| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might just be that the name “Thief” makes me shudder. I hate it for many reasons. One is that so many people (including some I game with) referred to all rogues as “thieves” even in 3rd edition and played them as straight up kleptomaniacs
I think they chose the terms Ruffian, Thief and Scoundrel to represent Strength, Dexterity and Charisma-based Rogues. And clearly, I imagine a Thief as dexterous, so it kind of fits.
In my opinion, if you go for a campaign with lots of social interactions, you can play a Scoundrel Rogue without having a build that is specifically optimized for it. Now, if you create a character for PFS, I would really avoid to play a Scoundrel Rogue just because I like the name of it.
Also, you should make a distinction between game terms and roleplay. No one on Golarion will ever say: I'm a Rogue. This is a game term with a complete different meaning in roleplay. So, you can play a Thief Rogue as a lawful man who will never steal anything and it's perfectly ok. The class you choose has implications on the roleplay of your character but there's some freedom. And the Rogue class is clearly one that is broad enough to be used for very different characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What does Charming Liar actually *do*? It seems to be me that if you had a Critical Success on a Deception check to convince someone you were important, you would de fact improve their attitude without this feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I crazy in thinking that the whole Poison Weapon concept works poorly without some Alchemist dedication going on, similar to wanting to craft snares works poorly without some Ranger dedication?
Especially on both before you take the level 8 (and 16 by MC requirements) Powerful feat that enables you to use your class DC instead of the poison/snare DC? I dunno. I could see it being a fun build but definitely not cost effective for the bulk of the game.
And until you have some of that going on, I assume you really want to poison only occasionally, not every shot.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it a trap feat, because it still can really help stack damage on a single shot without any investment beyond the basic rogue feats, but it certainly is a side of the class that you really need to focus on and build around carefully or you will only see it being an extra little bit instead of a big part of what you can do.
If any other Martial Class had a Level 4 Feat that said:
1-Action
Add +1D4 Damage to your next Strike
It would be fantastic. This Feat does that and more. I cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly think this is a bad Feat. Not to mention that it goes up to 2D4 at 8 and 4D4 at 12. That's in addition to Sneak Attack Damage.
What does Charming Liar actually *do*? It seems to be me that if you had a Critical Success on a Deception check to convince someone you were important, you would de fact improve their attitude without this feat.
It essentially lets you use Deception instead of Diplomacy to Make an Impression.
I'm not a fan of Social Feats in general, but that's just due to my play style.
Am I crazy in thinking that the whole Poison Weapon concept works poorly without some Alchemist dedication going on, similar to wanting to craft snares works poorly without some Ranger dedication?
Especially on both before you take the level 8 (and 16 by MC requirements) Powerful feat that enables you to use your class DC instead of the poison/snare DC? I dunno. I could see it being a fun build but definitely not cost effective for the bulk of the game.
And until you have some of that going on, I assume you really want to poison only occasionally, not every shot.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it a trap feat, because it still can really help stack damage on a single shot without any investment beyond the basic rogue feats, but it certainly is a side of the class that you really need to focus on and build around carefully or you will only see it being an extra little bit instead of a big part of what you can do.
If any other Martial Class had a Level 4 Feat that said:
1-Action
Add +1D4 Damage to your next StrikeIt would be fantastic. This Feat does that and more. I cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly think this is a bad Feat. Not to mention that it goes up to 2D4 at 8 and 4D4 at 12. That's in addition to Sneak Attack Damage.
Just to say, that 4d4 feat is an uncommon one earned a good ways into an adventure path, so not something players can rely on as an allowed increase option.
It's pretty strong on a class that was already going to make only one attack per turn and maybe had an action to spare. Probably not great out of there. But it does also enable you to put any kind of poison (there is no level limit, so if you find something very high level, it's totally fair game) onto your strike.
Yeah. The feat is self-sustainable and you also have the flexibility of using more expensive stuff to do even more. You have roughly 5 actions to do it. Since it lasts until the end of your next turn.
The only true danger, though, is being whacked in the face by an AoO. But then again, even raising your weapon to Parry triggers it, so it's not far out of line (That doesn't mean that Parry weapon should have the manipulate trait. I strongly disagree with that).
Yeah. The feat is self-sustainable and you also have the flexibility of using more expensive stuff to do even more. You have roughly 5 actions to do it. Since it lasts until the end of your next turn.
The only true danger, though, is being whacked in the face by an AoO. But then again, even raising your weapon to Parry triggers it, so it's not far out of line (That doesn't mean that Parry weapon should have the manipulate trait. I strongly disagree with that).
Plus, Bows are Piercing Weapons.
Yeah. The feat is self-sustainable and you also have the flexibility of using more expensive stuff to do even more. You have roughly 5 actions to do it. Since it lasts until the end of your next turn.
The only true danger, though, is being whacked in the face by an AoO. But then again, even raising your weapon to Parry triggers it, so it's not far out of line (That doesn't mean that Parry weapon should have the manipulate trait. I strongly disagree with that).
