Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised
- Thread starter IceFractal
- Start date
Silverfox13
First Post
IceFractal said:
Playing an elf gives proficiency with the bow.
HP Dreadnought
First Post
I for one welcome our new focused core class overlords!
It looks as though in 4E, all the classes are going to have a tighter focus to them. In previous editions of the game, the six or seven TRULY core classes were such generalists, that you could run pretty much any archetype with them.
This led to a lot of supplements with increasingly contrived core and prestige classes that really didn't do much that a core class couldn't have done. This probably also contributed to power creep as designers were forced to push the limits of what a character class could do in order to differentiate them.
Under 4th edition it looks like the classes are going to be much narrower in scope than before. Instead of a core rogue that can perform just about any rogueish role, its going to have a narrower focus, perhaps on thievery and stabbity-stab-stab combat ability.
If you want an social "con man" rogue, perhaps that's going to be covered by the Bard class when it comes out. Or some other class altogether.
Just like the fighter seems to be focused on heavy armor approaches, if you want an agile fighter, that might now be the province of the ranger class.
The classes are becoming more distinct, and I think that's a good thing.
I think the argument that "I want to play X now!" and "Everything should be in the PHB from the get-go" is fallacious. In the first place, that leaves no room to expand the game in later supplements. In the second place, its just not possible so its really a question of whose preferences get included. Personally I could care less about Druids, Gnomes, and Bards. Others may feel differently, but I suspect more people share my view than don't, otherwise they would have gone another route if those were among the most popular elements of the game. You certainly don't see them dropping fighters, even though the fighter archetype can be handled by the Paladin or Ranger. Fighters are just too popular. Many of the elements that have not been included just don't have the same amount of adherents as those that do.
What about the Warlord you say. . . its brand new, how can it be one of the popular elements?
Well. . . the class is brand new, but we don't know enough to say that its playstyle is. Perhaps it turns out that its something that previously a fighter, paladin, or cleric build did well that is very popular. Under the new more narrow class focus, that play style gets its own class.
In addition adding some new elements to the game outside of what was previously considered "core" really reinforces the "freshness" of the new rules, so that it doesn't just feel like a overblown supplement or a 3.75 version.
All in all, I think they've done a good job and I'm looking forward to ditching my 3.5 Half-orc assassin in favor of a 4th edition Dwarven Fighter. . . or something.
It looks as though in 4E, all the classes are going to have a tighter focus to them. In previous editions of the game, the six or seven TRULY core classes were such generalists, that you could run pretty much any archetype with them.
This led to a lot of supplements with increasingly contrived core and prestige classes that really didn't do much that a core class couldn't have done. This probably also contributed to power creep as designers were forced to push the limits of what a character class could do in order to differentiate them.
Under 4th edition it looks like the classes are going to be much narrower in scope than before. Instead of a core rogue that can perform just about any rogueish role, its going to have a narrower focus, perhaps on thievery and stabbity-stab-stab combat ability.
If you want an social "con man" rogue, perhaps that's going to be covered by the Bard class when it comes out. Or some other class altogether.
Just like the fighter seems to be focused on heavy armor approaches, if you want an agile fighter, that might now be the province of the ranger class.
The classes are becoming more distinct, and I think that's a good thing.
I think the argument that "I want to play X now!" and "Everything should be in the PHB from the get-go" is fallacious. In the first place, that leaves no room to expand the game in later supplements. In the second place, its just not possible so its really a question of whose preferences get included. Personally I could care less about Druids, Gnomes, and Bards. Others may feel differently, but I suspect more people share my view than don't, otherwise they would have gone another route if those were among the most popular elements of the game. You certainly don't see them dropping fighters, even though the fighter archetype can be handled by the Paladin or Ranger. Fighters are just too popular. Many of the elements that have not been included just don't have the same amount of adherents as those that do.
What about the Warlord you say. . . its brand new, how can it be one of the popular elements?
Well. . . the class is brand new, but we don't know enough to say that its playstyle is. Perhaps it turns out that its something that previously a fighter, paladin, or cleric build did well that is very popular. Under the new more narrow class focus, that play style gets its own class.
In addition adding some new elements to the game outside of what was previously considered "core" really reinforces the "freshness" of the new rules, so that it doesn't just feel like a overblown supplement or a 3.75 version.
All in all, I think they've done a good job and I'm looking forward to ditching my 3.5 Half-orc assassin in favor of a 4th edition Dwarven Fighter. . . or something.
Scholar & Brutalman
First Post
Why would anyone model Sherlock Homes as a 3.5 rogue? All Rogues in 3.5 come with the class abilities of Surprise Strike, Trapfinding, Evasion and Uncanny Dodge: for all the claimed flexibility in class skills there is no way to design a rogue without them. It's been a while since I read the stories, but I think the only argument could be for Holmes perhaps using Trapfinding.
I'd model Holmes as an Expert 15-20, in a world with no PC classes and almost no-one else above level 2. Maybe Moriarty.
I'd model Holmes as an Expert 15-20, in a world with no PC classes and almost no-one else above level 2. Maybe Moriarty.
Raduin711
Hero
One thing to note is that rogue, skill wise still has a lot to choose from...
Thievery and Stealth for free
plus four more skills (no stipulations listed...)
And then four from a list.
10 skills... that's a lot, especially considering how they are cutting down on the number of skills in the game.
If you were to pick all of your skills from the rogue list -that you get for just being a rogue, mind you- you would have all of them. Plus we haven't accounted for Intelligence yet.
Now, some people are thinking that INT doesn't do that anymore, but my guess is that every character at first level gets a few extra skills (which he can pick freely) equal to his INT modifier. If he ever raises his INT to a new bonus, then he gets another skill proficiency. And because this has nothing to do with your class, it isn't mentioned in the rogue class description. Blind guess, but this is how it works in Saga, IIRC.
I think that's pretty flexible.
Thievery and Stealth for free
plus four more skills (no stipulations listed...)
And then four from a list.
10 skills... that's a lot, especially considering how they are cutting down on the number of skills in the game.
If you were to pick all of your skills from the rogue list -that you get for just being a rogue, mind you- you would have all of them. Plus we haven't accounted for Intelligence yet.
Now, some people are thinking that INT doesn't do that anymore, but my guess is that every character at first level gets a few extra skills (which he can pick freely) equal to his INT modifier. If he ever raises his INT to a new bonus, then he gets another skill proficiency. And because this has nothing to do with your class, it isn't mentioned in the rogue class description. Blind guess, but this is how it works in Saga, IIRC.
I think that's pretty flexible.
Arkhandus
First Post
Mortellan said:
Yeah. Never you mind that the 3.0 PHB had fewer pages and allowed for several different kinds of rogue, fighter, ranger, cleric, wizard, sorcerer, druid, monk, etc. :\
Several different kinds of each class, through class feature choices/spell choices and feat or ability score choices. Rogues could sneak attack with whatever the heck they felt like wielding, even if it was just a handy rock or broken bottle. They could be sneaky or not. They could be thieves or not. They could be spies or not. Fighters could be better archers than rangers, better two-weapon fighters than rangers, or better sword-and-boarders than rangers, or better two-handed weapon wielders than rangers. Etc.
4e so far seems to pigeonhole the classes more.
mach1.9pants
Hero
Sorry, you only get 6 skills, 2(thievery and stealth) + four others- in totalRaduin711 said:
Wolfspider
Explorer
Sabathius42 said:
Amusing enough, but also really quite unfair to the people who are complaining about "pigeon-holing."
Their opinions are nowhere near this silly.
Similar Threads
