Troll Lord Games

I initially presented this in a thread about possible changes to one of the paladin's abillities. Instead of hijacking that thread too much, I thought I'd move it over here. A friend of mine suggested awhile back that the rogue sort of gets the shaft (compared to other classes) in C&C. I haven't been able to track him down to help me recall his exact thoughts. Perhaps, he said something about the attack bonus being too low at higher levels (maybe in the ckg). This friend of mine has been gaming since 81 or 82 at least, and I assure you he's not apart of the total game balance crowd. Matter of fact...3 and 3.5 might be his least favorite editions. Not that this means anything, but a younger friend of mine (34 and goes back to the early 90's) concurs that the attack bonus could be a bit low. The first friend I mentioned said C&C isn't entirely to blame because earlier versions of D&D did much the same. Any thoughts as we go into a 6th printing of the phb, and an eventual 2nd printing of the ckg?

Hmmm....I find that rather odd really. I've played a ton of rogues in 1st, 2nd, and 3.0/3.5. (my second favorite class after Paladin. Go figure) I've not played a C&C version yet, but what I've seen I don't find anything less than the D&D stuff...nor have I ever felt it was lacking. One of my favorite rogues was actually more dangerous than the fighters in our party, though that may be because I played him as a ruthless sniper/survivalist than as a sneak thief.

If you go by level only then the rogue has a large disadvantage, but if you use XP, the rogue does well. Keep in mind his special attacks scale with level and should counter act some of the other classes bonuses. I played a number of 24th level games and the rogue was very good, the extra attack at high level when rolling Initiative is very powerful.

tylermo wrote:I initially presented this in a thread about possible changes to one of the paladin's abillities. Instead of hijacking that thread too much, I thought I'd move it over here. A friend of mine suggested awhile back that the rogue sort of gets the shaft (compared to other classes) in C&C. I haven't been able to track him down to help me recall his exact thoughts.

Without specifics, impossible to comment on. If it is attack bonus then, no. There isn't a problem. Rogues have other strengths than toe to toe combat. Might as well say that at higher levels a fighter has insufficient rogue skills. Actually there is more a better case to be made for the latter as the fighter has NO such skills at higher level.

Also, when your rogue reaches 12th level, a fighter is still only 9th level. Too many people don't factor in the XP tables...

In the last game I CK'ed, our parties rouge was a power house. Sure, she didn't have the standing power of a fighter or knight. In fact, after 2 or 3 hits she was nearly out. I would say this: The rouge can rarely go toe to toe with someone (low ac and low base atk scores). However, if they are supported by a cleric, a knight or another fighting type then they perform just fine. Rouges also have access to sneak atk which provides a +2 bonus to atk and a +4 to dmg. Sneak atk is also easier to achieve than back atk (which is brutal). Granted, I was rather nice in allowing the rouge her use of back and sneak atk, but even with a "mean" CK the rouge player should be keen enough to find ways to apply their sneak atk bonus.

Their skills make them second to none on that front, but in a fight, they absolutely, positively, cannot stand toe to toe with a fighter type. Which I am fine with, because I never play them to be a fighter.

Tree speaks the truth. If you're looking for a "tank" rouge then cnc is not the place to find it. I'll bet a very clever player could probably build a rouge with some standing power (basically stack everything in con and dex) but that isn't the point of cnc.

To be brutal.....the rogue is a thief, a scallywag, back-stabber, and a sneak. A fighter is a tank, brute, warrior, defender. The words above for each describe and conjure a picture of what each class is. A rogue is not a fighter.

I concur, the rouge is not hosed. they are not a brick.
also, they advance more quickly, so that 'balances' things out a lot.

This isn't Gray Mouser, for that, you'd need a fighter/rouge (IMO).

YMMV (or YFMMV, your friend's milage... LOL) and whatever. In 3e the rogue can choose feats to make them more fighterish, I assume.

Its Rogue, not rouge. Rouge is the color red in French.

I didn't feel that the rogue was "hosed." however, I did increase their BtH to be the same as a cleric and I added studded leather to his armor list. The BtH increase was because I felt 4 different BtHs was not necessary and the added armor was because, in my mind, studded leather makes sense for a rogue.

R-

Well, yes you can house rule the rouge/rogue if you like to any thing you want really. Great game.

