Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[Bagpuss]

out of interest I just noticed on the thread about new pictures of the character visualiser, that the Rapier is listed.

It's in the Superior Melee Weapons category along with the "sword, short"; Bastard Sword, Katana and Chain, spiked.

There is also a Military Melee Weapons category and a Simple Melee Weapons Category, and the same three for ranged weapons.

short sword is exotic?

 

[Gargoyle]

This would make me sad. Rangers excelling in archery makes some sense. Rangers having some propensity for TWF over light weapons, sword and board, or big freakin' axes goes beyond strange and well into absurd.

Can someone please give me an even remotely plausible excuse way a wilderness survivalist would have any greater inclination towards TWF? And "'cause the rules say so" doesn't count.

I can't. Your reasoning is perfectly logical.

But somehow TWF rangers don't bother me. Call me a Drizzt loving fanboy, but I guess I think TWF is cool, and somehow suites the style of a D&D ranger. Maybe the picture of a dual-wielding ranger has been stuck in my head so long that it's become iconic to me, sort of fitting in with images of beholders, dragons, magic missles and other D&D isms, even if it hasn't always been around. My ranger players seem to like it too.

 

[Doug McCrae]

What Gargoyle said. Allowing players to build every character imaginable with the core rules is a really bad business strategy.

 

[Cadfan]

1) I can understand complaining about free abilities tying your character to fluff you do not want, but not when the free ability is so small as being automatically trained in Thievery. A +5 bonus to one skill is not a character straitjacket.

2) You can't auto detect rogues by looking for people with daggers. Do your Fighter characters not carry backup daggers? When they're walking around in a city out of armor so they can shop, do they not have daggers with them? For that matter, don't your Wizards carry backup daggers? I thought everyone carried a backup dagger. I thought this was standard issue adventurer gear. Sure, the Fighter's special attacks might not work with a dagger. But so what? First, it makes sense that a dagger and a greatsword require different training. But more importantly, from a gamist perspective, that fighter has a big attack bonus, a good strength score, and a pile of hit points. If he's stuck using just a dagger for roleplaying reasons, he should be just fine.

3) A Rogue with a dagger is not objectively better than a rogue using another weapon, even though Rogues get +1 attack roll with a dagger. This seems pretty clearly designed to improve the viability of the dagger so that it isn't automatically overshadowed by the shortsword. Right now, in 3e, a dagger isn't a great choice as a primary weapon because the Rogue can already use the larger, more damaging shortsword. The Rogue Weapon rule provides some equality here, making the shortsword more damaging but the dagger more accurate.

4) Finally, as an overall point, it is likely that a great deal of variety will be provided by the class powers selections. You can't leave these out of your consideration, as they're the way you customize a class. Arguing that the rogue is too restrictive while not considering all the different tactical options provided by power choices is like arguing that the 3e Fighter is too restrictive while ignoring the existence of feats. Of COURSE its restrictive, if you leave out the greatest source of variety.

 

[FireLance]

I'm sorry, but having a +1 to using a dagger is not a set-in-stone requirement that you use one, and nothing else.

It looks to me that it's there to give rogue players a choice between higher accuracy with a dagger, or higher damage with a short sword.

 

[LostSoul]

A Rogue needs to have Stealth and Thievery because without it, he sucks. He is not an effective character without those skills, and I imagine you'll find that out once you crack open the first module. So why not give it to them for free?

I think, if you have a class based around an idea (ie. Stealth and Thievery), someone new to the game shouldn't be able to completely avoid that option just because they don't know the rules.

 

[outsider]

I like the 4E rogue writeup. Trying to put my finger on why 4E's execution of class roles (that we have seen thus far) reminds me of a very mature, sophisticated version of BECMI/RC.

...I'm not sure I have the words to describe it. But the rogue feels like it's returning to its "Thief" roots, and I like it.

I agree with you on this one. I like my classes having some flavor to them. 3e rogues were way too generic. In practice I didn't mind much, because I could easily create the "thief" characters I wanted with it. I think it was a bit of a disservice to the game though. Classes(especially the base 4), should be iconic and flavorful, not generic "maybe your rogue isn't a rogue at all, but a diplomat!" style frameworks. I'm really happy to see the direction WotC is going with classes and roles in 4e. It's one of the areas 3e lost a bit from earlier editions, and I'm glad to see it coming back.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Bean: I believe when people say 'only two builds', I believe they're referring to the tactic options (Artful Dodger and Brutal Scoundrel). However, what I don't understand is why people think that a Swashbuckling Rogue won't be supported. From the column,

Riposte Strike
Sly Flourish
Trick Strike

are all names of powers that a Rogue can get at first level that all seem to work with the idea of swashbuckling. I see no reason to believe that there is not enough support for a swashbuckling rogue to work. What I do see is that the powers that WotC chose to show us seem to work better with a Brutal Scoundrel Rogue than an Artful Dodger Rogue. This is a rather significant difference.

Bag: Arbitrary distinctions are what you make of them, really. What is not seen as arbitrary to you can seem to be quite arbitrary to others. Now, do I believe that the list of weapons that a Rogue can Sneak Attack with seems a bit short? Rather, yes. Do I believe that a Rogue should be allowed to Sneak Attack with any weapon whatsoever? No. The secret here is to find the happy medium between flavor balance and play balance. And, really, without seeing the whole package, it would be difficult to argue one way or the other as to whether that happy medium is there.

 

[Doug McCrae]

"maybe your rogue isn't a rogue at all, but a diplomat!"

A diplomat who's really good at sneaky fighting and disarming traps.

 

[DandD]

I do wonder, can a Rogue player take both 'rogue tactics' eventually? I mean, I wouldn't limit myself to being only an artful dodger or a brutal scoundrel, I would take both at 1st level, or eventually have both at a later level. If I couldn't have them both, what would be the reason? Or what if I multi-class my character later to rogue, do I even get one of these two 'tactics'?

I hope that they won't expect us to plan the character in advance, like they did with all those Prestige Classes.

Of course, one has to consider that we don't know how multi-classing works.