A good idea or horrible blasphemy?

[Hypersmurf]

I second the notion that rogues are just fine. The rogue in my campaign settled on ranged weapons, taking Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, and Manyshot to date. Her and the monk work in excellent synergy, always one of them tumbling like mad to set up that multiple-shot flank, giving her the sneak attack bonus.

'course, by the rules, a pure Rogue can't get a flanking bonus with a ranged attack, and therefore can only sneak attack with ranged weapons when the opponent is denied Dex bonus...

-Hyp.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I second the notion that rogues are just fine. The rogue in my campaign settled on ranged weapons, taking Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, and Manyshot to date. Her and the monk work in excellent synergy, always one of them tumbling like mad to set up that multiple-shot flank, giving her the sneak attack bonus.

Not to be snide, but how does she flank with a ranged weapon?

One of us has our flanking rules out of whack. (I hope it's me, cause I could use more sneak attacks.)

EDIT: Oops, that will teach me to take 2 minutes figuring out how to ask diplomatically...

Wulf

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not to be snide, but how does she flank with a ranged weapon?

Snap

-Hyp.

 

[Alchemist]

hmm. That's a good question. I may have it all gobbed up.

Here's my reasoning, and the way we've been doing it. We already know the only way a sneak attack comes about is if the rogue flanks or defender is w/o dex bonus. The sneak attack description states: "Ranged attacks only count as sneak attacks if the target is within 30 feet." So assuming I'm within 30 and one of the other 2 conditions is met, I'm planting arrows in important bits.

Now, pg. 132, table 8-8. "Attacker flanking defender*" The * says to us: "You flank a defender when you have an ally on the opposite side of the defender threatening him. Rogues can sneak attack defenders when they flank."

So, it would all seem to get a bit hazy here. Flanking implies 2 attackers on opposite sides of a defender, in melee combat. But the table dosen't say you *must* both be in melee, but rather the guy on the far side of the defender must be threatening him. So presumably, a Rogue can stand back and pepper the defender.

I suppose my interpretation could be considered a bit on the liberal side, but it dosen't seem to have hurt game balance. Usually, somebody has to break the enemy line (tumble or crush opponents) to set her up, and sometimes they fail and get smooshed on their way through. It hasn't been a game-breaker for us, regardless.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Now, pg. 132, table 8-8. "Attacker flanking defender*" The * says to us: "You flank a defender when you have an ally on the opposite side of the defender threatening him. Rogues can sneak attack defenders when they flank."

So, it would all seem to get a bit hazy here. Flanking implies 2 attackers on opposite sides of a defender, in melee combat. But the table dosen't say you *must* both be in melee, but rather the guy on the far side of the defender must be threatening him. So presumably, a Rogue can stand back and pepper the defender.

Two points.

1: On that table, note that the Ranged modifier for Attacker flanking Defender is not "+0", but "--" - in other words, not applicable.

2: On p130, Flanking : "If you are making a melee attack against a creature, and an ally directly opposite you is threatening the creature, you and your ally flank the creature."

Ranged weapons don't threaten, and don't make melee attacks, so the rogue can be neither "you" nor "your ally".

(Of course, if you and all your players are happy, ignore it )

-Hyp.

 

[Alchemist]

Two points.

1: On that table, note that the Ranged modifier for Attacker flanking Defender is not "+0", but "--" - in other words, not applicable.

2: On p130, Flanking : "If you are making a melee attack against a creature, and an ally directly opposite you is threatening the creature, you and your ally flank the creature."

Ranged weapons don't threaten, and don't make melee attacks, so the rogue can be neither "you" nor "your ally".

(Of course, if you and all your players are happy, ignore it )

-Hyp.

Yeah, I'm with you. My eagle-eye (yeah, right) missed the - on the table. That makes the table jive with p.130, which I had read and do realize that flanking technically (and actually, it is now clear to me) requires 2 melee attackers. Ahh well. They can play the campaign out with it, it's not been a problem so far. It could become an issue with the Hasted Improved Manyshot rogue though. That might cause a riot in the panzer division.

So, here's one on a similar vein then: 2 party members flank a defender, and the rogue stands on the line of flanking, behind one of the party members. Should that rogue get the sneak attack bonus then? The defender is flanked, but not by the rogue; however, the rogue *could* conceivably (in my mind, anyways) benefit from this arrangement, taking her opportunities from the 2 party members keeping the defender on it's toes. Again, we're probably stretching here but whatever. If we don't ask these questions, they never get answered.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The defender is flanked, but not by the rogue...

By the rules, there's your answer.

Sneak Attack : "... or when the rogue flanks the target..."

-Hyp.

 

[Alchemist]

By the rules, there's your answer.

Sneak Attack : "... or when the rogue flanks the target..."

-Hyp.

Yes, yes. I know it's not by the rules. I'm thinking outside the rules, probably into the realm of House Rules. And I wouldn't even implement it if people were to agree it is a reasonable thing to allow. It was an argument for argument's sake, that's all. I'm aware of the rules, and I'm interested in opinions on deviation from the rules.

 

[Havoc]

I have always found that clerics should have been toned down since AD&D and the paladin. I mean, if you want a templar or a militant cleric you can play a paladin (even though it is entirely possible one would play a non LG, horseless paladin).
In D&D, the cleric *was* a kind of divine warrior.
Even without paladin as class, a militant cleric should be done through multiclassing; a pure cleric would then be a more pious person and more oriented towards study, prayer and contemplation (it would also allow for cleric of a love/peace/compassion deity to be a pacifist).
Another problem I have is the cleric-as-a-healer: why? Shouldn't it depend on the faith? The same thing goes for undeads.
But ultimately this is our game, and in mine each faith is examined and each cleric is customized; clerics get D6 HPs, and there is no such thing as a paladin - militant orders are Cleric/Fighter.

 

[KnowTheToe]

Everyone talks about clerics being overpowered and rogues (and especially their subclass Bards) beings underpowered.

Give me specifics where the cleric outshined other players. I read many threads about the powerful cleric, and have seen no examples of a cleric PC dominating a group and leaving other players feeling unimportant and bored.

I am playing a cleric and don't see this huge over powering. I cast spells to help others and then try and stop people from killing our spell caster. Our fighters out shine me in combat even before I cast Bulls Strength on them, magic users cast flasier and deadlier spells, rogues dance thru combat unharrassed getting sneak attacks and have many out of combat facets that make them what they are. Clerics may not die easily, but that does not make them over powered.