|
Sounds like you play at a shop full of A holes.
Also how does one talk another out of a Rogue concept? If anything we tell them how to actually fulfill their concept.
No, not full. Not even most. And not all the time. But a few have slipped into this from time to time and over the years. Also, not at a shop, but just friends playing the game over the years. The current group I play with at the current shops I frequent are pretty good.
And how does someone talk someone out of a rogue concept? Like this:
THE FOLLOWING IS OBVIOUSLY A DRAMATIZATION. MEANT TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT. NOT A VERBATIM ARGUMENT. I HAVE SEEN SIMILAR TO THIS THOUGH. DO NOT PICK THIS APART FOR DETAILS, IT IS A DRAMATIZATION OF HOW A CONVERSATION COULD GO.
Noob: I wanna be a rogue. I wanna be, like, a Robin Hood guy, skulking in, stealing from rich jerks and giving to local peasants.
Strawman: Nope, Rogues suck, and you will die instantly. Here, if you want to steal stuff, you can be a ranger and get stealth, and still do well in combat.
Noob: But what about picking pockets and disabling traps?
Strawman: You can get traits for it, also don't worry about traps, they just drain charges from cure-light wounds wands.
Noob: Aren't there, like, snares and stuff that could take people out of the fight?
Strawman: (ignoring him.) Now you can get two weapon fighting at level two, so power attack should be your first feat.
Noob: I wanted to be a fencer . . .
Strawman: No, fencing sucks unless you are a swashbuckler, and you don't have the ACG yet. Plus their saves suck . . .
the whole point of fantasy gaming is that anything's possible,
So why are you playing pathfinder?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that the mechanics can be boiled down to equations cause math. There's nothing wrong with that either.
The issues I see here is really what Liz said. People playing differently which is fine except it becomes difficult when people in the same group want to play vastly differently. Noone is right or wrong, but the whole thing tends to not gel very well. And generally people who play vastly different from one another have fairly different personality types and you get a fair amount of misunderstanding which leads to annoyance and snowballs into hostility in one form or another quite often.
This is why GM's and players should discuss what type of game is going to be had. What level of mechanical system mastery are we going to be playing at? Are we going to go heavy on the roleplaying? Are we going to be more like tabletop tactical game with minor story/plot points?
None of those things are wrong. But you have to have an understanding with one another in order for everyone to have fun. If you think you're just gonna show up all with your characters and new GM and just start playing and everything is gonna be peachy then you're doing yourself and fellows a disservice. There's a lot of variation in Role Playing games do to the sheer amount of options and ways to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like you play at a shop full of A holes.
Also how does one talk another out of a Rogue concept? If anything we tell them how to actually fulfill their concept.
No, not full. Not even most. And not all the time. But a few have slipped into this from time to time and over the years. Also, not at a shop, but just friends playing the game over the years. The current group I play with at the current shops I frequent are pretty good.
And how does someone talk someone out of a rogue concept? Like this:
THE FOLLOWING IS OBVIOUSLY A DRAMATIZATION. MEANT TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT. NOT A VERBATIM ARGUMENT. I HAVE SEEN SIMILAR TO THIS THOUGH. DO NOT PICK THIS APART FOR DETAILS, IT IS A DRAMATIZATION OF HOW A CONVERSATION COULD GO.
Noob: I wanna be a rogue. I wanna be, like, a Robin Hood guy, skulking in, stealing from rich jerks and giving to local peasants.
Strawman: Nope, Rogues suck, and you will die instantly. Here, if you want to steal stuff, you can be a ranger and get stealth, and still do well in combat.
Noob: But what about picking pockets and disabling traps?
Strawman: You can get traits for it, also don't worry about traps, they just drain charges from cure-light wounds wands.
Noob: Aren't there, like, snares and stuff that could take people out of the fight?
Strawman: (ignoring him.) Now you can get two weapon fighting at level two, so power attack should be your first feat.
Noob: I wanted to be a fencer . . .
Strawman: No, fencing sucks unless you are a swashbuckler, and you don't have the ACG yet. Plus their saves suck . . .
Wow, anyone who does that is a really bad person.
I would have just pointed them at Urban Ranger, Slayer, or the Ranger archetype with a panache pool and archery stuff.
I prefer to point new players at the options most optimized for realizing their concept. A stealthy, trap disarming, fencing dude? Yeah go with Slayer or Urban Ranger. If it wouldn't disrupt your mental vision pick up a light shield and go shield and weapon combat style.
If it does then explain that currently his options are to do everything in his concept and be less viable or to discard trap stuff to be good at fencing.
5)No, I'm not saying rogues are good. I am saying that they are playable. Hard mode? Maybe. Are there better ways to go about them? Most likely. But hardly unplayable.
I think we can agree they are playeable at most tables.
I am saying I've had a GM who killed off a friend's rogue character specifically, just to 'prove' to her that rogues are bad (and yet this was before ACG and he set us up with save-or-die traps, so no fun there.) I have seen people tell PFS noobs that they "can't" play rogues in PFS, and basically talk them out of fun character concepts. I'm saying I've seen these people around who will viciously lay into anyone who even brings up that they are thinking about playing a rogue in a campaign. That's not right, and that's not fun.
This does not prove any class is bad. It proves the GM is who basically God in fantasyland can kill a character. It seems jerkish to me.
I don't play PFS, but certain areas have been said to have certain attitudes. I don't know how true it is. As for being "vicious" I won't make any comments because I would have to see the quotes to decide if they were saying "Stay away from non-optimal choice X" or "You have lost your mind".
3) Power attack is a good feat. I do not deny this. Power attack should probably be your first or second feat if you have a two-handed melee build. I also do not deny this. In fact, I have a sword-saint samurai with both power attack and furious focus, and a lot of her damage comes from power attack. I deny none of this. Power attack is a great feat.I was just saying, it wasn't the only feat. If you have sneak attack, it becomes less important. If you are two-weapon fighting, it becomes less appealing. If your entire build is based around dealing damage some other way, and you can't manage that thirteen strength or that extra feat into your build, it isn't the end of the world. I'm saying, if you are building a melee fighter, take a good long look at power attack, but do not twist your character into pretzels in order to take it happen.
Let me put this another way. I have a cavalry summoner (full summoner who uses mounted combat feats on her eidalon). Not optimal, I know. She's a Wayang with 16 Str, heirloom weapon (lance) and she charges from the back of her (mount-evolution) Eidalon.
