| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need to make your characters specifically within the context of your team. You can absolutely just make a character that feels good to you and make it work. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be mindful of what options you take in the context of the rest of the party.
If you have a lot of melee and find it relatively easy to sneak attack as a rogue, it doesn't make very much sense to me to take a bunch of character options specifically aimed at making it easier to sneak attack.
That's not "oh you can't build a character without synergizing with your team", it's just being mindful of what your team is bringing to the table. That's going to be pretty true of almost any tabletop.
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.
Consulars had more skills, including Force skills, so no. You could actually just try to make an awesome Guardian or an awesome Consular, and just be awesome, and that was fine. Setting aside that you just decided to interject in an example from a completely different game system than the one I mentioned. Citing other games that have the same (alleged) issue doesn't really change the fact there are games that don't.
And again, this talking point seems to be coming from people who are big 2e fans, saying the game is challenging in this regard. I don't get it. 2e is a cool game but I don't think you can defend it by saying, when it doesn't work that way, it's because it's not supposed to. I don't see it as a selling point to punish people for playing a concept, one ostensibly supported by the rules.
If certain concepts are difficult to support with the tools we have, then I would look forward to better support material. Ultimate Combat and APG were big steps forward for 1e, I hope we see similar releases for 2e.
| 1 person 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.
I just wanted to stop here and ask - why was it a mistake?
By that, I don't mean to explain why scoundrel feint isn't good in the context of my game. I've gone over that. You've gone over that. What I mean is really: Should the amount of melee in my group mitigate the usefulness of this specific sub-classes key feature?
No one has actually come out and said "You know what Scoundrel feint should remain trivial and useless in party comps like your because that makes sense and is a good design space."
I mean even you are sitting here saying Scoundrel is the weakest of the three.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, if Rogues had even 1/2 class feats that modified the effects of Feint to become generally useful in combat, Scoundrel becomes fantastic in my view over night, and distracting feint goes from being kinda/sorta good based on comp or what you are doing to amazing.
So, I guess I'd just ask you directly - do you think Scoundrel rogue's feint with the context of it's available class feats was designed well with an emphasis specifically on the feint feature?
As to skill feats, agree to disagree. I'll cover a few you mentioned because you took the time to respond in a constructive manner, and I should at least provide some insight into our thought process.
Everyone in my party - including my GM who loves this system agrees they are completely underwhelming. The intimidation list has some ok things, but mostly they stop just short of being useful in a practical sense. As to some of your examples:
Group Impression: Actively makes the game worse. If three people are in a room meeting for the first time, why can my character only speak and make an impression on one at a time in a minute? Can both people not hear me speaking?
Hobnobber: Is going to save me 1 hour in gathering information, and stops critical fail effects. Yet, if my part splits up in a town and gathers information - logic, critical thinking, and standard deduction does the same thing.
Lie to me: Actually not an awful level 1 skill feat, but again - level 1.
Intimidating Glare: As mentioned some of the intimidation stuff is dramatically better than other skill feats.
Courtly Graces: Strikes me to be oddly specific and then even in its very specific usage they still stop short of just allowing you to use society to impersonate a specific noble....using your knowledge....of that person in society. Seems relatively pointless unless you are running an extremely specific type of adventure with constant noble interaction. Which, even if that adventure exists, which im sure it does, this is still restrictive. Meh.
Trick Magic Item: A decent level 1 feat. Potentially awkward for stat allocation unless you use wisdom based skills.
Glad-Hand: Just builds upon their absurd, authoritarian structure of social encounters. Why does making an impression always require 1 minute? And a -5? Yikes?
Connections: I initially liked the flavor of this feat, but then I had some questions. Does this mean I can't do what the feat describes without it? Even as a level 12 hero in this part of the world with well known achievements? If I can - then isn't this feat ultimately pointless?
Confabulator: Straightforward. I think I took this one. Can't remember.
Quiet Allies: One of the rare examples of a good feat that is generally useful for a party with at least one good stealthy character.
So of the list you provided I agree on ~4.
To your other points, I did say I've sprinkled in some demoralize actions, but Sabotage and Battle Assessment are not compelling to me /shrug.
You didn't really go into detail about poison weapon but I've explained my position on that in depth. The 1 action application would be good but see earlier post.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is here, by initially playing Scoundrel, he was playing the character that didn't need as much teamwork as the Thief. The Scoundrel is like the Jedi who doesn't need support.
If everyone goes off and fights their own monster, a Scoundrel is stronger than a Thief solo prior to 14th level and Instant opening. The thief with flanking buddies simply gets more benefit than the scoundrel.
The scoundrel wasn't doing bad damage, it just wasn't getting to use all the abilities it had available to it.
Its also a bit magnified by the stats of the character in question. 10 strength, 18 dexterity and 18 charisma at level 1.
