Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[Ahglock]

The concept of a greatsword wielding, agile, lightly-armoured character should indeed be eminently possible under 4E. Said character concept will very likely include some levels of the rogue class. It will also very likely include some levels of the fighter class.

Does this count as a "greatsword wielding rogue"? That depends on the mindset of the person asking the question.

It does to me, but oh well. The classes are just names as long as the concepts are possible the game has done its job.

 

[Ahglock]

As I said above, I think that 3e's biggest mistake was providing this sort of option bloat. I prefer what the designers seem to be suggesting; if you want a "thuggish" rogue, take some fighter levels and I'm sure that greatsword will be quite effective. But working hard to bring the greatsword up to par (but no further, as it was in 1e/2e) as a rogue weapon is not really necessary IMO.

I think option starvation is a bigger problem than option bloat, and I'm worried that 4e will be leaving me hungry.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

That's one way to determine an NPC's level ("counting magic missiles" , but I was also thinking of *rings*, because a wizard who has no magical rings on his fingers is < level 11.

Player 1: Hey, does the wizard have any rings on his fingers?
DM: He's got one on each hand.
Player 2: Holy crap! He's epic? I run!
Player 3: Me too. Damn you, DM! Damn you!
Player 1: Wait a minute guys! He's got 1st level fighters for minions, and we had no trouble killing his henchman. He can't possibly be epic.
DM: The wizard waves at you and gestures at his rings, smiling knowingly.
Player 1: Oh jeez. Fine. I run too.

*later*

Player 1: What was the big idea throwing that epic wizard at us?
DM: What epic wizard?
Player 2: You know, the guy with the rings.
DM: The guy with the 10 gp nonmagical rings? Yeah, when you started to freak out about his rings, he figured you guys were idiots and played along to scare you. It worked too, and next week you guys get to clean up the mess you made by failing to kill him. Also, when word gets around, you'll all be the laughing stock of the adventurer's guild. He will make sure word gets around. HAW HAW.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I don't care much if it costs a feat, but if someone wants to build a character that doesn't fit the cookie cutter molds of the minds of the 4e creators he should be able to make an effective one. A greatsword wielding rogue is something that should easily be possible to make an effective version of. It doesn't need to be just as good, but it should be good enough that it isn't a bad idea, and it shouldn't be so good that its a bad idea not to. The thugish rogue with a big ass weapon is an archtype that my group has seen before and wants to see again.

A sneak attack is a pinpoint blow that takes advantage of your enemy's tactical weakness to hit them where it counts. Why should this be easy to do with a 50-pound, 5-foot-long hunk of iron?

I'd say it SHOULDN'T be "good enough that it isn't a bad idea." Because it just doesn't really make sense. If you want to lay the smack down with a zwiehander, I'm right there with you, but you're not gonna be "sneaking" up on anyone.

Now, sneak attack with bare hands, a club, or sap, or other smallish weapon I can understand, and I hope (and expect) there's a way to do that in 4e.

 

[FireLance]

I would just like to take some time out of the Encounter and Daily Power debate to say that the thing I like the most about the rogue class writeup are two class features rogues do not have : Trap Finding, and Evasion. Both never quite felt right to me and it warms my heart to see them disappear.

Unfortunately, there is still a chance that you may be disappointed. I can see evasion returning as a per encounter utility (or maybe defensive, if there is such a class) power.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Unfortunately, there is still a chance that you may be disappointed. I can see evasion returning as a per encounter utility (or maybe defensive, if there is such a class) power.

But at least you won't have to choose it as your power. Unlike theivery and sneakery

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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

So, wait, building characters doesn't build character?

 

[hong]

Thank you, thank you. We'll be here all week!

 

[Ahglock]

A sneak attack is a pinpoint blow that takes advantage of your enemy's tactical weakness to hit them where it counts. Why should this be easy to do with a 50-pound, 5-foot-long hunk of iron?

I'd say it SHOULDN'T be "good enough that it isn't a bad idea." Because it just doesn't really make sense. If you want to lay the smack down with a zwiehander, I'm right there with you, but you're not gonna be "sneaking" up on anyone.

Now, sneak attack with bare hands, a club, or sap, or other smallish weapon I can understand, and I hope (and expect) there's a way to do that in 4e.

Well for one its more like a 5-lb, 5 foot hunk of iron, where a one handed weapon would usually weigh around 2-3 lbs. And if a 6' dude can sneak up you I doubt the difference in his sneaking skill is that large when he is carrying a big sword vs a small sword.

You can make precision strikes with two handed weapons, so yeah it would make sense.

 

[Ahglock]

Thank you, thank you. We'll be here all week!

Try the fish, and don't forget to tip your waitress.