be rude, but what the hell? What is it with you and others having such disdain or mockery of healers?! Healers have been a staple of fantasy RPGs and other such games for years, and I feel should not be so disrespected through such names as "bandaid dispenser', "healbot', and "party gimp".

Myself, when it comes to the cleric, or other healer, I have always been of the mind that it is a iconic role that should be seen positively... so much so that if no one else picks a healer I would be perfectly happy being a cleric or paladin. I would gladly offer playing such a role since I see it as important, a party cleric who offers healing should be seen respectable not with mockery.

I do not like your post, not at all and if I wasn't trying so hard to be nice I would perhaps be a bit more colorful with my post. -mutters, mutters-

off topic:
Healers have a bad reputation because healing in combat is so lackluster and healing out of combat is pretty trivial. Something like 99/100 times healing in combat is not the effective thing to do. Out of combat, wands and a few scrolls can heal most everything. So while having a cleric or a paladin in a party isn't a bad thing by any means. Being a "healer" isn't a good idea for Pathfinder, regardless of how iconic it is, or how pervasive it is in other games. This is why people disdain and mock healers.

I know I personally groan inside if I ever sit at a table and there's a "dedicated healer" in the group, because that usually means we're a man down during fights.

So unless you have some way to prove/counter the above points people will continue to share that a healer is a worthless unneeded role and a trap for people playing the game.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JonathonWilder wrote:

Reads first page, sees Snowblind post involving healers:

I don't mean to be rude, but what the hell? What is it with you and others having such disdain or mockery of healers?! Healers have been a staple of fantasy RPGs and other such games for years, and I feel should not be so disrespected through such names as "bandaid dispenser', "healbot', and "party gimp".

Myself, when it comes to the cleric, or other healer, I have always been of the mind that it is a iconic role that should be seen positively... so much so that if no one else picks a healer I would be perfectly happy being a cleric or paladin. I would gladly offer playing such a role since I see it as important, a party cleric who offers healing should be seen respectable not with mockery.

I do not like your post, not at all and if I wasn't trying so hard to be nice I would perhaps be a bit more colorful with my post. -mutters, mutters-
-----------------

Will Save: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (13) + 2 = 15 Fails Will Save.

The healer is a terrible role. A cleric or paladin or even life oracle is a great role that is much more than healing. In-combat healing is usually a waste of resources that would have been better spent preventing the damage from occurring in the first place. You are wasting your action economy to restore health while the enemy is still draining HP.

There are exceptions, such as life link, swift action heals, and the actual Heal spell. But simple cure spells, channels, and lay on hands cannot keep pace with incoming damage and if someone was going to die without in-combat healing they will usually die with it one round later.

Dark Archive

Kudaku wrote:

Yeah, dipping would definitely work. I was kind of hoping I'd missed a rogue archetype that picked up the Studied Target mechanic. :)

Truth be told I never really understood why Merciless Butchery is a slayer-specific feat. It seems extremely appropriate for a barbarian or an anti-paladin, for example.

If the campaign is not PFS and your DM is willing to consider 3rd party, there is the rogue archetype Hitman from Flaming Crab Games. A personal favorite of mine actually, and it offers a rogue access to Studied Strike.

Dark Archive

@Chess Pwn and Imbicatus
I would go into it, but not here. Maybe another thread or PM, but if I allow myself to go into it here I will get angry as this is a sore subject for me which connects to other issues I have with some players who look at Pathfinder far too mechanically and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JonathonWilder wrote:

@Chess Pwn and Imbicatus

I would go into it, but not here. Maybe another thread or PM, but if I allow myself to go into it here I will get angry as this is a sore subject for me which connects to other issues I have with some players who look at Pathfinder far too mechanically and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Healing being inefficient in combat (with notable exceptions like Heal) is just math. There's no point in being upset that 2 + 2 = 4. Being upset won't make 2 + 2 add up to 5. I've found the best way to develop system mastery is simply accept the math of the system whether you like the outcome or not. Taking your emotions out of the equation will lead to exponential growth in your system mastery. Logarithms.


Anzyr wrote:
JonathonWilder wrote:

@Chess Pwn and Imbicatus

I would go into it, but not here. Maybe another thread or PM, but if I allow myself to go into it here I will get angry as this is a sore subject for me which connects to other issues I have with some players who look at Pathfinder far too mechanically and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Healing being inefficient in combat (with notable exceptions like Heal) is just math. There's no point in being upset that 2 + 2 = 4. Being upset won't make 2 + 2 add up to 5. I've found the best way to develop system mastery is simply accept the math of the system whether you like the outcome or not. Taking your emotions out of the equation will lead to exponential growth in your system mastery. Logarithms.

Emotions are part of the game. Reducing it to a math problem just makes it a math problem and not a game. System mastery is easy to develop, just like learning basic math. Dealing with the game itself ends up being a bit harder.

