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

[Technik4]

Plausability

If this were really a problem with Evasion and Uncanny Dodge, would people not simply cherry pick barbarian and monk. Of course you would lose Rage, but you're not after rage, are you? One level of monk and two levels of barbarian is almost certainly more powerful from a spurious powergaming multiclass point of view... As a self-contained class, SoaPM's rogue is hardly overpowered. I see no problem with it.

One level of monk and 2 levels of barbarian vice 3 levels of rogue is very tricky to pull off. Monk requires Lawful alignment and Barbarian requires Non-Lawful. Furthermore, concocting a story for this to happen every time you make a character can be pretty tiring, whereas it is very easily (and somewhat credible) to come up with a reason for any given adventuerer to have a few levels of rogue.

Well this is when you get into the details of multiclassing. It is usually very legitimate to take Rogue or Fighter levels when multiclassing, they are very broad classes with few strings attatched. If you want to take Fighter classes, you just say that you want to concentrate on your fighting prowess, few DMs are going to block you from doing that. If you want to improve your skills, you take a couple levels of rogue, again its very plausible. Now, you say you want to multi to Monk or Barbarian, these things are not so plausible, did your character spend time in the woods or a monastary? Do you fit the proper alignment requirements? Does it make sense for your character's background? All of those questions are more difficult to answer when it comes to Monk or Barbarian, but this is just one aspect.

From a "power-gaming" point of view levels in fighter after level 1 are usually very advantageous, whereas taking your first level in Rogue or Barbarian (and to a lesser extent Monk) is more beneficial. This is largely because at 1st level you gain max hit points (go barbarian!) and 4 times your skill ranks (woohoo Rogue). Look at it like this, a Wiz1/Rog1 has [(2+Int) x4 + 8+Int] skill points. A Rog1/Wiz1 has [(8+Int)x4 + 2+Int]. We're talking about a LOAD of skill points. Additionally the rogue gets a sneak attack which can benefit anyone (and is usually more beneficial than Rage, in the long run, for any ol' adventurer). So barb has more hit points, decent skills, +10 movement in light or medium armor, and rage versus rogue low hit points, awesome skills, and sneak attack at level 1. Level 2 gives us uncnany dodge as a barb, or evasion in light or medium armor as a rogue. Evasion is clearly more powerful, especially since you now also have a +3 reflex. Which is the better at first level mechanics-wise? I'd say it depends on the character but they are pretty dang close, evasion is the premier defense against a variety of spells and attacks.

Under the proposed build the rogue, at 2nd level, would also get Uncanny Dodge as well as Trap Sense +1. This is unbalancing as it makes the rogue not just a good choice, but a choice that is too good.

If you really want a balanced suggestion for the Barb/Rogue thing this is what I would do.

Change Evasion to 4th level for Rogue.
Change UDodge to 2nd level for Rogue.
Change Improved UDodge to 6th for Rogue

This means that the rogue gets UDodge at the same time as the Barbarian, but Evasion later than the monk. It also moves Improved UDodge to the level it got it in 3.0, which is 1 level after the barbarian. Personally, I wouldn't bother, but I recommend this as a balanced change if you want your rogue to get UDodge at the same time as the barbarian (although now it will get Evasion later than the monk!).

Technik

 

[Obryn]

You know, I have to say I feel a little sorry for Andy, taking all this heat.

I certainly wouldn't want to have a huge corporation like Hasbro breathing down my neck. I also wouldn't want it to be on my shoulders to try to make D&D financially viable again.

Seriously, the guy has probably been under pressure the likes of which you've never been through. Give him a break already. If you have a problem with the rules, complain about the rules - don't go blaming him for everything.

-O

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

KaeYoss.

Originally posted by KaeYoss
So you're saying rogues should receive d12 had, too, because that makes them hardier against traps? Now we have to invent something beyond troll for you.

No, that was never what I said. You know something, I realize you hate it when I shadow every one of your nonsensical points and expose them to the light of scrutiny, but that does not make me a troll. It makes my standard for logic unrelenting.

Originally posted by KaeYoss
Why should the ranger be better at it then others who live in the wilderness just as the ranger does and devote the same resources (no, actually more resources, since they have to buy the feat, and have less skill points to put into survival and thus it hits them harder - but the loss of a feat is the real hitter here)?

I see now that you never understood my original point of creating niches for characters. Thank you for clarifying your profound ignorance. I can now put your posts into a whole new category.

Originally posted by KaeYoss
Then why doesn't uncanny dodge say "you are immune to sneak attacks"?

