This product is 56 pages long and free. Cover, credits, intro and ToC take up 4 pages. I counted 17 pages of adds many of them for other Rite... [Read More]
Evocative City Sites Lorn's Entrepot (Abandoned Warehouse) by Rite Publishing. I was given this product for the purposes of this review. This product is 47 pages long. Cover, Credits, two pages of... [Read More]
Feats 101 by Rite Publishing. I was given this product for the purposes of this review. I have not yet played using these feats my review is based on reading the feats and checking a few against... [Read More]
The Plane Below: Secrets of the Elemental Chaos is a 4e D&D product describing some of the different planes in the 4e Cosmology. The book is a typical hard bound book that Wizards of the Coast... [Read More]
After a VERY long absence (I last played 1st edition), I'm going to give D&D another shot and the DM wants to play 3.5e.
Needless to say, I haven't had to deal with skill points and such before and I'm trying to muddle through the concept of allocating them.
As a rogue, there are SO many skills to choose and seemingly too few skill points to allocate to them.
Do people generally pick a core set of skills and allocate their skill points every level to those skills?
I'm wondering because I'd like to multiclass eventually out of rogue into something else and am wondering if my skill levels will eventually reach a level at which point they're worthless or not if I'm not able to keep advancing them all the time?
Alternately, I'd like to advance more than just a set of 8 + int modifier number of skills, switching off advancing skills when I level. Is that a viable strategy so long as I don't spend myself TOO thin?
I guess what I'm trying to determine is if there is a reachable point of diminishing returns in which it's not that important to advance certain skills.
Are there some skills which should be advanced all the time versus some which only need to be advanced to a certain point?
After a VERY long absence (I last played 1st edition), I'm going to give D&D another shot and the DM wants to play 3.5e.
First off, welcome back to D&D and welcome to EN World! I'm not any kind of expert at character optimization, but I can at least give rough answers.
Quote:
Needless to say, I haven't had to deal with skill points and such before and I'm trying to muddle through the concept of allocating them.
As a rogue, there are SO many skills to choose and seemingly too few skill points to allocate to them.
Do people generally pick a core set of skills and allocate their skill points every level to those skills?
As you've noticed, there are probably more skills than you can spend points on. Because of that, you can have different kinds of rogue -- ones that have lots of social skills, ones that are good at technical stuff like opening locks, etc. So you might want to choose a theme. You might choose this theme by playing to your strengths. I have a high-Dex, low-Cha rogue, so I largely go for the technical wiz kind of rogue, one who's not great in social situations but amazing with traps and locks.
Quote:
I'm wondering because I'd like to multiclass eventually out of rogue into something else and am wondering if my skill levels will eventually reach a level at which point they're worthless or not if I'm not able to keep advancing them all the time?
The answer to this and your other questions seems to me to be dependent on your DM to some extent. If they run a more casual kind of game, worrying about a few skill ranks isn't probably a big deal. On the other hand, some DMs seem to count on people being pretty tactically advanced.
One thing that would be useful here is if you know what second class you'd like to multiclass with. That might help in skill selection.
Quote:
Alternately, I'd like to advance more than just a set of 8 + int modifier number of skills, switching off advancing skills when I level. Is that a viable strategy so long as I don't spend myself TOO thin?
I think the general rule is that it's somewhat more optimized to specialize your skills, but I'm not sure that's so important unless you're really in a tough game. For the rogue I mentioned before, I'm spreading things around a bit. Like I said, I'm mostly doing the Dex stuff, but I'm also trying to wipe out a little of my Cha penalty on a few skills. So I don't think this will be a big problem.
Quote:
I guess what I'm trying to determine is if there is a reachable point of diminishing returns in which it's not that important to advance certain skills.
Are there some skills which should be advanced all the time versus some which only need to be advanced to a certain point?