Also looks like you are suggesting that JonathonWilder reduce the game to mechanics, the very thing he said that leaves a bad taste in his mouth.


AndIMustMask wrote:

okay, so so far we've got a few helpfuls/must-haves for rogues so far:

...-minor magic: detect magic (talent) + major magic: chill touch (talent)...

Hum... Why is Chill touch a 'must' have? Why detect magic?


Havoq wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

okay, so so far we've got a few helpfuls/must-haves for rogues so far:

...-minor magic: detect magic (talent) + major magic: chill touch (talent)...

Hum... Why is Chill touch a 'must' have? Why detect magic?

Chill touch is great because you can cast it once and get 5 touch attacks off of it... 5 touch sneak attacks.

Detect magic is good because it puts a giant "HERE I AM!" sign on all of the magic traps.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

It also lets you ID your loot, with some Spellcraft. :)

Liberty's Edge

I posted some Rogue builds in the thread below. Feel free to check them out and voice comments or advice!

Unchained Rogue Builds


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
knightnday wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
JonathonWilder wrote:

@Chess Pwn and Imbicatus

I would go into it, but not here. Maybe another thread or PM, but if I allow myself to go into it here I will get angry as this is a sore subject for me which connects to other issues I have with some players who look at Pathfinder far too mechanically and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Healing being inefficient in combat (with notable exceptions like Heal) is just math. There's no point in being upset that 2 + 2 = 4. Being upset won't make 2 + 2 add up to 5. I've found the best way to develop system mastery is simply accept the math of the system whether you like the outcome or not. Taking your emotions out of the equation will lead to exponential growth in your system mastery. Logarithms.

Emotions are part of the game. Reducing it to a math problem just makes it a math problem and not a game. System mastery is easy to develop, just like learning basic math. Dealing with the game itself ends up being a bit harder.

Also looks like you are suggesting that JonathonWilder reduce the game to mechanics, the very thing he said that leaves a bad taste in his mouth.

then he's essentially getting upset at people trying to be effective, healling can in the long run, hurt more than heal, which is why anyone who knows a thing or two about supporting in pathfinder, doesn't do it through healing mid combat.

personally, the only time it's useful is when it's a swift action or you can deal damage at the same time, such as a negative channel cleric with the death domain.


Anzyr wrote:


Healing being inefficient in combat (with notable exceptions like Heal) is just math. There's no point in being upset that 2 + 2 = 4. Being upset won't make 2 + 2 add up to 5.

Um, 2+2 =5, if we are using vector math. Stop thinking on 2 dimensional in your math (sarcasm but still fits).

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
JonathonWilder wrote:

@Chess Pwn and Imbicatus

I would go into it, but not here. Maybe another thread or PM, but if I allow myself to go into it here I will get angry as this is a sore subject for me which connects to other issues I have with some players who look at Pathfinder far too mechanically and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Healing being inefficient in combat (with notable exceptions like Heal) is just math. There's no point in being upset that 2 + 2 = 4. Being upset won't make 2 + 2 add up to 5. I've found the best way to develop system mastery is simply accept the math of the system whether you like the outcome or not. Taking your emotions out of the equation will lead to exponential growth in your system mastery. Logarithms.

Emotions are part of the game. Reducing it to a math problem just makes it a math problem and not a game. System mastery is easy to develop, just like learning basic math. Dealing with the game itself ends up being a bit harder.

Also looks like you are suggesting that JonathonWilder reduce the game to mechanics, the very thing he said that leaves a bad taste in his mouth.

then he's essentially getting upset at people trying to be effective, healling can in the long run, hurt more than heal, which is why anyone who knows a thing or two about supporting in pathfinder, doesn't do it through healing mid combat.

personally, the only time it's useful is when it's a swift action or you can deal damage at the same time, such as a negative channel cleric with the death domain.

A little bit more of my thoughts

Spoiler:
Part of the issue is that I don't see D&D or Pathfinder as a game that need to be won or competitive, and focusing on what is most optimal and not on making a flavorful or interesting character in a strong setting has become a problem in my mind.

Far too many players have focused on breaking down the game to math, numbers, and mechanics to the point where it ruins what I love about games like this. That and it matters the DM as much as the player, as I feel it unbelievable that something as simple healing the party in battle 'doesn't work' and it is better just to carry wands around instead of using what is a naturally a part of a class (as in, the Clericing healing the party).

Theorycrafting and seeing the game from a mechanical standpoint is not a good thing if taken too far. Especially when it discourages interesting or creative characters because it isn't 'optimal'. Being the party healer should not be degraded through insults, that just shows the wrong mindedness of players. More I see it as completely unbelievable that there is nothing that has been created in Pathfinder that allows for better healing in combat. Even then, a battle should be so fast or aggressive that taking a moment to heal a party member is a waste of time. But perhaps Pathfinder didn't consider healing mid combat, so they are at fault too.