Guess I feel that applying poison is something you should do from a bit more safety anyways. Gotta say, getting bopped by a monster because you stopped fighting to apply some juice to your dagger while they're three feet away doesn't seem unfair.
Figure it's more something you paste on an arrow or put on your blade before rushing in. I think generally if you're already in range and want to take two actions before striding away, just swinging a couple times would likely net you much better damage, right?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What does Charming Liar actually *do*? It seems to be me that if you had a Critical Success on a Deception check to convince someone you were important, you would de fact improve their attitude without this feat.
One of my major complaints about skill feats back in the playtest and still true now is that there are quite a few feats that actively make the game WORSE by their mere presence. If the feat didn't exist many GMs would have given something very like what the feat gives anyway.
My favourite examples are the legendary feats that say "You're well known". In my experience, in a campaign where this kind of thing matters then GMs would have done that automatically if they thought it appropriate. Now that it is gated behind a feat GMs will tend to NOT do it unless the character bought the feat.
Charming Liar is arguably another example of this.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure that really follows here. Convincing someone that a Lie is true and making them like you aren't the same thing and wouldn't necessarily happen to coincide with each other (barring some specific sorts of lies).
Someone accuses you of breaking into a buiding that you broke into, but you Lie about it. Charming Liar means that if you lie exceptionally well, not only will they believe you but they'll think you're a really cool person and like you more. I'm not sure that really qualifies as something that should be a default assumption of lying.
I'd still call Charming Liar bad, but more because it's a feat that only works on a crit.
Yeah. The feat is self-sustainable and you also have the flexibility of using more expensive stuff to do even more. You have roughly 5 actions to do it. Since it lasts until the end of your next turn.
The only true danger, though, is being whacked in the face by an AoO. But then again, even raising your weapon to Parry triggers it, so it's not far out of line (That doesn't mean that Parry weapon should have the manipulate trait. I strongly disagree with that).
Guess I feel that applying poison is something you should do from a bit more safety anyways. Gotta say, getting bopped by a monster because you stopped fighting to apply some juice to your dagger while they're three feet away doesn't seem unfair.
Figure it's more something you paste on an arrow or put on your blade before rushing in. I think generally if you're already in range and want to take two actions before striding away, just swinging a couple times would likely net you much better damage, right?
Poison Weapon SHOULD have manipulate trait since You're doing a very complex activity in a heartbeat, it should trigger AoO for sure. But Parrying? Definitely not, which was what I've tried to say. Make no sense that while getting defensive you open yourself for an attack.
My idea is that you can use 1-action to poison your weapon then attack twice, hopefully while flanking already. Otherwise, just poison, stride and strike. But one thing is for certain, not having things to do with your third action really sucks, so an extra 1d4 damage doesn't sound terrible, specially if you invest the money an can dish out some severe damage.
I'm not sure that really follows here. Convincing someone that a Lie is true and making them like you aren't the same thing and wouldn't necessarily happen to coincide with each other (barring some specific sorts of lies).
Someone accuses you of breaking into a buiding that you broke into, but you Lie about it. Charming Liar means that if you lie exceptionally well, not only will they believe you but they'll think you're a really cool person and like you more. I'm not sure that really qualifies as something that should be a default assumption of lying.
I'd still call Charming Liar bad, but more because it's a feat that only works on a crit.
So if you use the Deception skill and convince someone of the lie, "I was sent by the Duke to help you," with a critical success, what is their attitude toward you? Charming Liar only specifically works where you tell a big lie that might influence someone. It seems if you do that and success, much less critically succeed, you already get that result. This feels like a "Prone Shooter" feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Parrying? Definitely not, which was what I've tried to say. Make no sense that while getting defensive you open yourself for an attack.
Gameplay wise it may feel bad, but in a real world sense someone focusing on defense will take more attacks.
So it makes sense, it just feels bad/wrong.
Although in reality AoO are so rare now I think it is more of a white room problem than anything else. It would have been better to have it work as a stance (like the monk's) imo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But Parrying? Definitely not, which was what I've tried to say. Make no sense that while getting defensive you open yourself for an attack.Gameplay wise it may feel bad, but in a real world sense someone focusing on defense will take more attacks.
So it makes sense, it just feels bad/wrong.
Although in reality AoO are so rare now I think it is more of a white room problem than anything else. It would have been better to have it work as a stance (like the monk's) imo.
Age of Ashes sure love its AoOs. So far, we've had many enemies with attacks of opportunity, some being very nasty, like the Vrock, which has a 2-attacks AoO without MAP, and I gotta say that receiving 54 damage to heal my ally was no the best deal. That's what probably skewered my view on this, that and the fact that my ranger (the one focusing on Parry) simply retrained after level 6, because it was too taxing on actions and the benefit was meager when the threat of having an action blocked on a hit (instead of the usual block on a critical only).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gameplay wise it may feel bad, but in a real world sense someone focusing on defense will take more attacks.So it makes sense, it just feels bad/wrong.
