Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[jaer]

You are making some huge and I think very unwarranted assumptions here.

I don't think multi-classing is going to work anything like 3e multiclassing. I'm not at all sure at this point that a ranger 1/rogue 1 is going to have alot in common necessarily with a rogue 1/ranger 1. We just don't know how multiclassing is implemented, but I'm just about positive that the 3E model is impossible to integrate with what we've seen so far. If it does allow obvious frontended exploits like you suggest, then the certainly haven't 'fixed' multiclassing.

Fair enough. I accept that my assumption is a huge leap, and probably not a correct one.

However, I would say that they have fixed the problem of front loading if the ranger's abilities require the use of a box or other "heavy" missile weapon and the rogue's abilities require the use of a hand x-bow or other "light" missile weapon. You can load up on both abilities, but you would need to be switching weapons to use them, meaning you can't simply take 1 level of a class and exploit all the advantages of that class. You would get some, but not all.

Also, we know base attack and defenses are calculated by character level not class level; so to could abilities like sneak attack, thus making it not a waste for a character to pick only 1 level or rogue. Their sneak attack, though limited to light blades, would always be doing viable damage.

 

[Spatula]

Well, that's kind of what we have now with weapons and the 3.5 version of sneak attack.

There's no damn good reason for a rogue NOT to simply take one level of FTR and then simply use a greataxe for sneak attack/damage. Thus, for the non-TWF rogue, getting the biggest weapon made mechanical sense.

Of course, the optimal solution was use TWF which gave birth to the 3E TWF rogue.

So, wait... was there no reason for a rogue to not use a greataxe, or no reason for a rogue to not use TWF? Your statements seem contradictory.

Anyway, there's a very good reason not to use a greataxe for sneak attacking, which is that 2H weapons only shine with high strength, high attack bonuses, and Power Attack. A high-strength rogue might benefit from using a 2H weapon, although he'd still be lacking the attack bonus to make proper use of PA. In any case the character shorted himself somewhere else to have a lot of strength, which is a perfectly fine tradeoff. (and he'd probably still do more damage without the fighter level and using TWF instead)

 

[Spatula]

Fair enough. I accept that my assumption is a huge leap, and probably not a correct one.

However, I would say that they have fixed the problem of front loading if the ranger's abilities require the use of a box or other "heavy" missile weapon and the rogue's abilities require the use of a hand x-bow or other "light" missile weapon. You can load up on both abilities, but you would need to be switching weapons to use them, meaning you can't simply take 1 level of a class and exploit all the advantages of that class. You would get some, but not all.

Note that sneak attack is limited to crossbows, not just hand crossbows. A rogue can sneak attack just fine with whatever forms of heavier crossbows exist in 4e.

 

[Zamkaizer]

Its his trademark. He's an assassin. The wealthy fear the smell of grilled, fatty meat.

"A respected hobbit who owns a local butcher shop known for its delicious sausages. His most defining characteristics are his charitable nature--giving scraps to the local poor and settling disputes between other businesses--and the odor of fat and blood he seems permanently to exude. There are rumors whispered about him though, that his butcher shop is, in fact, a front for a citywide crime ring, and that he himself participates in its efforts. A few even say the victims of that whispered crime ring--a merchant with no local ties who disappeared here, a zealous adventurer that suddenly up and left town there--make their way into his products."

Generic to be sure, though perhaps worth it for when you begin describing to your players, while they snoop in the city's catacombs too near to one of the syndicate's caches, the aroma of succulent meat.

 

[AllisterH]

So, wait... was there no reason for a rogue to not use a greataxe, or no reason for a rogue to not use TWF? Your statements seem contradictory.)

Sometimes I really suck at making myself clear. From the Char-Op board, mechanically, the best way to optimize Sneak Attack was
Rogue wielding Dagger ->= Rogue wielding high dmg wpn/FTR 1 -> TWF Rogue.

I'm leaving other options of course and the effect of things like spells/magic items, but all things being equal, the math worked out this way.

What made it somewhat hooky IIRC was that if you were a rogue with an average DEX (14 or under), it didn't make sense to finesse a weapon and thus it was better to simply take 1 level of FTR for the weapon access. However, if you did have high enough DEX (16+), the math made more sense to actually go TWF.

So, technically, even though the 3.x rogue's sneak attack at first glance was best in the hands of a one-handed weapon user (the Errol Flynn swashbuckler), the OPTIMAL solution was either Greataxe or TWF.

Of course, this leads back to the underlying problem that shield + board was a less optimal option than either TWF or THF as many on WOTC's Char Op would be happy to show you.

I hope I was clearer this time.

Anyway, there's a very good reason not to use a greataxe for sneak attacking, which is that 2H weapons only shine with high strength, high attack bonuses, and Power Attack. A high-strength rogue might benefit from using a 2H weapon, although he'd still be lacking the attack bonus to make proper use of PA. In any case the character shorted himself somewhere else to have a lot of strength, which is a perfectly fine tradeoff. (and he'd probably still do more damage without the fighter level and using TWF instead)

1. There's no STR restriction on wielding a greataxe/zweihander
2. Rogue X/FTR 1 gives you access to greataxe
3. Greataxe >>>>>> Rapier/Shortsword/Dagger.

 

[Campbell]

"Sneak Attack
Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and are using a light blade, a crossbow, or a sling"

You were saying?

