Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 8495842" data-attributes="member: 6801845">I have no problem that you think having advantage is good for the rogue. It's good for any PC that makes an attack roll.&nbsp; Whether it was the designers intent or not, some groups like the rogue having advantage frequently and steady aim gives them the option.&nbsp; What doesn't follow is that there's some magic mathematical formula out there that says they &quot;have to&quot; have advantage in order to compete.&nbsp; Early on in the release of 5E the designers said that the rogue is not to be the best martial damage dealer in the game, that's supposed to be the fighter.&nbsp; Rogues have more options out of combat options which balance it out.I've had rogues who only got advantage once in a while, they still worked just fine.&nbsp; Unless you're keeping track of damage every turn every combat I don't think there's enough of a difference to matter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 8495842, member: 6801845"] I have no problem that you think having advantage is good for the rogue. It's good for any PC that makes an attack roll. Whether it was the designers intent or not, some groups like the rogue having advantage frequently and steady aim gives them the option. What doesn't follow is that there's some magic mathematical formula out there that says they "have to" have advantage in order to compete. Early on in the release of 5E the designers said that the rogue is not to be the best martial damage dealer in the game, that's supposed to be the fighter. Rogues have more options out of combat options which balance it out. I've had rogues who only got advantage once in a while, they still worked just fine. Unless you're keeping track of damage every turn every combat I don't think there's enough of a difference to matter. [/QUOTE]

Verification