Heya, looking for serious answers to help inform a friend

[GhostRock]

Ah but there are other examples that fall under this category of classes granting feats despite the lack of prerequisites. Example two includes the Ranger who can gain either the rapid shot feat and the two weapon fighting feat even if prerequisites are not met.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/range ... ombatStyle

Also, I'm not seeing the bonus feats being given to the rogue, can you please direct me to where this information is given?

@Red_Rob
Is the assumption that the combat trick ability gives the character a bonus combat feat? If so, then the feat will be lost if the combat trick ability is also lost. This is because the combat trick ability is the way the feat is given and if taken away the feat given is taken away as well. It is as if the person never had taken the ability in the first place. Temporarily using the combat trick means that you get a temporary combat feat.

[Ice9]

As for the OP's question, PF Rogues are mainly weaker because they have less ways to make foes flat-footed and less ways to get touch attacks.
* Throwing flasks - No longer works with Sneak Attack.
* Blink - Doesn't make people flatfooted anymore.
* Grease - Doesn't make people flatfooted anymore.

Also, since Rogues have UMD, they are indirectly hurt by not having access to certain items and spells that were available in 3.5


In general, the changes that Pathfinder made usually follow this format:
1) Take a class.
2) Nerf that class's most powerful build (sometimes successfully, sometimes not).
3) Add a bunch of small, mostly insignificant bonuses.
4) Pretend that inter-class balance is impossible and don't even think about it.

Also they generally made feats even crappier (splitting up anything that would qualify as good in 3.5), and added a huge pile of bullshit feats that nobody would want to take or remember having taken. However, probably by mistake, they accidentally left/made a few good ones. Finding feats in PF is like in 4E - sorting the very few gems from the huge pile of rubbish.


That said, when Pathfinder is called a huge pile of failure here, it's considering that it's supposed to be an improvement on 3.5, and maybe could have been if the playtest process had been less half-assed. Really, it's like 3.5 but slightly worse, with a few bright spots that are actually an improvement. And with good art. So if that's what you're looking for, it does the job.

[LR]

Also, I'm not seeing the bonus feats being given to the rogue, can you please direct me to where this information is given?

Here. Because Bonus Feats (and only Bonus Feats) can be used without any prerequisites, the Rogue can take any feat in the game with this ability.

[GhostRock]

The only difference I can see between the three examples given is that you can no longer sneak attack with blink. Despite this, its not that difficult to see that the Pathfinder rule makes more sense than the 3.5 ruling.

This is because the ruling in 3.5 states that while the character is not invisible, he gains invisibility when it comes to attacking. In my opinion, this does not make much sense at all as the spell states you strike as an invisible creature when you are not invisible at all.

Sneak attacks are worded almost exactly the same so you should still be able to sneak attack with a thrown weapon if its within 30 feet.

Grease is also worded very similarly. So if a creature does move during a turn in the area of a grease spell, you should still be able to sneak attack without problem.

[GhostRock]

Also, I'm not seeing the bonus feats being given to the rogue, can you please direct me to where this information is given?

Here. Because Bonus Feats (and only Bonus Feats) can be used without any prerequisites, the Rogue can take any feat in the game with this ability.

Ah yes, thank you. I have also seen this in the Rogue from Pathfinder as well. Though the main difference in this situation is that a 3.5 Rogue can in fact select any feat from this ability while a Pathfinder Rogue is limited to combat feats at the start of the game. This is however changed when the Advanced Talents kick in at later levels.

This actually makes a Rogue better in Pathfinder as more versatility can be seen at earlier levels and are kept at later levels with the basic Rogue Talents.

[Ice9]

Splash weapons cannot deal precision-based damage (such as the damage from the rogue's sneak attack class feature).

Creatures that do not move on their turn do not need to make this check and are not considered flat-footed.

[GhostRock]

Splash weapons cannot deal precision-based damage (such as the damage from the rogue's sneak attack class feature).

Creatures that do not move on their turn do not need to make this check and are not considered flat-footed.

