Lord Rasputin
Explorer
ShadowStar said:
What, no Leap of the clouds?
3.5 Scoops Discussion
- Thread starter Olgar Shiverstone
- Start date
What, no Leap of the clouds?
Re: Re: Rogue changes
The ranger has enough skill points to afford max ranks in both the Move Silently and Hide skills plus survival and a few other skills. They will be on an even footing for those skills. If they get something like the Camoflauge spell from Savage Species, they can quickly pump their Hide skill. They have other spells that help enhance their abilities.
From what I've seen, the Rogue is relegated to Trap Finder. Other than finding and disarming traps, there isn't much of a reason to take a rogue. The ranger (because of better chance to hit) will probably do better damage in combat. The bard gets lots of spell ability while wearing armor.
It looks like between the Ranger and the Bard, many of the strengths of a 3e rogue will be taken over by one or the other of those classes. The rogue is relegated to tripping over traps and missing with their sneak attack.
Apok said:
The ranger has enough skill points to afford max ranks in both the Move Silently and Hide skills plus survival and a few other skills. They will be on an even footing for those skills. If they get something like the Camoflauge spell from Savage Species, they can quickly pump their Hide skill. They have other spells that help enhance their abilities.
From what I've seen, the Rogue is relegated to Trap Finder. Other than finding and disarming traps, there isn't much of a reason to take a rogue. The ranger (because of better chance to hit) will probably do better damage in combat. The bard gets lots of spell ability while wearing armor.
It looks like between the Ranger and the Bard, many of the strengths of a 3e rogue will be taken over by one or the other of those classes. The rogue is relegated to tripping over traps and missing with their sneak attack.
Apok
First Post
Re: Re: Re: Rogue changes
Indeed, but that's to be expected. Both are considered to be pretty sneaky, and this hasn't changed from 3.0.
Their Camoflauge ability only works while in the wilderness, and most of their spells are only usefull while outdoors in a natural setting. They do not, to date, have any spell which gives them unrestricted bonuses to Hide and/or Move Silently, nor do they have any spells that would help much in a city or dungeon (two locales where Rogues are indispensable). I can't speak for their 3.5e spell list (until ShadowStar posts it, that is
) but for right now, their spells don't encroach on the Rogues territory.
The Rogue can hold his own in combat damage-wise because of his Sneak Attack. If played effectively, Rogues are only slightly less deadly than the main Fighter types (Fighters, Rangers, Barbarians, Paladins) and this is how it should be. Yes, Bards can now cast spells in Light Armor, but AFAIK, offensive spells aren't exactly the Bard's forte. Also, the Bard has about as good a chance at hitting his target as the Rogue does, but lacks the extra "kick" of SA damage, so I'd say the Rogue is still superior to the Bard in terms of melee combat. This is also as it should be, since Bards are supposed to be mostly support. Their added casting in armor benefit helps them to survive combat a bit better than before, which is good.
Hardly. As I explained in my previous paragraph, the combat ability of a Rogue falls just below that of a Ranger and above that of a Bard, which is fine. Yes, the Rogue is still the primary trap-finder and disabler but I really don't see how the Rogue is loosing anything to the Ranger or Bard. The Rogue is just as good as he always was, the only difference is that the Ranger and Bard are now more in line with the rest of the classes in terms of power and usefulness.
As an aside, there is also flavor to consider. Sure, Rangers would definitely make better wilderness scouts than Rogues, but what about an Indiana Jones type character? An underworld assassin? A thief who survives on the mean streets of a major port city using his wits and alot of luck? All of these concepts just scream "Rogue." Who is more likely to know about the criminal underworld, or the Who's Who of a major kingdom or city? Chances are, it's the Rogue. Honestly, I can't think of how giving the Ranger 2 extra skill points and some cool wilderness abilities somehow makes the Rogue an invalid class.
bret said:
Indeed, but that's to be expected. Both are considered to be pretty sneaky, and this hasn't changed from 3.0.
