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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hafrogman" data-source="post: 5904245" data-attributes="member: 8858">I guess this is where it comes down to a simple difference of opinion.  Because I have two problems with this idea.1) I do not want all rogues to be thieves.2) I do not want all thieves to be rogues.This represents one of the things that drives me nuts about both 3e and 4e.  In 3.X, rogues (and a very small number of similar classes) have trapfinding.  Trapfinding is niche protection.  Any character can have search, but only characters with this completely inscrutable ability can find traps past a certain point.If you took levels in rogue because you wanted to be 'the skill guy', better hope your skills are thieving skills, because you are automatically your party's trap guy, because nobody else can do it.Similarly in 4e, rogues are defined more by their approach to combat.  Want to be a dex-based melee combatant?  A swashbuckler?  A skirmisher?  Play a rogue.  But by the way, you are automatically trained in thievery as a skill, because you can't learn to fence until you know how to pick locks and find traps.This drives me nuts personally.  If a rogue is going to be defined as a lightly armored character who uses their dexterity to survive, then thievery should not be hard-coded into the class.  If a rogue is going to be the skill-guy with more or better skills, then thievery should not be hard-coded into the class.So what skills exactly should be rogue only?</blockquote>

Verification