Disagree completely.
The flavor of an AoO is that the enemy is doing something that leaves them undefended and you capitalize on that opening.
The notion that taking up a defensive posture creates an opening in your defenses is pretty much the opposite of making sense, at least imo.
Scoundrel clearly is currently the awkward little cousin of the other two rackets. I don't know that much of anyone here disagrees with that, because while it definitely can be a fine and useful build, it requires more circumstance and luck to happen.
The buffed feint as a core class feature could be really great! But obviously, if it happens for you once over six levels, either your party comp, adventure style, or sheer luck is just not in its favor. Nothing to really do about that. I have a player who is a snare-crafting ranger, and boy after dropping only a handful of snares by (almost level 8), I'm surprised she hasn't asked to retrain. That's a party comp issue--or more precisely, a fellow-players issue. But I can see parallels. You want to use a cool sounding feature but it just never works to come into play. That absolutely sucks. Doesn't matter if it's the game or your table or the adventure y'all are in.
The ruffian racket has the most going for it. Thief is plain but is more one-stat focused so it's easier to dump STR and just live life how you want. Scoundrel offers you a much more situational boost.
That said, ruffians and thiefs and scoundrels largely play the same in combat aside from their very short little feat trees.
Thief:
- can apply flat-footed on a crit (not impressive but doesn't hurt)
- can use debilitations applying extra damage (nice!) or flat-footed (pretty redundant by this point...)
Ruffian:
- can apply frightened on a crit (strong condition and unique to this racket I think)
- can use debilitations applying specific physical damage weakness (hella nice) or clumsy (not as strong as frightened but still solid)
Scoundrel:
- can apply a strong perception/reflex penalty (good to try to slink away after in the first case, good for teams in the second--but both very situational, on top of the feint in the first place)
- can use debilitations removing reactions (nice but niche, but I think late-game this could be actually very strong--also great for killing orcs) or the ability to grant flanking (super situational)
The only thing Scoundrel offers that the other two don't is an additional skill training. That's instead of choosing between dumping/mostly ignoring DEX or STR.
So yeah, in most cases, scoundrel is pretty clearly the weakest option. I can't find any way to disagree with that. It's interesting, and I think shaving away reactions could be crazy clutch in a number of circumstances, but for most any campaign scoundrels are going to be directly weakening a player's ability to participate.
Frankly, I don't think thieves are all that strong either. Despite not being able to apply flat-footed so simply by themselves, I think ruffians look like they have by far the best toolkit. Though, all that said, the vast majority of your rogue is not determined either by your racket or its accompanying feats.
Age of Ashes sure love its AoOs. So far, we've had many enemies with attacks of opportunity, some being very nasty, like the Vrock, which has a 2-attacks AoO without MAP, and I gotta say that receiving 54 damage to heal my ally was no the best deal. That's what probably skewered my view on this, that and the fact that my ranger (the one focusing on Parry) simply retrained after level 6, because it was too taxing on actions and the benefit was meager when the threat of having an action blocked on a hit (instead of the usual block on a critical only).But Parrying? Definitely not, which was what I've tried to say. Make no sense that while getting defensive you open yourself for an attack.Gameplay wise it may feel bad, but in a real world sense someone focusing on defense will take more attacks.
So it makes sense, it just feels bad/wrong.
Although in reality AoO are so rare now I think it is more of a white room problem than anything else. It would have been better to have it work as a stance (like the monk's) imo.
My players should encounter that fight tonight. They've seen, what, two, three fights where enemies had AoOs? I feel like it never comes up, and I'm sad I can't constantly surprise them.
My players should encounter that fight tonight. They've seen, what, two, three fights where enemies had AoOs? I feel like it never comes up, and I'm sad I can't constantly surprise them.
The Charau-ka with dragon features(forgot the name) have Reach AoOs that disrupt actions on hit, that's really powerful, many of the barbarian Charau-ka as well (can't say its standard, though, my GM likes to add a couple of things). Later on (we're in book 3) the party will fight a lot of members of the Triad and some of the enemy types have AoO and some other abilities that make them nasty enemies (they trip you on critical hits, which is very likely and they stomp you down with extra damage because you're on the ground).
I just think that it wasn't as rare as I initially thought.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a decent argument to be made for a Scoundrel-as-Duelist that sticks with targets and doesn't need their party to focus a singular target, and debuffs enemies (which is the focus of the build, look at it's variant on Debilitating Strike at 10th Level), I'd take:
Nimble Dodge
Distracting Feint (allows you to make allied reflex saves more than 10% more effective)
Reactive Pursuit
Skirmish Strike
Quick Draw
Tactical Debilitation
Critical Debilitation
Leave an Opening
Obviously the purpose of this build is to be a character who can operate somewhat on their own away from the other melee in the party, so it uses feints to get sneak attack. Then (eventually) quick draws into their face, it also has control options, with the ability to shut down enemy flanks and reactions.
