Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ZombieRoboNinja" data-source="post: 5996994" data-attributes="member: 54843">I use 3e Sneak Attack as a polestar here. There were plenty of classes that could be used to make a &quot;sneaky martial character&quot; in 3e. Bards, rangers - heck, even monks. But none of them got Sneak Attack dice. If you wanted THAT benefit, you had to take levels of rogue. Why? Not because other classes wouldn't benefit from them, or even because it wouldn't fit the style of, say, the ranger. It was because Sneak Attack was part of what made the rogue special. Same for CS: other classes don't get it not because they don't want it or it wouldn't fit, but because it's what sets the fighter apart.It's not like they can't come up with a way to make other melee classes effective without CS. In case people have forgotten, we've already also got rogues, war-domain clerics, and draconic sorcerers holding their own in melee, each with a completely different mechanic and zero access to CS. And while I won't claim that each of these classes is perfectly balanced or as cool in combat as the fighter, (a) they have their own advantages outside of combat, and (b) I would argue that it would be better to fix those other classes by adjusting the mechanics they do have rather than tacking on something from the fighter.When it comes to other classes, I feel like CS would actually detract from the feel of those classes. The barbarian isn't about carefully calculated tactical management; he's about overwhelming power. I'd think the Pathfinder barbarian would be a good starting point: he's a martial character who uses a daily resource (&quot;stamina&quot; maybe) to fly into a deadly rage or perform other feats of might.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ZombieRoboNinja, post: 5996994, member: 54843"] I use 3e Sneak Attack as a polestar here. There were plenty of classes that could be used to make a "sneaky martial character" in 3e. Bards, rangers - heck, even monks. But none of them got Sneak Attack dice. If you wanted THAT benefit, you had to take levels of rogue. Why? Not because other classes wouldn't benefit from them, or even because it wouldn't fit the style of, say, the ranger. It was because Sneak Attack was part of what made the rogue special. Same for CS: other classes don't get it not because they don't want it or it wouldn't fit, but because it's what sets the fighter apart. It's not like they can't come up with a way to make other melee classes effective without CS. In case people have forgotten, we've already also got rogues, war-domain clerics, and draconic sorcerers holding their own in melee, each with a completely different mechanic and zero access to CS. And while I won't claim that each of these classes is perfectly balanced or as cool in combat as the fighter, (a) they have their own advantages outside of combat, and (b) I would argue that it would be better to fix those other classes by adjusting the mechanics they do have rather than tacking on something from the fighter. When it comes to other classes, I feel like CS would actually detract from the feel of those classes. The barbarian isn't about carefully calculated tactical management; he's about overwhelming power. I'd think the Pathfinder barbarian would be a good starting point: he's a martial character who uses a daily resource ("stamina" maybe) to fly into a deadly rage or perform other feats of might. [/QUOTE]

Verification