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

[Darkness]

BTW, FYI: I moved this thread to House Rules.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

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

Also, I didn't say that the rogue was prevented from using Sneak Attack every battle. I said that there were plenty of ways to prevent it and gave examples.

OK, then. I agree with that. Plus I think it the DM should actually cross the rogue sometimes by robbing him of sneak attack. But it should not be to often. The same goes for all the other strenghts of all the classes. On the other hand, everyone should get the chance to really shine from time to time. It's nice to throw a horde of mooks at the party so they can really smash them without problem. If it is done only occasionally, it's OK.

be more concerned about the general elimination of exclusive skills.

Now we can look forward to the fighter with ranks in Use Magic Device.

That's one of the changes I really don't like. Sure, the exclusive skill part had it's problems, but I think it was there for a reason.

I like what they did to animal empathy: No more exclusive skill mechanic, but still it's something only the right people get. The other exclusive skills are handled OK, too. Except Use Magic Device.

A possible solution would have been something like the trapfinding ability: You can take UMD, but only rogues and bards get the full mileage out of it.

Somehow I doubt that you're going to be seeing a lot of fighters spending their two skill points per level on a cross-class skill.

Hm... depending on the type of character you play, there might be nothing on the fighter list which interests you anyway. And then there's these hordes of rog/ftr characters out there. Even with a single level of rogue you can max it out (albeit at double cost).

Don't forget that it's two plus INT (and maybe +1 in the case of humans.)

KaeYoss.

What niche?

The rogue used to be quintessential evader of traps. Not anymore. The barbarian's highly lauded *instincts* are just as good at it.

Stupid rogues are evaders of traps. Smart rogues find and disarm these traps (and that's still their domain)

Plus the rogue has a better reflex save bonus and higher dexterity (at least usually, since barbarians concentrate on str and con) so he still beats the barbarian to it.

The rogue used to be the undisputed master of skills. Not anymore. The bard and ranger have closed the skill point gap on rogues considerably.

They still get 2 points more than bards or rangers, and still they have a big class skill list (although the bard is bigger than the rogues, but that's only because of the many knowledge skills and the spellcaster skills).

The bard (I assume you mean rogue)used to be the one character who could somehow get out of any pinch better than all others. Not anymore. The barbarian beats the rogue to it in melee.

You do know that even in 3.0 the barbarian got uncanny dodge earlier than the rouge. The fact that in 3.5 the rogue gets these things a little later doesn't change that. Plus, after level 8 it doesn't matter anymore.

The rogue no longer holds dominion over these familiar grounds. They are forced to hang on their hopes on Sneak Attack in order to be unique. A pathetic lot for a character to be sure. Now they now have to largely share their uniqueness, diminishing their niche significantly.

The rogue still holds dominion over these grounds. The fact that the others caught up a bit doesn't change that.
And even in 3.0 others came close to the rogue in many of these things. The rogues uniqueness came from: Sneak Attack, Trapfinding, Special Abilities, and the combination of a number of features which no other class unified: Very many class skills, a high number of skill points, uncanny dodge (in all instances), and evasion.

Is he still the only one who can really take advantage of a distracted or unvary foe? Yes.
Is he still the only one who can effectively find and disarm traps without tossing tanks or enemies down every corridor? Oh yea.
Is he still the one with the most skill points, and with the greatest class skill list (if you don't count knowledge skills as different skills)= Yes.
Is he still the only one with these nice abilities he can choose from (barring PrC's), like improved evasion, roll with the blow, skill mastery, slippery mind, crippling strike? Yes.
Is he still the only one who gets evasion AND uncanny dodge (which is ud iud and ts now). Sure.

You see, the rogue doesn't have to depend solely on his sneak attack to be unique. Far from it.

These changes are no different than when version 3.0 allowed *any* character who took the Track feat, and bought up ranks of Wilderness Lore, to follow prey with the exact same expertise as a ranger.

Sure, but at a higher cost. They had to "waste" a feat for it and get ranks in a skill that was cross-class for them.

