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

[The Little Raven]

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

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.
[/i]

If you can't remember the last time you played a rogue, then how could you test out the rogue?

The only way to really determine the balance of a class is to play it, and playtest it. Crunching some numbers and making comparisons to a different class does nothing without actual field testing.

Numbers can easily be manipulated. Experience on the other hand...

...and I've played a 3.5 rogue, and I still shred enemies just as easily. In fact, when I toss in the use of the spear (10-foot reach) things can get even better, especially with that sneak attack added in.

And I took down a 3.5 barbarian as well.

 

[Darklone]

I like the change. And yes, my char had three levels of rogue. Now I'll prolly get another one and lose another level of spellcasting prowess. Who cares?

And no, I don't think the rogue should be better at intuitively reacting to danger. That's the barbarians schtick, he's the one living on the edge. The rogue merely plays with danger, the barbarian lives it.

 

[Kark001]

Just to add my thoughts

I can only agree with the WotC decission to move the uncanny dodge back a bit or two level wise.
Why?
Because rogue are a skill based ultility class (int + 8 skill points !) with some added combat punch. They know how to deal damage in a fight, but are no real fighter class.
A barbarian on the other hand is a wilderness fighter. He relies on his instincts and anger more then anything else. Thats why he gets uncanny dodge before the rogue.
Tbh. a rogue shouldnt get uncanny dodge way before lvl 8 or so and sneak attack should be rolled back to level 3 or so as well.

As to the rogue not hitting a thing...I can only laugh about this debate.
Rogues usually attack creatures they flank and they profit from weapon boni at higher level. A monk doesnt has this benefits and he has to rely on flurry to deal damage.
WotC and most gms felt the rogue problem with all those high backstab damages, thats why most high end monsters are immune to it.
IF they had had some courage, they would have scaled the sneak attack damage way back (like they did with the keen/improved critical stacking) and abolished the immune to critical stuff. They didnt and so we are stuck with a half realized solution.
And to all those *the rogue is so weak combat wise* whiners once again.
THE ROGUE IS NOT A FIGHTER.

 

[Rune]

Wha...are you kidding?

Wait...

You're responsible for the longest flamewar in these (okay, Eric Noah's) boards' history.

Nevermind.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

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

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.

Sneak attack alone makes the rogue quite powerful. Add skill points (no other class has as many as him), evasion and the special abilities he gets later, and he's a really nice class. The fact that he gets uncanny dodge a little later (which was done so there are no empty levels) doesn't change that at all.

The big NPCs at high levels should have armor with the Fortification ability -- mostly to stop the criticals that can cause sudden shifts in battle.

I disagree. Not every NPC would fear rogues most. Others might prefer to protect themselves from other classes, which they fear more. Wizards and clerics come to mind.

And from a metagame view, don't you think nerfing the rogue in every big battle is a little harsh? Plus, I can nerf the other classes, too if I want (get him out of reach to nerf melee fighters, give him death ward, freedom and mind blank to nerf spellcasters....), but directing all my efforts against one class doesn't exactly create a fair environment to compare classes, does it?




The single gap on level 20 is regrettable, but he still gets his usual benefits, which aren't to be spit at. You might have opportunist and improved evasion, but they won't help you if your attack or reflex bonus is crappy.


I tried to get a high-level rogue several times, but chance was against me:
My drow rogue hat a series of bad rolls which killed him: First, I failed my search check for the trap. Then the DM rolled well with SR, after which my reflex save was bad again. Then, he had an exceptionally well damage roll. End effect: My rogue was at exactly -10, and that was in Ravenloft, with no cleric capable or raising within one or two domains. He was around level 5
Then, I played a human (scorpion) ninja from Rokugan, but the party returned home (which for them, was the forgotten realms), and I had to create another character. He was around 11 then.
After that, I played a cleric
In another gaming group (all-evil), I play a fey'ri rogue, but the DM doesn't a good job at all and I think about leaving (he's rog7 now)

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Is it "tough" or totally different? While you get rage you also lose out on evasion and 4 skill points per level (which is at least 8 for 2 levels, more if we are talking 1st level).

Skill points next to special class abilities? Sorry, but characters can get by with barely any skills at all. The special rage ability, additional +10 feet movement, and uncanny dodge ability far outstrip the Evasion ability granted by my rogue at 2nd level. Heck, take 1 level of monk, and you can walk away with evasion. Giving my rogue evasion at 2nd level, and uncanny dodge at the same time as barbarians hardly breaks the balanced mold. Keep stretching.

Whoa whoa. Who said "strictly for powergaming" about multiclassing? Is that what multiclassing other than evenly represents to you? In that case I think you need to revise some of the gospel you learnt from AD&D 2ed. If I choose to add 1,2, or 3 levels of rogue to my fighter there isn't necessarily anything "powergaming" about it, in fact, in a balanced system my DM shouldn’t have to worry about powergaming from how you pick your classes and levels.

