The martial Rogue
- Thread starter Tidus4444
- Start date
Mithreander
Explorer
10d12? Really, you don't think that's to much? Humm... Ipersonnaly think... it INSANE!
But that's just my opinion. Cheers!
But that's just my opinion. Cheers!
Norfleet
First Post
Yeah, 10d12 might be a little overdoing it. Even though in my hands, it only goes from a typical avg(or maybe constant, depending on how you look at it) 60 damage to an average 65 damage. You can have my d6 damage when you pry it from my cold dead hands.Mithreander said:10d12? Really, you don't think that's to much? Humm... Ipersonnaly think... it INSANE!
But that's just my opinion. Cheers!
CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
Frankly, I think this class is too powerful, considering the number of fighter/rogues I see and the comparitive power of this class over the traditional multiclass. A Ftr6/Rog14 in comparison:
Martial rogue: 4 BAB, 2 special abilities, +1 Ref, +3d6 sneak attack
Multiclass: Uncanny dodge, 10 skill points, 3 feats, +3 Fort
The 2 special abilities are better than 2 bonus fighter feats, but probably not as good as 3. The BAB, though, is extremely powerful -- +2 BAB is probably better than WF and GWF, especially considering how many rogues (in my experience, anmyway) are limited by attack bonus vs. single-classed fighters. (BAB doesn't allow WS, but is otherwise better -- especially as BAB and WF stack. The +4 BAB itself is likely better than the multiclass feats.)
Martial rogue: 4 BAB, 2 special abilities, +1 Ref, +3d6 sneak attack
Multiclass: Uncanny dodge, 10 skill points, 3 feats, +3 Fort
The 2 special abilities are better than 2 bonus fighter feats, but probably not as good as 3. The BAB, though, is extremely powerful -- +2 BAB is probably better than WF and GWF, especially considering how many rogues (in my experience, anmyway) are limited by attack bonus vs. single-classed fighters. (BAB doesn't allow WS, but is otherwise better -- especially as BAB and WF stack. The +4 BAB itself is likely better than the multiclass feats.)
Norfleet
First Post
The cutpoint for fighter/rogues is 4/16. At 4 levels of fighter, 16 rogue, you'll have the 4 base attacks, pick up an extra +1d6 in sneak attack damage, and no loss in feats (Fighter feat subbed for rogue SA, which is better, since rogue SA includes "feat").CRGreathouse said:
CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
Norfleet said:
OK, so use a Ftr4/Rog16. The martial rogue is still better... much better, IMO. The numbers work out somewhat differently, but it's still no balanced.
CRGreathouse said:
Better at what, is the question.
The martial rogue is going to have 4 points more BAB. The ftr/rogue is going to have 32 more skill points, uncanny dodge, improved UD, and trap sense. Because of multiclassing quirks, he's also going to have a higher Fort save.
Depending on which version we're talking about, the martial rogue also gets better sneak attacks (d12 is probably too much, but d8 should be okay), but loses out on the rogue's high-level special abilities.
So the martial rogue can kill stuff easier than the ftr/rogue. You would expect that; that's why it's called a _martial_ rogue. In return, the ftr/rogue is probably going to be better at detecting and disabling traps, escaping ambushes, talking to people, sneaking around, and generally doing rogueish things.
Which is as it should be. The martial rogue's schtick is not that of a straight rogue. If you want to sneak around, spy on people, steal their valuables, but not engage in needless killing, then the rogue is still going to be better.
Now, it's true that many D&D campaigns _do_ engage in lots of killing, but that basically points to deficiencies in the rogue class when thrown into such campaigns. You wouldn't expect a bard to be very good in a high-violence campaign, and the rogue doesn't fare that well either. Which doesn't mean that you can't attempt to address these deficiencies.
