The ranger's companion gets full FE just like the ranger, so that can make for a VERY strong animal against an FE.
Woe is me, moan the players of dead, melee-obsessed rogues, complaining about the "weak"ness of a class that clues them in with BAB:0 at first level. Why did they build a rogue if they wanted to play a fighter?
Most classes with 3/4 BAB have a ridiculously good staying power. The fact that there is only a few with that issue isn't indicative of power creep more than it is bad design.
Most classes with 3/4 BAB have a ridiculously good staying power. The fact that there is only a few with that issue isn't indicative of power creep more than it is bad design.
Well, most classes with 3/4 BAB are spellcasters, which helps quite a bit. Of the ones that aren't spellcasters, the better 3/4 BAB classes are the ones with pseudo-spellcasting (Kineticist, Monk.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my years of playing I notice its the player playing the class is more important then the class itself.
A Wizard might be be more powerful then a Rogue, but if the player playing the Wizard is a total self centered nitwit while the player playing the Rogue is an intelligent team player , I will take the Rogue any day of the week.A true observation but also one that is completely irrelevant to any discussion of the mechanics of the game.
To tie it in a bit, though, I will point out rogues are a particularly attractive class for self-centered nitwits who want to play a chaotic neutral greedyguts.
Suddenly, I just realized the true purpose of the Rogue -- it is a trap option to limit the amount of damage Chaotic Stupid players can do . . . .
Funny fact, I love playing rangers, and all use the two weapon style and they all have no problem taking it and dishing it!
|
Not so much so. Combat Style means they don't need to have high Dex to take the chain. That lets them increase their Str for more attack and damage.Worst class: CRB Ranger (TWF).
Discuss.
They died like mice in PFS. (I forgot 'em on my list of most-likely-to-die; I'd put 'em second, after barbarians.)
~ ~ ~
The core bard is stereotyped as the silly singing guy but one on one, equal stats, he will kick the core rogue's butt all over the place in a rapier duel despite their identical proficiency with the selected weapon and equal BAB and hit dice.
Or, in my counter-example, the rogue chooses the situation (ambush) and tactics (archery), and polymorphs the bard into a hedgehog.
~ ~ ~
In my years of playing I notice its the player playing the class is more important then the class itself. A Wizard might be be more powerful then a Rogue, but if the player playing the Wizard is a total self centered nitwit while the player playing the Rogue is an intelligent team player , I will take the Rogue any day of the week.A true observation but also one that is completely irrelevant to any discussion of the mechanics of the game.
To tie it in a bit, though, I will point out rogues are a particularly attractive class for self-centered nitwits who want to play a chaotic neutral greedyguts.
My rogue was also a paladin. <shrug>
Not everybody's Belkar.
(Heyyy... Waitjustaminute now... Belkar's a ranger/barbarian. Everybody just assumes he's a rogue because he's a TWF halfling. Haley was the rogue.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never heard of anyone assuming Belkar was a rogue
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They died like mice in PFS. (I forgot 'em on my list of most-likely-to-die; I'd put 'em second, after barbarians.)Not so much so. Combat Style means they don't need to have high Dex to take the chain. That lets them increase their Str for more attack and damage.Worst class: CRB Ranger (TWF).
Discuss.
Statistics: Army paratroopers die at higher rates than personnel clerks.
Sir Thugsalot: Personnel clerks are more effective at combat!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They died like mice in PFS. (I forgot 'em on my list of most-likely-to-die; I'd put 'em second, after barbarians.)Not so much so. Combat Style means they don't need to have high Dex to take the chain. That lets them increase their Str for more attack and damage.Worst class: CRB Ranger (TWF).
Discuss.
Statistics: Army paratroopers die at higher rates than personnel clerks.
Sir Thugsalot: Personnel clerks are more effective at combat!
Yes, as a statistican, I believe that Sir Thugsalot is using the wrong statistic.
A DPR (damage per round) build spends resources on offense rather than defense. In a campaign game, DPR characters rely on their teammates to keep them alive. I never played Pathfinder Society games, but I hear that they have a random mix of characters who might not have played together before. In that case, the teamwork to keep the DPR characters alive might be missing.
