Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[Lizard]

Characterwise, how did a 3E rogue without any ranks in Disable Device ever get Trapfinding? If you can answer this, just apply the same reasoning.

Hey, I've had lots of characters w/out Disable Device have NO problem finding traps.

Walk walk walk KABOOM ow ow ow "Hey guys, I found a trap!"

 

[Lizard]

Why give elves proficiency with longbows and shortbows and then say they can't use them with ANY rogue abilities?
.

Uh...have we seen all rogue and/or elf abilities?

Are we certain there are no rogue abilities which can be used with a bow? Or no elf abilities which are "You may use a longbow instead of a crossbow for any bow-related ability"?

Some of the criticisms in this thread are spot-on, and some of WOTC defenders are reaching. OTOH, assumptions that we've seen all there is to see are fairly spurious, akin to seeing "Burning hands" and "Fireball" and concluding that there are no ice spells in the game.

 

[tsadkiel]

I suspect, based on absolutely no evidence, that many of the "stealth doesn't fit my concept!" rogues will be better represented by the warlord class.

Did I mention my complete lack of evidence?

 

[rkanodia]

Uh...have we seen all rogue and/or elf abilities?

Are we certain there are no rogue abilities which can be used with a bow? Or no elf abilities which are "You may use a longbow instead of a crossbow for any bow-related ability"?

Some of the criticisms in this thread are spot-on, and some of WOTC defenders are reaching. OTOH, assumptions that we've seen all there is to see are fairly spurious, akin to seeing "Burning hands" and "Fireball" and concluding that there are no ice spells in the game.

I hope that you're right about this. So far, the weapon restrictions on Rogue abilities seem like they severely undercut the promise of flexible, useful multiclassing. "Cool, I took a level of Rogue, now I can slide people around the battlefield, and all I have to do is, uh, put away my greatsword, then draw a dagger (crap - I'm going to have to start carrying a magical DAGGER, too, or I'll be taking a hit penalty), then use Positioning Strike, and then switch back to my greatsword so that all my studly Fighter powers are available. Awesome?"

 

[Puggins]

In all honesty, how many rogues has everyone played in 3.x that didn't have Hide and Move Silently maxxed out? Sure, such characters exist, but they're in a rather small minority. In other words, for people that really want to play a Dwarven Trap Expert, the rogue is not the greatest fit. But hell, the 3.x rogue was just as bad a fit- why the hell does a trap expert have sneak attack if he doesn't know a thing about stealth? Ergo- wait for a more appropriate class to come down the pipeline in order to get a 100% fit, or deal with a 70% fit, or do a bit of retrofitting (Mearls said such a thing willl be simple).

The weapon proficiencies don't bother me, though I wish the sap had been included. The list of weapons is perfectly appropriate for a character who is looking to end the combat as quickly as possible and has very little actual weapons training. The rapier, for those not familiar with it, requires extensive training to use correctly, and is utterly impractical in the context of ambushes.

And making razor-precise attacks with a shuriken, sling or long bow? Err.... no. At least not in the middle of combat.

Personally I would have liked to see a couple weapons added, but the list as-is makes perfect sense.

 

[Lizard]

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.

But someone experienced in the game *should*.

What's wrong with this?

"Pick 6 skills to be Trained in. It is *strongly* recommended that rogues pick Stealth and Theivery, as few rogues as untrained in even one of these skills, and very, very, few untrained in both. Without these skills, a rogue will not be able to do many of the things expected of him in common game situations. If you wish to play a rogue without either or both of these skills, you can -- the rules won't stop you -- but be sure to discuss your choice with your DM and your fellow players."

Is that so hard?

I suspect it's how 99% of games will be houseruled, anyway.

 

[Wulfram]

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.

But the party is supposed to be able to use a Ranger as it's striker, so Thievery can't be a necessary skill to the party unless it's also required of the Ranger, which would be silly.

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.

Diplomats should really have Bluff, Sense Motive and Intimidate in addition to diplomacy, while things like Gather Information and Forgery (mostly as a defence) are potentially appropriate too. Which really leaves you with Rogue, Bard - though the silly lawful requirement gets in the way - or, as you mention, expert, as your choices.

 

[Mortellan]

This is shaping up to be the most houseruled Core book ever!

I agree with the OP.

 

[Cadfan]

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.

This is only a problem if the weapons in question aren't better than the weapons the rogue starts with. Right now, the rogue has a hand crossbow, a sling, and a shuriken for ranged attacks. This suggests that a rogue's ranged attacks tend to be short range and low damage. If the use of a bow is a worthwhile upgrade above that, it is fair to charge a feat for it. The same is true for the use of a mace.

The only thing I'm missing is a way to club a guard unconscious from behind. But you know what? That doesn't have to be represented by unarmed fighting or by the use of a sap. It could be an at will power just as easily. Someone can know how to cold cock someone without having full unarmed combat skills.

 

[Lizard]

I hope that you're right about this. So far, the weapon restrictions on Rogue abilities seem like they severely undercut the promise of flexible, useful multiclassing. "Cool, I took a level of Rogue, now I can slide people around the battlefield, and all I have to do is, uh, put away my greatsword, then draw a dagger (crap - I'm going to have to start carrying a magical DAGGER, too, or I'll be taking a hit penalty), then use Positioning Strike, and then switch back to my greatsword so that all my studly Fighter powers are available. Awesome?"

Yeah, I'm not sure why you need to be wielding a light blade to trick a foe into moving, but, then again, Positioning Strike is head-go-all-splodey in soooo many different ways (If I'm fighting a giant slug with a move of 1 square, I can magically make it move 4 squares because I'm highly charismatic? The FRACK?), that I have to agree with other people who have basically said "You will not have fun in 4e if you think too much".)

Now, maybe there's rules elsewhere in the game which say things like:

"No power which forces an opponent to move can make it move more than its normal movement in round"
"All forced-movement powers produce one less square of movement for each difference in size between the attacker and the defender if the attacker is smaller"

And so on which fix a lot of these problems. But if there aren't, 4e combat is not going to be cinematic and exciting -- it's going to be gut-bustingly silly, and I really don't think that's what they're going for. On the plus side, Rich Burlew will have material for years...