Pregen previews over at ENWorld!


Prerelease Discussion

501 to 550 of 799 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:

"EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE A FREE HAND." You can disarm with any weapon as long as you have a free hand. Presumably you block/bind weapon to weapon and use your free hand to twist their weapon away.

The rapier has disarm because movie tropes (e.g. The Princess Bride) show rapiers being used to twist/finesse weapons out of other people's hands.

So you think it takes a regular weapon plus a free hand or a disarm property weapon? What about attempting to disarm while unarmed? Two hands?

I'm sure you can, I'm speaking of the common situation most PCs are going to face because most of them aren't Monks.


Xenocrat wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:

"EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE A FREE HAND." You can disarm with any weapon as long as you have a free hand. Presumably you block/bind weapon to weapon and use your free hand to twist their weapon away.

The rapier has disarm because movie tropes (e.g. The Princess Bride) show rapiers being used to twist/finesse weapons out of other people's hands.

So you think it takes a regular weapon plus a free hand or a disarm property weapon? What about attempting to disarm while unarmed? Two hands?

I'm sure you can, I'm speaking of the common situation most PCs are going to face because most of them aren't Monks.

Different experiences I guess. I think I have seen more disarm attempts from PCs without weapons than with but I have a habit of putting PCs in situations without their weapons so they can do the badass breakout thing.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Does the precision damage from the backstabing weapon trait stacks with sneak attack?
Also does the dice from deadly increases if the weapon is expert quality?

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
Don't Monks even get to pick Dex or Str as their primary attribute (or was that Fighters).
Monks do indeed get to do this. Fighters may, but we don't actually know.
I think the primary attribute only matters if you have access to spell powers (to set their DCs and your pool of points) and the Fighter doesn't.

A Primary Ability also gets +2 at 1st level, which is the only way to get an 18 in a stat at 1st level (since there are only three other sets of stat boosts, and you can't double up during one step). So it's pretty relevant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Biztak wrote:

Does the precision damage from the backstabing weapon trait stacks with sneak attack?

Also does the dice from deadly increases if the weapon is expert quality?

Expert/Master/Legendary quality weapons don't increase weapon damage, only to hit. You need a magic weapon to increase damage dice.

I do wonder if deadly damage is multiplied by magic weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's the point of making a dagger "piercing, versatile slashing" instead of making it "piercing or slashing" as in PF1? What is gained by having the "versatile" property?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
What's the point of making a dagger "piercing, versatile slashing" instead of making it "piercing or slashing" as in PF1? What is gained by having the "versatile" property?

I think you have to choose, so if you don't know there's a benefit/penalty to a particular mode you use the default and get those results. It makes knowledge checks (which now require an action) more valuable.

So if you attack a zombie with a dagger, the GM assumes you're stabbing it and you don't get the Weakness bonus damage. If you succeeded on a Religion test and know it's weak to slashing, you declare you're inflicting slashing damage and get the extra damage.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
What's the point of making a dagger "piercing, versatile slashing" instead of making it "piercing or slashing" as in PF1? What is gained by having the "versatile" property?

It clarifies that doing multiple damage types is a Property. I suspect, when examined, the number of Properties have some consistencies. So it's probably useful from a design perspective.

As Xenocrat notes, it does also clearly establish which damage type is the default if you do not specify.


Xenocrat wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
What's the point of making a dagger "piercing, versatile slashing" instead of making it "piercing or slashing" as in PF1? What is gained by having the "versatile" property?

I think you have to choose, so if you don't know there's a benefit/penalty to a particular mode you use the default and get those results. It makes knowledge checks (which now require an action) more valuable.

So if you attack a zombie with a dagger, the GM assumes you're stabbing it and you don't get the Weakness bonus damage. If you succeeded on a Religion test and know it's weak to slashing, you declare you're inflicting slashing damage and get the extra damage.

That's what the OR was for vs an AND in pathfinder classic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
What's the point of making a dagger "piercing, versatile slashing" instead of making it "piercing or slashing" as in PF1? What is gained by having the "versatile" property?

