Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7188446" data-attributes="member: 996">5e is designed with cross-pillar balance in mind.  Now, there are many reasons to consider this bad design, but it's the design we have, and it's a long de-facto D&D tradition (even if the terminology is comparatively new), so I'm not going to challenge it, ATM.  The rogue has definite advantages in the exploration pillar, and can easily be exceptional in the social pillar, as well - Expertise is versatile and potent in that way, even if it's not flexible once you've chosen the skills it applies to, nor is it the only thing the rogue has going for him outside the combat pillar.  So, in that paradigm, the rogue is hands-down better that the fighter in two out of three pillars, the fighter gets to be marginally superior to the rogue in the remaining one.  If that doesn't sound fair, just assume that, it pre-supposes that D&D is more about combat, or that combat is more important in some sense.  D&D does devote a lot of rules to combat, and combats are more detailed and engaging in their resolution than picking a lock.  FWIW. Just do 'do your bit,' I guess.  Ranged is broadly superior to melee in 5e, anyway, just across the board.  I don't think the rogue, specifically, needs to see that addressed, certainly not with a DPR power-up, and certainly not with the explicit intent of toppling the fighter's already tenuous & technical 'best at fighting' crown. I'm not sure there an answer to why he should even leave home and go adventuring in the first place.</blockquote>

Verification