D&D 3E/3.5 Fixing the newly broken rogue class (thanks to Andy and 3.5)

[Sonofapreacherman]

Rogues get uncanny dodge a full two levels later than barbarians (and three levels later for improved uncanny dodge), and both can equally sense traps.

I don't know about any of you, but this doesn't make a shred of sense to me.

I certainly don't know what motivated these changes in 3.5, but so far, they're two of the worst modifications I've read.

Rogues should be the "best" at dodging (certainly better than barbarians). I think making them equal to barbarians would have been acceptable, but staggering the rogue behind the barbarian in dodging? Once again I have to ask (as per my other threads)...

...what was Andy thinking?

No matter. The solution presents itself easy enough.

-----

Table: The Rogue
Lv-Special
01-Sneak attack +1d6, trapfinding
02-Evasion, trap sense +1, uncanny dodge
03-Sneak attack +2d6
04-Trap sense +2
05-Improved uncanny dodge, sneak attack +3d6
06-Trap sense +3
07-Sneak attack +4d6
08-Trap sense +4
09-Sneak attack +5d6
10-Trap sense +5
11-Sneak attack +6d6, special ability
12-Trap sense +6
13-Sneak attack +7d6
14-Special ability, trap sense +7
15-Sneak attack +8d6
16-Trap sense +8
17-Sneak attack +9d6, special ability
18-Trap sense +9
19-Sneak attack +10d6
20-Special ability, trap sense +10

-----

Right away, you get an ability at every level, eliminating the problem of "dead" levels, esspecially at 20th level (I mean come on, no *crowning* rogue ability at 20th level?).

Secondly, while only equally proficient at dodging to barbarians, rogues bceome the undisputed masters at sensing traps (exceedingly appropriate, considering that they are already the masters at setting and detecting them).

There you go. The fix is in for anybody who doesn't treat the words of WotC as gospel.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Do you have proof that this is all "Andy's rules"? I didn't think so. I'll summon a mod now.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Do you have proof that this is all "Andy's rules"? I didn't think so. I'll summon a mod now.

*Smirks.*
Not sure if you're aware of this or not, but Andy was largely in charge of the 3.5 project. All changes would have gone by him.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Do you have proof that this is all "Andy's rules"? I didn't think so. I'll summon a mod now.

Why? To move this over to House Rules?

I don't like the rogue changes either. I've heard that they were to stop people from cherry-picking the rogue class for all its good abilities, but to me 3 levels of rogue is a pretty serious investment, light-years away from the "take a level of ranger, get three feats, lots of skills, full BAB, access to healing wands, and a favored enemy!" problem.

*shrug* It's another change in 3.5 I don't like. There are changes that I do like as well (Paladin class, I'm looking at you,) so it's really no different from 3.0.

Use what you like, house rule what you don't.

 

[totoro]

Rogues get uncanny dodge a full two levels later than barbarians (and three levels later for improved uncanny dodge), and both can equally sense traps.

I don't know about any of you, but this doesn't make a shred of sense to me.

I certainly don't know what motivated these changes in 3.5, but so far, they're two of the worst modifications I've read.

Rogues should be the "best" at dodging (certainly better than barbarians). I think making them equal to barbarians would have been acceptable, but staggering the rogue behind the barbarian in dodging? Once again I have to ask (as per my other threads)...

...what was Andy thinking?
<snipped house rule>

I don't think uncanny dodge has much to do with how good someone dodges. Keeping your DEX bonus means you have some kind of 6th sense when danger is near. You could just as easily call it Danger Sense instead of Uncanny Dodge. In fact, that is probably more accurate. With a simple name change, suddenly the Barbarian seems like the one who should have it. Maybe the Ranger, too, but not the Rogue. (Speaking of changing names, why not call the Barbarian a Berserker, since that is more accurate, too. I guess that is another rant.)

As for Improved Uncanny Dodge, that is the ability to keep from being flanked. It is beyond me what that has to do with being a Rogue. You could rename it Improved Multiple Opponent Combat and it starts looking like the Barbarian should have it and, again, not the rogue. Maybe the Ranger should have this, too.

And since the ranger should have Danger Sense and (perhaps) Improved Multiple Opponent Combat, we can get rid of the Evasion class ability for Rangers, which was added only so that rangers won't just take a couple of levels of rogue to get it. (What a dumb reason. That's one of the reasons why humans and half-elves used to have an advantage from multi-classing. I guess that is another rant, too.) It would be nice to limit evasion to only the monk and rogue again.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Why? To move this over to House Rules?

No, I mean because of the flaming.

There's a difference between criticizing someone's work and just insulting them.

 

[Artoomis]

Why? To move this over to House Rules?

No, I mean because of the flaming.

There's a difference between criticizing someone's work and just insulting them.

????

...what was Andy thinking?

This does not seem like any kind of personal insult to me. I am right there with you when it comes to having good board etiquette, but I see no insult here, only a critique.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Why? To move this over to House Rules?

No, I mean because of the flaming.

There's a difference between criticizing someone's work and just insulting them.

Yeah, I was trying to say in a roundabout way what Artoomis did. That there wasn't any flaming going on.

Anyhoo, I've already said my bit on the rogue change.

 

[Someone]

Rogues should be the "best" at dodging

Shouldn´t be the fighter? Fix the broken fighter!!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Maybe in 4e there will be a class bonus to AC system, like in D20 Modern. They might also do something to keep all those fighters out of full-plate. I don't think this bonus should apply if the character is flat-footed, though.