Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hjorimir" data-source="post: 4066081" data-attributes="member: 5745">I absolutely love what I'm seeing in this article. My only real complaint is that they should have called the class Thief in lieu of Rogue.I'm completely stoked about the lower damage we're seeing. If the rogue, as a striker, is only adding +2d6/3d6/5d6 most other classes will be doing even less (if I understand what the striker role is about).I personally hope that if 2[W] means double weapon damage it is just that; double the weapon damage but not the other modifiers. When we were playing 1e - back in the day - rolling max damage on your attack was huge. The bonuses in 3e completely overshadow the importance of the die (at least in my opinion) and that just rubs me wrong for some dumb reason.As for the skills, I'm happy that all thieves...err, rogues...has Stealth and Thievery. Having a rogue who can't help with locked doors, sneaking, and traps is like having clerics who can't heal. I can't count the number of times we've come to a locked door or trap situation and turned to the rogue looking for help only to be told that they had none of those skills."Okay, Mr. Fighter, you got the most HPs...good luck...the rest of us will be back here out of harms way rooting for you to leave enough of a corpse behind for a raise dead spell."</blockquote>