So I've just recently started playing D&D for the first time and I've been really enjoying it so far. My friends had been playing for a little bit, so when I joined in I was level 3. I chose a rogue because, well, they seemed pretty cool to be able to sneak around and do some pretty big damage. I've been pretty keen on looking into the rules and abilities for 4e, so I feel pretty confident about certain things.
The issue I'm having, however, is that my DM is still stuck on the 3.5 way of thinking - particularly with flanking. As a rogue I want Combat Advantage always, and flanking seems to be the easiest way to get it. Unfortunately, my DM claims that if one PC, in a flanking position, is weakened, immobilized, slowed, dazed, stunned, blinded, etc. (really any debilitating effect) they don't flank. I know that dazed, stunned, blinded, and moves that essentially disable your turn or prevent OAs don't let you flank..but slowed and immobilized? Most of the enemies slap on some sort of debuff on at least one of our guys allowing me to get CA roughly four times in an encounter (considering I'm now level 4, I don't have that many moves to grant me CA). The funny thing is that, as a group, we've managed to convince him through some sort of logic that being weakened still lets us flank, but none of the other debuffs.
I've had a few debates/arguments with the DM about this, and have even specified in the PHB the rules, but he just shuts that down saying that it's house rules and that's the way he and the group's always done it. I just find it unfair to use the "house rules" argument to nerf my rogue so that it's essentially a really weak striker with the occassional control move thrown in.
Another argument that the DM's made is that, if he did allow the 4e flanking rules, I would do too much damage, yet we have a Ranger and Barbarian absolutely destroying enemies. The Barbarian rolls 1d10+1d8+5 on Devastating Strike; the Ranger rolls 2d10s+2(magic bow) on Twin Strike, plus 1d8 quarry; I do 1d4 +8 without Sneak Attack. They can both easily double me and often do when I don't get my Sneak Attack.
How can I convince my DM otherwise about flanking because I feel like I'm getting nerfed pretty badly here?
(Sorry about the long post)
Your options boil down to:
1. Change your character or
2. Leave the game
Your options boil down to:
1. Change your character or2. Leave the game
I'd ad the option of
3. Suck it up and decide it isn't that big of a deal.
Personally, I would probably pick 1, or maybe 2 if the DM was a real jerk about it. But option 3 is there.
So continuing to play the rogue, you would consider, is out of the question because of how rarely I'm able to use my Sneak Attack?
Yes.
Entering 'my opinion' mode. I am also making the assumption that your DM did not tell you this houserule before character creation.
A player selects a character because they have an expectation of how it works within the extant rules structure. You picked the rogue expecting to be able to have Sneak Attack upwards of 90 percent of the time, and the rules support that as written. Your DM has altered the rules (apparently without telling you when you made your character), rendered unto you an unnecessary and extreme nerf, and your character is not performing as you envisioned it, and is severely underperforming by any measure. In other words, you're getting the short end of the stick.
It is grossly unfair that the DM did not tell you his houserule ahead of time, and he should have offered you a chance to change characters once it became obvious you were dissatisfied with the performance of your character as a result.
Ask yourself this ... if you had known that houserule at character creation, would you have picked the rogue?
You cannot flank when you are: Blinded, Dazed, Dominated, Dying (due to unconsciousness), Petrified (due to unconsciousness), Stunned, Surprised, or Unconscious.
In other cases, (such as deafened, helpless but not unconscious, immobilized, marked, prone, restrained, slowed, or weakened) you can flank.
If your DM feels that any and every status condition means you can't flank, then he's being unreasonable and it should be made clear that his housrule is hurting your ability to have fun. Since the entire point of playing the game is just that, fun, that should be the highest priority.
A Rogue putting themselves in harms way to do Sneak Attack damage is in no way overpowered.
I agree, that's a really good point considering how quickly I can die and my inability to avoid this damage atm.
Yes.
Entering 'my opinion' mode. I am also making the assumption that your DM did not tell you this houserule before character creation.
A player selects a character because they have an expectation of how it works within the extant rules structure. You picked the rogue expecting to be able to have Sneak Attack upwards of 90 percent of the time, and the rules support that as written. Your DM has altered the rules (apparently without telling you when you made your character), rendered unto you an unnecessary and extreme nerf, and your character is not performing as you envisioned it, and is severely underperforming by any measure. In other words, you're getting the short end of the stick.