You can switch out Reactive pursuit and Skirmish Strike and put in feats that reward you for standard backstab shenanigans, but imo its not what the Scoundrel is for, ditto for getting Quick Draw earlier in place of distracting feint.
Other folks are also correct in that its the best starting point fora rogue base Magical Trickster, but thats a more complex build, since you would also want to work out a way to true strike reliably.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, the Scoundrel functions more like a skill-based character. If you refuse to do any of the things the Scoundrel works well with, no wonder it looks bad. Similarly, if your GM just lets enemies stand in a flank forever, it's going to look worse.
Scoundrel Feint means that you don't need to flank until the end of your next turn, and have a decent chance at giving that to your allies as well - even to ranged characters, who can't normally benefit from it.
Also Distracting Feint is amazing, I don't know what you're on. It lets you impart a penalty that's really not something that's not replicable by anyone else, and is easily achievable. It helps anything that targets Reflex, including Trip and a lot of spells. The Perception penalty is usually less relevant, but can still come up depending on what allies use.
So if you use the Deception skill and convince someone of the lie, "I was sent by the Duke to help you," with a critical success, what is their attitude toward you? Charming Liar only specifically works where you tell a big lie that might influence someone. It seems if you do that and success, much less critically succeed, you already get that result. This feels like a "Prone Shooter" feat.
They help you with whatever task you lied about, but nothing more. With the Charming Liar Feat, not only do they do that, but they genuinely like you and will help you with other things too.
If you lie to the local cops that you are the Feds and are taking over, and you Critically Succeed, they're going to believe you, but they're not going to like you. Charming Liar makes you into a charming Matthew Mcconaughey, so they both believe you and, gosh darn it, they like you too.
I don't see any such limitations under Deception. It says on a success, they believe you. They might "genuinely like you" but that's pretty irrelevant compared to their base attitude. I am pretty sure you wouldn't even assert this if Charming Liar didn't exist.
Yeah see that's actually incorrect, and I can just add yours to the list of names that have "contributed" (nothing of substance) to this thread without reading the OP or the posts following it.
[CUT]
So, to be clear I wasn't expecting to derive maximum value from feinting every turn in combat from the start, but I thought it would be more than literally once through 6 levels. Even with a Cleric of Nethys, Paladin of Iomedae, Fighter, and Wizard making the rest of my party....
So, is what you are trying to say that you don't find the Scoundrel, very scoundrelly? That it tends to be more Rogue and less Scoundrel, with not much in there that says "Scoundrel", like how a "Swashbuckler" very much seems like a "Swashbuckler" right from the get go. I would have to say that you are RIGHT, it doesn't look like you are quite getting the build of Rogue you want, the feel you want, right out of the gate. Maybe the Advanced players guide would help when it comes out, maybe being "Swashbuckler" fits more. But it is disappointing and it stinks.
I think that part of this issue some of the following issues.
Rogue is the best Exploration class, their abilities are good in combat, but they truly Shine and "Rogue" or "Scoundrel" out of combat. With all of their skills and skill feats, that where they lay.
Secondly, there are more "Scoundrel" oriented feats (high charisma) but they are only for a certain variety of "Scoundrel Rogue"
Distracting Feint
You're Next
Dread striker
These entail a lot of Chr, and some dark roleplaying, Fit some scoundrels well, not others.
Final thoughts, Is it just this character that is a disappointment? or do you see many other characters that you might build could head this way as well. I hope it is the first, because the second can only be alleviated by many off-sets (group, campaign, etc)
Nightfox
2) Their Racket gives them the ability to make someone Flatfooted against every attack you make for two turns, meaning they don't need support from teammates to set up Sneak Attack, and the Crit Success result is a solid debuff when it lands. This feature also means they're one of the better Racket options for ranged Rogues, as they can more easily take advantage of the debuff Feinting applies and don't need to spread out their physical stats as much.I'm a bit confused by this, given feinting doesn't apply to non-melee attacks, unless there's a feat I've missed. I think all the rackets are potentially equally good at using a bow, since none of their traits apply, no? You also need to be within melee range of the target to feint and generate the benefit.
Ah, I missed that part. Very unfortunate.
I was busy, and I am responding to an old post, comment #35.
As to the points being made about system understanding and complexity - perhaps the true answer is mentioned in this post above. In that what was actually meant was “non classic builds”
So it is much easier to make a traditional backstabbing rogue, and anti undead cleric, a barbarian that rages for loads of damage ...than say... a scoundrel rogue ?
The strength of Pathfinder over Dungeons & Dragons 4th and 5th Editions is that Pathfinder characters are more customizeable. Players can copy characters from fiction and folklore if the fictional character is not too powerful or too dependent on a particular magic system or historical setting.
