Incredibly Disappointed With My Experience as a PC


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 184 of 184 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, this thread certainly has spawned some good discussion on the Scoundrel racket, Poison Weapon, and some other aspects.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Honestly, I think even if the argument can be made the the Scoundrel is weaker because flanking is easy to get.

It's weaker in combat, not weaker overall, in a game more or equally socially/skill oriented (like a game heavily investigation oriented or with a lot of interaction with people like when you got a fief of your own) than combat oriented the scoundrel can shine out of combat a lot better than the others...

A Scoundrel in Kingmaker is certainly a must have... ;)

Well, the issue here is that at first sight it seem that the Scoundrel has a good advantage in combat with feint where his real advantage is in the Charisma and Skill one... Leading to post like this...

Maybe there should be something in the Scoundrel Racket description warning that this is a social racket or MC racket and that he sacrifice some of his combat prowess for this, while clarifying that Feint is less useful with PF2... ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Loengrin wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Honestly, I think even if the argument can be made the the Scoundrel is weaker because flanking is easy to get.

It's weaker in combat, not weaker overall, in a game more or equally socially/skill oriented (like a game heavily investigation oriented or with a lot of interaction with people like when you got a fief of your own) than combat oriented the scoundrel can shine out of combat a lot better than the others...

A Scoundrel in Kingmaker is certainly a must have... ;)

Well, the issue here is that at first sight it seem that the Scoundrel has a good advantage in combat with feint where his real advantage is in the Charisma and Skill one... Leading to post like this...

Maybe there should be something in the Scoundrel Racket description warning that this is a social racket or MC racket and that he sacrifice some of his combat prowess for this, while clarifying that Feint is less useful with PF2... ;)

I'm not sure they're that much better, rogues get so many skills that like one extra skill over the other rackets and the ability to have Charisma as key ability isn't *that* big a perk, especially since I don't think you can responsibly actually make that choice over Dexterity and keep up your to-hit.... which you could do while still being able to put plenty of stat into charisma with or without the scoundrel.

It also isn't actually worse enough to justify a warning label, seriously someone ran the numbers earlier in the thread- it pulls ahead 1 v 1 pretty well, and is slightly behind if flanking is consistent, which it won't always be.

OP might want to lash out at anyone who disagrees with their assertion that its badly designed, or terrible, but that doesn't happen to make their assertion correct enough to reframe our community perspective on the class.


The-Magic-Sword wrote:
I'm not sure they're that much better, rogues get so many skills that like one extra skill over the other rackets and the ability to have Charisma as key ability isn't *that* big a perk, especially since I don't think you can responsibly actually make that choice over Dexterity and keep up your to-hit.... which you could do while still being able to put plenty of stat into charisma with or without the scoundrel.

Well, as the game plays now I think one more skill is pretty powerful, more importantly I think for a Court Noble this IS the class you should have... as a player this is usually my favorite type of class, not as useful in combat (but a minimum useful nonetheless)

I prefer to build my character as The "Charmer of NPC" of the Group ;)

The-Magic-Sword wrote:
It also isn't actually worse enough to justify a warning label, seriously someone ran the numbers earlier in the thread- it pulls ahead 1 v 1 pretty well, and is slightly behind if flanking is consistent, which it won't always be.

Yeah I agree with you but for newcomers in the game it's not that obvious since you need a very good understanding on how to optimise this racket, things that is a lot more obvious with other racket...

The numbers earlier were run with a MC build and the archetypes rules are new rules that are not so easy to grasp for new players... ;)

The-Magic-Sword wrote:
OP might want to lash out at anyone who disagrees with their assertion that its badly designed, or terrible, but that doesn't happen to make their assertion correct enough to reframe our community perspective on the class.

I will not make any assumption on what the OP might or might not have wanted to says in his first post, I don't care... :p

The only things that interest me is the subject of the discussion itself and every writer should know that his writings stop belongs to him the moment someone else read it ;)


Loengrin wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
I'm not sure they're that much better, rogues get so many skills that like one extra skill over the other rackets and the ability to have Charisma as key ability isn't *that* big a perk, especially since I don't think you can responsibly actually make that choice over Dexterity and keep up your to-hit.... which you could do while still being able to put plenty of stat into charisma with or without the scoundrel.

Well, as the game plays now I think one more skill is pretty powerful, more importantly I think for a Court Noble this IS the class you should have... as a player this is usually my favorite type of class, not as useful in combat (but a minimum useful nonetheless)

I prefer to build my character as The "Charmer of NPC" of the Group ;)

Please quantify your statements. When you say one more skill is pretty powerful, that means you think that even though you already have

10+INT skills trained, you think that your 11th most interesting skill is one that will make a big impact. Which skill are you referring to, which is both 11th-most interesting to you, yet is also going to make such a big difference that it makes up for the Scoundrel's inferior combat abilities?