It is grossly unfair that the DM did not tell you his houserule ahead of time, and he should have offered you a chance to change characters once it became obvious you were dissatisfied with the performance of your character as a result.
Ask yourself this ... if you had known that houserule at character creation, would you have picked the rogue?
Well, frankly, I probably would have chosen the rogue had a known of the rule; however, that's mainly because I really didn't know how the game worked at the time. I assumed combat advantage and flanking would be reasonably easy to obtain and being able to compare my damage to the damage dealt by the other striker's in my group, it really shows how little I do in comparison without Sneak Attack.
Talking about it now, yes, I would change my character, but ideally my persistence on flanking will push the DM toward 4e rules.
I say just ask if you can change your character. Point out that you aren't having fun playing the character with his houserules, because your Striker is only doing half of the damage of the other two Strikers in the group. If he says you can't change your character, get yourself killed trying to get Combat Advantage. When he points out how dumb the thing you did was, point out you were just trying to get your striker damage, because you can't have it without CA, and his houserule has made it extremely hard to get CA. Then roll a new character.
Or, just, you know, bail? That sucks you're in that spot. It really makes me glad the days of "I'm the DM, it's my game." and "DM vs PCs" are starting to go away.
If you can hold out until you get another feat, consider the feats Distant Advantage (from PHB2, gives you combat advantage with ranged attacks against an opponent when other party members have the opponent flanked) and Cunning Stalker (from Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, which gives you combat advantage against an opponent when there are no other creatures adjacent to it but you)...
Distant advantage allows you to stand back and throw daggers at a target flanked by the rest of your party and still get your sneak attack.
Cunning Stalker allows you to go out on your own (as far as positioning goes) and still get your sneak attack.
Depending on how long your fights are going on, getting combat advantage four or five times in a fight might not be that bad, but you should be getting it fairly often.
How many people are in your party? Are there enough to set up more than one flanking situation for those times when one of the party members gets a condition slapped on them? Your fellow party members should be looking to help you set up flanking so you can get your sneak attacks off.
It might be because my kid hasn't slept most of the night and thus neither have I, but I would suggest that you get your character killed, saunter over to the Character Optimization board, and read the ranger guide by Lord Dusk Blade. Tune it to within an inch of it's life. bring that one.
You might also bring a rational and reasonable argument to the table and use the DPR calculator listed in the optimization guides, showing the difference between yor character with and without CA and the barb and the ranger. However, I doubt this would work because it sounds like your DM is being deliberately obstinant, or there are some exigent circumstances we are not aware of.
So continuing to play the rogue, you would consider, is out of the question because of how rarely I'm able to use my Sneak Attack?
A player selects a character because they have an expectation of how it works within the extant rules structure. You picked the rogue expecting to be able to have Sneak Attack upwards of 90 percent of the time, and the rules support that as written.
I think that in heroic tier, the percentage is typically lower than 90% unless you are willing to take a lot of risks that ultimately will cost you (though one of the fun things IMO about rogues is juggling risk versus opportunity to get those sneak attacks in). This is as evidenced by the DPR the rogue gets assuming various degrees of access to combat advantage. I would go as far as saying it is only 50% for a "low risk rogue" in low heroic.
Of course the specific percentages are not an issue here. Being locked out of valid simple rules that support your character build, all due to the DMs world view is a pain, and player is within rights to gripe about it. I'd suggest picking up plenty of feats and powers that don't rely on flanking to get CA, provided you are enjoying the rest of the game other than the flanking house rule.
So continuing to play the rogue, you would consider, is out of the question because of how rarely I'm able to use my Sneak Attack?
Not necessarily. Mad_Jack brought up the Cunning Stalker feat - that's absolutely stellar for a rogue. Customer Service even backs up the interpretation of that feat that, basically, says "You have combat advantage against any creature that has no adjacent creatures, unless that adjacent creature is you." In your case, I'm not so keen on Distant Advantage - it requires your allies to be flanking a foe, and so suffers from the same houserule that's crippling you in melee.
A thought - would your DM allow you to rebuild your character, so long as it's still a rogue? If so, consider rebuilding your character as a Thief (Essentials rogue). The thief's tricks explicitly grant combat advantage, so there shouldn't be any room for debate (plus the Thief gets some interesting tools - I've been playing one, it's a blast). Of course, if the DM thinks rogues are overpowered already, he'll probably disallow thieves. It might be worth a shot, though.
