Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7369055" data-attributes="member: 12731">He *is* useful to have around.It's just that in any round he rolls low and misses..&nbsp; He does nothing at all. It is extremely uncommon that any other character fails to do anything in a round (that would be the Druid when wildshaping against the wrong monster and not wishing to cast spells)You can't tell a wizard what spells to use. There's no &quot;should&quot;.In my case, the Sorcerer loves damage and only casts fire spells. Served him right against the Firenewts where he felt utterly useless! [emoji38] I think consensus is that if a class depends on solo play which is a boring time-waste to 5 out of 6 around the table, that design is faulty.As soon as combat ensues, everyone wants to participate. Not only is this fun, it is obviously less risky as well.D&amp;D doesn't work like real life. Had the game been less about hit point attrition and more like rocket tag, then maybe it would make sense to have a point man.But it doesn't.Besides, while surprise and stealth does enable a sneak attack, the melee rogue mainly depends on allies to get sneak. And he's way too squishy to function alone. (Not that any party member can stand up to the foes single-handedly)But no, the other players have not signed up for several rounds of sitting on hands while one player flits from shadow to shadow backstabbing the enemy. In a single-player game like Baldur's Gate it can be fun and exciting to explore ahead with your party thief, while the others stand behind. The computer doesn't mind. The computer isn't setting aside its Sundays for D&amp;D travelling 30 miles and abstaining from family activities just to swing a big axe.It is a group activity. Let's focus on ways to make the Rogue competitive in this group activity. [emoji4]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 7369055, member: 12731"] He *is* useful to have around. It's just that in any round he rolls low and misses.. He does nothing at all. It is extremely uncommon that any other character fails to do anything in a round (that would be the Druid when wildshaping against the wrong monster and not wishing to cast spells) You can't tell a wizard what spells to use. There's no "should". In my case, the Sorcerer loves damage and only casts fire spells. Served him right against the Firenewts where he felt utterly useless! [emoji38] I think consensus is that if a class depends on solo play which is a boring time-waste to 5 out of 6 around the table, that design is faulty. As soon as combat ensues, everyone wants to participate. Not only is this fun, it is obviously less risky as well. D&D doesn't work like real life. Had the game been less about hit point attrition and more like rocket tag, then maybe it would make sense to have a point man. But it doesn't. Besides, while surprise and stealth does enable a sneak attack, the melee rogue mainly depends on allies to get sneak. And he's way too squishy to function alone. (Not that any party member can stand up to the foes single-handedly) But no, the other players have not signed up for several rounds of sitting on hands while one player flits from shadow to shadow backstabbing the enemy. In a single-player game like Baldur's Gate it can be fun and exciting to explore ahead with your party thief, while the others stand behind. The computer doesn't mind. The computer isn't setting aside its Sundays for D&D travelling 30 miles and abstaining from family activities just to swing a big axe. It is a group activity. Let's focus on ways to make the Rogue competitive in this group activity. [emoji4] [/QUOTE]

Verification