For a character based on a dashing swordsman who is more likely to talk or trick his way out of trouble than fight his way out, such as the Scarlet Pimpernel, Captain Jack Sparrow of Pirates of the Caribbean, or Dread Pirate Roberts of The Princess Bride, go for scoundrel rogue. Some other charismatic swashbucklers, such as Robin Hood, Zorro, or the Three Musketeers, are not rogues, but until Paizo releases the swashbuckler class in the APG or invents a light-armor archetype for champion, scoundrel rogue might be the best fit.
I don't see RoscoeDaLib's rogue build as a lack of system mastery. Instead, I see it as a misguided attempt to make a scoundrel act like a melee damage dealer when his party already had better melee damage dealers. The scoundrel can serve as a melee character much better than the time I saw a newbie player say his wizard was pulling out a dagger to fight in melee, but the martial classes will alway be better at melee. Rogues sacrifice martial ability for more ability to solve problems with skills. RoscoeDaLib learned that the melee sacrifice for the scoundrel to be great at social interactions was greater than he expected.
I am looking at making a scoundrel with a rapier. I note what you are saying about the bow but I don’t see that in my vision for the character
I also doubt I will have electric arc as I think storyline reasons might push me towards aberrant bloodline (at least in a potential home game that might be switching to 2E where our group was attacked by an aberrant horror or some description on a boat trip and we last ended all washed up on the shore)
As SuperBidi said back in comment #40, thief racket is better for a rogue that always relies on a rapier. Ruffian racket would not chose a finesse weapon like a rapier. Thus, I presume that you want to augment the use of the rapier with spells.
My wife's PF1 character Wealday Addams was a melee sorceress of abberant bloodline. She specialized in the dangerous power of touch-attack spells. She put up with arcane spell failure from armor until she could take Arcane Armor Training, but PF2 is free of that penalty. The extended reach from her bloodine, which is the Tentacular Limbs focus spell in PF2, added extra protection. She could immobilize an enemy with Black Tentacles or stay up a wall with Spider Climb out of reach of their melee attacks.
Tentacular Limbs won't help with a rapier. To make it useful, the scoundrel needs a touch spell or claws (have you considered lizardfolk ancestry?). The occult spells given by the abberant bloodline include a touch cantrip Chill Touch. This spell deals the same damage as the arcane spell Produce Flame, which has a 30-foot range, so it looks inferior. But it has a subtle advantage. It does not require an attack roll; instead, it requires a Fortitude save. This means it does not increment the multiple attack penalty, because technically it is not an attack. Attacking with both the rapier and Chill Touch in a single turn involves no multiple attack penalties. That's great.
It also means that Chill Touch never gets sneak attack damage, not even with Magical Trickster, so forget about Magical Trickster.
The 1st-level occult spells have no touch spells. Fortunately, the granted spells of abberant bloodline grant Spider Sting. It also is not an attack.
The enfeebled part of Spider Sting will always be useful, but eventually the 1d4 damage will be trivial. You can replace it with Illusionary Object. Create an illusionary dense fog cloud around an opponent's head and you will become hidden to him long enough to get one good sneak attack to his perfectly visible vital organs. You may need to negotiate with the GM to agree on an illusion that gives you an unfair advantage until disbelieved. Or imagine using Illusionary Disguise to appear 6 inches shorter with shorter arms to gain a long-lasting circumstance bonus to feint, "I didn't think the short guy could reach that last 6 inches."
The 2nd-level occult touch spell is Touch of Idiocy, also not an attack.
Nevertheless, due to the limitations on the number of spells granted by the Sorcerer Multiclass Archetype, most of the scoundrel's touch attacks will be Chill Touch. If that seems too boring, then don't bother with Tentacular Limbs and touch spells. However, the bloodline focus spells are the archetype's only expression of the bloodline. If you don't want Tentacular Limbs, then Hag bloodline is just as good for occult spells.
|
Scoundrel Feint means that you don't need to flank until the end of your next turn, and have a decent chance at giving that to your allies as well - even to ranged characters, who can't normally benefit from it.
Doesn’t benefit ranged attacks or spell attacks at all
When you successfully Feint, the target is flat-footed against melee attacks you attempt against it until the end of your next turn. On a critical success, the target is flat-footed against all melee attacks until the end of your next turn, not just yours.
Also with a fighter and a champion, the enemies trying to move out of flanking could be worse than them just sitting there
Scoundrel Feint means that you don't need to flank until the end of your next turn, and have a decent chance at giving that to your allies as well - even to ranged characters, who can't normally benefit from it.Doesn’t benefit ranged attacks or spell attacks at all
When you successfully Feint, the target is flat-footed against melee attacks you attempt against it until the end of your next turn. On a critical success, the target is flat-footed against all melee attacks until the end of your next turn, not just yours.Also with a fighter and a champion, the enemies trying to move out of flanking could be worse than them just sitting there
Very good point, though melee spell attacks like Produce Flame would still qualify.
Regardless, Step exists. Corners exist. There's a lot of ways to mess with flanking. (And let's be honest, sitting in between a fighter/rogue vs getting out of the flank is really not great action-wise.)
