How on earth can a Rogue have no trouble and be effective in a module that is packed to the gills with un-sneak attackable foes?
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder BETA - Some Sizzle, Not Much Steak
- Thread starter GlassJaw
- Start date
Sunderstone
First Post
Im not all about sneak attacking, Rogues dont just have one ability or function. Im also not the hardest hitter in my group, nor do I care to be. I also use tactics like flanking (when applicable), aid another, flasks of oil, holy water, etc. We also use the right tool for the job for example I carry a blunt weapon for skeletal types etc.
Our casters even use stuff like align weapon, magic weapon, etc. We use Buffs like bless, protection from evil etc.
Theres more to a Rogue than just sneak attack. I also try to keep my trapfinding maxed, its worked well for us so far.
Sunderstone
First Post
So unless you can sneak attack everything , you dont feel useful as a Rogue?
*** edit , nm we are drifting off course.
Wicht
Hero
I am well aware that I was the first to mention alignment and Vancian casting in the thread but I did so only to mention a quote/paraphrase that illustrated the idea that some people's ideas for Pathfinder would likely be listened to above others.
I would assume as the Pathfinder team has already made comments to the fact that they want to make high level play easier and reduce DM workload they will likely listen to feedback about it. Likewise with opinions about the viability of subsystems and existing changes.
However, to make my original point differently, I suspect that the poster who begins his comments with words to the effect of, "I hate 3e and was sick and tired of it and I don't understand the need to introduce more complications into a bloated set of rules," is going to have less influence than someone who says, "I'm glad to see 3.5 kept alive but I am worried about the complications presented by the introduction of rage points."
for the record, I like the new rage points, but ymmv.
Vael
Legend
It's more that a 3.5 Rogue isn't playing the same game as the others. Sure, every trap is his to disarm, but when the undead pop up, he might as well go have a smoke, 'cause he's just a sack of hp. So now the DM's now two games to run, the rogue's trap game, and the combat game for everyone else. It's time consuming and frustrating, for me, anyways. I tried to DM 3.5, found it an exercise in frustration. Pathfinder looks like it's only going to make that tougher, not easier, given that you now have to adapt the supposedly compatible 3.5 material, find all the little nuances between it and 3.5, and still DM the darned thing. You'd have to pay me to even consider it.
Sunderstone
First Post
thats your opinion, i make myself useful and have fun doing it.
I also dont see it as DMming two games but to each their own. Our DM is new at DMming, hes a player of mine. Im on a break from the 26 years of dmming.
Right!
From what I've seen in some of the arguments, there is a sentiment that if my X can't do Y every round (mage can't cast spells, for example) then he is useless or isn't as involved in the game. In my view, that isn't a problem of the rules. In our games, you are responsible for your own fun, and for finding a way to help the team. Sunderstone's post is a prime example of what we do: you find a way to be useful.
Like many, we don't have a problem with the 15 minute work day. In the above example of the orc lair, if we had to use every single trick and spell to just get in the door, the players might come to the conclusion that the place is over their heads and they either need to find an alternative way in, or back off and let this one go, or any of a dozen other options.
I am a bit perplexed about how one would go about killing a few rooms in a fortress or complex and then taking 8 hours or so to rest and repeating this. Is the DM giving the players a break and not having the monsters/patrols/evil overlord notice the screams and deaths and fireballs and flying monkeys?
And what you described doesn't sound fun to me.
I don't see anyone quoting facts. I'm pretty sure everything in this thread is "Your opinion".
Remathilis
Legend
This doesnt show a very balanced party, maybe in name only.
You said it yourself the original cleric wasnt high enough in level to cast what was needed to overcome specific obstacles. At lvls 7-9 he already had 3 classes under his belt. How many classes was he shooting for? It looks like the warforged was heading along the same route.
I dont know much about the Artificer class but if its trapfinding is normally lower than a rogue and/or the class doent give as much skill points, then its the same thing.
Half healers/trapfinders etc. in Castle Ravenloft.
Your adding a 7th npc, a Cleric, was proof that it wasnt well balance to begin with. 7 characters is too much regardless.
1.) The cleric builds: ftr1/clr4/exorcist3, 8th level PC, CL 6th. Wck1/clr4/disciple3, 8th level PC, Wck 3, clr6. I guess its the cost of playing your character concept, even if its sub-optimal multi-classing.
2.) Artificer had 6 ranks in each, a far cry from the 9 that maxing out both skills would have needed.
They weren't PCs built for Ravenloft, they were organic PCs grown from many previous adventures.
However, you've proven my point in the 4e is Unacceptable thread: if you build a sub-optimal character (a cleric without full caster levels, or a rogue without max ranks in search/dd) you are building an intentionally weak character. Thanks!
