Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mengu" data-source="post: 5903242" data-attributes="member: 65726">A bit of #1 concerns me: "If a rogue can't attack from behind or with some other key advantage, he or she might be better off withdrawing or remaining out of sight until the opportunity for a surprise attack presents itself." This just fails the 4e action economy lesson. A character is *almost never* better off not attacking. You can't have a two weapon ranger attacking twice a round, and a rogue attacking once every other round, and balance those two against each other.#2, not sure I totally agree with this either. Why can't a ranger be a better swimmer than a rogue? Why can't a fighter be a better mountaineer than a rogue? How does the rogue gain better knowledge of nature than the Druid, or better arcana than the wizard? The rogue is better at thievery than everyone else, sure I'll buy that, but not every skill.#3, is a good thing. They should keep literary rogue characters and their deeds in mind, when building the class. It's also kind of a given.#4... Whatever... It's all fluff. The numbers on the paper are not about the routine. They are about those stressful situations. In every edition of D&D, I've had skilled characters succeed at trivial stuff without rolls. This doesn't need to be a design goal, just a sentence in the DMG.</blockquote>