Ultimate Rogue — re-unchaining the Rogue


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 80 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:

@exequiel759

Thank you for your clear explanation.

I often forget that I have banned the majority of the later classes from my campaign and hate the versimiltude shattering abilities of the bard so have banned that/reskinned it as a noble. Before everyone gets hot under the collar, it's mainly because I run a conversion of the ToEE and it is simpler to limit the classes to those available in 1e.

You sre absolutely right, there are better classes. But I would argue therr shouldn't be! Paizo messed up the rogue, tried to fix it with Unchained and ended up trampling all over it's space with new and superior classes as part of the inevitable power creep that comes with later published material.

I should also add as a footnote that this also somewhat functions as a conversion from Starfinder's Operative (the rogue from that system), to the point that some things are directly copied from that class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
You sre absolutely right, there are better classes. But I would argue therr shouldn't be! Paizo messed up the rogue, tried to fix it with Unchained and ended up trampling all over it's space with new and superior classes as part of the inevitable power creep that comes with later published material.

The "better classes" are not the result of power creep. Several of them are in the CRB.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
glass wrote:
Hugo Rune wrote:
You sre absolutely right, there are better classes. But I would argue therr shouldn't be! Paizo messed up the rogue, tried to fix it with Unchained and ended up trampling all over it's space with new and superior classes as part of the inevitable power creep that comes with later published material.
The "better classes" are not the result of power creep. Several of them are in the CRB.

You, of course, mean the bard with their versimiltude shattering ability to play a two handed musical instrument perfectly whilst also wielding a weapon or their ability to sing loudly to improve the party's stealth.

As I said I banned bards, for the reasons above and then decided to reskin the class as an NPC noble class. Many of their abilities fit the role of someone born to privilege and leadership.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
glass wrote:
The "better classes" are not the result of power creep. Several of them are in the CRB.
You, of course, mean the bard with their versimiltude shattering ability to play a two handed musical instrument perfectly whilst also wielding a weapon or their ability to sing loudly to improve the party's stealth.

While the bard is better than the core rogue (it is hard not to be), I was "of course" mostly talking about the wizard, cleric, and druid.

Also, singing loudly does not improve the party's stealth, it ruins it, obviously. (Although it was probably already ruined by ACPs - I have never seen a full size party that did not have someone whose stealth was tanked by armour). And bards have no exceptions to the normal handedness rules - if you are playing a two-handed musical instrument you are not wielding a weapon at all! EDIT: Unless it is a tale blade or something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
glass wrote:
Hugo Rune wrote:
glass wrote:
The "better classes" are not the result of power creep. Several of them are in the CRB.
You, of course, mean the bard with their versimiltude shattering ability to play a two handed musical instrument perfectly whilst also wielding a weapon or their ability to sing loudly to improve the party's stealth.

While the bard is better than the core rogue (it is hard not to be), I was "of course" mostly talking about the wizard, cleric, and druid.

Also, singing loudly does not improve the party's stealth, it ruins it, obviously. (Although it was probably already ruined by ACPs - I have never seen a full size party that did not have someone whose stealth was tanked by armour). And bards have no exceptions to the normal handedness rules - if you are playing a two-handed musical instrument you are not wielding a weapon at all! EDIT: Unless it is a tale blade or something.

Did you mean to miss the point of his post?

Also, "casters are better than rogues" is such a weird take given their purpose is completely different. Its like saying a spy/assassin is useless because you have explosives. The two are not comparable on a fundamental level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Also, "casters are better than rogues" is such a weird take given their purpose is completely different. Its like saying a spy/assassin is useless because you have explosives. The two are not comparable on a fundamental level.

Obviously flavor-wise they are vastly different and someone that wants to play a rogue-ish character isn't going to play a wizard, but the fact that wizards can pretty much delve as a pretty efficient skill monkey (due to their already high and increasing Intelligence score), can have a really good Stealth bonus (either due to vanish or invisibility), can disable devices pretty effectively (either through knock or by increasing their skill modifiers with spells such as true skill), and sneak attack (through sense vitals), among other things, is what gives spellcasters their reputation of replacing every other class in the game.

