Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Revised Rogue Class
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marnak" data-source="post: 3589003" data-attributes="member: 24886"><p>Revised Rogue Class</p><p></p><p>A friend of mine and I have been complaining about the rogue for years. Although the character is seen as one of the four “core of the core” along with fighters, wizards, and clerics, we find this class to be far more expendable than the other three. Although the rogue gets the most skill points, trapfinding, and sneak attack, we find that these are all things that can be dispensed with much easier than healing, arcane casting, and the tank. Perhaps this is as it should be, the key to allowing some flexibility in a four-person party. However, I would like to see a party that drops the rogue suffer a bit more for the decision and, on the flip side, I would like for a party with a rogue be a little happier they have him or her along for the ride.</p><p></p><p>Furthermore, our idea of the iconic rogue is a non-spellcaster that lives more by his wits than by her or his brawn. In 3.5e game, this feature is rendered by sneak attack. To an extent this is a successful match for us because it does lead to the rogue characters thinking tactically, moving strategically, and it allows them to do great damage without great strength. But many situations limit even the most creative player from utilizing sneak attack and some creatures are, of course, immune to sneak attack damage. In adventures that feature undead, for example, rogues can become spectators that makes them feel like fifth wheels. Perhaps this happens to fighters in adventures that feature lots of diplomacy and little combat but combat is so important to DND that I don’t think the trade is an even one.</p><p></p><p>To right this problem, I propose a change that is relatively simple but one that I think goes a long way to making the rogue a better example of the “brains over brawn” character.</p><p></p><p>Proposed change: Rogues, and only rogues, can perform an additional move-equivalent action every round. They cannot make a move with this action nor can they employ this extra move-equivalent action and a full-round action, but a character could perform the following actions in a round:</p><p></p><p>Full Round Action.</p><p>Standard Action, Move Action, Move Equivalent Action.</p><p>Standard Action, Move Equivalent Action, Move Equivalent Action.</p><p>Move Action, Move Action, Move Equivalent Action.</p><p>Move Action, Move Equivalent Action, Move Equivalent Action.</p><p>Move Equivalent Action, Move Equivalent Action, Move Equivalent Action.</p><p></p><p>Rationale: The rogue character should be one that thinks creatively in combat, living by his or her wits. The problem in the current rules is that a person playing a rogue has no advantages other than sneak attack to do this. In many cases, a fighter character will have more options to respond creatively to a given encounter than the rogue who is boxed into the sneak attack or nothing route. This change gives the rogue a serious tactical advantage and encourages players of rogues to think creatively since the “extra” action cannot be an attack.</p><p></p><p>Balancing the New Rogue: I am not sure what would be needed to balance this new character, as an extra action is a pretty nice ability. Possibilities I have considered including either (a) eliminating sneak attack entirely (seems like this might be too much though), (b) reducing the rate by which sneak attack damage increases and/or delaying acquisition of sneak attack.</p><p></p><p>I welcome your thoughts and reactions.</p><p></p><p>Marnak</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marnak, post: 3589003, member: 24886"] Revised Rogue Class A friend of mine and I have been complaining about the rogue for years. Although the character is seen as one of the four “core of the core” along with fighters, wizards, and clerics, we find this class to be far more expendable than the other three. Although the rogue gets the most skill points, trapfinding, and sneak attack, we find that these are all things that can be dispensed with much easier than healing, arcane casting, and the tank. Perhaps this is as it should be, the key to allowing some flexibility in a four-person party. However, I would like to see a party that drops the rogue suffer a bit more for the decision and, on the flip side, I would like for a party with a rogue be a little happier they have him or her along for the ride. Furthermore, our idea of the iconic rogue is a non-spellcaster that lives more by his wits than by her or his brawn. In 3.5e game, this feature is rendered by sneak attack. To an extent this is a successful match for us because it does lead to the rogue characters thinking tactically, moving strategically, and it allows them to do great damage without great strength. But many situations limit even the most creative player from utilizing sneak attack and some creatures are, of course, immune to sneak attack damage. In adventures that feature undead, for example, rogues can become spectators that makes them feel like fifth wheels. Perhaps this happens to fighters in adventures that feature lots of diplomacy and little combat but combat is so important to DND that I don’t think the trade is an even one. To right this problem, I propose a change that is relatively simple but one that I think goes a long way to making the rogue a better example of the “brains over brawn” character. Proposed change: Rogues, and only rogues, can perform an additional move-equivalent action every round. They cannot make a move with this action nor can they employ this extra move-equivalent action and a full-round action, but a character could perform the following actions in a round: Full Round Action. Standard Action, Move Action, Move Equivalent Action. Standard Action, Move Equivalent Action, Move Equivalent Action. Move Action, Move Action, Move Equivalent Action. Move Action, Move Equivalent Action, Move Equivalent Action. Move Equivalent Action, Move Equivalent Action, Move Equivalent Action. Rationale: The rogue character should be one that thinks creatively in combat, living by his or her wits. The problem in the current rules is that a person playing a rogue has no advantages other than sneak attack to do this. In many cases, a fighter character will have more options to respond creatively to a given encounter than the rogue who is boxed into the sneak attack or nothing route. This change gives the rogue a serious tactical advantage and encourages players of rogues to think creatively since the “extra” action cannot be an attack. Balancing the New Rogue: I am not sure what would be needed to balance this new character, as an extra action is a pretty nice ability. Possibilities I have considered including either (a) eliminating sneak attack entirely (seems like this might be too much though), (b) reducing the rate by which sneak attack damage increases and/or delaying acquisition of sneak attack. I welcome your thoughts and reactions. Marnak [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Revised Rogue Class
Top