Level 1 mounted combat
Lvl 3 Ride-by attack
lvl 5 spirited charge
lvl 7 wheeling charge
lvl 9 Indomitable mount.Notice that power attack would be great for her (+3 damage for her lance, +6 at level 6), but at a 3/4 bab, and the fact that she already deals triple damage on a charge, I think it's better to get the requisite cavalry feats than add some damage. Sure, power attack would be great, and I'm sure you could make any number of arguments for delaying one of the other feats in favor of it, but I could come back with other reasons why I chose this.
This is fine and it is a lot different than your previous post especially saying it is common to suggest TWF'ing and use PA while doing so.
2) The hyperspecializtion thing is the one I've seen the least DIRECT evidence for on the boards, and more of an inferred thing. I should have renamed it however. Basically, a lot of times on the boards I've seen people make builds that require on a very unique set of circumstances, and if they are ever not fighting human fighters the build falls apart. I've seen sword-touch maguses that are just, insane, until they fight a creature with electricity immunity. I've seen basically unbeatable combos of stuff, but if that character doesn't have three rounds to buff, they are useless...
The main idea is to be really good at one thing and still branch out to other things, but I guess you know that.
1) I've seem to have gotten the least amount of guff for this one. To answer your question, yes, I have seen people who think healers are useless, that there is no way you can have fun with them, and that there as absolutely no call for healing in combat (There's a wizard guide out there that makes this claim, I know, only quasi-facetiously). I have seen people refuse to heal downed and dying characters because 'healing isn't for combat.' I've seen situations where an entire party gets hit by a high-level chain lightning, no one makes their save, and Channel energy is the best option to make sure EVERYONE doesn't die on the next round.I am not saying healing is the best thing to do in combat. I'm not saying there usually aren't better things to do in combat. I'm saying it shouldn't be immediately off the table.
This is the misconception that annoys me the most because what happens is many of us will say that you should focus on ending combat instead focus on building around healing for several reasons. Then one or two people will say it is better to let someone die, and the statement of those 1 or 2 people will be applied to everyone.
What do all these things have in common? I guess it's the idea that a character doesn't have to be the most broken, overpowered, optimized thing on the planet in order to work. In fact, I dare say that it shouldn't be. Have fun with characterization. Have a rogue with trap-spotter (it might just save your life!)
I don't think that most people that give advice actually play the best possible character all of the time, but if I am giving advice I will tell you how to do ____. What you take and what you(not you specifically) is up to you. If I come here asking for advice I want the best advice also. I may not use all of it, if it does not fit the concept however. I think you see the advice as "You must do this". Others see it as "This is a really good idea".
I've played in games before where the GM expected everyone to have his insane level of system mastery and build completely broken over-the-top characters, and it was the only TPK I've ever had, because we made FUN characters and apparently that was WRONG.
That is crappy GM'ing. At some point when the party is struggling the GM should realize the party is not up to his current encounters and scale back. Now I am not saying the GM is a crappy person. He may not have realized that the entire gaming world does not play the same way yet.
I've GMed games where half the people were insanely optimized, and the other half worn't, and I had to quit it because there was no way to challenge the overpowered characters without immediately killing off the non-overpowered characters. And there was only one guy who had fun with it, the aforementioned gunslinger who could one-shot the final boss before anyone else got to act, but could be completely shut down by one of five things (and complained VERY LOUDLY when it happened.)
I have had this also, and it is hard to deal with. It is easier for me if everyone is highly optimized.
---------------------------------
Now this is what I was going to write before you made this post.
Putting something before or after what you write does not remove you from the responsibility of what you write.
As an example: "I am sorry, but Wraithstrike you are a horrible person who should not exist"
or
"Wraithstrike you are a horrible person who should not exist, but I am just saying how I feel".
Both of these have insults, and neither the preceding or following statements make them ok.
Now I understand that sometimes we have to get things off of our chest. Rants allow us to do that. I have read and seen rants where the anger was visibly there, but they were also factual in nature. People knew where the person was coming from. You could have ranted to your hearts content, and it would have come out a lot better if you had posted the actual things that happened that pushed you to this point, than the exaggerated points you used.
Online people can't read tone of voice as well. <----Something people don't always remember.
Now I know someone will misread this. I mean after all we are on the internet so just to be clear: This post is not about telling Mr.Vamp what to do, but more about explaining why it is a bad idea to go about it the way he did.
Contributor
|
Sounds like you play at a shop full of A holes.
Also how does one talk another out of a Rogue concept? If anything we tell them how to actually fulfill their concept.
No, not full. Not even most. And not all the time. But a few have slipped into this from time to time and over the years. Also, not at a shop, but just friends playing the game over the years. The current group I play with at the current shops I frequent are pretty good.
And how does someone talk someone out of a rogue concept? Like this:
THE FOLLOWING IS OBVIOUSLY A DRAMATIZATION. MEANT TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT. NOT A VERBATIM ARGUMENT. I HAVE SEEN SIMILAR TO THIS THOUGH. DO NOT PICK THIS APART FOR DETAILS, IT IS A DRAMATIZATION OF HOW A CONVERSATION COULD GO.
Noob: I wanna be a rogue. I wanna be, like, a Robin Hood guy, skulking in, stealing from rich jerks and giving to local peasants.
Strawman: Nope, Rogues suck, and you will die instantly. Here, if you want to steal stuff, you can be a ranger and get stealth, and still do well in combat.
Noob: But what about picking pockets and disabling traps?
Strawman: You can get traits for it, also don't worry about traps, they just drain charges from cure-light wounds wands.
Noob: Aren't there, like, snares and stuff that could take people out of the fight?
Strawman: (ignoring him.) Now you can get two weapon fighting at level two, so power attack should be your first feat.
Noob: I wanted to be a fencer . . .
Strawman: No, fencing sucks unless you are a swashbuckler, and you don't have the ACG yet. Plus their saves suck . . .
Actually, one of my players did this. Not quite verbatim (he suggested investigator or slayer), but pretty much the key points. :/
All the other guy said was "You know what? Maybe I'll play a rogue, I've never played one before."
The fencer part didn't come up either, but if it had, that would have been his response.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
the whole point of fantasy gaming is that anything's possible,So why are you playing pathfinder?
I feel I should elaborate. Because it's an honest question I feel won't get an answer because reasons.
There is a mentality that I feel is equally poisonous to that of getting too enamored in the mathematics and mechanics to fail to understand that they exist to create a medium for story telling.
