Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[IceFractal]

Back when Races and Classes came out, there were some complaints that Fighter no longer supported the "agile warrior" type. But this was countered with the statement that since the classes were flexible in flavor, you could simply play a Rogue or Ranger for your agile warrior. And I was fine with that. Classes as skill sets works in 3E, and can make things much cleaner, mechanically.


But that isn't what we're actually getting. What we're getting is classes that have a great deal of inescapable flavor. And not just metagame flavor like feat names - this is highly visible in-game flavor. Let's take our first case, the Rogue:

* Skills - Stealth and Thievery is mandatory. Just wanted to be a agile type who doesn't sneak around stealing things? Too bad.
* Weapons - Not only is the Rogue only proficient in a small set, but their powers are specifically limited to this exact set. Want to play a thug who uses a club, or a sniper with a bow, or an infiltrator with unarmed strikes? Nope, you must carry a dagger and wear a black hooded cloak. And lurk in the shadows, even in your own house.
* Ok, that's exaggeration. But it does bring up a real point. Since Rogues use these specific weapons, just have your guards stop anyone carrying those from entering - use magic to find the hidden stuff. All your "disguised assassin" problems eliminated in one fell swoop. Plus, Rogues are now useless in any kind of "prison break" scenario where there aren't a bunch of knives conveniently lying around.
* And apparently slings can be used for sniping, but not bows. Yeah, that's just bad.


I'd be fine with either of these options:
A) Fighters are warriors, Rogues are thieves, and this is obvious in-game. Fighter covers all types of warriors, including agile knife fighters.
B) Fighters use strength-based combat, Rogues use agility-based combat. Rogue is sufficiently flexible to represent a non-thief, non-sneaky, knife fighter.

But apparently what we get is this third option:
C) Fighters are strength-based combatants who are warriors. Rogues are agility-based combatants who are thieves. If you want a non-thief agility-based combatant, wait for WotC to publish one.

And yes, I haven't mentioned Rangers. That's because, based on the Rogue, I fully expect them to:
1) Be locked to the bow as their primary weapon.
2) Have mandatory ties to nature.

And I haven't mentioned houseruling either. Because the fact that you can fix bad rules yourself doesn't make them not bad. And more significantly, houserules won't help you at convention games, RPGA games, or with houserule-wary DMs.


Sorry about the rant, but what I'm seeing is a mechanically-sound and promising class that's been severely handicapped by a narrow enforced flavor with visible in-game effects, for no good reason.

 

[Steely Dan]

And lurk in the shadows, even in your own house.

My buddy does that.

 

[devoblue]

It's probably a bit harsh to judge without seeing the ranger. Mechanically, there is place in between the rogue and the fighter for the lightly armored skillful warrior. The assumption that some people have that the ranger is tied to two-weapon fighting or archery is based on something that is only 3e, and we've got no indication that this will be duplicated in 4e. I would expect that the swashbuckler archtype could be filled by a ranger build. We know that the ranger is a striker and is losing spell casting, so that will allow him to be more focused on his combat options. He also will probably get an archer as a build, and may keep a twf build, although that doesn't sound very striker to me.

Finally, on the possibility that he gets mandatory skill choices that force him to focus on wilderness like a rogue focuses on stealth and thievery - I would consider it highly likely that the DMG includes discussion on why it is mandatory (strong recommendation for new players), why you would change that, and also includes it on a check list of "approved" house rules.

Edit: Remember that the ranger killed the scout and took his stuff. Ranger is supposed to be cooler in 4e.

 

[MaelStorm]

I think your touching a weak spot here. Based on the preview I would admit your are dead-on. I would like it very much if the new Core Books would prove all of this as pure ranting. But based on the Rogue class preview, I understand your concern. One of the aspect that I didn't like at all (aside the chaotic return!) is that there is only 2 character build. I hope that there will be 3 or 4 of this (not only 2 per class).

And yes, I pretty much agree that what we have seen so far is that classes are much less flexible than advertised.

 

[Steely Dan]

And yes, I haven't mentioned Rangers. That's because, based on the Rogue, I fully expect them to:

1) Be locked to the bow as their primary weapon.


2) Have mandatory ties to nature.

1) As there are two builds for the rogue, I suspect there will two builds for the ranger – ranged or TWF.


2) As there power source is Martial, not Primal, I don't think it will be overtly so.

 

[Raith5]

I think your touching a weak spot here. Based on the preview I would admit your are dead-on. I would like it very much if the new Core Books would prove all of this as pure ranting. But based on the Rogue class preview, I understand your concern. One of the aspect that I didn't like at all (aside the chaotic return!) is that there is only 2 character build. I hope that there will be 3 or 4 of this (not only 2 per class).

And yes, I pretty much agree that what we have seen so far is that classes are much less flexible than advertised.

I agree I was really hoping that the base classes could be stretched by various options - especially for the martial templates.

But a lot turns on the nature of these builds - are they compulsory or they just guides/templates.

 

[MaelStorm]

I agree I was really hoping that the base classes could be stretched by various options - especially for the martial templates.

But a lot turns on the nature of these builds - are they compulsory or they just guides/templates.

I would think its the latter not the former.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Keep in mind though, that the builds are only suggestions. You don't have to follow any of the suggestions and can explore other options.

The only thing you have to decide on are the Rogue Tactics. It's possible that Ranger will have something similar, but I am not certain that these will be described as limited as Two-Weapon Fighting or Archery. Rogue Tactics seems to allow you to choose your "secondary" stat (primary for Rogue is always Dex, secondary is either Strength or Charisma, and the remaining is the "tertiary"...).
Maybe Ranger's primary stat will also be Dex, and it's secondary either Wis or Str, or something like that. That might still tie in with "combat style" related powers. (Wis seems to fit well for archery, since it covers perception. Strength is probably required for two-weapon fighting).

 

[Engilbrand]

Two problems I see in the argument:
1. What if we only saw 2 out of 4 paths for the Rogue?
2. Even if your "character sheet" says Thievery +9, does that mean that the actual character has to use that?

 

[Derren]

Keep in mind though, that the builds are only suggestions. You don't have to follow any of the suggestions and can explore other options.

Except that other options aren't really viable. You have thief skills prepicked and the other availiable skills on the class list also don't really scream "agile fighter". You have class tactics which also only support two different playstyles and most of you abilities require you to use specific weapons which you might not want to use.

Playing a rogue with the bow will be as viable as playing a wizard with a sword. Doable but not effective barring multiclassing. But that exactly the situation like it was in 3E. No improvment.