They not only can, they already are. That would be the point of giving rogues Uncanny Dodge in the first place, to reverse apply sneak attack, except that now barbarians arrive there first. Bad form. Rogues should get there first, and at the very least, the same time as barbarians.

Once again: if the ability to make sneak attack would imply that you know how to defend against these, too, it would not be an extra ability! It would rather be included in sneak attack, like: "This gives you 1d6 extra damage per two levels. Plus, if you are sneak attacked, the same amount of extra dice are subtracted from the enemies dice pool". But it isn't, meaning that the ability to make sneak attacks and the ability to defeat them are two different abilities.

Plus, uncanny dodge isn't the reverse appliance of sneak attack, that's only an indirect effect. It rather makes you keep your dex bonus when caught flat-footed and keeps you from getting flanked. Both things allow a rogue to make sneak attacks, sure, but uncanny dodge also protects you against people without sneak attack who just want to get a better chance to hit you. Also, even with uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge, you can still be sneak attacked. You just have to be immobilized somehow or he has to succeed in a feint. Or he has to get blink.

Yet again, another misuse of the word ?trolling?. I reply to challenges and defend my statements. The word you are searching for is not *trolling*. It's articulate.

I'm not searching for anything. You put things wrong and ignore those who put them right. You repeat your claims over and over. This are the signs adventurers look for to break out the alchemist's napalm.

This thread is no longer about whether or not my particular revision of the rogue is best. Take my revision or take another. Whichever you prefer. But the rogue already needs to be revised again. That is the problem. Identifying broken rules most certainly belongs in the rules forum.

Except, they aren't broken. Neither are they nerfed.

 

[Kastil]

IMO, there should be something for rogues, who more often than not live in cities, to know the place like the back of their hand. Sure you can spend the skill points on Knowledge of the area I guess.

I don't much care that they lump Read Lips into Spot. I made my rogue the Diplomatic/Sneaky kind not the "Hey there's a trap. Send Kastil up here!" ::grimaces::

I was also the 'leader'. Sneaking ahead and making sure the coast was clear. The ranger sure wasn't doing it!

Rogues to me avoid fighting and Dodging would ge a long way for that. I mean, we have Sneak Attack for goodness sakes! Hardly straight forward! Barbarians, on the other hand, I think need it as well. They're true warriors in the sense that they go all out, IMO, but they're not going to stand there and get pummeled either.

While I'll not stand on the street corner praising the books I dropped my hard earned cash for I can do one thing. Bend a little and find the best of both worlds and come to an agreement with the players in my group. It all comes down to balance. If I let one person have this, will it make the party unbalanced hence cause hate and discontent?

Hmmmm, good sir? Would kindly remove this thing from about my neck? It does chafe ever so badly......

 

[Technik4]

Last Reply from Me

rogues should be the one character class most attuned to such dangers, as they are the ones who regularly scout ahead into it.

Didn't you say something about stereotypes? What about the rogues that go all cha and int-based skills? Are they still the scouts? I think youre trying to pigeon-hole a flexible class. Why should a rogue get camoflauge or Hide in Plain Sight if he doesnt even have any ranks in Hide (not a prerequisite for being a rogue)?

While the character is suboptimal from a BAB standpoint, they possess a host of abilities and are exceedingly resourceful… unrealistically so.

They possess a host of weak abilities. So if I was DMing I would feel bad for the character and the character would probably get bored. Once the group got past the "wow - you can do that too?" factor, it would get retired quickly.

Why bother when you pick it up in 2 levels with the monk.

Remember earlier when I was talking about multiclassing? Its extermely easy to take rogue levels to fulfill a concept, after all the class is so broad that you can be anything from a physician to a burglar to an ambassador to a locksmith, etc etc. Barbarian is less broad, you are sort of stuck being more primitive and the rage ability isnt nearly as vague as the sneak attack. Then you get to Monk, well this is pretty specific at this point. You probably trained at a monastary, many of your abilities are picked for you (or in 3.5 you have an option with 2 choices). So it is not just a simple thing to pick up 2 monk levels over 2 rogue levels, not even going into monk multiclass restrictions.

On a conceptual level, before any mechanical changes were made to the rogue, the designers really needed to keep in mind that rogues are the quintessential trapfinders and defusers. They didn't do that here. The ability to detect traps is now equally shared with barbarians.