So continuing to play the rogue, you would consider, is out of the question because of how rarely I'm able to use my Sneak Attack?
That depends.
Do you ENJOY not being a real Striker, and having your abilities lag heavily behind the other party members for no reason because your DM has houseruled your class into oblivion?
If so, keep playing.
If not, change characters. A Rogue who can't get CA is nonviable, because they require CA for everything.
I wouldn't tell the DM so, but I suspect the DM isn't all that comfortable with the character creation process and Rogue class features (or is outright not all that familiar with the rules at all), or perhaps feels a bit insecure about the rules and wants to avoid a feature rather than master its rules. From that angle, I'm betting he's seen Sneak Attack abused in some way, and has crippled that class feature simply to avoid having to fool with it anymore. It's also possible that he doesn't understand the Sneak Attack rules: I've seen something similar happen in the past with the Cleric's Turn Undead ability, from a DM who didn't realize there was a dice-roll required use that ability, and a chance of failure, and so he thought it made the "defenseless" Undead too weak and pointless (that DM's "solution" was not to use Undead in the game anymore.)
I'm with the others: give up for now about changing the DM's mind, and instead talk it over with the DM to see if you can choose a new character or rebuild your current character without Sneak Attack, explaining that you would not have built your character the way you had if you'd realized how much the house rule hampered the character. If your DM is at all interested in working with you rather than against you, then I'm sure this will be perfectly alright with him.
Maybe creating the character together will help him feel more at ease with the rules. So, when you rebuild the character, I would suggest doing so alongside the DM, explaining exactly what sort of character you are picturing from a narrative, storytelling angle rather than simply a mechanical one. That character-driven transparency will hopefully be insurance against the DM jumping to the conclusion that you are some sort of "munchkin" that is building a series of "broken" characters to take advantage of the rules.
If the DM won't allow a new/changed character, then it sounds like he's trying to "punish" you through your character or is trying to compete with you in a game of Calvin Ball, in which case withdrawing from the current game civilly and on good terms, and seeking a new, more flexible and reasonable DM, is perfectly reasonable. There's no sense in forcing yourself to struggle through a DM-vs.-Players duel, unless you really enjoy that sort of game.
> on the 3.5 way of thinking - particularly with flanking.
This makes me wonder: is he also giving you the "sneak attack won't work on undead or constructs or (laundry list of other things from 3E that were immune)" line?
> he just shuts that down saying that it's house rules and
> that's the way he and the group's always done it.
House rule changes, ESPECIALLY those that affect a character's functionality, need to be made clear in advance, not sprung on someone after the fact. (This assumes that it was a house rule and not something he pulled out of thin air as an excuse for mis-ruling things, which is even worse.)
The DM is probably looking at OMG he can roll 2d6 (or 2d8) extra damage. That can wreak my game. I have to stop this.
As you have mentioned the ranger and barb is tearing up the damage chart.
You might have to show him solid evidence that if you could get your sneak attack damage in what the average damage output will be compared to the other strikers.
The ranger is the top DPR and one of the top nova damagers.
The Barb can wreck stuff up to.
My other question I would ask your DM what do these restrictions bring to the game. Is it more fun with this houserule or is the houserule fixing a problem. If he is saying the rogue damage would be out of control again show him the numbers.
Personelly this is to much work for me. I would just leave
Slowed is just ludicrous.
I personally would ask to make a new character because you weren't aware of the rules beforehand, then goto the char op boards, make something completely broken and over powered, and after he gets a little fed up with that, say you'd be willing to play your rogue again if he follows the published rules instead (but i'm passive aggressive like that, and it tends to tick people off).
Thanks for the opinions and suggestions, everyone. I appreciate the feedback.
I think that in heroic tier, the percentage is typically lower than 90% unless you are willing to take a lot of risks that ultimately will cost you (though one of the fun things IMO about rogues is juggling risk versus opportunity to get those sneak attacks in). This is as evidenced by the DPR the rogue gets assuming various degrees of access to combat advantage. I would go as far as saying it is only 50% for a "low risk rogue" in low heroic.
Of course the specific percentages are not an issue here. Being locked out of valid simple rules that support your character build, all due to the DMs world view is a pain, and player is within rights to gripe about it. I'd suggest picking up plenty of feats and powers that don't rely on flanking to get CA, provided you are enjoying the rest of the game other than the flanking house rule.
