So I'm messing around with a 15 point Standard Fantasy character; a Chaotic Neutral Hobgoblin, Unchained Rogue, with emphasis on acrobatics, climbing and stealth.
His main weapon won't be used often, mostly as a climbing aid, but is sharp enough to take out a guard, mostly if he messes up and gets noticed or can't find another way around and a place to stash the body is nearby.
My question is what is the benefit of a Kukri vs a standard Dagger for this kind of character?
The Kukri is 8 gp, 1d4 18–20/x2 Critical, No bonus reach, weighs 2 lbs and can only slash with no special traits.
Standard Dagger is only 2 gp, also 1d4, with 19-20/x2, has a 10 ft reach and weighs only 1 lb. It can also pierce or slash and has a +2 on Sleight of Hand checks to conceal it on his person.
I'm still very green to tabletop, so I don't fully understand if the 18-20/x crit is a benefit or a drawback, all and all the Kukri seems to possess no benefit once so ever compared to a dagger.
Any thoughts or feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Hi and Welcome Jake.
First of all the dagger can be thrown 10ft, he has no reach.
Second the diffrence between 18-20 and 19-20 can be huge, if not collossal. But mainly for chars who can add static bonuses to damage like strength, Holy smite, Favored enemy ... etc. Your damage boni are variable--> sneak attack dice. Wich is not increased by a critical. You still do double weapon damage and str.
Critical hits multiply your weapon's damage. The numbers before the slash show what dice results cause a critical hit; the second shows what number you multiply your weapon damage by. So the kukri is five percent more likely to have its damage doubled, since it gets a critical hit on a dice roll of 18 and the dagger doesn't.
However, as a rogue, a good deal of your damage comes from sneak attack, and sneak attack doesn't multiply on a critical hit. So high crit ranges aren't quite as big a deal for a rogue (although they don't hurt). Kukris are also an exotic weapon, so you likely aren't proficient in their use unless your race or class gives proficiency or you take the feat Exotic Weapon Proficiency.
Overall, I'd probably say it's not quite worth the investment, although others may disagree. The dagger will certainly serve ok.
Critical hits multiply your weapon's damage. The numbers before the slash show what dice results cause a critical hit; the second shows what number you multiply your weapon damage by. So the kukri is five percent more likely to have its damage doubled, since it gets a critical hit on a dice roll of 18 and the dagger doesn't.
However, as a rogue, a good deal of your damage comes from sneak attack, and sneak attack doesn't multiply on a critical hit. So high crit ranges aren't quite as big a deal for a rogue (although they don't hurt). Kukris are also an exotic weapon, so you likely aren't proficient in their use unless your race or class gives proficiency or you take the feat Exotic Weapon Proficiency.
Overall, I'd probably say it's not quite worth the investment, although others may disagree. The dagger will certainly serve ok.
They aren't exotic. They are martial. There is a reason Kurkris are generally the martial TWF weapon of choice.
However, for a rogue the extra 5% of you base damage is not worth a feat. Weapon Focus will do you better there. There are also a couple of things that only work on daggers, like the trait river rat and the obedience to Pharasma. That's not to mention all the other little bonuses daggers have, like easy concealability and the ability to be used as a throwing weapon.
If you are looking for better damage but don't want to take dagger specific options, a shortsword will boost your damage better than a kukri unless you are dealing 20+ damage per hit without sneak attack, and rogues are proficient with them.
Kukris are martial, not exotic.
They aren't exotic. They are martial.
Bah, of course you guys are right and I had a brain fart. But I'm at least half correct - rogues lack proficiency in them, so they may as well be exotic in terms of the original poster. :P (I had this same conversation with another nascent rogue recently, so I had rogue proficiencies on the brain.)
The 10 feet range for throwing the dagger makes sense in hindsight, it didn't make sense having greater reach then the Kukri given both are listed as the same length.
So all and all I'm reading the Kukri isn't worth the effort for what my hob would get out of it. In truth I want him to use a dagger of some kind, but wanted a "bigger" dagger, ala a Bowie Knife or the like, but can't find any listed for use.
I suppose I could make my own with the weapon building rules or just say his dagger is bigger for the sake of aesthetics.
Also random question, for most games in which characters start low level, ala 1st to 5th levelish, can one outright buy a Masterwork weapon?
Was considering a Masterwork Dogslicer as a more goblin-esque weapon, and a more damaging one at 1d8, without being Masterwork though the fragile special isn't worth the added the damage.
The dagger as listed in game is about a foot long - that's not exactly a small blade, about the length of a human forearm. You could always use a short sword and call it a big dagger, too; you've got proficiency with short swords.
You generally don't start with enough money to afford masterwork weapons, but in most campaigns that should be remedied before you even pass first level if you're willing to save up and shell out for it. And even with the fragile quality, it might be worth it - maybe put a skill point into Craft (weapons) so you can make a replacement if it does ever break. Gives you a backup plan, and it's totally thematic as well, since dogslicers are cobbled-together weapons anyway.
If you have the money and someone's selling it in the town you're in you can buy whatever you want. And you'll probably have enough money to buy a masterwork weapon by level 2.