I think you have to choose, so if you don't know there's a benefit/penalty to a particular mode you use the default and get those results. It makes knowledge checks (which now require an action) more valuable.

So if you attack a zombie with a dagger, the GM assumes you're stabbing it and you don't get the Weakness bonus damage. If you succeeded on a Religion test and know it's weak to slashing, you declare you're inflicting slashing damage and get the extra damage.

That's what the OR was for vs an AND in pathfinder classic.

What was the default if the player didn't announce a choice, the GM didn't ask (to avoid tipping him off), and the difference mattered?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Targeting by weapon type maybe? For example a Swashbuckler Archetype might require primarially piercing swords, not just swords that can be used to cause Piercing Damage.

It might also just be a semantic difference to prevent arguements about which damage the weapon does by default (or if undeclared)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
As Xenocrat notes, it does also clearly establish which damage type is the default if you do not specialize.

I'm not sure that I like that everyone in the universe defaults to stabbing vs slashing with a dagger... So in a knife fight, no one thinks to slash unless they roll a check to find out stabbing isn't the best kind of attack? Odd...


graystone wrote:
That's what the OR was for vs an AND in pathfinder classic.

Pathfinder Classic only had a few "AND" weapons, like the Morningstar. Which was obviously a nod to the Cleric's need for a viable Simple Weapon to use against common undead (in case their favored weapon was exotic or they didn't worship an actual deity)


Xenocrat wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
What's the point of making a dagger "piercing, versatile slashing" instead of making it "piercing or slashing" as in PF1? What is gained by having the "versatile" property?

I think you have to choose, so if you don't know there's a benefit/penalty to a particular mode you use the default and get those results. It makes knowledge checks (which now require an action) more valuable.

So if you attack a zombie with a dagger, the GM assumes you're stabbing it and you don't get the Weakness bonus damage. If you succeeded on a Religion test and know it's weak to slashing, you declare you're inflicting slashing damage and get the extra damage.

Fair enough, thanks.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
I'm not sure that I like that everyone in the universe defaults to stabbing vs slashing with a dagger... So in a knife fight, no one thinks to slash unless they roll a check to find out stabbing isn't the best kind of attack? Odd...

You can always declare that you're slashing regardless of knowing whether it's a good choice. But there needs to be some sort of default.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
As Xenocrat notes, it does also clearly establish which damage type is the default if you do not specialize.
I'm not sure that I like that everyone in the universe defaults to stabbing vs slashing with a dagger... So in a knife fight, no one thinks to slash unless they roll a check to find out stabbing isn't the best kind of attack? Odd...

No... you just have to declare it.

"I slash with my dagger at the zombie."
They might complain I'm metagaming against the zombie, but not so against a mugger I just threatened to carve up.


Xenocrat wrote:
What was the default if the player didn't announce a choice, the GM didn't ask (to avoid tipping him off), and the difference mattered?

It's not terribly hard: ask for a default well before an encounter and/or ask the characters to describe their attacks. It should be quite easy to tell stabbing from slashing. I find it a bit disturbing that the hivemind' only allows stabbing as a default, as everyone thinks 'stab' when they pick up that kind of weapon.

I have to admit, I've NEVER run into an issue with default damage types in my many years of play. Was this a big issue for some people?

Cantriped: Hurlbat, Flindbar, Chain spear, Shoanti bolas and 36 firearms/explosives.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
You can always declare that you're slashing regardless of knowing whether it's a good choice.
Cantriped wrote:
No... you just have to declare it.

This is NO where close to my point guys. What I'm saying is that if you hand an NPC commoner a dagger, they will ALWAYS stab with it if they need to attack something: Now multiply that by a thousand. 1000 commoners that have never met each other will all independently pick up and use the dagger the exact same way even though there is a second equally viable way to attack. So as I said, every creature in the entire universe MUST stab with a dagger unless you give them a reason not to and I find that extremely odd.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really dislike rogues being forced to use finesse weapons to get sneak attack. The option to have a str-based rogue with a big weapon is something I like in PF1. At least I can recreate my PFS seeker character who sneak attacks people to death with kicks and punches.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
This is NO where close to my point guys. What I'm saying is that if you hand an NPC commoner a dagger, they will ALWAYS stab with it if they need to attack something: Now multiply that by a thousand. 1000 commoners that have never met each other will all independently pick up and use the dagger the exact same way even though there is a second equally viable way to attack. So as I said, every creature in the entire universe MUST stab with a dagger unless you give them a reason not to and I find that extremely odd.

