Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kennew142" data-source="post: 4070065" data-attributes="member: 18490">Celebrim,I've gone back and reviewed the thread and I still have to maintain that you have not explained how the 4e rogue will dictate how the character must be played. You've stated that it will do so, but you haven't explained how the new class limits the way you play it. If we're talking about weapon selection, the rogue has never had access to all of the martial weapons. If we're talking about skills, what is lacking aside from Diplomacy, Perform and Profession? I would agree with you on Diplomacy, but I thought Perform and Profession were no longer skills in 4e.Personally, I can't see how the builds (purely optional) can dictate how anyone plays a character. If it's a matter of the rogue options, those are clearly combat options that allow a rogue to gain extra advantage from certain powers. No powers (at least of the one's we've been shown) require a particular option. They are simply enhanced by it.I'm going to apologize for the part of my post that prompted the following responses. I engaged in hyperbole, which was glaringly inappropriate in a post decrying someone else for misconstruing an argument. It also distracted from, and undercut, my argument. There is no excuse. It was wrong. I'll try not to do it again.As for the following:All we've been shown are combat related crunchy bits. Bill Slavicek was pretty open about that up front. The builds are about combat. That doesn't mean that the character is all about combat. More than anything, I think this has to do with the campaign rather than the rules.One point that the designers have made is that social interaction would be a separate system from the combat system. Your arguments make it appear that you haven't heard that, or are ignoring it.I most certainly do know what the term straw man argument means. The following tactic is pretty cheap. You've taken an entire paragraph in which I explain how your argument was a straw man, broke it up and then interjected comments throughout. The net effect is to not address the substance of the argument, but to reply to individual sentences and/or phrases instead of the totality. It may be excusable, given the hyperbole of my previous post, but I still think it's not a fair debate tactic.I still think that you're miscontruing the nature and limitations of the 4e rogue by reading limitations into the class that don't appear to be supported by the text of the preview. If not misconstruing, then certainly reading negatives into the article that I don't think are present by a plain reading.</blockquote>

Verification