For the same reason that Sneak Attacks do not always succeed. I suggest you think about that one for while. Get back to me when you're good and ready.

Originally posted by KaeYoss
I ask you what does that have to do with uncanny dodge? Cause uncanny dodge won't help you against a feint.

That's what I *just* said. Please try to remember the things you originally typed.

Originally posted by KaeYoss
I'm not oblivious to your counterpoints. It's just that your counterpoints don't make any sense.

That's because, apparently, you barely skim them.

Originally posted by KaeYoss
Potential trapfinders. If you won't take ranks in search, you won't be very good at it.

Oh my lord. Do you have the slightest clue why I even brought up that point with Technik4? I'll give you a hint. It had nothing to do with potential.

Originally posted by KaeYoss
If I remember right, you pulled that ridiculous class combination out of your fez as a way to "prove" that three levels of rogue to a fighter are powergaming.

Let me make this easy for you. You do not remember right. It had to do with games that require *supervision* and preventing ridiculous role-playing.

Originally posted by KaeYoss
Barbarians usually have no more than medium armor, let's just say breastplate. Rogues tend to have leather or studded leather, which impose no armor penalty.

If you want to create a balanced armor comparison, then you do not give barbarians the most restrictive medium armor type and rogues one of the most unencumbering. Tip the scales in your own favor on somebody elses time.

Originally posted by KaeYoss
Tracking is not the sole domain of the ranger, and never was.

I never said tracking was the sole domain of ranger. Neither have I said that traps sensing and uncanny dodges are the sole domains of the rogue. You have got to stop putting words in my mouth.

Originally posted by KaeYoss
It no longer forces you to keep your levels even, but allows you to take as many or as much levels of the classes as you want.

Do you even know how multiclassing works? You have to keep non-favored classes within one level of each other (I.E. fairly even) to avoid XP penalties.

-----

Al.

Long time no see. How are you doing? Ah yes, I miss that paladin thread. By the by, I hate the new paladin mount. Calling it from the celestrial realms where it resides has got to be cheeziest revision of 3.5, not to mention one of the most blatant anti-roleplaying game mechanics in recent history. I refuse to allow it. My paladins have to look after and stable their mounts, just like everybody else. What is tabletop D&D becoming? A video game?

-----

Technik4.

You're words are sobering, but this debate has never been about powergaming or cherrypicking classes for me. It has been about putting character concepts *before* character mechanics.

More than anything, I believe that every character should have a strong identity prior to role-playing it. I strive to make sure that every class is significantly different from each other and the best at what they do. That is the premise from which I make revisions. Only after making these changes do I examine the new product from a game balance perspective, and try to make sure that no one character outshines the others too much (or at all).

In that vein, my updated revision for the rogue goes as follows…

Table: The Rogue
Lv-Special
01-Sneak attack +1d6, trapfinding
02-Trap sense +1, uncanny dodge
03-Evasion, 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

Trap sense every other level, uncanny dodge at the same level as barbarians, evasion 1 level later than monks, and special abilities 1 level later in all cases, meaning that if rogues took improved evasion right away, it would also occur later than it does for monks. This also crowns rogues with a worthwhile 20th level ability.

-----

Obryn.

I might be more forgiving of Andy Collins until I discovered what he was like on his message boards first hand. And before anybody asks, I wasn't the one arguing with him at the time.

 

[jayaint]

Sonof...

Please just stop.

Great. Thanks for posting YOUR rogue revision that YOU think fits the STEREOTYPE of a rogue the best.

Thanks again for berating and belittling (not to mention, not listening to) everyone who didn't immediately see eye-to-eye with YOU. It's a joy to try and understand YOUR point while YOU just regurgitate unsupported blabbity-blah back at all the people who were (at least to begin with) interested in debating the original question.

It's been fun watching *YOU* BREAK a class that wasn't BROKEN before, and I hope that all of *YOUR* games work out for *YOU*.

Bye now. Buh-bye.

(These flaming-troll-insult-threads just kill me. One more name to add to the "don't-click-if-they-are-the-thread-starter" list.)

 

[Obryn]

I might be more forgiving of Andy Collins until I discovered what he was like on his message boards first hand. And before anybody asks, I wasn't the one arguing with him at the time.

Well, honestly, what do you expect him to do? Bite the hand that feeds him? I'm not sure what you do for a living, but I can guarantee you that - in the corporate world - posting negative things about your company on a public web board or openly criticizing their decisions is not smart.

