NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rallek" data-source="post: 3972420" data-attributes="member: 8463">AllisterH -Indeed this is the case. That's kind of the point, just because the rogue doesn't have a specific "hinder enemies" class feature, that doesn't mean that it can't use other skills and class features to hinder enemies. There is more (in my experience) to running a good character of any stripe than just using encounter appropriate class exclusive ability X. YMMV, of course.As far as being "poorly designed" in 2e, if by that you mean its combat ability was well behind that of the other classes, you are again 100% right. This was kind of the second half of my point, combat balance isn't always the end-all and be-all of "fun to play". Then again perhaps the groups I've played with are an aberration, and  the rogue has always been badwrongfun. As far as useless in combat goes, well I look at it this way. Imagine that the rogue doesn't just do less damage without sneak attack, but that he can't attack at all, in any way. Further, let us imagine that the rogue can't even assist others by using potions or triggering traps and the like when he is denied sneak attack. In fact, let's go ahead and just say that the rogue is actually mechanically incapable of acting at all during combat with any enemy that can't be sneak attacked. So a party of 5 PCs fights a group of 5 zombies, instead of doing nothing for 9 turns out of 10 every round, I do nothing for one additional round.... hmmm I could live with that.Of course the rogue can act, just not with the same combat effectiveness as other classes. I guess if I have to be less effective 1 turn in 10 every combat where I don't get sneak attack, I can live with that... and to be honest I really can't see why that is such a radical idea.</blockquote>

Verification