Pregen previews over at ENWorld!


Prerelease Discussion

551 to 600 of 799 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

My problem is that this doesn't follow logically. It's a mechanical default, so you need to declare doing otherwise. Nothing anywhere in the term 'default' even implies that you need to justify reasons to not use said default. The reason can be 'he feels like slashing'.

All it really needs to be the default is to be more likely than the other option.


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.

Not every creature, just every PC who doesn't specify otherwise. Your reason for doing otherwise is either a successful knowledge check, or an affirmative preference for another method that you state. But Schrodinger's Damage Type isn't something the GM has to worry about. That's good!

graystone wrote:


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.

It solves backpedaling because "Piercing [unless you affirmatively declare slashing]" as a rule is a stronger curb on bad PC behavior than "Piercing or Slashing." GMs can't be experts on every rule and demand answers to every nuance at all times. Put the onus on the player. The GM shouldn't ever have to ask, if the player cares he can declare it. If he doesn't care he gets the default until someone in his party performs a knowledge check and announces that a different type of damage might be helpful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
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.

Sure, move the goal-posts to try to make your point. I am only talking about "standard daggers". By which I mean a short, straight, one-handed, double-edged blade with a fine point, and is balanced for throwing); which does not include any of the slashing weapons you describe... especially not the knives. For one thing several of those weapons cannot be thrown effectively, which rules them out as PF2 "Daggers".

"Knife" by the way, is almost as generic a term as "Sword", with the longest knives being several feet long (and better suited to using the Scimitar or Dogslicer's stats than a 'Daggers').


Shouldn't the dagger on that sheet have +4 added to its damage?

Liberty's Edge

Gregg Reece wrote:
Shouldn't the dagger on that sheet have +4 added to its damage?

Maybe. The bonus might well not apply when thrown, and those are its thrown stats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gregg Reece wrote:
Shouldn't the dagger on that sheet have +4 added to its damage?

It would in melee, but they only listed it as a ranged option here.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Gregg Reece wrote:
Shouldn't the dagger on that sheet have +4 added to its damage?
Maybe. The bonus might well not apply when thrown, and those are its thrown stats.

Both the weapon quality and class ability reference "melee."

For those wanting a reason for strength on a Rogue, there you go.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gregg Reece wrote:
Shouldn't the dagger on that sheet have +4 added to its damage?

Only when used as a melee weapon according to the Feature. The sheet doesn't include her melee strike with a dagger, just her ranged (under the assumption that she'll always prefer her Rapier).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Gregg Reece wrote:
Shouldn't the dagger on that sheet have +4 added to its damage?
Maybe. The bonus might well not apply when thrown, and those are its thrown stats.

Re-reading it I'd agree with that assumption. Not having the daggers also listed as melee bugs me, though. They're agile and would possibly benefit from being used as your second melee attack.


Gregg Reece wrote:
Not having the daggers also listed as melee bugs me, though. They're agile and would possibly benefit from being used as your second melee attack.

Likewise, there are plenty of situations where a Rogue might draw her dagger first (intending to throw it for example, and then being ganked, or as a back-up weapon if she is Disarmed.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm not sure what the fundamental difference between:

Weapons with multiple damage types seperated by an "or" allow a player to choose either damage type before making an attack roll. If no choice is made, the default damage type is the first listed.

And

Versatile: A versatile weapon can choose any of the listed damage types before making an attack roll. If no choice is made, the default damage type is the first listed.

Why are we getting upset about that? The only mechanical difference between the two is that Versatile can be referenced by other rules without having to write out the lengthy description again.


There might also be feats that reference Versatile, providing both types of damage simultaneously or something less obvious but hopefully more useful.


Xenocrat wrote:
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. Nothing in the system forces you to neglect a stat. After all, training is just as effective as pushing a stat. Being free to seek modest modifiers in everything seems more fitting with a well-rounded character like a Rogue.

2. You don't need DEX-to-damage to compensate for low STR. An optional class feature that increased accuracy or damage in any other way would also work, and would allow for STR-based Rogues without punishment.

3. Why is DEX a straight no? Why can't your Rogue be a corpulent crime lord? Why can't your Rogue be a smuggler with a limp?

4. Why is WIS no? Slippery Mind is there, mechanically, and reckless/greedy/impulsive Rogues are a typical fantasy.

5. Why is CON a no? HP from class/race is much more important than CON in this setting.

6. Why is CHA a no? Why can't your Rogue be a repulsive toady, sucking up to everyone pathetically?

7. Why is INT a no? Streetwise, illiterate scum needs a home.

My point is that your choices shouldn't be everyone's choice. That's why Finesse Striker is ill-conceived.


There will probably be a rogue archetype eventually that will trade out Finesse Striker. Might even be in the core book.


Dilvias wrote:
There will probably be a rogue archetype eventually that will trade out Finesse Striker. Might even be in the core book.

That would work.

But I fear for all the builds out there – I'd hate to have a 5E situation in which STR and DEX are polar opposites.


Gregg Reece wrote:
Shouldn't the dagger on that sheet have +4 added to its damage?

If they chose to wield it in melee yes but its basically listed in the ranged slot so it is showing its stats used as a thrown weapon. Really with the rapier you probably should not be using the dagger to melee but if for some reason the rapier got lost/damaged and destroyed then yes the daggers clearly do qualify for the +4 damage in melee.


Secret Wizard wrote:


1. Nothing in the system forces you to neglect a stat. After all, training is just as effective as pushing a stat. Being free to seek modest modifiers in everything seems more fitting with a well-rounded character like a Rogue.

2. You don't need DEX-to-damage to compensate for low STR. An optional class feature that increased accuracy or damage in any other way would also work, and would allow for STR-based Rogues without punishment.

3. Why is DEX a straight no? Why can't your Rogue be a corpulent crime lord? Why can't your Rogue be a smuggler with a limp?

4. Why is WIS no? Slippery Mind is there, mechanically, and reckless/greedy/impulsive Rogues are a typical fantasy.

5. Why is CON a no? HP from class/race is much more important than CON in this setting.

6. Why is CHA a no? Why can't your Rogue be a repulsive toady, sucking up to everyone pathetically?

7. Why is INT a no? Streetwise, illiterate scum needs a home.

My point is that your choices shouldn't be everyone's choice. That's why Finesse Striker is ill-conceived.

If you want to make a poorly optimized character why are you complaining about a feature that lets other people be more optimized? Instead of a boost to damage demand free skill bonuses and Fort save bonuses so that you can pump Strength and be a clutz at a lot of core Rogue skills.

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
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. Nothing in the system forces you to neglect a stat. After all, training is just as effective as pushing a stat. Being free to seek modest modifiers in everything seems more fitting with a well-rounded character like a Rogue.

2. You don't need DEX-to-damage to compensate for low STR. An optional class feature that increased accuracy or damage in any other way would also work, and would allow for STR-based Rogues without punishment.

3. Why is DEX...

This feature had an interesting evolution, and that evolution is in some ways a vestige of an older stat system than the one we have now. First it was a feat, but it was definitely a feat tax, so we added it for free, but then we changed to our current ability score system and didn't reevaluate. I'm sure you guys will be able to help us on that front in the playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:


If you want to make a poorly optimized character why are you complaining about a feature that lets other people be more optimized? Instead of a boost to damage demand free skill bonuses and Fort save bonuses so that you can pump Strength and be a clutz at a lot of core Rogue skills.

Since when it's the core of the Rogue to be an acrobat?

Why is optimization only available to one definition? Why shouldn't be as readily available to other concepts in the same fantasy?

Should Fighters only be able to optimally use swords? And Wizards fireballs? Druids should only be good at fighting as bears?

Succinctly, why is the optimization window, for Rogue, drawn around, say, Garrett from Thief or the Grey Mouser, but leaves out:

- Wesley from the Princess Bride, who choked a giant and crack-climbs like a master,
- Indiana Jones fist-fighting nazis,
- Not to mention the most celebrated Rogue of all times, Conan the Barbarian.


The way Finesse Striker is now, Rogue will be the most popular one level dip in the Playtest, and that's not a good thing. I have a ton of characters with 3-4 levels in Unchained Rogue and that at least always feels like a sizeable investment for that Dex to Damage, compared to Grace feats cost or relying on Agile weapon/AoMF.
I feat a level in Rogue will be near-mandatory for any agile melee striker in Playtest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:


- Not to mention the most celebrated Rogue of all times, Conan the Barbarian.