You've got to be kidding. Barbarians can't find traps. Barbarians can't defuse traps. Hell, barbarians don't even detect traps (as a cleric spell does). Barbarians won't be pointing out a trap down the hall, or anything like that. All a barbarian can do that he couldn't before is react to a trap better. This is a function of the Uncanny Dodge Mechanic. Maybe it would be easier to take this away from the barb in your campaign instead of inflating the rogue?

And as Ive said at least twice, a barbarian won't even react as well as a rogue as they have a Poor reflex save. The trap sense ability is just giving them a fighting chance at dodging a high level trap, its not putting them on par with the rogue who will have a good reflex save and probably evasion to completely avoid the effects. Sheesh.

(by logical reverse application of their skills)

This is still baloney. I know that punching someone in the kidney would hurt them a lot, I have no clue how to go about defending myself so that someone couldn't do the same to me. I can give you more applicable examples for every "burglar alarm" story you can cook up. Oh, but you shouldn't even have to explain this, its so logical and all.

You can point to their skill points, but the ranger and bard have closed that gap on that as well.

Except that both the bard and the ranger have at least 1 skill they have to put points in just to power a class ability. In fact, the ranger has 2 - Survival for tracking and Handle Animal for Wild Empahty. So much for all those skill points. A bard has to put at least 1 in perform every level to use abilities, and as many debates have raged on, they probably will want 2 or even 3 perform skills maxed (even though this is a poor way to spend points). So no, the rogue hasn't been replaced as the ultimate-skill whore, not even speaking of his list which is fatter than the rangers by far, and a little chubbier than the bard's.

Making rogues superior trap finders and uncanny dodgers, who are at least *on par* with barbarians, is the least that can be done.

They aren't on par, they are better. It has been done.

The rogue used to be quintessential evader of traps. Not anymore. The barbarian's highly lauded *instincts* are just as good at it.
The rogue used to be the undisputed master of skills. Not anymore. The bard and ranger have closed the skill point gap on rogues considerably.
The bard used to be the one character who could somehow get out of any pinch better than all others. Not anymore. The barbarian beats the rogue to it in melee.

See above. This is hogwash.

These changes are no different than when version 3.0 allowed *any* character who took the Track feat, and bought up ranks of Wilderness Lore, to follow prey with the exact same expertise as a ranger. Sure, it cost more to buy up that skill (except for the barbarian and druid), but it was possible.

So it was unbalanced that conceivably anyone could track without taking *1* level of ranger by paying twice as much for it (except the "other" wilderness characters, Druid and Barbarian)? Ridiculous. Its totally balanced, we aren't talking about the pinnacle of ranger-dom here, we're talking about tracking someone. If you took the track feat and bought those ranks you DESERVE to track as well as a ranger.

Now a similar encroachment problem has been created with the rogue. It was a bad call.

Really? Is sneak attack a feat? What about Trap-finding? Trap-sense? Uncanny Dodge? Evasion? None of those are feats eh? Well then how can someone (anyone?) encroach on the rogue? Where is the bad call? Oh, is it because *1* class got an ability that won't even be used to the extent the rogues will?

To sum up, as others have said, the rogue is fine, the barbarian is fine. Its totally cool that the barbarian gets a couple UDodge abilities a little earlier because it makes multiclassing into a rogue even more difficult (in terms of how many levels you take - 1 for skills and sneak, 2 for Evasion, 3 for more sneak attack in addition to the other benefits, 4 for UDodge, 5 for more sneak, etc. Before you know it, we'll all be rogues).

The rogue is the master of skills, sneak attack, and trap-finding, disarming, setting, and evasion. Leave it alone.

Technik out

 

[sinmissing]

Skill points next to special class abilities? Sorry, but characters can get by with barely any skills at all.