Rangers and barbarians are classes that enable DPR builds.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is lots of talk about what class and builds are best at what they do, but what's the weakest class? Sure, any of them can be made to work, but what's the toughest to optimize, or the most poorly designed?
J
It's contextual to the GM's setting/playstyle and the player's ability to use the class effectively.
I think the Fighter is one of the easiest classes to make ineffective due to the player just not knowing what feats to take. Very gear dependent too. New players often have useless fighters.
Rogues/ninjas are weak if the GM/party doesn't let them play to their strengths. They are designed for hit-n-run tactics, or sniping, but many GMs and parties won't let them do that, which nerfs them. Traps also need to be something that the GM often uses, for the rogues to have purpose.
Wizards and Paladins are pretty easy classes for the GM to screw with. If the GM's style includes forcing the wizard to need to constantly protect their spell book or near constant attempts to force the paladin to violate their code, then these classes are pretty terrible. Both are classes with pretty debilitating weak points.
In a more broad sense, GMs that favor combat over diplomacy will nerf diplomatic classes and vice versa. Really, the GM has control over what balances the classes in their ratio of selected encounters. For example, having more long range battles will nerf melee classes, while having most encounters in confined spaces will nerf ranged classes.
Ranged builds aren't really nerfed by being in melee range. As long as they can maneuver so as not to provoke AoO for making ranged attack they're pretty much okay. You should pick up precise shot early to negate the penalty for firing into melee, and the penalty for cover/concealment is something which occurs even if you're at long range (there's usually crap in the way, it's not just an open field).
Fighters are no more gear dependent than any other martial character really, the only item that fighters would like special is Gloves of Dueling and Sash of the War Champion (for some builds). But every class has items that enhance it's ability, so this is nothing special.
Rogues and Ninjas don't require a GM to do anything to counter them, the game does that unless the GM caters to them so as to avoid it. Enemies frequently show up with ways to defeat Invisibility at higher levels and the rest of the party rarely wants to do hit and run tactics. While that means a rogue could hit and run (because the enemy is distracted), it means the rest of the party quickly kills off the enemy while the rogue barely does anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues/ninjas are weak if the GM/party doesn't let them play to their strengths. They are designed for hit-n-run tactics, or sniping, but many GMs and parties won't let them do that, which nerfs them.
What are hit and run tactics? Do you mean something like Spring Attack?
A character who can turn invisible and teleport out would probably do better as a sniper.
I've heard people say that rogues are only ineffective if you use them like martials; they should be lurking on the edge of the battlefield, looking for an opportunity to strike. To which I respond: that is much less useful than just killing enemies.
Really, the GM has control over what balances the classes in their ratio of selected encounters.
I've played Adventure Paths. Based on my experiences, the rogue comes out looking weak, while the ninja may or may not do well, depending on the number of 'see invisible' creatures around.
|
|
Rogues/ninjas are weak if the GM/party doesn't let them play to their strengths. They are designed for hit-n-run tactics, or sniping, but many GMs and parties won't let them do that, which nerfs them.What are hit and run tactics? Do you mean something like Spring Attack?
Hit and run tactics are when you attack. Do as much damage as possible in a short period. Then retreat. Then do it again. Against groups, the idea is to lower their numbers. Against single targets, the idea is to either inflict a debilitating condition, or to reduce their resources (like spells per day). Not exactly honorable combat, but it is very effective, especially for rogues due to sneak attack. Works ideally when combined with poison use.
Mechanically, this means retreating, leaving the combat entirely, tracking down the enemy again, and attacking again. PFS scenarios don't really allow this. Many GMs won't do it, even outside of PFS. And many players in your party won't want to play with this tactic. That said, it's very realistic and effective and plays to the style of rogues very well.
The unchained rogue is basically the answer for GMs that don't intend to allow hit and run tactics for rogues.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They died like mice in PFS. (I forgot 'em on my list of most-likely-to-die; I'd put 'em second, after barbarians.)Not so much so. Combat Style means they don't need to have high Dex to take the chain. That lets them increase their Str for more attack and damage.Worst class: CRB Ranger (TWF).
Discuss.
