Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6307725" data-attributes="member: 18">The issue is, for the Fighter to "reign supreme" in combat, he doesn't necessarily need to do more DPR than the Rogue (equal would be fine). His versatility in combat is more than enough (imo) - he is already vastly tougher, far more able to control the combat, and generally more of a multi-tool. Similarly, the Rogue's versatility outside of combat doesn't mean Bards, Wizards, Clerics and so on shouldn't be allowed to out-do him in a specific area.EDIT - Also, on-topic, the thread here is about "being a decent archer", not out-of-combat performance, so that's irrelevant to this discussion. I don't think anyone has said "Rogues are worthless in general" (quote if so please). What has been said is "Rogues not only lack the survivability and control of Fighters (as one might expect), but also do significantly* lower DPR after level 4, on average, even in a Surprise round", which means that we are back to a somewhat 2E/3E-style situation, where the Rogue "just bad at fighting" (post level 4 and speaking relatively!).* = Obviously "significantly" is to some extent subjective, and indeed different "specs" of Rogue are closer or further from Fighters, but all are behind post-4.Also, there has been one big unchallenged assumption in this thread - that Rogues will always be able to get SA. I find that interesting, because even in 4E, even with feats like Lone Hunter or whatever it's called, I see rounds where no SA is possible (or where it's suicidal) from time to time. If we wanted to be a bit more real, we'd probably want to factor that in, and that also favours the Fighter.Anyway, coming back to the original OP's question, whether one could pick an Elf Rogue and make them a decent archer, I think all the discussion and math and so on shows that, by the October playtest rules, they'd be great up to level 4, but after that, they'd be falling pretty far behind a Fighter, and would also be behind a dual-wield Rogue (at all levels - though they'd be more survivable, potentially, due to not being melee). Further, whether your DM handed out magic items would make a pretty big difference - no magic items and the Rogue stays surprisingly close to the Fighter, as Dasuul showed. If you keep getting better magic weapons, though, the Fighter pulls much further ahead (static bonuses!).In the end the question as of the October playtest is: are you willing to do less damage, be easier to kill, and have less ways to mess with your opponents in order to have more skills and so on outside combat? Because that's the Fighter vs Rogue decision with archery.It's a pity you can't dual-wield throwing weapons, movie-style, because that would be a good way to be ranged and stay closer to the Fighter, DPR-wise. It's also a pity that you can't, under certain conditions, Assassinate more than one enemy - the ol' "two guards on the door" is thus 100% protection again those guards being murdered without the alarm being raised (barring Silence spells and the like which mean you wouldn't need a Rogue at all!).</blockquote>

Verification