Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[I'm A Banana]

There is nothing that says any of that has to be exclusive to rogues. Basically, you want to play a tactical character.

True 'nuff. There could definately be some shunting around of what class fills what archetypes most snugly (if any do).

What 4E needs to provide to satisfy your demands is that ability, whether it's via rogue, warlord, fighter, ranger, or multiclassed combinations thereof. It may well be that all classes have a selection of powers that address this. In fact, I'd bet on it, at least in combat, with the talk that 4E is deemphasising the I hit/you hit approach of previous editions. Further, feats may provide similar abilities out of combat that can be used by everyone regardless of class.

Well, it's a bit more specific than "something more than I hit/you hit." It's mostly "I do neat things thanks to my crazy fast brain powers!" But if the archetype sticks around, that's good. The "detective" or "adventuring sage" or whatnot should still be on the "supported archetype" horizon, even if it's a game about beating up goblins and taking their stuff. I'd hope they'd have out-of-combat abilities to reflect this, too. Specifically the idea is that your brilliance makes you formidable in combat, as well as a good detective or a knowledgable sage outside of combat, just like your agility makes you speedy in combat, as well as a good pick-pocket outside of combat.

Hm. Well, obviously I'm biased (and a robot, whirr click), but I feel like my 4E rogue did all of those things.

And she could sneak attack with her shuriken. And a rapier, which she spent a feat for. It was worth it.

I enjoyed playing that rogue a great deal...and I felt far more effective with the class than in any previous edition.

My robotic .02 cents.

Awesome!

Now tell us how!

Seriously, this is evidence for broader abilities than we've seen so far, so that's super-nifty and good to know. You might be biased, but I'm generally inclined to trust you guys. I know it'll lead to the Robot Revolution, but I just can't help it.

 

[hong]

And she could sneak attack with her shuriken. And a rapier, which she spent a feat for. It was worth it.

You broke your NDA!

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

 

[Raduin711]

This is a fallacy. It works that way in your games, maybe, but definately not everywhere.

____ and Dragons.

Do you see any hints of depth anywhere?

If so, point 'em out.

If not, then it's just wishful thinking that runs directly contrary to at LEAST what the designers have been hinting that they're doing.

I can tell the Mona Lisa is a person with brown eyes....

But you can't see her smile.

I see that there is a lot we do not see.

 

[Raduin711]

You broke your NDA!

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

That's ok we'll give her soup.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm not seeing a huge difference between 3e and 4e in terms of flexibility.

1e: None. All thieves have the same class abilities.
2e: Distribute points amongst thieves' skills.
3e: Select feats, select special abilities, select skills and distribute points amongst them.
4e: Select feats, select powers (and rogue tactics), select skills.

4e is maybe a step back towards 2e, but it's a small step and imo is still much closer to 3e.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Many roleplayers like to do things outside the box. Coming up with a concept is often first, class is almost an afterthought.

It's a class based system.

You can't do that in any D&D edition. You just think you can because you know what roles the classes are built to accommodate in previous editions. You're only fooling yourself. You don't go into 3e and say "I want to build X" and then try to make fighter or rogue or wizard work with that concept. You look at the classes first, digest the rules, then determine what you can play based on that.

Fourth Edition: The game so good it tells YOU what you want before you even think of it!!!!

The exclamation points only undermine the validity of your argument. Which, really, is a poor one anyway.

Thing is, that's how all class based systems work. Heck, its how point based systems work. You think Shadowrun, with its point buy ability system, doesn't influence how characters are built in its system? It certainly does. What you can be is based on the abilities you can buy. The same is true of all RPGs.

What's the difference?

You've read the rules if those other RPGs!

When you read a system, you start to see the game based on that system. That's why we have all these discussions on implied settings, and we have for years. The idiom of the setting is based, largely, on how the PCs can interact with things. When you think about designing a character in 3e, you have the entire system to think about while doing it.

You cannot think about how to create concepts in an RPG with as few data points as we have access to for 4e. Also, when making a character in 4e, after we've read the rules, we'll know what are good concepts and what are not so good concepts. These will influence the kinds of characters one thinks of making.

This isn't to really say anything about the discussion at hand. This is to say that when coming up with concepts in an RPG, one makes decisions that are informed by the game system it is being designed for. This might seem like a simple, straightforward concept, but it is very important to keep in mind. When we come up with concepts for a 3e campaign, we are not doing it in a vacuum.

So no, this isn't "In 4e, classes build YOU!" This is simply, "In any RPG, concept and build go hand in hand." You can't have one without the other. And, I'm sorry, that's just how it works, has always worked, and it will always work.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Classes, by their very nature, are the least flexible part of the system. The whole purpose of the character class is, imo, to restrict options. By keeping meaning tight, they thus become a more powerful communicative tool. The classic D&D triad of class, level and alignment tell you everything you need to know about a character - his job, his power level and his personality.

Feats and multiclassing are where the options will lie and we haven't been shown those yet. So of course the system is going to look more restrictive than it really is - we've seen the restrictive part but not the flexible parts.

 

[small pumpkin man]

One thing people are missing out on is the fact that the 3.x rogue was one of the more open ended, options based classes, one of two that could really focus on non-combat things, and had all of these options that could be really interesting if you were in the right campaign. (like building rogues with int or chr as their highest stat) Getting rid of that kind of stuff was a design goal, we knew classes like Wizards would be "simplified" to a middle ground, we shouldn't be surprised it's happened to rogues too.

I should also point out that the one set of abilities we haven't seen much of, and hasn't been bought up, is the utility powers, since Rogues have chr as a "secondary ability" and apparently a lot of skill powers, I'm expecting to see a lot of interesting in combat uses of intimidate and bluff (and hopefully insight, streetwise & dungeoneering). The loss of int as a major Rogue stat is somewhat annoying though.

 

[Doug McCrae]

One problem with a GURPSian level of flexibility, which is what the critics of 4e seem to want, is that it screws over the casual player. Most players are casual so it's a losing proposition. GURPS loves only gearheads.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Fourth Edition: The game so good it tells YOU what you want before you even think of it!!!!

Builds are optional