If you want a bigger dagger, you could use a shortsword. Rogues are proficient with it, and it's slightly bigger damage than a dagger (1d6 vs. 1d4), but still counts as a light weapon if you want to use it for Two-Weapon Fighting. You won't be able to throw it though.
You should be able to find a masterwork weapon by level 2 in most games, unless they are deliberately low-loot/low-magic.
Also important: You can improve daggers with the River Rat trait (+1 on damage rolls with daggers) and Deificic Obedience: Pharasma feat (+2 on attack rolls with daggers).
On your original question: The 18-20/x2 is the description of how the weapon behaves in regard to critical hits. The numbers before the slash is the "threat range", i.e. on what numbers of your d20 attack roll you have the chance to do a critical hit (if there is no slash but only a x2, x3 or x4, its always only on a natural 20). When such a number shows up on your dice, you "threaten a critical hit" (you only score one if your confirmation roll is high enough to hit the target). The number after the slash is the number you multiply your damage (excluding sneak attack damage and elemental damage) when you actually score a critical hit.
So the daggers threatens a critical hit on a 19 or 20, i.e. 10% chance. The kukri threatens a critical hit on a 18, 19 or 20, i.e. 15% chance.
The benefit of the kukri is that with feats or weapon enchantments that double your threat range, it can have a 30% chance to threaten a critical hit. If you have a lot of bonus damage that gets multiplied by a crit, or effects that trigger on critical hits, that can be pretty deadly. But a rogue is not very suited for that, due to the way sneak attack works.
His main weapon won't be used often, mostly as a climbing aid
Are you planning to to take a potty break every time your group has an encounter? "Acrobatics, climbing and stealth" aren't really a "thing" to do, but means to an end. The problem with characters focused on sneaking around is that either you have a lot of solo adventures (which means the rest of the players will sit around and be bored) or you are pretty useless in combat (which means you will sit around and be bored).
The rogue class isn't actually that good at being stealthy. I would advice against a rogue as your first character, especially on a 15 point buy.
The Kukri is a lot better perhaps than the others here have sold it. It starts with a 18-20 crit range, but at higher levels a Keen Kukri is 15-20 and opens up a lot of extremely good feats. It's more damage overall than it looks like at first glance.
You don't actually loose anything from multiclassing as a Rogue, so typically any build I would go for would eventually have Martial Weapons anyways. I don't think it is worth a feat at low levels, but worth a level in another class? Sure. I typically see it as the optimal weapon. Especially if you want to go down a popular archetype route of Knife Master Scout.
Unless of course you are really wanting that range, in which case I would pick neither. There is a third option of Starknifes that double the range for a crit ratio that's almost as good trading 19-20/x2 for 20/x3.
Are you planning to to take a potty break every time your group has an encounter? "Acrobatics, climbing and stealth" aren't really a "thing" to do, but means to an end. The problem with characters focused on sneaking around is that either you have a lot of solo adventures (which means the rest of the players will sit around and be bored) or you are pretty useless in combat (which means you will sit around and be bored).
My Hob is still in the conceptual stage and more of a "making a character for making a character's sake" then anything.
Mindset behind his acrobatics and climbing is that the setting I'm hoping to use is a large mega metropolis with tall walls and elevated walkways all over. One thing he will be valued for is finding an alternate way around a problem vexing his group, examples include;
Finding a way around a locked portcullis via a pipe of crawlspace, offing a unwary guard and stashing his body in a conveniently located closet, then proceeding to open the gate via the switch on the other side.
Or scaling the side of a guard tower, pulling an unwary crossbowman off and causing him to plummet to his death, to then set said guard tower on fire as a distraction before racing off along the walls to rejoin his fellows.
In combat I imagine him shadowing one of the larger of his group and taking advantage of any opportunity that arise, and severely punishing any enemy careless enough to turn their back on him. He also has a bag of tricks to use, thrown weapons, bombs, maybe a little stealth magic/alchemy that provides invisibly or ultravision, ect.
He's meant for a more lighthearted game about the story, not a ultra serious game with tons of bickering over rule interpretations, I'm not a fan of those kind of games or groups of people to be honest.
Daggers are great if you want to go with the knifemaster archetype, d8's for backstab is pretty amazing.
Rogues do benefit from kurki's now. Their static dex to damage gets multiplied on a hit.
Whether you'd be better off getting the occasional sneak attack with a thrown dagger instead... that's incredibly playstyle dependant and based on your party members at least as much as you.
One enemy: Makes the kurki better. You're not going to want to throw your dagger
Multiple enemies: dagger gets a boost. you may have to stab with one attack, or be hidden where you are and need to sneak attack someone.
You could get most of the benefit of a dagger and then some by taking minor rogue talent freezing ray to switch between melee and range (and target touch ac)
Are you planning to to take a potty break every time your group has an encounter? "Acrobatics, climbing and stealth" aren't really a "thing" to do, but means to an end. The problem with characters focused on sneaking around is that either you have a lot of solo adventures (which means the rest of the players will sit around and be bored) or you are pretty useless in combat (which means you will sit around and be bored).My Hob is still in the conceptual stage and more of a "making a character for making a character's sake" then anything.
