Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mengu" data-source="post: 5903352" data-attributes="member: 65726">I understand that, I just don't understand how a rogue that focuses on something like nature is going to be better than a druid, at nature. This all inclusive statement just doesn't work for me. Even in skills that are more natural to the rogue like climbing, I don't understand why a goliath fighter who grew up and was trained in the mountains couldn't be the rogue's equal.Four chances to hit, verses one chance to hit is a big difference, even if the damage expressions were the same. And if damage expressions are somehow the same after calculating in all the math for static modifiers and multiple chances to hit, there will be an awkward balance for monsters this time, because of the disparity in amount of damage that can be done during an action. It is not a simple matter. Perhaps I should have said "would be challenging to balance" rather than, could not be balanced.I would say the opposite. Rogue is the ultimate adventuring class, and is indispensable as such. Fighter is just a dude with a weapon and armor, and could be replaced by practically anything. Not that I would want to, because dude with a weapon and armor is a very basic archetype.</blockquote>