Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3828531" data-attributes="member: 22779">See, Celebrim, you're effectively saying that to play an effective rogue, you should *not* play a rogue.&nbsp; That it's perfectly okay for the rules to completely hose a character class because, by choosing elements outside of that class, you can get around being hosed.To me, it would be a FAR simpler fix to add the following line to the rogue:&nbsp; &quot;When you flank a creature or when the creature is denied its Dex bonus, you gain your sneak attack bonus damage.&quot;&nbsp; No exceptions.&nbsp; The only reason there is an exception is because of legacy rules from earlier editions where backstab required a &quot;visible anatomy&quot; or some such wording.Why?&nbsp; Why should large numbers of creatures be immune to the rogue?&nbsp; Is the rogue class so overpowered that it needs this limitation?&nbsp; Would making constructs and undead subject to sneak attack unbalance the game?&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Why is it ok to sneak attack a dire lion, but not a zombie?&nbsp; There's no real reason, other than legacy rules.Eject the legacy rules and now your rogue character can actually be equally viable in all situations.&nbsp; He's not more powerful than he was before.&nbsp; He's not gaining anything really.&nbsp; He's just stopped being baggage whenever a zombie pops up.To me, that's pretty simple.BTW, for your edification, here is the character sheet in question:&nbsp; <a href="http://www.coyotecode.net/profiler/view.php?id=1057" target="_blank">Milo</a>Also note, this is the first adventure to feature large numbers of constructs and the like, and, we had no warning that this would happen.&nbsp; Previous adventures had little or no undead or constructs (although, I do remember a shambling mound <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )&nbsp; So, there was no real reason to build an &quot;anti-undead&quot; rogue.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3828531, member: 22779"] See, Celebrim, you're effectively saying that to play an effective rogue, you should *not* play a rogue. That it's perfectly okay for the rules to completely hose a character class because, by choosing elements outside of that class, you can get around being hosed. To me, it would be a FAR simpler fix to add the following line to the rogue: "When you flank a creature or when the creature is denied its Dex bonus, you gain your sneak attack bonus damage." No exceptions. The only reason there is an exception is because of legacy rules from earlier editions where backstab required a "visible anatomy" or some such wording. Why? Why should large numbers of creatures be immune to the rogue? Is the rogue class so overpowered that it needs this limitation? Would making constructs and undead subject to sneak attack unbalance the game? Why? Why is it ok to sneak attack a dire lion, but not a zombie? There's no real reason, other than legacy rules. Eject the legacy rules and now your rogue character can actually be [u]equally[/u] viable in all situations. He's not more powerful than he was before. He's not gaining anything really. He's just stopped being baggage whenever a zombie pops up. To me, that's pretty simple. BTW, for your edification, here is the character sheet in question: [url=http://www.coyotecode.net/profiler/view.php?id=1057]Milo[/url] Also note, this is the first adventure to feature large numbers of constructs and the like, and, we had no warning that this would happen. Previous adventures had little or no undead or constructs (although, I do remember a shambling mound :) ) So, there was no real reason to build an "anti-undead" rogue. [/QUOTE]

Verification