Mindset behind his acrobatics and climbing is that the setting I'm hoping to use is a large mega metropolis with tall walls and elevated walkways all over. One thing he will be valued for is finding an alternate way around a problem vexing his group, examples include;
Finding a way around a locked portcullis via a pipe of crawlspace, offing a unwary guard and stashing his body in a conveniently located closet, then proceeding to open the gate via the switch on the other side.
Or scaling the side of a guard tower, pulling an unwary crossbowman off and causing him to plummet to his death, to then set said guard tower on fire as a distraction before racing off along the walls to rejoin his fellows.
In combat I imagine him shadowing one of the larger of his group and taking advantage of any opportunity that arise, and severely punishing any enemy careless enough to turn their back on him. He also has a bag of tricks to use, thrown weapons, bombs, maybe a little stealth magic/alchemy that provides invisibly or ultravision, ect.
He's meant for a more lighthearted game about the story, not a ultra serious game with tons of bickering over rule interpretations, I'm not a fan of those kind of games or groups of people to be honest.
Is the rest of the table on board with this? Because what you just described isn't really Pathfinder. There's nothing wrong with wanting to play rules light, but Pathfinder isn't a great system for that.
And what you are looking to do, in and out of combat, is going to lean on your DM a lot. They are going to need to put more effort into map building, and you are going to have to hope they add conveniently placed closets or ways to hide in combat. So is the DM on board for that? And ignoring many of the rules?
If that is all true, it's hard for us to give optimization advice because you've moved away from what constitutes a normal game. However, keep in mind that stuff like climbing becomes much less relevant when your party starts flying.
I will say rogue might not be the best choice. Climbing, shoving people, and dragging corpses all call on strength, and the Unchained Rogue is meant to dump strength for dex. You can work around some of that with feats like Agile Maneuvers.
Is the rest of the table on board with this? Because what you just described isn't really Pathfinder. There's nothing wrong with wanting to play rules light, but Pathfinder isn't a great system for that.
And what you are looking to do, in and out of combat, is going to lean on your DM a lot. They are going to need to put more effort into map building, and you are going to have to hope they add conveniently placed closets or ways to hide in combat. So is the DM on board for that? And ignoring many of the rules?
If that is all true, it's hard for us to give optimization advice because you've moved away from what constitutes a normal game. However, keep in mind that stuff like climbing becomes much less relevant when your party starts flying.
I will say rogue might not be the best choice. Climbing, shoving people, and dragging corpses all call on strength, and the Unchained Rogue is meant to dump strength for dex. You can work around some of that with feats like Agile Maneuvers.
I'll be honest when I say I have NO idea, as I have yet to find a game or people to play with, like I said, I'm doing this for experimentation and pure fun.
Also my Hob isn't a stick figure elf or a runty goblin, even stealth based he's got respectable strength. His stats look like this:
Strength 12
Dexterity 17 (15 + 2 Racial)
Constitution 13 (11 + 2 Racial)
Intelligence 10
Wisdom 15
Charisma 8
The +2 to Dex and Con are racial perk of being a Hobgoblin. Besides the entry for strength on the wiki says at 12 strength one should be able to "Carry heavy objects for short distances".
Slinging a dead or unconscious medium sized humanoid in medium or heavy armor over his shoulder to stash them in a dark corner a short distance away, toss their corpse into the river or a hay bale doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility for him.
Honestly outside of airships for traveling between locals I can't imagine many people would be able fly, even then flying over a wall lined with hostile bowman isn't going to end well.
Is the rest of the table on board with this? Because what you just described isn't really Pathfinder. There's nothing wrong with wanting to play rules light, but Pathfinder isn't a great system for that.
And what you are looking to do, in and out of combat, is going to lean on your DM a lot. They are going to need to put more effort into map building, and you are going to have to hope they add conveniently placed closets or ways to hide in combat. So is the DM on board for that? And ignoring many of the rules?
If that is all true, it's hard for us to give optimization advice because you've moved away from what constitutes a normal game. However, keep in mind that stuff like climbing becomes much less relevant when your party starts flying.
I will say rogue might not be the best choice. Climbing, shoving people, and dragging corpses all call on strength, and the Unchained Rogue is meant to dump strength for dex. You can work around some of that with feats like Agile Maneuvers.
I'll be honest when I say I have NO idea, as I have yet to find a game or people to play with, like I said, I'm doing this for experimentation and pure fun.
Also my Hob isn't a stick figure elf or a runty goblin, even stealth based he's got respectable strength. His stats look like this:
Strength 12
Dexterity 17 (15 + 2 Racial)
Constitution 13 (11 + 2 Racial)
Intelligence 10
Wisdom 15
Charisma 8The +2 to Dex and Con are racial perk of being a Hobgoblin. Besides the entry for strength on the wiki says at 12 strength one should be able to "Carry heavy objects for short distances".
Slinging a dead or unconscious medium sized humanoid in medium or heavy armor over his shoulder to stash them in a dark corner a short distance away, toss their corpse into the river or a hay bale doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility for him.
Honestly outside of airships for traveling between locals I can't imagine many people would be able fly, even then flying over a wall lined...
There's actually hard numbers attached to carrying capacity in this game based on your strength score. Might be worth googling carry capacity pathfinder.