I know that rogue-ish characters can do all of this and better (except maybe stealth because it's hard to compensate for a +20/+40 bonus), but the fact that a wizard can also do it without any specializations and choose not to do it the next day to instead replace other classes its what makes martial characters much more worse options from an optimal point of view. This is also why I also think the skill list should be consolidated to give martials more toys to play with, but I already discussed that in my other thread.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The point of the skill monkey is that they are always pretty good at a lot of things. A caster can always be better, provided they prepared the right spells. In an unexpected, evolving situation [where violence is not the answer] the skill monkey should shine whereas the caster will be lamenting their spell choice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
But the rogue can act on the spur of the moment to situations as they unfold. For example, the rogue can chat with the barman to uncover a shady contact, follow said contact to their rendezvous unobserved (possibly via rooftop) and scout out the perimeter of the rendezvous building, spotting guards as he does so.

None of that is in any way Rogue-specific, or even really supported by Rogue class features. What you describe is just using skills, a Commoner could do that.

Hugo Rune wrote:
Paizo messed up the rogue, tried to fix it with Unchained and ended up trampling all over it's space with new and superior classes as part of the inevitable power creep that comes with later published material.

There is actually very little power creep in Pathfinder (as a whole). The CRB classes Wizard and Cleric are still the most powerful classes in the game, the top tier most powerful spells are almost all from the CRB, and even the most powerful feat is from the CRB.

Hugo Rune wrote:
ended up trampling all over it's space with new and superior classes

What space? Rogue never had a space. That's been the problem from the beginning. With magic traps being detectable by everyone, and cross-class skills not being much of an issue, "trap handling" just isn't a 'space' in Pathfinder. And with spells being able to do a lot of that much better, Bards and Wizards getting as many skill rank per level in practise, and the mentioned non-issue of cross-class-skills, "skillmonkey" isn't a 'space' in Pathfinder, either.

Note that the above already applies to the CRB, no later classes needed.

Yes, Paizo gave us numerous replacement options for the Rogue (Ninja, Slayer, Investigator, Stalker Vigilante) instead of making an honest attempt to fix the class*, but the underlying issue is that the Rogue was already outclasses in the CRB. There was basically never a reason to pick Rogue, no matter the concept.

*) Funny enough, the best help Rogue ever got wasn't unchained, or any of the better later Rogue talents like Emboldening Strike), but rather the Sylvan Trickster archetype in Ultimate Wilderness. Even though Hexes are mainly offensive, and a made to merely accompany the ultra powerful 9th level prepared casting, they are still so much better than Rogue Talents it's ridiculous, and fix fundamental flaws like lack of flight (Flight) and the weak Fort save (Greater Gift of Consumption). And unlike Eldritch Scoundrel, Sylvan Trickster does not cut down your SA progression or skill ranks.

Hugo Rune wrote:
You, of course, mean the bard with their versimiltude shattering ability to play a two handed musical instrument perfectly whilst also wielding a weapon or their ability to sing loudly to improve the party's stealth.

Literally zero Bard class feature requires using an instrument. And Inspire Competence explicitly says "Certain uses of this ability are infeasible, such as Stealth, and may be disallowed at the GM's discretion."

So the issue isn't Bard shattering versimiltude, but rather you apparently not reading the class description.

Hugo Rune wrote:
The point of the skill monkey is that they are always pretty good at a lot of things. A caster can always be better, provided they prepared the right spells. In an unexpected, evolving situation [where violence is not the answer] the skill monkey should shine whereas the caster will be lamenting their spell choice.

You're acting as if "caster" and "skillmonkey" were mutually exclusive, but that's far from the truth. A Caster can be just as good or even better than a Rogue at skills even without using any spells. Bard and Investigator are prime examples, but Wizards (and other int-based full casters as well as most int-based 6/9 casters) qualify, too. Indeed, it's not just casters,

Also, while you can't have spells for every situation prepared, you can have spells for common situations prepared. It's not witchcraft, and it certainly doesn't require some "Schrödinger's Wizard" stuff, to have Invisibility and Fly (or Monkey Fish if at lower level) prepared. At higher level, Overland Flight ist just always active.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
Inspire Competence explicitly says "Certain uses of this ability are infeasible, such as Stealth,

I disagree


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hi Derklord, I'm not 100% you are actually disagreeing with me. Do you think that the game should have space for a purely skill-focused class? If so, do you believe that the purely skill-focused class should be the best class at using skills? If so, do you believe that the Rogue should be that class?

