guardianfallenangel said:
i'm just wondering how most of the classes that get labled as "overpowered" match up to a class that no one ever questions.
I'm still trying to decide whether or not you're serious, but I suppose I can humor you for a bit.
A rogue can indeed roll more damage dice than other classes. If the rogue had equal attributes in all other areas, and could consistantly deal out that level of damage, it would indeed be overpowered.
Fortunately, there are a lot of mitigating circumstances you are ignoring in your comparison.
* Rogues are more frail than fighters. A rogue that stands next to the Big Bad to deal out 30d6 had better kill it, because the counterattack will likely kill him.
* Rogues are less accurate than fighters. They don't always HIT with all those extra damage dice. A 20th-level fighter is likely to have a to-hit bonus of at least +7 better than the rogue's (Weapon Focus, GWF, and +5 BAB).
* Rogues get less attacks than fighters. 3 to the fighter's 4, in fact, unless they go the TWF route, which has it's own issues (such as increased to-hit penalties, and having to make a full attack to gain a benefit, which brings us back to that frailty issue.)
* Rogues need specific tactical circumstances in order to enable their sneak attacks. Flanking is dangerous (that darned frailty again) and ranged weapons can only be used in the surprise round unless additional effort is expended to become invisible, re-hide, etc.
* Rogue bonus damage dice are outright negated by certain enemies including undead, constructs, and humanoids wearing
fortified armor.
In essence, while a rogue can indeed reach a high number of damage dice, that damage potential is balanced by a number of significant drawbacks that keep it in line with other balanced classes.
Why are other classes considered overpowered when the rogue mostly isn't? Because some other classes have significant advantages without any appreciable drawbacks.
