Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[Doug McCrae]

"Rings are used only by the most powerful of souls"

4e is the Green Lantern edition.

 

[Incenjucar]

4e is the Green Lantern edition.

Complete with recharge mechanics.

 

[Cam Banks]

It's not the build option itself that annoys me, it's using the word "build."

Although since I can't come up with a better term other than archetype or template, I'll just grin and bear it.

I still hate "gish" though. If I see that in a 4e rulebook I'll have to go on a campage.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[ruleslawyer]

Gotta disagree there. I think a crazy little "brawny rogue" leaping out of the shadows with a big machete and lopping off a head is very fitting. I don't mind if it requires a feat or something, but I gotta say I hated Mearls pulling this "light-one-handed-weapon-only" stuff in Iron Heroes with the harrier. It's a concept-killer.

(Aside: Allowing harriers to use Power Attack is broken, is why mearls did that. It's also not "light one-handed weapon only"; harriers are merely not allowed to use Power feats with mobile assault. A harrier can still use a big sword, and in fact gains several advantages from doing so. Besides, you can nicely multiclass harrier with berserker and use march of ruin with Power weapons if you want that concept.)

As you said, this is probably best addressed by a feat. Rather than a concept-killer, I see it as concept reinforcement. I don't want a return to the 1e/2e days where the best weapon you could use to backstab was a frickin' greatsword... er, two-handed sword.

 

[Klaus]

It's not the build option itself that annoys me, it's using the word "build."

Although since I can't come up with a better term other than archetype or template, I'll just grin and bear it.

I still hate "gish" though. If I see that in a 4e rulebook I'll have to go on a campage.

Cheers,
Cam

"Suggested Progressions"?

It's not like WotC didn't use "progression" in the appendix of PHB2.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Because it felt kludgy in the ranger? Better to have just given bonus feats.

And because it enforces the idea of 'right' and 'wrong' choices, even if there's no game mechanics?

And because it evokes MMORPG concepts and all those entail?

And because, as I noted way-back-when, it's much better to have these things discovered organically than imposed from the top?

Cadfan should have said: It's like with the Ranger, but totally different and better.

It's like writing "A Fighter can take Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialization (Longsword), Improved Critical (Longsword) and Superior Weapon Focus (Longsword) and Superior Weapon Specialization (Longsword)
That's a 3.5 build - but a very simple one, some probably most players will work out quickly.
It's probably also one that will turn out to be boring if used too often. But for your first character, why not make something standard? Leave the Githzerai Half Dragon Monk with Vow of Poverty for later, when the standard option begin to feel bland.

Apparently, playtest results showed that the "build options" in 4E weren't as obvious as they were in 3.0. Probably because there are even more powers to select. So they decided to present some simple builds. If the power lists per levels are just 1/4 of the size of the possible arcane spells of one level in 3.x, people really need a few pointers to figure out what to do...
Too many options makes it hard to get into anything. Once you understand the basics, you can ignore builds and choose abilities to make your own, unique character.

One of the things WotC is aiming at is "accessibility". People should find it easy to get into the game. All the complex stuff experienced players love to learn and explore is still there, but you don't have to go into the details until you feel ready to do so.

How often did you get a new, inexperienced player in your group? How often did you pregenerate a character, how much time did you spend on explaining the characters options? We didn't have that many in the past 5 years, but we had some. And it always took a lot of time. That's okay if there is a group of experienced players around to help you. But imagine having to do this stuff on your own...

Man, when I remember starting to play Shadowrun 3rd edition (3.01D) - How much I simply didn't get until I played a few sessions? How much did I misunderstood stuff written in the book! How little did I understood how things would work together in the game...

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

I don't really want to read through 650+ posts, but one thing did stand out - Initiative skill.

I thought Initiative was a skill now in 4th edition. Wouldn't it make sense for it to fall under the Rogue's blanket of skills?

 

[hong]

And because, as I noted way-back-when, it's much better to have these things discovered organically than imposed from the top?

No, RPGs are not character-building. Thank you.

 

[Spatula]

The 3e PHB has initial "builds" listed for every character class. Later supplements had all kinds of suggested skill/feat selections for different character archtypes (this goes even further back to the days of 2e kits). On the mechanical side, prestige class requirements practically mandated that you plan your character's advancement out ahead of time if you wished to take levels in a PrC. This is not something new. Nor was it something invented by MMOs (as far as video games go, the concept goes back to Diablo 2 if not further). It's a natural consequence of allowing players to customize their characters' abilities.

In the context of the 4e rogue writeup, it's advice given to players who might not know better, and similar content can be found all throughout the 3e books (and 2e books). Complaining about this is about as silly as all the 4e-is-better-than-3e-because-of-X strawmen.

 

[fnwc]

Unless the CHARACTERS are grossly ignorant of the world they live in, they should be aware of things like "Rings are used only by the most powerful of souls" and whatnot.

Magical rings, perhaps. But it would seem a bit strange if people didn't wear non-magical rings, at all levels.