Fine, as a lawful neutral character, I take 1 level of cleric, 1 level of druid, 1 level of monk, 1 level of ranger and 1 level of sorcerer before I even start to hand pick my prestige classes. There is no rule currently in place to stop me from making such a character. The fact is, a good DM simply has to say "no" sometimes, because every system, including Dungeons and Dragons, still needs supervision.

You hear a click, you watch someone step on a tile, you open a door and it has more resistance than it should - any of those things can indicate a trap that is "set off", how quickly I react to those things has nothing to do with my sense motive roll (of all things) and while it could be tied to my spot roll, in 3e it isn't. Instead its linked to the reflex saving throw, which is poor for barbarians and good for rogues (a point you didn't bother to quote).

Hehe. Not everything needs to be quoted for it to be addressed. Reflex saves, good or bad, make no difference when the trap targets your AC. To say that a barbarian can dodge such traps with the same effectiveness as a rogue, to whom setting and disabling such devices is the staple of their party duties, is unadulterated silliness. I guess my earlier metaphor was more complicated than I thought.

Now, giving barbarians and rogues an ability which lets them avoid traps does not necessarily make them equally adept at trap removal, but it gives the barbarian more of a chance than say a fighter or a paladin. That makes sense to me, especially in the context of things like pit traps or outdoor snares and the like.

That's fine. But not to misquote me, I have no problem with barbarians *having* the Trap Sense ability, so long as rogues are better at it.

So is your problem with Trap Sense + x or the way traps are avoided in general? Because the sense motive and spot skills don't come into play (although search and disable device do).

Two other class skills the rogue enjoys which the barbarian does not, and therefore two more reasons why the rogue should be the superior of barbarians when it comes to all things traps. The lack of Sense Motive and Spot in the barbarian skill list only serve to confirm, on a conceptual level, that barbarians are not known for their perceptiveness (not to mention their rage ability, preventing tasks that require patience or concentration; like, for instance, opening a door that offers more resistance than it should).

In other words, if barbarians had had trap sense from the outset, would you have beef with it?

If it rivaled or equaled the trap sense of rogues, correct. Was that question meant to be easy?

This, I feel, is my strongest argument (or your weakest). It is very easy to see how a barbarian could fend off 2 people on his flanks. It is not so easy to see how the rogue could do this. I'm speaking of stereotypes here.

Well that's your problem right there. Don't use stereotypes. Case in point…

Barbarians don't lose it because it is natural to them to react on either side, they have seen gangs of animals fight <insert whatever flavor>.

Why is this ability any more stereotypical for barbarians than any other character? At least rogues are practiced at exploiting openings with their sneak attack ability. It makes perfect sense that they would also know how to protect those same openings on themselves. If that was your strongest argument, you're in serious trouble.

Just because you know what you exploit doesn't mean you have the ability to defend against it, at least in my book, in the real world.

Then by your own admission, you are very oblivious to the real world. Once a rogue has broken into a score of homes, that rogue has a pretty damn good idea how to protect his home against such an invasion. This goes back to my previous metaphor again. The exact same principal applies to flanking sneak attacks and protection from flanking.

Once again, I have no problem with the barbarian having improved evasion (although he has no more claim to it than any other melee character), but barbarians should definitely not be better at it 2 and 3 levels sooner than rogues. Thus my proposed changes to solve that oversight (although I am sure WotC did it on purpose).

May I ask how many level 20+ characters you've played? How many were created pre-level 15?

I love it! Now you attempting to analyze me with pop psychology assumptions. Here's an old tip for you. Don't make an ass out of yourself. Stick to the arguments on the page. My bias for disliking dead levels is entirely based on fun. Everybody likes to get a new ability at every level, and so if they can be appropriately balanced, like the barbarian or the monk, then they should. They are the pips that we look forward to earning for good role-playing, nothing more. Hence my rogue revisions. Characters should be rewarded at every level with more than just numbers.

Also since when do characters need something every level?

See above.

I think there's about 8 or 9 fighter levels where they don't get anything, and if you count feats as nothing special then just about all 20 are "dead levels".

But I don't, so that decimates your assumption-based argument again.

What about a spellcaster in between spell levels? Look at the bard or cleric.

If you're playing any one of those spellcasters, it's for the spells (except perhaps where the bard is concerned).

Try again.

I'll let you know when I start *trying* to invalidate your arguments. So far, no effort.

 

[Darklone]

Skill points next to special class abilities? Sorry, but characters can get by with barely any skills at all. The special rage ability, additional +10 feet movement, and uncanny dodge ability far outstrip the Evasion ability granted by my rogue at 2nd level. Heck, take 1 level of monk, and you can walk away with evasion. Giving my rogue evasion at 2nd level, and uncanny dodge at the same time as barbarians hardly breaks the balanced mold. Keep stretching.