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are the second person to say that what happened is a result of my lack of understanding of a complex system. So, I will make the same request of you as I did them. Please elaborate and demonstrate the complexities of a scoundrel rogue via a build with features and elements that have not been discussed here.
Picking Scoundrel was the key mistake you made, so this is not quite workable. Not because Scoundrel isn't good if done right, in the right party, but because it probably is the worst of the three Rackets, and certainly the hardest to make work properly, and fails to synchronize well with your party to boot.. Several people have posted solutions, but most of those involve either a different party composition or a very different character thematically.
For your character, in your PC group, with your stats and goals, you should have gone Thief. Not doing so was a mistake, which you have since corrected.
Again, I don't want to come off as toxic about this request, but it can sound quite condescending when people just dismiss what I perceive as a very blatant design flaw as "ignorance of a complex system".
You picked the objectively weakest choice of the three Rackets, at least in your particular party, and then complain about its weakness. That is not indicative that you had a full understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of different builds going in.
That's not a value judgment. You're new to the game and that's a very normal thing to happen in new games, but it's still true and a large part of your problem.
The only valid point someone has made in this context is that scoundrel is not good with a party with as many melee as I have. Which, even that I was aware could have been an issue.
Scoundrel has a very specific, and fairly narrow, range of efficacy. It's good at a very few specific things, but fewer than Thief or Ruffian. That's not immediately obvious to new players, which is indeed a problem with the system. It's a much less severe example than such things in PF1, and actually almost the only such example in the corebook (Alchemist is the other, bigger, one).
I'm not saying the system has no problems, I'm saying that the particular combination of them you're suffering from, while unfortunate, is both a rarity in the system even for new players, and easily avoided by more experienced ones. It's not that you don't have a problem, it's that it's a rare and highly specific one that doesn't warrant the degree of condemnation your initial post levels at the system as a whole.
So, unless people are just saying that scoundrel rogues are unplayable with 2+ melee in your party I don't see the complexity here. Please point it out.
The complexity is in understanding how things fit together, especially in combat.
Your complaints about not having anything good to do with a third action while actively avoiding Feats that add additional, useful, actions is the one that leaps out to me (there are a lot of good 'third action' Feats out there, finding one is one of those fundamental things that will really help you).
But the complaint that your 2nd, 4th, and 6th level Feat choices are bad is also very untrue if you understand the ins and outs of combat (Dread Striker is by far the best Feat at 4th level mechanically, for example, yet you don't even mention it, and as others note Poison Weapon is also very solid despite your poor analysis of it). The choices you made may have been bad (though I think they're fine), but your feeling that most of the options are bad is objectively false. There are a few bad ones (including Twist the Knife), but most are very good if used properly.
And complaining about Skill Feats being 'shallow' also strikes me as incorrect, at least by 6th level (due to small numbers of books, you can run out of good ones eventually at higher levels), but let's examine some good Skill Feats just looking at the social skills and Stealth:
Group Impression, Hobnobber, Lie To Me, Intimidating Glare, and Courtly Graces (okay, this one is Society, but it remains great) all leap to mind immediately just from the 1st level Feats. Trick Magic Item is also fabulous.
But from 2nd level on, you also have access to Glad-Hand, Connections (if you took Courtly Graces), Confabulator, and Quiet Allies (which is fabulous). This list is not exhaustive.
That's 10 options for six choices, so I guess the options are getting slim by 6th, but at 7th you suddenly gain access to the Master level feats and it's pretty open again.
You are the second person to say that what happened is a result of my lack of understanding of a complex system. So, I will make the same request of you as I did them. Please elaborate and demonstrate the complexities of a scoundrel rogue via a build with features and elements that have not been discussed here.Picking Scoundrel was the key mistake you made, so this is not quite workable. Not because Scoundrel isn't good if done right, in the right party, but because it probably is the worst of the three Rackets, and certainly the hardest to make work properly, and fails to synchronize well with your party to boot.. Several people have posted solutions, but most of those involve either a different party composition or a very different character thematically.
So what I hear you saying is that picking Scoundrel because that is the kind of character you want to play is a mistake. Instead you should synchronize your class and feat choices with the other players so you aren't tactically weak. Simply building your own concept in a strong way won't work, find a new dream.
Is that what you are trying to say?
|
|
So what I hear you saying is that picking Scoundrel because that is the kind of character you want to play is a mistake. Instead you should synchronize your class and feat choices with the other players so you aren't tactically weak. Simply building your own concept in a strong way won't work, find a new dream.
Is that what you are trying to say?
Well yeah, ideally this wouldn't be the case, but due to nonstacking bonuses and penalties some classes/class paths won't work well with others and will feel ineffective. For instance, in a party with 3 people that can already provide status bonuses (and do so regularly), a bard is going to feel worse because their main thing is providing status bonuses through compositions. In a party that already has all their bases covered, an alchemist is going to feel worse because they're best used at covering multiple missing functions.
