Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Blog Post by Robert J. Schwalb
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6330037" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>Did you even read my post? The secondary role on PHB classes derives from power source. The Wizard is an arcane controller, the ranger a martial striker, and the cleric a divine leader. These are all doubling down.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And I'm saying that classes had roles, which meant they were good at something. They are also much more flexible than non-casters in any other edition.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope. If a rogue has Sneak Attack and a medium BAB then they have a fairly strong combat focus irrespective of what else they pick. Throw in other class abilities like Uncanny Dodge and your claim becomes risible. And there is no practical way for a 3e rogue to be an actual skill monkey - there are just too many skills in 3.X to the point that it's possible for a first level 4E fighter to make a 3.X rogue turn green with envy.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The sorcerer I will accept. <em>The sorcerer is quite literally the only class where you can do this in the 3.X PHB.</em> A "non-combat" wizard just needs a tiny infusion of spells to become a battlemage. All Bards get medium BAB, Inspire Courage (which takes it up to high BAB), and armour proficiency. That's not a non-combat focus either. The sorcerer on the other hand hard-codes their spells and has no inherent combat ability other than spells.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope. 4E rogues get six trained skills and a lot of them based on dex. One of the highest in the game.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The only reason the rogue is in the striker range of damage is Sneak Attack. Something that the 3.X rogue gets - but sneak attack scales faster in 3.X. But mysteriously despite having a massive damage class ability the 3.X rogue can lack a combat focus because...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Apples to oranges comparison. A 4e Ruthless Ruffian can, if they choose, pick literally no powers that enable them to dance through the battlefield. Giving them no more way to avoid opportunity attacks than the 1 square shift/5ft step of the 3e Rogue.</p><p></p><p>Another incorrect assertion.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Optimised refers to the top of the range.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Indeed. But it is, so far as I can tell <em>literally impossible</em> for a 3.X rogue to have no combat skill whatsoever. A rogue is <em>always</em> going to have Sneak Attack. A rogue is <em>always</em> going to have medium BAB. Almost all rogues are going to have Uncanny Dodge. These are all combat skills.</p><p></p><p>So your claim becomes "You can't create in 4e a type of rogue you can't create in 3e either". </p><p></p><p>The only core 3e class you can make into a genuine non-combatant is the sorcerer.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The baseline assumption of 3.X is that everyone is going to be competent in combat. Something you can only avoid with an oddly built 3.X sorcerer (or arguably a 3.X Monk or 3.0 Bard - but that wasn't the design intent). A wizard with no combat spells is about as much a non-combatant as a fighter who refuses to wear armour - or Rambo becoming a pacifist monk.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You certainly aren't arguing for what 3.0 or 3.5 were designed to be. So what exactly is your point? That what 3.X became was broader than the 4E PHB?</p><p></p><p>You are literally claiming that a class which gets a feature that just does situational extra damage has no combat abilities. This makes no sense.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6330037, member: 87792"] Did you even read my post? The secondary role on PHB classes derives from power source. The Wizard is an arcane controller, the ranger a martial striker, and the cleric a divine leader. These are all doubling down. And I'm saying that classes had roles, which meant they were good at something. They are also much more flexible than non-casters in any other edition. Nope. If a rogue has Sneak Attack and a medium BAB then they have a fairly strong combat focus irrespective of what else they pick. Throw in other class abilities like Uncanny Dodge and your claim becomes risible. And there is no practical way for a 3e rogue to be an actual skill monkey - there are just too many skills in 3.X to the point that it's possible for a first level 4E fighter to make a 3.X rogue turn green with envy. The sorcerer I will accept. [I]The sorcerer is quite literally the only class where you can do this in the 3.X PHB.[/I] A "non-combat" wizard just needs a tiny infusion of spells to become a battlemage. All Bards get medium BAB, Inspire Courage (which takes it up to high BAB), and armour proficiency. That's not a non-combat focus either. The sorcerer on the other hand hard-codes their spells and has no inherent combat ability other than spells. Nope. 4E rogues get six trained skills and a lot of them based on dex. One of the highest in the game. The only reason the rogue is in the striker range of damage is Sneak Attack. Something that the 3.X rogue gets - but sneak attack scales faster in 3.X. But mysteriously despite having a massive damage class ability the 3.X rogue can lack a combat focus because... Nope. Apples to oranges comparison. A 4e Ruthless Ruffian can, if they choose, pick literally no powers that enable them to dance through the battlefield. Giving them no more way to avoid opportunity attacks than the 1 square shift/5ft step of the 3e Rogue. Another incorrect assertion. Optimised refers to the top of the range. Indeed. But it is, so far as I can tell [I]literally impossible[/I] for a 3.X rogue to have no combat skill whatsoever. A rogue is [I]always[/I] going to have Sneak Attack. A rogue is [I]always[/I] going to have medium BAB. Almost all rogues are going to have Uncanny Dodge. These are all combat skills. So your claim becomes "You can't create in 4e a type of rogue you can't create in 3e either". The only core 3e class you can make into a genuine non-combatant is the sorcerer. The baseline assumption of 3.X is that everyone is going to be competent in combat. Something you can only avoid with an oddly built 3.X sorcerer (or arguably a 3.X Monk or 3.0 Bard - but that wasn't the design intent). A wizard with no combat spells is about as much a non-combatant as a fighter who refuses to wear armour - or Rambo becoming a pacifist monk. You certainly aren't arguing for what 3.0 or 3.5 were designed to be. So what exactly is your point? That what 3.X became was broader than the 4E PHB? You are literally claiming that a class which gets a feature that just does situational extra damage has no combat abilities. This makes no sense. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Blog Post by Robert J. Schwalb
Top