安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
In the first party I also have a rogue played as a melee build. With his ability to use a shadow step (I think that is what it is called) and the use of disengage he can dart in and out of combat very well. He is great as a finisher on a badly hurt target the pick lock and find trap skills are also useful.
I picked Colossus Slayer instead of giantkiller, but i do have favourable enemy trait that does bonus attack and damage against giants which includes trolls, ogres and fire/frost giants.
Nothing but since the party is only 4 characters you must choose at least 2 classes you won't bring with you, so some people ask which they should forget. What I prefer is no warrior / paladin, and a battle cleric as "frontman".
Or even better, be stealthed and you can sneak attack anyone with advantage, and you can often stay stealthed after attacking, or restealth for free if you can hide behind something.
Rogue was my MVP most of the game, except for boss battles (or camp combat) when my Wizard was allowed to alpha strike.
They do not grab loot from containers that you never looked inside.
If you do not have a greenmage in your party I would take a ranger for goodbarries. No need to carry any rations.
If you do not have a rogue one char with high dex needs the lowlife background. Not sure what would happen in the tutorial when you have no char who is profient with thieving tools.
Nothing really. 5e everyone can use thieves tools but few are proficient. It just means you will have a lower chance to pass the check. The tutorial has fixed rolls from what I noticed.
Oh, this is a argument as old as time.
While technically, any class is viable, IMO, the Rogue is better a million times better than Ranger. The original Rogue in 1st edition actually did suck. But it has since become a staple class that every adventuring party should have. The Ranger has never been a great class, just flavorful, because Rangers really only exist because some D&D fans have a hard-on for Aragorn from LotR, who might as well have just been a Fighter anyways, but with proficiency in Survival, Nature, and Animal Handling.
The Ranger class tries to do two or three things at once, which would suggest versatility, but it really isn't. If the Ranger is supposed to be so versatile, then why does it have Favored Enemies, Favored Terrains, and only one combat style? The class contradicts itself. It has weaponized racism, and can be good at either dual-wielding or archery, but not both. It doesn't tank as well as a Fighter or Paladin because it lacks heavy armor, it doesn't sneak as well as a Rogue, and it doesn't heal as well as a Cleric. The one and only thing a Ranger can really do better than anyone else, is to walk better on certain kinds of land. That's it.
The Rogue gets Sneak Attack, which is perfectly reliable, and applies to ALL enemies. And because Rogues are really, really good at sneaking and staying hidden, they can attack with advantage nearly every turn. As a result, whenever I run a rogue, I land a critical hit almost every major encounter in Solasta, and getting north of 50 points of damage between Sneak Attack and poison arrow effects.
You will never, ever, see a Ranger deal that much damage.
The Ranger is NOT a viable replacement for the Rogue when it comes to skills. The Rogue class gets 4 skills, the Ranger gets three. And the Rogue also gets Expertise in up to 4 skill by level 6, which doubles their proficiency bonus to those skills. So when a Ranger might be getting a +8 to Stealth or Thieve's Tools, the Rogue is getting +11.
My rogue almost never fails to pick a lock, and I've never had to save scum. I even stopped preparing Knock when their Thieve's Tools bonus got to +13.
And Greenmage and Clerics can easily replace Rangers as food producers. And if you give your Rogue Expertise in Survival, they can track and hunt just as well any Ranger.
There are only two things going for the Ranger in Solata.
The first is Hunter's Mark, which is an extra 1d6 per attack. But, it loses its effectiveness at higher levels. A dual-wielding Ranger at 5th level deals around 6d6 damage between three attacks with Hunter's Mark. It's pretty good, and better than what the Rogue has at that time. BUT, a few more levels along, and that 6d6 is going start looking weak compared to the Sneak Attack damage Rogues are dealing, and the Smite damage the Paladin is dealing, and the Fireball damage the Wizard is dealing.
The other thing going for the Ranger is exclusively to Solasta, their Favored Enemy ability actually lets them deal extra damage. But it caps at +4 damage, and it's only to your chosen enemies. TA has excluded "humanoid" from the list of Favored Enemies in Solasta for balancing issues. So, they're still only going to be useful against certain enemy types. Against everything else, they might as well be regular Fighters.