You stated that there isn't a skill monkey space in the game, something I disagree with. A skill monkey's key characteristic is that they have lots of skills that can be used in lots of situations without draining resources. A martial character losing HP is a drain on resources, a caster casting a spell is a drain on resources, but a skill monkey obtaining information that can then be used to apply the party's limited resources more effectively is in essence a buff for the whole party.

Now what I have witnessed, particularly on these forums, is that many GM's do not run the game in a way that allows the skill monkey to shine. They are content to run the standard 4 encounter day and allow the party to retreat once they have run out of resources. A more dynamic environment, with a variable and higher number of potential encounters will require the party to be more careful over their use of limited resources, giving more opportunity for the skill monkey. I've found that providing more encounter variety also makes spell selection more difficult and a wizard whose spells are either useless or dedicated to self-preservation isn't much help to a party.

WRT to the Bard and their Bardic Performance. By the RAW you are absolutely correct, it is a free action to maintain the performance, but if the Bard's perform skill is in the Guitar then the game is requiring us to believe he can maintain his performance with the guitar whilst also using a sword and shield. Or if the performance is singing (no hands required), that he can hold a perfect note whilst being smacked by an Ogre's club, or if the performance is mime (silent visual) that he can fight effectively whilst miming. That is what I consider verisimilitude shattering and why I banned them


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If your performance is based on an instrument you cannot just start using a weapon without doing weird draw/stow/drop things. Miming, dancing, and voiced based things are a different matter.

In any case, Rogue is generally the better skill character while Bard is generally the better knowledge character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

If your performance is based on an instrument you cannot just start using a weapon without doing weird draw/stow/drop things. Miming, dancing, and voiced based things are a different matter.

In any case, Rogue is generally the better skill character while Bard is generally the better knowledge character.

A rogue has 8 + Int skill ranks per level.

A bard has 6 + Int skill ranks per level, 5 more due to versatile performance (2 new skills but you need to have the appropiate Perform skill), and 14+ more due to peagent of the peacock (Appraise, Craft and its categories, all Knowledge categories, Linguistics, and Spellcraft). This gives us that bards effectively have 25 + Int skill ranks per level. oh, and they have spells and actual class features to make them better skill monkeys. How could a rogue compare to this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
You're acting as if "caster" and "skillmonkey" were mutually exclusive, but that's far from the truth. A Caster can be just as good or even better than a Rogue at skills even without using any spells. Bard and Investigator are prime examples, but Wizards (and other int-based full casters as well as most int-based 6/9 casters) qualify, too. Indeed, it's not just caster.

I firmly believe that this happens due to the insane amount of skills there is in the game. If PF only had 20 or so skills then martials wouldn't struggle as much because they would likely have the skills they need 99% of the time. Casters will still make Acrobatics, Climb, and Swim meaningless as they already do, but at least if "Athletics" existed then they wouldn't need caster assistance as often.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
If your performance is based on an instrument you cannot just start using a weapon without doing weird draw/stow/drop things.

Both you and Hugo Rune seem to be mistaken on how Bardic Performance works. This is not 3.5, the ability is not Bardic Music. There is no such thing as a "performance based on an instrument". You don't have one perform skill that you use all the performances with, indeed, for most bardic Performances, you don't actually use a perform skill at all.

Hugo Rune wrote:
Do you think that the game should have space for a purely skill-focused class?

Hell no. One player sitting around doing nothing in combat, and the other players sitting around doing nothing during skill challenges, sounds like an utterly horrible game to me, and yet that is what a having purely skill-focused character results in.

Hugo Rune wrote:
You stated that there isn't a skill monkey space in the game. A skill monkey's key characteristic is that they have lots of skills that can be used in lots of situations without draining resources. A martial character losing HP is a drain on resources, a caster casting a spell is a drain on resources, but a skill monkey obtaining information that can then be used to apply the party's limited resources more effectively is in essence a buff for the whole party.