If we compare a stat distribution which is better for the scoundrel build in terms of damage output, and compare it to a thief build also using the normal ABCD stat selection process you might get the following analysis for fighting solo.
Consider a 6th level goblin Scoundrel with 16 Str/18 Dex/12 Con/10 Int/10 Wis/19 Cha against a Str 10/19 Dex/14 Con/12 Int/12 Wis/18 Cha goblin Thief.
At 6th level, +15 to hit, and 2d6+2d6+3 for the scoundrel, and 2d6+2d6+4 for the thief using +1 striking shortsword (finesse, agile) Expert Deception on both is +14. Level 6 enemy, moderate percetion DC 24, moderate AC 23.
We'll assume the attack routine of feint, strike, strike, for 2 turns. If they're benefiting from feint until end of next turn already, it becomes strike, strike, strike.
So feint has 50% success chance, 5% critical chance. Except on the 2nd turn, if the scoundrel succeeded on the first, then its 50% success, 15% critical. The scoundrel's applies to all attacks until the end of the next turn, while the Thief's only applies to one, unless they critical feint.
Thief:
So no feint success, implies (0.8+0.5)*11=14.3 expected damage
Feint success implies 1.0*18 + 0.5*11 = 23.5
Critical feint success implies (1.0+0.6)*18 = 28.8
If the crit is 1st turn, that lets turn 2 be 3 strikes, with the 3rd strike adding 0.4*18=7.2
20.25% of the time, no feint success, 45% of the time 1 success, 25% of the time 2 successes, 5% crit success on first, and 2.25% chance of no success + crit success on second, and 2.5% chance of 1 success and crit success on 2nd.
Total expected damage solo over 2 turns for a thief is ~35.47.
Scoundrel:
No feint success implies (0.8+0.5)*10=13
Feint success implies (1.0+0.6)*17=27.2
3 strikes on 2nd turn implies 0.4*17=6.8.
20.25% of the time, 55% of the time 1st feint succeeds, 24.75% of the time 1st fails and 2nd succeeds.
Total expected damage solo over 2 turns for the scoundrel is ~48.87 damage. Or roughly 37% more damage solo. For a non-goblin build, strength would likely be 12 starting, 14 at 6th, dropping damage by 1 per attack, to an expected 45.65 (still about 29% more damage).
Compare to a straight 2-handed fighter at 6th. +17 to hit, 2d12+4 damage. (1.0+0.55+0.3)*17 over 2 turns is 62.9 expected damage.
With teamwork, and free flanking, the a 14 strength Scoundrel at 6th level still does 64 damage over 2 turns. The thief just happens to do more at around 72, roughly 12% more.
The overall damage output of both is fine, with the Scoundrel significantly outdoing the Thief solo, and the Thief slightly outdoing the Scoundrel with teamwork.
It just so happens the Thief is effectively getting flat-footed for free via teamwork regularly, rather than needing to feint in this particular group.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Should the amount of melee in my group mitigate the usefulness of this specific sub-classes key feature?
Yes. Feint for a rogue is useful to a rogue that has to fight in their own or for some reason can't flank. Scoundrel's feature improves on a feint, so if the standard feint isn't useful in a party, it just makes sense that an improved version isn't going to be great.
Now if you want to look at questionable features and feats look at the alchemist and it's Fields... Like Perpetual Infusions on a Chirurgeon...
This thread is certainly making me contemplate the build of my Scoundrel Rogue. I'd noticed the lack of oomph as well, since my character had 18 Dex / 12 Str. I've also been finding flanks fairly easily, so I haven't really needed to Feint yet. Since this is a PFS char that just hit second level, I can take a rebuild. That said, I'm committed to the Scoundrel racket, and want to make it more effective. I'm okay with being a Face first, combatant second. I was thinking I'd switch to 12 Str/16 Dex/18 Cha; Studded leather means I'm no worse off AC-wise. Now the question is do I take a Sorcerer dedication right away and lean into that, or wait until 9th level when I can take it as a Human ancestry feat...
Should the amount of melee in my group mitigate the usefulness of this specific sub-classes key feature?Yes. Feint for a rogue is useful to a rogue that has to fight in their own or for some reason can't flank. Scoundrel's feature improves on a feint, so if the standard feint isn't useful in a party, it just makes sense that an improved version isn't going to be great.
Now if you want to look at questionable features and feats look at the alchemist and it's Fields... Like Perpetual Infusions on a Chirurgeon...
Some in my party have explained to me the meme that is alchemist. Which is unfortunate. Because, that is another class flavor I would really enjoying playing with/as.
The Paladin in my group is also incredibly disappointed with his class feats, and has opted to use a multiclassing archetype path for +2 hardness to shield. Which seems....exciting..