I'm also wondering in what bizarre universe a shuriken would not be considered a light blade...

 

[franzel]

Being closer to an even split of abilities for one. 30 levels of Rogue, about half of which are "smart rogue" abilties, about half of which are "brawny rogue" abilities, would probably help define a "smart brawny rogue" for me pretty clearly.

What are you looking for the smart rogue to do? And in which previous editions do you feel that your concept of the smart rogue was given justice? I'm just curious as a basis for comparison.

In 3e/3.5, smart rogues were just that. Smart. Smart rogues were skill-based characters. They had a high INT, which gave them more skill points and they were better at the INT-based skills. Out of six 10th+ level powers, one had to do with skills: Skill Mastery.

So far in 4e, the only indication we have how INT will apply to Rogues is the line in Races & Classes where Mike Mearls said that rogues would add their INT bonus to all skill checks so that's certainly an indication that they value the "smart," skilled rogue. We do not know if a high INT provides more starting skills, independent of class.

And for prestige classes, there are a few classes like the Spymaster or the Virtuoso (or the skill trick PrCs from Complete Scoundrel). I think the primary function of a SMART rogue, at least to me, is as a master of disguise and multiple identities. In 3.5, there weren't any great, well-integrated attempts. For 4e, it would almost certainly have to tie into the social combat system which we won't see until the books are out (or at least that's what WotC has said). For all we know, there will be the concept of a Trick attack (a la Torg).

A master of disguise-type rogue _could_ be handled as a paragon path, but that's pure speculation. We have no evidence one way or the other.

In 2e or 1e, I don't think the concept was catered to at all.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Best was a rogue/ranger. Ranger's TWF obviated the need for high DEX (it granted TWF feat even if you had a Dex of 3), and also granted the fighter weapon list. Plus you could maintain most of your rogue skills, track, use wands of CLW, boost fort save, etc. etc. Ranger was the ultimate dip.

TWF was best for rogue because your damage came from sneak attack dice, not weapon damage. With two attacks you had a chance to double that xd6 damage, and double your chances of scoring a crit. Dual wielding two high crit weapons FTW. And, again, by going ranger you can dump Dex and pump Str for extra attack & damage.

 

[Wolfspider]

I'm also wondering in what bizarre universe a shuriken would not be considered a light blade...

The Microverse?

 

[Mercule]

A single light weapon is stupid. Period. Nobody in their right mind fights this way. Even if you are using a single weapon (á la "single sword" style), you tend to make use of your off-hand for parries, grabs, and the like. If you're not doing so, you're handicapping yourself.

That doesn't justify TWF for rangers, though. Single weapon style may or may not be bright, but it is no less so for a ranger than a burly fighter. One could actually argue that it would be smarter for the ranger because it frees up a hand to use for those grabs or to help him control himself and balance in rough terrain or a variety of other reasons.

If your argument holds for ranger, it holds for both rogue and fighter, too. Those classes should have a TWF option built in.

Actually, I'd put forth that a ranger should get a bonus for using a single weapon in an outdoors setting. He now has a hand free to manipulate the woods as only he can. Which, of course, actually makes sense in 3e where the ranger had spells to represent his woodsy tricks, but had to have a hand free to cast them.

Any 3e ranger that actually did wield two weapons was throwing away a lot more advantage than one who didn't dual wield.

D&D also imitates heroic fantasy more than it does realistic swordplay. Single wielding is pretty common in most genre pieces. It also isn't horribly sub-optimal compared to most styles in D&D. Within the D&D-verse, the "it's foolish to fight with only one light weapon" argument is simply untrue.

As has been mentioned, shields are heavy and bulky. They're also single use - defense only. If you lose your primary weapon, you're now unarmed.

A good backup weapon, on the other hand, is useful if you lose your primary weapon. It's also functional for parrying, and thus providing defense. Potentially, it can be a utility instrument, like a dagger or a handaxe, that has another purpose as well. It could even do a different damage type, making you versatile against different foes.

Because a back-up weapon must be co-wielded? That doesn't make any sense.

I absolutely agree that a ranger is likely to have utility weapons, like something I heard once: A dagger or axe doesn't count as armed. Those are just tools that have some extra uses.

That still doesn't make a ranger any more likely to dual wield, though.

The only good argument is the "big freakin' axe." I'd contend that a smart ranger with a "big freakin' axe" is either a) wearing heavier than average armor, or b) using it as a double weapon. The latter is just smart if you fight in light armor with a big weapon. It's even how knights in heavy armor usually fought with longswords. They engaged in lots of half-swording, trips, and similar "double weapon" kinds of tactics.

And do I need to point out that, in D&D, fighting with a double weapon is two-weapon fighting?

Of course, D&D does not actually have mechanics for the way most sword combat was done. Just because the weapon spends a certain amount of time being used backwards (perfectly legitimate for most large swords), doesn't mean it requires TWF. It just means such use is included in the basic proficiency of the weapon.

How's that for an explanation?

Lacking. Very little of it dealt with why a ranger would be inclined to TWF any more than another class would.

As I've said, I think it makes sense to give a ranger a narrow band of combat excellence. That way, he's a scary combatant, but doesn't encroach on the fighter's schtick too much. I just can't see any good rationale for TWF over any other style.