I'm not criticizing anyone here, but Sonofapreacherman is arguing from a "Style of Play" rather than a "Style of Rules" viewpoint. If the games that he participates in doesn't value skills, then his changes seem perfectly reasonable. In my game, and the games I play in, the addition of Skills in 3e is the only reason I came back to the D&D.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I'm not criticizing anyone here, but Sonofapreacherman is arguing from a "Style of Play" rather than a "Style of Rules" viewpoint. If the games that he participates in doesn't value skills, then his changes seem perfectly reasonable. In my game, and the games I play in, the addition of Skills in 3e is the only reason I came back to the D&D.

Well, they don't base rules on pure hack&slash. That's what diablo 2 is for. They base it on wholesome roleplaying.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

There are a lot of changes that either directly or indirectly change the rogue.
...
You are no longer the best face-man. The Bard takes that away now that they have more skill points
...
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.

I'm sorry, the bard is "taking away" the job of faceman? The rogue making a better face than the bard was a problem, one which hasn't fully been rectified IMO. (I'll still houserule out some of the rogues class skills.) Its certainly not something the rogue needs or deserves.

Now the bard is slightly caught up in skill points but still has no social skills the rogue doesn't too and is possibly less useful in combat due to spell list changes. I'd say in the average campaign, "underpowered" and "less incentive to play" re not problems for the rogue. And in a campaign where those are problems, there are classes hit much worse.

Kahuna burger

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Plus the rogue has a better reflex save bonus and higher dexterity (at least usually, since barbarians concentrate on str and con) so he still beats the barbarian to it.

Reflex counts for nothing when you're dealing with traps that target your AC. The difference of a couple Dexterity points matters very little, especially when the barbarian has twice as many hit points over the rogue (on the rare occasion that the trap actually hits).

They still get 2 points more than bards or rangers, and still they have a big class skill list (although the bard is bigger than the rogues, but that's only because of the many knowledge skills and the spellcaster skills).

Which is another way of sarcastically saying... big flipping deal.

You do know that even in 3.0 the barbarian got uncanny dodge earlier than the rouge.

I'm well aware of that fact. Hence my reason for changing it then too. In fact, the only two characters that I never modified in 3.0 were the cleric and wizard.

The fact that in 3.5 the rogue gets these things a little later doesn't change that. Plus, after level 8 it doesn't matter anymore.

So what? That's just a mechanic. The order makes no sense on a conceptual level. I rogue should earn those at the same time (at the very least).

Sure, but at a higher cost. They had to "waste" a feat for it and get ranks in a skill that was cross-class for them.

The issue was never "how much other characters had to waste in order to keep up with the ranger". It was the fact that other characters could be the ranger's equal at something that the ranger should be unequaled at doing. Now the barbarian is the rogues equal at sensing traps and more skilled at avoiding flatfootedness sooner in levels. Both are abilities where the rogue *should not* be contested.

Once again: if the ability to make sneak attack would imply that you know how to defend against these, too, it would not be an extra ability! It would rather be included in sneak attack, like: "This gives you 1d6 extra damage per two levels.

But it wasn't. It was folded in uncanny dodge instead.

Plus, uncanny dodge isn't the reverse appliance of sneak attack, that's only an indirect effect.

Indirect? Who are you kidding? It was by design. That's the whole point.

Both things allow a rogue to make sneak attacks, sure, but uncanny dodge also protects you against people without sneak attack who just want to get a better chance to hit you.

That's funny. When was last time you saw a fighter sacrifice their multiple attacks per round to perform one feint in combat and hit a rogue? Now another rogue with sneak attack...

I'm not searching for anything. You put things wrong and ignore those who put them right.

I can't help if you choose to be oblivious to my counterpoints. And I only repeat those points when people start arguing with issues that have long since been addressed (having only skim read the thread). I won't take the blame for them either.

-----

Originally posted by Technik4
Didn't you say something about stereotypes? What about the rogues that go all cha and int-based skills? Are they still the scouts? I think youre trying to pigeon-hole a flexible class. Why should a rogue get camoflauge or Hide in Plain Sight if he doesnt even have any ranks in Hide (not a prerequisite for being a rogue)?

Here we go again...

You mean like rogues who can detect magical traps even though they haven't taken any ranks in Search? I'm not trying to pigeon hole anybody. Their rules have already done that. You *choose* a rogue already *knowing* that they are trapfinders.