I realize that I won't be getting CA 90% of the time considering I'm only level 4 and that makes flanking my main option, but because it's so difficult I'm really struggling on getting it. For example, in the last two encounters we did I got to deal my Sneak Attack damage twice (and I was weakened for one of them).
And yeah, I am enjoying the game quite a bit and I'm enjoying playing my rogue since I like the style of play and tactics that go with it; the damn flanking rule is just killing me, though.
Not much you can do. Everyone here has already given you options, but here are some new one to show your DM
The DM is probably looking at OMG he can roll 2d6 (or 2d8) extra damage. That can wreak my game. I have to stop this.
As you have mentioned the ranger and barb is tearing up the damage chart.
You might have to show him solid evidence that if you could get your sneak attack damage in what the average damage output will be compared to the other strikers.
The ranger is the top DPR and one of the top nova damagers.
The Barb can wreck stuff up to.
My other question I would ask your DM what do these restrictions bring to the game. Is it more fun with this houserule or is the houserule fixing a problem. If he is saying the rogue damage would be out of control again show him the numbers.
Personelly this is to much work for me. I would just leave
Good suggestion; I actually plan on doing just that. I don't think I clearly compared the strikers' damage in the group because, if he saw I'm on par with them, I would hope he will see that his rules are unfair for me and rogues as a class.
Since the Barbarian and Ranger can do their range of damage every turn (aside from them missing), whereas I need another aspect of the game to deal my damage on top of hitting them.
Hopefully when I point out the damage being dealt by everyone, it'll push him toward a change in the houserule (or its abolishment entirely).
If after a few encounter you see that there's a huge discrepency between column 3 and the other strikers, and your fourth column is in line with those two, show it to him and see what he says.
At level three you could easily have flash of the blade + rapier proficiency which many people will tell you, is rather potent.
If you're willing to be patient have a piece of paper with you at your next couple of games and keep track of the ranger and barbarian's damage output per fight in two columns. Have a third column be your damage output and a fourth column your damage if you had been getting CA based on the official rules.
If after a few encounter you see that there's a huge discrepency between column 3 and the other strikers, and your fourth column is in line with those two, show it to him and see what he says.
If you have the patience this is a good idea, as it may reveal an important thing about combat advantage - one in ten times it makes the difference between a hit and miss, and this affects the Rogue's DPR by a point or so. In a few places column 3 would have 0 and 4 will have ~ 15-20 . . .
Although if you and the DM have a math background, some simple calculations would be my preferred approach.
Or you can do it with deft strike.
Or you can junk the rogue and play a Thief (the essentials rogue). Thieves can generate their own combat advantage in either melee or ranged attacks pretty much, and you can just throw the need for flanking in the garbage.
Just some other thoughts. I sympathize with your issue regarding your DM though.
If you want to stay with the rogue and can retrain your class feature to Cunning Sneak, you can pick up a hand crossbow and use your stealth to take advantage of every piece of cover on a map to become hidden. Then you can shoot your hand crossbow with combat advantage and sneak attack ad nauseum.
The drawback to this method is that any DM who randomly denies a class feature isn't really the type to make fun and varied battlegrounds. The other drawback is if they're playing any official modules, they typically don't provide cover or concealment.
thinking about something for 10 minites dosent make you know better then the professional game designer.
some things that arent expressly covered like "what does your mount do while your unconsious?" do need to be handled by houseruling
but something as well covered as flanking rules should not be screwed with, espessally if he is using monster manual monsters, who are built with the assumption your going with rules as written 4th edition
you could alternativly switch to theif, they almost always have combat advantage
Thanks for the opinions and suggestions, everyone. I appreciate the feedback.
I think that in heroic tier, the percentage is typically lower than 90% unless you are willing to take a lot of risks that ultimately will cost you (though one of the fun things IMO about rogues is juggling risk versus opportunity to get those sneak attacks in). This is as evidenced by the DPR the rogue gets assuming various degrees of access to combat advantage. I would go as far as saying it is only 50% for a "low risk rogue" in low heroic.
Of course the specific percentages are not an issue here. Being locked out of valid simple rules that support your character build, all due to the DMs world view is a pain, and player is within rights to gripe about it. I'd suggest picking up plenty of feats and powers that don't rely on flanking to get CA, provided you are enjoying the rest of the game other than the flanking house rule.
I realize that I won't be getting CA 90% of the time considering I'm only level 4 and that makes flanking my main option, but because it's so difficult I'm really struggling on getting it. For example, in the last two encounters we did I got to deal my Sneak Attack damage twice (and I was weakened for one of them).