In a party that can already flatfoot the enemy regularly through flanking and doesn't have too much to capitalise on distracting feint, a scoundrel is going to feel worse than other rogue paths.
They're not completely useless, because the main class still works, but the class path isn't adding too much.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what I hear you saying is that picking Scoundrel because that is the kind of character you want to play is a mistake.
He picked a racket worked with social skills over one that he thought worked better in combat and complained it didn't work out so good at combat: added to that that options that sounded cool didn't work as well as he thought, mainly because he's said 'no need to feint when I'm always flanking' which is part of party composition. It's not a failing of the racket or class: is it any more an issue if everyone else in the group was ranged and the rogue insisted on being a melee thief and complained they could never get sneak attack because no one would help them flank? The OP could feint perfectly fine and it wasn't an issue with the mechanics: it was just that he always positioned himself so as to never need to use it.
|
Charming liar is for "if you get lucky crit, you don't need to roll diplomacy to convince someone to like you after first deceiving them" :p Making someone like you with regular deception sounds weird since deception is just about whether they think you are lying or not, not whether they believe what you say or like you.
...Like seriously, nothing in deception skill would normally allow you to manipulate people to like you, even if you roll deception about how swell guy you are, that just means they would believe you think you are great not that you are great :P
I'll also note that I've never played any rpg in which you can make your character exactly as you like in a void of other players and have that guaranteed to work out and I've played a lot of rpgs with different levels of niche protection and character specialization.
Since I'm the one more interesting in building new stuff and I love creating characters, I always say to my group that I will make my character last so that I can cover what's left to prevent the exact situation that OP is having.
Last time I was one of the first to come up with one, Aasimar Barbarian, someone else was going to make an Aasimar Samurai and I mentioned that Aasimars were rare and it would be weird to have two in a party in a normal setting. Granted, PC's are special, but being an Aasimar was a cornerstone of my character, so I ruffled some feathers which wasn't my goal, but my friend changed her character. I wouldn't mind, of course, having the Aasimar Samurai at all, I just think it's more unique for both if their characters have their differences (Two characters covering the same combat niche would get tiresome fast for one of them).
Then, in another situation, one terrible player we had at our table for a while was clearly having jealousy issues with my characters. He wanted to have his deceased Paladin's very high AC while also dealing a ton of damage like my Urban Barbarian (Aasimar), while almost going out of his way to learn nothing about the game (after months he had trouble pointing basic stuff on his character sheet). Most of his characters were going for the simplistic goal of "dealing good damage", of course he will be out-shined by a Barbarian going for a Falchion build.
In short, it wasn't pleasant, so I always make my characters last so that I can cover our basis while experimenting new stuff, since It's easier for me to come up with different concepts and ideas that will interest me.
|
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what I hear you saying is that picking Scoundrel because that is the kind of character you want to play is a mistake.
Scoundrel isn't a kind of character, it's a mechanical choice with specific effects on the game's rules. It's easy to play the exact same character thematically as either a Scoundrel or Thief, the choice between those two Rackets is pretty much entirely mechanical.
Instead you should synchronize your class and feat choices with the other players so you aren't tactically weak. Simply building your own concept in a strong way won't work, find a new dream.
This, however, is true. PF2 is a team game, where tactical coordination between PCs is a lot more important than personal build choices in many ways. It's also more important than builds in general, mind you, so a suboptimal build choice isn't the end of the world.
But if you want to actually optimize your character's power, taking into account the other PCs is indeed necessary. Of course, that's always been the case, with PF1 and every iteration of D&D, so I'm not sure why it's being touted here as a bad thing.
In fact, this is true in most other RPGs as well. Coordination between PC builds is something of a universal advantage in RPGs in general. I've certainly never played a game where being aware of other PCs capabilities so you can cover areas they don't or double up on specific important stuff isn't relevant and a good life choice.
Is that what you are trying to say?
Which part of it?
That you shouldn't be able to build your own concept? You should.
That the rules don't perfectly direct you in how to do so? They don't, I admit.
That you should take other PCs into account in what you build? You absolutely should.
Or did you intend some other question entirely?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what I hear you saying is that picking Scoundrel because that is the kind of character you want to play is a mistake.Scoundrel isn't a kind of character, it's a mechanical choice with specific effects on the game's rules. It's easy to play the exact same character thematically as either a Scoundrel or Thief, the choice between those two Rackets is pretty much entirely mechanical.
The mechanical differences are interesting.
A melee character needs to (1) hit with attacks (2) that deal significant damage (3) while avoiding damage himself.
The ruffian rogue is built on Strength, which automatically helps (1) and (2). This racket gains medium armor proficiency to help with (3).
The thief rogue is built on Dexerity, which automatically helps (3) and helps (1) via finesse weapons. This racket gains dexterity to damage to help with (2).
The scoundrel rogue is built on Charisma, which does not help in melee. This racket gains better feints, which help with (1) and (2) at the cost of an action and only if successful. Mechanically, it falls short in melee compared to the other two rackets. It gains an additional trained skill to compensate.
