Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 7218983" data-attributes="member: 5890">Because presenting a single instance of personal experience is a widely known informal fallacy. Humans are really bad at recalling things accurately, let alone at presenting a balanced view of a field that doesn't just cherry pick the bits of evidence that support their view.You even admit to forgetting fairly important details of the scenario, and what you do describe is pretty vague, to say the least.So yeah, your personal, vaguely recollected, cherry picked data doesn't make much of a valid argument.Also FWIW, there's a big category of overland encounters that can keep up with your rogue just fine - anyone riding a horse. Since your world apparently has nothing but traversable terrain, that should be an awful lot of encounters.Right... a DM who just lets you hide at ranges of 100 feet while still having perfect line of sight might have that effect. Haven't your foes heard of taking cover? Your fighter and wizard should have been getting chewed to pieces while you danced around at range uselessly...Well... the fighter is getting some other sort-of-utility benefits like indomitable, more stat increases/feats and more hit points, but it's pretty weak. I'm not arguing the fighter doesn't lose out in non-combat abilities, and it's long been my argument that they need more non combat stuff added to their subclasses.But this all kind of supports my point: removing the ability to hide and attack in a round doesn't impact typical play much, but DOES alter extreme cases such as yours or the lone rogue instance pretty heavily... in a good way.</blockquote>

Verification