Why are Rogues the only ones that have a slower Attack Rate?

I know when Rogues and Fighters both had manuevers people felt the rogue was a good a fighters as the fighter.  At this point of the playtest it made some sense to lower their BAB (Is it still called that?)

At this stage of the playtest I can't see a reason for them to get a slower progression.  ALL other classes have a +5 to attack by level 20 in their primary method.

So then rogues should too.  Agree?  Disagree?  Why?

Two comments:

First, we could call it AB for 'attack bonus' which is how the pdf's refer to it, or WAB for Weapon Attack Bonus because it requires a weapon, or maybe CAB for Class Attack Bonus because it's an attack bonus that derives from your class. 

Second, Rogues are less combat oriented than all the other physical combat classes presented so far. I'm sure we'll see Bards with the same progression as the Rogue. I don't necessarily agree with this tactic. I'd probably prefer to see the Monk's attack be on par with Rogues/Bards/Druids, but its pretty old school for Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin/Fighter to have the same attack prowess and for that prowes to be one tier better than rogue/bard/monk/druid.

Also, I recognize that you see the Druid as having their "primary method" ending up at +5, but half of druids are combat/wild shape druids and they end up with a +2 WAB, so....idk, wear your +3 loud and proud my friend. 

In short....idk 
Rogues get an advantage mechanic that brings their lower AB up quite a bit. However, the advantage can be sacrificed to deal more damage. So rogues are the called shot dudes who miss slightly more often but hit like a truck. I don't think it's fair to say they are "less combat oriented." All the classes are combat oriented.
Flat math, free advantage... pretty sure rogues have just as much attack bonus as everyone else. And with melee flanking rules they can get advantage EVERY turn with no negatives other than having a friend stand "next" to the baddy. So yes they have a +1 while a fighter has a +2, but they also can get a roll 2 d20 and take the higher of the two while a fighter only rolls a d20 once. Both a fighter and a rogue get a standard weapon + stat worth of damage... and then while the fighter gets maneuvers the rogue can exchange it for an awesome xd6 worth of dmg for just sacraficing their advantage. As it stands right now rogues are the KING of damage in the game, and in a flat math system a +1 for the fighter means pretty much nothing.
Indeed, a level 3 rogue can dish out a whooping 20 damage with 3 good rolls(1d8+2d6, not a crit!).

Their combat prowess is well balanced as it stands in my opinion. They can gain advantage and do a little bit of damage, OR they can combine advantage and disadvantage to try and hope for a murdering arrow/dagger of death (+20).

If they'd give him a better attack bonus, it would be too much. Good attack rolls AND godlike damage faster than any other class? I'm 100% sure everyone would be making griefing threads if this was the case.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg)

I actually tend to agree with the comments above.  I think my first impression was that 3e is more like 4e in that all the classes have a very similar advancement rate.  But i do agree that rogues seem well balanced over all when it comes to damage totals.  I almost wondered about taking away a little bit of SA to balance the additional AB or WAB   However I think this gives us the old style rogue that people want.  Maybe a Kit, oh I mean subclass, will provide other options too.
Actually wizards get the slowest AB growth, as they never have one at all.

At the moment the rogues accuracy is pretty good in my opinion.
I know when Rogues and Fighters both had manuevers people felt the rogue was a good a fighters as the fighter.  At this point of the playtest it made some sense to lower their BAB (Is it still called that?)

At this stage of the playtest I can't see a reason for them to get a slower progression.  ALL other classes have a +5 to attack by level 20 in their primary method.

So then rogues should too.  Agree?  Disagree?  Why?




I'm trying to understand why everyone believes that the Rogue should be as good as a Fighter at landing a blow or doing damage.  They are Rogues.  They are not Warriors as fighters are.  At the very least, a Fighter should be able  to trounce any other class in toe to toe match of melee combat.  It is their bread and butter and no other class should excel at it as they do.

Some will argue that the Fighter has the best armor.  Well of course they do and they should.  They are Warriors.  Same thing is true with weapon selection.

The Fighters don't get many of the other special abilities that other classes get.

If you want real balance then make one class that can take anything they want from any class and call it a day because balance as many seem to view can't be achieved any other way.
     
I know when Rogues and Fighters both had manuevers people felt the rogue was a good a fighters as the fighter.  At this point of the playtest it made some sense to lower their BAB (Is it still called that?)

At this stage of the playtest I can't see a reason for them to get a slower progression.  ALL other classes have a +5 to attack by level 20 in their primary method.

So then rogues should too.  Agree?  Disagree?  Why?


rouges  are more usfull for influtration do i have no real say im always a dragon born warlock,scorcerer, or fighter. Oh and war lord.

I'm trying to understand why everyone believes that the Rogue should be as good as a Fighter at landing a blow or doing damage.  They are Rogues.  They are not Warriors as fighters are.  At the very least, a Fighter should be able  to trounce any other class in toe to toe match of melee combat.  It is their bread and butter and no other class should excel at it as they do.    

Anyone is capable of doing deadly damage with a weapon, especially when their opponent is unskilled (and the vast majority of baddies in D&D have no special training). The real trick is to be able to attack without making yourself vulnerable. That's where Fighters excel. Since Rogues have lower AC and HP, I have no problem with them doing serious damage due to them being more aggressive and reckless. A Fighter would still be able to trounce a Rogue in a head-to-head fight because the Fighter is so much tougher and harder to hit. Further, if there is only one melee character in the party, the Fighter would be much better suited because it can take pounding and doesn't need help to attack effectively while the Rogue would rarely be able to use Sneak Attack and would die very quickly.

Treating the Rogue as a striker seems thematically appropriate and works well in the game context.


I'm trying to understand why everyone believes that the Rogue should be as good as a Fighter at landing a blow or doing damage.  They are Rogues.  They are not Warriors as fighters are.  At the very least, a Fighter should be able  to trounce any other class in toe to toe match of melee combat.  It is their bread and butter and no other class should excel at it as they do.    

Anyone is capable of doing deadly damage with a weapon, especially when their opponent is unskilled (and the vast majority of baddies in D&D have no special training). The real trick is to be able to attack without making yourself vulnerable. That's where Fighters excel. Since Rogues have lower AC and HP, I have no problem with them doing serious damage due to them being more aggressive and reckless. A Fighter would still be able to trounce a Rogue in a head-to-head fight because the Fighter is so much tougher and harder to hit. Further, if there is only one melee character in the party, the Fighter would be much better suited because it can take pounding and doesn't need help to attack effectively while the Rogue would rarely be able to use Sneak Attack and would die very quickly.

Treating the Rogue as a striker seems thematically appropriate and works well in the game context.




I disagree about the baddies having no special training.  Most of the monsters players encounter fight for survival at a different level than do say ... the villagers that just hired the pcs to get rid of some orcs for them.

I do agree with the rest of what you said though. 
Sign In to post comments