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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Zardoz" data-source="post: 4769656" data-attributes="member: 704">Is a Tank (in the literal tracked vehicle that terrifies infantry sense) defined by its cannon or its armour?  A Rogue can inflict more damage in say, 3 rounds than the Fighter can with Sneak attack, as long as conditions are just right.  But if the Rogue dies in 3 rounds and the fighter can hang in there for 10 rounds, the Fighter may have done more damage.Getting away from the metaphors, I am of the mind that it is a bad idea to try to balance in combat abilities against out of combat abilities unless the rules of the game can guarantee equal importance of those aspects.  That is not possible in D&D of any type because it is ultimately up to the DM how much of the game is combat based and how much of it is non combat.  The Rogue / Thief needed to be able to contribute meaningfully in combat.And once you look at how things work in combat, I am satisfied that the Rogue and the Fighter do not step on each others toes.  In 3.5, the Fighter has a clear edge in base damage per hit, number of attacks per round, and base attack bonus.  Either the Rogue will hit with his primary attack about half the time and the Fighter will hit every time with his first two attacks, or the Fighter will be the only one able to land a hit in melee on the opponent.  The fighter has more HP and better AC, so he will not die as fast.  The Rogue is certainly able to lay a great deal of pain on his target, but there are also so many targets that can ignore Sneak attacks.In 4th edition, the Rogue class is blatantly able to inflict more damage than the Fighter in any single round, provided with the means to use Sneak Attack.  But again, the Fighter has more healing surges, better HP, and better AC, and it can Mark opponents and make them pay when they try to flee.END COMMUNICATION</blockquote>

Verification