However, I don't know much about Paladins as I have basically ignored them considering they can only be certain alignments currently. Which is another discussion entirely.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wanted to stop here and ask - why was it a mistake?
By that, I don't mean to explain why scoundrel feint isn't good in the context of my game. I've gone over that. You've gone over that. What I mean is really: Should the amount of melee in my group mitigate the usefulness of this specific sub-classes key feature?
Should it? In an ideal world, maybe not but that really isn't what I was addressing. I was answering 'Does it?' and the answer is yes.
No one has actually come out and said "You know what Scoundrel feint should remain trivial and useless in party comps like your because that makes sense and is a good design space."
I mean even you are sitting here saying Scoundrel is the weakest of the three.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, if Rogues had even 1/2 class feats that modified the effects of Feint to become generally useful in combat, Scoundrel becomes fantastic in my view over night, and distracting feint goes from being kinda/sorta good based on comp or what you are doing to amazing.
Scoundrel is not a super good Racket as compared to the other two. It is thus, debatably (and I go into this more below), an example of bad game design. The same is true, in many ways, of the Alchemist Class as compared to other Classes. These are two real problems with the design of PF2 (though Scoundrel is a relatively minor one, being quite good in some parties).
They are, however, a very small part of the system, which is otherwise quite well balanced and designed. Which is what I, and I expect others, have been trying to say.
Nobody is saying that Scoundrel is perfect and PF2 is flawless, just that many of your issues are tied up in this very specific niche case.
So, I guess I'd just ask you directly - do you think Scoundrel rogue's feint with the context of it's available class feats was designed well with an emphasis specifically on the feint feature?
Not especially. It's not terrible design, and indeed is demonstrably not seen as being as strong as the others since it gets two Skills instead of the one each Thief and Ruffian get, but it's not a great choice in combat, and IMO the degree to which its combat is weaker is not made up for by its non-combat strengths.
It's mediocre design.
As to skill feats, agree to disagree. I'll cover a few you mentioned because you took the time to respond in a constructive manner, and I should at least provide some insight into our thought process.
Everyone in my party - including my GM who loves this system agrees they are completely underwhelming. The intimidation list has some ok things, but mostly they stop just short of being useful in a practical sense.
I think you're sincerely looking at them wrong if you don't find them useful.
As to some of your examples:
Group Impression: Actively makes the game worse. If three people are in a room meeting for the first time, why can my character only speak and make an impression on one at a time in a minute? Can both people not hear me speaking?
One minute isn't very long, most conversations take ten minutes or more. My assumption would be that, generally, you make one roll a minute until you've tried it on everyone. That's really not unreasonable. The Feat speeds that up, allowing you to win over more people quicker. Which can be handy.
Hobnobber: Is going to save me 1 hour in gathering information, and stops critical fail effects. Yet, if my part splits up in a town and gathers information - logic, critical thinking, and standard deduction does the same thing.
No, it doesn't. I mean, if you completely ignore the rules it does, sure, but that's true of anything in the game.
Lie to me: Actually not an awful level 1 skill feat, but again - level 1.
And? You can take it at whatever level you want and it never stops being awesome.
Intimidating Glare: As mentioned some of the intimidation stuff is dramatically better than other skill feats.
It's solid.
Courtly Graces: Strikes me to be oddly specific and then even in its very specific usage they still stop short of just allowing you to use society to impersonate a specific noble....using your knowledge....of that person in society. Seems relatively pointless unless you are running an extremely specific type of adventure with constant noble interaction. Which, even if that adventure exists, which im sure it does, this is still restrictive. Meh.
Being able to impersonate a noble is super convenient a lot of the time, honestly. That said, if you have low Int and both Diplomacy and Deception trained, it is somewhat less useful. I admit.
Trick Magic Item: A decent level 1 feat. Potentially awkward for stat allocation unless you use wisdom based skills.
For non-combat usages, you can basically just try until it works, so I'm not sure high stats in the relevant skill are entirely necessary, though it is better with such a stat, certainly.
Glad-Hand: Just builds upon their absurd, authoritarian structure of social encounters. Why does making an impression always require 1 minute? And a -5? Yikes?
The -5 is basically meaningless since it's a free check and you can recover from a failed one with the standard one minute a roll takes without it. Basically, some of the time people just like you seconds after meeting you instead of you having to win them over. That's great.
Connections: I initially liked the flavor of this feat, but then I had some questions. Does this mean I can't do what the feat describes without it? Even as a level 12 hero in this part of the world with well known achievements? If I can - then isn't this feat ultimately pointless?
Generally speaking you don't magically know important people already. If you've played through the game and made friends with Lord X, obviously you can call on him for favors, no Feat needed, and if you're high level, you can probably make friends with some people pretty easily...but Connections lets you skip all that. You already know the important people, and can already just call them up and ask a favor.
Confabulator: Straightforward. I think I took this one. Can't remember.
