Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 7383747" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!&nbsp;@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=12731" target="_blank">CapnZapp</a>, I'm gonna go with...&quot;Nope&quot;.IMHO, Rogues are still too combat oriented. OK. Let me rephrase... &quot;The Rogue 'Class', overall, is still to focused on combat&quot;. Now, Assassins...should rawk when they have the advantage (alone, from surprise, attacking an unarmored opponent). Trickster...should not be 'fighting' if at all possible; their shtick should be diversion, conning someone, or confusion of targets. Thief...should suck at fighting, and be really good at avoiding combat in the first place via hiding, sneaking, and such, but should be absolutely awesome at finding traps, removing them, climbing walls, detecting noise, etc.If I had my way, I'd remodel the 5e Rogue (Thief) to be more like 2e's version and give them only d6 HD like a wizard.Just goes to show...different people like different things and have different ideas of what a &quot;Thief&quot; should be in D&amp;D I guess. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />That said...if I wanted the Rogue to be more of a &quot;Nimble-Stabby-Stab Fighter&quot;, I'd just rework some of the Fighter stuff into the Rogue class. Switch out stuff and such. Give the Rogue a higher HD, let him keep Sneak Attack but let him do it anytime he makes a successful Stealth DC check (DC based on, say, opponents Level or HD x some number; and where failure indicates no more Sneak Attack until his next turn and/or any movement), that sort of thing. Switch out the stuff that is &quot;dividing the group&quot; or focusing too much on the Rogue with Fighter stuff of the same 'level'. Then I'd call it an Archtype of the Rogue; maybe &quot;Brigand&quot; or &quot;Bandit&quot; or something.^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pming, post: 7383747, member: 45197"] Hiya! @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=12731"]CapnZapp[/URL][/U][/B][/I], I'm gonna go with..."Nope". IMHO, Rogues are still too combat oriented. OK. Let me rephrase... "The Rogue 'Class', overall, is still to focused on combat". Now, Assassins...should rawk when they have the advantage (alone, from surprise, attacking an unarmored opponent). Trickster...should not be 'fighting' if at all possible; their shtick should be diversion, conning someone, or confusion of targets. Thief...should suck at fighting, and be really good at avoiding combat in the first place via hiding, sneaking, and such, but should be absolutely awesome at finding traps, removing them, climbing walls, detecting noise, etc. If I had my way, I'd remodel the 5e Rogue (Thief) to be more like 2e's version and give them only d6 HD like a wizard. Just goes to show...different people like different things and have different ideas of what a "Thief" should be in D&D I guess. :) That said...if I wanted the Rogue to be more of a "Nimble-Stabby-Stab Fighter", I'd just rework some of the Fighter stuff into the Rogue class. Switch out stuff and such. Give the Rogue a higher HD, let him keep Sneak Attack but let him do it anytime he makes a successful Stealth DC check (DC based on, say, opponents Level or HD x some number; and where failure indicates no more Sneak Attack until his next turn and/or any movement), that sort of thing. Switch out the stuff that is "dividing the group" or focusing too much on the Rogue with Fighter stuff of the same 'level'. Then I'd call it an Archtype of the Rogue; maybe "Brigand" or "Bandit" or something. ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]

Verification