Rigon wrote:I didn't feel that the rogue was "hosed." however, I did increase their BtH to be the same as a cleric and I added studded leather to his armor list. The BtH increase was because I felt 4 different BtHs was not necessary and the added armor was because, in my mind, studded leather makes sense for a rogue.

R-

I've not altered the base attack, but I have added the ability to wear studded leather (and for the life of me, I'm not sure why that's not on thier "allowed" armor list).

Lobo316 wrote:

Rigon wrote:I didn't feel that the rogue was "hosed." however, I did increase their BtH to be the same as a cleric and I added studded leather to his armor list. The BtH increase was because I felt 4 different BtHs was not necessary and the added armor was because, in my mind, studded leather makes sense for a rogue.

R-

I've not altered the base attack, but I have added the ability to wear studded leather (and for the life of me, I'm not sure why that's not on thier "allowed" armor list).

I don't have Studded Leather in my game. (studded didn't really exist as it would be pointless.) Ring mail is as close as one can get.

Arduin wrote:

Lobo316 wrote:

Rigon wrote:I didn't feel that the rogue was "hosed." however, I did increase their BtH to be the same as a cleric and I added studded leather to his armor list. The BtH increase was because I felt 4 different BtHs was not necessary and the added armor was because, in my mind, studded leather makes sense for a rogue.

R-

I've not altered the base attack, but I have added the ability to wear studded leather (and for the life of me, I'm not sure why that's not on thier "allowed" armor list).

I don't have Studded Leather in my game. (studded didn't really exist as it would be pointless.) Ring mail is as close as one can get.

True THAT.

commanderFuron wrote:If you go by level only then the rogue has a large disadvantage, but if you use XP, the rogue does well. Keep in mind his special attacks scale with level and should counter act some of the other classes bonuses. I played a number of 24th level games and the rogue was very good, the extra attack at high level when rolling Initiative is very powerful.

This. The rogue needs so little XP to advance that they get better saves and ability checks when compared to all other classes. The rogue will be adding +2 to these checks at 1251 XP while all other classes are rolling +1 at that same level. Compare against the wizard for example. The rogue will be adding +3 level to rolls as the wizard is still 1st level! Who has a better chance to succeed on saves and checks? Rogue. Win.

~O

Omote wrote:

commanderFuron wrote:If you go by level only then the rogue has a large disadvantage, but if you use XP, the rogue does well. Keep in mind his special attacks scale with level and should counter act some of the other classes bonuses. I played a number of 24th level games and the rogue was very good, the extra attack at high level when rolling Initiative is very powerful.

This. The rogue needs so little XP to advance that they get better saves and ability checks when compared to all other classes. The rogue will be adding +2 to these checks at 1251 XP while all other classes are rolling +1 at that same level. Compare against the wizard for example. The rogue will be adding +3 level to rolls as the wizard is still 1st level! Who has a better chance to succeed on saves and checks? Rogue. Win.

~O

I think that people get stuck in the 3.x paradigm of equal level advancement (one of the worst decisions in those versions, design wise) and want to compare level to level rather than XP amount to like XP amount...

Just to stoke the fire, because I think that this is a great discussion here, suggesting, all hypothetical, you play super awesome long campaigns do you put the level cap on the rogue or do you extend it so that, just guessing here, that when the wizard hits level 24 the rogue is like level 35

Highest level C&C game I ran is 17th level, while the Thief was 25th level. Sorry, I have always hated the class name of Rogue. Anyways, the player loved being 8 levels ahead of everyone else.

Dracyian wrote:Just to stoke the fire, because I think that this is a great discussion here, suggesting, all hypothetical, you play super awesome long campaigns do you put the level cap on the rogue or do you extend it so that, just guessing here, that when the wizard hits level 24 the rogue is like level 35

I extended it. Pretty sure a Thief will be closer to 40th level, but I am not breaking out a calculator to find out.

Lobo316 wrote:

Rigon wrote:I didn't feel that the rogue was "hosed." however, I did increase their BtH to be the same as a cleric and I added studded leather to his armor list. The BtH increase was because I felt 4 different BtHs was not necessary and the added armor was because, in my mind, studded leather makes sense for a rogue.

R-

I've not altered the base attack, but I have added the ability to wear studded leather (and for the life of me, I'm not sure why that's not on thier "allowed" armor list).