And that is pretending like the mechanics are just window dressing to your story telling.
A statement like the above is an explicit statement saying "the rules are not allowed to get in the way ever".
To which I have to wonder why you would pick one of the most rules heavy games on the market when things like Wu Shu, FATE, and Exalted exist with the explicit intent of giving the player incredible amounts of narrative control.
Moreover, why would such a person disdain the "bean-counters" for not seeing their extraordinary vision when they themselves refuse to see that, within the context of those rules, not everything is in fact possible. You fail on a 1. You succeed on a 20. You cannot damage something with fire that is in fact immune to fire.
The game is rather binary in many of its elements. You do. Or you don't. There are very few degrees of else.
This is what an optimizer does.
At there very core they look at the math and the mechanics and they break it down, put it together, and they figure out what is possible. From that they derive what will be successful.
You can tell someone whose only interested in power-gaming because they usually stop there.
Others will take it further.
Some will go on to explore. They do not see the mechanics as a cage, but an ocean upon which to sail, to discover new and interesting territory. They're the guys who come up with songbirds of death, rogues that kill with a touch, barbarians that pierce the heavens shirtless as they shatter walls of force with the power of metal. For them the mechanics turn dm fiat into player reality.
Some, like myself, try to go deeper still. We look at the very basic mechanics and we try to figure out the very simplest ways in which the game works. The mechanics are a puzzle. Why is high initiative so good? Why are GOD wizards considered so powerful? Is the rogue only so bad because we don't know how to use them? What roles in a group are really required?
All this, so you can have fun with your chosen concept. Or, so you can discover a new concept, a new way to look at your character. The mechanics don't have to be a limiter on your capability, but a map to help you give your concept a solid form. Moreover, a form that is conducive to success.
Anyway I think I'm tired and decided to go off on a rant. I'm just exceedingly annoyed that in no other gaming based hobby is such venom hurled at people who simply point out how the mechanics function and how to use them successfully.
If anything reserve that for the people getting in the way of your fun.
|
|
Now I know someone will misread this. I mean after all we are on the internet so just to be clear: This post is not about telling Mr.Vamp what to do, but more about explaining why it is a bad idea to go about it the way he did.
You're probably right. I probably should have phrased it better. And I am thankful that you find some of my points valid. I probably should have been more tactful going about starting this post, but I just see the same stuff, the stuff I mentioned, over and over and it gets under my skin y'know? That coupled with the fact that there's really nothing to prevent you from going off half-cocked and writing a post on the forums.
I stand by the main concepts of everything I said. You shouldn't be made fun of if you decide to play a rogue, or play a universalist, or don't get power attack for your fighter. If you hyperspecialize or go super-crazy optimized it isn't much fun (at least for other players), and healing in combat can be useful. I probably should have just been more clear that it gets under my skin that people keep on giving out advice that is the opposite of this.
EDIT, oh, and
Your swashbuckler was almost certainly illegal at low levels. Adventuring kit is heavy. Even 11 strength is low for a light armor character and that's just two buy points from qualifying for power attack.
I am trying to be super diplomatic here, instead of feeling insulted. No, she was not, in fact, illegal. She did not have a full adventuring kit (no iron pot, no torches, etc), she had mule of society and a masterwork backpack, which put her at JUST enough weight for her strength. I battled with this a lot, it was difficult for me, but I also recognized the downsides of low strength.
|
These boards can be a pretty toxic environment when you don't follow the doubleplusgood groupthink.
People will tell you that your opinion is wrong.
People will tell you that your opinion isn't actually your opinion.
People will mock your opinions.
People will tell you your opinion is based in ignorance.
Basically, many of the posters here will stop just short of insulting you if you happen to disagree with them about something.
Others WILL insult you.
And if you vaguely defend yourself, many will try to paint YOU as the troll.
These boards can be a pretty toxic environment when you don't follow the doubleplusgood groupthink.
People will tell you that your opinion is wrong.
People will tell you that your opinion isn't actually your opinion.
People will mock your opinions.
People will tell you your opinion is based in ignorance.
Basically, many of the posters here will stop just short of insulting you if you happen to disagree with them about something.
Others WILL insult you.And if you vaguely defend yourself, many will try to paint YOU as the troll.
This is actually true unfortunately.
Though I think part of the problem is we have people (mostly in the rules forum) that come in ask a question wanting "their" answer instead of what answer the rules provide. Then they get very argumentative about it when they don't get what they want. This results in both sides getting hostile. I think the rules forum is the worst for that.
I think Advice is mostly okay, but mentioning of certain topics (like rogues) does tend to send it into a tizzy.
|
|
Sometime "their" answer is something that vaguely relates to their original question. If they as for advice on a rogue build, maybe they actually want a rogue build, not a rant about how rogues suck, they suck for wanting to play a rogue, and they should be playing a bard/investigator/slayer/wizurd instead.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
These boards can be a pretty toxic environment when you don't follow the doubleplusgood groupthink.
People will tell you that your opinion is wrong.
People will tell you that your opinion isn't actually your opinion.
People will mock your opinions.
People will tell you your opinion is based in ignorance.
Basically, many of the posters here will stop just short of insulting you if you happen to disagree with them about something.
Others WILL insult you.And if you vaguely defend yourself, many will try to paint YOU as the troll.
Welcome to life, son. This isn't a condition of the boards, this is a condition of humans. Everywhere you go in life, people will be like this. The Paizo moderators do a very good job of keeping it civil here. Many other forums and boards that I have visited are not nearly this good. I like it here because of how polite and civil people are, despite the frequent fallacies and mistakes and misunderstandings of the fallable humans that post.
And that's the key to remember: we're all human. We all make mistakes. We can all be wrong. We can all be right. If you want people to be civil towards you, then start with showing them some respect. We can all be arrogant. We can all be misunderstood. We have emotions that influence how we react to others, and sometimes we have good days and sometimes bad days. We're human. This is how humans are. Insulting people here for what humans across the globe do (and I've been around the globe and have experienced all this first hand from many different cultures) will not make your visit here any better.
Remember, if one person you meet is a jerk, then you've had bad luck and ran into a jerk. If everyone you've met is a jerk, then it's you who are the jerk. When you insult everyone here for being a jerk and accuse the boards of groupthink; then it may just not be everyone else who is the problem. Especially when there are those of us who can strongly disagree with people here and still have a very pleasant experience without the items you've listed being used against us.