Ravingdork wrote:

Here are my first unchained rogues:

Remy the mutant
Ren the poisoner

I highly recommend this class change for ANYONE playing a rogue.

It seems that the Flat-footed AC for Ren is not right. Ren has Uncanny Dodge so the Flat-footed AC should also be 16.

Otherwise, both of them look nice.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
JonathonWilder wrote:
Part of the issue is that I don't see D&D or Pathfinder as a game that need to be won or competitive,

I am growing increasingly weary of this statement. It's reductionist at best, utter bull manure at worst, and a strawman argument no matter how you slice it.

I, and others of my ilk who greatly enjoy optimizing character builds, do not do so (generally) out of some perverse need to 'win' or compete with other people. We do so because the intellectual exercise is stimulating, and the satisfaction of seeing an untested build flourish is grand. The thought "I need to win at Pathfinder" never enters our minds until it's spouted by our critics, at which point it's dismissed with a roll of the eyes. The problem is, one can only roll one's eyes for so long. The rhetoric, and the attributed motives implied, begins to grate once one has read or heard it enough.

I exhort any who read this: stop making this argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Imbicatus wrote:
But simple cure spells, channels, and lay on hands cannot keep pace with incoming damage and if someone was going to die without in-combat healing they will usually die with it one round later.

I've lost count of all of the encounters in which that one extra round allowed us to end the fight and save the party, accomplish the goal, or just keep the healed character alive.

Earl Grey wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Here are my first unchained rogues:

Remy the mutant
Ren the poisoner

I highly recommend this class change for ANYONE playing a rogue.

It seems that the Flat-footed AC for Ren is not right. Ren has Uncanny Dodge so the Flat-footed AC should also be 16.

Otherwise, both of them look nice.

Even rogues with uncanny dodge can be caught flat-footed. It's just much more rare (generally requiring another high level rogue), so the number is fine as is.

Dark Archive

@Ryzoken

Spoiler:
Well then I ask you, why is it necessary to max out your character and have it be the best? Why not consider a less optimal idea and actually figure out how to have it work creatively? I have actually seen this problem in other ways, people readily admitting Wizards and other full casters are more powerful but then telling others not to make a certain build because it lowers spellcasting (often involving PrCs).

My counterargument is this, why not stimulate yourself with intellectual exercises in seeing an untested build flourish in directions that don't involving something that already works and focus on something that doesn't work as well... such as healing during combat or finding interesting ways of trying something new with a class that goes against the norm? Admittingly, I would also argue that Pathfinder is more of a creative exercise not intellectual one... but that is me.

Also, less dumping a stat just because it isn't mechanically important or boosting another stat to a degree that can't be believably roleplayed... but that is just me. Sure have a high or low stat if it is flavorful for the character idea, but not because of the mechanical benefits or lack of a disadvantage.


Sighs, but I'm sure there will be those who say that this is just me being the "BadWrongFun" guy.

Sovereign Court

I apologize if this has already been asked, but with weapon finesse and debilitating strike "for free" by level 4, does the rogue now become a viable option for butterfly's sting as the crit fisher?


Ravingdork wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
But simple cure spells, channels, and lay on hands cannot keep pace with incoming damage and if someone was going to die without in-combat healing they will usually die with it one round later.

I've lost count of all of the encounters in which that one extra round allowed us to end the fight and save the party, accomplish the goal, or just keep the healed character alive.

If you have quick channel (so you can still use the standard to cast or attack), and your channel saves more than 1 guys life, it can work out occasionally. Still not something that happens too often.

Sovereign Court

JonathonWilder wrote:

@Ryzoken

** spoiler omitted **
Sighs, but I'm sure there will be those who say that this is just me being the "BadWrongFun" guy.

I'm sorry - but that's pretty much a lesser Stormwind Fallacy. Though I will say - I actually prefer using odd concepts - and then power gaming them as hard as I can. (But I do power-game them.)

(Of note - I actually do think that well built in-combat healing builds can be mechanically viable in more defensive minded groups - though most groups are offensively minded. Part of the reason is that the whole group has to be somewhat defensive minded to work well - though it does then work very well.)

Dark Archive

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

I'm sorry - but that's pretty much the Stormwind Fallacy in a nutshell.

(Of note - I actually do think that well built in-combat healing builds can be mechanically viable in more defensive minded groups - though most groups are offensively minded. Part of the reason is that the whole group has to be somewhat defensive minded to work well - though it does then work very well.)

Spoiler:
"Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy."

I'm not claiming this at all, though it is possibly my wording is a bit off and you got this impression. My feelings on what is being discussed is different, though I am not always good at expressing my thoughts. I apologize for the misunderstanding... if you like we can take this to PM? I can try to express my what I am trying to say better there.

On your note, I am glad to hear that though it frustrates me a bit you saying "though most groups are offensively minded".

Back on track, since I have derailed enough, has anyone considered a more social focused rogue? How does Unchained Rogue help with such a consideration and apart from Skill Unlocks does it offer anything new for such?