This assumes that the default is always used by NPCs. Nothing actually implies this. At all. It being the default just means that more than 50% of the time, people will stab rather than slash with a dagger.

That's probably fair, and certainly not a world issue.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

What I love about your PF2 criticisms, graystone, is the way you unfailingly zero in on the most important issues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
What I'm saying is that if you hand an NPC commoner a dagger, they will ALWAYS stab with it if they need to attack something: Now multiply that by a thousand. 1000 commoners that have never met each other will all independently pick up and use the dagger the exact same way even though there is a second equally viable way to attack. So as I said, every creature in the entire universe MUST stab with a dagger unless you give them a reason not to and I find that extremely odd.

Your point wasn't misunderstood... it is a non-issue. If I equip 1,000 peasants with Daggers (which were historically stabbing weapons BTW). I expect most of them will stab with it unless they have some compelling reason not to. But nothing I've seen supports your spurious assumption that said peasants are somehow 'forced' to only stab with a Dagger when it has a trait that explicitly says otherwise.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dryxxxa wrote:
I really dislike rogues being forced to use finesse weapons to get sneak attack. The option to have a str-based rogue with a big weapon is something I like in PF1. At least I can recreate my PFS seeker character who sneak attacks people to death with kicks and punches.

There's been mention of Feats that expand this. One of the demo games had a Rogue who could Sneak Attack with bludgeons.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
You can always declare that you're slashing regardless of knowing whether it's a good choice.
Cantriped wrote:
No... you just have to declare it.
This is NO where close to my point guys. What I'm saying is that if you hand an NPC commoner a dagger, they will ALWAYS stab with it if they need to attack something: Now multiply that by a thousand. 1000 commoners that have never met each other will all independently pick up and use the dagger the exact same way even though there is a second equally viable way to attack. So as I said, every creature in the entire universe MUST stab with a dagger unless you give them a reason not to and I find that extremely odd.

Ahh yes, the age old 1000 commoner stab-fest dilemma. A philosopher's nightmare.

But to back the point up, couldn't it be listed as:
piercing or slashing, and somewhere in the CRB it specifies that the first listing is the default unless the character describes their attack otherwise? Honestly, if things like versatile are necessary beyond a simple "or," I am starting to get a little worried about the sheer number of words being used as traits for everything from action sub-types (like manipulate) to the conjugation of conditions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Save the Rage for when Shortspears don't have Versatile (Bludgeoning).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hate Finesse Striker.

Why would a Rogue need to be a catburglar, and not a thug, by design?

I disliked it on PF1 and I loathe it on PF2.


Burgler would be a pretty interesting Background or Archetype. I don't disagree that it is unfortunate that Rogues are more like assassins than scoundrels if you look at their core features.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Why would a Rogue need to be a catburglar, and not a thug, by design?

I think the short answer is:

Because a thug is a Barbarian or Fighter with the Criminal Background, not a Rogue.

I mean...literally nothing about the 'I have all the skills and fight with trickery and finesse' Rogue screams 'thug'.

I'm actually very hopeful for Str Rogues and think we might well get some options in that line, but I wouldn't describe them as 'thugs'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am also really bummed that the default Rogue is Finesse fighting. And you need a feat to sneak attack woh anything else? So if I want to play a strong-arming thug with a club I will automatically be setting myself behind players who put everything into DEX? That’s pretty poor game design to make one fighting style best option.

I had said before I don’t like DEX to damage, but making it a core feature of the rogue will just lead to making feel-bad moments for people who want to play anything but nimble cat-burglars.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Why would a Rogue need to be a catburglar, and not a thug, by design?