@ Bob Bob Bob concerning magical traps in Paizo's adventures - actually, there's a pair of magical traps in Book 2 of Carrion Crown that, between them, account for over 50% of the obituary thread.
The first one (which can be bypassed without disabling it, actually - but folks can easily miss how to do so) summons a huge air elemental, which can easily scoop up the PCs with its whirlwind.
The party happens to be investigating a castle built over a chasm. So yeah, pretty easy to take enormous falling damage and die right there.
The second trap DOES have to be disabled (or your entire 6th level party needs to fly or otherwise bypass the bridge it's on). The trap summons an erinyes.
Most 6th level characters don't stand up to a flying erinyes very well. Short of a lucky dispel (which my PCs did) or a bow wielding paladin, odds are really good she's going to outright kick the party's ass.
While usually not magical, Serpent's Skull has a lot of snares and alarm trip-wires - stuff that's horribly inconvenient to set off, and not just due to HP damage. (I think the very last trap my rogue disabled in Book 6 was a symbol of death cast at 20th level? I know it was a symbol, but I don't remember the type anymore.)
Shattered Star has the Best Trap Ever. I have to grin just thinking about that trap.
I haven't looked at Mummy's Mask, but I'd hope there's a number of traps that can't be shrugged off with a cure light wand. (But Mummy's Mask actually gives out trapfinding as a campaign trait, so that no one is actually required to a play a class with trapfinding.)
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Bob Bob Bob concerning magical traps in Paizo's adventures - actually, there's a pair of magical traps in Book 2 of Carrion Crown that, between them, account for over 50% of the obituary thread.
** spoiler omitted **
While usually not magical, Serpent's Skull has a lot of snares and alarm trip-wires - stuff that's horribly inconvenient to set off, and not just due to HP damage. (I think the very last trap my rogue disabled in Book 6 was a symbol of death cast at 20th level? I know it was a symbol, but I don't remember the type anymore.)
Shattered Star has the Best Trap Ever. I have to grin just thinking about that trap.
I haven't looked at Mummy's Mask, but I'd hope there's a number of traps that can't be shrugged off with a cure light wand. (But Mummy's Mask actually gives out trapfinding as a campaign trait, so that no one is actually required to a play a class with trapfinding.)
Totally with you on Shattered Star. I actually did something in Serpent's Skull based on that trap...
As for Schloss Caromarc, it's not the traps. It's the lack of handrails. The entire place is OSHA-noncompliant. :)
@ Bob Bob Bob concerning magical traps in Paizo's adventures - actually, there's a pair of magical traps in Book 2 of Carrion Crown that, between them, account for over 50% of the obituary thread.
** spoiler omitted **
While usually not magical, Serpent's Skull has a lot of snares and alarm trip-wires - stuff that's horribly inconvenient to set off, and not just due to HP damage. (I think the very last trap my rogue disabled in Book 6 was a symbol of death cast at 20th level? I know it was a symbol, but I don't remember the type anymore.)
Shattered Star has the Best Trap Ever. I have to grin just thinking about that trap.
I haven't looked at Mummy's Mask, but I'd hope there's a number of traps that can't be shrugged off with a cure light wand. (But Mummy's Mask actually gives out trapfinding as a campaign trait, so that no one is actually required to a play a class with trapfinding.)
Totally with you on Shattered Star. I actually did something in Serpent's Skull based on that trap...
As for Schloss Caromarc, it's not the traps. It's the lack of handrails. The entire place is OSHA-noncompliant. :)
Ha! And that's putting it mildly.
Mad alchemists care nothing for safety regulations. Very, VERY unsafe work environment, indeed.
5) Rogues are worthless. They suck in a vacuum. They were dead in the CRB. They have been thematically killed with other additions. This has only been verified by myself extensively playing a rogue in Rise of the Rune Lords and all other campaigns in which I have witness rogues present.
4) I agree. A wizard is a wizard. You don't NEED that extra slot to be effective.
3) No you really do need power attack. If you wouldn't benefit from using it, then your character is poorly optimized.
2) I agree. If anything PF rewards versatility and penalizes specialization. One character can be good at everything or the best at one maybe two things.
1) I agree. Healing is useful. Not every combat goes as planned. Hyperspecilization into healing is a mistake like we talked about in #2.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People will tell you that your opinion is wrong.
.
.
.
People will tell you your opinion is based in ignorance.
I don't see any bad thing in the first and the second could be equally ok.
Opinions can be wrong, if the argument focus on the opinions and not the persons then there is nothing bad about it. Many times a wrong opinion/statement of mine have been corrected in this forum, many times my opinion about a issue have changed due to argument that other people have made, there is nothing toxic about it.
Well, an opinion can't be wrong, but people can be wrong about whether or not the thing they just said is actually an opinion or not.
Example:
"The rogue is so weak I don't want to play it" is an opinion. It is outside the scope of rightness and wrongness.
"The rogue is the only 3/4 BAB class without an in-class way of boosting its attack bonus and therefore, among that group of classes, it is the worst at attacking things" is an assertion of fact, and is either right or wrong regardless of how anyone feels about it.
People mix up this identification a LOT.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3) No you really do need power attack. If you wouldn't benefit from using it, then your character is poorly optimized.
To which I can only say "so frigging what?"
I don't play to be optimised.
I don't play to be the best at something.
As long as a character is not actually a hindrance to the party, then it's welcome at my table.
If someone tells me "you need Power Attack to be effective in melee", I will outright laugh in their face. Sure, it can make you more effective at dealing damage, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that a melee character without it will cause the party to do less damage than if he wasn't there.
|
5) Rogues are not a bad class to play. The sneak attack damage mechanic does not help them imo. Either a Rogue has to be in melee range or do a ranged build. In melee the vanilla Rogue does not have enough AC or hp to risk staying there for too long. My games rogue die. As most intelligent opponents don't stand there and simply allow someone to stab them in vunerable areas over and over again. Not to mention being easier to hit they are prime targets. Ranged Sneak Attack helps but it too is a pain in the behind to implement imo. If they allowed Rogues to move, sneak attack in melee then move again it would help the Rogue a lot imo.
It's not helped that they made trapfinding a feat in specific AP. Or that newer classes or older classes can do the same and better. The Rogue talents are a mixed bag. Either really good. Or the usual case of too situational or simply not worth taking. Even the newer classes such as Investigator I would still not use their version of sneak attack. As again they don't have the AC or hp to take the damage.