And you might think flight wouldn't be common, but you'd be wrong. Wizards can cast fly as early as fifth level, and invisibility at 3rd,and other classes gain access to it from there. By level 9,they have overland flight which means they basically fly all day. The wizard can turn invisible, fly over the wall, open the gate, and then summon monsters to attack the archers on the wall. Or just use a stone shape spell to knock the whole wall over. Heck, at level 1 a Caster could cast monkey fish, and give anyone a climb speed so they don't have to roll a skill check.
Pathfinder is a rules heavy system that let's you build magical super heroes that can reshape reality. Now, the Rogue doesn't expend a spell slot every time a wall needs scaling. But flight alone has a lot more use than climbing a wall and has no chance of failure. Climb is this considered a pretty poor skill to invest in.
If you're divorcing yourself from actual play and just want to tell a story, that's cool. But I don't see why you need mechanical advice in that case.
Finding a way around a locked portcullis via a pipe of crawlspace, offing a unwary guard and stashing his body in a conveniently located closet, then proceeding to open the gate via the switch on the other side.
Or scaling the side of a guard tower, pulling an unwary crossbowman off and causing him to plummet to his death, to then set said guard tower on fire as a distraction before racing off along the walls to rejoin his fellows.
In combat I imagine him shadowing one of the larger of his group and taking advantage of any opportunity that arise, and severely punishing any enemy careless enough to turn their back on him. He also has a bag of tricks to use, thrown weapons, bombs, maybe a little stealth magic/alchemy that provides invisibly or ultravision, ect.
The problem is that Pathfinder is a group game, yet the GM can only focus one one thing. So while you roll all your stealth checks, climb checks and acrobatics checks, assassin the guard and set the tower on fire, your party members is sitting around doing absolutly nothing for quite some time. So while you're hogging the GMs attention, they are unable to participate in the game.
Another problem is that a caster can do your sneaky stuff ten times as well starting at level 5 with spells like invisibility and fly. Meanwhile, while it's possible to attack out of shadows, there is no "turning the back" in Pathfinder combat and since it's a health point based game, it's near impossible to kill someone in one round that way.
That's why I advice against the rogue as a new player's first character: The whole classis basically a huge pile of false advertising. He isn't really that good at stealth (or at skills in general), he's far from being the master of swift, silent killing, and his trap handling stuff is useless most of the time, too.
I don't know if the classic, iconic "rogue" exists in pathfinder at all, but it sure as hell isn't the rogue class.
Regarding strength: The actual numbers for strength 12 are as follows:
Light load 43 lbs
Medium load 86 lbs
Heavy load 130 lbs
Lift above head 130 lbs
Lift off ground 260 lbs
Drag & push 650 lbs
A human corpse in armor weights something like 200 lbs, so you can only move at 5 feet per round when dragging/carrying one.
Now, don't get me wrong - I like the character archetype (hobgoblin JC Denton sounds fun), and I definitly don't want to dissuade you from building characters for fun, but (as Captain Morgan said above), Pathfinder isn't really played that way. We'll be glad to help you and answer your questions, just don't get your hopes up to high seeing the character in action.
Edit: Dammit Captain, can't you drink a bottle of rum instead of ninja'ing me? *angry moth noises*
You can get the drop on enemies with a stealth check, but even then 5
the rogue isn't the best for one stealth kills. Sneak attack adds tons of d6s to a hit, which can potentially roll low. If the enemy has a low enough HP pool to potentially one shot a power attacking two handed slayer or Ranger is safer, because they get 1.5 STR and power attack damage as a static modifier.
Possible exception for the Unchained Rogue with an elven branch spear, which can do 1.5 dex and potentially power attack as well.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kurkri:
Dagger:
For a rogue, a Dagger is much more attractive than a kukri.
I'm hoping for a laid back GM who can handle most of the rolling and is willing to use a give and take system in the case of flub ups in the rules.
Also I was hoping the "meta" for play wouldn't be a thing here like it is everywhere else, but I suppose it was wrong of me to get my hopes up for that.
Well at least the player driven nature of each games makes it easy to rub out cheese with a few convenient plot devices. Such as massive mago-arcane towers that create a field nullifying any kind of alteration magic, such a flying and dog-fish spells, or just archers on alert and equipped to deal with mages.
For former someone sneaky would have to make it past the guards and disable the tower for the mage to magic across to wherever they wanted.
Also 5 feet would be enough to move a corpses out of sight, I could always give me a bonus if I was so inclined, he's only first level after all, if we start at 5+ he might be able to move more.
Starting to find out Pathfinder might be just as complex as D&D and I wanted to play Pathfinder because I heard it's more causal friendly, apparently not by much... not hatin' just sayin'.
And my hob is actually loosely based off of Styx for the Styx Master of Shadows, I have a habit of picking up under appreciated characters and making them my own.
Case in point my Dark Elf Darkranger Darashia Silkweaver, who started her life as a hastily thought up Sylvanas Windrunnder clone for playing Elder Scrolls IV: The Shivering Isles, but has since becomes a truly independent character, with little of Sylvanas' influence apparent.