And yeah, I am enjoying the game quite a bit and I'm enjoying playing my rogue since I like the style of play and tactics that go with it; the damn flanking rule is just killing me, though.Not much you can do. Everyone here has already given you options, but here are some new one to show your DM
The DM is probably looking at OMG he can roll 2d6 (or 2d8) extra damage. That can wreak my game. I have to stop this.
As you have mentioned the ranger and barb is tearing up the damage chart.
You might have to show him solid evidence that if you could get your sneak attack damage in what the average damage output will be compared to the other strikers.
The ranger is the top DPR and one of the top nova damagers.
The Barb can wreck stuff up to.
My other question I would ask your DM what do these restrictions bring to the game. Is it more fun with this houserule or is the houserule fixing a problem. If he is saying the rogue damage would be out of control again show him the numbers.
Personelly this is to much work for me. I would just leave
Good suggestion; I actually plan on doing just that. I don't think I clearly compared the strikers' damage in the group because, if he saw I'm on par with them, I would hope he will see that his rules are unfair for me and rogues as a class.
Since the Barbarian and Ranger can do their range of damage every turn (aside from them missing), whereas I need another aspect of the game to deal my damage on top of hitting them.
Hopefully when I point out the damage being dealt by everyone, it'll push him toward a change in the houserule (or its abolishment entirely).
If you want the numbers crunched the Char Opt boards can help you out there. They are always looking at DPR averages with a lot of builds
Okay OP, I have to reply because it's making me sick seeing all these beta answers. I see a whole lot of people who are going to be alone for the rest of their lives, and they deserve it, and I'm glad...
Me? I'm all for limiting certain classes and abilities if you honestly think it's exploitable. But I am a human being, a tired, angry human being, who wants to have a little fun to keep me from going insane from all that exhaustion and frustration. If I'm not having fun, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE FUN. And you need to make that clear. Because if you don't, people are just going to walk all over you. How many times are you going to be expected to opt out, find a new DM, etc? Why should that be burden be placed on YOU? Put the burden on the DM since he's the one being difficult. Or even if he wasn't, have enough pride in yourself to just not accept the burden of responsibility, EVER!!!!
So really, that's all you can do. Just ask him what the hell his problem is with the rogue, and is he completely blind to the fact everyone else is doing way more amazing crap then you are, and he isn't butthurting about that. I'm not you, so I don't know how you feel comfortable reacting to a situation, but I know I'm always one step away from throwing stuff through windows and doing lots and lots of property damage. Because my life is just too short, and too stressful to have the patience for people who think they can single me out and treat me like garbage. I'm not going to put up with it, and neither should you. And no, do not settle for this passive aggressive "I'll just leave on good terms" ****. What does that teach them? Now you don't have a D&D game, and they're just laughing behind your back. They came out ahead, you got screwed AGAIN, was the brownie points of being a nice guy worth it?
Think man, and force others to think. If he's so scared of rogues, dice, and DPSing, then maybe you should introduce him to some of these weaboo storyteller rpg forums. Force him to have to play those games for a couple of weeks, and then he'll be BEGGING for your broken ass rogue!
I give people the benefit of the doubt that they are capable of reason. But my patience wears thin fast. It's like when DMs give me that crap about how "nothing outside the player's handbook allowed", well lets just call that campaign "no fun allowed", or better yet; CoDzilla. Because that's all you're going to be seeing if you want the players to be competent at all. Some people are just not fit to be DMs, and there isn't enough players around to tell them that, infront of everybody, and make them run away crying.
I’ve removed content from this thread because baiting and offensive material is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
So continuing to play the rogue, you would consider, is out of the question because of how rarely I'm able to use my Sneak Attack?
Can you switch to an essentials thief? their combat tricks allow you to have near-perpetual CA without ever flanking.
The other option is to get deft strike and look for terrain where you can use stealth.
So continuing to play the rogue, you would consider, is out of the question because of how rarely I'm able to use my Sneak Attack?
Can you switch to an essentials thief? their combat tricks allow you to have near-perpetual CA without ever flanking.
By this point, being a rogue period allows you to have near perpetual CA without flanking. Starting out hidden and spamming set-up strike, for example.
Okay OP, I have to reply because it's making me sick seeing all these beta answers. I see a whole lot of people who are going to be alone for the rest of their lives, and they deserve it, and I'm glad...
