Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[helium3]

Allow me to say something again. Just because your "CHARACTER SHEET" says Thievery +9, doesn't mean that you have to use it. The sheet is not every thing about your character. Sure, the rules say that you have that, but that's something outside of the game. You don't need your character to play that. A Fighter can call himself a Knight or a Paladin. A Sorceror can call himself a Wizard. It doesn't matter. If you don't want your character to have any ability to steal stuff, then don't play him with the ability to steal stuff. Ignore what's on the sheet. Or, do the alternative and complain that your character is good at something that you don't want him to be good at, but use the skill anyway.

*nod* I totally had a fighter that called himself a paladin in my last game, and his holy smites totally kicked butt . . . it was just too bad that the monsters refused to play along.

Look, your post really doesn't add anything beyond "you're wrong and should just get over it." Heck, most of the posts opposed to the OP's premise have failed to address the point and pretty much say exactly what you do.

The point being that, unless there's a giant chunk of the Rogue entry that's missing from the Ampersand article, Rogues are constrained very tightly to a very narrow definition of what it means to be a "Rogue."

Has there been false advertising on the part of WotC about how flexible 4E is going to be? Personally, I don't think so. They've been very clear that one of the major drivers of the new edition is to simplify play (particularly high level) and reduce the "wonkyness" of the system. The ONLY way to do this is to reduce the complexity of what the mechanics are trying to represent. Thus each class becomes much more narrowly defined figuring out how to create a "builds" with unexpected synergies is now far more difficult.

Now, if there's anyone that's been engaging in false advertising (unwittingly, I might add) it's the reflexively pro 4E posters here who are so excited about the new edition that they've spun all manner of fantasies into being about what this new system is and is not going to be capable of doing.

It'll be interesting to see what people aspects of 4E people are complaining about in a year, but I'm willing to bet that one of the major complaints will be the lack of flexibility and the similarity of class powers once you've played long enough to get a feel for what they all basically do.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

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.

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.

You do realize that it's a bit easier to stab someone sneakily with a dagger than to smack them with a club, right? I mean, a dagger can be hidden a lot more easily, it's faster, and it needs a LOT less room to use.

And simultaneously, I don't think that spending one feat in 30 levels in order to use a (logically less effective) weapon for sneak attacks is going to totally cripple your character compared to these supposed 'template' rogues. If this is a template, then it seems like a very loose and flexible one to me.

 

[Henry]

But someone experienced in the game *should*.

Someone experienced with the game *will*, no question. They'll be houseruling this stuff up and down the block, because they've done it more than once by that time. I wouldn't mind the choice being there, but thinking about it, I can't even word an optional choice, however, in a way that doesn't sound awkward to me. Your example would be a bit too wordy to me, but not to say someone couldn't come up with a proper way to do it with a minimum of confusion.

 

[Derren]

Someone experienced with the game *will*, no question. They'll be houseruling this stuff up and down the block, because they've done it more than once by that time.

A book shouldn't be written with the assumption that everyone will houserule it anyway. When you need to houserule then the rules are bad.

 

[JosephK]

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.

Depends on what you consider a worthwhile upgrade I guess.. I cant imagine handaxes or clubs being much better than whatever the category "light blades" contain. Even if we're talking about going from 1d6 to 1d8 with my weapon (which seems unlikely shortswords to clubs), it hardly seems a big enough deal (even with the reduced HP of 4e) to bother with a feat for. My dwarven rogue* will just have to get used to using a dagger I guess. What strikes me as annoying is that the design itself just feels very forced and very limiting, especially in the parts the rogue doesnt choose himself, and as such arent customizable... Such as no sneak attack with clubs, only weapon bonus with daggers. Ontop of that, from looking at this write-up, the same goes for all the rogue powers (except tumble), but that could just be a coincidence, I guess.

Just for the record, I'm not vehemently against anything 4e.. On the contrary I like almost everything I've seen so far, and will be buying the edition, and converting my campaign, as soon as it hits the stores.





*The dwarven rogue may or may not actually exist, and may or may not just be one example on why I think the weapon limitations seem overly strict (just like my club wielding footpad).

 

[Steely Dan]

When you need to houserule then the rules are bad.

Which would mean 3rd Ed had bad rules for many, many people.

 

[Henry]

A book shouldn't be written with the assumption that everyone will houserule it anyway. When you need to houserule then the rules are bad.

I disagree with the premise that you'd *need* to houserule a game if it came out and was a complete game. If it's still possible to run a really savvy rogue who doesn't open a single lock all campaign long, then the question of houseruling only comes in where you want the rules to fit your style better - And I'd hardly call that "bad rules," because I'd be calling every RPG ever created "bad rules." I can't build a Rogue who has never picked up a dagger in 3e as it is, because he's proficient automatically, and I can't build a 1e Thief who was terrible at climbing walls.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Is it not possible that there will be racial proficiencies - that all characters of a given race are proficient in weapons x,y, & z? Is it not also possible that, said racial proficiencies allow racial weapons to be used with certain class abilities?

just thinking out loud. . .

 

[ThirdWizard]

It'll be interesting to see what people aspects of 4E people are complaining about in a year, but I'm willing to bet that one of the major complaints will be the lack of flexibility and the similarity of class powers once you've played long enough to get a feel for what they all basically do.

I betcha the complaints in a year are totally different than anything anyone is complaining about now.

 

[JosephK]

Is it not possible that there will be racial proficiencies - that all characters of a given race are proficient in weapons x,y, & z? Is it not also possible that, said racial proficiencies allow racial weapons to be used with certain class abilities?

just thinking out loud. . .

I hope so, the restrictions would make alot more sense if that is the case.. Especially if there also is a universal weapon proficiency with simple weapons (clubs, and so forth) so they also can be used with powers and class abilities.