This one, too, is very solid.
Quiet Allies: One of the rare examples of a good feat that is generally useful for a party with at least one good stealthy character.
It's a very good Feat, yes.
So of the list you provided I agree on ~4.
It sounds to me like your group is not actually engaging with the social skill rules much. You may well be rolling Deception and Diplomacy checks and the like, and doing social encounters, but you aren't using the actual rules as presented.
Which, to be clear, is fine. But obviously social Skill Feats are gonna be underwhelming if you're ignoring the rules they're based on. That's...really not a problem with the game so much as a play style disconnect.
To your other points, I did say I've sprinkled in some demoralize actions, but Sabotage and Battle Assessment are not compelling to me /shrug.
You didn't really go into detail about poison weapon but I've explained my position on that in depth. The 1 action application would be good but see earlier post.
They're both solid Feats regardless. And Poison Weapon is fine with the free poison damage, even sans the availability of expensive poisons.
Consulars had more skills, including Force skills, so no. You could actually just try to make an awesome Guardian or an awesome Consular, and just be awesome, and that was fine. Setting aside that you just decided to interject in an example from a completely different game system than the one I mentioned. Citing other games that have the same (alleged) issue doesn't really change the fact there are games that don't.
So, you interjecting with an example from a game we weren’t already discussing was cool. My extrapolating that by interjecting with an example of a game other than the one you mentioned is somehow questionable?
And your main takeaway is that my point doesn’t invalidate yours? True. Yours also doesn’t invalidate mine. Amazing how two complexities can exist side by side.
Because, that is another class flavor I would really enjoying playing with/as.
Yeah, the PF1 version was a favorite of mine but after trying the PF2 version out a few times it's just... lacking. Bomber is the closest to ok if unexciting. The other two are really missing something. Feats just seem to be math or feature adjustments instead of fun/exciting things like buying back your class DC... Meh...
However, I don't know much about Paladins as I have basically ignored them considering they can only be certain alignments currently. Which is another discussion entirely.
Same. Once a neutral version is out, I'll take a look.
It sounds to me like your group is not actually engaging with the social skill rules much. You may well be rolling Deception and Diplomacy checks and the like, and doing social encounters, but you aren't using the actual rules as presented.
Which, to be clear, is fine. But obviously social Skill Feats are gonna be underwhelming if you're ignoring the rules they're based on. That's...really not a problem with the game so much as a play style disconnect.
There might be something to this, because I remember thinking this when looking over the feats. That they just weren't going to feel useful in the game.
Is there a group like the people on Critical Role that plays PF2 where I could see some of this in full value?
This thread is certainly making me contemplate the build of my Scoundrel Rogue. I'd noticed the lack of oomph as well, since my character had 18 Dex / 12 Str. I've also been finding flanks fairly easily, so I haven't really needed to Feint yet. Since this is a PFS char that just hit second level, I can take a rebuild. That said, I'm committed to the Scoundrel racket, and want to make it more effective. I'm okay with being a Face first, combatant second. I was thinking I'd switch to 12 Str/16 Dex/18 Cha; Studded leather means I'm no worse off AC-wise. Now the question is do I take a Sorcerer dedication right away and lean into that, or wait until 9th level when I can take it as a Human ancestry feat...
If all you're grabbing is cantrips, then I suppose 9th can work. If you're going to be spending feats beyond that, so that you're also getting spell slots and/or focus spells, I'd aim to take it 2nd. Don't discount a charismatic rogue with some low level illusions and other utility spells/scrolls.
Alternatively, if you switch to an Elf, Ancient Elf works well at 1st level if you really want to save the class feat. Also opens up an interesting option of Elven curve blade fairly easily with elven weapon familiarity. 1d8, finesse and forceful.
But for a human, I'd probably go ahead and grab the dedication at 2nd.
I still think that even with 3 martials having a buffed feint should still see a lot of use. Let the other two do their own flanking, you can do your own. Or go after a solo enemy and apply flat footed yourself. I find in our games with three martials there's usually one pc who can't get flanking.
I still think that even with 3 martials having a buffed feint should still see a lot of use. Let the other two do their own flanking, you can do your own. Or go after a solo enemy and apply flat footed yourself. I find in our games with three martials there's usually one pc who can't get flanking.
However, RoscoeDaLib has noted he's taken "Gang Up" which solves the 3rd flanker problem. So basically that leaves the Rogue going off solo and the two martials ganging up one enemy - which is likely going to be not as common as the reverse. Tactically, you'll want to pair the rogue off with a martial, and send the other martial off to solo something if necessary.
Now admittedly, that, and the other situations we've been considering does highly depend on optimal circumstances. Sometimes circumstances will force the rogue away or prevent being adjacent, at which point feint becomes a reasonable choice. As pointed out, various players have used it, but very infrequently.
