Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 7196494" data-attributes="member: 5100">Because the Rogue is a skill-monkey class that has moments of greatness in combat.The Fighter should have a pretty level (but high) damage output. The Rogue should be lower, with periodic spikes that freak the Fighter out. Every one of those spikes should be accompanied by stealth, a trick maneuver, or something else that sets the attack off from the norm. A certain amount of that could be narrative, rather than making the player go through some sort of Deceive/Attack routine. Your 90 vs 125 sounds about the right ratio, from the hip. What I might be more inclined to do would be to make it harder to get a sneak attack, but raise the damage done when it does happen.... maybe.Or, to your first point, if I were to change something about the class, it would be to move sneak attack to a secondary ability with the focus returning to skills, movement tricks, etc. I wouldn't knock it down to anything like a ribbon ability. I'd just make it clear that the class is what you play when your character is skillful. If you want to be a fighter, then play a Fighter. There should be absolutely no confusion about whether a duelist subclass would go under Fighter or Rogue -- it's a Fighter.Really, though, I have a problem with any class that can outfight a Fighter. That's literally the class's name. Everyone else gets tricks that may help in combat, but not to the point of overshadowing the Fighter. Paladins should probably be the second strongest fighters, but they get toys like spells, healing, and turning undead, not just smite.If I were to list the classes based on potential to use a weapon (or fist) to kill something, I'd probably do it this way:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Fighter</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Paladin</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">gap</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Ranger</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Rogue</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Monk (tied with Rogue?)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Valor Bard (tied with Monk?)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Cleric</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Druid</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Warlock</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Lore Bard</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">gap</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Sorcerer</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Wizard</li> </ol>Absent from the list is Barbarian, which I don't think warrants its own class. FWIW, I think Cleric is the most screwed up of the remaining classes.Note that this includes anything related directly to combat (melee or ranged), including AC, hit points, damage output, weapon selection, buffs, etc. It does not include things like setting traps, being able to sneak, etc. When the player makes the effort to use the surroundings and list of skills, the Ranger and Rogue should rock. If the Rogue gets a chance to ambush, it should pretty much be game over. The Ranger isn't a wilder-ninja, but jumps above Paladin if they get to ambush.</blockquote>

Verification