Dark Archive

I will say I like this from looking into The Stormwind Fallacy:

Spoiler:
"By playing D&D*, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect. However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules."
*Replace with Pathfinder


Starbuck_II wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Healing being inefficient in combat (with notable exceptions like Heal) is just math. There's no point in being upset that 2 + 2 = 4. Being upset won't make 2 + 2 add up to 5.
Um, 2+2 =5, if we are using vector math. Stop thinking on 2 dimensional in your math (sarcasm but still fits).

Not to mention that 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryzoken wrote:
JonathonWilder wrote:
Part of the issue is that I don't see D&D or Pathfinder as a game that need to be won or competitive,

I am growing increasingly weary of this statement. It's reductionist at best, utter bull manure at worst, and a strawman argument no matter how you slice it.

I, and others of my ilk who greatly enjoy optimizing character builds, do not do so (generally) out of some perverse need to 'win' or compete with other people. We do so because the intellectual exercise is stimulating, and the satisfaction of seeing an untested build flourish is grand. The thought "I need to win at Pathfinder" never enters our minds until it's spouted by our critics, at which point it's dismissed with a roll of the eyes. The problem is, one can only roll one's eyes for so long. The rhetoric, and the attributed motives implied, begins to grate once one has read or heard it enough.

I exhort any who read this: stop making this argument.

I would agree that the argument should stop being made. I'd counter that I'd like to see things like "doing X is the dumbest thing you can do in combat" or other words to the effect of "You are doing it wrong."

Believe it or not, not everyone is in it to optimize or get the most band out of a character. Some groups will heal in combat because the person believes that is what their character would do, or it makes sense to them at the time. They don't always use a great sword for the most damage, don't look at the critical range and modifier, and don't pick from the 'approved' list of spells mentioned on the primers/guides.

No one is doing it wrong. People do it differently. Personally, unless I am getting a prize for DPR at the end of the night I don't really pay attention to what numbers people are putting up.

Scarab Sages

If your role is so one dimensional to be a single concept, whether that is "healer" or "AM BARBARIAN", it seems to be more of a straghtjacket than an enabler of roleplay.

Access to healing spells doesn't need to limit you to "healer", and you can be more effective and fill a stronger narrative role if you only heal when necessary and use your excellent spells and class abilities in a more varied application.

Sovereign Court

Imbicatus wrote:

If your role is so one dimensional to be a single concept, whether that is "healer" or "AM BARBARIAN", it seems to be more of a straghtjacket than an enabler of roleplay.

Access to healing spells doesn't need to limit you to "healer", and you can be more effective and fill a stronger narrative role if you only heal when necessary and use your excellent spells and class abilities in a more varied application.

I've got a 17th level cleric of Calistria in PFS who will whip out heal and a quickened channel when necessary. Don't get me wrong, though, his main goal in combat is to drop save-or-suck spells on the bad guys. Healing can be nice, but making the bad guys ineffective at their main job is nicer. Nothing like a readied action quickened silence next to an enemy spellcaster to ruin their action.

Dark Archive

@Imbicatus
A character can be a healer and have other roles, some perhaps even stronger. If you use such a descriptor should not be considered a straight jacket, nor as a limiter. Just because you put effort into being the party healer doesn't mean they should be be called the bealbot or bandaid dispenser.

I admit, that is largely why I too such offense to what was said by Snowblind, as there is more to a character and to the cleric then healing even if the player takes such a role so shouldn't be make such a mockery.

Shadow Lodge

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Here's the skeleton of the build I'm running in PFS.

It's not optimal because the original plan was to be Arcane Trickster -- if I could I'd drop the INT to 14 and up the DEX (or maybe CON + WIS to help with saves). Worth mentioning that with a Sniping Bow (purchased next session) my *Sniping* restealth will be at a +12, which is pretty nice.

She's been shredding things in play as a CRB Rogue -- I'm really excited to see her at the table with all her new toys from being Unchained.

EDIT: Meant to say, out of combat she's a very competent face. Not enough to supplant a bard if we have one at the table, but we almost never do.


JonathonWilder wrote:
Back on track, since I have derailed enough, has anyone considered a more social focused rogue? How does Unchained Rogue help with such a consideration and apart from Skill Unlocks does it offer anything new for such?

Besides Skill Unlocks and a couple minor changes to talents to make them include skills you select with that class feature, nothing has really changed for a rogue social skill-wise. I think the only thing I can could find even close was Esoteric Scholar being 'always-on', which is only kinda social skill-related.


@JonathonWilder

Pure healers get most of their bad name because they used to be a mandatory role that people hated to get shoe horned into. In making them no longer a mandatory role they became pointless, but people who grew up with older games in which the role was still mandatory or those computer games like WoW that still use it still mistakenly think it's important in modern tabletop games that have discarded the role.

