| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What makes rogues better at what you call "hit-and-run" tactics than, say, someone who can turn invisible and strike from a distance?
Motivation. Rogues are the only class that need to run away after the first round of combat, so they're obviously going to be much more driven, while all the other classes would prefer to just finish off the enemy in round two.
What makes rogues better at what you call "hit-and-run" tactics than, say, someone who can turn invisible and strike from a distance?Motivation. Rogues are the only class that need to run away after the first round of combat, so they're obviously going to be much more driven, while all the other classes would prefer to just finish off the enemy in round two.
Sadly, Matthew Downie is correct.
In earlier editions of D&D, rogues had two advantages to hit-and-run tactics. First, they could hide in shadows and wait until their one attack in combat would be as effective as possible. Second, escaping from foes was a DC 15 Tumble skill check. In Pathfinder, Tumble was absorbed into Acrobatics skill, which was no problem, but also changed to oppose CMD, which made it almost impossible.
What makes rogues better at what you call "hit-and-run" tactics than, say, someone who can turn invisible and strike from a distance?Motivation. Rogues are the only class that need to run away after the first round of combat, so they're obviously going to be much more driven, while all the other classes would prefer to just finish off the enemy in round two.Sadly, Matthew Downie is correct.
In earlier editions of D&D, rogues had two advantages to hit-and-run tactics. First, they could hide in shadows and wait until their one attack in combat would be as effective as possible. Second, escaping from foes was a DC 15 Tumble skill check. In Pathfinder, Tumble was absorbed into Acrobatics skill, which was no problem, but also changed to oppose CMD, which made it almost impossible.
On top of this Pathfinder has a number of non-rogue options where you can stand there in melee range, survive a full attack, and deal catastrophic damage with your own. So there's a mechanical incentive to just do that instead.
The holy grail for melee is, after all, pounce.
I watched a guy build a monk with his first feat as Two-Weapon Fighting.
I once built a druid with TWF as his first feat, granted, that was a generous die roll char gen and he was a half orc with 20 strength, I did have some fun with him.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I watched a guy build a monk with his first feat as Two-Weapon Fighting.I once built a druid with TWF as his first feat, granted, that was a generous die roll char gen and he was a half orc with 20 strength, I did have some fun with him.
Point is that monks gain flurry of blows at first level which acts as TWF.
I keep thinking "How can my good intentions or concept-based decisions make a weak thing weaker".
1. CRB-only dex monk (no power attack but has agile maneuvers and weapon finesse). The concept is a graceful monk who doesn't rely on Str. I kinda want to try this in a low Op game.
2. CRB-only rogue who forgoes TWF and UMD (only wields a rapier). I may have tried this. Next time I'll add a mwk buckler and max UMD.
****This may not be the right message board for this but, I'm desperate.*****
Hey everyone! I'm new to the paladin class as well. I am building a level 2 paladin. I am not sure what the best race or weapon would be for the archetype called the hospitaler. I only have 700 gold starting out. I would like to heal but still be able to do good damage. We can only use core, featured, standard and uncommon races. Right now, I am favoring human or aasimar. Any help would be much appreciated.
****This may not be the right message board for this but, I'm desperate.*****
Hey everyone! I'm new to the paladin class as well. I am building a level 2 paladin. I am not sure what the best race or weapon would be for the archetype called the hospitaler. I only have 700 gold starting out. I would like to heal but still be able to do good damage. We can only use core, featured, standard and uncommon races. Right now, I am favoring human or aasimar. Any help would be much appreciated.
Aasimar. Longsword and hv shield.
Right board, wrong thread.
commonerCommoners are only week if you view the game as a competition to see who can do the most damage like an MMO. In a REAL LIFE Pathfinder game, the GM can just arrange things so that the commoner can shine. If you are finding commoners are overshadowed then you're just a bad GM.
Besides, I was playing a commoner the other day and I rolled TWO critical hits in a row! Seriously, that's how awesome commoners are. No one else was that powerful.
Now that Pathfinder 2.0 is coming out, I'm worried that a VOCAL MINORITY of Commoner-haters will complain enough that Paizo will buff Commoners in PF2. Some of us like Commoners exactly the way they are now, and if Paizo won't respect the tradition of what a Commoner is in Pathfinder 2e, I wont be playing the new Pathfinder game.
I'd be surprised if NPC classes like Commoner or Adept make it into Pathfinder 2.