Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7384179" data-attributes="member: 6919838">I find the frequent forum jump to &quot;They just hate change and the notion their edition is not flawless, that's all.&quot; to be a very simplistic broad brush disnissal often throw when foljs just disagree, especially when married with broad sweeping grouping like &quot;thread filled with.&quot;It often is used to dismiss what are actually cogent positions that jyst happen to disagree with the presumptions or conclusions.But let me tackle your bait...Item 1 - is the rogue &quot;shackled to a very hard system mastery requirement&quot;? Not in my experience. In your own case, you said the player did not want to or prefer to opyimize iirc. You characterized the minmaxing options as byzantine, a matter of taste. I suggest that, in fact, there are quite a few builds to optimize two-sneaks available. I have not seen them to be more onerous to construct. How hard are they to play compared to the -5/+10... a lot of that depends on the combats put in play by the Gm. -5/+10 math for extra damage only works out to be a bonus if the hit odds are really high **and** predictable. Item 2 - Should it be &quot;harder&quot; at all to get the rogue dpr to match the barbarian or fighter? Yes. Because the class rogue gets more out of combat stuff. They get more skills, more expertise, etc. Of the got all those things and easily matched (or got close enough it does not matter) they would be OP by comparison in a game where both mattered.Now, the key thing is once a GM table decides to throw out (effectively) those other things and drive to as much as 90% combat, that goes away.But, like the original title,&nbsp; the post above characterizes this in terms relating to system and edition, not the half-dodge &quot;its about my table&quot; revisionist repackaging mentinoned along the way. More and more, this is clearly seeming to be a vehicle to gripe about 5e than a seeking house rule thread.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7384179, member: 6919838"] I find the frequent forum jump to "They just hate change and the notion their edition is not flawless, that's all." to be a very simplistic broad brush disnissal often throw when foljs just disagree, especially when married with broad sweeping grouping like "thread filled with." It often is used to dismiss what are actually cogent positions that jyst happen to disagree with the presumptions or conclusions. But let me tackle your bait... Item 1 - is the rogue "shackled to a very hard system mastery requirement"? Not in my experience. In your own case, you said the player did not want to or prefer to opyimize iirc. You characterized the minmaxing options as byzantine, a matter of taste. I suggest that, in fact, there are quite a few builds to optimize two-sneaks available. I have not seen them to be more onerous to construct. How hard are they to play compared to the -5/+10... a lot of that depends on the combats put in play by the Gm. -5/+10 math for extra damage only works out to be a bonus if the hit odds are really high **and** predictable. Item 2 - Should it be "harder" at all to get the rogue dpr to match the barbarian or fighter? Yes. Because the class rogue gets more out of combat stuff. They get more skills, more expertise, etc. Of the got all those things and easily matched (or got close enough it does not matter) they would be OP by comparison in a game where both mattered. Now, the key thing is once a GM table decides to throw out (effectively) those other things and drive to as much as 90% combat, that goes away. But, like the original title, the post above characterizes this in terms relating to system and edition, not the half-dodge "its about my table" revisionist repackaging mentinoned along the way. More and more, this is clearly seeming to be a vehicle to gripe about 5e than a seeking house rule thread. [/QUOTE]

Verification