A healer in PF is often read as a pure healer because of the 3.5 legacy in terminology: healer was a 3.5 class that could not be built to do anything other than healing.


@JonathonWilder - You've polluted what was a great thread. No thank you.

Back to Unchained Rogue
@pH unbalanced ... I like your choice of Blend over Vanish, but I wonder how well received it will be my GM.

Dark Archive

@Havog
I have not, this all started because the negativity shown involving healing shown by Snowblind and I showing my disapproval of the terms or mockery they used.

Also, I have tried a few times to get things back on track or suggest taking the discussion elsewhere.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Healing being inefficient in combat (with notable exceptions like Heal) is just math. There's no point in being upset that 2 + 2 = 4. Being upset won't make 2 + 2 add up to 5.
Um, 2+2 =5, if we are using vector math. Stop thinking on 2 dimensional in your math (sarcasm but still fits).
Not to mention that 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2.

There are only two values of 2. My value of it, and the wrong way to value it.


Ventnor wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Healing being inefficient in combat (with notable exceptions like Heal) is just math. There's no point in being upset that 2 + 2 = 4. Being upset won't make 2 + 2 add up to 5.
Um, 2+2 =5, if we are using vector math. Stop thinking on 2 dimensional in your math (sarcasm but still fits).
Not to mention that 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2.
There are only two values of 2. My value of it, and the wrong way to value it.

Well... "The wrong way to value it" isn't a value, but a way of valueing something...

I assune you probably know this, but... " 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2" is a joke about rounding/estimating numbers and how they can stack on each other and lead to bizarre results.

Sovereign Court

Lemmy wrote:
I assune you probably know this, but... " 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2" is a joke about rounding/estimating numbers and how they can stack on each other and lead to bizarre results.

Especially with an original Pentium processor.


I don't see how a sniper build is able to stay competetive beyond level 5. Is there anything a sniper can do to get sneak attack on more than the first shot?

I definitely think the minor and major magic boosts are going to be a strong addition to the rogue's arsenal. It was already worth getting them in the old forms, depending on the build you were going for. Between the magics and low level wands, the rogue has that much more versatility both inside and outside of combat.

@havoq:
Oooohh 'polluting the thread.' I'll have to remember that tactic. That's pretty slick!

Though I find it more appropriate to say that Snowblind polluted the thread by posting the remarks which had caused the offended response. Jonathon's response was pretty restrained.

Shadow Lodge

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Mystically Inclined wrote:
I don't see how a sniper build is able to stay competetive beyond level 5. Is there anything a sniper can do to get sneak attack on more than the first shot?

First off, you mean past level 7, because a Rogue doesn't have a second shot until level 8.

But that said, speaking for my build, that's not what I'm trying to do. I think of the sniper as more of a ranged debuffer, who gets to add decent damage on top of it.

It really starts getting good at level 10 when you get Dispelling Strike -- now you're peeling back the magical defenses in addition to the 1 round debuffs.

Also, can I just rave about Quick Shot for a second.

Quick Shot:
Whenever the rogue rolls initiative, she can also make a single attack with a ranged weapon as a swift action. She can use this ability only if she has a weapon in hand and it is loaded (if applicable). If more than one rogue has this talent, their initiative check results determine the order in which they make their attacks. After these attacks are resolved, the round proceeds as normal.

An attack that goes *before a diviner wizard*. A sniper of this level gets sneak attack damage at at least a 60' range. That's a great way to set the table for your primary melee.


pH unbalanced wrote:
Mystically Inclined wrote:
I don't see how a sniper build is able to stay competetive beyond level 5. Is there anything a sniper can do to get sneak attack on more than the first shot?

First off, you mean past level 7, because a Rogue doesn't have a second shot until level 8.

But that said, speaking for my build, that's not what I'm trying to do. I think of the sniper as more of a ranged debuffer, who gets to add decent damage on top of it.

It really starts getting good at level 10 when you get Dispelling Strike -- now you're peeling back the magical defenses in addition to the 1 round debuffs.

Also, can I just rave about Quick Shot for a second.

** spoiler omitted **

An attack that goes *before a diviner wizard*. A sniper of this level gets sneak attack damage at at least a 60' range. That's a great way to set the table for your primary melee.

3-level dip into Gunslinger just to gain Gunslinger's Initiative, as well.

You don't even have to have it in your hand - you draw it with GI and you fire with QS.

John Wesley Hardin would be DAMN proud.


pH unbalanced wrote:
Mystically Inclined wrote:
I don't see how a sniper build is able to stay competetive beyond level 5. Is there anything a sniper can do to get sneak attack on more than the first shot?
First off, you mean past level 7, because a Rogue doesn't have a second shot until level 8.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant competetive with the party in general, but I was specifically calling out level 5 because it's the last level before the full BAB classes (which generally the front liner is going to be) get their second iterative attack.

You have a point about the debuffing though. And Quick Shot is nice!!


