Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4071365" data-attributes="member: 1054">It's the interaction of &quot;builds&quot; and &quot;Rogue Tactics&quot;. We have only a few interpretations:a)It's mostly an accident that the suggested builds and the tactics match up. We'll know this when we see the other classes.b)WOTC figures their players are too dim to figure out that if you've got a Tactic which gives a lot of bonuses to certain Talents, then, you should probably pick those Talents, and that, if said Talents rely on Strength, you ought to have a high Strength to take advantage of them.c)&quot;Builds&quot; are, erm, built into the game in the form of the interaction of &quot;Styles&quot; (Rogue Tactics, Wizard School, Fighter weapon choice) and Talents, and thus, are &quot;optional&quot; in the sense that you don't have to follow them, but you're screwing yourself if you don't. It may be that the designers, once they were done with the class, looked at all the options and created the builds from them. It doesn't feel that way, though; it feels like the builds were decided upon and then talents created to fit.(I never thought Stabby Ranger/Shooty Ranger was a particularly good design pattern, so, I'm not entirely pleased with it being mirrored in 4e.)EDIT: I really don't dislike the Rogue -- the Apmersand article was the first 4e Preview to really get me excited about 4e in a positive way. I simply dislike the way that character focus is being narrowed (apparently, for all classes) in ways that are tightly mechanically integrated. Instead of taking the flexibility of the 3e fighter and rogue classes and expanding them, they've seemingly taken the 2 or 3 most common designs and hard coded them into the rules, with the notation that while you CAN ignore this, the rules really turn you into an idiot if you do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lizard, post: 4071365, member: 1054"] It's the interaction of "builds" and "Rogue Tactics". We have only a few interpretations: a)It's mostly an accident that the suggested builds and the tactics match up. We'll know this when we see the other classes. b)WOTC figures their players are too dim to figure out that if you've got a Tactic which gives a lot of bonuses to certain Talents, then, you should probably pick those Talents, and that, if said Talents rely on Strength, you ought to have a high Strength to take advantage of them. c)"Builds" are, erm, built into the game in the form of the interaction of "Styles" (Rogue Tactics, Wizard School, Fighter weapon choice) and Talents, and thus, are "optional" in the sense that you don't have to follow them, but you're screwing yourself if you don't. It may be that the designers, once they were done with the class, looked at all the options and created the builds from them. It doesn't feel that way, though; it feels like the builds were decided upon and then talents created to fit. (I never thought Stabby Ranger/Shooty Ranger was a particularly good design pattern, so, I'm not entirely pleased with it being mirrored in 4e.) EDIT: I really don't dislike the Rogue -- the Apmersand article was the first 4e Preview to really get me excited about 4e in a positive way. I simply dislike the way that character focus is being narrowed (apparently, for all classes) in ways that are tightly mechanically integrated. Instead of taking the flexibility of the 3e fighter and rogue classes and expanding them, they've seemingly taken the 2 or 3 most common designs and hard coded them into the rules, with the notation that while you CAN ignore this, the rules really turn you into an idiot if you do. [/QUOTE]

Verification