That's a wonderful anecdote, but I'm not going to pay much attention to your opinion without some actual reasoning behind it. (Rogue is by far the most commonly killed character in my experience.)
|
|
Really, the GM has control over what balances the classes in their ratio of selected encounters.I've played Adventure Paths. Based on my experiences, the rogue comes out looking weak, while the ninja may or may not do well, depending on the number of 'see invisible' creatures around.
If you are playing an adventure path, then the ratio of encounters isn't based on the GM, so is not what I'm talking about. The traditional GM is actually creating their own material, in which case, the balance of the classes is very much related to the ratio of enounter types.
I will note that the adventure paths, like most PFS scenarios, certainly favor certain sorts of builds, NPCs and so forth. It's not bad, but there are tendancies for certain types of encounters.
For example, long range combat is rarely used in any pregenerated content. I would define long range as being at least in the third range increment for a longbow (so PCs start at least 200ft apart from their enemy). It's a mapping issue related to using miniatures, not one of balance. Pregeneration of the scenario and the desire to use consistent miniatures favors small maps. If you were playing without minatures, this sort of combat would be more common.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues/ninjas are weak if the GM/party doesn't let them play to their strengths. They are designed for hit-n-run tactics, or sniping, but many GMs and parties won't let them do that, which nerfs them.What are hit and run tactics? Do you mean something like Spring Attack?
That means tactics where they withdraw as necessary to keep themselves alive. A hit-and-run rogue would do only about 1/3 as much damage as a fighter, but 1/3 is better than none. It is better than playing a blaster wizard, because hit-and-run rogues can work longer than 15 minutes a day.
Really, the GM has control over what balances the classes in their ratio of selected encounters.I've played Adventure Paths. Based on my experiences, the rogue comes out looking weak, while the ninja may or may not do well, depending on the number of 'see invisible' creatures around.
My wife's ninja in my Jade Regent campaign never learned the Vanishing Trick. In turnabout, she learned the See the Unseen trick to see invisibility, which was useful against invisible oni.
The adventure paths work better for rogues if the GM adjusts them to the party. I did so in Rise of the Runelords, where the players switched the emphasis from combat grind to sabotaging the enemy's plans using their roguish/bardish skills. Spoiler example below:
I read Murdock Mudeater's comment to my wife and she agreed heartily. She said that if the adventure was going to be combat in dungeons, she would want a fighter, barbarian, or druid, but if the adventure was in a city, she would want a rogue, bard, or ranger because she would need their skills.
|
|
They died like mice in PFS. (I forgot 'em on my list of most-likely-to-die; I'd put 'em second, after barbarians.)Not so much so. Combat Style means they don't need to have high Dex to take the chain. That lets them increase their Str for more attack and damage.Worst class: CRB Ranger (TWF).
Discuss.
Statistics: Army paratroopers die at higher rates than personnel clerks.
Sir Thugsalot: Personnel clerks are more effective at combat!
Your analogy works if the personnel clerk stayed home. It breaks if they're both in the same room fighting the same monster.
~ ~ ~
I would wager that well over half of character deaths in PFS scenarios stem from the inability to withdraw from melee without eating AoOs. This is the common predicament of melee builds that shirk Acrobatics (invariably because it is neither on their class list nor has the PC emphasized dexterity). When in-over-their-heads adjacent to the multi-attack monster they couldn't kill on their turn, barbarians die more often than TWF rangers who die more often than fighters because that is their typical AC progression from worst to best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS low level rogues have relevant powers?
What is your common level range? 7+? 1-4?
These are important to determine bias. Things like acrobatics actually being better than cmd without 2 feats and magic items is odd for mid to high levels.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That means tactics where they withdraw as necessary to keep themselves alive. A hit-and-run rogue would do only about 1/3 as much damage as a fighter, but 1/3 is better than none. It is better than playing a blaster wizard, because hit-and-run rogues can work longer than 15 minutes a day.