For comparison, at level 4 your rogue will do 1d4+4+3d6. A Slayer with a greatsword, 18 strength and power attack will do 3d6+13. That's 16 vs 20 average damage, but could go as low as 8 vs 16 if both roll as low as possible. Even with something like piranha attack for the Rogue, which would you rather rely on to drop someone? Plus the Slayer can cart off the body easier.
I'm hoping for a laid back GM who can handle most of the rolling and is willing to use a give and take system in the case of flub ups in the rules.
Also I was hoping the "meta" for play wouldn't be a thing here like it is everywhere else, but I suppose it was wrong of me to get my hopes up for that.
Well at least the player driven nature of each games makes it easy to rub out cheese with a few convenient plot devices. Such as massive mago-arcane towers that create a field nullifying any kind of alteration magic, such a flying and dog-fish spells, or just archers on alert and equipped to deal with mages.
For former someone sneaky would have to make it past the guards and disable the tower for the mage to magic across to wherever they wanted.
Also 5 feet would be enough to move a corpses out of sight, I could always give me a bonus if I was so inclined, he's only first level after all, if we start at 5+ he might be able to move more.
Starting to find out Pathfinder might be just as complex as D&D and I wanted to play Pathfinder because I heard it's more causal friendly, apparently not by much... not hatin' just sayin'.
And my hob is actually loosely based off of Styx for the Styx Master of Shadows, I have a habit of picking up under appreciated characters and making them my own.
Case in point my Dark Elf Darkranger Darashia Silkweaver, who started her life as a hastily thought up Sylvanas Windrunnder clone for playing Elder Scrolls IV: The Shivering Isles, but has since becomes a truly independent character, with little of Sylvanas' influence apparent.
Spells like Flight aren't cheese. They are the system working as designed. (And an inherent issue there is that casters get better toys, but that's not players being cheesy, it's an issue with the system.)
If anything, hoping the DM will make your character relevant by nullifying the abilities of others is kinda cheesy. Now, some DMs will work to make sure your Rogue feels relevant, and that's great! But again, YOU are creating extra work for your DM to do so. And the DM may decide it isn't worth the effort, for any of the following reasons.
A) The scenario you described involves YOUR character getting to play, and none of the others, during however long it takes to let the rest of the party in. DM could reasonably say they'd rather everyone get to play and design an entry with that in mind.
B) If a baddie has the resources to magic proof something, odds are good they have the resources to mundane proof it as well. Magic alarms, traps, hell, just make the castle itself fly. Or simply double up on guards. If every guard has a buddy or two, good luck dropping all of them before they can call out. Antimagic fields can also shut off your magical gear, which presents a big nerf to a martial character.
C) It's just more work then they want to deal with.
D) Even if you optimize your character for skills, you've always got a risk of failure. A nat 1 on a critical climb check or stealth roll can mean your character falls off the wall and splats, or gets caught and is suddenly fighting every guard solo. And now your party still needs to get in, and is down a man.
I'm hoping for a laid back GM who can handle most of the rolling and is willing to use a give and take system in the case of flub ups in the rules.
It's in the limitations of the medium that solo stuff doesn't work well in Pathfinder. The GM is human and therefor can't possibly handle both you and the rest of the party at the same time at full speed. Pathfinder isn't a video game.
Every time one party member has to advance on it's own, the rest of the players are forced to wait. It has nothing to do with any kind of metagame or with the GM's skills, that's simply not an fun way to play. A good GM and a aptly roleplaying player might make such a solo challenge interesting to listen to once in a while, but that's still not why the other players showed up for the session.Well at least the player driven nature of each games makes it easy to rub out cheese with a few convenient plot devices.
Erm, sorry... are you calling picking cool sounding and obviously strong spells like invisibility and fly "cheese"?
No offense, but what you are looking for can't really be done in group based pen and paper.
Edit: If you want to know how to be a proper ninja, ask Captain Morgan. He did it again! *shakes fist*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Zwordsman: Read the thread title.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
D) Even if you optimize your character for skills, you've always got a risk of failure. A nat 1 on a critical climb check or stealth roll can mean your character falls off the wall and splats, or gets caught and is suddenly fighting every guard solo. And now your party still needs to get in, and is down a man.
this is actually false. A nat 1 on a skill check isn't an auto fail. If the DC is 20 and you have a +19 or higher you can't fail that check ever.
Well at least the player driven nature of each games makes it easy to rub out cheese with a few convenient plot devices.Erm, sorry... are you calling picking cool sounding and obviously strong spells like invisibility and fly "cheese"?
Why yes, yes I am. It's the nature of things for their to be imbalance, and for people to create ways to correct the imbalance, how "hard" of a counter balance is debatable.
The magical barrier towers are just one possible counter to make Mages think twice and weight their options. Another possibility is archers on guard for mages and armed to counter them, if a mage happens to dispatch enough of them and raise the alarm a specially equipped Spellbreaker Captian for that section of wall will show up.
Said Captain will be equipped with gear specifically to hard counter mages, reflective shield that bounces offensive spells, a double bladed throwing glaive that can "burn" spell uses and cause damage to the mage's HP for each spell "burned", and top if off with a suit of arcane plate making the captain nigh on immune to any magical effects once so ever.
