Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[Incenjucar]

I so want to wield the "Le petit stabby". I kill you, I kill you with my "Le petit stabby" +5.

Monty Python Campaign? <3

 

[mach1.9pants]

I can't see a problem with simply saying "You get 6 skills. Probably good to get Thievery and Stealth, but if you don't want to, you don't have to."

Same but thankfully so easily houseruled

 

[Mouseferatu]

Alright, seriously, I was disappointed -- it seems that while combat may have fewer *rolls*, it's become a *LOT* more complex and tactical in nature.

Well, let me offer you my own experience.

First, you should know that I'm one of the guys who hated using minis in 3E. Second, you should know that while I enjoy a good combat, I'm a storyteller and roleplayer first and foremost, and a tactics guy a distant second.

That said, I've been playing a rogue in my 4E playtest group for several months now. And what I can tell you is that combat has become a lot more interesting. I find myself a lot more invested in it, and a lot more enthused about it, than I'd been in 3E for years (if not from the beginning). It took us very little time to get the basic rules down, and I've found that combat in 4E runs faster than 3E, but each individual round is a lot more fun. I'm making choices, taking actions, and--yes--performing tactical maneuvers that I'd either never have tried in 3E, or that would have felt like a wasted round in 3E.

 

[tombowings]

This is one of the first things about 4e I really don't like. Mainly the skills. I thought (hoped) that we were getting rid of class skills. Also, all the skills I never take seem to make up the rogues class skill list. As least Bluff is there, but what happened to Diplomacy? What happened to Gather Information? It looks like they are going back to the rogue being a combat thief.

I guess I'm just rapped up in may own playing style though. I enjoy only having 5% of out sessions dedicated to combat, however, the rogue looks like it's build for combat and little else. I want my low Dex high Cha and Int rogues! Not this sneaky swordsman.

Ok, sorry, if I accept what the rogue has become, I will say that it looks like a new match. However, this isn't what the rogue is to me.

 

[Lab_Monkey]

A couple thoughts...

I think that it is likely that there are a number of base character attributes we are not seeing here. We already know that all characters have the same attack and defense progressions, with class specific bonuses. It is possible that other attributes are available outside of your class, including weapon proficiencies and skills. I could easily imagine a scenario where all characters are proficient in a few basic weapons (e.g., club) with a class specific list as a bonus. Same with skills: it is possible that your intelligence gives you a number of bonus skills chosen from a general list in addition to the skills you receive as a part of your class.

Also, I understand how some may be frustrated by being forced to have Stealth and Thievery as skills for your rogue. Remember though that the designers are trying to remove some of the system mastery requirements from the game. Specifically they want all rogue builds to be viable. It seems possible that as the party rogue you are expected to cover certain key roles involving stealth and traps/locks/etc. Instead of requiring new players to figure this out over time, they've just automatically granted these skills to every rogue player.

Just some speculative thoughts. Even if the class description is complete, we are missing a lot of information here.

 

[mach1.9pants]

This is one of the first things about 4e I really don't like. Mainly the skills. I thought (hoped) that we were getting rid of class skills. Also, all the skills I never take seem to make up the rogues class skill list. As least Bluff is there, but what happened to Diplomacy? What happened to Gather Information? It looks like they are going back to the rogue being a combat thief.

I hope that diplomacy is part of another skill- I am pretty sure that GI is now part of streetwise.
I am happy that some skills have been folded together but I really hope that no class has lost skill breadth (apart from craft etc, I like 'em but I know they are gone). A reduction in the breadth of available skill options is not a good thing, unlike the untrained=1/2 your level which I like.

 

[tombowings]

I hope that diplomacy is part of another skill- I am pretty sure that GI is now part of streetwise.
I am happy that some skills have been folded together but I really hope that no class has lost skill breadth (apart from craft etc, I like 'em but I know they are gone). A reduction in the breadth of available skill options is not a good thing, unlike the untrained=1/2 your level which I like.

Gather information is streetwise would be good; and untrained=1/2 your level is great! I'm just wondering if I will be able to make effective characters out of the archtypes I enjoy playing. I know I'm ranting, but I just got done with a 9 hour rehearsal, so bare with me.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I'm just wondering if I will be able to make effective characters out of the archtypes I enjoy playing. I know I'm ranting, but I just got done with a 9 hour rehearsal, so bare with me.

Rant away, my friend, what else are fan forums for?

 

[RodneyThompson]

(And I think spelling out 'builds', instead of players discovering them organically, is a Really Bad Idea, but not one which remotely surprises me. But it has no real rules impact, and, since the fluff in 4e tends to give me migraines if I think too hard about it, I'm just going to ignore anything that doesn't have a mechanical effect.

I don't think I'm going to get in trouble for posting this, but back about a year ago the rules didn't have suggested builds. Each class' powers were just laid out for them. While players might have discovered builds "organically," it actually ended up being extremely overwhelming when creating a character. Not just for new players, but for veteran game designers and editors. I remember sitting down to create a rogue and thinking, "Man, what powers should I pick?"

One thing I had discovered with Saga Edition's design is that grouping abilities in some way helps make choices more obvious when a player is creating the character. That's why Saga Edition's talent trees are more like talent bushes--they don't necessarily have a progression, but they do have a cohesive theme, and grouping them together makes it easier to figure out what you want to do. Players will still find builds, given the number of options sitting in talents (and, in D&D, powers), that are not spelled out in cleanly sliced groups. Skip on over to the non-D&D character optimization boards if you don't believe me. Players will still be able to make all kinds of discoveries.

Now, granted, D&D doesn't bunch things together in quite as small of groups as Saga Edition's talent trees...but you get the idea. It's one of those subtle bits of player psychology that doesn't become immediately obvious until playtesting comes around.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Gather information is streetwise would be good; and untrained=1/2 your level is great! I'm just wondering if I will be able to make effective characters out of the archtypes I enjoy playing. I know I'm ranting, but I just got done with a 9 hour rehearsal, so bare with me.

I suspect you'll be able to hit your archetype as well as before, but it could be that you hit the 'archer's delimma' where 4E gives you just as if not better archers as you got in 3X you just can't do it by making a fighter.

I was sort of shocked to see Initimidate as a seperate skill, and it's interesting to note that Persuasion/Diplomacy isn't on the skill list.

I wonder if this means that they're 'niche protecting' the cleric and leader classes as diplomats.