Charisma 16 can be roleplayed as sauve and charming as easily as Charisma 18, so the scoundrel racket is not necessary for a roleplaying concept. Charisma 18 is necessary only for the mechanical benefits where a +1 maximizes frequent rolls, such as a Demoralize check or a spell damage roll that adds spellcasting ability modifier. As RoscoeDaLib pointed out, a Feint is seldom necessary for a sneak attack, so Feint checks are not frequent rolls.
Imagine if the Scoundrel racket, instead of saying, "When you successfully Feint (page 246), the target is flat-footed against melee attacks you attempt against it until the end of your next turn. On a critical success, the target is flat-footed against all melee attacks until the end of your next turn, not just yours." instead said, "Whenever you Feint, on a failure, success, or critical success you gain a +2 status bonus to AC against the target until the beginning of your next turn." Then the Feint check would become routine and Charisma 18 would be important.
Instead you should synchronize your class and feat choices with the other players so you aren't tactically weak. Simply building your own concept in a strong way won't work, find a new dream.This, however, is true. PF2 is a team game, where tactical coordination between PCs is a lot more important than personal build choices in many ways. It's also more important than builds in general, mind you, so a suboptimal build choice isn't the end of the world.
But if you want to actually optimize your character's power, taking into account the other PCs is indeed necessary. Of course, that's always been the case, with PF1 and every iteration of D&D, so I'm not sure why it's being touted here as a bad thing.
Damage is not the only important element in combat. My wife's scoundrel rogue uses Deception for battlefield control and Diplomacy to bypass unnecessary combat. She is willing to let the more martial characters deal the lion's share of the damage.
Scoundrel rogue is based on characters who talk their way out of combat because they are not particularly good at melee. My wife likes narrative control more than she likes prowess in combat, so scoundrel rogue suits her. (In my Rise of the Runelords campaign, she played a lyrakien bard using Dirty Trick in combat. In my Jade Regent campaign, she played a politically-manipulative human ninja. In my Iron Gods campaign, she played a dwarf gadgeteer who traded away the massive damage of a gunslinger for battlefield control via a grappling gun.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um, if you’re using Diplomacy to bypass combat you’re not engaging in combat?
Sure, but there isn't anything wrong with avoiding a combat through successful diplomacy. It's the main example given in the section on bypassed encounters.
Um, if you’re using Diplomacy to bypass combat you’re not engaging in combat?Sure, but there isn't anything wrong with avoiding a combat through successful diplomacy. It's the main example given in the section on bypassed encounters.
Remember in the In Pale Mountain's Shadow chapter of Doomsday Dawn that some gnolls had taken shelter at the back door to the Tomb of Tular Seft? Instead of fighting the gnolls, my party talked to them, gave them food, and entered the tomb without combat.
The goal of that chapter was to find the secret of the tomb before the Night Heralds did. Diplomacy was faster than combat, because combat would require healing afterwards.
My players regularly uses information gathering and scouting to dodge non-plot encounters before they encounter their true enemies. Thus, they have more resources in the meaningful battles. They don't miss out on the XP because I increase the challenge of the meaningful battles.
I adore using Diplomacy and other skills in place of outright combat, I was just confused since you started with “Damage is not the only important element in combat.” then immediately bring up Diplomacy to bypass combat.
If you bypass combat... you’re not in combat.
I think he just included that alongside the other point he was making which was using deception for battlefield control
I'll also note that I've never played any rpg in which you can make your character exactly as you like in a void of other players and have that guaranteed to work out and I've played a lot of rpgs with different levels of niche protection and character specialization.
And who said that you could? But I've played plenty of games where characters were good at what they did, and that just sort of worked. Like if you played Star Wars Saga Edition and were a Jedi, you didn't have to worry about whether your Jedi would be tactically supported by the other players. In M&M, one player can play a mystic and another an ice controller and you don't want to worry about whether they will mess together. And in D&D 5e, I can't think of any rogue subclasses or options that are heavily dependent on other people's choices.
I'm not necessarily endorsing the viewpoint that Pathfinder 2e is that way. But a lot of people who take issue with the OP seem to be saying that. It doesn't seem like a good selling point. It seems like there is another way of addressing those satisfactions. I don't see how it's helpful to say, well, you failed to assess some of the tactical puzzles presented by the game and it's your fault. I don't think those kind of consequences should be baked into basic choices of subclasses and feats.
Like if you played Star Wars Saga Edition and were a Jedi, you didn't have to worry about whether your Jedi would be tactically supported by the other players.
The counterpoint being that the D20 Jedi Consular in the edition before that was notably squishier than the Jedi Guardian and it was tactically more advantageous to play a Guardian if your campaign were going to have a higher combat focus.
OP's problem exists across multiple game lines, just like its inverse does.
I think that while you can gain something by making characters more of islands, you lose something as well, group interdependence feels really great for a lot of us-- where its designed to offer an experience of acute teamwork, where everyone has a role to fill.