|[4E] The rogue!

Mark <ringofw.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 Feb, 22:13, Matt Frisch <matus....DeleteThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>
>> It doesn't say "Dexterity modifier", it says "Dexterity". 24 dex at
>> level 26 would be quite easily achievable.
>
> Let me stop you there. 4E has done away with stat boosting items,
> maybe with any form of stat boosting magic. Actually, i think I should
> have stopped you a sentence earlier as you are assuming "Dexterity vs.
> AC" isn't a term of art, or maybe I should have prevented you from
> replying at all, as Jasin is assuming that the modifiers from stats
> have the same breakpoints as in 3rd edition, which doesn't look to be
> the case.

I understand they realized people were sinking gold into bumping their
key ability scores (first, then the others later). Almost everyone.
So, rather than requiring that, they folded it into the level
progression.


Keith
--
Keith Davies below you, right now: radioactive magma
keith.davies.DeleteThis@kjdavies.org above you, right now: hard vacuum
keith.davies.DeleteThis@gmail.com probably somewhere near you: a product with
http://www.kjdavies.org/ label warning you it is unsafe if misused
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:18:47 -0800, "Malachias Invictus"
<invictusebay.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> scribed into the ether:

>
>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73.RemoveThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:26f6s3l8d07gk0befjr0sr58a8s8cet3p7@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:54:51 +0100, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic.RemoveThis@inet.hr>
>> scribed into the ether:
>>
>>>Matt Frisch wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Artful Dodger: You gain a bonus to AC equal to your Charisma
>>>>>> modifier
>>>>>> against opportunity attacks.
>>>>>> Brutal Scoundrel: You gain a bonus to Sneak Attack damage equal to
>>>>>> your Strength modifier.
>>>>> Interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Brutal scoundrel is, by itself, pitifully underpowered, considering you
>>>> only get 1 sneak attack per round now.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure how you can judge that considering we only have a vague
>>>idea of what damage values are like or how common opportunity attacks are.
>>
>> It's a strength bonus (probably not your highest attribute) once per
>> round...better than nothing, to be sure, but the real virtue of this
>> ability isn't in itself, it's how it interacts with other powers.
>>
>>>>>> Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
>>>>> Is this going to be "BAB" plus Dexterity modifier?
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't seem like it. The Pit Fiend has a 44 AC.
>>>>
>>>> If you're fighting him at level 26, even getting 1/2 BAB would make
>>>> missing
>>>> almost impossible after you factor in the + from your weapon, + from a
>>>> rogue using a dagger, beneficial magic (Bless), etc. Plus I assume
>>>> combat
>>>> advantage comes with something akin to the +2 to hit that flanking
>>>> currently gives.
>>>
>>>+13 BAB, +10 Dex, +5 weapon, +1 rogue using a dagger, +2 from flanking
>>>still needs a roll of 13 to hit.
>>
>> It doesn't say "Dexterity modifier", it says "Dexterity". 24 dex at level
>> 26 would be quite easily achievable. 24 dex +5 dagger +1 for a dagger +13
>> BAB +2 flanking = You only miss on a 1, and then only because a 1 is an
>> automatic miss.
>
>So, you think your theory is correct, given that it lets a Rogue autohit a
>Pit Fiend?

No, I think there's something significant missing.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies.RemoveThis@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrnfsb2th.88h.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> Hadsil <forumite.RemoveThis@netzero.com> wrote:

>> Also, game designers should stop giving monsters arbitrary high
>> scores, especially natural armor assigned specifically to counter size
>> penalties. Natural armors of +1 or +2 are fine. When I see +11 or
>> +15 or higher natural armor, the game designers are "cheating".
>
> This I agree with quite a bit. I've got my own rules in the works for
> handling creature creation, including doing a lot to fix AC of big
> creatures.
>
> For instance, demons and the like get their 'natural armor' chopped back
> in a big way. I can replace it with real armor (why wouldn't a balor
> have actual, proper armor?), deflection bonuses (familiars should have
> deflection or luck rather than improved natural armor, I think -- your
> cat probably doesn't grow a shell, but is unnaturally good at avoiding
> damage), and so on. They may end up with comparable ACs, but it makes
> better sense.