Four competently-run 1st-level halfling rogues operating in a cover-strewn setting (e.g., urban) setting should be able to defeat most low-level parties (~=<6th) by using ambush/shoot-and--immediately-run tactics repeated every ten minutes over the course of a day. If they don't essentially cede the encounter (by getting off the street and behind a closed door), the PCs will eventually be ground through all of their consumables, then run out of hitpoints. The halflings? They will never be seen for more than a fleeting second as they round a corner.
Scenarios generally play "nice" to the players with box-text instructing the GM to loose a volley, then close to melee, then, "They will fight to the death". But they really have no reason to do that.
And My PFS experience is I've seen a wizard, cleric, rogue, summoner, barb and brawler. But I've seen it more of players than classes. I've seen one person play 9 different rage characters and they've never died or had any go unconscious, another person play all smattering of classes, including barb and never have a death, and then a few people that make lots of different kinds of character and they will often die.
So it might be more that you've seen bad players and those bad players tend to go towards barbs and TWF rangers and thus those die whereas if those players had rogues they would have died faster.
I'd wager half the deaths in PFS is someone going onto the front lines that shouldn't be there rather than the inability to leave once there OR that their team is a bunch of rogues or something that aren't helping to kill enemies as they skirt around the fight waiting for the right moment to do anything, thus making it a fight with only 3 or less players in it.
Like if there are two barbs you'd think you'd have good damage, but if one barb is some strange build that has 12 str after raging and is trying to use wands to buff himself for 5 rounds it's suddenly one 1 front liner when you expected to have 2.
I've also seen a large amount of characters (a large amount of rogues and brawler) that I feel should be dead and would be had there not been someone playing a character that could carry the team through the scenario itself.
That means tactics where they withdraw as necessary to keep themselves alive. A hit-and-run rogue would do only about 1/3 as much damage as a fighter, but 1/3 is better than none. It is better than playing a blaster wizard, because hit-and-run rogues can work longer than 15 minutes a day.Four competently-run 1st-level halfling rogues operating in a cover-strewn setting (e.g., urban) setting should be able to defeat most low-level parties (~=<6th) by using ambush/shoot-and--immediately-run tactics repeated every ten minutes over the course of a day. If they don't essentially cede the encounter (by getting off the street and behind a closed door), the PCs will eventually be ground through all of their consumables, then run out of hitpoints. The halflings? They will never be seen for more than a fleeting second as they round a corner.
Scenarios generally play "nice" to the players with box-text instructing the GM to loose a volley, then close to melee, then, "They will fight to the death". But they really have no reason to do that.
Well hey, it's no fair to throw 4 competent characters against a party that is incompetent. That's not a fair comparison and doesn't show that rogues can do anything. A competent party should be able to catch up to these rogue's pretty easily, since they have a low movespeed, and actually have a good chance that someone spots and acts in the surprise round too.
If you want to play a hit-and-run rogue, play 5e. You get the class feature to makes it effective as soon as 2nd-level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That means tactics where they withdraw as necessary to keep themselves alive. A hit-and-run rogue would do only about 1/3 as much damage as a fighter, but 1/3 is better than none. It is better than playing a blaster wizard, because hit-and-run rogues can work longer than 15 minutes a day.Four competently-run 1st-level halfling rogues operating in a cover-strewn setting (e.g., urban) setting should be able to defeat most low-level parties (~=<6th) by using ambush/shoot-and--immediately-run tactics repeated every ten minutes over the course of a day. If they don't essentially cede the encounter (by getting off the street and behind a closed door), the PCs will eventually be ground through all of their consumables, then run out of hitpoints. The halflings? They will never be seen for more than a fleeting second as they round a corner.
Scenarios generally play "nice" to the players with box-text instructing the GM to loose a volley, then close to melee, then, "They will fight to the death". But they really have no reason to do that.
since when do levels 1-6 even matter for class strength?
At those levels, lucky rolls is the dominant class feature not your build.
How are those halfling rogues doing at level 20 vs a level 15 party of real classes?
