Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[I'm A Banana]

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.

YES.

1) The Rogue being narrowly defined isn't a bug, it's a feature they specifically tried to implement for speed and clarity's sake. Whether or not it's a good goal is probably up to debate, but they intended it to be defined narrowly, and so it is.

2) This means that, yes, if you want an agile non-thiefy combatant, you won't be using the Rogue. Similarly, if you want Sherlock Holmes, Indiana Jones, or a Devilish Manipulator archetype, you won't be using the Rogue. If you want a special-ops Intelligence officer, you won't be using the Rogue. The Roue will be incompatible with a lot of archetypes it previously was compatible with. In exchange, it will do the "sneaky thiefy sneak-attacker" thing REALLY well.

3) Some of 4e's descisions will have "unfortunate side effects," and the complete inability of some enthusiasts to realize this and to insist on critics to "just house rule it!" or "no one's MAKING you use it!" misses the entire freaking point of the criticism to begin with: that the poster disagrees with what they percieve the designers as doing.

 

[Steely Dan]

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

Very prophetic, and I agree.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

2) This means that, yes, if you want an agile non-thiefy combatant, you won't be using the Rogue. Similarly, if you want Sherlock Holmes, Indiana Jones, or a Devilish Manipulator archetype, you won't be using the Rogue. If you want a special-ops Intelligence officer, you won't be using the Rogue. The Roue will be incompatible with a lot of archetypes it previously was compatible with. In exchange, it will do the "sneaky thiefy sneak-attacker" thing REALLY well.

Again, this doesn't appear to be the case. Seeing this out of the preview is, IMO, a case of seeing what you want to see and disregarding all other evidence. They OPENLY STATE in the article that the given builds are samples, nothing else, and you can pick your options to build the character you want to build. They OPENLY STATE THAT YOU ARE NOT OBLIGED TO CHOOSE ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE SAMPLE BUILDS THAT THEY SHOW.

Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

You surely don't believe that the abilities shown in the preview are the ONLY abilities open to a rogue for an entire 30 levels? If that's the case, then the edition has failed on a lot more than trying to narrowly define roles -- it's failed to provide more than 4 or 5 abilities for 30 levels.

I personally feel that there are probably more abilities, and you'll be able to tinker to your heart's content.

It's more accurate to say that the SHOWN abilities are incompatible with CERTAIN rogue archetypes. That doesn't mean that these are the ONLY abilities for rogues that exist, ever, anywhere.

 

[DandD]

YES.

1) The Rogue being narrowly defined isn't a bug, it's a feature they specifically tried to implement for speed and clarity's sake. Whether or not it's a good goal is probably up to debate, but they intended it to be defined narrowly, and so it is.

2) This means that, yes, if you want an agile non-thiefy combatant, you won't be using the Rogue. Similarly, if you want Sherlock Holmes, Indiana Jones, or a Devilish Manipulator archetype, you won't be using the Rogue. If you want a special-ops Intelligence officer, you won't be using the Rogue. The Roue will be incompatible with a lot of archetypes it previously was compatible with. In exchange, it will do the "sneaky thiefy sneak-attacker" thing REALLY well.

3) Some of 4e's descisions will have "unfortunate side effects," and the complete inability of some enthusiasts to realize this and to insist on critics to "just house rule it!" or "no one's MAKING you use it!" misses the entire freaking point of the criticism to begin with: that the poster disagrees with what they percieve the designers as doing.

Not that I would want to, but if the rogue is possibly becoming a "sneaky thiefy sneak-attacker" (we only know some things, after all), then wouldn't it make more sense to call it Thief instead of the more 'generic' Rogue who seems to try to encompass other archetypes?

 

[Derren]

Not that I would want to, but if the rogue is possibly becoming a "sneaky thiefy sneak-attacker" (we only know some things, after all), then wouldn't it make more sense to call it Thief instead of the more 'generic' Rogue who seems to try to encompass other archetypes?

After all the complains about the warlord I don't think WotC had much interest in renaming the rogue "thief" if if thats all what the rogue is.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

Not that I would want to, but if the rogue is possibly becoming a "sneaky thiefy sneak-attacker" (we only know some things, after all), then wouldn't it make more sense to call it Thief instead of the more 'generic' Rogue who seems to try to encompass other archetypes?

Again, see my post above.

The existence of certain rogue abilities in this preview does NOT, logically, prevent the existence of other rogue abilities which allow the creation of other archetypes.

 

[Lizard]

Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Because of the part where the Rogue Tactics are matched 1-for-1 with the builds, and where many of the powers explicitly favor one Tactic over another.

If the 'suggested builds' were Sneaky Rogue and Stabby Rogue, and the Tactics were Strength-based and Agility-based, you'd have a good argument. But as it is, you have "Strong rogue and agile rogue" as builds, and, look! Your tactics choice, probably the most important you make at 1st level (since it will define you for 30 levels), is ALSO Strength or Agility! What an amazing coincidence...