Mystically Inclined wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
Mystically Inclined wrote:
I don't see how a sniper build is able to stay competetive beyond level 5. Is there anything a sniper can do to get sneak attack on more than the first shot?
First off, you mean past level 7, because a Rogue doesn't have a second shot until level 8.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant competetive with the party in general, but I was specifically calling out level 5 because it's the last level before the full BAB classes (which generally the front liner is going to be) get their second iterative attack.

You have a point about the debuffing though. And Quick Shot is nice!!

Stamina allows the Two-Weapon build to get nice tricks.

TWF lets you burn 2 Stamina to reduce the penalty from TWF by 1 on your on-hand attacks (which, combined with Weapon Focus means you're attacking at full BAB).

ITWF allows you to make one additional attack (as an AOO) at your second BAB iteration by spending 5 stamina (kinda meh on its own, but it's not god-awful; it can be the difference between ending the fight or letting the baddie continue breathing).


chbgraphicarts wrote:
Mystically Inclined wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
Mystically Inclined wrote:
I don't see how a sniper build is able to stay competetive beyond level 5. Is there anything a sniper can do to get sneak attack on more than the first shot?
First off, you mean past level 7, because a Rogue doesn't have a second shot until level 8.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant competetive with the party in general, but I was specifically calling out level 5 because it's the last level before the full BAB classes (which generally the front liner is going to be) get their second iterative attack.

You have a point about the debuffing though. And Quick Shot is nice!!

Stamina allows the Two-Weapon build to get nice tricks.

TWF lets you burn 2 Stamina to reduce the penalty from TWF by 1 on your on-hand attacks (which, combined with Weapon Focus means you're attacking at full BAB).

ITWF allows you to make one additional attack (as an AOO) at your second BAB iteration by spending 5 stamina (kinda meh on its own, but it's not god-awful; it can be the difference between ending the fight or letting the baddie continue breathing).

Wow the TWF one is wierd.

Unless you are making more than 2 attacks per round with your primary hand while TWF, it is just straight up worse than spending stamina on a competence bonus(at least until you get a competence bonus from somewhere). I would never use it over the build in stamina accuracy booster (barring other competence bonuses) because the competence bonus can be used when you have already rolled and need *just* a little more(up to 5 more, in fact), while the TWF option won't make a difference 90-95% of the time you swing a primary weapon.

Talk about a trap option.


Snowblind wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:
Mystically Inclined wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
Mystically Inclined wrote:
I don't see how a sniper build is able to stay competetive beyond level 5. Is there anything a sniper can do to get sneak attack on more than the first shot?
First off, you mean past level 7, because a Rogue doesn't have a second shot until level 8.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant competetive with the party in general, but I was specifically calling out level 5 because it's the last level before the full BAB classes (which generally the front liner is going to be) get their second iterative attack.

You have a point about the debuffing though. And Quick Shot is nice!!

Stamina allows the Two-Weapon build to get nice tricks.

TWF lets you burn 2 Stamina to reduce the penalty from TWF by 1 on your on-hand attacks (which, combined with Weapon Focus means you're attacking at full BAB).

ITWF allows you to make one additional attack (as an AOO) at your second BAB iteration by spending 5 stamina (kinda meh on its own, but it's not god-awful; it can be the difference between ending the fight or letting the baddie continue breathing).

Wow the TWF one is wierd.

Unless you are making more than 2 attacks per round with your primary hand while TWF, it is just straight up worse than spending stamina on a competence bonus(at least until you get a competence bonus from somewhere). I would never use it over the build in stamina accuracy booster (barring other competence bonuses) because the competence bonus can be used when you have already rolled and need *just* a little more(up to 5 more, in fact), while the TWF option won't make a difference 90-95% of the time you swing a primary weapon.

Talk about a trap option.

Eh, not really.

It's permanently great once you have a +6 to attack for Rogues, but for characters like Brawlers its freakin' sick.

Pay 2 points, get a +1 to all your attacks (because Brawlers don't have off-hands).

If you also gain additional attacks via Haste or some other trick (say, a Ninja with Ki Pool), then it's even better.

Even at lv 4, with Weapon Training/Focus on, a Ninja, for instance, goes:

+3 (Ki) /+3 (Haste) /+3 (Mainhand) /+2 (Offhand)

A Rogue only gets 3 such attacks, instead of 4, but still gets the benefits of being Hasted and spending less per attack.

It also lasts until your next turn, so if somehow you can make a Two-Weapon attack during another player's turn, then it's also more efficient than spending 1/attack.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:
Mystically Inclined wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
Mystically Inclined wrote:
I don't see how a sniper build is able to stay competetive beyond level 5. Is there anything a sniper can do to get sneak attack on more than the first shot?
First off, you mean past level 7, because a Rogue doesn't have a second shot until level 8.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant competetive with the party in general, but I was specifically calling out level 5 because it's the last level before the full BAB classes (which generally the front liner is going to be) get their second iterative attack.