Moreover, what build can you make with a Scoundrel, which you cannot make just as easily as a Thief or Ruffian?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Loengrin wrote:
It's weaker in combat, not weaker overall

I'm not sure that's really true.

You say the scoundrel will shine "a lot better" than the other rackets out of combat... but in terms of out of combat support, all Scoundrel's really giving you is one extra skill proficiency and the option to go 18 in Cha, which a lot of Scoundrels probably aren't even going to go for.

A thief who opts for 16 cha isn't really going to lag behind a scoundrel in non-combat encounters.


Squiggit wrote:
Loengrin wrote:
It's weaker in combat, not weaker overall
A thief who opts for 16 cha isn't really going to lag behind a scoundrel in non-combat encounters.

+1 Difference in a stat can make a big difference actually. It can literally be the difference between negotiations gone well and negotiations failing.


Squiggit wrote:
Loengrin wrote:
It's weaker in combat, not weaker overall

I'm not sure that's really true.

You say the scoundrel will shine "a lot better" than the other rackets out of combat... but in terms of out of combat support, all Scoundrel's really giving you is one extra skill proficiency and the option to go 18 in Cha, which a lot of Scoundrels probably aren't even going to go for.

A thief who opts for 16 cha isn't really going to lag behind a scoundrel in non-combat encounters.

If the scoundrel takes the 18 charisma, it's certainly true that it's better in social encounters than the 16 charisma thief. Taking the crit system into account, that +1 on the top end means quite a lot. In a game where the social encounters are more important than the combat encounters, the charisma primary is clearly a good option.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Queaux wrote:
If the scoundrel takes the 18 charisma, it's certainly true that it's better in social encounters than the 16 charisma thief. Taking the crit system into account, that +1 on the top end means quite a lot. In a game where the social encounters are more important than the combat encounters, the charisma primary is clearly a good option.

I think that's one thing people have problem with... In PF2 a +1 IS important... ;)

I think I haven't made my idea come through when I said that there should be "warning" in the scoundrel entry... I mean that the entry should note that this is THE entry if you want to multi class in a Charisma based archetype... ;)
You can be almost as good as a Scoundrel with more INT at Social interaction with other racket but the "almost" is the point...
And the Racket tells you that CHA is your key ability without giving clue for why...

Having one more skill mean that you can ditch 2 point in INT to put elsewhere... if this is not a powerful ability I don't know what is... ;)


Loengrin wrote:
Having one more skill mean that you can ditch 2 point in INT to put elsewhere... if this is not a powerful ability I don't know what is... ;)

Why would you have that extra point in INT in the first place, when you already have 10+INT skills as a non-scoundrel rogue?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Strill wrote:
Loengrin wrote:
Having one more skill mean that you can ditch 2 point in INT to put elsewhere... if this is not a powerful ability I don't know what is... ;)
Why would you have that extra point in INT in the first place, when you already have 10+INT skills as a non-scoundrel rogue?

It doesn't have to be an "extra" point: for instance, you might think about a lizardfolk and then leave it at 8 and still have a pile of skills and Frilled Lizardfolk heritage plays right into a Cha build.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If nothing else this thread has made me go from not interested in scoundrel rogues to super excited about creating and playing one, particularly the MC opportunities with sorcerer or bard. Thank you to those who have suggested builds and provided advice.

Scoundrel may not be the highest potential damage subclass and could probably get a few more interesting social class feats tied to the racket in the future but it is a solid damage class with a lot of social skill utility. Its got a little more potential support than Ruffian or Thief with the potential to make a creature flatfooted for everyone.


My Scoundrel story involves a player of mine who played in my Plaguestone game pre-Covid. He had a great time being face and breaking out of his roleplaying shell, and every week he pitched me a handful of different ways he could build a Scoundrel. After the group stopped meeting, I started up an Emerald Spire game with him on roll20. He had dozens of Scoundrels planned out, so I assumed that I`d be seeing one of them.

Then he shows up with an Outwit ranger and he begins showing me the handful of builds he came up with for Outwit.

This story has no real point, but I think there are plenty of people out there enjoying the Scoundrel and what it brings to the table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my opinion, if you don't start with an 18 in Charisma, it's better not to play a Scoundrel. Scoundrel's main ability is to choose Charisma as main attribute as much as Ruffian's main ability is to choose Strength as main attribute. The feinting bonus and extra skill are nice, but not the core of the Racket.