If this isn't mirrored in the other classes, then, yeah, it is a coincidence, or at least an unintended side effect of the design process. If it is so mirrored, then I have to say "Builds are optional only to the extent you want to cripple your character".

 

[I'm A Banana]

Again, this doesn't appear to be the case. Seeing this out of the preview is, IMO, a case of seeing what you want to see and disregarding all other evidence. They OPENLY STATE in the article that the given builds are samples, nothing else, and you can pick your options to build the character you want to build. They OPENLY STATE THAT YOU ARE NOT OBLIGED TO CHOOSE ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE SAMPLE BUILDS THAT THEY SHOW.

Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

It's not hard to grasp, it just doesn't fix the problem.

A) The complaint isn't directly about builds. It's about a class that appears inflexible. This is a bigger issue than "build."
B) The abilities in the preview, and the text surrounding the rogue, all suggest "sneaky mobile sneak-attacker." All rogues have Sneak Attack. All rogues have Thievery and Stealth. All rogues are proficient in a limited selection of items that can be used with their abilities.
C) Nothing about the preview has abilities that are outside of this archetype. This matches with previous designer statements about focusing and streamlining the classes, so it's fairly well-supported that this is intentional: that the new rogue will expressly limit the kinds of characters you can build with it more than 3e did. Part of this reason seems to be that in building a 3e rogue, you could make sub-optimal choices that would ruin your fun down the line without really knowing it.

The big problem seems to be in that people *liked* the flexibility of the 3e rogue, and wanted to see that continue into 4e. It didn't, judging from the preview.

If you think I'm reading into this something other than what is implied, feel free to show me where the preview says a Rogue doesn't have to have Thievery and Stealth or that a Rogue can choose a club for a weapon, or where it previews an ability that allows the Rogue to serve as a master of logic and planning, or trechary and manipulation of others.

I see a rogue that is narrowly focused, and I do believe that was the POINT. The people clammoring for Sherlock Holmes might have to wait for a different splat-class, or mix-and-multiclass as was pointed out earlier in the thread.

So to say it in caps: THE LIMITATIONS OF THE ROGUE GO FAR BEYOND ANY OF THIS "BUILD" NONSENSE, SO STOP BRINGING UP THE FACT THAT THE "BUILD" IS OPTIONAL. IT IS IRRELEVANT. THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM.

THANK YOU.

The existence of certain rogue abilities in this preview does NOT, logically, prevent the existence of other rogue abilities which allow the creation of other archetypes.

Nope, but unless you can point to abilities that allow the creation of other archetypes, you're spouting rainbows from your behindus, building castles on sand, daydreaming of a day that isn't here, counting chickens before they hatch, and otherwise making a claim that isn't based on ANY evidence, and is, in fact, directly contradicted by most of the evidence we've seen so far (the rogue seems narrowly focused, and that narrowly focused core classes were something the designers probably shot for).

 

[Derren]

Again, this doesn't appear to be the case. Seeing this out of the preview is, IMO, a case of seeing what you want to see and disregarding all other evidence. They OPENLY STATE in the article that the given builds are samples, nothing else, and you can pick your options to build the character you want to build. They OPENLY STATE THAT YOU ARE NOT OBLIGED TO CHOOSE ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE SAMPLE BUILDS THAT THEY SHOW.

See lizards post. The builds may be optional, the tactics are not. And surprisingly only 2 tactics exist which surprisingly match with the proposed builds.
Of course you can take a tactic and all the powers from the other tactic but then yoou are crippling itself.
If you want a strong rogue you have to take one of those builds.

 

[Raduin711]

I think the rogue seems more restrictive because designers have said that you should get everything you need to fulfill your role with your class. One of the things rogues need, in my opinion, is the ability to open locks and disable traps. I've played with 3e rogues that avoided those skills, but in the end it was kind of an annoyance for everyone else, because someone has to take those skills, and rogues are designed for them.

After all, rogues got trapfinding in 3rd edition no matter what they do, why not the skill to go along with it? It makes just as much sense.

Let's face it:

rogue /roʊg/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rohg] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, rogued, ro·guing, adjective
–noun
1. a dishonest, knavish person; scoundrel.
2. a playfully mischievous person; scamp: The youngest boys are little rogues.
3. a tramp or vagabond.

I really don't have any problem with the 4e rogue living up to these expectations.

And as for why you can't sneak attack with a bow, but you can with a crossbow, I think the reason is that crossbows are "sneaky" and easier to conceal in a cloak, and a shortbow or longbow are large weapons of hunting and war. If you imagine a sneaky cutpurse in a darkened alley coming around the corner to shoot an unsuspecting person in the back, which makes more sense for this image: the rogue drawing a bow that is 5 and a half feet long, requiring him to stand at his full height, with a loud twang as the arrow is released, or he pulls out a crossbow from inside his cloak, and points it at his target, barely moving a muscle, and resounds with a slightly audible "thwip"?

I will say that I hope there are feats that will allow rogues to expand on the weapon list allowed for sneak attacks. There are a few weapons that seem missing, but we will have to see once the game is released...