There are some skills that do tend to need to advance with level. Search and Disable Device, for example, because traps at higher levels can be harder to find and disarm. Other skills tend to have fixed difficulties for certain tasks (Tumble, maybe). You might want to look in the PHB or an online SRD.
I hope this is helpful! If you know more about your character concept, maybe we can help more. In any case, I'm sure others will know more about optimization than I do.
There are penalties for failing in some skills, so you may want to consider jacking those skills WAY up (like, at your max) if you intend to use them at all. Those are Sleight of Hand, Hide, and Move Silently. If you use Sleight of Hand to pick someone's pocket, you really, really, want that to go well. If you fail and get caught, that makes for some potential lameness. Similarly, with Hide & Move Silently, if you're actually using those to scout ahead or do some B & E, then again you really, really don't want to get caught. A rogue at just level 4 in my campaign has +14 to both. So even if he rolls a 3, it adds up to 17, which is going to be very hard for low-level enemies to beat (with Listen or Spot checks). Basically, he's deliberately put odds in his favor.
Getting these bad-consequences-if-you-fail skills up just a few points, say, to +5 or something, is nearly useless. You might as well put no points in them then. It's either a gamble and failing even 50% of the time is way too much, or else you weight it heavily in your favor by maxing it out as best as you can.
There are other skills that have very little penalty for failure, such as Search. You can almost always take a 20 on searching a room (almost... you can't be in combat or some kind of high-pressure situation). So if you put 1 point into it, fine. If you put no points into it, it might still be fine, so long as taking a 20 still nets you a score of 20 or more after modifiers.
There are other skills that cannot be used untrained. For example, tumble. You simply have no ability to roll/flip/leap past opponents in combat unless you have at least 1 rank in tumble. For such skills, if I want to use them ever, they get a token +1, but I rarely max them unless they are a featured skill for my character.
Oh! One more thing. It can be difficult for a rogue to cause an enemy to lose his/her/its Dexterity bonus. That is one of the requirements for getting to sneak attack. If you plan on having a rogue that does sneak attacks, then one of the cool ways to get it is via the Feint combat maneuver. You use your attack doing the Feint, and if it works, your next attack on the enemy (next round) he/she/it will not have the Dex bonus, which means sneak attack. To do a Feint, you use you Bluff skill. So it might be very useful to get that bluff up high. Also, if you have 5 or more ranks in bluff, it provides synergy bonuses to 4 other skills, I think. I don't remember, I'd have to look it up. But putting 5 points into bluff = +8 free points in other skills. Kinda nice payoff.
I'm a bit discouraged then. I was planning on going multiclass fighter/rogue like I did in 1st edition. Back then, both classes advanced simultaneously, albeit at a slower rate having to split experience points between the two classes. By doing so, thief skills kept up (there was really no skill system back then).
It looks like if I try to maintain a pretty even split now between fighter and rogue, my rogue skills are going to lag far behind and not be effective.
I think I'm going to have to play a different character.
I'm a bit discouraged then. I was planning on going multiclass fighter/rogue like I did in 1st edition. Back then, both classes advanced simultaneously, albeit at a slower rate having to split experience points between the two classes. By doing so, thief skills kept up (there was really no skill system back then).
It looks like if I try to maintain a pretty even split now between fighter and rogue, my rogue skills are going to lag far behind and not be effective.
Let's look at this a different way. What was a fighter/rogue in 1st edition? Basically, a rogue with a better weapon selection and hit points. Your rogue abilities lagged only somewhat because you were one or two levels behind.
The 3.5 equivalent is Fighter 1/Rogue X, taking an additional Fighter level every so often until you are Fighter 4/Rogue 16. Your Rogue skills will be adequate, you'll have a couple of extra feats, and your BAB will reach +16, giving you that fourth attack. Keep in mind that if you really want to make those high DCs, you'll get armor of improved silent moves and improved shadow, Gloves of Dexterity, and a Circlet of Persuasion. A few rogue skill points is not going to make you or break you.
