Well I'm certainly not surprised. From ways back when they were talking about the 4e fighter and how they had different maneuvers for different kinds of weapons, it was pretty clear that 4e was going to be at least as complex as 3e in the options department. All the talk of "simplifying" was in regards to the DM's role, not the player's.Cthulhudrew said:
'Build' Madness.
If the issue here is picking the character's "Rogue Tactic" at first level... Let me repeat what was stated above. We have not seen close to the full list of rogue "powers" yet. It may well be possible that 95% of the powers are Tactic independent, so I wouldn't panic until we see the full set of rules.
If however the issue here is the word "Build", My take on this is that the developers are simply bowing to what they see as the most commonly used term for an example character.
Most everyone knows that term, so why try to fight what is so well established in the game community?
If however the issue here is the word "Build", My take on this is that the developers are simply bowing to what they see as the most commonly used term for an example character.
Most everyone knows that term, so why try to fight what is so well established in the game community?
JohnSnow
Hero
Irda Ranger said:
Well, I think you have a pretty good point. Keeping the Ranger and rogue conceptually distinct is probably a good thing.
Quite honestly, I think the classic "swashbuckler" is a fighter or warlord with rogue training or (perhaps) a rogue with fighter training. Although I'm beginning to wish they'd left the swashbuckler in the book to save us all the whining...
Minor nitpick, I think the tracking function of survival has been subsumed under either "Nature" or "Perception" so the Ranger's auto-skills will be Nature and Stealth, Perception and Stealth, or perhaps Nature and Perception.
But it could be something whacky, like Perception and Athletics.
Irda Ranger
First Post
Agreed. In fact I think this is a pattern we will see repeated. I think many former class abilities / bonus feats (like Trap Finding and Tracking, but others too possibly) will come along "free" with being Trained in a Skill. That way if the Ranger gets auto-Trained in Survival and the Rogue gets auto-Trained in Thievery, that's functionally the same as 3E but also allows characters who aren't Rangers or Rogues to pick up those skills if you want a tracking Warlord or trap-finding Paladin.JohnSnow said:
WILD SPECULATION: Being trained in Athletics gets you Endurance for free! You heard it here first!
Spatula said:
Actually I believe they have said that one of their goals was simplifying the leveling up process, which they have definitely done if a "pick one of two" binary style of builds is really the way they are going. Which doesn't bother me really. "Starting character package" from 2E/3E did the same really. Many games have no real classes but provide templates or give a class outline then provide an example. That is all this is.
I will say one thing about the 4E forum. It's great for the post count
Nytmare
David Jose
Irda Ranger said:
You don't think that they're going to be feats that allow you to use the applicable skill for something extra? As an example, having "Trap Finding" as a feat that allowed you to use your perception (backed with maybe nature or dungeoneering where applicable) to find traps?
Similar Threads