For example, a non-optimal fight for that party might be something I encountered as a 4 player party in the campaign I'm currently in. At level 3, we encountered a Scorpion swarm (level 4) and a weak Harpy (level 5-1=4). In a narrow canyon. Essentially the fight was the Harpy was using captivating song to draw the swarm to the character's location, and hopefully use the captivate ability to draw the players right into the swarm as well while flying above. And then loot them after the swarm had finished eating.
In such a fight, I feel a Scoundrel Rogue with Sorcerer dedication with Electric arc and/or Ray of Frost would likely fair better than a Thief rogue. Magic can be handy for bypassing resistance or attacking at range, for example.
Admittedly, neither flanking nor feint is likely to be useful in that fight, but starting 18 charisma does synergize better with the Sorcerer dedication compared to starting 16 charisma.
It sounds to me like your group is not actually engaging with the social skill rules much. You may well be rolling Deception and Diplomacy checks and the like, and doing social encounters, but you aren't using the actual rules as presented.
Which, to be clear, is fine. But obviously social Skill Feats are gonna be underwhelming if you're ignoring the rules they're based on. That's...really not a problem with the game so much as a play style disconnect.
There might be something to this, because I remember thinking this when looking over the feats. That they just weren't going to feel useful in the game.
Is there a group like the people on Critical Role that plays PF2 where I could see some of this in full value?
Geek and Sundry has a series called Knights of the Everflame, it has two seasons of eight episodes at three hours each. Last one is December 2019, I do not know why there haven't been any since.
Geek and Sundry has a series called Knights of the Everflame, it has two seasons of eight episodes at three hours each. Last one is December 2019, I do not know why there haven't been any since.It sounds to me like your group is not actually engaging with the social skill rules much. You may well be rolling Deception and Diplomacy checks and the like, and doing social encounters, but you aren't using the actual rules as presented.
Which, to be clear, is fine. But obviously social Skill Feats are gonna be underwhelming if you're ignoring the rules they're based on. That's...really not a problem with the game so much as a play style disconnect.
There might be something to this, because I remember thinking this when looking over the feats. That they just weren't going to feel useful in the game.
Is there a group like the people on Critical Role that plays PF2 where I could see some of this in full value?
Do you know if they engage with the social rules on that? I haven’t listened because I can’t listen on the go like with podcasts
The podcasts I have listened to don’t seem to go into that - but most aren’t very far in 2E
But the other Jason B one - the paizo office one doesn’t seem to use those rules much either. Either that or they are cleverly woven in. But I haven’t heard a player in that say “I am going to Make an Impression”
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the OP message is that we need more feint and feat for Scoundrel, because it is by far the worst option of the three. The two other ones are fine, but this one needs an upgrade in feat specific.
I also would like to point that the OP got every right to complain about this issue, and that while a lots of people here are trying to help and come up with discussions and solutions, a few were really quick to shut him down. That is not a correct thing to do. We all love this game, and complaining about issue that you are thinking are core problèmes of the system is not just venting, but also trying to bring the problem to light.
You got the right to raise what you think is an issue with the game, specifically if some dev get to read your post. He is also right that Scoundrel should not just be team dépendant, because the other two are so much better that there is indeed here a balance problem. Scoundrel needs a buff, just like Alchemyst who are not bombers do, just like the Warpriest do.
Some options are, as of now, underperforming or requiring way more knowledges of system or specific team to shine. I think one of the fundamental of PF2 was to avoid to do a bad character. So far it is a failure for a few of the Core options.
These options should have more meat to their bones. By speaking about it, we might make the dev consider it. So please, let’s all be more respectful. If a player find his experience with the game terrible, even if it is subclasse dépendent, team comp dépendant or whatever else, we should give him an ear. Might improve the game in the long run.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the OP message is that we need more feint and feat for Scoundrel, because it is by far the worst option of the three. The two other ones are fine, but this one needs an upgrade in feat specific.
I also would like to point that the OP got every right to complain about this issue, and that while a lots of people here are trying to help and come up with discussions and solutions, a few were really quick to shut him down. That is not a correct thing to do. We all love this game, and complaining about issue that you are thinking are core problèmes of the system is not just venting, but also trying to bring the problem to light.
You got the right to raise what you think is an issue with the game, specifically if some dev get to read your post. He is also right that Scoundrel should not just be team dépendant, because the other two are so much better that there is indeed here a balance problem. Scoundrel needs a buff, just like Alchemyst who are not bombers do, just like the Warpriest do.
Some options are, as of now, underperforming or requiring way more knowledges of system or specific team to shine. I think one of the fundamental of PF2 was to avoid to do a bad character. So far it is a failure for a few of the Core options.