Any mage trying to subvert the towers alone will end up as another tally mark on the inside of the Spellbreaker Captain's shield, so best the mage not try to mary sue all the things themselves.
Sorry, just sounds like mages might be too OP, though that might just be people's salt getting into their wounds from dealings with slightly overpowered/well played/well built mages that they amplify to god levels of OPness in their own minds.
One thing I've come to know is one should never stick to the rules like a fly on fly paper, rules are meant to be interpreted and use according to the whim of the players, they are more guidelines then anything.
I may look into FATE, but honestly pathfinder is nice to find inspiration if nothing else.
D) Even if you optimize your character for skills, you've always got a risk of failure. A nat 1 on a critical climb check or stealth roll can mean your character falls off the wall and splats, or gets caught and is suddenly fighting every guard solo. And now your party still needs to get in, and is down a man.this is actually false. A nat 1 on a skill check isn't an auto fail. If the DC is 20 and you have a +19 or higher you can't fail that check ever.
While this is correct, a very large number of tables don't play it that way.
The magical barrier towers are just one possible counter to make Mages think twice and weight their options. Another possibility is archers on guard for mages and armed to counter them, if a mage happens to dispatch enough of them and raise the alarm a specially equipped Spellbreaker Captian for that section of wall will show up.
Said Captain will be equipped with gear specifically to hard counter mages, reflective shield that bounces offensive spells, a double bladed throwing glaive that can "burn" spell uses and cause damage to the mage's HP for each spell "burned", and top if off with a suit of arcane plate making the captain nigh on immune to any magical effects once so ever.
Any mage trying to subvert the towers alone will end up as another tally mark on the inside of the Spellbreaker Captain's shield, so best the mage not try to mary sue all the things themselves.
Sorry, just sounds like mages might be too OP, though that might just be people's salt getting into their wounds from dealings with slightly overpowered/well played/well built mages that they amplify to god levels of OPness in their own minds.
One thing I've come to know is one should never stick to the rules like a fly on fly paper, rules are meant to be interpreted and use according to the whim of the players, they are more guidelines then anything.
I may look into FATE, but honestly pathfinder is nice to find inspiration if nothing else.
[a little of a hyperbole]Like EVERYTHING you just said has no rule base in pathfinder. And what little is maybe rule based is only maybe available to lv20 enemies[/hyperbole]
Now that that's out of the way, it really REALLY sounds like Pathfinder isn't the game for you. You just rewrote all the rules in your one little example there. Now could you find some people to play "Pathfinder" they way you wanted? maybe, but it'll be hard because you're not playing Pathfinder at that point. It's like saying you're wanting to play "football" in America but you mean "American soccer, other countries Futball". So a different system is probably a much better match for you.
[a little of a hyperbole]Like EVERYTHING you just said has no rule base in pathfinder. And what little is maybe rule based is only maybe available to lv20 enemies[/hyperbole]
Now that that's out of the way, it really REALLY sounds like Pathfinder isn't the game for you. You just rewrote all the rules in your one little example there. Now could you find some people to play "Pathfinder" they way you wanted? maybe, but it'll be hard because you're not playing Pathfinder at that point. It's like saying you're wanting to play "football" in America but you mean "American soccer, other countries Futball". So a different system is probably a much better match for you.
Well I assumed with the hundreds of dozens of expansions and homebrew something along the lines of what I just thought up would be possible, it probably is come to think of it.
You sound seriously bend out of shape from what I've said, I think you've been playing to much hardcore Pathfinder and need a break from it for a while.
I'm just having fun, I don't see the problem, I'm not messing with your campaign or setting am I? No, I'm making my own.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
[a little of a hyperbole]Like EVERYTHING you just said has no rule base in pathfinder. And what little is maybe rule based is only maybe available to lv20 enemies[/hyperbole]
Now that that's out of the way, it really REALLY sounds like Pathfinder isn't the game for you. You just rewrote all the rules in your one little example there. Now could you find some people to play "Pathfinder" they way you wanted? maybe, but it'll be hard because you're not playing Pathfinder at that point. It's like saying you're wanting to play "football" in America but you mean "American soccer, other countries Futball". So a different system is probably a much better match for you.Well I assumed with the hundreds of dozens of expansions and homebrew something along the lines of what I just thought up would be possible, it probably is come to think of it.
You sound seriously bend out of shape from what I've said, I think you've been playing to much hardcore Pathfinder and need a break from it for a while.
I'm just having fun, I don't see the problem, I'm not messing with your campaign or setting am I? No, I'm making my own.
I personally want you to have fun.
I'm telling you that pathfinder isn't the best system to use for what you're saying you want to do. If you asked someone "Would you like to play pathfinder with me" or "could I play pathfinder with you" and tried to do this the other will be like, "That's not what I thought you meant when you said pathfinder." So it'll be harder for you to find people that share your view of things if you use pathfinder.
Also, just because you could cut a square peg to fit in a round hole doesn't mean you should and ignore the round peg. Trying to get a rules heavy game like pathfinder to be a rule of cool storytime game is going to be harder than playing a system that was designed around rule of cool storytime, which I hear FATE is more like.