Even if he doesn't like all the changes himself - and he might not - it's his job to promote it. If it doesn't do well, it reflects badly on him, Dungeons & Dragons, and WotC.

So please, get a grip on the reality of the situation and criticize the specific rules and not the figurehead.

-O

 

[Kae'Yoss]

No, that was never what I said. You know something, I realize you hate it when I shadow every one of your nonsensical points and expose them to the light of scrutiny, but that does not make me a troll. It makes my standard for logic unrelenting.

Remember it was you who complained that dexterity would matter very little when going against traps, because the barbarian had twice the hit points that a rogue has. You actually complained that the barbarain could survive more traps because of his higher amount of hp. That's trolling.

I see now that you never understood my original point of creating niches for characters.

I understand and support that point. It's just that the rogue does have a niche to fit in, and you don't like it, and think that your opinion about what those niches should be equaled to the 10 commandments.

For the same reason that Sneak Attacks do not always succeed. I suggest you think about that one for while. Get back to me when you're good and ready.

That just makes no sense at all. And keep your holier-than-thou attitude up and you'll see if it gets you any friends around here.

Let me make this easy for you. You do not remember right. It had to do with games that require *supervision* and preventing ridiculous role-playing.

Rather your version of right roleplaying and wrong roleplaying.

If you want to create a balanced armor comparison, then you do not give barbarians the most restrictive medium armor type and rogues one of the most unencumbering. Tip the scales in your own favor on somebody elses time.

I gave them the armors they usually use: rogues favor armors where they have no armor penalty and a high max dex bonus, and barbarians favor armor with a good bonus to AC.

I never said tracking was the sole domain of ranger. Neither have I said that traps sensing and uncanny dodges are the sole domains of the rogue. You have got to stop putting words in my mouth.

You're wining that the rogue has nothing of his own.

Do you even know how multiclassing works? You have to keep non-favored classes within one level of each other (I.E. fairly even) to avoid XP penalties.

The emphasis lies on non-favored. If the class you want (or currently have) is favored, you won't have problems with xp penalties. If you're human, you can take any two classes and can keep them as close or as far apart as you want. Humans can also get one class with many levels and several others who are roughly the same class (other races can do this if the high-leveled class is their fc, or they can use two classes and balance them, and use their favored class to take significantly more or less levels in it than in the rest.) Prestige Classes won't give you an XP penalty, either.

And if you want to do something else, you can. You'll get that xp penalty, but you can. In former editions, you either had to share the xp you get exactly equally (only non-humans), or you could change your class, but you would never be able to get back into that class, and you would lose all the benefits until you have more levels in your new class (only humans).

So it seems that it's you who doesn't know about multiclassing.

Long time no see. How are you doing? Ah yes, I miss that paladin thread. By the by, I hate the new paladin mount. Calling it from the celestrial realms where it resides has got to be cheeziest revision of 3.5, not to mention one of the most blatant anti-roleplaying game mechanics in recent history. I refuse to allow it. My paladins have to look after and stable their mounts, just like everybody else. What is tabletop D&D becoming? A video game?

You can do something else beside ranting and insulting, yes?

You're words are sobering, but this debate has never been about powergaming or cherrypicking classes for me. It has been about putting character concepts *before* character mechanics.

It was about you showing us your version of these character concepts and insulting everyone who has another.

More than anything, I believe that every character should have a strong identity prior to role-playing it.

You believe that every character should have the identity you want.

Anyway, I'm fed up with your insulting, your trolling, and your arrogant holier-than-thou attitude. I won't lay hands upon this thread again, or every other thread that is started by you and is an obvious troll.

 

[Al]

Technik4- Interesting re-arrangement of the rogue (UD at 2nd, IUD at 6th, Evasion at 4th). Balance-wise, it's probably a little stronger than SoaPM's rogue, since Evasion is less useful than UD at low level. Note the 'at low level' caveat- 2d6 of sneak attack is really going to sting when you've only got round about 3d6 or so worth of hit dice, whereas Ref half spells only come to the fore with the fireball/lightning bolts of 3rd level spells (unless you have a bunch of crazy wizards running around with Burning Hands...) Flavour-wise, it's pretty much a toss-up. Your point about DMing to spot spurious multiclassing is an interesting one, but then it turns into a 'who can justify what fest', with metagaming propounding. Trust me- I've seen a fully 'justified' (with back story etc.) Fighter/Rogue/Ranger/Templar/Order of the Bow Initiate/Holy Liberator.