Insight bonuses, Profane bonuses, and Sacred bonuses all are pretty good for
this as well.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73 RemoveThis @yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:h4aas3tbn91bpqdt76efahq8er6kqsa9h6@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:18:47 -0800, "Malachias Invictus"
> <invictusebay RemoveThis @yahoo.com> scribed into the ether:
>
>>
>>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73 RemoveThis @yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>>news:26f6s3l8d07gk0befjr0sr58a8s8cet3p7@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:54:51 +0100, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic RemoveThis @inet.hr>
>>> scribed into the ether:
>>>
>>>>Matt Frisch wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Artful Dodger: You gain a bonus to AC equal to your Charisma
>>>>>>> modifier
>>>>>>> against opportunity attacks.
>>>>>>> Brutal Scoundrel: You gain a bonus to Sneak Attack damage equal
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> your Strength modifier.
>>>>>> Interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Brutal scoundrel is, by itself, pitifully underpowered, considering
>>>>> you
>>>>> only get 1 sneak attack per round now.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure how you can judge that considering we only have a vague
>>>>idea of what damage values are like or how common opportunity attacks
>>>>are.
>>>
>>> It's a strength bonus (probably not your highest attribute) once per
>>> round...better than nothing, to be sure, but the real virtue of this
>>> ability isn't in itself, it's how it interacts with other powers.
>>>
>>>>>>> Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
>>>>>> Is this going to be "BAB" plus Dexterity modifier?
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't seem like it. The Pit Fiend has a 44 AC.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're fighting him at level 26, even getting 1/2 BAB would make
>>>>> missing
>>>>> almost impossible after you factor in the + from your weapon, + from a
>>>>> rogue using a dagger, beneficial magic (Bless), etc. Plus I assume
>>>>> combat
>>>>> advantage comes with something akin to the +2 to hit that flanking
>>>>> currently gives.
>>>>
>>>>+13 BAB, +10 Dex, +5 weapon, +1 rogue using a dagger, +2 from flanking
>>>>still needs a roll of 13 to hit.
>>>
>>> It doesn't say "Dexterity modifier", it says "Dexterity". 24 dex at
>>> level
>>> 26 would be quite easily achievable. 24 dex +5 dagger +1 for a dagger
>>> +13
>>> BAB +2 flanking = You only miss on a 1, and then only because a 1 is an
>>> automatic miss.
>>
>>So, you think your theory is correct, given that it lets a Rogue autohit a
>>Pit Fiend?
>
> No, I think there's something significant missing.

What is missing is your comprehension that it is the Dexterity bonus, not
the full score, that is factored in.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:45:13 -0800, "Malachias Invictus"
<invictusebay.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> scribed into the ether:

>
>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73.RemoveThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:h4aas3tbn91bpqdt76efahq8er6kqsa9h6@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:18:47 -0800, "Malachias Invictus"
>> <invictusebay.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> scribed into the ether:
>>
>>>
>>>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73.RemoveThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>>>news:26f6s3l8d07gk0befjr0sr58a8s8cet3p7@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:54:51 +0100, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic.RemoveThis@inet.hr>
>>>> scribed into the ether:

>>>>>>>> Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
>>>>>>> Is this going to be "BAB" plus Dexterity modifier?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't seem like it. The Pit Fiend has a 44 AC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're fighting him at level 26, even getting 1/2 BAB would make
>>>>>> missing
>>>>>> almost impossible after you factor in the + from your weapon, + from a
>>>>>> rogue using a dagger, beneficial magic (Bless), etc. Plus I assume
>>>>>> combat
>>>>>> advantage comes with something akin to the +2 to hit that flanking
>>>>>> currently gives.
>>>>>
>>>>>+13 BAB, +10 Dex, +5 weapon, +1 rogue using a dagger, +2 from flanking
>>>>>still needs a roll of 13 to hit.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't say "Dexterity modifier", it says "Dexterity". 24 dex at
>>>> level
>>>> 26 would be quite easily achievable. 24 dex +5 dagger +1 for a dagger
>>>> +13
>>>> BAB +2 flanking = You only miss on a 1, and then only because a 1 is an
>>>> automatic miss.
>>>
>>>So, you think your theory is correct, given that it lets a Rogue autohit a
>>>Pit Fiend?
>>
>> No, I think there's something significant missing.
>
>What is missing is your comprehension that it is the Dexterity bonus, not
>the full score, that is factored in.

