Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[wherwrthal]

I just wish they'd call him a thief again.
Negative sterotypes and all.
I am kind of interested in that backstabbing feat.
Do you think it will be optional for other character classes as well?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Heh, unlike the Mona Lisa example that article is not 1/6 of the PHB rogue information. I would guess its over 1/2 easily. Anyhoo, for all the forum emphasis on this preview, my thought is 'did they really playtest this stuff?'

I'm guessing its something like 1/20th. If you count feats, multiclassing rules, races, etc, its more like 1/40th of what it will actually be like to play a rogue in a real game.

 

[helium3]

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

Right. Weren't folks screeching that the Monk was the most "Uber-Broken" character in the PHB when 3rd edition came out? And they didn't mean in the "this class is teh sux" sense, either.

 

[Mentat55]

I'm guessing its something like 1/20th. If you count feats, multiclassing rules, races, etc, its more like 1/40th of what it will actually be like to play a rogue in a real game.

I think this will be THE determining factor of whether the rogue (or any other 4E class) is too narrowly defined or not. From what I've seen so far, it seems like the 3E rogue is more flexible, though less flavorful, than the 4E rogue. Weapon choice, complete control over selected skills, and the lack of something like Rogue Tactics that encourage one or the other secondary stat, rather than leaving that more or less up to the player, seem to be the biggest differences, IMO.

However, if the multiclassing system is really as elegant as they say it is, and powers cover most of the ground that feats and class abilities once occupied, and you still have feats to add to the mix, I think the 4E rogue >> 3E rogue in terms of flexibility in fulfilling character concepts. Already, the powers we've seen surpass the 3E rogue (in terms of options) when it comes to combat. 3E rogue = sneak attack. Sure, you can take feats to do other things, you can pick different weapons, you can even pick up those Ambush feats based on sneak attack, but still comes back to that -- sneak attack. The 4E rogue has sneak attack, but the handful of powers we saw seems to suggest that in combat, while sneak attack is going to be very important, the rogue can pull off other stunts too, like moving an enemy around, bypassing the defenses of a heavily armored but less nimble opponent, and the like.

I am anxious and excited to see what multiclassing, the full powers list, and feats bring to the table, for the rogue and all the other classes.

 

[helium3]

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.

Yeppers. I'm pretty sure I stated in a post a ways back (like 2+ months ago) that the method by which the designers will simplify the game is by removing a lot of the unnecessary (in their eyes) complexity and that a lot of people would end up missing this complexity once they realized what its absence really meant. I think at the time I was specifically referring to resource management, but I suppose it could be extended to cover other instances.

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.

Well, I'm willing to bet that if you had a heart-to-heart and off-the-record conversation with the developers about this, they'd probably ask you why you want to play D&D if you're interested in those archetypes. As the 4EFANS have so deliciously pointed out time and time again, D&D is and has been 90% about combat. After all, the vast majority of the PHB is dedicated to resolving that issue.

And you know what? I think it's a good thing if D&D stops trying to be everything to everyone. Like I'm pretty sure I've said in other historical posts, the way people currently play D&D is like trying to adapt Settlers of Catan to emulate a playstyle that's more like Yahtzee. I suppose you could do it, but you might just be better off playing Yahtzee.

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.

Yep. It's annoying. But they do bring up a good point. It's not like our opinions matter. Why bother expounding on something when it can have no effect on the outcome? Course, I'm fascinated by this whole experience, so I post just so I can participate.

As for all the posts related to the "logical argument" that "this is just a preview" and that "logically, there may be more material nullifies concerns about the seeming narrowness of the class" I'd like to take a moment to point out that the above construct is not even a "proof" much less a "logical proof."

And really, here's the more interesting issue. Sure, there may be several pages of unreleased rogue material involving feats, other "builds", other powers and so on that completely and totally address the various expressed concerns about the narrowness of the class. But what if there isn't? What if the preview more or less encapsulates the theme and styling of the 4E Rogue? Is that okay?

 

[Thaumaturge]

And really, here's the more interesting issue. Sure, there may be several pages of unreleased rogue material involving feats, other "builds", other powers and so on that completely and totally address the various expressed concerns about the narrowness of the class. But what if there isn't? What if the preview more or less encapsulates the theme and styling of the 4E Rogue? Is that okay?

I'm OK with it. Others are seemingly less so, but my main point is there is no reason to get worked up about how narrow a class is until we've seen the scope of the class. It this case that means the powers and feats available to it and the relative ease or difficulty of multiclassing. We are missing way too much data to extrapolate in this instance.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Nytmare]

So to be fair, the clip of the Mona Lisa should probably be more like this. It gives us an idea of the overall picture, but leaves out quite a bit.

Oh... You're sneaky.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Mmm... Mona burger.

Thaumaturge.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Why would Sherlock Holmes be a rogue? Clear case of an urban ranger, if you ask me. Heck, probably 50% of what he does is "tracking."

Indiana Jones? Fits the 4e rogue quite well, IMO, although of course you'd have to take a weapon proficiency feat to get the whip. I'm guessing "Thievery" includes trapfinding and possibly Disable Device, which would seem to be pretty important to all that tomb-robbing. And it may not be a huge part of the movies, but would anyone really be surprised to see Indy sneaking around quietly?

Devilish Manipulator? I'm still not sure why this should fit into a class labeled "Rogue." It was purely an emergent effect that made the rogue the best "face" character in 3e, because he had a buttload of skill points. (And hey, I'm betting none of the other 4e core classes get as many skills as the 4e rogue either.) All that said, pick Intimidate, Streetwise, Insight and Bluff as trained skills and take Skill Training: Diplomacy as a feat and you've got a darn good 4e "manipulator" character too, I'm betting. Yeah, you've also got a lot of lurky combat powers you don't need... but hey, you had 10d6 Sneak Attack you weren't using in 3e, so what's new?

Overall, as long as there's some way to use some other reasonable weapons along with rogue powers and sneak attack (I'm guessing via feats), the 4e rogue doesn't seem too restricted to me.

 

[AllisterH]

And really, here's the more interesting issue. Sure, there may be several pages of unreleased rogue material involving feats, other "builds", other powers and so on that completely and totally address the various expressed concerns about the narrowness of the class. But what if there isn't? What if the preview more or less encapsulates the theme and styling of the 4E Rogue? Is that okay?

Good question.

I'm personally willing to justify restrictions based on game balance. Take for example the fact that the 4E rogue has to wield a light blade. Compared to the 3.x rogue, that's definitely a restriction compared to what we have.

However, given the mechanical limitations/benefits, I would be more than willing to see that restriction as a good thing.

For example, without the light blade restriction, wouldn't that basically cause the 1 level dip people hated/bemoaned about in 3.x when basically everyone seemed to take 1 level of fighter to get wider weapon access? For non-spellcastes, you mgiht as well given them the entire weapon list since the "restriction" was so easily worked around.