While this is correct, a very large number of tables don't play it that way.D) Even if you optimize your character for skills, you've always got a risk of failure. A nat 1 on a critical climb check or stealth roll can mean your character falls off the wall and splats, or gets caught and is suddenly fighting every guard solo. And now your party still needs to get in, and is down a man.this is actually false. A nat 1 on a skill check isn't an auto fail. If the DC is 20 and you have a +19 or higher you can't fail that check ever.
Yeah... And it also assumes your skill is at the "auto-success" point, which isn't a great assumption for a Dex 17 Rogue from a player with poor optimization skills, and who might be operating in an anti-magic field or otherwise lacks skill boosting gear.
Because your suggestion some MAJOR magic shutdown stuff available at lv 3-5 when invisibility and fly are coming online. In the rules stuff to shut that down isn't cheap nor common. So you're basically writing your own rules at that point to figure out prices, limits of effects and what not if you're wanting your stuff to fit into the pathfinder game. If your response to that is something like, "that stuff doesn't matter, I'm just going to put it in there for the story" then you're going further and further away from pathfinder.
[a little of a hyperbole]Like EVERYTHING you just said has no rule base in pathfinder. And what little is maybe rule based is only maybe available to lv20 enemies[/hyperbole]
Now that that's out of the way, it really REALLY sounds like Pathfinder isn't the game for you. You just rewrote all the rules in your one little example there. Now could you find some people to play "Pathfinder" they way you wanted? maybe, but it'll be hard because you're not playing Pathfinder at that point. It's like saying you're wanting to play "football" in America but you mean "American soccer, other countries Futball". So a different system is probably a much better match for you.Well I assumed with the hundreds of dozens of expansions and homebrew something along the lines of what I just thought up would be possible, it probably is come to think of it.
You sound seriously bend out of shape from what I've said, I think you've been playing to much hardcore Pathfinder and need a break from it for a while.
I'm just having fun, I don't see the problem, I'm not messing with your campaign or setting am I? No, I'm making my own.
I personally want you to have fun.
I'm telling you that pathfinder isn't the best system to use for what you're saying you want to do. If you asked someone "Would you like to play pathfinder with me" or "could I play pathfinder with you" and tried to do this the other will be like, "That's not what I thought you meant when you said pathfinder." So it'll be harder for you to find people that share your view of things if you use pathfinder.
Also, just because you could cut a square peg to fit in a round hole doesn't mean you should and ignore the round peg. Trying to get a rules heavy game like pathfinder to be a rule of cool storytime game is going to be harder than playing a system that was designed around rule of cool storytime, which I hear FATE is more like.
What he said. Also, by the sound of it, you haven't actually made a campaign, nor do you plan on making one. You're hoping a DM will make one for you that fits your tastes. Which, again, is pretty far removed from Pathfinder. (And I think you might run into the "does anyone really like this solo thing" with any system, since it's a group game.) Maybe that perfect gaming group is out there for you, and maybe they wanna play your heavily adapted version of Pathfinder, but I wouldn't count on it. A different system might yield a player base better suited as well.
Side note -
The dagger has a 10' range increment, meaning it can be thrown up to 5x this distance by incurring cumulative -2 penalties per 10' beyond the first 10'.
How could all this conversation gone through without anyone mentioning the Unfit hobgoblin alternate racial, which can grant you proficiency with kukri?
For comparison, at level 4 your rogue will do 1d4+4+3d6. A Slayer with a greatsword, 18 strength and power attack will do 3d6+13. That's 16 vs 20 average damage, but could go as low as 8 vs 16 if both roll as low as possible. Even with something like piranha attack for the Rogue, which would you rather rely on to drop someone? Plus the Slayer can cart off the body easier.
Of course THF will be supreme when comparing damage per attack. But not when comparing damage per Full Attack. A base TWF has double the attacks a THF gets.
If a TWF Rogue gets the drop on someone and then wins Initiative the nemy is in for a lot of damage.
Which assumes they get that full attack off. If they lose initiative, the enemy is getting a chance to act, including yelling to raise an alarm.
And the Rogue is more likely to miss than the Slayer as well. All around the Solar is still the safer pick.
How could all this conversation gone through without anyone mentioning the Unfit hobgoblin alternate racial, which can grant you proficiency with kukri?
Because the OP had bigger issues than the weapon difference. That said? Unfit is not worth losing the +4 stealth bonus, given he wants to be the sneaky guy. Buuuut he can use his Favored Class Bonus to gain proficiency instead.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably the most oft-overlooked weapon for use by a rogue is the Heavy Pick. It's just sitting there in the martial weapons like "Oh, hello, I'm a 1d6 weapon. Nothing to see here!" Don't let this fool you. It's, bar none, the best weapon for a rogue who intends to kill things with stealth.
1. Rogues aren't proficient with martial weapons.
2. If you get off a coup de grace - you don't need x4 crit to kill something.
Also my Hob isn't a stick figure elf or a runty goblin, even stealth based he's got respectable strength. His stats look like this:
Strength 12
Dexterity 17 (15 + 2 Racial)
Constitution 13 (11 + 2 Racial)
Intelligence 10
Wisdom 15
Charisma 8The +2 to Dex and Con are racial perk of being a Hobgoblin. Besides the entry for strength on the wiki says at 12 strength one should be able to "Carry heavy objects for short distances".