I think the short answer is:

Because a thug is a Barbarian or Fighter with the Criminal Background, not a Rogue.

Also maybe monks and rangers.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Brock Landers wrote:
Yeah, Sap should be a 1d4 bludgeoning finesse weapon.

Absolutely. But the guy with the Feat could Sneak Attack with maces and the like.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
This assumes that the default is always used by NPCs.

If it isn't the default then it isn't a default by definition. If how people attack with it isn't set in stone, then the point of the weapon trait is meaningless.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
What I love about your PF2 criticisms, graystone, is the way you unfailingly zero in on the most important issues.

LOL Everyone is bothered by different things. If you want, I can rail some more on bulk, or resonance or alignment or...

Cantriped wrote:
which were historically stabbing weapons BTW

Not accurate unless every pathfinder dagger is a stiletto or a roundel dagger. For instance, a corvo, cinquedea, fascine knife or seax are all examples of knives/daggers what where traditionally used to slash more than stab.

Unicore wrote:
Ahh yes, the age old 1000 commoner stab-fest dilemma. A philosopher's nightmare.

I'll admit, it's more an issue that pokes at my brain vs a balance one but it still irks me. Again, was it an issue that needed codification? Was it a widespread issue?

Unicore wrote:

But to back the point up, couldn't it be listed as:

piercing or slashing, and somewhere in the CRB it specifies that the first listing is the default unless the character describes their attack otherwise? Honestly, if things like versatile are necessary beyond a simple "or," I am starting to get a little worried about the sheer number of words being used as traits for everything from action sub-types (like manipulate) to the conjugation of conditions.

This is my thought pretty much. IMO, versatile just pads the letter/trait count without much usefulness to show for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
What was the default if the player didn't announce a choice, the GM didn't ask (to avoid tipping him off), and the difference mattered?

It's not terribly hard: ask for a default well before an encounter and/or ask the characters to describe their attacks. It should be quite easy to tell stabbing from slashing. I find it a bit disturbing that the hivemind' only allows stabbing as a default, as everyone thinks 'stab' when they pick up that kind of weapon.

I have to admit, I've NEVER run into an issue with default damage types in my many years of play. Was this a big issue for some people?

It's about to become a big problem because so many monsters will have weakness or resistance to different damage types. Establishing a default eliminates "I mean to do that" or "uh, why do you ask?" games between the GM and PC when it's relevant. Use your knowledge skills, take initiative to understand this mechanic and declare a default, or the book gives you a default.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cuttlefist wrote:

I am also really bummed that the default Rogue is Finesse fighting. And you need a feat to sneak attack woh anything else? So if I want to play a strong-arming thug with a club I will automatically be setting myself behind players who put everything into DEX? That’s pretty poor game design to make one fighting style best option.

I had said before I don’t like DEX to damage, but making it a core feature of the rogue will just lead to making feel-bad moments for people who want to play anything but nimble cat-burglars.

It does seem like Rogues are really pigeonholded into being that build, which is a bit disappointing even if the class looks really good! Granted, that has been the issue since Unchained, where they also got free Dex to damage. I think Dex to Dmg should be a lv1 class feat and they can get some other default ability in return.

That, or an archetype that doesn't get finesse and can sneak attack with other stuff, but not sure we'll be seeing these short of archetypes before 2020.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
This assumes that the default is always used by NPCs.
If it isn't the default then it isn't a default by definition. If how people attack with it isn't set in stone, then the point of the weapon trait is meaningless.

'Default' and 'Always' are not synonyms.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Ahh yes, the age old 1000 commoner stab-fest dilemma. A philosopher's nightmare.
I'll admit, it's more an issue that pokes at my brain vs a balance one but it still irks me. Again, was it an issue that needed codification? Was it a widespread issue?

I've certainly encountered it. It's an annoyingly trivial, frustrating issue that can be easily eliminated by defining a global default. Every character can set their own personal default, but there is also something to fall back to if they don't.