Conan was smart, and definately a scoundrel (as all Swords & Sorcery characters tend to be)... one could even call him a rogue or knave... but he was not a "Rogue" by class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:


Succinctly, why is the optimization window, for Rogue, drawn around, say, Garrett from Thief or the Grey Mouser, but leaves out:

- Wesley from the Princess Bride, who choked a giant and crack-climbs like a master,
- Indiana Jones fist-fighting nazis,
- Not to mention the most celebrated Rogue of all times, Conan the Barbarian.

Wesley is a level 15 rogue dealing with level 5 enemies. Of course he looks impressive.

Indiana uses a whip (finesse), his fists (also finesse) and a gun (dex based). That said, he has more even stats. Probably something like 12/16/12/16/12/12 at first level. He also isn't a first level character.

Conan is a barbarian who is trained in thievery. Just because you have the thievery skill doesn't mean you are a rogue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dryxxxa wrote:

The way Finesse Striker is now, Rogue will be the most popular one level dip in the Playtest, and that's not a good thing. I have a ton of characters with 3-4 levels in Unchained Rogue and that at least always feels like a sizeable investment for that Dex to Damage, compared to Grace feats cost or relying on Agile weapon/AoMF.

I feat a level in Rogue will be near-mandatory for any agile melee striker in Playtest.

Even if Finesse Striker is available as a general feat, my fear is that we will delve into a state like 5E:

- Have heavy armor? Go STR! Dump DEX!

- Have light armor? Go DEX! Dump STR!

- Have medium armor? Are you forced to have STR by class features? No? Then go DEX! Dump STR!

When, naturally, thieves and burglars need some STR; monks and brawlers enjoy a good mix; a sword-wielding, robe-clad Wizard is always fun; and so on.

The tyranny of "you need a crazy high attribute to work" is worse than SAD/MAD, etc.


Secret Wizard wrote:


Succinctly, why is the optimization window, for Rogue, drawn around, say, Garrett from Thief or the Grey Mouser, but leaves out:

- Wesley from the Princess Bride, who choked a giant and crack-climbs like a master,
- Indiana Jones fist-fighting nazis,
- Not to mention the most celebrated Rogue of all times, Conan the Barbarian.

- Bullet-Tooth Tony who has focused on high hit-points, athletics (for grapple), lore(underworld), society(to know people) and intimidate. Likely strength-based with some intellect and charisma.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dilvias wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:


Succinctly, why is the optimization window, for Rogue, drawn around, say, Garrett from Thief or the Grey Mouser, but leaves out:

- Wesley from the Princess Bride, who choked a giant and crack-climbs like a master,
- Indiana Jones fist-fighting nazis,
- Not to mention the most celebrated Rogue of all times, Conan the Barbarian.

Wesley is a level 15 rogue dealing with level 5 enemies. Of course he looks impressive.

Indiana uses a whip (finesse), his fists (also finesse) and a gun (dex based). That said, he has more even stats. Probably something like 12/16/12/16/12/12 at first level. He also isn't a first level character.

Conan is a barbarian who is trained in thievery. Just because you have the thievery skill doesn't mean you are a rogue.

This is: An Opinion. What I wrote is also: An Opinion.

My point is that the game should not, unnecessarily, force its hand on it.

DEX-to-damage, or DEX-focus, is nowhere near core to the fantasy of the Rogue.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The ideal version, mechanically, would probably get their choice of Dex-to-damage as is shown, and Str-to-Ac, but only in light armor. Because light armor is sort of a core Rogue aspect, and enforces Dex Rogues far more than adding it to damage ever could.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
The ideal version, mechanically, would probably get their choice of Dex-to-damage as is shown, and Str-to-Ac, but only in light armor. Because light armor is sort of a core Rogue aspect, and enforces Dex Rogues far more than adding it to damage ever could.

Almost in a Darwinistic fashion with survival of the fittest builds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rogue's Dex to damage isn't the only Class Feature that ends up being useless in some builds:
Fighters focusing mainly on archery on ranged combat in general will have their Attack of Opportunity unused 90% of the time.