Long time no see. How are you doing? Ah yes, I miss that paladin thread. By the by, I hate the new paladin mount. Calling it from the celestrial realms where it resides has got to be cheeziest revision of 3.5, not to mention one of the most blatant anti-roleplaying game mechanics in recent history. I refuse to allow it. My paladins have to look after and stable their mounts, just like everybody else. What is tabletop D&D becoming? A video game?

Not so bad . I'd have to agree with you with the paladin mount rules. It was a bit of a pain getting a mount as a special quest (especially if the other PCs wanted to do something different) but summoning a magic horsey for 2hrs/level is overdoing the simplification.

KaeYoss- Calm down. I know from my experience of your posting that you can write interesting, informed and erudite posts. I don't see how the flame war with SoaPM is helping- I don't necessarily blame you since he can be slightly dogmatic at times (the infamous paladin thread ) but your posts recently have been less than constructive.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

jayain.

There is no problem between us that cannot be solved by you no longer reading this thread. Please exercise some free will.

-----

Obryn.

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

I wasn't *that* he defended certain aspect of Dungeons and Dragons that caused my opinion about the guy to change. 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. As a result, I will not spare the figurehead from being singled out. And once again, before anybody asks, the idea that was being offered to Andy Collins was not one of my own.

-----

Originally posted by KaeYoss
Remember it was you who complained that dexterity would matter very little when going against traps, because the barbarian had twice the hit points that a rogue has. You actually complained that the barbarian could survive more traps because of his higher amount of hp. That's trolling.

*Shakes head.*

You are confusing me with somebody else. I did not make that point originally, and I certainly did not complain about it. I referred to the fact that barbarians have twice as many hit points as rogues, but that was it. Go back and check if you like. Please. I'm positively sick of your selective memory.

Originally posted by KaeYoss
That just makes no sense at all. And keep your holier-than-thou attitude up and you'll see if it gets you any friends around here.

That's because you consistently disagree with what you do not understand. I can't make you think for yourself anymore KaeYoss. Take your appeals to popular opinion and curl up with them if you like. Whatever tucks you in at night.

Originally posted by KaeYoss
I gave them the armors they usually use: rogues favor armors where they have no armor penalty and a high max dex bonus, and barbarians favor armor with a good bonus to AC.

You presume to speak for all barbarians and rogues now rather than be objective? Your arrogance knows no bounds!

Originally posted by KaeYoss
It was about you showing us your version of these character concepts and insulting everyone who has another.

Your grasp of this thread is as oblivious as it is narrow. I refuse to take you seriously if you cannot be bothered to pay attention.

Originally posted by KaeYoss
I won't lay hands upon this thread again, or every other thread that is started…

Thank the powers. I'll hold you to that.

 

[Ran]

Man, this was LONG!!!!

Okay, as I see it is pointless to keep this type of discussion, the rogue is okay as is in 3.5 for me, he and the cleric were, in my point of view broken on 3rd edition, and both have suffered a reduction on their powers, not final, but level by level.

Your versions is logical and all, but what isn't? In the DMG says that if you make a class everyone wants to take it probably is broken, your rogue is even more tempting than the original one, it makes me say i don't like it.

The rogue no more is absolute in anything, but he is the only one that can be the best in it, and he can be the best in ALL of it, not like those aplying skills to wilderness lore to track, as they will be limited to hals what the ranger can have, paying double for the same...

Anyway, it is another version, good for you broken for us, maybe somone around here will say it nerfed... after all, it all depends on what you think the game should be, how it all should work and how you actually play the game...

Anyway, I don't mean to flame anyone, if I did, it is just that I am not very attentive these days...

 

[Shirt Guy John]

As I see it, the classes are all pretty great in 3.5. I like the changes to Barbarian that give him a bit more power a bit faster, and I just love the new Ranger, and frankly, I see no problem with the existing 3.5 rogue. While I never really think the concept of "every level needs to give you something cool" is a good justification of the placement of abilities, I don't find the rogue too "underpowered". I mean, heck, I've never even seen an "underpowered" rogue.

Still, I think Sonofa's alternate 3.5 rogue is just fine, if that's your bag. I don't think the Barb steps on anyone's toes still though.

I think I'll use the normal rogue myself, but if you all feel that it's absolutely necessary to change something that is really on par with the other classes more than it has ever been (okay, by ever I mean all of 3rd-3.5, 'cause that's all I've played with).

I think what people need to complain about the most is Power Attack, if anything. I mean... damn.

Oh, and the Paladin Mount thing... they could've maybe made that a bit more interesting if they'd tried. It does look like something you'd see as an ability in a Diablo game with mounts.