Me? I'm all for limiting certain classes and abilities if you honestly think it's exploitable. But I am a human being, a tired, angry human being, who wants to have a little fun to keep me from going insane from all that exhaustion and frustration. If I'm not having fun, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE FUN. And you need to make that clear. Because if you don't, people are just going to walk all over you. How many times are you going to be expected to opt out, find a new DM, etc? Why should that be burden be placed on YOU? Put the burden on the DM since he's the one being difficult. Or even if he wasn't, have enough pride in yourself to just not accept the burden of responsibility, EVER!!!!
So really, that's all you can do. Just ask him what the hell his problem is with the rogue, and is he completely blind to the fact everyone else is doing way more amazing crap then you are, and he isn't butthurting about that. I'm not you, so I don't know how you feel comfortable reacting to a situation, but I know I'm always one step away from throwing stuff through windows and doing lots and lots of property damage. Because my life is just too short, and too stressful to have the patience for people who think they can single me out and treat me like garbage. I'm not going to put up with it, and neither should you. And no, do not settle for this passive aggressive "I'll just leave on good terms" ****. What does that teach them? Now you don't have a D&D game, and they're just laughing behind your back. They came out ahead, you got screwed AGAIN, was the brownie points of being a nice guy worth it?
Think man, and force others to think. If he's so scared of rogues, dice, and DPSing, then maybe you should introduce him to some of these weaboo storyteller rpg forums. Force him to have to play those games for a couple of weeks, and then he'll be BEGGING for your broken ass rogue!
I give people the benefit of the doubt that they are capable of reason. But my patience wears thin fast. It's like when DMs give me that crap about how "nothing outside the player's handbook allowed", well lets just call that campaign "no fun allowed", or better yet; CoDzilla. Because that's all you're going to be seeing if you want the players to be competent at all. Some people are just not fit to be DMs, and there isn't enough players around to tell them that, infront of everybody, and make them run away crying.
I'm going to disagree with you here. Firstly, what's a beta answer? Secondly, I doubt D&D players/DMs will be alone for the rest of their lives, they are playing D&D, a highly social game, after all.
Thirdly, preventing someone else from having fun because you don't have any does not improve the situation at all. This antisocial behaviour will only lead to loneliness and being kicked out of group-ness. Also, I can't see how you can put the burden of you not having fun on someone else...
It seems you not having fun is the problem, and I feel like you are responsible for your own fun. That doesn't mean you can't ask others (like the DM) to help, but you in the end are responsible.
Hostility is not the answer, and I doubt they'll be laughing behind your back if they are any grown-up.
How are you planning on forcing someone to play something? Really, I'm curious.
Also, I can see the 'nothing but the player's handbook' work great for newer DMs, as they have less things to worry about and everything is clear, the options are limited, etc. The PHB1 only rules work even better for new players, who are often overwhelmed with the millions of options they can take.
Lastly, I am so getting troll'd.
Okay OP, I have to reply because it's making me sick seeing all these beta answers. I see a whole lot of people who are going to be alone for the rest of their lives, and they deserve it, and I'm glad...
Me? I'm all for limiting certain classes and abilities if you honestly think it's exploitable. But I am a human being, a tired, angry human being, who wants to have a little fun to keep me from going insane from all that exhaustion and frustration. If I'm not having fun, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE FUN. And you need to make that clear. Because if you don't, people are just going to walk all over you. How many times are you going to be expected to opt out, find a new DM, etc? Why should that be burden be placed on YOU? Put the burden on the DM since he's the one being difficult. Or even if he wasn't, have enough pride in yourself to just not accept the burden of responsibility, EVER!!!!
So really, that's all you can do. Just ask him what the hell his problem is with the rogue, and is he completely blind to the fact everyone else is doing way more amazing crap then you are, and he isn't butthurting about that. I'm not you, so I don't know how you feel comfortable reacting to a situation, but I know I'm always one step away from throwing stuff through windows and doing lots and lots of property damage. Because my life is just too short, and too stressful to have the patience for people who think they can single me out and treat me like garbage. I'm not going to put up with it, and neither should you. And no, do not settle for this passive aggressive "I'll just leave on good terms" ****. What does that teach them? Now you don't have a D&D game, and they're just laughing behind your back. They came out ahead, you got screwed AGAIN, was the brownie points of being a nice guy worth it?
