Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 6687153" data-attributes="member: 63508">[MENTION=6786252]Mephista[/MENTION]My point is &quot;Why does the fighter get 2 nearly flavorless, generic subclasses but the rogue gets none?&quot;People always say the bueaty of the fighter subclasses is that practically any nonmagical warrior can be a champion or a battle master from legionnaires, knights, cavaliers, pikemen, pirate captains, warlords, and fencers. My response is why not rogue. Why isn't there a Class-Rogue, Subclass-Sneaky Guy that fits all nonwarrioe sneaky guys?Many say its the thief and I mostly agree. My gripes is the focus on thieves tools for Cunning Action and UMD. Those feel too defining for Joe Everyrogue. Its also purely D&amp;D gimmicks.Personally I don't think a generic is really needed. Adding a swashbuckler, acrobat, and alchemist to the rogue subclasses would fill out 99.9% of rogues in fantasy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Minigiant, post: 6687153, member: 63508"] [MENTION=6786252]Mephista[/MENTION] My point is "Why does the fighter get 2 nearly flavorless, generic subclasses but the rogue gets none?" People always say the bueaty of the fighter subclasses is that practically any nonmagical warrior can be a champion or a battle master from legionnaires, knights, cavaliers, pikemen, pirate captains, warlords, and fencers. My response is why not rogue. Why isn't there a Class-Rogue, Subclass-Sneaky Guy that fits all nonwarrioe sneaky guys? Many say its the thief and I mostly agree. My gripes is the focus on thieves tools for Cunning Action and UMD. Those feel too defining for Joe Everyrogue. Its also purely D&D gimmicks. Personally I don't think a generic is really needed. Adding a swashbuckler, acrobat, and alchemist to the rogue subclasses would fill out 99.9% of rogues in fantasy. [/QUOTE]

Verification