These options should have more meat to their bones. By speaking about it, we might make the dev consider it. So please, let’s all be more respectful. If a player find his experience with the game terrible, even if it is subclasse dépendent, team comp dépendant or whatever else, we should give him an ear. Might improve the game in the long run.
Sorry, but this is just your point of view. Scoundrel works fine. It's the best Racket if you want to play a ranged Rogue or a gish one. And in a campaign with a lot of social interactions, it should be way better than a Ruffian.
And removing niche options because all options must be easy to build and play is sad.
| 1 person 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.
It's actually perfectly logical in real life terms
I have never done weapon training, but in any martial art, if you overly focus on defense you'll do far worse than if you show some kind of offense, because the person who's attacking feels no sense of danger and thus they can attack freely.
Do you know if they engage with the social rules on that? I haven’t listened because I can’t listen on the go like with podcastsThe podcasts I have listened to don’t seem to go into that - but most aren’t very far in 2E
But the other Jason B one - the paizo office one doesn’t seem to use those rules much either. Either that or they are cleverly woven in. But I haven’t heard a player in that say “I am going to Make an Impression”
I don't recall it being used explicitly that often, but that's also because Jason weaves it in seamlessly.
I recall during the GCP early stream there was some use of Group Impression, mainly with the problem that the Group Impression die failed to roll above a 4.
I should really brush up on the social rules again myself, I'd like to have the rules for that memorized.
The conversation seems to have shifted to assume Scoundrel is worse off than other rackets, much like the alchemist is worse off than other classes. I don't think this is at all true; Scoundrel isn't inherently worse, it's just harder to build for. If we examine each racket:
-Thief gets Dex-to-damage
-Ruffian gets STR-related stuff as well as early critspec.
-Scoundrel gets the feint upgrade and an additional skill
I'm ignoring the ability to change your key ability score. This does matter for gishes, but I'm leaving it out of the conversation for simplicity's sake.
The additional skill, while nice, is not enough to cover a whole subclass. So unless you are using feint, your subclass just isn't very useful. The usefulness of feinting is dependent on both the party as well as your own build, whereas Ruffian makes it pretty obvious how to build your character to reap the benefits, and Thief is super easy to stick into a build - it's basically a free upgrade.
Ultimately, I consider Scoundrel to be competitive with the other two. It's the one I'm most excited to build characters for, due to the plentiful options and MC synergies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's perfectly valid to feel disappointed given the OP's expectations. OP is pointing at very real valleys in the design. I'm just not sure anything should change.
Obviously, the Scoundrel is worse at combat than the other rackets. The only reason you would play that subclass is that you wanted the Charisma primary stat for the slight bump in narrative control in gives. I certainly think it's a valid option in a game that is very focused on non-combat encounters. Taking the scoundrel archetype also helps signal to your GM that you're interested in engaging in non-combat, so I certainly think it has a place there. Because of the "soft" nature of narrative control, I do think it's quite hard to balance. I'd be conservative with the design as well since it works better as a signal if it's a little underpowered.
The class feats of the rogue are a little lackluster. I think that's also by design. The inherent strengths of the rogue are so powerful that something had to give. With full martial weapon, armor, and save progression as well as sneak attack and double the skills of any other class, the rogue is already incredibly powerful. It's possible they should have scaled some of that back in order to make the rogue class feats more exciting, but I don't think the design is far off the mark. As is, rogue with an archetype is one of the most powerful characters in Pathfinder 2 due to the specific way it was balanced.
I'm seeing why the OP is saying skill feats are lackluster when I narrow down my focus to just the social skills. The social skill feats are certainly contentious. I do think that the way they are written removes narrative power from characters without them more than granting it to those with them. I'm actually fine with this design, though, and I think it's a pretty good way to put some edges into the otherwise soft design space of social encounters. I think the design team will need to come up with a different sort of design for future feats, but the initial lot of them gives the game some shape.
I am, like the OP is saying, smoothing over rough patches because I like the game. I just don't think it's simple to do anything about it. Rogues, I think, are already quite powerful. I'm not sure there's much leeway to do much in this circumstance. Maybe a little action with scoundrel might be good, but soft skill primary choices are always going to be hard to get a precise read on.
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.
It's actually perfectly logical in real life terms
I have never done weapon training, but in any martial art, if you overly focus on defense you'll do far worse than if you show some kind of offense, because the person who's attacking feels no sense of danger and thus they can attack freely.
... You do realise that Twin Parry is a thing, yes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing why the OP is saying skill feats are lackluster when I narrow down my focus to just the social skills. The social skill feats are certainly contentious. I do think that the way they are written removes narrative power from characters without them more than granting it to those with them. I'm actually fine with this design, though, and I think it's a pretty good way to put some edges into the otherwise soft design space of social encounters. ...