Their Camoflauge ability only works while in the wilderness, and most of their spells are only usefull while outdoors in a natural setting. They do not, to date, have any spell which gives them unrestricted bonuses to Hide and/or Move Silently, nor do they have any spells that would help much in a city or dungeon (two locales where Rogues are indispensable). I can't speak for their 3.5e spell list (until ShadowStar posts it, that is
) but for right now, their spells don't encroach on the Rogues territory. The Rogue can hold his own in combat damage-wise because of his Sneak Attack. If played effectively, Rogues are only slightly less deadly than the main Fighter types (Fighters, Rangers, Barbarians, Paladins) and this is how it should be. Yes, Bards can now cast spells in Light Armor, but AFAIK, offensive spells aren't exactly the Bard's forte. Also, the Bard has about as good a chance at hitting his target as the Rogue does, but lacks the extra "kick" of SA damage, so I'd say the Rogue is still superior to the Bard in terms of melee combat. This is also as it should be, since Bards are supposed to be mostly support. Their added casting in armor benefit helps them to survive combat a bit better than before, which is good.
Hardly. As I explained in my previous paragraph, the combat ability of a Rogue falls just below that of a Ranger and above that of a Bard, which is fine. Yes, the Rogue is still the primary trap-finder and disabler but I really don't see how the Rogue is loosing anything to the Ranger or Bard. The Rogue is just as good as he always was, the only difference is that the Ranger and Bard are now more in line with the rest of the classes in terms of power and usefulness.
As an aside, there is also flavor to consider. Sure, Rangers would definitely make better wilderness scouts than Rogues, but what about an Indiana Jones type character? An underworld assassin? A thief who survives on the mean streets of a major port city using his wits and alot of luck? All of these concepts just scream "Rogue." Who is more likely to know about the criminal underworld, or the Who's Who of a major kingdom or city? Chances are, it's the Rogue. Honestly, I can't think of how giving the Ranger 2 extra skill points and some cool wilderness abilities somehow makes the Rogue an invalid class.
Last edited:
Li Shenron
Legend
Shard O'Glase said:
I asked this to ShadowStar in the big thread, so I perfectly see your point.
When someone says "Wizard!" the first image that comes to my mind is Mickey Mouse as the apprentice in Fantasia. Never understood why clerics should be animating objects, since it has absolutely nothing at all to do with religion or divine.
Li Shenron
Legend
Shard O'Glase said:
Possible reasons for this design decision could have been:
- magic items that grant "shield" AC bonus are much less than the ones whichi grant "armor" AC bonus (perhaps there are Bracers of Armors, but not Bracers of Shield)
- mundane armor bonuses go up to +8 (IIRC), shields bonuses up to +2 (or +4 the tower)
- given the boost to 2WFigthers and 2-handed weapon wielders, there are much less allies with shield around than allies with armor
- something else might be different in the spells descriptions (components, range?)
Li Shenron
Legend
Conaill said:So every one and his brother now get Craft (Alchemy)?
AAAARGH!
Frankly I think this is the most stupid change in the whole revision. Why? Who needed this? What sense does it make?
Alchemy rules were perfectly clear in 3.0e, we didn't need to change the skill name to make it simple.
Not that it is going to change much in our games, but the fact that everyone has an easy time learning Alchemy it completely removes any flavor to it (heck, it could even have been an exclusive skill in 3.0 and nobody would have complained if Clerics and Druids weren't even allowed to take it, it's not their job). Craft and Profession are open to everyone because they can represent jobs to be learned off-adventuring, but definitely making Alchemy a mundane job that can be learned as easily as pottery or woodcarving really sucks.
Apok
First Post
Li Shenron said:
It does kinda make sense, though. IMO, Alchemy isn't so strange or powerful an ability that it warrants it's own skill separate from Craft.