That means tactics where they withdraw as necessary to keep themselves alive. A hit-and-run rogue would do only about 1/3 as much damage as a fighter, but 1/3 is better than none. It is better than playing a blaster wizard, because hit-and-run rogues can work longer than 15 minutes a day.Four competently-run 1st-level halfling rogues operating in a cover-strewn setting (e.g., urban) setting should be able to defeat most low-level parties (~=<6th) by using ambush/shoot-and--immediately-run tactics repeated every ten minutes over the course of a day. If they don't essentially cede the encounter (by getting off the street and behind a closed door), the PCs will eventually be ground through all of their consumables, then run out of hitpoints. The halflings? They will never be seen for more than a fleeting second as they round a corner.
Scenarios generally play "nice" to the players with box-text instructing the GM to loose a volley, then close to melee, then, "They will fight to the death". But they really have no reason to do that.
But that's just a party playing intelligently against enemies that aren't.
It's the sort of thing that bothers me with PCs sleeping in dungeons before having cleared them completely. Why did the PCs stop? Because they're exhausted. Why doesn't the enemy press the advantage and hit them with everything they've got? Why don't they all group together while the PCs are apparently hiding for 8 hours? Why don't they grab the important stuff and disappear? Leaving the players with (virtually) nothing. Because it really pisses off (some) players if you play enemies intelligently.
You say the enemy is ceding the loss if they have to run in-doors away from the rogues because eventually they would be whittled down. I say the rogues ceded the loss by saying the have to perform hit and run tactics or else they'd be killed.
|
|
My example above does not require that the PCs be incompetent. (Them dying, should they persist in a "no-win scenerio", might.)Well hey, it's no fair to throw 4 competent characters against a party that is incompetent.Four competently-run 1st-level halfling rogues operating in a cover-strewn setting (e.g., urban) setting should be able to defeat most low-level parties (~=<6th) by using ambush/shoot-and--immediately-run tactics repeated every ten minutes over the course of a day. If they don't essentially cede the encounter (by getting off the street and behind a closed door), the PCs will eventually be ground through all of their consumables, then run out of hitpoints. The halflings? They will never be seen for more than a fleeting second as they round a corner.
Scenarios generally play "nice" to the players with box-text instructing the GM to loose a volley, then close to melee, then, "They will fight to the death". But they really have no reason to do that.
...A competent party should be able to catch up to these rogue's pretty easily, since they have a low movespeed, and actually have a good chance that someone spots and acts in the surprise round too.
Yeah? Good luck with that.
Here's how it plays out:
Build: all halfling rogues have DEX:18, Improved Initiative, and the traits Paragon of Speed and Careful Combatant. Equipment: (among other mundane) each have a size-small heavy crossbow
1) Having plenty of time to prepare modifying their environment (e.g., moving crates around in an alley, positioning vantage-point "murder holes" just so, etc), the halflings will not be seen (in the very slight chance that they are, then will notice, since the PCs will begin behaving in a manner that suggests they know they're walking into an ambush -- in which case the halflings rogues all withdraw and try again later at a different location).
2) They initiate combat and withhold action in the surprise round versus unaware PCs.
3) 1st round: All shoot (sneak-attack vs. flat-footed AC) the same target at a distance of 30', then use their move actions to beginning running. Target eats a potential 4x(d8+d6). PCs become aware & roll their initiative.
4) 2nd round: halflings full-round run (ending up 130' away before any PC has done anything).
-- At this point, they are quite far away, around a corner or two or into the sewers, and effectively long gone.
Rinse, repeat, all day.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The level of GM fiat to pull that off is so staggering I see no reason to take it seriously.
Edit: Although one thing to correct is that everyone rolls initiative in the surprise round, not just the aware parties. Rather immaterial to the discussion, but you do keep making that mistake.
Also, a full round run means that the halflings are running in a straight line with nothing in their way, so it's much more likely that they'll only be able to double move that round. so they are only 90ft away from their starting spots assuming that they took the ability to have 30ft movespeed.
Also since combat was initiated then the players get to act on round 1 as well, so they'll probably keep moving up like they were, and thus some of them might be able to react r1 after the first volley was launched. But if not then they for sure are acting before the halflings on round 2 when the halflings are only 60ft maximum away from the party, that's a double move to close in on the archer halfling with an unloaded heavy crossbow, also well within counter archery range and spell range. Heck a lv5 magic missile spell going after one is possible to kill it.