Entirely possible, in which case that's a pretty significant oversight in
the writeup to not mention that it's the dex bonus when they so rigorously
distinguish between the two elsewhere.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

Malachias Invictus <invictusebay DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "Keith Davies" <keith.davies DeleteThis @kjdavies.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnfsb2th.88h.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
>> Hadsil <forumite DeleteThis @netzero.com> wrote:
>
>>> Also, game designers should stop giving monsters arbitrary high
>>> scores, especially natural armor assigned specifically to counter size
>>> penalties. Natural armors of +1 or +2 are fine. When I see +11 or
>>> +15 or higher natural armor, the game designers are "cheating".
>>
>> This I agree with quite a bit. I've got my own rules in the works for
>> handling creature creation, including doing a lot to fix AC of big
>> creatures.
>>
>> For instance, demons and the like get their 'natural armor' chopped back
>> in a big way. I can replace it with real armor (why wouldn't a balor
>> have actual, proper armor?), deflection bonuses (familiars should have
>> deflection or luck rather than improved natural armor, I think -- your
>> cat probably doesn't grow a shell, but is unnaturally good at avoiding
>> damage), and so on. They may end up with comparable ACs, but it makes
>> better sense.
>
> Insight bonuses, Profane bonuses, and Sacred bonuses all are pretty
> good for this as well.

Good point, I'd missed those.

Hmm. I can see an infernal familiar gaining a profane bonus to AC,
maybe in addition to the normal deflection bonus for being a familiar,
or in place of it. Similarly, profane for fiends and sacred[1] for
celestials makes sense too.

[1] I'm tempted to drop profane and sacred, unless they somehow
interact. As far as I'm concerned they're really just opposite
sides of the same thing.


Keith
--
Keith Davies below you, right now: radioactive magma
keith.davies DeleteThis @kjdavies.org above you, right now: hard vacuum
keith.davies DeleteThis @gmail.com probably somewhere near you: a product with
http://www.kjdavies.org/ label warning you it is unsafe if misused
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

Keith Davies <keith.davies.DeleteThis@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>
> [1] I'm tempted to drop profane and sacred, unless they somehow
> interact. As far as I'm concerned they're really just opposite
> sides of the same thing.

I misspoke slightly here. I'd drop the *difference* between them. Both
are (semi-)divine bonuses, oriented by alignment.


Keith
--
Keith Davies below you, right now: radioactive magma
keith.davies.DeleteThis@kjdavies.org above you, right now: hard vacuum
keith.davies.DeleteThis@gmail.com probably somewhere near you: a product with
http://www.kjdavies.org/ label warning you it is unsafe if misused
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

Keith Davies wrote:

> Keith Davies <keith.davies.RemoveThis@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>
>> [1] I'm tempted to drop profane and sacred, unless they somehow
>> interact. As far as I'm concerned they're really just opposite
>> sides of the same thing.
>
> I misspoke slightly here. I'd drop the *difference* between them. Both
> are (semi-)divine bonuses, oriented by alignment.

I dunno, I'd be tempted to go the opposite way and *highlight* the
difference between them.

Detect good/evil will detect creatures with profane/sacred bonuses as if
they were a cleric of the level of the caster, or as themselves, whichever
aura is stronger (i.e., a cleric casting a sacred/profane bonus on
themselves would not alter their own aura).

Protection from good/evil interferes with profane/sacred bonuses of your
opponents by cutting them in half (round down as normal).

Dispel good/evil can also, simultaneous with everything else it may do, act
as a dispel magic targetting any profane/sacred bonuses (or, rather, the
spells creating those effects), with a max caster-level bonus of +20, and
and a sacred/profane bonus of +2 to the check (since it's so targetted).

I'm also thinking of a divine feat that allows you to use a turning/rebuking
daily use to get that targetted-dispel-magic effect as above, but can't
think of what, if any, maximums it should have, weighing in that it'd burn
a feat, but be "castable" many more times a day than the above Dispel
good/evil, yet it's less powerful (since it's not a full dispel, only of
the profane/sacred bonus spells).