Newsflash: You can use skills without being a skillmonkey! None of what you said requires a skillmonkey, neither in the "focussed on skills" nor in the "has many skill ranks" meaning of the term. That's why I say there is no space for it, because it's not something the game needs or rewards. Indeed, spreading skills across the party is usually better, as it allows characters to apply their individual ability score bonuses.

Hugo Rune wrote:
A more dynamic environment, with a variable and higher number of potential encounters will require the party to be more careful over their use of limited resources, giving more opportunity for the skill monkey. I've found that providing more encounter variety also makes spell selection more difficult and a wizard whose spells are either useless or dedicated to self-preservation isn't much help to a party.

The issue is that in practise, spells for encounters and spells for other challenges do not share a resource. Unless you have entire level's worth of encounters in a single day, a full caster won't use their lowest spell levels in combat, and can freely use them to outperform many maxed-out skills.

Hugo Rune wrote:
Or if the performance is singing (no hands required), that he can hold a perfect note whilst being smacked by an Ogre's club, or if the performance is mime (silent visual) that he can fight effectively whilst miming. That is what I consider verisimilitude shattering and why I banned them

All bardic performances are supernatural or spell-like abilities. You're complaining that a "supernatural" ability isn't realistic. If you want verisimilitude, don't play a game with magic in it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
Temperans wrote:
If your performance is based on an instrument you cannot just start using a weapon without doing weird draw/stow/drop things.
Both you and Hugo Rune seem to be mistaken on how Bardic Performance works. This is not 3.5, the ability is not Bardic Music. There is no such thing as a "performance based on an instrument". You don't have one perform skill that you use all the performances with, indeed, for most bardic Performances, you don't actually use a perform skill at all.

1st of all, the perform skill is the same as the profession and craft skill and you must specify the type of performance.

2nd of all, I was talking about performing in general not just about bardic performance. You cannot argue with me that a character can use perform(string) without a string instrument.

3rd of all, while not all basic bardic performances use an instrument all master bardic perform and some basic bardic performance do. Also you still have to fulfill the audio component of any performance that requires it.

4th of all, while many of the basic bardic does not require the perform skill most bard feats do require the perform skills and often require a specific perform skill.

Finally, all my comment was that if you have an instrument in hand (which many bards do) then you have to deal with it before you can use other items. That really isn't a controversial statement, I have no idea why you are treating it like one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I quite like the concept for the Master Spy prestige class, but like the rogue it is weak compared to other classes.

A fairly straightforward idea is to convert the abilities of the Master Spy to Rogue Talents of the same level. For example Concealed Thoughts would be available to rogues of fourth level or higher.

I also like the way skills work for the Phantom Thief archetype, which is one of the ideas I think the opening post was going for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:

I quite like the concept for the Master Spy prestige class, but like the rogue it is weak compared to other classes.

A fairly straightforward idea is to convert the abilities of the Master Spy to Rogue Talents of the same level. For example Concealed Thoughts would be available to rogues of fourth level or higher.

I also like the way skills work for the Phantom Thief archetype, which is one of the ideas I think the opening post was going for.

I didn't know about the Mastery Spy PrC, (I often ignore their existance because the vast majority of them are...ok?) but most of the things that PrC does already are either rogue talents or vigilante social talents, so I don't think it's a big boost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Did you mean to miss the point of his post?

Maybe he could make his point without inventing abilities that Bards do not actually posses (growing extra arms, and "bluff bluff bluff the stupid ogre")?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
glass wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Did you mean to miss the point of his post?
Maybe he could make his point without inventing abilities that Bards do not actually posses (growing extra arms, and "bluff bluff bluff the stupid ogre")?

It was sarcasm, he wasn't inventing new abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
glass wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Did you mean to miss the point of his post?
Maybe he could make his point without inventing abilities that Bards do not actually posses (growing extra arms, and "bluff bluff bluff the stupid ogre")?

Exactly what abilities are you accusing me of inventing? Maintaining a Bardic Performance with the Perform (in this case Guitar) skill is according to the RAW a free action. So the Bard can perform with the guitar and use a sword and shield by RAW. Also, Inspire Competence is one of the uses of bardic performance and can be used to boost stealth, or as you suggest bluff or any other skill.