Also, if the any of the player's spot the halflings then it's initiative then and the halflings and that person are in the surprise round. And now they don't get a shot
Also you're factoring in that all of those arrows are hitting, with only a +5 or 6 to the attack rolls people's flat footed AC has a good chance of stopping a number of the attacks.
So yeah, if you break the rules then I guess they look better.
|
|
The level of GM fiat to pull that off is so staggering I see no reason to take it seriously.
Of course. Because if GMs ran enemy rogues the way they could be run, everybody and their kid sister would screaming for the Nerf-bat. "They're too powerful! Wah! Fix 'em!"
-- Note that there's reason that the PCs cannot adopt the same kind of stealth mentality in infiltration scenarios. (I recall a Sap Master build around here that could dish out 80pts in a single mid-level attack.)
Edit: Although one thing to correct is that everyone rolls initiative in the surprise round, not just the aware parties. Rather immaterial to the discussion, but you do keep making that mistake.
<shrug> It doesn't make a difference in this particular case (and more than a few GMs don't bother asking unaware PCs for their rolls right away, especially if the PCs was asleep and some of them didn't wake up).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You'd be better off hitting them with glitterdust. At which point they can't stealth and are probably blind.
|
|
Also, a full round run means that the halflings are running in a straight line with nothing in their way, so it's much more likely that they'll only be able to double move that round. so they are only 90ft away from their starting spots assuming that they took the ability to have 30ft movespeed.
The nice thing about fighting on your turf is that you know where all the corners are, and can line them up to neatly match the end of the previous turn's move. -- Horrible NE rogues taking advantage of game rules like that....
~ ~ ~
You'd be better off hitting them with glitterdust. At which point they can't stealth and are probably blind.
The problem is, that you need to see them first, and that is quite difficult to do. (And somebody in light- or no armor making the motions of casting a spell is an odds-on favorite for being the first person to eat four bolts to the chest. If he dies, good; if he doesn't rinse/repeat. It's a consumable/healing attrition-grind.)
~ ~ ~
<snip>...should be able to defeat most low-level parties (~=<6th)...<snip>i'm gona need your rogues to make a dc 20 reflex save vs a 13d6+26 fireball plz
Well, geez, then they just pull out and UMD (with a +35 I-didn't-read-what-the-other-guy-wrote bonus) their wands of Summon Elder Dragon and go to town on you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, a full round run means that the halflings are running in a straight line with nothing in their way, so it's much more likely that they'll only be able to double move that round. so they are only 90ft away from their starting spots assuming that they took the ability to have 30ft movespeed.The nice thing about fighting on your turf is that you know where all the corners are, and can line them up to neatly match the end of the previous turn's move. -- Horrible NE rogues taking advantage of game rules like that...
So if they move 30ft to reach a corner that allows them to run then when the PC's round that corner on their turn they'll see them still and can target them.
So your situation plays out like this, giving all the advantages possible to the rogues while following your plan.
Rogues happen to all roll well on stealth while the player's roll poorly and the player's don't know the rogues are there when the rogues start their surprise round. Rogues all delay. Rogues delay after all the players go and the players all move up 30ft so they are all just 30ft away from the rogues right now. Rogues attack, which breaks stealth so they are now seeable, hopefully rolling high enough to hit and get 4d8+4d6 ~32 damage to the lightest armored person. And then move 30ft to a long clear passageway. Party now gets to act on round 2, so they double move and are now right next to the halflings (and we're going to assume that haste, expeditious retreat, animals/familiars/mounts, monks or barbs all aren't a part of this party because of them being faster than the rogues) and thus at most a 5ft step away from having clear vision of the long passage the rogues are going to run down. The rogues run, provoking from the people next to them and move 120ft, the party on round 3 can now use ranged attacks and spells to hit the rogues that are denied their dex from running, the melee people can maybe run, maybe be using backup bows, or maybe need to let the others handle this since they've already got their AoOs off. The rogues are now very much likely dead.
This is how your story ACTUALLY would go down, party wins
|
|
Of course. Because if GMs ran enemy rogues the way they could be run, everybody and their kid sister would screaming for the Nerf-bat. "They're too powerful! Wah! Fix 'em!"