Because the metal studs can give off betraying reflections of light in the right conditions or "knock" against stone or such when trying to move quietly. I thought that was always understood. ( oO )

Go0gleplex wrote:

Lobo316 wrote:

Rigon wrote:I didn't feel that the rogue was "hosed." however, I did increase their BtH to be the same as a cleric and I added studded leather to his armor list. The BtH increase was because I felt 4 different BtHs was not necessary and the added armor was because, in my mind, studded leather makes sense for a rogue.

R-

I've not altered the base attack, but I have added the ability to wear studded leather (and for the life of me, I'm not sure why that's not on thier "allowed" armor list).

Because the metal studs can give off betraying reflections of light in the right conditions or "knock" against stone or such when trying to move quietly. I thought that was always understood. ( oO )

That's what they make weapon black for, silly.

R-

Arduin wrote:

Lobo316 wrote:

Rigon wrote:I didn't feel that the rogue was "hosed." however, I did increase their BtH to be the same as a cleric and I added studded leather to his armor list. The BtH increase was because I felt 4 different BtHs was not necessary and the added armor was because, in my mind, studded leather makes sense for a rogue.

R-

I've not altered the base attack, but I have added the ability to wear studded leather (and for the life of me, I'm not sure why that's not on thier "allowed" armor list).

I don't have Studded Leather in my game. (studded didn't really exist as it would be pointless.) Ring mail is as close as one can get.

True, and Ring Mail is the same (+3) as studded leather, and what RPG's refer to as studded leather did not exist in the real world. What is most likely the inspiration for studded leather is brigandine (or jack) armor, which had small metal plates between pieces of leather, the studs were to hold the plates in place.

That said, I use studded leather in my games, not caring that it didn't really exist. After all Dragons, Elves, Orcs, and such didn't exist either...

Dracyian wrote:Just to stoke the fire, because I think that this is a great discussion here, suggesting, all hypothetical, you play super awesome long campaigns do you put the level cap on the rogue or do you extend it so that, just guessing here, that when the wizard hits level 24 the rogue is like level 35

Arduin has said this before... cap XP not level.

koralas wrote:

Dracyian wrote:Just to stoke the fire, because I think that this is a great discussion here, suggesting, all hypothetical, you play super awesome long campaigns do you put the level cap on the rogue or do you extend it so that, just guessing here, that when the wizard hits level 24 the rogue is like level 35

Arduin has said this before... cap XP not level.

I like it, would you then just calculate out the levels past where your text stops then?

Arduin wrote: I think that people get stuck in the 3.x paradigm of equal level advancement (one of the worst decisions in those versions, design wise) and want to compare level to level rather than XP amount to like XP amount...

What's worse, it's my understanding that most 3.x players house-rule away the multiclassing xp penalty. I think PF did away with it entirely?

Aergraith wrote:

Arduin wrote: I think that people get stuck in the 3.x paradigm of equal level advancement (one of the worst decisions in those versions, design wise) and want to compare level to level rather than XP amount to like XP amount...

What's worse, it's my understanding that most 3.x players house-rule away the multiclassing xp penalty. I think PF did away with it entirely?

That's what I saw in 3.x before I 'pulled the rip cord'. Not sure about PF. I bought it a couple years after it came out. As it didn't fix any of the power problems it inherited from 3 I put it down too. It was just another version of 3 that catered to 'Build' playing munchkins.

Rouges level faster than most other classes, and (in my opinion) that is a pretty good balancing factor.

Even without that, they are not "front line" fighters. I'd argue they're fighters at all, truthfully. They have combat abilities but, in my opinion, these are to kill a foe without the need to get into a combat. Long, exhausting melees are the purview of the fighters, paladins, barbarians, etc. A rouge is to make a surgical strike, and hopefully that will end any hopes of a fight.

But I see the rogue as a scout, trapfinder (and "disarmer"), and (at times) a conman. I don't think his strengths are in the area of combat, so judging him thus is a disservice. Just my two cents.

Lord Dynel wrote: But I see the rogue as a scout, trapfinder (and "disarmer"), and (at times) a conman. I don't think his strengths are in the area of combat, so judging him thus is a disservice. Just my two cents.

Don't forget sniper. Missile weapons (shortbow or light cross bow) are a must for them.

Treebore wrote:Its Rogue, not rouge. Rouge is the color red in French.

Uff da! I always do that!