My complaint is that those skills shatter versimiltude in the game, and you apparently agree by claiming the need for extra arms and referencing the GiantITP comic - neither of which I did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
glass wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Did you mean to miss the point of his post?
Maybe he could make his point without inventing abilities that Bards do not actually posses (growing extra arms, and "bluff bluff bluff the stupid ogre")?
It was sarcasm, he wasn't inventing new abilities.

Since they immediately doubled down, it looks like it was you that misinterpreted their post. Speaking of which:

Hugo Rune wrote:
Exactly what abilities are you accusing me of inventing?

The ones you mention in your next couple of sentences....

Hugo Rune wrote:
Maintaining a Bardic Performance with the Perform (in this case Guitar) skill is according to the RAW a free action. So the Bard can perform with the guitar and use a sword and shield by RAW.

Does not follow. It is true that maintaining a bardic performance is a free action, but if you are doing it with a guitar then it requires both your hands because playing the guitar requires two hands. The only way you are playing the guitar and simultaneously wielding a weapon and shield is if you have four arms - I recommend singing for Bardic Performance.

Hugo Rune wrote:
Also, Inspire Competence is one of the uses of bardic performance and can be used to boost stealth, or as you suggest bluff or any other skill.

As has already been pointed out to you, Stealth is explicitly barred from benefiting from Inspire Competence:

"Certain uses of this ability are infeasible, such as Stealth, and may be disallowed at the GM's discretion."

Any GM (or player for that matter) who cared about verisimilitude would certainly consider Bluff to fall under the "certain uses" that are "infeasible" and therefore "disallowed". Admittedly Bluff (but not Stealth) is subject to GM discretion, but if they use their discretion to allow it that is on them.

Hugo Rune wrote:
My complaint is that those skills shatter verisimilitude in the game, and you apparently agree by claiming the need for extra arms and referencing the GiantITP comic - neither of which I did.

If your complaints were close to accurate, I would be agreeing with you that they were not great for verisimilitude. Fortunately, they are not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Glass

I didn't invent any abilities, they are all in the RAW. However, you seem to have taken a nerf bat to the ability and said that only certain perform skills can be used and only if they're not situationally silly.

Talking of situational silliness, you quote singing as a type of Bardic Performance that can be used during combat. Can you really imagine Pavarotti holding a perfect note whilst being pummeled by Mike Tyson or even Evander Holyfield holding a reasonable note whilst having his ear bitten off.

No? Well what Perform skills will you allow?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
I didn't invent any abilities, they are all in the RAW.

I just explained how they are in fact were not.

Hugo Rune wrote:
However, you seem to have taken a nerf bat to the ability and said that only certain perform skills can be used and only if they're not situationally silly.

Once again:

"Certain uses of [Inspire Competence] are infeasible, such as Stealth, and may be disallowed at the GM's discretion."

No need for me to nerf anything, because the RAW comes pre-nerfed.

(I cannot cite an explicit rule that you cannot use hand that are currently holding a weapon and shield to play a guitar with, but I am confident that that is the default and you would have to cite a rule that said you could.)

Hugo Rune wrote:
Talking of situational silliness, you quote singing as a type of Bardic Performance that can be used during combat. Can you really imagine Pavarotti holding a perfect note whilst being pummeled by Mike Tyson or even Evander Holyfield holding a reasonable note whilst having his ear bitten off.

Neither Pavarotti or Holyfield are bards, nor even adventurers.

Also, nothing in Bardic Performance says that the bard has to hold a perfect note, or even a particularly good one - just a magically-inspiring one (all the Bardic Performance sub-abilities are Su or Sp). And if you have an issue with explicit magic being usable in combat, wait until what a wizard or druid can do!

Yes, singing while fighting for your life is not particularly realistic. But in the context of a fantasy game, there is a world of difference between "not particularly realistic" and "verisimilitude shattering".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Glass

And we've come full circle. I prefer my fantasy imagery more in the mould of LoTR, Wheel of Time or even Hawk the Slayer (with the machine gun elven archer) not a Bollywood musical or Bjorn's link to the Pirates of the Penzance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
And we've come full circle. I prefer my fantasy imagery more in the mould of LoTR, Wheel of Time or even Hawk the Slayer (with the machine gun elven archer) not a Bollywood musical or Bjorn's link to the Pirates of the Penzance.

