Do You Enjoy The Rogues New Role?

[Mad Mac]

Please, the cleric book was the gimpiest of the series, it actualy suggested nerf the PHB cleric to help the option therein look less worthless.

But at least the Priest Handbook allowed you to create characters who were far cooler the the generic cleric, and could be strong in their area of specialization even if they were weaker overall.

I have to agree with Felon that the Thief handbook added very little to the class compared to the other splats, probably because it was focused on simulating real life thief equipment while the Ranger handbook was teaching players how to turn into a tri-wielding tree man.

Aside from the Swashbuckler of course, which is still one of the most laughably designed kits ever.

 

[AllisterH]

As soon as we had access to the Faith & Avatars series, we dropped the Complete Priest's Handbook like a hot potato.

Hell, I think even the thieves dropped the Thief's handbook kits and just became priests of Mask.

(Faith & Avatars - arguably the greatest accessory for a campaign world EVER in the history of D&D - broken as hell though..)

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I see no difference between 4e rogues and the thieves we used to play. In our games "backstab" meant any time a combatant turned its back on you, you got the multiplier. I believe our sophisticated rationale was "anything else would be stupid."

Excellent thinking.

and no, I don't take that into consideration when I rail on thieves, but I do mind the fact that the fact a rogue could backstab once, then he could leave the dungeon, grab a smoke, and come back when combat was over for all that he could do after that.

So, are you saying that you want the Rogue to be a poor fighter in a fighting game?

 

[NilesB]

But at least the Priest Handbook allowed you to create characters who were far cooler the the generic cleric, and could be strong in their area of specialization even if they were weaker overall.

Most of those could could be amply modeled by playing a PHB cleric and pretending you had access to fewer weapons, worse armor and maybe a quarter of your spell list.

 

[Mad Mac]

Most of those could could be amply modeled by playing a PHB cleric and pretending you had access to fewer weapons, worse armor and maybe a quarter of your spell list.

Heh, you may be right. I still ended up enjoying the priest handbook more than most.

 

[Korgoth]

I don't see a need for the Thief class because everybody ought to be able to find and disarm traps, move silently and hide in shadows. You either have a good hiding space or you don't. You either are wearing noisy gear or you're not. You either look where the trap is or you don't. You either do the thing that disarms it or not.

A character (any class) declares that he looks at the tiles on the floor in front of the altar for any distinguishing marks. "In the flickering torchlight, it is not possible to distinguish any differences among them" says the DM. A lantern is brought up by another PC. "Looking in the better light, you see that several of the tiles appear to be raised just slightly higher on the floor than the others" the DM reports. "Stand back, guys. After everyone is clear, I press down on one of the tiles with my 10' pole" says one of the Players. The DM informs him "The tile depresses into the floor... there is a low bass humming sound and the matter of the pole begins to literally evaporate, starting from the part touching the tile." "I let go of it and jump back!" declares the Player. &c.

But, even contra the 1974 rules, I don't see much need for the Cleric class, either. Rather than Arms-man, Arcane-man, Divine-man, I'd prefer just Arms-man and Magic-man. Just combine the spell lists and roll with it.

 

[Remathilis]

But, even contra the 1974 rules, I don't see much need for the Cleric class, either. Rather than Arms-man, Arcane-man, Divine-man, I'd prefer just Arms-man and Magic-man. Just combine the spell lists and roll with it.

Heck, why stop there? Make one generic "adventurer" class and let him buy spells, combat ability, and non-combat skills with "hero points" or something...

Course, by then we've gone from playing archetypal classes to point-bought PCs, but...

 

[Korgoth]

Heck, why stop there? Make one generic "adventurer" class and let him buy spells, combat ability, and non-combat skills with "hero points" or something...

Course, by then we've gone from playing archetypal classes to point-bought PCs, but...

Well, I'm stopping at the S&S archetypes: the man who overcomes challenges with wit and steel, and the man who overcomes them with fell sorcery or secret knowledge.

I'm not throwing out the idea of classes, I'm just saying that more than two is unnecesary.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Well, I'm stopping at the S&S archetypes: the man who overcomes challenges with wit and steel, and the man who overcomes them with fell sorcery or secret knowledge.

I'm not throwing out the idea of classes, I'm just saying that more than two is unnecesary.

Heh, this is quite funny. I went through a lengthy process just the other day, contemplating the creation of a 'new' system, drawing from various sources, attempting to bring in all of the absolutely essential S&S/mythic/classic (and, to some extent, D&D) awesomeness, and weld it together convincingly. A 'best of', kind of.

And yeah, I ended up settling on only 2 classes, after a fair while of bouncing around alternatives, with their pros and cons. Thank the gods, I also came up with a bunch of other rules stuff, or my time would've been well and truly wasted.

Anyway, yes. Two is probably all you need. I'll see how this system ends up, mind you. There are reasons why it might 'need' three or more.

 

[Jack7]

Anyway, yes. Two is probably all you need. I'll see how this system ends up, mind you.

Aus, how are you gonna release a new Player's Handbook every year with only two character classes? Have you really thought this out?

There are reasons why it might 'need' three or more.

Please see above.