I think an elegant way to address this is to have a Class Feat (or more, one for each option) avaible at lv1 that allows to swap out the first Class feature + giving some benefit tied to the "non standard" playstyle; this way you make the first Class Feature relevant to how you want to play, and get the benefit of having taken a normal Class Feat at 1st level like a "standard" Melee Fighter or Dex Rogue.

In my opinion tho, i think is more important to nail down the archetypical type of characters (like say Bard playing instruments, archery Ranger, Tanky Paladin etc...), and then think about more atipical builds, which is SUPER EASY to do with the modularity offered from this system.
.
.
.
or not, this is just my opinion.


Secret Wizard wrote:
Dilvias wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:


Succinctly, why is the optimization window, for Rogue, drawn around, say, Garrett from Thief or the Grey Mouser, but leaves out:

- Wesley from the Princess Bride, who choked a giant and crack-climbs like a master,
- Indiana Jones fist-fighting nazis,
- Not to mention the most celebrated Rogue of all times, Conan the Barbarian.

Wesley is a level 15 rogue dealing with level 5 enemies. Of course he looks impressive.

Indiana uses a whip (finesse), his fists (also finesse) and a gun (dex based). That said, he has more even stats. Probably something like 12/16/12/16/12/12 at first level. He also isn't a first level character.

Conan is a barbarian who is trained in thievery. Just because you have the thievery skill doesn't mean you are a rogue.

This is: An Opinion. What I wrote is also: An Opinion.

My point is that the game should not, unnecessarily, force its hand on it.

DEX-to-damage, or DEX-focus, is nowhere near core to the fantasy of the Rogue.

Sure it is an opinion. I was just showing how you could build those characters using the rules.

When I think of the rogue, I think of someone who is cunning and quick. Someone who uses his skills over simple brawn to solve problems. It doesn't mean he doesn't have muscles, but he uses what he has more effectively. They tend to be thieving types, small, lean and mean. Someone who grew up in the bad side of town, if not on the streets. Someone who punches above his weight class and wins.

Dexterity based seems a lot more appropriate for what I imagine than strength based. It doesn't mean you can't play against type (like I said, I expect one of the early rogue archetypes will replace dex to damage with another ability). You could probably do a high strength low dexterity rogue if you wanted. But that will be the uncommon option.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
The ideal version, mechanically, would probably get their choice of Dex-to-damage as is shown, and Str-to-Ac, but only in light armor. Because light armor is sort of a core Rogue aspect, and enforces Dex Rogues far more than adding it to damage ever could.

Replying to you again, because I like the Str-to-AC idea.

So, choose Finesse Striker or Strong Parry when you take your first level in Rogue. That informs how you'll build your character.

Strong Parry
When you defend against a strike while wielding a melee weapon without the finesse property, you may add your Strength modifier to your AC instead your Dexterity modifier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:

I'm not sure what the fundamental difference between:

Weapons with multiple damage types seperated by an "or" allow a player to choose either damage type before making an attack roll. If no choice is made, the default damage type is the first listed.

And

Versatile: A versatile weapon can choose any of the listed damage types before making an attack roll. If no choice is made, the default damage type is the first listed.

Why are we getting upset about that? The only mechanical difference between the two is that Versatile can be referenced by other rules without having to write out the lengthy description again.

I wouldn't say I am getting upset about it, but I do think that there has been a trend towards legalistic codification of terms in this game and some of them are real head scratchers.

The issue with this one specifically is that

Damage: 1d8 slashing or piercing.
Shortened in tables to S/P

is a lot less cumbersome in play than

Damage: 1d8 slashing (Versatile: Piercing).
Possibly shortened in tables to a footnote explaining that (symbol = versatile) and then having the same letters represented in the table.

And if they both require a sentence or two explanation, then the number of times that this appears in the text is going to add up very quickly.

How many feats could possibly reference this rule and not be satisfied by specifying weapons with more than one possible damage type?

One or two per rule book, maybe. Character count-wise, this feels like an unnecessary possibility to reinvent the wheel over.

