Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[I'm A Banana]

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?

Hey, I'd be down for it. But I think this is one "legacy issue" that mostly passed over their head.

I mean, naming stuff is not this team's strong suit, overall. And "thief" probably wouldn't be as accurate as "Shadowblade" or "Assassin" or "Ninja," so it'd still have problems.

 

[Mercule]

Because you cannot effectively swing a two-handed weapon in deep brush or with low-hanging branches around, and shields really just get in the way, always banging off of branches (and make quite a lot of noise, scaring off game).

Two smaller weapons is a much more effective way to fight in these sort of environments (especially when a bear grabs you), and when one is used to darting about (from running through the wilderness, dodging shrubs and branches) one is better trained for quick strikes and deft movement over blocking with a shield or slamming around a large weapon.

Take that for what you will. I know when I go camping, I'm more likely to take a small hatchet and a decent knife over an axe and a sword.

That's all well and good, and I agree that the big axe or shield aren't the best choice for woods, though they might be great for a desert, arctic, or savanna ranger.

Your point really doesn't justify TWF. It just justifies the use of light and one-handed weapons. Really, I'd say that rough terrain would more encourage keeping one hand free than filling both with weapons.

Edit: I wouldn't say that it bothers me that rangers can be good at TWF. It bothers me that a woodsy survivalist is given a shove in that specific direction. In 2e and 3.0, archery wasn't even an option -- TWF was just a given. If they have a more exhaustive list of "pick a preferred style and get a bonus", I'll be tickled because having rangers with a combat focus makes sense -- they are almost as good as a fighter, within a narrow band. I'd just prefer that the list includes archery, TWF, einhander, thrown, staves, and unarmed; or something similar.

 

[Raduin711]

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.

B) The 3e rogue was this also. All rogues had sneak attack. all rogues had trapsense. All rogues were limited in the kinds of weapons that they could sneak attack with, without application of feats, like point-blank shot.

C) It's a preview.

 

[JosephK]

That's all well and good, and I agree that the big axe or shield aren't the best choice for woods, though they might be great for a desert, arctic, or savanna ranger.

Well, if the ranger write-up follows the rogue one.. Chances there wont be any artic, desert or savanna ranger It'll be the woodsman with animal companion, two weapon fighting and bow, or use feats and multiclass into fighter, if you want stuff that falls ever so slightly outside the norm for 'core' ranger

 

[tuffnoogies]

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.

Cuz Drizzt says so?

 

[LostSoul]

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."

It's long.

It's confusing.

You can get around it by just giving those skills away for free.

Is that so hard?

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

No. Probably why it will be a popular house rule among the more experienced crowd.

 

[Cadfan]

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.

I'm just going to address this one point.

Sherlock Holmes: In 3e, this was a rogue with an intelligence bonus, and ranks in Search, Spot, Listen, a bunch of knowledge skills, and some obscure feats usually from Dragon Magazine. What makes you think this will not be possible in 4e? Is a rogue trained in Insight, Perception, and Streetwise somehow inadequate in comparison to the 3e version?

Indiana Jones: In 3e, this was a rogue with a whip, which was an exotic weapon that required a feat to use. He probably also had agility skills and one knowledge skill. What makes this not work in 4e? Is a rogue with the 4e equivalent of "Weapon Proficiency: Whip", and training in Agility, Acrobatics and Perception not enough? What more would be necessary that isn't likely to be available?

Devilish Manipulator: Again, if this were a rogue, it would be a rogue with a charisma score and a bunch of social skills. What makes this not possible in 4e? Wouldn't a rogue with a good charisma score, and training in Bluff, Insight, Intimidate, Perception and/or Streetwise be pretty darn close? The only thing missing is Diplomacy.

As a dedicated promoter of the swashbuckler, I am willing to believe that there will be fewer choices in 4e. But these examples seem really weak.

Is the underlying reasoning something like, "My vision of Sherlock Holmes doesn't included crafty combat tactics, so I'm mad that I'm being given them?" I'm getting that vibe.

 

[Mercule]

Cuz Drizzt says so?

Drizzt is ambidextrous because he's a drow. The ranger ability is redundant and wasted.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

A game shouldn't be written assuming everyone already knows how to play it. When you need to have years of experience in order to play the game, the rules are bad.

Assuming people will houserule it once they get some experience and develop a style different from what the game supports? That's not a bad thing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

B) The 3e rogue was this also. All rogues had sneak attack. all rogues had trapsense. All rogues were limited in the kinds of weapons that they could sneak attack with, without application of feats, like point-blank shot.

Sure, but this is about 4e and how it's rogue isn't flexible.

If we want to compare, we still have 3e's rogue not having any required skills, and having a broader selection of weapons, and more opportunities for a sneak attack.

4e's "fix" seems to be to MORE narrowly focus the rogue.

I'm sure that not everyone is happy with that fix.

C) It's a preview.

So what? It's incomplete, but that doesn't mean it won't be judged on what it is now. What it is now looks limited. If the final rogue is broadly similar (and it wouldn't be much of a preview if it wasn't), the final rogue will be limited.

Or you could point me to a place where the preview or the designers contradict anything that the preview or the designers imply, and I'd gladly admit that there's a question.

But with the designers trying to focus the classes more and the rogue seeming to be more focused, the preview is in line with everything we've been told and doesn't imply that the rogue will somehow be magically immensely more flexible in the final.

It's not proof, but it is evidence.