Ruzza wrote:

My Scoundrel story involves a player of mine who played in my Plaguestone game pre-Covid. He had a great time being face and breaking out of his roleplaying shell, and every week he pitched me a handful of different ways he could build a Scoundrel. After the group stopped meeting, I started up an Emerald Spire game with him on roll20. He had dozens of Scoundrels planned out, so I assumed that I`d be seeing one of them.

Then he shows up with an Outwit ranger and he begins showing me the handful of builds he came up with for Outwit.

This story has no real point, but I think there are plenty of people out there enjoying the Scoundrel and what it brings to the table.

This question is a bit of a tangent but what did the Outwit builds look like? Because like the suggestion on the Scoundrel this type of Ranger seemed the weakest of the three. Indeed in my reading is seemed far below the other two (a bigger gap than between a Scoundrel and the other two rackets)

So I would be intrigued to know how this worked/played

It is loosely related to the original topic because it seems like a decision that someone could make with ranger and end up “disappointed” as well. And potentially one that needs a little more system knowledge to get the very best out of and even then still potentially come up short ...?


SuperBidi wrote:
In my opinion, if you don't start with an 18 in Charisma, it's better not to play a Scoundrel. Scoundrel's main ability is to choose Charisma as main attribute as much as Ruffian's main ability is to choose Strength as main attribute. The feinting bonus and extra skill are nice, but not the core of the Racket.

I wonder if this will become starker with class archetypes. No one knows how these will look but maybe some will require you to swap out a rogue racket ability but keep the key stat and rest of the rogue chassis ? Or maybe class archetypes will only play with proficiency...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:
It is loosely related to the original topic because it seems like a decision that someone could make with ranger and end up “disappointed” as well.

Not the poster but I've found the most fun way to play Outwit is to just pick a couple of the skills you run off of and go all in on them. Pump up Intimidation and Nature, grab the monster hunter line.

The +2s essentially give you an extra tier of proficiency over everyone else that can scale past legendary unlike other bumps, which makes you really good at intimidating or Knowing about enemies you shouldn't, especially when that master upgrade turns that +2 into a +4.

Build can feel slow though, because a lot of the really juicy Intimidate/Recall options don't come online until fairly late.

It's definitely a bummer that you completely trade away your combat modifiers for this though. The stealth bonus can feel like a trap too, since you spend most of the game with only one hunt target but a lot of encounters will have multiple foes (double/triple hunt coming on as late as they do feels like overkill to me).

YMMV but depending on your GM the fact that they're circumstance bonuses can potentially suck too as it means you can't benefit from aid (or other effects) and you can't use the, uh, circumstances you're in to try to get bonuses either. Some GMs never hand out circumstance modifiers though so it won't matter for those kinds of games as much. Still feels like an oversight when the other two rackets are written explcitly to stack with everything.

I've tried another Outwit build where you don't go all in on your bonus skills and just treat them like extra skill increases so you end up with more skills rather than a couple ones with big bonuses, but that character ended up just sort of feeling like a rogue without sneak attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel that if the entire pull of a racket is the +2 to a stat, and their actual abilities are just extra something somewhere has gone wrong.

The pull of a class/subclass/class archetype should be its abilities, not whatever tiny stat increase they give at lv 1. Yes I know a +1 is important, but to be more important than the actual class/subclass/class archetype something is not right.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a friendly reminder from not a mod that, while the mod staff might not be as present now as they have been in the past, there are still rules to this message board and attacking each other - no matter who started it, how justified it feels, or how much it looks like others are "getting away with it" - is still against them.

And in a hilarious kind of hypocritical irony, I'm pretty sure me pointing this out is against the rules too. So let's all stop breaking the rules, maybe?


The problem I see with Outwit is that most of the skills it impacts are not based off of key ranger stats

Even with the boost (against only one target) you are likely to be behind many other characters who use those abilities . They give you more options I suppose. And maybe I am too damage focused in favouring the damage / increased attack options

I would say it needs a scaling within the core ability like precision

Although maybe I am undervaluing the AC boost ?


Lanathar wrote:

The problem I see with Outwit is that most of the skills it impacts are not based off of key ranger stats

Even with the boost (against only one target) you are likely to be behind many other characters who use those abilities . They give you more options I suppose. And maybe I am too damage focused in favouring the damage / increased attack options

I would say it needs a scaling within the core ability like precision

Although maybe I am undervaluing the AC boost ?