Think man, and force others to think. If he's so scared of rogues, dice, and DPSing, then maybe you should introduce him to some of these weaboo storyteller rpg forums. Force him to have to play those games for a couple of weeks, and then he'll be BEGGING for your broken ass rogue!
I give people the benefit of the doubt that they are capable of reason. But my patience wears thin fast. It's like when DMs give me that crap about how "nothing outside the player's handbook allowed", well lets just call that campaign "no fun allowed", or better yet; CoDzilla. Because that's all you're going to be seeing if you want the players to be competent at all. Some people are just not fit to be DMs, and there isn't enough players around to tell them that, infront of everybody, and make them run away crying.
I'm going to disagree with you here. Firstly, what's a beta answer? Secondly, I doubt D&D players/DMs will be alone for the rest of their lives, they are playing D&D, a highly social game, after all.
Thirdly, preventing someone else from having fun because you don't have any does not improve the situation at all. This antisocial behaviour will only lead to loneliness and being kicked out of group-ness. Also, I can't see how you can put the burden of you not having fun on someone else...
It seems you not having fun is the problem, and I feel like you are responsible for your own fun. That doesn't mean you can't ask others (like the DM) to help, but you in the end are responsible.
Hostility is not the answer, and I doubt they'll be laughing behind your back if they are any grown-up.
How are you planning on forcing someone to play something? Really, I'm curious.
Also, I can see the 'nothing but the player's handbook' work great for newer DMs, as they have less things to worry about and everything is clear, the options are limited, etc. The PHB1 only rules work even better for new players, who are often overwhelmed with the millions of options they can take.
Lastly, I am so getting troll'd.
Piecing together his rant, I think that "beta answer" and "being alone the rest of your life" is his way of saying "a real alpha-male like me would pitch a tantrum and hold his breath until he turns blue in the face to get his way, because the chicks really dig a guy who throws tables and makes threats when he can't get his way when playing a game!"
Whatever
It's been my experience in life that if you have to browbeat reason into people any time you aren't getting what you want from them, you deserve each others' company, and most of the women I've known don't find endless arguing between two unreasonable guys to be any more attractive than one unreasonable guy meekly accepting unreasonable behavior from another.
My recommendation is still to talk to the DM and try reason with him (which you've already tried), and if you can't reason with him and you aren't enjoying yourself, walk away and find a group you can see eye-to-eye with, as I think most players will find most members of most groups rather easy to get along with.
On the other hand, if you really enjoy spending your free time butting heads with a stubborn and irrational control freak by trying to out-stubborn and out-control him, that changes things, and the "alpha-man's" advice is probably more appropriate.
So for OP just talk with the DM and ask him why, but do it in a way that does not put him on the defensive. Then you can simply express that you feel that the Rogue is designed to have CA without all the restrictions that you currently have to deal with and that you feel that these house rules don't really affect anyone else, make your damage output weak in comparison to other strikers, and don't add anything fun to the game. I would also make the point that other have stated: that it's not really fair to apply a house rule like this in the middle of play without your knowledge beforehand.
So continuing to play the rogue, you would consider, is out of the question because of how rarely I'm able to use my Sneak Attack?
Look for rogue powers that always allow you to use sneak attack. They are boring, but in this case they are a must have. Duelist's Flurry is one of them i think.
Rogue/Thief is supposed to be the best striker in the game. If you're doing less damage than ranger and barbarian at lvl 3 there is something wrong xD
So continuing to play the rogue, you would consider, is out of the question because of how rarely I'm able to use my Sneak Attack?
Look for rogue powers that always allow you to use sneak attack. They are boring, but in this case they are a must have. Duelist's Flurry is one of them i think.
Rogue/Thief is supposed to be the best striker in the game. If you're doing less damage than ranger and barbarian at lvl 3 there is something wrong xD
1) Duelist's Flurry sucks. Clever Strike is better.
2) Where are you getting that? Ranger's top dog, followed by avenger and barbarian, THEN the rogue!
When using normally-powered stuff, the Ranger wins.
That being said fun & reasonable class functionality > rules, both official and homebrew.
As DM would either 1) revoke/modify the homebrew rules, or 2) buff sneak attack to un-derp the rogue class. Choice 2 seems like it'd be even more likely to create a broken deathrogue (of which I have never actually seen, so I have no idea why a DM would be scared of that class. Rangers, however...*shudder*), so I would lean heavily towards option 1.
Huzzah! My first post after quite a bit of time lurking.