Trail of the Hunted, the start of my PF2 Ironfang Invasion campaign, is mostly about hiding in the forest with refugees from the invasion, so social encounters have been limited. The party has had a few, such as meeting the 1st-level bard Edran and the 4th-level wizard Veld at 2nd level, and the 3rd-level centaur Yorc at 3rd-level, but only Sense Motive was relied upon. My wife, who plays the scoundrel rogue Sam, says that I was trying to Make an Impression with words alone for the three, since Make an Impression activity does not affect PCs.
No one can ever change the attitude of a player character with these skills. You can roleplay interactions with player characters, and even use Diplomacy results if the player wants a mechanical sense of how convincing or charming a character is, but players make the ultimate decisions about how their characters respond.
The players responded in kind, with words rather than skill checks.
Another social interaction was decision making among the refugees. Though the refugees numbered 40, only 4 NPCs and 4 PCs gathered together to plan. Roleplaying more NPCs would have been too difficult, so I picked one to represent each faction among the refugees. I could justify the importants of the PCs by saying that in Nirmathi tradition those who would have to carry out the work also had a say in the decisions. Since NPCs represented several people, using Diplomacy to change one NPC's mind would not have changed the factions attitude. The module would have had the PCs make the decisions and assign the refugees to take on various duties, but neither I nor my players like unmotivated NPCs.
Each day, an NPC can be assigned to perform one task around camp or generally employ skills on the PCs’ behalf.
The final social interaction was when the monkey goblin champion Tikti showed up mysteriously. But that was the metagame interaction of accepting a new player and her oddball character into the group.
I have been marginalizing the Diplomacy skill. The scoundrel rogue Sam took Glad-Hand as a skill feat, but used it at most once (neither my wife nor I remember whether she actually rolled the check). Deception, in contrast, has been a battlefield control tactic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So this thread has certainly gotten me thinking how I'd build a Scoundrel rogue, and the following is what I've come up with, at 6th level, just to make it easier for RoscoeDaLib to compare:
Goblin Rogue Creature 6
Snow Goblin Scoundrel Rogue level 6
Perception +10, Darkvision
Languages: Common (Taldane), Goblin
Skills: Stealth (expert) +14, Deception (expert) +14, Diplomacy (expert) +14, Intimidate (expert) +14, Medicine (expert) +10, Thievery +12, Arcana +8, Acrobatics +12, Athletics +11, Performance +12, Society +8, Survival +8, Nature +8, Games Lore +8
Str 16 (+3), Dex18 (+4), Con 12 (+1), Int 10 (+0), Wis 10 (+0), Cha 19 (+4)
Items: +1 Leather Armor (5th level item), Handwraps of Might Blows (+1 Striking) (4th level item), +1 striking composite shortbow(4th level item), Thieves' tools (Infiltrator) (3rd level item),Wayfinder (2nd level item), Bandolier (healer's tools inside) (0.1 gp), Healer's Tools (Expanded) (50gp), 60 arrows (0.6 gp), Adventurer's Pack (0.7 gp), 28.6 gp
AC 24; Fort +9, Ref +14, Will +10
HP 66
Speed: 25 feet
Melee: +1 striking fist +15, damage 2d4+3 (bludgeoning), agile, finesse, non-lethal
OR +1 striking claw +15, damage 2d4+3 (slashing) + 1d6+1 (fire), finesse
Ranged: +1 striking composite shortbow +15, damage 2d6+1 (piercing), deadly d10, propulsive
Note:Sneak attack +2d6
Arcane Spells DC 22, attack +12;
Spell slots: 2 Cantrips, 1st: 1, 2nd: 1
Cantrips (3rd): Electric Arc, Ray of Frost
1st level Spells: True Strike
2nd level Spells: Illusionary Object (2nd) (Signature Spell)
Focus Points: 1
Focus Spells (3rd): Dragon Claws
Ancestry Feats and Abilities: Cold Resistance 3, Burn It!, Very Sneaky
Class Feats: Trap Finder, Sorcerer Dedication (Draconic: Red), Basic Bloodline (Dragon Claws), Basic Spellcasting
Class Abilities: Sneak Attack 2d6, Surprise Attack, Scoundrel Racket, Deny Advantage, Weapon Tricks
General Feats: Toughness
Skill Feats: Lie to Me (background), Assurance (Medicine), Battle Medicine (heals 2d8+10), Continual Recovery, Confabulator, Glad-hand, Intimidating Prowess
One interesting thing I've realized that if an enemy rushes up to the rogue to nullify ranged attacks/casting, it can pull a very effective, feint + dragon claw + dragon claw solo. The dragon claw damage roll averages slightly more damage damage than a straight Thief rogue (at the cost of an extra action at the beginning of the fight and lack of agile).
2d4+3+1d6+1 = 12.5
If Burn It! doesn't apply to Dragon claw (I think it should but I could imagine some argument over it), its still 11.5 average. I'd probably swap out Burn It! for something else in that case.