You have a point about the debuffing though. And Quick Shot is nice!!

Stamina allows the Two-Weapon build to get nice tricks.

TWF lets you burn 2 Stamina to reduce the penalty from TWF by 1 on your on-hand attacks (which, combined with Weapon Focus means you're attacking at full BAB).

ITWF allows you to make one additional attack (as an AOO) at your second BAB iteration by spending 5 stamina (kinda meh on its own, but it's not god-awful; it can be the difference between ending the fight or letting the baddie continue breathing).

Wow the TWF one is wierd.

Unless you are making more than 2 attacks per round with your primary hand while TWF, it is just straight up worse than spending stamina on a competence bonus(at least until you get a competence bonus from somewhere). I would never use it over the build in stamina accuracy booster (barring other competence bonuses) because the competence bonus can be used when you have already rolled and need *just* a little more(up to 5 more, in fact), while the TWF option won't make a difference 90-95% of the time you swing a primary weapon.

Talk about a trap option.

Eh, not really.

It's permanently great once you have a +6 to attack for Rogues, but for characters like Brawlers its freakin' sick.

Pay 2 points, get a +1 to all your attacks (because Brawlers...

Ok, I take your point on flurry users. It is much stronger for them. I was thinking of regular TWF users.

Bear in mind that for the stamina competence boost the attacker only uses stamina when they think they need it (they choose to add between the roll and the result reveal). This is really important because in play it uses much less stamina than something like TWF would.

Mathematically, the increase in likelyhood of hitting a target is identical regardless of whether a bonus is constant or if the bonus is only applied if it would make a difference. If the attacker knows the defender's AC they can choose to only spend stamina when it would result in a hit instead of a miss. If they know that the AC is within a range, they only spend stamina to fall within that range. This means that a stamina user who knows an opponents AC only spends stamina on 5%-25% of their swings, depending on how much they are willing to spend in order to hit their target. The maths is more complicated when dealing with a range of ACs, but the principle is similar.

Note:I am assuming we are not falling of the RNG i.e. all attacks hit on a 19 and miss on a 2 before factoring in stamina boosts. These calculations don't factor in crit chance, but accounting for it is easy: just multiply the stamina numbers by (1+0.05*threat range).

Running the numbers
Know the AC,Spending up to...
1sp:0.05 stamina per swing, effective +1
2sp:0.15 stamina per swing, effective +2
3sp:0.30 stamina per swing, effective +3
4sp:0.50 stamina per swing, effective +4
5sp:0.75 stamina per swing, effective +5

If you are TWF, you get an effective +1 per 2 points spent on X attacks.
The value of TWF is better than the competence bonus when X is...
2 sp:X>40,4 sp:X>13
If you know the AC, TWF is never worth it on any legal character

However, often you won't know the exact AC but a range of ACs instead.

The simplest way to handle this is to boost accuracy up to the top of the range, spending up to your effective bonus in stamina points and spending equal to your effective bonus if you can hit the lower bounds of the range but not the upper bounds. This won't be an optimal way of spending stamina, but it is the easiest way to play it on the fly. I am going to assume that the range of ACs is not near 1 - the cost of stamina per swing goes down slightly when a 2 or a 3(only for +2) may miss (since we don't have to waste stamina increasing a 1)

Caution - Maths:

Range of 2
+1:0.1 stamina per swing ,X>20
+2:0.25 stamina per swing, X>16
Range of 3
+1:0.15 stamina per swing ,X>13
+2:0.35 stamina per swing, X>11
Range of 4
+1:0.2 stamina per swing ,X>10
+2:0.45 stamina per swing, X>8
Range of 5
+1:0.25 stamina per swing ,X>8
+2:0.55 stamina per swing, X>7
Range of 6
+1:0.3 stamina per swing ,X>6
+2:0.65 stamina per swing, X>6
Range of 7
+1:0.35 stamina per swing ,X>5
+2:0.75 stamina per swing, X>5
Range of 8
+1:0.4 stamina per swing ,X>5
+2:0.85 stamina per swing, X>4
Range of 9
+1:0.45 stamina per swing ,X>4
+2:0.95 stamina per swing, X>4
Range of 10
+1:0.5 stamina per swing ,X>4
+2:1.05 stamina per swing, X>3
Range of 11
+1:0.55 stamina per swing ,X>3
+2:1.15 stamina per swing, X>3
Range of 12
+1:0.6 stamina per swing ,X>3
+2:1.25 stamina per swing, X>3
Range of 13
+1:0.65 stamina per swing ,X>3
+2:1.35 stamina per swing, X>2
Range of 14
+1:0.7 stamina per swing ,X>2
+2:1.45 stamina per swing, X>2
Range of 15
+1:0.75 stamina per swing ,X>2
+2:1.55 stamina per swing, X>2
Range of 16
+1:0.8 stamina per swing ,X>2
+2:1.65 stamina per swing, X>2
Any further than this, and we start falling off the RNG

So if you know that the AC is within a range of 9 numbers or can reasonable guess such (a roll of from 5 to 14 is pretty big, you should almost always be able to just guess a range like this), it is never worth using the penalty reduction unless you are making more than 4 attacks, which for non-flurryers can only happen for full bab characters at greater than level 15 who have a haste effect on them unless they are somehow getting TWF on their attacks of opportunity. Plus with such a large gap it is going to be rapidly narrowed, meaning that it is probably still worthwhile using stamina-per-swing as a hasted level 20 TWF ranger.