Originally posted by Technik4
They possess a host of weak abilities. So if I was DMing I would feel bad for the character and the character would probably get bored. Once the group got past the "wow - you can do that too?" factor, it would get retired quickly.

The fact that you would even allow a character to multiclass in such a fashion (5 first level classes in five levels), speak volumes.

Does anybody role play anymore???

Originally posted by Technik4
So it is not just a simple thing to pick up 2 monk levels over 2 rogue levels, not even going into monk multiclass restrictions.

Not the way you make it sound. See above. It's either difficult to multiclass or isn't. Choose one. You can't sit on both sides of the fence.

Originally posted by Technik4
And as Ive said at least twice, a barbarian won't even react as well as a rogue as they have a Poor reflex save.

I know. And both you and KaeYoss ignored the traps that target AC. Dexterity scores do not divided the rogue and barbarian apart so much at that point.

Originally posted by Technik4
Really? Is sneak attack a feat? What about Trap-finding? Trap-sense? Uncanny Dodge? Evasion? None of those are feats eh? Well then how can someone (anyone?) encroach on the rogue?

The same goes for Tracking, and yet somehow the ranger was encroached upon because of that one point. I have never said that *all* of the rogues abilities are being encroached, so don't exaggerate for meaningless effect. I have said that *quintessential rogue abilities* have been encroached upon by other characters. I have then listed those abilities.

Originally posted by Technik4
Its totally cool that the barbarian gets a couple UDodge abilities a little earlier because it makes multiclassing into a rogue even more difficult (in terms of how many levels you take - 1 for skills and sneak, 2 for Evasion, 3 for more sneak attack in addition to the other benefits, 4 for UDodge, 5 for more sneak, etc. Before you know it, we'll all be rogues).

Sophistry; although really not that clever. If you are foolish enough to cherry pick classes during your early fast levels, and lenient enough to allow it as a DM, then enjoy the chaos you sow in your own games. To each their own.

You made a few more points about that I already addressed with KaeYoss. Read my replies to him for your answers.

------

sinmissing.

Thanks for dropping in, but in all honestly, I enjoy skills just a much as you do. I consider them one of the best designed additions of the game. I have simply found that even the most well-meaning DM rarely uses more than a handful of skill checks. When I DM, I use them all the time, but that hasn't been the standard in my experiences.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The difference of a couple Dexterity points matters very little, especially when the barbarian has twice as many hit points over the rogue

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.

The issue was never "how much other characters had to waste in order to keep up with the ranger". It was the fact that other characters could be the ranger's equal at something that the ranger should be unequaled at doing.

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)?

But it wasn't. It was folded in uncanny dodge instead.

See? This proofs that uncanny dodge has nothing to do with sneak attacks.

Indirect? Who are you kidding? It was by design. That's the whole point.

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

That's funny. When was last time you saw a fighter sacrifice their multiple attacks per round to perform one feint in combat and hit a rogue? Now another rogue with sneak attack...

I ask you what does that have to do with uncanny dodge? Cause uncanny dodge won't help you against a feint. It will help you if the fighter wins initiative and attacks you, or if that invisible stalker strikes you.

I can't help if you choose to be oblivious to my counterpoints.

I'm not oblivious to your counterpoints. It's just that your counterpoints don't maky any sense.

You mean like rogues who can detect magical traps even though they haven't taken any ranks in Search? I'm not trying to pigeon hole anybody. Their rules have already done that. You *choose* a rogue already *knowing* that they are trapfinders.

Potential trapfinders. If you won't take ranks in search, you won't be very good at it.
Any other character with godlike intelligence and full ranks in search, on the other hand, will still be no good trapfinder, cause he simply cannot find these traps, except for those who are easiest to find.

Now the rules don't "pigeon hole" you to become a rogue trapfinder. They give you the potential to do so. If you want to be good at defeating traps (the rogue way, not the barbarian or tank way), you can be as a rogue. If you don't want, it's no big deal.

The fact that you would even allow a character to multiclass in such a fashion (5 first level classes in five levels), speak volumes.

Does anybody role play anymore???

