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

[Sonofapreacherman]

First of all, I am operating from the premise that the rogue was never imbalanced in version 3.0. I have never heard anybody convincingly say otherwise. Indeed, it seems kind of ludicrous to suggest as much. The rogue was one of the most balanced core classes of 3.0.

The rogue that I now submit receives Uncanny Dodge 1 level sooner than the 3.0 rogue, but Evasion 1 level later. So far so good. The rogue that I submit also receives Improved Uncanny Dodge 1 level sooner than the 3.0 Uncanny Dodge (can't be flanked) ability, but receives every one of their Special Abilities 1 level later. Again, a pretty straightforward balancing act.

Looking at the barbarian, who gets a tidy ability at every level, I have given my 3.5 rogue the ability to improve their Trap Sense at every "other" level (rather than at every 3rd level). Is this what makes my rogue so break-the-rules powerful? They avoid traps with greater certainly? Poppycock! My revision is only marginally more powerful than the official 3.5 rogue, but it does equal the barbarian at uncanny dodge and hedges them out where traps are concerned.

I have no problem with barbarians sensing traps, that is... until somebody (read: Andy Collins) tells me that they are the equals of rogues in that capacity. If anything, rangers should be equal to rogues at sensing traps; not the impulsive, can't-concentrate-while-raging, barbarians. Sorry, but you can only coast so far on the flavor text of "instinct".

 

[kreynolds]

Sonofapreacherman. Fix your post.

"Originally posted by KaeYoss
So please, get a grip on the reality of the situation and criticize the specific rules and not the figurehead."

KaeYoss didn't say this.

 

[Ran]

First of all, I am operating from the premise that the rogue was never imbalanced in version 3.0. I have never heard anybody convincingly say otherwise. Indeed, it seems kind of ludicrous to suggest as much. The rogue was one of the most balanced core classes of 3.0.

I am not sure I agree with you, in fact convincingly is something subjective, not a good point to use here... and I have seen many times the complaint of broken for sneak attacks, a friend even changed it to d4 AND limited to once a round...

]Originally posted by Sonofapreacherman
The rogue that I now submit receives Uncanny Dodge 1 level sooner than the 3.0 rogue, but Evasion 1 level later. So far so good. The rogue that I submit also receives Improved Uncanny Dodge 1 level sooner than the 3.0 Uncanny Dodge (can't be flanked) ability, but receives every one of their Special Abilities 1 level later. Again, a pretty straightforward balancing act.

Looking at the barbarian, who gets a tidy ability at every level, I have given my 3.5 rogue the ability to improve their Trap Sense at every "other" level (rather than at every 3rd level). Is this what makes my rogue so break-the-rules powerful? They avoid traps with greater certainly? Poppycock! My revision is only marginally more powerful than the official 3.5 rogue, but it does equal the barbarian at uncanny dodge and hedges them out where traps are concerned.

As I see it rogues need not anything earlier or stronger, your version is more powerfull than both criterias used here, and you admit it, that is what makes us dislike it, rogues need no change to be balanced, at least not to make them stronger...

]Originally posted by Sonofapreacherman
I have no problem with barbarians sensing traps, that is... until somebody (read: Andy Collins) tells me that they are the equals of rogues in that capacity. If anything, rangers should be equal to rogues at sensing traps; not the impulsive, can't-concentrate-while-raging, barbarians. Sorry, but you can only coast so far on the flavor text of "instinct".

I, for one, don't think that rogues need any more help on it, in fact, if they EVER fail a save, they still got either evasion or improved evasion, not to count that they should ALWAYS be seeing those traps...

There points where logic gives way to balance, rogues having mush more than barbarians both make them a hell powerful against traps and make barbs a lot less interesting than they are...

Anyway, we don't mean, at least I don't, that your rogue is a hell too powerful just to be imagined, it is more powerful than any ofiicial version, and that is something that, so far, is thought as unnecessary by most who have manifested opinions here...

If it is okay for you, for your group, and it doesn't make for a lot of 2 level rogues and then something else, than use it, after all, games are all different, and they have different demands also.

 

[Obryn]

...It was the obstinate way he could barely acknowledge an idea that was widely expressed to be superior to an existing D&D mechanic, and then ultimately ignored it for no good reason....

Damn, I don't know of anyone who can't acknowledge their own bad ideas and broken mechanics. And I certainly don't know anyone who barely acknowledges other peoples' ideas.

Pot, meet kettle!

-O

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Ran.

Your perception that version 3.0 rogues are unbalanced due to Sneak Attack not only lacks "convincing" weight for me (a fine way to measure an argument by-the-by, as you failed to provide any proof) but didn't persuade version 3.5 as well. I don't think Sneak Attack changed a smudge. While I do take exception to some changes, I still support others (or lack thereof).

As I see it rogues need not anything earlier or stronger, your version is more powerfull than both criterias used here, and you admit it, that is what makes us dislike it, rogues need no change to be balanced, at least not to make them stronger...

The rogue I have submitted is more powerful than the official 3.5 rogue, but that's rather point. While my revision is *slightly* more powerful, the differences are negligible. Moreoever, those differences ensure that rogues own their own niche in *every* possible way. If making sure that all the character classes thoroughly own their own niche constitutes my opinion alone, then I will gladly own it.

There points where logic gives way to balance, rogues having mush more than barbarians both make them a hell powerful against traps and make barbs a lot less interesting than they are...

Have you seen the barbarian? There is no way you can convince me that by making rogues better at sensing traps, the barbarian suddenly become a lot less interesting. Indeed, it seems silly to even try.

Originally posted by Obryn
Damn, I don't know of anyone who can't acknowledge their own bad ideas and broken mechanics. And I certainly don't know anyone who barely acknowledges other peoples' ideas.

You misunderstand. First of all, Andy wasn't even defending his own ideas. And second of all, I don't think you have debated much with Andy. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

 

[Ran]

Ran.

Your perception that version 3.0 rogues are unbalanced due to Sneak Attack not only lacks "convincing" weight for me (a fine way to measure an argument by-the-by, as you failed to provide any proof) but didn't persuade version 3.5 as well. I don't think Sneak Attack changed a smudge. While I do take exception to some changes, I still support others (or lack thereof).

I never said that I agree with that understanding... all I said is that I heard it many times, after all, if someone says it is nerfed and others say it is broken, monte once said it already means it is okay... (I believe monte said it...)

The rogue I have submitted is more powerful than the official 3.5 rogue, but that's rather point. While my revision is *slightly* more powerful, the differences are negligible. Moreoever, those differences ensure that rogues own their own niche in *every* possible way. If making sure that all the character classes thoroughly own their own niche constitutes my opinion alone, then I will gladly own it.

Well, I guess we don't need to argue how much slightly for you means for us... and neither if every possible way is the best choice for everyone...

Have you seen the barbarian? There is no way you can convince me that by making rogues better at sensing traps, the barbarian suddenly become a lot less interesting. Indeed, it seems silly to even try.

Yes I have seen the barbarian, and I believe he is not the best choice for a core rulebook, anyway, never mind it, it was mistake, I meant another thing... entirely...