My mistake on the splash damage comment. Though I will say I agree with the rules that you should not be able to do precision-based damage with a thrown weapon.

I stand by my grease comment. If a creature moves while in the area of grease you are still allowed your sneak attack.

[Leress]

I stand by my grease comment. If a creature moves while in the area of grease you are still allowed your sneak attack.

No, you do not:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/g/grease

A grease spell covers a solid surface with a layer of slippery grease. Any creature in the area when the spell is cast must make a successful Reflex save or fall. A creature can walk within or through the area of grease at half normal speed with a DC 10 Acrobatics check. Failure means it can't move that round (and must then make a Reflex save or fall), while failure by 5 or more means it falls (see the Acrobatics skill for details). Creatures that do not move on their turn do not need to make this check and are not considered flat-footed.

[JonSetanta]

Does jumping out of a Grease zone force the check to prevent slipping?

[OgreBattle]

can you cook with grease?

[Leress]

Does jumping out of a Grease zone force the check to prevent slipping?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/acrobatics

Looking at the rules, I would say no since it's action type is none. The DC would be 20 (+5 for distance, +5 for surface jumping from, x2 since you don't get a 10ft running start)

[Koumei]

Though I will say I agree with the rules that you should not be able to do precision-based damage with a thrown weapon.

This is valid, as it's basically impossible to have any actual precision when throwing things.

[Neurosis]

Though I will say I agree with the rules that you should not be able to do precision-based damage with a thrown weapon.

This is valid, as it's basically impossible to have any actual precision when throwing things.

Pwn'd.

[Red_Rob]

Particularly as the restriction isn't against thrown weapons, it's against splash weapons. Which is more reasonable, given it seems odd you can target the general square someone is stood in and still deal precision damage.

[Username17]

Particularly as the restriction isn't against thrown weapons, it's against splash weapons. Which is more reasonable, given it seems odd you can target the general square someone is stood in and still deal precision damage.

Uh... you can't. Splash weapons are weapons which have a small area burst around their actual target. While you can target a square someone is in with alchemist fire, you're only going to do precision damage to the square if you do that, so the guy in the square only takes the point of splash damage.

The Pathfinder nerf makes no sense at all. If you got a super flaming burst dagger that did area fire damage on a critical, that dagger would not do sneak attack damage when it criticaled. Yes, it's really that stupid. Attacks arbitrarily don't do sneak attack damage because they have a rider effect that is an area of effect, even if they are single target attacks themselves.

-Username17

[Koumei]

I'm guessing though that the flaming burst dagger thing is just an unintended consequence and the ban on splash weapons was 100% "Fuck you, no Flasked Avengers".

And you know, if a bottled chemical could damage things out to over a metre away upon breaking open, and at the point of impact could do up to six times that amount (along with igniting/thoroughly drenching in acid such that damage keeps occurring), then I would be considerably worried about whether it hit me generally (in "the torso area") or precisely (in the face).

[TheFlatline]

I'm guessing though that the flaming burst dagger thing is just an unintended consequence and the ban on splash weapons was 100% "Fuck you, no Flasked Avengers".

And yet that's the entire schtick with alchemists.

[Username17]

Yeah, the thing where they were deeply offended that Rogues could compete against Wizards at medium to high level by switching from stabbing to throwing bombs and specifically banned them was pretty weird. The thing where they were then deeply offended that no one used the firebombs, holy water, and acid flasks past 3rd level or so and then created an entire class whose sole contribution was bomb throwing at all levels is probably even weirder.

In 3.5, you only use the bombs at very low level or if you do precision damage because while the profile of an acid flask is very good (short range and non-magical, but energy damage and armor negating), it doesn't scale at all. By the time your enemy is a Troll (63 hit points), you don't care about an acid flask (7 damage). And that's level 5. Of course, if you're a character whose special ability is "any weapon I happen to use does level-scaling damage", then a good weapon profile is all you want or need. Hence the flask avenger.