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. Instead of telling you that you are using inflated examples, we simply took your example apart, showing that it was not proof for powergaming, but for a really poor attempt to present and über-charakter.

I know. And both you and KaeYoss ignored the traps that target AC. Dexterity scores do not divided the rogue and barbarian apart so much at that point.

babarians 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. So we're two points apart, maybe three, in the armor bonus to AC. Rogues usually compensate that with their dexterity.

This means that barbarians and rogues are more or less equally good at avoiding traps that use attack rolls. Rogues are still vastly superior at avoiding traps that require a reflex save (both for their higher reflex bonuses and because of their evasion), AND have the potential to actually find and disable the traps (requiring no reflex save or high AC), which the barbarian cannot.

The same goes for Tracking, and yet somehow the ranger was encroached upon because of that one point.

Tracking is not the sole domain of the ranger, and never was. But now it's far easier for him to become a good tracker (just as it is far easier for a rogue to become good at defeating traps than is anyone else. That hasn't changed at all. See above).

I have never said that *all* of the rogues abilities are being encroached, so don't exaggerate for meaningless effect. I have said that *quintessential rogue abilities* have been encroached upon by other characters. I have then listed those abilities.

These are things that have already been encroached upon. He still is best at all of them, and still he is the only one who has them all. And still he has a couple of things exclusively (and these things haven't changed, haven't become more or less since 3.0)

Sophistry; although really not that clever. If you are foolish enough to cherry pick classes during your early fast levels, and lenient enough to allow it as a DM, then enjoy the chaos you sow in your own games. To each their own.

I haven't read a single clever thing coming from you on the whole board. And I did read it from front to back.

Of course players can cherry pick classes. They just have to watch out for XP penalties. Humans (and half-elves) can cherry pick much easier, but that's their shtick.

And it's not foolish. It's what multiclassing is about. 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. If one level or two levels of rogue are enough to get the things your character is supposed to have, it's OK.

I have simply found that even the most well-meaning DM rarely uses more than a handful of skill checks. When I DM, I use them all the time, but that hasn't been the standard in my experiences.

We use them all the time. Emphasis is on we. If you never say you use skills, how can the DM call on skill checks? (beyond the usual ones. Spot and listen checks for example. are for the DM to call, and in the campaigns I play in, they do call for spot and listen checks) If someone talks to me and I don't say that I'll use a sense motive check, the DM assumes that I don't pay attention whether he is honest or not. If I don't say I search, I cannot get search checks. (unless we're talking invisible doors and elves here) The players have to decide what they do.

I'm playing a rogue right now with a truckload of skill points in a lot of skills, and I use them all the time.

 

[Al]

I think that this slightly spiralled off-topic.

Though I'm argued ad nauseam with Sonofapreacherman before (the paladin PrC yawn!) I think that I'm inclined to like his changes.

The fact is: SoaPM's changes are *not a big deal*. This thread is not about the power of the rogue (which is probably more or less ok IMO in either edition, perhaps a tad on the weak side in 3.5e but not enough to cry about), the broken-ness of Evasion, sneak attack smackdowns or whether the bard or the rogue is a better face man (hint: in 3.5e, usually the bard).

He moved Uncanny Dodge a couple of levels earlier (and only one level earlier vis-a-vis 3.0e) and gave them a bit more of trap sense. So what?

The point is, as many people have pointed out, that the rogue is about more than just Uncanny Dodge and Trap Sense. They get sneak attack, the best skills of any class, Evasion and nifty high-level abilities. That is the point of the rogue. The precise level that Uncanny Dodge kicks in is, broadly speaking, irrelevant.

As for concern about 'cherry-picking' of multiclassing with rogues, I highly doubt it. 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: wizards can smile at the Wis bonus to AC; tanks enjoy fast movement and everyone benefits from the better saves and hit dice. Are eight skill points and some sneak attack worth the exchange? Hard to call, but a moot point anyway. If people wanted to spuriously multiclass, you have to close off lots of avenues (Pal1/SorX anyone? Mnk1/Seer (wisdom-based psion)X?). As a self-contained class, SoaPM's rogue is hardly overpowered. I see no problem with it.