Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="sheadunne" data-source="post: 6178417" data-attributes="member: 27570">The issue with the rogue is that she plays like a martial, acts like a caster, and is all about the fluff. In my experience, the further you shift the rogue away from martial (removing sneak attack or reducing it) the more unsatisfying the class is to play. In 3.5 there were some fun feats that allowed the player to reduce sneak attack damage to add other effects. Aside from the crapy mechanic that you had to take a feat to do it, it was usually not in your best interest to do something other than straight up damage. D&amp;D has always been about the damage. If the choice is between killing the monster and knocking it down, killing it is usually your best option. If the feat instead allowed you to make a separate attack to knock down the target after the sneak attack, that would have been a little more fun for the cost of a feat. I just feel that exchanging the ability to do damage for something else is never a good idea, it certainly doesn't seem that way in 5e which focuses perhaps even more on dealing damage. I want the rogue to have fun and interesting things to do (caster) that support the design of the character (fluff), but still holds his own in a fight (martial). I'm just not sure D&amp;D has ever gotten it right with the inbetween classes (Rogue, Monk, Bard), and I think this is because in D&amp;D if you can't deal straight up damage (martial), you need to be able to affect multiple opponents at the same time (caster). Trading the rogues ability to deal straight up damage, for the ability to affect a single opponent doesn't feel like he's contributing very much in comparison, even if the rogue has mechanics that accurately reflect the fluff.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="sheadunne, post: 6178417, member: 27570"] The issue with the rogue is that she plays like a martial, acts like a caster, and is all about the fluff. In my experience, the further you shift the rogue away from martial (removing sneak attack or reducing it) the more unsatisfying the class is to play. In 3.5 there were some fun feats that allowed the player to reduce sneak attack damage to add other effects. Aside from the crapy mechanic that you had to take a feat to do it, it was usually not in your best interest to do something other than straight up damage. D&D has always been about the damage. If the choice is between killing the monster and knocking it down, killing it is usually your best option. If the feat instead allowed you to make a separate attack to knock down the target after the sneak attack, that would have been a little more fun for the cost of a feat. I just feel that exchanging the ability to do damage for something else is never a good idea, it certainly doesn't seem that way in 5e which focuses perhaps even more on dealing damage. I want the rogue to have fun and interesting things to do (caster) that support the design of the character (fluff), but still holds his own in a fight (martial). I'm just not sure D&D has ever gotten it right with the inbetween classes (Rogue, Monk, Bard), and I think this is because in D&D if you can't deal straight up damage (martial), you need to be able to affect multiple opponents at the same time (caster). Trading the rogues ability to deal straight up damage, for the ability to affect a single opponent doesn't feel like he's contributing very much in comparison, even if the rogue has mechanics that accurately reflect the fluff. [/QUOTE]

Verification