Again, I am not upset about this, but when we look at the number of codified words that are being added to the game, some of which seem to have huge implications and others almost none, it is starting to look cumbersome, and this is one that feels like it could easily be removed.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
The ideal version, mechanically, would probably get their choice of Dex-to-damage as is shown, and Str-to-Ac, but only in light armor. Because light armor is sort of a core Rogue aspect, and enforces Dex Rogues far more than adding it to damage ever could.

Alternatively – just working out the damage of rogues behind 2 points of Fighters and add no such feature as either of those.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
This feature had an interesting evolution, and that evolution is in some ways a vestige of an older stat system than the one we have now. First it was a feat, but it was definitely a feat tax, so we added it for free, but then we changed to our current ability score system and didn't reevaluate. I'm sure you guys will be able to help us on that front in the playtest.

What if we could do away with dex to damage at all by having the feat give a flat +2/3 or 4 damage with finesse weapons? Functionally, this would allow a rogue to make up a fair bit of dumping STR in character creation, without essentializing DEX as the default stat of rogues world wide. It would even allow strength based rogues to get the benefits of using lower damage die/more rogue-ish weapons, without forcing it.


Unicore wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

I'm not sure what the fundamental difference between:

Weapons with multiple damage types seperated by an "or" allow a player to choose either damage type before making an attack roll. If no choice is made, the default damage type is the first listed.

And

Versatile: A versatile weapon can choose any of the listed damage types before making an attack roll. If no choice is made, the default damage type is the first listed.

Why are we getting upset about that? The only mechanical difference between the two is that Versatile can be referenced by other rules without having to write out the lengthy description again.

I wouldn't say I am getting upset about it, but I do think that there has been a trend towards legalistic codification of terms in this game and some of them are real head scratchers.

The issue with this one specifically is that

Damage: 1d8 slashing or piercing.
Shortened in tables to S/P

is a lot less cumbersome in play than

Damage: 1d8 slashing (Versatile: Piercing).
Possibly shortened in tables to a footnote explaining that (symbol = versatile) and then having the same letters represented in the table.

And if they both require a sentence or two explanation, then the number of times that this appears in the text is going to add up very quickly.

How many feats could possibly reference this rule and not be satisfied by specifying weapons with more than one possible damage type?

One or two per rule book, maybe. Character count-wise, this feels like an unnecessary possibility to reinvent the wheel over.

Again, I am not upset about this, but when we look at the number of codified words that are being added to the game, some of which seem to have huge implications and others almost none, it is starting to look cumbersome, and this is one that feels like it could easily be removed.

"When wielding a weapon with more than one damage type of which one of those types is piercing..."

versus

"When wielding a versatile weapon which can do piercing damage..."

One of these is much clearer when reading. I have no idea if there will even be something that interacts with it this way. However, the fact there is a term for a weapon of this category that can be easily referenced in sentences that don't require an actual lawyer is rather handy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gregg Reece wrote:


"When wielding a weapon with more than one damage type of which one of those types is piercing..."

Why wouldn't you just say, "When wielding a weapon that can deal piercing damage..." instead?

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
This feature had an interesting evolution, and that evolution is in some ways a vestige of an older stat system than the one we have now. First it was a feat, but it was definitely a feat tax, so we added it for free, but then we changed to our current ability score system and didn't reevaluate. I'm sure you guys will be able to help us on that front in the playtest.
What if we could do away with dex to damage at all by having the feat give a flat +2/3 or 4 damage with finesse weapons? Functionally, this would allow a rogue to make up a fair bit of dumping STR in character creation, without essentializing DEX as the default stat of rogues world wide. It would even allow strength based rogues to get the benefits of using lower damage die/more rogue-ish weapons, without forcing it.

Yeah, that's an interesting proposition. It's quite similar to the solutions I came up with for PF1 in vigilante Lethal Grace and the like.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
This feature had an interesting evolution, and that evolution is in some ways a vestige of an older stat system than the one we have now. First it was a feat, but it was definitely a feat tax, so we added it for free, but then we changed to our current ability score system and didn't reevaluate. I'm sure you guys will be able to help us on that front in the playtest.
What if we could do away with dex to damage at all by having the feat give a flat +2/3 or 4 damage with finesse weapons? Functionally, this would allow a rogue to make up a fair bit of dumping STR in character creation, without essentializing DEX as the default stat of rogues world wide. It would even allow strength based rogues to get the benefits of using lower damage die/more rogue-ish weapons, without forcing it.
Yeah, that's an interesting proposition. It's quite similar to the solutions I came up with for PF1 in vigilante Lethal Grace and the like.

