Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9291603" data-attributes="member: 82106">I would call this a prime example of what is WRONG with a design like Essentials. These tricks are all just utility powers, but because they are assigned into weird off levels they're not usable by any character except a thief, for no reason better than "we decided to make a different rule" which isn't a better rule in any way that I can determine. Alternatives would have included a Rogue build, some sort of feat(s), skill powers, etc.Honestly, not sure what it is that is thematically out of reach of a Rogue, should the designers have chosen to include it in the existing class instead of creating a whole new subclass. I'm not impressed that much with the whole trading of encounter powers for 'hit harder', it just doesn't really pass muster. Encounter and Daily powers are really the beating heart of 4e combat, sad that Mearls doesn't get it.You would have to pick up the feat which grants this, which was updated to only give half the normal damage bonus. So, yes, MBA shenanigans are definitely easier with some e-classes. However, you can definitely build INT or CHA Rogues. Rogue is a 'weak secondary' class, so where you drop your points beyond DEX is kind of up to you. If we're discussing slightly sub-optimal builds, you can even go with a DEX 16 starting build and have 2 equal stats. Sure, technically a roughly equally sub-optimal thief can tank DEX, but that seems like a pretty odd choice if you are playing this sort of character. Plus there's a lot of tricks and whatnot that assume your DEX is high. I mean, depicting the Rogue, which is a pretty flexible class even for 4e, as not supporting some things, kinda seems odd to me.But you don't have to use 'stand and hit powers'. lol. Handspring Assault, Bat Aside, Spinning Blade Leap... I'm barely scratching the surface and that's just dailies, the encounter list is equally rich. Again though, if there are even better ideas out there, why are we walling them off with a mutant set of build rules into a separate subclass? The proper thing to do is include them into the mainline rules as new options, then the same build material can be used in any of the existing rogue builds, MCed into, used by Hybrids, etc. The whole philosophy of these E-classes is, to put it mildly, unfortunate. 4e's greatest strength is this common design language.But again, why hive that stuff off? Sure, trick access is a thief advantage, but that access should exist for all builds, and the mechanisms to do so were already present in 4e.I didn't point at artillery, which is another monster role which is too narrow for PCs, and also is unclear in terms of its real function. Monster roles are in terms of how they operate in combat, but PC roles are in terms of their GOALS in combat. Archer ranger is NOT 'artillery', because it is not simply a one-dimensional stand-and-deliver tactic role. It is "ablate hit points at the maximum rate, directly" and does so via what are, technically, ranged attacks. Truthfully if you are building a BA build the distinction between melee and ranged pretty much goes away anyhow, though at low levels you probably want to switch to a melee weapon when you get in close.The old school TSR Thief is most certainly a 'lurker', only being effective when backstabbing, and that can only happen from hiding.Sure, but again we should not draw too much from a comparison with PCs, which need much more flexible goal-oriented roles.I'm not sure what you mean, the 4e PHB1 duel-wielding melee ranger is a monstrosity in combat! Yes, it can be equated roughly with a skirmisher in most cases, but there are also builds that are closer to a controller/defender (spiked chain builds for example, or MP1 beast master builds, usually also with the spiked chain). It is actually a very versatile chassis. You can MC in some fighter, some warlord or paladin, etc. Anyway, my main point is that by breaking class/build cross-compatibility Essentials GREATLY reduced the utility of its material. This is super apparent when you get to post-E where large chunks of material in some of the books only works with either classic or E, which is clearly a bad situation. While we can certainly point out specific individual builds in E that we like, the overall effect was negative, IMHO. I also find that most E builds don't hold up at high levels, and a LOT of them don't even work well at LOW levels. I mean, everyone can point out the ones that DO, but who's crowing about Sentinels? The CONCEPT is not bad, a pet druid, but the implementation? Meh.</blockquote>

Verification