They are cisrcumstances bonuses, which stacks with status & items bonuses so you could get some pretty good results.

It seem it would mesh well with monster hunter, especially once you are able to roll all your recall knowledge from Nature (and then only need to focus one 1 skill & wisdom)


Kendaan wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

The problem I see with Outwit is that most of the skills it impacts are not based off of key ranger stats

Even with the boost (against only one target) you are likely to be behind many other characters who use those abilities . They give you more options I suppose. And maybe I am too damage focused in favouring the damage / increased attack options

I would say it needs a scaling within the core ability like precision

Although maybe I am undervaluing the AC boost ?

They are cisrcumstances bonuses, which stacks with status & items bonuses so you could get some pretty good results.

It seem it would mesh well with monster hunter, especially once you are able to roll all your recall knowledge from Nature (and then only need to focus one 1 skill & wisdom)

This is pretty much his build idea. He's focusing hard on Recall Knowledge skills as he levels and getting the most out of "action economy cheat feats," as he calls them: Monster Hunter, Monster Warden, Scout's Warning, Warden's Boon, etc.

His Emerald Spire group is a fighter, barbarian, and cleric, so he sees himself as "martial support" along with "skill monkey." I'm also fairly generous with my Recall Knowledge checks, and he wants to take that knowledge and have a number of silver bullet answers to problems. We've only had one session which was mostly RP, but it looks solid from what I see. He and I also differ in how we would run the class, but I can see his way of thinking, especially given his party composition.


Yeah, I would have to guess that Outwit Rangers (similar to a Scoundrel Rogue to a lesser extent) rely very heavily on how the GM approaches the game. I've heard tell of GMs who loathe giving out any relevant information on recall knowledge checks, and some who will give out just very minor tidbits, one at a time.

I think a Monster Warden would play well at my table, but that's because none of my players ever do knowledge checks in combat (and often suffer for that), so I get extra generous if they ever do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I might be wildly out of line, but I codified it for my players. I think Recall Knowledge is a pretty important action in 2e, so at my table I want everyone to have some solid ground rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Yeah, I might be wildly out of line, but I codified it for my players. I think Recall Knowledge is a pretty important action in 2e, so at my table I want everyone to have some solid ground rules.

Definitely a good way!

I haven't codified anything. I probably give out too much information on a reasonable roll, so if I had a Monster Warden at my table, they'd plumb the enemies for their life story real quick, haha.

It's a really cool way to build a support ranger. Hell, rangers in general are so badass in PF2.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sporkedup wrote:
Yeah, I would have to guess that Outwit Rangers (similar to a Scoundrel Rogue to a lesser extent) rely very heavily on how the GM approaches the game. I've heard tell of GMs who loathe giving out any relevant information on recall knowledge checks, and some who will give out just very minor tidbits, one at a time.

Ruzza kind of hit it on the head: there isn't much codified about Recall Knowledge. "A useful clue" can cover a LOT of ground then you add to that that each and every roll requires not just figuring out the right answer but a believable wrong answer.

Sporkedup wrote:
none of my players ever do knowledge checks in combat

It's most likely a combo of not being sure what to ask, what they'll get if they do ask and having good actions to take up their 3 actions. For instance, does he wizard cast a spell and back up or stand still and recall knowledge and stand within easy reach of the bad guys [and maybe get the WRONG answer]? I lot of people don't have extra actions laying around.

Sovereign Court

Ruzza wrote:
Yeah, I might be wildly out of line, but I codified it for my players. I think Recall Knowledge is a pretty important action in 2e, so at my table I want everyone to have some solid ground rules.

I thought about taking Monster Hunter for my level 2 Ranger feat, but the requirement to Critically Succeed to get any real benefit made it too hit or miss to be worthwhile IMHO. I took Hunter's Aim instead, since I already had Hunted Shot from level 1.


Samurai wrote:
Ruzza wrote:
Yeah, I might be wildly out of line, but I codified it for my players. I think Recall Knowledge is a pretty important action in 2e, so at my table I want everyone to have some solid ground rules.
I thought about taking Monster Hunter for my level 2 Ranger feat, but the requirement to Critically Succeed to get any real benefit made it too hit or miss to be worthwhile IMHO. I took Hunter's Aim instead, since I already had Hunted Shot from level 1.

Yeah, that one definitely is infrequent until you get the level 10 feat.

Customer Service Representative

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts and their replies

Accusative and insulting language is not an appropriate tone for conversation. Thank you to those who flagged and did not engage the inflammatory content.

151 to 184 of 184 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Incredibly Disappointed With My Experience as a PC All Messageboards