I guess alot of it depends on just how common the practice of alchemy is in your game world. If it's fairly common (ie, alchemical items can be bought at just about any town) then I don't see the problem. If they are rare, then just restrict access to the Craft; Alchemy skill. Since, in my games, alchemical items like tanglefoot bags, sunrods, and smoke sticks are fairly common, if expensive, so I don't have a problem with Alchemy being relegated to a subset of the Craft skill.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Rogue changes
Sure, the rogue is just as good as it always was - but the ranger is now about as good a scout in urban terrain, and can cast spells as well, and has several nifty abilities, and is a better combatant. If you have favored enemy: Human you can prowl the human cities and will have boni to many skill checks as well, effectively negating the advantage of 2 skill points per level the rogue has. Granting Hide in Plain Sight to the ranger and not to the rogue just adds insult to injury, so to speak...
Naw, no such ranger in my campaign.
Apok said:
Sure, the rogue is just as good as it always was - but the ranger is now about as good a scout in urban terrain, and can cast spells as well, and has several nifty abilities, and is a better combatant. If you have favored enemy: Human you can prowl the human cities and will have boni to many skill checks as well, effectively negating the advantage of 2 skill points per level the rogue has. Granting Hide in Plain Sight to the ranger and not to the rogue just adds insult to injury, so to speak...
Naw, no such ranger in my campaign.
Jhyrryl
First Post
Rogues vs Rangers
I strongly agree with Apok. Rogues aren't supposed to be the end-all, be-all of combat, and if rangers can finally do more damage more consistently than them, that's a good thing. As for rogues being delegated to nothing more than filling the role of trap-finder/disarmer, you've apparently not played a rogue into the mid-to high levels. Any decent rogue is significantly more intelligent than most rangers, which, combined with the extra base skill points, means that the rogue is training in a significantly wider array of skills.
But getting back to the point at hand, I'd be more than willing to say that rogues and rangers are effectively equally stealthy and perceptive, because after a certain point, you just don't need to keep those skills maxed out, especially with the acquisition of a couple cheap magic items. The difference is that the rogue has useful skills to spend those unused points on, whereas the ranger is almost forced to over-train.
Given a good story-telling DM and all the Cha-based skills a rogue has access to, I'd play a rogue over a ranger any day. My rogue dominates the game I play in because he's involved in nearly every aspect of play: a result of his skills and combat ability. Every once in awhile we encounter a critter that require's the tank and/or mage to handle with little support from me, but that's as it should be, as I said before, rogues aren't supposed to be uber-combat characters.
By the way, any spell a ranger can use, a rogue can use too; and then some. That's what Use Magic Device skill is for.
Oh, and regarding Hide in Plain Sight? Pfft. It's a 17th-level ability. Show me a 17th-level rogue who can't turn invisible pretty much at will, and I'll show you a dead rogue.
I strongly agree with Apok. Rogues aren't supposed to be the end-all, be-all of combat, and if rangers can finally do more damage more consistently than them, that's a good thing. As for rogues being delegated to nothing more than filling the role of trap-finder/disarmer, you've apparently not played a rogue into the mid-to high levels. Any decent rogue is significantly more intelligent than most rangers, which, combined with the extra base skill points, means that the rogue is training in a significantly wider array of skills.
But getting back to the point at hand, I'd be more than willing to say that rogues and rangers are effectively equally stealthy and perceptive, because after a certain point, you just don't need to keep those skills maxed out, especially with the acquisition of a couple cheap magic items. The difference is that the rogue has useful skills to spend those unused points on, whereas the ranger is almost forced to over-train.
Given a good story-telling DM and all the Cha-based skills a rogue has access to, I'd play a rogue over a ranger any day. My rogue dominates the game I play in because he's involved in nearly every aspect of play: a result of his skills and combat ability. Every once in awhile we encounter a critter that require's the tank and/or mage to handle with little support from me, but that's as it should be, as I said before, rogues aren't supposed to be uber-combat characters.
By the way, any spell a ranger can use, a rogue can use too; and then some. That's what Use Magic Device skill is for.
Oh, and regarding Hide in Plain Sight? Pfft. It's a 17th-level ability. Show me a 17th-level rogue who can't turn invisible pretty much at will, and I'll show you a dead rogue.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
D&D 3E/3.5
Homebrew Content
