Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ryltar" data-source="post: 5407997" data-attributes="member: 19393">With regard to 1., well, to each his own I guess. I've never had a problem with the Rogue's abilities.Regarding 2., I think that this is just part of the class design. If you want to go the way of the combat-effective rogue, the one who goes for all sneak attack, all the time, then you will have to design your character under the following premises:a) maximum mobility. 30 ft. movement is the least you need to have when going for melee; less is okay when building a ranged attacker.b) no fancy three-weapon-fighting stuff; just go for one weapon (because it has to hit in order to deal damage).c) player must be willing to play tactically.In my experience, many players have a misinformed view of what the Rogue actually is (as a class), which is at least in part influenced by their depiction in various video games. The rogue is NOT a two-weapon fighter that can hold his own (and throw some sneak attack in the mix). The rogue, as written, is not even necessarily a class focused on combat. He is a support character, pure and simple, and he can work as long as there is another character that draws enemies so the Rogue can flank around and harass them. I've seen more than one player get killed because they used their rogues to charge into the enemy's midst, then getting hacked to pieces while waiting for the 20-ft-movement fighter in heavy plate to catch up.Finally, regarding the view that SA is too situational, I feel that Paizo did a good job expanding the scope of sneak attacks so that the rogue isn't as automatically useless as he was in 3.5e sometimes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ryltar, post: 5407997, member: 19393"] With regard to 1., well, to each his own I guess. I've never had a problem with the Rogue's abilities. Regarding 2., I think that this is just part of the class design. If you want to go the way of the combat-effective rogue, the one who goes for all sneak attack, all the time, then you will have to design your character under the following premises: a) maximum mobility. 30 ft. movement is the least you need to have when going for melee; less is okay when building a ranged attacker. b) no fancy three-weapon-fighting stuff; just go for one weapon (because it has to hit in order to deal damage). c) player must be willing to play tactically. In my experience, many players have a misinformed view of what the Rogue actually is (as a class), which is at least in part influenced by their depiction in various video games. The rogue is NOT a two-weapon fighter that can hold his own (and throw some sneak attack in the mix). The rogue, as written, is not even necessarily a class focused on combat. He is a support character, pure and simple, and he can work as long as there is another character that draws enemies so the Rogue can flank around and harass them. I've seen more than one player get killed because they used their rogues to charge into the enemy's midst, then getting hacked to pieces while waiting for the 20-ft-movement fighter in heavy plate to catch up. Finally, regarding the view that SA is too situational, I feel that Paizo did a good job expanding the scope of sneak attacks so that the rogue isn't as automatically useless as he was in 3.5e sometimes. [/QUOTE]

Verification