Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[Mercule]

Without reading the whole 10 pages, my thoughts are:

I think it's fair to say that I'm less than impressed by this particular preview. I'm a rogue-oriented player and I have no enthusiasm whatsoever for this class.

I'm holding out hope that the un-abridged version will be a lot more interesting, though.

 

[Lizard]

I'm guessing it lets you use your sneak attack on AoOs when foes leave your threatened area. That's the only way someone gives up their back without facing.

Or adds a die to SA damage, which is currently a bit lower than I'd expect. I think we're going to see many "Does more stabbity!" type feats/talents/power.

Though I'd kind of like SA to be lower damage than 3e overall, since they're made it much easier to do.

 

[Sitara]

I hope Katana'z are added to the weapon list at the last minute! (for how else will we play ninja's!)

 

[Piratecat]

Seeing this just reinforces my opinion that 4e is not my D&D.

Then why in goodness' name are you in this thread? Stop threadcrapping, please. Shoo! Shoo!

 

[hong]

Or adds a die to SA damage, which is currently a bit lower than I'd expect. I think we're going to see many "Does more stabbity!" type feats/talents/power.

Though I'd kind of like SA to be lower damage than 3e overall, since they're made it much easier to do.

Er, it IS lower damage than 3E overall. It scales to a max of +5d6 from 21st level, and it only applies once per round. That's positively nerfed!

 

[drothgery]

Yes, thats a problem with SAGA skills. You can't choose to be not good at something. You can of course simply not use the skills you don't want to have but this is a inelegant solution.

As I (and others) said over and over again when SAGA skills were being discussed a lot here, you can't choose to completely suck at something at high levels. A first level character's modifiers with untrained skills in SWSE are exactly the same as they are in D&D3.x or SW RCR; it's just ability modifier. It's not until 10th level that the bonus to skill checks from being high level equals the bonus from training. And most SWSE skills have uses that can't be done untrained.

FWIW, it looks like 4e skills are slightly more fine-grained than SWSE skills.

 

[drothgery]

Also, a few random guesses here...

I'm going to guess that the 4e equivalent of the trapfinding ability is simply being trained in Thievery... and that the 4e equivalent of Track is simply being trained in Survival (the latter is exactly how it works in SWSE); since I always thought the 'you need this feat/class ability to really use this skill' mechanics were lame, I'm tenatively calling this a Good Thing

I'm going to take a really wild guess and say that you do get Int modifier bonus trained skills (and humans gets their one extra)... and that you can choose any skill with them, not just skills on your class skill list. This doesn't show up in the 'rogue' section because it's in the 'Intelligence' section and the 'human' section.

Guess number three is that initiative was probably a skill as late as last summer... and then they saw that nearly 100% of SWSE characters were trained in initiative, and so got rid of a skill tax on every character.

 

[Ingolf]

I apologize if this has been pointed out already, it's a long thread & I am packing for vacation, but -

With regards to the "Short Weapons List" - I think this is just a function of the new critical hit mechanic. The only thing that differentiates the short sword and the rapier in 3.5 is the threat range (and off-hand use if you want to pick nits.)

If 4e crits are like Saga (perhaps not a safe assumption, but bear with me) then there is no longer any functional difference between a "Short sword" and a "Rapier" aside from flavor.

 

[HeinorNY]

And most SWSE skills have uses that can't be done untrained.

And that's an important characteristic of this skills system. Character are potentially good in all skills.

 

[Lizard]

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?"

See, to me, that's the point where I fall in love with a game. If I sit down to create a character and see so many options and possibilities that there's no way I can get everything I want the first time out, or where I can read the lists and see patterns and synergies ("Hey, if I take A, B, and C, I will be a primo ass-kicker...but oh, wait, if I swap D for C, then I can do THIS instead, and that's cool, too..."), then I know the game is for me (assuming the rest of the mechanics hold).

I also have real issues with 'builds' due to MMORPGs, and not in the sense of "Oh noes! WOTC copied WOW!", but in the sense of:
"Hey guys, I just rolled up a new rogue!"
"How is he specced?"
"Uh...Artful Dodger?"
"Can't use him. This module works better with a Brute."

If you're marketing 4e to current MMORPGers, they'll be bringing their mindset with them, and if the rules seem to cater to that mindset, it will infect tabletop play. Just my opinion, of course.

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.

You've done the playtesting and I haven't, so, obviously, I can't say you're wrong...but it still bugs me. People are lazy, take the path of least resistance, and tend to view even the most lightly phrased rules suggestions as Ordainments From God. I really see a LOT of players deciding there's only two ways to play a rogue and that there's "wrong" choices which can be made, driven purely by optimization and not character concept.