The class option can even scale at higher levels, which would benefit rogues, but make it more difficult for people to sneak such a powerful ability with a one level dip.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
This feature had an interesting evolution, and that evolution is in some ways a vestige of an older stat system than the one we have now. First it was a feat, but it was definitely a feat tax, so we added it for free, but then we changed to our current ability score system and didn't reevaluate. I'm sure you guys will be able to help us on that front in the playtest.
What if we could do away with dex to damage at all by having the feat give a flat +2/3 or 4 damage with finesse weapons? Functionally, this would allow a rogue to make up a fair bit of dumping STR in character creation, without essentializing DEX as the default stat of rogues world wide. It would even allow strength based rogues to get the benefits of using lower damage die/more rogue-ish weapons, without forcing it.
Yeah, that's an interesting proposition. It's quite similar to the solutions I came up with for PF1 in vigilante Lethal Grace and the like.

How about this: if you don't deal Sneak Attack damage, you deal +1 for each Sneak Attack dice?


Mark Seifter wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
This feature had an interesting evolution, and that evolution is in some ways a vestige of an older stat system than the one we have now. First it was a feat, but it was definitely a feat tax, so we added it for free, but then we changed to our current ability score system and didn't reevaluate. I'm sure you guys will be able to help us on that front in the playtest.
What if we could do away with dex to damage at all by having the feat give a flat +2/3 or 4 damage with finesse weapons? Functionally, this would allow a rogue to make up a fair bit of dumping STR in character creation, without essentializing DEX as the default stat of rogues world wide. It would even allow strength based rogues to get the benefits of using lower damage die/more rogue-ish weapons, without forcing it.
Yeah, that's an interesting proposition. It's quite similar to the solutions I came up with for PF1 in vigilante Lethal Grace and the like.

DEX to damage can still be a thing, though if it's optional the majority of Rogues are gonna feel forced to pick it. Maybe it should have some weird opportunity cost where the alternatives are mostly attractive to other builds so it's a no-brainer based on your concept.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is there a way for other classes to get finesse striking without dipping rogue similar to how other classes can get Attack of Opportunity without dipping fighter?

Paizo Employee Designer

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
This feature had an interesting evolution, and that evolution is in some ways a vestige of an older stat system than the one we have now. First it was a feat, but it was definitely a feat tax, so we added it for free, but then we changed to our current ability score system and didn't reevaluate. I'm sure you guys will be able to help us on that front in the playtest.
What if we could do away with dex to damage at all by having the feat give a flat +2/3 or 4 damage with finesse weapons? Functionally, this would allow a rogue to make up a fair bit of dumping STR in character creation, without essentializing DEX as the default stat of rogues world wide. It would even allow strength based rogues to get the benefits of using lower damage die/more rogue-ish weapons, without forcing it.
Yeah, that's an interesting proposition. It's quite similar to the solutions I came up with for PF1 in vigilante Lethal Grace and the like.
How about this: if you don't deal Sneak Attack damage, you deal +1 for each Sneak Attack dice?

We actually have a feat to just flat-out deal half sneak attack damage whenever you don't sneak attack. I'm definitely looking at responses and alternatives that can help give rogues more options while still making sure Dex-based rogues are awesome.


ChibiNyan wrote:
DEX to damage can still be a thing, though if it's optional the majority of Rogues are gonna feel forced to pick it. Maybe it should have some weird opportunity cost where the alternatives are mostly attractive to other builds so it's a no-brainer based on your concept.

Maybe similar to the bard there could be a level one option that doesn't lock you in to any specific path, especially if you can come back later and pick up the others.

