Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="reapersaurus" data-source="post: 805905" data-attributes="member: 1194">Funny you mentioned me, of all people, Corlo - you have a good memory.I happened to wander in and see this thread, and especially the request as to where this anti-rogue bias comes from, and corlo is correct in his paraphrasing of me.Lord Darkon - The point is not that there are things that are immune to sneak attack : the point is that there shouldn't NEED to be things that are immune to sneak attack.DM's should not have to rely on using creatures that are immune just to let the fighters do significantly more damage than a power-gamed rogue can do.Just because you haven't used the rogues powers in combat much does not mean that others haven't...  or that you couldn't.The main problem is that they are dominant out of combat (due to the insanely more skill points they get than the vast majority of other classes, AND the incredible range of class skills), while they still can compete quite well in a normal combat with the fighter.ALL a fighter-type can do is fight. They are pretty worthless out of combat (where most gaming nowadays takes place; I know that's somewhat new, but I firmly believe that to be the case). A rogue is far from worthless in combat.Basically, it's this simple : if a rogue was proportionally as bad IN combat as a fighter is OUT of combat, he'd do 15% as much damage as the fighter does.</blockquote>