One can say they are not a pure melee class. But when their main ability needs them to be in melee. Most of the time they can't survive long enough melee. At least not without the DM playing intelligent foes smartly. Then it is a problem. Rogues in my game as a DM don't survive for very long.
4)
While Conjurers in the hands of a player who knows what he is doing can be a pain for a DM at a table. Universalist mages unless they are being played by a beginner are even better imo. I have yet to see anyone say that a universalist mage is the worst choice. I made a mage specialized on crafting items for a 3.5 game. I was still able to contribute at the table. Whomever tells you that simply does not know what they are talking about imo
3) Power Attack is a decent feat. It helps for certain builds. I don;t think it's as good as everyone who says it is. Some lie myself take it because it's a feat tax as well as being useful.
2)
One does not have to be hyperspecialized but a certain amount of specialization is required. One can build a Fighter with low str and one with high str. The one with low str can get buy in terms of hitting stuff. The one with the high str not only hits but also does more damage. Not to mention good luck carrying all your equipment with a low str fighter. Or loot. It's the same way if I build A rogue with high dex and weapon finesse. Another with high dex and another feat. The first hits more often then the second imo.
The main problem I see is building a character that is non-optimized then wanting the character to be as as one that is optimized. Or at the very least with the right attributes. One can build a Bard with 12 Cha and one with 18 Cha. The first ones spells will fail more often than the second one. It's how the rules work. The first gives a +1 to DC to save vs spells. The second a +4.
1) Healers useless. I wonder which groups the Op is playing in. It's not that Healers are useless. It's that some players don't want to play Healbots all the time. Healing with Channeling while useful becomes somewhat less useful at higher levels. If it was a static number instead of rolling dice it would be different. A 11th level Cleric rolls 6D6 which may seem a lot. That assumes the player rolls high. If it was up to me I would allow Clerics to always heal at least a quarter to half damage on the Channel Energy rolls. At the cost of being able to use it less. Wen the Cleric heals allows at least nine or 18 hp. It's more useful imo.
@Chemlak
If you do not contribute enough to compensate for the increase in CR of encounters done by the GM, then you are a hindrance to the party.
4) I agree. A wizard is a wizard. You don't NEED that extra slot to be effective.
3) No you really do need power attack. If you wouldn't benefit from using it, then your character is poorly optimized.
2) I agree. If anything PF rewards versatility and penalizes specialization. One character can be good at everything or the best at one maybe two things.
I am going to dispute these three somewhat.
4) The reason people advise against this is that the wizard is pretty much just better off taking a specialist school. The reasons why are:
-The double slot usage for opposed schools doesn't actually cost the wizard anything until he prepares more than 1 spell per level from those schools (it just reduces a benefit), so not having any opposed schools is kind of worthless compared to the extra slot.
-The hand of the apprentice school power is worthless to almost every straight wizard.
-The only other ability in the school is the ability to add metamagic to a very small amount of spells, without exceeding the wizard's maximum cast-able spell level. This is useful, but hardly mind blowing because of the limited uses. A universalist needs to be level 14 before they can quicken a single spell in a day using this. They never get enough uses to do it twice.
-The above power is competing against stuff like swift action teleports and 1/2 level initiative bonuses+never surprised, alongside said extra slots.
Sure, wizard is the Uberclasse++ as a universalist, but it can be the Uberclasse+++ with a good specialist school. I mean, yeah you can still take universalist and be a good wizard, but why would you. It's just...worse.
3) There will be builds where power attack is not worth it. I agree that the majority of builds should take it, but there will be a few situations where it is counter-productive or inferior to other feats. I haven't seen this personally, but I have seen this happen for Deadly Aim on an archer bard - without buffing it was actually dropping DPR vs CR appropriate AC, and even with buffing (song+heroism+haste) weapon focus came out as a net positive (using the equations from the DPR olympics). I imagine some magi builds would have similar problems.
2)This is kind of weird. Because of the action economy, being good at one thing is usually better than being ok at 2 things - in combat, you really have to choose between the 2, so the choice ends up being good vs being ok. Sometimes, the good shtick doesn't work, so the choice is being ok vs being terrible. The end result is that it is usually worth giving up a little power for a lot of versatility.
This is basically the reason why casters are so strong - they can choose to be trivially less powerful in whatever they focus in, while being able to handle a huge amount of problems decently.
A melee martial taking a bow with them is another good example. They spend a few hundred gp on a composite bow, and are suddenly a threat (if a weak one) outside greatsword difference.
Contrast this to a twf martial taking archery feats - they will never be that good at archery, and it hurts their twf significantly. They are giving up a significant amount of power(twf is feat intensive) for a slight increase in versatility (because an archer with 2 feats isn't that much better than an archer with 0).
Taking Power Attack(all that is needed to beat face decently with a greatsword) as an archer is a decent (but not spectacular) trade, because they significantly mitigate one of their vulnerabilities (getting shut down by things in their face), while only losing 1 archery feat. Point blank master is probably a better option though since it gives most of the versatility (only gets shut down due to high winds or archery specific counters) without having to weaken archery through diverting upgrade funds to a greatsword.
The point of all this is that versatility vs specialization is a tradeoff between 2 situations: being worse at your job because you wasted resources on things you aren't using, while weakening the better things you can do vs being worse at your job because you can't do your better things and don't have any decent alternatives.
@Snowblind
4) I don't disagree. I prefer Universalist for the complete flexibility of play. Sure you are a few slots short, but you can be a necromancer one day or an enchanter the next as the situation calls for it.
3) "If you wouldn't benefit from using it, then your character is poorly optimized." I stick by this claim. Yeah some builds may not benefit from it, that is because they are bad at melee.
2) Martials get benefits from specialization, but that it is just a poor point of martials in the overall game.
3) No you really do need power attack. If you wouldn't benefit from using it, then your character is poorly optimized.To which I can only say "so frigging what?"
I don't play to be optimised.
I don't play to be the best at something.
As long as a character is not actually a hindrance to the party, then it's welcome at my table.
If someone tells me "you need Power Attack to be effective in melee", I will outright laugh in their face. Sure, it can make you more effective at dealing damage, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that a melee character without it will cause the party to do less damage than if he wasn't there.
My my what a low bar.
@Chemlak
If you do not contribute enough to compensate for the increase in CR of encounters done by the GM, then you are a hindrance to the party.