Something like
Assassin (Dex to Damage)
Acrobat ([A][A] to move three times your stride length and ignore difficult terrain)
Scoundrel (Some bonus bluff in/out of combat)
Thug (Some bonus to intimidating in/out of combat)


Mark Seifter wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
This feature had an interesting evolution, and that evolution is in some ways a vestige of an older stat system than the one we have now. First it was a feat, but it was definitely a feat tax, so we added it for free, but then we changed to our current ability score system and didn't reevaluate. I'm sure you guys will be able to help us on that front in the playtest.
What if we could do away with dex to damage at all by having the feat give a flat +2/3 or 4 damage with finesse weapons? Functionally, this would allow a rogue to make up a fair bit of dumping STR in character creation, without essentializing DEX as the default stat of rogues world wide. It would even allow strength based rogues to get the benefits of using lower damage die/more rogue-ish weapons, without forcing it.
Yeah, that's an interesting proposition. It's quite similar to the solutions I came up with for PF1 in vigilante Lethal Grace and the like.
How about this: if you don't deal Sneak Attack damage, you deal +1 for each Sneak Attack dice?
We actually have a feat to just flat-out deal half sneak attack damage whenever you don't sneak attack. I'm definitely looking at responses and alternatives that can help give rogues more options while still making sure Dex-based rogues are awesome.

Oh that's pretty neat!

It could work as something like:

Sneak Attack
Whenever you hit an enemy with an agile or finesse weapon, you deal an additional X damage. If that enemy is flat-footed, you deal Xd6 instead.

That way, Sneak Attack feels like something you are constantly using, and if you catch an enemy flat-footed, it's even more effective.

This would compensate the "feel-bads" of Rogues who can't get enemies flat-footed and feel like they are wasting their features.


I like the idea of the 'core' rogue becomming the "assassin's path" with other paths that focus on other criminal elements besides.

The "Sabateour's Path" could focus on Int-based abilities, gaining Sabatoge (An ability designed to damage objects, mechanical hazards, and constructs exceptionally well) instead of Sneak Attack.

The "Charlatan's Path" would leverage on Charisma to inflict negative conditions (like a non-magical bad-touch Bard).


Mark Seifter wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
This feature had an interesting evolution, and that evolution is in some ways a vestige of an older stat system than the one we have now. First it was a feat, but it was definitely a feat tax, so we added it for free, but then we changed to our current ability score system and didn't reevaluate. I'm sure you guys will be able to help us on that front in the playtest.
What if we could do away with dex to damage at all by having the feat give a flat +2/3 or 4 damage with finesse weapons? Functionally, this would allow a rogue to make up a fair bit of dumping STR in character creation, without essentializing DEX as the default stat of rogues world wide. It would even allow strength based rogues to get the benefits of using lower damage die/more rogue-ish weapons, without forcing it.
Yeah, that's an interesting proposition. It's quite similar to the solutions I came up with for PF1 in vigilante Lethal Grace and the like.
How about this: if you don't deal Sneak Attack damage, you deal +1 for each Sneak Attack dice?
We actually have a feat to just flat-out deal half sneak attack damage whenever you don't sneak attack. I'm definitely looking at responses and alternatives that can help give rogues more options while still making sure Dex-based rogues are awesome.

That sounds pretty awesome. I really like that you are looking to make dex based rogues awesome, they should be. My knee-jerk reaction is that leaning into dex to damage while giving a feat tax for not using finesse weapons doesn’t feel very good. I appreciate that you are looking for feedback on how to make this work. Why not lean on the crits? Allow the rogues to deal sneak attack damage on crits as well as against flat-footed enemies. The finesse rogues are already going to focus on having a high attack by putting everything into DEX for their defense as well, so seeing that bonus damage more often can be a great benefit. But that also benefits STR Rogues...

Are we still not able to stealth in combat? If a Rogue could duck behind an ally or an object and literally sneak attack from the shadows they get more damage and benefit to focusing on their DEX based skill. If the math is as tight as it is, a character having 18 points in their DEX will get a bigger benefit to using that skill than someone with 18 in STR. Just an idea.

Edit: I really also want to add another big deal I have with this: a I want Finesse fighting to be different from Strength fighting. If I say a I am a Finesse martial, and somebody asks how that works, my answer shouldn’t be “Exactly the same as any other martial, but my stat I use for attack and damage also boosts my AC, Reflex saves, and most instances of Initiative. DEX to damage doesn’t set a difference between the fighting styles, except STR characters have to rely more on armor.

