Ah... don't have that one. I probably should have specified WotC, because, come to think of it, I though Monte did a good job w/t Mageblade in Arcana Unearthed.
D&D 4E Is 4E doing it for you?
- Thread starter Darkthorne
- Start date
Darkthorne
First Post
Mallus,
I think you are missing my point. I never said it wasn't possible to tweak the class, just the opposite, nor do I think it is difficult. I gave reasons why it might not be done. Backstab/sneak attack same effect more or less (it's extra damage). As for the stealth bit I looked on WotC online compendium, if that's wrong then that's their error. To me concept does not equal combat abilities. The combat abilities should help fill out the concept, not define it.
Thanks
I think you are missing my point. I never said it wasn't possible to tweak the class, just the opposite, nor do I think it is difficult. I gave reasons why it might not be done. Backstab/sneak attack same effect more or less (it's extra damage). As for the stealth bit I looked on WotC online compendium, if that's wrong then that's their error. To me concept does not equal combat abilities. The combat abilities should help fill out the concept, not define it.
Thanks
But honestly, they were bad reasons. If a simple (mechanically balanced, genre-appropriate) change would help a player create the character they want to play, there aren't a lot of good reasons not to make that change.
No, it's right. 4e Rogues start with both Thievery and Stealth as Trained Skills. Fine, replace Stealth with Athletics.
Concept doesn't simply mean combat to me either (you should see some of my concepts...), but I I never said combat abilities should be the sum of the character. All I said was 'use rogue to make a swashbuckler'.
catsclaw227
First Post
Every swashbuckler I've seen in movies or print had a deadly rapier attack, so the SA damage is appropriate, just call it something different like Swashbuckler's Skewering Strike.
Obryn
Hero
I don't see why sneak attack is necessarily a problem. One of a swashbuckler's goals is to get their opponent to drop their defenses. That's all Combat Advantage is, really - getting the better of your opponent. You can get it by flanking, you can get it by distracting them, and you can get it by getting the jump on them. It hasn't been "backstabbing" for an edition and a half now.
Otherwise, I agree with the posts below. Get your DM to let you swap out Stealth and Thievery for Acrobatics and Athletics. Maybe tweak the skill list a bit further, too. I think the 4e Rogue is a swashbuckler at heart, looking at their abilities.
-O
Eric Tolle
First Post
You know, I wonder if the mods could just set up a "4E D&D Sucks/Doesn't Suck" megathread where all posts comparing D&D to D&D or extolling/complaining about 4E would be sent. It could be stickied at the top of the page as well. That way, those people looking to debate whether 4E is good or not would have one place to go to talk at each other, and the rest of us could get on wiith well, posting about everything else game wise.
Good idea or not?
Good idea or not?
Darkthorne
First Post
Mallus,
You and I agree on how to build it 100% and for combat purposes it's mostly dead on. I do agree the reasons I gave may not be good ones, but for some people they are valid reasons whether or not you & I disagree with them (not all goups are lucky to have good DMs). For 4E you look at combat abilities/powers first to build your concept then tweak from there. I think part of some people's issue with how 4E feels "off" in regards to character gen is that the concept someone has in mind does not match up with how the classes have been rewritten/overhauled completely. I think simply renaming a couple of the classes would have made a huge stride in overcoming people's mindset. A fighter now is only a tank/damage soak device nothing more (also not there is anything wrong with that). The wizard should have been renamed as they are now a tweaked specialist class (evoker/transmuter someone mentioned previously) they are not close to overall caster type they once were. Anyone that meets the prereq can do rituals so it's not a huge value add to that class specifically. Previous editions I believe you could do concept to a class immediately "I want a fighter that does...." w/o having to be optimized or stuck into needing a specific stat (fighters now NEED to have a high STR, min of 16 before they hinder the group). I can easily see that WotC designed this to balance w/ maxed out required stats for the class in question. It's nice to play a character type that isn't as optimized as it can be, or does things differently due to that non-optimization. I wish they set the bar a bit lower in regards to this for balance
You and I agree on how to build it 100% and for combat purposes it's mostly dead on. I do agree the reasons I gave may not be good ones, but for some people they are valid reasons whether or not you & I disagree with them (not all goups are lucky to have good DMs). For 4E you look at combat abilities/powers first to build your concept then tweak from there. I think part of some people's issue with how 4E feels "off" in regards to character gen is that the concept someone has in mind does not match up with how the classes have been rewritten/overhauled completely. I think simply renaming a couple of the classes would have made a huge stride in overcoming people's mindset. A fighter now is only a tank/damage soak device nothing more (also not there is anything wrong with that). The wizard should have been renamed as they are now a tweaked specialist class (evoker/transmuter someone mentioned previously) they are not close to overall caster type they once were. Anyone that meets the prereq can do rituals so it's not a huge value add to that class specifically. Previous editions I believe you could do concept to a class immediately "I want a fighter that does...." w/o having to be optimized or stuck into needing a specific stat (fighters now NEED to have a high STR, min of 16 before they hinder the group). I can easily see that WotC designed this to balance w/ maxed out required stats for the class in question. It's nice to play a character type that isn't as optimized as it can be, or does things differently due to that non-optimization. I wish they set the bar a bit lower in regards to this for balance
Aus_Snow
First Post
3? THREE?! Noooooooo! Not again. . .
Which of the four got voted off the island this time?
Darkthorne
First Post
Swashbuckler
I was only using this as an example of how this may put some people off. At no point was I wondering how to build it or rename parts of it. To me that was simple, but not everyone is me nor have flexible DM's I know. (btw for me change sneak attack to precise strike
)
I was only using this as an example of how this may put some people off. At no point was I wondering how to build it or rename parts of it. To me that was simple, but not everyone is me nor have flexible DM's I know. (btw for me change sneak attack to precise strike
)