For comparison, a 6th level thief likely rolls 2d6+4=11 average in melee, but has access to agile finesse weapons.
The other advantage is the character can trivially switch between melee, ranged, and cantrip actions without issue, as well as provide battle medicine with free hands if necessary (depending on your GM's ruling of that debate). Assurance + Expert medicine at 6th level is an automatic DC 20, so you get the 2d8+10 hit points back for 1 action.
True strike is an interesting option on an opening strike as there's good odds of getting a critical. I could see maybe taking magical trickster at 8th, to provide the option of deception or hide + ray of frost sneak attack out to 120 feet. Or maybe not. Even without it, the choices provide the build with a variety of damage and energy types (slashing, bludgeoning non-lethal, piercing, electric, fire, cold) that it can switch to without any equipment juggling. Plus illusions. And buy some scrolls to taste with the left over 28 gp.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lots of people are pointing out Bowman or Multiclass as viable builds, but I am not convinced that what people got in mind when they go for a Rogue Scoundrel who got a bonus in Feint is a Bowman or a Spellcaster, but more of a Han Solo, Jarlaxe, Dartagnan vibe. To be honest, a lots of people probably got the Swashbuckler class in mind, in a world where is does not exist.
Same as the Warpriest calls for a Warpriest, with strong weapon proficiencies, and the Mutagenist to Mr Hyde or Mundo or Frankenstein Monster.
Yet some of these subclasses are either underperforming, or working for specific builds way harder to make, or not responding to what is, in my opinion, the core assumptions surrounding their names.
So te remedy for that, news feats specifically tailored towards theses rackets or doctrines or whatever could be nice, and some of them could really mechanically use them.
Secondly this game is supposed to be easier for making a good character from and reducing the impact of system mastery from PF1. I don’t agree that Scoundrel does that as for now. And I would also like to point out that Archetype should not be considered as a for to build for a “main choice” of a class.
Thirdly my message was more about warning people about being dismissive of complaints and feedback on the game than discussing the strength of the subclasse.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think even if the argument can be made the the Scoundrel is weaker because flanking is easy to get, it's not an especially meaningful decrease in effectiveness. So I think people are responding to the fact that some of the posts piling on the Scoundrel are getting carried away. Like, it's weird to consider it being badly designed for being marginally more niche than thief, while not calling significantly behind in damage.
Your build is easy. I almost did basically the same thing, and realized that it as well does not:
A. Utilize the feint action consistently (which has been my major point about the subclass in general).
B. Even utilize the sneak attack feature consistently after the first turn.
C. Does not do remarkably better damage in the face of the previous two points.
Coherent =/= easy.A ruffian can operate with 18 Str, 16 Cha - and be just as well off as a Scoundrel with 18 Cha, 16 Dex in social encounters.
You are either missing the point or being intentionally disingenuous in order to defend something that can't really be defended.
You can't disprove experience by theorycrafting. You can be doubtful or whatever, but you can't just say that my experience is wrong.
This build works just fine and does very nice damage, on par with any other Racket. You should try it, you'd be surprised.Actually, I think it's one of the most efficient Rogue build you can come up with, but I'll need to get it to higher levels to be sure of that.
A lots of people are pointing out Bowman or Multiclass as viable builds, but I am not convinced that what people got in mind when they go for a Rogue Scoundrel who got a bonus in Feint is a Bowman or a Spellcaster, but more of a Han Solo, Jarlaxe, Dartagnan vibe. To be honest, a lots of people probably got the Swashbuckler class in mind, in a world where is does not exist.
Same as the Warpriest calls for a Warpriest, with strong weapon proficiencies, and the Mutagenist to Mr Hyde or Mundo or Frankenstein Monster.
This.
And apart from everyones roleplaying expectations there is another point to consider: Is this class reasonably valid right out of the box, just with the toolkit the game provides?
For the first "playthrough" of any new RPG I usually do a "is this basic class (and therfore more or less the entire game) working or broken already" test using my very first character. That is chosing a standard ancestry and base class and stick to it till the very end, usually human fighter or similar "workhorse" type class.
In this case I chose cleric (warpriest) and will stick to it and the choices it provides (and only to those) for a full 20 levels - if we ever get so far - no matter if MC sorcerer or champion or adopted acestry would probably have been more effective options.
It's kind of a "is just good, good enough" check before turning my eyes to min-maxing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I disagree that Rogue is a problem class, I think it's one of the most powerful classes right now, I understand your frustration with character building.
Several classes only give class features at level 1, and the other 19 levels are left to the feat system. This wouldn't be a problem, but both skill feats and class feats fail to be exciting a majority of the time. There are a lot of levels in 2e where you are just picking the best from three mediocre feats. Wizard level 6 is particularly bad, only two feats that are both simple numerical bonuses, yikes.