Skills are useless? Only if your DM plays it that way. I know DMs too where you can't sneak up to a guard with Move Sil +20 and Hide +20 but an invis mage can easily cut his throat. This is not by the rules though.
Btw, the same DM loves to throw fireballs at us... Ask the groups barbarian if he could get evasion if he drops his Uncanny Dodge, he would do it at once.

Fine, as a lawful neutral character, I take 1 level of cleric, 1 level of druid, 1 level of monk, 1 level of ranger and 1 level of sorcerer before I even start to hand pick my prestige classes. There is no rule currently in place to stop me from making such a character. The fact is, a good DM simply has to say "no" sometimes, because every system, including Dungeons and Dragons, still needs supervision.

Nope. I would let anyone make such a character. He probably won't enjoy playing him.

Snip, quote: Barbarians need no trap sense.

Hey, it's flavour. Ask conan. Danger sense. Bad feeling in the neck. Whatever.

That's fine. But not to misquote me, I have no problem with barbarians *having* the Trap Sense ability, so long as rogues are better at it.

Some people might like to have the superstitious barbarian who always stays on his toes better at dodging sudden danger. That's still no reason to insult designers or to tell anyone they are wrong.

Sense Motive and Spot

It's instinct, not something learned (skills). Good enough for you?

At least rogues are practiced at exploiting openings with their sneak attack ability. It makes perfect sense that they would also know how to protect those same openings on themselves.

I respectfully disagree after seeing many lightarmoured fencers in battle. They are horribly good at catching someone from behind and inflicting a lot of damage... but NO, they are not good at defense. Except for running away.

Then by your own admission, you are very oblivious to the real world. Once a rogue has broken into a score of homes, that rogue has a pretty damn good idea how to protect his home against such an invasion. This goes back to my previous metaphor again. The exact same principal applies to flanking sneak attacks and protection from flanking.

Building traps/thinking about home defense or positioning yourself in battle is a big difference for me.

Once again, I have no problem with the barbarian having improved evasion (although he has no more claim to it than any other melee character), but barbarians should definitely not be better at it 2 and 3 levels sooner than rogues. Thus my proposed changes to solve that oversight (although I am sure WotC did it on purpose).

I disagree. Reasons see above.
For me: Barbarian = instinct fighter. Figher = Calculated fighter. Big difference if you have some combat experience.

I love it! Now you attempting to analyze me with pop psychology assumptions. Here's an old tip for you. Don't make an ass out of yourself. Stick to the arguments on the page.

I don't really want to offend you... but here's only one guy making an ass of himself and it's not Technik4.

You don't bring any arguments except "I don't see it that way and everyone should see it as I do." Many of our arguments hit the same tree, we see it differently. Our point of view does not lead to insulting game designers (not always ) nor other gamers who simply tried to explain their opinion.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Well IMHO looking at the 1e Ranger, who was one of the most difficult classes to surprise, the current Ranger should get Uncanny (and Improved) Dodge rather than Evasion. They don't strike me as the sort to roll around on the floor alot.

Likewise Barbarians are difficult to surprise, as they are crazy mofos (hehe) and in a combat, they don't care how many people surround them, they just kick donkey!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Fine, as a lawful neutral character, I take 1 level of cleric, 1 level of druid, 1 level of monk, 1 level of ranger and 1 level of sorcerer before I even start to hand pick my prestige classes. There is no rule currently in place to stop me from making such a character.

Where's the problem? +1 BAB, non-especially-complementary class features (Flurry of Blows and Ambi/TWF?), and a whole bunch of first level spells, as a 5th level character. Next level, the archer gets his third arrow per round, and the wizard is already casting lightning bolt. You've got... Shillelagh, caster-level-1 Magic Missile, and Command...

-Hyp.

 

[WizarDru]

Where's the problem? +1 BAB, non-especially-complementary class features (Flurry of Blows and Ambi/TWF?), and a whole bunch of first level spells, as a 5th level character. Next level, the archer gets his third arrow per round, and the wizard is already casting lightning bolt. You've got... Shillelagh, caster-level-1 Magic Missile, and Command...

Not to mention the fact that you've sacrificed some abilities along the way. If you took a level of monk, you've lost your Rage ability, now that you're an ex-Barbarian. If you took monk first, then you've lost you access to any further abilities in that class, since you can't take it again.

And, as mentioned, you're a pretty sub-optimal character who'll be lagging behind everyone. While the wizard and sorceror are getting 3rd-level spells, you're still on 1st. The fighter has weapon specialization and a considerably BAB; the rogue is doing +3d6 sneak attack damage, and so forth. You have lots of diverse and weak abilities. The system works fine, as far as I can see.