I agree. If party member number 6 isn't doing enough damage to compensate for the 12% increase in foe hp, there's probably an issue. I've just never seen anyone crunch the numbers that prove that without PA a melee character can never deliver that extra 12%.
|
3) "If you wouldn't benefit from using it, then your character is poorly optimized." I stick by this claim. Yeah some builds may not benefit from it, that is because they are bad at melee.
1. I bring up again that it somewhat depends upon your GM and whether your opponenets are naked or have solid AC.
2. Swashbucklers and monks (dex based - as the best monk builds dump strength) get very little benefit from PA in comparison to the costs. For them it not only costs a feat, it also costs them significant stat points. Monks especially tend to be feat starved anyway.
There are other builds where PA isn't worth taking - but those are two solid examples.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
5) Rogues are worthless. They suck in a vacuum. They were dead in the CRB. They have been thematically killed with other additions. This has only been verified by myself extensively playing a rogue in Rise of the Rune Lords and all other campaigns in which I have witness rogues present.
3) No you really do need power attack. If you wouldn't benefit from using it, then your character is poorly optimized.
And people wonder how the OP got his opinions in his rant.
Universalist mage is the worst choice. Specilization isn't nearly as restrictive as previous editions. Even if you had one opposed school memorized at every level you'd still be back to the same number of spells as a generalist. Usually you can avoid that , especially with your more valuable high level spell slots.
What is a really good rogue talent?
And people wonder how the OP got his opinions in his rant.5) Rogues are worthless. They suck in a vacuum. They were dead in the CRB. They have been thematically killed with other additions. This has only been verified by myself extensively playing a rogue in Rise of the Rune Lords and all other campaigns in which I have witness rogues present.
3) No you really do need power attack. If you wouldn't benefit from using it, then your character is poorly optimized.
That its a message board meme and that the meme is wrong are two separate things.
|
|
How could there be a nerf FAQ for that talent?What is a really good rogue talent?Offensive Defense is good. (I don't think the nerf FAQ is technically official yet - though it'd still be pretty decent.)
Two things -
1. Making it so that multiple sneak attacks don't stack.
2. Making it only works against the target of the SA. (I have this amusing idea in my head of a rogue with a bandolier of blinded mice to jack up his AC with. I'd never abuse the rule so - but the idea makes me chuckle.)
@ BigNorseWolf - Trap Spotter (i.e., I always win against traps), offensive defense (i.e., rogues who are doing it right aren't squishy), black market connections (man, that's a weird one, but funny), various talents that grant feats you'd want want anyways, major magic talent, fast stealth, etc.
Hell, my rogue in Serpent's Skull got pretty good use out of camouflage, which I'd never recommend taking outside of Serpent's Skull.
A lot of rogue talents are lackluster (seriously, way, way too many are once a day for no good reason), but there's a number of perfectly useful ones.
And that's without getting into master talents (which a rogue actually gets more of than the normal talents).
Aside: a number of the 1/day rogue talents would probably be written up as always-on or have 1 use per X levels per day if they were written up for other classes. A lot of rogue talents are grossly underpowered compared to what gets handed to other classes for no apparent reason.
For example: if you look at the core rulebook, rogue talents (low-power, always on abilities) and rage powers (low power, always on or low power, 1/rage abilities) are pretty close in line with each other. And then starting with the APG, rage powers got vastly better (I'm looking at you, witch hunter and greater beast totem) while rogue talents shifted from low-power, always-on abilities to low-power, 1/day abilities.
Rogue talents, rage powers, alchemist discoveries, investigator talents, etc., are clearly supposed to be on the same level with each other, and yet most rogue talents are just inexplicably worse.
That's always struck me as a really weird design decision. I guess we'll see how Unchained handles rogue talents.
5) I agree that rogues are playable, just like a 7 int wizard is playable. Often groups and scenarios wont require you to "carry your weight" as much because they're also not that good. But as for the responses when people ask about the rogue is the facts that. 1 - why are they wanting the rogue class? Like is there something specific in there they are wanting or are they just wanting to play a rogue character. Because for the character there are better options to be a rogue than the rogue class. 2 - There's not much advice to give a rogue user. Take the rogue tricks that give you feats and try to sneak attack and not die. Good luck feeling useful. Having lots of skills doesn't help much when everyone else is better than you at there 2-3 skills. It's because there's nothing really special or unique about the rogue that causes posters so suggest not playing a rogue. You're not bringing much more than a warm body.
4) Agreeing with other commentators, there's not really a reason to go universalist wizard over another school. First you'll usually have better school abilities. Second, you have more spell slots, and are you really often using spells from ALL schools of magic? I know my experience has been that I only know so many spells, and I don't have many spells I want that are in certain schools. Also at lv 9 or 10 a wizard can get it down to 1 opposed school with their arcane discovery "opposition research". But is an universalist playable? Heck yes, as stated the rogue is playable. But since it's still a wizard it's definitely still viable and strong by nature of it's class.
3) I agree that if you're optimizing for combat that power attack (piranha strike for light) basically is the best feat. If your plan is to melee you'll often have hit-chance to spare. As stated, it's far easier to boost your hitting than your damage. Now my stance is you can wait till around lv4-6 before you really *need power attack, but if you'd have problems hitting with it then you're not really that optimized for melee combat. Now is a character without it still playable and viable? Probably, again, lots of time the optimization floor of the game is low enough that poorly thought out characters aren't a hindrance.
2.1) The thing to me is that Hyperspecialization usually leaves you pretty competent when it doesn't happen. Yes the shocking nova magus is reduced when it's electricity immune, but it still has other spells to work with his abilities, and they'll still have good effect. The super tripper, well he can probably still hit for pretty good damage. And even if you are stuck at being worthless, That about the average level of the rogue, so if they're helping you can still help.
2.2)Yes that gunslinger loses to that monk, now if it happens occasionally and the player complains, I say it's a poor player. If it's not occasionally but the new norm, yes I'd complain to. I once had a lv 12 blaster wizard in a dragon fighting campaign, and the GM sent dragons, but these dragons has saves in the mid 30s or higher. ALL the dragons had these saves and EVERY enemy we fought had super high spell res, like in the 30s as well. So Yes, I was a good blaster, Yes I could have tried other things. But when the GM Constantly shut down "my thing", I'd prefer he'd have just banned it at creation instead of saying yes and then punishing me in game. Like ban the gunslinger instead of having everything suddenly have those feats.