I would add, however, that if you decide to do fighter 1/rogue X, that you should make your first level rogue if at all possible. First level (of whatever class you pick) is front-loaded with tons of skill points. You don't get that skill point bloat at any other level. So you want your first level to be rogue, which nets you a ton. If you take fighter first, when you get around to taking rogue you'll only get the standard amount of skill points for going up 1 level in rogue. That's sad. Try to avoid it.
I guess I was just used to being on the fighter hit table in 1e. It sure made a difference in being able to attack in general.
Will only taking a few levels of fighter be worth it? I was thinking about getting a bunch of the bonus fighter feats to make my character more "fighter-y".
Maybe I'm just fighting a matter of perception. I've always had the impression that a thief... er rogue was a wimpy melee fighter Maybe that is simply a carryover from 1e and the 3e rogue can be a standup figher on his own?
Maybe I'll give it a shot and see what happens.
If I just take a few levels of fighter, won't I suffer an experience point penalty? I was planning on playing an elf.
I guess I was just used to being on the fighter hit table in 1e. It sure made a difference in being able to attack in general.
Will only taking a few levels of fighter be worth it? I was thinking about getting a bunch of the bonus fighter feats to make my character more "fighter-y".
Maybe I'm just fighting a matter of perception. I've always had the impression that a thief... er rogue was a wimpy melee fighter Maybe that is simply a carryover from 1e and the 3e rogue can be a standup figher on his own?
When third edition came out, some people roughed out some numbers, and it turns out that being a multi-classed character, who is 1-2 levels behind a single class character, as a rule, works out very close to what I have just described. Likewise, Fighter 1/Wizard X (and then presumably Eldritch Knight).
The only place this falls down is the old cleric/magic-user. In that case, you go Wiz 3/Cleric 3, and then into Mystic Theurge. But a fighter/cleric/MU works out to Fig 1/Cle 3/Wiz 3/Mystic Theurge.
Quote:
If I just take a few levels of fighter, won't I suffer an experience point penalty? I was planning on playing an elf.
Yes. But since lower level characters get more XP, it is actually slightly less than 20% in practice. Since you are an elf, you already have proficiency in bows and swords, so there is nothing wrong with a straight up rogue. Another possibility is blending in four levels of something like Street Fighter or Nightsong Enforcer (good BAB and some access to rogue skills).
Looking at a pure rogue... taking weapon focus at 3rd level will help close the gap, and Weapon Finesse if you use a rapier or a light weapon. Many of the rogue special abilities (11th level) are combat-oriented, and you have the option of taking a feat instead, so it's certainly possible to make a formidable fencer that way.
A couple of ways to do it:
Rogue 16/Fighter 4: This gets you three bonus feats, proficiency with all martial weapons, and the opportunity to specialize in your favoriate weapon. The only downside is that after Rogue 2/Fig 1 you are looking at a 20% experience penalty, of and on.
Rogue 7/Nightsong Enforcer: No XP penalty and very solid skill advancement. There is a roleplaying requirement of joining a guild and you have to commit two feats, but the result is a very capable ambusher. If you wait until higher levels to take the NE levels, you can choose bonus feats as a rogue special ability and get in a little less dearly.
Rogue 7/Streetfighter: No XP penalty. Skills are a little softer than the Nightsong Enforcer but better than the Rogue/Fighter. It takes only two feats, Combat Expertise and Improved Feint, to get in, and those are good feats to have. It seems to fit the character archetype you have in mind.
Turns out that someone else may be playing a rogue in the game. Therefore, I won't have to worry about doing well in so many skills.
So, I think I'm going to concentrate on being primarily the light fighter with infiltration skills and a bit of social skills as well.
Are people familiar with the Unfettered class from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed? A former DM suggested that it might fight the hybrid fighter/rogue concept I want to build without having to multiclass.
Gamers Online Now: 1,117
Linear Mode
