Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[outsider]

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

Sneaky fighting yes, disarming traps not so much. If you didn't take Disable Device, the trapfinding ability did absolutely nothing, and might as well have not existed.

 

[DandD]

Well, perhaps the diplomat always has to evade traps that sprang upon him when he went to bed.
Like, poisoned needles falling from the ceiling when you want to read a book, write a report home or just dining.
Which could explain the trapfinding ability... Somehow... Hehehe...

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Sneaky fighting yes, disarming traps not so much. If you didn't take Disable Device, the trapfinding ability did absolutely nothing, and might as well have not existed.

You get Trap Sense either way. Also Evasion and Uncanny Dodge. Apparently you're a diplomat and an experienced tumbler... until you actually try to Tumble, at least.

 

[Cadfan]

I never got why Rogues had to be the diplomats. What does being a diplomat have to do with being a rogue?

Look at the character class. Has it got Diplomacy? Great! You're a diplomat! Someone might ask you "But why should a Diplomat be able to smite evil or summon a celestial horse?" But I think that person is clearly missing the point.

If the goal were to make sure that Diplomats had only skills related to being a Diplomat, we'd force them to be Experts.

 

[outsider]

Evasion, uncanny dodge, and trap sense can all easily be attributed to either luck or survival instinct, rather than training. You wouldn't need to be able to perform a cartwheel to do any of them.

At any rate, I'm not going to continue arguing in favor of the genericness of the 3e rogue, as it wasn't something I liked. Every D&D rogue should be able to open locks, disarm traps, and sneak around. It's part of the class identity. 3e pretended that it didn't have to be, but the game assumed you bought those skills anyways, basically giving you the illusion of choice.

 

[helium3]

You say that like its a bad thing? Should all races be balanced with all classes? 3e had a whole lot of them anyway, like half-orc isn't supposed to play a wizard, etc.

And yet I've seen a fair number of kick-butt half-orc wizards. Just because the rules don't support min-maxing doesn't mean you can't make the character.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

Not he sucks. The party sucks without a Rogue with Stealth and Thievery. And that's why the 4E Rogue has these skills per default.

Basically, this is the first example to give a class a fixed "out-of-combat"-role. Whatever a Rogue does else, he is a good striker, and a sneaky thief. Some Rogues might focus on these aspects, others might not, but you're always guaranteed to be good at this stuff.

 

[Jackelope King]

I may have missed it earlier in this thread, but has anyone considered that the weapon proficiencies we see might mean that UA-style Weapon Groups are in (possibly replacing Simple/Martial/Exotic), so the weapons list may be much broader than it seems at first glance? I don't like the limitations either, but it's a possibility.

 

[Derren]

Not he sucks. The party sucks without a Rogue with Stealth and Thievery. And that's why the 4E Rogue has these skills per default.

Unless all parties must now have a rogue this is not a real argument. If classes without a rogue are possible then classes with a rogue without thievery training are also possible.

 

[JosephK]

Actually, I think that is the perfect solution. Feats are now meant to customize your classes.

Rogue A is a dagger user. He's happy with the light blades and and the x-bows he as learned to use in the city streaks. He spends his feats and abilities improving his stealthiness and the like.

Rogue B does not like being limited to daggers and light blades. He's a street thug, and thus has learned to use a slightly wider range of melee weapondry. He spends takes strength-based combat powers and spends his feats on expanding his roguish weapon abilities (and now light maces can be used for any of his abilities as well). We don't know the mechanical difference between a light blade and a light mace...it could very well be large enough to require the restriction.

Rogue C is an elf, good a sniping with a bow (multi-class ranger). He spends some training (i.e., a feat) to use his archery skills in conjunction with his natural bow abilities and his ranger levels. Again a bow might be significantly better than a x-bow in 4e, hence the need for a rogue to take a feat to use his rogue-powers with them.

Rogue A, more stealth. Rogue B can use maces with his rogue powers. Rogue C can use bows with his rogue powers. That is exactly what feats are meant to do in my opinion: customize your character beyond the ability choices. I hope they do supply a couple feats to let rogues use their abilities with other weapons.

I still think it's a poor choice and an arbitrary restriction that doesnt really serve any purpose other than making roles, archetypes, etc, that arent completely cookie-cutter pigeon-hole rogue mechanically inferior, in comparison with standard dagger 'n shuriken rogue.

Even *if* we assume that there'll be feats to allow you to sneak attack with hammers and axes, as a dwarven rogue, he'll still have to bleed atleast one feat on them.

To me, it doesnt seem like this restriction has anything to do with customizing my character by feats, but rather its inherently limited design punishes me for thematically going even *slightly* (like using a club) outside the fixed "standard rogue" template.