1) Again it's the similar state as the rogue. "Hi I want to be a healer" 'The mechanics of Pathfinder make healing not really work, if you want to your best options are the oradin or the ..., but here's the mechanics of why healing isn't useful in combat.' But every post I've seen they've still said that healing is still good for saving a life, as it's cheaper and usually the best way to end the fight faster. So can you play a heal focused character? Yes, you're able to play a rogue. I know a guy in PFS that only plays Fire/Healing domain clerics. Like he has a cleric at every level, all pretty much the same. but even he doesn't cast healing spells all that often, so I wonder why he does it.
0) People are usually asking for advice to make a good, useful and effective character. Thus the advice we give will be "the most broken, overpowered, optimized thing on the planet" I know I wouldn't appreciate it if I came and got bad advice. "Hi I want to play a slayer" 'You know you should play a rogue, it has sneak attack too, but is worst at everything, but think of the the fun you'll have with this rogue.' Like that's not helpful. Or when people come in like this. "Hi, I want to be a really good tripper, so my plan is to multiclass into 4 3/4 bab classes" Then we say "You're not going to be a good tripper, if tripping is your focus then here are 2-3 ways to do tripping and be effective at it. We can help narrow it down if you have more info and what you want to be able to do." I recently helped a friend make a dagger throwing Ranger, The entire time I was warning him of what combat would probably be like, but that my advice would probably be the most effective way to do it. He listened to some and took a different feat, and he came back after his first session saying exactly what I told him it would be like. So did I tell him he was wrong? Kinda, I explained that the rules and the execution of his idea wasn't really going to live up to what his expectations were, but did my best to help him reach them. And maybe in a few levels when he picks up more of the *needed feats he'll feel useful.
TLDR
My feelings is that you seem to not like optimization. Which is fine and many people feel that way and play that way. But a lot of people don't realize that what they want isn't going to happen with what they plan to do, so we often try to find the "theme" or "flavor" they are wanting and offer options that do that better than their original idea. This game is "easy" enough that commoners and artisans can be playable. (We had a campaign were we started off as lv2 NPCs, so the power level was super low.)
5) Everything that's not mechanics is fluff. Mechanically, the rogue is strictly inferior to other options... other options that you can use for the same character fluff.
4) This one looks like you are reading the optimization threads, rather than any ol' wizard threads. I've never seen a "bad" wizard. Badly played wizards, sure. But, mechanically they were fine. FYI, I played a necro-focused wizard with conjuration and evocation as opposed schools. It was fine.
3) Power Attack is simply great. And by that, I mean both simple and great. I haven't gotten to #2, but if you are going to complain about "hyper-specialization", how can you complain about the simplest version of melee combat? You have one attribute to worry about and one feat, and you're done. Maybe you take furious focus somewhere down the line. But, otherwise, you're done! Everything else can be used to make your character more versatile.
The alternatives, dex builds, two-weapon, sword-and-board, maneuver masters, archery, etc., etc., are the ones that require specialization just to pull off! Class limitations, attribute requirements, feat chains... Power Attack gives you the option to be versatile.
2) Some level of specialization is required because you are part of a group. If you try to take on every part of an adventure yourself, your friends will not appreciate it. If you take turns taking the opportunity to shine at your varying tasks, you have better cooperative storytelling. Plus, you will collectively be better at each of those things, than if you each try to be universally good at everything/most things.
1) Healing is fine. Healers, by which I mean "Dedicated Healers" are just burning actions and spells with little benefit. Damage scales faster than healing. An action that will be more than undone within the round is a waste of an action. Even terrible actions, like Aid Another to increase your ally's AC, or simply putting yourself in a position to take a single hit instead of your ally have a greater net benefit than casting a heal spell on your ally. Very simple math backs this up empirically.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if all of you are just out and out lying, exaggerating, or see an entire different messageboard than I do.
At the risk of giving you advice you didn't ask for, I'm going to say that "a number of people have had experiences that I don't seem to have had, they must be lying" is pretty much never the right answer, in any context. What it actually means, particularly if you want to maintain a reasonable level of intellectual honesty, is that it's time to re-examine your own biases, particularly your confirmation bias, to see if they're interfering with your ability to accurately assess what's going on. Sometimes you'll find it is. Many times you'll find that it's not. Either way, the re-examination is worth your effort, and will hopefully keep you from dismissing valid experiences that you just don't happen to share.
These days, I like to think myself pretty handy with a d20. I know the majority of the rules and have methods to quickly look up those I don't. I can build a character that, while far from the most optimised thing ever, will get have a better than decent chance of not dying while still contributed a fair share to the party. I consider myself pretty average in terms of system mastery, but I think that average is pretty good for someone who bought their first core rule book three years ago.
But since it was only three years ago, I'm also able to remember what it was like to be the guy who thought the vanilla classes were really cool and interesting, and who struggled to build a character that could keep up with the party and actually contribute.
At the time, I was in a home group. The only seriously experienced player had a problem with patience, and would only help so much. So I came to the Paizo forums and spent a lot of time reading the advice section. There I found a number of 'truths' that I eagerly enshrined in my memory- the things one simply Did Not Do.
And frankly, the OP's list pretty strongly matches my own from that period. (In my case, swap out power attack for 'monks are almost as bad as rogues.') And when I saw the OP's post, I remembered those early times and nodded right along with him.
Were those opinions the majority opinion of the boards? Likely not. But they are the opinion of a rather loud segment of the advice forums. Or at least, the opinion is aired enough that an eager eyed newbie will easily get that impression.
This is the misconception that annoys me the most because what happens is many of us will say that you should focus on ending combat instead focus on building around healing for several reasons. Then one or two people will say it is better to let someone die, and the statement of those 1 or 2 people will be applied to everyone.
Wraithstrike really says it best, right here.
I agree a bit with both sides here. The point behind the 5 points are true, with some exceptions. The fact that extremist views on the boards tend to give readers the impression that "everyone" has those extremist views (because a number of less extreme views agree with the general sentiment) is also true.
@ Bob Bob Bob concerning magical traps in Paizo's adventures - actually, there's a pair of magical traps in Book 2 of Carrion Crown that, between them, account for over 50% of the obituary thread.
** spoiler omitted **
While usually not magical, Serpent's Skull has a lot of snares and alarm trip-wires - stuff that's horribly inconvenient to set off, and not just due to HP damage. (I think the very last trap my rogue disabled in Book 6 was a symbol of death cast at 20th level? I know it was a symbol, but I don't remember the type anymore.)
