Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Apok" data-source="post: 939134" data-attributes="member: 1969">Re: Re: Re: Rogue changesIndeed, but that's to be expected.&nbsp; Both are considered to be pretty sneaky, and this hasn't changed from 3.0.&nbsp; Their Camoflauge ability only works while in the wilderness, and most of their spells are only usefull while outdoors in a natural setting.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; I can't speak for their 3.5e spell list (until ShadowStar posts it, that is <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ) but for right now, their spells don't encroach on the Rogues territory.&nbsp; The Rogue can hold his own in combat damage-wise because of his Sneak Attack.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Yes, Bards can now cast spells in Light Armor, but AFAIK, offensive spells aren't exactly the Bard's forte.&nbsp; Also, the Bard has about as good a chance at hitting his target as the Rogue does, but lacks the extra &quot;kick&quot; of SA damage, so I'd say the Rogue is still superior to the Bard in terms of melee combat.&nbsp; This is also as it should be, since Bards are supposed to be mostly support.&nbsp; Their added casting in armor benefit helps them to survive combat a bit better than before, which is good.Hardly.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; As an aside, there is also flavor to consider.&nbsp; Sure, Rangers would definitely make better wilderness scouts than Rogues, but what about an Indiana Jones type character?&nbsp; An underworld assassin?&nbsp; A thief who survives on the mean streets of a major port city using his wits and alot of luck?&nbsp; All of these concepts just scream &quot;Rogue.&quot;&nbsp; Who is more likely to know about the criminal underworld, or the Who's Who of a major kingdom or city?&nbsp; Chances are, it's the Rogue.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Apok, post: 939134, member: 1969"] [b]Re: Re: Re: Rogue changes[/b] [B][/b] Indeed, but that's to be expected. Both are considered to be pretty sneaky, and this hasn't changed from 3.0. [b][/b] 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. [b][/b] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification