Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7598142" data-attributes="member: 12731">Sorry it really isn't meaningful to have a discussion with moving targets. I can only discuss 5E as-is. (With one obvious exception: I refuse to let WotC disavow their responsibility for feats and multiclassing)If you're playing with 3PP feats or houserules I can only shrug. What I am discussing is the fact that in neither AD&amp;D, d20 or 5E does Rogues gain enough offensive power to justify their shaky defense, as well as the fact that most sneaky abilities doesn't work well in groups: yes, theoretically the Rogue can sneak off to backstab some guards, playing hide and seek while the rest of the players sit on their hands. But to me that's plain wrong game design.Or rather, sure, have a subclass that does that and then say in a sidebar that this subclass should be used if (and only if) the rest of the players are okay with one player getting more play-time than the rest. But there needs to be at least one Rogue subclass whose schtick is that he deals more damage than anyone else, so the group 1) wants to bring him along and 2) wants to protect him, indirectly meaning that defensive abilities translate into more offensive damage.In other words, &quot;it makes sense that thieves act thievingly&quot; is not a good argument for ONLY including that kind of Rogue. Not in a game like D&amp;D which is a group activity centered on combat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 7598142, member: 12731"] Sorry it really isn't meaningful to have a discussion with moving targets. I can only discuss 5E as-is. (With one obvious exception: I refuse to let WotC disavow their responsibility for feats and multiclassing) If you're playing with 3PP feats or houserules I can only shrug. What I am discussing is the fact that in neither AD&D, d20 or 5E does Rogues gain enough offensive power to justify their shaky defense, as well as the fact that most sneaky abilities doesn't work well in groups: yes, theoretically the Rogue can sneak off to backstab some guards, playing hide and seek while the rest of the players sit on their hands. But to me that's plain wrong game design. Or rather, sure, have a subclass that does that and then say in a sidebar that this subclass should be used if (and only if) the rest of the players are okay with one player getting more play-time than the rest. But there needs to be at least one Rogue subclass whose schtick is that he deals more damage than anyone else, so the group 1) wants to bring him along and 2) wants to protect him, indirectly meaning that defensive abilities translate into more offensive damage. In other words, "it makes sense that thieves act thievingly" is not a good argument for ONLY including that kind of Rogue. Not in a game like D&D which is a group activity centered on combat. [/QUOTE]

Verification