Edit 2: You know, I forgot about weapon abilities. If Finesse weapons have enough abilities that set them apart, which it looks like the Rapier is at least very distinct, then that would definitely be a good way of setting the fighting styles apart. Gotta make finesse weapons something that people want to use, but not want to use otherwise because of the lack of damage.

Liberty's Edge

Brock Landers wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
Conan was smart, and definately a scoundrel (as all Swords & Sorcery characters tend to be)... one could even call him a rogue or knave... but he was not a "Rogue" by class.
Yes, he is; Conan is actually a perfect example of 3rd Ed-style Multii-Classing.

The correct class for Conan in PF1 is Slayer, maybe with a dash of Barbarian, rather than Rogue per se.

We don't know enough details about PF2 Classes to know which one is most appropriate. Or enough about PF2 multiclassing to know if he's multiclassed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Voss wrote:


See, I don't think giving up the third attack (and its big penalty) is a big deal at all. So losing an action doesn't strike me as a problem for monsters. It can be a big deal for PCs, but that comes from a need to contribute and an action economy that naturally skews in the favor of numerous enemies.

Even accepting the premise that losing the -10 attack is no big deal, there are several problems with that conclusion. First of all, claws are agile and IIRC so are bites, and together they make up a sizable portion of the attacks aimed at PCs. So there's already better odds there.

Also, lots of enemies have special abilities which take place across multiple actions. Consider the zombie, which has Slow and only 2 actions per turn. It's first attack grabs the enemy. On it's second attack, it bites into them for massive damage. A zombie which has both of its actions and starts adjacent to a character can decimate them, and retributive strike may be what cuts the zombie down before they can do that.

Then there are spells, which can easily account for 1-2 actions and then still leave the caster an action for a full accuracy strike. They lose out on this if they have to move.

Heck, even something as basic as a shield user loses out-- if they spend an action moving, they either don't get a second attack or don't get to raise the shield.

Denying an enemy actions is always good. How good it is varies based on what the enemy is and the exact tactical situation. I will note that the enemies most likely to have nothing to do but attack probably have a lot of overlap with enemies not smart enough to avoid Retributive Strike. More on that below...

Quote:
Ah. I think I see some of the disconnect. I've never had a 10' hallway fight, unless its been a single enemy like a gelatinous cube. Fights tend to be in bigger rooms/caves or outside, and given the nature of D&D, the party are the home invaders and tend to charge in.

Even in a large room, Seelah and her squishy friend can make Retributive Strike unavoidable by just putting the squishy's back to a wall or other piece of terrain.

Quote:
Part of it too is the meta of fights. Enemies often go for whoever's closest, divide up so its 'fair,' are assigned randomly, or there is a 'gentleman's agreement' and they tend to focus on fighter types and avoid the squishies. For most of those scenarios, this kind of reactive protection doesn't matter.

In my experience, enemy targeting tactics vary wildly between enemies.

-Mindless junk like skeletons: just attacks whoever is closest.
--Predatory animals: starts by attacking the easiest looking prey for it to pick off, then lashes out at whoever causes it the most pain.
--Well trained soldiers: solid tactics and reactive to a dynamic battlefield.
--Goblins: WHatever the hell strikes their fancy.
--Hobgoblins: see well trained soldiers, but more likely to target arcane casters because they hate "elf magic."

That first category will almost never wind up avoiding Retributive Strike. The second might or might not. Smart foes may use tactics like you describe to avoid it, but probably not until they've seen it used at least once, and if they have anything more interesting to do than 3 attacks in a round then they are losing out.

Quote:
So, rogue. Definitely a useful party member.

On this, we agree.

Quote:
The pregen could use a summary of what makes an enemy flat footed. As is, gives no indication if sneak attack will happen often or rarely.

Listing just the basic rules feels like a lot to ask for a pre-gen, especially one as wordy as Merisiel's. It also seems to be a very long list of stuff which causes flat-footed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

By the way, I really like Dex-to-damage on Rogues. It allows them to really feel effortless.

551 to 600 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