Is "skilled guy" a good character class?

I think we can all agree on a few certain points.

1. Such as my analogy of the three types (R,S,P) was flawed. We may disagree on how flawed.
2. The party roles were built to fight the enemy, not each other. Any comparisons we make or conclusions drawn are extrapolated from the primary intended use.
3. Wizards have much magics, fighting a wizard is a bad idea.
3b. Wizards probably have too much magic but we would be hard pressed to find anyone who can take it away from them.
3c. Wizards have enough utility to perform just about any other role.
4. Fighters would suck at taking down wizards by themselves.
5. Rogues are meant to have talents beyond the simple killing or magic, such as information gathering. This may or may not work.
6. Batman either does or always should have kryptonite.

As far as the original purpose of the thread - which I have forgotten - I think it was that a rogue/expert/skill-man should be more than sneak attack and take down tactics. They should be good at skills not to make them more competent on the battlefield, though that is certainly a plus, but they should be what the party uses off the battlefield or a resource to help them avoid certain fights. Agreed or not?

EDIT: OH, Dandu, yes Monks are good magehunters. The evasion and high saves are really good traits, assuming you can up the damage. They are damned hard to kill. My third level monk once survived a collapsing tower due to evasion and high saves.

Sure, why not.

Agreed.

Tovec said:

EDIT: OH, Dandu, yes Monks are good magehunters. The evasion and high saves are really good traits, assuming you can up the damage. They are damned hard to kill. My third level monk once survived a collapsing tower due to evasion and high saves.

Click to expand...

Trust me, when it comes to magekilling, monks are all hat and no cattle. If you really want to get into it, a practical demonstration can be arranged. It would be most convenient for me if it were to occur at either levels 10, 13, 15, or 20. A level 10, 32 point buy, core only match favors you the most, fyi. I'd give the monk a 30% chance of victory in that one.

If you do not have the time to make a monk, I can provide you with a level 10 template from which to build on. (Located here).

I look forward to seeing you in action.

If you really don't have the time, I can explain my reasoning.
[sblock]Ok, open your PHB. Notice the sheer amount of spells that are not devoted to blasting? Load up on spells that reshape the battlefield to your whim, that fool his senses, and that will devastate an opponent regardless of whether he save or not - better yet, ones that don't even offer a save.

For example, in a level 10 match, Web makes it hard for enemies to get to you even if they save, which allows you to either Magic Missile or Enervate them to death. Fly puts you out of reach and lets you hammer away at targets from safety. Mage Armor and Alter Self can get you a +10 to AC when combined, while Mirror Image generates 1d4+3 decoys which results in a pretty good miss chance when someone's trying to attack you. Dimension Door allows you to escape dangerous situations and position yourself for a tactical advantage. And so on, and so on.[/sblock]

Re: this

"{Rogues} are also good against the wizard due to that pesky evasion and hide/move silently/stealth.

If attacked by a rogue {wizards} are in trouble (sneak attack) but they can lay into a fighter with a more than fair chance of winning."

Click to expand...

In either case, it's going to be detail dependent. What level are the characters in question? Are they equipped in a general sense and just encounter each other, or is one on an active hunt for the other? Is it just a canned fight, or is it something that happens in the full context of the game world? Is the rogue going to be played to its fullest potential or not?



Re: Supes v Bats:

Actually, its kind of the flipside of Rogue vs Mage. Supes has a wide variety of powers and very few weaknesses. Whether or not Bats always has kryptonite, kryptonite isn't a panacea vs kryptonians. After all, its radiation has a limited range, and many of Supes' offensive powers operate just fine outside of it.

Second, while Bats is fast, Kal-El is capable of relativistic speeds. Were Clark Kent interviewing Bruce for an op-ed piece in the Daily Planet, Supes could flash fry him with his heat vision before his merely human reflexes registered the removal of the glasses to do so. Hell, that movement might not even register on the security cameras.

Or he could take a big old breath before entering, and go from talking with it to more than gale-force pressures in under a second.

Heck, Batman & his Batmobile could disappear in a flash of light, and heat, struck by a freak accidental meteor strike- in reality, a slab of stone Superman launched from orbit.

Supes doesn't think like that, no. But other Kryptonians do: Zod, Faora...and who knows what its like on the mean streets of Kandor?

And then there's the little matter of Daxamites. They look as much like humans as Kryptonians do, and have nearly identical powers...but are not vulnerable to kyrptonite at all. Their weakness is lead. Without prior knowledge that the foe he faces is a Daxamite, Batman would not only be surprised, he'd probably be unprepared...and dead shortly afterwards.

But just like the rogue, if he knows his foe, he WILL be prepared, and he will stand a decent chance of defeating his opponent.

Tovec said:

I think we can all agree on a few certain points.

1. Such as my analogy of the three types (R,S,P) was flawed. We may disagree on how flawed.
2. The party roles were built to fight the enemy, not each other. Any comparisons we make or conclusions drawn are extrapolated from the primary intended use.
3. Wizards have much magics, fighting a wizard is a bad idea.
3b. Wizards probably have too much magic but we would be hard pressed to find anyone who can take it away from them.
3c. Wizards have enough utility to perform just about any other role.
4. Fighters would suck at taking down wizards by themselves.
5. Rogues are meant to have talents beyond the simple killing or magic, such as information gathering. This may or may not work.
6. Batman either does or always should have kryptonite.

As far as the original purpose of the thread - which I have forgotten - I think it was that a rogue/expert/skill-man should be more than sneak attack and take down tactics. They should be good at skills not to make them more competent on the battlefield, though that is certainly a plus, but they should be what the party uses off the battlefield or a resource to help them avoid certain fights. Agreed or not?

Click to expand...

Agreed as well.

Tovec said:

EDIT: OH, Dandu, yes Monks are good magehunters. The evasion and high saves are really good traits, assuming you can up the damage. They are damned hard to kill. My third level monk once survived a collapsing tower due to evasion and high saves.

Click to expand...

I think we need a face off here. I was actually going to make the point that a monk with Greater Mighty Wallop and Martial Study: Pouncing Charge would deal more damage than sneak attack so maybe a monk is better than a rogue at mage-hunting.

So, let's go - monk v. mage face off. Do it! Do it!

Did you just volunteer?

Tovec said:

4. Fighters would suck at taking down wizards by themselves.

Click to expand...

Note that this is something of a design problem. Not in the sense that my pc should have a chance of beating up your pc, but in the sense that "heroic fighting man vs. evil wizard" is meant to be part of the genre.