-- Note that there's reason that the PCs cannot adopt the same kind of stealth mentality in infiltration scenarios. (I recall a Sap Master build around here that could dish out 80pts in a single mid-level attack.)
No, if GMs gave every advantage of terrain and luck of the draw, the PCs could still handle the fight, albeit with more effort than a straight up fight. Your encounters require the PCs to have to travel into each ambush rather than being able to move around them through alternate paths where the rogue team hasn't or can't set up the appropriate cover. It strains your credibility to say 'honest, there are these nice long thoroughfares for them to duck into for escape in just the right configuration'. Home field advantage is one thing, retroactively adjusting the map is entirely another. And I've absolutely adopted the same kind of mentality as a PC, managing to non-lethally eliminate the All The World's Meat sidequest in Curse of the Crimson Throne with my dwarven ranger and his companions.
The problem is, that you need to see them first, and that is quite difficult to do. (And somebody in light- or no armor making the motions of casting a spell is an odds-on favorite for being the first person to eat four bolts to the chest. If he dies, good; if he doesn't rinse/repeat. It's a consumable/healing attrition-grind.)
No you just said they ran 130 foot in a straight line, I know exactly where they are. They're over there stumbling around covered in glitter. At level 6 with 14 CON (the minimum I would accept on a D6 class) taking 6 at level one and then average after the fact, that's 35 hit points, with FCB that's probably higher, if you have toughness you're around 45.
So your 1D6+1D8 one of which most likely whiffed isn't going to do anything worth worrying about.
Design Manager
|
There is lots of talk about what class and builds are best at what they do, but what's the weakest class? Sure, any of them can be made to work, but what's the toughest to optimize, or the most poorly designed?
J
Varies a bit. I'd personally say the Fighter or the Monk. Both are really hard to optimize without a handful of additional books on hand, while pretty much every other class can be played effectively with nothing more than the CRB and possibly whatever book the class was presented in. I'm inclined to even give the Rogue some credit here since, while it won't be winning any top performer slots, it's still robust enough that you can at least participate in most challenges an adventure will present, while the Fighter may find themselves utterly unable to contribute anything to certain challenges and the Monk's weird chassis means that he may struggle even more than the Rogue to participate decently without some unintuitive build choices.
As many have noted of course, player skill is always going to be the most dominant factor, and with enough splatbooks you can make any class decent, so any observations assume equal levels of player skill and basic functionality for the class, not what you can squeeze out with three archetypes and 5 source books worth of material.
Firstly, I find it very entertaining that a 6th level aetherkineticist with 1 burn in Force ward can literally take 9 damage every 9 minutes and require no healing. 2 burn is 12hp/6min. your average is 7.
In any case, what happens if the party decides to play cautiously? Concealment-breaking light comes from a cantrip attached to an object. What is stopping a rock/arrow being moved into corners from outside the 30' sneak attack range?
Also, with respect to a fireball strike, if we're pulling out all the stops,
CL 6->6d6
Orc bloodline arcana->6
draconic bloodline arcane (crossblooded)->6
blood havoc mutation ->6
magical lineage+wayang spellhunter empower->3d6result: 9d6+18 average 58.5
average if saved: 29.25 (1st level rogues do not have evasion)Maximum possible halfling rogue 1 HP:
8+4(18 CON)+1(FCB)+3(toughness)=16
You did empower wrong
Empower is 1.5 the damage so the math of it is 1.5(6d6+18) for average 58.5And 9d6+18 averages to 49.5
Plus if they are that much a blaster they probably have spell specialization for +2 caster level so it's 1.5(8d6+24) or ~78 damage
The level of GM fiat to pull that off is so staggering I see no reason to take it seriously.
Edit: Although one thing to correct is that everyone rolls initiative in the surprise round, not just the aware parties. Rather immaterial to the discussion, but you do keep making that mistake.
I accidentally built a bard that negates the whole rogue sneaky sneaky surprise round thing. Namely in that she always acts first in the surprise round. Whats that you can't see the person who cares I act first in the surprise round?
EDIT:Also my character with a +19 perception should be able to single them out ridiculously easy and that's a third level character.