Is that the same Wheel of Time whose recent television adaptation devoted screen time to a song about Old Mantheren? Or the same Lord of the Rings that is positively lousy with people singing?

If you do not like the fantasy that the bard represents, that's fine, but just say that. Do not try to dress that preference up as some kind of objective quality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
My complaint is that those skills shatter versimiltude in the game

No, your complaint is that those giants are nasty, evil creatures... while you're fighting windmills. What shatters your versimiltude only exists in your imagination, and is not a product of the actual rules.

You claimed that Bard has the "versimiltude shattering ability to play a two handed musical instrument perfectly whilst also wielding a weapon". This is wrong, it doesn't. That you can maintan a Bardic Performance as a free action doesn't change anything, because the Bardic Performance doesn't require playing an instrument.

You talk about "Pavarotti holding a perfect note", but while there is a mention of "use the Perform skill" in the introductory sentence of Bardic Performance, the actual rules on doing so that 3.5 had were all cut from Pathfinder. Nothing says a PF Bard needs to even have a single point in any perform skill, and the main performances (Inspire Courage and Inspire Competence) don't have the Bard make skill checks at all.

The 3.5 text:
Bardic Music: Once per day per bard level, a bard can use his song or poetics to produce magical effects on those around him (usually including himself, if desired). While these abilities fall under the category of bardic music and the descriptions discuss singing or playing instruments, they can all be activated by reciting poetry, chanting, singing lyrical songs, singing melodies (fa-la-la, and so forth), whistling, playing an instrument, or playing an instrument in combination with some spoken performance. Each ability requires both a minimum bard level and a minimum number of ranks in the Perform skill to qualify; if a bard does not have the required number of ranks in at least one Perform skill, he does not gain the bardic music ability until he acquires the needed ranks.

You're also still assuming that a Bard's mundane performance is what's carrying the magical effect, but that's not said. It could very well be the magic of the performance producing the effect. Masterpieces often have a choice of two perform skills for the prereqs, but are often described as both, even if that's impossible for a single character to produce. Battle Song of the People's Revolt for example is a "song for fife and drum". This can only mean the Masterpiece produces an effect that does not come from the Bard. And if Masterpieces produce e.g. the sound on their own, why shouldn't the regular Bardic Performances do so as well?
Bardic Performances rely on audible or visual components, but nothing says they require the Bard to provide them.
Maybe the magical effect of the performance moves the Bard's body? It used to be (i.e. in 3.5) that many performances required concentration, and that any performance made it so that the bard "cannot cast spells, activate magic items by spell completion (such as scrolls), or activate magic items by magic word (such as wands)." 3.5 PHB pg. 30, but Paizo removed both of those limitations.

You know what? A Bard using a two-handed instrument in combat shatters my verisimilitude, too! But not because the class allows them to combine that with using a weapon, but because it doesn't, and the character is deliberately gimping themself for absolutely no reason.
A Bard using an instrument in combat because they want to play a guitarist is like an Fighter not wearing armor (not counting Monk dips etc.) because the player wants to play a nudist. It's either a joke character, or a player being unable to seperate Pathfinder from other games/media.

Hugo Rune wrote:
Also, Inspire Competence is one of the uses of bardic performance and can be used to boost stealth

Do you even read my posts?

Not that I actually see an issue here. So what if Inspire Competence boosts stealth? You usually stealth as part of movement, meaning you can't stealth the performance itself. If the audible performances alerts the enemies, who cares about what bonus it provides?
Also, the Silent Table spell, which is on the Bard list, would allow the party members but not the enemies to hear the Bard, in which situation Inspire Competence (Stealth) does make sense. The opposing creatures could also be deaf, or in an are of Silence; or Inspire Competence could be made a non-audible (but visible) effect via the Silent Performer feat, in which case opponents unable to see the party for whatever reason (blind, in darkness, eyes closed, party in an Invisibility Sphere etc.) could be affected by Inspire Competence (Stealth) makign the party move more silent, without beign altered by the performance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
while many of the basic bardic does not require the perform skill most bard feats do require the perform skills and often require a specific perform skill.

