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

[mmu1]

I wouldn't necessarily say rogues should be best at "dodging", but the class is about fighting dirty and striking from ambush, which is a skill set that, logically speaking, should also make them very good at defending against those kinds of tactics - which means access to Uncanny Dodge, preferably early on.

And even if you could make a case for Barbarians being better at avoiding ambushes and surprise attacjs than Rogues (although why that'd be the case with a class that doesn't even have Spot or Sense Motive as class skills, I don't know...) there's absolutely no reason to give them a bonus vs. traps equal to the Rogue's.

As for Andy Collins... Want to take a look at the 3.5 PHB and check the very first name in the revision credits and the only name listed under "Player's Handbook Revision"? If there's anything wrong with the book, it's his fault at this point.

 

[bret]

I thought that I read somewhere that the reason they moved it down to 4th level was so that 3rd level didn't get overloaded with specials.

Then to be consistent, they moved the Improved Uncanny Dodge down as well.

There are a lot of changes that either directly or indirectly change the rogue.

On the positive side, you have:

• Finesse now affects all weapons
• You now get simple weapon proficiency, which gives you Gauntlets, Slings and Spears
• Very minor: You no longer have to spend skill points on Inneuendo or Read Lips.

On the negative side:

• You are no longer the best scout. The ranger takes that away now that they have nearly as many skill points [6 vs 8]. He is also much better at it underground because of his Knowledge skills.
• You are no longer the best face-man. The Bard takes that away now that they have more skill points
• You have to wait longer for Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge. Most rogues depend on Dex for AC, so the first change is much worse than the second.
• You are even more strongly relegated to 'Trap Finder' than in 3.0. In my opinion, finding and disabling traps just isn't much fun. It eats up two different skills (Search and Disable Device) and just isn't fun to play.
• Very minor: You no longer have the ability to find your direction. This was folded into Wilderness Lore which is cross class.

I wouldn't call the rogue broken, but I do think it is more underpowered and less flexible than before. It is still the easiest class to get by without, and there is less incentive to play one than before.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

If I rememebr right it was becuase they wante dot do there best to gve more classes somehting special at every level. Without this change level 4 gives you nothing as a rogue except for the skill points. Or in other words to spread abilites out over a classes levels in a more even fashion.

It makes sense to me, I'm not saying its a good change but I don't see it as a bad one either.

 

[totoro]

It is interesting to note that the 3.5e rogue is more like the 2e rogues. They are weak.

The "iconic" party used to be Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue. Now you should probably swap Barbarian for Fighter, and Ranger for Rogue, then hire an expert to search for and disable traps (make sure he can open locks, too, for when the Barbarian can't).

This is the editted part:

We used to want to get a cleric as an NPC to follow us around and heal us since clerics are boring. Clerics make good cohorts. Now we want an NPC rogue, too. Rangers are cooler than rogues.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

yeah uncanny dodge is level 4 now, whoa look out rogues suck. Fact is in anyhting but a dungeon crawl rogues were a bit overpowered in 3e and they still are just as good, the only difference some of the sucker classes are no longer as sucker like.

the new classes are one of the few things I think they did right in 3.5.

 

[niteshade6]

eh, I don't think anyone who has every seen the massive amount of sneak attack damage a rogue with multiple attacks can dish out will consider them weak. The key is to think of them as a fighter with (sometimes) low defence, very high damage, and some special abilities which could be essential.

It's true that in some campaigns they are the easiest "classic" character to do without. But in other campaigns they are still vital for their trap abilities. And even if you never find any traps I'm still never unhappy to have a rogue in my group, as long as he built himself for combat.

 

[Dash Dannigan]

...what was Andy thinking?

Somebody really loved their rogue being top-dog over all the other weaker 3.0 clasess.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

totoro.

Hence my original reason for reintroducing Uncanny Dodge and now Improved Uncanny Dodge earlier in level, 2nd and 5th level, rather than 4th and 8th level. In the same vein that rogues are the master sneak attackers, they should also pave the way for detecting those sneak attacks, certainly a lot better than barbarian sixth sense.

And seeing as how rogues *are* undeniably expected to detect traps for a party, beefing up their newly acquired Trap Sense to reach +10 by giving them a +1 increase every other level (alternating with Sneak Attack) only makes good game designing sense; and doesn't neuter them next to barbarian trap sense (who now also gain a special ability every single level).

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Re: Re: Fixing the newly broken rogue class (thanks to Andy and 3.5)

Somebody really loved their rogue being top-dog over all the other weaker 3.0 clasess.

Believe this or not, I can't remember the last time I played a rogue. But I do think that all the classes should balanced against each other. The 3.5 edition rogue, as printed, is no longer balanced against the other classes.

Edited because spelling is simply not my bag.

 

[Technik4]

First a quick blurb on nomenclature. "Broken" in mechanics (game) tend to mean overpowered. "Nerfed" always means underpowered.

As for your new rogue:

01-Sneak attack +1d6, trapfinding
02-Evasion, trap sense +1, uncanny dodge
03-Sneak attack +2d6

Compared to 3.5:

01-Sneak Attack +1d6, trapfinding
02-Evasion
03-Sneak Attack +2d6, trap sense +1

Compared to 3.0

01-Sneak Attack +1d6, (trapfinding)
02-Evasion
03-Sneak Attack +2d6, Uncanny Dodge

Now, honestly, which immediately strikes me as the most "broken"? Why, the one that isn't done by someone paid to write games. Your "better" rogue makes multiclassing much easier, before I needed 3 levels for UDodge and Evasion, with your version I only need 2 levels, and hey, I get +1 AC and +1 Reflex saves vs traps just for fun.

If this is the solution that presents itself easily enough, then I hope you don't mind when your players take some easy rogue levels. In 3.0 almost any concept I had could benefit from 3 rogue levels (single-class spellcasters didn't), this just makes it that much easier. Your rogue is starting to resemble the 3.0 ranger, ripe for the picking.

As far as the master of "sensing" traps, rogues are and will always be the masters of that particular skill. However, now they have an equally adept cousin at "reacting" to traps. This is because the primal fury a barbarian wraps himself in has him keyed up to the slightest provocation (or whatever). There is nothing wrong with another class that can "react" as well as rogues to traps, rogues are still the only ones who can A) Locate them and B) Disarm them. Furthermore, despite my last statement, barbarians are not "equally adept" as they have a poor Reflex save and rogues have a good one.

Speaking of "reacting", Monks can react as well as rogues against damaging effects which offer a reflex save. BROKEN? Nah, its cool, why not? In terms of which character could react to danger more quickly (barb or rogue) I would probably say the rogue. 3.5 changed the rules so that this is not necessarily true. In terms of which character could react to danger on either side of him (within 5 ft, usually) I would say barbarian. 3.5 changed the rules so that this is true. Seeing as these mechanics are linked (I've never figured out why) I have no problem with the new changes. Now rogues are harder to cherry-pick (and while they aren't or weren't the 1-level wonder the ranger was, most melee classes could always benefit from a few levels of rogue, especially if you were willing to take it as your first level -skill points galore) and barbarians are master of their domain a little earlier.

As far as "crowning achievement" well really this is silly. How many people out of all the d&ders out there have actually made a rog20+. Many, probably. What difference does it make whether or not they get something ultra special at 20th level? Most people/campaigns begin and end before 20. "Dead" levels still provide hp, bab, skills, greater prot from sneak attacks, saves, and possibly a feat or ability increase. Did you play 2nd edition? Thats a LOT!

I don't treat WotC as gospel, but your rogue is also a far cry from anything heavenly.

Technik