Sure, sacred and profane bonuses would still continue to be basically the
same thing - divine bonuses aligned appropriately. But now the name
becomes a bit more important. And then it would create the obvious need
for axiomatic and chaotic bonuses to complete the wheel, though those would
be slightly more powerful without a way for clerics to have a turn effect
affect them.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

Darin McBride <dmcbride.RemoveThis@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
>
>> Keith Davies <keith.davies.RemoveThis@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> [1] I'm tempted to drop profane and sacred, unless they somehow
>>> interact. As far as I'm concerned they're really just opposite
>>> sides of the same thing.
>>
>> I misspoke slightly here. I'd drop the *difference* between them. Both
>> are (semi-)divine bonuses, oriented by alignment.
>
> I dunno, I'd be tempted to go the opposite way and *highlight* the
> difference between them.
>
> Detect good/evil will detect creatures with profane/sacred bonuses as
> if they were a cleric of the level of the caster, or as themselves,
> whichever aura is stronger (i.e., a cleric casting a sacred/profane
> bonus on themselves would not alter their own aura).

The creatures involved (in the MM) have the (Good) or (Evil) subtypes
already; they get picked up as good/evil based on raw HD.

> Protection from good/evil interferes with profane/sacred bonuses of
> your opponents by cutting them in half (round down as normal).

Possibly, but protection from good/evil already hedges them out by their
alignment subtype.

> Dispel good/evil can also, simultaneous with everything else it may
> do, act as a dispel magic targetting any profane/sacred bonuses (or,
> rather, the spells creating those effects), with a max caster-level
> bonus of +20, and and a sacred/profane bonus of +2 to the check (since
> it's so targetted).

Hrm, maybe. Though I'd expect this of /dispel evil/ rather than
/protection from evil/.

> I'm also thinking of a divine feat that allows you to use a
> turning/rebuking daily use to get that targetted-dispel-magic effect
> as above, but can't think of what, if any, maximums it should have,
> weighing in that it'd burn a feat, but be "castable" many more times a
> day than the above Dispel good/evil, yet it's less powerful (since
> it's not a full dispel, only of the profane/sacred bonus spells).

Possibly.

> Sure, sacred and profane bonuses would still continue to be basically
> the same thing - divine bonuses aligned appropriately. But now the
> name becomes a bit more important. And then it would create the
> obvious need for axiomatic and chaotic bonuses to complete the wheel,
> though those would be slightly more powerful without a way for clerics
> to have a turn effect affect them.

Perhaps.


Keith
--
Keith Davies below you, right now: radioactive magma
keith.davies.RemoveThis@kjdavies.org above you, right now: hard vacuum
keith.davies.RemoveThis@gmail.com probably somewhere near you: a product with
http://www.kjdavies.org/ label warning you it is unsafe if misused
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

Keith Davies wrote:

>> Detect good/evil will detect creatures with profane/sacred bonuses as
>> if they were a cleric of the level of the caster, or as themselves,
>> whichever aura is stronger (i.e., a cleric casting a sacred/profane
>> bonus on themselves would not alter their own aura).
>
> The creatures involved (in the MM) have the (Good) or (Evil) subtypes
> already; they get picked up as good/evil based on raw HD.
>
>> Protection from good/evil interferes with profane/sacred bonuses of
>> your opponents by cutting them in half (round down as normal).
>
> Possibly, but protection from good/evil already hedges them out by their
> alignment subtype.

I was more thinking out loud of the generic difference between sacred and
profane bonuses, not so much the specific application of how you'd use them
to replace natural armour. So if you get a sacred bonus from some holy
item, with a CL of 11, you would detect as good as a 11th level cleric,
even if you were a 5th level rogue. But that bonus would be cut in half if
you tried to attack (or were attacked by someone) from within the range of
that protection from good spell (or inside a circle of protection from
good).

>> Dispel good/evil can also, simultaneous with everything else it may
>> do, act as a dispel magic targetting any profane/sacred bonuses (or,
>> rather, the spells creating those effects), with a max caster-level
>> bonus of +20, and and a sacred/profane bonus of +2 to the check (since
>> it's so targetted).
>
> Hrm, maybe.  Though I'd expect this of /dispel evil/ rather than
> /protection from evil/.

That's what it was
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue!