Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ferratus" data-source="post: 5835613" data-attributes="member: 55966">After awhile he does more damage, but he is crippled by the fact that he sneak attacks with light weapons, which means if he is doing x2 or x3 sneak attack, he's just getting parity with the fighter or barbarian's greataxe or two-hander and they can do that damage every round.&nbsp; Even at higher levels fighters have many feats which can also match the damage output of a rogue, without all the inconveniences of sneak attack.There are four ways to get off your sneak attack in 3e.&nbsp; 1) Flanking, which is difficult to pull off sometimes. 2) Feinting, which can be done once per encounter on a successful bluff check and 3) being hidden or invisible and 4) catching the opponents flat-footed with an initiative roll.In contrast in 4e, you can get bonus damage for doing a cheap shot when you have combat advantage, plus several combat maneuvers that allow you to gain combat advantage (ie. throwing dirt in their eyes).The 4e version seems both better from a balance standpoint, and matches the flavour of how a rogue would actually fight better as far as I can tell.Yes, but if we're going by that, the 1e/2e thief is better for skills.&nbsp; By mid levels they are getting a 95% chance of succeeding at pretty much all of their basic dungeon crawling skills.In contrast, the 3e thief is only really good at the skills he has hyper-specialized in, which is never quite enough skill points to do all the tasks.&nbsp; I also know I needed a feat tax of skill focus (spot) check in order to make my checks, so I guess I never played to high enough level to escape the level-based challenge horizon.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ferratus, post: 5835613, member: 55966"] After awhile he does more damage, but he is crippled by the fact that he sneak attacks with light weapons, which means if he is doing x2 or x3 sneak attack, he's just getting parity with the fighter or barbarian's greataxe or two-hander and they can do that damage every round. Even at higher levels fighters have many feats which can also match the damage output of a rogue, without all the inconveniences of sneak attack. There are four ways to get off your sneak attack in 3e. 1) Flanking, which is difficult to pull off sometimes. 2) Feinting, which can be done once per encounter on a successful bluff check and 3) being hidden or invisible and 4) catching the opponents flat-footed with an initiative roll. In contrast in 4e, you can get bonus damage for doing a cheap shot when you have combat advantage, plus several combat maneuvers that allow you to gain combat advantage (ie. throwing dirt in their eyes). The 4e version seems both better from a balance standpoint, and matches the flavour of how a rogue would actually fight better as far as I can tell. Yes, but if we're going by that, the 1e/2e thief is better for skills. By mid levels they are getting a 95% chance of succeeding at pretty much all of their basic dungeon crawling skills. In contrast, the 3e thief is only really good at the skills he has hyper-specialized in, which is never quite enough skill points to do all the tasks. I also know I needed a feat tax of skill focus (spot) check in order to make my checks, so I guess I never played to high enough level to escape the level-based challenge horizon. [/QUOTE]

Verification