As usual, you're making things up. My spreadsheet of all feats finds 33 feats with "bard" in the prereqs, and not only does the overwhelming majority (27 out of those 33) not use the perform skill, I could't find a single one with a specific perform skill.

This is as nonsensical a claim as your "most classes only have 1 good save with nearly all martial classes having a poor Reflex and Will save".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally don't see why Inspire Competence couldn't improve stealth regardless of whether the opponent could hear it, providing that it's not the bard's own stealth. If Rammstein or Mötorhead were playing in the room, even a paladin in full plate would seem pretty stealthy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
Temperans wrote:
while many of the basic bardic does not require the perform skill most bard feats do require the perform skills and often require a specific perform skill.

As usual, you're making things up. My spreadsheet of all feats finds 33 feats with "bard" in the prereqs, and not only does the overwhelming majority (27 out of those 33) not use the perform skill, I could't find a single one with a specific perform skill.

This is as nonsensical a claim as your "most classes only have 1 good save with nearly all martial classes having a poor Reflex and Will save".

I mean, this is kinda true for classes in the CRB or APG. For example, barbarians/bloodragers, cavaliers/samurais, fighters, ninjas/rogues, and swashbucklers (I know some of these didn't came in the CRB or APG but the fact that they get one good save is true).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
exequiel759 wrote:
I mean, this is kinda true for classes in the CRB or APG. For example, barbarians/bloodragers, cavaliers/samurais, fighters, ninjas/rogues, and swashbucklers (I know some of these didn't came in the CRB or APG but the fact that they get one good save is true).

Out of the 40 classes (counting Monk only once), 17 classes have one good save and 23 classes have two good saves (or 2+ good saves if using cMonk). So much for "most". Out of the 13 classes with no casting (not counting Kineticist), only four have poor ref+will, or five out of 18 if also counting 4/9 casters. So much for "nearly all". Indeed, half out the martial or 4/9 caster classes have two good saves.

If you do indeed only count the classes form CRB+APG (which the post said nothing about!), nine out of 18 have only one good save, so exactly half and not "most". Three out of five pure martials have "poor Reflex and Will save", 60% is hardly an "almost all". If you include 4/9 casters (which is usually done because of similar playstyles and power level), it's a mere three out of eight.

Of course, this doesn't even touch on bonuses to saves. Barbarian and Bloodrager have bonus to Will from Rage, Barb also has Superstition, Fighter has Armed Bravery, Samurai has Resolve, Swashbuckler has Charmed Life, Medium has the Champion spirit bonus. That only leaves Rogue, Ninja, and Cavalier as the single-good-save martial classes without help from their class, all of which I do indeed consider crap. Rogue has Emboldening Strike, which can be awesome as it stacks with itself, but it requires triggering SA first, and is thus just not reliable. And inactive when you usually need it most.

Also, as that was what my original comment in that thread was about, the number of both Fortitude save effects and Will save effects that take you out out the fight (e.g. paralysis, Hold Person) or at least severly hamper your ability to participate (e.g. blindness, Slow) is much higher than the number of Reflex save effects that do so, which makes Reflex the least important save, and having only that one as a good save further weakens the overall saving throw situation the Rogue is in.

Indeed, I'd go so far as to call any attempt at an unchained/reworked Rogue that doesn't improve the savesing throw situation (either by giving Rogue a second good save, or a reliable ability to improve saves (or both)) a failure.

Mudfoot wrote:
I personally don't see why Inspire Competence couldn't improve stealth regardless of whether the opponent could hear it, providing that it's not the bard's own stealth. If Rammstein or Mötorhead were playing in the room, even a paladin in full plate would seem pretty stealthy.

I don't even see an issue with Inspire Courage improving the Bard's stealth, as long as it doesn't affect the noticeability of the performance itself. When you're singing loudly, does it matter how quiet your footsteps are?

Hugo Rune's issue is that he thinks that stealth removes all ways of noticing a character, which is just wrong. For example, no amount of stealth would make you able to shoot a firearm any quieter; Bardic Performances with audible components work just the same.

51 to 80 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Ultimate Rogue — re-unchaining the Rogue All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules