Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kennew142" data-source="post: 3972896" data-attributes="member: 18490">Useless Rogues - AgainI was really going to leave this subject alone, but while discussing my characters from previous editions in another thread it hit me like a bolt out of the blue.Why did I love playing thieves (and bards) in earlier editions of D&D, but I find them weak and unsatisfying in 3e? In all editions bards were pretty much limited to d6 damage (plus a few points for magic and/or strength). Rogues were similarly limited when denied their backstab. The disconnect has to do with the difference in damage between rogues/bards and fighters in the different editions.In 1e and 2e fighters did more damage than rogues, but it was only by a few points. An average rogue with a +2 shortsword did d6+2 points of damage. The average fighter with even an 18/00 STR with a +2 longsword did only d8+8 damage (with weapon specialization). The difference in damage was only 7 points on the average. In 3e, fighters do so much more damage than other martial characters that they overshadow them in combat, especially against creatures with DR.In 1e and 2e, we thieves and bards didn't hit as often in combat, but we could do the same crappy damage when we did. We didn't feel overshadowed by the fighters, paladins and rangers because we were all in the same boat - being overshadowed by the wizards!I don't know why it hasn't occurred to me until just now. I'm not usually this slow on the uptake.When 3e came out, martial types with good BAB got a significant boost in power. They still couldn't compete with wizards, but they did more than rogues and bards. Rogues looked promising, with this new sneak attack and more ways to use it than backstab. Then the rules disallowed its use against some of the most common monsters in the game.DR exacerbated the problem. In earlier editions, if a monster required a +2 weapon to hit it, you either had it or you didn't. In 3e (especially 3.5), DR could mean hitting a creature over and over again without ever doing any damage. It became very frustrating.To make matters worse, combat (even at mid-levels) in 3e can take forever. I don't know about anyone else, but our group never took so long in 1e and 2e to finish a fight that we did in 3e. The net effect of this was to increase the amount of time at the gaming table dedicated to fighting, almost of necessity reducing the amount available for exploring, social interaction and other things the rogue and bard were so good at.I could go on, but I think I now understand my personal issues with 3e rogues and bards. I've seen fighters (although not usually fighters with power attack and a two-handed weapons) look on in envy at the amount of damage a 3e rogue can do when they get their sneak attack. But there are so many different circumstances in 3e in which rogues lose their sneak attack (creature type, concealment, barbarians  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> , creatures that can't be flanked, etc...) that it really feels excessive.I am a player/GM who puts much more emphasis on role-playing than on combat as story elements, but 3e combat mechanics really eat up the time. It isn't being less than optimal in some fights that is the problem, it's being well-nigh useless for such a long period of time when the right circumstances roll around.</blockquote>

Verification