Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MasterOfHeaven" data-source="post: 164105" data-attributes="member: 196">Mearls:&nbsp; So, you optimize a Rogue, have the Wizard cast a reflex save spell at him, and suddenly the Rogue is great?&nbsp; That Fighter you had the Rogue up against would kill the Rogue in two or three hits if he has a two handed weapon.&nbsp; And his damage is not negated by concealment, fortification, etc.&nbsp; All a Wizard has to do to prevent the Rogue from sneak attacking him is cast Blur.&nbsp; Then all the Wizard has to do is cast a will save spell and the Rogue is likely toast.&nbsp; But we can create hypothetical situations in which each class has the advantage till doomsday.&nbsp; What I'm interested in is peoples experiences with the Rogue in their actual games, especially at higher levels.&nbsp; Jasamcarl:&nbsp; Actually, the Sorcerer in my campaign is great in combat and out of combat with just a couple combat spells.&nbsp; I can post his statistics here if you want.Dieter:&nbsp; How is the Rogue going to know to Sneak Attack the Wizard?&nbsp; Unless he's got inside information (which _is_ a possibility) why is he more likely to attack the Wizard/Sorcerer than the Ranger or Bard?&nbsp; Wizards don't always wear pointy hats and long flowing robes, you know.&nbsp; &nbsp; And how is the Rogue going to Sneak Attack the Wizard when he's wearing a Cloak of Displacement? (A favorite item to make or purchase by the spellcasters in my campaign).&nbsp; Sigma:&nbsp; I have them make Move Silently checks.&nbsp; That's why you cast Silence after the fly and invisibilty, but my players don't even bother with scouting anymore, they just cast Scrying.&nbsp; My villians usually detect it, but so what?&nbsp; That's generally when the party teleports in and proceeds to attack.&nbsp; Swack:&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp; But my question would be, is it really better to have those two Rogues in your party than it would be to have two Clerics/Sorcerers/Wizards, or Bards?&nbsp; And yes, Bards rock.&nbsp; I think they're way more useful than Rogues.&nbsp; They are really underrated, in my opinion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MasterOfHeaven, post: 164105, member: 196"] Mearls: So, you optimize a Rogue, have the Wizard cast a reflex save spell at him, and suddenly the Rogue is great? That Fighter you had the Rogue up against would kill the Rogue in two or three hits if he has a two handed weapon. And his damage is not negated by concealment, fortification, etc. All a Wizard has to do to prevent the Rogue from sneak attacking him is cast Blur. Then all the Wizard has to do is cast a will save spell and the Rogue is likely toast. But we can create hypothetical situations in which each class has the advantage till doomsday. What I'm interested in is peoples experiences with the Rogue in their actual games, especially at higher levels. Jasamcarl: Actually, the Sorcerer in my campaign is great in combat and out of combat with just a couple combat spells. I can post his statistics here if you want. Dieter: How is the Rogue going to know to Sneak Attack the Wizard? Unless he's got inside information (which _is_ a possibility) why is he more likely to attack the Wizard/Sorcerer than the Ranger or Bard? Wizards don't always wear pointy hats and long flowing robes, you know. And how is the Rogue going to Sneak Attack the Wizard when he's wearing a Cloak of Displacement? (A favorite item to make or purchase by the spellcasters in my campaign). Sigma: I have them make Move Silently checks. That's why you cast Silence after the fly and invisibilty, but my players don't even bother with scouting anymore, they just cast Scrying. My villians usually detect it, but so what? That's generally when the party teleports in and proceeds to attack. Swack: Thank you. But my question would be, is it really better to have those two Rogues in your party than it would be to have two Clerics/Sorcerers/Wizards, or Bards? And yes, Bards rock. I think they're way more useful than Rogues. They are really underrated, in my opinion. [/QUOTE]

Verification