It's an easy backstop for players/GMs that doesn't take away from any existing characters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
This assumes that the default is always used by NPCs.

If it isn't the default then it isn't a default by definition. If how people attack with it isn't set in stone, then the point of the weapon trait is meaningless.

It's to reward players who are aware of the rock/scissors/paper nature of weaknesses and resistance for certain monsters in the new edition, and avoid acrimonious arguments by those who didn't make a Knowledge check and demand that they should always get the benefit.

It also lets the GM reveal info to a party through combat results.

"Fighter, you slash the zombie with your sword. To your surprise, it carves a huge wound, seemingly doing extra damage as the rotten flesh is cut open. Rogue, your dagger stab doesn't seem to have the same effect, only doing normal damage."

"Oh, next time I use my versatile property to slash it instead. And hey, I'll default to slashing everything in the future, thanks."

"No problem. Your dagger is holy and silver, isn't it?"

"Yeah, why do you ask?"

"No reason."

[Enter the rakshasha.]


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Why would a Rogue need to be a catburglar, and not a thug, by design?

I think the short answer is:

Because a thug is a Barbarian or Fighter with the Criminal Background, not a Rogue.

I mean...literally nothing about the 'I have all the skills and fight with trickery and finesse' Rogue screams 'thug'.

I'm actually very hopeful for Str Rogues and think we might well get some options in that line, but I wouldn't describe them as 'thugs'.

‘Thug’ is an occupation and an attitude. It’s a way of life yo. One that does not discriminate, so even the most nimble of elves can be a thug right along the most British of orcs. All it takes is a willingness to break the law and a desire to hit enemies where it most hurts when they least expect it.

Also, the idea that being skillful means you are a finesse master is one of my least favorite parts of the presentation of this character sheet. Nothing says the guy who can pick locks and slip gold out of a strangers pocket won’t decide to just bash in skulls when the going gets tough. Relying on the high skill rank numbers of the class to offset a low INT and DEX is one of the most fun parts of building a Thug Rogue.


ChibiNyan wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:

I am also really bummed that the default Rogue is Finesse fighting. And you need a feat to sneak attack woh anything else? So if I want to play a strong-arming thug with a club I will automatically be setting myself behind players who put everything into DEX? That’s pretty poor game design to make one fighting style best option.

I had said before I don’t like DEX to damage, but making it a core feature of the rogue will just lead to making feel-bad moments for people who want to play anything but nimble cat-burglars.

It does seem like Rogues are really pigeonholded into being that build, which is a bit disappointing even if the class looks really good! Granted, that has been the issue since Unchained, where they also got free Dex to damage. I think Dex to Dmg should be a lv1 class feat and they can get some other default ability in return.

That, or an archetype that doesn't get finesse and can sneak attack with other stuff, but not sure we'll be seeing these short of archetypes before 2020.

Agreed it should be optional, I would have no issue with that. Like the Muses of the Bard you could get three options to determine what kind of weapons you sneak attack with and whether you get dex to damage. Options people, we need options!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cuttlefist wrote:
‘Thug’ is an occupation and an attitude. It’s a way of life yo. One that does not discriminate, so even the most nimble of elves can be a thug right along the most British of orcs. All it takes is a willingness to break the law and a desire to hit enemies where it most hurts when they least expect it.

That last bit isn't really very 'thug' typical. Thugs are typified by violence, but not Sneak Attack specifically.

Cuttlefist wrote:
Also, the idea that being skillful means you are a finesse master is one of my least favorite parts of the presentation of this character sheet. Nothing says the guy who can pick locks and slip gold out of a strangers pocket won’t decide to just bash in skulls when the going gets tough. Relying on the high skill rank numbers of the class to offset a low INT and DEX is one of the most fun parts of building a Thug Rogue.

Even without Feats you can use Finesse weapons or Agile weapons with Str (both can be used with Str, after all). And I'm certainly hopeful for more Str-based Rogue options.

I just fundamentally disagree that most characters called 'thugs' would be Rogues.