Basically, Pathfinder is the king of unintended consequences, where they nerf the fuck out of standard D&D options and wonder why those options aren't used anymore. All based on "gut feelings". It's like if late stage 3e material went about randomly errataing shit the way 4e material does.

Rogues are supposed to fight with shortswords from flanking, so they are banned from using the weapons and equipment they actually used at high level. But no effort was actually made to get flanking high level rogues with shortswords to actually be able to pull their weight. So really Pathfailure Rogues just "aren't good" at high level.

-Username17

[Lokathor]

On the issue of feats,

Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he or she gains the prerequisite.

A character can’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite.

Now, assuming that a similar passage is in the PFSRD (i didn't check), then the general case when you get a bonus feat option but it doesn't say if you need to follow the requirements or not would be that you do need to follow the requirements. Even if you're allowed to select any feat for some reason, the text says "in order to select or use that feat", so you could select it (i guess) but would then never be able to use it.

[Kaelik]

On the issue of feats,

Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he or she gains the prerequisite.

A character can’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite.

Now, assuming that a similar passage is in the PFSRD (i didn't check), then the general case when you get a bonus feat option but it doesn't say if you need to follow the requirements or not would be that you do need to follow the requirements. Even if you're allowed to select any feat for some reason, the text says "in order to select or use that feat", so you could select it (i guess) but would then never be able to use it.

Except that, as always, the important line is whether or not Pathfinder has this line from 3.5:

"Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat."

So... yeah. If you have a bonus feat, the default is no pre reqs.

[fectin]

Two points:
- First, 3.5 consistently uses "bonus feat" like a keyword. It is defined in (and only in) the Monster Manual, where it is explicit that you do not need to meet prereqs for bonus feats. That's really weird. It doesn't matter though for anyone other than the rogue, because:
- Literally every single other bonus feat class feature is "Bonus Feat for which he meets the prerequisites." Rogue consistently excludes the "meet the prerequisites" clause.

Again, that's wierd, but it is also very clearly written.

[Username17]

Actually, there are a lot of ways to get bonus feats you don't meet the prereqs for. Most blatantly, Cleric Domains. They get Weapon Focus at first level as a bonus feat if they take the War Domain. Weapon Focus has a prereq of BAB +1, and a 1st level Cleric has a BAB of +0. Lots of classes get various preselected feats as bonus feats, and they collect on those with or without the prereqs.

The thing that is cool about the Rogue is that they get a selectable bonus feat with no preconditions. Rather than having to select one off a short list or having a to select a feat they meet the prereqs for (or in the case of the Fighter: both), they simply get to choose any feat in the game and add it to their character sheet.

Needless to say, this gets really weird and requires a close reading of a lot of feats. Getting +1 to an ability you don't have doesn't do anything, but a feat that restates the ability as bigger gives you the whole shebang. So Gape of the Serpent lets you eat people up to your size, and Persistent Emanation: Antimagic Field is pretty boss. But grabbing an Eldritch Blast enhancer doesn't help you at all.

-Username17

[DMReckless]

Some pretty willfully ignorant shit going on here regarding bonus feats.

Ranger:
"He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites."

Monk:
"A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them."

Fighters, rogues, ninjas, no such fucking clauses. The term is prerequisite as in REQUIRED.

[Leress]

Since this tread is about Pathfinder, I will just stick to talking about that:

Now, I just found that the Ninja, Rogue, and the like have to meet the requirements for the feat.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-cl ... lents/feat

So that means that the ninja will have to meet the prerequisites first before getting the feat.

[Koumei]

Some pretty willfully ignorant shit going on here regarding bonus feats...

...The term is prerequisite as in REQUIRED.

So you're saying the War domain actually doesn't have any benefit until second level?

Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites.

Your move, Mister Bond.

Incidentally, is there some handy list of feats to take with Bonus Feat that are either:
A. Completely awesome (assuming no Tome feats, Perfect TWF would fit here)
or B. Hilarious/retarded (Gape of the Serpent)?