Class Acts: Duelist Rogue

[Salamandyr]

I can see your point when it comes to the Athletics skill, but their Acrobatics skill is going to have a big bonus since they can add their Charisma modifier to it. I'm kind of wondering if this was done to allow rogues to upgrade their armor and thus shrug off some of the armor check penalty.

Ah, you are correct. I wasn't thinking through that Acrobatics is based on Dex, not strength.

I'm still okay with it though...any rogue trained in acrobatics will almost auto-succeed with the skill anyway, and now I won't have to explain "no, you can't use acrobatics to jump" over and over again to players disappointed with their Athletics score.

Just count me happy that not only is there finally a reason to use the rapier (yay!) but that there is also a way to play a rogue that doesn't rely on having a buddy at all times just to do damage.

 

[KidSnide]

This case fails on my standard test: Does the rule cause unintended consequences? In this case, it allows a magic item or class feature to add damage that is not specified in the magic item or class feature. If a Half-Elf takes this power as a Dilettante power and does not have sneak attack then this power doesn't add the enhancement bonus of your weapon. But if he has a magic item that adds a dice of damage then it does. If he is multiclassed into Rogue and adds his sneak attack then it does, if he is a Ranger and adds Quarry then it does.

That just seems wonky and unintended to me. Whether your weapon does extra damage shouldn't be dependent on whether a creature is your Quarry. The system is designed to be elegant and make sense to people. If a rule requires you to jump through hoops to explain, it probably in an unintended side effect.

I find this reasoning very persuasive.

-KS

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Which is why I was really hoping for a rock solid rules citation. And barring that, for someone official in the game to _make one_. They've done some good stuff with things like PH2 appendices... I'm all for the game continuing to do such

Good luck on that one. I've had enough dealings with R&D at WOTC either directly or indirectly through our RPGA contact that I understand their philosophy behind rules in 4e is something like "We spent way too much of our time arguing over small, nearly insignificant rules issues that any DM should have been able to rule on themselves in 3e/3.5e. We aren't going to do that anymore. Part of the 4e philosophy is that the game has a DM who can think for himself. We'll let him think for himself so we can work on other things."

Right at the beginning of 4e, a lot of the admins asked our WOTC contact to get us some rulings for rules that didn't make sense to us. He said he'd pass them on to R&D and we mostly got back "We aren't making rulings on anything in 4e unless it becomes a huge issues affecting almost everyone, in which case it'll see official errata after going through the R&D process before we release it."

Same thing happened when I asked Andy Collins at GenCon for a ruling on whether Commander's Strike worked at range. He told me "I know we've always allowed it to work at range, but you are right, it isn't very clear. I'll bring it back to R&D and after we have some meetings on it, we'll issue a ruling on it." They eventually came back with "It doesn't work at range".

 

[keterys]

That's... awesome

 

[Jack99]

P57 PHB 'Some powers add modifiers to attack rolls or damage rolls. These modifiers apply to any roll of the dice,'

Page 57 is talking about powers that grants bonuses to other people. It does not apply to this particular problem.

 

[WalterKovacs]

If the feat specifies Military weapons, then the Bastard Sword won't work. It's a Superior weapon, whether you take the feat or not.

-O

The feat only specifies that it gives proficiency in one handed military heavy blades, but allows any one handed heavy blades to work like light blades for rogue powers/sneak attack.

 

[Garthanos]

I have been wanting ... a rapier wielding duelist ... for some time this rocks but... The at-will is kind of lame or did I miss something? Oh I see everybody already discussing it not gaining static damage bonuses.

I had basically come to the conclusion a melee ranger makes a better duelist than a rogue does...

 

[thewok]

From the PHB:

Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and hit that enemy with an attack that uses a crossbow, a light blade, or a sling, the attack deals extra damage. If you have dealt Sneak Attack damage since the start of your turn, you cannot deal it again until the start of your next turn. You decide whether to apply the extra damage after making the damage roll. As you advance in level, your extra damage increases.

This can be interpreted two ways:

1) The player decides whether or not to use sneak attack after rolling the damage roll of the attack, or

2) The player decides whether or not to apply sneak attack damage after rolling said sneak attack damage.

The first seems much more likely to me, and it would seem, from the wording of the passage, that sneak attack is not considered part of the damage roll.

Regarding Critical hits:

Maximum Damage: Rather than roll damage, determine the maximum damage you can roll with your attack. This is your critical damage. (Attacks that don’t deal damage still don’t deal damage on a critical hit.)

Extra Damage: Magic weapons and implements, as well as high crit weapons, can increase the damage you deal when you score a critical hit. If this extra damage is a die roll, it’s not automatically maximum damage; you add the result of the roll.

Sneak Attack isn't listed under "Extra Damage" in the crit section, but the wording of Sneak Attack was changed to introduce the phrase where it did not exist before, which leads me to believe that it is considered part of that group.

So, I would rule that Sneak Attack does not constitute a "damage roll."