It's particularly egregious when you recognize most fantasy Rogues in fiction probably rely on a good measure of strength.

Climbing, jumping, rope tricks and so forth. The most recognisable pop culture Rogue, arguably, would be Disney's Aladdin, and he had a serviceable amount of fiber.

Why force players into DEX if raising STR is so painless in the system? If it works so well with the fantasy to deal good damage with 12-14 STR and making the most of backstabbing and sneak attack?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
'Default' and 'Always' are not synonyms.

Did you miss what I said? "every creature in the entire universe MUST stab with a dagger unless you give them a reason not to". If they have a reason not to, then they don't. My issue is with having to come up with a reason to not use the default.

Xenocrat wrote:
It's about to become a big problem because so many monsters will have weakness or resistance to different damage types. Establishing a default eliminates "I mean to do that" or "uh, why do you ask?" games between the GM and PC when it's relevant. Use your knowledge skills, take initiative to understand this mechanic and declare a default, or the book gives you a default.

I'm not sure how this solves backpedaling. And I'm not sure how asking for how you attack for THIS session informs as to which encounter there might be a weakness/resistance. You can show your hand if you only ask for one encounter, so don't do it for a single encounter.

KingOfAnything wrote:
I've certainly encountered it.

Cool. I assumed someone had but I just can't recall it ever being a thing.

Xenocrat wrote:

It's to reward players who are aware of the rock/scissors/paper nature of weaknesses and resistance for certain monsters in the new edition, and avoid acrimonious arguments by those who didn't make a Knowledge check and demand that they should always get the benefit.

It also lets the GM reveal info to a party through combat results.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. How does a enforced default alter this? What does 'versatile' enable that 'or' prevents? And again, you don't have to ask how the weapon is used RIGHT before the encounter that it matters in. There is no need to telegraph your moves as a DM to know that. Heck, you have to mark dents and such so how tough would it be to also have a checkbox for default damage type if a default is required?

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
'Default' and 'Always' are not synonyms.
Did you miss what I said? "every creature in the entire universe MUST stab with a dagger unless you give them a reason not to". If they have a reason not to, then they don't. My issue is with having to come up with a reason to not use the default.

"I like slashing" is a valid reason. "Daggers should be slashing by default!" is a valid reason. Any character reason is a valid reason. Just declare it/ write it down.


Secret Wizard wrote:

It's particularly egregious when you recognize most fantasy Rogues in fiction probably rely on a good measure of strength.

Climbing, jumping, rope tricks and so forth. The most recognisable pop culture Rogue, arguably, would be Disney's Aladdin, and he had a serviceable amount of fiber.

Why force players into DEX if raising STR is so painless in the system? If it works so well with the fantasy to deal good damage with 12-14 STR and making the most of backstabbing and sneak attack?

Strength isn't painless for a MAD class, and Rogue is traditionally MAD because of save weaknesses (probably somewhat overcome for mind affecting) and skill requirements. Skill attributes are arguably more important to success in PF2 because of the restricted range on results - if you want those successes and especially critical successes on tough tasks you need every point.

You have to neglect two attributes as you level up if you want to be as strong as possible in the other four.

Which two attributes are you going to neglect as a Rogue?
Dex?: No
Wis?: Probably not, but maybe if class feats cover you against mind affecting to a great enough extent
Con?: I really wouldn't
Cha?: Probably not, if you plan to use social skills or lots of magic items
Int?: Probably not, if you plan to use your knowledge skills and maximize your trained skills

So neglecting Strength and one of Wis/Int/Cha is probably the way to go. If you also need strength then you're weakening either a save or your skill abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't mind Dex being the optimal route for the rogue, but it does seem like it's a bit more punitive to go any other route, given that all the built in class features, outside of skill focused stuff seem to work only with dex builds.

Were PF2e not all about choice and options, and the way that it's been stated that you can be a cleric who ignores wis or a bard who ignores Cha, or the like, if you don't mind using mostly non-save spells, it probably wouldn't bug me so much.

501 to 550 of 799 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Pregen previews over at ENWorld! All Messageboards