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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hafrogman" data-source="post: 6285470" data-attributes="member: 8858">The specific sentence in question is the one you left off, a carry over from 3.X.  "A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps."  More explicitly spelled out in the disable device description is the point that nobody else can.  For no value of character with any combination of feats, skills, training etc.  With the sole exception of taking a level of basic rogue (and most archetypes give this up quickly, too) or ninja (I think that's the only other one) . . . nobody else can ever attempt this at all.   Thus, after a certain point in the game, if your DM likes traps, you must have a rogue.  And I'm sorry, but yes, I think disabling devices (i.e., breaking and entering) has a lot to do with being a thief.I absolutely want the rogue to be something else, yes.  Because the lack of any character class that assumes an adventurer who gets by on training and skills as opposed to brute force or magic is always met with "well, play a rogue".  So if that's the option, I want rogue to be as broad as possible, to fit as many archetypes and concepts within it as can fit in a player's mind.And thus, I like a system that's broken open.  I want feats that mimic class abilities.  I want backgrounds that give you the ability to do something.  I want classes that are broad and not tied down to specific concepts.  I want thirty ways to come at the same goal, so that each one ends up the same, but different.  That's real niche protection.  Not so that people are forced to pick a specific build in order to fill needs, but that if two players decide that they want to play the same idea, their characters and mechanics can still end up different.</blockquote>

Verification