Slinging a dead or unconscious medium sized humanoid in medium or heavy armor over his shoulder to stash them in a dark corner a short distance away, toss their corpse into the river or a hay bale doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility for him.
Honestly outside of airships for traveling between locals I can't imagine many people would be able fly, even then flying over a wall lined...
Are you committed to these stats? I would recommend taking a little off wisdom and getting a slightly higher Con and Strength if you can. That said, this is a very reasonable stat lineup for an unchained rogue.
Higher CON is obvious, higher strength gives you the ability to take power attack, and a little higher carrying capacity. (Piranha strike does exist but it's from a weird campaign setting book that your GM may not allow.)
I would go with daggers if I were you. River Rat trait gets you +1 damage which is like having 2 more points of strength. You can use a whetstone to sharpen them for +1 damage to the first attack with each dagger, and you can take quick draw to be able to be constantly drawing newly sharpened daggers and dropping them as you use them. Plus, there are tons of magic daggers in adventures. Everyone uses them.
Don't let people scare you about rogues. They're perfectly cromulent PCs. The investigator is a better skill monkey, the bard is a better face, and the slayer is better at killing things, but a Rogue isn't bad at any of those things, as long as you build for them of course.
Also my Hob isn't a stick figure elf or a runty goblin, even stealth based he's got respectable strength. His stats look like this:
Strength 12
Dexterity 17 (15 + 2 Racial)
Constitution 13 (11 + 2 Racial)
Intelligence 10
Wisdom 15
Charisma 8The +2 to Dex and Con are racial perk of being a Hobgoblin. Besides the entry for strength on the wiki says at 12 strength one should be able to "Carry heavy objects for short distances".
Slinging a dead or unconscious medium sized humanoid in medium or heavy armor over his shoulder to stash them in a dark corner a short distance away, toss their corpse into the river or a hay bale doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility for him.
Honestly outside of airships for traveling between locals I can't imagine many people would be able fly, even then flying over a wall lined...
Are you committed to these stats? I would recommend taking a little off wisdom and getting a slightly higher Con and Strength if you can. That said, this is a very reasonable stat lineup for an unchained rogue.
Higher CON is obvious, higher strength gives you the ability to take power attack, and a little higher carrying capacity. (Piranha strike does exist but it's from a weird campaign setting book that your GM may not allow.)
I would go with daggers if I were you. River Rat trait gets you +1 damage which is like having 2 more points of strength. You can use a whetstone to sharpen them for +1 damage to the first attack with each dagger, and you can take quick draw to be able to be constantly drawing newly sharpened daggers and dropping them as you use them. Plus, there are tons of magic daggers in adventures. Everyone uses them.
Don't let people scare you about rogues. They're perfectly cromulent PCs. The investigator is a better skill monkey, the bard is a better face, and the slayer is better at killing things, but a Rogue isn't bad at any of those things, as long as you build for them of course.
I don't actually think the Unchained Rogue is bad, but I don't think it's especially great at what he wants to do. The Unchained Rogue excels flanking for sneak attack damage while also debuffing the enemy, and pushing skills further with the Unlocks. The concept he talks about would actually be better suited for a Slayer.
I'm hoping for a laid back GM who can handle most of the rolling and is willing to use a give and take system in the case of flub ups in the rules.
Also I was hoping the "meta" for play wouldn't be a thing here like it is everywhere else, but I suppose it was wrong of me to get my hopes up for that.
Well at least the player driven nature of each games makes it easy to rub out cheese with a few convenient plot devices. Such as massive mago-arcane towers that create a field nullifying any kind of alteration magic, such a flying and dog-fish spells, or just archers on alert and equipped to deal with mages.
For former someone sneaky would have to make it past the guards and disable the tower for the mage to magic across to wherever they wanted.
Also 5 feet would be enough to move a corpses out of sight, I could always give me a bonus if I was so inclined, he's only first level after all, if we start at 5+ he might be able to move more.
Starting to find out Pathfinder might be just as complex as D&D and I wanted to play Pathfinder because I heard it's more causal friendly, apparently not by much... not hatin' just sayin'.
And my hob is actually loosely based off of Styx for the Styx Master of Shadows, I have a habit of picking up under appreciated characters and making them my own.
Case in point my Dark Elf Darkranger Darashia Silkweaver, who started her life as a hastily thought up Sylvanas Windrunnder clone for playing Elder Scrolls IV: The Shivering Isles, but has since becomes a truly independent character, with little of Sylvanas' influence apparent.
I would discuss your ideas with the GM before the game to be sure he is onboard.
And while you don't really seem to care for the rules, I would advise you still get a strong understanding of them, so you will know what is and is not likely to happen in a game.Once you do that it is easier to know which concepts will and will not work out well at most tables. Otherwise you will have a high expection of what will happen at the table, and none of it will play out, and that will leave you disappointed.
PS: I am still on page 1 on as I type this.<----In case someone has already covered what i said.
edit: just noticed this discussion was still on the 1st page.