Sounds a heck of a lot like a trap to me. The worst kind in fact, the kind that isn't immediately obvious as a trap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JonathonWilder wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
JonathonWilder wrote:

@Chess Pwn and Imbicatus

I would go into it, but not here. Maybe another thread or PM, but if I allow myself to go into it here I will get angry as this is a sore subject for me which connects to other issues I have with some players who look at Pathfinder far too mechanically and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Healing being inefficient in combat (with notable exceptions like Heal) is just math. There's no point in being upset that 2 + 2 = 4. Being upset won't make 2 + 2 add up to 5. I've found the best way to develop system mastery is simply accept the math of the system whether you like the outcome or not. Taking your emotions out of the equation will lead to exponential growth in your system mastery. Logarithms.

Emotions are part of the game. Reducing it to a math problem just makes it a math problem and not a game. System mastery is easy to develop, just like learning basic math. Dealing with the game itself ends up being a bit harder.

Also looks like you are suggesting that JonathonWilder reduce the game to mechanics, the very thing he said that leaves a bad taste in his mouth.

then he's essentially getting upset at people trying to be effective, healling can in the long run, hurt more than heal, which is why anyone who knows a thing or two about supporting in pathfinder, doesn't do it through healing mid combat.

personally, the only time it's useful is when it's a swift action or you can deal damage at the same time, such as a negative channel cleric with the death domain.

A little bit more of my thoughts

** spoiler omitted **...

Totally agree,

Mechanics are just there to facilitate things that go on in a fantasy world, be it in Golarion or somewhere else. After all it is a role-playing game, some people treat it like a table-top war-game, which is fine yet it is not one.

Having a +3 Dex Bonus or a +4 Dex bonus is fairly insignificant in the whole scheme of thing. Having that bonus is a signifier that tells everyone this character is fast, has good hand and eye coordination and balance. It helps the player to interact in the world.

Role playing games like Pathfinder are about creating a fictional character and pretending to be that character. Not constructing award-winning spreadsheets that would impress a maths professor.

There is an art in character design and the mathematical side of it is just one facet of that process, character background, character personality, themes, descriptions is another, just as important possibly more so.


Mystically Inclined wrote:

I don't see how a sniper build is able to stay competetive beyond level 5. Is there anything a sniper can do to get sneak attack on more than the first shot?

Rogue Talent (Ki Pool), better have good WIS +

Rogue Talent (Ninja Trick (Vanishing Trick)) +
Advanced Rogue Talent (Master Trick (Invisible Blade)) <- This one is dubious, because it doesn't actually say, you can take Master Tricks. In a homegame that should fly...
this nets you Greater Invisibility at lvl 10, so fire away...

Another popular way is the Oracle Ninja/Rogue with Watersight and Obscuring Mist.


Earl Grey wrote:

It seems that the Flat-footed AC for Ren is not right. Ren has Uncanny Dodge so the Flat-footed AC should also be 16.

Otherwise, both of them look nice.

Ravingdork wrote:


Even rogues with uncanny dodge can be caught flat-footed. It's just much more rare (generally requiring another high level rogue), so the number is fine as is.

Ok, even though I currently play a rogue, I haven't yet ran in to such situation so could you elaborate how?

And if you have have Uncanny dodge, certain character generation systems automatically calculate your Flat-footed AC with Dex bonus, so that got me confused.


Earl Grey wrote:


Earl Grey wrote:

It seems that the Flat-footed AC for Ren is not right. Ren has Uncanny Dodge so the Flat-footed AC should also be 16.

Otherwise, both of them look nice.

Ravingdork wrote:


Even rogues with uncanny dodge can be caught flat-footed. It's just much more rare (generally requiring another high level rogue), so the number is fine as is.

Ok, even though I currently play a rogue, I haven't yet ran in to such situation so could you elaborate how?

And if you have have Uncanny dodge, certain character generation systems automatically calculate your Flat-footed AC with Dex bonus, so that got me confused.

Ravingdork is incorrect. You can not be caught flatfooted, even by a higher level rogue.

What he is thinking of is improved uncanny dodge which says you can not be flanked, unless the enemy has 4 more rogue levels than you have.

401 to 450 of 482 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / How is the unchained rogue? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.