Shattered Star has the Best Trap Ever. I have to grin just thinking about that trap.
I haven't looked at Mummy's Mask, but I'd hope there's a number of traps that can't be shrugged off with a cure light wand. (But Mummy's Mask actually gives out trapfinding as a campaign trait, so that no one is actually required to a play a class with trapfinding.)
Totally with you on Shattered Star. I actually did something in Serpent's Skull based on that trap...
As for Schloss Caromarc, it's not the traps. It's the lack of handrails. The entire place is OSHA-noncompliant. :)
Quite literally, The first thing my players did when they met Caromarc was give him a lecture on the importance of hand rails and safety for bridges. :)
@ BigNorseWolf - Trap Spotter (i.e., I always win against traps), offensive defense (i.e., rogues who are doing it right aren't squishy), black market connections (man, that's a weird one, but funny), various talents that grant feats you'd want want anyways, major magic talent, fast stealth, etc.
If you need it, trapspotter is available from other, better dipping classes.
Offensive defense was nerfed
Black market connections is a hell of a lot worse than magic item creation feats, or just a teleport spell.
Most classes willingly,repeatedly and gleefully burn feats to take extra [class feature here] . That the list of best rogue talents includes going in the other direction is telling.
And that's without getting into master talents (which a rogue actually gets more of than the normal talents).
IF your campaign gets to 10th level you're running into the god wizards becoming reality rather than theorycrafting by then.
And then starting with the APG, rage powers got vastly better (I'm looking at you, witch hunter and greater beast totem) while rogue talents shifted from low-power, always-on abilities to low-power, 1/day abilities.
Most play isn't limited to the CRB, so this is making my point.
Rogue talents, rage powers, alchemist discoveries, investigator talents, etc., are clearly supposed to be on the same level with each other, and yet most rogue talents are just inexplicably worse.
That's always struck me as a really weird design decision. I guess we'll see how Unchained handles rogue talents.
*clinks glass* heres hoping to unchained rogues.
And then starting with the APG, rage powers got vastly better (I'm looking at you, witch hunter and greater beast totem) while rogue talents shifted from low-power, always-on abilities to low-power, 1/day abilities.Most play isn't limited to the CRB, so this is making my point.
Rogue talents, rage powers, alchemist discoveries, investigator talents, etc., are clearly supposed to be on the same level with each other, and yet most rogue talents are just inexplicably worse.
That's always struck me as a really weird design decision. I guess we'll see how Unchained handles rogue talents.*clinks glass* heres hoping to unchained rogues.
Heh, I seem to see "Unchained could fix it" somewhere in every thread about fighters or rogues.
I haven't seen such across the board high expectations that a book will fix a class since the APG and barbarians (as referred to above).
Which, in that case, it sure did and then some, so, *clink*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
These days, I like to think myself pretty handy with a d20. I know the majority of the rules and have methods to quickly look up those I don't. I can build a character that, while far from the most optimised thing ever, will get have a better than decent chance of not dying while still contributed a fair share to the party. I consider myself pretty average in terms of system mastery, but I think that average is pretty good for someone who bought their first core rule book three years ago.
But since it was only three years ago, I'm also able to remember what it was like to be the guy who thought the vanilla classes were really cool and interesting, and who struggled to build a character that could keep up with the party and actually contribute.
At the time, I was in a home group. The only seriously experienced player had a problem with patience, and would only help so much. So I came to the Paizo forums and spent a lot of time reading the advice section. There I found a number of 'truths' that I eagerly enshrined in my memory- the things one simply Did Not Do.
And frankly, the OP's list pretty strongly matches my own from that period. (In my case, swap out power attack for 'monks are almost as bad as rogues.') And when I saw the OP's post, I remembered those early times and nodded right along with him.
Were those opinions the majority opinion of the boards? Likely not. But they are the opinion of a rather loud segment of the advice forums. Or at least, the opinion is aired enough that an eager eyed newbie will easily get that impression.
I see where you're coming from. I really do. But here's the thing (which you may even realize by now): a lot of the "truths" of the forum are based on analysis of the classes. Like real mathematical analysis. Remember, 3rd edition - and by extension Pathfinder - is simply a series of mathematical equations (this is why my old calculus teacher back in college loved the system so much). Because of this, it makes doing mathematical analysis fairly easy.
Now, as humans, we're much more likey to remember the conclusion than the analytical methods. This is true in nearly every aspect of analysis in every field; I often have a difficult time keeping people's attention when I talk about my work, because I do analytical chemistry. I can give them the rough outline and what the conclusions mean, but as soon as I talk the nitty-gritty details that I love, their eyes start to glaze over. The same is true here; people will remember that "rogues are bad" and "always take power attack if playing a melee character" without remembering the analysis that led to that conclusion. (Edit: And without remembering the assumptions, caveats, and addendums that go with it).
With that, here's what I recommend to avoid the feelings you and the OP (and apparently enough other folk) are feeling: ask for the analysis. People here are at least savvy enough to either find the links or recreate it. And then once you get it, read it and understand it. If anything is difficult to understand, ask for help (I ask for help all the time when I struggle to understand a concept; both here on the boards and in my line of work; heck, I just did it today with two of our resident experts).
To me, hearing someone get offended or feeing insulted because they were told "rogues suck, don't play one of you don't have to, instead try this" is no different from someone getting offended if I tell them, "an ICP/MS is not the proper analytical instrument to run toxicity analysis of arsenic in wine samples; you have to use an HPLC (preferably with QQQ), or an IC, with proper sample preparation". The offense comes from thinking that you (general you) can do no wrong and you're offfended that some dares correct you (in which case, some introspective analysis is strongly recommended). I've seen that offensive attitude in my line of work so often that's it's alomst predictable based on the attitude of the person I'm talking with (always from someone who has an ego based on being right rather than discovering truth and accuracy). There's simply no offensive statement there; it's just a conclusion based on analysis. Now, if I were to say. "You're an idiot for doing this" that would be insulting. But simply telling someone a conclusion based on analysis (whether correct or not) should not be construed as insulting.
Edit: Just as an aside, that example I gave from my own line of work is a real example of someone getting mad at me, just last week. They claimed I was being insulting and offensive for questioning their chemistry techniques, desire the fact that they were factually incorrect. Their analytical method was simply not giving them the results that they claimed to posses.